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).
ISIS claims responsibility for the deaths of two Syrian refugee activists who fled to Sanliurfa, Turkey, raising concerns about the group’s reach in countries outside of Syria and Iraq. Ibrahim Abdel Qader, a founder of Raqqa Is Being Slaughtered Silently, and Fares Hammadi are said to have been killed by an acquaintance posing as a defector from ISIS. (New York Times)
At least four people are killed and 15 injured in an ISIL attack in the Kurdish section of northern Iraq. (Al-Arabiyah)
Honda, Takata's biggest customer, announces it will not use airbag inflaters made by Takata Corp. for the driver or front passenger side in new Honda and Acura vehicles for any market, worldwide. (USA Today)(NASDAQ)
At least seven people are dead and 35 others are injured as a bus overturns near Tula, Russia. (RT)
At least 30 people are killed and 35 injured after an overcrowded bus carrying passengers inside and on its roof veered off a mountain road in northwest Nepal. (USA Today)
"Ravaged by months of war, Yemen now gets battered by the first tropical storm on record to make landfall." Extremely Severe Cyclonic Storm Chapala slams into Yemen's central coast, with maximum sustained winds of around 140 kph (85 mph) -- the equivalent of a Category 1 hurricane. The storm floods coastal areas, brings down electricity lines and destroys houses, with severe threat of mudslides. Chapala is expected to pour over two or three years worth of rain, up to 300 millimeters (12 inches), in a single day. (CNN)(Abu Dhabi Media)
Japan has delivered two more ships to Vietnam that will be refurbished into patrol boats. The ships, which arrived in the port city of Da Nang, are the second delivery of a 2014 deal in which Tokyo is to provide Vietnam with six used fishing vessels that will be converted into patrol boats for Vietnam's coast guard in the South China Sea. (Voice of America)
Former five-term Bridgeport mayor Joe Ganim wins election to a sixth term as mayor of Connecticut's largest city, topping the six other candidates in the poll. Ganim is, in American parlance, an "ex-con;" i.e., a convicted felon. In 2003, he was convicted by a federal jury on 16 felony counts for racketeering, bribery, conspiracy, mail fraud, and tax evasion in an operation that also led to convictions of 10 of his associates. Ganim served seven years in federal prison; he was released from a Hartford halfway house in 2010. (Hartford Courant)(AP via CBSLocal.com)
Newcomer, businesswoman, and clinical psychologist Karen Weaver tops incumbent Dayne Walling in the non-partisan, Flint, Michigan, Mayor's election. Flint, which is dealing with lead in drinking water, has been under State financial management for close to four full years, and is in the final stage where control will be returned to city officials. (AP)(Detroit News)(MLive Media)
Ballot initiatives, referendums
In Ohio, a ballot initiative that would have established a legal oligopoly for the sale of recreational and medicinal marijuana is resoundingly defeated by voters, according to AP. (Los Angeles Times)
Voters in Denver's suburban Jefferson County recall, by 64 to 36 percent, three conservative school board members who worked to weaken the local teachers union while boosting funding for charter schools and pushing through other market-driven policy changes. In Fall 2014, the conservative-led majority drew national attention when they wanted the APU.S. history course to focus on citizenship and patriotism, while condemning civil disobedience and strike actions. (Washington Post)(AP via Huffington 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: One of England's leading cricketers, Graveney played international cricket between 1951 and 1969 (79 test matches), and scored 122 first-class centuries, putting him 13th on the all-time international list. (Scoring a century of centuries is described here as "one of cricket's great milestones". One of the 55 inaugural members of the ICC Cricket Hall of Fame and also served as MCC President. The leading cricket journalist Christopher Martin-Jenkinswrote in 1997 that "in [Graveney']s long career [1948 to 1972], I believe truly that there was no more elegant or charming batsman." Meets RD criteria for being "widely regarded as very important in his field". BencherliteTalk17:23, 3 November 2015 (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: Iraqi exile who was highly prominent in the toppling of Saddam Hussein. Was seen as a favourite of the war-supporting faction in the United States. Became an Iraqi government minister after the war (Oil minister twice and Deputy Prime minister) Jmorrison230582 (talk) 09:06, 3 November 2015 (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.
Wikipedia article, opening paragraph, states numerous reasons why the team is notable (winning three World Cups for example). Also the President has given a ceremony honoring their achievement, which I guess means that the White House considers the team notable. MurielMary (talk) 06:18, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose per WP:SNOW and propose speedy closure. The welcoming of sport teams for their accomplishments by the authorities of the country they represent is nothing but a routine act with no significance at all. There are several hundreds international sport competitions every year and at least that much sport teams or athletes are welcomed. If we are going to post each of them, nobody knows where the end would be.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:38, 3 November 2015 (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.
Strongly support with alternative blurb 1 Also, re The Rambling Man's comment, it is permitted for ITN items to link to stubs. It may be a way of getting editors to update/expand them. MurielMary (talk) 08:14, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just noting for the record that this is ITNR, so if it does get expanded it will be posted. At the moment though, I agree with TRM's assessment of the article – a fair bit of work will be required to get it ready for posting. Jenks24 (talk) 08:26, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We mostly concern ourselves with the quality of the target link, that's the bold one. Curiously we seldom pay much attention to the other linked items in the blurb. We need to expand the Melbourne Cup article to a point where it's considered of sufficient quality for the main page, not just a couple of lines of prose and a table of results. P.S. I'd go for alt blurb 1 as well, once the target article is up to scratch. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:32, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see, thanks. Actually I would think that the target link ought to be Michelle Payne as she is the part of the story that's all over the news today, with her press conference about being a woman in racing etc etc. If her page is the target link (as in Alt Blurb II) then do the other linked items (the horse and the cup) have to be updated further?? MurielMary (talk) 08:42, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the Melbourne Cup is WP:ITNR which means that, by default, it will be the target article. There's no reason we couldn't feature two targets, in which case we would need to ensure the quality of both are up to scratch, not just the ITNR target. Which is good for the encyclopedia, but bad for getting this expediently onto the main page. You pays your money ..... The Rambling Man (talk) 13:38, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you dislike any specific item or category of items that are on the ITNR list, please propose the removal of whatever it is you don't like. Also understand that ITN is not a "ticker" or source of news, but a way to feature articles that have been improved. If you want to see other items posted, please put the time into improving the article of whatever it is you want to see posted. 331dot (talk) 16:52, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Historic cyclone for Yemen, a country that has never seen a hurricane-force storm make landfall in their mainland. The island of Socotra, situated near Somalia, last saw a hurricane-force system nearly 100 years ago in 1922. Records in the Northern Indian Ocean are questionable at best prior to 1970, but landfalls of this magnitude would have some sort of mention if they occurred. Given such, it's safe to say this is an unprecedented event in the modern history of Yemen. The last hurricane-force storm to make landfall in the Arabian Peninsula as a whole was Cyclone Phet in 2010, just for reference.
First blurb specifies mainland Yemen, which would exclude the island of Socotra, to emphasize the unprecedented landfall. The other two include Socotra, which was hit extremely hard. Given the nation's ongoing civil war there could be some issues with obtaining information, but it seems decent so far. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 01:54, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative wait - The impact on human life is expected but not yet known. While being a meterological oddity - if that's all that happens, that's a great DYK. But if this does a lot of damage, then it will be a good ITN. Give it about 24 hrs. --MASEM (t) 02:50, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative wait - It is uncertain if it will make landfall over Yemen as a very severe cyclonic storm or a Category 1 equivalent tropical cyclone, as Chapala is still offshore now. If the intensity is below hurricane-force during landfall, the sentence should be changed to ‘the strongest’. -- Meow03:20, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. If this is indeed the first ever hurricane to travel inland in Yemen (or the Arabian peninsula generally), then I think that is enough. It is genuinely in the news, it is encyclopedic and the first reports of material impact are trickling in. However, it seems most others want a larger material impact and/or loss of life to consider this ITN-worthy. I disagree, but if that's the case then I suggest nominator close and re-nominate when appropriate. Otherwise, this will get buried under other nominations, and edits and new altblurbs will clutter the nom.128.214.53.18 (talk) 11:19, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support either blurb or ongoing - I'm convinced by the IP that, as usual cyclones are, the cyclone is more than just a typical cyclone. This may either end or worsen the civil war, but its arrival is huge. Even when three is a tiny number, this ain't murder, mass shooting, or battle. It could be either mother nature... or a man-made weather-controlling machine, but I shall not foresee. George Ho (talk) 12:00, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nepali police shoot dead an Indian citizen at a border checkpoint as they attempt to clear protesters whose blockade has crippled Nepal's fuel supplies and badly damaged relations between the neighboring countries. (Reuters)
At least one person is killed after Cyclone Chapala hits Yemen's Socotra island in the Indian Ocean with flooding reported in Hadibu, the provincial capital. The severe cyclone is expected to cause considerable damage when it makes landfall on Yemeni mainland. (BBC)
A well-intentioned nomination, no doubt, but ITN isn't the place for us to stroke our own ego. We already have this covered via a site-wide notice and a commemorative banner. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 01:13, 3 November 2015 (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: A significant milestone for one of the most commonly visited websites in the world by Alexa ranking (#7 at time of posting). Banedon (talk) 01:00, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose completely unnecessary self-promotion of dubious newsworthiness (as the less-than-stellar sources show). Anyone reading WP's main page at present has the statistic shoved down their throat anyway, so an ITN entry would add nothing. BencherliteTalk01:11, 3 November 2015 (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 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: Summary is now fully referenced. Article is in fine shape. This is breaking news. Let's post it earlier rather than later, for once. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:01, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pull posting and delete article. All mention of this series' result should be obliterated from Wikipedia, if not the entire Internet. (If you're unsure why, please note my username.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:11, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Article needs updating The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Oppose Three tiny sentences. 322 B. Some recent election noms haven't been updated sufficiently to post, so ping me if this one turns out differently. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:10, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support when update - If this was a good article it should of course be posted. As it stands however, it's barely a stub. Fgf10 (talk) 15:38, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Islamic State fighters seize control of Mahin, a town in Syria's central Homs province, following clashes with government forces which left about 50 dead. Fighting was also reported to be taking place on the outskirts of Sadad, a nearby town mostly populated by Christians. (Reuters)
One Palestinian is killed and three Israeli soldiers injured in two attacks in the West Bank. According to the Israeli army, the Palestinian was shot dead after attempting to stab soldiers at a military checkpoint near the Beit Einun village in Hebron. In a second incident in the same area, a driver rammed and injured three Israeli paramilitary border policemen with his car before fleeing the scene. None of the three were injured seriously. (The Daily Star)(Al Jazeera)
Since the beginning of October, nine Israeli citizens, 67 Palestinian and an Arab Israeli have been killed in this wave of violence. (AFP via Yahoo News)
The fate of slain Palestinians is fueling a new feud with Israeli authorities. The Israeli defense minister says Israel is refusing to return the bodies of Palestinian terrorists killed during this month-old surge of violence unless the Palestinian side agrees to keep their funerals "modest." (Reuters)
An Israel Defense Forces inquiry concludes the death of a Palestinian woman at a checkpoint in Hebron last month was unnecessary, finding the teenager could have been detained and not killed. (Haaretz)
Disasters and accidents
The United States Navy sends a remotely operated underwater craft to investigate a wreck which they believe is the remains of the SS El Faro which disappeared on October 1 near the Bahamas during Hurricane Joaquin with 33 people on board. (CNN)
Teachers, writers and students lead a protest rally in Dhaka against the recent killings and attacks on secular authors and publishers in Bangladesh. (AFP via Straits Times)
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: Well-known actor who also had a career in politics, culminating with an unsuccessful run for the U.S. presidency in 2008. Kudzu1 (talk) 23:39, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. I'm having difficulty seeing how he meets the criteria. Being well known does not equate with importance in a field, such as acting. Running for President isn't 'very important' on its own, and as a Senator he didn't really do anything remarkable(AFAIK). 331dot (talk) 23:53, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support: United States Senator, presidential candidate alone are pretty significant. To combine this with being a film/TV actor is not real common, the last person to pull that off was Ronald Reagan, and Reagan didn't try to do both at once the way Thompson did. (Well, there's also Al Franken, but sort of proves my point) All reports were that he was also a fairly decent human being, imperfect, as are we all, but deserving of main page recognition. Montanabw(talk)00:08, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what to make of this nom. Beyond R.I.P., of course. They drafted him into the 2012 presidential race, so it's surprising he didn't survive the next presidential term (oops it was 2008). He's dabbled in different fields, which makes him more important than if he was only in one, but I don't know if we should post it or not. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:16, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Right. I keep thinking "jack of all trades, master of none". He's unique compared to your typical actor and your typical politician, but does that meet muster? – Muboshgu (talk) 01:18, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD. I see a handful of a couple handful of unsourced paragraphs but it is far from a problem for ITN (95% is ready to go). --MASEM (t) 01:35, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Notable as both a politician and actor. Maybe we need to ask the US Congress to create more fanciful titles to make more people support RD noms here. CalidumT|C01:55, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. As a HUGE fan of L&O Prime, I am sorry to hear that Thompson has passed, but he doesn't reach the RD criteria in either of his career fields. Those who support because he was a US Senator, remember there are A LOT of those they can't all be significant enough to post; ditto regarding his presidential bid. As an actor his career doesn't reach the RD criteria either. When the two careers are combined, that doesn't raise either to the RD, but would make a great DYK entry. Rhodesisland (talk) 02:08, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
strong oppose fail to see how hes top of his career in anything, be it screen or politics. "notable" as bo th is inadequate because by virtue of having a WP page theyre notable...we cant list every seneator or failed candidate. (nowhere near winning either).Lihaas (talk) 03:44, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't say he has to be "top of his career in anything". DC#2: "The deceased was widely regarded as a very important figure in his or her field." Thanks for helping me make up my mind. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:09, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Muboshgu:If youre minds made up, how was he "widely regarded as a very important figure in his or her field"...considering theres no shortage of senators who LED committees or "actors" who won some recognition?Lihaas (talk) 03:32, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support He was regarded as important enough to draft into the 2008 Presidential race by conservatives to run against Obama. He fizzled, but he's the guy they turned to. Important enough in both politics and acting to merit posting. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:09, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Notable in multiple fields, death received very wide coverage. RD was made for precisely this. "He didn't get elected president" seems like a dubious reason not to post this. - OldManNeptune⚓13:17, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. A key figure in the Watergate investigation, a former presidential candidate and a highly popular actor. Way more well-known than Schabowski who is currently posted to RD. Nsk92 (talk) 13:53, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support notable as lawyer in Watergate and other cases, well-known actor, senator who replaced Al Gore, as well as 2008 presidential candidate; long-standing preference to post people notable in several fields; article is in good shape. μηδείς (talk) 16:29, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose - The test is "widely regarded as a very important figure in his or her field". He does not appear to have a significant reputation or to have received significant recognition for his career as an actor, according to the standards that ITNC has traditionally required of actors. His role in Watergate is too small a field to count for much (and, important though Watergate was, not everyone involved in some way can qualify for RD thereby). Which leaves his political career, which is said in effect to be more than the average senator's (and the average senator would not get onto RD) based on a fairly damp squib run for president. And yet... he was one of the top dozen UK and international stories on my BBC news app this morning, which makes me wonder whether I'm under-appreciating his importance. Hmmm... BencherliteTalk19:38, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Without trying to pester, Bencherlite I would suggest you consider the fact that Thompson's legal career, senate career, presidential run, and acting career (many major movies over three decades, as well as his role on Law & Order, which I did not watch,) would each alone have merited him an article--indeed his article is over 72k long, averages over 400 hits a day long-term, and has 123 references as of last count. I would probably be a weak oppose or not vote based on either just his political or just his acting career. But the two of them together and the obvious interest and coverage make this a rather clear "support" for me. μηδείς (talk) 20:53, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A question- are we creating a new criteria here, perhaps 'important in multiple fields'? I don't necessarily object to that, but if we are, we should write it down when we are done, because I don't think(and even some supporters concede) he meets the criteria for each individual field he worked in. 331dot (talk) 21:02, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, someone above notes "jack of all trades" (which in this case was two), "master of none". I see nothing remarkable about his career as a politician and I see no indication of any awards or that he was anywhere close to top of the field of acting. Just because he did a couple of reasonably interesting things, it's hardly RD. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:18, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Given how subjective (by necessity) the guidelines already are, suggesting that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts doesn't seem especially radical to me. And frankly, in both politics and acting he makes a not implausible case for sufficient notability; he was, after all, successful enough as a senator that his name is known nationwide (as others have mentioned, there are many senators - not all have household recognition) and was a presidential nominee, and his acting resume includes heavy hitters like Hunt for Red October, Days of Thunder, Cape Fear, and Law and Order. If you think he'd make the cut if his accomplishments were assessed as a whole but not individually, then I respectfully submit that the rules should be ignored in favor of good sense, as is our tradition. - OldManNeptune⚓22:04, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think he makes the cut individually or combined. He's a popular actor and used to be a politician (would Glenda Jackson be RD material? I don't imagine so for a second because she wasn't in a bunch of endless American television series) but nothing more. No awards, nothing. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:09, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Medeis, I've already said my oppose is weak; your further comments don't address the existing RD criteria (though, to be fair, you're not the only one) or make me change my mind. BencherliteTalk21:16, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose - Looking at the section on Watergate, I see a lot of quotes included, but they add very little meaning to his role as part of the Watergate investigations. He wrote the book about his role, but that's all there is to it. However, he helped a woman win her wrongful termination case and bring some governor down, but the impact of it is too limited. Throughout his acting career, significant or not, his roles are supporting types. He had been never a leading man in entertainment. Being a Senator out of one hundred US Senators is one thing, but he did not lead most of very significant and important events. Usually, he was just a voter or a member of anything. He withdrew the presidential race before the primaries. With one exception, as said before, he was a member or part of a committee. The article emphasizes his role a lot, but information that I read wouldn't make him significant enough to be honorably mentioned. This is George Ho actually (Talk) 22:23, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I accept that it is legitimate to consider together his achievements in different fields, but even so I don't see how he qualifies. He wasn't a particularly influential senator or a particularly acclaimed actor. Neljack (talk) 00:44, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is still ready, with 4 to 3 support in favor (ignoring votes that mention his being American) after 36 hour's vetting. Thompson was important enough in the senate that he was chosen to give the Republican rebuttal to President Clinton's 1994 State of the Union address. His article has had over 172,000 hits since his death. In Paris he is being covered as the famed actor who happened to be a US senator, in Berlin he's the presidential candidate who was also a movie star (no insult, but a better one than Reagan) and once again we have opponents who argue that the "American bias is super-strong, it has be combatted fiercely to maintain this as English-language Wikipedia. Perhaps it would serve you and your countrymen better to create an American Wikipedia" removing the ready tag. I somehow doubt that posting the "unwitting" subject of mockery and admitted murderer Günter Schabowski whose 12-source article got 12,000 hits after posting in his stead is the way to show off Wikipedia to its best light. μηδείς (talk) 05:26, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how you're counting, but it's 11-10 against, no consensus. Please take your misplaced persecution complex somewhere else. Fgf10 (talk) 08:22, 3 November 2015 (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.
Support RD - As other Supports have noted, Thompson was notable for multiple achievements. Opposers fail to convince me; I contend he is a fine RD candidate. I call for posting the blurb to RD. NOTE: My post was an edit conflict. The close was way too early.Jusdafax09:02, 3 November 2015 (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.
Nominator's comments: Not going to insult stubs by calling it one, but as of this timestamp there's one sentence and a list of winners. Fuebaey (talk) 23:00, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wow that's an insult to stubs. What's that template that was created to be put on top of pages like this that are ITN candidates? – Muboshgu (talk) 00:29, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on article quality. With only one sentence and a list of winners (as of writing), the article is definitely not ready for front page inclusion. I'd support pending article improvements, but as of now, no. Prhdbt[talk]01:19, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weakest possible supportThe recently added race summary seems to meet bare minimums of expected prose, and I'd not like to encourage us to stop there as "good enough". This support is so weak, I'd consider it an a mistake to assume it over ruled any opposes based on article quality. Surely, we can do better. --Jayron3203:10, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree the overall quality of the article isn't great, not being an American marathon follower and all, but the update is pretty much your standard ITN fare. I can see two options: I could import the background from New York City Marathon and we post (mind you, we put this up in 2013), or I could merge this into the main article and we can post that (like in 2011). Fuebaey (talk) 03:22, 3 November 2015 (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.
I can see that "Results" section highly improved, but it still needs one more source. I'm unsure about one paragraph at the top of the "Background" section. It is uncited, but I don't think it affects the nomination, does it? --George Ho (talk) 16:01, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Waiting for the full results to be imported into the results table will take around 11-12 days (the electoral council allows a 10-day period for parties to contest results),[1] so I advise we post this without waiting for these results to come through. Nub Cake (talk) 14:15, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Probably not really ITN worthy, especially considering that the article could use some more references. But I wanted to nominate it since he - unwittingly - gave our nation one of the happiest days in its history. Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:54, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support when fully referenced. Certainly meets the significant impact on a country criterion - his "simple cockup" effectively ended the existence of East Germany and you don't get much more significant than that. Thryduulf (talk) 13:33, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support – A briefly pivotal figure in Cold War history. Famous for saying on his own that the Wall would open "sofort, unverzüglich" ("immediately, without delay") – touching off a stampede of East Berliners to the Wall. East Germany was finished. Sca (talk) 14:02, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
RD-worthy, but not a blurb. The Fall of the Wall was such a political earthquake that his significance was wider than domestic. (I still remember Tom Brokaw announcing it on Nov. 9, 1989.) Sca (talk) 17:56, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Important figure in modern European history, even if by accident. Also an interesting character during the 1990s. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:07, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The wife of co-pilot Sergei Trukachev says, in a call with their daughter before the flight, he complained that the technical condition of the aircraft left much to be desired. According to Egyptian officials, while in the air, the pilot told traffic controllers the aircraft was experiencing technical problems and he intended to try and land at the nearest airport. (AP via New Jersey Herald)[permanent dead link]
A large asteroid 2015 TB145, thought to be a dead comet, passes close to the earth. (Time)
According to a new NASA (U.S.) study, ice sheet gains outweigh losses on the continent of Antarctica. An increase in snow accumulation that began 10,000 years ago outweighs increased losses from the continent's thinning glaciers. In 2013, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change findings suggested gains were not keeping up with losses. NASA glaciologist Jay Zwally said, "We’re essentially in agreement with other studies ... (except) ice gain in East Antarctica and the interior of West Antarctica exceeds losses in the other areas." (UPI)(NASA)
Oppose Sorry, failing to see the significance. American Pharoah has not just been on ITN - it has been here three times in the past six months. While the Triple Crown was indeed a feat, I'm not getting the same sense here - either from the news sources or the article. Even if there were consensus to post, the article fails to provide an adequate update via a main race summary. Fuebaey (talk) 00:29, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To put this in perspective, he broke the Keeneland track record today by more than five seconds. The Breeders' Cup is run against older horses. The "Grand Slam" is legacy-defining, an achievement without precedent. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 01:27, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support An extremely exceptional horse and first-time achievement. Story should not be penalized from ITN just because it isn't about a train wreck, a plane crash or someone blowing little old ladies up in a market. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.141.21.139 (talk • contribs) 01:21, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
DYK material – "firsts" are seldom considered for ITN in regards to sports and are better suited at DYK. The event itself is not included on WP:ITN/R#Horse racing but I will submit I know next to nothing about horse racing. If notability of the event itself is established, I may have a better idea how to vote. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 01:27, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cyclonebiskit, we had a long discussion about adding the Breeders' Cup Classic to ITN/R and the complaint was that it would make too many American horse races, and some people argued that there were too many horse races listed in general. Just FYI on that. Montanabw(talk)06:04, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support: Seems significant. Would like to see more of an update regarding true significance, though, as I'm not an expert on horse racing. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:07, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. No doubt American Pharoah is going to be one of those once in a lifetime prodigies remembered for decades after, like Secretariat or Sea Biscuit. That means they might appear several times. I would think the Breeders' Cup winner should be ITN/R if it isn't already. Winning this horse race makes the article front page worthy all by itself. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003!05:12, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Article is not ready - There's no prose about the results of the races, outside the mention of the grand slam aspect. This is far from sufficient for an update. --MASEM (t) 05:38, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused. Are you talking about American Pharoah? The lede to this Featured Article is updated, and there's a new "Grand Slam" section covering today's Breeders' Cup victory. The other three Triple Crown races are recounted in detail. What more does it need? Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 05:50, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(No, @Vesuvius Dogg: I think they mean 2015 Breeders' Cup, that's the boldfaced article... we had Pharoah as ITN when he won the triple crown. )
If we are going with the Breeder's Cup as the target article (and even if not and we're going with Am.Pharaoh), there's very little actual update in prose. --MASEM (t) 06:01, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is. As a note, we're not looking for super quality in ITN articles, but just that the update is there, and since the race was completed, something more than a result table is needed and the few para of prose you added is exactly sufficient. --MASEM (t) 14:07, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support - I'm not clear on how significant this is, because I don't know much about horse racing. However, what I've read suggests that it is significant and possibly ITN material. Kiwi128 (talk) 09:15, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This win puts American Pharoah on a very short list of the greatest horses ever. This columnist [2] for example, following Saturday's victory, calls him 'immortal' and a 'Mount Rushmore' horse. --SubSeven (talk) 18:39, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Nergaal: Interesting question. To my knowledge the term was first propagated on June 7, 2015, one day after Pharoah won the Triple Crown, by Bob Ehalt on his influential ESPN racing blog. In retrospect, one might argue that "Grand Slam" was an invention of the Breeders' Cup/Keeneland promotional team. As it was by no means certain at that point that Pharoah would continue to race the full season, as a rhetorical enticement for him to delay retirement, it worked. By the time Pharaoh raced in the Haskell a couple months later (August 2), it was being used casually by NBC television commentators, the promise of great things yet to come. Maybe "Grand Slam" deserves its own cynical article, but I am not cynical enough, one day after seeing him triumph so handily and shattering the Keeneland course record, to undertake that yet myself. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 00:04, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless wether this item should be on ITN, a grand slam is a jargon which NEEDS explaining (i.e. wikilinking of some sorts). Nergaal (talk) 01:06, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If we could somehow confirm Ehalt's first usage—how would we go about that?—we'd have the germ of fhe article. We can certainly credit him for having used it as early as June 7. His was the first usage I could find when I was Googling in early August. We do have the term defined two different ways (for colts and fillies) in the "Equestrian Sports" section of Grand Slam. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 02:23, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I support this being posted but I think the blurb should be a brief explanation of what was done. I might suggest "Triple Crown winner American Pharoah wins the Breeders' Cup Classic, becoming the first horse to win all four races" or something along those lines. Besides avoiding debatable terminology, it removes ambiguity by specifying "four and only four" races won. - OldManNeptune⚓05:26, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
One or both nominated events are listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Oppose unless and until a reasonable-length prose match synopsis is written. The very second that is completed, consider this a full support. --Jayron3218:50, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support despite disappointing outcome. Perhaps should mention that the All Blacks are now the most successful team in the history of the World Cup. (see alternative blurb). Capitalistroadster (talk) 21:49, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support – I don't know how usual the Australia–New Zealand rugby rivalry is, but I was hoping that any other nation would have made it. That shouldn't affect the annual tournament's recurrence. Georgie says "Happy Halloween!" (BOO!) 06:58, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Alt Blurb 2 is fine. No need to mention highest scoring or most successful team. AIRcorn(talk)
Support - This is a notable sporting achievement. The Cup also has a huge TV audience, so it is an event that many visitors would likely be interested by. (That being said, I'm a New Zealander, so maybe take my support with a grain of salt.) Kiwi128 (talk) 09:13, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support as ITN/R now that a reasonably-sourced match summary has been added. Alt 2 blurb is the usual standard for sporting tournaments on ITN. --Bcp67 (talk) 09:40, 1 November 2015 (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: This object we had no idea existed only 3 weeks ago will come within 1.25 Moon distances and a direct hit would've been well over "all nuclear bombs in the world going off in one place at once". The fireball would've been hot enough to ignite trees within a 270 kilometer wide circle; 45 miles away, it would get the brightness of 51 suns in 0.185 seconds, then wood would ignite, then there'd be a magnitude 7.4 earthquake, then it'd rain rocks the weight of light bowling balls (solid or molten? IDK), then there'd be enough overpressure to tear human limbs off and 301mph winds (worst tornado ever level).
Oppose This seems much more suited as a DYK, and the fact the NASA blurb downplays any potential impact aspects, it's hard to justify this for inclusion at ITN. --MASEM (t) 14:05, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Even days after discovery probability of impact was 150 sigmas which is impossible. That'd be like a person with a 2350 or minus 2150 IQ (if it were a perfect bell curve, it's not). NASA doesn't need to upplay potential impact risks because stupider or dishonester people do that too much already and they're actually honest people that speak accurately, unlike CEOs or FIFA or marketers or politicians or lawyers. Also, the error ellipse is 3 kilometers wide (thanks to radar) which means they know how much it clears by to better than one part in 100,000. It's the ones decades in the future where there's a maybe 1 in 1 million chance of impact that'll shrink to zero when they get more data. If there actually was any chance of hitting we would have the location pinned down to 3km at worst now and probably wouldn't have had time do shit about it (besides evacuate). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:52, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support this (and the fact that we are an encyclopedia) is the relevant statement: "This is the closest object this size that we know of between 2027 and 2006 or even 1925. It's 0.6 kilometers wide and the fastest object to enter Earth's "sphere of influence" in 3 centuries (126,000 kph). (I can't find a list that covers more than 1900 to 2200AD). It'll have the fastest angular motion of any potentially hazardous object between 1927 and 2029". The article is in good shape, and I am frankly surprised people think this is not ITNworthy because the object will not strike the earth. μηδείς (talk) 15:29, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I can see why some find this interesting, and I can see why others goes meh. It's relatively big, but not actually *that* close. (Think <1 lunar distance.) At no stage is the object AFAICT above a routine 1 on the Torino Scale. -- KTC (talk) 16:08, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well some people wouldn't think of meters as relatively big cause they don't realize how powerful solar system speeds are but really anything having to do with hitting is not relevant or needed for ITN cause they're such low probability events. Near Earth objects, extrasolar planets and cosmology-type things are some of the biggest current research areas in astronomy and as additions to human knowledge about something beyond than our small blue dot they're posted sometimes. And doubling resolution seems like the least important of the remainder (electronics advance all the time). So I agree with Medeis' assessment. It's not that beyond the Moon, either. Only 1.2 times further when the Moon is far from Earth. (It passed 0.74 lunar distances from the Moon before Earth but I didn't think that was important enough to mention). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:25, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It would be more accurate to say that it would definitely be a support if we were doomed. ;) Other aspects of the situation could have made it more appropriate for ITN, such as observation potential. Kiwi128 (talk) 09:26, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support – Sensationalist comments in the nomination aside, asteroids are not something we often get to feature. It's in that murky area at the border of ITN and DYK, but given the media attention to it I see no harm in showcasing this. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 00:44, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's close by astronomy standards (the NASA list of close approaches can only be set to display 5, 10, ~20, ~40, ~80, ~120 and ~200 lunar distance maximums (the orbits of Earth and Mars average 205 lunar distances apart) and even if TB had been only 150 meters @ 1.266 LD that seems to happen about twice per decade). Only the brightness of the one in 2006 is known so TB is only probabilistically more likely to be larger than the 2006 one so that couldn't possibly be the blurb. Of all the ways one could word the relative infrequency I was not suggesting comparing it to Wikipedia with an asterisk* needed, that would be incredibly unimaginative and navel gazing. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:58, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - This sort of thing interests me greatly, but I don't think it is ITN material because of its lack of relevance for most visitors. It seems like most people would not have seen it (observation was apparently reasonably difficult), and it posed no threat whatsoever. However, it would be great DYK material. Kiwi128 (talk) 09:23, 1 November 2015 (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: Casualties not yet known for sure and whether there are survivors as it occurred just a few hours ago. Many deaths reported (if not all). Updated a lot recently about the movments, etc. Lihaas (talk) 08:39, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Andrew Parker, head of British security agency MI5, states that ISIS terrorists are planning attacks in Great Britain and current terror threat levels are the highest he's witnessed in his career. (The Telegraph)
Quebec-based Valeant Pharmaceuticals International cut all ties with Philidor Rx Services. This comes in the wake of recent revelations that Valeant was looking to acquire Philidor, a relationship that raised questions from various quarters. Valeant is the subject of U.S. federal investigations. (New York Times)
Greek prime ministerAlexis Tsipras lashes out at European "ineptness" in handling the continent's massive immigration crisis. The Associated Press reports 31 more people — mostly children — drowned in shipwrecks in the Mediterranean Sea near the islands of Kalymnos and Rhodes. Turkey's state-run agency says four children drowned and two others are missing after two new accidents with boats headed to Greece's Lesbos and Samos islands. The death toll in the Aegean Sea over the past three days is at least 50. The Greek coast guard says they rescued 600 people in the past 24 hours, while thousands more made it safely from Turkey to Greece's southeastern islands. (AP via Huffington Post)(Reuters)
Storms hit the American state of Texas causing at least two deaths with one person reported missing. Rivers overflowed as more than a foot of rain fell in some areas while tornadoes ripped through buildings outside San Antonio. (NBC News)(Reuters)
A Virginia (U.S.) school bus overturns after being struck by a van, sending 28 students to local hospitals with five seriously injured. (Inside Edition)
Nominator's comments: High death toll incident (and with 155 in hospital it could rise) in a country we don't cover often, it has gained reaction from the Romanian president and is currently the second most read on BBC News. The article needs very significant work before it could be featured though. Thryduulf (talk) 02:10, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Masem: The instructions say "Please do not complain about an event only relating to a single country.". Please can you explain how your comment is not an instance of this? Thryduulf (talk) 10:23, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My statement is not to meant to make the country were it happened a factor. It was a very much preventable accident in a nightclub somwhere. That does not make it a notable long term event that meets WP:NEVENT nor WP:NOT NEWS because it does not appear to have any long term impact out of the club and ppl involved (read: to the rest of the world at large). --MASEM (t) 12:31, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support upon update; notable event being widely covered in an undercovered part of the world(on ITN). The fire affected largely youth as it was at a rock concert. Government leaders in Romania have commented on this and altered their schedules; an emergency official said this was "without precedent". 331dot (talk) 09:47, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
An event with 17 injuries (10 serious) is hardly precedent for one with 27 deaths and over 150 hospitalised. It is being cited as without precedent in Romania, not without precedent in Eastern Europe. Thryduulf (talk) 10:27, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I apologize; though the bigger event was in Russia while the other was much smaller in scale than this one. What matters is how this is viewed in Romania. 331dot (talk) 10:38, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Since, there were incidents in last few days which are more important and had more far reaching affects than this. This is more of Romanian centered story instead of a global story. Putting this on ITN would mar other important stories by pushing them down in the list. Sheriff (report) 11:38, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@SheriffIsInTown: A common complaint here is that we have not enough turnover, not too much. Turnover is not a bad thing. If there are 'more important' events (importance is relative to the person) I invite you to nominate them. Also, the fact that this event is in Romania is immaterial(see "Please do not..." above). 331dot (talk) 22:32, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Nightclub fires are a well-known genre of accident and often follow a pattern (poorly signed exits etc.), so an interesting topic to cover as well as a clearly notable event. Blythwood (talk) 12:58, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Oppose – Tragic for victims and families, but I don't see the wider significance. Nightclub fires with multiple deaths, some more lethal than this one, are fairly common worldwide. This wil fade quickly as a topic. (But I can see I'm in the minority.) Sca (talk) 13:03, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There was only one person dead at the Fun Coast for awhile, then two for awhile and I had no idea it eventually reached 13. Some mortally wounded might hang on for quite awhile here too so the death toll could rise. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 13:26, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support A relatively high number of casualties (injured included) and these kind of fires make for important case studies for organizers and safety officials world-wide. --Pudeo'15:04, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this is borderline, the notability being only due to the death toll, not some heretofore unknown principle that heavy metal fireworks displays kill nightclub audiences. But even if we were to post based on deathcount, the article now begins "The Colectiv nightclub fire was a fire". Serious quality improvements are needed. μηδείς (talk) 15:39, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can't decide yet, but I won't make comparisons, especially to the Taiwanese park dust explosion, which I nominated months ago. The injuries toll is tremendous, and deaths are tragic and sudden. Unauthorised polytechnics must have been responsible for this; two band members died. The standards of ITN have been set high; we editors might be split in this because there have been other similar incidents before. We already posted this at Wikinews; so did the press. But ITN's quality of news shouldn't be the same as American (or restricted Chinese) mainstream news. C'mon, we should make ITN's quality higher, but I'm still undecided. Georgie says "Happy Halloween!" (BOO!) 18:01, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to look at The Station nightclub fire where a heavy metal band's pyrotechnics killed 100 people in almost identical circumstances. The horrible thing is that the Romanian band didn't learn that lesson. But ITN is not about causes. I will not be upset whichever way this goes, but looking at it from a historical perspective it doesn't strike me as making the cut, except for the death toll. μηδείς (talk) 18:15, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I tried my best to make ITN different from the international (not American) mainstream press, but somehow death and injury tolls, circumstances, and even the nature of the incident are too overwhelming to make it different from the press anymore. Still, I'm not happy with overemphasis on usual interior nightclub fires, not counting this year's Taiwanese one, which took place outdoors. I thought, "Can the city or Romania enhance the safety of nightclubs?" I want to lean toward "oppose" because other stories that we've posted are more usually impactful than this. However, it's too overwhelming to go to this path. But I'm not leaning "support" either... yet. This is "unusual", but airplane crashes (usual they have been), sports events, awards, and elections make "unusual" criterion useless and futile. More blurbs can be added to emphasize the tragedy; why not add a Romanian heavy metal band's involvement, a stampede, and/or an unauthorized equipment? Georgie says "Happy Halloween!" (BOO!) 21:02, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I don't think this is notable on an international level. With all of the items vying for ITN, an isolated fire of this size with a well-understood (and not surprising) cause is not front-page material IMO. And the causality count is not enormous compared to many other tragic events that occur regularly. Kiwi128 (talk) 10:07, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There is no requirement of "international notability"; we discourage such arguments under "Please do not..." above. We cover events affecting only a single country all the time. 331dot (talk) 15:15, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Affecting a single country is different than being notable only in a single country. This item is not notable outside of where it happened given the context. South Nashua (talk) 00:21, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The fact remains that single-country arguments are not valid. I read much news coverage about this where I live, so it has some degree of notability outside Romania. 331dot (talk) 02:04, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with your statement. Guidelines are recommendations for decisions, nothing more. Otherwise, there wouldn't be discussions on decisions, the decisions would just be made by following the guidelines. There's nothing wrong with a disagreement, and again, I also disagree with you about the notability of this news item. South Nashua (talk) 04:43, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly hope that people are making decisions based on the guidelines, as otherwise they would have little meaning. Most of what we post is notable in only one country(most general elections, sporting events, some natural disasters, etc.) and if we declined to post them all because of that, very little would be posted. But yes, you can certainly make whatever arguments you wish, regardless of their validity. 331dot (talk) 11:24, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise. A natural disaster is far different than a fire in a club. And calling someone else's comments invalid doesn't help increase the validity of your own comments. South Nashua (talk) 14:15, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not intending to increase the validity of my comments. It isn't me saying so, it is this page: "Please do not complain about an event only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive." Nevertheless, thanks for the discussion. 331dot (talk) 14:30, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what that page is and I'm unsure how that addresses my concern (broader notability, there are plenty of notable things that are notable beyond just where they are), but that's okay. I also thank you for this discussion. South Nashua (talk) 23:48, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Right now, the oldest blurb is the airplane disaster in Egypt, which happened a day later. Time for all of us to cool down and go elsewhere. --This is George Ho actually (Talk) 21:45, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see that the DYK will outbalance the other side in a couple hours. I'm not closing this discussion yet, but there won't be enough room for this story for long. --This is George Ho actually (Talk) 21:52, 2 November 2015 (UTC) Never mind; I measured the length incorrectly. --George Ho (talk) 01:35, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[Stale] 2015 World Artistic Gymnastics Championships
Nominator's comments: Possibly the greatest gymnast in recent times and an up-and-coming 18 year old winning record world title hauls. The event hasn't completely finished (apparatus finals still to go) but the all-round title is the highest individual title available. Depending on the blurb: main article needs a lot more prose, and the individual articles could do with some extra sourcing. Fuebaey (talk) 00:49, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
These articles still need a lot of work. Female bio is tagged for lacking adequate sources. Event article looks short in prose. Male bio looks like it's in good shape, but it's the only one.
I thought I had an extra day to work on this, on something I'm mildly interested in as well. Oh well, too many fresh stories at the moment. Fuebaey (talk) 05:03, 3 November 2015 (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.
Support if improved Major player, member of the Basketball Hall of Fame demonstrates RD#2, as do all of his other honors (ABA All-Time Team, 2x ABA MVP, 7x ABA All-Star). – Muboshgu (talk) 00:28, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Daniels is a Hall of Famer. 02:30, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Weak oppose: Article is pretty short and we've historically applied stricter scrutiny to athletes than simply being in their sport's hall of fame. -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:42, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for such a supposedly notable individual, article is barely above stub class, has about 1/3 without inline referencing and includes something called "Mel Daniels curiosidades y datos en espanol". Expand and reference, and we have a possible contender. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:34, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
An extensive search is underway in the northeastern Aegean Sea off the Greek island of Lesbos for at least 34 people missing from a boat that sank yesterday. Some 242 people were rescued but eight died, five children, two men and a woman. (Reuters)(AP via Kathimerini)
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.
Nominator's comments: Noticed this on ITN/R, even though I'm not someone who follows baseball. Will probably be overshadowed by its more famous cousin next week. Needs some match summaries, if any baseball fans out there care to work on this. Fuebaey (talk) 04:50, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unsure whether this is ready. It's a baseball tournament, so it is listed in ITN/R. "Game 5" section looks short, despite efforts to emphasize it. What troubles me more is the lack of consensus here. I mean, there isn't one person voting for it yet.Georgie says "Happy Halloween!" (BOO!) 19:32, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the summaries are there. I don't think there was an issue with Game 5, but Game 4 could do with more than two sentences. Rest seem short but adequate. Fuebaey (talk) 21:37, 31 October 2015 (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.
Nominator's comments: Closest fought election in decades. Based on official result but main opposition has yet to concede. Please note that the result came out on Thursday (African votes are comparatively slow). Since we don't post until confirmed, I'd rather we treat these like late RDs (where deaths are posted when they are announced in the media, not when they occur) instead of lumping them with stories that are about to roll off ITN. Fuebaey (talk) 00:08, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
wait the election is still undr dispute. I added some to the page on the controversy. Or at the very least mention the controversy over the CCM (and the first time the opposition united under 1 candidate)Lihaas (talk) 02:31, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated One or both nominated events are listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Comment I think this is a reasonable ITN blurb, but that said, looking over Badawi's article, there's one section unsourced (though it contains a named quote source, so should be easy) but I'm more considered on the second half of the article. I would like a second opinion because my first read through it it felt like it was WP:COATRACK on how much attention the Charlie Hebdo incident (particularly the post-incident rallies) in contrast to what attention Badawi's lashings got that happened at the same time. It is not that there isn't discussion outlining the different responses but as not an area I'm really familiar with it does feel wording choices are made to focus heavily on the different reactions, calling out on the world on why they didn't support Badawi more. --MASEM (t) 14:35, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It definitely is far too much quotefarming. The COATRACKing issue is not as bad but I feel that with that many quotes (and as long as they are), it's pushing a very specific POV; yes, much of the rest of the world was critical of the fact that he faced the lashings for standing up to human rights, that's important, but it needs a bit more neutrality before it can be ITN. We don't need to document every single reaction out there, a summary with a few choice quotes from predominant world leaders would be sufficient. --MASEM (t) 17:38, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: A significant political step in one of the world's leading nations. Also, it's the sort of news that ITN seldomly covers (no catastrophe or sport event). Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:52, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. A notable change in public policy for China. Brief updates have been added to the lead and in the article itself; a little more would be nice, I think. 331dot (talk) 13:00, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support - This change is definitely ITN appropriate and the article is fine, my only hesitation is from the linked article above this is a plan and not yet the actual revocation of the law/policy; it would likely make more sense to post on when the law is officially removed from the books. But I suspect this will be the point of major coverage. --MASEM (t) 13:38, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think the blurb should be clarified to mention that China, though it's abolishing the one-child policy, is effectively switching to a "two-child policy", which is still a government-imposed limit.--WaltCip (talk) 13:55, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
impose: "1. To establish or apply by authority. " Seems to fit perfectly. Also conveniently contrasts in diction with the positive-connotation word "abolish". Mamyles (talk) 15:50, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Introduces implies a sort of optionalness not known for in policies of this nature put forth by the PRC leadership. Introduces implies they're making a suggestion or a recommendation. Imposes is exactly what is going on here; the PRC leadership tells the country what it will do with regards to their reproductive system, that sounds a lot like imposing. --Jayron3201:30, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to post but then realized that there's an update missing - the main article says nothing about the new policy. And the update is super thin at the moment. Makes sense to fix this first. --Tone18:20, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a sentence to the article linking to two-child policy, and mentioning continued criticism of China's reproductive policy. Still not a large update, but it should serve to meet ITN's minimum update guidelines. Mamyles (talk) 18:36, 29 October 2015 (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.
Comment Head of State is ITN/R, albeit for a ceremonial role. While she is Nepal's first female President, her predecessor was the country's first President (the country previously was a constitutional monarchy prior to 2008). Update wise, this was a stub yesterday and now no longer is. However, the first two sections lack inline citations. Fuebaey (talk) 08:06, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is this ceremonial? Our articles on the seats of power in Nepal are very vague on this and while I know they are not the target article it would help tremendously to be clear if the president position is ceremonial or one of power. --MASEM (t) 13:42, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I would still Support since it is a elected position with some power, and her article is in decent shape, as well as ITNR. --MASEM (t) 19:10, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose "first woman" in blurb. It is about as condescending as possible. "First woman X" started being insulting about 80 years ago. Just say she was elected, please. μηδείς (talk) 00:34, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing wrong with the "first woman" blurb. It is a landmark and real progress in Nepal, and nothing condescending about that. -Zanhe (talk) 02:43, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
SupportAlternative Blurb I think for a female to get elected as a president of a country is a good enough reason to be In The News, there is no need to mention "(pictured)", sounds odd since the picture is there and must be of the person featured in the story. United States couldn't elect a female president in over two hundred years while Nepal's second president is female. Mentioning the gender adds an additional value to the story. Sheriff (report) 04:44, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly support - this would be front page news material (as an election) even if Bhandari wasn't the first female president. Kiwi128 (talk) 08:43, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ankara's Chief Prosecutor's office says it has "strong evidence" that an Islamic State group — based in Gaziantep, near the Syrian border — is behind the bombings at this month's Ankara peace rally that killed 102 people, as well as four previous attacks in Turkey since May that have mainly targeted supporters of a pro-Kurdish party. (AP)(AFP via NDTV)
Aid workers warn that survivors of the earthquake are at risk of dying of exposure as temperatures in Pakistan and Afghanistan fall to near freezing levels. (Time)
Austrian ChancellorWerner Faymann, when discussing management of the flow of migrants with the press, talks about "technical security" measures but insists there will be "no fence" at the Slovenian border. This, in contrast to Interior MinisterJohanna Mikl-Leitner who earlier spoke of plans for a "fence" on the border to Slovenia. Austria has been one of the more vocal countries criticizing Hungary's decision to build a fence along its border with Serbia. (AP)(BBC)
The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), the cancer agency of the World Health Organization (WHO), has evaluated the carcinogenicity of the consumption of red meat and processed meat. After thoroughly reviewing the accumulated scientific literature, a Working Group of 22 experts from 10 countries convened by the IARC Monographs Programme classified the consumption of red meat as probably carcinogenic to humans (Group 2A), based on limited evidence that the consumption of red meat causes cancer in humans and strong mechanistic evidence supporting a carcinogenic effect. This association was observed mainly for colorectal cancer, but associations were also seen for pancreatic cancer and prostate cancer. Processed meat was classified as carcinogenic to humans (Group 1), based on sufficient evidence in humans that the consumption of processed meat causes colorectal cancer. (Science Daily)
The Cassini probe makes a close flyby of Saturn's sixth-largest moon, Enceladus, coming within approximately 49 km (30 mi) of the surface and passing through the icy plume above the south pole. The transit of the plume was the deepest to date. Photographs and other data from the mission are expected within 48 hours. (BBC Online)(JPL Press Release)
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: A story with far less fanfare than the Pluto flyby but with some excellent science nevertheless. Both articles need updates (likely to happen when data start coming). --Tone 13:26, 29 October 2015 (UTC) Tone13:26, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Actually, this pass by the moon wil be at a very low altitude and is designed to fly through a plume of fluid being ejected from the surface. Jusdafax21:53, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support EXCEPT the blurb doesn't have a single target article in it. The nominator should look at other nominations if this is an issue. I'd support per se, but I am not sure what I'd be supporting, given how the nomination is formatted. μηδείς (talk) 00:30, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually this has had a lot of "fanfare" with the ice, water, etc. More importantly, the discovery of oxygen on that comet was more notable as changing the theories of the formation of the universe.Lihaas (talk) 01:37, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Brandmeister. This does appear to be a routine scientific mission, considering NASA had done a flyby of Enceladus at least eight different times before this. There doesn't appear to be any significant findings of interest, either, at least to my knowledge. Prhdbt[talk]01:45, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Somewhat notable flyby, but it isn't front page material IMO. If some groundbreaking discovery is made because of the flyby, then a re-nomination might be an order. Kiwi128 (talk) 08:47, 30 October 2015 (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.
[Closed] Ongoing: Russian military intervention in the Syrian Civil War
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.
Support: No longer breaking news and no longer being regularly updated in such a way that it merits front-page status. The Saudi-led intervention in Yemen is still going on too, and we pulled it off months ago... -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:25, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with replacing it with the Syrian Civil War, as suggested by Banedon. Although a terrifyingly large article (>300 kB with over 800 references), it appears regularly updated whenever major events happen with links to numerous articles about notable offensives that take place. Probably the most useful link we can provide in regards to this conflict. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 06:35, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Replace as suggested above; Russia's involvement is now at the point where it is not top news, along with the involvement of other nations, but the conflict is still news in general and the page being updated.331dot (talk) 11:11, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: If we're going to replace it, we need a different article than Syrian Civil War. That article is not being updated at a rate I would consider to be in line with the purpose of the "Ongoing" section. There have been only two significant additions in the past 9 days. The most recent, [4] involves outdated information (from January!!! or earlier) and the other is mostly stylistic and organizational changes, [5] and did not add any new information. Thus, in the past 9 days (from the 50 diff page history) we haven't had a single substantive update on the Syrian Civil War to that article. If it were an article in the main ITN section, it'd have rotated off by now. I can't support this for a good replacement. As of now, unless someone can massively update that article, and/or propose a new target, I have to vote for Remove and not replace. --Jayron3211:19, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Remove I don't see significant updates to the Syrian Civil War to use that in its place as more notable than other conflicts at the present time. --MASEM (t) 14:02, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just a comment, the Syrian Civil War receives more news coverage than any other ongoing conflict I'm aware of. It also involves four of the world's five UN security council members. What other present conflict is there that is comparable to this? Banedon (talk) 14:41, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of conflicts and situations get continuing news coverage, but the question is how much of that leads to encyclopedic content. That's the value we need to judge here and I don't see that for the Syrian civil war right now; it's happening, but it's not always significant events. (as when Russia opted to get involved). --MASEM (t) 14:44, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not to say you're wrong, but IF there is more information about the Syrian Civil War available which could be added to our article, it has yet to be added to the article. The purpose of the "ongoing" section of ITN is the same as the rest of ITN: To highlight quality, new Wikipedia content on quality articles. Whether or not the Syrian Civil War is still getting new news reports isn't important, if no one is using that news to update the article in question. All that matters, the ONLY thing that matters here, if you want this to be in ITN, is that the article has quality updates. Any other argument makes no bit of difference. If you want it posted, fix the article. It will be posted. --Jayron3215:23, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A Yemeni hospital in Saada run by Médecins Sans Frontières (Doctors Without Borders) is destroyed by several Saudi-led coalition airstrikes overnight. The director of the hospital, Ali Mughli, reported "The air raids resulted in the destruction of the entire hospital with all that was inside - devices and medical supplies - and the moderate wounding of several people". Another airstrike hit a nearby girls school and damaged several civilian homes according to local media. UNICEF said the Saada hospital was the 39th health center hit in Yemen since March. The Saudi-led coalition denies that its planes had hit the hospital. (Reuters)
The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights reports the Islamic State, on Sunday, executed three detainees in the ancient Syrian city of Palmyra by strapping them to pillars and blowing them up with the antiquities. ISIL has yet to tell locals the identities of the three individuals or say why they had been killed. (BBC)(USA Today)
United States Defense SecretaryAshton Carter says the U.S. will begin "direct action on the ground" against the ISIL forces in Iraq and Syria, aiming to intensify pressure on the militants as progress against the militants remains elusive. The U.S. has done some special operations raids in Syria, e.g., last week's rescue operation with Kurdish forces in northern Iraq to free hostages held by ISIL. Carter also said the U.S. would intensify the air campaign against ISIL with heavier airstrikes and will focus on Raqqa, the group's declared capital in Syria. (NBC News)(Al Jazeera)(AP via Boston Globe)
A Libyan helicopter carrying cash for a local bank on the way out and returning to Tripoli with passengers is shot down near the coastal Almaya area west of the capital city, killing at least 14 of its 23 passengers including senior officers Hosein Bodaya and Duhain Al-Rammah, officials with Libya’s Dawn militias. (AP via ABC News)(BBC)(UPI)
The Taliban, which effectively controls some of the worst-affected areas across multiple provinces, urged charity organizations not to hold back in delivering aid to Afghan victims of the quake, saying militants in the affected areas were ordered to provide "complete help." (Reuters)(Daily Star)
Humanitarian International Services Group, an NGO founded by evangelical Christian Kay Miramine, was part of a secret Pentagon program devised by Lt. Gen. William Boykin used to spy on North Korea, according to an investigation by the online publication The Intercept. The program, which started in 2004, was shut down in 2012 by now-retired Admiral William McRaven, concerned with pushback if this became public. Some current and former American NGO staff with experience in North Korea have expressed doubts about key claims in the report. (The Intercept)(Christian Post)(NK News)
Britain is reviewing the powers of the House of Lords after the unelected peers stalled legislation yesterday that would have eliminated some tax allowances for the nation’s poor. Senior Conservatives say the upper chamber of Parliament stepped out of their usual roles as technical overseers of legislation. However, Conservative MPDavid Davis warned that such a move was “bully politics” that would “disgust” the public. (BBC)(AP via Washington Post)
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: One of notable British film critics and radio producers. He was appointed OBE and given "Critic of the Year" in 2009. George Ho (talk) 21:40, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support as very important to his field; we posted Roger Ebert and this person seems to be similar. His successor said he inspired "a generation of film critics", had gotten recognition related to his field. The update seems cited but I don't know if anything more can be said about his death. 331dot (talk) 21:44, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Leading writer on his specialist topic. I've read his book Westerns which is absolutely fascinating and insightful, so support. Blythwood (talk) 13:00, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: One of prominent Indian pharmacologists. Also chairman of WHO–Indian Gov. joint programme. He had two awards. George Ho (talk) 21:31, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm not entirely sure about whether he meets the RD bar (not my field), but I think the state of the article nudges this over. Sad how many notable non-Western bios only get written after they've died. Fuebaey (talk) 21:54, 31 October 2015 (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
_(cropped).jpg)
