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).
Negotiators reach a preliminary deal on capping mobile phone intercarrier (wholesale) tariffs. Roaming charges on voice and data calls for consumers within the EU are expected to be terminated on June 15, 2017. (Reuters)
Disasters and accidents
According to a report released by Malegapuru William Makgoba, 94 mentally ill patients in South Africa died from starvation, dehydration and diarrhea between March and December 2016 because of a "reckless" government attempt to save money by transferring the patients from a specialized institution to care centres with "invalid licenses". (BBC)
Israel announces it will build an entirely new settlement in the West Bank for the first time in about twenty years. Many in the international community believe that such settlements are illegal but Israel disputes that. The settlement program is illegal under international law. (CNN)
Consultancy PwC says that global banks with business both in London and on the European continent must plan for a hard Brexit that entails a break with many of the benefits of the Euro system, and a short transition period. (Reuters)
President Donald Trump has nominated Judge Neil Gorsuch to fill the vacant seat on the Supreme Court of the United States. Neil Gorsuch is the youngest nominee to the court in 25 years. (CNN)
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: Former top sumo wrestler. Died at age 37 after retiring just last year due to cancer. Some of the minor events in his career are unsourced, but overall I think the article is in good enough shape. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 01:48, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Oppose - not of the clear significance of the travel ban. One conservative judge is replaced by another conservative judge. We can revisit this when and if he nominates his horse. Blythwood (talk) 01:32, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - this is one of many nominations made by the new administration and posting every nomination/appointment is unnecessary as others point out. However, I do think it would be worthy for ITN when a new SCOTUS judge actually joins the court, ie. approved by Senate and sworn in (Talk:Elena Kagan (2010) & Talk:Sonia Sotomayor (2009) both have ITN templates for when they joined the court; but Talk:Samuel Alito (2005) and Talk:John Roberts (2005) don't). AHeneen (talk) 01:57, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Very contentious, drawn out vacancy that was stonewalled in the hopes of a GOP victory come the 2016 election (which has obviously happened). However, this is just a nomination. Suggest withdrawing this nomination and revisiting when a new member of the SCOTUS is sworn in. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 02:00, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is why we should have an ongoing section for the Trump Administration. A Supreme Court pick is hugely important and will have decades of impact, while we have an absurd 5 lines of text (and a picture of a signing !) about an executive order temporarily halting immigration from seven nations identified by Barack Obama as state sponsors of terror. μηδείς (talk) 02:12, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
49,000 UK men retroactively pardoned under the "Alan Turing law"
Article:Alan Turing law (talk·history·tag) Blurb: Under UK's Alan Turing law some 49,000 men are retroactively pardoned after being cautioned or convicted under historical legislation that outlawed homosexual acts. (Post) Alternative blurb: Under the Alan Turing law some 49,000 men in England and Wales are retroactively pardoned after being cautioned or convicted under historical legislation that outlawed homosexual acts. Alternative blurb II: Thousands of men in England and Wales are pardoned for past homosexual acts News source(s):BBC
Ah, right (there's a news link there now, there wasn't before). The article says "As of January 2017, some 49,000 men had been retroactively pardoned under the terms of the Policing and Crime Act 2017" which should probably read "On 31 January 2017...". A tentative Support in that case. Black Kite (talk)23:33, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support on principle - I too was confused why this is news "today" but if what Stephen says is true, the article should be updated to reflect that the law came on the books today, and thus this retroactive pardon only started today. Once that's cleared up, this is a significant event and appropriate ITN material, and outside this issue on the timing, the article is in good shape. --MASEM (t) 23:52, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unless altblurb Referenced and nuanced thanks to the "reaction" subsection, but the law only applies to England and Wales apparently ("As the law – and the disregard process – only apply to England and Wales, groups in Northern Ireland and Scotland have campaigned for equivalent laws in their jurisdiction"); neither Scotland nor Northern Ireland are included (so it's not "the UK"). I also wonder if we could add a list of all the MPs who voted for and against it?Zigzig20s (talk) 00:02, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think a list of MPs would be useful, as this was part of a much bigger piece of law, and thus MPs could, for example, have voted against the bill because of a completely separate part of the legislation that they did not agree with. Agree about the altblurb (done, see above). Black Kite (talk)00:09, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Arguably the previous ITN postings were specific to Alan Turing, but that's why this new piece of law is named after him. It is a continuation of a principle, but definitely not a continuation of the same story. --MASEM (t) 00:55, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well let's suppose that a new law is passed ("_____ is no longer a crime, retroactively applied to 2010"). You would expect then that "_____ people are pardoned" will happen. The first implies the second. The same applies to e.g. "Trump signs law banning travelers from ____ countries" and "____ travelers from ____ countries are unable to travel to the US". If we have posted the first, we do not need to post the second. Banedon (talk) 01:02, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But that's not the case here. 2009 (the 2nd link) we have a British PM apologizing for how they treated Turing under existing laws. The first link was when he was posthumously pardoned by the Queen - while this was important it was also recognized as more a ceremonial process since Turing has passed away to enjoy any benefit of it. Now, and what is important here, is that the UK Parliament, after a few years of debates, have created a law that mirror what the Queen did for one person (one rather famous and important person) to 49,000-some individuals retroactively, including some who are still alive. While not all these people are as important as Turing, the impact is much greater, and reflects that the UK gov't recognized these previous laws anti-gay laws were harmful. --MASEM (t) 01:09, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see that we did post the passing of the law. We posted the pardoning of Turing, but that's only tangentally relevant (i.e. to the - unofficial - name of the law). Black Kite (talk)01:10, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Let me try this again. If Obama had decided to pardon Julian Assange, would you also expect him to pardon Chelsea Manning? Similarly, if the UK government decides to pardon Alan Turing, would you also expect the many other homosexuals in the country whose names are too minor for the press to mention to also be pardoned? If you answer yes, then where is the notability of this nomination? Banedon (talk) 01:13, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not entirely sure of the thrust of your Assange/Manning argument, but I'd argue that the pardoning of 49,000 (plus many more to come) people is more notable than the pardoning of one high profile individual. Black Kite (talk)01:19, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support the pardoning of nearly 50,000 individuals is highly notable, much more so than the commutation of the sentence of one highly notable individual. Let's have some consistency here people. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - as The Daily Telegraph makes clear, it's slightly different for the living, who have to personally apply for a pardon: "As well as the posthumous pardons, the new law will allow 15,000 living men who were found guilty of sexual acts that are no longer illegal to apply to the Home Office for a pardon." Note that those pardonned posthumously include Oscar Wilde. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:40, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, noble, but moot decision. Retroactive pardon means they already served their sentences and only then were pardoned. Also it's unclear what percentage is still alive. Brandmeistertalk09:02, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The 49,000 are all posthumous, though living people can apply to be added to the list, and these will be considered on a case-by-case basis - it is not guaranteed that those applying will be pardoned. To my mind, that muddies the water enough that we shouldn't post this. GoldenRing (talk) 11:09, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That is not my understanding. Provided the crime is on the list, a pardon will be issued. It's just an administative process. Perhaps the article doesn't make this clear. The Daily Telegraph says: "A spokesman for Stonewall, the gay rights charity, called the new law: “Another important milestone of equality.” Martinevans123 (talk) 11:19, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Alt3 made for conciseness. As for a vote, this strikes me as an incremental step in a process that no one really doubts any longer. On the other hand it apparently affects living people, so I'll just say neutral.128.214.53.104 (talk) 12:32, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Influential progressive rock musician known for his work with King Crimson, UK, Roxy Music, Asia including many others. Asia's 1982 self titled debut was the top selling album in the United States in 1982 and also noted for his appearances on King Crimson albums like Red and Larks' Tongues in Aspic. --Theburlybush (talk) 17:36, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Significantly undersourced article. Band membership history absolutely needs to be sourced at a bare minimum as well as the discography aspects. --MASEM (t) 18:03, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose at this time as above, though certainly support this progressive rock innovator deserves a RD pending sourcing updates. To lay it out plainly, in the Career section, everything from "In the late 1980s" onwards is essentially unsourced. The band timeline and discography sections are also wholly unsourced. Most of this info can surely be compiled from the reliable resources of his official website, his discogs.com discography, and his ProgArchives page. The myriad of newspaper articles that appeared today, which likely exclusively sourced these three, may provide additional info. I would do the updates, but my router blew and I'm running off my limited cell tethering data. - Floydianτ¢00:48, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the sources above Morocco seems to have actually rejoined(one has a quote to that effect) so I've posted an altblurb. 331dot (talk) 13:17, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The 28th Summit of African Heads of State and Government is made up of representatives from the AU, which voted "overwhelmingly" to readmit Morocco. The Moroccan government website notes this, as well as votes in their own parliament, but the AU website has not yet updated their member states list to include Morocco. Whether the AU and Morocco have "decided to" or "did" rejoin depends on whether or not the vote at the Summit is binding, and on that I don't know anything.128.214.53.104 (talk) 13:24, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
By reading the AU's own Constitutive Act, it's clear that this Assembly is the body empowered to make decisions about membership, which must be reached by consensus or by 2/3 majority. So, "did" rejoin.128.214.53.104 (talk) 13:47, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support on principle - this is the equivalent of the EU for Africa, so any changes in member-state status should be reflected as ITN. It would help if the blurb had some clarity; it seems that this isn't so much "readmit" but "admit" for the first time into what we know as the Africa Union, as Moracco had withdrawn a few decades earlier from the AU's predecessor organization. I don't know if we can make a succinct blurb to explain why Moracco withdrew before. --MASEM (t) 18:06, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Iraqi Parliament votes in favour of a reciprocal travel ban on U.S. citizens if U.S. President Donald Trump's executive order barring citizens of Iraq and six other Muslim-majority countries is not reversed. The Iraqi travel ban will not be implemented while tens of thousands of U.S. soldiers and contractors are involved in the fight against ISIL. (AFP via Daily Mail)
In Ankara, the Turkish government opens the trial of 270 suspects charged in July's failed coup in Ankara. The defendants include, in absentia, the alleged mastermind Fethullah Gülen, former NATO Chief of Staff Major General Salih Sevil, and other high-ranking military officials. (Yahoo! News)
Article:Rohingya people (talk·history·tag) Blurb: Bangladesh initiates a relocation of tens of thousands of Rohingya refugees to an island, amid concerns of flooding, accessibility, and forced relocation? (Post) Alternative blurb: Bangladesh initiates a relocation of Rohingya refugees to an island, amid heavy criticism due to poor living conditions there? News source(s):[1][2][3][4] Credits:
@Banedon: updating that article is easy, because the content can simply be added there with attribution: but I disagree that that article is appropriate, because this news item refers to the Bangladesh government policy. I'm open to persuasion, though. Vanamonde (talk) 07:59, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is Bangladesh's policy not appropriate to the 2016-2017 Rohingya persecution in Myanmar article? If the Rohingya were displaced from Myanmar into Bangladesh, then Bangladesh's policy would be very much a continuation of the persecution. As it is I feel like the Rohingya people article itself is not the right place for this. In a vacuum, I'd expect to see something like "the Rohingya are a widely-persecuted people, and have been [yada yada blah blah]" in the Rohingya people article. I would not expect "on [this date], Bangladesh forcibly relocated Rohingya people", which is a great deal of detail, especially in a section that lists three "see also" articles. Banedon (talk) 08:30, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We could rework the 2015 Rohingya refugee crisis article, but the fact remains that that article, just like 2016-2017 Rohingya persecution in Myanmar, has a well-defined scope at the moment which does not include the news item being reported here. The "ROhingya people" article gives very prominent mention to their persecution and migration; it is also in decent shape, so honestly, I would still advocate for the original blurb. Vanamonde (talk) 09:49, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The two sources listed above seem to be using the same, single source for their reporting. I would like to see more and more diverse sourcing for something like this.128.214.53.104 (talk) 08:08, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Guardian article is from 2015! The Reuter's article is also using the same source as the original two in the nomination. I fail to see how copy-pasting field releases is good journalism, "reliable source" or not.128.214.53.104 (talk) 10:09, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support on significance. This idea has been floated before, but the Bangladeshi government has just announced that it is going ahead and it seems a good enough time to post it. As reported, they are essentially proposing the relocation of over a quarter of a million people to a small island that is entirely submerged twice a day - ie. their mass murder. If Trump's travel ban is worth a post, surely this is (though of course I realise not everyone opposing above supported that posting). However there is a lot of work to do before this can be posted. I agree with Banedon that 2016–17 Rohingya persecution in Myanmar is the right article to start with, as this move is largely a response to the influx of refugees to Bangladesh following the persecution in Myanmar. However, it needs substantial updates and probably moving to some title that covers the situation more generally. 2015 Rohingya refugee crisis is probably not appropriate because it is about Rohingya leaving Bangladesh for other countries. GoldenRing (talk) 11:25, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support - I think this is a silly and completely uninteresting event, but it is an international event making international news. I'd use active voice in the blurb regardless: "[so and so] wins the [pageant]". Banedon (talk) 01:28, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose about as far from encyclopedic news as one can imagine. Kardashian's jewel theft made international news but it doesn't make it something to feature on the main page of the fourth-most visited website in history. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:45, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm having to oppose it above for the reasons given by TRM, because our current guidelines (Please do not oppose an item because it is not on ITN/R) mean that I'm not allowed oppose it for what seem to me the most sensible reason for not posting it, namely that it's an annual event which the community has implicitly judged not to be worthy of ITN/R, which in turn tends to implicitly suggest that it shouldn't normally be posted unless there's some exceptional reason for doing so (which there doesn't seem to be in this case). But for some reason I'm not allowed give that as the main reason for my opposition, so I've had to give a secondary reason instead. Tlhslobus (talk) 07:38, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Is this the largest pageant worldwide? If so, I do not see any reason to oppose the article. The quality of the article looks fine to me (the article doesn't look like an advertisement at all to me, and nearly all statements seem to be properly sourced), and assuming this is the biggest event of its kind, I definitely support its inclusion on the front page. ~Mable (chat) 17:10, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I know that beauty pageants have become far less significant over the last decade due to the changing social climates (eg how they are considered degrading to women, etc.), but they still happen, they still make the news, and this seems to be the top-tier competition. It might be subjective but so are things like the BAFTAs and Oscars, so it seems silly to oppose on the fact this is a subjective result. The article seems to be well sourced for the event. --MASEM (t) 18:11, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question: when did we post Mr Universe? Or is this just another example of Wikipedia's vast majority of pubescent bedroom-lurking teenagers wanting a non-encyclopedic but titivating "news" item on the main page? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:37, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's a planned annual event with a reasonable long history (65 years it looks like), so noting the winner of a given year is part of encyclopedic coverage, just as we'd do for any sporting event or the like. A mass shooting is in the realm of news, and because we are not a newspaper, not every breaking news story is necessarily an appropriate encyclopedic topic, and thus there can be reason to oppose those. If we were a newspaper, I would totally agree that the shooting has much higher weight, but as an encyclopedia the importance is flipped. --MASEM (t) 21:47, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Planned annual event with a reasonable long history? That doesn't make it encyclopedic. We don't just post "any sporting event or the like", we assess it for encyclopedic impact and quality. This is not encyclopedic. A bunch of pretty women being assessed against each other to determine who is more subjectively attractive, in a swim suit or evening wear? You think this is the sort of thing Wikipedia should be publishing on the main page? You've lost me. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:53, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I supported with the assumption that this is the most major pagaent of the year. Is this incorrect or subjective? If so, I may want to reconsider my stance (not that it seems to matter much with all these 'I don't like it' !votes). ~Mable (chat) 23:01, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Historic winner. Good sourcing. Plenty of worldwide attention, much more than usual. Plenty of IDONTLIKEIT above. That is irrelevant.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:01, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment just a quick one for the supporters, please read the article. It's junk mainly, and a lot of it unreferenced. Despite the fact it's an out-dated, irrelevant, misogynist cavalcade which creates childhood disorders and promotes unhealthy living, please remember this is an encyclopedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:34, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree that beauty pagaents are a remnant of the past, and while I wouldn't necessarily call it "misogynist cavalcade" I would still agree they are unnecessarily sexist, but we are not here to right great wrongs. The topic is encyclopedic, this event has gained worldwide coverage, and while there are some CNs (added since I looked to new information that appeared to be added since), it is not too far off from being posted. --MASEM (t) 21:47, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
About the same as any given sporting event. People keep track of who won, how their favorite contestants performed, the usual. No different from any other kind of competition in those aspects. ~Mable (chat) 23:01, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Really? It's way off being posted - it isn't even an article, just a series of trivia factlets ("The pageant program was initially announced to start at 5 a.m., but it was later announced that the program was to run from 8 a.m. until 11:00") glued together. It reads like someone made notes for an article, but never actually wrote it. There are actually quite a few unsourced statements in it too, some of which may be contentious. More to the point, there's a whacking great (and correct) "multiple issues" tag on the top of the article. Black Kite (talk)23:21, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The tags had been removed, were readded, and are currently under discussion on the talk page. You could hardly say the article is underreferenced at this point, and I really don't believe it reads like an advertisement. As I said below, the article has too many "short paragraphs", but together they do form a sort of narrative through the event. "It started at this time, it had these judges," etc. Basic stuff. ~Mable (chat) 23:41, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – a lot of people bring up an issue with the article's quality, saying that it needs a rewrite, but I don't see it at all and feel really confused about it. I don't like how short all of the paragraphs are, but otherwise it looks like a B-class article to me, far better than what we usually post on RD. Could someone explain what kind of issues The article is dealing with specifically? ~Mable (chat) 23:22, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
When there are 86 participating countries in an annual pageant, on average, each country's participant wins one time every 86 years. In that sense, France last winning in 1953 isn't to be unexpected. Banedon (talk) 12:06, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment according to the Miss Universe article, "Along with its rival contests, Miss World and Miss Earth, this pageant is one of the most important and publicized beauty pageants in the world. It is held in more than 190 countries worldwide and seen by more than half a billion people annually." I'm actually wondering whether or not to nominate this for ITNR. Banedon (talk) 12:19, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Founder of Namco and who developed Pac-Man. Article is woefully short, and I'm going to ping the VG project to see if they can jump and help to expand. Also note: as Variety points out, he died on the 22nd, but only today was his death announced. MASEM (t) 13:57, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Myself and other editors have greatly expanded the article, so it should be ready to go (in terms of ITN/C review, not to post). --MASEM (t) 19:12, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A U.S. military raid takes place in Yemen's southern Al Bayda Governorate. According to medics on the scene as reported by Reuters, "around 30" were killed, among which were at least three senior Al-Qaeda members, at least one U.S. service member, and 10 women and children. (Reuters)(The Guardian)
A gunman opens fire at a mosque in Quebec City, Canada, during evening prayers. At least five people were killed. Two suspects were apprehended; one was later released. (CBC News)(Reuters)
U.S. federal judges in the states of Massachusetts, Virginia, and Washington sign orders halting implementation of parts of the executive order. (New York Daily News)(Reuters via News.com.au)
In the largest protest since the 1989 Revolution, more than 90,000 people march through Romania's capital and other cities against a government proposal to pardon thousands of prisoners. (Business Review)(Digi24)
Nominator's comments: I updated the article with a day by day summary of the final events. I do not believe we have ever posted the X Games before on ITN but I thought it would be worth updating the article and nominating it here. Andise1 (talk) 23:13, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose - I'm seeing only regional coverage for this event. If this is posted regardless I would strongly oppose "... with the United States winning seven gold medals" in the blurb, since it is a multi-national event and highlighting only one country's medal tally is not fair. Banedon (talk) 01:34, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support this is even being covered in countries with virtually no winter sports pedigree, e.g. the UK, and it's perfectly normal to include which country came top in the overall standings of such a multi-national multi-sport contest. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:44, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just pointing out that the UK won two medals in this very event, so I do not agree that the UK has virtually no winter sports pedigree. Banedon (talk) 09:10, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention that Winter X Games XXI mostly consists of tables with insufficient prose and many of the references are just copied URLs. The discussion with two support votes (with one by an IP-address) against one oppose vote does also confirm that the posting was premature. I don't think we need changes of the ITN criteria when it's glaringly obvious that some nominations cannot be posted because of the insufficient article quality. I'd also like to see what Stephen was thinking when posting this.-Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:56, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The references were added by me to appease yet another complainant, feel free to pad them out properly, I don't have time right now, but I'll get back to it if no-one else does. At least it makes the article referenced. As for orange maintenance tags, Quebec City, Western Sahara and Elene Hight's articles all contain orange maintenance tags. The article has four cited paragraphs, easily sufficient to meet the ITN rules. Of course, in all that time, you could have worked on making the article better. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:00, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I can re-work the article to make look better, but sometimes you have to complain. Posting 'crap' on the main page with the argument that you can spend time on improving it rather than complaining about it is useful in terms of efficient editing but not in raising awareness about content quality.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:51, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point me to the rules which state that we have to review all the auxiliary links in a blurb to ensure they're up to (some unknown standard of) quality? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:19, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please note There is also presently a second article created just a minute afterward 2017 Quebec City mosque shooting on the same event. These should be history-merged to one article to cover it, but I don't know which one is the better name to do that with. --MASEM (t) 03:00, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Anti-islamic attack on a religious service. And it was in Canada, so it won't be rejected here for being "just another U.S. shooting". – Muboshgu (talk) 03:26, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Provincial police just gave an interview confirming the number of deaths/wounded and that all subjects are in custody. Article should be stabilizing now and is well-sourced and probably good to post. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions06:01, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This is more significant in terms of fatalities than both the Ottawa attack and the vehicle ramming attack in 2014, both of which I think made ITN. 207.107.159.62 (talk) 04:23, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, due possible quality issue? Currently the Suspects section a) wikilinks to a disambiguation article for Quebecquois, and b) links to a written (and unconfirmed) news report that one of the suspects is of Quebec origin and the other of Arab origin, while the same item also has a spoken (and unconfirmed, and perhaps evolving) video news report that seemed a bit confused, but appeared to be saying that both arrested suspects may be of both Quebec and Arab origin. I don't know whether this is sufficiently serious to require us to wait or not. And I don't know whether including such unconfirmed reports is 'encyclopaedic', but it's not what I would expect to find in Encyclopaedia Britannica. And I'm not sure what, if anything, should be done to try to fix the matter. Tlhslobus (talk) 07:44, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Put another way, the Suspects section may currently violate WP:NOTNEWS, along with its Disambiguation quality issue (see above). As I am not sure whether this should stop posting, I have temporarily removed the Ready tag from this item, to give others a little time to have a look at the matter, after which somebody else may want to restore the Ready tag. Tlhslobus (talk) 08:02, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The disambiguation issue now seems fixed, and there is now also a link to a tweet by La Presse, that they had learnt that a suspect was of Moroccan origin. Our text said 'attacker' (which I corrected to 'suspect'), possibly because the tweet says suspect in French, but is immediately followed by tweets from private individuals (not from La Presse) saying 'attacker' in English - most of our readers who bother to check this source will thus probably see the English mistranslation 'attacker' instead of the French 'suspect'. I leave it to others to decide whether this is now 'encyclopedic', and, if not, what to do about it. Tlhslobus (talk) 08:12, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The reporter in the TVA video clip basically says what's in the article text (i.e. one Arab, one Quebecois) in the first minute of the clip. Not seeing how NOTNEWS applies here. Unless you're suggesting that La Presse and TVA Nouvelles, and other sources reporting the same thing now (e.g. CBC) are unreliable, or that the identity of the perpetrators of one of Canada's worst mass shootings is unencyclopedic, I'm not sure how that would apply. There are potential BLP problems with content of this type, but here all the claims are sourced to reliable sources, are stated as being from those sources and not in Wikipedia's voice, and have their lack of official confirmation mentioned in the article.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions08:39, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, just for the record, the TVA video clip (which hasn't changed) basically says in French 'two people of Quebecois origin, ... and two people of Arab origin, ...(more talk)... to confirm our story, two people of Quebecois and Arab origin' - in other words it appears confused, but may (or may not) be saying two people of both Quebec and Arab origin - such apparent confusion and ambiguity is hardly what one would normally describe as 'reliable' (as in 'reliable source'). The La Presse tweet may be consistent with either of the two different interpretions, since it only speaks of one of the suspects being of Moroccan origin (especially if we are correctly translating 'origine' as 'background', implying possibly multiple 'ancestry' rather than unique 'birthplace'). But, as already mentioned, this is just for the record, since I said I'd leave it to others to decide what to do about all this. And if CBC is actually reporting all this more reliably, it might be a good idea to add in that report in addition to, or in place of, one or both those reports. Tlhslobus (talk) 09:17, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Again just for the record, the tweet has now been removed by somebody else as an alleged violation of WP:RS (which seems correct, at least by my reading of the relevant sections of WP:RS). Meanwhile about 40 minutes ago the Washington Post was saying nothing about the suspects, while CBC News was saying:
A witness, who asked to remain anonymous, told CBC's French-language service Radio-Canada that two masked individuals entered the mosque.
"It seemed to me that they had a Québécois accent. They started to fire, and as they shot they yelled, 'Allahu akbar!' The bullets hit people that were praying. People who were praying lost their lives. A bullet passed right over my head," said the witness.
Note that this does NOT confirm that the attackers are of Arab origin. They are masked and speaking with a Quebec accent. The fact that they shout 'Allahu Akbar' may mean that they are Quebecers who have converted to Islam, or that they are non-Muslims trying to blame their crime on Islamists, but it is NOT CBC confirmation that one of them is of Arab origin. So we are currently just left with one source for that, and it is a source which appears ambiguous, confused, and self-contradictory. Tlhslobus (talk) 10:12, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This was called a terrorist attack by Trudeau. Any reason we don't call it that? Or is it only terrorism when it's Muslims pulling the trigger? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.251.254.154 (talk) 17:02, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Incidents like this are often prematurely labeled as terrorist attacks, or may be treated like terrorist incidents as to engage special law enforcement provisions, but only until the motives of the shooters are figured out could we call it a terrorist attack. And that's not known at this stage. --MASEM (t) 18:36, 30 January 2017 (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.
Oppose A summary of the final will not suffice, there needs to be prose on the whole of the tournament. ITN/R or not, the article needs to have sufficient quality. Black Kite (talk)16:38, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose article is not really even an article, just a collection of tables. No prose, hardly something we should ever consider posting to the main page I'm afraid. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:27, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I note that this wasn't posted last time it occurred in 2015, for the same reason. And that article actually had some prose; this one doesn't. Black Kite (talk)22:27, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Article needs updating The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Comment the structure of the article seems odd compared to the previous years'; it's the same general layout but there's excess detail in places. It looks weird from that stance, and may need to be fixed to meet what other years have had. --MASEM (t) 15:11, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Probably the main thing you're noticing is the day-by-day summaries section is not split into separate article like previous years. Additionally, the prose summaries of notable events is organized differently and bigger than previous years (not neccessarily a bad thing). - Samuel Wiki (talk) 21:04, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Notable enough, but don't think the article is up to main page quality. For example the short prose update is squeezed into a list of trivia under a misleading "notable events" heading. AIRcorn(talk)06:47, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the real news here is that both winners have extended their overall records, and that Federer in particular has made sporting history here. I don't have the time (so no snarky comments to do the work needed on the article, please), but I really hope someone will be able to do the work needed here (several of the last few tennis Grand Slams have failed to get into ITN because the work is not being done on the articles). Whether or not Federer wins another Slam this year, I suspect he will retire at some point relatively soon, and that really will be the end of an era. Carcharoth (talk) 07:05, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Non-notable event. Tennis has gotten so ridiculously stagnant with the same men & women's champions over the last 15-20 years that even the media is tired of covering it. In the US, Trump's immigration orders have gotten the bulk of the media attention this weekend; this was only a footnote. Aaaaaabbbbb111 (talk) 07:19, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support significant news headlines around the world; Federer and Nadal are considered two of the best tennis players of all time, and to have a five-set rematch at their age is unusual. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)10:30, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The World Food Programme cuts food aid to over 1.4 million displaced Iraqis by 50%, citing payment delays from donor states. (Al Jazeera)
Disasters and accidents
A boat with 31 people on board, including more than 20 Chinese tourists, goes missing after sailing from the eastern Malaysian port of Kota Kinabalu to visit the island of Pulau Mengalum. (AP)
Iran says it will take reciprocal action after U.S. President Donald Trump signed the executive order which limits immigration from seven Muslim-majority countries, including Iran. (CNN)
U.S. District Judge Ann Donnelly in New York grants a stay of the executive order that allows people with valid visas who landed in the U.S. to temporarily remain in the country. (Reuters)(CNBC)(AP)
An Italian court orders former Prime MinisterSilvio Berlusconi to stand trial on April 4 on charges of allegedly bribing witnesses with €10 million (US$11 million) in order to silence them over accusations he paid for sex with young women. (Reuters)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Per two RFC discussions, the existence of an article is a high enough threshold for RD. Please assess article quality only. --Jayron3213:54, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That was a question I had on this too. He's notable but his death has not really be noted (LA Pride being the only major source I could find, and that's far too narrow for "news"). It is an interesting issue, but I would be tempted that the intent of the RFC is that as long as the notable standalone article is there, and the death is in an RS even if not "news", that RD would fit the intent that we have from that RFC. If we had to use a forum post, for example, or a standard newspaper short obit, that would be different. --MASEM (t) 19:18, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your thoughts. I've added this obituary. I think we could WP:IGNOREALLRULES in this case and then try to reach consensus to change ITN rules. As a member of WikiProject LGBT Studies, I am struck by the way our current rules seem to reinforce the heteronormativity, if not the homophobia, of the mainstream press. A similar argument could be made about RDs from Zambia or Paraguay--unlikely to be on the front page of The Wall Street Journal, but as long as they have good articles, they should appear on the main page IMO. It seems amoral to reinforce the discriminatory and exclusionary biases of the Western press via ITN rules.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:01, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support One of the films is not sourced, but I hope that should be trivial to fix, but otherwise the "lack of being in the news" discussed above is resolved with the LATimes obit. --MASEM (t) 22:37, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of references needed and this is good to go, now that it is 'In the News'. And please, this has nothing whatsoever to do with homophobia, so it's extremely disappointing to see that card played. We had another recent example of Mark Fisher, who had an article but no-one reported his death until several days later. Stephen22:46, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You said "our current [ITN] rules seem to reinforce the heteronormativity, if not the homophobia, of the mainstream press." Reinforcing rules is an active behaviour. Stephen23:04, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now for the same reason as Bland at this point. The two sources alluded to are local LA media. If this is in the news it should be covered more broadly than by those who knew the man. μηδείς (talk) 23:47, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Notable news as one sovereign entity (Vatican) takes de facto control of another (the Order). The Sovereign Military Order of Malta retains sovereignty under international law, including United Nations permanent observer status, issuing its own passports, currency and postage stamps with the Maltese cross insignia. There are even speculations that the takeover will end the history of the almost 1000-year-old Military Order. Bruzaholm (talk) 11:47, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now mainly on article quality. Referencing is very poor with whole sections lacking a citation. Beyond which I am concerned by the wording in the blurb. As a matter of private opinion, I entirely agree that one sovereign country has effectively overthrown the government of another. However neither side in this dispute is characterizing things in that language and the wording of the relevant section does not support it. All of which said this is beyond unusual, to the point of virtually unknown in modern political history. When was the last time a Pope deposed another head of state? This is definitely ITN material, but it needs work and unless the section is rewritten with solid sourcing, the blurb will need to be changed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:20, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support in principle, conditional on article quality. NOT just of interest to history buffs, but potentially of interest to over a billion Catholics (and quite a few non-Catholics) worldwide in terms of what it says about the unusual measures the present Pope is prepared to take in dealing with various kinds of internal problems in the Church. It is arguably ultimately also about the Church and contraception (and thus global population and the global environment and poverty and sex and health and Women's Rights, etc), since the Pope was opposing the dismissal of the Chancellor of the order by its Grand Master "for allowing the distribution of condoms in a medical project for the poor".Tlhslobus (talk) 18:11, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's bigger than that. This is the latest battle in the Catholic Church's ongoing civil war between progressives aligned with Pope Francis and conservatives. Among the latter Cardinal Burk has been seen as a leader even before his de-facto banishment from the Vatican, where he was one of the most powerful figures in the Church, to the relatively obscure and ceremonial post of Chaplain to the KoM. There is a lot going on here that people who don't pay close attention to what's going on in the Catholic Church aren't seeing. It is one of the biggest power struggles in centuries with the future course of the RCC being the stakes. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:20, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support As a sovereign entity, leadership changes are on par with leadership changes in sovereign states, which generally make ITN. --Varavour (talk) 21:26, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Methinks that should perhaps read either "Es homo summae fidei" or "Es homo fidelissimus", and I can't even remember whether "Ita vero" is correct or not. Sigh! It looks like I wasted 6 years of my life studying a dead language to no other purpose than to make me unable to resist the temptation to be absurdly pedantic over 40 years later :( Tlhslobus (talk) 06:56, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The section about the Festing's resignation is now reasonable referenced (some 30 notes). As to the background is concerned, I think alt-blurb 2 gives a fair picture - this is basically a conflict between the "liberals" (Pope Francis and Boeselage) and the "conservatives" (Cardinal Burke and Festing). "Modernists" vs. "traditionalists" may be preferable concepts as the term "liberal" might be rather misleading as to the policy of Pope Francis. --Bruzaholm (talk) 23:58, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd not use the term "modernist" which is a pejorative among Catholics, given that modernism is a condemned heresy since at least the reign of Pius X. We don't want to be calling the Pope a heretic. Well, at least not in wiki-voice. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:26, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think condoms (or contraceptives) may be both more meaningful and more interesting to the average reader (as well as avoiding any dispute over what the sides should be called) - 'liberals v conservatives' can probably be used to describe almost all disputes within the Church (eg child sex abuse, whom to canonize, women priests, attitudes to gays, stem cell research, euthanasia, abortion, etc) and is thus not very informative. Although the dispute inevitably grew to embrace other issues such as the extent of papal authority, etc, it was triggered by a row over condoms. Tlhslobus (talk) 06:42, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Article quality is not what's required and the story is fast fading from public consciousness outside of certain circles. It's already footnote material. And I don't think any of the blurbs catch the essence. Agree that "liberal" is a poor word choice. Francis defeats a challenge to his leadership from forces of the old guard. (I jest.) Better: Pope takes control of Order of Malta, defeating those who ignored his advice to avoid publicity and drama. Sad! Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 00:20, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
B-list connected upperclass sinecure holder with a long-standing interest in the cultivation of wine? I'd like to see that this is in the news outside the industry where he worked. μηδείς (talk) 00:41, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see plenty of coverage of him when he was part of BT in other sources (like NYTimes), pre-death. There probably does need to be much more added about his business acumen here, but certainly that exists. --MASEM (t) 02:01, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Thanks"? Hehe, you so crazeh. Whenever a cameraman at a local news station dies, they have a 30-second segment on him at the end of the broadcast because he's part of the industry. That doesn't make his passing "in the news". Likewise, listing four London media outlets that cover Bland's death does not make the media man's death News. μηδείς (talk) 18:57, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. contingent on improving the sources. The grounds for qualification is quality of article providing that the subject of the article is verifiable enough to justify an article. That qualification has been met. Capitalistroadster (talk) 04:23, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in mind with the size of WP, we can have bio articles on non-notable people that can last even up to the point of RD, and for ITN purposes, questioning that notability like Medeis offered is completely fair game. So key is that the notability for the standalone article is clear, not just the existance of one. --MASEM (t) 04:30, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As a former chairman of the BBC, he seems notable enough to me. He also was the chairman of London Weekend Television, British Telecommunications and the Royal Shakespeare Company. Capitalistroadster (talk) 22:16, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Nominator's comments: The article is being continuously updated with many fairly important news stories (the sources given above are related to vetting for terrorism, but many others could have been added related to many other topics) , but there seems little prospect of consensus for posting these stories individually, judging by the fate of the TPP nom (where Jehochman suggested Ongoing might be useful, and I agreed, but said I'd wait - I've now waited). I leave it to others to suggest what quality improvements might be needed, if any. Trump's 1st 100 days was originally suggested as the shortest wording to add to Ongoing (due to what the article is actually called), but Trump's 1st days or Trump's 1st days in office now seems much better for the wording in Ongoing (we can remove it from Ongoing long before the artificial 100 days are up if it stops dominating the news). It seems unnecessarily rather damaging to Wikipedia's credibility among its readers that our In The News section is managing to systematically ignore any mention of the current main Ongoing news story in most quality news sources (with the lone exception of the anti-Trump Woman's March story, which thus also makes us appear thoroughly WP:POV in our choice of stories, in violation of one of the 5 pillars of Wikipedia (even though I supported that posting and worked quite hard on its articles) - by contrast this suggested Ongoing item, covering all Trump's actions for better or worse, seems thoroughly WP:NPOV and consistent with our 5 Pillars). Tlhslobus (talk) 05:34, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
First 100 is just the name of the relevant article (and First 100 has conventionally been seen as important for every new president for a very long time). But we don't have to keep it in Ongoing for 100 days if we don't want to - if accepted, anybody can later nominate it for removal at any stage for whatever reasons seem sufficient to them. And I have no problem with the short name shown in Ongoing being changed to Trump's 1st days or Trump's 1st days in office if people prefer that. Tlhslobus (talk) 05:57, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Absolutely not. The emphasis on this first 100 days is still the lingering problem with the media reacting to Trump, and featuring it in ongoing is problematic. If there are any actions he takes that have a significant and immediate impact, that single story could be nominated. --MASEM (t) 06:05, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - whether or not you agree with them, Trump's actions are unarguably having a serious and worldwide impact. Furthermore, they're all over the news. This is what this template is supposed to be about. Ed[talk][majestic titan]06:25, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There's "news" and then there's what the media is doing in covering Trump, which is over-sensationalist because the bulk of the media (which lean left) still are acting like sore losers from the election. There are some things Trump is doing that are making stirs in the international community (eg the Mexican president cancelling his visit after Trump signed the immigration-related executive orders), but the media's pulling at any thread they can here. And at WP and particularly at ITN, we have to avoid that rhetoric. --MASEM (t) 14:08, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Journalists may "lean left", but media doesn't. Media leans corporate and click bait, not left. "Sore losers", huh. I rather think banning refugees and Muslims is unconstitutional. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:48, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. 1) He has not been president for 100 days yet. 2) "First 100 days" is not news in itself. 3) We've already posted two items relating to him becoming president. --Tataral (talk) 06:32, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I agree with Jayron, a bit ambitious. The "first 100 days" is a media creation to give its current reporting on Trump an integrity and gravitas that it would otherwise lack. But we all know that "first 100 days" is an assessment that should responsibly occur after the events of the "first 100 days," not during. At least, that's the perspective that a credible encyclopedia should operate from. The nominator's proposal was obviously made in good faith, but the target article's updates will become too unwieldy and unmanageable over time. Also, there will be continuous debate and controversy among Wikipedia editors over what items should and should not be listed in the first 100 days. Not to mention that Trump's own advisors and strategists (Kellyanne Conway et. al.) continue to provide the public with "alternative facts" that the mainstream media is not considering in its own reporting. Christian Roess (talk) 06:32, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
On that basis we would never have any article in Ongoing, since we couldn't assess it properly until after it was no longer Ongoing.Tlhslobus (talk) 07:18, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Although he's been making some "yuge" waves with policy changes and such, I don't see a need to highlight coverage of his administration. Yes, it's inherently newsworthy but nothing has happened as of yet that would be worth posting as a blurb by itself (the only one close would be withdrawal from TPP but even that is contentious ITN-wise). He's angered people, made several executive orders, and set up plans to make more changes as would be expected from a controversial new president. I wouldn't even say this is an article worth postponing posting. This would be a case of either we post it or we don't. The first 100 days is "ongoing", but the concept of it is meant to be covered after the fact by which point it will be likely be far too vast to effectively cover in a blurb (but now I'm going into crystal ball territory) .I'm rather tired at the moment and not sure if I'm being clear enough, but hopefully I am. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 06:45, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly agree with you that there will be no point in posting this in ITN after 100 days, and I have not suggested anything of the kind. Meanwhile what he is doing seems far more newsworthy (judging by coverage in reliable sources) than what we currently have in Ongoing (the battle for Mosul), so our readers may find it strange that we have no mention of it. They may also find it rather POV that, apart from his election, we have not seen fit to say anything about all the many Trump news stories except post the anti-trump Women's March story. Obviously we should not post the proposed article unless it currently meets our quality standards, and if and when the article deteriorates below our quality standards it can then be removed, but it seems to make little sense to fail to post it now because its quality might eventually drop - on that basis no article could ever be posted to Ongoing.Tlhslobus (talk) 07:02, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose while it's amusing to see this trainwreck gathering pace, there's no such thing as "Trump's 1st 100 days" or similar. This is synthesis and contrived. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:49, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support this makes news around the world. Bias is overstated: "when the US sneezes, the world catches a cold". It's sensible to feature something that will have major impact on the US's health. Banedon (talk) 09:24, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Every tweet Trump sends makes the news. Should we have a permanent "Presidency of Donald Trump" link on Ongoing for the next four years? 331dot (talk) 09:29, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support regardless if you like the man, or if you are from the US, he has proven to do quite a lot of things in a very short amount of time that no other person in recent memory has. The amount of impactful events is larger than say the Syrian civil war at its peak or the Olympics. This is the definition of ongoing, regardless of your political preferences. And this can be taken down once his executive orders slow down. Nergaal (talk) 09:45, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Liking Trump or not liking him is not the issue. Ongoing is not an American politics ticker.(I say that as an American) It is very standard for a new President to start implementing their agenda- since that's what they were sent there to do. Donald Trump has pledged to 'drain the swamp' so everything he does will get news coverage. '100 days' is an artificial and arbitrary measure(created by FDR if I'm not mistaken). Unless we are prepared to have a permanent link for Trump on Ongoing, we shouldn't put it now. 331dot (talk) 09:52, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Dude I've already said this should stay until his stuff slows down. If he manages to do this for 100 days keep it up, if not take it down. The stuff he is doing now is more relevant than the protests we posted. Nergaal (talk) 12:38, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@The Rambling Man:, actually I've already said in the TPP discussion that I think we should probably also have Brexit in Ongoing, but it currently seems much less important than the Trump issue (admittedly not helped by the unfortunate '100 days' bit). But that would properly be discussed in a separate Brexit nom (which I doubt if I will bother to attempt unless and until the current far more important nom (or a possible renom as Trump's 1st days in office, see my comment below) succeeds, which currently seems pretty unlikely). Tlhslobus (talk) 16:58, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support as "first days". Here's how the NYT puts it, " If other new occupants of the White House wanted to be judged by their first 100 days in office, President Trump seems intent to be judged by his first 100 hours. No president in modern times, if ever, has started with such a flurry of initiatives on so many fronts in such short order." The BBC has Trump's first week: Well, that was intense, "The BBC website has published more than 200 stories and videos about or relating to President Trump since inauguration day. It's been a busy week." Andrew D. (talk) 10:22, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support coverage of ongoing disaster. Topic is constantly in the worldwide news for outrageous executive actions that defy legal and social norms. JehochmanTalk12:44, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Per Jay and those voicing similar views. It's an artificial construct. Future DT acts may be notable individually. Suggest close. Sca (talk) 14:23, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To answer the above, the opposes smell of whitewashing. Feh, this sort of argument is meaningless. There are two bases to evaluate: (1) Is it in the news? Answer: very, very much, all around the world. (2) Is the article good enough quality? Nobody has asserted that it isn't. JehochmanTalk14:36, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just being "in the news" is not sufficient, as we do consider the type of news too. Worldwide media commonly post stories that gain a lot of coverage but that we do not consider for a number of reasons. Repeatedly we have to remind editors that ITN is not a news ticker. --MASEM (t) 15:47, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose mostly per Tataral. There are significant news on individual stories relating Donald Trump's presidency but definitely not such thing like 'first 100 days' (albeit significant from a historical perspective to merit a Wikipedia article). Hence, we should judge the newsworthiness of individual stories on their own merits instead of an umbrella term compiling information that will have to come in from the future.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:01, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Would reflect the substantial (and probably unique) worldwide media coverage given to the early days of his presidency. There are obviously a large number of people seeking detailed information on the Trump presidency, but "First 100 days of Donald Trump's presidency" is probably not an immediately intuitive article title or search term (unlike, e.g., Inauguration of Donald Trump). Having a link from the main page would allow our readers to directly navigate to that article, rather than having to stumble on a link to it elsewhere. IgnorantArmies(talk)15:41, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is seriously not that hard to search "donald trump" and within one link get to his presidency and aspects to that. ITN should not be a page to help with shortcuts. --MASEM (t) 15:47, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Navigational assistance is ITN's primary purpose: "The In the news (ITN) section on the main page serves to direct readers to articles that have been substantially updated to reflect recent or current events of wide interest." Andrew D. (talk) 17:29, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Directing readers to featured content is not navigation assistance. If anything, Portal:Current Events is the closest thing to navigational assistance on the front page and even then that is still curated. --MASEM (t) 19:54, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Because so much of the opposition has understandably focused on the problems with 100 days, I am now considering closing this nom and reopening it as Trump's 1st days in office, which could be shortened to Trump's 1st days for its short name in Ongoing. If nothing else, I still think we are doing quite a lot of unnecessary damage to Wikipedia's credibility by omitting any mention of the main Ongoing news story in most quality news sources (as well as appearing thoroughly POV by having only included the anti-Trump Women's March in ITN). However, given that we would presumably still be stuck with '100 days' in the target article's title, such a renomination may prove to be a waste of time, so I think I would probably prefer to have one or two indications of support here for such a renomination before attempting it. Tlhslobus (talk) 16:43, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The first 100 days of any (not just Trump) political leader's term is an artificial construct. If there are individual developments of Trump's presidency that are notable - then they should be nominated. However, In the News is not an American news ticker, and it's silly to suggest that the day-to-day actions of the American executive branch are worthy of an ongoing item. Gfcvoice (talk) 16:53, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you that the '100 days' bit is an artificial construct with which we unfortunately seem stuck (at least in the target article's title, though it doesn't have to be mentioned in the short wording in Ongoing). But I don't agree that 'it's silly to suggest that the day-to-day actions of the American executive branch are worthy of an ongoing item" when those items are dominating most reliable news sources to the extent that they currently are. On the contrary, I think it rather 'silly' (or at least unnecessarily rather damaging to Wikipedia's credibility among its readers) that our In The News section is managing to systematically ignore any mention of the current main Ongoing news story in most quality news sources (with the lone exception of the anti-Trump Woman's March story, which thus also makes us appear thoroughly POV in our choice of stories, in violation of one of the 5 pillars of Wikipedia - by contrast the suggested Ongoing item, covering all Trump's actions for better or worse, seems thoroughly NPOV and consistent with our 5 Pillars).Tlhslobus (talk) 17:07, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also 3 to 5 unchanging words is Ongoing is NOT a "news ticker". And it would potentially save us plenty of unnecessary arguments over which individual items were or were not worth posting. Those 2 arguments are presumably partly why we have Ongoing in the first place.Tlhslobus (talk) 17:53, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ongoing the first 100 days seems like a little too much for me, but there is newsworthy stuff happening. Maybe a blurb about the refugee/Muslim ban and/or Mexican Wall would pass muster. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:49, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comment, Muboshgu. I've now withdrawn '100 days' from the suggested wording for Ongoing ('100 days' were only ever there because that's what the relevant article is called, a name with which we are probably unfortunately stuck). The trouble with Muslim ban/ Mexican Wall items is that they are potentially an endless source of POV disputes which Ongoing is presumably partly intended to prevent, and meanwhile we are unnecessarily damaging Wikipedia's credibility by omitting any mention of the Ongoing story which is currently dominating most quality news sources.Tlhslobus (talk) 18:09, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (and remaining with opposition to posting this item) I am confused about the name change of this nomination from "Trump's 1st 100 days" to "Trump's 1st days in office". I doubt anyone's opinion on the nomination would change given the minor change. Also, does this invalidate any comment from editors (both in support and in opposition) made before the name change of the nomination? For what it's worth, I still oppose the posting of this item. If the nominator wants to move away from the concept of "100 days", then why is this still the target article of the nomination? There are perfectly good alternative articles at Timeline of the presidency of Donald Trump and Presidency of Donald Trump. Gfcvoice (talk) 17:58, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your very useful comment, Gfcvoice. I'd be absolutely delighted to change the target article to either of the two you suggest. Which would you prefer, and do you think this should be done in this nom, or as a new nom (if as a new nom, I'd be happy to let you make the nom yourself, and take the credit, but I think you may also be still opposed to these noms)? Tlhslobus (talk) 18:09, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A GF nom., but there will be so many DT-related events drawing coverage that a shotgun approach, time-limited or not, seems impractical. Individual articles, or perhaps multiple related articles, would be more workable as targets. Leave the big picture to wonkdom. Sca (talk) 18:39, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The clothing retailer Wet Seal announces the closing of all 148 of its brick-and-mortar stores after filing for bankruptcy in 2015. The news comes on the heels of recent announcements of the closings of other major clothing chains, such as The Limited. (WHIO-TV)
Israeli authorities approve 153 construction permits for settlement homes in East Jerusalem, and plan to approve another 11,000 in the coming months. (Al Jazeera)
Protests take place in Cameroon following the arrest of several opposition leaders and internet services being cut off in the nation's English-speaking areas. (Al Jazeera)
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: Executive order with severe repercussions to tens of thousands of people (if not more), and reactions from world leaders. The article has decent length and sourcing. HaEr48 (talk) 22:33, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is why an ongoing section might make sense, since there will be lots of news like this. Not that I would come here for such news myself. μηδείς (talk) 00:35, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I do note that there is foreign commentary on this issue, but it is crystal-balling at this stage to state there are implications to post this. --MASEM (t) 01:54, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
On day one, sources already reported hundreds of people being stranded and/or detained. It's certainly not "crystal-balling" to state that there are implications. HaEr48 (talk) 02:38, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Masem: Reading from the content (not just title) of that link, it seems the court decision only affect those currently detained, not exactly nullifying the executive order. HaEr48 (talk) 02:38, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support with updated blurb to reflect ongoing protests at U.S. airports. Article is developing nicely and should be presentable soon. SounderBruce03:02, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The article has been renamed to Executive Order 13769, but IMO the cited references are not satisfactory - websites like that might well have gotten the number from Wikipedia. Suggest renaming the article to its former, longer title before posting, unless someone added a better source for the number "13769". HaEr48 (talk) 03:43, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Major international kerfuffle, will play out in the courts. The blurb might want to be updated to reflect that a judge stayed parts of the executive order. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:13, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Posted alt2. I took out "of the United States" for conciseness (since the country is already mentioned elsewhere in the blurb), and I added a link to Darweesh v. Trump - the article seems to be in good shape. -- King of♥♦♣ ♠ 04:47, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
All 3 blurbs have missed a key detail. While they have the who, what, where, and when explained, they all missed including "why," which is next in importance to the "what." The protests and legal challenge, naturally expected, are least relevant, IMO. --Light show (talk) 04:55, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Post-Posting Comment Taking this posting along with our earlier posting of the Anti-Trump Women's march (incidentally a posting which I supported, and an article and subsidiary article on which I did quite a bit of work), it currently rather looks like we're usually going to post Trump-related matters where there are anti-Trump protests, and ignore them when there aren't, which will end up making us seem thoroughly POV in our choice of stories, seemingly contrary at least to the spirit of one of the 5 pillars of Wikipedia. But I had to withdraw my first attempt partly intended to prevent this by suggesting adding Trump's 1st Days in Office to Ongoing (partly because I made the mistake of targeting the article about his 1st 100 days), and I don't have the heart to try again with one of two better target articles (Timeline of the presidency of Donald Trump and Presidency of Donald Trump). But I just thought I'd briefly mention it here, just in case somebody else might want to have a go, perhaps when the current story falls off ITN a few days from now. Tlhslobus (talk) 05:44, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting support. I agree that this topic should be included on our front page. Commentators have described this as a "Constitutional Crisis", and there is no doubt that this order (if enforced) has "global consequences." I know the blurb is already long, but I support saying more about the temporary restraining order. Perhaps we can say something like this: Donald Trump signs an executive order prohibiting the citizens of seven Muslim-majority countries from entering the US; a federal judge blocks portions of the order, finding a "strong likelihood" of constitutional violations. A copy of the judge's order is posted in this article from Mother Jones. I'm sure there are more articulate blurbs than the one I suggested, but the very least, we should provide more information about the restraining order. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 06:03, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting support He wasn't going to be on the main page until there were "protests" about his inauguration. At this rate I have a feeling Trump will be on the main page often considering how much uproar he will be causing.ShadowDragon343 (talk) 07:02, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting support There is huge international interest in this - it is leading the global news and, with the chaos and protests, is likely to remain in the headlines. It is not POV to regard large protests as contributing to the notability of an event. Neljack (talk) 07:59, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
1) Where in the ITN guidelines does point to a time minimum at ITNC? I've read the guidelines and haven't seen one? 2) See the replies to Masem above; it's not "out of date" at all. Ed[talk][majestic titan]09:23, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, minimum time limits have been discussed on numerous occasions to no avail. It's just ironic that it's that Trump obsession again. Despite the fact the blurb is too long and now incorrect, it's interesting that it was posted so quickly even though this is really one of those stories which could have used some outside (i.e. out of the US-universe) perspective. Never mind, the damage is done, we've started down a long and tedious path of posting anything controversial that Trump does, and that seems to be likely to last for, ooh, four years. We should rename the section "In Trump's News", it would still be able to use all the ITN redirects, so that's one positive thing. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:39, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How is the blurb now incorrect? As I understand it, the judge's order is a temporary restraining order prohibiting the US from deporting ~100 people who were caught in transit when the order was signed, until further proceedings can take place. Trump's prohibition on further travelers from those countries remains in place (thus far). Dragons flight (talk) 09:58, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In so far as it doesn't tell the whole story, i.e. that a court has already suspended the ban on those stuck in airports. Trump's first legal defeat. Arguably as or more notable than the swath of pointy executive orders. Anyway, you may continue this debate at ERRORS where it's been reported for some time! The Rambling Man (talk) 10:09, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Re: posting Trump related news every time he does something controversial or outrageous. It's not going to work for us over here at ITN. I agree with Floquenbeam and The Rambling Man, among others: When will it end? Because if we go down this road, it will never end. Trump is always going to make front page news around the world. Trump is, and always will be, "in the news"? So no news there. What is news to many in the US and around the world is the rapid and unstoppable decline of the United States. Can't hide that fact in plain sight anymore when you have someone like Trump, who is the ongoing and visible sign of a country in rapid decline. That's the real and "ongoing" story, here. That's the real headline, and it has been for some time. Only now is the mainstream media catching up to that fact. Like I said, it's kinda hard to ignore when you have someone like Trump, who is a daily and visible (often outrageous) reminder of a country and society in steep, even precipitous, decline. Christian Roess (talk)
@Christian Roess:, does this mean you would now be in favour of a Donald Trump article in Ongoing, and, if so, which one, and starting when (such as now, or when the current item falls out of ITN)? Also would you be prepared to nominate it? (I'm almost certain I won't be nominating again, but I'd almost certainly support, even though it may just prove a waste of time and effort). Tlhslobus (talk) 17:55, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The updated blurb is a bit misleading. The rulings only prevent people who were in transit from being deported. They don't, as far as I can tell, actually lift the restrictions on crossing the border. Smurrayinchester12:43, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Boston Globe says "Judge Allison Burroughs and Magistrate Judge Judith Dein imposed a seven-day restraining order against Trump’s executive order, clearing the way for lawful immigrants from the seven barred nations – Iran, Iraq, Yemen, Somalia, Sudan, Libya and Syria – to enter the US... The ruling prohibits federal officials from detaining or deporting immigrants and refugees with valid visas or green cards or forcing them to undergo extra security screenings based solely on Trump’s order. The judges also instructed Customs and Border Protection to notify airlines overseas that it is safe to put immigrants on US-bound flights." which sounds like it's business as usual now for a week. So I'd say the wording is spot on. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:49, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Complaints about this being posted too quickly or out of step with ITN guidelines seem off base. There were 9 supports and 1 oppose at the time of the posting. The "stay" is only for a small slice of folks who happened to be traveling at the time of the executive order, so the EO still significantly affects folks for the next 3-4 months. A move like this in the US is unprecedented in the modern era, so this is not a case of a Trump story "every time" making it to the front page. If one really looks at the history of Trump-related stories in the ITN box, it syncs with what large mainstream media outlets of all languages are publishing on their front pages. Also, the lament about the one line blurb not exhaustively detailing all the particulars of the story is odd. We don't demand that of other stories, so it should not be a criticism for this one. -- Fuzheado | Talk14:06, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
One way or another there's a real determination to get anything Trump into ITN, it's obvious that closing the previous nomination and then opening a new one as the US opens for business was going to result in a landslide "US US US" vote. This is the beginning of "In Trump's News" as we know it. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:43, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As I have said before several times and alluded to by TRM here, stories that have principally regional importance need vetting by editors from all parts of the English world for ITNC posting if they otherwise don't fall into RD or ITNR. This ITNC was started very late and was posted in the early morning local times before any European editors would reasonably have a chance to comment. So the consensus to post is likely from only considering NA editors. Second, the story was rapidly changing over time (with multiple block orders in place); we routinely wait on things like natural or man-made disasters to make sure the core details are set before posting blurbs, generally only having to update them to increase counts. This should have been done here so that, presuming consensus to post with more time given to discussions, we would not have to be changing the blurb as the story developed. Key to keep in mind is that ITN is not a news ticker, nor WP a newspaper - we are not required to be up to date, and we prefer being "late" for a better quality result than rush something of poor quality to the front page, even if it is just a blurb statement in question. We can cover current events but we should be writing them from an encyclopedic point of view: if in this case that the challenges shut down any attempt for Trump to carry out this immigration ban, this becomes a footnote and far less importance in the long run. A lot of what we have in our articles are better suited for Wikinews which was set up to allow editors to cover breaking news, whereas we have to take the longer view. That particularly applies to ITN, and hence why we avoid knee-jerk reaction stories like this.
But the large elephant in the room is that the media hates Trump, and Trump hates the media. We are going to have a systematic bias around any major presidential actions Trump takes in the next four years because the media, broadly, do not like that he won the election. Every action he does will be under a microscope, even compared to a usual President, and there is a lot of sensational reporting going on that does not make for good encyclopedic material. Add to that that there are editors on WP that are also not shy about their own contempt for Trump. Most do keep those opinions in check and maintain proper NPOV, but there still remains a good number of editors that also share the media's concerns for Trump and let that judge their writing style which does cause NPOV/NOR/BLP problems aplenty. There's also the same by those that support Trump, albeit in smaller numbers. In either case, we have to be aware that those views can also influence ITN and in this situation anything relating to Trump. ITN needs to ask "if any other President/World Leader did this action, would the press have covered if this much?" If the answer is no, then that's just the media is just focusing on the action because it's Trump, and we should be very cautious about posting it. --MASEM (t) 14:50, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't propose or vote on the other Trump blurbs, but for this one my reason for proposing is not Trump but the impact on people from those countries. A lot of people from those countries live in the United States with green card, student visa or whatnot, and the fact that the order closed the border on them is in my opinion a huge deal, regardless of who's president. The sources said that 100+ people were detained and hundreds were stopped from boarding just in one day, imagine what the impact would be for the full 90 days. Then we have international reactions, protests, and legal challenges (all covered by RS and the article). In fact I would say "Donald Trump" is the least interesting part of the blurb, and I don't think I'd mind if we could find a way to shorten the blurb to exclude him. Now there are court decisions which suspends parts of the order, and that is interesting, but we need to see how the situation develops and impact the blurb-worthyness of this event. HaEr48 (talk) 16:16, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The two main points of opposition are (1) Trump keeps making the headlines, so (implicit) every time he makes the headlines is no longer "real" news, and (2) Trump stories are US-centric. To the first, a major point of foreign policy, instantly overturning previous policy decisions (rather than a grandfathered introduction, which is the usual way of introducing major policy changes, is not on the same vernier range as variations on the pussy-gate theme. To the second, Trump's actions affect a significant number of UK citizens, since dual citizenships are affected, and 12.7% of the UK population (2011 census) were born outside the UK, roughly 350,000 of them from the listed countries. For context, this means that approximately 0.5% of the total UK population are now unable to enter the U.S. on the specific basis of this executive order. (The UK has allowed dual citizenships since 1949, so it always exists de facto with new immigrants unless explicitly renounced or immigrating from a country where dual citizenship is not allowed.) Clearly the directive catches quite a few people travelling from other countries, but I focus on the UK, since we are on English-language Wikipedia, the main complaint involved Europe, and the UK is the only English-speaking union in Europe. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 18:42, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there are plenty of Trump stories ready to take over "In Trump's News" section of Wikipedia. He'll keep on making these outlandish orders, and people will continue to protest about it. Does that mean ITN needs to become "In Trump's News"? No. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:47, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We should judge them on case-by-case basis and how widespread the impact is. This one I think warrants ITN, regardless of whether it's related to Trump or not. HaEr48 (talk) 18:52, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Consider that the obvious corollary of your statement, Rambling Man, is that because so many things Trump make the mass news, nothing Trump should ever make ITN ... no matter how extreme the effect. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 19:04, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: A highly regarded physicist and public servant called the "Godfather of Energy Efficiency". Unfortunately, his article is barely more than a stub at the moment. I am going to try to find some time to work on it myself later today. Dragons flight (talk) 08:58, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. So we've more than doubled the length of the page and it is looking a lot better. I need to take a break for a while, but will come back to add more later. I think we will have it in a good state for posting before too long. Dragons flight (talk) 10:43, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Article is in good shape. It's not every day that a highly-respected energy physicist did more than just talk about global warming, and saved us a $billion while doing it. --Light show (talk) 23:04, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm probably a little too close to the issue to judge fairly which name is more common, but I don't think either is a terrible choice. Probably just use Arthur unless the article gets renamed. Dragons flight (talk) 15:08, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it wasn't a criticism, just a note that we normally post the items by their article name (excluding dab caveats, of course). If there's good grounds for Arthur H. to become Art, I'm all for moving the article. Or at least, all for someone else moving the article! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:30, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Clicking on Art and ending up on an Arthur article comes across as an error. For the time being, unless the article name is changed, I (boldly) changed the article name for the RD to match. --Light show (talk) 20:23, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Weak opposeSupport - until a few things get more attention so that article is at a minimum quality standard. Ie., the section "Early life" needs a citation(s), and the list of her books under the "Works" section needs a citation(s), or at least ISBN's. But I do have a question about the "References" section: why is it included here? I ask because none of the "references" listed is used or cited in the article itself. I'm guessing this section needs to be renamed "Secondary literature." But then the question remains: why are these works listed and not others? Why are these particular "secondary" sources considered authoritative, and not others? - Christian Roess (talk) 05:40, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I glanced at this before but hadn't commented but saw sourcing issues. But at this point the sourcing is now fixed and looks ready to go (Only oddity, not critical, is that in the list of articles he wrote, only one has an article title, the rest just give the publication. If the articles are untitled, that's okay, but those titles should be provided). --MASEM (t) 14:14, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Support: Notable, but most importantly article is properly sources (but I will take care of sourcing for needed areas) and article is being updated to reflect his recent death. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 02:59, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There are gaps in the filmography - fortunately most is sourced to TCM, but there's still a lot of appearances w/o sources and I did catch a few cn's in the body. --MASEM (t) 03:09, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Article is in very good shape. It's a sad irony that the more an actor has done, the less likely they make it ITN. All the blue-linked films are good enough, and the few unlinked films or tv roles are unimportant and can be ignored. Had he only been in a few major films and tv shows, instead of 200-plus, the article would be near perfect, IMO, with its 64 cites. --Light show (talk) 06:26, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Donald Trump calls for a 20% tariff on Mexican imports to pay for the cost of a wall on the U.S–Mexican border. White House Press SecretarySean Spicer says that this is one of the ideas that the administration is considering to make Mexico pay for the wall. (NBC News)
Nominator's comments: North India is suffering from intense cold and snowfall early month of Janaury which has resulted in avalanches in Kashmir Junosoon (talk) 05:38, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support we posted the European cold spell which killed scores, but this, in India, is somewhat different. The article needs a little bit of polishing, those sources are terribly formatted, some unreferenced claims, but the notability of the news item is without question. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:32, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support international coverage is quite limited and the article is pretty bad too. But it's something, and judging from the list of references in the article, has dominated regional news. Banedon (talk) 10:07, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Metallic hydrogen is predicted to be metastable at atmospheric pressure (e.g. compare this to diamond; under normal pressure graphite is the stable form, but diamond at ordinary pressures takes an astronomically long time to change into graphite) It may also be a superconductor at room temperature. Count Iblis (talk) 23:19, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose They key is the metastable nature- right now the sample they made is sitting between two diamonds to keep the high pressure on it; if they release that pressure and the material remains solid, that's the breakthrough. It doesn't seem to have really been a question of making metallic hydrogen, but how stable they could make it to observe it long enough to validate that it is metallic hydrogen. I do note that the article could probably explain more about this paper's result since it doesn't catch this subtly (that's its not yet proven metastable). --MASEM (t) 23:36, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning support. Really tough one this. I can't find any fault in anything either Masem or Banedon say. For balance the very same article Banedon quotes goes on to state "But the prospect of this bright future could be at risk if the scientists’ next step – to establish whether the metal is stable at normal pressures and temperatures – fails to go as hoped.." But what leans me towards supporting is on the grounds that this is a long sought-after scientific feat in its own right, and that this would be true even if it's ultimately found that the material's practical potential is non-existent or not as hoped-for. Scientists had been looking to demonstrate metallic hydrogen for a good 80 years or so. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 05:13, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe, and metallic form has only been theorized. This is highly relevant for example to the core of Jupiter and other gas giants, and may be relevant to star cores also. Nergaal (talk) 11:16, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support altblurb on the merits as a notable discovery in chemistry/physics; Masem is correct that the article could do a better job of explaining this. 331dot (talk) 11:18, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Strictly speaking, the experiment with deuterium last year actually did this first (as it is an isotope of hydrogen), but the common parlance of these things and the trouble in conveying this distinction in a blurb, and the impact of this finding on normal hydrogen, as opposed to rarely-occurring deuterium, makes me want to overlook that very slight inaccuracy.128.214.53.104 (talk) 11:35, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is a good science story and I see a strong support here. I will wait until the cn tags are fixed, then ready to post. --Tone12:05, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have a conflict of interest here, so won't !vote, but I will say that it's very odd to name the authors' institution in the blurb. That's not really information that a general Wikipedia reader needs to know, and the space could be better used to highlight other good articles. I've added an alt2 blurb. Modest Geniustalk13:05, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To not name the institution is sweeping the contributions of the real researchers/scientists under the rug. We have tons of acknowledgements for success for sports, politics, entertainment, etc. but this aversion to including the institution, at minimum, for a major scientific breakthrough is counter to all that. There can be issues of space problems if there are multiple institutions involved in a discovery, at which point we do need brevity, but here, work done from one specific school, there's no reason to not give some acknowledgement, given how infrequent scientific breakthroughs are posted here. --MASEM (t) 15:36, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, there's usually one or two professors that are the centerpoint of knowledge for these discoveries and whom in the scientific literature, get credit for it, but within the way these stories are reported, the media and even works like Science and Nature nearly always start with the research institution. My impression is that it is not just one or two people that are involved but the students/grad/post-docs/assistants that work with those professors, the supporting functions (like analysis laboratories, machine shops, etc.) that help with the experiments, and the admin side to make sure things are funded or distribute funding. Further, the institution's name (like Harvard here) carries weight that the work done is of good quality, hence why it is featured over the actual researcher. This is a situation tied with the whole issue of notability of academics, in that few actual researchers are ever notable. Since we can't really change that, it still makes sense to follow how discoveries are credited in the reporting media. --MASEM (t) 19:19, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support altblurb. Seems like the experiment has resulted in an important scientific discovery, which itself is of high encyclopedic relevance and a fine ITN material.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:13, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"peer review" even in a top-ranked journal like Science does not equal "truth". (and that only means 3 people reviewed it, not the scientific community as a whole) From the Nature article, it is not that they disagree with the methods, but that they are judging the formation of metallic hydrogen by an appearance factor rather than a chemical factor, meaning that other things with similar appearance could have been made instead (eg like aluminum used to make the anvil apparatus). --MASEM (t) 14:56, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing equates "truth". I can't even prove you exist. However, for the purposes of scientific journalism, this passes the highest tests for reliability. There have never been, are not, and will never be any proof of anything ever. However, in terms of reliable science, this is pretty damned good. --Jayron3215:24, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Peer-review, even at Science or Nature, is only as good as the peer-review process, which is not infallible, and the fact that there is some vocal questions to the validity of the claim by other scientists at the same peer level is important. The updated blurb (to include "claim") at least addresses this point. --MASEM (t) 15:36, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that absolute perfection and certainty in anything is an unsustainable standard in anything, and science is no exception "but it isn't perfect and immutably true" is a completely ridiculous standard. All we can do is maintain what the best journals do. That even the best is not absolute perfection is not a reasonable objection, as your apparent standards here would make, quite literally, absolutely nothing knowable. That's just silly. If the best journals report it, that's the best we've got. That the literal best is not perfect is unreasonable, because if the best isn't perfect, nothing will ever be perfect, and thus perfection is not attainable. It's quite good enough. --Jayron3205:31, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I just posted at ERRORS before checking here. Needless to say, I agree with Masem above. I am not familiar with ITN but I think an acceptable compromise would be to keep it in the news but with a "Scientists claim" rather than "Scientists have" - for instance, the alt blurb #1 is good. TigraanClick here to contact me15:15, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thank you for drawing my attention to this. Considering how long I have been waiting for experimental confirmation of this theoretical extrapolation, it is distinctly embarrassing to have missed it when it finally came out. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 19:14, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: long-serving politician who was known for his formulation of what came to be known as the "West Lothian question", relating to political devolution and for his questioning of Margaret Thatcher over the sinking of the General Belgrano during the Falklands War.
@The Rambling Man: Fair point- I haven't posted at ITN before. I have gone through the article and added several relevant sources and removed a few that were a bit questionable. I think I've now addressed the concerns you raised. Drchriswilliams (talk) 06:14, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article:Doomsday Clock (talk·history·tag) Blurb: The Science and Security Board of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists announces the advancement of the Doomsday Clock by 1/2 minute to 21/2 minutes to midnight. (Post) Alternative blurb: The Doomsday Clock advances by a 1/2 minute to 21/2 minutes to midnight, the second closest approach to midnight ever. Alternative blurb II: For the first time in two years, the Doomsday Clock moves, advancing by a 1/2 minute to 21/2 minutes to midnight. Alternative blurb III: Citing the rise of nationalism, climate change, and the increase of nuclear tension, the Doomsday Clock advances by a 1/2 minute to 21/2 minutes to midnight. News source(s):Official website listing, Official statement, Washington Post, NYT, & NPR Credits:
Oppose The NYTimes frames this well by quoting "...the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists is marking the 70th anniversary of its Doomsday Clock on Thursday by moving it 30 seconds closer to midnight." My opinion is that this action is simply an attempt to attract publicity on its anniversary, and does not have impact or significance. Mamyles (talk) 18:27, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I'm a bit torn on this. Obviously the Clock is an important issue, but given the reasoning for why they moved it "We’re so concerned about the rhetoric, and the lack of respect for expertise, that we moved it 30 seconds ... Rather than create panic, we’re hoping that this drives action." (from the linked NYTimes non-op-ed), it feels less like a scientifically-backed decision and one specifically targeting President Trump's policies. I know it has nearly always been a subjective matter when the clock is moved, but this feels more politically driven than scientifically. --MASEM (t) 18:44, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support funnily enough I was having a conversation about this at work just yesterday, with Trump so keen on nuclear proliferation, torture, building walls, ignoring climate change, I'm not surprised by this. Having said that, of course what Walt says is probably true too, this is a device used to beat the world up. Could be right though... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:22, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - Like Masem I'm torn. My main concern is noteworthiness. They change it relatively often and the news coverage I've seen has been relatively minimal. I'm not concerned about motive (it's always political because it's in response to politics). If I see coverage gain or lose more steam, I may lean toward one side. Until then... neutral. EvergreenFir(talk)19:30, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Since it was inspired by Trump's recent comments, as their spokespersons stated, it seems a bit early and too reactionary. Agree with Masem, it implies a political aspect. --Light show (talk) 22:06, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Forget about whether or not this is politically motivated, and forget about whether it's 30 seconds or 5 minutes. The move is only worthy of consideration because of how close to midnight it takes us.
However it is as close as it is because the boffins behind it considered the 2007–2012 period to pose a more immediate risk to the future of civilisation than most of the Cold War and the immediate aftermath of 9/11, greatly diminishing the clock's significance and credibility. Come back when the radio stations are introducing this story with Iron Maiden, and I might consider supporting despite my reservations due to the long-standing and high-profile nature of the clock. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 22:26, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That weakens both the historical significance argument, and the implication that it is a scientifically-based predictor of the relative likelihood of rapid global catastrophe. Tsunamis, earthquakes, hurricanes and tornadoes are all potential mass casualty, devastating events, and a rising sea level will reduce the ability of a steadily rising population to live off the planet. All serious stuff, all worthy of the scientific, media, business and politicial circles to put it as a very high priority. But none of it rises to the level of an immediate threat to the survival of humanity as a race, in the same way as nuclear war (indeed, the very outbreak of open, conventional war between nuclear powers), a global pandemic, or an object the size of Majorca hitting the planet. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 00:28, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb III. The report also said "new global realities emerged, as trusted sources of information came under attack, fake news was on the rise, and words were used in cavalier and often reckless ways" and "Today’s complex global environment is in need of deliberate and considered policy responses. It is ever more important that senior leaders across the globe calm rather than stoke tensions that could lead to war, either by accident or miscalculation" - not sure if that should also be reflected in the blurb. --Fixuture (talk) 22:42, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - if there were any reason to believe the clock had some predictive value, maybe. Otherwise it's WP:CRYSTAL in a non-WP forum. Banedon (talk) 02:25, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm no fan of Trump but this sounds like Orwellian 'War is Peace' (or in this case 'Peace is War') - the Inauguration of a US president who is accused of being too friendly to Russia is being used to say the world has just got more dangerous. One might have expected these scientists to at least have the common sense to try to protect their credibility by waiting until there was some evidence of a breakdown in the Trump-Putin love-in. Maybe somebody should tell them the story of the boy who cried 'Wolf'. Even the usually fiercely anti-Trump New York Times seems to regard it as a 70th anniversary publicity stunt, so it seems implausible to claim that most quality sources are treating this 'news' seriously. Tlhslobus (talk) 04:55, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(Actually I personally am a bit worried about Trump's possible effect in the Baltics, as I mentioned at the time of his election in the Talk page of International Reactions to Trump's election, but the Baltics are seemingly not mentioned by the scientists, so I couldn't support the nomination on the basis of nothing except what is seemingly just my 'WP:OR') Tlhslobus (talk) 05:14, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Wait until this team is awarded the trophy they are seeking or the record is otherwise certified. I've also suggested a less awkward blurb(no offense intended to the nominator). 331dot (talk) 13:43, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wait per 331dot. Never heard of this trophy but definitely seems a top achievement in sailing. It would be best to wait for the Trophy to be actually awarded and certifying the time. --MASEM (t) 14:50, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The suggested blurb said they made an "attempt" to win the trophy but didn't say that it had been determined that they had met the criteria for the trophy- which it seems that they have now. I wasn't suggesting we should wait until they take possession of the trophy, only for the determination that they won it. However, the article on the trophy needs much improvement before this is posted. 331dot (talk) 15:22, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think we can discard mention of the Jules Verne Trophy altogether. The story here is breaking the around the world sailing record, which I support posting in principle. However it's unclear to me whether this still requires validation by the relevant body or not. There also needs to be a proper update somewhere, though I'm not sure what the best place is. Joyon's article is a bit of a mess and has an orange-level tag. Modest Geniustalk17:08, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - although the word is worded pretty strangely (an "attempt" to win the trophy would imply the record's not been broken yet). Why not just say they broke the record? Banedon (talk) 22:36, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Nominator's comments: An unusual nomination for sure, but I think it's very interesting. After all, this is a double-blind randomized control trial, the best kind of experiment for establishing causality. The distinguishing aspect here is that the drugs are acting on people who are not fatigued or sleep-deprived, but rather people operating at their peak. Chess acts here as a proxy for higher mental functions. If these drugs improve higher mental functions, then there might come a time when everyone is taking these drugs because, why not? Caffeine is already the world's most widely-used stimulant. Having said that, there are caveats to the research (see the latter part of the Chessbase article) and there is a surprising (?) lack of media coverage. Banedon (talk) 08:19, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's just a single study and so doesn't pass WP:MEDRS. And a lack of media coverage means that it's not actually "in the news". The result is not very surprising either. It's no coincidence that people like Benjamin Franklin were playing chess in coffee houses like Old Slaughter's centuries ago. And it's now time for my first cup of tea of the day. Ah, the pause that truly refreshes... Andrew D. (talk) 08:49, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I do. On a side note the Dow is probably the least important of the various US indices and the least accurate as an overall measure of the financial markets. The S&P 500 is probably the better one to pay attention to. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:25, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It was bound to pass 20,000 at some point, and it will be bound to pass 25k, 30k, etc. As noted, these are arbitrary metrics. If anything we focus more on rapid declines and demands (crashes or near-crashes) which have much more of an impact on immediate situations than the gradual rise past specific marks. --MASEM (t) 02:39, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just a comment on that, long-term investors actually don't care about rapid declines and demands, as long as the overall uptrend is preserved. Banedon (talk) 02:42, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But CEOs, stock market analysts, politicians, and the like do worry about hose, and those are the newsmakers. --MASEM (t) 02:52, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Twenty-eight people are killed in a coordinated attack on the Dayah Hotel in central Mogadishu. The terrorist group Al-Shabaab claims responsibility. (Yahoo!)(Al Jazeera)
Over 800 homes are destroyed or flooded in Tahiti, French Polynesia, following severe storms over the weekend, with at least 4,000 people affected. (Radio New Zealand)
The RussianDuma backs a law decriminalizing a first instance of domestic violence that does "not seriously injure" the person, making it an administrative offense. The bill also includes violence against children. (CNN)
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 Sourcing a clear issuer per TRM and Ad Orientem. Fortunately, most of it appears to be filmography-related listings which should be relatively easy to source, but that still needs to be done to post this. --MASEM (t) 21:06, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The quality issues have been addressed and there are no longer any orange-level cleanup tags or citation needed tags. AHeneen (talk) 06:30, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As I think during the discussion of Carrie Fisher, while you are right that long filmographies are often a separate article, moving that out of an ITN RD to avoid having to deal with a sourcing issue (in this case, excessive weight on user-wiki IMDB) is not really appropriate as that is just sweeping the problem under the carpet. I am not suggesting pulling this RD at this point, but I need to stress that this is not a good way of handling poorly sourced filmographies, because someone in time still needs to remove all those IMDB refs with more reliable ones. --MASEM (t) 19:37, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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 First three para in body are unsourced, but it looks like the type of info that the obits will be able to fill in. --MASEM (t) 21:07, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
References
Nominators often include links to external websites and other references in discussions on this page. It is usually best to provide such links using the inline URL syntax [http://example.com] rather than using <ref></ref> tags, because that keeps all the relevant information in the same place as the nomination without having to jump to this section, and facilitates the archiving process.
For the times when <ref></ref> tags are being used, here are their contents:
In the news toolbox.jpg)
.svg)
