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).
Nominator's comments: Notable. Will start reactions. Sherenk1 (talk)
Support if and once it happens (far as I can tell, it hasn't happened yet). This has been lingering in the background for quite some time, and will likely be in the news for a while longer. Adding a blurb. Banedon (talk) 06:35, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The major world papers are covering it. Although it's been sort of inevitable since the referendum result, much like Trump's inauguration it's still headline news. — Amakuru (talk) 08:13, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this is the 3rd time this story would reach ITN. And there is going to be another nomination for the actual exit. Four entries for basically the same story is excessive. Nergaal (talk) 08:57, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a link to the second nomination? I only remember the first, and can't find the second after searching the February archives. Banedon (talk) 09:22, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point. I opposed the 2nd nomination, but it was posted anyway (and the fact that the objection at the time was overcome in two months says something about how it shouldn't have been posted ...). Still, having posted that isn't a very good argument against posting this - after all, this is the significant event that the 2nd nomination was referring to. Banedon (talk) 11:49, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes, this is the third major news related to the same story, but it is not less significant than the previous two. The news enjoys popularity and is widely covered in the media, which easily meets our notability requirements. I'd also support the news pertaining to the actual exit once it happens in two years from now.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:24, 29 March 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 Big Maple Leaf, a solid gold 1 million dollar Canadian coin weighing 100 kilograms (220 lb), is stolen from the Bode Museum in Berlin, Germany. (CBC)
The deadline for the Government formation in Northern Ireland has expired following the refusal of the Democratic Unionist Party and Sinn Féin to enter a power sharing agreement with each other, with both parties blaming each other for the impasse. (BBC)
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Oppose Why is this person's death considered in the news? The fact that a person has an article does not make his death notably in the news. The nominator should explain this. ITN is not an obituary, and that a dead person has an article does not make him ipso facto "in the news". μηδείς (talk) 04:06, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I always like to be spanked. Unfortunately, the RfC held that having an article establishes the decedent's notability. But what matters here is whether the death is notable; whether it is a notable death. Dozens of people who have articles about them die daily, we don't postevery stiff. It is the nominator's duty to show that the "death is in in the news". μηδείς (talk) 04:18, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's not the metric. As long as the death has been verified, and the person was notable, then the RFC says we can post the RD (as long as quality is met). It is not about the death itself being notable. (I do note that to the best I can tell, we have yet to have a case where a notable person's death has only been noted through way of the common "short form obit" used to document the average person's death; all deaths have been documented in at least one long-form obit, such as the NYTimes in this example). --MASEM (t) 05:12, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose what I meant was a widely noted death; I did not mean to imply that an unordinary death was necessary. It behooves the nominator to show this, as well as to justify the nomination in his comments. The RfC certainly does not say that we post any dead person with an article--the nominator has to justify the nomination. μηδείς (talk) 20:23, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "in the news"? Well if the BBC, The Guardian, The New York Times, The Spectator, The Times &c. &c. &c. are anything to go by, it's "in the news". A quick Google search demonstrates that perfectly adequately. The Rambling Man (talk) 04:39, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose the article needs a bit more, certainly from a reference perspective, and is sadly a little bit weak, but there's little doubting this individual's prominence given the wide and mainstream coverage around the world. The Rambling Man (talk) 04:40, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - There's no question the person is notable. But is the death notable? That notability needs to be verified within the article.--WaltCip (talk) 16:16, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There's no such requirement for the "death" to be notable, per the RD RFC. It only needs to be verifiable. (That said, the fact the NYTimes and BBC have a long-form obit leaves no question about the death being notable). --MASEM (t) 16:19, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support once minor improvements are made. Storey was a notable person and his death has received widespread coverage as per Rambling Man. It is quite likely that a notable person's death will receive widespread publicity in their native country and other countries where they are well known. Their death will not be as publicised in other countries as not every notable person is a household name throughout the world. Capitalistroadster (talk) 23:02, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – on a global level, most major Australian cyclones fall far short of reaching ITN level as they strike largely unpopulated/sparsely populate areas (namely Western Australia) or effective preparations limit loss of life (ex: Cyclone Yasi). Would have to wait a day or two to see if the damage warrants this being posted. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 18:24, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Sagittarian Milky Way: the entire country can be affected by cyclones in one way or another (i.e. Cyclone Alby infamously affected areas around Perth as a non-tropical system). The two largest cities I can think of that are somewhat regularly impacted are Cairns and Mackay. Brisbane has been his multiple times by severe floods related to topical cyclones: 1974, 2010–11, and 2013 are the first three events that come to mind. Western Australia doesn't have any major cities along the cyclone-prone coastline, just towns. But it's the smaller towns that usually suffer the brunt of major cyclones, such as Innisfail in Cyclone Larry. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 17:45, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wait until impacts are clearer. Being the largest storm in 2+ years seems potentially noteworthy, but we can't post on potential article content, only actual article content. Once we have the article fleshed out with the impacts, which may include the effectiveness of preparations etc., then we can assess the article. --Jayron3218:39, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support – This not being ITN/R doesn't bother me, as I think it meets ITN standards on its own strength. Hong Kong's political situation has been awkward for the past twenty years and from what I've heard on the Dutch news about this, there are a lot of protests going on regarding this election. The fact that it is getting international attention elevates it to ITN in my opinion. I'd personally change the blurb to mention the allegations of Beijing manipulations rather than the president's gender, however. ~Mable (chat) 07:19, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as written. The Carrie Lam article is tagged for neutrality issues and poor quality standards. The election article is good, but we shouldn't be featuring Lam at all with her article in its current condition. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:23, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support on notability grounds. This isn't ITN/R, but ITN/R states "…dependent territories should be discussed at WP:ITN/C and judged on their own merits.". Hong Kong is a significant, populous, and geopolitically important entity with substantial autonomy and substantial differences from the rest of China (see One Country, Two Systems). The Chief Executive is an important office. If Hong Kong Chief Executive election, 2017 is the sole bold article (and that looks ready), the quality of Carrie Lam at present should be sufficient. --LukeSurltc12:10, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is notable enough for ITN. Both article appear to be of acceptable quality. I've engaged on the talk page to inquire about why an orange tag was applied. Mamyles (talk) 14:21, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now. I've added some vital CN tags. There's some overt analysis and speculation which has no source. Also in the Personal Life section. --Jayron3215:15, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not anymore. I've voted. See WP:SUPERVOTE. I've ineligiblized myself to commit an admin action because I have a preferred outcome. When an admin who hasn't taken a position comes along, they can assess consensus. --Jayron3217:54, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There's hundreds of admins anyways, and it got posted. I'm not very important to this process; that's the beauty of Wikipedia, no one is important at all. It gets done by somebody. Furthermore, no one has ever filed a complaint against an admin for declining to use his/her tools, whereas we have thousands of cases where such complaints are filed for using one's tools where one was not supposed to. Simply put, nothing bad can come to any admin, of the hundreds of us, who just ignored this request to post the item and moved on; indeed we don't even know how many of such admins there are. Rather, if I had posted this, someone would have the right to be a pain in the ass about it. Its much easier to simply avoid all of that and let someone else deal with it. I can't possibly be sanctioned for simply passing by and not using my admin tools. --Jayron3218:52, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think "first leader" is too broad of a label. Hong Kong has had plenty of "female leaders," at least in the business field (see [1]). The article supports the statement "first female Chief Executive". Maybe "first political leader" could work. FallingGravity06:48, 28 March 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.
Weak support results are in there now, the article could use a bit more around the results, but the fact of the matter is that the data is now available and mainly sourced. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:11, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bulgaria has a smaller population than NJ, and we wouldn't even post the results of the NJ legislatorial election. μηδείς (talk) 04:25, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What on earth has that got to do with anything? All results of general elections in states on the List of sovereign states are ITN/R and therefore will be posted (assuming that the article is up to scratch, of course, which this one isn't quite yet). Black Kite (talk)14:08, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of elections in small nations which have not been posted. This might be a borderline case. ITN/R is irrelevant, since the list was simply compiled by admins without consensus. Unless there's an RfC that decided all general elections would be posted, there's no policy, just a fiat. μηδείς (talk) 20:28, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Medeis: It is well established that everything currently on ITN/R should be there, however it got there, until at discussion at WT:ITN/R arrives at a consensus that it should be removed. If you disagree with the current entry regarding general elections then start a discussion there, arguing on individual entries will get you nowhere. Thryduulf (talk) 20:53, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thryduulf, you simply confirm my argument, everything is there by fiat. The burden is not on me to prove otherwise, nor will I comment further on the matter. μηδείς (talk) 02:15, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've started a discussion at WT:ITNR so we can resolve this once and for all. Then when we have consensus, we will record it against that ITNR item, and/or modify or remove it, and there will be no grounds for such future protest !votes. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:23, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Breaking headlines. Article just added by another user but I am expecting this to blow up. Feel free to remove if I am wrong. Sherenk1 (talk)
Leaning oppose, but wait. BBC is reporting that the main opposition leader was arrested as part of this, so this might turn out to be something more, but right now, it's basically <10,000 ppl, which is a rather small protest and the type that tends to happen all the time, failing NOT#NEWS. --MASEM (t) 13:24, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose We almost never post domestic political stuff like this. If the protests become massive (millions of people) or reach the point where they are credibly threatening the government we can revisit this. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:13, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
None of those resemble the protests going on in Russia. As I noted, if the protests become massive, or threaten the government we can revisit this. We don't do run of the mill domestic political stuff like this. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:45, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, they are massive. Although I see what you did there - you pulled this ridiculous threshold "millions" out of your thin air, just to make sure that these protest could never pass that kind of silly test. Per sources [5]: "the marches appear to be the biggest since anti-government demonstrations in 2011 and 2012.". Add the arrest of THE main opposition figure in Russia, and yeah, it's very newsworthy and notable.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:52, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support (on notability, article is currently a stub) - the main story here is the arrest of Alexei Navalny, the main opposition leader in Russia. This takes precedence over the protests themselves. --LukeSurltc16:02, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Going just on the arrest, that doesn't assume any crime has been committed yet. I'm fully aware of the political issues in Russia that this definitely could mean something else, but we shouldn't lower the bar just because an arrest was made. --MASEM (t) 17:11, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. For one, Denis Voronenkov should not be posted as a blurb (see below). Now this one is just a stub with one reference about a one-day protest. This is Wikipedia, not Russophobiapedia.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:53, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but calling this "Russophobic" is frankly ridiculous. "Russophobia" is a form of bigotry against ethnic Russians. How in the world does including the fact that there are large scale protests in over 80 Russian cities constitute a form of bigotry? These are Russian protesting, no? Please stop ... well, at least being blatantly obvious in your POV pushing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:48, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The lede of Russophobia says, "Anti-Russian sentiment or Russophobia is a diverse spectrum of negative feelings, dislikes, fears, aversion, derision and/or prejudice of Russia, Russians and/or Russian culture.". It does not talk about "ethnic" anything. I for one do not believe in ethnicity.Zigzig20s (talk) 06:55, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No. Please assume good faith. We are talking about the nomination here, not editors. I am not interested in Wikidrama, so please stop.Zigzig20s (talk) 06:55, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support tons of sources, seeing as how these are the biggest protests in years. I thought I'd list sources, but... there's so many it doesn't make sense to do it that way. So how about this - you name a major news source and I will provide you the link? I mean, pretty much EVERY major news source is reporting on this.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:48, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support not sure about the blurb, but two things are noteworthy, the fact that the prime minister of a country is accussed of having embezzled more than a billion USD is noteworthy. And the demonstrations itself, in particular given the heavy-handed crackdown by police. 2A02:A451:8B2D:1:3D10:EE4B:CB0F:30BA (talk) 11:15, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now on article quality. The "events" section of the bolded article is sparse, has an empty subsection, and has zero references. If this were expanded and fully fleshed out, I'd support this. The article quality just isn't good enough yet to put on the main page. People who have supported posting this don't seem to have assessed article quality. Any admin who decides to post this should please double check to see that the article quality honors Wikipedia. --Jayron3217:23, 27 March 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 particularly notable as it currently stands. I don't think this will even appear in newspapers outside of the US, let alone make cover stories. ~Mable (chat) 12:49, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose They have seemed to take this as domestic violence, nothing to do with terrorism, so relatively small incident on the scale of where mass shootings in the US typically occur. --MASEM (t) 13:26, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose absent a large body count or evidence of terrorism. Sadly mass shootings are just too common in the US to post most of them. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:44, 26 March 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.
In response to several Israeli airstrikes against suspected Hezbollah-related targets inside Syria, Syrian president Bashar al-Assad has threatened wider war with the State of Israel, stating its intention to fire Scud missiles, and specifically target the Israeli city of Haifa. Israel responded by stating that any such actions by the Assad regime, or attacks on its aircraft, will cause Israel to "annihilate" Syrian air defense systems. (The Times of Israel)
A vehicle mounts the pavement and runs into pedestrians in Islington, London, injuring 4. The teenage perpetrators are found carrying offensive weapons, but are not assumed to be terrorists. (BBC)
The Coordination of Azawad Movements, a coalition of Tuareg groups, announce that they will boycott a peace conference scheduled next week on implementing a 2015 peace agreement saying it was "not sufficiently inclusive". (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.
Oppose as non-story—this is just a symbolic piece of posturing by the Houthi rebels (the Aden government is the internationally-recognised one, even by countries which are politically opposed to it). Since there's no possibility they'll ever be in a position to carry it out, this doesn't have any more significance than the death sentences they pass on the leaders of the US, Israel and Saudi Arabia. ‑ Iridescent08:53, 26 March 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.
On Friday night a man begins to shoot in a Lille Metro station in Lille, France. Three people are injured, including being shot in the leg and neck. The gunman is not thought to be a terrorist, and is still on the run. (The Independent)
Disasters and accidents
Proactiva notes the finding of five corpses the Libyan coast; these were floating near two capsized boats which could each hold more than 100 people. (BBC)
The Gambia's justice minister Abubacarr Tambadou states that the country will establish a Truth and Reconciliation Commission "within the next six months" to investigate allegations of abuse dating from the time of former PresidentYahya Jammeh. According to Tambadou, public hearings are scheduled to get underway by year's end. (BBC)
The replacement plan for the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare) is withdrawn after Republican leaders fail to gain enough support. The failure of the Trump administration to repeal the act means it will remain law in the United States. (BBC)
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.
Strongest oppose Status quo remains. Additionally, I'm sure this is not the end of story, as the bill could go back to committee discussions, etc. --MASEM (t) 23:49, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
STRONGEST POSSIBLE OPPOSE This is a severe case of USA bias, if you ask me. This has no place on ITN. If Uzbekistan (or any other country not the USA or Britain) canceled the voting on of a healthcare bill to repeal the plan of the ex-president, would it be nominated to ITN? Heck no, and the same applies to this. -A ladinsane(Channel 2)00:03, 25 March 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.
Authorities arrest at least eight people in connection with yesterday's attack. (Fox News)
London's Metropolitan Police Service announces that the attacker is British-born Khalid Masood, previously questioned by British authorities for connections to terrorism. (Reuters)
A man drives into a crowd of pedestrians in Antwerp, Belgium, injuring several people. Police arrest the man, who is believed to be North African born and living in France. (The New York Times)
The South Korean government raises the wreckage of the MV Sewol from the sea near the South Korean island of Donggeochado. The ferry sank in April 2014, killing 304 people. (BBC)
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Per the template: "Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD." The Rambling Man (talk) 22:06, 26 March 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: Former Russian MP living in exile assassinated in Kiev. Article is a bit short but appears to be adequately sourced. Ad Orientem (talk) 14:06, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, but Support - regardless if it was state-sponsored assassination or just a random shooter, the death warrants a blurb. CNN reports that they have the potential suspect in custody in a hospital, so I would assume that in a few hours we will have a clearer picture how "motivated" this attack was. The target article seems in good shape but obviously should be updated if new info becomes available. --MASEM (t) 14:30, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Update: The attacker has now died in hospital and the police say they believe he was a hired killed with a Ukrainian passport. I've updated the article. My bet is that's all clarity we will ever get. The Ukrainians will keep blaming Russia and the Russians will keep claiming that's absurd. In perpetuity. Yakikaki (talk) 15:35, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds likely. The blurb I suggested avoids using the term "assassinated", but includes the political background that makes this story particularly notable. --LukeSurltc16:23, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'll support leaving it as "murdered", with obvious consideration that if it is determined an assassination, that can be changed. --MASEM (t) 17:18, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as written. Was he a Russian critic? Yes. Was he murdered on the orders of Moscow? Very possibly. But it is not the job of Wikipedia to insinuate things that have not been proved. RD only at the moment, please. We're not a tabloid newspaper. Black Kite (talk)18:56, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Justification for the blurb is not based particularly on the prominence of the individual, but on the violent, sudden and politically important nature of the event of his death. --LukeSurltc
Not the point - the blurb as written is suggesting something that is not proven. Is he worthy of an RD? Yes. If he had been run over by a bus would he be worthy of a blurb? No. If he had definitely been assassinated on the orders of Moscow would it be blurb-worthy? Possibly. Do we have that proof? No. Black Kite (talk)20:43, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Can we proceed on the assumption that there are no objections to RD while we sort out the blurb? FTR I am not wild about a blurb for the reasons noted in the two previous comments. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:54, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb, but weak. Since the man was not supper noticeable I do support the blurb more for refreshing Wikipedia's homepage. (A more interesting blurb can always take this blurb's place.) Support from me for RD obviously. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me!21:17, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Altblurb offered above. There's no doubt he was shot to death. (If that's not murder, what is?) However, suggest more than one source. Sca (talk) 21:26, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support blurb - timing is unfortunate since it's right after the London attack, which is still dominating news and is likely to keep doing so for a while longer, thereby keeping coverage of this down. Still, it is a political assassination which isn't a common thing. If the Kim Jong Nam assassination was anything to go by this might continue to be reported in the media for weeks to come. Weak support for now, and if it stays in the news (even against competition from the London attack) I'll switch to full support. Banedon (talk) 02:14, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree London aftermath will be a story for some time, but I'd like to see a Voronenkov blurb out there soon, as his death is likely to drop off the radar much more quickly. Sca (talk) 14:51, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Time to close or post? I think this discussion has gone on long enough. Let's either post this or close the discussion and move on. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:31, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good question and I don't know. The article talk page is probably a better place for that question. But absent a good explanation it might well be nominated for deletion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:49, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's becoming more and more commonplace, without regard to the individual or the likelihood of obtaining a free image of the recently deceased. In most cases there's absolutely no excuse for not trying to get a free image, and in the meantime, non-free images should be discouraged. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:45, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This really needs attention from an uninvolved admin. Either way is not a big deal to me, but let's post this or close the discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:52, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose/Remove. Recent Death maybe, Blurb certainly not. This politician was certainly not known internationally, and a blurb is undeserved, unless Wikipedia wants to insinuate he was murdered by Russia, which is nothing but a rumour that they deny. Bear in mind that if American businessmen who disagree with Trump get murdered/killed, the Russian media could start spreading similarly absurd rumours. The bottom line is, he may have been murdered because of bad business deals. Hence we may have a blurb about an obscure Russian politician who was murdered over bad business deals. Who cares?Zigzig20s (talk) 22:01, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Former Congolese Vice President and warlord Jean-Pierre Bemba, sentenced last year by the International Criminal Court (ICC) to 18 years in prison for war crimes, is given an additional 12 months and fined 300,000 euros for bribing witnesses during an earlier ICC trial. The court also handed jail terms and fines for alleged interference in his trial to members of his legal team. (The Guardian)
A series of shootings in Rothschild, Wisconsin, leave at least four people dead, including a police officer. (WTOP)
A jury acquits the former head of the now-closed Massachusetts pharmacy, New England Compounding Center, Barry Cadden, on 25 counts of second-degree murder but convicts him of racketeering and other crimes in a meningitis outbreak that was traced to fungus-contaminated drugs and killed 64 people across the country. Cadden disregarded sanitary conditions to boost production and make more money. (Boston.com)
Currently the only mention of this in International Cloud Atlas is "The 2017 edition of the atlas is available online" in the Later editions section. This is a type of ITNC item where the update to the article makes a stronger case than anything that can be written here. Please add a paragraph or two to International Cloud Atlas and then editors here can make a more informed assessment of whether an ITN posting would be justified. --LukeSurltc10:38, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm interested in supporting this, but I would like to see a tad more news coverage shown, especially in some more general media. 331dot (talk) 11:33, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sounds interesting and newsworthy from an encyclopedic point of view. News pertaining to scientific extensions (similarly to scientific discoveries) should find their place on the main page.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:31, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support this, but some of the info is contradictory. This cited source says there are 12 new cloud types, but the text of the article says 11 new "formations". The article also currently says "Its modifications comprised the following" and then lists only 7 cloud types. --LukeSurltc13:27, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've figured out what's going on here (and learnt a bit about meteorological classification, hooray!). I've edited the article accordingly, hopefully adding a bit of clarity, and am now happy to support posting to ITN. --LukeSurltc13:38, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"they have also added one new "species" - the volutus, or roll-cloud"
Support I read this item on the BBC the other day and thought then that it was excellent. We have plenty of pictures available. For example, the volutus(pictured) is now recognised by the WMO as a new species of cloud. "Truth is stranger than fiction". Andrew D. (talk) 21:54, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've suggested an alternative blurb with the picture of volutus, or we can also use Asperitas as it's a nice one. The article looks about ready. I don't like red links, so can someone help redirect International Meteorological Committee to International Meteorological Organization (i.e. WMO's precursor) in the main article? I think a redirect is better because there's not that much info about the IMC to mandate an article separate from the IMO; the connection is mentioned within IMO. If any of our auxiliary articles require more referencing, I'd be happy to help supply that (but I am quite busy with some thesis work; other than that, good references for arcus clouds are very abundant). If nobody objects, I'd like to mark this [Ready]. 207.107.159.62 (talk) 10:08, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting comment. It does look great! I noticed the red links in the article. We already have articles on most of those, except for the -genitus type clouds. You can see them in my Special:Contributions. For example, Cauda is in Wall cloud#Associated features (here). We can create redirects from each of those red links (again, because I'm IP and I don't like red links). But all the other ones already have articles; it may make more sense to let those be moved around to new titles and developed from here, if Wikipedia community deems it beneficial. Thanks. 207.107.159.62 (talk) 21:14, 26 March 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.
Oppose for now. Article is currently (as of my writing) a stub which contains little more information than is already in the proposed blurb. When article is expanded, I will re-assess. --Jayron3204:47, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose due to article quality and lack of demonstrated news coverage. I'm also concerned about the merits as Boko Haram attacks are not infrequent in Nigeria, but I wouldn't stand in the way of posting if the article quality and news coverage issues are resolved, since we aren't loaded down with such postings. 331dot (talk) 12:05, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[Posted] 2017 World Baseball Classic – Championship
Article updated The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Nominator's comments: The championship game is starting as I post this. The article is up to date except for the game that hasn't happened yet. Any feedback on problems is appreciated. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:03, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Withholding assessment until a prose synopsis of championship game is available to be assessed. The current article has minimal summaries of other games, so I am hopeful, but I will not assess until article is in a state to be assessed. --Jayron3201:09, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But what good would that do? The blurb isn't about the semi-final game results, is it? Just post the nomination when you're done with the article; it will save everyone the need from having to assess it twice. --Jayron3203:52, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm taking the liberty of marking this ready since it's ITN/R, I've made the updates, and nobody is objecting to anything. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:22, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is clearly a strong consensus in favor of posting this and I see no reasonable likelihood of that changing. If there are concerns about the criteria used to determine when we post terror attacks that discussion should take place on the talk page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:04, 23 March 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.
Support (when the article is ready) - passes the Le Monde and New York Times test. It's their lead story. Clearly worldwide news! — Amakuru (talk) 15:41, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Although, not sure it should be described as "separate attacks": it looks like part and parcel of the same thing (at the moment, at least). - The Bounder (talk) 15:50, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty skeptical. This could evolve into something similar to the attack in Nice, but there's no confirmation whether it's an actual terror attack. It's just being treated as one. Article quality isn't great either. Dat GuyTalkContribs15:47, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what about a man stabbing a policeman at the Houses of Parliament while another simultaneously mows down civilians on the bridge isn't a "terror attack". The Rambling Man (talk) 15:48, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In a broadway, it's considered terrorism. Also, just wondering, there are different reports of stabbing, manslaughter (is that the right word?), and gunshots. How many are confirmed? Dat GuyTalkContribs15:53, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wait for reasons discussed above. Also, think about the blurb. The picture emerging from reports is that the man who was shot was shot by police as they attempted to assault people with a knife. Current blurb implies the shooting was done by an attacker. Also, it appears that this was the same person as drove the car that hit the pedestrians so "separate attacks" is probably misleading/false. Still unclear however. --LukeSurltc16:09, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
FYI When I posted this I boldly tweaked the blurb to avoid details that are less than clear right now with the expectation that it will be updated as more information becomes available. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:25, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Posting a blurb this quickly about circumstances that are still fluid goes against the prevailing arguments that ITN should only showcase the highest quality articles. This is not a complaint, but a note of encouragement. If we are finally accepting that what goes into the ITN box should be timely and in service to readers looking for the latest Wikipedia articles related the current news cycle, this is a good thing. -- Fuzheado | Talk16:28, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Due to how quickly information can change, recently developing events are generally subject to more nebulous standards of quality than are predictable, routine events like the Academy Awards, the Boat Race, or some other sporting event.--WaltCip (talk) 16:32, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wait until some actual concrete information is available. I am watching the feed on BBC news; Wikipedia should only sum up final events. It might be the article becomes an FA, it might be deleted in two weeks per WP:NOTNEWS. We just don't know right now. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)16:34, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we know a car was driven by an individual into pedestrians on Westminster Bridge, crashed shortly afterwards, the occupant then ran into the Palace of Westminster, stabbed a policeman and was shot to death. So that's not going to be NOTNEWS, ever. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:36, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The police have read a statement saying that safety is the prior concern, full facts will come out in due course, and it is better to wait and be factually correct than to speculate and be factually wrong. That's good enough for me. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)17:09, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Fuzheado. It makes me very happy to see how far attitudes at ITN have come since last July with major unexpected events like this. :-) We're here for readers, and they're coming to us whether or not the articles are ready. All that being said, this is still a stub article, which violates ITN's guidelines—so it's very interesting to see some of the people above supporting it for the main page (especially The Rambling Man, after this and all of his desire for quality on the main page). Ed[talk][majestic titan]16:38, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I respectfully request that you now drop the stick, acknowledge that I have not uttered a word about the article quality, and resist the temptation to continue to bait me, you're an admin and you should know better than that. If you wish me to pursue a IBAN, that will be fine, then you can spend your time productively rather than attempting to reignite arguments with me when you know I can't respond in kind, without one of your cadre interpreting it in such a way as to ban me from the site. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:02, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The blurb at present says "A man is shot at the Palace of Westminster...". While that is literally correct, it implies to someone unfamiliar with the story that the shooting was the attack, rather than the police response to it. Suggest change to "A man is shot by police at the Palace of Westminster..." --LukeSurltc17:01, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Just some random vehicle-ramming and stabbing. It isn't even declared as a terrorist attack as yet. Just some deranged person on about things. Its not a ITN material. Does 2 deaths in the West carry more weight-age than 20 in the East? mfarazbaig —Preceding undated comment added 18:02, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Now four deaths, and everything else you say is factually incorrect. It has been officially a terrorist incident for several hours already, and I believe this is the first vehicle-ramming and knife attack in the United Kingdom since the Murder of Lee Rigby in May 2013. It is major news in many countries. If this had happened in an eastern country that is not (effectively) a war zone then there is good chance it would also have been posted. Thryduulf (talk) 18:14, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, latest update from the Metropolitan Police was 4 dead and 20 injured. The examples of not-posted-but-similar-incidents provided by User:Andrew Davidson don't seem to involve this level of fatality, this significance in location (the Houses of Parliament and environs of the United Kingdom), &c. &c. so it's apples and pears. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:23, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, the police have been careful to say they're "treating it as a terror attack" and did so pretty much right from the start. They're no idiots.... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:28, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Even if it turns out eventually to not be terror related, treating it as if it is is absolutely the correct thing to do - the idea is to send a very strong message to other terrorists saying "don't even think about it". Ritchie333(talk)(cont)18:36, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's ITN because it's London, it's Parliament, and it looks like terrorism. The number of victims isn't the key factor. Sca (talk) 18:35, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "3 people as well as the perpetrator" would been a better description. I read "At least four people are killed" as being people killed in the attack, not as 3 being killed in the attack and the perpetrator as a result of it. It wasn't an accident like a landslide. --Inops (talk) 19:08, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - There are far more deadly terrorist attacks throughout the world on a weekly basis. The only reason this one is getting so much media coverage is because it happened in London. Do we want to perpetuate the biases of the media (and our own biases) or act as a neutral world-wide news source? Personally, I prefer the later. Kaldari (talk) 21:13, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Are you suggesting this isn't in the news? Are you suggesting English-language readers won't be coming here to find out about this story? Do you not think this is working to demonstrate Wikipedia as a dynamic source? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:17, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@The Rambling Man: I agree it is "in the news", but so is the terrorist attack that happened in Nigeria today that killed 8 people. It just seems really biased that we focus on one and ignore the other, but I suppose we are only reflecting the biases of the media and I should get used to it. Kaldari (talk) 21:42, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, because I don't think it's especially notable either. Small terrorist attacks are common-place on a global scale (i.e. the scale of Wikipedia). Kaldari (talk) 22:00, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But terrorist attacks, small or otherwise, are clearly not common-place in the UK, especially just outside Parliament. Equally, this attack is in the news pretty much all over the world. Hence the title of this page. Black Kite (talk)22:03, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, it's very simple to complain about the status quo be it here at ITNC or any other part of Wikipedia. But to actually change it requires some effort, e.g. nominating other articles for inclusion on the main page, working up some niche articles to a high standard to make it difficult to turn them away, to make convincing arguments as to why a terror attack being reported globally that took place at the heart of London shouldn't be posted, just because you haven't nominated one about an attack in Nigeria. Until then, and until more people are active in addressing these perceived biases, nothing will change. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:10, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting support — Highly unusual attack in the United Kingdom and in a high-profile area. Given circumstances I feel this is worth maintaining on ITN. Had it been in a more terrorist attack-prone nation, this likely would not pass the bar. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 22:08, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Don't forget, the British Isles had been subject to terrorism from the IRA for decades, with thousands killed in the process. Although that was a couple of decades ago, some of us still remember those days clearly. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:11, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think that if the Troubles were still going on today, they'd most likely be in the 'Ongoing'. I think that an IRA 'terrorist attack' (in quotes because of my differing political opinion) would not receive the same treatment as an Islamic terrorist attack because Northern Ireland is part of the U.K., making it domestic terrorism. I wouldn't give it the same treatment, for an array of reasons (which I will not get into, because I don't want to start a political argument), and I'm sure others would as well. Just adding my 2¢. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 22:28, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that the UK isn't a stranger to terrorist attacks on its soil, it happened frequently and for years and years. Perhaps that's why we're so stoic and just crack on with life. That and the Blitz etc. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:34, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting Support - problem with this is that the death toll is pretty low, so it can set a dangerous precedent. This is counterbalanced by the fact that the UK is a great power + the attack is occurring outside UK parliament. This event will probably be covered by most newspapers worldwide for quite a while. I will support this, but point out that next time we should not judge any such blurb by body count. Banedon (talk) 23:40, 22 March 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.
Oppose woefully underreferenced, ironic given that the nominator is usually the one to note such things themselves. If TRM would get on that referencing, I would get on supporting this. --Jayron3202:08, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's not exclusively down to TRM to get on that referencing. I was surprised by the lack of interest in this given his stature at one the world's most significant football clubs. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:16, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
References
Nominators often include links to external websites and other references in discussions on this page. It is usually best to provide such links using the inline URL syntax [http://example.com] rather than using <ref></ref> tags, because that keeps all the relevant information in the same place as the nomination without having to jump to this section, and facilitates the archiving process.
For the times when <ref></ref> tags are being used, here are their contents:
In the news toolbox.png)
