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).
Facebook, Inc. announces that its social media service now has 2 billion regular users, more than a quarter of the world's population. Twitter, by comparison, has 328 million users as of April 2017. (Reuters)
The United Nations confirms that the FARC has completed its disarmament process, with former rebels due to make the transition to civilian life and the group to transform into a legal political party in the country. (Al Jazeera)
President of the PhilippinesRodrigo Duterte makes another lengthy absence from any public appearance after missing the Independence Day celebrations earlier in June. Rumors about his health continue to circulate within the minority although government officials deny any issues. (Rappler)
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 Everything after the "Day 1" section needs references, and like the above, I think such a thorough commentary is unnecessary. Some sections have no references, but include content from standalone articles which is suitably referenced, and those articles are linked in said sections.128.214.53.104 (talk) 09:15, 27 June 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: Of the last 14 days, only 8 have updates in the article, and in the last 7 days 200 words have been added in total. Edit History suggests that work has significantly slowed. Article Talk page has a section complaining about lack of updates. The best route for this article on ITN is to blurb the declared result if/when that happens, but it makes no sense to keep an un-updated article on front page. 128.214.53.104 (talk) 07:26, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - the standard is new updates on a regular basis, but there is (properly) no quantitative requirement for either. There are unquestionably new updates, so the question is whether you consider the current update frequency "regular." GreatCaesarsGhost (talk) 16:49, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Over 150 people die and dozens are injured, many critically, when an oil tanker truck overturns and explodes as people from surrounding villages gather around the truck to collect the spilling oil. The accident happened in Bahawalpur, eastern Pakistan. (BBC)(AP)(CNN)(India Times)
External cladding samples from 60 high-rise apartment towers, from 25 different areas of the country, fail fire-resistance testing. Evacuation of thousands of apartments is underway as workers start to remove the deficient covering. (National Post)(Liverpool Echo)
At least nine people are killed and about 30 others are missing after their multi-story tourist boat, carrying about 170 people, sinks in a reservoir in northwest Colombia near Medellín. (The Guardian)(The Washington Post)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: An explosion that killed a large number of people and also injured a large number of people. The article definitely needs a lot of work (I just started it, but am headed to bed shortly) so feel free to help update it if you can. Andise1 (talk) 07:42, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Keep in mind that reactions from other countries that little more than condolences should not be included, or should be summed up. --MASEM (t) 13:05, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Somebody moved the article back, and that old title is incorrect. I don't want to explain again why I have that move. The previous name should be somehow protected beacuse it is the correct one. - EugεnS¡m¡on15:41, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Israel and Syria exchange weapons fire in the disputed Golan Heights, with Israel destroying several targets, including two Syrian tanks. Although there were deaths on the ground in Syria, the number of casualties among Syrian forces is unknown. No Israeli troops were injured. (CNN)
An early-morning landslide buries 40 homes and leaves 15 people dead and 114 others missing in Aba Prefecture, Sichuan Province, China. At least 500 rescue workers are on scene, and a 2-km stretch of the river in Mao County is blocked. (CNN)
The number of the choleraoutbreak cases in Yemen passes 200,000, with over 1,300 deaths so far. There are an estimated 5,000 new cases every day. (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.
Weak support not the greatest analytical coverage I've ever seen as the target is a list of outbreaks, this one being covered in a couple of sentences. Would also suggest just spelling out WHO in case someone gets confused with The Who, bound to happen... The Rambling Man (talk) 08:23, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'll work on expanding that a little when I've got a moment...we've also got to keep due weight in mind. I abbreviated WHO for brevity, but I've expanded it now. I can easily see somebody asking me to abbreviate again. Vanamonde (talk) 08:28, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support when article is created – With the WHO calling it "the worst Cholera outbreak in the world" this should definitely have its own article. More than 200,000 people infected and 1,300 known deaths with the disease continuing to spread rapidly. Once an article is made specifically for this outbreak, I'll support on notability. I've added an alt blurb with a potential title for the article that includes the loss of life. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 13:17, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support per above. This really needs expansion. Ideally if enough material were found it could be split off into it's own article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:55, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The problem with this is that the article on the Yemeni Civil War, which would be an obvious target, is currently locked down for editing and has an orange tag stating it's outdated. (I got a wrist slap for using my admin privileges to edit it to add this information.) I contemplated starting an article but couldn't find enough reliable material yesterday to do. The medical project object to writing medical-related articles based heavily on news items. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:05, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Changing my vote to support; article is now in an acceptable shape, and the number of lives potentially lost makes it an internationally relevant event. Schwede6619:37, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on article quality (stub, citations needed) and lack of proposed blurb. With a better article and suitable blurb I'd probably support. Thryduulf (talk) 21:51, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Given the remoteness of the area, news is not going to be coming fast, but the core details are in place to emphasize the size of this disaster. --MASEM (t) 13:05, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Article has been expanded and updated, and I have updated the blurb to reflect more recent estimates of number of missing, which has fallen below 100. Members of 62 families were at one point feared buried. 140.206.88.109 (talk) 15:49, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
All 800 homes in the five tower blocks of the Chalcots Estate, in Camden, London, are evacuated after the cladding was declared to have failed fire safety tests. (Sky News)
For the second time, a mistrial is declared in the case against officer Ray Tensing for the fatal shooting of Samuel DuBose during a traffic stop. (New York Times)
Support as article content is decent, and it's been a while since the last major attack with similar casualties. Mar4d (talk) 14:44, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The death toll is now up to 63, or 67 if including the Karachi shootings. What's not clear is that the three attacks were coordinated; they took place in three separate cities, hundreds of miles apart, and were likely carried out by three different (and opposing) terrorist groups. The only thing in common between them is that they all chose Eid ul-Fitr as the target date of their attacks. The single deadliest incident is the coordinated twin bombings in Parachinar, which have killed 50 with the death toll expected to rise further. News on Karachi is still unfolding, but unless the death toll increases significantly that incident might not be notable in itself. 140.206.254.141 (talk) 15:49, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support article is a little scattered, but acceptable, given the circumstances; a death toll of 60 is tragically high, and certainly enough to meet the threshold. Vanamonde (talk) 18:15, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Has been in the news for more than 24 hours. Would love to see a blurb but satisfied with Ongoing. Sherenk1 (talk) 00:00, 24 June 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 support until the four cn-tags in the "Career" section are fixed, after which I'll give it my full support. There shouldn't be any problem finding reputable sourcing for those four cn-tagged items. Otherwise, this is a pretty good article. Christian Roess (talk) 02:34, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Update - Referencing is now updated. Marking as Ready. I am changing my vote from "weak support" to "support." (And on a side note, as things turned out, it was not easy finding reliable sources for the 5 tagged items. It took me a few hours to find some, then I had to delete items, and revise some sentences).Christian Roess (talk) 07:33, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Could do with some references for the awards; the eleven Emmys checks out in an obit I could access but the others are more elusive (in particular the Peabody isn't in our list of 1984 awards); also ref 5 is a dead link. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:36, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
yeah, you're right about ref 5 (here) already being a dead link. And you know, that's precisely the source that lists all those awards, including the year of the award. And the crazy thing is, there's no archive page at the 41nbc.com site. And the Wayback machine (web archive) seems down temporarily. So I'll have to get back to you on this. Changed status from "Ready" to "Needs Attention" until this is fixed. Thanks for the status update. Christian Roess (talk) 00:08, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've found the Peabody ref (the year was wrong); even with the NBC obit functional it would be good to have confirmation, as obits often seem to get these details wrong. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:22, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm probably over-picky; if more than one obit states the same details for an award then it's probably fine. You can always hide the less-prestigious ones until refs can be found. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:39, 27 June 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.
Comment The references about his reelection in 1960 and his 1961 vote against the Fianna Fáil nominee for Chair of the County Council are marked as permanent dead links. His children's political positions are not referenced in this article, but they are on their own articles. Those are the only issues I can see. Thryduulf (talk) 10:24, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
MBlaze, it is rather poor form to mark your own nominations "ready". That is an assessment that should be performed by somebody else. Vanamonde (talk) 04:49, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wait until close paraphrasing issues are addressed; they aren't huge, but enough to be a problem. There's also one instance of content not being supported by a source (or simply missing a source); and a good bit of redundancy between the political career and politics sections. We could just dump the latter, and merge any unique content into the section above it. Vanamonde (talk) 05:03, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That was true for the Tipperary Star, but not for Independent.ie, as far as I can tell: [2] In any case, article looks a lot better now; though I'd still merge the politics with the political career (into the last paragraph), that's not something to hold the nomination up over any longer. Vanamonde (talk) 07:46, 27 June 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: Major development in cricket (the world's second most-followed sport) as two new nations are given test status. Target articles will only need updates to reflect this, rather than a major overhaul. Stormy clouds (talk) 15:18, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Issues addressed with referencing and a broad rewrite to ensure no copy-pasting. It appears that the info was copied from another Wikipedia article though, so not a copyright concern. Just bad editing by someone who does not know how links work. - Stormy clouds (talk) 16:20, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support This is, of course, massively important news for the 2nd most popular spectator sport in the world, but I'm a little unsure how important it is in the worldwide scheme of things. I'm trying to think of an equivalent for other sports, without a huge amount of success. Black Kite (talk)16:44, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the Two-tier Test cricket article, it appears to be a step towards establishing a baseball-style conference system, with the now 12 Test nations split into two groups of six teams who then have a playoff for the championship. Quite a radical departure from the current system where teams arrange Test matches by themselves, but arguably necessary to reverse the long-term decline in Test audiences compared to ODIs and Twenty20.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:50, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- So is test still the premier level of the sport? ITN tends to be stingy with anything outside of the top tier. If this a cynical move of a fading form, maybe it doesn't pass muster. 159.53.78.143 (talk) 17:55, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Traditionalists would say yes :) But viewing figures suggest otherwise. However,the idea of a "Division 1" and "Division 2" seems to have been abandoned, so at least Afganistan and Ireland would get to play the top teams straightaway and not be put into a group of minnows from which they would need to be promoted.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:03, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support since well over a billion English speakers watch and enjoy cricket so this is part of the broad interest that ITN should be piquing. Prepared, right now, to lay my entire mortgage, savings, house, cats, wendy house, that this won't be posted because of systemic bias. Or worse, it'll be posted, then pulled because of the same. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:20, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"well over a billion English speakers watch and enjoy cricket"? Sounds like Fake News to me. English language says there are 400 million native speakers of English and 1.1 billion who have it as a second language. The 400 million presumably includes about 300 million Americans, and the 1.1 billion appear to be spread all over the world including those vast swathes of the world that have no interest in cricket. Cricket-loving India has 1.3 billion people, but Languages of India says India has an estimated 125 million English speakers (and presumably quite a lot of them hate sport in general and/or cricket in particular). So I can't see how one gets up to 'well over a billion English speakers ...'. (However, I still support the posting of this item - as far as I know, nothing in our rules says that an item must interest over a billion English speakers before it can be posted at ITN). Tlhslobus (talk) 03:19, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay then, six hours in, even with US commentators awake, this has unanimous support, so marking as [ready]. Preparing my financial downfall... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:01, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I trust you are well versed in the numerous requested moves for Cricket? That alone means this may post but will never remain. This is, after all, American Wikipedia, lest you forget. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:14, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting support. I woke up this morning and saw the headline news and my jaw dropped (in a good way). This is the biggest news in cricket, one of the world's major sports, for years. Will have major impacts for many years to come. --dmmaus (talk) 22:19, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Significant and current news story about Christians who have been in the United States for many years and now face deportation under the current administration's immigration policy. The judge has issued a temporary order blocking the deportation for two weeks when he will issue a new order. As a class action lawsuit the decision protects "all Iraqi nationals within the jurisdiction of the Detroit Ice field office" Seraphim System(talk)23:02, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think U.S. Domestic policy is entirely appropriate for English Wikipedia, especially when it is something of national (even international) interest like the current immigration policy. It's not a "local story" - it's a federal court, only the jurisdiction is limited. These two things really shouldn't be confused. It is being covered by the international press, the citation I added it for The Guardian - but if consensus is against it because it is a the temporary order then I will re-nominate when the final decision is made. Seraphim System(talk)23:16, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A temporary blocking order while a case is in progress is not news. This case does have potential to set case law which would be the time to post, but definitely not now. --MASEM (t) 23:20, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The United Kingdom experiences its first early summer heat wave in over 20 years, and the highest recorded June temperatures in over 40 years with a reading of 34.5C (94F) recorded at Heathrow Airport. (BBC)
A police officer is stabbed in the neck at Bishop International Airport in Flint, Michigan. The FBI is investigating the incident as terrorism. The suspect was arrested on scene and charged with a federal count of violence at an international airport. The victim survived. (Fox News)
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Weak support per TRM and Thryduulf. Nothing more added to the article since the two comments above mine. So the article is still ok. Just basic information that is adequately sourced. Christian Roess (talk) 03:11, 25 June 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 oppose. What's there is referenced, but I'd like to see some mention of his playing career other than as an international. Thryduulf (talk) 10:30, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Thryduulf: Yes! I have been skeptical about this nomination myself. I am not getting anything at all about his playing career, but many references concentrate on his coaching career only. He seems more a coach than a player. - Vivvt (Talk) 10:50, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know that much about football, but I know that any old player does not get to play for a large national team like Nigeria, so he must have been noteworthy to some extent. There is currently not even a list of clubs he played for or a mention of what position he played. Thryduulf (talk) 10:57, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Destruction of a significant 12th-century landmark which was also a sort of Leaning Tower of Pisa-like architectural oddity. The place where ISIS declared their caliphate. Posting this would be a way of mentioning the ongoing Battle of Mosul without having to bold that very lengthy article. Article has been updated tense-wise, but currently only a sentence on the actual destruction. LukeSurltc20:22, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This incident was reported less than an hour ago, and the article contains all the pertinent information on the destruction (i.e. the claim and counterclaim of responsibility) that Al Jazeera (who I would trust to be the best reporters on this) have. I assume some reactions will be reported within the next few hours. --LukeSurltc20:42, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
ISIS news sources counter-claim that it was a US airstrike that destoyed the site. I'm not sure they're really a reliable source, but I've added an alt-blurb in the passive voice if want to avoid attributing this. --LukeSurltc20:51, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think it needs to be mentioned in the article, but not the blurb given that IS is the only source for the claim. And bluntly IS is not a reliable source for the time of day. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:16, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose – 'IS' destroying architectural monuments is nothing new. (Destruction is central to their ethos.) Sca (talk) 21:12, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is a very significant architectural monument whose deliberate destruction is an ITN worthy event. Article quality, while not great, appears to be minimally adequate. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:14, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Posted, but I'd like the discussion to continue here, because there are some unresolved issues. Ideally, this should have a picture; and there isn't clarity over the passive blurb (which I have now used, as being safer). The article may also easily develop issues, given the nature of the subject. Vanamonde (talk) 06:19, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not particularly: I came to this discussion from seeing a post elsewhere, and so dealt with it first. If that story is still unposted when I come back online in half an hour, I will deal with it. Vanamonde (talk)
Comment Somewhat conflicted on this, though for clarity I'm neither opposing nor requesting a pull. Not in doubt that it's a significant building. But this was one of a series of destructions in a very short space of time 2014, and as can be seen from the wikilink there were also other highly significant buildings and structures destroyed thereafter, which to my knowledge were not posted. Aside from true but unrevealing answers such as WP:CCC and the question of which ones were nominated (after the response to the one in the diff it's hardly surprising that others weren't nominated), I'm basically curious as to what people feel makes this one stand out? I feel this is a better place to ask than the talk page as I'm basically trying to understand the merits of this particular successful nomination. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 08:02, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with you 100%. All three supports call this particular mosque "significant" but I can find no documentation/indication of that elsewhere. I have no idea if it is or not. I do find the site significant in re it's role in the bookends of IS history; the caliphate was declared here and it was the last major stronghold of IS in Iraq. 159.53.174.140 (talk) 14:30, 22 June 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.
I'd be okay with posting it if the background section were sourced. We can rely on the book itself for in-universe things like the plot, but I'm not happy doing that for anything that relates it to the real world. Vanamonde (talk) 09:42, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done to the best of my ability at least. The novel is heavily based on historical events and a true story per all RS's, so that section just gave a historical background to Angola c. 1970's, which has now been sourced. Additional links added also. - Stormy clouds (talk) 12:44, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest the image is now changed to the author, and ITNR instructions are updated to say we can change the target if no-one can be bothered to fix the real target. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:53, 22 June 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, include in the inevitable blurb about the new Prime Minister of Romania. i.e. Following the ousting of Sorin Grindeanu in a no confidence vote, X becomes [[Prime Minister of Romania]]. I feel this would be more apt. - Stormy clouds (talk) 13:21, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question – is he a time-limited lame duck waiting to be replaced (or to somehow consolidate his position?), or has he actually gone and the post vacant or being performed by someone else on a caretaker basis? And (appreciating this is asking a lot but making the point that consensus will be formed more quickly once this is clear) can sources be provided for the answer? In one case I would oppose as premature, in the other I would support. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 13:30, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate the help. It certainly is confusing. Though I consider it unlikely that a system or constitution would specifically leave open the possibility that the country is without government of any kind, and therefore I presume that there is an objective answer. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 14:08, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked the user who made these changes to provide a source. Nothing in any English-language news I can see mentions an acting Prime Ministerial role held by Grindeanu or anyone else in the interim, though I imagine Romanian press is covering this with more accuracy and detail. --LukeSurltc19:44, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously this issue needs to be cleared up before any ITN posting. Acting PM is a thing in Romania (last happened in 2015), so I expect this editor is correct, they have just not cited the (likely Romanian language) source for this information. --LukeSurltc19:53, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My discussion with the editor is here. I think they speak Romanian, but aren't familiar with en wiki's referencing policy. I've got to be busy today, so if someone else wants to pick up that thread that'd be great. --LukeSurltc10:15, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This is not a normal transition of power, but the result of an ongoing struggle that included large protests that made ITN back in February. It's an interesting turn of events that I was completely unaware of until seeing this nom. And we could use some non-US/UK news on ITN.159.53.174.141 (talk) 19:23, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support this totally dominates Romanian news and is the climax of a week of crisis. I'd even argue this kind of event should be ITNR. Banedon (talk) 05:48, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now as despite efforts above, the current situation is as clear as mud to such an extent that the blurb's accuracy might be in question. Am not questioning importance. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 08:09, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now per Stormy. I too am not doubting the importance of this, but I recommend waiting until a new Prime Minister is put in and then making it one blurb for both the removal and the new PM. --AmaryllisGardenertalk18:09, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
*Weak Oppose for now. Interesting development, and one which will have global ramifications given the country's diplomatic ties ad geopolitical position of importance. However, it is not a change in the head of state, and the article needs work to get up to snuff, so I'll oppose for now. - Stormy clouds (talk) 08:27, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose By convention, we only post changes in the head of state or government (whichever applies given the type of government), and not subordinate positions. I see no reason to make an exception in this case. Subordinate positions are routinely shuffled, and sometimes with much controversy, in governments across the world.128.214.53.104 (talk) 10:50, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
True. However, this being a monarchy, the interim period is indefinite. The president-elect lies in wait in limbo for two months. Mohammad could be there for two decades. So, while the parallel is apt, I don't feel that we should equate them here. - Stormy clouds (talk) 13:21, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Stormy clouds: I understand the logic but believe posting a named successor is an appropriate way of bridging the difference between absolute monarchy and presidential or parliamentary democracies. In an absolute monarchy, the head of state will always die, abdicate or be overthrown, any of which would be an ITN story and therefore it's simply a moment of convenience to also mention the successor in that same blurb. Plus, as you point out, this could be years away, and therefore the risk of undue emphasis within a short space of time is relatively low. In democracies it is relatively rare for the leader to die in office, however more frequent that the leader of the country will change. Therefore I think the convention of naming a successor when selected, and including a mention of them during the death blurb of their predecessor, is an equitable way of handling these two extremely different forms of rule. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 13:53, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. By definition, in an absolute monarchy we would post a blurb for the death of a sitting head of state, and where the successor is pre-determined we would in the same blurb name the successor. Thus, to post this would not be inconsistent with how we handle democracies - post when the successor is known, and include information in other appropriate blurbs when there is an opportunity to do so. Combined with the fact that for him to be deposed or die would most likely in and of itself be ITN-worthy, there is logic to posting in this instance.
Whilst a bit cute about the language, we posted the point at which Kim Jong-un became heir apparant of North Korea (29 September 2010). If anything this is more significant to the wider world, given North Korea's isolationist and consistently provocative stance and Kim Jong-un seeming at the time to be very much in the mould of his father. I'd also note that accusations of Western bias have grown particularly acute over recent months, and while I don't condone the way in which these accusations have been made, they are not without merit. There have also been a disproportionate number of blurbs in recent months related to destruction and death, with ITN/Rs being the only real respite. Finally, the article is decent. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 13:25, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - as regards notability the BBC's analysis convinces me this is a fairly big deal in the power games of the country - and Saudi Arabia is a big and important country. --LukeSurltc15:36, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Noting that I've added an image of Mohammad bin Salman to the protected main page images list, in case it is desired to post this with a picture. BencherliteTalk16:54, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support- Even at a simple level, this means bin Salman is now Saudi PM , effectively a change in leadership if we're trying to justify posting compared to other political changes. But I would think its clear that any change like this in the Saudi royal family has significant sway on the regions politics, much less the world. --MASEM (t) 17:04, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I don't agree with the rationale being posted here. a) He is not PM; the king is. He is deputy first PM. b) it is not similar to President-elect of the United States, as that person has always (and absent extraordinary circumstances, will always) become President at a scheduled date. This is the third Crown Prince of Salman's two-year regency. It is far from given that he will be king. c) we very consciously do not post the designation AND inauguration of democratic leaders. The ITN/R rules should not come into play here, as they absolutely would be invoked if and when he becomes king. However, I would support posting if the change itself was of encyclopedic significance. I don't see it.159.53.78.140 (talk) 17:49, 21 June 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.
From the Shankman paper mentioned in the news articles - "We conclude that the orbital distribution of the OSSOS sample is consistent with being detected from a uniform underlying angular distribution." Their conclusion reflects only their survey. They identified the biases in their survey and assume the other surveys are also biased, but those biases are unidentified and may or may not match those of their survey. This is brought up in the articles in Nature and Science. If this is mentioned In_the_news the article should reflect that. Agmartin (talk) 15:43, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Tomruen I think SWFC means that it was a disgrace that we posted this in January 2016. Seems likely that this won't be featured in any case, given the glut of new blurbs. Banedon (talk) 00:54, 27 June 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.
Uber founder and CEO Travis Kalanick resigns amid pressure from investors due to allegations of sexual harassment, gender discrimination, and corporate misconduct in the company. (The New York Times)
Following the death of 22-year-old U.S. student Otto Warmbier, touring firm Young Pioneer Tours, who arranged Otto's visit to North Korea, say they will no longer be taking U.S. citizens to North Korea as the "risk is too high". Beijing-based Koryo Tours say they are reviewing their positions on taking U.S. citizens to the country. (The Guardian)
The amount of money spent for all candidates, $56 million, sets a new record for a U.S. House of Representatives seat. The previous record was $29.5 million, set in a 2012 Florida race. (Reuters)
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 No serious injuries to bystanders, and the culprit was immediately dealt with. Very much a non-starter of a story, shouldn't even have an article on it, much less ITN. --MASEM (t) 23:16, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - It should not even have a standalone article, let alone be included at ITN, but of course enough editors will vote keep at an AfD anyways.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:03, 21 June 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.
Weak oppose although now it's better sourced since it was nominated. Only two cn-tags there. The discography section needs some sources, and although the separate "Prodigy discography" page is well-sourced, it's only well-sourced in a few of its sections.Christian Roess (talk) 02:28, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - thought better of my vote, and changed to "weak oppose," instead of "weak support." Just a little under the quality threshold. I'll tag this "Attention Needed" in case an administrator comes along and the 2 cn-tags are fixed, and the discography section gets some citations. And maybe we can get it posted before it's stale.Christian Roess (talk) 02:43, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - We need a status update or a decision on this from an Administrator: post it or explain why it's not ready, or close it out if it is "stale". And by-the-way, let me give a brief rant, and correct me if I'm wrong: this RD nomination is newer than both Brian Cant and Otto Warmbier, so this Prodigy nomination could have been switched out with one of those, couldn't it? As things now stand, that may not happen. Alas... Christian Roess (talk) 07:39, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support FWIW, this death was actually in my regular news, unlike pretty much anyone else that comes across RD, and the article has improved massively since nomination (thanks MBL!).128.214.53.104 (talk) 08:13, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hang on a moment sorry, Christian Roess and other folks. Saw the pings and came by to post, and went so far as to open the template in the edit window; but while glancing over the article, I found a large number of prose errors, which made me take a closer look; and I find some content without a source, and more worryingly, content not supported by a recently added source; which makes a lot of the rest of it also suspect. This needs more work; or perhaps an admin bolder than I. We still have a little time to post it; at the time of writing, there's two RDs that are older than this. Vanamonde (talk) 09:43, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No need to apologize Vanamonde93. I saw your edits, and those are legitimate concerns you expressed. You are only doing what an administrator is supposed to do. And we certainly needed some other eyes on this ASAP, before the nomination went stale. So I say good job here. Thanks. Christian Roess (talk) 11:23, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
MBlaze, with all due respect, you said once above that the issues had been dealt with; and I came to the article, and found several issues in a very short span of time. These issues included content not supported by the sources. So, I think it is reasonable for me to ask that somebody else checks over the article, particularly with respect to verifiability, before I post it. Vanamonde (talk) 12:27, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've only looked at the "Early life" section and I found at least one instance of failed verification (now tagged). I've run out of time to check the rest of the article, but given that finding and Vanamonde93's comments, the whole article does need to be checked before posting. Thryduulf (talk) 14:04, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Ok, we now have a status update from reliable administrators. This article still Needs Attention. As I go through the sourcing, some of the url's are already decomposing (link rot). They're not pointing to the original source, as Thryduulf has noted. Meanwhile, I notice that MBlaze Lightning is still working on fixing those, even as I'm writing this comment. Also, as Vanamonde points out, there are grammatical and prose inconsistencies that are showing up. Of course, the article is still in a "fluid" editing situation, maybe because Prodigy continues to be a controversial and "galvanizing" figure even in death (hundreds of edits by dozens of different editors in the last 4 days,). And so that can account for some of the editing & sourcing inconsistencies that plague the article. Of course, my apologies for some of the things I surely missed or overlooked. Christian Roess (talk) 15:31, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
MBlaze Lightning and I have made some good progress on the article, addressing the latest problems that were brought to our attention. Anyhow, looks to be close to a "Ready" status. Although they're corrected, it's always good to have someone to double-check that the sources are cited accurately. Christian Roess (talk) 18:35, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Posted I think this is good enough now, and although I commented above, I opposed, so I think I'm OK to post it. Any other admin may revert this without discussing it with me - it's midnight here. Black Kite (talk)22:55, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Before I'm shot down here, I want to make the point that I was the very first person to weigh in on the initial nomination and make the point that it was out of the ordinary, and therefore should not be opposed despite the nomination being premature. I'm not in any doubt as to how huge the incident was, the unexpected nature of the event, or the ongoing struggles that the survivors are facing.
That said, Bencherlite suggested below the original nomination that this be nominated for removal if there were disagreement in its being moved from ITN to ongoing. I can certainly see why the move to ongoing was made – the story is very high profile, there is still discontent among those in the immediate area about the support being received from the government and council, and the incident is still making news headlines albeit to a far lesser extent. I also have no objection to the boldness of the action.
However, despite my personal support for the victims – including those victims who are still alive and their families – I don't see on what grounds the incident itself can be considered ongoing, save for the fact that the police have stated it could take weeks to go through the building thoroughly. I would contrast this to for instance a set of deadly wildfires lasting several weeks, where the actual incident itself - the fires - are still ongoing after the story is bumped by four to six newer events. My concern is that we risk setting a precident whereby the ongoing section is seen as a test of super-importance (a test that Grenfell Tower would undoubtedly pass I should note). StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 16:18, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the right time for this to possibly return to ITN would be when the conclusions of the inquiry are published (that is a very long way off). That is the point at which there might be major news headlines again (though it will stay in the headlines in the UK for the next few weeks). The Finsbury Park incident is not in the news any more and was never likely to stay in the news for long (am still puzzled why that went up in the first place). Slightly related question: if the blurb entry on Helmut Kohl drops off before the usual 7 days for an RD item, would that be moved to RD? And does the same sort of criterion apply to ongoing? (i.e. is ongoing for items that drop off too quickly while they are still in the news, or is ongoing for stuff that goes on for weeks and months?) Carcharoth (talk) 16:47, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Remove - the fire is out, so it is no longer an ongoing development. The only major ITN-worthy story to come from the fire will be the death toll, which may rise as the ruins are searched, or the demolition of the tower. Neither will happen soon, with both taking many weeks if not months, so an ongoing placement is not warranted. I did support for blurb, but ongoing is not being correctly applied here in my view. - Stormy clouds (talk) 16:56, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Remove I made this point below, after seeing it had been moved, but was unable to follow up. The fire is out. The political fallout continues, but that is not (yet) ITN worthy. Vanamonde (talk) 17:00, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Remove. Following on from Carcharoth's point, I'd say Ongoing is for (a) stories that have incremental updates over a period of time, none of which are necessarily ITN-worthy on their own but together clearly are (the Olympics, major battles of attrition, extensive forest fires, etc), and (b) items that are still major news and are still getting updates about developments after the blurb has aged off the main section. If it is not clear whether a story is over when the blurb gets bumped off then adding it to ongoing pending discussion is the right thing to do. In this case, the main news has happened and there is nothing now but ongoing investigations, political fallout and simmering discontent that does not (yet) rise to the level of ITN, but if (when?) it blows up (hopefully figuratively) ongoing would hamper that event getting a blurb. Thryduulf (talk) 17:20, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that I agree with this point. It's unquestionably within an admin's discretion to assume that something of this nature is ongoing provided that there's a credible argument, given the existing consensus that it's Main Page worthy. Here, consensus subsequently turned out against, but there was definitely a credible argument to the contrary and was no need to bureaucratically ask, the onus was on providing a consensus to remove. I also sadly agree that at some point in the future Grenfell Tower is likely to return to ITN.
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)
