Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
For administrator instructions on updating Template:In the news, see Wikipedia:In the news/Admin instructions.

This page provides a forum for editors to suggest items for inclusion in Template:In the news (ITN), a protected Main Page template, as well as the forum for discussion of candidates. This is not the page to report errors in the ITN section on the Main Page—please go to the appropriate section at WP:ERRORS.

This candidates page is integrated with the daily pages of Portal:Current events. Under each daily section header below is the transcluded Portal:Current events items for that day (with a light green header). Each day's portal page is followed by a subsection for suggestions and discussion.

Kyle Busch, winner of the 2015 NASCAR Sprint Cup Series championship
Kyle Busch

How to nominate an item[edit]

In order to suggest a candidate:

  • Update an article to be linked to from the blurb to include the recent developments, or find an article that has already been updated.
  • Find the correct section below for the date of the event (not the date nominated) in UTC.
    • Do not add sections for new dates. These are automatically generated (at midnight UTC) by a bot; creating them manually breaks this process. Remember, we use UTC dates.
  • Nominate the blurb for ITN inclusion under the "Suggestions" subheading for the date, emboldening the link in the blurb to the updated article. Use a level 4 header (====) when doing so.
    • Preferably use the template {{ITN candidate}} to nominate the article related to the event in the news. Make sure that you include a reference from a verifiable, reliable source. The suggested blurb should be written in simple present tense.
    • Adding an explanation why the event should be posted greatly increases the odds of posting. For recent deaths, please state why the person is notable enough to post - merely having a Wikipedia article is insufficient.
  • Please consider alerting editors to the nomination by adding the template {{ITN note}} to the corresponding article's talk page.

Purge this page to update the cache

There are criteria which guide the decision on whether or not to put a particular item on In the news, based largely on the extensiveness of the updated content and the perceived significance of the recent developments. These are listed at WP:ITN.

Submissions that do not follow the guidelines at Wikipedia:In the news will not be placed onto the live template.


  • Items that have been posted or pulled from the main page are generally marked with [Posted] or [Pulled] in the item's subject so it is clear they are no longer active.
  • Items can also be marked as [Ready] when the article is both updated and there seems to be a consensus to post. The posting admin, however, should always judge the update and the consensus to post themselves. If you find an entry that you don't feel is ready to post is marked [Ready], you should remove the header.

Voicing an opinion on an item[edit]

  • Format your comment to contain "support" or "oppose", and include a brief (or detailed!) rationale for your choice. Comments and other objections are welcome, but this is the basic form.
  • Some jargon: RD refers to "recent deaths", a subsection of the news box which lists only the names of the recent notable deceased. Blurb refers to the full sentences that occupy most of the news box. Most eligible deaths will be listed in the recent deaths section of the ITN template. However, some deaths may be given a full listing if there is sufficient consensus to do so.
  • The blurb of a promoted ITN item may be modified to complement the existing items on the main page.

Please do not...[edit]

  • ... add simple "support" or "oppose" !votes without including your reasons. Similarly, curt replies such as "who?", "meh", or "duh!" are usually not helpful. Instead, explain the reasons why you think the item meets or does not meet the ITN inclusion criteria so a consensus can be reached.
  • ... complain about an event only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive.
  • ... accuse other editors of supporting, opposing or nominating due a to personal bias (such as ethnocentrism). Conflicts of interest are not handled at ITN.
  • ... comment on a story without first reading the relevant article(s).
  • ... oppose an item because it is not on WP:ITN/R.


November 27[edit]

November 26[edit]

November 25[edit]

Remove European migrant crisis from ongoing?[edit]

My previous proposal to remove European migrant crisis as ongoing did not go well, despite two supports and two opposes. This time, even when Paris attacks affects the crisis, there have not been frequent updates lately. In fact, editing has slowed down. Whether the crisis is in the news frequently no longer matters. I checked recent developments and found nothing new... except typical politics. If removed, this leaves Paris attacks aftermath the only ongoing event in the Main Page. That shouldn't affect the Main Page, should it? --George Ho (talk) 22:25, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Support - The undertones of the migrant crisis continue, and there are news items that say some variant of "in the aftermath of the Paris attacks we should restrict immigration from Muslim refugees", which is definitely related to the migrant crisis. That said, other items are dominating the news right now. Banedon (talk) 00:51, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose At least in Germany, this is still very much top of the news every day. There have been major developments in the last few days, for instance in Sweden. No updates to the article is not a reason to take this off ITN, but rather to get to it and add the new information. Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:27, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose as well. The situation is escalating also because several countries have now declared that they will only accept people fleeing from war zones. So there are new developments all the time. --Tone 14:55, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
  • keep I just looked at two national news media websites in my country, and the refugee crisis was still on the front page of both today. Thue (talk) 16:33, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose/keep – Lull in editing ≠ lull in event. Issues are continually unfolding and it continues to become more problematic. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 17:29, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Comment - While in principle I agree with you, some time ago we removed the Southeast Asian Haze from ongoing because of a lull in editing. Banedon (talk) 00:52, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support The reason to keep something in ongoing is for an article receiving frequent updates, not because it is just in the news. The editing rate on the article has drastically slowed down so it is no longer appropriate for ongoing. --MASEM (t) 17:57, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
@Masem: Again, if no updates is your concern, then WP:JUSTDOIT. There's plenty to choose from. I'd do it myself, but I don't have the time at the moment, unfortunately. Keeping the article on the main page will serve the purpose of bringing editors there and do more work on it. Zwerg Nase (talk) 23:00, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
It is not that it is not being updated, but from what news I see on it, there is little to update on a frequent basis. It's a big story in the news day to day as it is still happening, but there is little actual day to day change in the "story" that merits frequent encyclopedic updates. And Ongoing is meant for stories that do have frequent encyclopedic updates. --MASEM (t) 23:27, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is a no-brainer, with the events in Europe lately, and the strong feelings about immigration, this is fine at Ongoing. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:32, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

November 24[edit]

Blue Origin rocket landing[edit]

Updated article: Blue Origin New Shepard
Blurb: Blue Origin performs the first successful soft landing of a reusable suborbital rocket, the New Shepard''
News source(s): BBC

Nominator: Modest Genius (give credit)

Article updated

Note: Article looks OK, with a short but adequate update in the History section, though some attention wouldn't hurt. A shame there's no free image available.

Nominator's comments: This is the first time anyone has soft-landed a rocket that has been to space. It steals SpaceX's thunder a bit, as they've been trying to do this for a few years without success, albeit with a bigger orbital rocket. This is instead a suborbital one intended for space tourists, but still a hugely impressive achievement that brings the prospect of significantly-reduced launch costs. Modest Genius talk 12:57, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose for a few reasons (1) the BBC article is like a press release from the company; there was no media at the rocket launch/landing so all information comes from the company. Questionable reliability. (2) this development seems like an incremental step in progress - the rocket lands and can be used again - doesn't seem like a significant development yet (3) the article hasn't been fully updated e.g. the "mission" section is written about a future planned mission but hasn't this mission just happened? MurielMary (talk) 13:14, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support in principle, a very significant "increment" and we usually post the launch of any new series of rockets, none of which has landed under power. That being said, I agree entirely with Modest Genius's reservations on the reliability and independence of sources. When I clicked on the news item for this this morning I expected to see a launch and landing. Instead there was a news anchor and some talking heads discussing this but without any actual footage. μηδείς (talk) 18:24, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose this is not significant, especially after (albeit a ropey) Virgin commercial trial or two. What makes this any different? It's not clear to me why this is substantially different or more interesting, other than the fact that I'm disappointed by the spelling of "Sheperd". But I do get it, so don't bother. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:50, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

2015 Tunis bombing[edit]

Article to update: 2015 Tunis bombing
Blurb: In Tunis, Tunisia, a bus explodes, killing twelve presidential security guards.
News source(s): CNN BBC
Nominator: Andise1 (give credit)

Article needs updating

Note: Article needs quite a bit of updating.

Nominator's comments: Terrorist attack killing presidential security guards. ISIS has claimed responsibility for the attack. Andise1 (talk) 21:14, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Support I note the BBC article makes it clear it is a suicide bomber that triggered the explosion and suggest the blurb reflect that. I note ISIS is claiming responsibility but they is yet proven out. The article could use a hint more expansion but it will likely take some time for details to filter in. --MASEM (t) 23:34, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Neutral/weak oppose at this point - neither CNN nor BBC have this story on their front page, suggesting lack of notability. Also the article is very brief. MurielMary (talk) 07:20, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Just because certain websites do not have this attack on their front page does not mean it is not notable. Andise1 (talk) 21:09, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

RD: Douglass North[edit]

Nom Douglass North. Nobel prize winning economist. "Obituary: Douglass C. North, Nobel Prize-winning economist, 95" --bender235 (talk) 23:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Support pending article improvement. Certainly top of his field, but article needs more referencing. -Zanhe (talk) 00:42, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support on notability, oppose on current article quality. As Zanhe said, it needs referencing improvements. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:46, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose mere nobel prize has long been discounted as justification for an ITNRD listing. μηδείς (talk) 03:27, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Since when? If a "mere nobel prize" (lol, "mere"?) doesn't indicate significance in one's field then I don't know what does. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:12, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
      • I do have to concur with Medeis; rightly or wrongly, that does seem to be the precedent. 331dot (talk) 03:19, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Support when updated.Correctron (talk) 05:06, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support on significance; article does need references. The Rise of the Western World remains a standard undergrad textbook on economic history. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:59, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. The article is not yet in a state to post, and does not seem to be being significantly improved; much is un- or under-referenced, too much leans on a single reference, and the notability, aside from the Nobel prize, is not well explained. Could the nominator or a supporter please link a couple of full obituaries in major newspapers? (The BBC doesn't seem to have covered it.) Espresso Addict (talk) 01:41, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

New Portuguese PM[edit]

Proposed image
Article to update: Portuguese legislative election, 2015

Blurb: Socialist Party leader António Costa (pictured) is appointed Prime Minister of Portugal.
News source(s): BBC, WSJ, Reuters
Nominator: Fuebaey (give credit)

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Change in head of government for Portugal. We didn't nominate their general election result seven weeks ago. Incumbent PM has failed to gain a majority coalition to govern, providing an opportunity for another EU country to form a left-wing government. Fuebaey (talk) 22:23, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Support - What makes this story even more interesting is that the President was up until now still trying to keep Pedro Passos Coelho in power as a caretaker Prime Minister, in what the opposition and others were claiming (with justification) as an attempted constitutional coup. Ceannlann gorm (talk) 22:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - it's ITN/R if I'm not mistaken. -Zanhe (talk) 00:46, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
  • @Zanhe: Changes to head of state are ITNR, but not changes to head of government. General elections are, which often mention the leader of the party that wins, but any other change in head of government is judged on its own merits. 331dot (talk) 02:25, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
not udaed but weak support the circumstances are very unusual (and its not ITNR, the election was). But the section needs more of an update.Lihaas (talk) 00:47, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Premature? The lead of Costa's article says "On 24 November 2015, he was given a list of items by President Aníbal Cavaco Silva that he would like clarified before being appointed prime minister-designate." That implies it's not a done deal. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:48, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
I try not to rely on unsourced statements - this is confirmation. The process should be a formality since the SP made their pacts two weeks ago. I'll add a paragraph to Portuguese legislative election, 2015#Government formation in the next day or so, if someone hasn't already beaten me to it. Fuebaey (talk) 01:47, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
"Should be a formality" gives me pause. It could still fall through, yes? As a wise man once said, "it ain't over 'till it's over". BTW I do of course support this if it is indeed confirmed beyond any shadow of doubt. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:07, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose for lack of rationale. Costa seems to have half the seats of his nearest rival. Please explain what's going on, ao we can evaluate this. μηδείς (talk) 03:32, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Wait until the vote in the assembly. This is effectively a government change. --Tone 15:52, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Hunting Ground controversy may see changes to Wikipedia editing rules[edit]

News stories which involve the stereotypical navel-gazing of Wikipedia seldom get too far here. Closing with snow, as befits the season. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

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.

Updated article: The Hunting Ground
Blurb: An ongoing controversy regarding inappropriate edits to Wikipedia articles related to the documentary film The Hunting Ground may result in a major overall of Wikipedia's rules and associated policies, especially those related to Conflict of interest.
News source(s):
Nominator: Ceannlann gorm (give credit)

Article updated

Nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, meaning that the recurrence of the event is generally considered important enough to post on WP:ITN subject to the quality of the article and the update to it.

Nominator's comments: May directly effect Wikipedia even more than it has already. Ceannlann gorm (talk) 22:15, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose not that this is not an important issue for to figure out but this is far from an ITN-type story. There's other places like the signpost where this can be highlighted. --MASEM (t) 22:23, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose this is not news in any way, shape or form. Not only does nobody other than a few hundred Wikipedia editors care, Jimmy Wales has no powers to change Wikipedia's rules even should he want to. ‑ iridescent 22:25, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Closed] 2015 Roubaix shootings[edit]

Consensus against posting. BencherliteTalk 22:30, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: 2015 Roubaix shootings
Blurb: A number of people are injured during a hostage crisis in Roubaix, France.
News source(s): The Guardian
Nominator: Eugen Simion 14 (give credit)

 EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 19:43, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Too soon - There's no evidence at this early date of the scale of this event or of any ties to terrorism. This could easily turn out to be something routine. --Bongwarrior (talk) 19:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Wait - My read of the news stories suggests this is not tied to terrorism but because of where it happened and due to the recent rise in terrorism/threats here, clearly people are a bit on edge to believe this might be serious. Wait to see if this actually is such a case or not. --MASEM (t) 19:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Police there are saying it is unconnected to the terrorist attacks and looking more like a small time robbery gone wrong. [1]. Assuming this is what it proves out to be oppose since this is just a local crime. --MASEM (t) 20:16, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - the way it's been presented here is that military-type weapons were being used, so it seemed likely the well-known terrorism suspects are involved. But wait until the article is more than one sentence... LjL (talk) 20:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Follow-up - they just confirmed on our TV it was an armed robbery, no terrorism. LjL (talk) 20:22, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The hypersensitivity is understandable, but just a local crime in the end. Resolute 21:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This was not a terrorist attack. --Jenda H. (talk) 22:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Posted] Russian jet shootdown[edit]

I think Sca understands now. No use beating the dead horse. --Jayron32 01:26, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

You can't fight City Hall. [2] Sca (talk) 15:32, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
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.

Updated article: 2015 Russian Sukhoi Su-24 shootdown
Blurb: Turkey says it shot down a Russian Sukhoi Su-24 fighter jet on the Turkish-Syrian border.
Alternative blurb: A Russian Su-24 fighter jet is shot down on the Turkish-Syrian border.
Alternative blurb II: A Russian Su-24 fighter jet is shot down by Turkey near the Syrian border.
News source(s): Press TV
Nominator and updater: Lihaas (give credit)
Other updaters: Jayron32 (give credit)

Article updated

Note: Still looking for an article. This could use its own article. I WP:BOLDly created a new article that is a work in progress.

Nominator's comments: It seems small with 1-2 casualties but its all over the news and some heated rhetoric. Within the next 24 hours it could be even bigger with repercussions already warned. I awas unsure to nominate this but keep an eye on it and it may grow within 24 hours. MAJOR escalation here... Lihaas (talk) 13:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support on the merits; one country shooting down another's plane is notable. 331dot (talk) 13:19, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Proposing altblurb that leaves out "Turkey says"; all sides seem to agree a jet was lost (and there is film of it) but disagree on the circumstances. 331dot (talk) 13:22, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support altblurb Clearly a major news story right now. I was busy adding additional information to a different article, but have moved over text to this one, as it was reported here first. Also tweaked both proposed blurbs to include links to direct section with text about shootdown. --Jayron32 13:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Just saw your link. Ill add it to the article. You can Too ;)Lihaas (talk) 13:34, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

:*Note: The new article is not sufficiently developed yet, if it gets there we can change the target link. Let's keep the target at the larger article, which provides more context and has more details. If and when the new article is as developed as the current Russian military intervention target, we can change it. --Jayron32 13:41, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Theres a minimum update for nw. Obviously over the next 3+ hours more would come in. Nato is meeting in an emergency session in about 2 hours.Lihaas (talk) 14:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
All good. --Jayron32 14:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support altblurb which I've modified to present tense, but most outlets are pretty clear on how this happened, e.g. BBC: "Turkey shoots down Russian warplane on Syria border", NYT: "Turkey Shoots Down Russian Warplane Near Syria Border", SMH: "Russian fighter jet shot down by Turkish jets near Syrian-Turkish border" so perhaps we should modify the blurb to reflect these reliable sources. Putin has just said "We will never tolerate such atrocities". The Rambling Man (talk) 13:33, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Note:: The two pilots were seen parachuting to ground. [3] (talk) 13:34, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Note 2: both of whom were shot at by some rebel group and at least one of whom has been declared dead by same. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:36, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Sheesh. That is just one helluva bad day at the office. (talk) 13:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Death of pilots both is disputed: [4]. (talk) 18:35, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - that military planes get shot down by accident or by friendly fire in wars is hardly uncommon, and so is this incident. If larger ramifications emerge (break of diplomatic relations, military escalation), then let's post something. But at the moment it seems all that will happen will be a few harsh words being exchanged. (talk) 13:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
By Turkey's admission, it was not an accident, and Russia also is not saying it was an accident. 331dot (talk) 13:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, to all intents and purposes, this is an act of war. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
"Friendly fire"? This is not friendly fire, check the definition. LjL (talk) 16:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support This is an extremely important news with many possible repercussions and very likely deterioration in the relations between Russia and Turkey as a result.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:21, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Altblurb 2 – From what I read "by Turkey" is being treated as an established fact. The only disagreement seems to be about whether it was in Turkish airspace, although given the video coverage there seems little doubt about that either. Sca (talk) 14:31, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
PS: Target article lede says "by the Turkish Air Force." Alt2 could be changed to "by Turkish Air Force jets," (or "F-16s") if that's not too long. Sca (talk) 15:14, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
READY to post?Lihaas (talk) 14:33, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - I was initially inclined to wait just to see if this was resolved diplomatically (per IP .237's reasoning), but Putin seems to be pushing for at least calling out Turkey on its actions. --MASEM (t) 14:48, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - a big deal. Banedon (talk) 15:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - World-wide news. Could escalate. Dismas|(talk) 15:24, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support (altblurb) and suggest quick publication. Obviously major news. LjL (talk) 16:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - well basically, a world wide news. And a possible game changer.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
NOTE TO POSTING ADMIN we don't know the exact location ofw here it was shot down (hence the controversy). We should use the more neutral original blurb indicating the border of both.Lihaas (talk) 16:35, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Definitely support. First time a NATO member shot down a Russian jet since the 1950s, early in the Cold War. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:18, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted a modified version of Alt2, as the exact location where the shooting happened is contentious. Feel free to report updates as needed to WP:ERRORS for prompt response. --Jayron32 17:36, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Post-posting comment – Too vague. Turkey is larger than any European country, and borders on seven countries. That means many possible locations. Can't we at least say is shot down by Turkey near Syria? That would give some indication of one of the Five Ws. Sca (talk) 18:17, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
    Please report updates as needed to WP:ERRORS for prompt response. --Jayron32 18:19, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
The reason I keep running into this organizational issue (with several admins) is that not every suggestion for improving an ITN blurb concerns an error per se. The lack of any indication of the incident's location isn't technically an error, it's an omission, or a simple lack of info. The pre-posting discussion of the blurb occurred here, and it seems logical for additional discussion of the blurb to be allowed here. However, please see this. Sca (talk) 18:31, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
And you'll note it got fixed promptly. So... --Jayron32 18:43, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
For some reason the fix isn't showing up on the Main Page display yet. Now it's there.
Aside from which, it would make sense to change the headings on Main Page Talk to something like Errors/suggestions. Sca (talk) 18:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Well that's something to take up elsewhere, like WT:MAIN. Suggestions are usually so vague and subjective that they can be dismissed, most importantly because the community has come to a consensus on a blurb before it's posted. Why then suddenly bend the whim of an individual's subjective opinion unless there's a factual error? Everyone has a preference, and not everyone has copyedited print. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
OK, leave MP Talk as it is, but allow good-faith post-posting discussion here. Sca (talk) 21:37, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Why have further discussion on the nomination thread when the item has already been posted? That makes no sense.--WaltCip (talk) 00:45, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Quatsch. Sca (talk) 00:54, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

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.

November 23[edit]

[Closed] Northern white rhino dies, population down to three[edit]

Consensus against posting this. Fuebaey (talk) 22:48, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

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.

Updated article: Northern white rhinoceros
Blurb: The Northern white rhinoceros moves closer to extinction with the death of a female at San Diego Zoo's Safari Park; three animals remain in the world
News source(s): CNN BBC USA Today
Nominator: MurielMary (give credit)

First article updated, second needs updating

Nominator's comments: Significant event in species reduction/extinctions MurielMary (talk) 09:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose, it's not a species, it's a subspecies, and it's not the last one. Abductive (reasoning) 09:26, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose — if a species becomes extinct, that's news, but we're not going to run a countdown ticker each time a member of an endangered subspecies dies. This doesn't "move the species closer to extinction", anyway; the effort to resurrect the NWR don't involve any of the surviving examples but instead is based on implanting NWR embryos into other rhino surrogates. ‑ iridescent 09:28, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support in principle - It's in the news now. No guarantees the actual extinction will be in the news as well, especially given how many species go extinct every day. Only problem I would say is that the article looks pretty outdated and / or badly structured. There are three rhinos remaining for example, but that is not apparent in that page. Banedon (talk) 09:43, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment The fourth sentence of the opening paragraph of the rhino article states there are three remaining; second paragraph mentions death of the female at San Diego. Also seem to be a large number of updates in the last 24 hours. Or do you mean the San Diego article looks outdated? MurielMary (talk) 09:45, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
comment is that the last female? If so then its notable as the end of the speces (almost). Any resurrection will then be of a mixed species.Lihaas (talk) 11:17, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now hope for this subspecies is dead for a long time. So wait for last one in Kenya. --Jenda H. (talk) 10:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Abductive. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:22, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose; we aren't a species countdown ticker. This can be posted if they go extinct(not anxious to, it's just reality). 331dot (talk) 12:21, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

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.

Ongoing: Military intervention against ISIL (swap Paris attack aftermath)[edit]

Aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle reportedly made its strikes recently, with France and Russia apparently leading the way. This is to swap the current link Paris attack aftermath to military intervention against ISIL which seems more precise and developing. Brandmeistertalk 16:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Note: The above choice of article is being updated MUCH LESS often than the Paris Attacks article is. The requested ISIL article has only been edited 4 times in the last 24 hours, and in the last week I see only 2-3 updates to the article I would count as substantial. The Paris Attacks article exceeds 50 edits in the past 12 hours, with at least 4-5 major content additions in that time span. Based just on that, the Paris Attacks article is the preferred target. --Jayron32 17:42, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Comment: Why not post the Syrian Civil War as ongoing? The terrorist attacks in Paris, the refugee crisis, the French and Russian (and many other nations, including the US) strikes on ISIL, all these news stories are directly related or are direct consequences of this civil war. All the while, the civil war is going on with an intensity that by itself would justify this civil to be posted as ongoing. And frankly, it should never have been removed. (talk) 19:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
I would agree. Just today it appears that the UK will be sending airstrikes against ISIL in Syria. Time to focus on the bigger picture (e.g. as noted by the IP above) and not just one of the many horrendous individual events, makes perfect sense for Ongoing. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:25, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
In the Syrian Civil War article, there are a few more substantial updates, but not as much activity as the Paris attacks article; its last 50 edits takes us back to October, and while there was a flurry of activity on November 21, the Paris attacks article is getting more updates more recently. Still more action in that article. --Jayron32 02:24, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't know if such a page exists but it would seem that if we had an outline page (one that follows WP:OUTLINE, not necessarily a prose-filed article but one that is more a inter-wiki link directory) that gave overviews of various articles that touch on the ISIL/Syria situation (including but not limited to the refugee crisis, the Paris attacks, the Metrojet crash, the various historical ruins destroyed by ISIL, etc.) that this would be an acceptable "ongoing" news target even though that specific page may not always be updated. It's this type of specific scenario where the situation is so amorphous and all-encompassing where I'd consider this a possibility; I would not, for example, recommend it at all for something like the Olympics (in that the current Olympics page should be a good overview prose article and not just an outline-level article). --MASEM (t) 20:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
I was the admin who put 'Paris attacks aftermath' in Ongoing after the item rolled off, because related news was at the time continuously top of the BBC's news index and the article was being heavily worked on (~50 edits per day). I am entirely happy for it to be replaced with a more general ISIS-related article, as long as a suitable target can be found that is being updated frequently. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Move Metrojet Flight 9268 to Ongoing again?[edit]

Already removed, and no appetite for its retention. Jayron's points show that the criteria for posting to ongoing are not met, and were not met when this particular discussion started either. BencherliteTalk 17:33, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

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.

"Metrojet Flight 9268" has been cyclically being removed and reappearing, but perhaps patience wasn't in our minds. This time, I hope patience is considered in regards to developments. Russia stated that the flight was bombed, exciting fears of terrorism. Afterwards, there aren't any more developments yet. Currently, it's at the bottommost. Shall we declare it ongoing again? George Ho (talk) 16:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose it's done it's time now we have confirmation of what the cause was. Let it slide off. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:10, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
"confirms" was changed to "states". --George Ho (talk) 16:16, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Any further determination will likely takes months (it took several to confirm what took down that MA flight over Ukraine). The story for all purposes is now stale and/or part of the larger issue of these various terrorist acts between Paris, etc. (though no linkage has been made at this time that I have seen). --MASEM (t) 16:20, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Getting a little tired of this now. The Kremlin confirmed it. If you doubt the Kremlin, then you should doubt the White House and Downing Street etc. This is seriously becoming a drain on resources responding to each and every nuance of your posts. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Move on.--WaltCip (talk) 18:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • The article in question has just one substantial edit in the past week, nearly all the activity has been vandalism reversion and minor wording fixes. And that substantial edit: [5] is not any new information, but a retrospective discussion over claims Russia had made initially in the investigation. There has not been any substantial new information added to the article to justify its inclusion in any part of ITN, and the volume of new information is far too low for Ongoing. --Jayron32 02:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Posted] Pfizer deal[edit]

Updated articles: Pfizer and Allergan, Plc
Blurb: American pharmaceutical company Pfizer agrees to merge with Allergan in a deal worth US$160 billion.
Alternative blurb: American Pfizer and Irish Allergan agree to merge to produce the world's largest pharmaceutical company.
Alternative blurb II: American Pfizer and Irish Allergan agree to merge, with Pfizer becoming based in Ireland.
News source(s): Guardian, CNBC, Reuters
Nominator: Fuebaey (give credit)

Both articles updated

Nominator's comments: Significant business takeover. Big drug company buys out Botox manufacturer, to potentially create world's largest drug company. Tax inversion may also be involved - relocating from the US to Ireland would more than halve the corporation's tax rates. Fuebaey (talk) 13:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Support, major businees transaction. sst✈(discuss) 14:42, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Support, It is just a merge rather than a buyout (the total value of the merged companies to be $160B, as opposed that much trading hands), but that said, this is a major deal in the pharma side. Pfizer's article has a few cns, but otherwise both articles seem ready to go. --MASEM (t) 15:14, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose on article quality of Allergan. I thought about nominating this earlier today, until I looked at the article and saw that it doesn't actually talk about the company. It has bits about its corporate history and a list of its product and nothing else. -- KTC (talk) 16:00, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Time we had a discussion about this kind of thing. Not that I disagree with you, but how many times have we seen massive (mega-massive) business deals bummed out of ITN because they haven't signed, sealed and delivered the bottom line. I'll start something, hopefully you and the others around these parts can contribute so we get some guidance we can follow in the future. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:42, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
TRM, Ping me when you get the discussion started. I'll add my two cents. Rhodesisland (talk) 00:26, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose we just went through this with Heinzkraft, whose merger nominated here as a "big deal" was followed within a few weeks by buyouts and layoffs. Consolidation during bad economic times is not the same thing as, say, the creation of Verizon as an integrated mobile, internet and full-service phone carrier with the merger of some local service baby bells and GTE. There's no promise of synergy here (i.e., no news) just cost cutting and tax avoision. μηδείς (talk) 22:14, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. This is news now and should be posted now; the actual transaction will likely not be in the news(as I state on TRM's discussion) 331dot (talk) 22:24, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per SSTflyer. Banedon (talk) 00:53, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - this is a huge merger with potential impact on the pricing and development of common medicines used by hundreds of millions of people. -Zanhe (talk) 04:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - seems like a significant corporate development, plus the tax inversion angle and opposition to it from Clinton/Sanders is interesting. As to timing, I think a useful rule of thumb could be "post it when it's in the news" ...... which is currently. MurielMary (talk) 09:19, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
    • And be sure to cover the nakedly anti-American reasoning behind their proposed transfer of their HQ to Ireland. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. The Pfizer article looks ok, but more of an update about the merger and criticism of tax inversion would be helpful; ITN is supposed to be providing an in-depth look at such news, which this is not. I oppose the inclusion of the inadequate article on Allergan as a bolded target, but don't think that necessarily a barrier to posting. Espresso Addict (talk) 11:12, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Added an alt-blurb - Allergan's Irishness is as important as Pfizer's Americanness. Smurrayinchester 12:25, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - significant corporate development. huge merger.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:37, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Marked I have unbolded Allergan as a target article, per above comments. Tweaked the blurb to state the deal itself is worth that amount. Still more than the AB InBev and SABMiller agreement we posted last month. Fuebaey (talk) 23:14, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted with alt blurb. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:31, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

November 22[edit]

[Posted] 2015 NASCAR Sprint Cup Series championship[edit]

Proposed image
Updated article: 2015 NASCAR Sprint Cup Series

Blurb: In motorsport, Kyle Busch (pictured) wins the 2015 NASCAR Sprint Cup Series championship.
News source(s): New York Times
Nominator and updater: Dough4872 (give credit)
Other updaters: ZappaOMati (give credit)

Article updated

Nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, meaning that the recurrence of the event is generally considered important enough to post on WP:ITN subject to the quality of the article and the update to it.

Nominator's comments: Notable subject concerning the championship in the highest level of stock car racing. Dough4872 04:03, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Support - Looks like it's one of the events that are usually posted according to Wikipedia:In the news/Recurring items#Motorsport, anyway. Zappa24Mati 04:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose – Large chunks of unsourced material throughout the article, which is predominantly made of giant tables and lists. Notably, most of the rule changes (which I assume are a notable aspect of the series) is mostly devoid of sources. Others might be verifiable through the wikilinks of drivers or the specific races, but there are dozens that need verification. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 04:14, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Looks like some of the rule changes (particularly in the preseason section) have sources, but they were placed in a way that made it seem like they didn't. NFLisAwesome (ZappaOMati) 17:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Commendable updates to the article by Dough4872 were made, including the addition of race summaries. Meets ITN criteria now and should be good to go (though I would suggest restructuring to place prose closer to the top...just a personal nitpick). Pinging @MurielMary, Fuebaey, and The Rambling Man: to give the article another look through and for another set of eyes to verify. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 23:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - Since he missed the first eleven races of the season, should his injury be mentioned? - – Nascar1996 (talkcont) 05:24, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Might be worth mentioning, along with Jeff Gordon retiring. Dough4872 06:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose as article doesn't currently meet ITN criteria - article is largely lists and tables (criteria state update must include prose) and significant amounts are unreferenced. MurielMary (talk) 09:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Article appears to have been updated, looks okay to me. - OldManNeptune 10:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Adding "Kyle Busch won the championship", an image and some stats is an insufficient update for ITN. Ping me if someone adds a season summary, or at least a final race summary to the article. It would also help if someone sourced the pre-existing prose. Fuebaey (talk) 12:16, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I can go around today and add sources to the article, most of the stuff is easy to source. Dough4872 13:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Looks a bit better now. A few unsourced statements, but not enough for me to stand in the way of this being posted. Kudos to Dough4872 for the summary. Fuebaey (talk) 12:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - of little importance outside the US, at least we should restrict ourself to sport events that have at least some global significance. (talk) 14:20, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • The Super Bowl, World Series, Stanley Cup, and NBA Finals are featured on the main page every year, so I see no reason why the NASCAR Sprint Cup championship shouldn't as it is one of the biggest spectator sports in the United States, and also has international following. Dough4872 15:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • From the instructions: "Please do not complain about an event only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive." – Muboshgu (talk) 16:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • That's not the same, let's not be silly. (talk) 19:41, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • It's only not the same because it's an event you personally aren't interested in. Otherwise, it's exactly what the rules tell you is an invalid reason to oppose an article being posted. --Jayron32 03:14, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support pending an update with a text summary of the season. 1 point winning margin when there is a 5000+ total seems unusual. Nergaal (talk) 15:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • That's the nature of the Chase for the Sprint Cup. Dough4872 16:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - I am in the process of writing a sourced season summary. Dough4872 17:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
    Good to hear. The article is very poor, just a jumbled collection of tables and unreferenced bullet lists. It's not the quality of article we should be featuring at ITN. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
    The sourced season summary has been added. Dough4872 21:11, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Recurring event, and the article has been updated. – Nascar1996 (talkcont) 22:43, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • The recurring event is discussed in WT:ITN/R; place your comments there for either preservation or removal. --George Ho (talk) 22:11, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:43, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Ko wins LPGA Player of the Year Award, youngest ever winner[edit]

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.

Proposed image
Articles: Lydia Ko and LPGA

Blurb: In golf, Lydia Ko (pictured) wins the LPGA 2015 Player of the Year Award, becoming the youngest winner in the 49-year history of the award
Alternative blurb: In golf, 18-year-old Lydia Ko (pictured) wins the LPGA 2015 Player of the Year Award, becoming the youngest winner in the 49-year history of the award
News source(s): USA Today Stuff NZ Toronto Star The Golf Channel Vavel Sports Newspaper L.A. Times
Nominator: MurielMary (give credit)

Note: Lydia Ko article has been updated with a sentence, needs full end-of-season results to be added; LPGA has been updated with results

Nominator's comments: Although other wins from the end of the season are being reported, they are being reported as secondary to Ko's "youngest P of the Y" achievement. Another "youngest ever" achievement to add to a string of other achievements. MurielMary (talk) 00:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - We virtually never post individual sporting awards in any sport - the only one I can think of right now is the FIFA Ballon d'Or. I don't think that being the youngest winner is interesting enough or exceptional enough to justify posting this one. --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:35, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Query to Bongwarrior there is also a current nomination for Kyle Busch's motorsports win, isn't that an individual sporting award? Please clarify your point. MurielMary (talk) 07:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • No, it's winning a championship. This golf award is honorary, to celebrate the accumulated success over the course of a year, it's nothing more. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:00, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • But isn't there an equivalent Driver of the Year award given to the driver with the most wins/points earned? Do we post that? Rhodesisland (talk) 00:48, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per above. We practically never post individual sporting awards, including much better known awards. This doesn't equate to winning an individual sporting competition/trophy. "Youngest to win" is really only an interesting enough tidbit to mention in passing for something that would get posted anyway (i.e. "Jane Doe wins the Generic Sports Championship, becoming the youngest athlete ever to do so.") However, this could be a great DYK hook. - OldManNeptune 10:25, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per the above and noting that we wouldn't post the men's equivalent award for the same reason. However, there is potential to spin off the list of winners into its own page and take that through the featured list process into "today's featured list" on the main page, or to get Ko's article to GA status and into DYK that way. BencherliteTalk 10:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above reasons. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose as with the Kachin jade mine disaster below, on another day I might have supported this, but with the quantity of ITN-worthy items right now I think there is no space for this. Banedon (talk) 01:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Close Thanks for the responses on this nom. I suggest that the agreement to exclude individual sporting awards is included in the ITN/C criteria so that it's clear for new editors (currently not mentioned there) MurielMary (talk) 01:19, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Posted] Argentine presidential election[edit]

Proposed image
Updated article: Argentine general election, 2015

Blurb: Mauricio Macri (pictured) is elected President of Argentina.
Alternative blurb: Cambiemos candidate Mauricio Macri (pictured) is elected President of Argentina.
News source(s): BBC, Bloomberg, Channel News Asia
Nominator: Fuebaey (give credit)
Updater: Cambalachero (give credit)

Article updated

Nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, meaning that the recurrence of the event is generally considered important enough to post on WP:ITN subject to the quality of the article and the update to it.

Nominator's comments: New head of state/government for Argentina. Run-off result based on exit polls - still requires official confirmation. Fuebaey (talk) 22:11, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Support. Easily. But could the blurb be a little longer, please? --bender235 (talk) 22:33, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment The second candidate, Daniel Scioli, has accepted his defeat. He's talking in the TV right now, the media may take a bit to reflect it. But the outcome can be considered confirmed. 68% of the votes have been counted. Cambalachero (talk) 00:42, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Notability is obvious, and the article is in very good shape. sst✈(discuss) 07:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • comment legislative elections are ITNR too so we should conbine the blurb with the outcome there s well.Lihaas (talk) 08:18, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Wouldn't that make it a very long blurb? Besides, the legislative elections were held a month ago, alongside the first presidential elections. The delay is because Argentina uses a ballotage system, so there was a second election last sunday, which is the one reported here. Cambalachero (talk) 20:24, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Important story involving a big shift in Argentine politics. Jusdafax 08:24, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Posting. I'll bold Macri's article as well. Someone update the photo, please. --Tone 08:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Kachin jade mine disaster[edit]

Article: Kachin jade mine disaster
Blurb: At least 104 people are killed in a landslide at a jade mine in Kachin State, Myanmar.
News source(s): BBC
Nominator: The Rambling Man (give credit)

Note: Just being reported, large loss of life, article currently a stub but can clearly be expanded.

 The Rambling Man (talk) 11:24, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Support in principle Massive loss of life. But article is one sentence '''tAD''' (talk) 17:01, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support And I've expanded the article a bit to support this. --MASEM (t) 00:10, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - On another day I might have supported this, but with so many worthy and more significant news items recently I have to oppose this. Banedon (talk) 06:12, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Given that the last new story was posted 2 days ago, and many of the others on the cusp of being stale, this seems like a poor reason. (particularly that none of the other present stories in the nomination process are related to major loss of human life). --MASEM (t) 06:22, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
      • Of the items featured right now, I feel that the Paris attacks obviously must stay in some form because of its ongoing visibility. The bombing of Metrojet Flight 9268 is somewhat tied to the Paris attacks in terms of visibility, and the ongoing intervention in Syria is also a major geopolitical event worldwide. The salmon story, the diamond story and the Mali hostage story have only been featured for a few days, and there are three more nominations above this one two of which are ITN/R. Therefore ITN is very short on space right now, and something has to be sacrificed; I feel this is the best option. Banedon (talk) 07:43, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Bonkers. The death of nearly at least 100 people in an industrial accident isn't ITN-worthy? I guess it's because they're not Westerners. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Landslide causing 90 deaths, definitely notable. sst✈(discuss) 07:10, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support on notability; it is in line with our usual death toll criteria for such events. There also seem to be allegations that jade mining corporations might have breached safety standards. I have added a little to the article, but more work is still needed to expand. Espresso Addict (talk) 07:42, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - unfortunately these kind of disasters happen all too frequently. (talk) 14:19, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - 100, possibly 200 deaths is massive for an industrial accident. EamonnPKeane (talk) 16:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Keep in mind: this wasn't an industrial accident. Most of those killed were scavenging poor people that lived near this giant pile of earth, searching for pieces of jade to sell. --18:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
      • Keep in mind that these scores of deaths wouldn't have been caused if it weren't for the mining company's disposal methods: i.e. an industrial accident. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
        • My point is that at this point, which company(s) and their role, if any, in this, is yet known, so it is difficult to classify it as an industrial accident. Speculation is strongly pointing to the various mining companies for bad, unsafe practices, and the gov't there is going to sort this out. But as noted in latest articles, people were also warned not to live there due to risk of landslide but chose to do so anyway, so it could be a lot of other related issues. (Please note I still support posting of this, regardless of how it's called. I just was trying to make it clear that the story it's not like a workplace accident that most would associate with a "industrial accident'.) --MASEM (t) 17:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - massive loss of life in a politically sensitive region of Burma/Myanmar. Article is a bit on the short side, but decent enough for ITN. -Zanhe (talk) 07:24, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per reasoning of TRM and others. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted. --Jayron32 17:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

[Withdrawn] Aircraft unit as current ITN photo[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The Russian statement on bomb conclusion has gotten We have newer blurbs, so either keep the current photo, use the fish photo (File:Salmo salar GLERL 1.jpg) as replacement, or no photo at all. I could not propose the big gem photo because it is unfree. I wanted to take this to WP:ERRORS, but I don't see it as an error... at all. George Ho (talk) 03:39, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment that's not exactly an ideal replacement, it's not really getting the gist of the story across. No photo at all is silly as we have (pictured) in the blurb so that takes care of any uncertainty as to which hook is related to the image. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:09, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Leave it be, it's not harming anyone.--WaltCip (talk) 14:50, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm gonna withdraw this due to the Argentinian elections nomination with a photo. --George Ho (talk) 22:42, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

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.

November 21[edit]

[Closed] Malta wins Junior Eurovision[edit]

No consensus to post a junior competition. Stephen 22:47, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

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.

Updated article: Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2015 and article to update: Destiny Chukunyere
Blurb: Destiny Chukunyere representing Malta wins the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2015 with the song Not My Soul.
News source(s): [6]
Nominator: BabbaQ (give credit)

Article updated

 --BabbaQ (talk) 22:04, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. Generally youth competitions like this don't do well here; is there some notable reason to post this one? 331dot (talk) 22:07, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is a cover of Aretha Franklin's "Think". I could support an original song if it were an actual innovation. This is not. μηδείς (talk) 22:39, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
    Have you actually read the articles you are opposing? She did not compete with "Think", she won her national final with that just to find the appropriate singer, and then participated in JESC with an original song. Facts... get it straight.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:41, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
I misunderstood the meaning of "Chukunyere won the live national final in Malta, enabling her to represent Malta, with the Aretha Franklin song 'Think'" and have withdrawn my oppose on that basis. μηδείς (talk) 02:32, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose posting this youth competition; competitions limited by age(this one is 10-15) do not represent a top level of competition in the career; we don't typically post youth sporting events for that reason. Unless there is something very unusual about this event, I don't see right now why it should be treated differently. 331dot (talk) 02:41, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose trivia really, hopefully not as much as a joke as the main competition, but hardly worthy of main page inclusion in a global encyclopedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:12, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose, stop nominating junior competitions. Abductive (reasoning) 17:46, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above reasons ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 22:15, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

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.

Two Bangladeshi politicians are hanged for war crimes[edit]

Updated articles: Ali Ahsan Mohammad Mojaheed and Salahuddin Quader Chowdhury
Blurb: Two Bangladeshi politicians Ali Ahsan Mohammad Mojaheed and Salahuddin Quader Chowdhury are hanged for war crimes committed during the 1971 Bangladesh liberation war.
News source(s): (BBC), Al Jazeera English, (Hindu), (NDTV)
Nominator: Jenda H. (give credit)

Both articles updated

 Jenda H. (talk) 20:48, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

  • support - historical significant. Article standard is OK as well.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:50, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
  • support this seems a legit notorious capital punishment. Nergaal (talk) 21:39, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
  • comment - shouldn't it be "hanged" rather than "hung"? --Bcp67 (talk) 22:27, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
I have corrected the blurb, there's no reason to post an altblurb for a grammatical correction. μηδείς (talk) 22:40, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Chowdhury's article is weak for a seven-term MP, with a political career spanning 30 years. It doesn't even explain his role during the war (not the indictments). Fuebaey (talk) 03:09, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
This is not an RD nomination looking to prove the notability of the man, this is a warcrimes nomination. The update is sufficient. μηδείς (talk) 05:23, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support either RDs/blurbs, but improvements may be needed per Fuebaey. George Ho (talk) 03:50, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. --bender235 (talk) 22:36, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Ready supported and updated as a warcrimes execution. The nomination has nothing to do with RD, and each target article meets the ITN update criteria. μηδείς (talk) 05:23, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support – good enough. sst✈(discuss) 07:11, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. I was coming to post this, but some recent edits by a redlinked editor to Chowdhury have left me wondering if bias has been introduced; what pulled me up is 'Throughout his political career, Salahuddin became the centre of controversy several times with his vulgar remarks and actions.' referenced to a source that does not appear to use the word 'vulgar'. I don't have time to check. Also is his surname Salahuddin or Chowdhury? Both are used. The same editor has also added material to Mojaheed. Espresso Addict (talk) 07:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
I have reverted much of what was added to the Chowdhury article, which was poorly written and sourced (indeed, Chowdhury was his surname). I removed some overkill, but some of the refs appear to link to front page news from 2011 which is no longer current. μηδείς (talk) 02:48, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
I am removing the ready tag, there is too much linkrot to support many of the claims, and editing by those more familiar with the case seems aimed more at POV than article quality. Both articles need a good going over, preferably by someone with local expertise. μηδείς (talk) 03:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - significant news. -Zanhe (talk) 00:39, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] 2015 WBSC Premier12[edit]

No consensus to post. Fuebaey (talk) 22:54, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: 2015 WBSC Premier12
Blurb: In baseball, South Korea defeats the United States to win the inaugural WBSC Premier12.
News source(s): Taipei Times, Japan Times
Nominator: Muboshgu (give credit)

Nominator's comments: This is a major international baseball tournament. The World Baseball Softball Confederation, a merged entity from the International Softball Federation and International Baseball Federation, created this event to replace the Baseball World Cup as "the new flagship pro baseball world championship." Has gotten continued coverage during the event. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:04, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose on article quality. No prose synopsis of the tournament, or even of the final game. An article of tables is not of sufficient quality to post on the main page. --Jayron32 18:39, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Yeah I know. I'm just about to start adding game summaries. Would you change to support on that improvement? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:45, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
      • I can't think of another reason to support anything. Either you've cleaned up an article to be main page ready or you haven't. Any other consideration is mostly irrelevant. If it just happened, and it has a quality article, there's no valid reason to oppose it, except "I think I know what people who aren't me should find important, and I feel the need to tell them all the time". I don't believe that's my job. If the article is good enough, and this is a current event, I generally would support. --Jayron32 01:41, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
        • Okay. I wasn't sure if your oppose was based solely on quality or also the event itself. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:28, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
    • There's now two paragraphs on the championship game, and some sentences on all of the games of the knockout stage. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:22, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Changed vote to weak support. I'd like to see more along these lines, but it's the bare minimum. --Jayron32 01:41, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Thanks. I'll be adding more tomorrow. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:28, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose this does not seem to be covered significantly in the "Western" World. Nergaal (talk) 20:24, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Article's quality is good, but oppose on the competition's notability. Unlike the World Baseball Classic, active Major Leaguers did not participate. -- (talk) 04:54, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
    • This and the WBC are currently the two major international baseball competitions. One includes major leaguers while the other doesn't. I don't think that should make one more notable than the other, but YMMV. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:50, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose on notability - 250 people watched one of the quarter-finals? Hmm. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:14, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
    • I... did not notice that. All I can say in response is that many games, including the championship, had over 40k in attendance. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:50, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
      • Besides the Final, only the home team's semi and bronze final had 40k. If Japan, Taiwan or South Korea wasn't playing then attendance was 119(!) to 1,200 the entire tournament. And the Final had the nearest foreign country playing (South Korea understrength national baseball team). The "All-World team" has three dudes that are red links! Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:18, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Posted] RD: Kim Young-sam[edit]

Proposed image
Article: Kim Young-sam

Blurb: Former South Korean President Kim Young-sam dies at age 87.
Alternative blurb: Former South Korean President Kim Young-sam dies from acute heart failure at age 87.
News source(s): Korea Herald

Nominator's comments: Former President of South Korea. He's a former head of state...speaks for itself. I know the article's gonna need work like a lot more sourcing so I'll fix the article. Any help is welcome. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:43, 21 November 2015 (UTC) --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:42, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment - His entire career section (the rationale for RD) is unsourced, if anyone needs improvement pointers. Fuebaey (talk) 18:07, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
I've sourced most of it. But there's a 20 year gap between when he was first elected as a politician and his party leadership, as well as nothing after his Presidency (17 years). His article over at ko is massive, if anyone can read Korean and feels like translating. Fuebaey (talk) 02:27, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, although political career section might need some refs. Brandmeistertalk 18:11, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support pending improvements that are underway to the page and fixing of sourcing issues; clearly very important to Korean politics aside from the importance as head of state(having been first civilian leader in 30 years). 331dot (talk) 18:33, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support pending improvements. Capitalistroadster (talk) 19:50, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - pending some improvements. clearly a important and significant politician.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:36, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support on Article Improvements Clearly important but needs better sourcing. --MASEM (t) 20:38, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Note that I only support an RD. While a major world leader and clearly RD, the impact is not as great to merit a blurb. --MASEM (t) 03:53, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
  • @Brandmeister, 331dot, Capitalistroadster, BabbaQ, and Masem: I added blurbs, but the nomination is still RD/blurb. --George Ho (talk) 03:44, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support as in the news or recent death. Article has improved referencing. Capitalistroadster (talk) 03:55, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Former head of state, I've seen the news of his death fairly prominently, and the article seems to be good enough to post. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:59, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - post ASAP. -Zanhe (talk) 07:11, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:50, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Paku Alam IX[edit]

Consensus against. BencherliteTalk 13:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Paku Alam IX
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Antara News, Jakarta Globe (Indonesian)

 --Erik Fastman (talk) 05:11, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose as it's a stub, I'm not really clear on the notability. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:51, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm not much of a Social Studies person, but was this person a sitting ruler? Ruler of Pakualaman, in central Java, Indonesia, according to our page on him. But I can't tell from the Pakualaman page if it is independent enough for Alam to be considered a sitting "head of state". Of course there is the whole stub thing, too. Rhodesisland (talk) 02:19, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose This doesn't look like a national leader (aka a head of state), nor is there any specific notability really clear here. --MASEM (t) 03:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • The nominator, User:Erik Fastman, might want to give an explicit rationale explaining the reason why the subject meets ITN criteria, along the lines of other recent RD nominations. μηδείς (talk) 05:43, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Former leader of a tiny subdivision, no notability. @Crisco 1492: any thoughts? sst✈(discuss) 07:15, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Paku Alam IX as prince of Pakualaman has reigned over a considerably smaller area then Hamengkubuwana X (whom I'd probably vote to include, as the only reigning monarch in Indonesia who actually has legal recognition and power). Definitely RD material in Indonesia, but not for a worldwide audience. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

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.

November 20[edit]

[Posted to RD]: Kitanoumi Toshimitsu[edit]

Article: Kitanoumi Toshimitsu
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Nikkei Asian Review, Terra Networks (Spanish)

Nominator's comments: Important figure in Sumo. 55th yokozuna and 5th most makuuchi (top division) championships (24). Also, incumbent chairman of the Japan Sumo Association. About Sumo RD, we posted Taihō Kōki in January 201361.245.26.8 (talk) 12:45, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Support: Top of field in Japanese Sumo wrestling and management. Article looks decent. Fuebaey (talk) 13:56, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Clearly very important to Sumo. Article seems OK. 331dot (talk) 14:20, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Before posting, can we get a citation for the "fighting style" section? Otherwise, this would be ready to post. --Jayron32 18:40, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
I wasn't able to find an English citation for it (I can't read Japanese). Since it doesn't affect his overall achievement, I've commented it out. Fuebaey (talk) 19:01, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support RD Nergaal (talk) 20:30, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Top within his field of Sumo. --BabbaQ (talk) 20:37, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
  • We've got two bare supports with no rationale given, and no update of the article, although the update section of the nomination template was removed. Can the supporters do the work, rather than deleting and avoiding it? μηδείς (talk) 22:32, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Are you sure you're reading the correct article? The one above does state when he died and the cause of his death. The article also covers the main points of his life (his wrestling career, stable ownership, the controversies during his administration of Sumo, death). If you happen to find a reference to his fighting style, feel free to add it, but I don't believe this shouldn't be posted due to a lack of trivia. Fuebaey (talk) 23:11, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Could you clarify what updates you require, Medeis? I thought we had long since waived the update requirement for RD. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:59, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
The three-prose paragraph update requirement has been abandoned. If there's no update at all showing the subject's importance it should not be posted, and that was the case when I objected. That's not even to mention the fact that Nergaal and BaabaQ's (as usual) votes are simply votes, not rationales for posting. μηδείς (talk) 03:22, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Three paragraphs for a developed article seems a bit overkill to me. ITN only requires that, as a minimum, for new articles or sub-stubs. From recent experience, a basic RD update is a sourced date/cause of death and no obvious omissions from their life. I think the lead adequately summarises his importance, though you may need to click on links if you're not familiar with sumo. Fuebaey (talk) 04:09, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted. --Jayron32 03:02, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] 2015 November Bamako hotel shooting[edit]

Article: No article specified
Blurb: At least 170 people are taken hostage by gunmen at the Radisson Blu hotel in Mali.
News source(s): BBC
Nominator: The Rambling Man (give credit)

Note: Will constantly evolve in the next few hours, will be moved and expanded, so be patient and assess the notability first, then quality. Once both are established (and I think the first is clear) then we can post.

 The Rambling Man (talk) 10:00, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Support notability Unfortunately so. Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:40, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support on notability, sadly. Agree with nom's comments. Will unfold and develop. MurielMary (talk) 10:46, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Wait 80 people have been reportedly freed so far. Brandmeistertalk 12:54, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Wait – Developing. Sca (talk) 14:46, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Wait for stability, but support Even if the hostages are all freed without harm, this is a significant story. As I read this now, the raid to rescue the hostages is ongoing, so give it a few hours. --MASEM (t) 15:01, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - that it is developing is a positive, not negative, in my opinion. Banedon (talk) 15:08, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
In journalism, "developing" means just that – it's continuing to play out; the outcome isn't clear yet. The term isn't meant to be negative. Sca (talk) 16:19, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
I mean it's a positive for posting it to ITN, not negative. Banedon (talk) 01:32, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Though the story is developing, I think we know enough and the article in question is of good enough quality that we can post now, and update the blurb when the story develops further. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:30, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted with updated numbers from article. Report future needed updates to WP:ERRORS for promptness as needed. --Jayron32 17:51, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support after posting - article is ready and the situation is great enough to justify posting .--BabbaQ (talk) 18:15, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Update Can an administrator please change tense at the front page so the story will read "were taken hostages" instead of are. Our readers shouldn't get the impression that this is ongoing stil. Iselilja (talk) 08:02, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I have had a go at the wording, as we generally use present tense, but I agree this is confusing; I've also updated the numbers per current reports. Espresso Addict (talk) 08:26, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
@Iselilja: For future reference, when I said "Report future needed updates to WP:ERRORS for promptness", what I meant by that was "Report future needed updates to WP:ERRORS for promptness" I hope that helps! --Jayron32 18:44, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Move November 2015 Paris attacks to ongoing?[edit]

It's there. BencherliteTalk 13:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

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.

If the newest nomination of some genetically modified salmon is approved, what will happen to blurbs older than the November 2015 Paris attacks? Now with recent arrests in Europe related to the attacks, shall we feature the event as ongoing? --George Ho (talk) 05:33, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

It'll still be the third item in the news box. The Myanmar election will get pushed - and that's definitely stale by now. Arrests and raids are footnotes to the main story, quite frankly. Smurrayinchester 08:30, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
No prejudice against moving it to ongoing when it's ready to roll off the bottom. There's still several stories to go, so I don't know that we need to discuss it now. When it is the bottommost story, it would be either admins discretion to move it to ongoing, subject to community consensus if the community were to disagree with it. I suppose we could have the discussion early, but I don't see the need; it is hard to predict if the article will still be being actively updated when the time comes to make the decision. --Jayron32 10:47, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment – Agree with Jayron. In its various ramifications it's still a top story. Sca (talk) 15:10, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Also agree with Jayron32 ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 15:41, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose, could not be a more premature notion. Abductive (reasoning) 17:22, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Change your mind, Abductive? --George Ho (talk) 22:19, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support (in principle) that this be moved to ongoing when it would normally age off the page due to newer stories. μηδείς (talk) 17:28, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • @Jayron, Smurray, Cyclonebiskit: The story is now bottommost. Change your minds? George Ho (talk) 19:47, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Nope, if an Administrator does not decide on their own to move it to Ongoing, then we can have the discussion. Unless and until that happens, the situation has not changes. --Jayron32 19:53, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
I've seen ITN have 8 or even 9 entries. The current 4 entries is on the really low side. Nergaal (talk) 19:58, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
I already asked a reinsertion of other older blurbs, but that's in the user talk page. I can ask again at another talk page. --George Ho (talk) 20:03, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
If we had 9 entries, we'd have an absurd amount of white space in the leftmost column. See Wikipedia:In_the_news/Administrator_instructions#Balance. If you wish to change the policy and require a certain number of blurbs regardless of other design considerations, please start an RFC and get people to support such a policy. --Jayron32 20:24, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
I have squeezed in the diamond item without removing the Paris attacks; balance looks ok at most widths on my monitor, but then it did before the removal of the old 5th item. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:30, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

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.


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 [] 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: