위키백과:뉴스/후보/2016년 4월

Wikipedia:

이 페이지는 보관소로서 그 내용은 현재 형태로 보존되어야 한다.
이 페이지에 대한 모든 코멘트는 위키백과 토크로 향해야 한다.뉴스에서.고마워요.

4월 30일

무력 충돌 및 공격
예술과 문화
재해 및 사고
  • 인도의 한 폭염으로 지난 4월 일부 지역에서 80명이 추가로 목숨을 잃은 화재 예방을 위해 낮 요리가 금지된 가운데 300명이 목숨을 잃었다. (AP)
  • 2016년 케냐 홍수
    • 어제 건물이 붕괴된 후 나이로비에서는 수색과 구조작업이 계속되고 있다.케냐 경찰은 현재까지 7명의 사망자를 확인했다.(데일리 메일 AP통신)
    • 나이로비 건물 붕괴를 포함한 케냐 홍수로 인한 사망자 수는 14명으로 증가한다. (Capital FM)
  • 인도 뭄바이에서 3층짜리 건물이 무너져 6명이 사망하고 많은 사람들이 갇혔다. (인도 시간)
  • 미국 텍사스 주에서 홍수로 최소 5명이 숨진다.(폭스뉴스)
  • 소말리아 모가디슈에서 개축 중인 모스크가 붕괴돼 최소 15명이 숨지고 40여 명이 다쳤다.수백 명이 더 잔해 속에 묻힌 것으로 추정된다. (BBC)
  • 유럽 이주 위기
    • 생존자들에 따르면, 리비아 해안에서 그들의 딩기가 가라앉은 후 적어도 70명의 이주자들이 실종되었다고 한다.이탈리아 해안경비대에 의해 26명이 구조되었다. (BBC)
  • 수단에서 군용기 추락사고로 5명 사망
국제 관계
법과 범죄
정치와와와거거거거

[포스팅] RD: 해리 크로토

기사: 해리 크로토(토크 · 역사 · 태그)
최근 사망자 지명(우편)
뉴스 출처: 엘 파이스 왕립화학회
위키백과 기사와 함께 어떤 사람이나 동물 또는 유기체의 최근 죽음은 항상 게시할 수 있을 만큼 충분히 중요한 것으로 추정된다(이 RFC추가 토론 참조).논평은 기사의 질이 WP를 충족하는지 여부에 초점을 맞추어야 한다.ITNRD.

명명자의 의견:탄소배당제인 풀레인을 발견한 노벨 화학상.

  • 지원 - 이것을 게시하기 위해 여기에 왔다.기사에는 국기가 없다.shoy (reactions) 12:16, 2016년 5월 2일 (UTC)[응답하라]
  • 지원 – 저명한 화학자, 노벨상 수상자.베이킹 소다 (토크) 12:22, 2016년 5월 2일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 만약 그가 4월 30일에 죽었다면 왜 어떤 주요 신문도 그것을 보도하지 않는가?§§§Dharmadhyaksha § {Talk / Edits} 12:53, 2016년 5월 2일(UTC)[응답]
누군가가 왕립화학회를 속였다는 말인가?당신은 언론에 왜 그들이 이것을 보도하지 않는지 물어봐야 할 것이다. 그것은 그의 중요성을 보여주는 것일 수도 있다.331닷 (대화) 12:54, 2016년 5월 2일 (UTC)[응답]
그 소식은 내가 [1]이라고 말할 수 있는 바로는 어제 처음 터졌다.shoy (reactions) 17:11, 2016년 5월 2일 (UTC)[응답]
지지 - 영국의 공휴일이었기 때문에 보고가 지연되었다.가디언이 지금 가지고 있어사피엔트(대화) 18:59, 2016년 5월 2일 (UTC)[응답]
데일리 텔레그래프도 지금.사피엔트 (대화) 20:08, 2016년 5월 2일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 품질에 대해 약한 사람들은 반대한다; 몇몇 누락된 인용구들은 보통 큰 관심사는 아니지만, 대부분의 "awards"와 "명예 학위" 부분은 미등록이다.지금 당장 믿을만한 시트가 필요한 게 너무 많아.만약 그것이 고쳐진다면, 이것은 쉽게 게시될 수 있을 것이다. --Jayron32 13:11, 2016년 5월 2일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 약한 반대.나는 이것이 보고되지 않고 있다는 Dharmadhyaksha의 우려를 공유한다; 만약 그것이 보고된 것으로 보인다면, 나는 Jayron 지역에서 제기된 품질 문제가 해결되면 게시하는 것을 지지할 것이다.331닷 (대화) 13:14, 2016년 5월 2일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 품질 향상이 해당 분야의 중요성에 대한 RD 기준을 충족하는지 여부 지원.하지만 물건에는 약간의 작업이 필요하다.무보슈구 (대화) 2016년 5월 2일 (UTC) 17시 15분[응답]
그 죽음은 이제 주류 뉴스에 실렸다.나는 그 인용문들 중 몇 가지를 훑어보고 정리했다. 지금은 더 이상 빨간 글자가 없다.충분해?사피엔트 (대화) 21:39, 2016년 5월 2일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 지원 나는 명목상의 시간에서 지금까지의 변화를 검토했고 글들은 게시하기에 충분히 개선되고 충분히 소싱된 것 같다.노벨상 수상 화학자로서 중요성은 분명하다.(그가 노벨상을 수상했다는 사실은 중요한 점이지, 그의 죽음이 주류를 이루며 보도되는 것은 아니다, 비록 그 요소가 가디언과 대중과학에 보도되었다 하더라도 말이다.)--MASEM (t) 22:45, 2016년 5월 3일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 게시됨 - Masem의 평가당. 커피 // // 22:58, 2016년 5월 3일 (UTC)[응답]

[포스팅] RD:

기사:다니엘 베리건 (토크 · 역사 · 태그)
최근 사망자 지명(우편)
뉴스 출처:뉴욕타임스, 가디언, AP
크레딧:

위키백과 기사와 함께 어떤 사람이나 동물 또는 유기체의 최근 죽음은 항상 게시할 수 있을 만큼 충분히 중요한 것으로 추정된다(이 RFC추가 토론 참조).논평은 기사의 질이 WP를 충족하는지 여부에 초점을 맞추어야 한다.ITNRD.

명명자의 의견:그는 여러 평화주의자 중에서도 전리시스 리그 평화상을 수상한 유명한 평화주의자였다.이터널노마드(토크) 00:51, 2016년 5월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

  • 중요성에 대한 지원.그 시대의 중추적인 인물. - Tlön의 Smerdis - 2003년 이후 인간정신을 죽인다! 02:49, 2016년 5월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 그가 베트남 전쟁에 반대하는 편지를 썼다는 어떤 증거도 반대하지 마라.δεες (대화) 04:02, 2016년 5월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 개선지원 – 명성이 있는 것처럼 보이지만, 기사가 더 잘 소싱될 때까지는 그렇지 않다.어쨌든, NY 타임즈에 따르면, 베리건은 반세기 동안 사회와 정치 시위의 중추적인 인물이었고, 미국의 대표적인 평화 운동가 중 한 명이었다.나아가 그의 호전성에는 독특한 영적·도덕적 차원(성직자로서, 시인/논술가로서 둘 다)이 포함되어 있었다.NY 타임즈는 그가 당시 그를 FBI의 "가장 지명수배자" 명단에 올려놓았던 베트남 전쟁에 대해 "반대의 전술을 수립했다"고 보도했다.그리고 지적인 인물로서 그는 평생 동안 "미국 시인 아카데미"가 줄 수 있는 가장 권위 있는 상 중 하나를 포함하여 많은 상들을 받았다; 그의 일생 동안 50권 이상의 책을 출판했다.또한 수 십 년 동안 대학 강사였고, 포드햄 대학교의 상주 시인이었습니다. 테리스에서 페이스엠 상을 수상하셨습니다.그 목록은 계속될 수 있다.크리스티안 로이스 (대화) 04:09, 2016년 5월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 기사 품질 반대 - 미인증 주장, 대학 학위 자본화 등 일부 카피 편집, 그리고 전반적으로 논문이 유명함을 보여주지 못한다.예를 들어 Chrsitan Roess가 위에서 주장하는 주장은 이 글에 포함되지 않는다.뮤리엘메리 (토크) 10:39, 2016년 5월 1일 (UTC)[응답하라]
  • 논평-유효한 논점들, 그래서 나는 이 "청구"들 중 몇 가지를 더 포함하도록 리드를 변경했다(내 주장이 아니라 뉴욕 타임즈가 주장하는 것).또 인용할 다른 2차 출처도 추적하고 있는데, 그 중 일부는 이미 기사에 포함시켰다.크리스티안 로이스 (대화) 13:22, 2016년 5월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 지원 – 60년대 미국 반전운동의 유명한 인물, 헤드라인 이름.스카 (대화) 14:37, 2016년 5월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
  • Middle은 분명히 반대하지만 그 기사는 지금 현재 10개의 [초청 필요] 태그를 가지고 있으며 그의 작품들 중 일부에 대한 놀랄 정도로 긴 목록을 포함하여 약간 고전적이다.태그를 정렬하고 비블리오를 다듬을 수 있는가?더 람블링맨(토크) 19:36, 2016년 5월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 댓글 - 그래, 게시하기 전에 정리해야 해.추진 중입니다.내 진행 상황 업데이트와 함께 내일 다시 체크인할 것이다.아니면 또 다른 편집자가 그것을 보게 될 것이고, 우리는 메인 페이지 ITN/RD 섹션에 포함되도록 재평가할 수 있을 것이다.크리스티안 로이스 (대화) 21:22, 2016년 5월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 논평 - TRM과 MurielMary가 지적한 많은 이슈들을 정리했다.도서목록은 실제 '선택된' 것으로 분류되었고, 다른 출판물들은 베리건을 위해 새로 만들어진 도서목록 페이지로 옮겨졌다.또한, 여전히 시상식 섹션에 CN 태그가 있다.하지만 내일까지 편집을 마칠 수 없어.하지만 다른 문제도 있을 수 있으니 기사 좀 봐줘.그리고 그것은 아마도 이 기사가 아직 게시할 준비가 되지 않았다는 것을 의미할 것이다.크리스티안 로이스 (대화) 01:32, 2016년 5월 3일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 준비 - 내 생각에, 그 기사의 질은 이제 충분하다(거의 또는 최소한으로 충분하다)고 나는 덧붙일 수 있다.그리고 나는 그것이 RD에 게시될 준비가 되었다고 믿는다.그러나 나는 현재 투표가 교착상태에 빠져 있다고 생각한다: 3대 3으로 동점이다.타이브레이커 누구?준비가 되었는가, 아니면 개선이 필요한가?공감대를 얻을 수 있을까?크리스티안 로이스 (대화) 00:58, 2016년 5월 4일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 또 다른 좋은 청소 후에 게시되었어.스티븐 02:04, 2016년 5월 4일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 포스트 포스트 서포트는 이번 투표를 놓쳐서 미안한데, 작업해서 올려주신 분들께 감사드린다.그는 실로 반베트남 운동의 중추적인 인물이었고 가명이었다.더블링크스터 (대화) 23:27, 2016년 5월 5일 (UTC)[응답]

[폐쇄] 이라크 폭격과 여파

다음의 논의는 종결되었다.수정하지 마십시오.이후 코멘트는 해당 토론 페이지에서 작성해야 한다.이 논의는 더 이상 수정해서는 안 된다.

기사: 2016년 4월 바그다드 폭탄 테러 (대화 · 역사 · 태그)
흐림: 바그다드에서 폭탄테러가 발생해 국회의사당폭풍을 일으키며 최소 21명이 사망했다.(우편)
뉴스 출처: DNA MD 사마
크레딧:
노미네이터의 논평: 이곳에서의 폭탄 테러는 전례로 볼 때 훨씬 더 큰 사망자를 낼 만한 ITN이지만, 이곳 바그다드에서 발생한 폭발사고의 결과는 더 크다.의회는 난동을 부렸고, 사람들은 정치인들이 도망가는 것을 막기 위해 공항으로 가는 길을 막았다.이건 훨씬 더 큰 반응이야아직 너무 이르긴 하지만 일종의 혁명인가?리하스 (대화) 16:07, 2016년 4월 30일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 이라크의 주요 사건인 이라크 의회가 폭주하면서 기사가 개선됐을 때지원.기사는 아직 올릴 준비가 되지 않았지만, 이것은 여전히 속보인 것 같고 기사가 작업 중인 것 같으니 그리 오래 걸리지는 않을 것이다.트리듀울프 (대화) 2016년 4월 30일 16:43 (UTC)[응답하라]
  • 강한 사람들은 폭탄과 관련이 없는 시위에 반대한다.베이킹 소다 (토크) 17:51, 2016년 4월 30일 (UTC)[응답]
많은 소식통이 둘 다 인용하고 있다.리하스 (대화) 2016년 4월 30일 18:08 (UTC)[응답]
IS의 폭격을 정부에 대항하는 시위를 개혁하는 것과 연계시키는 것은 위키백과다.SYNTH. 주제는 완전히 분리되어 있으며, 같은 날짜에 공통적으로 공유한다.베이킹 소다 (토크) 18:34, 2016년 4월 30일 (UTC)[응답]
당신의 "가장 가능성이 높은" SYNTH 또는 오른쪽 POV와 같다.리하스 (대화) 21:06, 2016년 4월 30일 (UTC)[응답하라]
제공된 정보원은 몇 주 동안 진행되어온 전형적인 SYNTH의 시위와 폭격을 연관시키지 않는다.대화 참조:4월_2016년_바그다드_봄빙#WP:SYNTH_Bombing_did_not_provoke_proprotests를 달리 명시한다.베이킹 소다 (토크) 21:18, 2016년 4월 30일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 강력한 반대 - Blurb는 국회의원의 폭풍이 폭격기에 의해 일어났음을 암시함으로써 사건을 혼란스럽게 한다. --WaltCip (대화) 18:29, 2016년 4월 30일 (UTC)[응답하라]
"또한나은 모호함을 제안하는 것을 주저하지 마십시오."리하스 (대화) 21:05, 2016년 4월 30일 (UTC)[응답]
아무 의미도 없어.사건 자체도 눈에 띄지 않고 우연 자체는 보고할 가치가 없다.--WaltCip (토크) 00:28, 2016년 5월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 반대 조항은 불충분하고 혼란스럽다. 모호함은 언급된 확실성 없이 두 문제를 혼란스럽게 한다.더 람블링맨 (토크) 2016년 4월 30일 (UTC) 18:33[응답]
위의 논의는 종결되었다.수정하지 마십시오.이후 코멘트는 해당 토론 페이지에서 작성해야 한다.이 논의는 더 이상 수정해서는 안 된다.

[포스팅] 아이보리 연소

Proposed image
기사:상아파괴(토크 · 역사 · 태그)
흐림:케냐는 불법 상아 무역과 싸우기 위해 사상 최대상아 더미를 태웠다.(우편)
대체 블럽:케냐는 불법 상아 무역과 싸우기 위해 사상 최대상아 더미를 태웠다.
뉴스 출처:BBC 뉴스, CNN
크레딧:

두 기사가 모두 업데이트됨

명명자의 논평: 코끼리와 코뿔소의 불법 상아 거래와 밀렵에 대항할 가치 있는 대의를 폭넓게 다룬 지금까지 가장 큰 표현. w.carter-talk 15:29, 2016년 4월 30일 (UTC)[응답]

  • 지원 - 희귀 사건. 세계 언론에 언급된 바바Q(토크) 16:01, 2016년 4월 30일(UTC)[응답]
편견이 없는 논평은 2문장 이상으로 업데이트되지 않는데, 나는 어떻게 그 기사가 주제에 충분하고 이 일회성 사건을 포함시킬 수 있는지 모르겠다.리하스 (대화) 16:33, 2016년 4월 30일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 댓글을 달다.나는 이것이 뉴스 보도를 받고 있는 주목할 만한 사건이라는 바바Q 양쪽의 의견에 동의하지만, 그 기사가 거의 언급하지 않는다는 리하스에게도 동의한다.만약 그 기사가 GA 이상이라면 나는 분명히 그것을 지지하겠지만, 현재 상태로는 정말 결정할 수 없다.트리듀울프 (대화) 2016년 4월 30일 (UTC) 16:47 [응답]
  • 코멘트 업데이트는 이제 업데이트된 텍스트의 나머지 숫자에 더하여 확장되었다.(내 인터넷 연결이 끊겼는데, 이제 기사와 함께 고정) w.카터-토크 19:42, 2016년 4월 30일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 약한 지지 나는 그 기사와 뉴스 스토리가 이 게시물이 게재되는 것을 보증하기에 충분한 관심을 가지고 있다고 생각한다.그런 말을 했으니 업데이트는 비교적 작지만 일단 주요 사항(역사상 가장 큰 상아 파괴, 톤수, 동물 수)을 다뤘으면 더 이상 할 말이 없다.더 람블링맨 (토크) 2016년 4월 30일 (UTC) 18:37[응답]
  • 이것이 충족시키는 ITN 기준에 반대하십니까?δεες (대화) 03:55, 2016년 5월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
    • 공식적인 ITN 기준은 없고, 단지 ITN이 "최근 또는 현재 관심 있는 사건을 반영하기 위해 실질적으로 갱신된 기사를 독자들에게 지시하는 역할을 한다"는 목적의 진술만 있을 뿐이다.
      1. 이것은 의심할 여지 없이 최근의 사건이다.
      2. 관심이 많다는 것은 뉴스 보도 정도에서 알 수 있다.
      3. 그것이 백과사전적인 주제라는 것은 상아 파괴에 관한 우리의 기사에서 알 수 있으며, 가장 큰 사건은 분명히 그 기사에 포함될 가치가 있다.
      4. 그것이 실질적으로 업데이트되었다는 것은 명확하지 않지만, 나는 우리가 가진 것으로 충분하다고 Rambling Man의 논평에 확신한다.'지지.Thryduulf (대화) 08:14, 2016년 5월 1일 (UTC)[응답하라]
    • 업데이트된 콘텐츠의 크기에 대한 기준은 "…5-센스 업데이트(최소 3개의 참조 포함, 중복 항목 수 제외)는 일반적으로 충분하다"고 말한다.'메인' 기사는 현재 15개의 20문장과 6개의 8개의 ref로 업데이트되었다.두 번째 기사는 업데이트되지 않았지만, 흐릿하게 연결된 모든 '도움말' 기사는 업데이트되어야 하는가?아래 명목의 베르겐처럼?게다가 알트 블럽을 추가하여 단순히 큰 더미가 아닌 불에 타는 것을 강조함. w.carter-talk 08:46, 2016년 5월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
      • 업데이트되고 있는 다른 링크된 기사들은 분명히 ITN뿐만 아니라 일반적으로 위키피디아에게 좋은 것이지만 주요 링크된 기사들만 업데이트 되어야 한다.다른 링크된 기사들이 주요 기사와 모순되지 않고 삭제되거나 BLP 비오로 지정되지 않는 한, 그들은 본질적으로 지명 과정과 무관하다(그리고 심지어 그것은 거의 항상 그것들과 연결되지 않기 위해 흐림을 수정하는 경우일 것이다).Thryduulf (대화) 09:37, 2016년 5월 1일 (UTC)[응답하라]
    • 이는 ITN의 기준을 충족하는 것이 분명하며, 이러한 기준을 찾는 방법을 이해하는 데 도움이 필요한 사람이 있다면 WP를 참조하십시오.정보가 명확하게 설명되는 ITN.나는 Thryduulf가 그것을 훌륭하게 요약했다고 생각한다. 그래서 그것이 어떤 "혼란"을 해결하기를 바란다.더 람블링맨 (토크) 10:58, 2016년 5월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 나는 ITN 기준이 무엇인지 물어본 것이 아니라, 어떻게 이것이 그것들을 충족시키는지 물었다.기록적인 밀수품 발작은 항상 발표된다.이것은 약간 접혀져 있다.δεες (대화) 20:06, 2016년 5월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
    • 이것은 하나의 밀수품 압류가 아니다. 이것은 두 명의 아프리카 대통령과 몇몇 야생동물 보호 단체들이 참석한 전례 없는 정부다.태우는 것은 수년간의 압수된 밀수품을 포함하고 있는데, 사실 그 양은 이 사건이 일어나기 전에 전 세계의 파괴된 상아의 총량과 거의 같으며, 이 행사는 사실상 세계의 모든 주요 통신사가 취재하고 있다(그냥 구글만).ITN 후보군이라고 할 수 있겠네ITN이 없어도 기사 조회수가 급증하고 있어 독자들이 더 궁금해하고 있다.w.carter-talk 20:26, 2016년 5월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
    • @Medeis:나는 위에서 이것이 ITN의 모든 기준을 어떻게 충족시키는지 설명하였다: 이것은 충분히 최신화된 위키백과 기사와 함께 백과사전 주제와 관련된 최근의 폭넓은 관심의 사건이다.만약 당신이 이것이 또 다른 밀수품 압류라고 생각한다면, 당신은 그 기사를 다시 읽을 필요가 있다.Thryduulf (대화) 20:41, 2016년 5월 1일 (UTC)[응답하라]
    • 여기 혼선이 더 있는 것 같아.이것은 지구 역사상 가장 큰 상아 파괴일 때 "살렘 카운티에서 가장 큰 헤로인 압수"(어디??)와 매혹적인 연관성을 가진 것에 대해 결코 헤로인 발작과는 관련이 없다.내 생각에 그것은 우리 모두가 이 주변에서 겪는 체계적 편견을 나타내는 것 같다.)이것은 이전에 범죄자들로부터 되찾은 상아의 파괴다.뉴스에 나와 있어, 우리 독자들의 관심사야, 품질 업데이트가 있어. 이 기사에 ITN 기준을 적용하려면, 얼마든지 물어봐 줘.그렇지 않다면 나는 이것이 가는 것이 좋다고 제안할 것이다.더 람블링맨 (토크) 20:49, 2016년 5월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 지원 이것은 단계별 홍보 이벤트인 제조된 뉴스다.그러나, 다른 한편으로, 그것은 그러한 행사 중 가장 규모가 크고 많은 커버리지를 끌어모으고 있다 – 현재 ITN에 있는 다른 품목들보다 훨씬 더 많은 것이다.그래서, 그것은 의심의 혜택을 받아야 한다.앤드류 D. (대화) 20:56, 2016년 5월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 고귀하지만 잘못된 문제 해결 시도에 반대한다.나는 위키피디아가 암시장에서 상아 가격을 치솟게만 하는 그런 경제적 이질적 시도를 지지하지 않기를 바란다.네르가알(대화) 21:34, 2016년 5월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
    • 그 관점도 기사에서 다루고 있다.나는 위키피디아가 중립을 지키고 그저 세상 돌아가는 일에 대한 사실만을 적었으면 좋겠다 w.carter-talk 21:48, 2016년 5월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
    • 그리고 그 반대는 불합리하고 순수하게 ITN의 레종 드테레와는 현실과 무관한 개인용 POV이다.이미 설명했듯이, 그것은 뉴스에 나와 있고, 그것은 우리의 독자들에게 흥미로우며, 업데이트 되고, 여기에 불평은 없다.물론 우리는 며칠 전의 뉴스로 ITN을 정체시키고, 실제로 주목할 만한 세계적인 뉴스를 만들고 있는 것들을 무시하고 싶은 것이 아니라면 말이다.더 람블링맨 (토크) 22:11, 2016년 5월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 지원 - 이것은 ITN 기준에 적합하며, 기사는 충분히 업데이트되었다.이 모든 발언을 다 읽어보면 야당의 지적 중 일부는 타당하고 신빙성이 있었지만 결국 '지지'에 있는 사람들이 자신들의 주장을 한 것으로 보인다.그러나 지지자들은 더 설득력이 있어, 반대되는 거의 모든 유효한 혐의에 대해 답변했다.크리스티안 로이스 (대화) 22:23, 2016년 5월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
  • Stephen 00:21, 2016년 5월 2일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 게시물에 찬성하는 3대 2의 투표에서 1명의 순지지가 있다.어처구니없는 일이다.δεες (대화) 01:58, 2016년 5월 2일 (UTC)[응답]
우리는 표를 세지 않는다.331닷 (토크) 02:03, 2016년 5월 2일 (UTC)[응답]
유감스럽게도 331번, 이제 WP는 다음과 같이 계산이 가능하다.NOTAVOTE는 더 이상 지침이 아니라 하향 평준화된 에세이다.조지호(토크) 02:06, 2016년 5월 2일 (UTC)[응답하라]
어떤 일이 가능하다고 해서 그것이 이루어져야 한다는 뜻도 아니고, 합의의 대용이라는 뜻도 아니다.331닷(토크) 02:09, 2016년 5월 2일(UTC)[응답]
게다가, 실제로 "카운트"를 한다면, 게시 당시 투표율은 5대 2였다.말도 안 돼!!더 램블링맨 (토크) 06:49, 2016년 5월 2일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 포스트포스팅 지원 조항은 충분한 품질이며, 업데이트는 충분히 참조되고 광범위하다. --Jayron32 02:02, 2016년 5월 2일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 포스트 포스트 지원[2][3][4][5]의 자격을 얻기에 충분하고 주목할 만한 주제[6]의 자격을 얻기에 충분하다.기사에 더 많은 정보를 원하지만, 충분하다.또한 반대되는 것 중 하나는 본질적으로 매우 정치적인 것이다.에어콘 (토크) 02:13, 2016년 5월 2일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 포스트 포스트잇 지원.우리가 개표 중인데 찬성 3대 2로 몇몇이 그 게시물에 동의하기에 충분하지 않다면, 이것을 지지측의 또 다른 것으로 세어주십시오.이제 우리 6-2가 된 것 같아.로도디스랜드 (대화) 02:54, 2016년 5월 2일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 포스트 포스트잇은 WP반대한다.광고가 아니라 케냐 정부의 홍보 움직임을 광고해서는 안 된다.SST플라이어 04:17, 2016년 5월 2일 (UTC)[응답]

4월 29일

무력 충돌 및 공격
비즈니스 및 경제
  • 유로스타트에 따르면 2016년 1분기 유로존 경제는 실업률이 10.2%로 떨어지면서 당초 예상보다 빠른 0.6% 성장했다.이러한 성장은 유로존 경제가 2007-08년 금융위기가 시작되기 이전보다 현재 더 커졌음을 시사한다(BBC).
재해 및 사고
건강
국제 관계
법과 범죄
정치와 선거

[포스팅] 2016 투루이 헬기 추락 사고

기사: 2016 Turøy 헬리콥터 충돌 (대화 · 역사 · 태그)
흐림: 노르웨이 버겐 근처에서 수파 푸마 헬리콥터가 추락해 13명이 사망한다.(우편)
대체 블럽: 노르웨이 버겐 인근에서 발생한 치명적인 추락사고로 노르웨이와 영국의 모든 슈퍼푸마 헬기가 이륙하지 못하고 있다.
대체 블러브 II: 노르웨이 버겐 인근에서 발생한 추락사고로 13명이 숨진 노르웨이와 영국의 모든 슈퍼푸마 헬기가 이륙하지 못하고 있다.
뉴스 출처: BBC
크레딧:

더 램블링맨 (토크) 2016년 4월 29일 (UTC) 19:03 [응답]

  • 약자는 항공사의 웅대한 계획에서 저명인 사고에 반대한다.이전에도 비슷한 사고(2016년 막달렌 제도 미쓰비시 MU-2 추락 또는 2016년 선버드 항공 사고)는 게시되지 않았다.브랜드마이스터talk 20:10, 2016년 4월 29일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 지원 - 대형 헬리콥터가 추락하여 탑승자 전원이 손실됨.@Brandmeister, 당신은 그곳에서 사과와 오렌지를 비교하고 있다.Mjroot (대화) 2016년 4월 29일 20:30 (UTC)[응답]
  • "크루와 승객" 섹션은 완전히 참조되지 않았으며(태그를 추가했다) 인용할 필요가 있는 태그가 없는 다른 주장도 있다.나는 현재 지명도를 결정하지 못했다.트리듀울프 (대화) 2016년 4월 29일 21:04 (UTC)[응답]
    • @Thryduulf:나는 그 부분을 참고했다.참고가 필요한 유일한 미결 항목은 관련 항공기의 등록이다.언급된 내용은 포럼 등에서 이용할 수 있는 정보와 일치하지만, 다음과 같은 실패 WP:RS(기사 대화 참조).Mjroot (대화) 2016년 4월 29일 21:24 (UTC)[응답]
      • 지금 등록이 참조되고 있다.Mjroot (대화) 21:38, 2016년 4월 29일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 지지하다.노르웨이와 영국에서 동시에 헬리콥터를 착륙시키는 것은 나에게 충분히 의미 있는 일이다.나는 그 물건의 질이 이제 충분하다는 것에 동의한다.Thryduulf (talk) 2016년 4월 30일 00:36 (UTC)[응답
  • 지원 - Sherenk1 (대화) 02:04, 2016년 4월 30일 (UTC)[응답] 충분히 괜찮아 보이는 기사
  • 알트 블럽은 노르웨이와 영국의 그라운딩을 반영하며 덧붙였다.Mjroot (대화) 08:22, 2016년 4월 30일 (UTC)[응답]
    당신은 여전히 그것이 13명의 사망자를 낸 치명적인 충돌이었다는 것을 포함하기를 원할지도 모른다. 그렇지 않으면 그것은 충격을 어느 정도 가볍게 한다.더 램블링맨 (토크) 08:24, 2016년 4월 30일 (UTC)[응답]
    내가 두번째 altblurb를 추가했는데, 그것까지 포함되긴 했지만, 완벽히 하기에는 좀 너무 긴 것 같다.Thryduulf (대화) 09:09, 2016년 4월 30일 (UTC)[응답]
    ALT1이 트위터를 했다.Mjroot (대화) 09:39, 2016년 4월 30일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 지지 - 충분히 중요하고, 기사가 좋다.BabbaQ (대화) 11:50, 2016년 4월 30일 (UTC)[응답]
  • Stephen 12:06, 2016년 4월 30일 (UTC) 게시[응답]
흥미로운 점은 위의 세 가지 제안된 흐림에는 모두 헬리콥터라는 단어가 포함되지만 게시된 흐림에는 포함되지 않는다는 것이다.Sca (대화) 13:07, 2016년 5월 5일 (UTC)[답글]

[포스트] 적도 기니의 대통령 선거

Proposed image
기사:적도 기니의 대통령 선거, 2016년 (토크 · 역사 · 태그)
블럽:오비앙 응우마 음바소고(사진)가 적도기니의 대통령으로 재선임된다.(포스트)
뉴스 출처:아프리카네우스, BBC뉴스, 도이체벨레
크레딧:
지명된 이벤트는 WP에 열거되어 있다.ITN/R, 따라서 각각의 발생은 게시할 수 있을 만큼 충분히 중요한 것으로 추정된다.논평은 기사와 업데이트의 품질이 WP를 충족하는지 여부에 초점을 맞추어야 한다.중요성이 아니라 ITNCRIT.

유목민들의 논평: 아프리카에서 가장 오래 복무한 지도자는 여전히 권력을 쥐고 있다.어제 결과가 나왔다.아프리카 연합의 반응이 곧 나와야 한다.참고로, 당신은 2014년 미국에서 찍은 좀 더 최근의 아프리카 지도자 사진에서 이미지의 배경을 인식할 수 있다.아프리카 리더스 서밋). 푸에배이 (대화) 2016년 4월 29일 11시 32분 (UTC)[응답하라]

  • 반대 이것은 어느 곳에서도 원격으로 전세계적으로 발행되는 신문의 1면에 게재되지 않을 것이다.나이지리아에서 일면을 장식한 것 조차 놀랄 것이다.그것은 오직 국가 주권 자체가 모든 정치 선거에 대한 불신감을 준다는 어떤 자의적인 생각 때문에 위키피디아에서 ITN의 정상에 오를 뿐이다.콜리폰+(토크) 13:01, 2016년 4월 29일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 어떤 나라의 선거를 어떻게 해서든 제한하려는 수많은 시도들이 여러 번 행해지고 실패했는데, 그 이유는 대부분 어떤 제한도 자의적이고 제도적인 편견이 심할 것이기 때문이다.다른 나라의 선거에 대해 배우는 것은 위키피디아 독자들에게 좋은 일이다. 331닷 (대화) 19:51, 2016년 4월 29일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 지원 공지는 ITN/R에 의해 사전 설정된다.기사 품질은 게시하기에 충분하지만, 누군가 시간이 있다면 결과를 얻기 위해 더 많은 소싱을 사용할 수 있다.마밀레스 (대화) 2016년 4월 29일 14:26 (UTC)[응답]
  • 기사가 좀 나아 보일 때까지 지금 이 시간에는 반대하라. 예를 들어, 추가 출처와 A.U.의 반응을 사용할 수 있는데, 왜 상대 후보가 그림을 그리지도 않고 기사도 없는가?--WaltCip (대화) 16:25, 2016년 4월 29일 (UTC)[응답]
야당 후보는 의석수가 없어 4500여표밖에 얻지 못했기 때문에 사진이 없을 것 같다. 331닷(대화) 19:53, 2016년 4월 29일(UTC)[응답]
심지어 당신의 정보원조차 이번 선거가 "공식적"이라고 말하는데, 이것은 진실에 대한 나의 정의에 부합한다.이 지역의 정부들은 적어도 어느 정도는 부패했다.그럼 아프리카에서 선거는 절대 안 하는 거야?마밀레스 (대화) 2016년 4월 29일 22:18 (UTC)[응답]
@Andrew Davidson:무엇이 "진정한" 선거인지를 결정하는 것은 우리의 일이 아니다.기사는 선거의 시각에 대한 모든 정보를 담을 수 있다(그리고 포함시켜야 한다). 331닷(토크) 23:13, 2016년 4월 29일(UTC)[응답]
  • 우리방침은 다음과 같다: "위키피디아는... 선전을 위한 수단"우리는 그러한 단계별 홍보 행사를 마치 서구의 민주주의에서 일어나는 일과 동등한 것처럼 보여서는 안 된다.흰 코트에 지방흡입에 대한 테초바블을 한 남자가 있다고 해서 화장품 광고를 과학으로 제시하는 것과 같다.앤드류 D. (대화) 04:24, 2016년 4월 30일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 우린 아니야, 기사 때문에 확실히 알아들었어.자, 만약 당신이 말하는 것을 믿는다면, "ITN이 죽었다."라고 말하며, 이러한 지적 반대를 중지하고, 예를 들어, ITNR과 같은 개선 사항을 토크 페이지에 제시하여 시스템을 개선하거나, 다른 조치를 취하십시오.더 램블링맨 (토크) 08:02, 2016년 4월 30일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 여기서 논의하고 있는 것은 메인페이지에 ITN의 블러브(blurb)를 둘 것인가 말 것인가 하는 것이다.많은 독자들이 흐릿함을 지나치지 않을 것이기 때문에 링크된 기사의 상태는 부차적인 고려사항이다.어쨌든 대담한 연계 기사가 선거의 석연치 않은 본질을 분명히 하지 못한다.선두는 그 결과를 기정사실화했을 뿐 야당에 의한 선거 보이콧은 언급조차 하지 않는다.다시 말하지만, 그렇게 멀리까지 가는 많은 독자들은 선두를 지나치지 않을 것이다.내 투표는 유효하다.앤드류 D. (대화) 08:58, 2016년 4월 30일 (UTC)[응답하라]
  • 아무도 당신의 표가 유효하든 아니든 논쟁하지 않는다.당신은 ITN이 죽었다고 스스로 선언했다(그리고 당신은 타블로이드판 WP를 선호한다.우리 독자들이 백과사전에서 필요로 하는 것을 나타내는 지표로서 TOP25는 그러나 당신은 뾰족한 표를 만드는 것 외에 근본 원인을 고치기 위해 어떤 의미에서도 실용적인 것을 하지 않는다.우리 모두는 당신의 입장을 인정한다. WP:DEADHORS가 적용된다.더 람블링맨 (토크) 09:04, 2016년 4월 30일 (UTC)[응답]
  • TRM이 언급하고 있는 것처럼 보이는 것은 이 논평이다.ITN에서 멀어지고 있는 것이 바로 WMF라는 것이 나의 관측이었다.오늘날 그들의 앱은 다음과 같은 5개의 기사를 톱 리딩으로 강조하고 있다.
  1. 헤르타 마크스 에어턴
  2. 무스달리파
  3. 왕자(뮤지션)
  4. 캡틴 아메리카:내전
  5. 힐즈버러 참사
하지만 우리는...앤드류 D. (대화) 09:28, 2016년 4월 30일 (UTC)[응답]
불매운동을 언급하는 막말을 제안하는 것은 환영할 만 하다; 나는 믿기 전에 그렇게 했다. 331 도트 (대화) 09:34, 2016년 4월 30일 (UTC)[응답]
@Andrew Davidson: ITN의 요점은 가장 많이 읽히는 기사를 하이라이트하는 것이 아니라, 현재 뉴스에 나오는 주제에 관한 기사를 하이라이트하는 것이다.겹치는 부분이 있을 수 있지만, 그것들은 서로 다른 목적과 다른 방법론을 가지고 있다.메인 페이지에 있는 ITN의 슬롯을 가장 많이 읽은 기사 목록으로 바꾸려면, 얼마든지 제안해 보십시오.하지만 그 제안이 받아들여질 때까지, ITN은 얼마나 많은 사람들이 그 기사를 읽는지에 상관없이 뉴스에 나오는 기사들을 부각시키는 장소로서 기능한다.트라이듀울프 (대화) 2016년 4월 30일 (UTC) 10:23[응답]
WMF는 그들의 새로운 아이폰 앱에 대해 이미 그러한 결정을 내렸다.아마도 그것은 그들이 독자층이 실제로 중요하다는 것을 이해하기 때문일 것이다.도서관, 신문, 프렌즈 유나이티드, &c 등 이런 트렌드를 따라가지 못해 폐업하는 언론들이 많다.예를 들어, Hertha Marks Ayrton은 구글 두들로 등장했기 때문에 위에서 가장 화제가 되었다.그 결과 약 110만 명의 독자층이 생겼다.ITN은 구글 효과의 약 1%인 약 10,000명의 독자를 한 주제로 몰고 갈 뿐이다.WMF는 그들이 따라가지 않으면 그들(그리고 우리)은 점점 더 무관심해질 것이라는 것을 이해한다.앤드류 D. (대화) 10:49, 2016년 4월 30일 (UTC)[응답]
위키피디아를 자유롭게 돕고, 사실상의 근거 없이 진행하면서 통계를 작성하십시오.그 동안 WP를 참조하십시오.데드호스. 그 람블링맨 (토크) 11시 42분, 2016년 4월 30일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 지지하다.기사는 상태가 양호하고 사건은 뉴스에 보도되고 있다.ITN/R 상의 어떤 것에 중요한 것은 그것뿐이다.ITNR에 어떤 것이 있어야 한다고 믿지 않는 경우 적절한 위치에서 제거하도록 제안하십시오. WT:ITN/R. Thryduulf (대화) 09:16, 2016년 4월 30일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 지지 - 대통령 선거.주목할 만한BabbaQ (대화) 11:50, 2016년 4월 30일 (UTC)[응답]
  • ITNR을 지원하고 품질은 이제 충분한 표준이 되었다.더 람블링맨 (토크) 2016년 4월 30일 (UTC) 11시 56분[응답]
  • Stephen 12:24, 2016년 4월 30일 (UTC) 게시[응답]

4월 28일

무력 충돌 및 공격
                 
예술과 문화
비즈니스 및 경제
재해 및 사고
국계 계
법과 범죄
정치와 선거
과학기술
스포츠

[폐쇄] RD: 콘래드 번즈

다음의 논의는 종결되었다.수정하지 마십시오.이후 코멘트는 해당 토론 페이지에서 작성해야 한다.이 논의는 더 이상 수정해서는 안 된다.

기사: 콘래드 번즈(토크 · 히스토리 · 태그)
최근 사망자 지명(우편)
뉴스 출처: 라티메스
크레딧:

위키백과 기사와 함께 어떤 사람이나 동물 또는 유기체의 최근 죽음은 항상 게시할 수 있을 만큼 충분히 중요한 것으로 추정된다(이 RFC추가 토론 참조).논평은 기사의 질이 WP를 충족하는지 여부에 초점을 맞추어야 한다.ITNRD.
명명자의 의견:LA 타임즈가 "워싱턴에서 가장 영향력 있는 인물 중 한 명"이라고 표현한 18년 동안 미국 상원에서 근무했다.물건의 질이 좋다.이터널노마드(토크) 04:16, 2016년 4월 29일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 지지 - 번즈 상원의원은 몬태나 주에서 영향력 있고 가장 오래 복무한 공화당 상원의원이었다.워싱턴에 큰 영향력을 가지고 있었다.상태가 좋은 기사.뉴스가 막 터져서 NYT가 기사의 사망 부분을 업데이트하기 위해 오비트를 발표하기를 기다렸지만, 전반적으로 지지한다. --TDKR Chicago 101 (토크) 04:24, 2016년 4월 29일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 이에 반대하는 것은 큰 폭의 하락에 해당한다.우리는 주지사와 국회의원의 죽음이 어떤 큰 영향을 미치지 않는 한 거의 게시하지 않는다.최근 지명된 미국 하원의장들 대부분은 아직 게시되지 않았다.화상이 어떻게 그리고 왜 그렇게 영향력이 있었는지 보여주는 연결고리가 있다면 그것은 고려될 수 있을 것이다.δεες (대화) 05:03, 2016년 4월 29일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 반대, 워싱턴에 큰 영향?나는 이 추잡한 인종차별주의자에 관한 기사를 읽는 사람이라면 누구라도 다를 것이라고 의심한다.이게 일종의 POINTY 공천인가?납북(이유) 05:15, 2016년 4월 29일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 국가 또는 국제 수준에서 중요성의 증거가 없는 것에 반대한다. 국가 영향력은 RD 목록에 충분하지 않다.뮤리엘메리 (대화) 09:16, 2016년 4월 29일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 반대한다. 나는 몬태나에서 정치에 주목받는 것이 충분히 넓은 분야가 아니라는 것에 동의한다.많은 상원의원들이 18년 이상 재임했다.때때로 다니엘 이노우예와 같은 미국 상원의원들이 통과하기도 하지만, 그 경우 그는 여러 개의 상과 뛰어난 군 경력을 가지고 있었다. 331 도트 (대화) 09:23, 2016년 4월 29일 (UTC)[응답]
위의 논의는 종결되었다.수정하지 마십시오.이후 코멘트는 해당 토론 페이지에서 작성해야 한다.이 논의는 더 이상 수정해서는 안 된다.

[포스팅] RD: 레나토 코로나

기사: 레나토 코로나(토크 · 히스토리 · 태그)
최근 사망자 지명(우편)
뉴스 출처: Gmanetwork.com
크레딧:

위키백과 기사와 함께 어떤 사람이나 동물 또는 유기체의 최근 죽음은 항상 게시할 수 있을 만큼 충분히 중요한 것으로 추정된다(이 RFC추가 토론 참조).논평은 기사의 질이 WP를 충족하는지 여부에 초점을 맞추어야 한다.ITNRD.

명명자의 의견:필리핀 최고 법관.이 땅의 최고 법원장이었던가 2011년 유죄 판결을 받고 탄핵돼 2012년 퇴임했다.갑작스러운 죽음으로 기사 상태가 양호하다. --TDKR Chicago 101 (토크) 00:18, 2016년 4월 29일 (UTC)[응답]

  • 약한 지지.기사 품질은 괜찮은 것 같고, 명성도 있는 것 같지만, 명목상의 [7] 외에 출처를 하나만 찾았기 때문에 이 기사가 실제로 얼마나 많은 뉴스를 보도하고 있는지는 확실치 않다.그 기사는 겨우 한 시간 정도 지났는데, 내가 너무 빨라서 그런가?Thryduulf (대화) 2016년 4월 29일 00:32 (UTC)[응답]
  • 지지하다.'탄핵되고 해임된 대법원장은 그 분야에 매우 중요할 것이다. 2016년 4월 29일(UTC) 09:31(대화) 09:31[응답]
  • 필리핀 밖에서 뉴스를 만들지 않는 것에 반대한다.앤드류 D. (토크) 2016년 4월 29일 (UTC) 22:16[응답]
@Andrew Davidson:그럴 필요는 없다.상술한 바와 같이, 「행사는 한 나라에만 관련되거나, 한 나라와 관련되지 못하기 때문에, 어떤 항목에 반대하지 마십시오.이는 우리가 게시하는 콘텐츠의 높은 비율에 적용되며 비생산적이다." 331닷(토크) 23:26, 2016년 4월 29일(UTC)[응답]
  • 내가 하는 일은 뉴스 보도 수준을 평가하는 것인데, 그것은 형편없다.gmanetwork.com의 인용된 뉴스 출처는 심각한 뉴스 기구가 아닌 것 같다.예를 들어 BBC의 사망보도는 어디에 있는가?탄핵사건을 덮어서 그 사람이 존재한다는 것을 알아챘지만, 부패하고 불명예스러운 것으로 밝혀졌기 때문에, 그의 죽음으로 인해 감형이 되지 않는다.앤드류 D. (대화) 04:04, 2016년 4월 30일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 지지 - 그 남자의 죽음이 얼마나 가려져 있는지 누가 상관하겠는가?이 사람이 저명한 전국 법원 판사였고, 기사 상태가 좋다면 그때 한번 해보자.조지호(토크) 09:34, 2016년 4월 30일 (UTC)[응답]
"죽음을 얼마만큼 덮느냐"는 것은 사실 공신력을 가늠하는 유효한 척도다.이전에 국내에서 논의된 사항들은 주요 언론 매체에서 사망자가 언급되지 않은 사람들의 사망에 대해 그들이 저명한 인물이고 좋은 몸매를 가진 기사임에도 불구하고 반대해 왔다.만약 언론의 사망 보도가 더 이상 기준이 되지 않는다면, 이것은 몇몇 흥미로운 후보들을 소개할 것이다.뮤리엘메리 (토크) 2016년 5월 1일 (UTC) 10시 43분 (답변)
  • 기본 URL을 수정해 주시겠습니까?심지어 DYK조차도 대부분의 기사가 메인 페이지에 오르기 전에 그럭저럭 해내고 있다.그 후에 가는 것이 좋다.더 램블링맨 (토크) 11시 44분, 2016년 4월 30일 (UTC)[응답]
기본 URL이 손실됨...사라지지 않고 다시 포맷했다.또한, 나는 소스를 옮기고 나서 다른 것들을 추가했다.조지호(토크) 09:18, 2016년 5월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

[폐쇄] 2015년 S/(136472) 1

다음의 논의는 종결되었다.수정하지 마십시오.이후 코멘트는 해당 토론 페이지에서 작성해야 한다.이 논의는 더 이상 수정해서는 안 된다.

Proposed image
기사:S/2015 (136472) 1 (토크 · 역사 · 태그), 마케마케 (토크 · 역사 · 태그)
흐림:천문학자들은 왜성 마케마케를 공전하는 을 발견한다.(우편)
대체 블럽:왜성 마케마케를 공전하는 달인 S/2015년(136472) 1호가 발견된다.
뉴스 출처:뉴욕 타임스
크레딧:

기사 업데이트됨
found5$ (talk) 19:36, 2016년 4월 28일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 반대, 태양계 밖에는 달이 많고, 이 달은 거의 특징이 없다."세미 주요 축: 21,000 km ~ 30만 km, 궤도 주기: 12.4 일 ~ 660 일", 나머지 infobox 파라미터: 공백.기사는 결코 확대되지 않을 것이다.납북(이유) 23:27, 2016년 4월 28일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 반대한다. 기사는 메인 페이지에는 정보가 너무 가볍다. 그것은 또한 병합될 것을 제안한다.Thryduulf (대화) 2016년 4월 29일 00:22 (UTC)[응답]
  • 코멘트마케마케 대신 viz alt blurb의 출연을 고려할 수도 있다.배네돈 (대화) 2016년 4월 29일 00:58 (UTC)[응답]
  • Suppport 원칙.이것은 알려진 위성이 없는 태양계 밖의 유일한 왜성이었고 그것의 질량을 정확하게 측정할 수 있어야 한다.네르가알(대화) 01:52, 2016년 4월 29일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 이 항목을 게시하는 을 지지하지만, 달에 관한 기사는 특집 기사인 마케마케(Makemake)로 병합되어야 하며, 하이라이트 기사로 사용되어야 한다고 생각한다. - OldManNeptune 05:39, 2016년 4월 29일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 반대 이번에는 (기존에 게재된 천문학과 달리) 흥미 있는 특징이 없는 비교적 일상적인 발견으로 보인다.브랜드마이스터talk 10:04, 2016년 4월 29일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 반대하라 그건 달이 아니다. 162.95.148.250 (대화) 22:16, 2016년 4월 29일 (UTC)[응답]서명되지 않은 이전 의견 추가
  • 새로운 달 발견을 지지하는 것이 헬리콥터 충돌보다 더 큰 것 같다고 말한다.그리고 NYT 보도는 그것이 뉴스에 있다는 것을 보여준다.앤드류 D. (대화) 2016년 4월 29일 22시 19분 (UTC)[응답하라]
    이것은 필리핀 어디에서 보고되고 있는가?더 람블링맨 (토크) 2016년 4월 30일 (UTC) 12시 16분 (답변)
    글쎄, 난 필리핀 정보원을 찾는데 실패했지만, 6개 정도의 SEA 신문들이 영어로 보도하는 걸 봤어. 그게 네가 원하는 전부라면.그런데 왜 이런 얘기를 꺼내는 거야?확실히 당신은 천문학에 대한 국제적인 취재를 의심하고 있는 것은 아닌가?당신이 이것에 반대한다는 것은 이해하지만 당신은 완전히 중립적인 주제에 대해 이상하게 무시한다. - OldManNeptune 22:40, 2016년 4월 30일 (UTC)[응답]
    첫째로, 코멘트는 전혀 당신에게 향하지 않았는데, 왜 당신이 여기에 뛰어들어야 한다고 느끼는지 이상하다.둘째로, ITN을 중심으로 읽기를 원한다면, 이 특정 사용자가 글로벌 커버리지(ITN의 목적에 반하는 ITN 항목)를 받고 있지 않은 ITN 항목들에 반대한다는 것을 알 수 있을 것이다(모든 채찍질뾰족한 코멘트에 포함되지는 않는 것 같으나), 그래서 나는 단순히 이 대규모의 중요한 이벤트의 커버리지가 c 어디에 있는지 묻고 있었다.필리핀에서 과대평가된그건 충분히 직설적인 질문이었지만, 너는 칩을 밟는 부랑자처럼 그것에 뛰어드는 것 같아, 나는 왜 그런지 모르겠어, 아마도 피곤하거나 나쁜 하루를 보내고 있는 것 같아.더 람블링맨 (토크) 2016년 5월 1일 (UTC) 19:45 [응답]
  • 이것을 반대해도 아무에게도 영향을 미치지 않을 것이다.더 람블링맨 (토크) 2016년 4월 30일 (UTC) 12시 16분 (답변)
정색을 하고 그런 말을 할 수 있다면 당신은 과학적인 과정에 대해 전혀 이해하지 못할 것이다.하지만, 당신은 10년 후 아무도 적도 기네아 선거의 결과를 기억하지 못할 것이라고 절대 확신할 수 있다.이 명예로운 싸움을 계속하라!네르가알(대화) 14:42, 2016년 4월 30일 (UTC)[응답]
난 네 의견에 정말 관심이 있어.솔직히.나는 또한 당신이 나를 공격한다는 것에 매료되었지만, 당신의 개인적인 의견에 반대하는 다른 사람들은 그렇지 않다.내가 너라면, 지역사회의 시간을 낭비하지 않고 기사를 개선하는 데 더 많은 시간을 할애할 것이다.더 람블링맨 (토크) 2016년 4월 30일 (UTC) 18시 56분[응답]
위의 논의는 종결되었다.수정하지 마십시오.이후 코멘트는 해당 토론 페이지에서 작성해야 한다.이 논의는 더 이상 수정해서는 안 된다.

[폐쇄] 진행 중: 2015~16년 브라질 시위

다음의 논의는 종결되었다.수정하지 마십시오.이후 코멘트는 해당 토론 페이지에서 작성해야 한다.이 논의는 더 이상 수정해서는 안 된다.

기사: 2015-16년 브라질 시위 (대화 · 역사 · 태그)
흐림: 지속적인 지명, 블럽 적용 불가(우편)
크레딧:

기사 업데이트됨
명명자의 의견:지금은 단 한 번의 '포스트(post)' 행사도 없지만, 전체 행사 순서는 일부 국제적인 보도와 함께 현지 뉴스도 크게 보도되고 있다.더 이상의 발전도 거의 확실하다.배네돈(대화) 14:01, 2016년 4월 28일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 반대 나는 현재 업데이트를 받는 기사에 대해 진행 중인 것으로 알고 있다.이 기사는 지금 그렇게 심하게 편집되지 않고 있다.무보슈구(대화) 15:21, 2016년 4월 28일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 일단 반대하다.그 기사는 매일의 전개로 자주 업데이트되고 있지 않다.스스로 기사의 관리자로 삼고, 최근의 모든 업데이트를 하고, 며칠 동안 계속 하고 싶다면, 새롭게 하고, 나는 그것을 지지할 것이다. --Jayron32 18:28, 2016년 4월 28일 (UTC)[응답]
몇 가지 – 첫째, 나는 그 기사(또는 그 문제에 대한 이 지명)를 소유하지 않는다. 그래서 만약 누군가가 "이것이 페트로브라스 스캔들이나 딜마 호세프에 대한 탄핵 절차를 가리켜야 한다"고 말한다면, 나는 다른 페이지를 반대하지 않을 것이다.둘째, 나는 ITN을 내 작품을 광고하는 플랫폼으로 보지 않는다.피처링된 모든 것은 나나 특별히 저술한 사람이 아니라 공로 때문에 피처링되어야 한다.'판사질문 브라질 탄핵절차'(구글을 통해 방금 검색)와 같은 3가지 개별적인 일상 업데이트는 기사에 들어갈 만큼 백과사전이 아닐 수 있다.어떤 사람들에게는 그런 '업데이트'가 재미조차 없을지도 모른다.배네돈 (대화) 2016년 4월 29일 00:51 (UTC)[응답]
ITN은 당신의 작품을 강조하기 위한 플랫폼이 아니다.그러나 위키피디아의 메인 페이지는 양질의 위키피디아 작품을 강조하기 위한 플랫폼으로, 각 비트마다 충족해야 할 요구사항이 있다.ITN의 "ing" 부분의 경우, 진행 중인 스토리에 대한 양질의 작업을 강조하기 위함이며, 여기서도 작업이 진행 중이다.당신이 계속 진행되도록 요청하고 있는 기사들 자체는 이 섹션에 포함된 가치에 추가되고 있는 어떠한 진행 중인 정보도 가지고 있지 않다.공천에서 찾아야 할 첫 번째, 마지막, 유일한 기준은 작품의 질이다.적어도 표준 이하의 기사가 메인 페이지에 게재되어서는 안 되는 한, 다른 모든 것은 부차적인 것이다. --Jayron32 00:56, 2016년 4월 29일 (UTC)[응답]
그렇다면 "당신이 기사의 관리인이 되고자 한다면..."라고 말하면 안 된다. - 당신의 반대 이유는 내가 기사에 해야 하거나 하지 말아야 하는 것과 아무 상관이 없다.배네돈(토크) 01:03, 2016년 4월 29일 (UTC)[응답]
조건부 문장이 영어로 어떻게 작동하는지 정말로 살펴봐야 한다.난 너한테 아무것도 강요한 적 없어.또한, 다른 사람도 똑같이 할 수 있다.꼭 너일 필요는 없어.그러나 이 기사는 표준에 부합할 필요가 있고, 이 기사는 그렇지 않다.그것을 고칠 능력은 있지만, 요건은 없다. --Jayron32 11:56, 2016년 4월 29일 (UTC)[응답하라]
만약 당신이 나를 비난하고 싶지 않았다면, "만약 모든 최신 정보가 만들어지고 며칠 동안 계속된다면..."라고 수동적인 목소리를 낼 수도 있었을 것이다. "만약 당신이 스스로 기사의 관리인으로 만들고, 모든 최신 정보를 만들고, 며칠 동안 계속 유지하기를 원한다면..."(나의 강조점)능동적인 음성을 사용하여 환자가 아닌 에이전트를 경험하게 하고 기사를 업데이트하는 것이 내 책임인 것처럼 보이게 한다.만약 그것이 의식적이든 아니든 당신의 의도가 아니라면, 당신의 영어는 효과가 있어야 한다.배네돈 (대화) 2016년 4월 29일 15:44 (UTC)[응답]
나의 영어 선생님들은 항상 나에게 수동적인 목소리를 피하라고 가르쳤다.Jayron은 "당신이 원한다면"가 아니라 "당신이 원하면"이라고 말했다.무보슈구 (대화) 15:55, 2016년 4월 29일 (UTC)[응답]
나의 영어 선생님들은 나에게 수동적인 목소리를 낼 시간과 장소가 있다고 가르쳤다.누가 기사를 업데이트하는 것이 아니라 기사를 업데이트하는 것이 우선일 때는 수동적인 목소리가 더 바람직하다.그리고 비록 활동적인 목소리가 정말로 필수적이라고 해도, "너" 대신에 "누구나" 또는 "누구나"와 같은 용어가 사용될 수도 있었다.만약 Jayron32가 "만약 Muboshgu가 스스로 기사의 관리인으로 만들고, 최근의 모든 최신 정보를 만들고, 며칠 동안 계속하기를 원한다면..."라고 말했다면, 그가 그것에 대한 책임을 당신에게 떠넘겼다고는 생각하지 않을 것이다.결국, 그가 말한 모든 것은 당신에게도 적용된다.배네돈 (대화) 06:13, 2016년 4월 30일 (UTC)[응답]
나뿐만 아니라 그 누구도 네가 필요한 변화를 하는 것을 막지 않는다는 것을 명심하겠다.이건 봉사활동인데, 그런 면에서 내가 너보다 중요한 건 아니야.당신은 기사의 개선 여부를 선택할 자유가 충분히 있다.그러나 스스로 고치고 싶지 않더라도 여전히 기준 이하의 기사는 메인페이지에 게재할 수 없다. --Jayron32 03:46, 2016년 4월 30일 (UTC)[응답]
그러면 그것을 메인 페이지에 올리는 것에 반대하며, 기사를 업데이트하는 것은 내가 책임지는 것처럼 보이게 하기 위해 반대한다는 말을 하지 마라.그렇게 힘들지?배네돈 (대화) 06:13, 2016년 4월 30일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 와 같은 이유로, 독자들에게 이것이 그들이 알아야 할 진행 중인 것이라는 것을 증명하기 위해 기사에 아무것도 추가되지 않는다면, 이 후보 지명에는 아무런 의미가 없다.더 람블링맨 (토크) 2016년 4월 28일 (UTC) 18:38[응답]
위의 논의는 종결되었다.수정하지 마십시오.이후 코멘트는 해당 토론 페이지에서 작성해야 한다.이 논의는 더 이상 수정해서는 안 된다.

[비공개] 진행 : 1말레이시아 개발 베르하드 스캔들

다음의 논의는 종결되었다.수정하지 마십시오.이후 코멘트는 해당 토론 페이지에서 작성해야 한다.이 논의는 더 이상 수정해서는 안 된다.

기사: 1말레이시아 개발 버하드 스캔들(·역사·태그)
흐림: 지속적인 지명, 블럽 적용 불가(우편)
크레딧:

기사 업데이트됨
명명자의 의견:지금은 단 한 번의 '포스트(post)' 이벤트도 없지만 전체 행사 순서는 일부 해외 보도와 함께 현지 대형 뉴스다.더 이상의 발전도 거의 확실하다.배네돈(대화) 14:01, 2016년 4월 28일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 반대 나는 현재 업데이트를 받는 기사에 대해 진행 중인 것으로 알고 있다.이 기사는 지금 그렇게 심하게 편집되지 않고 있다.무보슈구 (대화) 15:22, 2016년 4월 28일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 와 같은 이유로, 독자들에게 이것이 그들이 알아야 할 진행 중인 것이라는 것을 증명하기 위해 기사에 아무것도 추가되지 않는다면, 이 후보 지명에는 아무런 의미가 없다.더 램블링맨 (토크) 2016년 4월 28일 (UTC) 18:39 [응답]
위의 논의는 종결되었다.수정하지 마십시오.이후 코멘트는 해당 토론 페이지에서 작성해야 한다.이 논의는 더 이상 수정해서는 안 된다.

[폐쇄] 인도 GPS

다음의 논의는 종결되었다.수정하지 마십시오.이후 코멘트는 해당 토론 페이지에서 작성해야 한다.이 논의는 더 이상 수정해서는 안 된다.

기사:인도 지역 항법 위성 시스템(대화 · 역사 · 태그)IRNSS-1G(대화 · 역사 · 태그)
흐림:ISRO인도 지역 항법 위성 시스템의 7번째이자 마지막 위성 IRNSS-1G를 성공적으로 발사했다.(우편)
뉴스 출처:힌두교
크레딧:

두 기사가 모두 업데이트됨
§§§Dharmadhyaksha § {Talk / Edits} 08:25, 2016년 4월 28일(UTC)[응답]

업데이터의 논평 - 이번 발사는 인도의 우주 연구소에서 인도가 그들만의 항법 위성 시스템을 소유하는 선택된 국가 그룹에 정식으로 합류하게 되는 역사적인 지점을 나타낸다.요한브트(대화) 10:16, 2016년 4월 28일 (UTC)[응답하라]

  • 이것은 6번째 위성항법시스템이기 때문에 선천적으로 그리 놀랄만한 것은 아니며, 인도 아대륙만을 커버하고 있다.6월까지는 가동으로 확정되지 않았으니 그때까지 기다릴 만한 가치가 있을 것이다.스티븐 12시 1분, 2016년 4월 28일 (UTC)[응답]
5위 아니야? (200개 이상의 백과 중, 우리가 수학을 한다면)또한 6월이 되면 그것은 퀴퀴해질 것이다.그것은 단번에 모든 사람이 이용할 수 있는 것은 아닐 것이다.그것은 단계적으로 시작되는데, 아마도 군사적인 우선은 정부가 일을 하고 그 다음엔 민간인을 위해 일을 할 것이다.그때는 별로 뉴스거리가 되지 않을 것이다.§§§Dharmadhyaksha § {Talk / Edits} 12:23, 2016년 4월 28일(UTC)[응답]
가장 합리적인 방법으로 5위.GPS(미국)와 GLONASS(소비에트, 현재 러시아가 운영하고 있음)는 글로벌, BDS(중국)와 갈릴레오(주로 EU)는 부분적으로 운용되고 있지만 완성되지는 않았다.일본은 QZSS를 보유하고 있는데, 지금까지 발사된 위성은 1개뿐이다.프랑스는 DORIS라는 시스템을 가지고 있는데, 어떤 이유로 우리는 Template에 다음을 포함한다.위성항법장치 - 위성항법장치 - 위성항법장치 - 위성항법장치 - 위성항법장치 - 위성항법장치 - 위성항법장치 - 위성항법장치 - 위성항법장치 - 위성항법장치 - 위성항법장치는 잘못된 방향으로그러나 GLONASS와 갈릴레오가 국제 연합의 프로젝트라는 점을 감안할 때, 인도는 성공적인 위성 통신 시스템에 관여하는 50번째 국가밖에 되지 않는다.스머린체스터 2016년 4월 29일 10시 2분 (UTC)[응답하라]
난 그렇게 생각하지 않아. 유인 궤도 우주 비행, 발사 실패, 로켓 타입의 처음/마지막 발사, 인도 최초의 궤도 발사, 우주 정거장의 발사, 또는 목적지에 탐사선이 도착하는 것.331닷 (대화) 13:57, 2016년 4월 28일 (UTC)[응답]
음, 그렇구나...나는 원래 이것을 ITNR로 해석했다. 왜냐하면 그것은 이 시스템의 마지막 위성을 발사하고 난 후의 일이기 때문이다.배네돈(대화) 03:48, 2016년 4월 29일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 반대 - 나는 인도가 일상적으로 위성을 발사하기 때문에 이것을 큰 성과로 보지 않는다.물건의 질도 보통이다.콜리폰+(토크) 14:40, 2016년 4월 28일 (UTC)[응답]
콜리폰 이번 발사는 단순한 인공위성 발사가 아니다.이번 발사로 인도는 지금까지 몇몇 국가만이 성공적으로 해낸 항법 위성 완전 별자리를 성공적으로 설치했다.요한브트 (대화) 03:37, 2016년 4월 29일 (UTC)[응답]
IRNSS는 우리가 이전에 올린 대통령보다 더 많은 페이지 조회수를 얻고 있다.§§§Dharmadhyaksha § {Talk / Edits} 03:47, 2016년 4월 29일(UTC)[응답]
아래 사용자당, 나는 이것이 EU나 러시아의 발사였다면, ITN에는 확실히 게시되지 않았을 것이라는 것에 동의한다.아마 절대 후보로 지명되지 않을 것이다.일관된 기준Collipon+(Talk) 12:58, 2016년 4월 29일 (UTC)[응답]을 사용해야 한다.
  • 지원 - 일부 국가만이 자체 항법 시스템을 구축하였기 때문에 분명히 주목할 만하다.FlickrWarrior (talk) 16:29, 2016년 4월 28일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 시스템이 실제로 작동할 때까지 기다리십시오.네르가알(대화) 17:22, 2016년 4월 28일 (UTC)[응답]
  • Per Sherenk1. --Rsrikanth05 (대화) 03:16, 2016년 4월 29일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 유목민 및 요한브트당 지원.배네돈(대화) 03:48, 2016년 4월 29일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 에 띄지 않는 것으로 반대하다.이 명목에서 언급된 GPS 시스템을 가지고 있는 것으로 추정되는 "feew 국가"는 오해의 소지가 있다.중국 시스템은 궤도에 있는 위성의 약 4배수를 보유하고 있으며, 링크된 기사에 따르면 '개발 중'에 불과함에도 불구하고 이미 정밀도가 높다.EU 체제도 비슷한 입장이다.이는 이 명호가 최소한의 인프라와 알려지지 않은 성능을 가진 제4 또는 제5기능 GPS 시스템에 초점이 맞춰져 있다는 것을 의미한다.이것은 많은 다른 나라들의 11번째 성공에도 불구하고, 화성에 대한 인도 임무가 게시되었을 때와 매우 흡사하다.정상적인 기준을 사용하지 말고 인도니까 글을 올려야 한다는 느낌이 있다.128.214.69.166 (대화)08:10, 2016년 4월 29일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 약한 지지 눈에 띄지만, 그것이 단지 지역 시스템이라는 사실은 이것을 조금 덜 흥미롭게 만든다.스머린체스터 2016년 4월 29일 10시 2분 (UTC)[응답하라]
  • 강한 반대 지역만.65.95.137.223 (대화) 11:21, 2016년 4월 29일 (UTC)[응답]
강한 인도 공포증?§§§Dharmadhyaksha § {Talk / Edits} 04:56, 2016년 4월 30일(UTC)[응답]
  • 반대하기 때문에 6일, 7일, 8일 이런 위성망도 완성되는 겁니까?이는 그 종류 중에서 가장 작고 덜 완전한 시스템으로 보이며, 이미 구축되어 있는 글로벌 네트워크와는 반대로 단일 지역에 한정되어 있다. - OldManNeptune 12:42, 2016년 4월 30일 (UTC)[응답]
6일, 7일, 8일 이런 위성방송이 완성됐을 때 개발도상국들이 외부의 도움 없이 깔린다면 아마도 언급할 만한 가치가 있을 것이다.요한vt (대화) 2016년 4월 30일 18:12 (UTC)[응답]
  • 여기서 반대자는 반대 투표에 동의한다.이것은 ITN의 가치가 없다. 117.221.125.129 (대화) 14:22, 2016년 4월 30일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 반대하지만 인도 편집자들이 이걸 포함시키려 한다는 건 이해하지만, 나한테는 별로 눈에 띄지 않는...그리고 어떤 항목에 반대한다는 이유만으로 편집자들을 외국인 혐오증이라고 비난하는 것은 정말 도움이 되지 않는다.저그 나세 (대화) 2016년 4월 30일 18:24 (UTC)[응답]
@Zwerg Nase:나는 외국인 혐오증 때문에 다른 편집자나 IP를 비난하지 않았다. 왜냐하면 그들은 그들의 근거를 매우 잘 설명했기 때문이다.이 IP의 근거는 저희의 근거와는 달랐소. 제발... "지역 전용"이라고 부르는 섹션.§§§Dharmadhyaksha § {Talk / Edits} 03:54, 2016년 5월 2일(UTC)[응답]
  • 설명:IRNSS-1G 기사에는 많은 기술 사양이 나열되어 있지만, 더 넓은 의미에서 이것이 주목할 만한/중요하다는 것에 대한 텍스트(있는 경우)는 별로 나열되어 있지 않으며, 이는 도움이 될 것이다.스펜서T♦C 06:57, 2016년 5월 2일 (UTC)[응답하라]
@스펜서:시스템에 일반적인 중요성이 추가됨.§§§Dharmadhyaksha § {Talk / Edits} 08:48, 2016년 5월 2일(UTC)[응답]
위의 논의는 종결되었다.수정하지 마십시오.이후 코멘트는 해당 토론 페이지에서 작성해야 한다.이 논의는 더 이상 수정해서는 안 된다.

4월 27일

무력 충돌 및 공격
예술과 문화
비즈니스 및 경제
재해 및 사고
  • 에콰도르에서는 폭우로 홍수가 발생해 에콰도르를 강타했으며 주로 차칠라스주 산토도밍고로스 알루리퀸에서 발생해 최소 4명이 숨지고 여러 명이 다쳤다.지방 강물이 둑을 무너뜨려 마을을 물로 뒤덮은 후 약 300명의 사람들이 홍수로 피해를 입었다. (알자지라)
국계 계
법과 범죄
정치와와와거거거거

[폐쇄] RD: 류롄만

다음의 논의는 종결되었다.수정하지 마십시오.이후 코멘트는 해당 토론 페이지에서 작성해야 한다.이 논의는 더 이상 수정해서는 안 된다.

기사: 류롄만(토크 · 역사 · 태그)
최근 사망자 지명(우편)
뉴스 출처: 시나
크레딧:

기사 업데이트됨
위키백과 기사와 함께 어떤 사람이나 동물 또는 유기체의 최근 죽음은 항상 게시할 수 있을 만큼 충분히 중요한 것으로 추정된다(이 RFC추가 토론 참조).논평은 기사의 질이 WP를 충족하는지 여부에 초점을 맞추어야 한다.ITNRD.
명명자의 의견:그는 가장 높은 에베레스트 산을 포함하여 네 개의 산을 등반했다.아주 중요한 산악인 것 같군.조지호(토크) 2016년 4월 28일 21시 5분 (UTC)[응답하라]
  • 등산 분야에서 중요한 증거가 없다는 것에 반대하라 - 그는 어떤 종류의 지도자나 교사, 지도자 또는 멘토였는가?또한 기사는 매우 짧고 세부 사항이 부족하며 "중국인 최초 등반"과 같은 비원어적 영어 표현에 대해 교정되어야 한다 - 그것은 "중국인 등반가 최초 등반"을 의미하는가?뮤리엘메리 (대화) 09:26, 2016년 4월 29일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 반대 8k의 첫 등반은 50년대 중반이었다.그는 에베레스트의 북쪽 면에 등반한 최초의 팀의 일원이었지만 정상에 오르지 못했다.7.5k에 오른 첫 번째 중국인과 5.5k와 7.5k에 오른 첫 번째 중국인 중 한 명인 그가 이 분야에서 이룬 다른 업적은 등반 분야에서 전혀 의미 있는 일은 아니다.푸에배이 (대화) 2016년 4월 29일 11시 57분 (UTC)[응답하라]
  • 반대는 눈에 띄지 않는다.콜리폰+(토크) 12:59, 2016년 4월 29일 (UTC)[응답]
위의 논의는 종결되었다.수정하지 마십시오.이후 코멘트는 해당 토론 페이지에서 작성해야 한다.이 논의는 더 이상 수정해서는 안 된다.

[폐쇄] 데니스 해스터트는 징역 15개월을 선고받았다.

다음의 논의는 종결되었다.수정하지 마십시오.이후 코멘트는 해당 토론 페이지에서 작성해야 한다.이 논의는 더 이상 수정해서는 안 된다.

기사: 데니스 해스터트(토크 · 히스토리 · 태그)
흐림: 데니스 해스터트미국 하원의장이 자신이 한때 지도했던 레슬링팀에서 아동학대를 은폐하기 위해 금융거래를 불법으로 조작한 혐의로 징역 15개월의 실형을 선고받고 있다.(우편)
뉴스 출처: 워싱턴포스트 뉴욕 타임스 BBC 뉴스
크레딧:
명명자의 의견:해스터트는 미국 정치에서 세 번째로 중요한 인물이었는데, 이것은 (오랜 기간 동안 많은 뉴스 보도를 받고 있다는 사실은 말할 것도 없고) 심각한 범죄였다.매일 아침(토크) 01:13, 2016년 4월 28일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 반대 - 당신이 그가 미국 정치에서 세 번째로 중요한 인물이었다고 말하듯이, 핵심 단어는 "제3의 가장 중요한"이다.브라질에서 탄핵 위기에 처한 딜마 호세프, 파나마 신문으로 사임한 아이슬란드의 지그문두르 다비히 군노루손, 말레이시아나지브 라작 현지 주요 인사들은 이전에도 스캔들에 휘말려 있었다.. 이 모든 사건들이 때때로 국내 뉴스를 지배하고 있으며, 데니스 해스터트의 사건보다 더 많은 국제적인 보도를 얻었고, 각각의 나라에도 더 많은 영향을 끼친다.나는 이것을 게시할 가치가 있다고 생각하지 않는다.배네돈 (대화) 2016년 4월 28일 01:29 (UTC)[응답]
    • 우리는 건너그슨과 루세프를 언제 탄핵될지에 대해 게시하는 것에 동의했고, 라작, 나는 충분한 발전이 있다면 지명되어 게시될 것이라고 생각한다.나는 반대했지만, 그들은 뉴스에 나오는 것 이상의 하스테트의 상황과 관계가 없기 때문에 당신의 잘못된 비교를 격추해야만 했다.무보슈구 (대화) 02:02, 2016년 4월 28일 (UTC)[응답]
나는 그것이 판단력에 관한 것이라고 생각한다.그러나 호세프의 경우는 말 그대로 몇 달 동안 브라질 언론의 관심을 사로잡았다.그것은 많은 유명한 브라질 정치인들을 조사했고, 대통령의 퇴진을 요구하는 수백만 명의 시위자들을 거리로 불러들였고, 대통령의 지지율이 역사적으로 낮은 지점으로 떨어지게 만들었다.나집 총리는 감사원장 교체, 말레이시아 인사이더(신문) 폐쇄, 무히딘 야신 부총리 교체 등을 단행했다.이 스캔들은 싱가포르와 같은 이웃 국가의 언론은 말할 것도 없고 말레이시아 언론을 계속해서 지배하고 있다.브라질과 말레이시아에서의 이러한 격변(현재 아이슬란드에서 탈퇴)에 비해, 나는 해스터트의 사례가 갑작스럽고 드라마틱하며 자연스러운 "포스팅 포인트"가 있다는 장점만을 가지고 있다고 생각한다. 전반적인 장점은 게시할 가치가 없다.배네돈 (대화) 02:18, 2016년 4월 28일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 린은 반대한다. 만약 하스테트가 재임 중이라면 나는 이것을 확실히 지지할 것이다. 하지만 그는 그렇지 않다.그것은 그 중요성을 상당히 감소시킨다.무보슈구 (대화) 02:04, 2016년 4월 28일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 반대한다. 그의 범죄는 그가 국회의장으로 있을 때와는 아무 상관이 없다.만약 그가 의장이 되지 않았다면, 이것은 전국적인 뉴스가 되지 않았을 것이다- 그리고 그는 무보슈구가 지적하는 것처럼 몇 년 동안 존재하지 않았다.반든이 좋은 지적이야. 2016년 4월 28일 02:05, (토크) 4월 28일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 333닷과 다른 사람들의 지적에 반대하라.이는 재임 중 저지른 범죄의 결과가 아니었다.미국 정치에는 영향을 미치지 않을 것이다. --MASEM (t) 03:23, 2016년 4월 28일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 강력한 지지 미국 역사상 실형을 선고받을 최고위 정치인 중 한 명. 65.95.137.223 (대화) 03:55, 2016년 4월 28일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 사소한 일에도 큰 영향을 미치지 않고 반대하라.더 램블링맨 (토크) 07:11, 2016년 4월 28일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 반대 - 과거 한 나라에서 개인 범죄로 유죄판결을 받은 중요한 사람(그의 정치나 업무와 무관함)으로 보인다.세상에 큰 영향은 없다.뮤리엘메리 (토크) 2016년 4월 28일 (UTC) 10시 44분 [응답]
위의 논의는 종결되었다.수정하지 마십시오.이후 코멘트는 해당 토론 페이지에서 작성해야 한다.이 논의는 더 이상 수정해서는 안 된다.

4월 26일

무력 충돌 및 공격
예술과 문화
비즈니스 및 경제
재해 및 사고
국제 관계
법과 범죄
정치와 선거

[포스팅] RD: 해리 우

기사:해리 우 (토크 · 역사 · 태그)
최근 사망자 지명(우편)
뉴스 출처:BBC, ABC 뉴스
크레딧:
위키백과 기사와 함께 어떤 사람이나 동물 또는 유기체의 최근 죽음은 항상 게시할 수 있을 만큼 충분히 중요한 것으로 추정된다(이 RFC추가 토론 참조).논평은 기사의 질이 WP를 충족하는지 여부에 초점을 맞추어야 한다.ITNRD.

명명자의 의견:중국 인권옹호자, 라오개 연구재단 설립 – 무보슈구(대화) 2016년 4월 27일(UTC) 19:53[응답]

  • 지원 그들 나라의 역사와 문화에 대한 중요한 공헌 - 라오개이를 많이 노출시켰다.챌린저 l (대화) 23:26, 2016년 4월 27일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 지지는 중국에서 영향력 있는 인권 운동가로 보이며, 사망은 전 세계적으로 다루어지고 있으며 기사 상태는 양호하다. --TDKR Chicago 101 (토크) 04:27, 2016년 4월 28일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 지원 만약 모두가 그가 저명한 운동가라고 말한다면, 당장 그에게 명예로운 언급을 하자.그는 헛되이 헌신적인 재단을 개설한 것이 아니다.조지호(토크) 09:17, 2016년 4월 28일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 기사 품질에 대한 반대 약세 - "라오개이에 초점을 맞춘다" MurielMary (토크) 10:40, 2016년 4월 28일 (UTC)[응답] 섹션의 전체 첫 단락 등 일부 비참조 섹션이 남아 있다.
    • 나는 단지 그 특정 단락에 출처를 추가했을 뿐이다.나는 완전히 비협조적인 문단이 남아있지 않다고 본다.무보슈구 (대화) 15:26, 2016년 4월 28일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 지원 그 기사는 괜찮은 것 같다.중국 인권옹호에서 가장 중요한 20세기 인물 중 한 명은 아마도 류샤오보보다 훨씬 더 많은 업적을 남겼을 것이다.콜리폰+(토크) 14:41, 2016년 4월 28일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 2016년 4월 28일 (토크) 18:43 (UTC) 게시[응답]

[포스팅] 뉴델리 국립자연사박물관

기사: 국립 자연사 박물관, 뉴델리 (토크 · 역사 · 태그)
흐림: 인도의 국립 자연사 박물관과 뉴델리의 소장품 전체가 화재로 소실되었다.(우편)
뉴스 출처: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/apr/26/massive-fire-guts-delhis-natural-history-museum
크레딧:

Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); 앤디와 대화; 앤디의 2016년 4월 27일 편집[응답]

  • 장점에 대한 지원, 눈에 띄는 문화적 손실인 것 같다.331닷(토크) 13:10, 2016년 4월 27일(UTC)[응답]
  • 이를 뒷받침하는 것은 문화 유물의 중요한 손실인 것 같다. --MASEM (t) 13:29, 2016년 4월 27일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 비록 그 기사가 실망스러울 정도로 맨 뼈일지라도 원칙적으로 지지하라.정비 불량에 대한 이전의 보도를 볼 때 상당한 손실과 잠재적 스캔들로 보인다.머더드 지니어스 13:52, 2016년 4월 27일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 지원 - 전 세계적으로, 특히 시민과 관광객을 위한 크고 중요한 소식. --George Ho (토크) 21:17, 2016년 4월 27일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 사용자당 지원:331dot & 사용자:마셈의 근거. --Fixuture (talk) 21:39, 2016년 4월 27일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 지지 - 확실히 인도의 역사에는 큰 손실이고 국내에는 세계사에 대한 손실이다.챌린저 l (토크) 23:18, 2016년 4월 27일 (UTC)[응답]
  • Stephen 00:03, 2016년 4월 28일 (UTC) 게시[응답]

[폐쇄] RD: 아마눌라 칸

다음의 논의는 종결되었다.수정하지 마십시오.이후 코멘트는 해당 토론 페이지에서 작성해야 한다.이 논의는 더 이상 수정해서는 안 된다.

기사: 아마눌라 칸 (JKLF) (토크 · 역사 · 태그)
최근 사망자 지명(우편)
뉴스 출처: 타임스 오브 인디아
크레딧:

위키백과 기사와 함께 어떤 사람이나 동물 또는 유기체의 최근 죽음은 항상 게시할 수 있을 만큼 충분히 중요한 것으로 추정된다(이 RFC추가 토론 참조).논평은 기사의 질이 WP를 충족하는지 여부에 초점을 맞추어야 한다.ITNRD.
명명자의 의견:카슈미르 주요 독립 단체인 잠무 카슈미르 해방 전선을 창설했다.EvernitNomad (토크) 00:50, 2016년 4월 27일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 반대 의의는 나에게 명확하지 않고, 물건의 질이 나쁘다.기지에 따르면 그는 국민이나 인도나 파키스탄(카슈미르 제외)의 적이 아니라 조국을 지배해 온 정부 기계와 카슈미르의 고유하고 헌신적인 자기결정권을 부정하는 정치인들의 적이다. – 무보슈구(대화) 01:11, 2016년 4월 27일(UTC)]
  • 주로 글의 질에 반대하여 산문은 열악하고, 오늘날까지 출처가 전혀 없었다(지금도 두 가지 출처는 부고뿐이다.그는 역사에서 한 시점에 중요했지만, 그가 RD 지위에 오를지는 확신할 수 없었다.로라 제이미슨 (대화) 07:14, 2016년 4월 27일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 물건의 질과 중요성 둘 다에 반대한다.뮤리엘메리 (토크) 2016년 4월 28일 (UTC) 10시 35분[응답]
위의 논의는 종결되었다.수정하지 마십시오.이후 코멘트는 해당 토론 페이지에서 작성해야 한다.이 논의는 더 이상 수정해서는 안 된다.

[포스팅]힐즈버러 참사

Proposed image
기사: 힐즈버러 재해(토크 · 역사 · 태그)
흐림: 두 번째 심리에 이어 배심원단은 1989년 힐즈버러 참사 희생자 96명(추모사진)에 대한 불법 살인에 대한 평결을 내린다.(우편)
뉴스 출처: (BBC) (CNN) (ABC) (CBC)
크레딧:

기사 업데이트됨

유목민의 논평: 이 오랜 사건의 획기적인 사건.평결이 어떻든 아마 더 많은 논란이 있을 것이다.Mjroot (대화) 19:22, 2016년 4월 25일 (UTC)[응답]

  • 지지 - 무슨 수를 써서라도 게시해야 한다.이는 영국 내에서 지축을 뒤흔드는 비율의 합법적인 사례로 단순한 스포츠 재앙의 범위를 넘어선다.그 기사는 꽤 재미있는 읽을거리야.--WaltCip (대화)20:10, 2016년 4월 25일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 월트가 말하는 대로 지원하라.더 람블링맨 (토크) 2016년 4월 25일 (UTC) 20:25[응답]
  • Support - 종합적이고 잘 쓰여진 기사와 내일 대서특필될 주제. --Bcp67 (대화)20:40, 2016년 4월 25일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 업데이트 보류지원, 공개될 때까지 기다리십시오.브랜드마이스터talk 20:52, 2016년 4월 25일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 지원 보류 중인 업데이트개선 사항 나는 "The Sun" 부분 특히 "The Sun" 부분 아래 "논란" 섹션에서 몇 가지 비소싱 인용문을 발견했다.이것들은 게시하기 전에 고쳐야 하지만 나머지 기사는 괜찮아 보인다. --MASEM (t) 22:37, 2016년 4월 25일 (UTC)[응답]
    • 소싱 문제가 해결된 것으로 보이므로 업데이트가 확인되면 좋음. --MASEM (t) 14:21, 2016년 4월 26일 (UTC)[응답]
      • 얼마 전에 내가 준비되었다고 표시했을 때 업데이트를 확인했어.더 람블링맨(토크) 15:01, 2016년 4월 26일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 잠정적인 반대 - 나는 이것이 어떻게 "영국 내에서 지면을 뒤흔드는 비율의 법적 사건"인지 모르겠다. 관련 소식통도 기사도 이 사건의 법적 중요성을 설명하지 않는다. 그것은 단지 잘 알려진 사건의 가장 최근의 (최종적인) 왜곡일 뿐이다.더 나아가 재난 그 자체는 25년 이상, 즉 아주 오래 전에 일어난 일이다.의심의 여지 없이 관련자들 중 일부는 이 간섭기에 죽었을 것이고, 시간의 안개 속으로 많이 잊혀졌을 것이다.구글에서 '힐스버러 참사'를 간단히 검색해 보면 실제로 이 사건 자체와는 달리 2주 전 행사 기념일을 기념하는 항목이 나온다.나는 또한 비 UK 아울렛에서도 간신히 취재를 하고 있다.만약 누군가가 왜 이것이 지속적인 의미를 가질지 설명할 수 있다면 내 의견을 기꺼이 바꾸겠지만, 그렇지 않다면 나는 이것을 게시할 가치가 없다고 본다.배네돈(토크) 02:20, 2016년 4월 26일 (UTC)[응답]
@Banedon: 우선, 그것은 영국 법률 역사상 가장 긴 조사다. (BBC TV 오늘 아침)이다.만약 검문에 관한 기사가 있었다면, 내가 그 기사를 지명했을 텐데, 실패했을 것이다. 재난에 관한 기사는 지명하기에 적절한 것이다.Mjroot (대화) 05:10, 2016년 4월 26일 (UTC)[응답]
솔직히 나는 그것이 매우 인상적인 것이라고 생각하지 않는다; 어떤 것은 결국 영국 법률 역사상 가장 긴 조사일 것이다. (그리고 세계의 모든 다른 나라들은 그에 상응하는 "가장 긴 조사"를 가지고 있다.)내가 버즈 칼리파 꼭대기에서 버거를 팔기 시작한다면, 내 버거를 "세계에서 가장 높은 버거"라고 합법적으로 광고할 수 있을 겁니다.누가 신경써?그것은 정말 자랑스러워할 만한 것이 아니다.가장 긴 심문이 이 사건의 유일한 특징이라면, 나는 그것이 ITN의 가치가 있는 것이 아니고, 기껏해야 DYK라고 생각한다.배네돈 (대화) 09:17, 2016년 4월 26일 (UTC)[응답]
  • (충돌 편집) @Banedon:평결이 나오기 전(아직 1시간 앞으로 다가왔지만)에 대해 국제적인 취재를 기대하지는 않겠지만, 어쨌든 국제 취재는 ITN과는 관련이 없다.Hillsborough Disaster는 영국의 주요 문화 문제로서, 그리고 확실히 어떤 식으로든 (직접적이든 간접적이든 팬으로서든) 그것을 결코 잊지 않은 사람들 - 영국에서는 축구 팀에 대한 지원이 가족을 통해 전해지며 매우 강한 제도적 기억을 만드는 클럽의 관련 전통이 있다.행사가 끝난 지 25년이 넘도록 리버풀의 선 판매량은 여전히 다른 지역보다 현저히 낮다.*(즉시 찾을 수는 없지만, 팀이 런던 북부로 이동했음에도 불구하고 런던 남동부 울리치 지역에 아스널을 지지하는 주머니를 보여주는 런던 축구 클럽의 지지자 지도가 어디선가 있다.100년 전인 1913년).풋볼 서포터도 아니고 사건 당시 8세에 불과했던 나 같은 사람에게도 힐즈버러 참사는 큰 일이며, 이 정도 규모의 뉴스는 매스컴에 의해 대대적으로 다뤄질 것이다.지지하다.Thryduulf (대화) 09:23, 2016년 4월 26일 (UTC)[응답하라]
  • CNN, ABC(호주), CBC(캐나다)의 보도도 덧붙였다.또한 많은 양의 비영어권 유럽 커버리지가 있다.로라 제이미슨 (대화) 12시 45분, 2016년 4월 26일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 오늘 판결로 갱신되었을 때 지원하라 특히 불법적인 살인에 대한 평결이 주어졌다.나는 이것을 지지하기 위해 더 많은 글을 쓰려고 했지만, Thryduulf는 나를 위해 위에 그것을 했다.로라 제이미슨 (대화) 09:56, 2016년 4월 26일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 불법적인 살인죄 판결, 블러브 업데이트벤첼라이트Talk 10:16, 2016년 4월 26일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 지원, 2016년 4월 26일 셰렌크1 (대화) 12:32, 26 (UTC)[응답] 이상의 이유가 제공되었다.
  • 세계의 주목할 만한 영어를 사용하는 지역, 그리고 ITN에 있어서 특이한 주제에 매우 중요한 실제적인 흥미로운 뉴스를 지원하라.네르가알(대화) 15:06, 2016년 4월 26일 (UTC)[응답]
  • Hillsborough 재해에 연결하기 위해 Tweeked Tweeked 최신 정보를 담고 있는 두 번째 청문회.이것은 엄청난 기사여서 독자들이 직접 연결되지 않으면 쉽게 놓칠 수 있다. --Jayron32 15:15, 2016년 4월 26일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 코멘트는 내가 그 주제에 대해 흥미롭다고 생각하기 때문에 이것을 지지했을 것이지만, 나는 내가 여기서 찬성하는 주장을 하는지는 확실하지 않다.불행하게도 위키피디아가 어느 정도 체계적 편견을 가지고 있다는 인식을 심어주는 것은 다른 나라에서도 비슷한 규모의 사건(천안함 침몰에 대한 2차 조사)이 결코 취재를 받지 못할 수도 있기 때문이다.콜리폰+(토크) 00:02, 2016년 4월 27일 (UTC)[응답]
    여기에 다른 조사가 게시되지 않을 것이라는 것을 암시하는 것은 아무것도 없다.아무것도 아니야.더 람블링맨 (토크) 2016년 4월 27일 (UTC) 10:34[응답]
    그건 내 주장이 아니었다.나의 주장은 그것이 독자들에게 주는 인식에 관한 것이었고, 또한 비영어권 국가의 다른 이야기들은 ITN에 게시되는 것은 말할 것도 없고, 결코 (아마도) 쓰지도 않을 것이라는 것이었다.어쨌든, 이 사건이 영국에서는 "거대한 거래"처럼 보이지만, 다른 곳에서는 정말이지 아무데도 없는 것 같다; 다시 말하지만, 이것은 그것을 게시하지 않을 이유가 아니라, 단지 흥미로운 관찰일 뿐이다.예를 들어, 이것은 뉴욕 타임즈의 헤드라인에 오르지 못했다. (누군가는 그 이야기를 찾거나 "찾아봐야 할 것") 이것은 공신력을 위한 믿을 만한 "시험"의 일종이다.반면 오베르게펠 대 호지스는 판결이 내려지던 날 가디언에서 최고의 기사였다.콜리폰+(토크) 12:58, 2016년 4월 27일 (UTC)[응답]
    음, 우리 외국어 위키피디아에는 그런 문제가 발생할 경우 특정 사례를 다루는 데 거의 확실히 더 적합한 수많은 외국어 위키피디아들이 있다는 것을 알고 계실 겁니다.그 이야기는 전세계적이다. 단지 NYT가 그것을 옮기지 않았다고 해서 그것이 "정말 다른 곳"이라는 큰 제안은 아니다.어쨌든, 우리는 ITN 규칙을 가지고 있다.더 램블링맨 (토크) 2016년 4월 27일 (UTC) 13:53[응답]
  • 포스트 포스트 포스트잇에 반대하다.헛된 일일지도 모르지만 어쨌든 이렇게 하자.이번 지명의 영향과 백과사전적 내용은 27년 전의 사건에 의존한다.최근 이 지명을 초래한 사건들은 그렇지 않다.이번 사건에서 '불법 사망' 판결이 무엇을 의미하는지는 명확하지 않다.만약 이 사건에 새로운 혐의가 적용된다면, 그것은 이번 지명에 관한 것보다 더 큰 영향을 미칠 것이다. 그것은 "우리는 누군가를 기소할 수 있는 일종의 권리를 가지고 있다"에 해당한다.내가 그 기사를 읽은 것을 보면, 임의적이고 법무장관의 변덕에 두 번째 조사를 한 것 같다.이와 같이, 제3의 조사의 가능성, 그리고 이 조사의 잠재적 무효화 가능성을 닫는 것은 무엇인가?이곳 ITN에는 최고 수준의 사법조치만 게시하는 전통이 있는데, 이번 사건이 최고위급인지, 심지어 이번 사건의 마지막 조치인지조차 분명치 않다.행사 자체가 문화적인 문제라는 점은 감사하지만, 공천은 재난 그 자체를 위한 것이 아니라 (나에게 나타나는 것은) 그 여파로 작은 파장을 위한 것이다.128.214.163.204 (대화) 10:29, 2016년 4월 27 (UTC)[응답]
    아니, 잔물결은 거의 없어.그것은 영국에서 며칠째 헤드라인 뉴스가 되고 있다.이번 판결은 불법 살인으로 유죄판결을 받은 사람들에 대해 형사처벌을 청구할 수 있다는 것을 의미한다.27년 동안 96명의 가족들은 이번 참사가 일어난 것은 술에 취한 팬들의 나쁜 행동에 해당한다는 말을 들었다.어제 그것은 완전히 그리고 완전히 법률에서 거부되었다.이것은 우리가 게시한 루칸의 사망 증명서 발급보다 훨씬 더 많은 수십 년 동안 가장 뉴스거리가 될 만한 영국의 법적 결정들 중 하나이다.더 램블링맨 (토크) 2016년 4월 27일 (UTC) 10:32[응답]
  • 포스트 포스트잇 지원.나 역시 지난 5년 동안 영국 뉴스에서 이것을 거의 지속적으로 보는 것에 질려 있었지만, 그것은 의심할 여지 없이 주요한 대중의 관심사다.오래 전이지만 행사 자체가 중요했고, 이후 은폐로 경찰에 대한 국민의 신뢰가 크게 훼손돼 오늘날에도 관련성이 계속되고 있다.이 평결은 그 사건의 이정표로서 반드시 기소를 초래할 것이다.우리가 받게 될 사연을 게시하기에 가장 좋은 시기인 만큼 게시하는 것은 좋은 조치였습니다.이제 언론에서 그 얘기를 그만 듣기를 바란다...머더드 지니어스 12:04, 2016년 4월 27일 (UTC)[응답]

4월 25일

무력 충돌 및 공격
비즈니스 및 경제
재해 및 사고
국제 관계
법과 범죄
정치와 선거
스포츠

4월 24일

무력 충돌 및 공격
국계 계
법과 범죄
정치와와와거거거거

[RD에 포스팅] 고노 토미

기사: 고노 토미(토크 · 역사 · 태그)
최근 사망자 지명(우편)
뉴스 출처: 하와이 뉴스 나우
크레딧:

위키백과 기사와 함께 어떤 사람이나 동물 또는 유기체의 최근 죽음은 항상 게시할 수 있을 만큼 충분히 중요한 것으로 추정된다(이 RFC추가 토론 참조).논평은 기사의 질이 WP를 충족하는지 여부에 초점을 맞추어야 한다.ITNRD.

명명자의 의견:그는 역사상 가장 위대한 역도 선수 중 한 명이었다. 그는 2개의 금메달을 땄고, 6년 동안 세계 챔피언이었고, 26개의 세계 기록을 세웠다.이터널노마드(토크) 15:15, 2016년 4월 25일 (UTC)[응답]

  • 역도에 대한 지원 중요성은 충분히 중요하다.그 기사는 몇 가지 언급이 누락되어 있다.내가 하나를 추가했지만, 모든 "Early Life"와 일부 "Career" 섹션은 여전히 참조되지 않았다.마밀레스 (대화) 2016년 4월 25일 (UTC) 16:09 [응답]
  • 지지 - 중요성이 높다.BabbaQ (대화) 2016년 4월 25일 16:12 (UTC)[응답]
  • 가 읽은 뉴스 매체에서는 지지도가 높지는 않지만, 이 개인은 메달 수와 기록에서 분명히 눈에 띈다.더 램블링맨 (토크) 2016년 4월 25일 (UTC) 20:27 [응답]
  • 많은 사람들이 올림픽에서 두 개의 금속에 당첨되는 것을 반대한다.그가 그 분야에서 영향력을 행사했다는 증거는 없다.만약 그 기사가 그가 새로운 기술을 개발했다고 말했다면 나는 이것을 지지할 수 있을 것이다.μΔείς ( (대화) 20:45, 2016년 4월 25일 (UTC)[응답]
    • 그러나 가장 높은 업적 중 하나인 여러 개의 세계 기록을 세운 사람은 거의 없다.그리고 기사에 따르면 그는 "4개의 다른 체급에서 세계 기록을 세운 역사상 유일한 올림픽 역도 선수"라고 한다(관련 참조 링크는 죽었지만).브랜드마이스터talk 21:00, 2016년 4월 25일 (UTC)[응답]
그의 기록은 깨지지 않았니?왜 야구에는 4할 4푼의 타자가 없는지에 대한 스티븐 J. 굴드의 에세이를 읽어보길 권한다.아니면 여기서 그 주제에 대해 그를 지켜봐라.어떤 분야의 개척자들은 자신이 최고가 아니라 1등이라는 통계적 사실에서 비롯되는 모든 종류의 "기록"을 세우는 경향이 있다.그의 기록이 남아 있으면 내 표를 바꾸겠다.δεες (대화) 02:09, 2016년 4월 26일 (UTC)[응답]
그것은 나에게 공평하지 않아 보인다.기록은 항상 향상되기 때문에, 이것은 우사인 볼트가 죽은 후 특징 지을 가치가 있는 유일한 100m 달리기 선수라는 것을 암시한다. 100m 달리기 또한 많은 새로운 기술을 가지고 있지 않다.배네돈 (대화) 02:29, 2016년 4월 26일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 지지하다.역도에게 분명히 매우 중요한 것은 "역사상 유일한 올림픽 역도 선수로서 4개의 체급에서 세계 기록을 세웠다." 331닷 (토크) 21:16, 2016년 4월 25일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 2016년 4월 26일(UTC) RD Stephen 06:41에 게시[응답]

[폐쇄] RD: 빌리 폴

다음의 논의는 종결되었다.수정하지 마십시오.이후 코멘트는 해당 토론 페이지에서 작성해야 한다.이 논의는 더 이상 수정해서는 안 된다.

기사: 빌리 폴 (토크 · 역사 · 태그)
최근 사망자 지명(우편)
뉴스 출처: ABC 뉴스
크레딧:

기사 업데이트됨
위키백과 기사와 함께 어떤 사람이나 동물 또는 유기체의 최근 죽음은 항상 게시할 수 있을 만큼 충분히 중요한 것으로 추정된다(이 RFC추가 토론 참조).논평은 기사의 질이 WP를 충족하는지 여부에 초점을 맞추어야 한다.ITNRD.
§§§Dharmadhyaksha § {Talk / Edits} 05:20, 2016년 4월 25일(UTC)[응답]
  • (Weak) 반대 - 그는 작년에 평생의 업적을 남겼지만, 잘 버티지 못할 수도 있다.그 업적은 올뮤직의 업적이다. 나는 그것이 충분히 명성이 있는지 확실하지 않다.그래미스에 대해서는, 그는 잘 알려진 "Me and Mrs. Jones"로 그래미상을 단 한 번 수상했다.'너를 위한 충분한 나 I Black For You'라는 곡이 있지만, 이 곡은 그를 단순한 히트곡 이상의 존재로 만드는 또 다른 유일한 곡이다.그가 단지 두 곡으로 알려져 있다니 유감이다.조지호(토크) 07:27, 2016년 4월 25일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 약한 반대론자는 조지 호가 이 개인이 어느 정도 성공하긴 했지만, 장르에 대한 그의 기여는 "전반적으로 그 분야에서 매우 중요한 인물로 간주되는" RD 기준을 충족하지 못하는 것 같다는 데 동의한다.그 글 역시 다시 써야 할 것이 꽤 많이 필요하다.마밀레스 (대화) 2016년 4월 25일 16시 12분 (UTC)[응답]
  • 지원 - 덜 알려져 있지만 중요한 R&B 뮤지션으로 핫 100에서 1위를 차지했으며 그래미상을 수상했다.쿠르티스 04:22, 2016년 4월 26일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 약한 반대.그의 분야에서는 평균 이상인 것 같지만, 그의 분야에서는 "매우 중요"하지는 않다. 331닷 (대화) 06:49, 2016년 4월 26일 (UTC)[응답]
  • Abstitute Does는 그의 분야에서 중요한 것 같지 않다 - 그래미 하나는.뮤리엘메리 (토크) 2016년 4월 26일 10시 55분 (UTC)[응답]
  • 반대 그의 분야에서 충분히 중요하지 않다.무보슈구 (대화)20:31, 2016년 4월 26일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 반대한다. 겨우 한 번 이상 히트친 경력은 겨우 넘지만, 그는 포함시킬 만한 중요한 경력이 없다. 리: 도리스 로버츠.로도디스랜드 (대화) 2016년 4월 26일 22시 10분 (UTC)[응답]
위의 논의는 종결되었다.수정하지 마십시오.이후 코멘트는 해당 토론 페이지에서 작성해야 한다.이 논의는 더 이상 수정해서는 안 된다.

[포스팅] RD: 잉게 킹

기사: 잉게 킹 (토크 · 역사 · 태그)
최근 사망자 지명(우편)
뉴스 출처: 시드니 모닝헤럴드
크레딧:

위키백과 기사와 함께 어떤 사람이나 동물 또는 유기체의 최근 죽음은 항상 게시할 수 있을 만큼 충분히 중요한 것으로 추정된다(이 RFC추가 토론 참조).논평은 기사의 질이 WP를 충족하는지 여부에 초점을 맞추어야 한다.ITNRD.

명명자의 의견:훌륭한 호주 조각가.칭찬이 자자한 조각가들을 탄생시켰다.오스트레일리아 기사단의 일원이었습니다.상태가 양호한 기사. --TDKR Chicago 101 (토크) 23:17, 2016년 4월 24일 (UTC)[응답]

  • 지원 기사는 모양새가 좋아 호주 미술에 대한 중요성이 상당해 보인다. --MASEM (t) 23:54, 2016년 4월 24일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 지원이 RD 기준을 충족한다.물건의 질이 좋다.마밀레스 (대화) 2016년 4월 25일 16:00 (UTC)[응답]
  • 매우 파생적이고, 그녀의 분야에서 아무런 영향도 받지 않는 것에 반대하며, 단지 반성일 뿐이다.글의 상태가 좋은 것은 필수요건이지 게시할 이유가 아니다.μΔείςς (대화) 20:42, 2016년 4월 25일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 메데이스당 반대 약자; 주체의 역할을 잘 설명하는 좋은 품질의 기사 때문에 약하다.스펜서T♦C 05:04, 2016년 4월 26일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 만약 누군가가 "현대 조각의 개척자"라고 불린다면, 그들은 ITN의 RD 섹션에 정당하게 포함될 수 있을 것이다.더 램블링맨 (토크) 06:29, 2016년 4월 26일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 지원 그녀의 분야에서 중요한 RD 기준을 충족하며, 기사는 철저하고 참조가 잘 되어 있다.뮤리엘메리 (토크) 2016년 4월 26일 (UTC) 10시 53분[응답]
  • 코멘트 나는 이것이 준비된 것으로 표시되었지만 기사를 확인하면서 적어도 한 섹션이 잘못된 시제(현재 시제에서는 2014년을 언급하기도 함)에 있다고 보았다.그 부분을 고쳤는데, 더 점검할 시간이 없어.다른 사람이 그녀의 죽음을 반영하기 위해 기사 전체가 업데이트되었다는 것을 확인할 때까지 나는 "준비된" 마커를 제거했다.Thryduulf (대화) 2016년 4월 26일 18:55 (UTC)[응답하라]
    • 기사는 "준비"라고 표시하며 상태가 좋아 보인다.스펜서T♦C 19:33, 2016년 4월 26일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 게시. --Jayron32 20:20, 2016년 4월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

[포스팅] 2016년 런던마라톤

Proposed image
기사:2016년 런던 마라톤 (토크 · 역사 · 태그)
흐림:남녀 런던마라톤에서 케냐인 엘리우드 킵초게(사진)와 제미마 섬공이 우승했다.(우편)
뉴스 출처:BBC 가디언
크레딧:

기사 업데이트됨
지명된 이벤트는 WP에 열거되어 있다.ITN/R, 따라서 각각의 발생은 게시할 수 있을 만큼 충분히 중요한 것으로 추정된다.논평은 기사와 업데이트의 품질이 WP를 충족하는지 여부에 초점을 맞추어야 한다.중요성이 아니라 ITNCRIT.

명명자의 의견:남자 경주는 코스 기록으로 우승했고(그리고 세계 기록에서 약간 수줍은 듯), 여자 경주는 우승자가 약 23마일에 떨어져 머리를 부딪히는 이벤트성 경주로, 누구나 간결하게 할 수 있다면 이런 것들이 흐릿하게 반영될 수 있을 것이다.나는 단지 그것이 우리가 섬공에게 가지고 있는 것보다 훨씬 낫기 때문에 남자들의 승자를 그려보기로 선택했다(그리고 나는 오늘 그럭저럭 더 좋은 것을 가져가지 못했다).Thryduulf (대화) 2016년 4월 24일 15:14 (UTC)[응답하라]

  • 개선 지원 우리는 기사에 더 많은 산문이 필요하다(코스에 대한 설명과 위에서 설명한 결과/리콜에 대한 일부 문서).--MASEM (t) 21:59, 2016년 4월 24일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 이제 지원 개선 완료.러그넛 08:22, 2016년 4월 25일 (UTC)[응답]
  • Support Now 산문이 개선되었다.휘즈40 (대화) 2016년 4월 25일 12시 47분 (UTC)[응답하라]
  • 지지 하지만 넌 단서를 묻었어...그들은 우주에서 경주를 했다!하지만 진지하게, 그 기사는 현재 충분한 형태를 갖추고 있다. --Jayron32 13:17, 2016년 4월 25일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 2016년 4월 25일 () 13:20, 25 (UTC) 게시[응답]

[RD에 포스팅됨] 파파 켐바

기사:Papa Wemba(토크 · 히스토리 · 태그)
최근 사망자 지명(우편)
뉴스 출처:BBC, CNN, 프랑스24
크레딧:

위키백과 기사와 함께 어떤 사람이나 동물 또는 유기체의 최근 죽음은 항상 게시할 수 있을 만큼 충분히 중요한 것으로 추정된다(이 RFC추가 토론 참조).논평은 기사의 질이 WP를 충족하는지 여부에 초점을 맞추어야 한다.ITNRD.

프린스에 블럽이 주어지면 최소한 Papa Wemba는 RD. 84.161.244.15 (대화) 12:44, 2016년 4월 24일 (UTC)[응답]에 포함되어야 한다.

  • 개선 지원 - 명성이 존재하지만, 이 기사는 제대로 참조되지 않고 전체 섹션도 소싱되지 않으며, 또한 "빨간색 링크"가 너무 많다.물론, 이러한 것들은 내가 나의 자격 없는 지원을 해주기 전에 고쳐져야 할 필요가 있을 것이다: 분명히 세계적인 음악 스타와 패션 아이콘("사퍼" 청소년 문화와 라 사페에 대한 집착)이다.크리스티안 로이스 (대화) 2016년 4월 24일 (UTC) 14:00[응답]
  • 개선 지원 - 기사를 통한 소싱의 심각한 부족, RD를 게시하기 전에 반드시 고쳐야 한다. --MASEM (t) 14:15, 2016년 4월 24일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 품질에 반대하다.개선되면 다시 생각해 볼 수도 있지만, 많은 일이 필요해.또한, 나는 프린스가 이 일과 무슨 관계가 있는지, 혹은 왜 그가 유목민에게 길러졌는지 전혀 알 수가 없다.무보슈구 (대화) 23:43, 2016년 4월 24일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 나는 이것을 지지할 수 있지만, 다른 사람들이 이전에 말했듯이, 그 기사가 ITN에 나타나기 전에 전면적인 정비가 필요할 것이다.그 산문은 너무 구어적이고 내 취향에 맞지 않는다.푸에배이 (대화) 23:58, 2016년 4월 24일 (UTC)[응답하라]
  • 나는 이 개인이 RD 중요도 기준을 충족한다는 것에 동의한다. 그러나 그 기사는 포스트잇이 되기 전에 개선이 필요하다.마밀레스 (대화) 2016년 4월 25일 (UTC) 15:48, 응답
  • 지원 - 콩고 문화 아이콘쿠르티스 05:37, 2016년 4월 26일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 지금은 거의 완전히 참조되지 않은 물품 품질에 반대한다.뮤리엘메리 (토크) 2016년 4월 26일 (UTC) 10시 58분 [응답]
  • 개선지원하다그는 본질적으로 음악의 한 장르를 규정하는 등 분명히 자기 분야에서 최고였지만, 기사 질이 너무 떨어져 현재 글을 올리기에는 너무 형편없다.Thryduulf (대화) 2016년 4월 26일 (UTC) 12시 7분 (답변)
  • 댓글- 기사를 확인한 후 준비로 표시했다.나를 포함한 다른 편집자들이 많은 편집을 했다.소싱, 인용문, 백과사전적 어조가 모두 많이 개선되었다.그러나 ITN/RD를 준비하려면 "Ready" 표시를 해제하십시오.크리스티안 로이스 (대화) 01:38, 2016년 4월 28일 (UTC)[응답]
    • 준비 안 됐어.완전히 비협조적인 단락들이 있다.무보슈구 (대화) 01:45, 2016년 4월 28일 (UTC)[응답]
      • Yoka Lokole 섹션에 따라 매우 논란이 많은 주장을 포함.스티븐 01:47, 2016년 4월 28일 (UTC)[응답]
  • RD보내서 청소 잘했어스티븐 05:32, 2016년 4월 29일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 편집, 적절한 CN 태그, 개선 제안 등을 도와주신 여러분 모두에게 기쁘고 감사드린다.크리스티안 로이스(토크) 10시 5분, 2016년 4월 30일 (UTC)[응답하라]

4월 23일

무력 충돌 및 공격
Arts and culture
Disasters and accidents
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Science and Technology

[Closed] Chinese censorship of Apple's iTunes, Ten Years

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:Ten Years (2015 film) (talk · history · tag)
Blurb:In an effort to censor the movie release of Ten Years, Chinese authorities shut down Apple's iTunes Store. (Post)
News source(s):(South China Morning Post), (The Guardian), (Sydney Morning Herald), (Bloomberg)
Credits:
bender235 (talk) 15:27, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whole iTunes shut down to prevent dystopian movie from circulating. Yet another example of Chinese authorities' paranoia. Nom. --bender235 (talk) 15:27, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I don't wish to yet formally oppose but Chinese censorship is nothing new. How is this more significant? 331dot (talk) 15:31, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Is it just the subject matter of the film? Again, it doesn't seem unusual for the Chinese government to censor materials that criticize it. 331dot (talk) 15:33, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
They shut down the entire business operations in China of the largest company in the world, a service that started only a couple of months ago. The sheer proportion of measures taken to prevent this low-budget independent movie from being distributed is remarkable, almost comical. --bender235 (talk) 15:36, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I get that they are so to speak using an atom bomb to kill a fly but does it really shock anyone that they did? 331dot (talk) 15:42, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it did make news around the world (see sources above), even though I have to agree it wasn't surprising. --bender235 (talk) 15:47, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Chadian election wasn't surprising, and business as usual, but was posted. Apples and oranges, some might say. All bananas to me. InedibleHulk(talk) 21:06, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@InedibleHulk: Elections for head of state are ITNR. Censorship in China is not. 331dot (talk) 21:17, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
^^ This. What is ITN/Recurring should be a protracted discussion, not conducted here. CaradhrasAiguo (talk) 21:57, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@CaradhrasAiguo: I wasn't seeking a protracted discussion nor do I seek a change in anything; just stating a fact. 331dot (talk) 22:05, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Has made the news around the world. Shutting down iTunes for an entire nation of over a billion people is major.
Depends on the nation. Censorship is China is unsurprising- and I doubt all 1 billion+ people in China were using iTunes. 331dot (talk) 16:08, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose iTunes isn't the ultimate source to get this film. Since the film from 2015, I bet it's available somewhere online at least. When Russian authorities blocked some websites which allegedly infringed copyright, multiple bypasses were made, including URL changes. Brandmeistertalk 16:34, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - As noted by others, censorship of Western media in China is nothing new. --MASEM (t) 17:04, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Business as usual when it comes to Chinese censorship. Also the blurb is not entirely true - none of the sources explicitly link the film to the shutdown and it doesn't say iTunes is completely down, only that book and film services are unavailable. Fuebaey (talk) 19:49, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Read SCMP source above. --bender235 (talk) 20:52, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think you and I have different definitions of the term "explicit". I read it and the SMH article, both of which mention the film. What it doesn't do is synthesise:
Chinese authorities block access to Apple's iBooks and iTunes movies, shortly before film is released onto platform.
into what is written in the blurb. We don't ascribe speculation as motive without a reliable source stating so. Neither news source states: authorities censor Apple due to film. Fuebaey (talk) 21:52, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Fuebaey - the blurb linking the shutdown to the film seems speculative. Many news reports such as NYT and The Guardian do not mention the film at all. -Zanhe (talk) 00:22, 24 April 2016 (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.

[Posted] RD: Banharn Silpa-archa

Article: Banharn Silpa-archa (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Bangkok Post
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Former PM, leader of Thai Nation Party. EternalNomad (talk) 01:43, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • support - top-field politician. --BabbaQ (talk) 12:40, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Reviewing his page he seems very important to Thai politics. 331dot (talk) 15:46, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Former leaders of any country should be RD. There's a few unsourced statements but these all appear to be factual statements of his office positions, easily checked by blue links, so article seems ready. --MASEM (t) 17:06, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - prominent and influential politician in Thailand, article seems thorough. MurielMary (talk) 21:42, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - former top politician of a major country. Article is in decent shape, except for a couple of unsourced paragraphs. -Zanhe (talk) 00:26, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I've sourced all remaining unreferenced sections. Marked as ready. -Zanhe (talk) 17:26, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Article in good shape and former PM of Thailand. Notable subject. Full support. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:21, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Doesn't seem to be getting much international coverage. He was only PM for a year as he seems to have been quite incompetent and something of a joke. "Queen Elizabeth Taylor"! Andrew D. (talk) 23:52, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted The Rambling Man (talk) 06:34, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

April 22

Armed conflicts and attacks
Arts and culture
Business and economics
Disasters and accidents
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Science and technology
Sport

[Posted] Discovery of Amazon reef

Article:Amazon Reef (talk · history · tag)
Blurb:Oceanographers discover an extensive reef system near the Amazon River, estimated to span an area of 3,600 square miles (9,300 km2). (Post)
News source(s):The Atlantic, The Guardian, Los Angeles Times, Phys.org, CNN
Credits:

Nominator's comments: A significant find in the oceanographic and ecological community; one of the largest coral/sponge reef systems in the the world, larger than the Belize Barrier Reef, recently discovered near the mouth of the Amazon River, where it was unexpected that such a reef would even exist, let alone thrive. Philip Terry Graham 22:39, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - a major, unexpected, exciting discovery. Article is taking shape nicely. -Zanhe (talk) 23:41, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Covered in mainstream demonstrating the significance and surprising nature of the find, and the article is in decease shape for this. (And if there's opposition to this, keep in mind this is a great DYK too) --MASEM (t) 23:42, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Big time mainstream media coverage for this. I see that the ITN Nominator also initiated the Wikipedia article and, as Zanhe points out in his 'support' above, the article is coming along nicely.- Christian Roess (talk 02:01, 24 April 2016‎ (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as excellently argued by the nominator. Banedon (talk) 07:31, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted Stephen 08:56, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Withdrawn] Quantum tunneling of water

WITHDRAWN...:

...by nominator. --George Ho (talk) 16:36, 25 April 2016 (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:Quantum tunneling of water (talk · history · tag)
Blurb:Scientists discover the quantum tunneling of water molecules. (Post)
News source(s):Phys. Rev. Letters, Phys.org
Credits:
Nominator's comments: According to one researcher, "This discovery represents a new fundamental understanding of the behavior of water and the way water utilizes energy". We haven't had science news for a while. Brandmeistertalk 16:05, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose It is good science news, but it's very difficult to tell what this result will lead to immediately (understanding that carbon nanotubes and water flow within them is a very potent area for tech improvements). It is not like, say, the Higgs-Bosen discovery where there was already a theory this would exist and the results were to confirm it. --MASEM (t) 17:03, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a comment on that - Higgs discovery has no practical applications either, and the theory governing quantum tunneling (i.e. quantum mechanics) is better grounded than the theory governing the Higgs Boson (which admittedly is very well grounded as well). In fact the Standard Model is built on Quantum Mechanics. With that said, I personally find this discovery to be rather dull as far as discoveries go, and the sources linked in both this nomination and the target article don't do anything to change my mind. Banedon (talk) 07:30, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Interesting but doesn't seem to be in the news. Andrew D. (talk) 23:44, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Withdrawing this, and we got some science news posted. Brandmeistertalk 13:13, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

[Closed] Romania in the Eurovision Song Contest 2016

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: Romania in the Eurovision Song Contest 2016 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Romania is expelled from Eurovision Song Contest 2016 after its national broadcaster, Romanian Television failed to pay outstanding debts. (Post)
News source(s): BBC Telegraph Sky News
Credits:
Nominator's comments: It is an unprecedented decision in the history of Eurovision. EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 06:43, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It is a big and important song contest, but it is after all just a single contestant in a song contest. Thue (talk) 07:23, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose A Romanian has never won, and a Romanian wasn't about to. I like how they planned on "Moment of Silence", though. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:57, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. How this contest chooses its competitors isn't ITN worthy; as I understand it while some countries participate all the time it is not unusual for a country to not do so one year. 331dot (talk) 11:23, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - This is a rare happening. And has had major implications. A suggestion could be to change the blurb to reflect that Romania was expelled from the EBU.BabbaQ (talk) 12:42, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The reporting, though, seems to be focused on the contest. 331dot (talk) 12:44, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose Look, I get that Euros love this reality TV contest, but it's still a reality TV contest. Let's just leave it with posting the winner, huh? – Muboshgu (talk) 16:48, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose A country fails to follow rules for participation, is expelled. Nothing significant here. --MASEM (t) 16:59, 23 April 2016 (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.

[Posted] Chadian presidential election

Proposed image
Article:Chadian presidential election, 2016 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb:Idriss Déby (pictured) is elected to a fifth term as President of Chad. (Post)
News source(s):BBC News, NYT, Reuters
Credits:

The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

Nominator's comments: 25-year incumbent remains in power. Results came out last Thursday. Fuebaey (talk) 00:59, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose The landslide seems to have been a foregone conclusion. Business continues as usual there. He's beaten the same guy three times now. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:10, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think despite the predictable outcome this should still be posted; this has gotten some degree of news coverage, perhaps due to the alleged irregularities and the fact he is viewed by the West as "a bulwark against Islamist militants in central Africa" according to the BBC. 331dot (talk) 11:28, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • support - a presidential election is notable.BabbaQ (talk) 12:43, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support While this is almost at the point where this specific ITNR is small and unexpected, the questions around the election make it significant enough to post still. Article seems ready. --MASEM (t) 17:07, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What questions? If they're significant, they should be made clear in the article first. InedibleHulk(talk) 19:06, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
They are there - under the Conduct section. What's there explains why this wasn't simply a run-of-the-mill election with well-predicted results. --MASEM (t) 19:49, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If the implied significant question is "What didn't the government want the media to see?", that might be good to note in the blurb (and flesh out in the article). Otherwise, I'm not sure the average reader is going to recognize that as the point. Mainly appears to have been a fair contest with relatively low viewership ending in a clean sweep for an incumbent who will carry on as usual. Andrey Koreshkov also gets some degree of news coverage for that (or Jon Jones, at an AP level). It may seem odd to hold a president and champion to the same standard, but it's also a bit odd to paint this president with the same "inherently notable" brush we use for G20 leaders. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:31, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

April 21

Armed conflicts and attacks
Arts and culture
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
  • More than 100 are feared dead in an early summer heatwave in India which has forced the closure of schools. (Reuters)
  • At least 24 people are killed, 136 others injured, and eight workers still missing from yesterday's blast at the major Clorados 3 petrochemical plant of Petroquimica Mexicana de Vinilo. Nineteen people remain hospitalized, with 13 in serious condition. The plant is run by Mexichem under agreement with Petroleos Mexicanos (Pemex), the national petrochemical company, in Coatzacoalcos, Veracruz, Mexico, on the country's southern Gulf of Mexico coast. Pemex had an earlier fire at the same facility in February 2016 that killed one worker; also that month, an offshore Pemex Gulf platform fire killed two and injured eight. (Reuters) (AP)
  • At least two people are killed after an oceanfront stretch of an elevated bike lane in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, collapses when it was hit by a strong wave. Two other people were rescued alive, while another may be missing. The bike lane was among the projects built in preparation for the 2016 Summer Olympics. No Olympic event will be held on the path. (AP) (AP² via CBS News) (Hindustan Times)
International relations
Law and crime
  • Crime in El Salvador
    • The government of El Salvador unveils and deploys a new heavily armed special forces unit to fight criminal gangs in rural areas of the country. Officials say it will target gang leaders who left the cities because of a government crackdown. (BBC)
  • Six high ranking Pakistan Army officers, including a lieutenant-general and major-general, are sacked by Chief of Army Staff Raheel Sharif amid corruption allegations within the army. Sharif said corruption had to be uprooted to fight terrorism. (BBC)
Politics and elections
Science and technology
Sport

[Posted to RD]: Lonnie Mack

Article: Lonnie Mack (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
Credits:

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: RD has been busy for the past couple days, but the article seems to make a strong case for his importance as a guitarist and in Americana music. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:57, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - Quite the influential musician.--Catlemur (talk) 20:59, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support notability, quality isn't the greatest but it seems to be good enough. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:03, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Importance is there, and the article looks to be at a reasonable good quality level (with room for improvement) to post. --MASEM (t) 21:16, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The notability is there. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:32, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Never heard of him, but guitarists I have heard apparently sounded better because of him. That works. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:25, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted to RD Stephen 02:07, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose This individual has not won any awards beyond a state level (and then only one) and does not seem to meet the criteria for "significant in his/her field". Does not appear to have had any chart-topping hits either. This was a very rapid posting, only 5 hours from nomination to post - could there be more discussion to allow for other viewpoints?? MurielMary (talk) 10:02, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for RD. The key point is that sources report that in his style and technique he was highly influential on many important rock musicians - not that his own personal achievements, number of pop hits, etc., reflected that. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:10, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] RD: Ferenc Paragi

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: Ferenc Paragi (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): IAAF
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: One of the best javelin throwers in the world in the late 1970s and early 1980s; he held the world record for 3 years, and won the national championship 5 times, although his results in the Olympics were somewhat disappointing. EternalNomad (talk) 01:08, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose - Part of it is the article quality, but that leads to being unsure how important this athlete is just from what we cover about him. The lack of news of his death beyond the IAAF that I can presently find is a bit worrisome. --MASEM (t) 01:46, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
support pending improvements. Clearly top of his field...and no mean featLihaas (talk) 06:28, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose, as I can't see that this actually is in the news which is a shame. Awkward42 (talk) [the alternate account of Thryduulf (talk)] 16:16, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose due to lack of news coverage. 331dot (talk) 11:24, 23 April 2016 (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.

[Posted] Prince

Article:Prince (musician) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb:American singer, songwriter, and producer Prince is found dead at the age of 57 (Post)
News source(s):Telegraph, Billboard, TMZ, Daily Mail, Entertainment Weekly, BBC
Credits:

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 singer, with multiple hits over the years Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:02, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support as nominator. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:02, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Has it been confirmed it is him? The Telegraph article I am reading says there has been a death at his house and they fear it is Prince. Other US news sources are citing TMZ, a gossip site, but not saying it's definitely him yet. TheBlinkster (talk) 17:05, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, not confirmed yet. Though TMZ did break the Michael Jackson death, and Prince had some illness issues last week. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:06, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Now confirmed. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:11, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Premature They haven't confirmed who died yet. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:06, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak wait: A lot more reports are coming out, but we need to be absolutely sure before we declare him dead and blast it all over the front page. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:09, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb - shocking and huge news. Jusdafax 17:16, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait for more confirmation, but support otherwise. -- KTC (talk) 17:13, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I just added a blurb, so feel free to fix that as needed. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:16, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb The highest support. Can it be in purple text? Miyagawa (talk) 17:18, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support full blurb once fully verified and updated. Prince is a history-making artist who was still extremely relevant (he released two top-ten albums in 2014), and his death was both premature and unexpected. -- Mike (Kicking222) 17:18, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb upon update; AP is reporting it is him. This is a case of the death itself being notable, aside from being the death of a notable person. 331dot (talk) 17:20, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with blurb but can the blurb please be amended to add that he is also a producer? American singer, songwriter and producer? He was extremely respected within the music industry for his production skills. TheBlinkster (talk) 17:20, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
support RD social media is going mad too
as for his page, watch out that we don't link to a page that's got "Sorry, the servers are overloaded at the moment. / Too many users are trying to view this page. Please wait a while before you try to access this page again. / Pool queue is full"Lihaas (talk) 17:23, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb - no question. Enormously influential. Blythwood (talk) 17:25, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious support. - one of the all time icons. Sceptre (talk) 17:26, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support blurb - Though I have never appreciated his music he is a top-field musician.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:27, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support blurb - in this instance I feel this goes beyond just RD; the article is good and detailed and the impact is significant given his relative early age and that he was still working in his field. Pedro : Chat 17:28, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support One of the biggest stars of all time. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:28, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted Article is minimally updated, but will no doubt be further updated as details are reported in the news. Thue (talk) 17:29, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • PULL, but Support blurb but article needs improvements - Importance is close to that of Bowie, and this was out of anowehere death. I can ignore some of the larger chunks of unsourced text in his musical career history (that's more a matter of checking against the blue links) to expedite posting, but there's things outside that that are subjective unsourced statements (one section tagged, and a handful of CNs). These absolutely need to be fixed before posting, but we should try to post this once these basic issues are fixed. --MASEM (t) 17:30, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • The counter argument to this is that posting it will bring people to the page, and they will help to fix some of the outstanding issues. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:36, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • FWIW, before this was posted, his page had to be locked down due to a flood of edits causing conflict. This is not a case of needing to post this to get people to help edit. Though I would support having the article in its current state at RD until the major CN and orange tags were fixed up. --MASEM (t) 17:39, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Suggest pulling out unsourced material, and reposting on the talk page for discussion. Also suggest a photo. Here's a decent one from Commons: https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Prince_(musician)#/media/File%3APrince.jpg Jusdafax 17:42, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-posting support - obvious case for a blurb. The one section tagged does not contain any controversial material. No doubt it will soon be fixed. Mjroots (talk) 17:48, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it up I just added a bunch of {{cn}} tags, but as Mjroots points out, none of the material is controversial. The article is in otherwise good shape, and hopefully interested editors will add needed citations as the day progresses. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:56, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support There will be plenty of people now willing to help source the cn tags. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:03, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I'm fixing a few CNs now as time permits, but they don't seem bad enough to justify pulling the article in this particular case as the vast majority of the article is in good shape. TheBlinkster (talk) 18:17, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • support, use purple somehow. 107.2.90.199 (talk) 19:35, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong post-posting support For all the reasons we ran one for Bowie. Daniel Case (talk) 19:42, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose using purple somehow Bowie didn't get half-blue. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:43, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support full blurb This is a shocking news about the death of a very popular person in the music industry that certainly deserves full blurb.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:45, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • We're under attack, we need to declare martial law. Count Iblis (talk) 19:48, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • So this is what it sounds like when doves cry. :( This one is a no-brainer - Prince more than deserves his own blurb. His impact on contemporary music (and to a slightly lesser extent, popular culture) have been almost unparalleled over the past three decades. Kurtis (talk) 22:59, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] RD: Chyna

Article: Chyna (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): New York Post
Credits:

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: Pioneer in wrestling. First female to participate in various matches, former champion at various levels. Well known in and out of the wrestling world. Thechased (talk) 05:41, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support One of the more notable wrestlers from the past couple of decades. Canuck89 (have words with me) 06:43, April 21, 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. A household name in her time and after it. She wasn't just top of her field, she basically caused a field which had been entirely dormant in North America to exist whole-heartedly again. And so help me if someone brings up the "but it's fake" argument—Meadowlark Lemon didn't play "real" basketball for a living, and Christopher Lee wasn't really Dracula either. GRAPPLEX 08:00, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    For what it's worth, her obituary is currently the most-read news item on the BBC website, according to their own listings. GRAPPLE X 08:25, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Notability per above, article is in pretty good shape. - OldManNeptune 08:05, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Received mainstream popularity in the late 1990s. Still the only female wrestler I can name off the top of my head (being a non-wrestling fan). — Chris Woodrich (talk) 08:42, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I agree with Chris. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:57, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This is already ready, but I'll just point out she was the only woman with a serious run in professional wrestling, outside of a women's division. That's going back decades before The Fabulous Moolah was even born. And she's still the most atypical body in Playboy. Essentially Susan B. Anthony, but badass. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:07, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted. Thryduulf (talk) 10:07, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have no objection to this being posted (although her contributions to women's wrestling are usually over-emphasized). But this being posted so quickly really exposes the ITN process as being more about fame than influence. Dusty Rhodes, Nick Bockwinkel and Verne Gagne, three legitimate headline stars for decades, were all passed over and I basically had to harass admins to get Roddy Piper posted because it was heading for a good old "sorry too much time has passed". Chyna, who always was more of a tabloid curiosity than a wrestler, being put on RD ahead of those 3 (or 4) would be like posting Anna Nicole Smith but ignoring Alec Guinness. -- Scorpion0422 13:27, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's not because she's famous, it's because she's a woman. Piper was damn famous. That's my guess, anyway. And no, I'm not complaining. About time wrestlers got some promptness! InedibleHulk(talk) 13:52, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, reviewing the RDs in question, it appears more that this article at the ITN nomination point, was in good shape , while all the other mentioned examples had dubious article qualities that took time to work through or were never sufficiently improved upon. This reflects that ITN is meant to highlight quality rather than straight-up importance. --MASEM (t) 14:32, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Could be. But Prince just made this posting look relatively plodding, and that article is fairly unsourced, as of now. He also wasn't your traditional woman. Certainly tabloid famous. It's probably a complex mix of things, as most things are. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:41, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Scorpion0422: See Apophenia for the explanation for your problem. To wit: You're attempt to assign agency (and thus blame) for a result you didn't like, when the real reason is random, unconnected events which have nothing to do with each other. There is no grand plan for ITN, and no set of standards beyond "whoever shows up that day to nominate and/or vote on and/or promote an article". The fact that one particular article gets posted in a timely manner and another does not has nothing at all to do with anything you are saying it does. There is no reason why Roddy Piper took a long time to post and this one got posted quickly. You're brain is seeking out patterns in the randomness. Those patterns don't exist. There is no reason, and thus, nothing broken we need to fix. --Jayron32 19:07, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And I suppose this has nothing at all to do with your hatred of rock? All part of the same system, man. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:27, 21 April 2016 (UTC) [reply]
Seriously though, randomania is running fairly wild, too. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:32, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't remove your text, sometimes the system glitches and when two people post near simultaneously, instead of generating an edit conflict, it removes the text from the slightly earlier post. If this happens again, tell me, and I'll fix it myself. The second poster has no awareness of the glitch even happening, so cannot be blamed. If this happens again, either fix it yourself, or directly ask the person whom you conflicted with, and they can fix it for you. Help:Edit conflict notes that sometimes the system misses the edit conflict warning. There are lots of known bugs in the system; if you wish you can report this one, but this is common enough that I'm sure the devs are aware. More importantly, when you have a problem with something I do, don't leave hidden messages at random places around Wikipedia hoping I'll trip over them. Come to my talk page, speak in plain language, tell me of the problem, and I'll fix it. There was no need to involve anyone else in this technical glitch. --Jayron32 19:34, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Already fixed. I've done it before, too. Just figured it odd enough for a small note. Sorry for wasting your time. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:41, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think you missed the point Jayron. It's quite simple: Chyna was a somewhat famous wrestler at a time when wrestling was very mainstream and her name was kept in the news thanks to various tabloid-esque exploits. This got posted quickly based on name recognition alone and not any of the notability criteria. The three names I mentioned are considerably more influential and none were posted because they lacked the tabloid presence of Chyna. One user even opposed one of the nominations because they had never heard of the individual. This goes beyond wrestling: notable individuals who have been retired or inactive for decades get ignored because their deaths don't get much coverage. Chyna gets posted immediately because she gets twitter coverage. Dusty Rhodes was an exception: his was torpedoed because of the tried and true "I don't want this posted so I'll waste time with quality complaints then ignore the responses until too much time has passed" method. -- Scorpion0422 20:50, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I posted this despite having never heard of Chyna before today. I simply saw a nomination that was marked as ready, and had a clear consensus support for both notability and article quality. I had a look at the article and saw no reason there not to post, and so I updated the ITN template. There is no hidden agenda - I would have acted the same had it been anyone else's nomination I happened to be the first to see.
The only thing you can do to make the sort of people you think ought to be on ITN have a smoother, quicker ride here is to spend time making sure their articles are of good quality before they get nominated. Thryduulf (talk) 23:40, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Aye. The words "pioneer", "trailblazer" and "opened the door" are getting thrown around a lot, but it's been fifteen years since she "made it known that women can compete and defeat men in wrestling" amd "inspired a generation of women to do the same", and nobody's come close since. WWE doesn't even let women wrestle men in video games today.
She was exceptional and extraordinary, but that's about it, as far as my voting agenda went. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:48, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Scorpion0422: It's quite telling that, instead of listening to what others actually say, you ascribe motive (and nefarious motives at that) to people whom you've barely met, and who's inner thoughts you have no way of reading. I'm not sure that doing so is a proper way to conduct business here, and when you do so, it makes others not want to listen to you. --Jayron32 10:46, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So let me get this straight: Scripted-wrestling woman, not really known (other than tabloid fodder and a porn-mag appearance) outside of wrestling fan base, gets an RD - while Doris Roberts, an actress that entertained millions over several decades is (in the same week) slowly deliberated down to an RD no-go? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.184.203.229 (talk) 03:35, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
She's lucky. Choppers, the last surviving member of the chimp family that made PG Tips the best goddamn tea in Britain, couldn't even catch a mere Deaths in 2016 nod. But Felix Simoneaux Jr. lives for 110 American years and they're all over him. Mysterious ways. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:18, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

April 20

Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and economics
Disasters and accidents
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections

[Posted to RD]: Leonie Kramer

Article: Leonie Kramer (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Sydney Morning Herald‎
Credits:

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: Dame of the Order of the British Empire and Companion of the Order of Australia. First woman chancellor of University of Sydney and as per our article first female professor of English in Australia. Also voted in the Australian National Living Treasures. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:49, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support on notability but the article is under-referenced at the moment. Thryduulf (talk) 10:03, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on improvements Agree importance is met by the OBE/OA titles, but does need a bit more referencing. --MASEM (t) 21:03, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Thryduulf and Masem: I have cleaned up the article. Please have a look. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:07, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yep that is much better. If I was reviewing for GA though I'd prefer fewer than the current 9 uses of "she was", but that's not a barrier to an RD listing. Thryduulf (talk) 10:01, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also agree these improvements are sufficient for ITN posting. --MASEM (t) 14:01, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Harriet Tubman to appear on the US $20 bill

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

Nominator's comments: Tubman will be the first real woman to appear on US currency, i.e. not Lady Liberty. I believe this is notable because many other large nations have had women on their currency and therefore this is notable. Plus there's the fact that US currency is accepted/used many places outside the US. Dismas
  • It might be better to post this in 2020, so that we can show the design to our readers. My reading of the articles indicate that is when the design will be announced. Jolly Ω Janner 19:31, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with this - Wait. Without getting too political, let's make sure it actually happens first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.95.148.250 (talk) 19:47, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - it should be the first real woman on bills. Suzanne B. Anthony and Sacagawea have been on circulated dollar coins, and Queen Isabella was on a commemorative coin for Columbus' expedition '''tAD''' (talk) 19:44, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose As big a fan as I am of replacing that genocide-supporting racist with a hero like Tubman, I don't think I can support this. Many nations have women on their currency, as you note, so the fact that we're slowly catching up is a hard sell. Also note that it's the design concept that will be released in 2020, and it won't go into effect until 2030, six years after the end of President Hillary's second term. So the impact seems negligible to me. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:48, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • She won't even be the first on US paper currency - Silver certificate (United States)#Large-size United States silver certificates (1878-1923). —Cryptic 19:52, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Any idea if there's the niche that she would be the first African American woman on currency? I know that Duke Ellington was on the D.C. quarter '''tAD''' (talk) 20:00, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I can't think of any others. Worth mentioning that Sojourner Truth is set to appear on the back of the $10, and that'll probably be printed first, though. —Cryptic 20:17, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – It's a step forward, but nothing is actually happening for a long time. As Muboshgu brought up, 2020 is only for the design and barring any political snarling, it will only start circulating in 2030. It's a news-worthy announcement, but I don't think there's enough concrete action to post this. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 19:53, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait I think that this would best be posted when the design actually changes in 2030, or at least until there is a design. Mamyles (talk) 19:58, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - We can't wait; let's reject this sensational economic story about honor. The only big news about $20 would be when it will be discontinued *sarcasm*. True that Harriet Tubman deserves common honor, but as said, other women appear in other currencies. Even when Trump might... or might not... abandon the plan, at an American level, this doesn't rise to the minimum Wiki-level of newsworthiness. --George Ho (talk) 20:15, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:CRYSTAL. Andrew D. (talk) 20:31, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Nonsense. This is verifiable, something that will happen. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:34, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Though unlikely, the next Treasury Secretary could reverse this on their own authority. 331dot (talk) 22:00, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose see you in 2020. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:34, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait until 2020. 331dot (talk) 22:00, 20 April 2016 (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.

[Posted] RD: Victoria Wood

Article: Victoria Wood (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: One of the biggest names in British comedy and won buckets of awards - one sign of her notability was that almost everything she starred in had her name in the title. Smurrayinchester 14:39, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support While I see a few unsourced statements, these appear to be on non-controversial facts (namely the programs she had been involved with and when they ran, things easily checked from the blue links). --MASEM (t) 14:43, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - One of the UKs top comediennes for many years. Mjroots (talk) 14:44, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I came here to nominate this but was too slow and got edit conflicted. Quite possibly the top female British comedian of all time. Thryduulf (talk) 14:47, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support A trailblazer for British comedians and writers. And she once came out top in a poll of "People You'd Most Like To Live Next Door To"... Lemonade51 (talk) 15:01, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support obviously, per nominator's rationale. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:17, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article looks good. I wouldn't be opposed to TRM going ahead and posting this.--WaltCip (talk) 15:57, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious support. She was one of the best British comedians. I've added a few sources to the article too. - JuneGloom07 Talk 16:37, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted so sue me. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:18, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

April 19

Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections

[Close] RD:Walter Kohn

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
Article: Walter Kohn (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): RSC Obituary The Nation
Credits:

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: Nobel prize-winning chemist who was one of the founders of density functional theory (DFT). He died on the 19th but the news only emerged on the 22nd. Modest Geniustalk 13:51, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with improvements The only major problem is an entire unsourced section labelled "Scientist with a great following" which is clearly subjective (not necessary false) and needs sourcing. There's some areas of weaker sourcing elsewhere in it but far from a major problem. --MASEM (t) 14:06, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with this assessment and I will Support too, but only after improvements, specifically the citations and sourcing. Just went throughout the article and I will make improvements during the next day, if possible. (Ie., the obituary at legacy.com no longer links to Kohn). I'll also be checking for an obituary from a mainstream media outlet. Christian Roess (talk) 00:23, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unsure Seems to have been a fairly big deal in theoretical physics, but that's a small pond. Have density functional theory or the many-body problem had any practical ramifications affecting the Average Joe? InedibleHulk(talk) 14:19, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hugely. DFT is a workhorse technique used throughout physical chemistry and biochemistry. Applications include drug design, semiconductors, novel materials, spectroscopy, protein folding etc. That might not sound like much, but those techniques underlie everything from medicines to computers to aircraft materials. Modest Geniustalk 14:34, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Besides what Modest Genius says, we should not be trying to second-guess the practicality of research that earned one a Nobel prize; the key is that that prize represents importance in the field of chemistry (in this case) so that's the line we need to judge, not how much they touch everyday life (unless we were asking for a blurb, that would be different). --MASEM (t) 14:40, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, Support. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:47, 22 April 2016 (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.

[Posted to RD] RD: Estelle Balet

Article: Estelle Balet (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

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: World champion snowboarder killed at the age of 21. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:36, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support on expansion As TRM notes, two sentences is not an article. We should be able to include sports stats, if anything, if she is a World Champion. --MASEM (t) 17:40, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm always skeptical of RD noms where the article didn't exist before the individual's death. Also the red links at Freeride_World_Tour#World_tour_winners makes me wonder, is this too niche? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:42, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak support as sources are calling her a "snowboarding champion". Concern about the lack of articles among the champions can be taken as a proxy in a way, as Nohomersryan suggests, hence my reservation.Muboshgu (talk) 18:43, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Oppose the article is a stub, and the article on the championship she won is a stub full of redlinks, indicating little importance. Calling this person anywhere near the top of the snowboarding field, or even "widely regarded as a very important figure", would be pushing it. Nohomersryan (talk) 17:43, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on expansion As TRM notes as well. She was on the top field of her sport. Her death has been mentioned in media all around the world. BabbaQ (talk) 18:08, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose see below per Nohomersryan. Tragic and unexpected death, but she was at the top of an extremely niche sport. As Muboshgu has noted, most Freeride World Tour champions don't even have articles (neither did Balet until a few hours ago). -Zanhe (talk) 18:13, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Number of articles are irrelevant to notability.BabbaQ (talk) 18:25, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's ok, it's a pointy oppose. The fact that the New York Times has reported this is clearly indicative that this is of no interest and that she was of no importance. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:40, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • NYT reports many deaths (I've been a subscriber for 20+ years), including Doris Roberts below, but only a fraction are ITN-caliber. This one is not. -Zanhe (talk) 19:20, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually you're right. I now realize that she was the youngest Freeride World Tour champion, and the article has been expanded a bit. Changing my vote to Support, once the citation tags are fixed. -Zanhe (talk) 00:13, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Twice world champion, youngest ever world champion. Article taking shape nicely now. Mjroots (talk) 19:40, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment a quick check on Google News sees this individual's death being reported prominently in the UK, the US, Canada, Spain, Poland, France, Switzerland, Italy, Germany, Romania, Sweden, Peru, Norway and Macedonia, to name a few. I think the newsworthiness and notability is thus asserted. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:20, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – I agree with Muboshgu's take on this issue (above): why wasn't there a Wikipedia article for this skier before her death? If her accomplishment(s) in this sport were noteworthy, there would've been an article (or a stub at least) before her death. IMO (this is only my opinion) this woman was stunning in every detail: stunning in her daring, her talent, her moxie, stunning in her physical appearance and beauty. And now stunning, too, is the manner of her horrific death. The media is grasping at every stunning and sensational detail for the sake of spectacle and to sell copy (or "click bait" as it's called now). When it comes to a RD, spectacle and sensation should not be the over-riding detail that makes their recent death noteworthy and newsworthy. If it is the over-riding detail for why the death is being reported then it isn't ITN-worthy.– Christian Roess (talk)
    It's not. The reason for the death being reported globally is that she was a double-world-champion and was killed skiing aged 21. Your personal analysis is fascinating, but the objective answer is obvious, hence why it is making headlines around the world, with or without "stunning and sensational detail" (which I haven't seen anywhere). And if you agree with Muboshgu's take, then you should be supporting. How odd. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:01, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    TRM is right, she was known for her achievements in sports, her death is sad but has not been sensationalized at all. Christian Roess seems to have strong opinions about her, but that is POV and not guideline based. I also do not see any relevance to Estelle being beautiful and her article not being ITN worthy. That I created her article today after her death is purely coincidental, had I known more about her before that I would have created her article earlier. So that is no indicator for ITN either, a person can be notable and have their article created the same day as the ITN nom. BabbaQ (talk) 21:06, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's be clear, Christian Roess: it gave me pause, but didn't prevent me from supporting the nom. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:14, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    ok TRM and BabbaQ, and Muboshgu (so noted, thanks): you all make valid points, and if there's more input later making a strong case for support, I'd be willing to drop my "oppose" (but at this point I can't see changing it to "support"). But once again I did stress the point above:"IMO (this only my opinion)" because obviously my own opinion is not a criteria for judging whether or not an RD is ITN-worthy. I won't support for two reasons: (1) her fame is in a niche sport; and (2) there was no Estelle Balet wikipedia article before her death. Christian Roess (talk) 21:33, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    After considering the issue, I have to agree with Mamyles' opinion below that the lack of an article is more a sign of how Wikipedia is incomplete, than that she's not notable or RD material. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:40, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Given that snowboarding is a well-known sport (at least in the US), and she is at the top of the field for snowboarding, she meets the RD criteria. The lack of an article only goes to show how incomplete our encyclopedia is, and itself has no bearing on notability. Mamyles (talk) 21:13, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Provisional "oppose" given that I have classified the article as a stub with only a few lines of text. Have seem articles with more information than hers knocked back on quality grounds. Capitalistroadster (talk) 22:14, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your classification is wrong as it is not a stub anymore. The stub template was removed.BabbaQ (talk) 22:48, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I beg to differ. It's 992 B of prose. If it's not long enough for DYK (which has a 1500 minimum), how can we think of it as anything other than a stub? – Muboshgu (talk) 23:38, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My general rule of thumb is that there must be roughly a page of text not including lists, refs etc. I will have a look at it again and further discussion should be on her talk page. Capitalistroadster (talk) 00:37, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've marked it as start class. There is an infobox, an image and the article has structure. It is clearly not a stub, and wasn't a stub when you marked it as one, Captialistroadster. Mjroots (talk) 05:42, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support upon expansion. "Niche sport" is irrelevant(even if true); what matters is if she was very important to her field- which she seems to be for being the youngest world champion in her field. 331dot (talk) 23:35, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • If she had an article before her death I think this would get posted as full blurb. RD is enough. Nergaal (talk) 00:29, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Even if there had been an article, it would never have been a full blurb. Never.Correctron (talk) 05:31, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] RD: Patricio Aylwin

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: Patricio Aylwin (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Guardian
Credits:

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: First democratically elected president of Chile after Pinochet. Brandmeistertalk 16:08, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support pending updates As noted, one section is tagged and completely unsourced, but once that's taken care of this appears ready. --MASEM (t) 16:13, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Former head of state will get my support if the article improves. Will check back later. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:43, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Support - notable head of state, but article has been orange tagged since 2010. -Zanhe (talk) 19:32, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support should go before it's stale. 190.46.17.167 (talk) 03:24, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support notability / undecided regarding quality. He is clearly notable enough for RD, and the article is improved since it was nominated but while there are no orange/red tags or explicitly marked {{cn}}s there are still quite a few unreferenced paragraphs. At this point I'd say the article quality is borderline good enough, but I can't decide which side of the line I fall on. Thryduulf (talk) 23:45, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm marking ready per above, as I didn't have enough time to fix it myself. Brandmeistertalk 07:31, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not ready, multiple paragraphs without a reference, including serious allegations. Stephen 07:51, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and call for contributions. I know this is not the standard procedure, but this really disappoints me.
As a Chilean who was never his supporter, I think he is a most remarkable figure in local (and maybe Latin American) history. He is one of the few politicians who remained active all the way from the sixties to the begining of this century, playing a leading, conciliatory role all the time (in several difficult episodes of our history). I think that role raises him above all of his successors as President of Chile. Even his change of mind about the coup d'etat, which I consider one of his biggest faults (among others I disagree with) -at first a supporter, then denying even having supported, there are videos of that on YouTube-, in some way reflects a massive cultural change in society.
I really, really regret not having time for proper research, as well as being so young not to remember more. (I was 12 at the end of his term, and most I know I have learnt afterwards) 200.9.73.104 (talk) 12:52, 22 April 2016 (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.

[Posted] 2016 Kabul attack

Article: 2016 Kabul attack (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: At least 28 people are killed and more than 320 injured in an attack in Kabul, Afghanistan. (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

The Rambling Man (talk) 15:08, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support as this is a mass murder with high number of casualties, which recieves decent media coverage globally. But wait until the article is tagged for work in progress.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:33, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, but give a few hours for more details to filter in and make it to the article. --MASEM (t) 16:01, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - If it bleeds, it leads.--WaltCip (talk) 16:22, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note Article is fairly complete and well-referenced. Tweaked the blurb with accurate count. --QEDK (TC) 17:30, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - major attack with high casualty, widely reported. Article is short but decently sourced. -Zanhe (talk) 18:15, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - major attack.BabbaQ (talk) 18:23, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – agree with the assessment of QEDK and Zanhe above. Christian Roess (talk) 19:40, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I made the article actually. --QEDK (TC) 09:38, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – per article quality and significance. Though tragic, near routine in Afghanistan. Baking Soda (talk) 21:48, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted Stephen 23:21, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Ongoing: Mediterranean refugee drowning

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.

Articles:European migrant crisis (talk · history · tag) and List of migrant vessel incidents on the Mediterranean Sea (talk · history · tag)
Blurb:At least 400 refugees die due to drowning in Mediterranean Sea. (Post)
News source(s):Multiple
Credits:
Nominator's comments: Number of deaths are high and is an international news of an on going issue. -The Herald (Benison)the joy of the LORDmy strength 06:47, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose we should have an article on this, there are many similar ones which can be used as a starting point, e.g. 2013 Lampedusa migrant shipwreck. We also have List of migrant vessel incidents on the Mediterranean Sea as opposed to the one you have redlinked. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:58, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose an nominated. Neither of the articles in the nom are updated, and while 400 feared dead is a lot, it is not unprecedented: see AP report of 15.04.2015 for example. I don't know why on going is bolded in the nomination, but if it's the nomintor's intention to re-introduce the EU migrant crisis to Ongoing, then the nomination should be changed to reflect that. As it is, there's no way forward for this as a stand alone ITN entry.128.214.53.18 (talk) 10:23, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for ongoing - ongoing is for developing stories that change over the course of weeks, not multiple discrete events in a larger narrative. As a comparison - there are about a dozen major ongoing wars at the moment, and sometimes we post battles and massacres from these. However, we don't add all these wars to ongoing. Can't weigh in on anything else until there's an article, but would certainly be newsworthy. Smurrayinchester 11:58, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose ongoing but Support if nominated as a stand-alone – Ongoing is primary used for when events fall off the main ticker but retain substantial notability. The ship incidents specifically are haphazard in nature and occur at random; events that are continuous close-to are much preferred. The migrant crisis was removed from ongoing by consensus on March 29 for reference. However, the stand-alone disaster is most certainly notable if hundreds did indeed drown. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 12:48, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose ongoing (just because the migrant crisis is not listed doesn't mean its not still news), but would support this specific incident should there be an article on it. --MASEM (t) 13:49, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait – Ditto. Details haven't been confirmed. The BBC's Arabic service on Monday reported 400 drowned, and this was picked up by other media, but a spokesman for the International Organization for Migration, Flavio Di Giacomo, Tuesday was quoted as saying, "It's really a mystery. We can neither confirm nor deny that [such an] accident occurred." Sca (talk) 14:56, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Sca. Ignoring the fact that there is no update, and while horrific if confirmed, there are no reliable sources for the number in the blurb. That is a basic tenant for inclusion, even for ITN. We don't post speculation. Fuebaey (talk) 18:53, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait per Sca. Details are too scarce at the moment. -Zanhe (talk) 18:54, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update – On Wednesday, two sources, AP and NYT, said up to 500 "were feared dead" or "may have died" in this still unconfirmed disaster. Seems we should continue to wait for confirmation. Sca (talk) 00:38, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Considering past stories like the Malaysian Airlines flight or the upturned ship in the Chinese river, that we posted on the assurance that something very bad had happened but unsure on the fate of all aboard, I think this is a reasonable point to say something has happened. That a boat with 500+ immigrants on it sunk seems to be story coming from 41 survivors, and the problem is that if this was an illegal immigration move, its unlikely anyone is going to step up to help the investigation. The reports from authorities all seem to be working on the side of caution, that there is a sunken boat, but they just haven't been able to find it or necessarily what to look for. So this might be a reasonable point to post. --MASEM (t) 00:49, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Closed] Historic flooding in Chile and Texas

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: ? (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Severe flooding kills 8 people and prompts more than 1,800 high-water rescues across the Houston Metropolitan Area in Texas (Post)
News source(s): Washington Post Australian Broadcasting Corporation
Credits:
Nominator's comments: 4 million people are without tap water in the capital of Chile due to flooding and the capital's entire 7+ million population is under "red alert" for dirty water. The world's biggest copper mine is shut down. Also, Mother Nature sends a freak thunderstorm to cripple Houston with flood at the same time just because it can. With its 2nd rainiest day in history happening in half a day despite the frequent hurricanes and lack of any tropical weather this time. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 08:25, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose No article. The events seem disparate as well. If there were a good meteorologic page to explain the connection between the two, that would be a good candidate.128.214.53.18 (talk) 10:25, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per IP. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:54, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support "2016 Houston floods" - The 2016 Houston floods should be featured on the main page, since there is now an article about them. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:41, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral but leaning support if the article is expanded. Seems reminiscent to me of the 2013 Alberta floods, which was posted. Resolute 15:49, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Support Houston per Jax and Resolute - if 2016 Houston floods is expanded. -Zanhe (talk) 18:59, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Houston article right now. The article isn't any longer than a blurb would be. We shouldn't be posting ultra-short stubs on the main page. --Jayron32 12:45, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The Impact section in the target article could definitely use some more expansion. SpencerT♦C 04:14, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Sort of historic, in the context of a normally-drier-in-April region (which was wetter in June 1989). Pretty mundane, as far as disasters in general go. Eight people die of other related events in Houston every day, and 744 houses is under 1% of those in the area. Schools suspend classes for two days every Friday. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:00, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still opposed. The Houston Flooding article wasn't expanded, it was merged into Mid-April 2016 United States storm complex, which still contains basically one line of usable text on the Houston floods, which still means the content we're directing readers to is functionally identical to the blurb we'd be posting. It's nicer than the original stub article, since it provides meteorological background, but the Houston floods have been a major news story for a while now, there's plenty of source text out there that needs to be incorporated regarding the impact, which this article is lacking. --Jayron32 15:48, 22 April 2016 (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.

April 18

Armed conflicts and attacks
Arts and culture
Business and economics
Disasters and accidents
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Sports

[Closed] RD: Doris Roberts

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: Doris Roberts (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): news is only breaking Emmyvinnaren Doris Roberts, 90, är död 2016 Superbowl
Credits:

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: Quintessential NYC character actress, international press re reath, multiple awards from 1950's to present, five Emmy and Screen Actors Guild μηδείς (talk) 00:05, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - She won five awards for just two roles, most four of them for Everybody Loves Raymond. She was just an actress with major supporting roles. Also, as for SAG Awards, she didn't win individual entities; she won as part of the cast ensemble of the well-known sitcom. Also, article is poor, but the point is her significance in her field. She doesn't meet the standards. George Ho (talk) 00:25, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as nom. Well, let's agree here, I too hated "Everyone loves Raymond" but Robert's career spans 1951 to the present, and even in such films as 1971's A New Leaf she played a pivotal role. I'd really hold off on the, I didn't like her most recent show opposes, and do some real research, like looking at her 1970's roles. If you are not American, it is very likely she is one of the key personas to have formed your idea of what it is like to be an American. 00:36, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
This was Medeis editing, but not signing properly, just so that everybody keeps track of things. Fgf10 (talk) 15:55, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose One particularly noteworthy role, not that important in her field as far as I can tell. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:38, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest you read her article, as she has 35 roles in blue-linked Hollywood movies, not to mention her 1980 Remington Steele and 2000's Everyone Loves Raymond TV episodes. But most Americans knew her from the early 70's, long before these roles. μηδείς (talk) 01:18, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I read it. She had a long career, but that in and of itself isn't sufficient. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:44, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose article is very poorly referenced. Would fully support if article were cleaned up to be main-page ready. --Jayron32 01:21, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on quality, but will support as RD-worthy when the article is improved. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 03:18, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose article quality is weak, individual is popular but hardly important in the field of film and television acting. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:55, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Popular and above average, but not "very important" to her field. 331dot (talk) 10:03, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support "Not important to her field?" Roberts has won a lifetime achievement award, as well as five Emmy awards for her performances as Cora and Marie Barone, a role which has made her extremely well-known in the U.S. and likely elsewhere. Also, I wish to state that liking or disliking the show Everybody Loves Raymond or Marie Barone is NOT a viable reason for supporting or opposing this decision. The show was (and still is) immensely popular, and made Doris Roberts famous enough for inclusion "in the news." ~Lord Laitinen~ (talk) 13:59, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Predominantly known for one show these days and hardly at the top in her field given the rest of her career. Fgf10 (talk) 15:55, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - She had a good long career but neither her roles nor her award indicate that she is "widely regarded as a very important figure in her field". There is also nothing additional like being president of SAG or major charity work to add to her notability. TheBlinkster (talk) 17:43, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose regrettably - RIP to my favorite actor in Everybody Loves Raymond. As much as I loved her performance, she was best known for a supporting role. -Zanhe (talk) 19:03, 19 April 2016 (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.

[Posted] Boston Marathon

Article:2016 Boston Marathon (talk · history · tag)
Blurb:Ethiopians Lemi Berhanu Hayle and Atsede Baysa win the Boston Marathon. (Post)
News source(s):CNN, ESPN, NYT
Credits:

Article needs updating
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

Nominator's comments: Is a stub, needs a race summary. Fuebaey (talk) 20:27, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The male winner is? The female winner is? Did they come #1 and #2?Correctron (talk) 22:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I believe that it's common sense that how the current blurb is worded is standard form for this result, implicitly stating that the first name is the winning male runner, and the second the winning female runner. I don't think clarification is needed on this given the expect result from the sport, but it also can't hurt to add "..win the men's and women's Boston Marathon, respectively." --MASEM (t) 23:19, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it "common sense" that the male winner would be listed first? For that matter, why do we almost invariably list the male winner before the female one in events featuring both? There does not seem to be any good reason for this practice, which could be regarded as reflecting systemic bias. Neljack (talk) 00:56, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's a universal system bias, across sports and other accolades too (Oscars, Emmys, Grammys). And arguable for the marathon, the men's winning time was better than the women's. By all means, let's identify who was who, but I don't think this is necessary a systematic bias that WP readily can fix - one of the two needs to be stated first and its near universe that the men's result is the highlighted one. --MASEM (t) 01:44, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well yes, you've just summed up the problem nicely: "the men's result is the highlighted one." That fact that the systemic bias exists elsewhere is not a reason for us, in exercising our editorial judgement on blurbs here, to perpetuate it. Now none of this says that the women's winner must be listed first here, but we should not automatically assume that we should always list the men's winner first. Perhaps, as you suggest, there is good reason for listing the men's winner first here on the basis of winning time (though I have some doubts about this), but there are other events where you could give reasons for listing the women's event first (e.g. women's finals occur first in tennis grand slams). Neljack (talk) 02:11, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose in article's present state. Obviously the race summary must be added but I would think that it should be relatively easy (within the day) to get an article of the same quality as 2015 Boston Marathon in place. Support otherwise in ITNR. --MASEM (t) 23:21, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose we can't highlight an incomplete stub on the main page. What would be directing readers to in order to learn more about the topic? Woefully inadequate article. --Jayron32 01:22, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose obviously. Not ready. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:18, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted, quality is not quite at the level of the 2015 race, but the details are fully referenced. Stephen 03:24, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a confusing posting. Normally a consensus is reached regarding the quality of the article, when it is agreed that it is up to the standards of ITN. No consensus was reached here. If an article does not meet the quality standards as determined by consensus, it does not get posted - simple as that. It was the case with the 88th Academy Awards this year. It should be the case now.--WaltCip (talk) 12:38, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-posting support The article is now of sufficient quality, the problems I noted above have been fixed. --Jayron32 12:43, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Polio vaccine

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:Poliomyelitis_eradication#2016 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb:As a result of eradication of type 2 Poliovirus, the World Health Organization switches to a new Polio vaccine. (Post)
Alternative blurb:After eradicating the type 2 Poliovirus, the World Health Organization moves to the next stage with a new Polio vaccine.
News source(s):BBC, PGEI
Article updated
Nominator's comments: Type 2 was reported eradicated in Sept 2015, and the WHO removed one of the 3 strands to decrease the vaccine-derived infections. I am guessing polio will not be declared eradicated for another 2 years so posting this intermediate development should be ok. Feel free to propose a better blurb. Nergaal (talk) 18:54, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I think it's the eradication of polio 2 back in 2015 that was postable (don't remember whether it was posted). The transition to a new vaccine looks like a technical formality after that, like election and inauguration (aside from giving an impression of vaccine advertisement on WP). Brandmeistertalk 19:13, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Suggesting an alt blurb, the first blurb sounds as if the first vaccine failed and they are trying another. (Let's just hope I understood the nom's comment correctly, the blurb was a bit fuzzy.) w.carter-Talk 19:16, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I like sciency news. Even a partial victory against polio seems very important to me, much more so than various inconsequential elections and sport events. Thue (talk) 20:07, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment whether this is in the news or not, neither blurb really gives our readers a clear indication as to the significance of "switching to a new vaccine" or "moving to the next stage" (whatever that is). Why is this actually important to our readers? Is the new vaccine better but less potent? Is it cheaper? What is the actual story? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:31, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Read my comment for the description. Feel free to propose an adequate blurb. Nergaal (talk) 20:39, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I did, the point is our readers won't have the luxury of your magnificent prose to assist them in understanding the significance of this. Feel free to propose a blurb which helps them understand. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:42, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Roughly would belike us noting each new flavour of flu vaccine, alas. Collect (talk) 21:05, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose For one thing, the entirety of the update is "Because cVDPV2 strains continue to arise from the trivalent oral vaccine that includes attenuated WPV2, between 17 April and 1 May 2016 this vaccine will be replaced with a bivalent version lacking WPV2 as well as trivalent injected inactivated vaccine that cannot lead to cVDPV cases. This is expected to prevent new strains of cVDPV2 and allow eventual cessation of WPV2 vaccination." To the general reader, this is just gibberish. To be worthy of posting on the front page, there needs to be at least some explanation of this actually means. Smurrayinchester 08:23, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Closed] Democracy Spring arrests

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:Democracy Spring (talk · history · tag)
Blurb:900+ arrests are reported in the past week during the Democracy Spring protests at the United States Capitol (Post)
News source(s):USA Today, Democracy Now!
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Since today (Monday 18 April) is the final day scheduled for protests, there may be more arrests reported. Also of note, but perhaps not very reliable because it's not reported in the mainstream media→(Ie., here Vice.com), is that the organizers of the event are stating that the 85 arrests made on April 12 is "an all-time record for a mass arrest at the Capitol Building." Although the latter is not especially ITN-worthy in itself (and it is hard to verify at this point), it's worth mentioning because, IMO, it highlights that this story is worth keeping an eye on in the coming day(s) as a future ITN candidate. Christian Roess (talk) 18:20, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • One of the linked sources is a primary source and likely should not be used as a basis for writing the blurb.--WaltCip (talk) 18:25, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose A bunch of people receiving misdemeanors for a law they intended to break is not interesting or impactful news. Perhaps that's why it hasn't been covered much by mainstream media. Mamyles (talk) 18:31, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wrong on the second count and nothing more than WP:OR. What criteria the infotainment U.S. MSM uses to select breaking stories (or to even report on them at all) is both meaningless to anyone with a critical eye and irrelevant to this discussion. CaradhrasAiguo (talk) 18:40, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Respectfully, the notability of this item as judged by ITN criteria is entirely subjective. I am putting in my opinion that this bunch of arrests does not meet the notability criterion. Mamyles (talk) 18:43, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just pointing out that "it hasn't been covered..." does not help your point. Personally, I fail to see how this wave rises to the level of the Occupy movement, which was featured on ITN on 2 October 2011, and the reported figure there was 700 arrests. CaradhrasAiguo (talk) 19:03, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excellent point as they did indeed plan on getting arrested as a signature they quite purposefully (and overtly) wanted to place on this event; except that I would hardly characterize 900 people (and the Capitol police are verifying numbers close to this) as only just a "bunch" of people, whether they wanted to get arrested, or not. – Christian Roess (talk) 18:46, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose per Mamyles; this is exactly what was intended, and news coverage seems minimal. It's unlikely this will influence any policies. If things change I would be willing to reconsider. 331dot (talk) 19:54, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose A mere indication of a ripple of disquiet and nothing more. Thousands of people are arrested every day for protesting against things, this just happens to be in America, the only surprise is that none of them have been shot yet. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:33, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Closed] Mehmet Kaplan resigns

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:Mehmet Kaplan (talk · history · tag)
Blurb:The Minister for Housing and Urban Development in Sweden Mehmet Kaplan resigns after making comments about Israel, and association with Turkish extremists. (Post)
News source(s):[8], [9]
Credits:

Article updated
--BabbaQ (talk) 15:13, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - His only claims to fame are contrived controversies.--WaltCip (talk) 15:17, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I don't think a resignation of a minister is worth posting except for extraordinary circumstances when it has major implications immediately. This also doesn't seem to receive wide media attention.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:03, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This got some coverage in Sweden, but on an international scale it's nothing. w.carter-Talk 18:59, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per the reasons stated. 331dot (talk) 19:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose local politician turns out to be a bit of a dick, gets caught. Not newsworthy, probably not even in Sweden, just trash. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:34, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
While I oppose the posting, there is no need to get rude. It is newsworthy in Sweden since Kaplan was the first Muslim minister in Sweden, also in charge of housing. With over 160,000 refugees (most Muslims) seeking asylum in Sweden last year, any story involving the words "Muslims", "housing" and "government official" is incendiary here. w.carter-Talk 21:02, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
TRM post these kind of comments to get attention.. you just gave him that attention..BabbaQ (talk) 21:35, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's on the house. :) I'll be here all week, remember to tip your waiter on the way out. w.carter-Talk 21:40, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • SNOW Oppose A prime minister resigning is ITN-worthy. A HUD minister is not. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:36, 18 April 2016 (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.

April 17

Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections

[Closed] Impeachment of Dilma Rousseff

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
Article:Impeachment process against Dilma Rousseff (talk · history · tag)
Blurb:The Brazilian Chamber of Deputies votes to impeach President Dilma Rousseff (pictured). (Post)
Alternative blurb:The Brazilian Chamber of Deputies votes to open the impeachment process against President Dilma Rousseff (pictured).
News source(s):BBC News, CNN, NYT
Credits:

Article needs updating
Nominator's comments: This has been simmering for a while. Protests over political corruption in Brazil have led to the lower house voting on whether to remove the head of state/gov. If this passes, Rousseff could be suspended for up to six months, missing the entirety of the Summer Olympic/Paralympic Games in Rio. The article is poorly translated and formatted, but I'm working on addressing that over the next few hours. Any help in copyediting is appreciated. Fuebaey (talk) 23:46, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Oppose Wait – Premature. Sca (talk) 00:57, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait Support - to quote Masem below, "This is absolutely an ITN story, but ...". The 'but' in this case is that the article is awfully poor quality right now. I took a brief look at it and copyediting it will not be easy; I'll try to work on it later though. Banedon (talk) 01:58, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that was pretty fast. Banedon (talk) 03:24, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Couple of notes: the article is still pretty terrible right now (the first half has been copyedited, but the second still reads badly). That said, I'm of opinion this should be posted even if she were not impeached. Banedon (talk) 06:25, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I believe this could be posted anytime assuming the article Impeachment process against Dilma Rousseff is good enough. I propose altblurb1 if admins want to post before the impeachment process is completed. Brian Everlasting (talk) 02:19, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Huge news indeed, with international implications. Jusdafax 03:13, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support now that its confirmed to be in favor of impeachment.Wait for Senate confirmation in May. Still definitely a topic to post assuming that happens. I think the article can be better before posting though. --MASEM (t) 03:25, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wonder if the blurb (while completely accurate) might lead some readers to incorrectly conclude that Rousseff has been removed from office. I'm sure not how to address that (add something to the blurb perhaps?), though I would welcome suggestions. Neljack (talk) 05:16, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait The Brazilian Senate also has to vote on this (a majority vote would suspend her, and a supermajority totally impeach her). Smurrayinchester 06:10, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support once Senate goes through it. Big news and big lady...-The Herald (Benison)the joy of the LORDmy strength 06:49, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. It can be posted now because the Senate will hold a trial; the result of the trial will be just as noteworthy as impeachment(which is basically deciding to hold a trial). 331dot (talk) 08:26, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon my bias; the Senate also needs to vote on holding a trial. We should wait until that occurs. 331dot (talk) 08:31, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've stripped the "[ready]" tag off. As it stands, this blurb is misleading as several commenters have said above. Rousseff has not yet been impeached - one of two houses has voted for impeachment, but until the Senate votes nothing happens. Smurrayinchester 09:44, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Question/Comment I would just like to point out that under wikipedia's article on impeachment it says Dilma has been impeached, and it says impeachment is only the process of removing someone from office and not necessarily the outcome. Brian Everlasting (talk) 12:02, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Impeachment proceedings don't begin until the Senate votes, as far as I can tell. Smurrayinchester 12:40, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. As NYT says in second paragraph, the Senate will vote on whether to hold an impreachment trial of Rousseff, and "that vote is expected to take place next month." See you in May. Sca (talk) 14:20, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support "to impeach" is analogous to "indict" when applied to a sitting head of state, and upon conviction (using US terms) she'd be removed. It's absurd to think we would not have posted Bill Clinton's or Alexander Johnson's impeachments, or Richard Nixon's, had the last occurred. Not to post Rousseff's is like saying, "Well this sort of thing is expected in banana republics." I'd prefer we respect the importance of Brazil on the world stage. μηδείς (talk) 14:52, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But she hasn't been indicted yet - Senate needs to confirm. Smurrayinchester 14:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Sca (talk) 16:11, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - major development in this story.BabbaQ (talk) 15:14, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alternative added. ArionEstar (talk) 15:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait Impeachment proceedings are at most one third done. There's no guarantee that there will even be an impeachment trial yet, much less an impeachment. Mamyles (talk) 16:01, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Sca (talk) 16:11, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support iff the article is expanded with a section describing what are the following steps. This development is notable enough but the article does not explain the next steps very well. Nergaal (talk) 17:05, 18 April 2016 (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.

[Posted] Ecuador earthquake

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: 2016 Ecuador earthquake (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: A magnitude 7.8 earthquake hits Ecuador, killing at least 77. (Post)
News source(s): ABCCNN
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: It is still early, but pretty sure this is going to be important. Dragons flight (talk) 02:50, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support but give this a few hours to assure of the details before posting. --MASEM (t) 03:02, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Major quake and significant death toll. Jusdafax 04:24, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - with the Kumamoto earthquake blurb. They're unrelated to one another, but they're still both earthquakes. Banedon (talk) 04:57, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Significant due to death toll. However the article is not ready yet to be posted. Should be posted after more additions are made. Sherenk1 (talk) 05:45, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious Support when updated, but is past my bedtime. μηδείς (talk) 06:07, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Easily satisfies notability, but the article is far too short. It's currently at 731 characters with the minimum required at about 2,000. Jolly Ω Janner 06:53, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Jolly Janner: I've expanded it above 2,000 prose characters. Still a bit short, but details are likely to remain limited until daybreak. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 07:40, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support (there is no minimum character count, no let's not merge it with the other earthquake, they are entirely unrelated). The Rambling Man (talk) 07:29, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Agree strongly with both points made by TRM. Jusdafax 07:32, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted The Rambling Man (talk) 07:50, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
propose merge link the two under the Ring of Fire area.Lihaas (talk) 09:06, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose merging blurbs. The two events may be connected by the ring of fire, but the ring of fire is not in the news and the mainstream media are focusing on these quakes as separate events. Thryduulf (talk) 09:45, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merging blurbs – Completely separate events on opposite sides of the Pacific Ocean that have no connection aside from both being earthquake events. Merging them doesn't help readers at all. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 13:36, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merge of unconected events. Mjroots (talk) 19:30, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article is gross and with 2 sectional orange tags (and they aint mine either).Lihaas (talk) 10:00, 22 April 2016 (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.

April 16

Armed conflicts and attacks
Arts and culture
Disasters and accidents
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections

[Posted to RD] RD: Bill Gray

Article:William M. Gray (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s):Eulogy from CSU, Obituary, WaPost
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: A giant in the field of meteorology, especially with tropical cyclones, Dr. Gray had a tremendous career spanning over 60 years during which he created the framework for how we study and forecast tropical cyclones to this day. He pioneered seasonal hurricane forecasts, and issued these for over 30 years. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 19:30, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wait until this hits the news. 331dot (talk) 19:48, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for such a "giant", his article is weak and he as an individual certainly doesn't appear to have been showered with awards: most of those listed are so inconsequential it would seem that they don't even warrant a Wikipedia article. If the claim that "Gray pioneered the concept of "seasonal" hurricane forecasting" is true, then it should have more than a couple of words on it in his article, and certainly more than the unreferenced muddle that currently exists. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:02, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't have time to delve into fleshing out that section today but here are additional sources backing up his status as a pioneer of seasonal hurricane forecasts. If I have time tomorrow, I'll work on expanding the section. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 22:18, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @The Rambling Man and 331dot: I've cleaned up the section in question and expanded more about his career. Where does the article stand now? ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 14:56, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on the merits as very important to his field, but I concur with TRMs assessment of the article and as such oppose on quality. 331dot (talk) 23:19, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I've noted the WaPost has taken note of his death, and with other sources, I think his importance to the meteorology field is apparently clear now. --MASEM (t) 16:45, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and marked ready--article is now full referenced with quotes attesting to his respect among the field and his discovery of the N Atlantic hurricane cycle. μηδείς (talk) 17:40, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted to RD Stephen 23:47, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why was this posted at a title the article isn't at? Nohomersryan (talk) 14:07, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your question belongs on the errors page or at Step's door. There is no way we would have posted John Ronald Reuel Tolkien in full. μηδείς (talk) 14:30, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I Mean Tolkien's article's not called that. I asked at errors before and didn't get a real answer, so I just want to know the status on what version of a name goes up on the ticker. Nohomersryan (talk) 17:07, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We'd go for the common name. If the article needs to be moved, that's a subject for WP:RM. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:35, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

April 15

Armed conflicts and attacks
Arts and culture
Disasters and accidents
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections

[Posted to RD] RD: Malick Sidibé

Article: Malick Sidibé (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

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: "Pioneering" and award-winning photographer. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:44, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Seems to meet RD criteria. Needs some more sourcing before it's postable, though. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:55, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support According to obits appearing all over mainstream media (ie., NYTimes, BBC, AP, Telegraph, Time) he's a major photographer with international fame and reputation. More sourcing has now been added and the CN tags removed. Christian Roess (talk) 11:53, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Meets RD criteria IMO. Can go once tags are down. -The Herald (Benison)the joy of the LORDmy strength 12:51, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Tags have been removed. I have checked and rechecked sources after making numerous revisions. I have marked as Ready. Christian Roess (talk) 17:57, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not ready, there is an unreferenced section with a controversial assertion and an OR observation. Stephen 23:51, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Posted to RD after further improvement, thanks. Stephen 05:31, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Czech Republic renames itself

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:Czech Republic (talk · history · tag)
Blurb:The Czech Republic renames to Czechia. (Post)
Alternative blurb:The Czech Republic adopts Czechia as a short name.
Alternative blurb II:The Czech Republic adopts the name "Czechia".
Alternative blurb III: The Czech Republic moves to adopt Czechia as its official short-form name.
News source(s): Guardian, BBC, AP. Google finds a lot more
Credits:

Article updated
Banedon (talk) 11:38, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now. If I read the linked source correctly, it states that they are proposing to change the name, not that they have actually done so. 331dot (talk) 11:41, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Changed the source to a more recent one. New source says "The choice, agreed on Thursday evening by the president, prime minister, heads of parliament and foreign and defence ministers, must still win cabinet approval before the foreign ministry can lodge the name with the United Nations and it becomes the country’s official short name." - effectively the question then is whether to post this now or wait for cabinet approval (which admittedly might not happen). Banedon (talk) 11:45, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per the nominator's comments, this hasn't happened, it may not happen, and if it does, it's not renaming itself, it's just getting a new "short name". The Rambling Man (talk) 11:47, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Article is extensive and of sufficient quality for the main page. Referencing is good, not comprehensive, but I can't find anything controversial or contentious which lacks a reference. The information in the blurb is prominent and easy to find in the Etymology section, with a full paragraph of background on the recent name change. --Jayron32 11:57, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I take it that you also read that this hasn't actually happened then? What a bizarre support. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:03, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe it has somewhere. How do we even know if anything has ever happened? Does Anybody Really Know What Time It Is? Does anybody really care? --Jayron32 20:29, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The approval (if that happens) of an official short name is not a rename. The full name of the country remains Czech Republic. -- KTC (talk) 12:00, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - No they're not, as per KTC. The nom, and more shockingly our article on the country, is incorrect. Fgf10 (talk) 12:18, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A little surprised you've not nominated an alt blurb. I've gone ahead and done so. 12:20, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Which is also incorrect. Suggest you withdraw this until something actually happens. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:27, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, ALL blurbs are incorrect, as the country has not been renamed. It merely added an alternative name. Fgf10 (talk) 13:25, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait but will support when they lodge with the UN. We actually have a good article about the complicated situation: Name of the Czech Republic. I've added it as an altblurb and will update it a bit. Smurrayinchester 12:30, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(As for the "short name" thing, this is in everyday use the official name - Czech[ia/o/ Republic]'s southern neighbour is officially the Slovak Republic, but Slovakia is the name that it is known by in all circumstances except legal documents. Ditto French Republic, Swiss Confederation, Hellenic Republic... For all intents and purposes, this is the real name that we're talking about) Smurrayinchester 12:34, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support we are generally posting important geographical renaming/name changes, such as Denali for example. This one is seams at least equally important, to me. --Jenda H. (talk) 13:55, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In the case of Denali, the name actually was changed. It is not yet certain that this change will happen. Further, the name of Denali is just Denali, both officially and otherwise; this proposal is for a 'short name' of the country, not the official name. 331dot (talk) 13:58, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well it is certain that Czech government will ask the UN to rewrite papers in near future. My point is: Denali and Czechia are both geographical names which were relatively recently changed. So is a mountain more important than a country? --Jenda H. (talk) 21:24, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is certain they will ask- not that it will happen. When it does, we will see. 331dot (talk) 21:49, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait per Smurrayinchester. If this happens I will likely support, but posting at this point is premature. Thryduulf (talk) 14:24, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait until it's official. It seems like a done deal already, (though perhaps not; i'm not an expert on Czech politics) I don't think there's a rush to publish this.--Johnsemlak (talk) 14:49, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Alt3 – Very unusual for a European nation to change the name by which it's generally known. Use of Czechia was discussed after the split with Slovakia in '93, and seemed handier than the official Czech Republic. (I'm surprised it's taken them this long to make the move.) As to waiting, it's been in the news for two or three days and there appears to be little or no domestic opposition.... Sca (talk) 15:17, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The Czech Republic is staying exactly where it is, alt 3 is poorly worded and journalistic. And indicative, once again, that nothing has really happened. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:59, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait This is absolutely an ITN story, but we should wait until the change is officially recognized in the international community. --MASEM (t) 16:52, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose not a renaming as such, just confirming the "official" short name, and per the BBC article, this is no different to stating France instead of The French Republic. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:20, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
From what I've seen, since 1993 Czechia hasn't been in general English-language use, either written or spoken. (The same is true of Tschechien and la Tchéquie, the German and French equivalents, respectively.) This move would provide an official impetus to broaden use of the short forms. That would be a change. Sca (talk) 21:05, 16 April 2016 (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.

[Posted] 2016 Kumamoto earthquakes

Article:2016 Kumamoto earthquakes (talk · history · tag)
Blurb:A magnitude 6.2 earthquake hits Japan, killing nine. (Post)
Alternative blurb:Eleven aftershocks after the magnitude 6.2 earthquake hit Japan, killing nine and injuring 700+.
Alternative blurb II:Two earthquakes kill at least 12 people and injure more than 1,000 others across Kyushu, Japan.
News source(s):CNN; "the update is the article"
Credits:

Article updated

Banedon (talk) 02:57, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - Article is quite brief right now, needs more work after which it can be posted. Sherenk1 (talk) 03:44, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Not even the strongest earthquake that happened today. Stephen 11:03, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Stephen, doesn't appear to be out of the ordinary, a small death toll all things considered, article is poor. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:18, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Seems relatively minor as far as Japanese earthquakes go; Japan is an earthquake-prone nation and they usually do well in adapting to it to reduce damage and casualties. Unless something changes I don't think this needs to be posted. 331dot (talk) 11:30, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. As others have pointed out, not as significant as other quakes even with a 6+ magnitude, and the death toll is relatively small. --MASEM (t) 16:56, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Change to Support, as multiple quakes now are more damaging. --MASEM (t) 23:21, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added alt1 - Pinging Masem, 331., Rambler, and Stephen. --George Ho (talk) 17:07, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Forgot Sherenk1. George Ho (talk) 17:08, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So it would seem that the earthquake actually nominated was a foreshock. I'll reserve judgement until more info comes in. 331dot (talk) 17:16, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The region was just hit by a magnitude 7.0 earthquake (~10 km from the prior epicenter). I assume we can expect additional damage and casualties. Also, on the general theory that more ITN posts are better, I don't think the threshold for death and destruction needs to be all that high to justify posting an earthquake story. Dragons flight (talk) 17:19, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Article has been expanded with new quake information. Timely story and the damage is considerable. Death toll is notable and Japan is a leader in earthquake resistant structures so death toll is less than it would be in many countries. Capitalistroadster (talk) 18:18, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – Widespread disruption, damage, and numerous casualties. Added ALT2 to reflect that there are two major earthquakes involved in this story. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 22:59, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed it for you. George Ho (talk) 23:19, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

April 14

Armed conflicts and attacks
Arts and culture
Disasters and accidents
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Sports

New hormone

Article:Asprosin (talk · history · tag)
Blurb:Scientists discover a new hormone in humans, asprosin. (Post)
Alternative blurb:Scientists discover a new hormone in humans, asprosin, which controls blood sugar.
News source(s):Cell, The Scientist
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Discoveries of such biological stuff in humans are almost always newsworthy, it seems. Putting it under the date of Cell publication. Article is open to further expansion. Brandmeistertalk 11:04, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak support I don't think hormones are like elements in that there are a finite number (though there likely are a finite number that would appear naturally), but the linkage to various medical conditions in humans can lead to treatments and cures. It is a shame that I can't find anything more mainstream than New Scientist talking about it, sorta failing the "ITN" part, but science news can be useful to include. --MASEM (t) 03:03, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support - The article is currently very technical, but I suppose there hasn't been much popular science coverage yet. Still, some of the information from the New Scientist article might be useful for making this more accessible to the general reader. Smurrayinchester 08:04, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest DYK The article is such that only field specialists can appreciate it. That's a product of the press that it has gotten so far (that is, subject journals and a few pop-sci write ups), so I won't hold that against the nomination. But I also note a general lack of news coverage on this item, and the impact that this discovery has is not apparent, and will probably remain that way for many years to come.128.214.163.138 (talk) 10:19, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Volodymyr Groysman

Proposed image
Articles:Volodymyr Groysman (talk · history · tag) and Arseniy Yatsenyuk (talk · history · tag)
Blurb:Volodymyr Groysman (pictured) is appointed Prime Minister of Ukraine following the resignation of Arseniy Yatsenyuk. (Post)
News source(s):BBC
Credits:

Both articles updated

Smurrayinchester 09:41, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support because consensus was to post once the resignation became official. Brian Everlasting (talk) 11:17, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Both bolded articles look good to me. --Jayron32 12:31, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – Per preceding comments, previous discussion. Sca (talk) 14:16, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - thanks for nominating. Banedon (talk) 14:34, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted per both the previous blurb discussion and a double check that both articles are at quality per above supports. I have not brought the picture in as it doesn't appear to be protected at Commons, but once that's done we should swap that out. --MASEM (t) 14:47, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The one used in the article will be protected by Krinklebot at 4pm. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:49, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    16:00 UTC? (eg about 45 min from when I write this?) I'll replace then if no one else does. --MASEM (t) 15:18, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you need to re-appraise the admin instructions. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:55, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been appropriately schooled. Picture updated now. --MASEM (t) 17:14, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    It's that easy, thanks to David Levy and Krinklebot. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:15, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

April 13

Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and economics
                 
Disasters and accidents
Health
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Sport
Miscellaneous

[Posted to RD]: Nera White

Article: Nera White (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Tennessean
Credits:

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: If we believe her article, this basketball player " was considered one of the most outstanding female players in history" The Rambling Man (talk) 12:14, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak support will remove the weak if and when the lead is expanded to a complete summary per WP:LEAD. Otherwise, article is tolerable for the main page. Not the best, could use expansion in some areas, but significance is clear, and the article isn't lacking any referencing. --Jayron32 12:30, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Please do so, it is easy to expand the lead, anyone can do that, including you! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:56, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I did, along with several other editors. Looking much better. Thanks for the encouragement. --Jayron32 18:48, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - She is certainly at the top of her field; but I agree that the lead section should be expanded. Blue Adventure (talk) 16:51, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Please do so, it is easy to expand the lead, anyone can do that, including you! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:56, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lukewarm support - She's not a particularly well known individual and this is barely in the news. However, I do think being the first woman elected to the Basketball Hall of Fame is pretty impressive. --Bongwarrior (talk) 17:16, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I never heard of her, but she appears to be an important women's basketball player. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:47, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose not in the news. Compare with the Golden State Warriors story, for example, which is getting major international coverage. This item hasn't even gotten out of Tennessee. Andrew D. (talk) 20:47, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Her article indicates she was very important to her field. 331dot (talk) 21:25, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support First female basketball player in the hall of fame gets my vote. Miyagawa (talk) 22:09, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted to RD, Stephen 23:23, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] NBA best record

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: Golden State Warriors (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: After defeating the Memphis Grizzlies, the Golden State Warriors end the regular season 73-9, making it the best record in NBA history. (Post)
News source(s): Wall Street Journal CNN BBC
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: No idea how "notable" this truly is in the eyes of Wikipedia, but I thought to nominate it just to see. Andise1 (talk) 06:18, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • But a double maiden over probably isn't? This is the winningest team ever in a major North American sports league (besides the National Football League but I wonder if their 16-0 was just luck. They lost to the weaker Giants only 1 month later after all). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 07:39, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand your cricket analogy but good try. Can you point me to the last time we posted a "double maiden over" (and then tell me exactly what one of those is?) The Rambling Man (talk) 07:49, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Breaks a 20-year-old record that is unlikely to be bested again soon, and establishes the current Warriors team as one of the greatest of all time (though they still have to win the playoffs to complete their dominance of the season). Dragons flight (talk) 06:38, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I very rarely support sports articles, but all-time-greatest is obviously in the news, and highly notable. Jusdafax 06:51, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I don't see how Americans care about this; I don't see how the world does either. Even as a Californian, it's a great, exciting feeling to have one of the teams to win the best; however, this is just as significant as Kobe's last day, which consensus oppose. Perhaps we should post the same to other sports? George Ho (talk) 07:02, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Kobe's last day, while sad, is ultimately insignificant in terms of anything being notable. This is a big record broken that will probably not be broken for a while. Even if it is broken sometime soon, the fact that the record was broken after so long makes this significant. Andise1 (talk) 07:27, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But this means if it's broken next year, we post it again. And again and again. It's really not significant. We have sports leagues all across the world where records are broken every year. This is no different. (As an example, PSG won the French league in "record time" this year, see this report – it's interesting, but ultimately nothing more than sports trivia). The Rambling Man (talk) 07:34, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't necessarily support posting this now, but it seems unlikely to be broken anytime soon; it took 20 years and they only broke it by a game. 331dot (talk) 09:02, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose article contains a single unreferenced sentence on this update, which just reiterates the blurb. Have they won the NBA or what? Surely that is more important? Jolly Ω Janner
  • Oppose - Poorly referenced sports trivia. Take it DYK. Fgf10 (talk) 07:36, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regretful oppose - The problem is that, right now, two of the five blurbs on ITN are sports-related. For a new sports-related blurb to be featured then I would require higher-than-normal significance, and I can't consider this record to be that. It's only going to be interesting to followers of NBA, and while basketball is by no means an obscure sport, it's also by no means a sport that captures the imagination of most people (there are only a few that does that - the 100m sprint for example, perhaps the FIFA world cup). On another day when ITN is having trouble with new blurbs and / or when there isn't as much sports-related news, I'd probably have supported this. Banedon (talk) 07:38, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We have no control over the timing of events; we nominate them as they come. 331dot (talk) 09:00, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This is the kind of factoid I'd have no trouble including as an aside if the team won the NBA this year ("X wins the 2016 NBA finals, with a record winning record of 73-9") but not if it's just its own item. It's perfectly possible that any sport or league sees a record set in a given season that's separate from the actual winning result and I don't think we want to open the door to posting all of them (and we all know that if we post one, it'll be seen as precedent). GRAPPLE X 07:58, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The potential to break the record has been one of the biggest sports stories of the past several months, given the sustained nature of the coverage. Article is of sufficient quality for the main page. --Jayron32 08:00, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This is a trivial record with very limited notability that can easily turn irrelevant if they don't win the title. Yet, this could be still posted as a DYK item.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:54, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    DYK only allows articles that are either newly created, expanded by at least 5-fold in last week, or promoted to GA status in the last week. I can't see how this would be eligible for DYK. Dragons flight (talk) 09:06, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The article could be expanded or improved to GA status. After all, we're here to improve the encyclopedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:26, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    It's 60,000 characters already. I'd say a 5-fold expansion would be unreasonable. As for improving the encyclopedia, I'd say the 160+ people who have worked on documenting the current season have been doing that. If someone doesn't believe this item deserves to be on ITN, then fine. But we shouldn't pretend that this information belongs on a different part of the main page if that other section is even less likely to post it than ITN. Dragons flight (talk) 09:42, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    If it's such an incredible documentation effort by so many great people, GA should be simple. Then it can be featured at DYK. It's newsworthiness is really irrelevant, as to whether it's posted today or in a week or month. The "wow" factor is simply that they have a slightly better record than the previous best, but they haven't actually won anything for it yet. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:02, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait to see if they get to and win the NBA Finals, where this record could be mentioned if they do. 331dot (talk) 09:00, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @331dot: I don't think that someone would still give a damn about this record after the finals, no matter if they win it or not. The point is that the regular season and the playoffs are two different things, where the former is a sort of qualification for the latter. Put it this way, if the team with the best score after the regular season were the champions, it would definitely make the record score worth including in the blurb. But since the season continues in a different format with fewer teams to go and this record only secures home advantage in the seventh game in each match they will play until the end, it doesn't make much sense to squeeze notability from something that simply doesn't earn it. Perhaps it would be a better option to combine the blurb with records in the playoffs if such happen (e.g. least games played).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:59, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • DYK yes. ITN. No. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:21, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the first ever 82-0 I'd consider as that couldn't be beaten, but this seems entirely arbitrary. By all means mention it if we post the conclusion of the season but not on its own. Thryduulf (talk) 09:27, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, this could be a footnote to the ITNR blurb if they win the finals, if they don't then the record is really meaningless. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:44, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed; as it was with the 2007 New England Patriots who did not win the Super Bowl. 331dot (talk) 09:53, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe it is the statistician in me, but personally, the record for most dominant team in the history of a sport is rather more interesting than who wins the title in any given year. There will be a new title holder every year. but performances like this are much rarer. Stephen Curry and the Warriors are "Breaking The NBA" [14] and showing us a style of play that most people didn't think possible. Stephen Curry has 402 three point baskets this season, which breaks the previous single season record (also held by him) by more than 100 baskets [15]. Their surprising style of play and its undeniable success is likely to change how other teams approach the game for years to come. Whatever happens in the finals, their record setting performance this season is far from "meaningless". Dragons flight (talk) 09:57, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm afraid it is, certainly to 99% of our readership. If they went undefeated (like The Invincibles (football)) then I'd be more interested, particularly as their invincibility resulted in more than just an update in stats books, it resulted in a trophy. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:02, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Yes, it's true we have posted record-breaking events like Lionel Messi breaking the single season scoring record, but widespread consensus usually opposes posting events like this. The significance is purely internal.--WaltCip (talk) 12:18, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Closed] Kobe's last game

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: Kobe Bryant (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Kobe Bryant scored 60 points in his last game in the NBA (Post)
News source(s): (LA Times)
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Making headlines. Étienne Dolet (talk) 05:30, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose If 60 pts was a record (it's not) that might be a reason to post, but the retirement of a player is not really an ITN worthy piece. --MASEM (t) 05:44, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the article needs to be updated with far more than just a single sentences for ITN. On second thoughts, this would probably give undue weight in the article. This makes a good news headline, but I don't see how it could work on Wikipedia. Probably best to show more than one news source to show how much coverage it is receiving anyway. Even the LA Times don't give a particularly in depth coverage of the event. Jolly Ω Janner 05:53, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose sporting statistical trivia. He himself has done better before. And retirement was announced in November 2015. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:01, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The retirement itself is the real story here, isn't it? I'm not outright opposed to posting sports retirements, but they'd have to be ridiculously notable for me to support, like Gretzky/Pelé/Jordan notable, or those among the top two or three players to ever play their respective sport. If we post the retirements of players who were merely excellent, that's a lot of retirements. --Bongwarrior (talk) 06:05, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose sports trivia, soon to be forgotten and will have zero long-term impact on anything or anyone anywhere. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:35, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as is (cut out the points score, just cut it down to "Kobe Bryant plays his last game in the NBA and resigns"), but not totally opposed if someone more knowledgeable about basketball can weigh in. The only sports resignation that we've posted as far as I recall is Sachin Tendulkar, who is without a doubt the greatest cricketer of the era (and an idol to a nation of one billion). I don't know enough about basketball to know whether Bryant is the greatest of his generation - is he? He is the only basketball player I've heard of because of his basketball playing (as opposed to acting or whatever). Smurrayinchester 08:16, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Smurrayinchester, in answer to your question - well, maybe. He'd be a strong contender - but then you have to consider the likes of LeBron James, Tim Duncan and Shaquille O'Neal. Having said that, I would dispute the suggestion that Tendulkar was "without a doubt" the greatest cricketer of his time - there are plenty of cricket fans who would argue for, say, Muralitharan or Warne instead. So I don't think that the fact that Bryant isn't indisputably the greatest of his generation distinguishes him from Tendulkar. Neljack (talk) 09:13, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. As stated, posting retirements is very rare here, and I don't think Bryant(though close) rises to the high level needed. The aforementioned cricket player was generally seen as the best ever in his sport, which I don't think is the case here. Perhaps if this was the 90s Michael Jordan's final retirement would make it,(or even further back, Wilt Chamberlain) but I don't believe Bryant should. It's also been known he was going to retire for a year now, I believe. 331dot (talk) 08:54, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Closed]Peabody Bankruptcy

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: Peabody Energy (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Peabody Energy, the largest privately-owned producer of coal in the world, files for bankruptcy court protection but plans to continue mining operations as usual. (Post)
News source(s): (Reuters) (ABC News Australia)
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Thanks to portal:current events for this story. My question is: since this was a publicly traded company should this be "publicly owned producer of coal" instead of "privately owned producer of coal?" Brian Everlasting (talk) 01:38, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose As the articles states, they will continue to operate their mines and assets are protected, this is simply an accounting step as to be able to handle debts they currently cannot pay. --MASEM (t) 01:57, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. I changed the original blurb to addresses your concerns. Brian Everlasting (talk) 02:02, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. An overly indebted company got bit by a fall in prices of their core product? Not exactly a huge shock, and the $11B restructuring is not particularly large in the history of all bankruptcies. There might be an interesting side story related to global warming, natural gas expansion, energy policy, and other side topics on the fall in coal prices, but that's at least two steps removed from the bankruptcy itself, and I don't think that is enough to justify including this. Dragons flight (talk) 08:21, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose – Symptomatic of the U.S. coal industry; Ch. 11 filing not particularly surprising. Sca (talk) 14:22, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the difference between a restructuring and a liquidation is an essential one. We don't post robberies and infamous murders under the rubric of "crimes". μηδείς (talk) 02:52, 15 April 2016 (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.

[Posted] South Korean election

Article:South Korean legislative election, 2016 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb:In an upset result, the liberal opposition Minjoo Party of Korea wins a plurality of one seat in the South Korean National Assembly. (Post)
Alternative blurb:The Minjoo Party of Korea wins the most seats in the South Korean National Assembly.
Alternative blurb II:The Minjoo Party wins one seat more than the ruling Saenuri Party in the South Korean National Assembly.
News source(s): Wide coverage of the election, but shock result is very fresh. Reuters, Washington Post, Daily Mail, Vice, etc.
Credits:

Article updated
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

Nominator's comments: National election, additionally notable for a range of reasons: the upset win that defied all previous opinion polling including the exit poll, the party system upheaval with a new third party, and the problems this poses for President Park. —Nizolan (talk) 22:12, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - Not very significant in South Korean; not around the globe either. The President Park Geun-hye is still in control. George Ho (talk) 22:37, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
ITNR probably applies (there's some conceptual subtlety about whether it's a "general" election since the ROK is a presidential system, but the term is widely applied to it in reliable sources (Google "South Korea" "general election")). Anyway, it's odd to claim it's not very significant around the globe when it has received international media coverage for going on a week now (Nikkei, AFP, Economist, all from before the election). —Nizolan(talk) 23:06, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rescinding my !vote due to ITN/R listing of general elections and mass coverage. I still don't believe it can change a thing. After all, the president is the daughter of the assassinated dictator, and she might do some influence in the future. --George Ho (talk) 23:49, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's significant for the same reason different parties controlling Congress and the presidency is significant in the U.S. (divided government). Her legislative agenda is now impossible, and she's a lame-duck president. Have a look at the Nikkei article I posted above, which talks about the significance of the election. —Nizolan (talk) 23:57, 13 April 2016 (UTC) [reply]
  • General elections are ITNR so we don't need to address notability. 331dot (talk) 23:02, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment added altblurb. A hung parliament isn't really a victory in any sense. Needs a prose summary of the result. Fuebaey (talk) 23:22, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Fuebaey: I can see the concern with the "victory" phrasing, but the proposed blurb also removes most of the context. Specifically: removing "liberal" is unhelpfully decontextualising, since "Minjoo" will mean nothing to most people, and the upset of previous opinion polls and wider expectations needs to be mentioned. I also think the margin of one seat should be mentioned either way. I've edited my blurb to remove the "victory", let me know what you think. —Nizolan (talk) 23:36, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support but I think the article would be helped to explain - outside of the lede - why the surprise and the projected impact of the Minjoo's upset victory, if that is going to be part of the blurb. (If was just that the result defied the last public opinion polls, eh, not so much). AltBlurb seems fine otherwise. It's otherwise in good shape from what I can tell. --MASEM (t) 23:59, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Masem: I added a brief analysis in the Results section of the article touching on and citing these points. There are a wide range of sources using phrases like "surprise", "upset", "crushing" etc. It's difficult to find sources discussing specific impact precisely because nobody expected it until it actually happened, but the general significance is now there and cited. —Nizolan(talk) 00:16, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, it's probably going to take a few days for any impact analysis to come into line. (I have no knowledge of how this would affect NK/SK relations and subsequently the rest of the world but I could see that being one of those points analyzed). I would be fine with the first blurb now with the explanation this being a surprise result. --MASEM (t) 00:26, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quick note: I altered the wording of the last part of my blurb to follow the condensed style of the alternate; I haven't changed the content otherwise. —Nizolan (talk) 02:57, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Please, anything to get horse racing and golf masters pushed down the page. Articles look good. Brian Everlasting (talk) 03:48, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted Stephen 05:32, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The blurb as it stands is inadequate. Minjoo has 123 of 300 and Saenuri have 122. Neither party is a clear winner here. Can I suggest as a blurb: "The Minjoo Party wins one seat more than the ruling Saenuri Party in the South Korean National Assembly." Smurrayinchester 08:00, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think the blurb as it stands is ok because it says plurality which should be clear enough that no majority was won. Brian Everlasting (talk) 08:13, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] End of Argentine default

Article:Argentine debt restructuring (talk · history · tag)
Blurb:Argentina reaches an agreement to pay the holdouts, ending a 15 year sovereign default. (Post)
Alternative blurb:Argentina reaches an agreement to issue bonds and pay its creditors, ending a 15 year sovereign default.
Alternative blurb II:The Argentine government reaches an agreement to issue bonds and pay its creditors, ending a 15 year sovereign default.
News source(s):Financial Times, Bloomberg, Reuters
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: As said, it is the end of a sovereign default that lasted for more than a decade (and 5 presidents since then). Clearly newsworthy. Cambalachero (talk) 17:10, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - Noting that there are a couple CNs in the lede and a few paragraphs in the latter half that are unsourced, overall this looks like a fairly comprehensive article on this debt situation, and once those CNs are fixed, should be ready to go. Topic is definitely of interest and appropriate for ITN. --MASEM (t) 18:03, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support I found the updated information in the article, but it would be nice if it were added to the lead and/or made more prominent (such as a section header) so that readers could find the update easier. But it's there, and the article is in good shape, I see a few CNs in the lead, but the article is essentially completely referenced in the body. Ideally, the CNs would be resolved, and the update made a bit more prominent, but it's not in bad shape right now. --Jayron32 18:30, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have fixed the two citation needed tags (they were referenced elsewhere in the article), and mentioned the end of the default at the end, linking to the section. Cambalachero (talk) 19:00, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support looks pretty clear to me. Banedon (talk) 07:39, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support but I don't understand why the blurb pipes "pay the holdouts." I would like a blurb without any pipes better so I could understand it. Brian Everlasting (talk) 07:42, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Have added altblurbs. I personally hate turns of phrase like "Argentina agrees to..." when "The Argentine government agrees to..." is meant, but maybe that's unavoidable for length reasons. Smurrayinchester 08:05, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per the above comments. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:21, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Sorry for the mistake, but the default was declared in 2001, not 2002 (December 23, 2001, to be precise), so it was 15 years ago. The article was mistaken in that detail, and I confused it with the end of the convertibility law, which was also part of the crisis of the time but a completely different issue. Cambalachero (talk) 12:18, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Singapore rape ruling

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:Penal Code (Singapore) (talk · history · tag)
Blurb:The High Court of Singapore rules that women cannot be guilty of rape (Post)
News source(s): e.g. [16], [17]; Google turns up a lot more
Credits:

Article needs updating
Banedon (talk) 07:00, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It turns out the decision was made because the accused rapist is transgender (biologically female but had lived as a man since she was 16, and had even "married" two women). Don't know the exact wording of the court ruling, but I think the blurb should clarify that. Brandmeistertalk 07:19, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose a backward-thinking set of policies just got tweaked. That they do not even acknowledge the concept of male rape (...rape is narrowly defined under S375, Penal Code as the penile penetration of a vagina...) underscores a failure to get with the program. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:54, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral - It's... bizarre. But I'm not sure whether or not that in itself is newsworthy.--WaltCip (talk) 12:39, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – This such an anomalous case that it doesn't pose wider significance. Rather a straw in the wind. Sca (talk) 14:47, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, this is an instance of a court telling a legislature to update some laws. Abductive (reasoning) 16:51, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I'm not seeing a substantive update in the highlighted article that makes the blurb stand out. --Jayron32 16:56, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Please note that rape is defined differently around the world, even in the US. Rape used to be narrowly defined as coercive sexual intercourse committed by a man on a woman in several jurisdictions, and still does in some. As the West became more sexually liberal, laws were introduced to address the complex issue of sexual assaults. In some places, a term that was used to describe a specific crime began to encompass an entire spectrum of sexual assaults. Others went a step further and got rid of the phrase "rape" altogether.
This case did not involve legal rape in Singapore, let alone the High Court deciding on whether it did or did not occur. The accused was charged with sexual penetration of a minor, i.e. sexual assault on a person under the age of consent, and seems to have been acquitted on a technicality - a legal loophole. The suggested article does not mention the case or even list the section of the law involved - s. 376A Fuebaey (talk) 21:20, 13 April 2016 (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.

April 12

Armed conflicts and attacks
Arts and culture
Business and economics
Disasters and accidents
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Science and technology
Sport

[Closed]RD: Balls Mahoney

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: Balls Mahoney (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): WWE
Credits:

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: Multiple title-winning sports entertainer The Rambling Man (talk) 12:25, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - A professional wrestler who is virtually indistinguishable from any other pro wrestler. Because all events are scripted, "title-winning" is a bit of a misnomer. --Bongwarrior (talk) 17:33, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    In your opinion. The facts speak for themselves and don't rely on your personal attitude. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:53, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. In my opinion, a professional wrestling championship is more analogous to an employee of the month award than an actual competition to determine skill and proficiency, and this is something we ought not to waste a great deal of time on unless it can be demonstrated that he had any sort of impact either inside or outside of professional wrestling other than "winning" some kayfabe "championships". Any impact whatsoever. Even a Slim Jim commercial will do. --Bongwarrior (talk) 18:20, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's not required, but thanks for your input. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:40, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support A very comprehensive, well written, and well referenced article of a higher quality than most that make the main page for RD or ITN. An excellent example of high quality work. --Jayron32 18:07, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Bongwarrior Nohomersryan (talk) 18:40, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - No hall of fame? That's a shame. George Ho (talk) 18:45, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The kayfabe problem means that the sources are unreliable. Andrew D. (talk) 20:54, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Closed] RD: Arnold Wesker

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: Arnold Wesker (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Guardian
Credits:

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: Sir Arnold Wesker. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:06, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose a large volume of works but little indication of being important in his field. Many people receive knighthoods. The article is also heavily under-referenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:55, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per TRM; the knighthood (and one award in 1959) might indicate he is above average, but not "very important" to his field. 331dot (talk) 08:04, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Have added more awards in the article. Michael Billington (critic) says that he couldn't bring out the success of his early 1960s success, but "the radical bard of working Britain" has got plenty good reviews of his plays. As typical with old gen stars, this article also lacks attention because of probably uninterested editors. The article though created in 2004 has had little over 200 edits only so far. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 14:23, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Closed] RD: David Gest

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: David Gest (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

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: Unexpected death of prominent television celebrity and producer, per our article "Gest produced the highest rated musical television special in history"... The Rambling Man (talk) 15:22, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Major referencing issues, large blocks of text have no references, and a giant orange tag at the top warns of that. If this were cleaned up, I'd have no objection to posting this. --Jayron32 16:01, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose Referencing is obviously an issue, but looking past that, it's hard to argue for importance, where really the only claim that can be made is being the producer of a music television special that featured, at the time, the biggest pop music star (Michael Jackson), which was bound to draw viewers. Ratings are different from quality for television, and I would not weigh too much on simply the ratings for it. --MASEM (t) 16:07, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose based on the work required for the article to be improved before it could feature on front page. I'd put him up there based on the production work. I did once own a copy of his autobiography - the guy was nuts, he used to go into bookshops in London and sign copies that were just sitting on the shelf so they couldn't be sent back to the publishers. If the article was fully cited, then I'd switch to a weak support. Miyagawa (talk) 16:12, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose even if the quality is good. He was a well-known figure, but that doesn't qualify him for RD. His "producer" career which has been cited twice already was about as thin as a sheet of paper; 3 TV specials? big deal. All the obits I see mostly just tie him into Liza Minelli. Nohomersryan (talk) 17:08, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I'm not seeing how he meets meets the RD criteria. That he had a high profile marriage and was a well known UK reality TV star over the last decade doesn't strike me as top and/or important in his field. BLP facts in the lead and his career section are virtually unsourced. Fuebaey (talk) 21:11, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – Per Masem, Nohomersryan. – Sca (talk) 21:34, 12 April 2016 (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.

April 11

Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and economics
Disasters and accidents
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections

[Closed] US, UK, French foreign ministers to the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum

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.

61.245.25.5 (talk) 12:55, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Highlighted article has not been updated (indeed, it looks like it has not been updated since 2009) and contains very little prose. We don't normally feature mere lists at ITN, generally some moderately extensive prose explaining the event and its context is needed. --Jayron32 13:04, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not a sufficiently significant diplomatic event to merit posting. --LukeSurl t c 17:21, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. An interesting "first" but not groundbreaking. --MASEM (t) 23:10, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – Ditto. Had Kerry issued a formal apology, that would've been news. Sca (talk) 14:16, 12 April 2016 (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.

[Withdrawn] 2016 Stavropol bombings

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:2016 Stavropol bombings (talk · history · tag)
Blurb:Multiple suicide bombings occur in Stavropol, Russia. (Post)
News source(s):Sputnik (JUST breaking so more to come)
Credits:

Article needs updating
Nominator's comments: Keep an eye for notability as it just happened. but it should pass notability for page creaton on WP. Lihaas (talk) 08:44, 11 April 2016 (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.

[Posted to RD] RD: Howard Marks

Article: Howard Marks (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

Both articles need updating
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

The Rambling Man (talk) 06:53, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

question Why do you , as nom, suggest hes top of his field?Lihaas (talk) 08:38, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't. I said he was important. That is self evident. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:56, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well RD is not "imoportant" cause if theyre notable enough they have pages and not all those with pages get posted to ITN. So there has to be more as that's not "self evident".Lihaas (talk) 09:16, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"The deceased was widely regarded as a very important figure in his or her field" Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:24, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As nominator, why do you think hes top of his field? "Just a punt" is not a reason.Lihaas (talk) 11:46, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
RAAD just had 2 controversial deaths in the last couple of months that had FAR bigger implications and the northern Ireland change of government (direcrly related) was not posted here. oppose meanwhile. (but changeable)Lihaas (talk) 11:49, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really know what you're on about. Marks' death is featured on BBC News' global homepage. Your points are not relevant to this nomination, thanks though. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:14, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Notable drug trafficker/public figure. Baking Soda (talk) 09:21, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Notability is there, article is good. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:43, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Not highly notable Sherenk1 (talk) 09:51, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Support as one of the most notable people in the field of drug smuggling. Article looks to be in good shape too (although there is still a heavy reliance on his autobiography). Thryduulf (talk) 09:53, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel notability is high enough to merit an RD listing but I'm uncomfortable posting a biography to the main page whose dominant source is an autobiography. GRAPPLE X 10:02, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The majority of this article relies on a single primary source - once that is sorted, then we can see. Challenger l (talk) 11:47, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support The article is fully referenced and fairly extensive. Challenger 1 raises a good point, it is mostly sourced to his own autobiography, but said autobiography appears to have been published by a reputable publishing house, and meets the requirements of a reliable source. It should probably also have more sources, but I don't have any major problems with this appearing on the main page. --Jayron32 11:51, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support. The sourcing is a concern, but he qualifies on the merits and like Jayron I don't think it should be kept off the page for just the sourcing. 331dot (talk) 11:56, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Yes there is a heavy dependency on Marks' book, but there are 24 other sources as well, which are a hell of a lot more than many RDs that have been posted here. Laura Jamieson (talk) 12:07, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – Notability seems negligible. Sca (talk) 16:09, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - We have come to a curious time in ITN where, in any given nomination, support !votes simply claim "this is notable" and oppose !votes likewise "this is not notable", without substantiating evidence thereof. We need to set a benchmark for asserting or disputing notability, otherwise this is simply reiteration of WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE.--WaltCip (talk) 16:30, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, whereas this has been posted on the front page of BBC, support for inherent notability and the detailed article, which although requiring improvement, goes into sufficient depth to assert notability. I'm also surprised we did not nominate, let alone post, the death of Henry Hill in June 2012; if posted, that would have served as a good basis for comparison.--WaltCip (talk) 16:32, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Per WaltCip, the standards at Wikipedia are not based on "stuff I have heard about and/or care about". In all levels, and at all places, in Wikipedia, coverage in reliable sources is the measure of all things. When major, highly respected, news organizations devote considerable resources to covering a subject, it is not for us to say that the story isn't notable, based on our own personal criteria. --Jayron32 18:53, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like such persons are on the brink of criteria. Not everyone would agree that weed smuggling is one of the RD virtues. Brandmeistertalk 18:55, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That is loaded language.--WaltCip (talk) 19:03, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There are no virtues. There is only 1) extensive coverage in reliable sources and 2) quality of the article. Nothing else enters into the decision making here. --Jayron32 14:26, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Noted smuggler, author and media figure. The article is of interest, and despite the unusual nature of this subject for ITN, this is a good nomination which has my whole hearted support. Jusdafax 22:01, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - A rather interesting life, having been in the news both for negative and positive aspects of what he did. The coverage I see in other sources seems to give weight that this is not just a B-list celebrity or small-time crook but someone of some reputation, and support on that as well as being an interesting, well-sourced read. --MASEM (t) 23:08, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Just a couple of sections below this one there was a discussion about how Fuzheado posted an article with orange tags, and how it's clearly stated in the policy that articles with orange tags are not to be posted. This article also contains a big orange tag at the top, which would imply that it should be automatically rejected or at most support pending improvements regardless of significance, and yet even editors who are particularly fastidious about article quality are supporting? If we post this, ITN officially makes no sense. Banedon (talk) 00:42, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, it's a bit more complex than that. It's pointed out that many of the sources are based on autobiographic works, which itself is not bad for a BLP which has clearly demonstrated notability beyond that. This should be fixable in time but importantly, there are no really unsourced statements on a BLP (though one can contest if the autobiographical ones are true, we have to assume they are until proven otherwise). It is an orange tag but one that for ITN I would overlook for posting since this is something that can be fixed with more eyes on it. On the other hand, when the orange tags are about lack of sources, which is a no-no for BLP, that's a reason to not post. --MASEM (t) 01:00, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See, that's why some people (especially those with scientific backgrounds) think ITN makes no sense. It's clearly stated in the policy that articles with orange tags are not to be posted. No exceptions are listed. This ought to make supporting the posting of such an article as nonsensical as opposing an ITNR item on merit, and yet it doesn't!? To say that this orange tag can be fixed by having more eyes on it does not make sense either, since all articles can be fixed by having more eyes on it. Meanwhile orange tags that say "this section requires expanding" are effectively attach-able to any article except possibly GAs and FAs. Certainly for example currently Pfizer is featured and yet sections like its history during the 19th and 20th century can be tagged as such. The only reason the orange tag is not there is because nobody has tagged it. Orange tags about lack of sources can be fixed by hiding / deleting the relevant text, which immediately makes the article "presentable", and the only reason the orange tag is still there is because nobody has deleted the material. And so on ... the more I think about it, the less sense ITN makes. Banedon (talk) 01:26, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The key word at WP:ITN's guidance on orange tags is that articles with serious orange tag issues may not be posted. That means we have some discretion in the first place, but that also means that not all orange tags are equal. A "lack of sourcing" orange tag on a BLP is a much more serious problem than a "source to autobiographical works" orange tag, for example. It's not the case that having an orange tag is a bright line. --MASEM (t) 02:38, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fuzheado not only posted an inadequately sourced article, he posted it without any clear sign of consensus. And for the sake of accuracy, Banedon, there was no orange maintenance tag on the version he posted. Also, while you claim "it's clearly stated in the policy that articles with orange tags are not to be posted", you should be aware that the ITN instructions are not a policy, nor do they state what you claim. For reference, the instructions currently say: Usually, orange and red level tags are generally considered major enough to block posting to ITN. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:28, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Ukraine PM resigns

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.

Articles:Prime Minister of Ukraine (talk · history · tag) and Arseniy Yatsenyuk (talk · history · tag)
Blurb:Ukraine Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk resigns (Post)
News source(s): e.g. Guardian; Google turns up a lot more.
Credits:

Both articles need updating
Banedon (talk) 01:25, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on the general bit of news - a world leader resigning is as important as their election. Perhaps the target article could be Second_Yatsenyuk_Government (if I understand the situation correctly) as that focuses on how this point came to be. The given articles at first glance all seem all reasonably sourced but we should re-check once an appropriate blurb is given. --MASEM (t) 02:20, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
oppose run of the mill politicking and no election either. head of state's boy coming in tomorrow. Nothing eolutionary here.Lihaas (talk) 04:23, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Masem. Neljack (talk) 06:13, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- strongly -- however the article to reference, I suggest, would be Arseniy Yatsenyuk (which ends with a brief-but-informative coverage of the unraveling and end of his tenure in office), rather than the articles about his title or the Second Yatsenyuk Government (which is not current on this news). This resignation is, most specifically, about him. Also, the blurb should be longer, as with the less-important Icelandic leader's resignation a few days ago (27 words).
This event, involving the Prime Minister of one of the largest countries in Europe, coming at a sensitive time, during a shaky wartime truce with the world's second-most-powerful nation (Russia), while votes are being taken against Ukraine's attempt to join the European Union, a factor shaking the core of the EU.
I suggest this blurb (all details validaated in the referenced article, and its references):
blurb = Ukraine Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk 10 April, says he will resign 12 April, following allegations of corruption, President's call for his resignation, and parliament's vote of dissatisfaction with his Cabinet.
Penlite (talk) 06:13, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait Until/if he submits resignation on April 12. Baking Soda (talk) 09:19, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Not notable enough, didn't even appear as headlines in major news channels Sherenk1 (talk) 09:50, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know anything about notability? Judging from the three comments at ITN, the answer is a clear no. LugnutsDick Laurent is dead 11:11, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Plenty of "notable" stuff (as you cite) that's not posted here. No need to harangue him for his opinion.Lihaas (talk) 11:53, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - PM of a country resigns. Notable.BabbaQ (talk) 10:39, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suppoert We should bold the article on Arseniy Yatsenyuk; it is well written, fairly extensive fully referenced article. Resignation is mentioned and background provides context. Checks every box for main page posting. --Jayron32 13:08, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support but wait ... 'til Tuesday. Yatsenyuk's post Sunday on Twitter: "On Tuesday, April 12 my request will be submitted to the Parliament." Sca (talk) 16:20, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Although we could take the route taken by German Wiki and make it: "Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk announces his forthcoming resignation" – then delete "forthcoming" when it becomes fact. Sca (talk) 16:31, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as of 14:30 Tuesday (5:30 p.m. in Kiev) unfind mainstream reports of resignation becoming official or being formally accepted. Hmmm. Sca (talk) 14:29, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait till he actually resigns first. On Sunday - he announced his resignation, saying he will formally do so on Tuesday. On Wednesday morning, he's still PM. Fuebaey (talk) 21:23, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. The he's-gonna-resign story largely faded from the news Tuesday. Sca (talk) 21:37, 12 April 2016 (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.

April 10

Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and economics
Disasters and accidents
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Science and technology
Sport

[Closed] RD: Duane Clarridge

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: Duane Clarridge (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): New York Times
Credits:

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: He served in the CIA for more than 35 years, and was a chief of the Latin American division. EternalNomad (talk) 00:48, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose mostly unreferenced. Not sure on his notability though. He's a key figure in the Iran–Contra affair, but is that a broad enough topic to be considered "top of his field". Jolly Ω Janner 01:05, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose GHWB was the CIA director, and we would neither have listed him, nor his successor, even though his successor died under suspicious circumstances. The natural death of a regional director? Nope. μηδείς (talk) 01:01, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on importance. He doesn't seem to have as significant impact in the Iran-Contra affair, compared to someone like Oliver North. --MASEM (t) 01:22, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose He's clearly not a notable person in whatever field. The length of his career and his personal achievements simply doesn't earn him notability for inclusion.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 06:50, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Not notable Sherenk1 (talk) 09:48, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose As others have said I am not even sure about his being a "key figure" in the Iran-Contra affair. The source supporting the "key figure" statement in the article actually calls him an "instrumental figure" (which to me is a lesser degree than "key") and indicates that he was heavily involved, but so were a bunch of other CIA operatives and he was not a figure on the level of North, Fawn Hall, Lawrence Walsh, etc. Plus as said above, he was just a regional director, not the head of the CIA. TheBlinkster (talk) 10:36, 11 April 2016 (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.

[Posted] Masters

Proposed image
Article:2016 Masters Tournament (talk · history · tag)
Blurb:In golf, Danny Willett (pictured) wins the Masters Tournament. (Post)
News source(s):Bleacher Report, CBS Sports, Golf Channel
Credits:

Article needs updating
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

Nominator's comments: Fourth round needs a summary. Existing prose could do with some additional references. Fuebaey (talk) 23:01, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - major sporting event, following in line with the previous year(s). ///EuroCarGT 23:23, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support decent paragraph of updated content for the fourth round. Rest of article quality is acceptable and it's in the news. I'd suggest delinking golf. I'm sure most people have a basic grasp of it (maybe this is a Western bias!). Jolly Ω Janner 01:01, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See the ITN now that has a few sports articles there for precedence.Lihaas (talk) 04:21, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Not quite notable, however article looks good Sherenk1 (talk) 09:46, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    It's already been deemed notable based on the fact it's listed at ITNR. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:27, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Out of all the major golf tournaments, I would say The Masters is the most notable and prestigious of them all, so I fail to see how it is "not quite notable". Care to explain Sherenk1? Andise1 (talk) 02:17, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support ITN/R and update seems adequate. Ready to go IMO. --LukeSurl t c 10:19, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • IN THE HOOOOOLLLLLLLLLLLLEEEEE!!!!' Once it's been updated with more prose. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 11:10, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support There's a short prose synopsis of each round, which I think meets the bare minimum. It would be nice if the lead were expanded a bit, but this is tolerable for the main page. --Jayron32 11:53, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted ITNR and consensus that there is enough in the article to warrant posting. BencherliteTalk 19:17, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Sweden becomes the first country in the world with its own phone number

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: Sweden (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Sweden celebrates becoming the first country introducing a constitutional law to abolish censorship 250 years ago by becoming the first country in the world with its own phone number (Post)
News source(s): Swedish Tourist Association
Credits:

Article needs updating
Count Iblis (talk) 19:05, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose No significance. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:10, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since we normally require a paragraph of content added to the updated article, I'm wondering whether this would give undue weight in the Sweden article? Is there anywhere else it can be added? Jolly Ω Janner 19:12, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not even sure what this is besides a tourism gimmick. --Bongwarrior (talk) 19:26, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose We don't normally post marketing releases, even for government tourist boards. If this does get posted, someone might want to update Swedish Tourist Association or Censorship in Sweden rather than the actual country. Fuebaey (talk) 19:33, 10 April 2016 (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.

[Reposted] Kollam temple accident

Article: Kollam temple accident (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Over 80 people are killed after a fireworks mishap at a temple in Kollam, Kerala, India. (Post)
News source(s): Various
Credits:

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: High death tooll and this stuff seems to be ITN worthy. Lihaas (talk) 04:15, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Notable and article looks good enough. Sherenk1 (talk) 05:35, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted - Currently a global top news story with unusually high casualties. First new ITN item in days. -- Fuzheado Talk 07:13, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pulled Most of the article is unreferenced, including BLP-statements. Stephen 07:18, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Fuzheado this is the third time in a week or so that you've rushed into making bad decisions. Please take a break from posting items at ITN and perhaps work on improving them instead. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:32, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re-posted - All unreferenced content has been referenced. You can do both. Instead of pulling stuff, why not help fix articles too? -- FuzheadoTalk 07:34, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know to whom you are addressing that comment but it may have passed you by that I always improve and fix such articles, and I do that before I post them. I also look for a consensus, not just one support. Now please, more haste less speed. I don't want to have to take this further. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:00, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-posting support, echoing The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)'s comments. Stuff should not be linked from the main page where there are serious issues to be addressed, except in exceptional circumstances, which this was not. Mjroots (talk) 08:21, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question So uh, is consensus not even something we do anymore? Even if we apparently don't give a damn about quality, how was this ready to go with a single opinion voiced? - OldManNeptune 08:56, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I've already mentioned that. This was posted without consensus and without quality check. Double fail, and not for the first time. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:25, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trout for posting without consensus and without any clue as to ITN's standards. Please stop doing this. Post-reposting support given its current condition and newsworthiness. BencherliteTalk 09:51, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-reposting support on its merits as a major accident; this was initially posted far too quickly, leaving aside the state of the article(which was far too poor). ITN is not meant to be a news ticker and does not need constant updates if the article quality is poor and it lacks consensus(one person does not make consensus). 331dot (talk) 12:16, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's all this then? - I have no problem with the condition of the article now, but Fuzheado's posting (and re-posting in wheel war fashion) without attempting to form a consensus sets a very uncomfortable precedence here.--WaltCip (talk) 16:02, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I moved the article to Puttingal Temple fire. May want to follow suit, since redirects are normally discouraged. Jolly Ω Janner 19:36, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Since this is already re-posted and there seems to now be a consensus, I won't vote, but wanted to agree with the others that seeing an article nominated, created and posted within, apparently, 3 hours and with only 1 supporting vote apart from the nominator is disconcerting. Maybe it worked out OK this time but I can see other instances where this would be a very bad precedent. The fact that it's "first new ITN item in days" doesn't justify skipping over established consensus and article improvement steps. TheBlinkster (talk) 20:17, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

April 9

Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Sport

[Closed] RD: Tony Conrad

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:Tony Conrad (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s):Yahoo News, NMEPitchforkARTnews
Credits:

Article needs updating
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Yahoo News calls him a "seminal musician" while NME and Pitchfork call him "pioneering". ARTnews calls him a "wide-ranging innovator in music, film and art". Andise1 (talk) 20:46, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support on notability. Oppose on article quality - the tense hasn't even all been updated yet (I don't have time to do it myself, sorry). Thryduulf (talk) 10:13, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose article is under-referenced and I'm yet to see any awards that would place this individual into the RD notability bracket. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:09, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Avant Garde, Structral, Drone? Could it be... μηδείς (talk) 01:03, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on notability; I am not seeing any indication from the article that this person was "widely regarded as a very important figure in his or her field" which is generally required where the person doesn't hold some high-ranking position of power. TheBlinkster (talk) 20:07, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See the comment I made on thos nomination and you will see that sources are calling him very important in his field. Andise1 (talk) 00:25, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I did read the sources. I noted that his NYT obit says that he's been "slowly emerging from obscurity" over the past few years and the last line quotes him as saying to the Guardian, “You don’t know who I am ... but somehow, indirectly, you’ve been affected by things I did.” In his Billboard obit with the same quote, he goes on to say "I don't mind being anonymous though. I hate celebrity." If he were widely recognized as important in his field, he would not be making a statement "You don't know who I am" because people would already know. This appears to be a case of somebody who is definitely notable and had some importance in his field and is recognized by some people in the know, but is not "widely recognized" - he says as much himself.TheBlinkster (talk) 10:25, 11 April 2016 (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.

[Posted] Grand National

Article:2016 Grand National (talk · history · tag)
Blurb:In horse racing, Rule The World wins the Grand National. (Post)
News source(s):BBC Sport, The Guardian, Sky News
Credits:
Article updated
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

Nominator's comments: Needs a race summary. Fuebaey (talk) 18:13, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Is this really of international significance? Rcsprinter123 (relate) 23:41, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is "international significance" really a requirement? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.177.184.228 (talk) 03:02, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Please do not oppose an item because the event is 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."--98.180.123.57 (talk) 03:12, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I haven't opposed. I have asked a question. Rcsprinter123 (commune) 11:19, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Is "international significance" a factor that needs to be considered? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.172.56.3 (talk) 12:05, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • As the IP user has suggested, international significance is not required and the lack thereof is discouraged as an objection; if international significance was required, very little would be posted. Further, as this event is on the ITNR list, it will be posted as long as the article quality is sufficient. If you feel this event should not be on the ITNR list, please propose its removal at the ITNR talk page. 331dot (talk) 12:20, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose aside from the lead, there is no referenced content. Jolly Ω Janner 07:33, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article on the horse is adequately referenced. The race article needs a bit of work on refs, but I will try to fix that later today. Tigerboy1966 08:58, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay. Give me a ping when you think it's ready or a reviewing admin can just ignore my previous post in light of more recent support. The Grand National is (I think) the biggest horse racing event in the UK? There's ample news coverage to support notability. Jolly Ω Janner 09:08, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • not ready This is on WP:ITN/R so there is no question about notability, all we are here to judge is (1) whether the event is actually in the news this year, and (2) whether the article is of sufficient quality to post on the main page. The answer to the first question is a definite yes. The answer to the second question is not yet - the "race overview" section is blank and the "media coverage" section is unsourced. I didn't see any obvious issues other than those though. Thryduulf (talk) 10:10, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Added "Race overview" and sourced "media coverage". Tigerboy1966 13:57, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support see above. Issues resolved. Tigerboy1966 15:58, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support few more minor tweaks made and now ready to go, marked as such. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:06, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted ITNR and consensus to post after improvements from its original condition. Yet another year in which I failed to win anything in the workplace sweepstake (being able to say "I have Wonderful Charm" was a good joke while it lasted though, even if Mrs B. disagreed...) BencherliteTalk 16:23, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

April 8

Armed conflicts and attacks
Arts and culture
Business and economics
Disasters and accidents
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Science and technology
Sport

[Posted] SpaceX CRS-8

Proposed image
Article: SpaceX CRS-8 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: SpaceX CRS-8 launches to the International Space Station, and in a spaceflight first, successfully lands its reusable main-stage booster on an autonomous spaceport drone ship. (Post)
Alternative blurb: SpaceX CRS-8, an unmanned cargo mission to the International Space Station, performs the first successful landing of its reusable main-stage booster on an autonomous spaceport drone ship.
News source(s): (The Verge) (Reuters)
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Straight from portal current events, this is very newsworthy in my opinion. Brian Everlasting (talk) 23:20, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support, because space stuff. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:53, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, noteworthy first and a project that has been followed by the media for the past several months. - Floydian τ ¢ 03:46, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support primarily based on the successful reusable module landing, which is an impressive feat. Article while sources could get a bit more indepth. --MASEM (t) 03:50, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I thought about nominating this myself, but this space stuff was too confusing for me, I almost picked the wrong article. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:53, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted Stephen 05:11, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Removed] Remove Zika virus outbreak from ongoing

I can't see any real "ongoing" info from about March. Does this still need to be on the frontpage? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:20, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - No longer needs to be on the front page, I agree. Ongoing news should be just that. Jusdafax 09:51, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Not really considered by most to be an ongoing story -- Fuzheado Talk 09:58, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Though I note that experts are worried about what might happen during the north hemisphere summer. Should that expand, we might need to readd but that's a decision then, not now. --MASEM (t) 13:33, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Google News has hundreds of fresh stories still. For example, this one has a good timeline with a WHO announcement on April 7 which seems significant. Andrew D. (talk) 13:43, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • An "ongoing" tag is not exclusively for stories where there is ongoing developments, rather those where these developments are being promptly added to the article. On that second count, this article is lagging '''tAD''' (talk) 15:01, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support no major developments have been added to the article in the past week. Jolly Ω Janner 08:01, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed per consensus. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:08, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] 175+ workers killed (Syrian Civil War)

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

Article: No article specified
Blurb: At least 175 workers were killed by the ISIS after kidnapping them from Syrian cement factory. (Post)
News source(s): Mirror RT
Credits:
EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 09:53, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if there is an article about this story, but is the notability is high. Mirror RT- EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 09:48, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We need an article to evaluate, and a proposed blurb; this is not the forum to request the creation of an article. Ideally the ITN candidate syntax should be copied, pasted, and filled in. 331dot (talk) 09:50, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mu - No key article in blurb.--WaltCip (talk) 12:06, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can't answer I have no article to assess the quality of. What Wikipedia article are you trying to direct readers to? --Jayron32 12:37, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait Both sources cited have since retracted the claim that the workers were killed. That conclusion was attributed directly from the Syrian military, which is not a reliable source. The fate and location of the workers are as of yet unknown. Mamyles (talk) 12:58, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I don't see any reliable sources backing this up, nor do I see an article updated for assessment. Suggest this is closed before a keen admin invokes IAR and posts something. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:05, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose very premature nomination. An article needs to be provided for assessment. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 13:20, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – Per previous two comments. Neither current (14:45) AP nor NYT stories mentions killings. Sca (talk) 14:48, 8 April 2016 (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.

April 7

Armed conflicts and attacks
Arts and culture
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
Law and crime
Politics and elections

[Closed] National Guard of Russia

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

Nominator's comments: As this new force is created UN/NATO/EU response will be called for. Picomtn (talk) 23:24, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, suggest DYK - It's an internal guard, comparable to the US's National Guard from what I read so while one could say there might be potential international issues, I really don't see it as something demanding a UN-type response. But as a new topic, DYK is perfect for this. --MASEM (t) 02:41, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unless the UN responds with sanctions, I don't really see a reason to post this.--WaltCip (talk) 02:52, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose What reason does it qualify? Sherenk1 (talk) 05:35, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This doesn't seem like a threat to NATO or the EU any more than the US National Guard is a threat to Russia. 331dot (talk) 08:22, 8 April 2016 (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.

April 6

Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and Economics
Disasters and accidents
Law and crime
Politics and elections

[Reposted] RD: Merle Haggard

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: Merle Haggard (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NBCBBC
Credits:

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: American country and western music pioneer. Thechased (talk) 17:50, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on article improvements - Importance as an influential country singer is there, but there's huge chunks of unsourced text throughout the article, and that absolutely needs fixing before posting. --MASEM (t) 17:57, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional support Forty #1 hits on country radio. Huge sections of unreferenced prose in his article, though.. Teemu08 (talk) 17:59, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support if improved Definitely meets notability requirement, but article needs clean up, more paragraph breaks in certain places, sources, etc. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:12, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I will pitch in where I can. The article needs a lot of work so if you have time to spare, this definitely deserves to go up. - OldManNeptune 18:39, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional support I agree that the article should be at least minorly improved before this is added. ~Lord Laitinen~ (talk) 19:16, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support He is one of the all-time greats of American country music as shown by Kennedy Center honors (very small subset of people get those), Grammy Awards, Country Music Hall of Fame etc. I will try and do my part by sticking in a few citations later and breaking up a couple walls o' text.TheBlinkster (talk) 20:37, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support is welcome but airing this here derails the task at hand. - OldManNeptune 21:40, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Support Obviously notable, and I would improve the article myself, but a certain editor (and admin no less, if you can believe that) has decreed that I don't do that sort of thing, and my vote can be discounted, so I won't bother and you can ignore this vote. (link). Laura Jamieson (talk) 21:16, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Article needs more sourcing especially in his career section and the legacy section is outdated. But he was significant and clearly meets the notability requirements. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:49, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support One of the biggest names in Country history, notable for being a part of the Outlaw Country genre. JanderVK (talk) 02:02, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support notability in no doubt, but several maintenance issues with the article which need to be addressed before this can be posted. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:43, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The only long stretches without citations are in the "Collaborations" and "Legacy" sections, and in an article that is otherwise this complete and in excellent shape I can't convince myself that there's a serious quality issue at this time.128.214.53.18 (talk) 06:52, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The quality of the article is irrelevant because ITN has no significant role as a gatekeeper in such cases. About 450,000 people already read the article yesterday and the topic is clearly in the news. We should simply recognise reality and get on with it. If a few {{cn}} bothers editors then they should fix or remove the content per {{sofixit}}. It doesn't bother me because there are many, many eyes on the article and so any obvious errors would soon be spotted. Andrew D. (talk) 07:00, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Andrew Davidson: Agreed, this aspect of RD (and ITN) has bothered me. Why does an article have to be of notably higher quality than an average Wikipedia article before it gets listed in RD or ITN? The value of news on the front page is its currency and immediacy. It doesn't serve the readers or the public well in delaying the posting of deaths and news happenings when people are actively seeking out WP's content on these matters. That's why I have err'ed on the side of being bold with faster posting of stories. Trust the wiki way and users to make the articles better. -- FuzheadoTalk 14:17, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Content highlighted one WP's front page (ITN, DYK, TFA, etc.) is meant to represent some of WP's best work. So asking for an ITN article that is sourced to policy requirements for a BLP is a minimum. We're not expecting GA/FA quality, and elements like MOS or other various style aspects are far less important, but making sure core content policy aspects are met is an absolute requirement. --MASEM (t) 14:21, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • The purpose of ALL content on the main page is to direct readers to quality Wikipedia content. ITN just covers quality Wikipedia content that recently happened in the real world. DYK covers quality wikipedia content that was newly created. OTD covers quality Wikipedia content on historical events. TFA covers the best Wikipedia content. --Jayron32 12:40, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support A notable musician, at top of his field (country music). Spirit Ethanol (talk) 07:58, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - never heard of him but he is world famous in the U.S I guess. Anyway good article and musical career.BabbaQ (talk) 10:41, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
LOLz §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:29, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - clearly sufficiently notable, even to a non-US non-country-music-lover like me. Article could be improved, but it's currently not so bad that it can't be posted. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:48, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done - Posted -- FuzheadoTalk 14:07, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Fuzheado please either follow the instructions (Usually, orange and red level tags are generally considered major enough to block posting to ITN...) or seek to have them modified so we post items in such states. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:10, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you really think that in the 12 years the Merle Haggard article has been edited (since 2003) that we should hesitate now in putting a front page link to his bio? The values of ITN/RD have really gone off the rails if that's the case. See my earlier comment to @Andrew Davidson: on why this is a disturbing practice. The value of news is its currency and immediacy. It is a real betrayal of our revolutionary roots to sit and wait when we know Wikipedia is such a highly consulted reference. -- FuzheadoTalk 14:23, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, and see my concern, the rules and Masem's response to your comment. If you want to change the way we do things, please start a discussion to do so. In the meantime, please pull the item with three maintenance tags, one of which, disturbingly, indicates this BLP is out of date. Do behave. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:27, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, do note that those pageviews have occurred without the item being on the main page. The main page is a place for us to emphasise quality. If you disagree, please start a mature discussion about it. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:28, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Fuzheado listen, you obviously have a thing for these early postings, I note you posted Zaha Hadid far too soon which was pulled, improved to a basic quality standard, and then re-posted. I think you should probably step back from posting things for a while, or at least appraise yourself of how things work here, or, as suggested, you start a discussion that allows you to post BLPs without paying any real attention to the quality of sourcing. If you need some help with finding the instructions most admins follow here, let me know. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:14, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support but pull - Premature posting based on quality. Consensus was clearly against posting the article in this current state.--WaltCip (talk) 14:38, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • ITN shouldn't be posting articles with orange-level tags. That's the standard the instructions set. If anyone wants to change the instructions so that we can slap up substandard material on the basis of arguments such as it's in the news now / it's getting lots of hits now / he or she was popular / it doesn't matter / it can be improved once it's up then let's have that discussion at WT:ITN and we can then ignore forever all opposes based on article quality or supports conditional on article improvement. Pull, improve, then repost. BencherliteTalk (using his alt account Bencherheavy) 15:50, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article should stay. It has gained a high number of supports and is not substandard. BabbaQ (talk) 15:52, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • The lack of sources in the 2nd half of the article fails BLP/WP:V. Most of the supports above noted issues with article quality. --MASEM (t) 15:57, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pulled it is clearly not of sufficient quality, per many of the notes above. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:47, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment TRM is right to pull this. When I saw this went up I was pleasantly surprised that so much got done overnight, then disappointed that actually a lot of it was just swept under the rug. To those who say quality doesn't matter: thanks, not only did you not help, you minimized the contribution of those who did. - OldManNeptune 17:01, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's good that OldManNeptune is doing this work as all those readers are getting the benefit. I read through the article myself on my commute and, not knowing much about the subject, found it to be a good read. But having Merle Haggard's name on the front page as a RD should not turn on this issue. As an example, I also read an interesting article published by The Guardian: the country music legend's 10 greatest hits. That's a good read too but notice at the end that it says "Due to an editing error, Merle Haggard’s age was misstated as 86. He was 79." So, we see that even professionals can make mistakes but they publish regardless. We should not be trying to pretend that we're perfect. The important thing at ITN is to be reflecting the major news items. To be leaving out such obvious entries is a sin of omission which is an error too. Andrew D. (talk) 17:46, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then feel free to propose changes to the ITN rules. In the meantime, we won't post such items in such condition. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:55, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • ITN's rules are not policy whereas we have actual policies like WP:IAR, WP:NOTLAW and WP:BURO which tell us that formal rules are not as important as commonsense principles like logic and evidence. Merle Haggard was posted, is still posted and the wheel-warring just shows that those rules don't command a consensus. People seem to be trying to apply such rules in a rote way by, for example, demanding one citation per paragraph. That is a poor measure of quality and is not what's wanted by our core policy, WP:V which is that "all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." So, in the case of Merle Haggard, what is it that we should be checking? I would focus on key facts like:
  1. Basic biographical facts like age and date of birth which mainstream sources often get wrong
  2. Controversial issues like Haggard's views on Okie from Muskogee. Was this from the heart or a tongue-in-cheek parody or a commercial pandering to the redneck audience, or what? Haggard seems to have changed his views or modified his story over the years and so getting the balance of this right isn't easy and would require good sources.
  3. There are long lists of awards and hits in the article but still no inline citations for any of this. Some editors like Kww are very insistent on the need for good citations in such cases.
  • Just in case this discussion goes any further, there IS an inline citation for his "hits"; I added one cite yesterday when we were working on the article to his artist page at song://database which is the most comprehensive online source for what records made chart positions. If you go to his page there you can see every song he ever did that made the US charts in table form. As for his views on "Okie from Muskogee", I also added about 5 cites for that, to the best sources I could find which includes an article specifically focusing on all of his different views about "Okie" over the years and at least 1-2 books analyzing his position on the song, and I did some rewriting in the section as well to fit with the sources I found. While I don't think the article is GA level since it obviously had to be done in a hurry, when I work on these articles I do not just throw a cite in there every couple of lines to make it look like one is present. I do put thought into it. I don't really have a dog in this fight policy-argument-wise, but if you are going to make arguments about articles into which I put effort then please don't misrepresent them for the sake of your argument. As OldManNeptune said, that is not really fair to people who choose to make an effort to help the article. TheBlinkster (talk) 18:49, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • TheBlinkster your efforts are admirable and please don't take anything Andrew Davidson to heart, he doesn't really understand what we do here, nor does he make much of an effort to do so other than to sink every discussion in links to policy etc which suit his POV. The good news is that we're managing very well without his input and actually, in a lot of cases, better. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:23, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, another 400,000 people read the article yesterday so it's still very busy. The article is still being edited and there's plenty more to do as it has not passed a significant quality threshold like GA. It's graded B-class by a couple of projects while the other RD, Cesare Maldini, is graded start class. This indicates that we have weak and inconsistent measures of quality and so, if we're going to talk about quality, we need better measures. Andrew D. (talk) 08:08, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It got those hits before it was on ITN. We do have a clear definition of quality, read the rules. Just because some errant admins choose to ignore them, it doesn't make it right. Feel free to start a centralised discussion about posting articles with maintenance tags and obvious BLP violations, I look forward to seeing your proposal, instead of all the ad hoc criticisms of how ITN and its rules are implemented. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:15, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Today, I have been trying out the new mobile app created by the WMF for Wikipedia on the iPhone. It's interesting to note that, unlike the Android app, this doesn't list the ITN entries. Instead, it has a different section of Top read on English Wikipedia. This currently lists:
  1. The Adventures of Tintin
  2. Ravi Shankar
  3. Rogue One
  4. Merle Haggard
  5. Panama Papers
That's a reasonable way of presenting hot topics, just like what's trending on Twitter or the top stories on BBC News, and Merle Haggard does well in this view. ITN is becoming redundant... Andrew D. (talk) 10:31, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. More than sufficient quality to be featured on the front page. Gamaliel (talk) 17:40, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment OldManNeptune, I and some others have added lots of cites last night and today. Is it looking better to post now? TheBlinkster (talk) 19:53, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    It's already been re-posted. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:56, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are still some things I will want to work on later but for now I'm happy that it's at least presentable. - OldManNeptune 20:09, 7 April 2016 (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.

[Posted] Pfizer & Allergan merger called off

Articles:Pfizer (talk · history · tag) and Allergan (talk · history · tag)
Blurb:The merger of Pfizer and Allergan is called off. (Post)
Alternative blurb:Pfizer and Allergan renege a planned $160 billion merger in response to proposed U.S. Treasury tax inversion regulations.
Alternative blurb II:New U.S. tax rule prompts Pfizer and Allergan to cancel $160 billion merger that would have moved firm's headquarters to Ireland.
News source(s):Reuters
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Previously posted on ITN. Abductive (reasoning) 14:32, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - If we post proposed mergers, it follows that we should also post the cancellations or suspensions of said mergers.--WaltCip (talk) 14:38, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed it's almost like a correction, and a big one at that. I believe we posted this merger in November last year so we really should post the "unmerger", makes perfect sense. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:41, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Support – Significant political-financial event, as the deal would have allowed Pfizer to avoid $1 billion in U.S. taxes by domiciling in Ireland. Sca (talk) 15:25, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, but only because the merger was posted. Other abandonments of mergers should be assessed on their individual merits. Mjroots (talk) 15:18, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, per Mjroots and WaltCip. If the announcement of a planned merger/buyout/restructuring is important enough to post at ITN, the failure of that to go through for any reason should also be ITN. --MASEM (t) 15:22, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
PS — Altblurb2 offered above. (Although "inversion" is the correct term, I believe the word is generally understood in relation to weather phenomena.) Sca (talk) 15:33, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done - Posted -- Fuzheado Talk 19:50, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pull it was a disgrace this planned merger was ever posted in the first place. μηδείς (talk) 18:42, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Calm down. The only thing this really does teach us is to be judicious and cautious when promoting stories about mergers, in particular their wordings. No need to drop down to "disgusted of Tunbridge Wells" level about the whole thing, really. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:36, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't be so silly, TRM, we all know that it is you who suffers terminal hysteria, and I opposed this when it was nominated on the very rational grounds that regulators obviously would not approve it. If you want, we can go back to the IBAN I requested, and that I charitably withdrew at your request. μηδείς (talk) 20:55, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the problem here. We need to be cautious as TRM states but the cancellation was just as newsworthy as the announcement. Not posting announcements was a defacto ban on most business stories here and it is good that we get some. 331dot (talk) 20:59, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever Medeis, I don't recall being "disgusted" by stories like this, take it however you find it. If you're feeling so inclined, get the IBAN reinstated as soon as you like, no skin off my nose, particularly given some recent contributions. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:08, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is you, not I, TRM, who use the word "disgusted", (twice), above. I have no notion of how to respond to, nor any desire to respond to such insanity. μηδείς (talk) 00:54, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Get over it, and stop waving the IBAN in my face every time you read something you don't like that I've written. By all means seek its reinstatement, as I've said there's very little need for us to interact in any shape or form as your contributions demonstrate. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:50, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

April 5

Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and economics
Health and medicine
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Sports
Transportation

[Posted merged blurbs] Resignation of Iceland's Prime Minister

Proposed image
Article: Sigmundur Davíð Gunnlaugsson (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Iceland's Prime Minister Sigmundur Davíð Gunnlaugsson resigns after the controversy over the released Panama Papers. (Post)
Credits:

Article updated

--BabbaQ (talk) 16:18, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Major news. Should this be merged into the Panama Papers blurb though? Otherwise we'd have two PP entries. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:22, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Major fallout from the papers. I think it should be merged into the blurb, thereby bumping it to the top. Article quality looks good. Mamyles (talk) 16:27, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, although it might be good to merge this into the blurb as well. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:31, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - merged blurb probably better than two separate blurbs. Mjroots (talk) 16:37, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted merged blurb The story seems self evidently major enough (resignations of heads of government are normally covered here) and the article is of sufficient quality. Consensus was for merged blurb. Will also post picture shortly. --Jayron32 16:53, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENT Did he actually resign? I keep seeing things that say he's only temporarily stepped away and hasn't resigned his position. This is also the case for his wikipedia page.Correctron (talk) 02:21, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Temporarily changed the blurb to "steps down" until situation is clearer. Looks like some sources are saying he's having second thoughts, different sources are still saying "resigned". Hoefully it will all become clearer in the morning. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:35, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Heard right now on the BBC that he has handed his powers to his deputy indefinitely (or at least until next election). Popular demand may move said election sooner than planned. '''tAD''' (talk) 08:58, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sources such as this say that he has already asked the president to dissolve parliament and call early elections. I'm not exactly clear on Iceland's constitution, but I think from there the actual issuing of writs (or whatever it's called there) is a formality.Or maybe not, on further reading - his coalition partners are resisting calls for early elections, as are parts of his own party. GoldenRing (talk) 09:58, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The BBC says he's resigned. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:10, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

April 4

Armed conflicts
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
Health and medicine
  • Mexico City authorities declare a pollution alert after smog rose to 1.5 times acceptable limits the day before implementation of the City's new, temporary air quality program that will keep one-fifth of the city's cars at home every weekday. (AP)
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Sport

[Closed] Erik Bauersfeld

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: Erik Bauersfeld (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC News
Credits:

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: Voice actor, Admiral Ackbar. No, it's not a trap. Guy(Help!) 09:12, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose. Skimming the article, I don't see how he meets any of the RD criteria; he doesn't seem particularly important to his field. 331dot (talk) 09:15, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose not sufficiently notable for RD. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:25, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Sadly, he's well-remembered for just a single role - despite his years, he doesn't have the accolades or influence that merits a listing on RD. Challenger l (talk) 09:53, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Fails to meet the threshold for importance for RD. --MASEM (t) 14:37, 5 April 2016 (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.

[Posted] NCAA basketball tournament

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

Nominator's comments: Strong support - The last two years the NCAA tournament has passed ITN/C with strong consensus on the basis of an argument about judging sports by their cultural impact rather than the judgement of editors about whether an event is high enough quality. To summarize the argument:
The only true significance any sport has is that which people assign to it. In the United States, the NCAA tournament is the third most watched sporting event - ahead of the NBA finals and about a dozen other US events ITN posts. It terms of cultural impact, only the Super Bowl is obviously ahead of the tournament; it's impact is equal to great than other major "cultural events" such as the Kentucky Derby or Boston Marathon, and is clearly greater than things like the US Open (golf or tennis) and even the "major" professional team sports. (By cultural impact I mean, is talked about/followed by people who rarely watch the sport or even sports in general.) We should strive to post the sporting events of the greatest cultural impact, not necessarily the "highest level" competitions (although often the two are the same). That is what the NCAA tournament is - an event of huge cultural significance. I realize America's interest in University-level sports is strange to most non-Americans, but I kindly ask you to try to see things from our prospective (and if you must complain about US-bias in sports, I suggest targeting a competition of much less importance to America than NCAA basketball.)

Additionally, this year's tournament has been especially notable featuring the largest end of game comeback in NCAA history (not just tournament history, but actually including the regular season too), the most first round upsets ever, a half-court buzzer beater that will surely be remembered as one of the greatest shots for a very long time – all the things people love about the tournament – as well as several record breaking performance. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:05, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. The game itself was absolutely sensational. It will almost certainly go down as one the greatest NCAA Tournament Finals in history. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:23, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Linked article has not even been updated for tense. Woefully in adequate at this time. If there were a full game summary, this could go on the main page. We can't post an article about a completed event written in the future tense with no summary of the event we're directing readers to. --Jayron32 02:19, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • We often see sports items nominated while the competition is ongoing. Of course the article shouldn't be posted until it's updated. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:33, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't worry, article quality won't be an issue. Just need to wait for the RS coverage to come out when the game ends in 30-45 minutes first. :) --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:35, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Jayron32: Work is ongoing, but the article is now well updated. Let me know if you have any specific requests for improvements, however. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:24, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Change to Support Article has much improved. Good job for those who cleaned it up. Well done indeed. --Jayron32 11:45, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support when completed and updated. This is a major, major, major event in the United States every year. I strongly urge those who claim it's only an "amateur" tournament to look through past year debates and try to understand the importance of "March Madness". The tourney was not posted in 2012 or 2013, but was posted in 2014 and 2015. I don't think I can stress the importance of this event any better now than I or others did in these past years. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:33, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It was also posted in 2010 & 2011, so 4/6 years since ITN took its current format, for the record. (Prior to 2010, people just suggested things and an admin posted/didn't post without any real discussion.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:37, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah very good, I didn't see the 2010 and 2011 discussions when I looked. I think that if we go 5-for-7 a new ITN/R proposal would be in order. (It failed when proposed in 2014.) – Muboshgu (talk) 02:44, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose sorry about this but oppose for the same reason as I opposed the Boat Race. Not top level competition, exclusive to certain subset of people only, etc. With that said I feel like there's something here that can be clarified, and mean to start a discussion on ITN's talk page. Banedon (talk) 02:43, 5 April 2016 (UTC) Neutral - on the one hand, I feel this should not be posted for the same reason The Boat Race should not be posted (not top level competition, exclusive to certain subset of competitors only, etc). On the other hand, if we're going to have The Boat Race on ITNR, then because the arguments for and against posting this are so similar to that for The Boat Race, it feels like opposing this is opposing an ITNR item on merit. For consistency's sake I favour a discussion on whether to include this on ITNR. If that turns out to be "no", I oppose this nomination; if it turns out "yes" instead then I support. Banedon (talk) 03:44, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Boat Race is on ITN/R and has twice been retained on the list following challenges, so there is clearly consensus that "top level" isn't a requirement. The definition of what constitutes "top level" is also pretty arbitrary - something like Premier League is a "lower level" of football than the World Cup, but it would be absurd to leave it off ITN for that reason. OTOH, the NCAA uses different rules than the NBA which itself uses different rules than European basketball. These different rules lead to different styles of play, so in some sense each of the "top level" of its style of basketball. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:52, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's the weird thing. If The Boat Race is on ITNR, why isn't this also on ITNR? The arguments for keeping The Boat Race on ITNR are eerily similar to the arguments for featuring this. Just consider them: both events are not top level. Both involve only students from certain universities. Both receive widespread national coverage. Both bring about an annual controversy on ITN. And so on ... the more I think about it, the more I feel that instead of starting a discussion on ITN's talk page, I'm simply going to nominate this for ITNR and see what happens. Banedon (talk) 02:56, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The two were actually proposed at the same time. The level of support (roughly 2:1) was similar for both, but the NCAA was much more heated. The closing admin decided Boat Race had just enough and NCAA basketball was a little short. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:00, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done [19]. I may have broken protocol a bit because I've after all nominated an item I don't believe in on a personal level. However I also value consistency: if we say A, we also ought to say B. Banedon (talk) 03:11, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Let's forget that this is an amateur collegiate event. Let's forget that this is a national sport that is not even the highest level of its kind. Let's forget its lack of tradition and historical significance as compared to other events with which it is frequently compared, such as the Boat Race. Now, with those points aside, we need to draw attention to the issue of systemic bias that pervades ITN, and as was discussed on the talk page. Equivalent events to this may go unnoticed in other countries if only due to the fact that this event is occurring in the United States. In order to fully mature as a truly global encyclopedia, we need to look past events like this when deciding which articles to showcase and improve for the ITN "ticker". Obviously it would be a gargantuan effort to attempt to showcase every collegiate sport worldwide, so it would be in our best interests to exercise discretion in this case. So although this has been posted for two years in a row, the current climate and consensus at ITN demands that this trend not continue.--WaltCip (talk) 02:51, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The counter to systematic bias is not to exclude notable content becomes it comes from a favored region, but rather to work to promote notable content from other areas (which I myself have often done in the past.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:54, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Something else to consider then is the "one-and-done" aspect of NCAA basketball. If it were not for restrictions set forth by the NCAA, basketball players from high school would jump directly from their graduating class into the NBA as a professional player. The arbitrary restriction requires that prospective players attend college for at least one year (hence "one-and-done") prior to their transition. So considering this, it's hard to argue that this is a "top-level" event, even in its own form of basketball, considering that it is an arbitrarily placed buffer.--WaltCip (talk) 03:02, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't necessary to argue that this is a "top-level" event. It's a major sporting event every single year, reaching the noteworthiness needed for ITN. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:22, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Am I reading this right, Walt? We may post a competition between two English universities renowned for being among the very stuffiest in the galaxy, but not a tournament of public universities in a much younger nation in a sport played (at this level) disproportionately by minorities, because to do otherwise would be biased? To quote you yourself, I think your objection is "only due to the fact that this event is occurring in the United States" rather than on any well-reasoned foundation. - OldManNeptune 04:24, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • We don't have to post "every collegiate event" because most collegiate events are not especially notable for various reasons (the US is, for instance, fairly unique in having university sports scholarships as a key part of the sporting system, which means that college sports teams are made up of professional-quality players). The only newspaper I can find that mentioned Hartpury College winning the 2015 BUSC National Championship - the highest UK university football trophy - is the uni's local paper. In fact, I can't even tell if the 2016 final has happened yet or not - that's how little the British media care about uni level sports. I don't think it's any kind of bias to recognize that the US sporting hierarchy is unique in this respect. Smurrayinchester 11:32, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's important that we recognize that it is not ITN's job to emulate news sources, and it has never been its job (as you can see by my facetious April 1st nomination, just because something is receiving news coverage, that does not mean it is newsworthy). That other university top-level sports are not receiving equitable coverage is a reflection on the media's "business decisions" in reporting more than it is a reflection on the event itself or whether it is fitting for recognition on ITN.--WaltCip (talk) 15:40, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support - I support posting this every year as long as the article is updated and in good condition, but how this game played out I think makes it more worthy to include in ITN. Andise1 (talk) 03:51, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quick, let's hurry up and get this posted before Europe wakes up! --Bongwarrior (talk) 05:29, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • SUPPORT - Important cultural event. Let's get this up before TRM crawls out from under his rock. Correctron (talk) 05:32, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Come on, that's uncalled for. --Bongwarrior (talk) 05:38, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And rather inaccurate too. According to wikt:ramble, he either lives on a bed of shale over the seam of coal or a section of woodland. Jolly Ω Janner 05:48, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, The Rambling Man has been fine with its posting in previous years. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:59, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's fine, folks. Correctron is trolling you all. As my mother would have said, if you have nothing good to say, say nothing. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:11, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
While I do find it somewhat odd that TRM would reply in such a manner, it is nice to see he can take a jab and be a good sport.Correctron (talk) 06:21, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support article is in decent shape. While I do not know of the event myself, it is covered by reliable sources and I'm willing to believe the nominator when they describe its importance in the US. Opposing events because they are only important within one country is a rather unworkable arrangement. Jolly Ω Janner 05:48, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support I was somewhat surprised to see that last year's article (according to this at least) only garnered a handful of pageviews (about the same as an above-average DYK) and far fewer than the much maligned Boat Race. Still, it's somewhat popular amongst Wikipedia editors, the article is in very good condition and we could use a news update. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:29, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just an FYI, the main tournament article (as opposed to the championship game one) is what garners most of the views (874k in the last 30 days), see [20]. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:25, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest possible oppose Jeez not this again? Not the highest level, we do not post. Easy as. (And no, we shouldn't post the Boat Race either) Fgf10 (talk) 07:11, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Even though our readers disagree with you...? If we're not here to serve them, what are we here to do? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:29, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Does that mean college football will receive your support?Correctron (talk) 08:52, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If he's opposing for that reason, probably not. Banedon (talk) 11:38, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Or course it won't. Fgf10 (talk) 14:32, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This is the highest level of college basketball, which receives a great amount of attention. There is no requirement that we only post the "highest level" of something; often "lower" levels get more attention. (This isn't even really "lower", just different) Even if we don't post this every year, this particular year seems notable given the nature of the victory(win at the last second) and is already being called "the best title game ever" [21] When the team the President of the United States picks to win makes the news, there is clearly some level of importance beyond other events. 331dot (talk) 08:37, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - This is one of the highest level competitions in the sport - let's not unduly privilege professional league play. And as the Boat Race reminds us, collegiate competitions can definitely be of outstanding significance, both within the sport itself and culturally. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:55, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Even as someone outside North America who doesn't follow the American sports at all, I'm aware that college level is a big part of the US sporting culture, and this - plus the Rose Bowl Game - are worthy of posting. We should probably take this to ITN/R to avoid rehashing this debate every time it comes up. Smurrayinchester 11:07, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(As an aside, I think some people complaining that this is not the highest level don't know how US sport leagues are arranged. There is no general system of promotion and relegation between divisions like there is in most European countries - the leagues are private companies who sell positions on a franchise basis to the highest bidder. Sometimes there is a clear monetary difference between leagues (such as between Major League Baseball and Minor League Baseball) which cements one as able to able to afford the best players, but in this case, the NCAA and NBA are pretty much parallel - they each draw the best players from their respective pools.) Smurrayinchester 11:15, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thinking in terms of, if a team of aliens lands in the US tomorrow and challenge the US population to a game of basketball, a team from which league is more likely to be chosen to play? The two leagues may each draw the best players from their respective pools, but that's not really relevant. If the best team from the NCAA plays against the best team from the NBA, it's pretty clear who will win. Banedon (talk) 11:38, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the answer there is clearly the Harlem Globetrotters. Either that, or mutant atomic supermen.Smurrayinchester 12:18, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Or animated characters and Michael Jordan). --MASEM (t) 13:58, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No equivalent event from a country any other than the US would have had any chance in hell of being posted. Fgf10 (talk) 15:27, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This seems like a fundamental misunderstanding of what we're trying to do here. We don't expect the Norwegian wikipedia to give the results of the Superbowl in their version of ITN, even though they probably (I'm guessing here) have an item of the champion of their 1st division football league. That isn't systematic bias on their part, it's providing links to quality articles on current events that are of interest to their readers. The mission statement of ITN.
Systematic bias is an actual problem; trying to use it to complain about the posting of the NCAA bball tournament does a disservice to the cause of reducing it, because people who are not already on board will tend to associate the idea of "systematic bias" with "weird thing I probably don't need to listen to", and are more likely to ignore it when it is actually applicable. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:52, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Plus the Boat Race has been posted for the past two or three years. That's not a US event. If you're going to complain, at least base it in fact. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:06, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting Oppose. Neither this nor the Boat Race should have been posted. Neither are important outside their own countries, and neither are the top level of their sport. Laura Jamieson (talk) 18:18, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
From above: "Please do not oppose an item because the event is 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." And the "top level" argument is not accurate as discussed above and in past years. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:45, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And please accept that our readers and their opinions on what to read are far more important than your own view of how we do things. In actuality, The Boat Race has millions of viewers outside its own country. But why let a fact get in the way of a good old-fashioned whinging story? P.S. Where does it say that "top level of their sport" is one of the ITN criteria? Perhaps I missed that in the last ten years of editing here. Perhaps you "don't like it". The Rambling Man (talk) 19:39, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Fgf10: I would be happy to support an "equivalent event" if it is truly demonstrated to be equivalent, in terms of cultural impact, viewership, etc. The way to fight systemic bias is to work to post stories from other places, not to artificially restrict stories from being posted. 331dot (talk) 19:44, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's pretty clear that users like Fgf10 and LauraJamieson prefer to see stories in the ITN section that are seven, eight, nine days old and try to prevent stories which are in the news and which are popular with our readers being posted. It's a curious point of view but not surprising from such users I suppose. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:47, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's the lazy way out of the problem of systemic bias. The fact of systemic bias is real. The ratio of articles posted from certain countries (mostly the largest anglophone countries) is higher than the ratio of stories coming from other countries. There are two possible solutions to this problem, and BOTH raise the ratio of stories coming from underrepresented topics 1) is to improve articles on topics which are underrepresented and 2) is to tear down articles on topics which are overrepresented. The desire to fight systemic bias is not a problem. The problem is that the solution from Fgf10 et al. is that the primary way they want to achieve this is option 2) tearing down work (through denigration, belittlement, and scorn) rather than option 1), which would actually result in more articles in the encyclopedia getting better. Just to pull a random, non-anglophone sport out of the air, we don't usually post the results of major badminton championships, but only because they are in the state of 2015 BWF World Championships, which is clearly not main page worthy. If we posted badminton as well as basketball, the systemic bias would be negated by being more inclusive, and everybody wins. The solution that involves tearing down the work of people who improve basketball articles is not desirable. Instead, find other sports whose articles need improving, make those main page worthy, and we'll post those! But no, that would be too much like right. --Jayron32 20:20, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well yes, users like Fgf10 and LauraJamieson don't actually improve articles, they just criticise things they don't like. That's a pretty easy gig, and perhaps it's now more obvious to them why their "votes" are discounted. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:30, 5 April 2016 (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.

April 3

Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and economics
Disasters and accidents
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Science and technology
  • The Associated Press reports a government-sponsored committee of 27 companies/trade associations, set up by the U.S. FAA in February, on Friday submitted recommendations that could clear the way for commercial drone flights over populated areas, and help speed the introduction of package delivery drones. (AP)
Sport

[Closed] RD: Lars Gustafsson

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:Lars Gustafsson (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s):Tagesspiegel, Svenska Dagbladet
Credits:

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: Unfortunately, this kind of slipped through my fingers three days ago. Now it will probably not be enough time to fix the article up enough in time. He is certainly notable, won a number of prizes, but the article is in fairly bad shape. But if someone is willing to work through it, it could be worth it... Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:54, 6 April 2016 (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.

[Reposted] RD: Joe Medicine Crow

Article:Joe Medicine Crow (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s):Washington Post, Global News, BBC, Daily Mail, Al Jazeera
Credits:

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: Last war chief of the Crow tribe, Presidential Medal of Freedom recipient, author and proponent of Native American history and culture, dead at 102. OldManNeptune 23:18, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support As nominator. Probably not a reliable source, but he's also a certified badass. - OldManNeptune 23:38, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • PS - I'm actively updating this to source all the claims and update language, and expand where I learn something interesting - I think the claims already there are more than enough to support RD notability. If you find fault in the article, please tell me what specifically you want to see done to make it RD worthy if you don't care to do it yourself. - OldManNeptune 00:09, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on the merits; seems important as a historian and as a leader of his tribe. 331dot (talk) 23:56, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and article appears to be in good shape for posting. --MASEM (t) 00:18, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Appears to be a vital historian and played a role in the importance of his tribe. Received the nation's highest civilian honor. Article in good shape. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:29, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Is "historian of minor Native American tribe" now a category that ITN concerns itself with? In the past we've had leaders of medium-sized countries not posted on notability grounds, I fail to see how "unofficial leader of 13,000 people" is notable enough for RD. So nowhere near meeting WP:ITN/DC IMHO, but could be taken up to GA status and posted to DYK. IgnorantArmies (talk) 05:34, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I think the previous comments misses the fundamental point. The man was awarded the Bronze Star Medal, the Legion of Honour and the Presidential Medal of Freedom. If that doesn't confer notability, I don't know what does. Article could use tidying up, particularly references, but otherwise this is ok. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:55, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Article is just about good enough. I highlighted a couple of facts that ought to be cited, but even ITN gives a little bit of leeway. Easily passes recent death notability per coverage in multiple major news sources. Jolly Ω Janner 07:20, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Outstandingly notable in three fields - indigenous community leadership, native history, and warfare - and still at the top of the first two at the time of death. AlexTiefling (talk) 07:59, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posting to RD. --Tone 09:36, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • pull temporarily. I was just about to mark this as not ready as there are still two explicitly marked statements requiring citations, the second of which (his thesis being the most widely cited about its subject) is a significant one. I fully support notability for RD but the posting is premature. Thryduulf (talk) 10:01, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Right, I commented out those two sentences. Should be ok now, when refs appear, we just uncomment them. --Tone 10:06, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I appreciate your wanting to allow the article to stay on the mainpage, but if the two sentences are commented out, how will anyone (other than the handful of editors who read here) know that they are there and require referencing? Frankly, I'd rather have the sentences still visible with the c/n tags, so that people will continue sourcing them even as the article is mainpaged, in the absence of any genuine controversy or dispute. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:43, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • The sentence that made the most fuss ("most widely cited") is a lost cause, I've been attempting to source it but it's now a recursive problem where other sites quoted our line so searches bring up copy/paste of this article prior to recent updates. The current wording is good enough though. - OldManNeptune 22:34, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you To everyone who contributed. I knew there was a little work to be done when I fell asleep last night, had hoped the article would not be crucified for it but I'm delighted that it was polished in my absence. - OldManNeptune 14:18, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Olivier Awards

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:2016 Laurence Olivier Awards (talk · history · tag)
Blurb:Hangmen wins best play and Kinky Boots wins best musical at the Olivier Awards. (Post)
News source(s):BBC News, The Guardian, The Independent
Credits:

Article needs updating
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Nominator's comments: I don't think these awards have ever been posted here but it's on ITN/R (consensus held from Dec 2015). There's a first time for anything if anyone cares to add prose to this. Fuebaey (talk) 22:29, 3 April 2016 (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.

[Posted] Panama Papers

Article:Panama Papers (talk · history · tag)
Blurb:A leak of internal documents from the law firm Mossack Fonseca reveals how hundreds of thousands of rich people hid their wealth in tax havens. (Post)
Alternative blurb:A leak of internal documents from the law firm Mossack Fonseca shows how major public officials hid undisclosed wealth in tax havens.
Alternative blurb II:The Panama Papers, a leak of legal documents, reveals the undisclosed wealth of multiple major heads of state.
Alternative blurb III:A leak of legal documents shows multiple heads of state as holding undisclosed, offshore assets.
News source(s):The Guardian, BBC News, Fusion, Suddeutsche Zeitung
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Article is developing—the embargo was just lifted so a hundred news outlets are releasing their first reports. My first ITN nom, if you could help with the details. czar 18:30, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support But article still needs to be improved. Biggest leak ever. A lot of famous people targeted in many countries all around the world so the worldwide interest is definitely present. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.162.66.50 (talkcontribs) 19:17, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It is crucial that this information gets into the top page.--Catlemur (talk) 19:59, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why? 331dot (talk) 20:05, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I find your failure to understand the importance of this event amusing.--Catlemur (talk) 20:45, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I never said that I didn't; Why is this event any more crucial than any other to post? "Crucial" suggests some special urgency to post. 331dot (talk) 20:47, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Crucial means important, in my humble opinion this is a very important event.--Catlemur (talk) 20:53, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Huge issue that will remain in the news for quite some time for its impact on a number of well-known personalities including government officials worldwide. Being discussed in German's No. 1 political talkshow right now, it's featured at BBC, Guardian, Washington Post, some Indian newspapers, amongst others. Article is still quite basic but based on reliable, and may be expected to quickly evolve. --PanchoS (talk) 20:51, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose article is a mess. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:00, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still quite basic, yes. Quickly evolving, also true. But I fail to see how it would remotely be "a mess"… --PanchoS (talk) 21:14, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • When I read it, it said crap like "Data processing More.." That's a mess and something we don't even consider posting to the main page. I look forward to the article being properly formatted and then subjected to review before being posted hastily and erroneously to the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:19, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: Article seems like a BLP nightmare (at least as written currently, and probably by its very nature), which is not a good thing to link to on the main page, even if the BLP problems aren't actually mentioned on the main page. Are all these people being "named" or "implicated" or in the "accusations were made" paragraph in the article actually shown to have specifically done something wrong? Because that's what's strongly being implied. Article would need significant change in approach before I could support. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:20, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose this nomination is based on a rather strong POV, but an otherwise rather small story. If there are significant convictions or people are removed from office we can revisit this. μηδείς (talk) 21:24, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What POV? Do you expect a corrupt politician to jail himself and his associates?--Catlemur (talk) 21:31, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well it's moot at this point, but "thousands of rich people hid their wealth in tax havens" is missing only the word evil to show the editor's opinion explicitly. The burb as posted is fine. μηδείς (talk) 15:25, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Major lead and decent article. I wouldn't say "hid". That may be the case, but the more neutral would be "channeled". L.tak (talk) 21:46, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - The blurbs are atrociously written, and the article has a lot of improvement yet to do.--WaltCip (talk) 22:07, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – It's gonna take a while to thresh the wheat from the chaff. Sca (talk) 22:18, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - the article is messy because the story is still developing, it's a volatile issue, and it will take time to gain some perspective on this fluid situation. In my opinion (because for me this story involves issues of privacy & freedom, money & power and reputations are, potentially, at stake here) an important part of this story will not be the facts involved but rather the public's reaction to the story, ie., "who's side are you on?" Or "what's your opinion?"; by posting so soon on the main page, it's like we are more inclined toward making the news rather than just passing it along, and we are deciding prematurely that this is newsworthy before the public weighs in, via social media, etc.. It's not our job to "get out in front" of the story. But I must say the article is improving. If it continues to make improvements over the coming days, I will be inclined to change my vote to support. Christian Roess (talk) 22:27, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hold. I think this is fine. Let's put the nomination on hold until the article is improved. Feel free to propose alternate blurbs, but I was just going off of the major news headlines. czar 22:42, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: major news of worldwide relevance. Biggest document leak ever. The article is more than a stub, and while it names people, that's currently all it does: lists people who are named in the leaked documents, giving sources, without claiming anything about those people, at this point. LjL (talk) 22:52, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: all over the news. plenty of reliable sources. BabbaQ (talk) 22:57, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article has a large list of people who are "named" in the report, yet we don't have any information on these people other than that. At best, the article is a sprawling list that has been poorly written and at worst is outright slander. There's no chance of it being on the Main Page until this is resolved. I raised the issue on the talk page of the article if anyone wishes to help. Jolly Ω Janner 23:25, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support once the article improves. It's a really important story, but the article needs work yet. -- Irn (talk) 23:30, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment No opinion on whether this should be on the front page, but alternative blurb II is the only option which is grammatically correct. Nick-D (talk) 01:54, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The article is a bit sparse now but is not the "mess" described earlier. Dismas (talk) 01:59, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Major news breaking on a Sunday night? Story is growing, the article is in decent shape; it needs work yes but its postable now. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:00, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support once the article is ready. Nergaal (talk) 04:09, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - alt blurb 3. Banedon (talk) 04:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - alt blurb 1, quite notable and would be in the news for some time Sherenk1 (talk) 05:38, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted. Article seemed to be well written at this point in time. I went with a mix of altblurb 2 and 3, but removing the "heads of state" angle since that seemed to me to place undue weight on that aspect of what is a very broad leak. Thue (talk) 09:36, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] 2016 Amtrak derailment

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:2016 Chester, Pennsylvania train derailment (talk · history · tag)
Blurb:An Amtrak passenger train collides with a backhoe and derails near Chester, Pennsylvania, causing two deaths. (Post)
News source(s):NYTimes, BBC
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Granted, if someone else nominated this one, I would be on the fence about ITN, but it is 1) an occupied passenger train derailment (with 341 ppl aboard), and 2) had some deaths involved. However, the deaths were from crew on the ground that were manning the backhoe; no one on the train itself was killed at the scene though there are injuries. I feel that this might not be supported given how limited the death toll was, but you never know unless you try. MASEM (t) 16:58, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose trivial industrial accident. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:50, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose; relatively minor accident. It also already seems apparent why it happened (it hit a backhoe that was on/near the track). The two dead (so far) were not passengers but crew. 331dot (talk) 18:35, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I ride this route all the time and this is rather minor so far as fatal accidents go. If it is found the incident was sabotage I'll reconsider. μηδείς (talk) 19:15, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Unlike the Bad Aibling rail accident in February which we featured in the news, this is a tragic work accident, rather than a major national scandal. --PanchoS (talk) 20:59, 3 April 2016 (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.

[Posted] RD: Cesare Maldini

Article:Cesare Maldini (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s):BBC, Daily Mail, The Telegraph, The Guardian
Credits:

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: Cesare Maldini was one of the greatest defenders of his generation, winning four titles in the Serie A and one European Cup with A.C. Milan. He has also had success as coach, leading the Italy U-21 team to win three consecutive titles at the European Under 21 Football Championship and the Paraguay national football team to reach the knockout stage of the 2002 FIFA World Cup. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:10, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Death section needs some fixing, including cause, but otherwise looks ok. Brandmeistertalk 17:18, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Article looks good, notability is clearly there. Zwerg Nase (talk) 17:21, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - notable person. article is good.BabbaQ (talk) 17:36, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support clearly passes the RD bar and article is decent. Ready to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:50, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted so sue me. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:55, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Cricket World Twenty20

Articles:2016 ICC World Twenty20 (talk · history · tag) and 2016 ICC Women's World Twenty20 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb:In cricket, the West Indies win both the ICC World Twenty20 and ICC Women's World Twenty20. (Post)
Alternative blurb:In cricket, the West Indies win the women's tournament while the West Indies win the men's tournament.
Alternative blurb II:In cricket, the West Indies win the ICC World Twenty20, while the West Indies win the ICC Women's World Twenty20.
Alternative blurb III:In cricket, the West Indies win the ICC World Twenty20, after beating England in the Final (player of the tournament Virat Kohli pictured).
News source(s):BBC Sport, The Guardian
Credits:

Article updated
One or both nominated events are listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

Lihaas (talk) 12:19, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose First of all, I amended the header, cause I needed to look into the article to actually know what sport you're talking about. Also added an altblurb. As for the article: The tournament article is OK, but we are talking about the final here, and that article needs serious work. Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:25, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, what kind of a sport is it where the West Indies win a World Cup and a joint team by them and England is allowed? Totally bogus in my opinion. The commomwealth is seriously messed up... Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:27, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh wait, now I get it, they didn't play yet. Oops. Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:30, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Women's is done, and looks like Windies will take both. 2 wickets down in 2 overs and Roy out quacking...
We're one great nation in the commonwealth anyways...Sibling rivaly. ;)Lihaas (talk) 13:45, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/support. This tournament may be a world cup, but it isn't the World Cup, so I've changed the header accordingly. I've also added a second altblurb that actually gives the proper name(s) of the tournament(s). A change in wording would be required if the West Indies win both, but that seems unlikely at this point. Because we are listing two results, it doesn't seem feasible to link the finals, so the requirement for an update should focus on the main article. (This of course does not mean that the article on the final shouldn't be updated too). IgnorantArmies (talk) 16:22, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if we're not linking the finals, there should be a tournament summary for each article. All there is at the moment are match stats. Fuebaey (talk) 17:45, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed blurb. Not quite as one-sided as expected. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:46, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support (assuming articles up to snuff - link to tournament if the final isn't good enough) - this is one of the major international tournaments, along with the ODI world cup and the Ashes, I think it might even be one of the "standard" list of sporting events. A good dramatic match as well. — Amakuru (talk) 19:56, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the finals need to be linked and they need to have referenced paragraphs. Right now it's not the case. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:02, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support original blurb, which succinctly covers both tournaments. The women's tournament was posted last time and it has only got more coverage since then. Neljack (talk) 21:05, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Only neither linked article features any prose about the finals, the men's has some prose in its own final article while the women's has just a at-a-glance scorecard and no prose. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:10, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I've updated the sections on the finals in both of the main articles, so I'd suggest this is ready to post. I think the original blurb is most suitable, but I've altered it slightly to give the name of the tournament. IgnorantArmies (talk) 05:11, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Third Alt Blurb 3 since it mentions the finals Sherenk1 (talk) 05:36, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I seem to have conflicted with with IgnorantArmies somewhat and have instead updated/created the two "Final" articles (2016 ICC Womens World Twenty20 Final and 2016 ICC World Twenty20 Final). Either way I think this is ready to post. I also agree that the original blurb is best. AIRcorn (talk) 06:10, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support both. Articles are in much better shape than yesterday. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 06:58, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted cricket takes over the main page, at last. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:05, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oooh, best put your pads on for the backlash. LugnutsDick Laurent is dead 07:46, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just a shame the Boat Race dropped off. I may re-add it to balance the main page... The Rambling Man (talk) 07:49, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But T20 is not cricket! #Realcricket lasts for 5 days with possibility of no result! Plus that skullduggery IPl starts in a few days and in a month itll be back on ITN.Lihaas (talk) 13:55, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you constantly use ITN as a forum for your incomprehensible rants? WaltCip (talk) 20:53, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you lighten up?Lihaas (talk) 00:55, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-posting support and great to see both the men's and women's tournaments given equal treatment in the blurb. Is this a result of the discussion to consistently report the women's version of a tourny when a men's is posted? Whatever the reason, looks good for addressing gender bias. MurielMary (talk) 10:30, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

April 2

Armed conflicts and attacks
Arts and culture
Disasters and accidents
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Sport

[Closed] RD: Amber Rayne

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: Amber Rayne (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Guardian
Credits:

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: Arguably top of her field, article is actually well referenced. Pretty old case already however. Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:16, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Article does not show "top of the field". I see two awards and several nominations (compare Jenna Jameson, for instance). Article is sparse. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 08:23, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The article's a bit on the short side. Any volunteers to expand it? She only won two awards back in 2009 and neither of which seem to jump out as placing her as one of the most notable porn actors. I haven't watched many of her films myself. Jolly Ω Janner 08:24, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. While she might be above average, I don't think she rises to the level of "very important" to her field. 331dot (talk) 08:26, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I wouldn't put her top of the field, e.g. Jenna Jameson, Stoya, Sasha Grey etc. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:42, 6 April 2016 (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.

[Posted] Armenian–Azerbaijani clashes

Article:2016 Armenian–Azerbaijani clashes (talk · history · tag)
Blurb:18 Armenian soldiers and 12 Azerbaijani soldiers are killed during clashes in Nagorno-Karabakh. (Post)
Alternative blurb:Tens of casualties reported in clashes in Nagorno-Karabakh between Armenia and Azerbaijan
News source(s):Reuters, Yahoo, NY Times
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Recent development in the frozen conflict. Casualties are official and exclude propaganda claims. Brandmeistertalk 23:16, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - also cnn.com corroborates this. At first I was going to vote neutral, but Portal:Current events/2016 April 2 is reporting this as the 3rd successive day of gunfire exchange, and citing (RT) as a source. Whatever the vote (to support or oppose) we should keep an eye on this, it may end up being an "ongoing event." Christian Roess (talk) 05:03, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We should not take official numbers by word. Both parties are interested in keeping their populace in dark by understating their own casulties and exaggerating those of their opponents. I've suggested my own, more reasonable, blurb. --Երևանցի talk 07:29, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • support neutral altblurb came here to nominate it. Significant escalation of the ceasfire violations. Lihaas (talk) 08:09, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in principle, but neither of the current nominations appear to account for the Azerbaijani claim of hundreds killed. "At least 30" would be more neutral. —Nizolan (talk) 08:31, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support - Biggest escalation of this conflict since 1994.BabbaQ (talk) 10:24, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posting. --Tone 13:09, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
comment Posted altblurb.Lihaas (talk) 13:49, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] 2015-16 NBA Basketball Season

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.

Articles:2015–16 NBA season (talk · history · tag) and Golden State Warriors (talk · history · tag)
Blurb:In basketball, the Boston Celtics defeat the Golden State Warriors, snapping a 14 month 54-game home win streak and leaving the San Antonio Spurs with the only undefeated home record in the 2015–16 NBA season. (Post)
Alternative blurb:In basketball, the Boston Celtics defeat the Golden State Warriors, snapping a 14 month 54-game home win streak.
News source(s):basketballreference.comsbnation.comespn.go.com
Credits:
Nominator's comments: The Golden State Warriors haven't lost a game at home in over a year, and have set a new record with the loss at home, which now leaves the San Antonio Spurs with the only remaining at home win streak, and a chance at overtaking Golden State for sole possession of the record before the season ends. Golden State's loss will also likely be a major new item for national news and sports specific channels for the next few days, making this a logical choice for main page inclusion. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:58, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This is not a sports ticker; very rarely do we list anything other than championship games at ITN- and I don't think the end of a home winning streak qualifies(maybe if they had been totally undefeated, but not just at home). 331dot (talk) 09:01, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • True, but we have been known to put up information of a relevant nature in sports even if the relate to an ongoing season - a perfect game, for example. I accept that this is a long shot, so all I am asking is that people keep an open mind about the nomination. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:10, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • As I indicated, if they had been totally undefeated all this time, I'd probably support. Home court advantage is strong in basketball. I would add that since it is largely about the Warriors' streak, the Spurs should not be mentioned if this is posted. 331dot (talk) 09:19, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Erm no. Since when do we post individual games of domestic leagues? Also ENGVAR issues, 'snapping' means nothing to me here, though I can work it out from context. Fgf10 (talk) 09:11, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, this is not so much about the result of the game, but the end of a home winning streak. 331dot (talk) 09:29, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Pure trivia. But this would actually make a nice DYK hook, maybe there is an opportunity there? Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:18, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maybe, but I'll be honest and say I rarely do anything that relates to the main page becuase its become hideously complicated. That said, if you think its got a chance I suppose I could suffer the expert difficulty to move it over there. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:21, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I actually forgot that the DYK people want articles that have been created or expanded 5-7 fold (like 1,500 words or more) or have been recently promoted to GA status or better. Honestly, after a review of the articles in question, I seriously doubt that there will be a DYK hook here because if I am reading the requirements right these article(s) do not qualify for a DYK hook. That being said, if you're reading the instructions at DYK differently, lemme know and I will follow up on it. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:48, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you read the rules correctly. But if the season article would be promoted to GA status, this could be the hook for a DYK. Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:02, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose. I agree with 331dot if it had been a total undefeated streak; a home winning streak sounds like a record just for the sake of a record (e.g. the "team A have now won 10 consecutive games where they scored in the last 10% of the game" kind of thing). Granted a home winning streak is still not at this level of trivia, but still. If we post this regardless, Alt blurb is far preferable to me. Banedon (talk) 09:26, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Though I admit that this story is probably not fit for ITN, as a sports aficionado I find this story highly interesting. It makes me wonder if Golden State are all they're cracked up to be, or if they're just calling it quits for the regular season in preparation for the playoffs. --WaltCip (talk) 13:16, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per above. This isn't a sports ticker, the season is still ongoing. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:26, 2 April 2016 (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.

April 1

Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents
Health and medicine
  • Health authorities in Fiji are urging people to observe strict personal hygiene as the country goes through a massive outbreak of conjunctivitis. In the past 14 days alone the number of cases of the virus in one district of Suva have jumped from 700 to 5000 cases. (Radio New Zealand)
International relations
Politics and elections

[Closed] Kim Kardashian pics

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.

Articles:Kim Kardashian (talk · history · tag) and Emily Ratajkowski (talk · history · tag)
Blurb:Kim Kardashian and Emily Ratajkowski snap topless Instagram pics. (Post)
News source(s):FOX News
Credits:

Article needs updating
Nominator's comments: Well, Kim Kardashian has extreme notability at least in the USA, and she gets coverage through just about every news source. So why not? WaltCip (talk) 13:02, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But do you have a colander? Sca (talk) 16:30, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Or some coriander?--WaltCip (talk) 16:52, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - doesn't supersede any other items currently ITN. Christian Roess (talk) 18:53, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just posting this here, amid serious stories, is an insult to ITN. Puerile behaviour, on any date. Fgf10 (talk) 18:54, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Lighten up.--WaltCip (talk) 19:02, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
April Fools Day is basically the stupidest fucking thing ever. I'm with Fgf10. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:04, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well then you "fucking" lighten up too. If you have nothing positive to say, say nothing at all. This isn't a venue for your emotional outbursts. The Rambling Man (talk)-
It shouldn't be a venue for stupidity either, but that ship has sailed. This is the last comment I make on this thread. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:28, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Good job too. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:32, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, that's really nice An April Fool's "joke" that's sexist as a bonus. Go away. Laura Jamieson (talk) 19:29, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually the story is about these individuals fighting for feminism. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:32, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I made the mistake of reading Fox News first. Should've known better. Sorry, WaltCip. But still ... Laura Jamieson (talk) 19:35, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) For what it's worth, I first saw mention of it in a Paris Lees article (here) and she's described it as a protest against slut-shaming so I don't know if it's entirely accurate to call the item itself sexist. But it certainly isn't ITN-worthy. GRAPPLE X 19:37, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm deeply offended by everything and everyone in this thread. Just an appalling outrage. – Juliancolton Talk 19:38, 1 April 2016 (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.