Open main menu

Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/February 2016

< Wikipedia:In the news‎ | Candidates

This page is an archive and its contents should be preserved in their current form;
any comments regarding this page should be directed to Wikipedia talk:In the news. Thanks.

Contents

February 29Edit

Portal:Current events/2016 February 29

[Closed] RD:Louise RennisonEdit

No consensus. Stephen 21:59, 6 March 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: Louise Rennison (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Telegraph The Independent The Guardian BBC NY Times
Nominator: MurielMary (talk • give credit)

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Award winning author of young adult fiction; article being updated MurielMary (talk) 09:28, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose no doubt talented but the awards are all a little trivial, certainly not sufficient to elevate this individual to RD notability. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:50, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Comment the awards weren't all trivial; the Nestle Prize for example was "one of the most respected and prestigious prizes for children's literature". MurielMary (talk) 10:24, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
She won the bronze right? So third place. In a discontinued award. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:34, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
LOL. I guess so. MurielMary (talk) 10:54, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
MurielMary, you're agreeing with The Rambling Man. So, with all due respect, shouldn't you either withdraw your nomination, or alternatively give us reasons why you still think your nomination should remain despite your above agreement? Tlhslobus (talk) 05:57, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
I left the nom open for others to add their opinions. One person's view doesn't equal consensus, and different people see different things when evaluating an article. MurielMary (talk) 09:05, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your helpful clarification, MurielMary. Tlhslobus (talk) 04:12, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Sorry, I'm just not seeing sufficient significance to raise her to RD level. Modest Genius talk 13:26, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Article has no obvious problems. --Jayron32 19:16, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment No matter how good a shape the article is in, if this person doesn't meet the RD criteria, it shouldn't be posted. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:40, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Coming third in a book prize when the category winner was a Harry Potter novel is no bad thing, but overall not at the level of prominence/importance/influence generally found in a RD posting. Regretful oppose. BencherliteTalk 10:51, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

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

[Posted to RD]: George KennedyEdit

Article: George Kennedy (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The Hollywood Reporter, includes link of grandson breaking the news
Nominator: TDKR Chicago 101 (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Renowned actor that has won an Academy Award, nominated for two Golden Globe Awards and appeared in many notable movies that are seen as cult classics to this day. Had a distinguished career. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:26, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Support - clearly notable. You'll have to do some work on the article though - it looks well sourced on the face of it but a lot of citations are to IMDB which I believe isn't considered reliable by itself. Blythwood (talk) 22:56, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support per Blythwood, although it will have to wait until after diiner and Wheel of Fortune for me to scrub the article. μηδείς (talk) 23:01, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Once μηδείς has had a chance to review the sourcing. Miyagawa (talk) 23:10, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support; - Widely known character actor. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:14, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support: - See above; this actor was well-known and has hundreds of TV and film credits. ~Lord Laitinen~ (talk) 23:16, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support: - Mlpearc (open channel) 04:10, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support full blurb Although they say it has a 50/50 chance of being posted, though there's only a 10 percent chance of that. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:01, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak support the awards which have [citation needed] need citations. Otherwise it looks good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:31, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Ref'd them all, apart from the last one. Any help with that would be appreciated. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:42, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Strong Support - Academy Award winner. Very notable actor. Oh No! It's Faustus37! it is what it is - speak at the tone 11:19, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
  • I fixed the one CN tag, and Posted the article per consensus above to RD. --Jayron32 12:49, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Memorable actor; would be recognized by older moviegoers across the world familiar with Hollywood films. Daniel Case (talk) 02:27, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

February 28Edit

Portal:Current events/2016 February 28

[Posted] Vorkuta coal mine explosionEdit

Article: Vorkuta mine explosion (talk, history)
Blurb: Thirty-six people are killed in a coal mine near Vorkuta, Russia, following explosions caused by a methane gas leak and the collapse of the mine
News source(s): BBC, NBC News
Nominator and updater: Masem (talk • give credit)

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Per BBC " one of the worst Russian mining disasters in recent times"; there was an explosion on Feb 25 that trapped 26 miners, but this second set of explosions this morning killed those as well as 5 rescue workers trying to save them. MASEM (t) 17:24, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

  • The article is fine. Any chance someone adds an infobox? --Tone 18:50, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
    • I noticed past Russian mine disasters did not have an infobox, I am not sure if there is one for such or not. --MASEM (t) 19:01, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support on notability. Article seems adequate, if short. The BBC doesn't have much in the way of detail yet. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:55, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - A mine explosion with such a high death toll is definitely noteworthy enough to be featured on the main page. Kurtis (talk) 21:44, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Posting. --Tone 22:13, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Only 2 supports?
Anyways, I would support too as outside china's woeful industrial safety record, these are rare. Cmparable to Chile a few years ago (2010?).Lihaas (talk) 07:32, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] Thane stabbingEdit

No consensus to post. --Tone 18:40, 28 February 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: Thane stabbing (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A man fatally stabs 14 family members before taking his own life in the Indian city of Thane.
News source(s): [1]
Nominator: Eugen Simion 14 (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: Very unusual incident in India. EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 07:50, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support due to cruelty and number of deaths. Article approaches postable state. Brandmeistertalk 09:15, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support per death tool, that type of event is very rare, I think without any precedent in India. - Gsvadds (talk) 09:29, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is an unfortunate domestic crime but it fails NOTNEWS. And stabbing does not appear to be unusual as claimed in India: last December there was a man that stabbed 20 ppl before he was stopped. [2] --MASEM (t) 09:45, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
An incident without any deaths there, only injuries. Please add another example- EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 09:58, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Masem. Tragic, but of little significance. 331dot (talk) 10:00, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - per death toll. rare event. BabbaQ (talk) 10:07, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose We should feature events which have a wider significance in the sweep of history. Despite the death toll (which is still trivial compared to the number dying of e.g. air pollution in India), this stabbing does not have wider significance. Thue (talk) 10:37, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Domestic crimes always happen which are not newsworthy in ITN. STSC (talk) 10:52, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not a significant news. 45.125.181.250 (talk) 13:23, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Per three previous. Sca (talk) 15:24, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Opppose - article is very brief; event not newsworthy although very tragic. MurielMary (talk) 16:17, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support The death toll seems to be high for a stabbing attack. Frankly speaking, I do not remember a stab attack claiming the lives of 14 people. Those saying that this is a domestic incident with no wider significance are somewhat undervaluing the story, as it is on the top of the largest media and widely reported in many countries in the world.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:56, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
    • WP is not a newspaper and ITN is not meant to mirror a news ticker. We have a high selectivity for what are considered notable events, and given that no one of established fame was involved in this incident, this event fails NEVENT to start with. --MASEM (t) 17:57, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Opppose - Yet another standard routine run-of-the-mill stabbing in India, etc. etc. etc. 87.154.222.117 (talk) 17:58, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
  • This could be posted if the article actually had some meat in it. Nergaal (talk) 18:30, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

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

[Posted] 88th Academy AwardsEdit

Article: 88th Academy Awards (talk, history)
Blurb: Spotlight wins the Best Picture at the 88th Academy Awards.
Nominator: Lihaas (talk • give credit)

Article needs updating

Nominated event is listed at WP:ITN/R, meaning that the recurrence of the event should in itself merit a post on WP:ITN, subject to the quality of the article and any update(s) to it.

 Lihaas (talk) 03:20, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

  • The article is still written in future tense. This will have to be rectified before it is posted. --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:22, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose until a suitable update is provided for review. Blurb corrected. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:36, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
  • support - when winner has been announced tonight.BabbaQ (talk) 10:09, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
  • C If Leo wins best actor, he should be in the blurb.--86.163.174.177 (talk) 12:08, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
    • And in the ITN image. 45.125.181.250 (talk) 13:19, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
      • Which works - likely, that would be "The Revenant wins X awards, including best picture, at the Academy awards (Leo who won best actor pictured)". Typically, we do go with "X wins Y awards, including best picture" - unless another movie wins the same or a higher number of awards, in which case we mention both. --Tone 17:05, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Suggest blurb to include Best Picture only or Best Picture + Best Actor + Best Actress (may get a little long?) MurielMary (talk) 16:21, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support and blurb per Tone. I think the picture should be of Alejandro González Iñárritu FWIW. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:32, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, if The Revenant wins, Iñárritu should be pictured - he'd be the first person to direct back-to-back Best Picture winners. Neljack (talk) 21:37, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Picture of Leo? Considering it's been a "thing" that he hadn't won one yet. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:28, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Spotlight is Best Picture, Leo wins Best Actor, Mad Max wins the most awards. I'd recommend Spotlight and Mad Max in the blurb, with Leo as the photo if we have one. --PlasmaTwa2 05:36, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support based on just the current blurb highlighting best picture (which is arguably the most important award); to highlight any of the other awards would be picking and choosing favorites so its simply best to go with the "big winner" to speak. Article is up to date including some details about the ceremony (I just added in a ref for the award list even though this is not contentious) --MASEM (t) 06:35, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Supportfor blurb of Best Picture only. As per Masem, adding any other awards such as Best Actress/Best Actor etc would require a consensus on which awards to add, which would make for a lengthy process. Good to get it posted as soon as poss. MurielMary (talk) 07:12, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Posting. I'll go with a combined blurb, feel free to modify it and check if there are any good images. --Tone 07:46, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Question Why is the picture of a nominee that did not win? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.95.148.250 (talk) 16:24, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
    The film he directed won 6 awards. I would say that your premise for your question is incorrect. --Jayron32 16:25, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
How is the premise incorrect? He was specifically nominated for an award that he did not win. None of the awards Mad Max won were a) major or b) for directing. It's a moot point now because the picture has been changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.95.148.250 (talk) 23:18, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

February 27Edit

Portal:Current events/2016 February 27

[Closed] Iranian legislative election, 2016Edit

Closing for now. This can be re-opened after the second round of voting, as indicated at the end of discussion below. -- Tlhslobus (talk) 05:50, 3 March 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: Iranian legislative election, 2016 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Moderates and reformists led by Mohammad Reza Aref win the Iranian legislative election
News source(s): (New York Times), (BBC News)
Nominator: Bender235 (talk • give credit)

Nominated event is listed at WP:ITN/R, meaning that the recurrence of the event should in itself merit a post on WP:ITN, subject to the quality of the article and any update(s) to it.

 bender235 (talk) 23:20, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Nom. Obviously still ongoing. Just wanted to start a nomination discussion. --bender235 (talk) 23:20, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

note the lower house election is more impoertant ...granted this has both at the same time as a rarity but still that's the more important body with day-to-day committee and law decisions.Lihaas (talk) 03:23, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Well, if this is ITNR, your note is noted but it's just the quality of the update that's important, notability having been established already. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:37, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support – Given Iran's pivotal role in the Middle East, this landslide for 'reformers' seems very significant. But obviously, results need to be in the lede. Sca (talk) 15:32, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - your suggested blurb stated that the "reformist" wins, but the attached sources merely claim that they gained seats, not exactly winning (The sources also say they win the seats in Tehran, which isn't the same as winning nationally, I think). Does this mean the non-reformists still have the majority of the national seats? Our article isn't very clear about this. I suggest the article should clarify what it means by "Reformists", what exactly was their gains in this election, and what is the election result overall. HaEr48 (talk) 17:31, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
You're correct. So far there have only been preliminary results, so whether they won majority or "just" gained seats is still unclear. --bender235 (talk) 19:16, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment What makes this different from the 2014 US legislative elections, which was heavily opposed since the head of government wasn't at stake? AFAIK, neither the President nor the Supreme Leader's seats are up for election. –HTD 02:14, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
    • Was it "heavily opposed"? HaEr48 (talk) 05:58, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose on 2 counts 1) The article does not have the final results, and has no prose describing the final results. 2) There's an orange-level "multiple issues" tag which indicates fixes that need to be made before this is appropriate for the main page, even on top of the fact that the article is not yet sufficiently updated. Please fix all of that before we can assess if the quality is good enough for the main page. It certainly isn't yet. --Jayron32 02:41, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: The blurb is almost certainly wrong. Last I heard (Ireland's RTE yesterday) the reformists, despite winning a landslide in the capital Tehran, were only headed for about 30% nationally, hardliners about 50% (too early to say whether above or below 50%), independents about 20%. Tlhslobus (talk) 10:10, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: It seems to be described in good faith but mistakenly as ITN/R. The head of state is not at stake, so to be ITN/R it has to be a general election, which ITN/R implicitly defines by linking to our article, which currently states: "In presidential systems, the term refers to a regularly scheduled election where both the president, and either "a class" of or all members of the national legislature are elected at the same time but sometimes refers to special elections held to fill prematurely vacated positions. A general election day may also include elections for local officials." As Iran is a presidential system, according to this definition the President has to be up for election for it to count as a general election, so this one doesn't count. So I've removed the ITN/R flag. If you think I'm mistaken you can always try putting it back. However I'm currently neutral on whether it should be posted once the article and blurb are fixed. Tlhslobus (talk) 10:37, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
I've restored the ITNR tag, as the same definition page also states "The term is usually used to refer to elections held for a nation's primary legislative body, as distinguished from by-elections and local elections." Various definitions also indicate that it can refer to just a parliamentary/legislative election. 331dot (talk) 11:38, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
I second that. A general election is one that all, if not most, members of a national legislative body are elected. It may have a different definition in the US, but it never was about whether a head of state/government was at stake. The 2014 US midterms had consensus and was posted to ITN, albeit not via ITN/R or without opposition. Fuebaey (talk) 17:20, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Agree with two previous posts. This might be a turning point for Iran. Sca (talk) 18:16, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I agree that this is considered a general election in ITN/R. The article still has one unsourced section, "Incumbents not seeking re-election." This section must either be removed or sourced before posting. Mamyles (talk) 18:52, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Question: Should this be closed now and re-opened after the second round (as would happen per ITN/R if it were an election for head of government), especially as we can't know who won until then? Tlhslobus (talk) 04:44, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes, only the final round should be posted. 331dot (talk) 11:42, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Fine, it looks like it should be closed and re-opened after the second round. I guess anybody can close it right now, and if nobody has objected by tomorrow and it's still unclosed, I plan to then close it myself.Tlhslobus (talk) 08:42, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

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

February 26Edit

Portal:Current events/2016 February 26

[Closed] RD: Don GettyEdit

Consensus against. BencherliteTalk 10:49, 4 March 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: Don Getty (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): CBC
Nominator: TDKR Chicago 101 (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Ok I know this maybe late, but I assumed it was already nominated and did not pass. Renowned Canadian politician. Article in good shape and had an impressive career in the football part. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:26, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. Maybe I'm just not seeing it, but it isn't clear to me how this provincial politician meets the RD criteria(any more than a US Governor would). 331dot (talk) 11:45, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose I don't really see the premier of Alberta as a top-of-the-field position. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:51, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Article looks to be in really good shape. --Jayron32 12:51, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak Support "Good" article, however the notability of a former premier for the main page may be lacking. -- RP459 Talk/Contributions 18:45, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment. No matter how good a shape the article is in, if this person doesn't meet the RD criteria, it shouldn't be posted. I'm still not seeing how this regional politician does. 331dot (talk) 18:56, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Like 331dot, I can't support a regional governor of a sub-national entity. There's also no indication of this person doing anything to raise themselves above any other occupant of similar positions. Modest Genius talk 13:31, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

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

[Closed] Kosovan presidential electionEdit

Supported in principle but article quality too poor to post. BencherliteTalk 10:48, 4 March 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.

Nominator's comments: Appears to satisfy WP:ITN/R, as Kosovo appears on List of sovereign states, although its status is somewhat disputed. EternalNomad (talk) 21:20, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose until an article about the election is created and can be assessed for suitability. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:26, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure this is ITNR, as its status is disputed(though recognized by 108 UN member states) and it is listed under "other states" on the sovereign states list. 331dot (talk) 21:38, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
  • 331dot is right about this not being ITN/R - the listing for elections says: "Disputed states and dependent territories should be discussed at WP:ITN/C and judged on their own merits." Having said that, I would support posting this if we get a satisfactory article. Whatever its de jure status, Kosovo is de facto independent. Its election will be just as important as one in an undisputed state of similar size and influence. Neljack (talk) 23:54, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
NOT ITNR, removed the tag. In this case the merits/ITNC constituties post-worthyniess. Plus its indirect...but if there was more context about thaci coming back on the page THEN it could be more notable. Its certainly not across the news media.Lihaas (talk) 03:14, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support We posted the result of the elections in Taiwan, which is only recognized by 21 UN members (and these are mostly fringe countries - not a single country from Northern America or Europe officially recognizes Taiwan). Recognized by over 100 UN members, Kosovo is a pretty non-disputed country in comparison. LoveToLondon (talk) 12:03, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
That is an incredibly Eurocentric comment. Why is recognition by Western countries any more significant than recognition by other countries? And what on Earth are "fringe states" and how do most of the countries recognising Taiwan fall into that category? Neljack (talk) 21:45, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Um, because Western countries exert more power on the world stage, they have bigger economies, they have seats on the UN Security Council, etc. Banedon (talk) 00:55, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It's a stub and needs expanding. An obvious start would be to explain why there were only candidates from one party, given that Kosovo is a multi-party state. Secondly, someone might want to mention the opposition tear gas and encampment protests. Fuebaey (talk) 15:14, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support event but oppose as article currently too brief/lacks detail. MurielMary (talk) 16:27, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose Article is far to short to highlight on the main page. --Jayron32 02:42, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support in principle but agree with MurielMary. Banedon (talk) 00:55, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support in principle, but the article is nowhere near sufficient. I think this qualifies per ITNR, given the degree of international recognition, although the issue is somewhat moot. Modest Genius talk 13:38, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

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

[Posted] Irish electionsEdit

Article: Irish general election, 2016 (talk, history)
Blurb: Fine Gael, led by Enda Kenny (pictured), gains the most seats in the Irish Dáil.
Alternative blurb: ​In the Irish general election, Fine Gael, led by Prime Minister Enda Kenny (pictured), loses nearly a third of its votes but narrowly remains the largest party in the Irish Dáil.
Alternative blurb II: ​In the Irish general election, the ruling coalition of Fine Gael and Labour loses its parliamentary majority and over a third of its vote, but Fine Gael narrowly remains the largest party in the Irish Dáil.
News source(s): FT, The Guardian, The Irish Times
Nominator: Fuebaey (talk • give credit)

Article needs updating

Nominated event is listed at WP:ITN/R, meaning that the recurrence of the event should in itself merit a post on WP:ITN, subject to the quality of the article and any update(s) to it.

Nominator's comments: Prematurely based on exit polls. Fuebaey (talk) 01:08, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

  • If the government remains the same, this may be a case where we do not post the re-election of an incumbent, depending on other factors(news coverage, if we get a great update, etc.) 331dot (talk) 02:26, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Why should we not post the re-election of an incumbent? I do not see why that is any less significant than the incumbent being defeated. Does anyone really think the 2012 US Presidential election was less significant because Barack Obama rather than Mitt Romney won? Neljack (talk) 19:07, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
In any case, this seems to be moot, since it is fairly clear that in light of the massive collapse in Labour Party support the Fine Gael/Labour coalition will not be able to continue in office. Fine Gael may still lead the next government, but they will need to find a new coalition partner. Neljack (talk) 19:19, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
It is indeed moot- I would say that it's been my understanding that while general elections in general are notable, there may be specific instances where they do not warrant posting, such as a rigged election(though we do post them occasionally) or one where there are no choices(North Korea) or elections in countries where an incumbent remains in power; the latter of which likely depends on the country and its political situation. 331dot (talk) 20:52, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
  • 331dot, You got our ITNR rules backwards. According to ITNR, the results of a general election should always be posted (assuming article quality is OK). Whether or not the incumbent wins is completely irrelevant for the notability of a general election. A change of Prime Minister (whether after a general election or otherwise) is a separate event not covered by ITNR, that has to be discussed based on its merits if it happens. LoveToLondon (talk) 19:11, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I have nothing backwards. ITNR is not and never has been a guarantee of posting any item; as stated at WP:ITNR: "Listing here is not an automatic guarantee that an item will be posted.". There may be specific exceptions if the community judges a particular election not worthy of posting due to its particular circumstances- which since this issue is moot here I won't go into. I was only referring to the PM to indicate that the majority party has remained the same. 331dot (talk) 19:47, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
  • The government staying the same is a pretty normal result of a general election, it might even happen in the majority of all general elections (for people in the US: there were 50 general elections in the US in the 20th century, and the majority in the United States House of Representatives changed in only 8 of these 50 general elections). Your attempts to claim that the common result the government remains the same could be a specific exception is simply wrong. If you are not happy with the status quo that all general elections get posted assuming sufficient article quality, then discuss that at ITNR. (There is also the obvious problem that whether or not there will be the non-ITNR event of a new Prime Minister is usually only decided weeks or months after a general election - whether Enda Kenny will stay Prime Minister or whether his party will have to go into opposition is not clear today after the ITNR general election.) LoveToLondon (talk) 20:19, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
  • It is not just my belief, we have discussed this before. I now think that this is drifting too far from the purpose of this discussion since the issue is moot here; we can discuss this in a place of your choosing if you wish. 331dot (talk) 20:24, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Consensus is to post all general elections, no matter whether anything changes, and no matter whether they were fair or fraudulent. So please stop implying there might be notability reasons for not posting a general election. LoveToLondon (talk) 20:34, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose a maintenance tag and incomplete, probably will remain so for a few days, seems like a premature nomination. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:44, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose until article is updated sufficiently. There is no prose synopsis of the results, and the information tables are as yet incomplete. If and when those problems are fixed, the rest of the article is in good enough shape, and this can be posted. --Jayron32 18:12, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
post the results upon update of FG plurality and we can post the ogovt formation later as a possible grand coalition. We did it for CAN/UK/AUS last time. (and Peple' Before Profit got in too...amazing. they were all over when I was in Dublin).Lihaas (talk) 03:25, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support article appears to have been tidied up since the previous comments. MurielMary (talk) 16:29, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Not Ready various sentences, whole paragraps, and entire sections remain without references. I have tagged some. μηδείς (talk) 20:53, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
    Also, there is still no prose overview of the results. Just tables and charts. --Jayron32 02:43, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: Our current suggested blurb is misleading, giving the impression that FG are 'winners'. So I've added an altblurb based on the one we used for the recent Spanish elections, which produced a similar result. A second altblurb describes the fate of the coalition government (there was no ruling coalition in the recent Spanish elections). Tlhslobus (talk) 07:54, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Added in the word narrowly to both altblurbs, as FG is just barely ahead of FF.Tlhslobus (talk) 08:01, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Fixed references and added a summary. Two seats have yet to be declared in an ongoing recount but won't change the outcome of the election. I'd compromise on the altblurb; second one seems a bit cumbersome. Can take out prime minister as well if still too long - the nom is mainly about the election result, not who is/was in government. Fuebaey (talk) 00:03, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support article is more than good enough for me. Banedon (talk) 00:57, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support for same reason as Banedon above, plus it's fairly urgent as time is running out. Use altblurb as suggested by Fuebaey above. Tlhslobus (talk) 06:02, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
  • 'Support. As of 08:30 today, counting of all results has now been completed. Recommend altblurb. --Kwekubo (talk) 12:00, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support as mentioned the count is now finished in the final constituency. I think altblurb 2 better explains the result. --Boreas74 You'll catch more flies with honey 12:28, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support altblurb 2. Full results are now out and the article now is in sufficiently good shape. Marking [ready]. Modest Genius talk 13:34, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Please Post ASAP as there is clear consensus for posting, and there's just 27 hours left before this nomination gets lost thru being archived. Either altblurb will do, or, if necessary, a shortened version of either. Like the last 2 posters, I actually prefer altblurb 2, tho I earlier agreed with altblurb 1 (or a shortened version thereof) at a time when it seemed like a sensible compromise that offered the quickest way to get this posted. But the important thing is to get it posted with some kind of blurb, and any dispute over the blurb (which quite likely there won't be, almost certainly not from me anyway) can then be carried on at WP:ERRORS (where consensus is not needed, so any supposed lack of consensus over the blurb here should not be used as an excuse for delaying posting, especially when time is running out.)Tlhslobus (talk) 21:17, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Posted. I dated it 3 March as that's when the result was finalised. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:27, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Espresso Addict. Tlhslobus (talk) 05:24, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] 2016 FIFA presidential electionEdit

While consensus on notability was established, the state of both articles means that this news couldn't be posted. BencherliteTalk 10:46, 4 March 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.

Articles: 2016 FIFA Extraordinary Congress (talk, history) and Gianni Infantino (talk, history)
Blurb: Gianni Infantino is elected the President of FIFA.
Alternative blurb: Gianni Infantino is elected the President of FIFA during an extraordinary congress calling for reform in the wake of a corruption scandal.
News source(s): AP, The Guardian
Nominator: SounderBruce (talk • give credit)

 SounderBruce 17:01, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Conditonal support upon update and prose expansion, but otherwise a no-brainer. Brandmeistertalk 17:18, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support on notability but I would like to see more expansion of the article. Nergaal (talk) 17:18, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I'd like to know why it's called an "Extraordinary Congress", and why in the altblurb the first letters of said term are not capitalized, as it makes it appear to be textbook puffery.--WaltCip (talk) 18:07, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Also, "in the wake of" is a clichéd idiom and we should try to avoid having those in ITN blurbs if at all possible.--WaltCip (talk) 18:09, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
  • As long as the Infantino's article has an orange tag, it should not be the bolded link. The election article needs some more prose, as noted above. --Tone 18:09, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose The scandal that shook up FIFA was news, that a new president of FIFA would then be elected was a natural result of the fallout of the scandal. --MASEM (t) 18:31, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Election of a new FIFA President will always be news, regardless whether there's a scandal or not. Brandmeistertalk 18:44, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
  • FIFA is not a country, it's a sporting organization. (Yes, the largest in the word, but that's inconsequential). While its "news", it's not really the type of coverage we give to a sporting event, and the FIFA scandal has been well documented to ITN already; this is simple a necessary fallout from it. --MASEM (t) 01:12, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Big news internationally, particularly in light of recent scandals. Neljack (talk) 21:47, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - Regardless of the scandals, having a new president for the governing body of the world's most popular sport has got to be newsworthy in ITN. STSC (talk) 07:10, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak support this is news worldwide, but the Extraordinary Congress article needs some work before it can be featured in bold. Infantino's article is weak. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:42, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose both proposed bold articles are inadequate for the main page. Both have too many maintenance tags, and both are need of serious expansion to provide enough information to reach a level we would be proud to post on the main page. If either article is updated sufficiently to be bolded, this could be posted. --Jayron32 18:15, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - Blatter was President for 17 years. A new president is major news worldwide. 43.224.156.133 (talk) 20:41, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

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

February 25Edit

Portal:Current events/2016 February 25

[Posted] Jamaican electionsEdit

Article: Jamaican general election, 2016 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Jamaica Labour Party, led by Andrew Holness (pictured), wins a narrow majority in the Jamaican general election.
News source(s): Reuters, BBC, The Gleaner
Nominator: Fuebaey (talk • give credit)

Article needs updating

Nominated event is listed at WP:ITN/R, meaning that the recurrence of the event should in itself merit a post on WP:ITN, subject to the quality of the article and any update(s) to it.

Nominator's comments: A change in government. Fuebaey (talk) 07:47, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Oppose barely above stub and lacking in up-to-date information. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:38, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support in principle. The article needs to be expanded before posting, though.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:14, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose on article quality. Not enough prose to fully flesh out the subject. If article is fully expanded, this could be posted. --Jayron32 12:47, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
DNFTT. BencherliteTalk 09:14, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
General elections of all sovereign states have already been determined to be notable, as they are on the recurring items list. Your statement that "nobody cares" is both incorrect and irrelevant. 331dot (talk) 14:27, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Every country's general election should be featured. One country's change in government affects international relations across the globe.--Marlonja (talk) 16:40, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
@Marlonja: That's why general elections are on the recurring items list, though in order to be posted we still need an adequate article. 331dot (talk) 21:53, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose this is the re-election of an incumbent in a small nation. μηδείς (talk) 01:28, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
An incumbent PM was not reelected; the current PM is Portia Simpson-Miller whose party lost its majority. Holness was PM before but was not the incumbent. Leaving that aside, with regards to ITNR I understand and accept that there is some wiggle room in posting(or not) re-elections of incumbents, but a "small nation" is not relevant as numerous proposals to exclude small nations from posting have failed. You are welcome to attempt to do so again, but as long as this is in the news and gets an update(which admittedly has not happened) it should be posted. Every nation's government affects the world in some way(as a user pointed out above). 331dot (talk) 02:22, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Excluding small nations could be seen as systemic bias, as well. 331dot (talk) 02:24, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the correction on the switch of party, I misunderstood what I read, and I have withdrawn my opposition. But I still oppose automatically posting elections in small countries. Jamaica has a population of 2.9 million. There are 91 world cities (not urban areas, but incorporated cities) List_of_cities_proper_by_population with a greater population than Jamaica. μηδείς (talk) 23:28, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
I think we've visited this discussion numerous times. Ranking by election significance by population is illogical, attempting to create a "cut-off" mark has no consensus. Ireland wouldn't rank in the top 50 of the list you link, but you're not opposing that candidate on the same grounds, where's your cut-off point? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:41, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
I also don't understand the reluctance to support things like this- aside from the systemic bias issue of favoring large countries- it's like people are afraid to actually learn something about another country. As TRM states, arbitrary cut-offs have been discussed to death as one will never be agreed to. 331dot (talk) 19:50, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support ITNR, article looks quality look sufficient now. LoveToLondon (talk) 19:16, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment What the article still needs is a couple of sentences regarding the outcome. Like reactions from the parties etc. At the moment it's just the result table. Add some prose and then it's ready to post. --Tone 20:13, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Not Ready even though I oppsed this, I was going to mark ready based on consesnsus, but the article is too small; one section being only one sentence, while the text should have at least three full prose paragraphs. It fails the Fuzhou derailment criterion in the ITN guidelines. μηδείς (talk) 20:18, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
I've added a bit more prose. As of this timestamp, it's roughly the same size as the previous election (2011) article and the last nomination that was posted to the ITN template. There's also a recount underway that might sway the seats 32-31, but blurb should still be okay. Fuebaey (talk) 01:51, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Well done, that's all I wanted to see :) Posting. --Tone 08:09, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] 2016 Hesston shootingEdit

Thanks for the nomination, but closing as no consensus and seeming unlikely to obtain it given the event's nature. 331dot (talk) 13:10, 26 February 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: 2016 Hesston shooting (talk, history)
Blurb: ​3 people are killed in a shooting incident in Hesston, Kansas.
News source(s): Reuters, The New York Times
Nominator: Skr15081997 (talk • give credit)
Updater: Rossbawse (talk • give credit)
Other updaters: Parsley Man (talk • give credit)

 Skr15081997 (talk) 07:29, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Too minor, no matter where it happens. Hopefully this discussion will be quick and painless. --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:32, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
With 14 injured, "minor" is probably the wrong word. I'd be less opposed if there was some sort of unusual/notable motive, but this just looks like some nutjob. --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:39, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose nothing more notable than the standard daily mass shooting in America I'm afraid. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:33, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose as it is just a routine shooting in a country where such incidents are fairly frequent.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:12, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Yet another standard routine run-of-the-mill shooting in America, etc. etc. etc.--WaltCip (talk) 13:08, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

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

February 24Edit

Portal:Current events/2016 February 24

[Posted] Tara Air Flight 193Edit

Article: Tara Air Flight 193 (talk, history)
Blurb: Tara Air Flight 193 crashes in Nepal, killing all 23 people on board.
News source(s): Guardian, Aviation Herald
Nominator: Brandmeister (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: Relatively high number of fatalities. Article is developing. Brandmeistertalk 10:12, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Support significant loss of aircraft and lives, underlining ongoing weak standards in Nepalese aviation. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:40, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose as yet. The article is a bit light on information, as of my writing now. Would not oppose if it were significantly expanded. --Jayron32 11:29, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
    Change to support Article has been expanded to include enough information to be informative and useful. --Jayron32 14:42, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Wait. Fatal plane crashes are generally ITN worthy but as Jayron32 notes the article is light on information. The issue is that there doesn't seem to be a whole lot more available at present, and as it stands I'm not sure that is enough for the main page. Thryduulf (talk) 12:38, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. Article has been sufficiently expanded. Though plane crashes are relatively frequent in Nepal, the BBC seems to be implying it's the largest death toll in that country since 2006. Espresso Addict (talk) 14:19, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
    Aviation Safety Network seems to think it's the worst in Nepal since 2000... here. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:45, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
    The BBC is counting a WWF helicopter crash which killed 24 in 2006 [3], but wasn't a Nepalese flight. Espresso Addict (talk) 14:58, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Posting. --Tone 14:44, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

February 23Edit

Portal:Current events/2016 February 23

[Closed] Dalfsen train crashEdit

A rare event, but lacks significance. Stephen 22:43, 23 February 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: Dalfsen train crash (talk, history)
Blurb: ​At least one person dies when a train hits a crane at a level crossing in Dalfsen, Netherlands
News source(s): BBC Dutch News
Nominator: Thryduulf (talk • give credit)
Updater: Mjroots (talk • give credit)
Other updaters: Lugnuts (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Deadly rail accidents in the Netherlands are rare, and trains hitting cranes at level crossings are rarer still. That said there has only been one death (and news articles are not giving the impression this is likely to rise) and according to the BBC 13 people lost their lives at Dutch level crossings last year - none made international news though, and this is the only Dutch rail accident we have an article on since the 2012 Sloterdijk train collision. All in all I think this is worthy of a slot at ITN on a slow news day - I've seen criticism of ITN recently for being stale and nominations are the best way to fix that. Thryduulf (talk) 13:47, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - wasn't expecting a nom, so thanks Thryduulf. Apparently not a run-of-the-mill level crossing accident, given that the crane had waited for one train to pass already. Article is in good shape if I say so myself. Mjroots (talk) 13:58, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose at this point, we might lapse into systemic bias when posting such disasters in developed countries. Rarity alone isn't compelling for me in such cases, when there's only one fatality. Would support if the impact becomes larger somehow. Brandmeistertalk 14:14, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - rare incident for the country. 1 people are dead so far. article is ready for posting. BabbaQ (talk) 14:43, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
    The article is far from ready if your claim is correct. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:45, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I am sorry, 1 of course not 13..lol. Well, it is still support for me.BabbaQ (talk) 14:49, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose a minor glitch, a nearly empty train, a single fatality (the driver), yes it's a slow news day, but not that slow. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:46, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose following TRM's reasoning. There's transport disasters, and then there's unfortunate accidents. The low number of people involved here and the low death toll, it really isn't a major story. We should be careful to use frequency (or lack thereof) to influence posting. Even if this was the first train accident in the country, the low number of people involved would still not make it really appropriate for posting. --MASEM (t) 15:09, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Per two previous. Sca (talk) 15:30, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose per TRM. Doesn't seem significant. 331dot (talk) 18:57, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Trains crash all the time. This one has to be a serious outlier in order to be considered ITN-worthy, IMO.--WaltCip (talk) 22:29, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

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

February 22Edit

Portal:Current events/2016 February 22

[Posted] RD: Douglas SlocombeEdit

Article: Douglas Slocombe (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC, citing statement from family
Nominator: Blythwood (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Eminent cinematographer, three-time BAFTA winner, three-time Oscar nominee. Probably best-known for the Indiana Jones films, but also shot many other classics. One of the last of his generation of filmmakers, dying at age 103. Blythwood (talk) 21:24, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Support some tweaks needed to the article but notability is beyond doubt for RD. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:27, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support on notability -- I'm astonished at how many legendary films he was associated with -- but the article is going to need some work. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:29, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
    • Article is now expanded. Side note - I remember seeing the Titfield Thunderbolt on TV over Christmas and being staggered to see he was still alive when I looked at the cast/crew biographies on here. (One other person from that era you won't believe is still alive: the director of The Dam Busters, Michael Anderson.) Blythwood (talk) 21:33, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
      • Another side note: Wow, you remember an entirely forgettable film. That's quite a feat. 87.154.210.6 (talk) 21:48, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support with article improvements - Importance is very clear not only between volume of works but awards and the various titles he earned. I see on glaring CN (about his creativity) that one of these pending obit articles should easily fill in for. --MASEM (t) 21:35, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
    • Article is, I think, basically ready now. I've gone through Google Books and found a real range of comments on his work, a photo, and a blockquote of his experience escaping the German blitzkrieg, which is really one heck of a story. Blythwood (talk) 23:27, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
      • Looks good now. (If this was FAC, one might ask to source each of the awards and nominations for completeness, but for ITN that's easily verifiable information and thus not required. Key is that the facts that make him important are all sourced now.) --MASEM (t) 00:05, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - not on par with Michael Ballhaus, Vadim Yusov, Sven Nykvist or other cinematographers who are at the top of their field. That's not the case with Mr Slocombe, who was a reliable cog in the wheel. That he never won the Academy Awards and was mainly involved in the production of schlockfest films (or what the editor above calls "legendary") speaks for itself. I am tempted to nominate Andrzej Żuławski for RD, just to see the massive difference nationality makes when it comes to ITN/C. 87.154.210.6 (talk) 21:44, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
    Please do but note that the nomination would become stale in two days time. It would have been better to nominate it five days ago. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:46, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
    Nationality is irrelevant; I will support nominations that are shown to meet the criteria, are adequately updated, and are shown to be in the news. If that person qualifies, please nominate them. We can only discuss what we are given for nominations. 331dot (talk) 23:31, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
    (Personal attack removed) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.154.210.6 (talk) 00:03, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Article quality is sufficient for inclusion on the main page. Very well referenced, and relatively complete biography. --Jayron32 16:23, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Posted - Article has been updated to acceptable quality. Coffee // have a cup // beans // 18:44, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose Note that I am not arguing pull, and he worked on a slew of great movies. But workmanship and notability (in the ITN sense) are two very different things. μηδείς (talk) 03:15, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - article quality if sufficient for RD.BabbaQ (talk) 14:26, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

February 21Edit

Portal:Current events/2016 February 21

[Closed] 2016 Women's Bandy World ChampionshipEdit

Consensus against posting. --Tone 20:47, 22 February 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: 2016 Women's Bandy World Championship (talk, history)
Blurb:   Sweden defeats   Russia to win its 7th workd championship title, in Roseville, Minnesota, USA.
Nominator: [[User:Skogsvandraren (talk)|Skogsvandraren (talk)]] ([[User talk:Skogsvandraren (talk)|talk]] • [{{fullurl:User talk:Skogsvandraren (talk)|action=edit&preload=Template:ITN_candidate/preload_credit&preloadtitle=ITN+recognition+for+%5B%5B2016+Women%27s+Bandy+World+Championship%5D%5D&section=new&preloadparams%5b%5d=2016+Women%27s+Bandy+World+Championship&preloadparams%5b%5d=nominated}} give credit])

  • Oppose, many times over malformed nomination, incorrect blurb, appalling article quality. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:29, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment Skogsvandraren suggest you edit the article so that it has some paragraphs describing the event. You also need to show that this event is being reported in mainstream media - is it reported by CNN news, or Yahoo news, or international sports news sites? MurielMary (talk) 08:43, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
    • I googled "bandy championship 2016" and the top coverage of it seems to be in... are you ready? ... Wikipedia. I don't think it's on ESPN.com, for example. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:19, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose As of right now, the entire article has 39 words of prose. That is not the best we can do. --Jayron32 13:22, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
  • To quote Gunnery Sergeant Hartman: "What is this?!"--WaltCip (talk) 13:24, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Or as a certain Teletype operator was wont to say to certain AP writers, "What is dis shit?" Sca (talk) 15:48, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
    • According to some people, prose had no place in an article like this. I don't agree myself, so I like the fact that I have found someone who agrees with me in that regard. As for the low quality of the article, please suggest improvements. Skogsvandraren (talk) 17:05, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Look at some other articles on annual international sports championships and notice what is included e.g. 2015 Rugby World Cup. MurielMary (talk) 17:12, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose on notability and quality grounds. I had to go to the article on bandy to figure out what it is, so if you want to improve the article, context would help. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:38, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose on notability and quality. I don't need to know anything about bandy to know that the article is of poor quality, and news coverage seems limited anywhere, even in the US(where this occurred). 331dot (talk) 20:11, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

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

[Posted] 2016 Daytona 500Edit

Articles: 2016 Daytona 500 (talk, history) and Denny Hamlin (talk, history)
Blurb: Denny Hamlin wins the 2016 Daytona 500 by 0.01 seconds, making it the closest margin in the race's history.
Alternative blurb: ​In motorsport, Denny Hamlin wins the Daytona 500.
News source(s): ESPN Sports Illustrated
Nominator: Andise1 (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: The biggest and most prestigious event in the Sprint Cup Series. Andise1 (talk) 22:05, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Weak support with final updates - I note Daytona is not an ITNR within Motorsport, and there was discussion last year to add it to ITNR (see [4]). That said, the race article is in good shape, all that it needs is the full result table and a few sources to add to the existing description of the race, which will come within a few hours from RSes. On the other hand, Hamlin's article is far from good sourcing and really needs work. As long as the race article is the only one highlighted, that should be okay, but really the poor quality of Hamlin's could limit this nom. --MASEM (t) 22:15, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support the "Super Bowl of Stock Car Racing" is a notable recurring sporting event that should be on the main page every year. Dough4872 00:38, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support as last year's Daytona 500 ITN nominator, though I'd suggest possible change of the blurb to something simpler, perhaps: "In motorsport, Denny Hamlin wins NASCAR's [2016] Daytona 500" or something like that. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 01:53, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - Stock car racing's biggest event of the year. The page just needs some finishing up on the standings and we should be good to go. Zappa24Mati 03:54, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose until all of the race section is referenced correctly. Otherwise it's a good article and can be considered a decent candidate for the main page. Traditional alt-blurb added. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:57, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose We already have 7 annual motorsport items at ITNR. If this is truly the Super Bowl of Stock Car Racing as claimed, we should remove the lesser NASCAR Sprint Cup Series (Drivers champion) from ITNR and replace it with the Daytona 500. Two blurbs in a year for Stock Car Racing (which is a US-only event completely unknown outside of the US) would be too many. LoveToLondon (talk) 13:40, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
    Who said anything about ITNR? This is not in ITNR, and this is not a proposal to add it to ITNR. --Jayron32 14:05, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
    And not only that, but a discussion to add it to ITNR did not result in consensus to do so, so that isn't even an issue. Do you have any comment on the merits of this normal nomination? 331dot (talk) 14:09, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
    I would further note that single-country objections("US only event, completely unknown outside of US") are not valid, as stated on this page. 331dot (talk) 14:11, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
    Oh, and furthermore, "completely unknown outside of the US" is a farcical statement when even TRM himself has said he will support this item once the race section is properly referenced, to say nothing of the fact that NASCAR has 23 international broadcast partners.--WaltCip (talk) 14:12, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
  • The 23 international broadcast partners are various (often fringe) sports channels that show all kinds of sports from Darts to whatever else they can get the rights without paying much.
  • This is a proposal to post a second blurb for an US-only motorsport series. Even for Formula 1, known worldwide and with races on all continents, the consensus was two months ago to post only one blurb per year. Is the most important title of the Sprint Cup Series the drivers champion or the Daytona 500? The most important one should be ITNR, and the lesser one not posted.
LoveToLondon (talk) 14:26, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
That's still hardly "completely unknown". The subject you raise about which is important would seem to have been resolved in the discussion last year(see above), but that does not preclude regular nominations. Objections to posting something because it is not ITNR are also not valid, as stated on this page. 331dot (talk) 14:29, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Except for really fanatic motorsport fans you won't find anyone outside the US who knows what Daytona 500 is. The average person does not have the slightest clue, and the casual motorsport fan who follows Formula 1 will assume it is an IndyCar race like Indy 500.
  • An objection to post two blurbs per year for a lesser-known series when consensus was to post only one blurb for the best-known series worldwide is a valid objection.
  • I would not object changing which Sprint Cup Series item is listed at ITNR, but two blurbs per year is too much.
LoveToLondon (talk) 14:43, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Please link to the consensus where a general policy was established to post "one blurb for the best-known series". We consider each item on its own merits here. You are saying that you object because there should be only be one ITNR item in NASCAR and this isn't the one you believe it should be, so it shouldn't be posted. I don't see any other way to interpret that other than you objecting because this item is not ITNR. An ITNR listing does not preclude other traditional ITNC nominations. Do you have any comments about the merits of this specific nomination? 331dot (talk) 14:47, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Again you are continuing to argue on the wavelength of this being a "single country event".--WaltCip (talk) 14:48, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Except for really fanatic motorsport fans you won't find anyone outside the US who knows what Daytona 500 is wrong, I'm far from a "fanatic" but I know what the Daytona 500 is. An objection to post two blurbs per year for a lesser-known series when consensus was to post only one blurb for the best-known series worldwide is a valid objection. wrong, there's no numerical limitation of blurbs relating to the same topic. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:52, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
  • You are saying that you object because there should be only be one ITNR item in NASCAR and this isn't the one you believe it should be, so it shouldn't be posted. No, this is not what I am saying. Perhaps you understand if I repeat bolded what I wrote directly above your incorrect claim: I would not object changing which Sprint Cup Series item is listed at ITNR, but two blurbs per year is too much.
  • Again you are continuing to argue on the wavelength of this being a "single country event". Also wrong. I am arguing that we already have seven motorsport ITNR items, which is pretty huge compared to other sports. Consensus was not to post two Formula 1 blurbs every year, and the Sprint Cup Series has even less recognition worldwide for deserving two blurbs in one year.
  • there's no numerical limitation of blurbs relating to the same topic There is the general question whether we want 7 or 15 or 70 motorsport blurbs every year. 7 are already listed at ITNR, and when Sprint Cup Series gets two blurbs more well-known series can't reasonably be denied more than one blurb per year.
LoveToLondon (talk) 15:14, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
There is the general question whether we want 7 or 15 or 70 motorsport blurbs every year. Nonsense. If 70 articles gain consensus, and are of sufficient quality, 70 we post. We don't arbitrarily define a cut-off for how many we're posting, not if we're being sensible. This particular edition of NASCAR has made it into international news for being won by the smallest margin ever, so there's good grounds for considering it despite what you may be suggesting. Besides all that, as evidenced by the recent Grammys article, ITNR is no guarantee of posting, quality has to be there too, so even your numerical cut-off is rendered somewhat meaningless. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:20, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
@LoveToLondon: I understand that you wouldn't object to this being ITNR in place of the other one, but that only supports what I said, given the prior discussion on that issue. I did poorly word my post and I apologize. 331dot (talk) 15:22, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Regarding ITNR, NASCAR should only be featured twice a year: the Daytona 500 winner in February and the Sprint Cup Champion in November. For other motorsports, the most prestigious race and the champion are also worth mentioning. For IndyCar, this would be the Indianapolis 500 and the champion and for F1 this would be the Grand Prix of Monaco and the champion. Dough4872 16:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Two months ago the consensus was to remove Monaco from ITNR, so your suggestion of doubling the number of Sprint Cup blurbs to two is not justified. The policy you suggest would also increase the amount of annual motorsport ITNR items from 7 to 13. LoveToLondon (talk) 06:54, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Anyway, that's really not at all pertinent to this discussion as there's no cap on types of story we run, so let's focus on this candidate. It's clear that LoveToLondon has opposed, there's nothing more that needs to be added I believe. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:06, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - there are far more notable motor sport events, this one is not one of them. 87.154.210.6 (talk) 16:58, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Please explain how this is not notable. 331dot (talk) 17:36, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose mostly because this is just a single race from NASCAR Sprint Cup Series. The conclusion of the Drivers Championship, which is already an ITN/R, is enough from this type of motosport. Posting a single race in stock car racing would, at least, require posting of every race from the Formula One calendar.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:44, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
It would require nothing of the sort. Each nomination is evaluated on its own merits. If other races similar to this one got decent articles and news coverage, I would support those too. If they don't get decent updates, then they shouldn't. There are no arbitrary limits on any category of posts, nor should their be. 331dot (talk) 19:46, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
I agree that each nomination should be evaluated on its own merits but we cannot post everything that appears in the media. If this one gets posted, then others will come with recurrent events of similar importance, thus artificially inflating the number of posted blurbs and leaving no room for incidental events. Daytona 500 takes place on annual basis but scientific discoveries, natural disasters, presidential changes and economic news occur only once. That said, incidental events are much more valuable than recurrent and should always be given priority.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:53, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Well, I will just say that it is one thing to say "we post too many NASCAR races" but another to say "we should only post one NASCAR story". What we post should be determined as I indicated and not be an arbitrary limit. 331dot (talk) 20:56, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Your opinion is just yours and please keep it with no indication. We do not have clear guidelines about what to post as we do not have a numerical cut-off for how many blurbs should be posted every year.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:17, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Read your own statement again. How are you opposed? Your opinion is just yours and there is no limit.Correctron (talk) 23:05, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
You cannot turn down opinion that is not on the same line with yours. If the nomination is not on the top in the media, there is no way it be considered for inclusion, no matter how quality the article is. The two criteria for posting are: 1) breaking popularity in the media worldwide and 2) sufficient quality and update. What you seem to do is bypassing the first criterion and arguing that the second one has been met. Also, I am strongly against growing the number of nominations posted on the main page at a faster pace. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and what we need is paying more attention to several breaking news rather than growing on quantity and making the ITN a news ticker. If you do not like my criteria or think they are elitist, it is your own problem. Please show due respect to what others think. Thanks.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:54, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. I don't know if this should be posted every year, but this particular running of the race seems notable to post given the nature of the victory(whether or not the margin of victory is mentioned in the blurb; no opinion on that) Those opposing this seem to be doing so out of a desire to see some sort of arbitrary numerical limit on postings in auto racing. 331dot (talk) 19:49, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Article is in pretty good shape with extensive prose updates for the race, and it has been covered in the news. SpencerT♦C 20:35, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - For whatever reason, this season-opening NASCAR event is considered to be its premiere event. It's not just any old NASCAR race. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:23, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Great article. Daytona is the premier race of the sport, combine that with the closeness of the finish makes this ITN-worthy. --Tocino 12:47, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support and marked as ready. The event clearly got news coverage and the article is now in good shape, with almost all sections referenced and nothing obviously contentious unreferenced. Thryduulf (talk) 13:52, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
    Just the five [citation needed] to fix and we're good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:54, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
    Posted - I hid two of the minor lines without refs, and the other three have refs now. Therefore, I'm going to add it to ITN at this point... while it's still news. Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:56, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] Eric "Winkle" BrownEdit

Article: Eric Brown (pilot) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Nominator: Mjroots (talk • give credit)

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Notable test pilot, long and distinguished military and civil career. Mjroots (talk) 18:23, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Support Notable in his field for sure.--86.135.159.20 (talk) 19:14, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support many firsts in aviation. Article is almost there. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:16, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support pending improvement to sourcing. Meets RD criteria, but large chunks of prose are without citations. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 19:20, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support on article improvements RD met, but as pointed out above, there's many sections and areas without inline cites. --MASEM (t) 20:10, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support It's in the news, e.g. top story on BBC. Andrew D. (talk) 20:23, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support described by the BBC as the Royal Navy's most decorated pilot and had a long and notable aviation career. --Bcp67 (talk) 21:32, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. A legendary figure, most decorated Navy pilot and, as a test pilot, Guinness world record for most types flown and for most carrier landings. First carrier landing of a jet aircraft (also first of a twin-engine and with tricycle undercarriage). Appointed MBE, OBE and CBE. Survived 11 plane crashes and the sinking of HMS Audacity in 1941, was at the liberation of Bergen Belsen and subsequently interrogated some of the leading Nazis after the war, including Heinrich Himmler, Hermann Goering and Belsen's chief guards Josef Kramer and Irma Grese. A truly remarkable man. And actually so interesting I think a blurb would be valid. Guy (Help!) 00:00, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
FYI, this is currently on the front page of the BBC News website. Most RDs don't get that. Guy (Help!) 00:45, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Comment It is on the front page of the BBC News website - only if you trawl down through international/UK/England/Sussex. Which means it's on the front page of the regional website. Not the national or international. MurielMary (talk) 08:51, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
It's on the main UK page of the international website. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:58, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
UK and international sites, actually. I have no possible reason to look at the Sussex page. The BBC News website is, however, highly dynamic, and this may have changed since. Guy (Help!) 09:15, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Try reading the article and also his death was on the front page - just the day before you read the article. Is your comment an oppose or just a pointy comment?--86.135.159.20 (talk) 10:33, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
My point is the one that is clearly stated in the ITN criteria page - "Caution should be taken when assessing news sources for prominence, because most major news outlets provide individualized experiences for each user, based on geography and browsing history. What one user sees as a top headline may be buried for others, and vice versa. Do not assess whether a story is "prominent" or not based on where you see it reported on major news websites for this reason." I.e. what one person sees as "top" isn't necessarily what others see as "top". MurielMary (talk) 16:11, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
But your claim was incorrect, it was on the main page of the UK section of the international BBC website, you did not have to go down to the Sussex page at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:23, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. Clearly meets RD; given what I can read in his article, much like Guy above I'm wondering if he would merit a blurb. He seems like one of the top people in his field, not just 'very important'. 331dot (talk) 11:49, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support RD (only). Certainly a top pilot, holding a string of records and aviation firsts. Modest Genius talk 12:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment. Not ready yet; large sections remain largely uncited. Espresso Addict (talk) 16:46, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD Coffee // have a cup // beans // 17:04, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
    • Recommend pulling RD The article quality is still lacking from what others have pointed out. We have unsourced direct quotes in the article in the first main section, to start, which is a major no-no. I normally wouldn't challenge an RD posted like this if the quality was just a bit lacking, but this is a failure of having to follow proper sourcing requirements, period, and should not be on the front page yet until met. --MASEM (t) 17:11, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
    • Support pulling, per my comment above. Espresso Addict (talk) 17:24, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
    • Oppose pulling, the fact is that the article is RD and not ITN. BabbaQ (talk) 17:30, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
      • While an RD does not need as strong sourcing as an ITN blurb, there are outright failures of required sourcing policy going on here. This should not be linked to from the front page until fixed because it is far from our best work. --MASEM (t) 17:47, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support A remarkable and unrecognised hero of aviation. Deserves wider recognition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Demictetus123 (talkcontribs) 23:10, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
    • Comment - while the article is not well sourced, huge chunks of his autobiography are on Google Books. While I don't have time myself tonight, the article is probably quickly fixable if people want to try. Blythwood (talk) 17:49, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
      • Ever widening chasm between those who vote and those who improve, alas. He might be there by next week, maybe. 217.38.160.27 (talk) 22:44, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
        • It doesn't much matter because readers don't need ITN's permission to read an article. Currently the daily peak score is Eric Brown (pilot) 37,421 – Ugandan general election 4,490. Anyway, I've sorted out sourcing for the quotes which were bothering Masem above. Andrew D. (talk) 08:24, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
          • Kind of makes all this "readers should not be directed to low quality articles" a bit redundant. They just decide what to look at what's "in the news" (care of Google) and don't even bother with the niceties of the main page. If somebody dies their article should just be improved regardless? But thanks to User:Blythwood for their efforts. 217.38.135.36 (talk) 19:23, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
            • Actually yes, if the person died is actually important. An important person's death will nearly always be accompanied by detailed obituaries and "in memorandum" pieces that are great sources of information to fill out lacking BLPs. So we want to make sure that if posting as RD or blurb, that the article is in sufficiently good shape that editors that want to add with these obits know what to do properly. At least to me, the general purpose of TFA, DYK, and ITN is to highlight articles that can still be improved but are well past the initial stub/start class state that anyone that wants to improve knows where to add details. --MASEM (t) 19:29, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
              • We should not delay in posting recent deaths because the obituaries in mainstream media often draw directly from Wikipedia – I noticed some of that in this case. But the main page makes little difference to the general readership as they go straight to articles from search engines and other direct links. The main benefit of having something on the main page is that it will attract the attention of Wikipedian editors – the people who are mostly likely to be able to improve the article. So, waiting for a quality threshold is counter-productive. We should post immediately in order to drive the quality-improvements which will then feed directly into the mainstream media. Andrew D. (talk) 20:11, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
                • For one, the sources we expect as reliable for news for ITNC are not going to be using WP for their information, or if they do, they do cite it. But in considering the front page, based on statistics for DYK and FAC, it's clearly a portal unregistered users use and jump through for articles highlighted on that page. There may be some WPian editors that use it too, but the numbers most articles that are featured at the main page at some point are being driven by new or unregistered editors. Thus quality of articles is extremely important, we do not want to be linking to articles that violate fundamental policy like WP:V for quotes. (If this needs to be discussed more I suggest going to the talk page as this is getting off topic for this now-posted RD). --MASEM (t) 20:19, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
                • Also, RDs need to be thoroughly scrutinised for BLP violations. That's a fundamental requirement, so using a gung-ho "publish and be damned" approach is simply not going to happen, regardless of any "quality drive" clamour. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:48, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
                  • That's nonsense because such articles already exist, ITN does not prevent people reading them and, of course, BLP is largely irrelevant for dead people. Andrew D. (talk) 21:42, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
                    • WP:BLP policy is very clear that BLP still applies to the recently deceased, roughly 6 months to 2 years after death. That absolutely applies to ITN. And ITN's purpose is to help highlight WP's quality work, in this case with topics that happen to also be in the news. If its not at quality, we can't feature it at ITN, but it might still appear at the current events portal links and of course it remains searchable. --MASEM (t) 15:46, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
                    • Andrew, please read what Masem has written, perhaps a couple of times, it will help you understand why you're so wrong. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:49, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - an amazing figure. I've cleared the remaining CNs and added six extra citations. Blythwood (talk) 17:31, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
    • While there's a few paragraphs without sourcing, I feel these are far less contentious statements that can be cleaned up in the future (more facts of his test flights), and all quotes are now reasonably sourced, so this should be ready to go to repost. --MASEM (t) 17:39, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Posted The Rambling Man (talk) 19:14, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] UK EU ReferendumEdit

snow close, by longstanding tradition this will be posted when official results are reported μηδείς (talk) 05:41, 22 February 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: United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A referendum to decide on the United Kingdom's membership of the EU is announced
News source(s): BBC,Telegraph, Washington Post
Nominator: 86.182.7.2 (talk • give credit)
Updater: Annihilation00 (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: I expect that this will be voted down as premature and to wait until the result in June. However this is the first time in 40 years that a referendum on the UK's membership has been announced and the impact of this decision is huge, regardless of the outcome. Clearly of international interest. 86.182.7.2 (talk) 16:58, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Wait until the referendum is held. Cameron has promised a referendum for some time; he has merely fulfilled that promise. 331dot (talk) 17:06, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
  • If we had an article on the EU summit, we could post that, but I can't find one. Smurrayinchester 17:35, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Wait until 24 June 2016, by which time the UK will have voted and a result will be declared. Mjroots (talk) 18:25, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Wait It's tempting to say post it, but it's essentially an announcement of something that is going to happen in a few months from now. Once the votes are counted in June, then post the result. And I'm sick of hearing about now TBH, so I've put my foot through my TV and sent Dave the bill. PS - do I get a fiver? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:57, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

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

[Posted] Cyclone WinstonEdit

Article: Cyclone Winston (talk, history)
Blurb: Cyclone Winston (satellite image pictured), the strongest tropical cyclone on record to strike Fiji, causes extensive damage and prompts a nationwide curfew.
Alternative blurb: Category 5 Cyclone Winston (satellite image pictured) becomes the strongest tropical cyclone on record to strike Fiji.
Nominator and updater: Cyclonebiskit (talk • give credit)
Other updaters: Meow (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: First Category 5 (on both Australian and Saffir-Simpson hurricane scales) to hit the main islands—Viti Levu and Vanua Levu—of Fiji on record. Contact has been lost with at least six islands and known damage is extensive. Landfall in Viti Levu is occurring as I type this. A nationwide curfew is also in place. Specifics on destruction will be slow to come due to severe disruption to communications. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 07:12, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Support - Category fives that make landfall are essentially ITN/R, I would think. --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:16, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Wait leaning support I'd rather make sure we have some idea of the type of damage. I don't question it could be extensive, but that's also a bit of speculation. I would expect we'll know within a day here of how bad this was with rescue efforts likely already en route to help. --MASEM (t) 14:07, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - category five. could need some more expansion before posting.BabbaQ (talk) 14:11, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - As things stand Cat 5 landfalls are extremely rare and there is probably going to be a lot of damage from Winston in both Tonga and Fiji.Jason Rees (talk) 15:10, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Oppose until the article is thoroughly copy edited. It currently contains such jewels as "and gradually developed further within a favourable environment for further development" and "Ahead of Winston affecting Fiji for a second time". Someone familiar with the event Cyclonebiskit(?) could undertake this. μηδείς (talk) 21:58, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
    • Fixed the two most outstanding issues, but not sure the rest of the article is that terrible. Might be difficult for me to tell though since I copyedited/wrote large portions of it. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 22:23, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
      • I have copy edited the entire article, and support is apparently unanimous (including mine), so I have marked the article ready. μηδείς (talk) 23:04, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Strong Support Exceeded by only one landfall known. (barely). 185 mph sustained. Hit the heart of the most populous Pacific country outside the Rim. Strongest Southern Hemisphere hurricane on record (whether landfalling or not). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:46, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Posted ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 02:02, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

February 20Edit

Portal:Current events/2016 February 20

Berlin International Film FestivalEdit

Article: 66th Berlin International Film Festival (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Italian documentary Fire at Sea wins the Golden Bear at the Berlin International Film Festival.
News source(s): BBC, Variety, The Japan Times
Nominator: Fuebaey (talk • give credit)

Article needs updating

Nominated event is listed at WP:ITN/R, meaning that the recurrence of the event should in itself merit a post on WP:ITN, subject to the quality of the article and any update(s) to it.

Nominator's comments: Needs more prose. As a quality comparison, last year's article was posted but is still quite thin. Fuebaey (talk) 17:16, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Support with article improvements - As Fuebaey points out , the previous articles on this festival have been thin and we are now asking for more details than just the award list and winners. If it is a week long festival, there ought to be details on that actual event. --MASEM (t) 18:45, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose article is basically a stub prose with some tables. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:58, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose as above, article is one paragraph with tables. Needs development. MurielMary (talk) 08:45, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support details present, but could be rewritten to improve readability. But the film that won the Golden Bear, Fire at Sea, has just three lines of text. Jose Mathew (talk) 15:19, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
I've expanded Fire at Sea a little. Espresso Addict (talk) 17:57, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

February 19Edit

Portal:Current events/2016 February 19

[Closed] RD: Samuel WillenbergEdit

No consensus. Stephen 02:51, 25 February 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: Samuel Willenberg (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): [5]
Nominator: HonorTheKing (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: former prisoner of Treblinka extermination camp and the last surviving member of its perilous prisoner revolt, a participant of the Warsaw Uprising. --
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 10:52, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment Moved to the correct date. LoveToLondon (talk) 14:08, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
  • support - definitely RD material. Could need some c/e etc before posting though.BabbaQ (talk) 14:10, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak Support on article improvements - Article could stand a few more inline cites in places and I see some tense issues to be fixed. Weak support otherwise, primarily that while just being a prisoner of such a camp (and the honors awarded as a result of survival) is not so much an element to celebrate, he appeared to help educate and document his experiences for benefit for all to make him stand out. --MASEM (t) 14:10, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Opppose "last surviving" is not an accomplishment, and he would not be notable enough for RD otherwise. I thought we should have had blurbs for Scalia, Lee and Eco, but even then I would question posting this nomination. μηδείς (talk) 22:07, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose, surviving to extreme old age is not an RD qualification. Abductive (reasoning) 04:03, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support, he is in news. --Jenda H. (talk) 22:15, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support on notability, seems to have used his experience to create notable artworks, however oppose on article quality. It's a very disjointed read e.g. the key sections on the Nazi invasion and Treblinka; the writing needs to be improved so that it's easier to follow. MurielMary (talk) 07:51, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Whilst he seems to have been a worthy person, I don't see anything here that rises to the level of RD. Modest Genius talk 12:01, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Coming in rather late, but oppose per MG and Medeis. Rhodesisland (talk) 01:49, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

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

[Posted to RD] Umberto EcoEdit

Article: Umberto Eco (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): [6]
Nominator: Canadian Paul (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Well-known academic and novelist who I feel was at the top of his field and is thus suitable as a recent death. Canadian Paul 00:50, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Support on notability for RD - Massively influential in both academia and literature. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:11, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
  • ASAP I'd address the one or two issues that need citing, but my computer is running way too slow. μηδείς (talk) 01:26, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support RD pending cleanup - A handful of paragraphs in the bio sections lack inline citation, even discounting those that are just saying what works he wrote as non-contentious, but it should be easy to get to par. --MASEM (t) 02:05, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Strongly support - Don't wait for cleanup - Featuring this link on the front page will undoubtedly lead to many eyeballs on the article, and the faster this happens, the faster appropriate cleaning will occur. KConWiki (talk) 02:58, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
    I'm afraid that's not how the main page works. No one is stopping anyone here from fixing problems if they wish, but the main page is for highlighting quality Wikipedia work, not advertising stuff that has yet to be cleaned up, but needs to be. --Jayron32 03:08, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Strong support - if for no other reason that Harper Lee is already up there in RD, and the comparisons (and accusations of Anglocentrism) are inevitable. Geodyde (talk) 03:55, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
    Does that mean you've fixed the problems noted above? Because if you did, I'll post this... --Jayron32 03:57, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. Article looks reasonably well referenced to me, given that brief synopses of his major publications are essentially self-referencing. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 04:12, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support blurb this novelist actually was well-known worldwide, unlike the US-centric Harper Lee. Nergaal (talk) 05:50, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb - International figure indeed, but his works aren't his global signatures. Therefore, his mere name is significant enough. His only award was honorary doctorate, which doesn't top awards and honors more prestigious than this. --George Ho (talk) 07:46, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
You should ctrl+f "award" again. Nergaal (talk) 09:51, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
The awards should be in prose, not in only navigational templates. George Ho (talk) 11:04, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support blurb Eco was very popular worldwide and will surely remain remembered as one of the classics of 20th and 21st century world literature. Elaborating medieval philosophical topics combined with semiotic elements in his works, he established a new style of presenting events and personalities from the Middle Ages. I think he definitely merits a blurb.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:34, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb (support RD of course). He was a bestselling novelist and an important academic. RD is a no brainer of but certainly less worthy of a blurb than Lee below. Poeple have cited his global popularity--net's not confuse commercial popularity with influence. Definitely less significant than Harper Lee.--Johnsemlak (talk) 23:58, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Blurb hugely influential author and literary scholar, a must read for literary majors regardless of language, adapted for film, and basically the literary equal of James Joyce or Jose Luis Borges. Before RD existed, he would have been doubtlessly blurbworthy. μηδείς (talk) 00:31, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support RD, oppose blurb. We've had two borderline cases recently (Antonin Scalia and Harper Lee), and I fail to see how he is more blurb-worthy. Yes, he is more globally known, but then again both Scalia and Lee were more significant to the United States than Eco was to the world IMO, so in the end it's a wash. -- King of ♠ 03:25, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support blurb
  • An associate justice of a Supreme Court is definitely not more than RD, chances are that for every other country in the world many from the US-centric crowd here would even oppose an RD for a Chief justice of the Supreme Court - if an associate justice was borderline between RD and blurb, then a Chief Justice would be a clear case for a blurb.
  • Harper Lee was borderline between RD and blurb, that makes Umberto Eco a clear blurb. Harper Lee had one famous (and until recently her only) book that was turned into a famous movie. Umberto Eco had one famous book that was turned into a famous movie. He also wrote several well-known books afterwards.
  • In addition to his novels, the scientific work of Umberto Eco alone would already without a doubt be enough for RD.
  • He got more than 30 honorary doctorates, which is a remarkable achievement itself and shows the huge amount of respect he had in the scientific com,munity. If anyone finds an RS (this link to his page unfortunately isn't, and the page also doesn't list the ones he got after 2008) please add that to the article.
LoveToLondon (talk) 08:43, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Honorary doctorates aren't on the same level with medals or lifetime awards. Bill Cosby lost his honorary doctorates due to... well, you get the idea. --George Ho (talk) 08:48, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Please name some medals or lifetime awards that would make you support a blurb. LoveToLondon (talk) 08:52, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
I don't know how Austrian State Prize for European Literature would help. The awards page doesn't explain how prestigious it is. I know that he didn't win other lifetime achievements. George Ho (talk) 10:31, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
The problem is that you think of him only as a novelist. He was also a leading academic in his field, and a well-known public voice (at least in Europe). LoveToLondon (talk) 10:47, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
If he were merely a Semiotician and not a best-selling novelist then I don't think he would come up here.--Johnsemlak (talk) 16:28, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb really don't need to set the bar this low for a blurb. King of Hearts sums it up, and Johnsemlak too. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:37, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Where would you place the bar for a leading academic in a field without a Nobel price? LoveToLondon (talk) 08:47, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
How about around the level of the Nobel Prize for Literature? Stephen 10:47, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Unfortunately the Nobel Prize for Literature is not awarded for research in the field of Semiotics. LoveToLondon (talk) 14:15, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
That is unfortunate. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:58, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Would and of the other semioticians listed in the sidebar be remotely notable enough for a blurb? Come on.--Johnsemlak (talk) 17:19, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Post-posting strong support RD, oppose blurb. Now here's a truly influential author - and one who had a world-leading academic career as well. However this is still nowhere near my bar for a blurb, because his death has no major repercussions on current events. Perfect subject for RD. Modest Genius talk 11:59, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Deaths generally do not have severe impacts on current events unless a political figure is assassinated or somesuch.--WaltCip (talk) 12:51, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Or dies in office, or were such towering figures that diplomacy goes into overdrive (e.g. Nelson Mandela). Which is fine, as that's the level I think we should have for blurbs. Modest Genius talk 14:00, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Strongly Support RD, consider blurb Top-level semiotist, well-known writer and cultural icon. WP article well-written and fairly comprehensive. I really do not understand how anybody can compare an associate judge (Scalia, that is) with someone like Eco. WP belongs to the world, not to the USA. RD necessary, but blurb might be better for such a man. Jose Mathew (talk) 15:31, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] [Posted to RD] Harper LeeEdit

Posted to RD, no consensus for a full blurb. --Tone 10:37, 21 February 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: Harper Lee (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Alternative blurb: Harper Lee, author of To Kill a Mockingbird, dies at 89.
News source(s): NYT, Telegraph, Guardian
Nominator: Smurrayinchester (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

 Smurrayinchester 15:48, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support for prompt posting to RD. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:00, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support, Mockingbird was a milestone in literature and one of the most recognized novels from that era. Post it on RD right away, but I wouldn't mind a blurb. w.carter-Talk 16:05, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Strongest possible Support - American (and not Pakistani for example) and EXTREMELY important author (as in almost as famous as the Kardashians), so obviously anything below a blurb will not do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.215.95.177 (talk) 16:01, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Why does it matter that she was American and "not Pakistani"... -- Ashish-g55 16:14, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes, please justify that comment, which is either very unclear or highly offensive. Modest Genius talk 17:13, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
It's obviously a dig at some of the recent RDs (e.g. the rapid posting then pulling of Abe Vigoda). The Rambling Man (talk) 19:08, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Support blurb – An icon of American lit. for Mockingbird, made more famous by the film, and a darling of the '60s Civil Rights Movement. Given the avalanche of publicity last year over Go Set a Watchman, her name is familiar to a wide audience again today. Sca (talk) 16:03, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Article is in good shape. No issues. --Jayron32 16:02, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Blurb Oppose RD. One of the most influential author, not much more to say than that. -- Ashish-g55 16:06, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
(Have put up an RD for now while people discuss whether or not to have a blurb) Smurrayinchester 16:08, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Posted to RD; will leave this open for discussion about a blurb. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:09, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

(Looks like we both posted at the same time! Yours is the one that appears in the history though) Smurrayinchester 16:23, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Well, her name isn't Nelson Mandela or Margaret Thatcher, so I don't see why a blurb is warranted.--WaltCip (talk) 16:10, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Nor is her name Miley Cyrus, who gets a bloated 8,500 words on Wiki – more than twice as many as Harper Lee – but Harper is far more influential culturally. Sca (talk) 16:27, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
  • A quick Google search has her neck to neck with Thatcher in hits. w.carter-Talk 16:16, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Me neither. Obvious RD, Oppose blurb. GoldenRing (talk) 16:13, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Floq, fair enough. This is not sarcastic. It's hard to even see her as at the top of her field, with one book published (alright, two, but the second was a rehash of the first draft of the first book and I'm not sure it counts). Yes, it's a very influential book, but can someone be at the top of their field with only one performance in it? GoldenRing (talk) 16:19, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support blurb - was known only for one book, but that book was very well known indeed. Besides, the last item on ITN right now (Bad Aibling rail accident) is over a week old. Banedon (talk) 16:12, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
  • General comment Please don't be sarcastic; it will help the admin who decides on whether there's consensus for a blurb or not to do their job. I see one comment above I'm fairly sure is sarcastic, and two more that may or may not be. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:15, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I think blurbs should be reserved for when the death is a major news story itself because of the how, why, and reactions (think Michael Jackson, Margaret Thatcher, Antonin Scalia, etc.) This doesn't appear to be having the same news effect so I oppose blurb, RD is just fine. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:16, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support RD, weak oppose blurb RD is no question and the article is in good shape (even though already posted, just making that clear). The issue for me for the blurb is that she only had one major work, even though it was one of the most groundbreaking works in modern literature, and was not a prolific writer. I recognize she's been decorated with appropriate literary prizes for it, and that's why I consider my oppose weak, but I don't think we're talking about a creative person as prolific as David Bowie or Christopher Lee. --MASEM (t) 16:18, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) • True, she wasn't prolific as a writer, but she was very influential with regard not only to Am. lit. (and film) but also, more importantly, to racism/civil rights, the elephant in the U.S. room for generations. Sca (talk) 16:41, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
While she was an important figure due to TKaM for civil rights, I'm not seeing significant participation there as, say, Rosa Parks after her refusal to give up the bus seat. Arguably, the book is more notable than the author here (but her death clearly remains RD worthy). --MASEM (t) 16:55, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb Neither the manner of death, nor the reactions to it, are at the level that requires more explanation than "she died". That's what RD is for. This is fine being posted to RD. --Jayron32 16:37, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb per Masem. I think it would be appropriate to post To Kill a Mockingbird on TFA tomorrow. 117.192.162.134 (talk) 16:39, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Already ran in 2008, and TFA has not scheduled articles the day before in more than 3 years. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:47, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Blurb. Author of one of the most influential novels ever, and here much talked about sequal was only released within the past year.--Johnsemlak (talk) 16:44, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support RD, oppose blurb. Significant author, albeit for only one novel. Decent article. However, neither the author nor the manner of her death are anywhere near the significance required to justify a blurb. Modest Genius talk 16:45, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support RD, but Oppose blurb. Her death is far from unexpected, and she'd been in failing health for years. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:47, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Still not really opposing or supporting One factor to consider is that a blurb would allow us to link an FA, To Kill a Mockingbird, at ITN. Not sure how much to value/discount that benefit, but it is a benefit, IMHO. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:56, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support blurb She may be a one-hit-wonder, but very few other authors have pulled off staying popular and current with reprints and having that one book quoted and referred to for an entire lifetime and beyond. That says something about her fame. w.carter-Talk 17:12, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
    • I think it says more about the book than it does about the author. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:21, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb We need to keep some sense of perspective here - she is notable for one book and that in itself raises issues as to what extent notability is inherited by association. Circumstances of death do not appear to be remotely notable. This is the kind of thing RD is made for. 3142 (talk) 17:24, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb she published a single book that to my knowledge hasn't received much attention outside US. Nergaal (talk) 17:29, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support blurb because doing so allows us to link to a featured article and bumps a stale story from the main page. Calidum ¤ 17:32, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support blurb wrote one book, but a milestone one at that. We had a blurb for David Bowie, who died naturally at pensionable age, albeit 20 years younger, and Christopher Lee, four years older. '''tAD''' (talk) 17:42, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
    In my opinion, both of those were mistakes which would have been better suited to RD. Regardless, they were both prolific artists who produced dozens of top works; Harper wrote one book. Modest Genius talk 18:48, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
    Yes they were prolific, just like Shakespeare and Mozart. But prolific turnout is not equivalent to making a lasting mark on the world's culture. How many other works did the Four Evangelists contribute? '''tAD''' (talk) 19:04, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
    Well Bowie had influence not so much on earth, and we all know what our first Mars colony will be named... (this is humor jic) --MASEM (t) 19:20, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
    Luke the Evangelist wrote a sequel, which puts him on a par with Harper Lee, though I don't think he even got a mention at RD when he died   Optimist on the run (talk) 19:25, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
    Perhaps Josephus or Plutarch gave them a passing mention, but didn't write him a full blurb since he didn't die under unusual circumstances.--WaltCip (talk) 20:12, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support RD, oppose blurb - not at top of her field, only really known for the one book. Mjroots (talk) 17:47, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support RD, oppose blurb I agree that she is not top of her field, though is especially notable for writing one outstanding book. Mamyles (talk) 18:31, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb what Calidum says feels like the only compelling reason to do so, and that would set a poor precedent. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:04, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb She is really only known for the one book. RD is sufficient. Canuck89 (talk to me) 21:22, February 19, 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb She is definitely known only for one book and has never even won any notable international award. In literature, candidates deserving a blurb would need to be notable approximately at the level of Gabriel García Márquez.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:52, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 • "Harper Lee’s great book, To Kill a Mockingbird, was arguably the defining American novel of the 20th century." — Matthew Teague, Guardian.
Sca (talk) 14:44, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Blurb Hugely significant author, mandatory reading for all Americans (really, other countries ignore her as part of English literature?), beloved, respected, and adapted for cinema. Mentioning To Kill a Mockingbird in the blurb is much more informative than the name alone. μηδείς (talk) 00:36, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

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

February 18Edit

Portal:Current events/2016 February 18

[Posted] Ugandan presidential electionEdit

Article: Ugandan general election, 2016 (talk, history)
Blurb: Yoweri Museveni (pictured) is elected to a fifth term as President of Uganda.
Alternative blurb: ​Following a social media blackout, arrests of the country's opposition politicians and international condemnation Uganda's ruler for the past 30 years, Yoweri Museveni, claims victory in the country's Presidential elections.
Alternative blurb II: Yoweri Museveni (pictured) claims a fifth term as President of Uganda, in an election some international observers have criticised as flawed.
News source(s): CNN, Al Jazeera, The Independent
Nominator: Fuebaey (talk • give credit)

Article needs updating

Nominated event is listed at WP:ITN/R, meaning that the recurrence of the event should in itself merit a post on WP:ITN, subject to the quality of the article and any update(s) to it.

Nominator's comments: Thirty year incumbent remains in power. Article needs work - results section, with allegations of vote rigging/fraud, could be expanded. Parliamentary election results have yet to be announced but should not be a barrier to posting since both are on ITN/R. Fuebaey (talk) 01:37, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Support ITNR LoveToLondon (talk) 02:47, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose With the opposition under arrest, this was not a genuine election and the results are not reliable. Andrew D. (talk) 08:53, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support The article now makes it clear that the election was not seen as free or fair by the international community. I have added an alt blurb which I think would work "Following a social media blackout, arrests of the country's opposition politicians and international condemnation Uganda's ruler for the past 30 years, Yoweri Museveni, claims victory in the country's Presidential elections."Monopoly31121993 (talk) 18:32, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support we're not here to right great wrongs. Article is clear, and reasonably updated. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:22, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support original blurb. Yes, clearly there's issues with that election but as TRM states, we're not here to try to correct them. It is a national election (ITNR), it is in the news, and the article is up to date. The altblurb is a bit too much begging for a front page post, though I could see added "controversial election" or the like simply to highlight that there were issues with it without going into any detail. --MASEM (t) 22:19, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment. This item seems ready but I am loathe to post either blurb. I've tried a compromise with alt 2, or can anyone else suggest something? Espresso Addict (talk) 17:02, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Posted with my suggested blurb, as no-one commented. Open to changing it if anyone has a better suggestion. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:41, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment – Is this an election some international observers have criticised as flawed, or is it an election some international observers have criticised as fraud? (Sorry, just saw the blurb on the main page and came up with that couplet; I just couldn't resist posting it.) Kurtis (talk) 23:58, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
I think several words beginning with 'f' all apply quite well, but some of them are more main-pageable than others... Espresso Addict (talk) 00:28, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] Panicum effusumEdit

Pretty clear where this is going ... this would be worth a shot on April 1 but that's still far. --Tone 16:05, 18 February 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: Panicum effusum (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The town of Wangaratta, Victoria, Australia is invaded by Hairy Panic (pictured).
News source(s): BBC
Nominator: Mjroots (talk • give credit)
 Mjroots (talk) 12:15, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose Interesting news, but far far from a world-changing crisis. --MASEM (t) 15:02, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Makes a nice click-bait headline, but it's hardly going to have major and lasting impact. 'Plants temporarily inconvenience rural community' is nowhere near the level of significance required for ITN. Modest Genius talk 15:19, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. Revisit when Donald Sutherland starts pointing fingers and screaming. GRAPPLE X 15:23, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose, even though this isn't a "world-changing crisis" (nor does anything have to be that for ITN) someone has to say this: this would be a great DYK. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:24, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
And one can learn that panic can be hairy. Just like great tits... Brandmeistertalk 15:38, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
As a pre-existing article, it's going to need a bit of expansion to meet DYK. Mjroots (talk) 15:54, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Yep, but it's a stub so it's altogether possible. Just an idea. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:02, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
I wish we had something a bit like what the German Wikipedia has, where as well as blurbs for big news stories they also put a few links to smaller things that probably aren't blurb-worthy but are still in the news. This would be a good fit there. Smurrayinchester 09:10, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

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

February 17Edit

Portal:Current events/2016 February 17

[Closed] World indoor mile record brokenEdit

No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 22:18, 18 February 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: Genzebe Dibaba (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In athletics, Genzebe Dibaba breaks the women's world record for the indoor mile
News source(s): Google gives plenty, viz. [7], [8], [9]
Nominator: Banedon (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: There is currently no sports item on ITN. Also the previous record was 26 years old, set in 1990; the margin by which it was beaten, 4 seconds, is also pretty big as far as athletics world records for this distance go. Notably though, only the indoor record was broken. Banedon (talk) 02:05, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose It is only the indoor record, and the non-Olympic mile is not a frequently run distance - it is only 100m longer than the Olympic 1500m competition. And Dibaba already improved the 2 mile record by 6 seconds in 2014. LoveToLondon (talk) 02:29, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Oppose inadequate referencing for a main page quality BLP.--Jayron32 04:45, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose per the reasons stated; I don't think this record(outdoor or in) has the importance it once did. 331dot (talk) 09:56, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Per preceding. Sca (talk) 15:10, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

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

[Posted] 2016 Ankara bombingEdit

Article: 2016 Ankara bombing (talk, history)
Blurb: ​At least 28 people are killed and 61 injured following a bombing in Ankara, Turkey.
News source(s): BBC
Nominator: The Rambling Man (talk • give credit)

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Another terror attack on Turkey. Death and injury toll inevitably climbing every hour. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:34, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Support just recommend waiting a few hours to let affirmation of core details be set for the article. --MASEM (t) 20:48, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - Nomination speaks for itself.--WaltCip (talk) 20:51, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - high number of deaths, escalation of violence in Turkey.BabbaQ (talk) 21:12, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - Significant event in the history of Turkey LoudLizard (📞 | contribs) 21:55, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
oppose considering such incidents in Syria are dismissed as a byproduct of being part of a civil war, this country has been slipping into a civil war for a good couple of months now. Shelling on Kurds in Syria started 2-3 days ago, madman is saying that will continue despite an unanimous UNSC resolution ( 1-2 days ago) saying otherwise. Hence clear false flag.Lihaas (talk) 22:04, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
@Lihaas: False flag or not, this is a relevant news event. We should rather write an article about the Turkish shelling of Northern Syria, given that it has even been the topic of a Security Council meeting (don't know if there was a resolution though). --PanchoS (talk) 12:40, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support – A significant occurrence for Turkey, which is BTW a NATO member. Syria is still a different type of situation. Sca (talk) 22:21, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
comment NOT updated with barely a few sentences on the bombing or alleged perpetrator. (of which there are currently two and radically change the reaction (although its clear which one the regime is goin with))Lihaas (talk) 22:22, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support As a notable attack. Article quality and size clearly meet WP:ITN guidelines, marking as ready. Mamyles (talk) 22:56, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 23:35, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Where is the mythical update? Do yall bother to READ the article? Cause beyond the background there is barely a few sentences in the main sectionsLihaas (talk) 01:37, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
The article doesn't have to be exhaustive to be posted. There's enough content at present for it to be posted. It only just happened as well so expecting paragraphs upon paragraphs of information is a bit much. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 01:43, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
@Lihaas: As stated in WP:ITN, "a five-sentence update (with at minimum three references, not counting duplicates) is generally more than sufficient." Mamyles (talk) 02:15, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Plus, the whole article is the update. It wouldn't exist without the event having taken place. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:51, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

February 16Edit

Portal:Current events/2016 February 16

[Closed] Per la ricuperata salute di Ofelia is discovered in PragueEdit

Stale, having taken place three months ago. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:00, 22 February 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.

 Jenda H. (talk) 21:55, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose as unfortunately, the discovery was in Nov 2015, today it was played for the first time in a public performance. However, please consider WP:DYK as this article was just created today, so easily qualifies there. --MASEM (t) 22:03, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

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

[Posted to RD] Boutros Boutros-GhaliEdit

Article: Boutros Boutros-Ghali (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): (BBC), (New York Times)
Nominator: The Rambling Man (talk • give credit)

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Former Secretary-General of the United Nations (of which there have been just eight) The Rambling Man (talk) 16:04, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Support No brainer RD, update is there. Brandmeistertalk 16:13, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support indeed, a no-brainer. Top of his field of diplomacy. Article needs some more citations before posting, though. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:16, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support pending article improvements RD importance is clearly met, but the article is lacking much inline sourcing with some entirely unsourced paragraphs. --MASEM (t) 16:17, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support RD (only) on importance. I'm surprised and disappointed that such an important figure has only a C-class article. Hopefully that won't take long to bring to post-able level. Modest Genius talk 16:20, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. --bender235 (talk) 16:20, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
  • support when article is sufficiently improved. Exactly the sort of person RD was made for. Thryduulf (talk) 16:24, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. I would call the Secretary General the top of its field (international diplomacy) regardless, but Boutros-Ghali presided over several particularly high-profile incidents during his time and is probably the most notable holder of the office since Hammarskjold. GRAPPLE X 16:28, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
And those were the times when blue UN helmets were a real force... Brandmeistertalk 17:18, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Obvious Support - but is he not worth a blurb? Mjroots (talk) 18:54, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
    • Not really. While he was a key figure in many situations during his time as UNSecGen, he wasn't as instrumental to resolution of those situations. Add to the fact that this article's quality is a far cry to even supporting an RD. If we had a well-developed feature article here, I might tend to agree a possible blurb, but that's going to take far too much effort. --MASEM (t) 19:01, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD. Blurb discussion may continue, although consensus appears against it so far. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:29, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
  • RD yes, Blurb No he was not in office when he died unexpectedly=, he was not the longest serving Secretary, he was not credited for changing the direction of the UN, he failed to curtail the Rwandan genocide or broker a peaceful breakup of Yugoslavia.... μηδείς (talk) 21:35, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

February 15Edit

Portal:Current events/2016 February 15

2016 Grammy AwardsEdit

Article: 58th Annual Grammy Awards (talk, history)
Blurb: ​"Uptown Funk" is record of the year and 1989 is album of the year at the 58th Annual Grammy Awards.
Alternative blurb: Mark Ronson wins record of the year and Taylor Swift wins album of the year at the 58th Annual Grammy Awards.
News source(s): CNN, Guardian, Reuters
Nominator: Fuebaey (talk • give credit)

Article needs updating

Nominated event is listed at WP:ITN/R, meaning that the recurrence of the event should in itself merit a post on WP:ITN, subject to the quality of the article and any update(s) to it.

 Fuebaey (talk) 04:29, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Oppose virtually no prose, the stuff that's there is out of date, there's hardly any referencing (couldn't see a single inline reference for the winners and nominees section). The Rambling Man (talk) 09:27, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. There hasn't even been a change of tense in the lead yet... Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:41, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support pending article improvements - The prose and sourcing issued identified above need to be fixed. I notice the past Grammy articles have been in similarly poor shape given more recent expectations we ask of ITNR competitions (sports/awards), so there definitely needs to be more prose about the broadcast/etc. (eg I understood this was the first one to have been live-streamed and there were issues with that). --MASEM (t) 15:20, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - This is not up to our usual quality of articles, even for ITNR.--WaltCip (talk) 17:26, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
  • On ITNR, so there's no point in support or oppose !votes - just assess the article quality. Much like the BAFTAs did below, this needs some proper referenced prose, including reaction / analysis. A massive list isn't good enough to feature on the Main Page. Modest Genius talk 11:48, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
    Well, no actually. Several of the opposes above all cited specific issues that needed to be resolved before the opposer would be happy to support, as a minimum. Perfectly reasonable. It's an indication of each editor's idea of whether the article is ready for posting. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:32, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
    Yes indeed, and that's very valuable. But it doesn't help to put a big bold 'oppose' at the start of what is in fact a request for article improvement, not actual opposition to the item in principle. Modest Genius talk 12:45, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
    That's silly. You don't just read the stuff in bold, do you? How bizarre. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:49, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
    What TRM said. Any doubt and confusion regarding the !vote can be cleared up simply by reading the ancillary material, which admins are expected to do anyway when judging consensus. Or are you suggesting that admins don't read past what's in bold? Either way I oppose posting an article to the main page that makes even our stubs look bad.--WaltCip (talk) 13:09, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
    I didn't accuse anyone of anything, just remarked upon a practice which I find unhelpful as it conflates two different issues (significance and article quality). But yes, this continues to be short of our minimum requirements. Modest Genius talk 14:25, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
    Not at all, no conflating took place. In fact I comment on both quality and notability, and in this case the notability is covered by ITNR, so my comment clearly applies to the quality. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:45, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
    A specific ITNR item can be rejected if there is no consensus to post that specific instance (which does not invalidate the repeating ITNR item otherwise), even if the article quality is there. The discussion should though be focused on that instance and why it should not be posted this time, not the presence of the ITNR repeating item (and if that's in question, that's discussion for WT:ITNR). ITNR is not an automatic pass, it is merit to avoid repetitive discussion about the broad nature of a recurring event if it should be included or not. --MASEM (t) 15:04, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
    The template for ITNR also states "generally considered important", not "always considered important".--WaltCip (talk) 15:19, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I'm not convinced that this is Main page headline news material. I'd rather see something else more serious in it's place on the main page that is actually news.  — Calvin999 12:48, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
    As noted above, the Grammys are on ITNR, so this is a discussion on article quality, not newsworthiness. (And for what it's worth, these are the biggest awards in music- their notability is unquestionable- and the Main Page does not have a "seriousness" threshold.) -- Mike (Kicking222) 14:55, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
      • I'm aware of what the Grammy's are. I just wouldn't call it news as such.  — Calvin999 10:53, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
    That's not the point here- something on ITN/R has been deemed sufficiently notable by default; if you want to argue that distinction, that's fine, but this isn't the place to do it. (You'd also lose that argument for the Grammys, but that's totally irrelevant to this discussion.) -- Mike (Kicking222) 23:43, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose only on inadequacy of prose. If anyone wants to clean this up, the recently posted BAFTA article would be a good model. --Jayron32 16:05, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose on article quality. Checking the page diff from the time that the lone "support pending updates" vote was made and now shows that very little prose has been added since. The formatting and copyedit on the page is awful as well. I'm not used to opposing articles for these reasons, but I'm also not used to seeing articles on high-profile and prestigious events get so little editor attention.128.214.53.18 (talk) 10:33, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Heat > Light. BencherliteTalk 09:31, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • If it's clear no effort is going to be made to get this article up to par, shall we close this nom?--WaltCip (talk) 13:49, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
    I see no harm in leaving it open; it might even encourage someone to give the article some work. Modest Genius talk 14:18, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
    And if not, it'll provide good impetus to remove the Grammys from ITNR as it's clearly not considered important enough for ITN by the thousands and thousands of our US editors. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:21, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
    No, it doesn't, just like with the US Open (tennis) earlier from last year, which never got improved so was never posted but remains an ITNR item. It doesn't invalidate the ITNr, just affirms that ITNR require an article update. No other ITNR item is kept/removed due to the nature of the lack of updates. --MASEM (t) 15:04, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
    Yes, it does. I never said it would prove the point alone, just that it provides impetus. ITNR items can (and have been) removed because they are of insufficient interest to anyone to bother to update them. That is perfectly logical. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:07, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
    Repeated and ongoing failures to obtain a suitable update/article are a suitable reason to remove from ITNR. A single instance is not. Anyway, that's a discussion for WT:ITNR, not here. Modest Genius talk 15:23, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
    Some of you just don't read, or just don't understand, do you? I never said it would prove the point alone, just that it provides impetus. Now please, if you can't read discussions properly, best not to try to join in with them. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:16, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
    If you propose a removal of the Grammys at WT:ITNR, the consensus will oppose the removal. George Ho (talk) 22:13, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
    Will we "be sorry" if we propose it? --WaltCip (talk) 00:55, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
    For about the fourth time, please could some of you please learn to read? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:56, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

February 14Edit

Portal:Current events/2016 February 14

[Posted] 69th British Academy Film AwardsEdit

Article: 69th British Academy Film Awards (talk, history)
Blurb: The Revenant wins five awards, including Best Film, at the British Academy Film Awards.
News source(s): BBC
Nominator: JuneGloom07 (talk • give credit)

Nominated event is listed at WP:ITN/R, meaning that the recurrence of the event should in itself merit a post on WP:ITN, subject to the quality of the article and any update(s) to it.

 JuneGloom07 Talk 21:23, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Support pending update - Comparing to the previous years, I think one more paragraph as a summary of the wins is needed, but that otherwise should be ready to go. --MASEM (t) 23:56, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose Article has about 4 lines of prose and that is inadequate for highlighting on the main page. When we have sufficiently complete article on the event, then we can post this. --Jayron32 23:58, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose 593 bytes of prose. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:15, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support pending update -- Definitely noteworthy (possibly the 3rd biggest films award), should be posted once updated fully..the biggest event is less than 2 weeks away..--Stemoc 00:43, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
@Stemoc: Since this is ITNR, support on the merits has already been established and is not needed for posting. 331dot (talk) 10:00, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment. The article isn't ready yet. Espresso Addict (talk) 09:43, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Fine to go up per WP:ITNR, but only once the article is suitable - and it's not ready yet. It needs some properly-referenced prose and reaction to the awards. Tons of sources are available for anyone who wants to work on it. Modest Genius talk 14:02, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Lead updated now. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 14:16, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
  • The article seems updated now. Nergaal (talk) 15:23, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Definitely improved. I would still like to see some reaction or (sourced) commentary, rather than just restating who won what in prose form. Modest Genius talk 15:57, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Improved, but I still oppose. It's got flowery prose calling The Revenant the "big winner", rather than just saying how many awards it won. It's currently at 1,774 characters of prose. For comparisons sake, 88th Academy Awards is at 8,597 characters, and those awards aren't for two weeks. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:29, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
    Yes, and that's called systemic bias. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:37, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
    • You're not trying to claim there's a systemic bias against the U.K., are you? (FYI I'm not saying the BAFTA page needs to be the same length as the Oscar page, just more than it is.) – Muboshgu (talk) 16:42, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
    I'm saying there's a bias in favour of American awards and against any other kind of awards, simply due to the volume of editors. And I happen to know that the Academy Awards page will be nominated at FLC probably within 4 hours of the conclusion of the event. It's really simple. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:02, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
    My understanding is that the BAFTA ceremonies proper (not the awards) are far less of an event compared to the Oscars broadcast in which we have tons of coverage of red carpet arrivals, wardrobe choices, live acts, etc. But there is still a ceremony, it was broadcasted, and there's something to discuss about it; just that previous BAFTA pages don't seem to have this discussed much either. There should be a short section about the ceremony in the BAFTA pages, it doesn't need to be perfect or as detailed as the Oscars coverage, but it should be discussed to a degree here. That's not a systematic bias, that's just being appropriately comprehensive. --MASEM (t) 17:09, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
    I'm in opposition to all film and entertainment award events, period.--WaltCip (talk) 17:43, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
    Why? Not enough murder and mayhem? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:13, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
    Sorry Masem, that's nonsense really. If someone is keen on a particular annual event, it will get bloated, even pre-event. Just look at The Boat Races 2016 to prove the point. It has nothing really to do with "appropriate comprehensiveness" as all articles should be "appropriately comprehensive", since this is an encyclopedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:15, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
    But we're looking to the same thing we'd ask of a sporting event regardless how much there is to talk about before the event. Just putting in box scores for those doesn't cut it, we expect a summary of the event/game. Here, some type of summary of the ceremonies would be needed and that doesn't seem excessively demanding; I'd certainly not expect at this point the same amount of text as the Oscars page, just a paragraph or so. --MASEM (t) 19:19, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
    The point you miss is that all articles should be appropriately comprehensive. Most of the Academy Awards coverage is tabloid bullshit, yet for some reason (systemic bias?) we tolerate it in our encyclopedia. How curious. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:38, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
    Looking at our Oscar articles, it actually looks like editors have done a good job trimming the fat away from the meat. The most salient elements of the presentation ceremony are focused on : the when, where, who, the critical reception to it (since itself is treated as a potential show for an award by the Emmys), and other notable events while avoiding the nature of gossip and star gazing that floods the media otherwise. I can't readily tell if the BAFTA presentation itself has anywhere close to the coverage we get for the Oscars, but what I do see for the BAFTA presentation is sufficient information and coverage that would match what we have for the Oscars presentation (the when, where, who aspects I list above); there is much less fat to trim off compared to doing the same for the Oscars. --MASEM (t) 23:01, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Should all the prose be in the lead as it is? - OldManNeptune 18:44, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment. Made some minor tweaks. I'd say it's roughly the same shape as what was posted last year. There is scope to expand on critical commentary though, with Stephen Fry's comment about Jenny Beavan and Rebel Wilson's Best Supporting Actor introduction. Fuebaey (talk) 19:20, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Posted - only oppose votes were for the lack of prose, which no longer seems to be a problem. Smurrayinchester 12:43, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
    • The article is much improved, and I agree it now meets our minimum requirements for posting. Modest Genius talk 14:19, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
    • I agree that the prose is now adequate. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:20, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

February 13Edit

Portal:Current events/2016 February 13

[Closed][Posted] RD: Antonin ScaliaEdit

Posted to RD, there does not seem to be a consensus for a full blurb. --Tone 15:17, 14 February 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.

Tone 15:17, 14 February 2016 (UTC)--Tone 15:17, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Article: Antonin Scalia (talk, history)
Blurb: Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States Antonin Scalia dies at the age of 79.
News source(s): The Guardian
Nominator: Sceptre (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: First Justice to die since Rehnquist; inherently notable enough, as a SCOTUS justice, for a full blurb. Sceptre (talk) 22:14, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Strong support RD, neutral on blurb - Article is in good shape, the question of a blurb is that while no one expected him to die (he was still a sitting SCOTUS member) he was also nearly 80, and really isn't a major mover/shaker in terms of politics on his own. --MASEM (t) 22:17, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Article is a FA so OK from a article quality perspective. Is the death of an US supreme judge ITN worthy? I think so but this is my first foray in ITN. I don't think there is much source coverage yet but there will surely be soon.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:21, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
    • It is going to get a heck of a lot of coverage because 1) its US politicis, and 2) this means a lot on the current election cycle from the standpoint that Obama will get to nominate an appointee here before he is out of office, so this is now a huge power play for both parties. --MASEM (t) 22:24, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support RD, oppose blurb, important but essentially local political figure, not really a surprising death. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 22:22, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support RD only; reaching the Supreme Court is the height of the US legal field, but he doesn't warrant a blurb as he was not a world-transforming figure(like Mandela or Margaret Thatcher). Death is being reported as natural causes so that doesn't warrant a blurb either. 331dot (talk) 22:27, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
    • His death actually has world-changing consequences. Take Obama's climate actoin on CO2 emissions. The Supreme Court with Scalia would have blocked it, but now without Scalia it can't. Now that Obama's CO2 action survives, other countries will probably not drop out of the CO2 reduction agreement. And that is just one point where the disappearance of the Republican majority on the court has huge effect. So even if the man himself was not consequential enough for a blurb, the consequences of his death certainly are. Thue (talk) 00:08, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
      • Every death has future consequences; we're discussing the man here. Any future consequences can be nominated on their own. 331dot (talk) 02:47, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support RD only blurb would be three bridges too far. A notable individual and an excellent article, well worthy two words on the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:30, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support RD, weak oppose blurb – Definitely meets RD criteria but not convinced Scalia warrants a blurb. Media seems to be honing in on the position he's left open rather than Scalia himself as well (indirect notability). ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 22:31, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - even the chief justice would be borderline for RD, but he was an associate justice. Certainly an important person in the legal system of his country, but the same can be said about hundreds of other supreme court justices around the world. 93.215.72.24 (talk) 22:32, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Feel free to nominate those other justices; the relevant RD criteria is "very important" to their field, which you seem to concede. 331dot (talk) 22:36, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support RD A top figure in his profession, nationally know, but unsure if transformative enough for blurb on the Thatcher scale.LM2000 (talk) 22:34, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support RD - never heard of the guy, but having had a read of the article, he seems notable enough for RD. Mjroots (talk) 22:37, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - Major conservative figure on the Court, and replacing him will likely prove to be a very interesting political battle. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:39, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support blurb He was a leader of conservative thought, especially the idea of originalism, and his death is newsworthy because it sets off a battle between Obama and the Senate on his successor. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:43, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
That's assuming the Senate will even take up a nomination; Ted Cruz is already calling for waiting until the next Pres(but I digress). 331dot (talk) 22:47, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
True enough. There's no rule I'm aware of that says they have to seat a justice in a reasonable time frame, but Obama's not going to let this vacancy go for 11 months without nominating someone. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:13, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support RD, Neutral on blurb: Major figure, probably going to set off a battle to choose his successor. Eteethan(talk) 22:46, 13 February 2016 (UTC)


  • I'm putting up the RD notice now. We can continue to discuss blurbs if you all would like but I don't see that as likely. NW (Talk) 22:50, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Post-posting Support: I can't see why we wouldn't want an FA quality article on the main page. --Jayron32 23:37, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Post-posting Support per Jayron32, and I'd Support a blurb for reasons I'll only take the time to expand upon if it gains traction.Godsy(TALKCONT) 23:50, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb, not an important figure globally. Abductive (reasoning) 00:26, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
    • He doesn't have to be to merit a blurb. See the "please do not" section at the top of the page. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:14, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support blurb: Major turning point in USA government, changes the balance of conservatives and liberals in the Supreme Court. EternalNomad (talk) 01:08, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Overstated jiggerry-pocky or whatever the old fart said. There is no turning point. Abductive (reasoning) 01:16, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
  • There is no end to punditry and crystal-ballery, but the fact remains that nothing has actually happened except "he died" and was 79 years old. We have no article to point to for the future nomination battle. Abductive (reasoning) 02:27, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Strong support of blurb. This is a major moment in U.S. political history. Some sources are stating that his death may "lead to a constitutional crisis" and some have called his death "A Death That Reshapes U.S. Politics". -- Notecardforfree (talk) 01:29, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
  • post-posting support RD - a supreme court justice is clearly in the top <1% of their field, oppose blurb. He was a big figure on the supreme court, but any "constitutional crisis" (I'll only believe that if it happens) is not down to him - it would happen for any justice who died at this point. If anything does happen then that should be nominated for a blurb of it's own. Thryduulf (talk) 01:36, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb per 331dot and Thryduulf. An obvious RD, but I very much doubt a judge in any country would even be considered for a blurb. This is big news in American politics, and I am very interested in it, but it is important not to lose a sense of perspective. Neljack (talk) 02:28, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb - while I do consider his death to be far more consequential to the world than the winner of Super Bowl 50, I cannot say he passes the "Michael Jackson test". Perusing through websites all over the world, one might this a top story in Britain, Canada, and maybe even Australia, but certainly not in Russia, China or even Germany. Should this item be posted as a blurb, it will be a fine example of systemic bias at work. Colipon+(Talk) 03:23, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I think a blurb is worth considering. Regarding his global importance: his death is currently a headline on the main pages of Le Monde, Al Jazeera, Haaretz, El País, Corriere della Sera, Spiegel, ... Anecdotal/personal: As someone who consumes a lot of non-English-language-media, I'd bet a lot on Scalia being the most recognizable sitting SC Justice in any outside-the-US poll conducted during the past 20 years. Moreover (though not mentioned in the blurb) the (US) media are full of comments how his passing may have an influence on the upcoming presidential election (via the already debated question whether Obama should/may/can appoint Scalia's successor, or whether the appointment should wait until after the election, in which case it will inevitably become an election topic, see e.g. SCOTUSblog). Thanks for posting the RD, but I'd even support a blurb, not least because his is a featured article, as mentioned several times above. ---Sluzzelin talk 03:43, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support blurb - a major force in Conservative US politics, intellectual leader of the conservatives not only in the Supreme Court, but also an intellectual leader beyond that because of his position in the Supreme Court. Also, since within hours of his death major political fault lines are being drawn and sides being taken. His death is impactful. Hires an editor (talk) 03:52, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
    • This reasoning is exactly why we should avoid a blurb. Most of the coverage about his death is what his absence creates in an election year in the US. It ultimately might have some play on the world stage but this is all now about the political power play in one country, and that's something we distinctly avoid at ITN. His passing as a notable person needs to be marked but not the fallout that is less about him and more about the void. --MASEM (t) 03:55, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb per Colipon. 'Weak support RD, notable in US politics but not a world leader. Coverage practically only in the US. —Jonny Nixon (talk) 04:01, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
@Jonny Nixon: Sluzzelin demonstrates clearly above that this is not just covered in the US, and even if it was, that is not germane to the RD criteria. 331dot (talk) 04:08, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Scalia's international influence was not particularly great. His approach to constitutional and statutory interpretation won little support in other countries. He tended to be viewed as an extreme conservative. Neljack (talk) 06:53, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Blurb Then notability here is not merely Scalia himself, but the implications on national (not local) politics. Supreme Court Justices are lifetime appointees, SCOTUS wields significant power (arguably co-equal with the other two branches of govt), and the balance of that power in a two-party system is a big deal in general - not just for party fortunes but for the future direction of US law. - OldManNeptune 09:36, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support RD now and not opposed to a blurb, as soon as further developments indicate his replacement. --PanchoS (talk) 10:52, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
  • No blurb - RD is obvious here, but in the end he was 'just' a judge in one country. Important? Of course. Blurb material? No. Most of the coverage is of course due to the timing and partisan issues. Surely we're better than that? Fgf10 (talk) 12:52, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
    • You are of course entitled to your opinion, but a Justice is not the same as a judge (the differences are numerous, but in summary, a Supreme Court Justice interprets law passed by the legislature and can overturn and forever invalidate said laws; this gives them an indirect lawmaking role as opposed to a more traditional judiciary role). SCOTUS judgements have implications as far reaching as racial desegregation or nationwide recognition of same-sex marriage, or nationwide legalization of abortion, etc - in short, what many consider among the most important advancements in civil rights law in the US have been handed down directly by such Justices, and while it would be silly to claim the US is "the" benchmark for international law, it certainly can be counted among the most influential in how westernized nations interpret their own laws. - OldManNeptune 13:29, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
      • However, a SCOTUS justice can't do this alone,its one voice among 9. --MASEM (t) 13:33, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
        • Truth, but very little can be done in US gov't by oneself, and indeed "one of nine" is much the point. Compare either house of congress; a single Justice has a 1/9th vote, vs a 1/100th vote in the Senate, and many SCOTUS decisions hinge on a single vote. Also unlike other offices, Justices may hold office for decades. - OldManNeptune 15:00, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
I am perfectly aware of their role, thank you. The condescending explanation was much appreciated nonetheless... Fgf10 (talk) 14:00, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
I apologize if you read condescension in that, but I assure you none was intended. Did I say anything incivil? Your characterization of a Justice as "a judge" led me to believe you did not fully appreciate the duties and influence of the office, as no equivalent office is found in many (most?) governments. I certainly don't know what every government official does in every EU nation and would take no offense at being set straight on one I mistook for more or less important than it really is. - OldManNeptune 14:51, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Story is receiving widespread coverage. Article is in great shape. --Tocino 14:20, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

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

[Closed] South Sudan civil war overEdit

No consensus to post. Stephen 02:21, 17 February 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: South Sudan civil war (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In implementing the conclusion agreement of the South Sudan civil war, Riek Machar is re-appointed First Vice President by President Salva Kiir.
News source(s): via Bing
Nominator: Lihaas (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: End of a civil war is notable...in this case, just power politics that ended as it began 2 (2.5) years ago with needless deaths. (btw- the article I created, Woo ;)) Lihaas (talk) 11:18, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
This will be notable, but I fear we're being a bit premature. According to the Guardian, "analysts fear former allies turned enemies are not yet ready to cooperate to end fighting". If this leads to a ceasefire or peace agreement, then definitely post. Smurrayinchester 11:31, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
This IS the result of an agreement signed in Ethiopia under the auspices of IGAD. That's the reason he has been officially nominated to the position. the Guardian may fear its going to be undone, but reality on the ground means he wouldn't have been re-appointed.
Note- I didn't nomninate this when the agreement was signed as there had been breakdowns, but in this cse he has been nominated already (and even affirmed).Lihaas (talk) 08:17, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Support in principle but there is a lot of work to be done. --Jenda H. (talk) 17:44, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

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

February 12Edit

Portal:Current events/2016 February 12

[Posted] Meeting of Pope Francis and Russian Orthodox Patriarch KirillEdit

Articles: Pope Francis (talk, history) and Patriarch Kirill of Moscow (talk, history)
Blurb: Pope Francis and Patriarch Kirill meet in Havana, Cuba, the first such meeting between the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches since the East–West Schism in 1054.
Alternative blurb: Pope Francis and Patriarch Kirill meet in Havana, Cuba, the first such meeting between the Roman Catholic and Russian Orthodox churches.
Alternative blurb II: Pope Francis and Patriarch Kirill, meeting in Havana, Cuba, call jointly for an end to persecution of Christians in the Middle East and to wars in the region.
Alternative blurb III: Pope Francis and Patriarch Kirill, in a historic meeting, call jointly for an end to persecution of Christians in the Middle East and to wars in the region.
Alternative blurb IV: Pope Francis and Patriarch Kirill meet in Havana, Cuba.
Alternative blurb V: Pope Francis and Patriarch Kirill, meeting in Havana, Cuba, sign a thirty-point joint declaration that addresses global issues.
Alternative blurb VI: The Joint Declaration of Pope Francis and Patriarch Kirill is issued following the first ever meeting between the leaders of their churches.
Alternative blurb VII: Pope Francis and Patriarch Kirill sign an Ecumenical Declaration in the first such meeting since the East–West Schism in 1054.
News source(s): Unity call as Pope Francis holds historic talks with Russian Orthodox Patriarch (BBC) plus other news media reporting this extensively as well [10], ([11], [12], [13])
Nominator: Carcharoth (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: Historic meeting that makes a change from the usual items nominated at ITN. I have briefly updated all three articles I linked in the blurb. All look to be in reasonable condition. Carcharoth (talk) 01:31, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

  • I'm not sure if this means anything. The schism hasn't really been a major social or political issue for a long time.--WaltCip (talk) 01:52, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
    • Sure, but it is getting a fair amount of attention. I'll add a few more news articles to the sources bit of the nomination. Have also now updated the articles, but only with a sentence in each. Though thinking on this some more, the claim that this is the first such meeting in centuries is a bit suspect, see here: "more significant and more substantive meetings between Roman pontiffs and Orthodox patriarchs have occurred for over half a century. The groundbreaking 1964 meeting between Pope Paul IV and Athenagoras I, Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, led to the joint lifting of mutual 900-year-old anathemas.". Am a bit ambivalent on this now. Carcharoth (talk) 02:10, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
      • I edit conflicted with the expansion of this comment, but I think if this is the most important meeting since 1964 our ITN standards are easily met. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:22, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Cautious support, when fully updated. Purely symbolic but is being reported widely. Both bios look ok on a very quick scan, though parts of Kirill seem underreferenced. Also we have one really stale news slot. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:11, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support upon update; this meeting seems notable for the mere fact that it occurred, even though disagreement between the two sides isn't a large issue nowadays. 331dot (talk) 02:18, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Additional notes - for anyone writing alternative blurbs (I'll do one now). Patriarch Kirill is not the 'leader' of the Eastern Orthodox Church (that would be the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople), but the Russian Orthodox Church (which Patriarch Kirill leads) is the largest of the Orthodox churches. A blurb could focus more on the joint declaration they made, sidestepping the issue of the somewhat overhyped 'first such meeting since 1054' angle that some news media appear to be using (I am not sure about that any more). See also Athenagoras I of Constantinople#Ecumenical relations, Pope Paul VI and Ecumenism and Catholic–Orthodox Joint Declaration of 1965. Maybe there should be Catholic–Orthodox Joint Declaration of 2016? See Joint Declaration of Pope Francis and Patriarch Kirill and compare with the 1965 joint declaration. Carcharoth (talk) 02:33, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose First the blurb is misleading. This is not exactly "the first such meeting between the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches since the East–West Schism in 1054.". "Eastern Orthodox churches" should be changed to "Russian Orthodox Church". Other Patriarchs have met the Pope again and again since the schism. This is the first time the Patriarch of Moscow met the Pope one on one (and not since the schism, it is since ever, but perhaps this does not matter). So it is nothing exactly new outside of the Russian Church. I oppose the posting because it does not really change anything. They have been in constant contact, this meeting is essentially only symbolic. If anything very substantial is made in the joint statment then perhaps I will change my view. But I do not believe it will be anything special or great.75.73.150.255 (talk) 02:42, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
    • Added alt blurb to address this (I agree with you, and got the first blurb wrong and have struck part of it). A lot of this was covered in 2013 in one of the other "landmark" moments (one of many). See here. The impression I get is that the big breakthrough was in 1964, leading to the Catholic–Orthodox Joint Declaration of 1965 (which I have been unable to work into a blurb as sources aren't explicitly linking the two), and that the thawing of relations has been happening very slowly ever since, with this being another important step, but maybe being a bit overhyped. Carcharoth (talk) 02:56, 13 February 2016 (UTC) Some much better-written sources explaining this better than the mainstream news are [14], [15], [16]. Carcharoth (talk) 03:28, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I think this needs some sort of article like Catholic-Orthodox relations. Also, all Orthodox churches are autocephalic so (excluding the Constantinople) they are linked together as much as the Anglican church is linked to Rome. I suggest having a link along the lines of East–West_Schism#Recent_efforts_at_reconciliation. Nergaal (talk) 03:58, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
    • I agree. I have read through much more of the East–West Schism article, and (unsurprisingly for something with a nearly 1000-year history) it is complicated and the article is rather long and I am unsure how good it is. This really needs someone who knows a lot more about all this to do some proper updates, as despite having read up on lots of this, I am not confident I am able to give this topic the updates it deserves. Hopefully someone can. Carcharoth (talk) 10:20, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I was surprised to not already see this blurb included in the "In the News" section. I don't understand the requirement of already having coverage in Wikipedia in order to be included. Isn't encouraging contributions the whole point of this feature? Include a red link and people will write a nice article. This is a wiki! (cc: iridescent) --MZMcBride (talk) 11:20, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
  • @MZMcBride Redlinks probably shouldn't ever be on the main page, even when the event obviously justifies an article, as there's too much risk of someone writing something seriously incorrect which (by virtue of being on the main page) is seen by the public as being said in Wikipedia's voice. Sure, anyone can dump garbage into any article, but any other bolded link on the MP will pretty much be definition be on peoples' watchlists. ‑ Iridescent 11:48, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support The rare case where an event is notable enough to promote to ITN even though there is no dedicated article yet. If I had time now, I would immediately start writing it. By tonight, I might do so. --PanchoS (talk) 11:27, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose Nothing is actually happening - the schism isn't ending, no change in doctrine, etc. The religious nature doesn't change that. - OldManNeptune 12:32, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support but wait – It's certainly in the news, probably globally, but let's wait & see if they announce ... something. Sca (talk) 15:52, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
The make a joint declaration to stop persecution of Christians in Middle East. Short meting end on Friday.--Jenda H. (talk) 16:28, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Oh, yeah – in that case — Sca (talk)
  • Support Altblurb2 – Since the ostensible reason for their meeting has been obscured by the "historic" blather. Sca (talk) 17:16, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Both are extensive, high quality articles. Good to highlight on the main page. Altblurb2 looks good. --Jayron32 23:43, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
    Also support working in the new article by User:Carcharoth into the blurb somehow. --Jayron32 23:56, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not worth posting. Nothing came out of this; it's just two men meeting. If something actually arose out of this (aside from "calling" for XYZ, which everyone including me can do) then I might reconsider this. Banedon (talk) 00:34, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
It's a significant symbolic act. Sca (talk) 00:50, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Would you call the first meeting between the Prime Minister of the Solomon Islands and the President of Togo a historic act worth posting? Banedon (talk) 01:08, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
You're comparing apples to oranges. Unlike Prime Minister or President, the Pope and the Patriarch both lead the Churches with hundreds of millions followers. Also, the relations between the previous Popes and the Patriarch have been chill, with Patriarch Alexy II calling the planned visit of John Paul II "an invasion to Rus". Brandmeistertalk 12:35, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
In view of Russia's involvement in the Syrian war, it's significant also that it's the Russian patriarch/primate calling, with the pope, for peace, etc. Sca (talk) 14:34, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
If we start distinguishing because of the hundreds of millions of followers, then things like the release of Windows 10 would be worth posting since there are so many PCs in the world. Religious drama is not more worthy of posting than e.g. North Korea's constant threats to wipe South Korea off the map. I am unconvinced. Something concrete needs to actually happen for me to reconsider. Banedon (talk) 00:36, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Altblurb3 also offered with a nod to the "historic" angle. Sca (talk) 00:50, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Noting my support for Sca's alt2 and alt3 blurbs over the original one that I posted, and noting also that the East–West Schism article has been updated and also tidied up (even if it is not mentioned in a blurb). If there is room, I would suggest a slight tweaking of alt3 to "Pope Francis and Patriarch Kirill, in a historic first meeting between the leaders of their churches, call jointly for an end to persecution of Christians in the Middle East and to wars in the region." (or some shortened version of that?). Ideally, we would have more in an appropriate article on the 30-point declaration and responses to the declaration, but we don't have that yet. I may start that today and/or contact PanchoS who made a similar offer. Could those familiar with ITN say how long we have before this item goes stale, and whether there is enough support (reading back over the discussion, I am not hopeful). Carcharoth (talk) 10:41, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Alas, 38 words is too long for an ITN blurb, particularly for an event that's several days old. My thought is that readers who want to pursue the "historic" angle can do so via the article. Sca (talk) 14:42, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Um, I appear to have written an article on this now: Joint Declaration of Pope Francis and Patriarch Kirill. Not quite sure what to do here. Should I try and use that in this ITN nomination (just adding the article in somehow), or start a new nomination? Could get quite confusing especially with 6 burbs already proposed before/as I wrote the article. I will ping those who have taken part in the debate to get their views, hopefully that will make things clearer. (PS. Click through to the Russian version of the article - several Slavic languages have articles on this - for an image that may be usable, I am not sure what license it is under). Pinging: User:WaltCip, User:Espresso Addict, User:331dot, User:Nergaal, User:MZMcBride, User:Iridescent, User:PanchoS, User:OldManNeptune, User:Sca, User:Jenda H., User:Jayron32, User:Banedon, User:Brandmeister, and User:George Ho who has just marked it as 'ready'... :-) Sadly, I can't ping the IP who commented, but maybe they are still around. Carcharoth (talk) 23:14, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Wow, thanks so much for the great article you wrote! I added yet another blurb which I think is a bit more concise while giving more background info. The image you referred to was uploaded to Commons but isn't properly tagged with a free licence so will be gone there within the next hours. I propose reuploading it here on en.wikipedia as a non-free image under the Fair use policy which it clearly qualifies for. Regards, --PanchoS (talk) 23:47, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
The background of that article is missing the visits in Romania and Ukraine. Nergaal (talk) 23:46, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose -2 men from 2 useless (cult) organisation which doesn't do anything except raping kids and creating wars ...this is a news item fit for Wikinews, NOT for wikipedia--Stemoc 23:43, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Your personal opinion about the Catholic Church or any religious sect is not relevant to this nomination. 331dot (talk) 00:24, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
(Personal attack removed) --Stemoc 23:50, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Nergaal and Stemoc, please refrain from attacking other users (specifically each other). You're both long-time editors and should know better than this. Such discourse is not tolerated here and I advise both of you to step out of this discussion if you can't separate your personal views from constructive talking. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 00:18, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
"Ignorant" is a PA? Nergaal (talk) 03:40, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support blurb VII. Article seems written well; thanks to Carcharoth for their work. 331dot (talk) 00:27, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
    • Thanks. I am wary, though, of blurbs using the 1054 date, as the Russian Orthodox Church didn't really exist at that point (it was not a Patriarchate until 1589). It is simpler to just state it is the first ever meeting between leaders of the two churches (blurb VI). Apologies to the poor admin who has to sort through all this. Carcharoth (talk)
 • Re blurbs IV through VII, we can't see the forest for the trees. Sca (talk) 02:47, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Posted the blurb VII. --BorgQueen (talk) 09:21, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
  • No opinion on the nomination or posting itself, but how in God's name did we end up with 8 potential blurbs?--WaltCip (talk) 13:14, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Post-posting comment – The 'ecumenical declaration' phrase tells most readers nothing, and for some may connote an ecumenism theme, which would be misleading. As the article notes, "issues raised included the persecution of Christians in the Middle East and North Africa; the impact of civil war, chaos and terrorist violence; the exodus of Christians from Syria and Iraq...." These were the themes primarily covered in the news. Sca (talk)
(Please don't tell me to address this at WP:ERRORS. It's not an error per se, it's an editorial judgment call.) Sca (talk) 14:42, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Very well, but you, by now, should be aware that most of us ignore items that have been [Posted] or [Closed], in particular we don't come here to discuss changes to blurbs in general. [Clue: no response to your question for over six hours, while ERRORS is serviced far more frequently]. That's the whole point of ERRORS. Oops. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:17, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Not an error. — IMO, a poor choice of the blurbs available, discussion of which has taken place here. Sca (talk) 00:52, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Nevertheless – [17]. – Sca (talk) 15:06, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Good idea! Especially considering no-one had responded to your query here in the past 24 hours. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:19, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Maybe we should have a subsection of ITNC where improvements to posted blurbs could be suggested & discussed. (Or would that be too bureaucratic?)
Failing that, perhaps 'Errors in In the news ' could be re-titled to 'Errors in and Improvements to In the news.' Sca (talk) 18:14, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
That really is bureaucratic. Just take it ERRORS. It has more traffic, more admins, more interest, and more likely that you'll get a result. As I suggested some 30+ hours ago. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:11, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Surely you're not a  -watcher? Sca (talk) 21:37, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
It was simply to point out that posting complaints here after items are posted is generally a waste of time, in particular if it's just about the wording used. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:56, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

─────────────────────────Well, I see someone finally changed the blurb, so that's something positive. Sca (talk)

But I see someone else was told that his style critque – IMO valid – was "not an error." Sigh. Sca (talk) 16:11, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

February 11Edit

Portal:Current events/2016 February 11

[Added to ongoing] Zika and Microcephaly [Update?]Edit

Not a new ITN entry, just a potential update to the existing entry, such that

The rapid spread of Zika fever, associated with microcephaly in newborns, in Latin America leads to the World Health Organization issuing a Public Health Emergency of International Concern.

From two studies reported now in NEJM and MMWR. --bender235 (talk) 16:41, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

The Zika blurb has fallen off of the template, so I think that this can be closed. Mamyles (talk) 18:23, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Or should it be made ongoing? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:45, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Support for ongoing. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 19:15, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment. I believe these papers are merely formal journal publications of news that has previously been circulating. I would nevertheless support reinstating Zika at ongoing on the basis of ongoing news items on a daily basis, as well as continued interest in Zika (I believe Zika virus came 2nd in last week's traffic report); the Zika articles are being updated, though there are so many now some are lagging behind. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:04, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Added to ongoing Stephen 00:27, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support for ongoing -- at least until the Olympics or until an effective prophylactic is discovered. - Tenebris 66.11.191.152 (talk) 20:46, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
That's not how ongoing works. And people are capable of typing Z-i-k-a if they want information. Abductive (reasoning) 18:14, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support for ongoing. PHEICs are by their very nature and magnitude sustained global events. I wrote the article (full disclosure), and neither the 2009 influenza pandemic nor the 2014 West Africa Ebola outbreak were public health crises which were handled in a few months either, as a glance at their timelines readily demonstrates. kencf0618 (talk) 03:29, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] LIGO announces detection of gravitational waves round 2Edit

Articles: Gravitational wave detection, February 2016 (talk, history) and Gravitational wave (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The LIGO experiment announces the first direct observation of gravitational waves.
Alternative blurb: ​The LIGO experiment announces the direct observation of gravitational waves caused by black holes merging.
News source(s): (Nature), (Guardian), (New York Times)
Nominator: Smurrayinchester (talk • give credit)

 Smurrayinchester 15:44, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Support. Beyond any doubt a remarkable find, comparable in magnitude only to the Higgs boson find of some years ago. --bender235 (talk) 15:48, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Ok, I'll buy it. Support - I'm no astrophysicist, but the findings in the Nature article appear weighty indeed.--WaltCip (talk) 15:48, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support on article update - The press conference is happening as I type this but it is the news the above sources give. The article should have more though from the paper to explain how and why they believe this was a proper detection; it only has a sentence. --MASEM (t) 15:49, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
    • Note that if we are using the detection event ID'd by Mike Peel below, that article does need better sourcing before this should be posted. It's a tad short so it might be worth while to include the previous hypothesized discovery that led up to this. --MASEM (t) 16:28, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Obvious support: biggest scientific discovery since the Higgs boson. Sceptre (talk) 16:03, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Does this count as the first direct observation of a black hole? Nergaal (talk) 16:05, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. We have an article specifically on this event at Gravitational wave detection, February 2016. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 16:14, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support per Sceptre. Lemonade51 (talk) 16:19, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support It's important enough for me to edit again :P Seddon talk 16:52, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support This event is notable enough to post. The article meets WP:ITN quality guidelines. Note that I prefer the first blurb. Marking as ready. Mamyles (talk) 17:21, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
  • This is now up on the template. — foxj 17:29, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] LIGO announces detection of gravitational wavesEdit

posted on nomination above
We don't need to start posting advanced news, let's wait for it to happen. And can we try to tone down the use of bold which isn't helpful in any situation. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:29, 9 February 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.

Articles: Gravitational wave (talk, history) and LIGO (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The LIGO project announces the detection of gravitational waves generated as a result of the merger of two black holes.
Alternative blurb: ​The LIGO project announces the apparent direct detection of gravitational waves; these were generated as a result of the merger of two black holes.
Alternative blurb II: ​The LIGO project announces the apparent direct detection of Einstein-predicted gravitational waves; these were generated as a result of the merger of two black holes.
News source(s): LIGO (on 11th of February), Science
Nominator: Count Iblis (talk • give credit)

Both articles need updating

Nominator's comments: This is to be announced on Thursday, but the news has leaked out (there were already rumors many months ago). Count Iblis (talk) 05:22, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Wait. Probably obvious post after the official news release. Nergaal (talk) 06:23, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Concur with Nergaal. Banedon (talk) 06:46, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • We can't post on a rumour. If this is true, then it's just about the most obvious post in years, but not now. Guess close this now and open a new one on any genuine announcement. Fgf10 (talk) 08:59, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Wait for the official announcement. Rumours based on a leaked e-mail circulating on twitter seem to define unreliable, even when published in Science. Espresso Addict (talk) 09:11, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Concur with others about waiting. Then almost certain post, subject to article quality and to blurb quality, as this is an area where cautious wording is probably called for: These waves have been searched for ever since Einstein predicted them, so their discovery would be hugely important, but I understand there have been claimed discoveries before, including recently, which have not stood the test of time, and in the past ITN has seemingly been unduly incautious with some sensational claimed scientific discoveries, such as Dua's Layer. Appropriately cautious wording would probably also be required in the text of the articles. Tlhslobus (talk) 16:32, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
    • My above-mentioned 'understanding' regarding recent claims was correct: Primordial gravitational waves are gravitational waves observed in the cosmic microwave background. They were allegedly detected by the BICEP2 instrument, an announcement made on 17 March 2014, which was withdrawn on 30 January 2015 ("the signal can be entirely attributed to dust in the Milky Way"[34]).Tlhslobus (talk) 16:39, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
    • With such caution in mind I've added an altblurb with the extra word possible.Tlhslobus (talk) 16:46, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
    • If preferred, some alternative words or expressions such as apparent or (not yet independently confirmed) might also do the job of expressing suitable caution.Tlhslobus (talk) 16:53, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
    • On the other hand, I've also added an altblurb2 with Einstein-predicted to give the ordinary reader an indication of the possible importance of the discovery. (I've added a comma after waves, since I don't know whether Einstein's prediction was in the context of black holes, let alone merging black holes.) Tlhslobus (talk) 17:21, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
    • I'm also adding the comma to my first altblurb, as such a comma after waves is probably wanted even without Einstein predicted, as the important item is that it's (allegedly) the discovery of gravitational waves, whereas the merging black holes seems relatively trivial. (After expected publication on Thursday, we will need to phrase the blurb to try to ensure that the reader doesn't get the misleading impression that gravitational waves may have been discovered before in contexts other than merging black holes).Tlhslobus (talk) 17:38, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
    • With that in mind, I'm replacing the comma with ; these were in both my altblurbs. Tlhslobus (talk) 17:43, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
    • On reflection, apparent will probably be better than possible, unless the authors themselves say 'possible', so I've amended my 2 altblurbs accordingly.Tlhslobus (talk) 17:51, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment, obviously we must wait until it is announced, but since this is likely to be a massive breaking news event (according to the rumors it's a solid more than 5 sigma's observation involving two independent detectors that both detected the characteristic features of such a signal and with the time lag between the two detected signals ruling out some freak terrestrial artifact), one can already look into both Wiki articles and make an assessment if the news can be edited in on Thursday, and there may be other possible problems that may need to be fixed. Count Iblis (talk) 18:28, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Fair enough regarding assessing the articles. But regarding the alleged news itself, the last incorrect claim was similarly not the result of any freak terrestrial artefact; the fact that it has taken so many decades to detect waves which are supposed to be occurring all the time, is itself grounds for caution, even without the past mistaken claim(s).Tlhslobus (talk) 19:10, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Incidentally, at first perusal the articles both look great to me, but I don't think I'm qualified to judge (and some may object that there's two much maths in the Gravitational Wave article - again I don't feel qualified to judge that).Tlhslobus (talk) 19:35, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Gravitational Waves article not looking quite so great on closer inspection, tho again I'm probably far too poorly qualified to judge.Tlhslobus (talk) 21:21, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose
  • At the moment there is just rumours.
  • The LIGO project announces would be a primary source statement, which is not a RS. Everyone still remembers another recent case of a huge announcement that turned out to be nothing after the result was reviewed.
  • This should be closed, and only when there is an actual announcement with either a peer-reviewed paper or RS reporting by scientists (not just journalists repeating an announcement) there is a basis for any kind of discussion.
LoveToLondon (talk) 20:09, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose Close: We're all agreed that nothing is going ahead until if and when it's official. But some of us think that in the meantime preliminary discussion of various issues here and now may usefully speed up the process of getting the item ready for posting if and when it's needed later.Tlhslobus (talk) 21:11, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • That's WP:CRYSTAL. What exactly will be getting on Thursday? A press conference alone would not be sufficient for obvious reasons - it is not even an RS for updating the article. A peer-reviewed paper is pretty much the minimum requirement for taking any scientific results seriously. announces the apparent like in the altblurbs would be a clear indication that it must not be posted to ITN - it is either confirmed or a publicity stunt. LoveToLondon (talk) 21:27, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Adding direct detection to altblurbs - they have arguably already been indirectly detected long ago, with a Nobel prize handed out in 1993 for showing the energy loss of binary neutron stars to be consistent with the emission of gravity waves.Tlhslobus (talk) 21:16, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

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

February 11Edit

Portal:Current events/2016 February 11

[Added to ongoing] Zika and Microcephaly [Update?]Edit

Not a new ITN entry, just a potential update to the existing entry, such that

The rapid spread of Zika fever, associated with microcephaly in newborns, in Latin America leads to the World Health Organization issuing a Public Health Emergency of International Concern.

From two studies reported now in NEJM and MMWR. --bender235 (talk) 16:41, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

The Zika blurb has fallen off of the template, so I think that this can be closed. Mamyles (talk) 18:23, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Or should it be made ongoing? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:45, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Support for ongoing. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 19:15, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment. I believe these papers are merely formal journal publications of news that has previously been circulating. I would nevertheless support reinstating Zika at ongoing on the basis of ongoing news items on a daily basis, as well as continued interest in Zika (I believe Zika virus came 2nd in last week's traffic report); the Zika articles are being updated, though there are so many now some are lagging behind. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:04, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Added to ongoing Stephen 00:27, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support for ongoing -- at least until the Olympics or until an effective prophylactic is discovered. - Tenebris 66.11.191.152 (talk) 20:46, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
That's not how ongoing works. And people are capable of typing Z-i-k-a if they want information. Abductive (reasoning) 18:14, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support for ongoing. PHEICs are by their very nature and magnitude sustained global events. I wrote the article (full disclosure), and neither the 2009 influenza pandemic nor the 2014 West Africa Ebola outbreak were public health crises which were handled in a few months either, as a glance at their timelines readily demonstrates. kencf0618 (talk) 03:29, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] LIGO announces detection of gravitational waves round 2Edit

Articles: Gravitational wave detection, February 2016 (talk, history) and Gravitational wave (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The LIGO experiment announces the first direct observation of gravitational waves.
Alternative blurb: ​The LIGO experiment announces the direct observation of gravitational waves caused by black holes merging.
News source(s): (Nature), (Guardian), (New York Times)
Nominator: Smurrayinchester (talk • give credit)

 Smurrayinchester 15:44, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Support. Beyond any doubt a remarkable find, comparable in magnitude only to the Higgs boson find of some years ago. --bender235 (talk) 15:48, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Ok, I'll buy it. Support - I'm no astrophysicist, but the findings in the Nature article appear weighty indeed.--WaltCip (talk) 15:48, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support on article update - The press conference is happening as I type this but it is the news the above sources give. The article should have more though from the paper to explain how and why they believe this was a proper detection; it only has a sentence. --MASEM (t) 15:49, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
    • Note that if we are using the detection event ID'd by Mike Peel below, that article does need better sourcing before this should be posted. It's a tad short so it might be worth while to include the previous hypothesized discovery that led up to this. --MASEM (t) 16:28, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Obvious support: biggest scientific discovery since the Higgs boson. Sceptre (talk) 16:03, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Does this count as the first direct observation of a black hole? Nergaal (talk) 16:05, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. We have an article specifically on this event at Gravitational wave detection, February 2016. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 16:14, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support per Sceptre. Lemonade51 (talk) 16:19, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support It's important enough for me to edit again :P Seddon talk 16:52, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support This event is notable enough to post. The article meets WP:ITN quality guidelines. Note that I prefer the first blurb. Marking as ready. Mamyles (talk) 17:21, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
  • This is now up on the template. — foxj 17:29, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] LIGO announces detection of gravitational wavesEdit

posted on nomination above
We don't need to start posting advanced news, let's wait for it to happen. And can we try to tone down the use of bold which isn't helpful in any situation. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:29, 9 February 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.

Articles: Gravitational wave (talk, history) and LIGO (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The LIGO project announces the detection of gravitational waves generated as a result of the merger of two black holes.
Alternative blurb: ​The LIGO project announces the apparent direct detection of gravitational waves; these were generated as a result of the merger of two black holes.
Alternative blurb II: ​The LIGO project announces the apparent direct detection of Einstein-predicted gravitational waves; these were generated as a result of the merger of two black holes.
News source(s): LIGO (on 11th of February), Science
Nominator: Count Iblis (talk • give credit)

Both articles need updating

Nominator's comments: This is to be announced on Thursday, but the news has leaked out (there were already rumors many months ago). Count Iblis (talk) 05:22, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Wait. Probably obvious post after the official news release. Nergaal (talk) 06:23, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Concur with Nergaal. Banedon (talk) 06:46, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • We can't post on a rumour. If this is true, then it's just about the most obvious post in years, but not now. Guess close this now and open a new one on any genuine announcement. Fgf10 (talk) 08:59, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Wait for the official announcement. Rumours based on a leaked e-mail circulating on twitter seem to define unreliable, even when published in Science. Espresso Addict (talk) 09:11, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Concur with others about waiting. Then almost certain post, subject to article quality and to blurb quality, as this is an area where cautious wording is probably called for: These waves have been searched for ever since Einstein predicted them, so their discovery would be hugely important, but I understand there have been claimed discoveries before, including recently, which have not stood the test of time, and in the past ITN has seemingly been unduly incautious with some sensational claimed scientific discoveries, such as Dua's Layer. Appropriately cautious wording would probably also be required in the text of the articles. Tlhslobus (talk) 16:32, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
    • My above-mentioned 'understanding' regarding recent claims was correct: Primordial gravitational waves are gravitational waves observed in the cosmic microwave background. They were allegedly detected by the BICEP2 instrument, an announcement made on 17 March 2014, which was withdrawn on 30 January 2015 ("the signal can be entirely attributed to dust in the Milky Way"[34]).Tlhslobus (talk) 16:39, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
    • With such caution in mind I've added an altblurb with the extra word possible.Tlhslobus (talk) 16:46, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
    • If preferred, some alternative words or expressions such as apparent or (not yet independently confirmed) might also do the job of expressing suitable caution.Tlhslobus (talk) 16:53, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
    • On the other hand, I've also added an altblurb2 with Einstein-predicted to give the ordinary reader an indication of the possible importance of the discovery. (I've added a comma after waves, since I don't know whether Einstein's prediction was in the context of black holes, let alone merging black holes.) Tlhslobus (talk) 17:21, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
    • I'm also adding the comma to my first altblurb, as such a comma after waves is probably wanted even without Einstein predicted, as the important item is that it's (allegedly) the discovery of gravitational waves, whereas the merging black holes seems relatively trivial. (After expected publication on Thursday, we will need to phrase the blurb to try to ensure that the reader doesn't get the misleading impression that gravitational waves may have been discovered before in contexts other than merging black holes).Tlhslobus (talk) 17:38, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
    • With that in mind, I'm replacing the comma with ; these were in both my altblurbs. Tlhslobus (talk) 17:43, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
    • On reflection, apparent will probably be better than possible, unless the authors themselves say 'possible', so I've amended my 2 altblurbs accordingly.Tlhslobus (talk) 17:51, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment, obviously we must wait until it is announced, but since this is likely to be a massive breaking news event (according to the rumors it's a solid more than 5 sigma's observation involving two independent detectors that both detected the characteristic features of such a signal and with the time lag between the two detected signals ruling out some freak terrestrial artifact), one can already look into both Wiki articles and make an assessment if the news can be edited in on Thursday, and there may be other possible problems that may need to be fixed. Count Iblis (talk) 18:28, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Fair enough regarding assessing the articles. But regarding the alleged news itself, the last incorrect claim was similarly not the result of any freak terrestrial artefact; the fact that it has taken so many decades to detect waves which are supposed to be occurring all the time, is itself grounds for caution, even without the past mistaken claim(s).Tlhslobus (talk) 19:10, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Incidentally, at first perusal the articles both look great to me, but I don't think I'm qualified to judge (and some may object that there's two much maths in the Gravitational Wave article - again I don't feel qualified to judge that).Tlhslobus (talk) 19:35, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Gravitational Waves article not looking quite so great on closer inspection, tho again I'm probably far too poorly qualified to judge.Tlhslobus (talk) 21:21, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose
  • At the moment there is just rumours.
  • The LIGO project announces would be a primary source statement, which is not a RS. Everyone still remembers another recent case of a huge announcement that turned out to be nothing after the result was reviewed.
  • This should be closed, and only when there is an actual announcement with either a peer-reviewed paper or RS reporting by scientists (not just journalists repeating an announcement) there is a basis for any kind of discussion.
LoveToLondon (talk) 20:09, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose Close: We're all agreed that nothing is going ahead until if and when it's official. But some of us think that in the meantime preliminary discussion of various issues here and now may usefully speed up the process of getting the item ready for posting if and when it's needed later.Tlhslobus (talk) 21:11, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • That's WP:CRYSTAL. What exactly will be getting on Thursday? A press conference alone would not be sufficient for obvious reasons - it is not even an RS for updating the article. A peer-reviewed paper is pretty much the minimum requirement for taking any scientific results seriously. announces the apparent like in the altblurbs would be a clear indication that it must not be posted to ITN - it is either confirmed or a publicity stunt. LoveToLondon (talk) 21:27, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Adding direct detection to altblurbs - they have arguably already been indirectly detected long ago, with a Nobel prize handed out in 1993 for showing the energy loss of binary neutron stars to be consistent with the emission of gravity waves.Tlhslobus (talk) 21:16, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

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

February 10Edit

Portal:Current events/2016 February 10

[Closed] Successful recovery of a cryogenically frozen mammal brainEdit

I think it's clear this isn't going anywhere close to the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:14, 11 February 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: Cryonics (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Scientists have successfully frozen and recovered for the first time the brain of a mammal.
News source(s): Brain Preservation Foundation, research article, DailyMail, Newsweek
Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Kinda weird but potentially really important development. I remember this was a big topic in the 90s until people realized that freezing brains damages them too much. Now a team has managed to recover an essentially undamaged rabbit brain, the first time done for a mammal. Seems the research was published a few months ago but it is getting picked up by news sites now. Nergaal (talk) 18:59, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  • From the Newsweek article's addendum: "Correction | The article originally stated that the brain had been recovered. It has been updated to clarify that the rabbit brain has so far only been preserved, not recovered." Therefore, oppose blurb on principle of an inaccurate claim.--WaltCip (talk) 19:02, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. The claim isn't "a team has managed to recover an essentially undamaged rabbit brain", it's that the team has managed to freeze a rabbit brain without causing visible structural damage; unsurprisingly for those familiar with that organ, the Daily Mail has got the wrong end of the stick; the original source even makes it clear that this isn't scalable to larger animals and they're now going to try to freeze a pig brain. Total non-story. ‑ Iridescent 19:10, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose if we didn't read the articles we'd be duped by this. The blurb is actually completely incorrect. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:26, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment. With an accurate blurb this might actually be interesting. The news is that a prize instituted in 2010 by the Brain Preservation Federation has been won by a new technique, aldehyde-stabilised cryopreservation. It's hard to tell how notable either the prize or the development is, given that the article on cryonics hasn't been updated and we don't have an article on the foundation. It might be suited to DYK, if the prize were deemed notable enough to support a new article being created on the technique. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:30, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Complete and utter nonsense. Sorry for the strong words, but that is one of the most misleading blurbs and press statements I've ever seen. It would be good if people actually bothered going to the actual paper, which doesn't make any of these claims. For starters, the brain is fixed in gluteraldedyhe.... For anyone who know even the slightest bit about biochemistry, that already makes it completely obvious there is never going to be any recovery. Structural preservation? Sure. Functional recovery? After hell freezes over. Fgf10 (talk) 08:11, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

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

[Closed] Dikwa bombingEdit

Okay, enough now. I think the posting editor should realise we need an article to assess. Other, more experienced Wikpiedians have fallen into the same trap, waiting to assess notability before being bothered to create an article. It just doesn't work here. Article first, assessment follows. In this case, no article, no likey. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:30, 10 February 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: No article specified
Blurb: ​Two female suicide bombers kill more than 60 people at a camp for displaced people in Dikwa, Nigeria.
News source(s): (Al Jazeera) (Reuters) (ABC News)
Nominator: Spirit Ethanol (talk • give credit)

 Spirit Ethanol (talk) 19:17, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  • You answered your own question with "no article exists". What are we supposed to assess? ‑ Iridescent 19:20, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose - Ignoring the fact there is no article, this seems part of the continued Boko Haram situation in Nigeria, and thus not an isolated even (50,000 + ppl have died in the Boko Haram uprising since according to one of the linked articles). --MASEM (t) 19:20, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose please provide an article to assess for quality and notability. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:24, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  • "Write the article first" applies here, too. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:35, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - If posted, the gender is an unnecessary factoid and does not need to be mentioned in the blurb.--WaltCip (talk) 21:15, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Prima facie oppose I can't assess the quality of an article that doesn't exist. How can I know if it is good enough to post on the main page? --Jayron32 21:28, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

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

February 9Edit

Portal:Current events/2016 February 9

[Posted] Bad Aibling rail accidentEdit

Article: Bad Aibling rail accident (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Nine people are killed in a head-on collision (train involved pictured) between two passenger trains near Bad Aibling, Germany.
Nominator: Mjroots (talk • give credit)
Updater: Sladen (talk • give credit)

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Breaking news, appears a significant accident. Article needs bashing into shape but expect it will be as info becomes available is being bashed into shape. Currently eight deaths, possibly more to be confirmed. Mjroots (talk) 09:17, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Support - Plenty of deaths, quite rare incident, decent article already.BabbaQ (talk) 09:40, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support when article improved. Train collisions causing this level of fatalities/injuries are relatively uncommon in W Europe. Not to mention the fact that our current news set has one or two stale items. Espresso Addict (talk) 10:56, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - Rare incident, large number of fatalities by Western standards and article is brief but in good shape. Fgf10 (talk) 11:27, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose A rail accident with more fatalities in France last year was not to posted to ITN for notability reasons. LoveToLondon (talk) 13:46, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Rewrite - Support changing Bad Aibling to Bavaria or Bavarian. No one internationally would really glean much from such specificity. -- Fuzheado | Talk 14:01, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Well the name seems in line with standing practice. Looking at Category:Railway accidents in Germany, normally not the Bundesland, but the village is named, even if they are largely unknown outside the region... L.tak (talk) 14:16, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
@L.tak: - this is not the place to discuss the issue. Go to talk:Bad Aibling rail accident. Mjroots (talk) 14:20, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
It's immediately recognizable, at least to many US readers. Mamyles (talk) 23:20, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Article is in good shape, and this is certainly newsworthy and a rarity in the region. L.tak (talk) 14:04, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Posting. --Tone 14:21, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Post-posting Comment: One of the above arguments for posting was that the unposted French rail accident was irrelevant because "The closer of that nomination wrote a good nomination which in other days would have been posted." - the closer did indeed write this, but it looks at least to me like a very misleading account of the actual discussion, including the closer's own opposition 3 days earlier. If I had closed, it would have been on grounds that there was no hope of consensus; indeed, contrary to the impression given that it was only pulled because of the Paris Bombs, some argued that it was only being considered because people thought it might be connected to those bombs, though there were also plenty of other grounds given for opposing.
Posting today with the help of this seemingly misleading argument reinforces my initial gut feeling that this item should be pulled due insufficient notability, but I'd prefer to hear more views on this before voting to pull.Tlhslobus (talk) 18:40, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
    • IMHO, that comment after the oppose vote shows a mature editor who knows the consensus is against him/her and accepts the fact without continually harping on about it. Mjroots (talk) 20:29, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
      • Maybe I'm miscounting, but I think there were 9 opposes (10 originally but 1 switched) of whom I think 2 said they would support in another week and 1 said they might support in a different week, so it looks to me like no hope of consensus to post even in a different week. So to me it looks like a kindly editor commendably going out of her way to avoid hurting the nominator's feelings, and who has seemingly also changed her own mind as to the precise reason why she's still opposing the nomination. But it's now academic as there's no support for pulling today.Tlhslobus (talk) 22:02, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
        • AFAIK, it's not a simple !vote count. Mjroots (talk) 22:05, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
          • True, it's not a vote, you need a consensus to post, and with that many opposed there was clearly going to be no consensus. But this is now a pointless academic discussion, so provided anything you care to say is not unduly provocative (and perhaps even if it is) please feel free to have the last word here before some admin sensibly closes the item to avoid further unproductive discussion.Tlhslobus (talk) 22:26, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Post-posting support Precedent is not binding here. Postability is completely subjective, beyond guidelines set at WP:ITN and WP:ITNR. Borderline items can miss out because of a busy week, for example. Personally, my opinion is that this particular event is notable enough to post. Mamyles (talk) 18:57, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Sushil KoiralaEdit

Article: Sushil Koirala (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: Incumbent president of Nepali Congress and former Prime Minister Sushil Koirala dies at 76.
News source(s): The Kathmandu Post Zee News
Nominator: EternalNomad (talk • give credit)

Article needs updating

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Former PM, incumbent president of Congress (died in office). Seems to be very important in his country. EternalNomad (talk) 00:45, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Weak support article is sparse, and probably could use a ref or two more for a few mostly uncontentious statements, but nothing that would lead me to block this from appearing on the main page. --Jayron32 01:02, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak support Generally hesitant about opposing any former world leader (for reference PM in Nepal is the seat of power, the President is a ceremonial position), however, we're also talking a rather short term (under 2 years) and a position that has high rotation (see List of Prime Ministers of Nepal). I feel there's more importance that can be established based on what is little in the article now, though I do note the article is otherwise is seemingly good shape to post. --MASEM (t) 01:05, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
    • Should note this is support for RD only. Oppose blurb. --MASEM (t) 02:48, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose
  • Blurb president of Nepali Congress and nominator comment incumbent president of Congress are misleading - Nepali Congress is not a parliament (like US Congress), it is a political party.
  • Seems to be very important in his country. - he was head of government and leader of the biggest party, which should be enough notability for RD.
  • Article is poor, even basic information like why he lost his position as Prime Minister to someone of a different party is completely missing.
LoveToLondon (talk) 01:25, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support RD oppose blurb, former head of state, agree the article needs some improvements before posting. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:14, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Why do some people fail to have a look at the subject before voting? former head of state is complete nonsense. LoveToLondon (talk) 15:56, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • @LoveToLondon: you certainly couldn't have been directing that at me, since I read the article and added the citation needed tags before I posted here. "Former head of state" implies the "significant contribution/impact on the country/region" mentioned at WP:ITN/DC. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:46, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support RD; would meet the RD criteria as very important to the government/poltics of their nation, but this isn't a world-transforming leader or otherwise someone at the tip-top of the field that would warrant a blurb. 331dot (talk) 02:28, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment. The article needs expansion, updating and referencing before it can be posted. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:30, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support RD article needs some improvements before posting. other than that the article subject is notable and important.BabbaQ (talk) 09:15, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support RD - notable as prime minister of Nepal, but a few sections are unreferenced. -Zanhe (talk) 17:26, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment Added references. Former Nepali PMs are quite common ('Suu Kyi joked, “Never have I been in a room with so many former Prime Ministers!”'), but this one presided over a new constitution and the earthquakes. Should be good to go for RD. Fuebaey (talk) 18:56, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Posted. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:39, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

February 8Edit

Portal:Current events/2016 February 8

[Posted] RD: Violette VerdyEdit

Article: Violette Verdy (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): NY Times Telegraph ABC News
Nominator: MurielMary (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Described in sources as a "leading ballerina of the 20th century", received many awards for her dancing and directing, lead for NY Ballet fo 20 years. MurielMary (talk) 11:08, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Support Article in good shape and well-sourced (if not as charming as her New York Times obituary). One of the last great Balanchine dancers, independently notable for her prominent artistic directorships. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 15:14, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Support once updated Importance clear, article is in good shape, outside of the lack of mention of her death in the prose which should be easy to fix. --MASEM (t) 15:24, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose Some journalist at AP writing in an obituary A leading ballerina of the 20th century is very blurry and obituaries tend to describe the achievements of the deceased too positive (ABC just has a verbatim copy from AP). The awards section lists the lowest ranks of two French medals as her highest achievements (France's highest decoration has 5 ranks), and there is nothing in the article that makes it clear whether she was generally considered the leading ballerina in the world. LoveToLondon (talk) 15:25, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Article is sufficient length and sufficiently well written and referenced. I added a few cn tags to a few statements that may need them, so that should probably be fixed, but the article is of sufficient quality to appear on the main page. --Jayron32 15:33, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support once fully updated. She succeeded internationally, inspired leading choreographers, and was a leading teacher and ballet director. The article looks mostly ok, though there are a couple of citations requested and some obituary trivia needs pruning. It needs the past tense applying. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:38, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Most concerns have now been addressed. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 14:06, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

RD: Nida FazliEdit

Article: Nida Fazli (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The Indian Express The Times of India
Nominator: Skr15081997 (talk • give credit)

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: An important lyricist, poet and dialogue writer. Honoured with Padma Shri, 4th highest civilian award in India. Skr15081997 (talk) 08:50, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment. I'm having a hard time assessing Fazli's notability. If I recall aright, we have not previously considered the Padma Shri alone as sufficient evidence of importance? How does he compare with the recent nomination, Intizar Hussain (who wasn't posted, mainly for having stub article)? In any case, the article is not yet of postable quality. It needs updating to the past tense. Some parts need work on the tone, which is rather peacocky. More references would be ideal; several long paragraphs only have a single reference. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:01, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose seems to be a marginal call for RD notability. Article is very poor. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:49, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak support Article is short, but the prose is fully referenced, and I can't find anything contentious that is lacking a reference. It'd be nice if it were longer, but it's enough for me. --Jayron32 15:31, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Margaret ForsterEdit

Posted, further debate over definitions or the purpose of RD can be taken elsewhere. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:03, 10 February 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: Margaret Forster (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The Telegraph BBC The Guardian
Nominator: MurielMary (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Award-winning biographer and writer MurielMary (talk) 20:11, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. I was contemplating nominating this. Georgy Girl (book & film) is an influential 1960s film, her biography of Daphne du Maurier is very well known, and Forster gained several awards for various biographies and memoirs. I've found references for most of the statements in the article. I note an IP has changed the date of death to 7th, though 8th is stated by the BBC and other sources. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:35, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support I conformed footnotes. Is it true she turned down Queen's honours? Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 21:35, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose The vague term Award-winning shows the notability problem - if there is any proof that she was generally considered to be among the top 3 or top 5 authors in the UK that is missing in the article. LoveToLondon (talk) 21:39, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
The term Award-winning is a summary of her achievements, not an indication of an notability problem. Also the subject doesn't need to be among the top 3 or top 5 authors in the UK - the field is "biographers" rather than "authors in general". MurielMary (talk) 21:50, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Every person is leading in some field when you define the field narrow enough. And I don't see proof in the article for your claim that she was the leading biographer in the UK - even the sources emphasize her novels in the headlines and summaries. LoveToLondon (talk) 22:45, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • "Biographer" is a sufficiently broad category; there's a reason we distinguish between "programmer" and "video game designer", after all. It's not like we're saying "Foremost biographer of Daphne du Maurier", which is a considerably more narrow field. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:53, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • The sources are emphasizing her novels, which makes the nominator claim that she was the leading biographer questionable. Are there any sources for the claim that she was in the (already relatively small) field "biographers in the UK" the leading person, or is that nominator claim not true? LoveToLondon (talk) 00:48, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Several sources go into her non-fiction in depth, though most are headlining Georgy Girl because it's so iconic. Reputable obituaries don't usually rate people in that way, and even were they to do so it would only be the personal opinion of the author. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:08, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
LoveToLondon, you are putting words into my mouth, so to speak. I have made no such claim that Forster is the leading biographer in the UK. I have used information from the article to summarise her status into the one adjective "award-winning". The adjective "award-winning" is used with the noun "biographer" because, as stated in the article, she won awards for her biographies. MurielMary (talk) 01:41, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
MurielMary as nominator wrote: the field is "biographers" rather than "authors in general". MurielMary has so far failed to provide proof that she was one of the leading biographers in the world, or at least the leading biographer in the UK. LoveToLondon (talk) 10:37, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
The focus of discussions here is "does the article meet the criteria" not "did the nominator do xyz". Kindly bear this in mind; discussing editors in this way is not recommended by WP as it can lead to accusations of personal attacks. MurielMary (talk) 20:52, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support RD - Appears to meet the threshold. Article is in fair condition. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:53, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support I'll buy notability, I had not heard of her but the article and comments above are persuasive enough - and the article is in pretty decent shape. - OldManNeptune 03:02, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. Seems to meet RD2; as indicated her article seems to be in decent shape. 331dot (talk) 11:31, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Posted The Rambling Man (talk) 14:09, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

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

[Posted] RD: Amelia BenceEdit

Article: Amelia Bence (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Lanacion
Nominator: Lugnuts (talk • give credit)

Article needs updating

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Highly profilic actress, covers multiple areas of under-represented areas of coverage on WP: women, Argentina, etc, article is in great shape and there's only one name on the RD ticker at the moment. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:00, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Support high quality article, notability not in doubt. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:02, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. Article seems in great shape, subject seems to meet the RD criteria. 331dot (talk) 19:08, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Compared to most RD bios, this is in great shape and importance seems clear from the quality/numerous sourcing. I did not see a statement about her death (though the lede was updated), so this just needs even a sentence to note her passing but that's trivially fixed. (If I'm just missing that update, I apologize) --MASEM (t) 19:14, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment. The article is not updated to reflect her death, beyond the date in the lead. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:43, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - when ready. it is clearly not ready yet, per update request above.BabbaQ (talk) 20:57, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Posted, after article update by TRM. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:05, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Very notable actress, a Latina icon of the Golden Age, though not well known outside Latin America. Wikipedia is a global site, and quite rightly this should be reported, she was sort of like the Elizabeth Taylor of the Latin world.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:46, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support per Dr. B. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:02, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Thank you all. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 14:31, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] Super Bowl 50Edit

Posted, further discussion cannot possibly be productive. - OldManNeptune 14:18, 8 February 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: Super Bowl 50 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In American football, the Denver Broncos defeat the Carolina Panthers in Super Bowl 50 to win the NFL Championship.
Alternative blurb: ​In American football, the Denver Broncos defeat the Carolina Panthers to win Super Bowl 50.
Nominator: Masem (talk • give credit)

Article needs updating

Nominated event is listed at WP:ITN/R, meaning that the recurrence of the event should in itself merit a post on WP:ITN, subject to the quality of the article and any update(s) to it.

Nominator's comments: ITNR, one of the most-watched sporting events in the world MASEM (t) 03:13, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment. Suggest alt blurb in the same format as last year's; "Super Bowl 50 to win the NFL Championship" is redundant. 331dot (talk) 03:17, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support when updated with some prose about the game and the few citation needed tags are addressed. And Australian Open fans take note, this article already has 25kb prose. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:19, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support, suggest posting in <big> font'. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:29, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Why? I can't recall us ever posting any blurb in a large-font format. 331dot (talk) 03:30, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
I think it was sarcasm, 331dot. Jolly Ω Janner 03:33, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I prefer the alternative blurb. Game summary currently has no prose, so I cannot show any support for its promotion. Jolly Ω Janner 03:31, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment Besides obvious support, I think we usually include the MVP, often with a picture. Von Miller today.  — TORTOISEWRATH 03:33, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
We didn't include the MVP last year(not saying we shouldn't). 331dot (talk) 03:34, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment I do want to stress that the game summary is rather important to get into the article ; it was a messy game with lots of turnovers, and wasn't a simple rout. --MASEM (t) 03:38, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment Per 331dot, altblurb (or another altblurb). Winning the Super Bowl to win the NFL Championship is redundant. - OldManNeptune 04:22, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Administrator note - Let me save all of you a lot of time that are thinking about posting here: The altblurb will be posted, no matter what, once the article's game summary section is updated. So unless you (1) have something to post here that's completely game changing (no pun intended), or (2) are going to tell us that you've kindly updated the section... Don't waste your time making a comment here. Coffee // have a cup // beans // 04:52, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I just updated it. Jdavi333 (talk) 05:10, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Pretty important event. If the World Series got into the news, so should this. Elisfkc (talk) 05:19, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • @Elisfkc: Just FYI since this is on the Recurring items list no debate on the merits is required; ITNR events are posted as soon as a quality update is made. 331dot (talk) 12:43, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Posted - Per WP:ITN/R... Thanks to the edits of Jdavi333 and others, the article now has enough prose regarding the game itself that it meets the criteria to be posted. Coffee // have a cup // beans // 07:09, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • It's funny how the supporters need to emphasize that this is ITN/R as if there is some doubt or anxiety that this may not be posted.--WaltCip (talk) 13:17, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

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

February 7Edit

Portal:Current events/2016 February 7

[Closed] Ouarzazate solar power stationEdit

good faith nom, but no consensus to post μηδείς (talk) 01:18, 13 February 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: Ouarzazate solar power station (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Noor 1 solar power plant is commissioned in Morocco
News source(s): Gizmodo, The Verge
Nominator: Yorkshiresky (talk • give credit)
Updater: Andynct (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: First phase of the largest solar power plant in the world, commissioning of Noor 1 is a major landmark in it's development. yorkshiresky (talk) 15:13, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose primarily on timing - this first phase is not the largest in the world; it's when the 3rd phase is completed in 2018 that it will be the largest. --MASEM (t) 15:19, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support pending update - A gigantic project, and of interest internationally. Article needs updating, and though is a bit short, is well sourced. Good ITN item. Jusdafax 05:12, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment. I know we've posted stories about new tallest buildings and the like—do we tend to post on ground-breaking or on completion? I'd support this if it's the former and suggest waiting if it's the latter. GRAPPLE X 12:49, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose the article isn't updated nor is this the endgame. Per Masem, we should wait. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:32, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

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

February 6Edit

Portal:Current events/2016 February 6

[Closed] RD: Dan GersonEdit

stale, given three posted listings and one pending above it. μηδείς (talk) 01:15, 13 February 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: Dan Gerson (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Los Angeles Times
Nominator: Blythwood (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Writer of Monsters, Inc., Monsters University and Big Hero 6: three of the most successful animated films of the last fifteen years. Big Hero 6 won the Oscar for best animated film, for which Monsters, Inc. was also nominated; he also won a BAFTA. His films grossed (according to figures on Wikipedia) around $2 billion at the box office. Also an unexpectedly and sadly young death, aged 49.
I think the article is now in pretty good shape and ready to post: Gerson just doesn't seem to have done many interviews himself, but there are two good ones I've added transcriptions from. There are a lot of comments on his input by his collaborators (he always collaborated on screenplays, as is normal on animated films) and I've added a fair use image; a screengrab of a video interview. Blythwood (talk) 14:00, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Neutral but leaning support Credit to Blythwood for improving the article for RD, that should not be an issue. It's hard to immediately dismiss this given his bg with a few big movies, but this is also a relatively minor part of the whole process and didn't win any awards directly. --MASEM (t) 18:13, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak support a little like Masem. The article isn't really forthcoming as to why this individual is significant in his field, it's barely above stub quality, but at closer inspection his work seems to be nearly unparalleled. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:23, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
    • Yes, now expanded significantly and more logical section dividers added. It's annoying: he really doesn't seem to have been the self-promoting type, so he just doesn't seem to have got the attention other Pixar people did! No Twitter page, for example. But now it looks much cleaner. Blythwood (talk) 21:54, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose his work on the big movies was all as part of a team; his role appears to be one of many, not of a leader or a major talent; also he didn't receive any awards or formal recognition for his work. Could he really be described as "top of his field"?? MurielMary (talk) 11:11, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
    • I'd say yes, certainly: all his films were hugely successful and popular. And what people have always praised about Pixar is their willingness to work together and endlessly try to improve scripts, so I don't see that the fact that he emphasised that he didn't write alone counts against his eminence. At the end of the day, it was his name on the screenplay, so one can assume the scripts were written with him signing off on everything. Blythwood (talk) 12:38, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  • If you are still working on this, Blythwood, you mght like to post on the talk page to try to gain consensus for including it either as a 4th RD or in place of one of the others, otherwise it is unlikely ever to be posted given the three RDs that post-date it. Espresso Addict (talk) 06:37, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
    • Done. I'd say the article is ready to post now. Blythwood (talk) 06:58, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

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

[Posted] Kaohsiung earthquakeEdit

Posted, with clear support consensus. -- Fuzheado | Talk 14:47, 8 February 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: 2016 Kaohsiung earthquake (talk, history)
Blurb: An earthquake strikes in southern Taiwan.
News source(s): BBC ABC CBC Los Angeles Times
Nominator: Jolly Janner (talk • give credit)
Updater: Chongkian (talk • give credit)
Other updaters: Kristijh (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Not the most deadly earthquake to report on, but it has received widespread coverage and it is somewhat in depth (certainly not stubby reports). Article has recently been expanded from a stub. Jolly Ω Janner 03:06, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support The death toll is up to 5, not as high, but a 6+ magnitude quake in a populated area is rather notable. --MASEM (t) 05:48, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. The death toll keeps rising (BBC now giving 7) and there are reports of hundreds injured; the event is getting high-profile coverage on the BBC website; the article has just been destubbed and appears reasonably well referenced. Espresso Addict (talk) 06:54, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support This is a huge quake. Massive destruction, of course this should be posted.--Namnguyenvn (talk) 08:38, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Posting. --Tone 10:56, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

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

February 5Edit

Portal:Current events/2016 February 5

[Duplicate Closed, see Feb 3 for original] RD: Joe AlaskeyEdit

Duplicate, already suggested at the correct date LoveToLondon (talk) 01:45, 5 February 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: Joe Alaskey (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-35491123
Nominator: JzG (talk • give credit)

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Voice actor for Bugs Bunny, Daffy Duck and Sylvester the Cat among many, many others. Guy (Help!) 01:32, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose on quality - The article is in bad condition for posting. It needs a lot of sources for verification. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:41, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

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

February 4Edit

Portal:Current events/2016 February 4

RD: Edgar MitchellEdit

Article: Edgar Mitchell (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): [18]
Nominator: Bongwarrior (talk • give credit)

Article needs updating

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Apollo astronaut and the sixth person to walk upon the surface of Earth's moon like a boss. In my opinion, walking on the moon is about as accomplished as you can be for an astronaut (so far). --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:03, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Support pending improvements The article needs some more sourcing, but yeah walking on the moon is an accomplishment very few humans can claim. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:09, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Not very many people claim to have been healed of kidney cancer by a teenager over the phone, either. This class of people who walked on the moon is special, but I am not sure he was special within that class. μηδείς (talk) 22:15, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm not getting into his parapsychology interests here. He was at the top of his field of science to be able to walk on the moon, and received all sorts of tangible accolades for his career. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:31, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Could you list these accolades? As far as I can tell he was in the program, and met the physical and mental aptitudes for the voyage. He did not design it, or do anything notable as part of it, besides aver the existence of UFO's after he retired. Are we seriously arguing that having walked on the moon is a qualification for itnr? Because if not, I see no reason to post this item. 05:58, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
So you want him to not only walk on the moon, but design and build the rocket also? --Bongwarrior (talk) 20:17, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Like that guy who single-handedly built the rocket and flew to the moon. What was his name? Apollo Creed? GRAPPLE X 20:21, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Okay, thanks, Grapple, since a laugh when you've broken a digit is a nice thing. There was a 70's TV series about a guy building a rocket out back. But in both cases these were American, hence my surprise at the lack of opposition. For Goshsakes, everyone, this guy was a Merickan!. μηδείς (talk) 02:33, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support once article is ready. Exactly twelve men walked on the moon, of whom now only eight are still with us. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:21, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support pending article improvements - Maybe not the most famous astronaut but as noted was one of a limited few that stepped on the moon. --MASEM (t) 22:57, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support pending sourcing improvements; if walking on the moon doesn't make him tops in his field, nothing will. 331dot (talk) 23:04, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Count Iblis (talk) 05:52, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - Obviously a ITN-worthy RD nomination. Jusdafax 06:55, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Why is "walking on the moon ... about as accomplished as you can be for an astronaut"? Are people seriously arguing that the fact that Yuri Gagarin and John Glenn never walked on the moon means that they are less accomplished astronauts? Neljack (talk) 07:58, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
It would appear to me to be an acknowledgement that a field that has changed as much in a human lifetime as aerospace has may have multiple peaks. I doubt they are arguing that any more than you are arguing that Gagarin was a more accomplished astronaut than Neil Armstrong. Regardless of that, being one of a dozen men to set foot on a celestial body that is not the earth you and I stand on goes beyond merely "top of the field", but is arguably "top of any field". Much is made of being first, but in space exploration who is first is often as not a matter of chance; but there are few clubs as exclusive, and few feats as staggering, as the one in question. - OldManNeptune 16:24, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support To Put it into context - while Gagarin and Glenn will always be unique, at the moment out of the 536 people who have been to space, only 12 have stepped foot on the moon. Eventually (I hope), in my lifetime it'll be the case that both these numbers become so common that it'll render them useless for ITN purposes, but these first 12 should be listed for being the pinnacle of achievement during that period of the space race. Miyagawa (talk) 08:44, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support obvious RD candidate, possibly worth a blurb. Mjroots (talk) 09:11, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment clear consensus to post, but article is not in a suitable state by any means. Far too many [citation needed] tags for a start. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:13, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Dave MirraEdit

Article: Dave Mirra (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): LA Times
Nominator: Muboshgu (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: BMX and X-Games star, dead at 41 of an apparent suicide – Muboshgu (talk) 01:01, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Oppose - Article is not updated and needs work on sourcing. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:04, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
    • Admittedly it would need alot of work. What do you think about RD criteria? – Muboshgu (talk) 01:05, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak support on article updates - Article shape is poor, and we should be careful to clearly call it "suicide" without a full examination. Weak support on RD - maybe not the first person you'd think of in extreme sports but he appears to be a leader in that field (but we need that expansion). --MASEM (t) 01:10, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose on quality. Needs some expansion and a lot of referencing. If the article is up to snuff, good to go! --Jayron32 01:12, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support on condition of updates. Certainly he qualifies as top of his field, he's one of the few BMX athletes to enter widespread popular consciousness, and if his death is by suicide then that gives some merit to even a blurb as it is, of course, unexpected. But RD, without a doubt, pending updates. - OldManNeptune 01:21, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support on importance, neutral on quality. The article is definitely improving, but I'm not sure if it's improved enough (entire sections are still unsourced, for example). As far as notability goes, it's a no-brainer; he was one of the best-known and most-awarded athletes in his field, he crossed over to mass media in a variety of ways (MTV host, video game series, etc.), and his death was certainly unforeseen. -- Mike (Kicking222) 04:43, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support in terms of his importance level as long as the article can be improved. Donnie Park (talk) 11:55, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support on notability. shoy (reactions) 13:35, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Updated Should be long enough and good enough quality, though I'll keep working on it in a bit. Orange tag for sources is removed. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:08, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Looks good to me, posted. --Bongwarrior (talk) 23:17, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] French orthographic reformEdit

Clear consensus against posting. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:35, 5 February 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.

Articles: Reforms_of_French_orthography#Rectifications_of_1990 (talk, history) and Use of the circumflex in French (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Protests at plans to reform French orthography in education including abolition of the circumflex.
News source(s): BBC
Nominator: Andrew Davidson (talk • give credit)
Updater: Red Jay (talk • give credit)

 Andrew D. (talk) 00:22, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Close - Trivial. Language is constantly changing.--WaltCip (talk) 00:46, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The fact that the French language is beset by needless regulation is not news. And the blurb is misleading. Not all circumflexes are going. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:14, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The circumflex has not been abolished. These spelling changes were proposed by the Académie Française in 1990. And hardly protests, just fashionable to be outraged on social media. Lemonade51 (talk) 12:25, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose as not really a big deal. Also, the blurb is inaccurate. As far as I can tell from reading the sources, the circumflex is being removed ONLY from situations where it serves no linguistic purpose, that is where it neither indicates a change in pronunciation or distinguishes between homographs. Otherwise, it is still going to be used. So, it's a minor bit of spelling reform, and not an abolition of the diacritic. Meh. --Jayron32 13:17, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

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

[Posted] RD: Maurice WhiteEdit

Article: Maurice White (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): ABC News
Nominator: TDKR Chicago 101 (talk • give credit)

Article needs updating

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Founded a renowned band known worldwide and had a significant career by winning Grammy Award and inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:03, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment Moved to the correct date. LoveToLondon (talk) 23:20, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Moved back - there was confusion when exactly he died, and after looking at a few sources the 4th actually seems to be correct. LoveToLondon (talk) 23:46, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment The nomination says "article needs updating", but it seems updated enough to me right now. There is no special circumstances surrounding his death, so it would be Wikipedia:Recentism to write loads of text around it, other than to note he died (which the article already does). This seems like an uncontrovercial nomination to me, so I am tempted to just post it right away. Thue (talk) 23:26, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. Article is in adequate shape, and although his work has been out of fashion for decades he was an absolute giant of his field. ‑ Iridescent 23:53, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - Notable, award-winning, top of his field. Clearly a worthy RD candidate. Jusdafax 00:45, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD. Thue (talk) 00:49, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Pull due to poor article quality. It's not in good shape, with many unsourced paragraphs, which all are reasonable fixable but should have been done before posting. Importance, yes, meets RD otherwise. (I am going to further point out that having this open for 1 hr with only 2 supports, not a clear obvious case, is not sufficient to post. ) --MASEM (t) 00:52, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Pulled – Definitely concur with Masem here, this was posted too soon (not enough discussion) and is not of adequate quality. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 00:58, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • support when fixed. I don't think notability was a problem.--Johnsemlak (talk) 04:04, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - Members of famous bands can be hit or miss notability-wise, but he seems to have well surpassed simply being a member. --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:23, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support on notability. shoy (reactions) 13:34, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Obvious no-brainer for notability, and as long as the article is up to grade, this should be on the page. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 14:19, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Ready the article has no CN or orange tags and consensus on his notability is established. μηδείς (talk) 06:03, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
    • Not ready, just ran through and marked outstanding uncited material in the Biography section. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 06:11, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
    • Some of the citations are just not coming up. That said, some checks out and I'm adding it from AllMusic. My policy: many of the cn statements are obscure chart placements or comments on his influence, which nobody is disputing. I think delete them; the article is easily notable enough to post and in the long run they won't matter; his music will. Will go back to this tomorrow if i have time. Blythwood (talk) 00:15, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
I'd suggest hiding them rather than deleting them so that they are easy to restore if reliable sourcing is found. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:48, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Re-posted – Only will be listed for a day or two at most, but better late than never. Improvements to the article by Twofingered Typist, Lutzv, and Blythwood have brought the article to sufficient quality for posting. Only two {{cn}} tags remain as of this comment, but the information is not particularly contentious and the remainder of the article appears well-sourced. Nice work everyone. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 00:57, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  • He should be in front of Mirra, the reposting was after Mirra. LoveToLondon (talk) 01:08, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] Syrian Army break siege of Nubl and Al-ZahraaEdit

Withdrawn per nominator. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:47, 7 February 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.

Nominator's comments: Significant loss for Syrian opposition in this area, threatening their position in biggest Syrian city Aleppo. There will be also direct aftermath in European refugee crisisJenda H. (talk) 15:34, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose The usual battle of the week from Syria. One side failed during 3 years siege to capture two small (20,000 pre-war inhabitants each) towns, and now the other side broke this siege. LoveToLondon (talk) 18:12, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Really not. Look at map. This is clearly most significant military move north of Aleppo (which is biggest Syrian city) since start of war in 2012. --Jenda H. (talk) 20:02, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes, every week there is some battle that is clearly most significant military move in some part of Syria. Cutting one of the supply lines to Aleppo is also not very spectacular in a civil war where people dying of starvation in cities without any supply lines left is normal - and Aleppo still has supply lines. One side getting control of all of Aleppo might be worth an ITN blurb - smaller battles leading to it are not. LoveToLondon (talk) 20:33, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment The bold link by the nominator to East Aleppo offensive (November 2015–present) is obviously nonsense - just look at a map or read the article and you will see that this is a completely unrelated military operation. This makes any claims in this nomination even less trustworthy - it is a problem when someone who is not at all involved in writing articles and with a limited understanding of this civil war tries to push some random battle to ITN. LoveToLondon (talk) 20:33, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
    • Well there will be certainly further development and humanitarian disaster. But we can close it for now if there is no support for this nomination. --Jenda H. (talk) 14:34, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
      • Can some admin please close this per the nominator's own comment above, so that we don't waste more time coming to check it out.Tlhslobus (talk) 09:55, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
        • You could close this yourself, but I'll do it on your behalf. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:47, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

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

[Closed] UN rules Julian Assange under arbitrary detentionEdit

No chance of gaining consensus to post. Stephen 02:28, 5 February 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: Julian Assange (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The UN rules that Julian Assange is being arbitrarily detained.
Alternative blurb: UN rules Julian Assange has been arbitrarily detained since 2012.
Alternative blurb II: UN rules in favour of Julian Assange that his detainment has been "arbitrary".
News source(s): BBC Reuters
Nominator: Pratyeka (talk • give credit)
 prat (talk) 11:42, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose for impact, but strongly suggest a future re-nomination. It is not clear what impact, if any, this ruling will have on the case. The most likely scenario is that the UK and Sweden maintain his arrest warrants, in which case the impact is none (other than exposing the UN's impotence). If the situation resolves in some other way (Assange to France or S America, warrants dropped, etc.), then the impact is obvious and this should be re-nominated then.128.214.53.18 (talk) 11:54, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
    • The impact is the ruling itself; it is not the effect it has on the case. The UN has ruled against US, UK and Swedish actions and in favour of Assange's human rights. This is rare and globally politically significant. It will only happen once, we have been waiting four years - how can it be re-nominated at a later date? prat (talk) 12:01, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
      • It can be renominated when there is actual action in this case, such as Assange leaving, being arrested, etc. 331dot (talk) 12:07, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. I'm not seeing the significance of this, as the UN can determine whatever it wants, but such determinations usually have little impact- and the BBC states this is not legally binding. If the UN sends UN troops into London to escort Assange out of the country, then that would be notable, but I'm not sure this is. 331dot (talk) 11:56, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
    • The impact is the ruling itself; it is not the effect it has on the case. The UN has ruled against US, UK and Swedish actions and in favour of Assange's human rights. This is rare and globally politically significant. Furthermore, your comments about UN troops betray a complete misunderstanding of the reality of the situation. prat (talk) 12:01, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
      • My comment about UN troops was to make a point; I am well aware of the situation. The point is that this determination is meaningless without action. If the UN had decided against Assange and he submitted to arrest as he stated he would, then that would be notable; if this ruling meant that they would let him leave, that would also be notable; but the status quo is unchanged as the UK has a legally valid warrant for his arrest and they will not let him leave. I disagree that this ruling has any impact worth noting here. 331dot (talk) 12:05, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose most of what the UN dictates is summarily ignored. There's little evidence to suggest this case will be any different. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:06, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
This argument might as well be, "The UN isn't notable." - Darouet (talk) 21:29, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
The UN is notable, but not effective until it can enforce its determinations in matters like this. 331dot (talk) 23:10, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Per TRM. See "What impact will the panel’s ruling have...." here. Sca (talk) 14:45, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Per the above. The ruling will not have any impact. The UN is a toothless three-legged dog when it comes to enforcement.--WaltCip (talk) 15:32, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Wait for his arrest. This will be significant. --Jenda H. (talk) 15:36, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Nothing has actually happened. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:46, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - A UN ruling is notable, especially when it is concerning two democracys like the UK and Sweden. BabbaQ (talk) 19:10, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
    It's a "ruling" that both Sweden and the UK have already indicated they will ignore, just as many countries ignore numerous United Nations Resolutions (this is hardly even on that scale). The Rambling Man (talk) 19:13, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - Significant development in the case of the WikiLeaks figure. International interest, and ITN-worthy. Jusdafax 21:10, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Exactly.BabbaQ (talk) 21:25, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - Assange is one of the two most prominent leakers in recent history and his case has been all over the news for years: the conclusion of the United Nations is also being reported throughout the news and highly relevant. Oppose arguments spuriously maintain the largest international governing body is "irrelevant..." inescapably ironic from a series of wikipedia editors. -Darouet (talk) 21:28, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose; the strawman arguments of the supporters notwithstanding, this is an insignificant and non-binding decision which will have no impact on anything. Nobody is claiming the UN isn't notable, we're saying that not everything they do is notable (the Security Council—which is a considerably more significant body than the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention—adopted 10 resolutions last December alone). ‑ Iridescent 21:38, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • So basically you are saying that You have decided that this ruling is insignificant.. talk about strawman argument... BabbaQ (talk) 22:28, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Drive-by !vote.BabbaQ (talk) 23:25, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • @BabbaQ: My opinion on the subject in regards to ITN/C is covered by the opposing arguments already listed and I don't feel the need to restate them. I would appreciate if you tone down the harassment of those who have a differing opinion from yours as well. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 23:50, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose It doesn't appear that this will influence any country involved, or even have much impact on Mr. Assange himself, much less anyone else in the world. My view in short is that Assange enjoys a systemic bias not merely on Wikipedia but on the internet in general, and that were it another locally divisive fugitive, particularly from another part of the world and with a different antagonist, we'd likely not even be discussing such a toothless headline. - OldManNeptune 23:00, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • OTHERSTUFFEXISTS does not apply. Your anti-Assange rambling is also irrelevant. BabbaQ (talk) 23:25, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
I said nothing pro- or anti-Assange, only that there exists a demographic bias in favor of him; the fact that you read this as "for us or against us" is as good as an admission that I am correct. I can't say that I appreciate your dismissal of my opinion (or your demeaning of my language); it suggests that you actually have no rebuttal, but instead wish to discredit me as a source, the very definition of an ad hominem argument. - OldManNeptune 00:00, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is a position of a ""Working Group on Arbitrary Detention"" of which decisions have no legal standing (as far as I can see). It is not endorsed by an international court, the UNGA or UN security council. So as an Assange-based news fact it is a bit meagre. that all may change of course if this makes him come outside and get him arrested (or not); but that's for a later nomination.... L.tak (talk) 23:21, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose per 331dot, TRM, etc. – SchroCat (talk) 23:23, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Not helpful to this discussion. 331dot (talk) 23:44, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Drive-by !vote.BabbaQ (talk) 23:25, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Just because someone disagrees with you there no reason to try and smear their vote. As a long-standing and productive editor who has commented in good faith, my opinion is as valid as anyone else's, including yours. You do not own or run ITN, and there is no bar on editors commenting. I suspect that if I'd have supported you, you wouldn't have tried to squash my comment, would you. – SchroCat (talk) 23:36, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • First of all do not censor my comments. Secondly, your comment above is a clear indication that you can not handle an opinion. A drive-by !vote is a drive-by !vote, and is no indication of your work in general as you are fully aware of. Move on. BabbaQ (talk) 23:43, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I rarely ever drop by here anymore, but I must oppose a nomination that is so shockingly sensationalist, with the significance of the event so incredibly overstated. This is not what this project is about. None of the news articles suggest an impact remotely comparable to what the nominator claims. In fact, they specify what little impact this will have. Reuters even includes a quote opining that "A decision that effective confinement in the Ecuadorian embassy constitutes arbitrary detention – it doesn’t necessarily lead to the conclusion that the underlying arrest warrants and extradition requests are unlawful." In other words, it's not even necessarily a repudiation of the underlying criminal case and as such can't be spun as a ruling against the governments involved. The panel's ruling is not legally binding and has been explicitly rejected by both Sweden and the UK. Swarm 00:00, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose Rather than "UN", the correct link would be Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, an unreferenced stub, which is not a good start. However, that is a minor issue in the grand scheme of things. At the time of writing, the Working Group has not issued its Opinion (see its website where the last story is from January). So, perhaps inevitably given the subject matter, we are talking about a leak of what the outcome is apparently going to be. Does ITN post leaks of what news is expected to be? I don't think so. We do not know, for example, what category of arbitrariness this will be given - see the possibilities at this link - let alone the reasons. Note that "Opinion" is the Working Group's own term, not "ruling" - courts issue rulings, and this is not a court. Saying "UN rulings are notable" rather misses the important point that this is not a UN "ruling" even in the UN's own terminology. But let us assume for present purposes that the Working Group's Opinion when issued reaches a conclusion that Assange's detention is arbitrary. Would that merit posting? No. It will make absolutely no different to the legal situation in which Assange finds himself. Furthermore there is nothing to support the claim that this Working Group's Opinion is of any international political significance in this or indeed any other case, apart from the claims of Assange and his supporters - be honest, had anyone here actually heard of the Working Group before today? And OldManNeptune has an excellent point about the over-reporting of Assange-related issues in the media generally. ITN is not a newswire service but reports updated stories in the news of encyclopaedic merit. In the grand scheme of things, this story is over-hyped and not suitable ITN material. (Edit conflict with Swarm, with whom I also agree). BencherliteTalk 00:18, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I think most people will react "so what" when reading this in the front page of Wikipedia. Ha