Open main menu

Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/January 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

January 31Edit

Portal:Current events/2016 January 31

RD: Benoît ViolierEdit

Article: Benoît Violier (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC, Washington Post, CBC
Nominator: Fuebaey (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: French-Swiss chef and restaurateur. Owner of a 3 Michelin starred Swiss restaurant, which topped La Liste a month ago. Named best chef by the Swiss Gault Millau in 2013. Article is well referenced but a bit stubby. Could be padded out with a translation of his French articleFuebaey (talk) 23:04, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Oppose - Successful chef whose death received some news coverage, but I don't think there's any way to consider him among the leading chefs in the world. The article doesn't really tell you much of anything so far. --Bongwarrior (talk) 23:20, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support on significance. Many of the newspaper reports I've seen called him the "world's best chef"[1] or "world's top chef".[2][3] He would appear to meet the criterion of being the top of his field. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 03:45, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
  • The article doesn't even say what it was about his cooking that made him so special. Interest in him on the French Wikipedia seems very low; the article is quite short and receives very few page views. It had a spike of 195 page views on Dec 12 2015, presumably when he topped La Liste. Abductive (reasoning) 04:12, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] Australian OpenEdit

Article: 2016 Australian Open (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Australian Open tennis tournament concludes with Novak Djokovic winning the men's singles and Angelique Kerber winning the women's singles.
Alternative blurb: ​In tennis, the Australian Open concludes with Novak Djokovic winning the men's singles and Angelique Kerber winning the women's singles, respectively.
Alternative blurb II: ​In tennis, the Australian Open concludes with Novak Djokovic winning the men's singles and Angelique Kerber winning the women's singles.
News source(s): BBC (men), BBC (women)
Nominator: The Rambling Man (talk • give credit)

Article updated

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: More prose about each final is needed. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:45, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Reiterate that I oppose posting until such time as there's a sufficient prose update. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:34, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Same as above, still oppose due to lack of adequate prose. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 23:24, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - I think prose is overrated. The article may not have much prose but it's got more than sufficient information about the event. Furthermore this is a major sporting event that has claimed a lot of media time recently. That's good enough for me. Banedon (talk) 01:02, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
    • Not everybody understands what those tables mean. "Prose is overrated"? I don't even know where to go with that. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:24, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
      • I don't know about others but I find those tables easy to understand (certainly something like "  Stéphane Houdet /   Nicolas Peifer def.   Gordon Reid /   Shingo Kunieda, 6–3, 3–6, 7–5" doesn't get more obvious). Also for an event like this one, I primarily care about 1) who won and 2) what the score was. Both these pieces of information are available from the article. So yes, I think prose is overrated, and I stand by my supporting this nomination. Banedon (talk) 02:31, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
        • Wikipedia is not a book of statistics. Tables of results are meant to support prose, not the other way around, otherwise that's information that should be at something like Wikisource. --MASEM (t) 02:45, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose No writing to assess, really. There's nothing I'm checking the quality of in terms of writing. It's just a giant page of tables and charts. If we have a text synopsis of each aspect of the tournament, we would have something to post. This, not so much. --Jayron32 02:10, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support There is now prose with citations sufficient for posting ITN/R. Further expansion couldn't hurt but it appears to be in acceptable shape now. - OldManNeptune 05:52, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support: per OldManNeptune, but originally also per Banedon and per WP:IAR (ignore all rules that prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, in accordance with one of the 5 pillars of Wikipedia, the one stating we are not a rule-bound organisation). Forcing editors to waste time and energy padding out a perfectly adequate sports tables article with unnecessary waffle to satisfy some questionable rule (and a highly subjective one - 'how much is enough?', 'how good is good enough?') drives editors away from Wikipedia, and prevents us from acquiring new readers (and eventually potential new editors) or keeping old ones. I usually find Wikipedia the easiest and best place to find many kinds of sports results (but I usually pay no attention to the text), usually with great links to wherever I want to find more detailed info should I want it - but the text plays little or no part in this. By keeping this kind of article off ITN due to the irrelevant technicality of lack of enough text we also harm the encyclopedia by preventing readers from learning what experience has taught me about this kind of article.Tlhslobus (talk) 05:58, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
    • Articles highlighted from the front page of Wikipedia, ITN, DYK, or Features, must demonstrate that they are some of WP's best work. A list of tables is not that, regardless of "importance" of getting the news out. People that are looking for the results will now how to search for them, if its not linked on the front page (though again, as WP is not a newspaper, people that come here for breaking news stories are searching the wrong place). --MASEM (t) 06:04, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
      • If we only highlight what are some of WP's best work, we'd only be posting featured articles. A list of tables suffices for me: for example if I get curious about how the last of tennis's big four, Nadal, did in this tournament, I can simply look it up. I don't need and am not really interested in a blow-by-blow account of how Nadal was eliminated. Like I wrote above, I primarily care about 1) who won and 2) what the score was, and in this sense the article is more than sufficient. I don't have anything more to say about this, only that I continue to support. Banedon (talk) 06:21, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
        • We've held this standard to all articles with a litany of lists and tables. I see no reason to suddenly bring in IAR for this instance. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 06:26, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
          • Actually I think we're implicitly and to some extent explicitly questioning many of the other delays and harm caused by that standard, not just this instance of it, and others have made similar points concerning the earlier nomination of the women's result, etc. (Indeed I also think we often delay posting many election results far too long for similar rules-loving reasons, but let's not go into that here).Tlhslobus (talk) 06:39, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
          • If we don't complain about what we see as instances of a bad standard when they occur, the bad standard has little chance of ever getting changed. And in any case, ITN guidelines say there are guidelines but no firm rules for nominations, everything is subject to the emerging consensus of editors on that particular item. But in any case this is now at least arguably all a bit academic, per OldManNeptune. Tlhslobus (talk) 06:48, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
      • @Masem. But the lost benefit to Wikipedia is that people who are not looking for it will not find it by happy accident unless it's on ITN. As for quality, in a sports results article once the tables and results are correct, and the article is linked to parent articles (where things like context can be found), the quality is perfectly adequate as far as I'm concerned, and Wikipedia is harmed by insisting on further delay by quoting what seem to me to be irrelevant and/or harmful rules and principles. But we could argue about this round and round in circles forever, so I intend to try to quit now, thus leaving you to have the last word on the subject if you wish (provided that any reply you may or may not care to make is not unduly provocative, and perhaps even if it is).Tlhslobus (talk) 06:39, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment Summaries added. Probably less text than all the debate going on here, but should be enough. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:52, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support I think it is acceptable. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:40, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support article is sufficient in its current state. The Rambling Man has done a good job adding prose summaries of the singles finals. I also generally agree with Banedon that most of what is required for this article is adequately summarised in the tables. --LukeSurl t c 12:47, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Posting. We can update the photo as well. --Tone 14:19, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] Damascus bombingEdit

Consensus against. BencherliteTalk 14:27, 1 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 Damascus bombings (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: At least 60 people are killed in multiple bombings claimed by ISIS in Sayyidah Zaynab, Syria.
Alternative blurb: ​At least 60 people are killed in multiple bombings claimed by ISIS near the Shi'ite holy site in Sayyidah Zaynab, Syria.
News source(s): IE
Nominator: Lihaas (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: TV media is saying over 45 deaths and it could grow. I just post the recent online link I found. Lihaas (talk) 12:34, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose' no article to assess for notability. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:52, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
    Oppose - article is poor stub, and what Andise1 mentions below is notable. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:38, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose' for now as no article has been created. Support when/if a sufficient article about the event has been created.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:58, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose unless/until sourced. Every one of the six sources included in the current article has an "according to the Syrian Interior Ministry" or "according to Syrian State Television", both of which have a well-documented history of fabricating civilian casualty figures to make rebel attacks sound worse than they are (and thus justify their own use of chemical weapons and carpet bombing to put a stop to it). Reconsider if and only if a neutral observer body like the UN concurs that this is a mass-casualty attack of an unusual scale for the current conflict. ‑ Iridescent 17:05, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment and oppose - This is not intended to be a personal attack, so excuse me if it comes across as one, but in the past the nominator has opposed and has redirected other attack/bombing articles to the "List of terrorist incidents in (year)", so in light of the nominators reason for doing that, why is this attack more notable to have its own article? Bombings happen constantly in Syria these days so I'm not seeing how this one is particularly notable. Andise1 (talk) 19:55, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose stupid nomination made with the claim I can easily make an ITN article within an hour
  • The whole notion of writing an article only if it gets posted to ITN makes it clear that the nominator fails to understand the difference between an encyclopedia and a news site. I strongly suggest he should leave Wikipedia and join Wikinews.
  • (Personal attack removed)
  • A good article is also required for understanding what happened and whether it is notable enough. The article that currently exists (without any involvement by the nominator) is not helpful in evaluating that. Examples:
  • What is the background? Is that near or far from areas where ISIS and Assad battle against each other?
  • Was this actually an attack on the shrine (and was it successful?), or a military attack that just happened in this area?
  • Motive Sectarian in the infobox. Source?
  • What did actually happen? This Infobox civilian attack also says Attack type Mass murder (also no source) and Deaths 60+ (including 25 Shi'ite fighters). Were the target of the attack civilians or legitimate targets (enemy fighters)?
LoveToLondon (talk) 00:25, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
This is the second time I've had to warn you, LoveToLondon. Cool it with the stand-offish attitude and personal attacks. I've removed your comment which blatantly violated WP:CIVIL. You may see it as "bluntly telling the truth", but it still falls under disparaging other users. Rather than try to demean a user and diminish their interest in the site, provide useful information on how they can improve. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 01:05, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: In theory the blurb arguably should mention the Shia holy site, since judging by the BBC news coverage that seems to be integral to any notability the attack may have, so I'm putting in an altblurb mentioning it. However this is at least partly in the hope that somebody better qualified than me will fix our bombing article's unsourced claim that it's the holiest Shia shrine in Syria (I've tagged 'holiest' with a cn). The Mosque's own article makes no such claim, and it's only one of about 10 such Syrian shrines in Holiest sites in Shia Islam. (I've no current plans to support or oppose the ITN nomination itself, partly because it currently looks like a case of WP:SNOWBALL.) Tlhslobus (talk) 05:11, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose The article is barely longer than the blurb. 117.192.161.166 (talk) 14:15, 1 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] RD: Terry WoganEdit

Article: Terry Wogan (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: Irish broadcaster and writer Terry Wogan (pictured) dies at 77.
News source(s): BBC
Nominator: Andrew Davidson (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: Recent death of a prominent UK broadcaster. Andrew D. (talk) 09:15, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Oppose on article quality only. Vast swathes of unreferenced material, entirely unsuitable for obvious BLP reasons. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:20, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
    Article quality improved, much better referencing. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:49, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Why on earth would you nominate something you oppose? Work on it then!
Whyd you change the nom?!!!Lihaas (talk) 09:22, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Read the history, it was an edit conflict so I restored the original poster's nomination. Now stop being disruptive. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:27, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I did read the history. Hence the link. The cited link shows YOUR change that I restored. The link clearly shows YOUr DISRUPTION. Jeez, are you so insecure that you have such an ego problem that you cant merely apologise?Lihaas (talk) 12:28, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
I think this conversation is a waste of everyone's time, particularly now a number of us have improved the article and it's been posted. Good to see some Wikipedians are here to improve things. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:01, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support blurb subject to issues being fixed. Wogan was at the pinnacle of his profession and is worthy of a blurb. Mjroots (talk) 09:25, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment I just nominated this as I happened to catch the news while it was hot and I've not tried a nomination before. The article could use a bit of clean-up, of course, but I edited the article just now to add a citation for the death and had multiple edit conflicts. I expect it will be quite busy today as the subject was well known as a "national treasure". Andrew D. (talk) 09:30, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
    • @Andrew Davidson: - I had multiple edit conflicts here trying to add a blurb. Expect there will be a wealth of info available with which to improve the article. Mjroots (talk) 09:34, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
      • Thanks. I'd support a blurb for this. I don't suppose he's well-known in the US but he's been a top presenter in the UK for many years. Andrew D. (talk) 09:43, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
      • Update – I've been through the page to eliminate all the {{citation needed}} and the banner tag is gone now. Andrew D. (talk) 11:15, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support RD, oppose blurb Obvious support for RD, but I don't think he's quite at the level of impact that would warrant a blurb. Neljack (talk) 09:48, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support RD, oppose blurb (once orange tag is gone). A household name, a big charity fundraiser, and probably the man who stopped Eurovision sliding into irrelevance in the British Isles. Not a transformative figure, but top of the field of TV/radio presenting. Smurrayinchester 09:56, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support RD + blurb (subject to improvement/issue fixing). One of very few truly, instantly, and universally recognizable household names and presences in UK TV at least (whether one watched him or not: I didn't), and not just in one field or time period but for multiple causes across several few decades. It's hard to think of many others with his level of household recognition in the world of UK TV entertainment. But article is poor quality and will need some work to bring to at least a minimal standard first. FT2 (Talk | email) 10:27, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Well yes, but being at the top of the field of UK TV entertainment is what qualifies him for RD, not what justifies a blurb. If that was the standard for a blurb we'd be posting heaps of them, rather than only the occasional one. Neljack (talk) 12:17, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support RD, oppose blurb pending article improvements – Easily meets notability criteria for RD, but after a cursory glance at sources I don't feel Wogen warrants a blurb. It could just be my own ignorance of the field he worked in, however, especially since I never heard of him up until seeing this nomination. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 10:33, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support blurb without commenting on article quality. -- KTC (talk) 10:40, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support RD/oppose blurb yes definitely top of his field, but not an international name with wide ranging impact, therefore no blurb. MurielMary (talk) 11:18, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Posting. I see the article got improved a lot during the last hour. --Tone 11:20, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Post-posting Support for RD, Strong oppose for blurb - If the article had problems, they seem to have been fixed sufficiently. I do not see how much of an impact he has had beyond being a well recognized name in UK television, certainly not to a level that there is a worldwide impact from his death to warrant a blurb. --MASEM (t) 13:09, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Would not disagree with you. But he was equally, if not more, well recognized on UK radio. The article ought to make this clear. 217.38.119.14 (talk) 18:17, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support blurb (pending sourcing, particularly for some of the radio stuff) - his death was reported on CNN, so it just squeaks into being a multi-nationwide news event. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:31, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] Australian Open - MensEdit

Refer to proper nomination above ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 22:04, 31 January 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 Australian Open (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In tennis, Novak Djokovic defeats Andy Murray to win the Australian Open men's singles title.
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.

Nominator's comments: Its not over yet, but its a complete blowout. --Lihaas (talk) 09:09, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Do you honestly believe I expect it to be posted before the conclusion or are you just trolling? its a nomination.Lihaas (talk) 09:20, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
"Every year has the same page format and prose doesn't much exist"? Then do something to fix it, and spend time doing that rather than posting premature nominations. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:28, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Same reason as the women's nomination...the article quality is woefully lacking. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 09:41, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment ITNR yes removed. ITNR states that men are women should be posted together, the stupid separate nomination is not covered by ITNR. LoveToLondon (talk) 10:47, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Objection Men's and women's should not be separate nominations, and neither of them should go up until both of them do, as one blurb. - OldManNeptune 17:30, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose It's not okay if "prose doesn't much exist". Articles need prose and this has no additional prose from yesterday. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:29, 31 January 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.

January 30Edit

Portal:Current events/2016 January 30

RD: Francisco Flores PérezEdit

Article: Francisco Flores Pérez (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): CNN, USA Today
Nominator: Brandmeister (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 President of El Salvador for five years, from 1999 to 2004. Brandmeistertalk 09:49, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

support as head of satate. But update is lacking.Lihaas (talk) 12:46, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Umm? Francisco_Flores_Pérez#Death was already there when I nominated it. Brandmeistertalk 13:05, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support pending updates First four sections past lede are completely unsourced, and unacceptable for RD. But otherwise leader of a country for reasonable time is generally RD appropriate. --MASEM (t) 13:13, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Article needs fixing up such as the lead needs to be expanded to give readers a heads up on what he did that made him so notable other than being president for a term. It also needs a lot of sourcing. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:51, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose on quality as explained by others. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 01:08, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose very poor article. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:57, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment I wouldn't necessarily say the article is poor - it's more than a stub for starters - though I'd agree with the orange maintenance tag. Let's see what we can do. Fuebaey (talk) 16:45, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] Australian Open - WomensEdit

Refer to proper nomination above ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 22:05, 31 January 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 Australian Open (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In tennis, Angelique Kerber defeats Serena Williams to win her first Australian Open women's singles title.
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) 11:07, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Wait. Logically, we should wait for the men's final tomorrow and post them together. Laura Jamieson (talk) 11:13, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment. Agree with waiting till the men's result is available; also the article is far from ready. There is no prose at all outside the lead describing play. Espresso Addict (talk) 14:43, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
  • There is no reason to wait for the men's final - we can simply update the blurb by adding that result when it is available. Neljack (talk) 19:05, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm with Neljack on this, we update blurbs all the time so no reason to wait; however, the target article (2016 Australian Open) needs some work in my opinion. Prose is a bit scarce in comparison to the multitude of lists and tables. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 19:09, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Agree with Neljack, post now. Part of ITN is that our readers are looking for these subjects, artificially delaying a blurb because it will need updating when the male result comes in is not really fair to Kerber now. μηδείς (talk) 19:59, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Not updated There's some prose in the lead and a bit on the tournament and broadcast, but there's no prose indicating any updates so this is largely a bunch of tabels, i.e. insufficient quality to post. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:05, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
  • post now - and add the winner of the mens competition when a winner is known. Perhaps the article needs some tweaks before posting but other than that I see no reason to wait.BabbaQ (talk) 20:07, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
    • It needs a lot more than "tweaks". It needs several paragraphs detailing what happened. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:12, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
      • Agree that this is not ready for posting. The only updates are in tables, which is insufficient for sports results. At least a paragraph to describe the final round for the women's final, with the anticipation of a similar one for the men's final tomorrow. --MASEM (t) 20:13, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment can we please curb the incompetent enthusiasm? If anyone of the supporters had taken any time at all to assess the article, they'd know it wasn't ready. So if we have to wait for the men's tournament to conclude and some effort to improve both articles, so be it. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:02, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
  • And if anyone had taken any tine at all to assess the proposed blurb, they'd know "her first 2016 Australian Open women's singles title" is an eccentric phrasing, to say the least. ‑ Iridescent 21:08, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Pointless. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:06, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Please make TRM the president of the US... :) BabbaQ (talk) 22:02, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Or North Korea .. :)BabbaQ (talk) 22:03, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment ITNR yes removed. ITNR states that men are women should be posted together, the stupid separate nomination is not covered by ITNR. LoveToLondon (talk) 10:47, 31 January 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.

January 29Edit

Portal:Current events/2016 January 29

[Posted] RD: Jacques RivetteEdit

Article: Jacques Rivette (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): New York Times, The Guardian
Nominator: TDKR Chicago 101 (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: Very accomplished and important director in the French cinema. Very influential during the French New Wave. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:17, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Support when updated. Obvious notability as very well-known French new wave director. Article is well developed and appears well referenced, but needs updating fully to reflect his death. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:59, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - I can help work on updating it. It also just got a good copy edit about a month ago, fyi.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 02:20, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose Perhaps I missed it, but where is the awards section in either his main article or his filmography? μηδείς (talk) 03:29, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Many of his awards are mentioned in the body of the article, but I added awards to the Jacques Rivette filmography page.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 04:43, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Great, comprehensive, and well referenced article. We should be proud to direct main page viewers to read this. --Jayron32 06:48, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support clear notability, more than adequate article. No issues with RD. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:20, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Article is in great shape and death section updated. Also go watch Celine and Julie Go Boating and thank me later. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 10:55, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Posted. Espresso Addict (talk) 16:02, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] Ongoing: Syrian Civil WarEdit

No consensus to post. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:46, 29 January 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: Syrian Civil War (talk, history)
Blurb: No blurb specified
Nominator: George Ho (talk • give credit)
Updater: Axxxion (talk • give credit)
Other updaters: Tobby72 (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: After the article was removed from the Main Page, there have been a lot of updates. We should have been more patient, but there weren't updates at the time of the removal. War is still ongoing and has contributed to migrant crisis in Europe. Events related to this occurred. The last update is January 26. George Ho (talk) 07:27, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose on article quality as noted by an orange tag. Gargantuan size (369 kB as of this comment) is a huge minus (pun not intended). At 129 kB of prose, it far exceeds the threshold of "almost certainly should be divided" as noted in WP:SIZERULE. Only a tiny fraction (less than 1%) of the article pertains to current developments because of this. Abstaining from commenting on notability of recent developments. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 07:39, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above, article needs to be split down with relevant and pertitnent information in a more time-constrained article. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:18, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose
  • Notability should be clear, and wasn't the problem when the article was removed from Ongoing.
  • The current chronological timeline of battles and other events is nearly useless, and most of the contents of the Course of events section should be moved to the Timeline of the Syrian Civil War articles. A proper section about the developments should instead be written, giving a high-level overview of how the military situation developed during the past 5 years.
  • After the article was removed from the Main Page, there have been a lot of updates is not true.
  • The only substantial updates to the article after it was removed from Ongoing where five military timeline events to the Course of events section.
  • The latest information in the Peace initiatives are some not very important and outdated statements from mid-October. The Syria peace talks in Vienna three months ago are not even mentioned in the text. And the peace talks that are currently making headlines are also after mid-October 2015, and therefore not mentioned in the updated article.
  • Other non-military topics that were making headlines all over the world recently, like for example Madaya? Not mentioned in the updated article.
LoveToLondon (talk) 10:37, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose per all of the reasons noted above: quality (orange tag) and lack of substantive updates to article text (as evidenced by the excellent analysis of LoveToLondon) primarily. --Jayron32 11:35, 29 January 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.

January 28Edit

Portal:Current events/2016 January 28

[Closed] RD: Buddy CianciEdit

No consensus to post. --Tone 13:00, 30 January 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: Buddy Cianci (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): NY Post, NY Times, NPR
Nominator: Muboshgu (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: Cianci had a major impact in politics. He was a six-term mayor and still very popular despite his time in jail. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:24, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose on RD criteria, oppose on quality poor article and the individual is in no way significant in his field. A few titivating stories and some popularity, but not RD important. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:48, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose some juicy scandal, but he was the mayor of a medium city. Nothing suggests that his work as a talk show host was in any way trailblazing either. There would be a case for mayors like Ken Livingstone and Rudy Giuliani, but not a man like this. '''tAD''' (talk) 22:14, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support a very notable politician and personality, with a large amount of commentary. I have never even been to RI, but know who he was. Notable on various levels. Also, there seems to be one CN at this point, and it can easily be commented out, without affecting the article's quality. μηδείς (talk) 22:16, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose Former major of a small city with less than 200,000 inhabitants, and his major impact in politics was limited to a state where only 0.3% of the US population (or 0.015% of the world population) live. A former state governor convicted for corruption wouldn't qualify for RD when he dies, so there's no reason for RD for someone who was only participating in minor league corruption. LoveToLondon (talk) 23:22, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
I can understand opposing based on not being familiar with him from across the pond, but he was mayor of a city which was 1/5 the population of his state, and the highest executive in an area even greater as a metropolitan area than the state in which he lived. The length of his career, its notability, and his influence and criminal record all make him quite notable. Maybe not noble, or notable in the eyes of others, but certainly the most notable Rhode Islander of the last half century. μηδείς (talk) 04:01, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose If only the article were up to snuff, we'd be able to have the same old "I don't know this person, so he mustn't be important to anyone" debate. Sadly, the quality of the referencing isn't good enough for the main page, so we never need get to the tired xenophobic/anti-specific-country bigotry we get when nominations like this come up. I'd support the article if we had something good in terms of article quality, as he was a recognizable name and a major national media figure irrespective of the level of office he held. --Jayron32 06:46, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Instead of smearing the other opposers, you could do something useful, like explaining the significant impact he had on the United States or how he was a very important figure in his field. But perhaps it's easier to throw around unfounded accusations of bigotry than explain how he meets the death criteria. Neljack (talk) 09:10, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. I'd love to support, but I must agree that his impact was regional at best- though it is very unusual to be elected to office, go to jail, and be reelected to the same office, then go to jail again. I just don't think he influenced politics in the whole nation. 331dot (talk) 11:12, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
I'll add that we did not post Thomas Menino, a mayor of a larger city for a longer time. 331dot (talk) 11:13, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose Really not well known enough to post. Being a mayor of a small town in a small state of a big country and being convicted doesn't do it, even if he gets lots of national media attention in a country or 2. L.tak (talk) 12:59, 30 January 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: Paul KantnerEdit

Article: Paul Kantner (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Washington Post, San Francisco Chronicle, BBC
Nominator: Jayron32 (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: Article in decent shape, well referenced, not missing anything, updated with what is known of his death. Highly influential musician, leader of the Jefferson Airplane and its successor the Jefferson StarshipJayron32 01:54, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Support. Co-founder of one of the seminal bands of the Summer of Love, long career. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 02:52, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - Article in good shape, had a long and successful career (inducted to the R&R Hall of Fame) and co-founded the influential rock band, Jefferson Airplane. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 03:37, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support for RD - very influential figure in the late 60s/ early 70s. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:46, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - per above supports. Notability clearly sufficient for an RD posting.Jusdafax 11:53, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Posted The Rambling Man (talk) 13:16, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support, as he was instrumental in my conception. μηδείς (talk) 22:18, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
    Your mother was a guitar? --Jayron32 05:15, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] Zika virus outbreakEdit

Use WP:ERRORS to request corrections and updates. This is already substantively on ITN already. --Jayron32 02:25, 29 January 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: Zika virus outbreak in the Americas (2015–present) (talk, history)
Blurb: No blurb specified
News source(s): The Washington Post
Nominator: Sukhoi 24 (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: "Zika virus ‘spreading explosively,’ ‘level of alarm extremely high’" Sukhoi 24 (talk) 14:11, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • WTF incorrect ITNR = yes removed, item is already at ITN LoveToLondon (talk) 14:21, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Updated to ongoing instead. Sukhoi 24 (talk) 14:22, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment. There are several developments to this story which would merit retaining the item as ongoing, but not at the moment a new item. WHO is convening an emergency committee on Monday to decide whether to declare the situation a global emergency; if that does happen we should consider a fresh item. Espresso Addict (talk) 14:26, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Update. Can we please update the wikilink in the existing entry? It links to Zika virus right now, but it should link to Zika virus outbreak in the Americas (2015–present). Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)[1] 21:54, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep where is on ITN but update existing entry if appropriate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:32, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • As a purely procedural note, ITN entries are updated using the WP:ERRORS mechanism, once posted there's no need for an extensive vote and assessment here. I'm closing this as there's no new blurb to post. --Jayron32 02:25, 29 January 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] [Posted] AI beats professional Go playerEdit

This has been posted, the blurb was fixed. I see there is an interesting AI-related debate going on, but ITNC is probably not the best place for it ;) --Tone 17:15, 29 January 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: Google DeepMind (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Go computer program AlphaGo becomes the first to defeat a professional human Go player.
News source(s): Nature Wired The Independent BBC
Nominator: Thue (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: Following computers becoming better than humans at chess, Go has been the canonical example of a game where humans are still better than computers. Because Go, unlike chess, largely cannot be brute-forced, and therefore would require more human-like AI (AlphaGo used neural networks, and other techniques). This result is the equivalent of the first time a professional chess player was defeated by a computer program. Thue (talk) 10:53, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. I, for one, welcome our new AI overlords. GRAPPLE X 11:09, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. This is a major story -- this is a major milestone in AI research, and marks a significant step in a development with far-reaching implications. -- The Anome (talk) 11:11, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support – I, for one--...oh, Grapple X already beat me to it. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 11:13, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. I, for one, most certainly do NOT welcome our new AI overlords, but every milestone that reminds us the Day of the Terminators is getting closer deserves a mention on ITN.Tlhslobus (talk) 11:40, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose at best this is DYK fodder, and who would have predicted that the game would NOT be won by AI, if the necromancers had addressed thee issue? 11:48, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
    The article does not qualify for DYK in any way, thanks. GRAPPLE X 12:02, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
    If a nice standalone article about AlphaGo is written, rather than our current redirect to Google DeepMind, DYK would be perfect. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:04, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
    I don't really get this "this should go into DYK" argument which seems to pop up regularly. AlphaGo's win has happened right now, it is news, and is in the news. Almost every item on the current ITN right now could be an DYK item, because ITN items are stuff which is interesting/noteworthy. What makes it news, and ITN, is that it has happened right now. Can you enlighten me on why AlphaGo's win would be better for DYK? Thue (talk) 13:03, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
    It's a way of saying no without saying no; a bit like a parent telling a child to ask the other parent instead. GRAPPLE X 13:15, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
    This is massively significant. The list of things believed to be special and to require the kind of intelligence that is "uniquely human" just got dramatically shorter. We weren't expecting it for decades, so our current models of what is easy and hard for machines is clearly wrong. Speech recognition and Machine translation are pretty much solved now, if you don't mind quick and dirty translations, so Go is pretty much the last of the toy problems; all the remaining AI challenges are of massive societal import from now on. Just for starters, arrival of workable self-driving cars and automated trainable assembly-line robots, two tasks which require both planning and advanced pattern recognition, and which now look much more plausible, will be big changes. -- The Anome (talk) 14:13, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
    Yup. My impression is that if you asked an AI research last week to name one example of something an AI could not do as well as a human, he would mention "play Go". Which is the same reason why both Google's and Facebook's AI teams were trying to make Go-playing AIs. Thue (talk) 14:42, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
    None of the above. I personally think this is an "interesting" but entirely unsurprising turn of events. It's made minor news tremors on lower parts of newspages. As we've already seen with Deep Blue nearly 20 years ago, AI will always win these kinds of contests eventually. My advocacy of a DYK for this was to enable it still to be featured on the main page, just in an area where the entry criteria make it so much simpler. Sorry you all took the suggestion so badly. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:15, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
    You don't know how hard this game is do you? There are as many legal board positions as the number of atoms in 2,081,681,993,819,799,846,994,786,333,448,627,702,865,224,538,845,305,484,256,394,568,209,274,196,127,380,153,785,256,485 Universes. Chess is nothing in comparison, you could fit the equivalent number of atoms for chess in an asteroid or a planet. Though go lasts only low hundreds of moves in practice it's actually legal to play for 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 moves! This game is so hard that from the first program in 1968 to 2006 go programs gained almost nothing from advances in computer power. They were good for nothing but training beginners I've heard. Then they started using advanced methods like probabilistic deep neural networks and self-learning and creamed the guy who won the last 3 European Championships. This is quite an achievement. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:34, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
    I didn't say it wasn't an achievement, only an inevitability. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:25, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
    Projections of AI future achievements actually have a long history of far too optimistic predictions of inevitability. Followed by AI winters when bullshit is called. So IMO it would be wrong to dismis this achievement as "inevitable". Fundamental research is hard, and its successes are unpredictable and noteworthy. Thue (talk) 15:54, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
    I didn't "dismis" anything, I just said that it was inevitable that AI would beat an average Go player at some point, and that was it. It's not going to change tangibly anything in the world, the research will now focus on beating someone who is declared as being good at Go. ITN is for things that impact our readers. This most definitely does not, hence the suggestion to write a decent standalone article about AlphaGo and send it to DYK. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:54, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose Fan Hui is only 2 dan, not top level player. AlphaGo is scheduled to play against 9 dan Lee Se-dol in March. It will be Deep Blue versus Garry Kasparov of Go, and more newsworthy. --61.245.25.3 (talk) 12:00, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
    • But the point is that it is quite unprecedented for a computer to win even against a 2 dan player. If AplhaGo wins against Lee Se-dol, that will be news too, and should be posted ITN at that time. But if we do not post AlphaGo's win against Fan Hui now, and AplhaGo loses against Lee Se-dol, then we will have missed posting this AI milestone. We can't assume that AlphaGo will win against Lee Se-dol. Thue (talk) 12:45, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Go figure. This is such a unique story that I believe merits posting simply on the basis of its... well, uniqueness.--128.227.181.196 (talk) 13:21, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - Significant and interesting. Global interest, major milestone. Opposers fail to convince. Additionally, a nice change of pace for ITN. Jusdafax 13:34, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. This is being treated as groundbreaking for the capacity of AIs, even though Fan is only ranked 2 dan professional. Although the program is to play Lee Se-dol this year, expert opinion seems to be predicting it will lose, so if we are to inform readers of this interesting development now would be timely. We can always post again if it does beat Lee. I'd prefer a new in-depth article for the program. Espresso Addict (talk) 14:09, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Posting. Although I acknowledge the reasoning regarding the player ranking, the consensus is to post. The update is short but sufficient. I'm thinking how to best include Computer Go link to the DeepMind article ...--Tone 14:36, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support but I propose rewording "Go computer program" to just "computer program". Reason here. HaEr48 (talk) 20:27, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose The level of opponent is a problem. I get that he's the European champion but being at the 2nd of 9 levels isn't all that special. The 9th-dan Korean guy would be better to post if it happens.Correctron (talk) 03:11, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
    • The Korean is favored to win but maybe not surprising anymore if he loses so the news is now. (The professional ranks are much closer together than in chess, 9 dan is only 210 Elo points ahead of 2 dan. The highest human chess rating is 182 points above the weakest "supergrandmasters" (unofficial rank) and about 382 points above the weakest grandmasters). Deep Blue vs Kasparov had two separate news events also (one was winning even one game out of six, and the other was winning the rematch a year later which required at least 3 wins and 1 tie) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 12:37, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
      • Don't do nonsense comparisons based on different rating systems. 200 points difference in Chess has the same expected score as 300 points difference in Go (both are roughly 0.85:0.15). LoveToLondon (talk) 15:22, 29 January 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.

January 27Edit

Portal:Current events/2016 January 27

[Posted] President of the Marshall Islands electedEdit

Article: Hilda Heine (talk, history)
Blurb: Hilda Heine is elected President of the Marshall Islands.
News source(s): ABC, Radio New Zealand
Nominator: LoveToLondon (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.

 LoveToLondon (talk) 15:46, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Articles should be fleshed out a bit, IMO. Don't see any mainstream coverage, tho. Sca (talk) 17:44, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
I tried that, is there more you would add from the sources to the article? LoveToLondon (talk) 00:07, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose on article quality. One possible target is a stub. The other article is barely above a stub. I can't see putting this on the main page as quality work we should be proud of. If we had a reasonably complete article on either subject, I'd feel fine highlighting an article. We have nothing here. --Jayron32 19:58, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose The electorate of this place is smaller than Peoria. This isn't in the news. Andrew D. (talk) 21:11, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
    As usual, your opposition is irrelevant until you get these removed from ITNR. If you have an issue with the quality of the article, that'd be a different, and more useful suggestion. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:14, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
    @Andrew Davidson: I would add that trying to limit which elections are posted based on some sort of criteria (such as population, G20 countries only, etc.) has been tried and failed many times, as any limit would be arbitrary and there is no agreement on the method of limiting what is posted.331dot (talk) 22:23, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
    The news article supporting this nomination is really quite funny. The electorate is even smaller than I thought – just 30 votes cast and the winner was the only candidate. And the previous incumbent was in office for less than 10 days. This place is obviously not a serious country and so to treat it as if it is would make Wikipedia look stupid. Note that WP:ITN/R is a guideline not an iron rule and so it says that it is "best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." My !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 22:37, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
    Please use your common sense to turn on your brain instead of writing things like The electorate is even smaller than I thought – just 30 votes cast. Small countries don't have parliaments with 600 members. LoveToLondon (talk) 23:34, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
    To Andrew; common sense tells me that 'all' means 'all' as long as the article is of adequate quality, which it admittedly is not in this case. 331dot (talk) 23:22, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
    An exception, by definition, does not conform to the standard wording. Here's the OED's explanation: "Something that is excepted; a particular case which comes within the terms of a rule, but to which the rule is not applicable; a person or thing that does not conform to the general rule affecting other individuals of the same class." I suppose such exceptions are quite common. We didn't post the previous president, Casten Nemra, did we? Andrew D. (talk) 08:21, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
    Because it wasn't nominated. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:48, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose on article quality. The target article is somewhat close to posting quality, though just barely above stub quality, and the alternate is woefully inadequate. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 21:20, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
    • Support – Target article has been improved sufficiently. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 23:37, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose The article barely covers the event. HaEr48 (talk) 21:48, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose The article on Hilda Heine isn't long, but that may be to be expected. The one for the office of president is scarcely a stub and entirely without citations, and it would appear that there's simply no article on the election itself. Even making allowances for the nature of elections in small nations, this needs considerable work. - OldManNeptune 22:21, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Indirect elections elections are often covered in the article of the elected person, and that has not been a problem for ITN posting in the past. LoveToLondon (talk)
  • The blurb links to an article that has zero citations despite existing for more than six years - and it's the article for the office being elected to. You're free to disagree, but that seems like a problem to me. Google is giving me chiefly our own articles, several sources that mention Mr. Nemra, and your own ABC source, so I don't know what to suggest. This isn't a criticism of your effort to get this posted, I'm pretty sure several small nations have had sourcing problems of this nature in the past even when ITN/R covers them. - OldManNeptune 00:19, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Sorry, but it simply isn't in the news, as far as I've seen. Sca (talk) 00:53, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Well it clearly is, as the nominator has supplied news sources. Neljack (talk) 07:36, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
As I noted above, mainstream coverage lacking. A little regional coverage. Sca (talk) 13:50, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose and ITN/R be damned. We simply can't post an article of such atrocious quality.--WaltCip (talk) 13:31, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment Since my prior vote, the articles have been improved. I leave it to the more experienced to decide if it's sufficient for the front page, but it may deserve a second look. - OldManNeptune 15:30, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support based on the article improvements. Neljack (talk) 20:07, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Still opposed. Neither article has the depth of coverage I would expect of a main page worthy Wikipedia article. The President of the Marshall Islands article doesn't even have the correct information in the infobox and at two short paragraphs, is basically a stub. The Hilda Heine still isn't much longer. I'm not comfortable highlighting an article so bereft of useful information on the main page. --Jayron32 20:49, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
    I fixed the President article, it took ooooooooh, four seconds. It is a stub, but that's not relevant. Heine's article is up to date and is not a stub. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:56, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
    Heine's article is a curriculum vitae and a note about the election. That's not even close to enough useful information to put in a highlighted main page article. --Jayron32 21:25, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
    You mean it's a biographical article? If you'd like some more detail on her election, feel free to add it. You could have done that by now. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:35, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
    It's not a biographical article. It's a short list of a few jobs she's held. --Jayron32 11:37, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
    If you'd like to expand it, feel free to do so, sources are scarce. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:48, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
    Not particularly interested myself. You seem to want it done more than I want it done. --Jayron32 13:09, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
    If you mean I've put more effort into improving the mainspace in this area, true. And I'm not the one whining about it. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:55, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
    I'm not whining. I'm noting correctable deficiencies in an article I don't have the access to the sources or personal interest to fix, but which others, such as yourself, do but are refusing to do so just so you can feel morally superior to me for not fixing stuff. --Jayron32 05:17, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
    Sorry, not following you. What sources do I have access to or what personal interest do I have in this? Perhaps you know something I don't. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:22, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
I already fixed the President of the Marshall Islands article earlier, but someone reverted that. LoveToLondon (talk) 21:11, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
And I re-fixed it, and it took oooooooh four seconds. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:19, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose on quality and importance. Both articles are stubs, though the biography is improved since yesterday. And I know that 331dot is correct when he says that there's no consensus for where a cutoff should be for which sovereign nations to include in ITN/R, but I think it should be above a nation of 50,000. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:59, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
    Then make such a proposal at ITNR. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:10, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • The Marshall Islands would easily pass a cutoff of 50,000. Regarding smaller countries: The latest election for head of state in the smallest country in the world was posted at ITN. LoveToLondon (talk) 21:18, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • It sounds like you're referring to the election of Pope Francis without saying so, in which case the population of the Vatican State was not the reason for posting, but the billion plus Roman Catholics in the world, and the Papacy's role in Western History, etc. So comparing that to the Marshall Islands is misleading. (However, I'm neutral on the question of whether to post, and my critical comment here should NOT be misinterpreted as some kind of oppose) Tlhslobus (talk) 07:08, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Not really helpful. 331dot (talk) 22:05, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • (P.S. Muboshgu, just check out our own article, population of over 72,000 as of 2009. Some background reading would help... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:18, 28 January 2016 (UTC))
  • I don't have a proposal in mind, just opposing something of insufficient quality that isn't in the news. And Wikipedia puts the population at 54,880 as of July 1, 2015, so there you go Mr. Snark. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:22, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Whatever helps you get in the last word. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:05, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. The fact that the item is ITN/R is important, but for me at least it is not the beginning and end of the discussion; I can imagine situations where an exception ought to be made. But this appears to have been a bona fide election, the new president's biography will be of interest to readers, and the article quality has been improved, so there's no reason to make an exception here and we should go ahead and post it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:35, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support The quality of the article has now improved in terms of content and referencing. And a new head of state and government of a sovereign nation is undoubtedly significant. Gizza (t)(c) 03:12, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Posted - After making a few more improvements to her article I've posted it to ITN, per WP:ITN/R and Newyorkbrad's note. Coffee // have a cup // beans // 07:23, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose I don't think this even received a consensus on being posted in the first place... Anyway after reading our own principles on what constitutes "significant" in our criteria sub-page, I've come to conclude this event is not significant. I know there is still some opinion on what you consider "great detail" of news articles, but this event is way below the bar, even by the most liberal standards. Jolly Ω Janner 10:30, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
@Jolly Janner: It doesn't need consensus on the merits, as elections for head of state are on the Recurring Items list. If you feel that this should somehow be prevented from posting, please propose its removal from the list- though that has been tried and failed many times. 331dot (talk) 11:34, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - election results are ITNR and there's no (current) reason to refrain from posting results which some consider to be insignificant/from unimportant countries/from very small countries etc. None of these reasons exist in the criteria. Also interesting that with this election, Heine became the first female leader of a sovereign Pacific Island nation. Which is also significant and noteworthy in itself. MurielMary (talk) 11:29, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Post-posting comment: Has anyone noticed that this was not a popular election? She was elected by the legislature of the Marshall Islands. Sca (talk) 02:26, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] Lassa fever outbreak in NigeriaEdit

no support, and seems to be very much the regular course for this disease μηδείς (talk) 01:17, 28 January 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: Lassa fever outbreak in Nigeria (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The recent Lassa fever outbreak in Nigeria has killed 76 people in 17 states of Nigeria
Alternative blurb: ​On 20 January 2016, 63 deaths were recorded in 17 states of Nigeria in the current Lassa fever outbreak in Nigeria.
News source(s): ibitimes, The Guardian
Nominator: Wikicology (talk • give credit)
Article updated

 Wikigyt@lk to M£ 09:01, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose as nomination is misrepresented. ITN/R does not include this in any form as far as I can find. As per notability, the Lassa Fever page notes that about 5000 people die per year of this disease.128.214.53.18 (talk) 09:46, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
@Ip, do you mean that about 5000 people die per year of this disease in Nigeria?. If that's what you mean, then you cannot be serious. This is a recent outbreak that claim 76 lives. I have no idea of what you mean by "misrepresentation". This is my first nomination and I might not do it correctly, no doubt! Wikigyt@lk to M£ 10:12, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
ITNR removed. LoveToLondon (talk) 10:24, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
(ec) I think the problem was the ITNR assessment, which may not be correct in this case. No worries, though. The article is in a good shape but, as IP pointed out, the Lassa fever article does state that around 5000 people die because of it every year. So, an outbreak with 76 casualties may not be that prominent. I suggest we wait and see how things develop. Keep up with good work ;) --Tone 10:28, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
By "misrepresentation" I was referring to the ITNR portion of the nomination. No ill will towards the nominator, but there's been a persistent problem with nominations mis-using ITNR and/or Ongoing, and I just wanted to get that out of the way in this case. Thanks for the nomination, but my oppose still stand on notability.128.214.53.18 (talk) 11:28, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Per The Guardian: "Outbreaks are not uncommon and the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates there are 100,000-300,000 infections in west Africa every year, with about 5,000 deaths. In 2012, there were 1,723 cases and 112 deaths in Nigeria. Last year, 12 people died out of 375 infected, according to the Nigerian Centre for Disease Control." Unfortunately, it's an endemic (not epidemic) disease which crops up regularly (as opposed to say Zika, which appears to be either a new mutation or to have reached populations which aren't immune to it). Also, the article is in poor condition and doesn't clearly differentiate between 2012 and 2016. Is the current outbreak a continuation of the 2012 one, or a new flare-up? Smurrayinchester 10:32, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose It is unfortunate this many deaths happen with some regularity in this part of the world, but it happens, and this doesn't seem to be unusual from past outbreaks. As noted, things like Ebola or the Zika, which are far less frequent are things better for highlighting in ITN. --MASEM (t) 17:34, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks for bringing this here but I fear I must oppose. "Lassa fever is endemic in Nigeria and causes outbreaks almost every year in different parts of the country, with yearly peaks observed between December and February" according to WHO.[4] Espresso Addict (talk) 19:22, 27 January 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.

January 26Edit

Portal:Current events/2016 January 26

[Closed] Occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge arrestsEdit

I think we can see where this one is going... BencherliteTalk 19:44, 27 January 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: Occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge (talk, history)
Blurb: Ammon Bundy and seven other protesters who had been occupying the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Oregon are arrested, and one other protester, LaVoy Finicum, is killed in a traffic stop.
News source(s): NBC News CBS News New York Times BBC
Nominator: Everymorning (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: Major development in a story that has been ongoing for several weeks and has been high profile in the news for most of that time. Everymorning (talk) 17:21, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I was waiting for somebody to finally nominate this. Strong oppose - Standoff with gun-toting yokels ends with one person being shot, and not even in the same location. This is as parochial as parochial can get.--WaltCip (talk) 17:28, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
    • Well, this was a shoe-in for me to Oppose as well, but if it has my friends across the pond on the edges of their seats, maybe it has international impact after all. Truly Walt, what an odd thing to blurt out. - OldManNeptune 18:32, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose because this is not the end of the occupation(and I'm not even sure we should post that). 331dot (talk) 17:30, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose While I know this was a serious concern in the local area, I don't think much of the rest of the world took it as any serious threat, in light of things like the Paris attacks and other recent hostage crisis situations. --MASEM (t) 17:32, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Cranks in cowboy boots & hats. Agree with Masem. (And I live about 100 mi./160 km. away.) Sca (talk) 19:07, 27 January 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] Beatrix Potter story to be published after 100 yearsEdit

No consensus to post. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:53, 27 January 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: Beatrix Potter (talk, history)
Blurb: Beatrix Potter story is discovered after 100 years.
Alternative blurb: ​A new story by Beatrix Potter is to be published after 100 years.
News source(s): BBC CNN The Guardian The Telegraph The Independent
Nominator: MurielMary (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Previously unpublished story by one of the world's best-selling children's authors. Was written in 1914 and discovered two years ago, being published this Sept as part of commemorations of the 150th anniversary of Potter's birth. MurielMary (talk) 06:29, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose article only updated with two sentences. I think considering the size of the article, a chunky paragraph would be the minimum. Jolly Ω Janner 06:38, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - adding alt blurb since the discovered story has its own article. No opinion on the nomination itself for now. Banedon (talk) 06:52, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose The story has not been "discovered" as details appear in A History of the Writings of Beatrix Potter, Including Unpublished Work which was published in 1971. What's happening here is that a publisher has decided to illustrate and publish the work. It's an interesting item but we shouldn't hype it. Andrew D. (talk) 08:38, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Fair point. I've edited the blurb. MurielMary (talk) 09:04, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose Maybe this is off base, but I am genuinely annoyed by this publication. The copyright in Potter expired on 1 January 2014 in all EU countries, but many of them give an additional 25 years of protection for posthumously published words after it would have normally fallen in the public domain (so: published after 1 jan 2014). I cannot stop myself from thinking the 150th birthday is just a pretext, where in effect it's meant "because publishing earlier would not have yielded enough revenue". That is all ok of course, but in view of this commercial possbility we should be restrictive in what and how we post it and have a higher bar for "newsworhtyness" than other ITN articles. L.tak (talk) 09:27, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose over-hyped (it was known about, not something that was recently discovered), trivial (we're talking Beatrix Potter, not Shakespeare) and commercially driven. ITN didn't publicise the "new" Harper Lee book or any of the Harry Potter launches, despite them being much bigger stories. BencherliteTalk 10:25, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Beatrix Potter is not trivial. See New coins for 2016 to feature Shakespeare and Beatrix Potter in which they share top billing, for example. As 28 July is the 150th anniversary of her birth, we can expect a lot more such references to her on the main page this year. Perhaps there's a project or page already which plans to coordinate this? Andrew D. (talk) 13:34, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Big deal. Since we couldn't agree on posting Mein Kampf being republished, I don't see how we post this. (And believe me, I'd much rather read Beatrix Potter than you-know-who.) Sca (talk) 17:12, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Would make a good DYK though. Laura Jamieson (talk) 19:29, 27 January 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.

[Pulled] RD Abe VigodaEdit

Article: Abe Vigoda (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): [5]
Nominator: Spman (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.

 Spman (talk) 20:02, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Support - household name and immediately recognizable face and voice. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:09, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - There's a few non-contentious statements that are unsourced (about well-broadcasted appearances) but the article is good to go. Definite RD on importance. --MASEM (t) 20:12, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak support - Strictly speaking, I'm not altogether sure he meets the RD criteria as an actor. However, he's certainly well known, and he was at the very top of his field of not being dead yet. This is something our readers will be interested in, and I'll certainly give him the benefit of the doubt. --Bongwarrior (talk) 20:22, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
"Top of his field of not being dead yet", well said. With Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead and Mark Twain included :) Brandmeistertalk 20:36, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Conflicted Technically he shouldn't be considered the top of his field in acting, but there's so much more in the public persona, including having a band named after him, and this: http://isabevigodadead.com/ – Muboshgu (talk) 20:26, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support for prompt posting, per several above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:31, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not a household name name for me. After seeing the image I remember his support role in the first Godfather movie. The is most notable part of the introduction lists this and another role as support actor plus some sitcom and show from 1975-1978. No awards ever won. After reading the article, I am not seeing his importance. If he is for some reason a household name everyone in the US knows, that has to be explained in the article. LoveToLondon (talk) 20:37, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Recognizable name, well known actor, article lacks any major problems. I can't find a reason to object to posting this. --Jayron32 20:39, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose popular but no awards, no indication that he is actually significant as an actor, just that he's affectionately remembered ("popular", "recognizable" etc) by Americans. Article is poor. If his career was so significant to acting, why is 50% of it a quote? Why is a third of the article about mistaken reports of his death, or is that what's he's now famous for, not being dead but now being dead? More refs please for those unlinked articles in his filmography and television work section, worse - many of the blue links don't even mention Vigoda, so they're not appropriate as "primary sources" either. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:40, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
    • The New York Times refers to him as a "cult figure" because of the exaggerated report of his death from 34 years ago. That's a good way to put it. Agreed the article quality is not great at present. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:57, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
      • Many individuals can be referred to as "cult figures". We want to elevate this guy to RD status because someone said he'd died 34 years ago? Seriously? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:26, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
        • No, we might elevate him to RD because of the "cult status" he gained 34 years ago, and maintained since then. Plus Tessio and Fish. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:12, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - recognizable name. established actor who became household name. RD is sufficient. BabbaQ (talk) 21:11, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
    As per normal, "reconizable name", "established actor", "household name"... none of these meet the RD criteria, as you know. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:26, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Off-topic and not going to get better. BencherliteTalk 00:55, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
  • No a notable career doesnt trump TRMs personal opinions.. we all know that by now, Lol. Thanks for returning and giving me some comic relief.. BabbaQ (talk) 21:40, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
    Please stick to itn guidelines. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:50, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
    Drop the stick... POV-pushing the first hours back.. BabbaQ (talk) 23:21, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
    Do behave nicely, BabbaQ. Pointing out that your expression of support is not based on the RD guidelines does not equate to "comic relief", "POV-pushing" or flogging a dead horse. No wonder TRM sometimes gets a little tetchy when this is the kind of repeated low-level needling he receives. BencherliteTalk 23:38, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
    First of all, stop trying to baiting... Secondly, TRM gives as good as he gets. Its just kind of hilarious how it is received as "low-level needling" when it is given to TRM, but when TRM is giving it is "just the way he is" and "the thing to expect from that great editor TRM. I am not buying in to that.. sorry. Were are your bright light of guidance when TRM is nit-picking at anyone who has a different opinion than him?.. and in exactly the same way.. Now please, drop the POV push stick.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:34, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose I'm not actually seeing how playing a part in a sitcom for a couple of years, appearing in The Godfather, and being the subject of a long-running joke about not being dead adds up to "The deceased was widely regarded as a very important figure in his or her field", which is the standard to be applied here. Lots of established actors, and lots of household names (in acting or elsewhere - sport and politics, for example) don't actually meet that standard. BencherliteTalk 22:06, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
    Please follow the RD guidelines. BabbaQ (talk) 00:36, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
    Actually I'm following the RD guideline, which is "Names of important or prominent people who recently died are often posted to ITN in a section titled "recent deaths". Suitable posts generally meet at least one of the following criteria: * The deceased was in a high-ranking office of power at the time of death and/or had a significant contribution/impact on the country/region. * The deceased was widely regarded as a very important figure in his or her field. What guideline are you following? BencherliteTalk 00:59, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support For years, people have perennially wondered whether Vigoda was still alive. His being so old for so very long is culturally almost iconic. The URL Muboshgu posted is an example of that. The phrase "the very top of his field of not being dead yet" is amusing of course, but it really is quite accurate, despite being a tongue-in-cheek way of putting it. TJRC (talk) 22:54, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support this is borderline, but he's a meme, and I think our readers will be looking for it. μηδείς (talk) 00:17, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment Many other people have also been wrongly declared dead, and contrary to incorrect claims by support votes Vigoda was far behind Paul McCartney in the field of not yet being dead. LoveToLondon (talk) 00:30, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. A much-beloved actor of decades of experience from TV and film alike - regrettably, he falls short of the mark for influence or notability - no awards that I can find. It's telling that the longest section of this man's career is the fact that he was the butt of a running joke since the late 1980s - not his career or performances. Challenger l (talk) 00:58, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - Article in good condition and is a well-known figure in comedy and television. Though Vigoda has never won an award, he had a successful career as many obits I've read such as the NYT. Plus he is, well was, a recognized figure. I'm sure we posted a few individuals who hadn't even won awards but were successful or well-known. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:02, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support and don't even lie to yourself, if he was from anywhere else in the world but the U.S., this would already be posted. Sterngleek (talk) 01:54, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Marked ready. The article is updated and the consensus is obvious. μηδείς (talk) 02:01, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Posted Quality is good enough for RD; small orange tag requesting expansion in the Career section could be remedied by greater attention, nothing detrimental. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 03:37, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose, by no means a household name, aside from his name sounding cool. besides, ITN only holds the most significant deaths. He is a candidate for recent deaths, that reflects his having a brief period of high notability in the70s, and his essentially dying of natural causes. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:22, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Abe Vigoda was well known and well liked in the US, and I consider myself fortunate to have seen him in person when I attended a TV taping years ago. From a sentimental standpoint, I appreciate seeing his death mentioned on the main page, as it's the culmination of a long-running joke that Vigoda's sense of humor led him to embrace. But when I set aside that sentiment (which permeates much of the above discussion), I'm left with the natural death of an elderly man whose acting career was unexceptional. Part of me would love to take "top of his field of not being dead yet" and run with it, but as much as this tickles my fancy, I can't honestly claim that it meets our criteria. —David Levy 09:48, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Pull most of the support is based on a popular "household name" who is clearly only household to a microcosm of the world. He won nothing, his career is virtually absent in the article, this is not main page stuff. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:17, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Pull. I agree with TRM; support seems to be based on his popularity, and popularity is not equal to "very important to their field". If he got any, the article does not discuss any recognition, awards, or people he influenced with their careers to indicate his importance to acting. His other notable aspect seems to be that people have thought he was dead on many occasions since 1982, which would not seem to meet the RD criteria. I don't often call for pulls but the article does not seem sufficient. 331dot (talk) 12:21, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
  • oppose and pull. He's a supporting actor primarily and not near the top of his field.Johnsemlak (talk) 12:32, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose I read this, said to myself "who?" and then went to the article, saw the photo and thought "oh, him". Obviously I don't expect to know every name that comes up at RD, especially in more niche fields, but I would certainly expect to have at least heard of a Western TV or film actor. Don't see any awards, not top of his field. This sets the bar far too low and will have a detrimental effect on future nominations. Laura Jamieson (talk) 12:43, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment. I don't believe this one passed the bar in the first place (anyone who I've spoken to about it has prefaced it with "Sal Tessio's dead", not "Abe Vigoda"). That said, given that there seems to have been a running thread of premature obituaries for him in the past, I'd be disinclined to pull it now that it's up lest we give the impression that he's once again not dead. I would have opposed before posting but now that it's up, I would oppose pulling it. GRAPPLE X 12:53, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Pulled per significant opposition. And the article is awful; it's a third a quote and a third a running joke. If he was top of his field those things would be mentioned in passing. Stephen 12:55, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Post-posting post-pull oppose - At the time of posting, one of the key guidelines for RD was not met, being that this person was not at the top of his field.--WaltCip (talk) 13:07, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support restoring. Should not have been pulled. I'm half tempted to go rogue and just restore it unilaterally and see if anyone notices, but I need "to preserve my political viability within the system" so I shall refrain. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:42, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
    Well unfortunately for you there was a strong community consensus to remove such a weak article about a popular but not important individual. It was quite correct to remove it from the main page. It was incorrect to add it in the first place, as article quality also needs to be considered, and in this case the article about this actor's career was particularly appalling. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:24, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose restoring: If we were going to restore it (which we won't), it makes far more sense not to post it as an RD, but as a news item with the blurb 'This time Abe Vigoda really is dead', followed by a smiley, since that is the only thing about him that's sufficiently notable to make an arguable case for posting. Needless to add, apart altogether from arguments about notability, this would understandably (and arguably rightly) be met with howls of outrage about laughing at a tragic event, and would have no chance of gaining consensus, as, perhaps regrettably, Wikipedia is not Charlie Hebdo. So I'm opposing, per WP:SNOWBALL.Tlhslobus (talk) 08:33, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - One of the two mean reasons for ITN is to showcase reasonably well-written articles. Pulling a link might make Wikipedia look stupid. But linking to a poorly-written article might make Wikipedia look even more stupid. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:28, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Suggest closing discussion. What's done is done. I think this thread can be closed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:30, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: BlackEdit

Consensus against. BencherliteTalk 10:02, 27 January 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: Black (singer) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: Colin Vearncombe dies at 53 after a car crash earlier this month.
News source(s): The Guardian
Nominator: Eugen Simion 14 (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.

 EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 19:43, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb certainly not a Bowie. RD is doubtful too, hardly a prominent name in English/British music, a one-"hit"-wonder, nothing more. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:56, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose A BLP with basically no references at all. Absolutely no way we can put an unreferenced article on the main page. Do the tough work of fixing this article up, and you'll get my support for highlighting it on the main page. --Jayron32 19:59, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose Both TRM and Jayron hit the nail on the head: poorly sourced, no real sign of importance. Sad loss, but nowhere near the level we'd expect for ITN. --MASEM (t) 20:01, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
    Just for clarity, I said I would support posting this is if we had a quality article... I did not say that there was "no real sign of importance..." Please don't attribute to me things I did not say. Especially when I said the opposite. --Jayron32 20:44, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
    The individual in question doesn't meet the RD criteria, regardless of whether the article is a stub or an FA. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:46, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
    I'm usually not particularly worried if people find featured articles linked from the main page. Would only that we linked more featured work more often, Wikipedia would be better for it. --Jayron32 21:05, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
    That's not disputed. Would that this individual came even close to RD critieria, then we could get all emotional about the quality (or lack of) the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:28, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
    Sorry, was not trying to imply you said that, just combining the two reasons that were given above. --MASEM (t) 23:47, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose appears to have only had one hit and didn't receive any industry awards in this lifetime. Not "top of his field" or "significant". MurielMary (talk) 09:13, 27 January 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: Marvin MinskyEdit

If no one has any objections to this having been posted, except that they didn't get to offer their support before posting, I can't see any reason to keep this open. Procedural issues, such as a formal proposal to enact rules over the timing of postings, are best handled at WT:ITN. --Jayron32 20:41, 26 January 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: Marvin Minsky (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): [6]
Nominator: Sukhoi 24 (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.

 Sukhoi 24 (talk) 08:59, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support RD Just came here to nominate this. Considered a pioneer of artificial intelligence and co-founder of MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory. --hydrox (talk) 09:04, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment. Notability is obvious but the article is in need of improved referencing. Espresso Addict (talk) 11:33, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Posted The reference problems in the article seem relatively minor. As a Turing award winner, his notability should be uncontrovercial. There is only one sentense about his death, but I feel that any more would be recentism, as his death seems to have been uneventful, from age related causes. Thue (talk) 14:51, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - I agree with the posting in principle, and would have eventually voted support here myself, but posting after only two votes is far too premature. Also, better news sources are needed for the nomination, and there are some citation missing in the article. Fgf10 (talk) 15:27, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support; BUT I support, but I agree entirely with User:Fgf10, four unopposed supports and a six-hour window at the least has been the longstanding minimum here, and ignoring the fact that I own Minsky's books, I am quite surprised this was posted so quickly. I think we have a fanboy issue with such premature.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Medeis (talkcontribs) 17:08, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support with same concern as rush-to-post as Fgf10 and Medeis. No reason to pull, just a reminding that RDs like this can be given a half-day or more time for pile-on support !votes before posting. --MASEM (t) 18:53, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support and I don't see any problem with the timing. Where notability and article quality are sufficient, recent deaths should be posted promptly (hence the title). Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:33, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
  • post oppose, i thought that this was discussion for ITN, not just recent deaths. If its just for recent deaths, then yes of course.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:25, 27 January 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.

January 25Edit

Portal:Current events/2016 January 25

[Posted] East Asia cold waveEdit

Article: January 2016 East Asia cold wave (talk, history)
Blurb: A cold wave across East Asia results in at least 94 deaths.
News source(s): The Independent, CNN, BBC
Nominator: Cyclonebiskit (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Article is a bit stumpy at the moment, just started it up, but the event is quite notable with a large loss of life. Multiple countries across the region are seeing their coldest weather in decades—places without central heating are seeing near-freezing temperatures—and Okinawa observed sleet for the first time on record. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 19:55, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Support - Much more serious than the recent US east coast storm in terms of potential loss of human life (already exceeds, and not over with yet). --MASEM (t) 20:22, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
    • Also to add that while short, article is in good shape for posting. --MASEM (t) 20:24, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support per Masem. Neljack (talk) 20:33, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Merge into the US east coast storm currently posted on the ITN ticker, and put this one in the lead, per Masem, since this is the deadlier story.--WaltCip (talk) 21:00, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
    • I would support a merge at this point too, with the Asia part getting the lead aspect. eg "Severe winter weather systems in Eastern Asia and the Eastern United States kill over 100 people and cripple transportation." (or something like that). --MASEM (t) 21:11, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict) FWIW there's more than enough room for a separate blurb. Not particularly a fan of merging two entirely unrelated events (barring synoptic scale conditions) into a single blurb. The event in Asia is a cold wave whereas the U.S. system is a blizzard; a cold wave is not a "weather system" in and of itself, it's a byproduct of other systems. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 21:14, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support posting, oppose merge. Has nothing to do with the North American storm. – Juliancolton | Talk 21:12, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support major effects, oppose merge with the unrelated winter weather. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:33, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support posting, oppose merge. Merging would make no more sense than if we'd run a combined "David Bowie and Alan Rickman die" blurb last week. ‑ Iridescent 21:44, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support posting this item, oppose merging with NA storm, per Cyclonebiskit. No sense in cramming two unrelated stories into one blurb. - OldManNeptune 21:45, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Posted, don't think anyone will mind the nominator posting if consensus is unanimous. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 21:47, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

January 24Edit

Portal:Current events/2016 January 24

[Closed] RD: Henry WorsleyEdit

No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 06:45, 26 January 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: Henry Worsley (adventurer) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: Henry Worsley dies after failing to become the first person to cross Antarctica unaided.
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: There are few adventure titles that remain unclaimed, and this guy did 913 miles out of 943 before calling it quits. Nergaal (talk) 17:37, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Might be better as a DYK since his only real notability according to the article in its current state is that he failed the attempt. μηδείς (talk) 17:45, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose Article didn't exist until just now, no indication he's at the top of the field of exploration. I agree with Medeis that this would make an interesting DYK. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:51, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose I take no issue with the recent article creation per se, and would likely have supported posting if he had completed the route, but notability via death is a poor fit. - OldManNeptune 18:03, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Reluctant oppose. Would his achievement have been posted here had he succeeded? Very tragic and perhaps even a "heroic failure," but I'm unsure of general notability. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:18, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Adventurer dies of dehydration, surrounded by water. Not at the top of his field, was he? Mjroots (talk) 20:52, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Wait and see if this story has "legs". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:23, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm not going to be the cold, morbid soul here that says "snow oppose".--WaltCip (talk) 02:58, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I have not voted one way or the other here, but the subject died of peritonitis in Chile, not of ironic dehydration in Kent. μηδείς (talk) 03:12, 26 January 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.

Portuguese presidential election, 2016Edit

Article: Portuguese presidential election, 2016 (talk, history)
Blurb: Marcelo Rebelo de Sousa is elected as President of Portugal
Nominator: Jenda H. (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.

 Jenda H. (talk) 08:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Support ITNR (article needs some citation improvements before posting) LoveToLondon (talk) 09:09, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support – Added links to political parties. Sca (talk) 15:47, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support – ITNR, and important.BabbaQ (talk) 15:50, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment. The article is not ready. Espresso Addict (talk) 16:08, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - Marcelo's article needs a few references even if it isn't bolded in the blurb. 117.221.127.253 (talk) 16:11, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose Article is of insufficient quality for posting to the main page. Very little prose about the election, the voting, the results, etc. Articles which consist entirely of tables and charts are not sufficiently updated or fleshed out for posting to the main page. --Jayron32 16:50, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Jayron. Two uncited paragraphs and a bunch of list items and tables do not make for an "updated" article. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:53, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

January 23Edit

Portal:Current events/2016 January 23

[Posted] Zika virus warningsEdit

Article: Zika virus (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Four nations in the Americas warn women to postpone pregnancy due to the possible threat of microcephaly in newborn babies from the Zika virus.
Alternative blurb: ​Four nations in the Americas warn women to postpone pregnancy due to the possible threat of microcephaly in newborn babies from the Zika virus, while other governments warn pregnant women to consider postponing travel to over 20 affected countries.
Alternative blurb II: ​Nations in the Americas warn women to postpone pregnancy or travel due to the threat of microcephaly from the Zika virus.
News source(s): BBC, RTE, Irish Times
Nominator: Tlhslobus (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Bad enough already, and has the potential to become the number one global health crisis of 2016, affecting everything from women and babies to the Rio Olympics. Tlhslobus (talk) 11:29, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Support Quite a remarkable advisory. I would suggest we name the four countries in the blurb - it is important information and it wouldn't make the blurb any longer than the altblurb, so I don't think it would be too long. Neljack (talk) 11:40, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
  • You can say "Colombia, Ecuador, El Salvador and Jamaica" instead of "Four nations in the Americas", and the length will hardly be affected at all. But by the time we post it might well have grown to ten or twenty. Not naming them may also make people more likely to look at the article to see which are the ones. But naming them is fine by me.Tlhslobus (talk) 12:50, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Tentative support but needs work before posting. The virus article is in good shape, the Brazil outbreak not so much. The update that mentions 23 January is missing, though. --Tone 11:45, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I've now added a brief outline of the BBC and RTE info to both articles.Tlhslobus (talk) 12:38, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I've now removed the Brazil article since neither blurb nor altblurb links to it, and you say it's not in great shape.Tlhslobus (talk) 13:22, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Also Brazil is not one of the 4 countries mentioned.Tlhslobus (talk) 13:27, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Good job. Support now. But I'll wait for some more comments before posting. --Tone 15:09, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - highly interesting and notable news.BabbaQ (talk) 15:29, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Agreeing on Tone about the shape of the virus article, it is a shame the Brazilian outbreak is not up to snuff. While I can see some claiming this stale, the new advisory is what is ITN about this story showing the situation has spread. --MASEM (t) 15:29, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. I've been meaning to nominate something related to this. The Zika virus & Zika fever articles seem in reasonable shape, the outbreak one not so much. Espresso Addict (talk) 16:25, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - I'd call this notable. Still I'd refrain from saying "Four countries in the Americas" - why not "Four countries in South America", which is more precise? If the number of countries with such warnings grow, the blurb can be amended accordingly (the Planet Nine blurb has been amended so often I almost find it comical). Banedon (talk) 01:13, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
    • El Salvador and Jamaica are Central America. --MASEM (t) 01:29, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
      • My apologies ... Latin America then. Banedon (talk) 03:46, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
        • Jamaica is an English-speaking Caribbean island and thus not part of Latin America - that's why I chose 'in the Americas'.Tlhslobus (talk) 04:27, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Is a call like this unprecedented? – Muboshgu (talk) 06:22, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
    • Perhaps not, but I've never heard of such a call before, so I suspect that at the very least it's probably very rare.Tlhslobus (talk) 10:44, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - Pretty much unprecedented advice and the virus is already causing thousands of birth defects. Most certainly notable. Fgf10 (talk) 11:47, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Posted Thue (talk) 12:26, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Change wikilink to Zika virus outbreak (2015 - present), please. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)[1] 00:36, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
    • That title currently redirects to 2015 Zika virus outbreak in Brazil, and since the news item is about more than Brazil it is not a good main link for the blurb. Thue (talk) 12:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
      • It was moved. I think the title of that article represents Brazil as the starting point of the outbreak. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)[1] 14:50, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support changing link to Zika virus outbreak (2015 - present) the other articles do not cover the outbreak that brought about the warning. Not as well anyways. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 05:23, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'm neutral on the above suggested link change. But I just wanted to mention that the Outbreak article's name has been changed again since the above requests were posted. This is the 6th name change in the past 36 hours or so, and may well not be the last one. I don't know whether or not such changes can cause problems for ITN (regardless of whether the blurb links to it directly, or merely indirectly via the Zika Virus article - last time I looked the bottom of the two links to it there was not working properly, possibly due to a double redirect (or perhaps a single dead redirect) that had not (or not yet) been automaticlly fixed by a bot). Does something need to be done about this? Tlhslobus (talk) 08:05, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
    • I don't see it as a big deal as such if an article linked from the main page changes title, if the title preserves its meaning. At most it will mean a redirect. But the article has currently changed from "Zika virus outbreak (2015 - present)" to "2015 Zika virus outbreak in Brazil", which is very much a change of meaning, since the former title would be expected to cover outbreaks in other countries. Thue (talk) 12:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Please spell out the 4 countries. Nergaal (talk) 17:17, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] U.S. Blizzard (redux)Edit

Article: January 2016 United States winter storm (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Eleven states and Washington, D.C. in the United States declare emergencies amid a major winter storm (satellite image pictured).
Alternative blurb: ​A "potentially historic" winter storm (satellite image pictured) kills at least ten people and paralyzes travel across the Eastern United States.
Alternative blurb II: ​A winter storm (satellite image pictured) triggers a state of emergency across the Eastern United States.
News source(s): Numerous in article; international coverage: swissinfo.ch, The Independent, Australia News Network, Le Monde
Nominator and updater: Cyclonebiskit (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: I was initially hesitant on renominating this so quickly after closing it, but given developments I think it's good to go. This is an extremely disruptive winter storm with the situation going downhill rapidly. Blizzard conditions are forecast for 30 million people (the storm is affecting about 85 million people) and ten states and Washington, D.C. are under a state of emergency. More than 6,000 flights (>100,000 passengers) have been cancelled due to the storm and roads, including interstates, are expected—if they're not already—to be impassible across several states. Hundreds of thousands of people have lost power and this could easily rise into the millions as a major ice storm impacts the Carolinas. Speculation aside, the disruptive effects are substantial and widespread enough to warrant inclusion of the event on ITN; the blurb can always be updated at a later time to reflect the aftermath of the blizzard.

First blurb is a generic storm one while the alt blurb is a bit more newspaper-like, but I figured I'd take a gamble with it. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 01:32, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Support recorded impacts are notable enough. I have also suggester alternative blurb II . Jolly Ω Janner 01:38, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I just noticed today's featured article. Nice! Jolly Ω Janner 01:49, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Support quality article, topic is currently a major news story. Can't think of any reason to stand in the way of posting this.--Jayron32 02:15, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Support. Up to 30 inches of snow forecast in the west DC suburbs, snow in Florida, 4 tornadoes in the hardest month to get tornados in. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 03:05, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
oppose not so notable in effect YET.Lihaas (talk) 03:32, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Say what now?--WaltCip (talk) 03:50, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support as a fairly good article and having huge newsworthiness. Also noting the coincidental nor'easter featured article on the main page. SounderBruce 05:52, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose It snows in winter on the east coast, news at 11. Yes, the scope is larger than normal, but this is normal weather for this time of year in this area of the world. Unless we're talking significant death tolls, this is only news because it is happening in a major first-world country. --MASEM (t) 06:17, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
    • And terrorism is a regular occurrence in the Middle East (and neighboring regions), yet we still post significant events. It's a major weather event, potentially record-breaking (with cities that have detailed records into the 1800s), and is clearly in the news. I personally find the macabre aspect of ITN/C undesirable. Does effective preparation, lessening potential deaths, make this any less news-worthy? Furthermore, 2 to 3 ft (0.61 to 0.91 m) of snow is not run-of-the-mill for this region, so I don't believe the "it snows in the winter on the east coast" argument holds water. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 06:31, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
      • There are people that suffer from more harmful weather conditions across the globe, but we don't cover them because they are in countries that lack significant news "importance". This is not something sudden, nor is it something that the areas affected can't prepare for (the entire reason the state of emergency has been issued is to make sure people are aware to take preparation for this), compared to other more severe effects (eg such as the heat waves in India). It is also happening on a weekend, so it's going to have minimal impact on regular business. This is news only because, bluntly, it is a "first world problem" and thus getting the coverage because it is affecting a country that has significant media penetration on what is otherwise a slow news week. And I've lived on the east coast and regularly saw 2-3 ft snowfalls and dealt with it. --MASEM (t) 06:57, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
        • Our criteria isn't that great and ITN always suffers from subjectiveness, but can you at least try to focus your opposition on (lack of) media coverage rather than your own opinions and anecdotes. The shear number of articles from every corner of the world covering this topic and the depth they go to is overwhelming. Jolly Ω Janner 07:07, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
          • I'm not talking about the lack of media coverage but the fact that this is sensationalism media coverage. We are not a news ticker and more selective than what is reported in the news. Just because a topic is covered throughout the world does not mean it is necessarily appropriate for ITN. --MASEM (t) 07:11, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
        • (edit conflict)Those events are covered when possible. The most recent relatively under-reported disaster that I brought up was the 2015 Guatemala landslide, another person nominated the Hpakant jade mine disaster; it's up to editors to make articles and nominate them. Whether or not another significant weather event (of which there are none at present to my knowledge) has an article is irrelevant to this nomination. I grew up on the East Coast as well, 30 inches is the largest I've ever seen in a single storm, it's not a regular occurrence for the region being impacted. Washington, D.C. has only seen more than 20 inches or more from a single storm twice before since records began there. Does it being a slow news week mean we also ignore a news-worthy event to further perpetuate the slowness of the news? ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 07:16, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
            • A couple of points from our criteria guide to pull up: "Arguments about a story related to a particular geographic region, country, ethnicity, people group, etc. are generally seen as unhelpful" and "The level of coverage by major news sources is the guiding factor, not what one particular user knows or cares about." Jolly Ω Janner 07:22, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose
LoveToLondon (talk) 07:33, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Different region primarily affected (Connecticut/Massachussets are not the same Delaware/Maryland/Virginia), and one that regularly sees greater snowfall. This situation is also a reverse of January 2015, whereas the snowfall forecast around the New York City metropolitan area busted, it's majorly increasing tonight. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 07:40, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
  • A snowstorm affecting tens of millions of people is nothing uncommon on the US east coast. Last winter also had another snowstorm that resulted in up to 2m of snow in the state of New York. It is simply normal in a winter that at some place somewhere at the US east coast a large snowstorm will happen. The exact location is of course different each time. LoveToLondon (talk) 08:03, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
  • The Eastern United States is a pretty large place, y'know. You're over-generalizing a huge region simply because it's in the same country. It's on the same scale (geographically) as ignoring an event in the UK because it happens in Germany from time to time. The area that got >2m of snow in 2014 is 280 mi (450 km) away from Washington, D.C. and on the other side of a mountain range. Not to mention lake-effect snow is an entirely different beast from the storm at present. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 08:07, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Because it's "normal" is such a terrible argument as most of ITN could be classed as "normal", "predictable" or "routine". We go with the level of coverage by reliable news sources when establishing notability and you have not mentioned anything on this. Your opposition is opinion and subject to bias. Jolly Ω Janner 08:42, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
  • You shouldn't use the word we instead of the word I. Chances are that the butt of Kim Kardashian had at least as much coverage by reliable news sources as a blizzard in the US - and it wouldn't be posted at ITN. Only someone with a strong US bias can consider ten states in the US declare an emergency due to a blizzard worth for ITN - a similar suggestion for any other country in the world this would have been closed very quickly. LoveToLondon (talk) 12:54, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Highly doubt it would be ignored...only 16 countries, 10 of which are not in snow-prone regions, have a population of 85 million (the number of people affected by this storm), so it would have to be a multi-country event or, most likely, be in Russia (which sees snowstorms far more frequently than the US). The comparisons to Kim Kardashian are pathetic; we all know tabloid material is garbage, this is a different type of story that is directly affecting tens of millions of lives and is being widely covered by global media. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 14:46, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Support Really almost an ITN/R item and nothing unpredictable here, but it's very widely reported all over the world. prefer alt 2. L.tak (talk) 09:03, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Oppose Masem is correct. Does anyone really think that weather events with such limited death and destruction would be posted if they occurred in most other countries? We must avoid systemic bias. Neljack (talk) 11:58, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
    • The macabre ITN/C continues; if it doesn't kill/maim in droves, it doesn't fly. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 14:46, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
      • For weather events, no it shouldn't be included, otherwise it's on the order of trainspotting on the front page, particularly for an event that had been predicted a week earlier and people given plenty of time to make preparations. --MASEM (t) 14:58, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
      • It is not macabre to believe that people's lives are important and thus a storm that kills lots of people is more significant than one that doesn't. Neljack (talk) 21:03, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
        • It's the focus on macabre aspects that irks me. Commenters are insinuating something has to be very deadly to be notable, and widespread disruption to tens of millions of lives counts for little to nothing. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 21:15, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
          • It's not so much the macabre, but for the most part this only is simply disrupting - but not permanently altering or affecting - a part of a first-world country so it got far more media attention than it really should deserve, the systematic bias that is referred to above. There was plenty of warning, the state of emergencies were issued to make sure people got that warning, and basically it was something that while there will still be deaths (elderly do not handle cold well, the homeless, and those that take unnecessary risks), it's an well-predicted inconvenience for the most part. It is not a sudden tornado system, a flood, a landslide, an earthquake or similar distance that is both unpredictable and can permanently damage the landscape, and that type of story is more appropriate for ITN because of that facet. Here, we are giving attention to a first-world problem, that people can't leave their home for a few days because of a few feet of snow. This is the equivalent of trainspotting or TMZ-style reporting in terms of weather events. It's important the the news got out so that people could take coverage, that's necessary, but it's far from any unusual that we should be focused on at ITN here. --MASEM (t) 16:17, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose Comment – A riveting event if one lives in the storm area, but an ephemeral one of little broader significance. Article lacks adequate illustration. Sca (talk) 15:07, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Must admit, what I read around 23:00 sounds pretty drastic. And I grew up with harsh winters. Sca (talk) 23:12, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Snow support Chuckle. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 15:44, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - agree with Cyclonebiskit it doesnt appear to be anything unusual for snow in North East US, compare it to a bushfire which started on 6th Jan in WA which included the loss of significant musuem collection was considered unworthy back on 8th January, it yet it formed its own weather system was visable from space the damage significant and it was at least historically unique in that the last time WA had town wiped off the map by a fire was 1961, oh and that fire was officially extinguished today some 17 days later. Yes there is a bias as something that affect US and Washington in particular will get more international media coverage than most places regardless. I oppose because the event isnt yet unusual but rather a semi-regular weather occurrence, reconsider in few days if conditions change significantly Gnangarra 16:15, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - Big story in the news around the planet. Impacting millions. Jusdafax 19:38, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Drifting strongly towards support, as per User:Lugnuts. "chuckles" Martinevans123 (talk) 19:57, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. We routinely post hurricanes and typhoons making landfall, regardless of their impact. A major winter storm affecting more than 50 million people should be treated no differently. Calidum T|C 20:16, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose As as lifelong native, I can assure you, it snows in the winter on the East Coast. μηδείς (talk) 21:07, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
    • As a fellow lifelong native, and someone who can read news reports, I can also assure you this is an extremely disruptive storm. It's entering the top 5 all-time snow events for multiple cities and towns across several states; New York City (which is presently almost completely shut down) may see its biggest storm since records began in 1869. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 21:15, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
    • I'm also a native of the East Coast (though currently living on the West Coast) and I can tell through the reports and talking to people back home that this is not your typical run of the mill snow storm. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:02, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - record tides, 2nd highest snowfall in DC, travel ban in one of the most important cities of the world, widespread power outages. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 23:01, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support it's a major blizzard with major impacts and is majorly in the news. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:01, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. This is not a "normal" storm by any stretch of the imagination whatsoever. Anyone in a private car in NYC right now will be subject to arrest by order of the Governor of New York; most of the city is shut down, along with many other cities. The US federal government was shut down. Tens of thousands of air travelers have been disrupted; millions are stuck wherever they are at this moment. Power outages will likely be widespread and disruptive. Clearly a significant impact and getting wide coverage. 331dot (talk) 23:12, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Marked as ready – 11 supports, 6 oppose; leaving the posting to another admin as I'm too involved to objectively post this. I recommend using the first alt blurb, with or without the "potentially historic" quote. Transportation is most certainly paralyzed and it includes the fatalities. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 23:11, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - Pretty widespread disruption, widely covered, near record levels of snow. Pretty notable in my book. Fgf10 (talk) 23:23, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Posted in accordance with strong (and growing) consensus. The huge scale of disruption from this storm is coming into focus, and new meteorological records are being set as we speak. – Juliancolton | Talk 23:35, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support - if it were just snow I'd oppose. But in this case we have not only snow, but also deaths, a state of emergency, and paralyzed travel. That's worth posting. Banedon (talk) 01:10, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support – Huge U.S. media coverage, and some in Europe, too. Sca (talk) 15:54, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - A storm that paralyzes the largest city in America is certainly notable. One question, though - a similar storm paralyzed Chicago about 5 years ago. Was that storm also in ITN? (Assuming ITN even existed then.) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:00, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

January 22Edit

Portal:Current events/2016 January 22

[Closed] January 2016 United States winter stormEdit

Closing as preemptive to circumvent discussion on a topic without much to go on. Once the event picks up (likely Friday night or Saturday), renominate the item. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 04:14, 22 January 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: January 2016 United States winter storm (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A state of emergency is declared across the Eastern United States in response to a winter storm.
News source(s): BBC
Nominator: Jolly Janner (talk • give credit)
Updater: Cyclonebiskit (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: I believe a state of emergency is notable in itself even though the storm hasn't hit yet. Jolly Ω Janner 01:47, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment – Probably best to hold off on this until tomorrow night/Saturday when the worst is expected to unfold. Do wish to note that six states and the capital are under a state of emergency (they're issued separately); travel disruption has already begun and will only get worse, but I don't think it merits posting at the moment. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 01:59, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your comment. I couldn't figure out a neat way of wording that several states in the East Coast had each issues states of emergency. Plus D.C. isn't a state. Jolly Ω Janner 02:10, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Wait and see This could be a tease, a major preparation for an inch or two. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:23, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Tentative oppose If this is just a blizzard that is inconvincing people, it should not be posted given we did not post the torando and flood systems that actually killed people and damaged a number of people. If this actually leads to a large death toll, then it can be posted. The only reason a state of emergency is posted is to keep people off the roads and make sure first responders have the right-of-way to respond as needed. --MASEM (t) 03:11, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
    • The tornado/flooding was not posted because of a disagreement among editors whether the event should be posted alone or other weather events tacked on. No issues on notability. As far as winter storms go, this one has potential to historic (Washington D.C. has only seen 20" twice in single events, current forecast has 24-30"). But of course, we'll still have to wait and see if the snowfall verifies. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 03:39, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Wait pending both article quality and news coverage of aftermath I always hate when article nominations jump the gun, because we have, as yet, nothing to assess, and the "oppose because it hasn't happened yet" comments tend to poison the well against what may have been an event which could have garnered a lot of support had people just had a little frickin patience and waited until we had both a quality article and evidence of news coverage. Next time, wait for both before nominating. --Jayron32 04:08, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I suggested it because I felt a state of emergency was notable enough. Also, any admins looking to post or close a discussion will surely not take account of "oppose because it hasn't happened yet". Jolly Ω Janner 04:17, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Why would a state of emergency in part of one of the 200 countries in the world be notable enough? Australia already had at least 3 bushfire emergency warnings this summer - are you saying each should have been at ITN? LoveToLondon (talk) 08:14, 22 January 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.

January 21Edit

Portal:Current events/2016 January 21

[Closed] Folk tales found to be 6,000 years oldEdit

No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 07:02, 27 January 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: Fairy_tale#Cross-cultural_transmission (talk, history) and Deal with the Devil (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Anthropologists estimate that the oldest fairy tales are 6,000 years old.
News source(s): BBC
Article updated

Nominator's comments: Apparently the fairy tale The Smith And The Devil (pretty much Deal with the Devil) goes back to the Bronze Age. Interesting finding, and anthropology is a rare topic at ITN. Nergaal (talk) 20:35, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
  • In-principle support because, as noted by nominator, "Interesting finding, and anthropology is a rare topic at ITN". With that said, I think it's better to bold-link Deal with the Devil instead of fairy tale. Banedon (talk) 02:23, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Comment: Interesting, tho I'm not sure whether this might not be better for DYK. However a better blurb is needed (regardless of whether it's ITN or DYK): Only one fairy tale (NOT 'fairy tales'), The Smith And The Devil, is described as 6000 years old, and that is disputed in the BBC source by one John Lindow. Also it's not entirely clear whether this is 'the oldest fairy tale', rather than just the oldest one analysed so far by these scientists. And the name The Smith And The Devil seems a bit surprising for the oldest fairy tale, given that it involves the relatively recent practice of metal-working (albeit dating back 8000 years to around 6000 BC in Catal Huyuk, if I remember right), which sounds as if it may be both implicitly part of Lindow's objection (tho he's seemingly explicitly questioning the existence of words meaning 'smith' in some languages 6000 years ago) and may also have WP:EXTRAORDINARY aspects. Finally it's unclear whether it shouldn't be 'at least 6000 years old' - "the oldest fairy tales are 6,000 years old" could mean "at most 6000 years old" and I rather doubt if that's what they're claiming, because their 'evolutionary' methodology allows them to say "the tale split into more than one language group X years ago" but quite likely doesn't allow them to say how long it existed in the original language group before the split.Tlhslobus (talk) 03:05, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Comment (continued): I should probably also have added that the BBC source describes The Smith and the Devil as a folk tale, NOT a fairy tale, unsurprisingly given that it has no fairies and is more like a horror story than what is normally suggested by 'fairy tale'.Tlhslobus (talk) 06:21, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Oppose try DYK. News not noteworthy (conjecture from anthropologist is not a hard scientific dating system) and neither article updated to reflect news. -- Callinus (talk) 07:56, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose Even accepting the research at face value, there's not much to report. Some tales we knew to be indeterminately old are estimated to be...quite old, to the nearest millenium. While the highest esimates are impressive, this doesn't upend our understanding of folklore. Obviously, an actual fragment predating Gilgamesh would be extremely ITN worthy, but this isn't that. DYK seems like it would fit but I am unsure if it's possible to meet the update requirements. - OldManNeptune 12:20, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose per OldManNeptune. Modest Genius talk 13:43, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
support per nom and Banedon.Lihaas (talk) 03:34, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support comparative linguistics and ethnology might be a bit esoteric for some, but see Ferdinand_de_Saussure#Laryngeal_theory where he predicted that there must have been "h"-like sounds in PIE that dropped out of use a full 50 years before those sounds were discovered in the newly translated Hittite, the oldest attested Indo-European language. This is a rigorous and predictive science, not just a computer model. Suggestions that this go to DYK conveniently ignore the fact the target articles are to old, an not enough material exists to meet their strict expansion requirements. μηδείς (talk) 18:56, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Rather unconvincing. The fact that this 'defence' was offered seemingly before anybody here had questioned the validity of linguistics as a science seems in itself somewhat telling (implying that many people elsewhere doubt its validity, maybe with good reason). Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. Christians and Muslims have been claiming for centuries that alleged successful predictions ('prophecies') 'prove' they are true, and I've read similar claims that, for instance, word count analysis makes literary criticism a science as exact and predictive as physics. Meanwhile the bits of linguistics I'm slightly familiar with seem to be endless near-incomprehensible and/or unconvincing quasi-religious disputes between (scientific and/or political) supporters and opponents of Noam Chomsky. Here we have 2 non-biologists using biological tools to tell us, supposedly rigorously, predictively, and scientifically, when folk tales began, despite seemingly not knowing the difference between the Bronze Age and the earlier Chalcolithic ('Copper-Stone' Age) unless that problem was created by our BBC 'Reliable Source' without any help from the linguists.Tlhslobus (talk) 21:05, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support, largely per Medeis. Tracing the transmission of a folktale back 6000 years and identifying the culture that spawned it is a newsworthy achievement. Seen this story featured in several news and science websites as well. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 02:44, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Additional Comment Besides the so-far unaddressed problems with the blurb (see my two earlier comments), and the still not updated 'Deal with the Devil' article, there is a problem with our source and consequently with our update in the fairy tale article, as our source and our update says it's in the Bronze Age 6000 years ago, but our Bronze Age article (to which we Wikilink) says that 6000 years ago is in the Neolithic, 700 years before the start of the Bronze Age (I'm pretty sure it's our BBC source who have got it wrong, but the contradiction is a problem regardless of who is wrong). It may also be rather hard for a reader to find our story from the blurb, as it links to the start of the fairy-tale article rather than to its none-too-obvious cross-cultural transmission section.Tlhslobus (talk) 09:41, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support, newsworthy achievement. Interesting and ITN worthy.BabbaQ (talk) 10:02, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Millions of scholarly achievements are published every year. This one resurrects an old achievement. Abductive (reasoning) 17:44, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The Brothers Grimm first advanced this hypothesis, according to the nominator's own source. Abductive (reasoning) 17:42, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Per my previous comments.Tlhslobus (talk) 21:05, 26 January 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.

January 20Edit

Portal:Current events/2016 January 20

Zimbabwe outlaws child marriageEdit

Article: Child marriage (talk, history)
Blurb: Zimbabwe outlaws child marriage.
Alternative blurb: Zimbabwe's Constitutional Court rules that child marriage is unlawful.
Alternative blurb II: Zimbabwe's Constitutional Court rules that the minimum legal age for marriage is 18.
News source(s): ABC News Voice of America Deutsche Welle Yahoo News
Nominator: MurielMary (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: One-third of women in Zimbabwe marry before the age of 18, and the country has the fourth highest rate of child marriage in southern Africa, therefore this is a big deal for the country and the region. It's hoped that other countries will follow suit. MurielMary (talk) 08:39, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Drive-by support – At first glance this seems notable, but I need to look more thoroughly when I'm fully awake (4 a.m. here). Update to the target article is just above the bare minimum, but has no clear specification of how Zimbabwe, specifically, handled child marriage prior to this. It only covers the general info on Africa. Will check back after getting some sleep. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 09:02, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes, it's a bit of a weak point that the only relevant article is one on child marriage globally. I've edited the Zimbabwean section further. MurielMary (talk) 09:07, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose According to the sources given by the nominator, the court struck down a law allowing girls to marry at age 16 - based on two cases of women who were married at age 15. LoveToLondon (talk) 13:12, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes. And this decision has been widely praised by NGOs, including UN organisations, because in the local and regional context it's significant. Why is that a reason to oppose? MurielMary (talk) 17:26, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
When a court case comes to ITN, the reader should see what exactly the court has ruled.
  • Marriage of a 15 year old girl wouldn't have been legal under the old marriage law, so what was the whole court case about?
  • And why was a marriage from 2010 judged by a constitution from 2013?
LoveToLondon (talk) 10:09, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - it's been deemed a landmark ruling by many groups. Why would it not be worth posting? Banedon (talk) 01:08, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment on article quality The bolded article has a strong colonial bias by not giving a NPOV overview of the legal situation globally - hiding the fact that 16 with parental consent is a very common case in first-world countries (not only in Canada and the US). The article now says about raising the marriage age from 16 to 18 in Zimbabwe The law took effect immediately, and was hailed by a number of human rights, women's rights, medical and legal groups as a landmark ruling for the country. The article lacks the information that it would be legal and easy for me to fly to New Zealand and marry a 16 year old Kiwi girl (assuming the girl and her parents agree). What are these NGOs and UN organizations saying about the fact that 16 with parental consent is still the law in New Zealand, Canada, most of the US and many countries in Europe? LoveToLondon (talk) 10:09, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
LoveToLondon, I think you are missing the point about teenage marriage in different places. Teen marriage in a developed country is completely different to teen marriage in a developing one - have you read the article about the context and consequences of child and teen marriage in the developing world? Forced marriages due to poverty, lack of education for the brides, high rates of rape and assault within the marriage etc etc. It's not comparable to teen marriage in a first world country. -MurielMary.
I am not talking about your personal opinion why you think this is different, I am talking about the quality of the article that should go as bolded link to ITN.
  • The article gives a completely false impression on the legal situation in the world by not giving an overview of the legal situation - it even has a world map about teenage pregnancies, but no map or other overview of the legal situation of child marriages in the whole world.
  • The article also lacks explanations based on RS for your claim It's not comparable to teen marriage in a first world country. What do the NGOs and UN organizations you mention say about child marriage in first world countries like New Zealand? If that is different as you claim, you should explain that in the article based on RS.
LoveToLondon (talk) 13:51, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
So you want the article to describe all the places where child marriage is *not* a problem? Really? By this logic, an article about cyclones should list all the countries where cyclones don't exist. An article on a species of plant should list all the places it doesn't grow. - MurielMary
Your logic is flawed. Like in many other first world countries, child marriage is legal in New Zealand. So different from your where cyclones don't exist example it does exist there. It was you who claimed that it is not a problem that child marriage is legal in first world countries. None of this is (sourced) information in the article, and this makes the article incomplete and POV. LoveToLondon (talk) 21:43, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Hmm, well I deliberately chose international sources as I guessed that citing in-country sources would attract complaints that this was only domestic news, not international! Can't win! ;-) MurielMary (talk) 08:32, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Zimbabwe isn't a rule-of-law kind of country, unfortunately. I doubt this court order will be enforced or is enforceable at all. -Kudzu1 (talk) 22:16, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Bud BeardmoreEdit

No consensus to post. 331dot (talk) 14:37, 22 January 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: Bud Beardmore (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): WashPo
Nominator: George Ho (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 American lacrosse coach, although lacrosse isn't super popular in the US. George Ho (talk) 08:58, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose: It pains me, as the article is in good shape and I'm a Terp alumnus myself, but per nominator, lacrosse isn't that popular in the United States, and while he was an accomplished college coach, he didn't win any hardware as a professional coach or athlete. It's a tough call, but I feel like if we were to post everyone with Beardmore's pedigree to RD, the ticker would be more or less choked with college coaches of relatively obscure sports. -Kudzu1 (talk) 09:57, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppoe: as above, achievements limited to college circles, not national or professional level of the sport. MurielMary (talk) 10:16, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose for a local sport of limited interest. A shame, too, it would be nice to have someone on the ITN ticker with a name like "Bud Beardmore".--WaltCip (talk) 13:44, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Per Kudzu, Walt. – Sca (talk) 15:01, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
support clearly top of HIS field. Plus he's a Wahoo and not in football. He's no bruce arena but still.Lihaas (talk) 23:32, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm in the top of my field in speed typing. I wouldn't have a chance of making it on ITN when I die. We have to be a bit restricting with our standards as far as "top of field".--WaltCip (talk) 00:28, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose I think focusing on the popularity of lacrosse is the wrong way to assess this nom. I do think it's appropriate to show that he hasn't received recognition in awards short of the F. Morris Touchstone Award, but opening up RD to everyone who has won that award, or a coach of the year award in other sports, would certainly be lowering the threshold for inclusion here too low. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:36, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Not one of the world's top sports coaches, which is the relevant field here. We can't go narrowing it down to coaches of a particular minority sport at universities in a particular country, just so he's top of that tiny sub-field. Modest Genius talk 13:46, 22 January 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] Planet NineEdit

Article: Planet Nine (talk, history)
Blurb: Caltech researchers predict the existence of Planet Nine, an icy planet about ten times as massive as Earth, in the outer Solar System.
News source(s): Caltech press release, Astronomical Journal paper, The Washington Post
Nominator: Juliancolton (talk • give credit)
Updater: DarTar (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: Results by one of the foremost researchers in planetary science, Michael E. Brown, whose team of scientists has dozens of confirmed discoveries. This new planet (necessarily much larger than Earth) would significantly change our model of the Solar System. – Juliancolton | Talk 17:24, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Oppose - Per the Washington Post article, the planet's existence was supposed by inductive reasoning rather than directly observed and confirmed. It will be a news story if this planet is actually found. I doubt, however, in the contravening scenario, that WaPo will publish a follow-up article stating that the astronomers who claimed they thought there might be a planet there turned out to be wrong. Long story short: wait for independent scientific confirmation.--WaltCip (talk) 17:28, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
    If it helps, the Caltech press release describes this as a "discovery" - there are ways to confirm the existence of celestial bodies other than by direct imagining. Michael E. Brown (the co-author of the paper) is a prolific planetary scientist with dozens of discoveries to his name, including important objects like Eris and Sedna. This isn't some zany theory by an overzealous astronomer. – Juliancolton | Talk 17:35, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
    If that is so, I switch my vote to neutral. I've been so used to pop science kooks making their way onto ITN with ostentatious claims like "Second Earth-like planet found!" This is a significant step up in authority.--WaltCip (talk) 17:44, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support It will take years to get observed evidence to confirm, but this being the published result in a peer-reviewed journal is important to establish that this is ITN. --MASEM (t) 17:29, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support – Peer-reviewed journal establishes credibility and the topic itself is exceptionally notable (within our own solar system). I don't think you can get more credible than Michael E. Brown (co-author of the paper) in terms of planetary scientists, either. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 17:37, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose fascinating, the first news article I read this morning, but it's speculation based on a computer model. The target article is not the sort of thing we would post. DYK is the obvious way to go, since ITN is not a link aggregator. μηδείς (talk) 17:52, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
    • This is from a peer-reviewed and published scientific study, not just lazy speculation. Per nominator's comments, this ...would significantly change our model of the Solar System and there are ways to confirm the existence of celestial bodies other than by direct imagining. I fail to see how relaying the results of this study constitute "link [aggregation]". ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 18:00, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
      • Why add in the word "lazy" when I said no such thing? If you are going to quote things I didn't say, there's always "Nazi" and "infanticide" to rile up the emotions. We haven't discovered a planet, we've published a study. Dee Wye Kay! Dee Wye Kay! :) μηδείς (talk) 18:03, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
        • Why get sassy toward a comment that's not directed at you—it's directed at your disregard for the topic's notability—nor a quote from you (notice the lack of quotation marks and lack of attribution)? If you want to act like a child, by all means please continue. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 18:15, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
          • Oh, so now I am full of disregard? What's next, CB, insinuations I have strange visitors at odd hours? I actually like this story, but WP:DYK is thataway. μηδείς (talk) 18:41, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
            • Are you really going to play this way? Really? I'm done replying to you. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 18:48, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment – Wish they'd locate Cloud Nine instead. Sca (talk) 18:02, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose "propose", "hypothetical" ... the since-debunked study linking autism to vaccinations was published in a peer-reviewed journal, too. One of the best (The Lancet). – Muboshgu (talk) 18:24, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Just so I understand, you're opposing this credible and newsworthy research because an unrelated theory in an unrelated field of study proved faulty? Huh. – Juliancolton | Talk 18:29, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
  • You misinterpreted my point. I opposed it because peer reviewed findings are often enough shown to be wrong after the fact, and this is not "proven". – Muboshgu (talk) 18:36, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
  • As long as we're going down the route of unrelated topics, Einstein has been wrong before. When a peer-reviewed theory is found to be disproven, I'd say that's newsworthy too.--WaltCip (talk) 18:53, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose posting a "we might have found a Planet Nine", as interesting as this news is. 331dot (talk) 19:00, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Interesting proposal and certainly worthy of scientific study, but I don't think ITN should make a post about a new planet in the absence of direct evidence (e.g. telescopes locate it). Dragons flight (talk) 19:02, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose While this is a good development, I don't really see it being big enough to put up there, especially since it is a hypothetical development. Once they find it though, it would definitely be worth putting on this page. Support Actually, this would be a good idea to propose, especially in light of the Planet X ideas of the early 1900s. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:16, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak Support I take issue with the fact that this is proven by inference only, i.e. no direct observation - meaning there is some chance this is incorrect, however small, whereas a directly observed planet indisputably exists. It also means we have practically nothing to write about - some estimates of its orbit and mass, little else. Therefore I do not especially support posting this, but it is both so in the news, such big news, and so well supported - and there remains a very real possibility that we will fail to directly observe this planet within our lifetimes even if it exists due to dumb luck of orbital positions - that it would feel like a shame to let it pass unremarked. - OldManNeptune 19:36, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. This is interesting encyclopedic news, even if the observations eventually prove to have a different explanation. I note it's been picked up by both Nature[7] & Science[8]. There isn't likely to be a direct observation until at least the early 2020s, so I don't think repetition of the news is going to be a significant problem if it is directly observed. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:24, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. Science almost never advances in giant leaps from complete ignorance to 100% certainty complete with glossy high-res photos. And as incremental advances go, uninvolved scientists seem to see this as a big one. It could certainly be wrong, but that's (1) fairly unlikely and (2) true of many things worthy talking about.—Neil P. Quinn (talk) 20:41, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
    • NYT: "Alessandro Morbidelli of the Côte d’Azur Observatory in France, an expert in dynamics of the solar system, said he was convinced. 'I think the chase is now on to find this planet,' he said."
    • Scientific American: "I haven’t been this excited about something in quite a while,” says Greg Laughlin, an expert on planet formation and dynamics at the University of California, Santa Cruz, who was not involved in the research."
    • The Guardian: "Chris Lintott, the Oxford professor of astrophysics, and a presenter on The Sky at Night, said the finding was exciting. 'People have proposed the existence of an extra planet several times over the years, but this is the most detailed and most convincing analysis.'"
  • Oppose, looks tentative so far. Per our article, as of January 2016, it's "proposed to exist" and "Brown put the odds for the existence of Planet Nine at about 90%". As much as I love science news, even if this planet indeed exists, I don't see how it's different from hundreds of other exoplanets discovered regularly. Brandmeistertalk 21:08, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
    • It's not an exoplanet, but one around our own star. Distant though it may be, an object in our own solar system is open to potential direct observations, such as we recently saw with Pluto, making it far more significant than most exoplanets in terms of research potential. Of course, there's also the fact that there are hundreds of known exoplanets, and only eight presently confirmed planets in orbit around Sol, most of which have been known since ancient times - none discovered in the lifetimes of anyone reading this. There is an inherent earth-centric bias to this, I suppose, but good luck staying neutral on that one. - OldManNeptune 21:27, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
      • We must work to combat all systemic bias on Wikipedia, even and especially on the interplanetary and galactic scale. Milky Way bias is still a rampant and all-encompassing problem on ITN.--WaltCip (talk) 23:10, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
        • Lol, WaltCip and OldManNeptune. As somebody who may or may not originally come from a parallel universe with completely different laws of physics, I am deeply and personally offended that we don't remove all articles that show bias in favor of this universe and its local laws of physics.Tlhslobus (talk) 15:54, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I've changed "propose" to "predict", which I feel is more precise... but anyone is free to adjust the wording if this looks like it's close to being posted. – Juliancolton | Talk 22:18, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Posting. I've been looking at the debate for a couple of hours, the consensus is leaning towards posting. As a side note, this is a claim backed by a reliable publication, as opposed to a press conference (remember faster than light neutrinos that we did not post and turned out to be experimental error? ;) ) The blurb can probably be improved still. --Tone 22:21, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support - This is all over the news, and certainly qualifies in that department. The article is still developing but appears decent at first glance. Jusdafax 23:40, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Post-posting oppose and recommend pull See below - A prediction isn't confirmation. Yes, it was published in a peer-reviewed journal and yes, the author is very well known, but it is still not confirmed. Science is littered with predictions and smoking guns that have not been confirmed, e.g. Vulcan (hypothetical planet), Nemesis (hypothetical star), Supersymmetry, and so on. Note what all these predictions have in common. They were all serious studies published in peer-reviewed journals by well-known scientists; supersymmetry in fact was so prevalent in high energy physics as to be treated as mainstream. There were convincing or even compelling reasons to believe in their existence. But they've all not been confirmed either, and some have become increasingly unlikely. This piece of news may be widely reported in the media right now, but as with An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything, the media does as the media does and science by press conference is not reliable. We cannot conclusively say something exists until there is convincing evidence for its existence, and right now there isn't convincing evidence for this planet. Banedon (talk) 00:50, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
    Actually on second thoughts I think it's better to feature this simply because it's currently in the news and of international interest. However, I am still perturbed by the reasoning behind some of the support votes above. Banedon (talk) 01:03, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Post-posting Oppose. What the hell happened? This is not a real discovery, and Wikipedia should not be posting non-existing things to the front page. Just recently the putative planet orbiting Alpha Centauri was shown to be an artifact of data massaging. Please take this down. Especially the academic boosterism about Caltech. Abductive (reasoning) 01:04, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Also note it's STALE: Dec 12, 2015 02:00 PM CST “Please pass whatever they’re smoking”: Astronomers skeptical over “Planet X” claims Abductive (reasoning) 01:09, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
    That's a different study. Banedon (talk) 01:11, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
    More evidence that the story is bogus hype. Jeez. Abductive (reasoning) 01:12, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
    And that's your opinion. If you find some reliable sources that refute the study by Batygin and Brown, by all means bring them to the table. Otherwise this is the natural course of science; sometimes they're right, sometimes they're wrong. As it stands, they state there's a very high likelihood of this planet existing and the topic is of great encyclopedic notability. Coupled with being a huge news story, it's a no-brainer to be posted. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 01:17, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
    That's not a fair thing to call it. Lots of scientists for example have predicted elementary particles. Many were wrong, but some were confirmed, and a few even won the Nobel Prize (see 1979 Nobel Prize in Physics, 2013 Nobel Prize in Physics). It's how science works. This story may be being hyped right now, but calling it 'bogus' is unfair. Banedon (talk) 01:17, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
    (edit conflict)The original theory appeared in 2014. Michael Brown (a leading astronomer) set about to disprove the Planet Nine theory based on the published info in 2014. Instead, his work led him to change his position and restart that it is the "90%" likely to exist, with today's news being the publication of the peer-reviewed paper that would further have others agree with Brown's position. There is clearly room that they might be wrong, but I wouldn't call this bogus (edited per Banedon's advice below) --MASEM (t) 01:21, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
    Be careful with that statement and justification, see e.g. Robert Duncan (physicist). Banedon (talk) 01:25, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support I wanted to oppose this, but then I actually read the scientific article and this is not bogus at all. Recently we posted the bacteria-live-on-arsenic and faster-than-light-speed which both proved to be false. This technically cannot be proven false since a planet, and may perhaps smaller than proposed and maybe even turn out to be a dwarf planet. However, not many science stories appeal to the wide public as a new nearby planet. I just hope they call it after some cool god, not something meah like Pluto.Nergaal (talk) 01:20, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
    This can be proven false if it's looked for and not found, see e.g. the Vulcan article I linked above, also Titius-Bode law. Banedon (talk) 01:25, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
If you understand what a radius of 600 AU means, you can realize how much space that needs to be carefully analyzed. Pluto is at 30 AU, so this gives 20 times more space to look for at 20 times the distance. Pluto on that orbit would be around 400 times fainter. Nergaal (talk) 02:01, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Assuming we're looking for it in the orbital plane of the solar system, it's a 400 times larger area. 20x the distance is 202 times the area. --Jayron32 02:05, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Who would have thought the day would come when we would have "Planet 9 from Outer Space"? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:14, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes but technically it is falsifiable. Also 600 AU is minute by astronomical standards, let alone cosmological standards. Currently ITN is featuring ASASSN-15lh, which is 1,172 megaparsecs away - and it was still detected. If this were something not falsifiable it wouldn't be science. Banedon (talk) 02:18, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
ASASSN-15lh is a superluminous supernova that definitely exists. It's literally one of the most visible light sources in the known universe. Planet Nine is a theoretical planet (and therefore presumably not luminous at all). You're comparing apples and presidents. Of course the existence of an given object in a given volume of space is in principle falsifiable by a fingertip search of the entire volume; that doesn't mean that such an approach is feasible. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:10, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Reminds me of the time when I argued with someone over the idea that little green men on Mars that run away each time someone looks for them is a falsifiable idea. He said it wasn't; I said it is because in principle one can blow Mars up and they must show up. But anyway, that's very tangential to the question here. I was simply responding to Nergaal saying this "technically cannot be proven false". It can. It's not easy to, but it can be done. Banedon (talk) 15:08, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
@Nergaal: Another Pluto 20 times as far away would actually be around 204 = 160,000 times fainter, because it doesn't produce its own light but reflects the Sun. 202 = 400 times less Sun light would hit it, and 202 = 400 times less of the incoming Sun light would reflect to Earth. This is why distant Solar system bodies are so hard to find even though the power and number of telescopes have increased greatly since Pluto was discovered in 1930. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:42, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Post-posting oppose; it would be like putting "faster-than-light" neutrinos on ITN /s. Wording of current blurb is unacceptable. 108.2.58.56 (talk) 02:47, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
    That was an unverified press release about anomalous results that explicitly violated the laws of physics. Not even close to being comparable. – Juliancolton | Talk 03:17, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
    The point is that the "discovery" is not certain beyond a reasonable doubt; highly significant result (only a 0.007% chance that such an alignment would occur naturally), but it's happened before. 108.2.58.56 (talk) 15:03, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Post-posting oppose - Caltech may be a highly reputable private university that specializes on engineering, mathematics, and science. However, the target article doesn't verify whether Planet Nine actually exists. I see just estimates and hypotheses. A story with 50/50 chance shouldn't have been posted in the first place. Frankly, older stories shouldn't have been pushed out from the bottom. George Ho (talk) 07:42, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
    • For what it's worth, nothing has been pushed from the ticker due to this blurb being posted. By chance, today's TFA section was long enough that another blurb in ITN was needed for balance. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 08:26, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Strongest possible post-posting oppose and pull - As per Banendon and Abductive. This is just a prediction from a theoretical model, people. That's all! I'm sure it can be interpreted in many other ways. This just happens to be a sexy interpretation, so it hit the uniformed media, got some attention, and hence we're posting it here. Also, are we paid to advertise Caltec? We never normally mention the institute. Fgf10 (talk) 09:36, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
    • Just pointing out that your argument is original research. You're sure it can be interpreted many other ways, but leading experts in the field think otherwise, and you don't have a reliable source backing you. I also suspect that you have not read the articles in question - this is emphatically not pop science, though you seem to believe it is. PS - we mention CERN almost every time they're involved. - OldManNeptune 09:54, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
I have read the paper. Please don't make assumptions the next time. Brown is in fact known for over-claiming and not following procedure, just read our own article on him. Fgf10 (talk) 14:18, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
No assumption was made, your comments do not match the content of the articles - including, bizarrely enough, your comment here about Brown, whose Wikipedia article describes the Haumea controversy, but I cannot even guess why you believe this casts doubt on the veracity of his research here - so that guessing that you merely skimmed or passed over reading the articles was more polite than other possible explanations. But right to the point: that doesn't matter. Do you have reliable sources to back your statement that there are numerous interpretations, or is this merely a personal sureness of the matter? - OldManNeptune 14:41, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
I can only surmise you don't understand modelling and statistics. This discussion is therefore pointless. Fgf10 (talk) 15:01, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Irony about assumptions aside, Wikipedia policy is pretty clear about sources. Your personal knowledge, whatever that may be, of modelling and research is, once again, original research. Are you under the impression that sticking out your chest will make others take you at your word and overlook a policy you surely read? - OldManNeptune 16:15, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
  • We need to be careful about pulling stories after any length of time has passed since its posting. It can lead to readers getting confused, especially if they are trying to find the article in question.--WaltCip (talk) 09:37, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
What an absolute load of nonsense. If something isn't good enough, then it need to be pulled. Simple as. In this case there wasn't even consensus to post anyway. Fgf10 (talk) 09:40, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
What a trite and stupid rejoinder. Consensus doesn't change on a dime just because some opposes are made after the fact that were already addressed by the discussion. --WaltCip (talk) 12:02, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
The story is not important enough to jerk the reader around by pulling it after posting it.←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc?

carrots→ 13:59, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

There was no consensus before posting. Please read what people say and count before resorting to personal attacks. Also, if this story isn't important enough, why was it posted in the first place? Fgf10 (talk) 14:18, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
When you retract your "absolute load of nonsense" comment so too will I retract my comment on the content (not the contributor).--WaltCip (talk) 15:59, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I think this at least needs another look, as more opposes have come in. 331dot (talk) 09:48, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support: This is clearly and obviously "in the news", whether it passes our personal smell tests or not. If the study is discredited or corroborated at a future date, we can post that then. But the famous astronomer who has been responsible for the discovery of a passel of dwarf planets producing a convincing-looking study projecting high certainty of a ninth planet is obviously something that makes the news; it has made the news; the article is in sufficiently good shape; and I don't find the "oppose" arguments convincing. This isn't a "50/50" thing, this is a leading expert (some would say the leading expert) on the subject of TNOs saying there's a 90% likelihood that there's a massive, icy body dwelling in the outer limits of our solar system, the kind of discovery that upends our understanding of planetary science. In summary: This is a big deal, and we will look really stupid if we pull it. No offense. -Kudzu1 (talk) 09:52, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Post-posting oppose - It's a very interesting theory, but there are no direct observations here. It's all couched in terms of multiple-body models, which are intrinsically a bit fuzzy at best. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:10, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Pull and oppose until a planet is actually discovered. This is an intriguing prediction, but it's just a prediction. I've read the paper and it's interesting, but the media coverage has been massively overblown. ITN should wait until someone actually finds such a body. These sorts of predictions come along every few years (there was one last year of two planets outside Pluto based on similar data) and very rarely turn out to be correct. Yes this one was made by highly respected astronomers, but so have others been. Modest Genius talk 12:28, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment while it is on Main Page, please can contributors help with a minor tweak to the wording. Discussion currently at WP:ERRORS. --Dweller (talk) 12:42, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support; strongly oppose pulling. Few scientific discoveries are 100% confirmed at the moment of announcement; there is a continuum of degrees of certainty, and this one is far enough on the scale that, when weighted with degree of importance if true, warrants posting (and certainly doesn't warrant reversing a posting decision already made). Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:51, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
    • This one is not even 10% confirmed. There's no actual discovery, just a prediction. Whilst it's plausible, it is also speculative. Modest Genius talk 14:53, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
    To add on, in particle physics, science requires a 5-sigma confidence level (see [9]) to declare a discovery. There isn't anywhere close to the amount of confidence required to announce a discovery here. Some people can say there's a "50% chance" or "90% chance" or whatever, but that's just more an educated guess than anything, and others will not come to the same probability. We can say the existence of this postulated planet is plausible and fits the data as we see it, but that's all, and there are an infinite number of hypotheses that fit any set of data. Banedon (talk) 15:08, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment Just to make sure what my thoughts on posting were. We are featuring a very interesting study with potentially very influential consequences. We're not saying it exists for sure or has been even found. We're showcasing interesting results that have been published in a reputed journal. Saying that, I'm retiring from this debate since I believe it is an appropriate thing to do. No hard feelings if this gets pulled eventually. --Tone 15:33, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Could the image above be included in ITN?--LL221W (talk) 22:48, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
That image appears to be original research, as there's no way of knowing what it might look like and it hasn't even been put together by a reliable source. Also, the file description page doesn't credit whoever made the background image. Modest Genius talk 12:50, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] 2015: warmest year on recordEdit

No consensus to post. --Tone 11:29, 21 January 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: Instrumental temperature record (talk, history)
Blurb: NOAA reveals that 2015 was the warmest year on record.
News source(s): NASA press release CNN

 Nergaal (talk) 16:10, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Records are made to be broken.--WaltCip (talk) 16:13, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. I dare say it but with the sounds of things it seems like that this will be broken again in the near future. 331dot (talk) 16:16, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose on procedural grounds. I have no article to assess the quality of. When I have an article to assess, I can decide if I support putting on the main page. --Jayron32 16:22, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Tentative oppose due to lack of an article, but what the article would be is a huge question mark. Will it just cover global temperatures? Global weather (an idea that's already been tried an abandoned)? Would it be for all years within record keeping (i.e. a statistical list rather than a prose-based article)? Many options to consider for a potential article ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 16:46, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose The fact that the planet is getting warmer (whether we caused it or not) is well known, and not really news. This is just an official stamp to say "Yup, it's warmer." And per WaltCip, this is unlikely the last year this will happen. I think, if anything, with the Paris accords in place, a news item on this would be if the temperatures surpassed the 2 degC limit that had been set. --MASEM (t) 16:49, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose this is recentism, and if we are going to go by analyses, then we already know that the Medieval Warm Period, the Roman Warm Period, and the Mesozoic were quite warmer. μηδείς (talk) 17:07, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
That is pseudoscientific and you know it.--WaltCip (talk) 17:22, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Well, I don't think that word means what you think it means. μηδείς (talk) 17:54, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Other than the Msozoic period the articles you link both indicate that temperatures were lower than recorded since the 2000s.
Not to mention, the Mesozoic was also tens of millions of years ago, so by that logic, the Late Heavy Bombardment is a warming period that is on par with this. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:12, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Support, as of global interest. yorkshiresky (talk) 18:23, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Oppose until or if there's an article on it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:57, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose According to the Washington Post, this is the second year in a row to be the hottest on record (2015 broke 2014's record). It therefore seems improbable to me that this will be an isolated incident, i.e. a record of any endurance, and there's little call for yearly updates that it's getting hotter. - OldManNeptune 20:40, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - I've added an article, Instrumental temperature record, and amended the blurb. As of right now though, that article is not updated. Banedon (talk) 00:54, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I bet we're going to have quite a few record-breaking years like this over the next decade, and probably even beyond. Was 2015 in itself notable enough? I'm not sure. Kurtis (talk) 03:27, 21 January 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] Bacha Khan University attackEdit

Article: 2016_Charsadda_university_attack (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Gunmen open fire at Bacha Khan University in Pakistan, killing more than thirty people amidst the War in North-West Pakistan
Alternative blurb: ​At least thirty people are killed as gunmen open fire at Bacha Khan University in Pakistan
Nominator: Ktr101 (talk • give credit)
Updater: Saqib (talk • give credit)

Article updated

 Kevin Rutherford (talk) 07:35, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

wait as it just happened and will likely grow in casualties and the article also needs an update. (of which there is none as of signing time) Its ready now.

BTW- whe updated, support the original blurb.Lihaas (talk) 08:14, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support gunmen have already killed at least twenty people. Article is stubby but will no doubt grow. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:18, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
You oppose things for not being updated and you support this without any substantive comment beyond the background (mere 1 line of an update, which I jst moved to sections).
"no doubt grow" is the reason for "Wait".Lihaas (talk) 08:22, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your feedback. The support stands. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:35, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
You're welcome. Its still not updated.Lihaas (talk) 08:37, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Then feel free to do so. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:52, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
It is now and I marked it. So feel free to post.Lihaas (talk) 11:41, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support "Shaukat Ali Yousafzai, the Khyber Paktunkhwa health minister, says so far 20 are confirmed dead and 60 injured." satisfies the notability requirement. The article is well referenced and and no longer stub. Jolly Ω Janner 08:24, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
note agree on notability, but the update at Bacha_Khan_University_attack#Attack is 2 sentences (which I just moved from the lead to a section to make it presentable) and less than the background.Lihaas (talk) 08:27, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support another major tragedy for Pakistan. Reporting worldwide. --Saqib (talk) 11:58, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Posted. Thue (talk) 13:20, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

January 19Edit

Portal:Current events/2016 January 19

RD: Robert M. CarterEdit

Article: Robert M. Carter (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Heartland blog Merredin-Wheatbelt Mercury Online Opinion
Nominator: George Ho (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: A prominent and award-winning English palaeontologist, stratigrapher and marine geologist. Also an Australian climate change skeptic. George Ho (talk) 08:50, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Any mainstream sources? So far the three sources given are two blog posts (one from a climate change skeptics' group) and one very local Townsville paper, none of which mention any of the nominator's first three labels/occupations for Carter, only that he was a climate change skeptic and lost his job over his views. MurielMary (talk) 10:29, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Oppose Before retirement, he was a professor with awards far below the RD threshold. After retirement, he focused on being a climate change sceptic - and got a lifetime achievement award from an organization that denies the health risks of tobacco and climate change. LoveToLondon (talk) 17:06, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose not RD notable. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:08, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

January 18Edit

Portal:Current events/2016 January 18

RD: Leila AlaouiEdit

Article: Leila Alaoui (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): NY Times The Guardian British Journal of Photography
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: Young photographer working on refugee and migrant photographic and video projects for NGOs; died as result of Burkina Faso terrorist attack. MurielMary (talk) 09:53, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment: Article was created on Jan 19th--if she was truly at the top of her field, she almost certainly would have had an article before this. That said, the article is eligible for DYK. SpencerT♦C 03:26, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Spencer, that's unrealistic to say that she would have had an article before her death if she was top of her field. There are many many people, particularly women and minorities, who are top of their field but don't have pages on wiki. Just visit the Women in Red project for examples - page upon page of redlinks for women waiting to be written. -MurielMary.
I understand that, but looking at articles that link to the page (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AWhatLinksHere&target=Leila+Alaoui&namespace=0), it's difficult to say that she was "at the top of her field". Definitely notable enough to have an article, but I just don't think notable enough for RD. SpencerT♦C 22:36, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] First blooming flower in spaceEdit

No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 20:19, 19 January 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: Zinnia (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Zinnia flower is the first ever known to have bloomed beyond Planet Earth.
News source(s): Press TV and others too, for the closed minded
Nominator: Lihaas (talk • give credit)

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Famous first...and quit a big one. Lihaas (talk) 04:54, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose It bloomed under a highly controlled "surface-like" (eg light, water, soil, and atmosphere) condition aboard the ISS. Yes, cool, but not ITN. If it was blooming naturally on a different planetary body, that might be different. This is just an interesting science experiment. --MASEM (t) 04:58, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
    • To add this appears to be continuation of the existing hydroponics for other plants for nutrition aboard the station. --MASEM (t) 04:59, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
      • I think you are expecting a bit much if you think naturally blooming flowers on another world is likely to show up in the news. That being said I agree this is not that big of a deal. I have bloomed flowers in my basement. HighInBC 05:01, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose not the first flower to bloom in space. Stephen 05:15, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Well the page says it oby another source too.Lihaas (talk) 06:51, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose looks like this is 34 years after the actual first blooming flower. Fake. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:33, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment The proposed target article of Zinnia seems weak. Plants in space would be better as it provides more context for this event. Andrew D. (talk) 09:01, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose, as Stephen points out, the claim is simply not true. Thue (talk) 12:12, 19 January 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: Glenn FreyEdit

Article: Glenn Frey (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): [10]
Nominator: Aerospeed (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: Member of one of the most successful bands from the 1970s, also co-writer of the hit song "Hotel California." Aerospeed (Talk) 22:40, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Support - Article is in good shape. Clearly a notable person (6 Grammy Awards). Not a professional wrestler. Not overtly offensive to left-wing sensibilities. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:47, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support RD for prompt posting. Notability is clear. Article quality is acceptable, though some additional citations would be good. (Aside to GaryColemanFan: please don't do that again.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:57, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - founder member of a significant 60s/670s band. Mjroots (talk) 23:05, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support on article improvement It's not badly sourced, but it definitely needs more sourcing before posting. I do want to point out that it is not just because of being part of the Eagles but that he also had a respectable solo career too. --MASEM (t) 23:23, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support – can't hide my lionize. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 23:28, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support For the record, I don't think being a member of a legendary group is an automatic qualifier for RD, unless the person is 1) The frontman or leader of the group 2) A widely acknowledged master of their instrument or 3) An important person to the formation and history of the group. And I think Frey certainly meets number 3. -- Scorpion0422 00:13, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Marked ready as of diff, unsourced material of no importance commented out μηδείς (talk) 02:00, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support — No-brainer. A major component to the success of the best-selling American rock band in history. Kurtis (talk) 02:19, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment not ready in my opinion as there are still multiple unreferenced claims, several relating to relationships with others and business dealings. Stephen 02:41, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
    @Stephen: Can you CN tag or otherwise indicate which material is contentious and still unreferenced; the only paragraphs I see are unreferenced are a few notes regarding a few acting and song writing credits; these seem uncontentious and easily verifiable. I can't see anything currently in the article which has no reference, or which could not be found trivially by checking things like liner notes, AllMusic/IMDB, film credits, etc... --Jayron32 03:18, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support when article updated. Radio stations are already devoting extra time to his work with the Eagles and his solo work. We seem to be in for another week of reminiscing. Daniel Case (talk) 03:23, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Posted after a final push of references. Stephen 04:22, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
We Could Be Heroes. μηδείς (talk) 22:15, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] Flint water crisisEdit

close stale event with overwhelming unsupport μηδείς (talk) 02:10, 19 January 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: Flint water crisis (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A state of emergency is declared in the city of Flint, Michigan following contamination of the water supply
Alternative blurb: ​A state of emergency is declared in the city of Flint, Michigan, US following contamination of the drinking water
News source(s): Guardian, Reuters
Nominator: Yorkshiresky (talk • give credit)
Updater: TomCat4680 (talk • give credit)
Other updaters: Neutrality (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: This has been developing for some time, but the declaration of federal aid is a step change in the way this is being dealt and viewed. Clearly a major health issue with worldwide interest. yorkshiresky (talk) 20:20, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose pending clarification. The source you link above confirms that the state of emergency was declared in October; unless I'm missing something, this is stale to say the least. ‑ Iridescent 20:26, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
    • Comment, as I understand it this has been escalating for some time and it was only last Thursday (14th) that President Obama authorised federal assistance. Maybe some US Wikipedians can better comment on the timeline.yorkshiresky (talk) 20:32, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is fully a political play issue. Yes, there's a water supply issue, but that's because the city decided to try to save money without fixing its infrastructure. Now the current US candidates are using this as a platform. And for all purposes, it is stale news, this has been going on for a while. --MASEM (t) 20:50, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Of national note in the U.S., but not really a significant issue outside of Michigan. Daniel Case (talk) 22:33, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
    • "Please do not oppose an item because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive." ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 00:13, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose, as this is a U.S.-specific issue that does not, actually, have significant worldwide coverage. epicgenius (talk) 22:46, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
    • "Please do not oppose an item because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive." ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 00:13, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
      • Plus, this all broke a while ago. And while I am in New York City and this made news even in my location, it still started a while ago and the news just broke now, so I oppose this as ITN because this is an ongoing event (like I would oppose the U.S. presidential primaries in ITN if they were nominated right now, because these span months). This is good for a DYK, though. epicgenius (talk) 01:43, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
More important is the ongoing California gas leak.Lihaas (talk) 23:33, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose as stale – a state of emergency was declared by Flint's mayor, Karen Weaver, on December 14, 2015. This was followed by another state of emergency by on January 5, 2016 by Michigan Governor Rick Snyder. On January 16, President Obama declared a federal emergency for the city, providing up to $5 million in funds and supplies to the city. The latest 'bout in the news is just part of the gradual realization of how obnoxiously slow the response to water crisis has been. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 00:13, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support but clarify - change the blurb to "U.S. President Barack Obama declares the city of Flint, Michigan, to be in a federal public health state of emergency due to an ongoing crisis that involves lead contamination (and possibly Legionella which has caused 87 cases of Legionnaires' disease which has led to 10 deaths) in its local water supply.", just like I wrote in Portal:Current events/2016 January 16. TomCat4680 (talk) 01:13, 19 January 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.

January 17Edit

Portal:Current events/2016 January 17

January 16Edit

Portal:Current events/2016 January 16

[Closed] Deir ez-Zor massacreEdit

Event is stale and significant development toward confirmation of a massacre was not made. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 08:13, 23 January 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: Deir ez-Zor massacre (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Amidst the Syrian Civil War, ISIS takes over parts of Deir ez-Zor killing up to 300 people.
Alternative blurb: ISIS forces taking the Syrian city of Deir ez-Zor massacre scores of people.
Alternative blurb II: ISIS forces taking the Syrian city of Deir ez-Zor massacre or seize hundreds of people.
News source(s): CNA [BBC]
Nominator and updater: Lihaas (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Even in the midst of a civil war (and we proposed it on ongoing but a lack of updates), this is one of, if not the biggest massacres. Some media are calling this the worse single-day massacre since the war started. Lihaas (talk) 02:25, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I've offered a pithier altblurb trying to avoid the "amidst" construction. "Scores" can obviously be changed to meet confirmed facts. μηδείς (talk) 04:09, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support on improvements - The event is clearly ITN, but there's a number of unsourced statements and a lingering CN. It might take half-a-days news cycle to solidify the facts. --MASEM (t) 05:36, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
I've sourced everything on the page. (even to the point of "ref name" in there to clarify ever aspect and where it comes from) There is the one tag because TV said it was overnight and I didn't get it from the online sources. We can alwas hide it till then?Lihaas (talk) 05:37, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
That's why I'm saying, give it a few hrs for details to solidify to be assured of numbers killed/kidnapped, and the like. --MASEM (t) 05:40, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Oh yeah, not questioning that. We don't even have the consensus here yet. I was just suggesting about the tag.Lihaas (talk) 05:44, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
As a note, the Background section should be sourced even if it is relatively obvious. There's a few claims that can be read as OR without knowing the history of the Syrian Civil War in full. --MASEM (t) 05:47, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose Please triple-check the sources for everything the nominator claims in the nomination and the article before voicing an opinion.
  • The BBC source also says However the activists told the BBC there had been no killings or abductions on a large scale. The nominator failed to mention this important information in his source.
  • The nominator also does not seem to know the differences between a massacre, soldiers killed in a battle, and civilian casualties in a battle. Based on the sources, it is completely unclear if there have been any intentional killings of civilians at all, and if yes, how many.
  • The nominator claim Some media are calling ths the worse single-day massacre since the war started. seems to be the opposite of the truth. None of the media he uses in the article make any single-day claim. His sources cite unnamed Syrian sources or the Syrian government when using the term massacre - making it clear that this is just a claim that might or might not be true.
  • A few hundred civilians killed in a battle wouldn't be newsworthy - happens all the time and by all sides in this civil war. A few dozen enemy soldiers murdered after the battle would also not be newsworthy - happens all the time and by all sides in this civil war. Nothing extraordinary is confirmed based on the sources.
LoveToLondon (talk) 06:52, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Please be civil. Implicitly assuming that Lihaas is actively setting out to deceive ITN violates WP:AGF. Banedon (talk) 12:11, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
I was very civil by not explicitly calling him a liar. Besides some very dubious claims there is his Some media are calling ths the worse single-day massacre since the war started. - if Lihaas is not a liar, he surely can provide links to media making exactly this claim. LoveToLondon (talk) 14:54, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Or (s)he could be honestly mistaken. You are assuming nefarious motives, which obviously violates WP:AGF. Banedon (talk) 15:01, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
When a person is "honestly mistaken" too often, that is not a honest person. LoveToLondon (talk) 15:19, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Wait for now. The facts are very unclear, and casualty estimates vary from 0 to 300. However, if the casualty counts are confirmed, this would be a clear post. Even in a battle, 300 civilian deaths is an awful lot. Per Timeline of the Syrian Civil War (January–July 2015), the death of 146 civilians in the Siege of Kobani was "the second largest massacre since the start of the conflict", while Douma massacre says "killing at least 96 people and injuring at least 200 others[,] The attack is one of the deadliest in the four-year history of the Syrian Civil War". Smurrayinchester 10:29, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Wait for things to become a bit more clear. If the scale of life lost is indeed as claimed now, this is 100% worth posting. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 12:18, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment
  • I wouldn't trust the very outdated and badly maintained WP articles covering the Syrian Civil War for anything.
  • This is a cruel war - every day. With approximately 100,000 civilians dead in Syria so far, a day with 50 civilians dead would be below average.
  • Terms like massacre or victim numbers should always be considered cautiously. In Der ez-Zor it is the Syrian government claiming that their enemies have killed 300 civilians. How much would you trust such numbers? And if there actually were civilian casualties, was this really a massacre of many people, or was the Syrian government using abusing civilians as human shields, or were these accidental casualties? This was not a battle good+honest against evil, this was Assad against ISIL.
LoveToLondon (talk) 14:45, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support in principle, assuming these figures are accurate. I understand where LoveToLondon is coming from regarding the unfortunate regularity of bloodshed in Syria, but 300 or so civilians is a high enough toll to warrant its own blurb, in my opinion. Kurtis (talk) 06:06, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
note there are other mainstram sources reporting over 100 deaths and the kidnappings...all on the page.Lihaas (talk) 06:53, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Marking ready given updated sources and altblurb 2. μηδείς (talk) 05:15, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Unmarking ready Altblurb2 just says that nothing is known, and the source handling in the article is horrible. As an example, it killed at least 85 civilians seems to be only in older sources referring to the SOHR - which does not (anymore?) make any such claim. (It is also problematic how much reporting is based on information by the SOHR, which is one guy in the UK with known biases like sometimes counting rebel fighters as civilians.) WP callling the whole thing a massacre (as the article title and even altblurb2 do) is also very far from the confirmed information. massacre or seize in altblurb2 is simply hilarious - there is a huge difference between a massacre of several hundred people and an abduction of several hundred people. And you are trying to push the bolded text massacre or seize to ITN as ready - but in the article behind that link even the section Initial assault and massacre does not mention any massacre. LoveToLondon (talk) 07:34, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: Removing ready; article has an orange tag that needs to first be addressed. SpencerT♦C 05:57, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment Removed ready marking by the nominator for a nomination without consensus (and with an ITN blurb claiming there was a massacre while RS say there was none). LoveToLondon (talk) 10:49, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - whenever the article is clear for posting. It is a notable event.BabbaQ (talk) 14:40, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment Moved to the correct day. LoveToLondon (talk) 21:28, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Otherwise ITN will become an endless battleground between proper Wikipedians and POV-pushers (rather like the article about the alleged massacre, and large numbers of similar ones).Tlhslobus (talk) 07:38, 23 January 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] RD: Carina JaarnekEdit

No consensus to post. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 08:11, 23 January 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: Carina Jaarnek (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): [11], [12]
Nominator and updater: BabbaQ (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: Dubbed the dansband queen of Sweden this singer has had success both in Sweden and internationally with an album with Elvis Prestleys musicians. --BabbaQ (talk) 15:52, 17 January 2016 (UTC) --BabbaQ (talk) 15:52, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose I'm seeing no particular significance here, or any evidence of the claimed international success; dansband is a relatively minor genre even in its Scandanavian heartland, and she isn't even among the notable performers named on that article. Even the Swedish article—where those with an interest in her might be expected to be active—is a tiny substub. ‑ Iridescent 16:18, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose Seems to clearly miss RD.
  • Dubbed the dansband queen of Sweden - by whom?
  • Your article is the only Google hit for Jaarnek "dansband queen" - what is the original Swedish term (source is not freely available).
  • Looking at the en and sv articles for Dansband, she is not even mentioned.
  • has had success in Sweden - what chart positions?
  • has had success internationally - what chart positions in which countries?
LoveToLondon (talk) 16:30, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose the two above have most of it covered. Perhaps popular or of mild interest to certain Swedes of a certain age and inclination, but very far from meeting the RD criterion of importance. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:46, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose and suggest close. Per Iridescent. No support for posting. Suggest close or are we just going to let the bot deal with it soon? Rhodesisland (talk) 08:08, 23 January 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] Iran completes dismantling of nuclear weapons programEdit

Articles: Nuclear program of Iran (talk, history) and Sanctions against Iran (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The International Atomic Energy Agency announced that Iran has dismantled major parts of its nuclear program, per an agreement reached last year, paving the way for some sanctions to be lifted
Alternative blurb: ​The IAEA affirms Iran met its obligations under the JCPOA, paving the way for some sanctions to be lifted.
Alternative blurb II: ​All nuclear sanction by UN, EU and US have been lifted after the IAEA confirms that Iran met its obligations under the nuclear agreement
News source(s): CNN, NBC, Huffington Post
Nominator and updater: Ktr101 (talk • give credit)

Article updated

 Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:14, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment. Um, Iran's position has been that it never had a "nuclear weapons program". Why that phrase? 331dot (talk) 21:16, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I never wrote that they had a weapons program, but that's exactly what the New York Times said, in terms of the phrasing for the nuclear part. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:24, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I figured that it wasn't something you made up- but even if the NYT is saying that, as an encyclopedia we have to square their view with the other side. 331dot (talk) 21:30, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
support came here to nominate it as its in the news all over at the moment. (needs a teeny bit more of an update, although its about the same as the RD just posted).
comment I also added a shorter altblurb as the nom's links are quite poorly related and JCPOA is directly relevant.Lihaas (talk) 22:48, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
support notable and world wide attention.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:50, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support The IDEA verifying the dismantling is an important development. Neljack (talk) 23:10, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support This is what everyone was expecting based on the prisoner exchange in the nom below, and this is big news. --MASEM (t) 23:32, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Agree but it might be synthesis. Maybe combine the two?
also comment without prejudice we dint post the completion of the removal of Syria's chemical weapons as verified by the UN's OPCW.Lihaas (talk) 23:57, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Not really: the articles I read on the prisoner exchange all said it was in anticipating of sanctions being released/loosened. That said, I disagree combining the blurbs. The prison exchange is a minor thing relative to the nuclear program dismantling and the sanction release. --MASEM (t) 00:22, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: The focus of this piece should be on the lifting of sanctions, which has already been done. Drako (talk) 03:48, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support and altblurb2 added to describe that the sanctions have already been lifted. The prisoner swap is technically completely unrelated, and also minor in comparison. LoveToLondon (talk) 06:22, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
    • I generally like your blurb, but it does not seem to be entirely accurate. Your blurb says "All nuclear sanction by UN, EU and US have been lifted", but according to the CNN article: "President Barack Obama signed an executive order lifting some of the U.S. economic sanctions on Iran, the White House announced." and "But not all nuclear-related sanctions will be rescinded immediately -- that won't happen for about 10 years, should the deal hold." Thue (talk) 10:18, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Posted I went with a version of Lihaas' blurb, since it is short. though I spelled out IAEA, since we need to say "nuclear" somewhere in the blurb to give the reader a chance to know the context without knowing any of the acronyms. Also changed the "paving the way" formulation to a formulating indicating that sanctions had in fact already been lifted, and that the lifting were directly triggered by IAEA's statement (as NBC news says it was). Thue (talk) 10:18, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Agree, the "triggering" part was an improvemnt. WP at its finest ;)Lihaas (talk) 02:54, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] Iran releases US prisonersEdit

No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 05:55, 21 January 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: Jason Rezaian (talk, history) and Amir Mirza Hekmati (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Reporter Jason Rezaian, former Marine Amir Hekmati, and two other U.S. citizens released by Iran in exchange for seven prisoners.
News source(s): BBC, AP, etc.
Nominator: Vesuvius Dogg (talk • give credit)

 Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 15:41, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The news story here is if sanctions are lifted against Iran, which this seems to be greasing the wheel for. --MASEM (t) 15:45, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Question. Why are they being called "hostages"? Sources seem to be calling them "prisoners"[13], "being held for charges"[14], "in Iranian custody" and "detained"[15]. 331dot (talk) 15:50, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Corrected. They were convicted by Iran on espionage and related charges ('undermining national security' in the case of Christian pastor Saeed Abedini). However trumped up and secretive the proceedings, 'hostages' is a misnomer here. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 15:56, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose While this is a huge development in terms of relations between the two countries, I don't really see this being worthy of mention here, as these are two minor people who are notable for being captured by Iran. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:43, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
  • SupportJason Rezaian is the headline name here. Sca (talk) 18:37, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
That's a COI. A thirdparty headline ould be more important.Lihaas (talk) 18:58, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Huh? Huh? Sca (talk) 22:31, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Rezaian was a Washington Post journalist. I think that's what Lihaas is trying to imply. SpencerT♦C 22:57, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose political posturing. Rezaian was in prison for less than a year, it's a big show. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:18, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Comment No, Jason Rezaian has been detained in Evin prison since July 2014, Saeed Abedini since summer 2012, and Amir Hekmati for 1,601 days since August 2011. I don't know what counts in your book as "posturing" but these are at least the facts. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 19:50, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Posturing, in this case, is where two entities make overt and public decisions that are designed to improve their own profile, nothing more. Of course it will assist Iran in their goals. But it's a "so what" really. Will anyone look back on this in a year's time and cite it as a landmark moment? Nope. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:54, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Au contraire! Sca (talk) 22:40, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Apparently not. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:25, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Huh? Sca (talk) 23:01, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment @Vesuvius Dogg:, it might be good to link this to the development where they just took all of the steps to remove their nuclear program, which was announced within the hour. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:55, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose Minor prisoner swap between two countries. LoveToLondon (talk) 06:08, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

 • ⇒ Old news. Suggest close. Sca (talk) 15:15, 18 January 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] Ouagadougou hotel attackEdit

Article: 2016 Ouagadougou attacks (talk, history)
Blurb: AQIM attackers kill at least 22 and held more hostages in attacks in Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso.
Alternative blurb: AQIM militants kill at least 22 people in Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso.
News source(s): HT more
Nominator and updater: Lihaas (talk • give credit)
Other updaters: Wykx (talk • give credit) and 64.134.64.190 (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Not everyday Burkina Faso is attacked (and by Taqfiris at that). And its not even Boko Haram despite being in the West African theatre. Casualtiy count is higher than the 10 in the Turkish civil war. Lihaas (talk) 02:13, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Support We just had an attack listed with less casualties the other day, so this is a tragic no-brainer. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:18, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support on the merits; while there is more to determining merits than the number of casualties, this does seem notable. 331dot (talk) 02:28, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support though it would be good to know how this gets resolved before posting, though at the present the article is large enough for posting. --MASEM (t) 03:11, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Yep, willkeep it posted as its still ongoing. We can update t later.Lihaas (talk) 03:23, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - Major attack. Article is well written. -Zanhe (talk) 04:15, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - Islamic attack on civilian targets with civilian casualties has got to be headline news now. STSC (talk) 04:32, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Added a shortened altblurb. If there are no objections, then I will post that shortly. Thue (talk) 08:53, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
comment reports are indicating a second hotel nearby is under attack. We'll have to move the title to attacks if that's confirmed. For now, this should be good. Its confirmed that a second hotel is unde attack. Ivem oved the page and tweaked both blurbs.Lihaas (talk) 09:31, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Posted Thue (talk) 09:43, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] Taiwan electionEdit

Articles: Taiwanese general election, 2016 (talk, history) and Tsai Ing-wen (talk, history)
Blurb: Tsai Ing-wen is elected President of Taiwan and her Democratic Progressive Party wins a majority in the Legislative Yuan.
Alternative blurb: Tsai Ing-wen is elected President of the Republic of China and her Democratic Progressive Party wins a majority in the Legislative Yuan.
Alternative blurb II: Tsai Ing-wen is elected the first female President of Taiwan and her Democratic Progressive Party wins a majority in the Legislative Yuan.
News source(s): Guardian
Nominator: Smurrayinchester (talk • give credit)

Both articles updated

 Smurrayinchester 13:58, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Support the story. A new leader for 23million+ people should get to ITN, but Tsai_Ing-wen#2016 can use some beefing up. --PFHLai (talk) 14:14, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support we can unbold Tsai Ing-wen for the time being, the election article is just about sufficient to carry this story until such a time her article is updated better. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:19, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Election article is good to go, Tsai Ing-Wen's article is nearly there with only one or two statements that really need sourcing, but otherwise close. --MASEM (t) 14:54, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Doesn't require much debate since national election results are automatically qualified/required to be posted on front page. But, make sure to mention the KMT losing its majority since it's a first since the country's founding in 1911. --AsianHippie (talk) 14:58, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
My bad on not noticing the ITN/R rule, but like what the nominator said, this election is noteworthy regardless of Taiwan's status. --AsianHippie (talk) 15:03, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
According to Legislative Yuan#List of Composition sessions, there have been two previous sessions where the DPP were the largest party - this is just the first time they've crossed the 50% line. Smurrayinchester 15:14, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
That is completely true, but I have to note that having a majority is quite something in Taiwanese politics (or politics in general). Otherwise, the infoboxes wouldn't indicate "XX seats needed for a majority" for every election. --AsianHippie (talk) 15:49, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support and agree with the above comment, Kuomintang losing their majority is historic and should be included. As is the fact that she is the first female president. Then again, the blurb cannot get too long... Zwerg Nase (talk) 15:02, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Posted. I know that "Taiwan" is not the official name, but went with a version of the blurb using that name anyway, since few people would know which China the "Republic of China" is. Thue (talk) 17:07, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
    @Thue:. Arguably, both issues could have been resolved with one stone by writing "In Taiwan...first President of the Republic of China". But I will not lose sleep over overlooking this simple fix. CaradhrasAiguo (talk) 21:34, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
    I had the same idea.   Done --PFHLai (talk) 21:38, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
    I agree with Thue's call. 'Republic of China' could be confused with 'People's Republic of China', but I'm baffled as to how 'President of Taiwan' is "ambiguous". Is the concern that readers will interpret it as a reference to a presidency of the geographic island? —David Levy 15:46, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
    Right, it's the presidency of the government of the Republic of China, rather than just the island of Taiwan. It seems more complicated than England, Britain, UK.... I doubt the President would call himself or herself "President of Taiwan". I find it rude to give them a title that we find convenient to use. Sleep? I don't lose sleep over mistakes in some website, but I'd rather not see them.--PFHLai (talk) 21:11, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
    Well, she is the president of Taiwan. So what is the problem? Should Wikipedia follow Chinese propaganda? or be Chinese politically correct? Taiwan is Taiwan and China is China... Its 2016... get over it.BabbaQ (talk) 21:15, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
    What does 2016 have to do with this? What propaganda? Which side? Taiwan is Taiwan and China is China, and the Republic of China is the Republic of China. Why not use the official title used in Taiwan when speaking in English? --PFHLai (talk) 21:22, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
    Because our goal is clarity, not pedantry. Using the country's official name instead of the one by which it's commonly known in the English language makes the blurb more difficult to understand. Combining both names is confusing, though I now realize that you actually did expect people to interpret "Taiwan" as a reference to the island. This is even sillier, especially given that the Taiwan page contains our article about the country. —David Levy 01:43, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
    Right, it's the presidency of the government of the Republic of China, rather than just the island of Taiwan.
    I understand your argument as to why "President of Taiwan" is technicality inaccurate, but how is it "ambiguous"? Are you suggesting that "president of the geographic island" is a likely interpretation?
    I doubt the President would call himself or herself "President of Taiwan".
    "As the popularly elected President of Taiwan, it is my duty to express to the world the earnest will of the 23 million people of Taiwan to join the United Nations." —Chen Shui-bian, in a 2007 letter
    I find it rude to give them a title that we find convenient to use.
    I don't recall "politeness" (or the perception thereof) replacing "common usage among reliable sources" in Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. —David Levy 01:43, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

If anyone has any issues with the blurb, WP:ERRORS is the place. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:25, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. Haven't been on WP:ERRORS for a long time. Now posted there. --PFHLai (talk) 21:32, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) open for businessEdit

An incremental update to a story that was posted a few weeks ago. Stephen 21:49, 17 January 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: Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank which has 57 member countries officially opens for business.
News source(s): AIIB; Reuters; Newser
Nominator: STSC (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: China-led AIIB is now open for business competing with the World Bank and International Monetary FundSTSC (talk) 15:12, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Did we post this previously? If we did not, then I think this is an obvious ITN item. Thue (talk) 15:43, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm aware of it being posted previously when the bank was initially formed while some countries were not fully committed. This is the bank officially launched with all 57 member countries committed. STSC (talk) 17:01, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
That's nonsense. Full commitment means ratification, and nearly half of these 57 countries (27 out of 57) have not yet ratified. We posted when the charter went into force due to sufficient ratifications, and even if some random countrly like for example Iceland would decide to not ratify at all it won't make a difference. LoveToLondon (talk) 17:15, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Not at all nonsense. These are two different events; there's nothing unusual that the same topic can be in the news more than once. STSC (talk) 17:26, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Nonsense is your claim with all 57 member countries committed - as of today, nearly half of them are not. The attempt to post the same event a second times is another problem with this nomination. LoveToLondon (talk) 17:35, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
"Fully committed" means signing the Articles of Agreement, not ratification with their own countries. STSC (talk) 17:42, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Well, in that case the number of fully committed countries rose from 56 to 57 in the last 3 weeks... Ratification is btw also relevant to show commitment. It is not only a domestic process, but ends with deposit of the instrument of ratification, which is the only formal way used until now of becoming a member of the bank... L.tak (talk) 17:45, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose it had too much exposure the first time round, a second helping is too much to manage. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:40, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
  • oppose We already posted the birth day of the bank with entry into force of its constituting charter 3 weeks ago; this is a bit overdone... L.tak (talk) 17:42, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Already posted the christening, no need for an incremental update like this especially since nothing significant changed (read: we knew this was coming at the time of the previous blurb). ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 17:48, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - One of the purposes of ITN is "to help readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news". An ITN item is for the benefit of the general readers of today, and any past appearance in the ITN is irrelevant. STSC (talk) 19:17, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
    And you think this is in the news? I mean mainstream news that's going to make our readers come here to look for it? Seriously? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:26, 17 January 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.

January 15Edit

Portal:Current events/2016 January 15

January 14Edit

Portal:Current events/2016 January 14

[Posted] RD: Leonid ZhabotinskyEdit

Article: Leonid Zhabotinsky (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): New York Times
Nominator: LoveToLondon (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: Gold medals at two Olympic games and 19 world records LoveToLondon (talk) 17:03, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

  • The individual in question is clearly notable, yet the referencing (mostly to Arthur R. Chidlovski's personal tribute site) has dubious reliability. Alternative sources should be sought for everything referenced by that personal website. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:44, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment. The article needs stripping of all the peacock phrasing before it is suitable for posting. Espresso Addict (talk) 17:51, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I moved more refs to the NYT article. Compared to other RD posted articles it already sounds pretty non-peacocky to me. LoveToLondon (talk) 18:18, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
  • The one particularly dubious site I noted is still used to reference all the records... The Rambling Man (talk) 12:34, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Didn't find a better database for the world records, removed the section. LoveToLondon (talk) 14:53, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Posted, in an attempt to counter the English-language bias of this section. Espresso Addict (talk) 09:29, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Eh. Countering bias is all well and good, I guess, but it still needs consensus. This nomination didn't have a single support. --Bongwarrior (talk) 20:12, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
I was taking TRM as support when referencing improved & my own comment as support when peacockery is removed, plus the nominator, with no opposes. On the more general point, I'm deeply troubled by the rapid posting of Rickman & Frey, just to take the most recent examples, when non-English language RDs like this one often tend to languish largely for lack of interest. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:29, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm afraid to say that I wasn't in support as it was still posted with the quality issues I had noted. But regarding Frey and Rickman, they were absolute shoo-ins at RD. Frey has been on the news in the UK all day, and Rickman was headlining the BBC for a day or so. That non-English RDs lack the interest is clearly because they're non-English and this is English language Wikipedia. Most of our readers speak a single language so, for example Zhabotinsky's sources are half in Russian, who can read or verify that stuff? It's systemic bias, yes, but it's completely understandable. And after all, we're supposed to be posting things that are interesting to our readers and things they will be looking for. I'm not sure that Zhabotinsky meets these descriptions. We're not here to right great wrongs about a lack of non-English-language RDs. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:43, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] Hypernova ASASSN-15lhEdit

Article: ASASSN-15lh (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Scientists describe ASASSN-15lh, the brightest known superluminous supernova ever detected, shining twenty times brighter than the entire Milky Way.
News source(s): ASASSN-15lh: A highly super-luminous supernova (Science)
News: (ABC news), (The Guardian),(BBC), (RT), (Fox news)
Nominator: Jenda H. (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: certainly unusual and encyclopedic stuff Jenda H. (talk) 20:05, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Oppose - For all the reliable sources that have been listed, the bolded article is barely a stub.--WaltCip (talk) 20:25, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
    • Really really stale per Vesuvius Dogg.--WaltCip (talk) 20:57, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment – News just in, this happened 3.8 billion years ago. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 20:34, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose perhaps a good DYK, this isn't really in the news at all. It's definitely interesting, but it's not a news item. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:15, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose This may be "twenty times brighter than all Milky Way" were one standing next to it, but it's actually 4 billion light years away and completely invisible to the naked eye. Plus, the article is a substub. If it's genuinely anomalous enough to cause astronomical theorems to be rewritten, that's potentially newsworthy (although the source for that appears to be New Scientist, whom I wouldn't trust to tell me the sky was blue given their "publish first and verify later" reputation), but at the moment it's not in the news by any stretch of the imagination. ‑ Iridescent 21:28, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
    • The 20 times brighter than the Milky Way is not changed by distance. It's like calling a lamp "100 candlepower". If you actually were right next to it (let's say 25 thousand billion miles) it'd look like a point of light as bright as the sunlight is halfway between Venus and Mercury. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:28, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support upon improvement The idea that an observation outside our solar system would be stale due to age is, frankly, absurd, given the closest know star system is four light-years away. This is apparently an unsurpassed record. If the article can be improved it certainly surpasses sports scores in importance. μηδείς (talk) 22:18, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support upon improvement, if it's indeed the most luminous supernova ever detected. Whether it's in the news or not isn't that important. We write encyclopedia and shouldn't always blindly follow the editorial picks of news folks. Brandmeistertalk 22:27, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support upon improvement - Not sure where the oppose votes are coming from. It's invisible, so it's not news? There are plenty of sources linked, so saying it's not in the news is a bit odd as well. Having said that, it's one sentence at the moment, so expansion is certainly required. Might have a go at that later. Fgf10 (talk) 22:48, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support upon improvement - It's not yet ITN-worthy, but I've added a couple paragraphs and would remind editors that supernova really are the most significant phenomena astronomers get to study. As this particular event cannot yet be explained by available theories, it's no wonder scientists are so excited. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 01:31, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support upon improvement Appears to be an important finding. ITN should feature science-related news too, not just deaths and destruction headlines. 117.192.170.58 (talk) 02:18, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support on expansion. Interesting, encyclopedic news (I don't know why the absence of coverage is noted above, as it's being covered eg by the BBC). It would be good to get a more appropriate ref than the Christian Science Monitor for the material in the final paragraph before posting. Espresso Addict (talk) 06:37, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is exactly the type of situation DYK is meant for. --MASEM (t) 14:55, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support We need some variation other than crime, terrorism and politics. Marvel Hero (talk) 17:40, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
    That's a really poor justification. Is this "in the news"? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:07, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
    Donald Trump's rant vs Ted Cruz is in multiple news. Should we post it instead? Brandmeistertalk 22:21, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support, now that Brandmeister has satisfactorily addressed my concerns (was previously a 'Provisionally oppose, at least until the following points are addressed'):
    • 1) 'The current proposed blurb is misleading' (Not anymore). It was already reported as the brightest-ever Supernova 6 months ago, as anybody can check from the first citation given in our article (The most Luminous Supernova, by Monica Young, Sky and Telescope, July 12 2015). So 'brightest Supernova' is NOT news, even if it is currently being headlined as if it were news in many mainstream news outlets.
    • 2) (No longer relevant) That July 2015 citation also said: "But hydrogen-poor superluminous supernovae (SLSN Class I in astronomer-speak) fade too rapidly for the luminosity to come entirely from nickel-56 — some unknown mechanism powers their extreme luminosity. Whether that remains true for this new supernova remains to be seen. Stay tuned..." So the fact that some scientists argue that it may require new physics (and note the word may, NOT will) is also seemingly not exactly news either. So an accurate blurb might read something like "According to some scientists, the latest data on ASASSN-15lh, the brightest known superluminous supernova, which was discovered in June 2015, may require new physics to explain it, though some previous ultra-bright Supernovae have also long been thought to require some unknown explanatory mechanism." I find this interesting, and it's actually news to me, but my past personal ignorance is hardly grounds for including something in ITN. However I'm sticking the above text in as an altblurb, if only to try to ensure that the problems with the current proposed blurb don't get overlooked.
    • 3) (No longer relevant) And words like 'may require new physics' are (rightly or wrongly) not currently included in our article, despite being found in some of the citations, especially those that quote the published paper's lead author Subo Dong. Tlhslobus (talk) 02:33, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
    • 4) (No longer relevant) I've now added an altblurb2 with the extra words 'by some scientists', since I'm not sure what proportion of scientists in this discipline already thought that an unknown mechanism had to be involved to explain earlier hypernovae.Tlhslobus (talk) 02:53, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Tlhslobus, next time please create very brief, concise blurbs. Your altblurbs are too long for the Main Page. George Ho (talk) 06:11, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, George Ho, as indicated above, the altblurbs were added to try to ensure that the so-called 'news' was correctly described, in contrast to the short but incorrect original blurb. Shortening it would have defeated that objective. I pretty much took it for granted that it was probably never going to make it onto the main page. Tlhslobus (talk) 08:00, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
@Tlhslobus: I've corrected the original blurb to address your first concern. It's the time when the scientific description was published, as in the case of new animal species, that's why news sources report it now. Brandmeistertalk 09:23, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
@Brandmeister: Thanks, on that basis I've withdrawn my altblurbs, and am changing my provisional oppose to a support. Tlhslobus (talk) 09:36, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Strange!Marvel Hero (talk) 18:21, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] Hurricane AlexEdit

already posted; further discussions are degrading or off topic. --Jayron32 17:15, 15 January 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: Hurricane Alex (2016) (talk, history) and 2016 Atlantic hurricane season (talk, history)
Blurb: Hurricane Alex becomes the first recorded Atlantic hurricane to form in January since 1938.
News source(s): CNN AccuWeather Sun-Sentinel
Nominator: Kudzu1 (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Prima facie unusual weather occurrence. The storm isn't expected to impact land, but a hurricane forming in January in the Atlantic basin seems to be a once-in-a-century type of phenomenon. Getting quite a bit of news attention, too. Kudzu1 (talk) 17:22, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Question - Not being too familiar with hurricanes, how big a deal is this? How much earlier than usual is this? I would support a particularly rare meteorological event for ITN, but the significance isn't clear to me. If not for ITN, then this definitely would be a nice DYN addition. Fgf10 (talk) 17:46, 14 January 2016 (UTC) Support, nicely explained below. Fgf10 (talk) 19:23, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Hurricane season in the Atlantic officially starts on June 1. May hurricanes are not unusual, but January hurricanes certainly are. shoy (reactions) 17:51, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. Per List of off-season Atlantic hurricanes, it appears to be the second-earliest Hurricane on record. (There was one a week earlier in January 1938). I think earliest hurricane in 78 years is ITN worthy in and of itself. It's also the earliest named storm. For the record, the third earliest hurricane on record occurred March 6-9, 1908.
  • Support. There will be landfall on Azores on friday. --Jenda H. (talk) 18:48, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
    So let's wait until Friday to see if this actually has an impact on anyone, right? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:52, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Question: Is there a reason we're linking to the season article as a piped link rather than to Hurricane Alex (2016) which exists as a stand alone article? --Jayron32 18:57, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Done --Jenda H. (talk) 20:32, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose it's a bit more DYK than ITN right now. Unless it goes on to actually do something significant, like create damage or death, it's just a quaint story about a "last time we had this weather it was [xxxx]". The Rambling Man (talk) 20:36, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support although the lead should be at least three sentences, the article as of this edit doesn't match the three prose paragraph requirement. μηδείς (talk) 20:42, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
    Can you expand on your support, i.e. why do you support it? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:51, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Funny, I was going to ask you to expand on your oppose, TRM. Basically, a weather event that hasn't occurred since the eldest of my nibling's relatives was born, and of a piece with the extremely bizarre weather of this Nothern-Hemisphere winter, with bees foraging a few days past from flowers that bloomed three months early in the US NE and historic foods in the US and the UK. I'm not a weatherwonk, but surely something reasonable should be posted; hopefuly in a broader context. The only problem with that article when I last posted was a technicality. μηδείς (talk) 23:19, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose – As meteorologically bizarre as this storm is, this is more of a DYK type thing. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:45, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
    • Rescinding oppose in favor of weak support based on other comments. I'll have an article for the storm itself published in the near future. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 02:43, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose given that this seems all connected to the topsy-turvy weather in the Northern hemisphere seemingly due to El Nino. If it makes landfall and causes major injury/damage, that would be a different reason, but its mere existence outside of the normal season is not sufficient for ITN. As others said, this is more a perfect DYK. --MASEM (t) 21:50, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Support per user above JendaH.Lihaas (talk) 00:02, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. January hurricanes are very unusual. We don't usually have meteorological news outside of disasters, so this will be a good change.331dot (talk) 01:22, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Most of a century has passed since the world last saw this, and weather is both an objective phenomenon and a universal human interest - hence of relatively high priority to us, I would think. - OldManNeptune 03:17, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Posted. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:33, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment Not opposing the posting but I would suggest saying "the month of January" to make it generic to the year, the present blurb implies this January. --MASEM (t) 05:40, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose "Since 1938" doesn't seem like much of a weather record. It comes across as bizarrely arbitrary and fannish, like the silly FA we have up at the moment – "History of Liverpool F.C. (1892–1959)". Andrew D. (talk) 08:20, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Agree, otal nonsense. Considering they barely held us this week...Lihaas (talk) 11:11, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Only one known Atlantic hurricane had existed between January 5 and May 17 and that was in 1908. But how to say that? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 13:10, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
    • Putting aside the numerous statements from meteorologists describing just how unusual this event is...with Atlantic hurricane records extending back to 1851, and the satellite era when records are considered most accurate starting in the 1960s (since which only one other storm of a much lower intensity was observed forming in January), what arbitrary year would you consider worthwhile for weather records? ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 09:11, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support - nearly 80 years since something like this last happened, which is in my mind sufficiently significant / encyclopaedic to merit comment. If it was happening every few years, probably not. And the blurb is fine - "since 1938" makes it perfectly clear that we are talking about more than just the present month. Andrew, if you have issues about the TFA selection process or the FA promotion process, please take them elsewhere. BencherliteTalk 08:59, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support - An extreme weather phenomenon and a timely reminder of what impact we humans can have on the climate.--WaltCip (talk) 14:36, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment As noted at "Errors", Hurricane Alice (December 1954) spanned into Jan 1955, so some of the arguments on "long time since last" are a bit weak here. --MASEM (t) 15:46, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
62 years is still a long time, even by using that metric. 331dot (talk) 15:49, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
It's a technicality that changes depending on how you word it. The last hurricane to form in January (as presently worded) was indeed the 1938 storm; however, the last hurricane to exist in January was Alice 1954–55. I focused on the latter in the article—though both are noted—since Alice became a hurricane a mere 12 hours before the New Year, but most sources are focusing on the "formed in" aspect. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 16:11, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
  • (ec) Alice didn't form in January. You may think it's a pedantic distinction but that's how meteorological record-keeping works.

    Incidentally, I'm not entirely thrilled with this particular blurb having been posted. A well-defined hurricane in January is an extreme rarity, one that weather geeks will no doubt reminisce on for years to come... but the same can be said of just-dissipated Hurricane Pali in the Pacific. It's especially concerning that the recent ITN nomination of deadly, record-setting flooding was rabidly opposed because it didn't offer enough of a world-view (or something?), while an enigmatic but ultimately insignificant weather statistic is posted with gusto. Now that Alex has impacted land (to some extent), I'd prefer something along the lines of Hurricane Alex, a rare wintertime Atlantic hurricane, affects the Azores. That gives the storm something of a real-world tie-in and avoids the "forming"/"existing" distinction that people seem to be overlooking. – Juliancolton | Talk 16:20, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

    • Post-posting oppose No fatalities, less damages for good. Marvel Hero (talk) 16:59, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
It was not posted due to damage or fatalities; it was posted as an unusual weather event. 331dot (talk) 17:06, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Which begs why is this not better at DYK as something unusual, as opposed to news-breaking? --MASEM (t) 17:08, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Unusual events which happens now is news. Posting it as news seems fair enough to me. Thue (talk) 17:11, 15 January 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] [Posted] RD: Alan RickmanEdit

It's clear that we're sticking with an RD listing here. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:11, 14 January 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: Alan Rickman (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): [16]
Nominator: Palmtree5551 (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.

 Palmtree5551 (talk) 12:57, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support RD without question. I wouldn't oppose a blurb either, given that we're at a slow point in the news cycle and some of the items in the ITN box are decidedly stale; the man was an absolute giant of the theatre, and although he never won an Oscar he won pretty much every other theatre and film award in existence. ‑ Iridescent 13:10, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support RD. This is a grim month.--WaltCip (talk) 13:11, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. Clearly meets RD2. Large body of recognition in his career. Not sure if the update is enough yet. 331dot (talk) 13:22, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support RD. Article is in fair shape - some of his roles are uncited, but anything controversial is sourced. Smurrayinchester 13:24, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support RD, weakly support blurb - An unquestioned giant of stage and screen. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:26, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support RD without question. I also support the suggestion of a blurb. Agree with WaltCip's observation indeed, always three in a row isn't it? regards.Twobells (talk) 13:31, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support RD or blurb - Massive name in the theatre and film. Instantly recognizable to generations of filmgoers. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:29, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD. Article update is short but sufficient. Thue (talk) 13:30, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support blurb – Rickman is to acting as Bowie was to music. Sceptre (talk) 14:03, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support blurb per Sceptre, on notability grounds only.--The Traditionalist (talk) 14:06, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support blurb per Sceptre, class actor. —Jonny Nixon (talk) 14:18, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support blurb per obvious reasons. -- Chamith (talk) 14:20, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't really like blurbs which amount to little more than "he died". Thue (talk) 14:31, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
That strikes me as WP:IDONTLIKEIT but I have to admit that I'm not sure if he was quite as revolutionary to his field as Bowie was to his.--WaltCip (talk) 14:35, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
My point is that a RD entry conveys as much info as a blurb. This is about being efficient, not about not liking it. For the record, I loved his Snape in Harry Potter. Thue (talk) 14:38, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm not really convinced of the need of a blurb here. He doesn't seem like he was tops in his field, even if he was very important to it. 331dot (talk) 14:40, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
  • support RD he has a large body of work and some awards. There is a compelling case for a possible blurb but I'd rather err on the side of caution.Johnsemlak (talk) 14:45, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support blurb. Was winning awards for his film work over a span of twenty years, rather than reaching a singular peak; all this from someone who was by all accounts a late arrival to his vocation. Plus he's a global Christmas tradition. GRAPPLE X 14:50, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support RD but Oppose Blurb - While beloved by many film fanatics, we're not talking about a big influence on the media field in general as compared to Christopher Lee or David Bowie (to music in this case). RD is perfectly suited here. --MASEM (t) 15:14, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb - While obviously popular, Rickman mostly played secondary characters and thus didn't hold an elite status in his field, i.e. David Bowie in rock and roll. --Tocino 15:26 14 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb - While definitely appropriate for RD, I don't think a blurb is warranted. A blurb is appropriate when, as Wikipedia:In the news#Recent deaths section puts it, the subject was a "major transformative world leader" in their field. While Rickman was obviously popular and well known, I don't think he rises to that level. Calathan (talk) 16:40, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb RD is perfectly appropriate given his stature and recognition. But I doubt that the remembrance will be even a fraction of that for David Bowie. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
  • "By Grabthar's hammer, by the suns of Warvan, you shall be avenged!" μηδείς (talk) 16:58, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Obama did call for curing cancer in the State of the Union address.... – Muboshgu (talk) 17:03, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb The RD posting was totally sufficient. I'm definitely a Rickman fan, but his career was not sufficiently vital, nor was his death sufficiently shocking, to warrant a blurb. -- Mike (Kicking222) 17:53, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb a highly talented and popular actor, of course, but he was never even nominated for an Oscar and didn't reach the very, very top of his profession such as to warrant a blurb. BencherliteTalk 21:09, 14 January 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 Jakarta bombingsEdit

Article: 2016 Jakarta attacks (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Militants with links to ISIL attack Sarinah Mall in central Jakarta, Indonesia, killing six.
Alternative blurb: ​Suicide bombings in Jakarta kills 6
News source(s): The Guardian BBC News CNN
Nominator: Marvel Hero (talk • give credit)

 Marvel Hero (talk) 07:30, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment Someone, please correct this nomination. Marvel Hero (talk) 07:32, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support several dead, first attack in Jakarta since 2009. —Jonny Nixon (talk) 07:36, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support another unfortunate but major event. --Saqib (talk) 08:20, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - Dominating news reports in Indonesia right now; number of victims liable to change (was 3 when I left for lunch earlier today) — Chris Woodrich (talk) 08:25, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - don't see any reason not to. Yogwi21(talk) 09:33, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support article is being actively updated as situation develops; notable event. MurielMary (talk) 09:55, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
  • The article seems ready enough to post, but I am not sure about the death count in the blurb. Also, it was not just Sarinah Mall which was attacked. From the article, the death count is actually only 2 (plus attackers). Any objections if I post the blurb "Militants with links to ISIL attack targets in Jakarta, Indonesia, killing two.". Note that I am not counting the attackers here. Thue (talk) 13:19, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Posted Thue (talk) 14:41, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Should it say "killing seven, including five perpetrators", rather than "killing two"? HaEr48 (talk) 00:36, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Militant attacks – Militant who? How about Jihadist attacks? "Militant" can apply to almost anything (ex.: "militant suffragist"). "Jihadist" is more specific. Sca (talk) 22:20, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
    Yes, we heard you the first time. Militant is a standard noun in English to describe these individuals. Please now refrain from repeating yourself a third or fourth time, it's not making any difference. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:45, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] Ebola epidemic endsEdit

Article: Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Liberia is declared free of Ebola, ending the Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa.
Alternative blurb: ​The WHO announces the end of the Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa, which caused at least 11,315 deaths.
News source(s): BBC
Nominator: Smurrayinchester (talk • give credit)

Article updated

 Smurrayinchester 07:05, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Support But is it for all African countries which were affected? --Marvel Hero (talk) 07:21, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support notable event with over 28,000 infected and 11,000 dead. —Jonny Nixon (talk) 07:24, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I think the blurb should contain the 11,000 total. Nergaal (talk) 07:35, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Added altblurb. Smurrayinchester 08:30, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

January 13Edit

Portal:Current events/2016 January 13

[Closed] PowerballEdit

No consensus, evidently. Brandmeistertalk 12:47, 16 January 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: Powerball (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Three winning tickets were sold in the US$ 1.6 billion Powerball drawing, each worth $529 million, while an additional 76 parties earned at least $1 million.
News source(s): Yahoo
Nominator: TonyTheTiger (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: I am not sure about the notability of the 2nd largest lottery in history. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:51, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I'm not sure either but overall I don't think it's very interesting. First, someone is bound to win eventually. Second, winning is entirely a matter of luck (compare e.g. the Nobel Prize: while someone is bound to win, that's because that someone has done very important work). Finally, there isn't even an article associated with this. Powerball is the article of the lottery; there is not '2016 $1.6 billion powerball lottery' article or anything like that. I do not, therefore, think this is worth posting (especially given the recent rash of new ITN stories). Banedon (talk) 06:05, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose Because of recent rule changes, these large lotteries will become more and more common. While of popular interest, no lasting noteworthiness. SpencerT♦C 06:55, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Thanks for the nomination, but as stated, this will likely be more common given the rule changes to decrease the odds of winning further. As pointed out by Bandedon, there is no article about this winning of the lottery itself. 331dot (talk) 11:54, 15 January 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: J. F. R. JacobEdit

Article: J. F. R. Jacob (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): NDTV FirstPost
Nominator: George Ho (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: One of Indian lieutenant generals; not as high as a field marshal (India) but higher than the rest (check Army ranks and insignia of India). He fought in World War II and Bangladesh War. George Ho (talk) 03:41, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Off-topic once the original comment in the nomination was removed. BencherliteTalk 13:44, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Lawrence Phillips was an epic and infamous draft bust. "Much more notable" is damning Jacob with faint praise. --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:45, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE Solely to spite the nominator. The comment about the football player is unnecessary and irrelevant. Nominations should be based on the merit of the individual and not negatively compared to something entirely different.Correctron (talk) 07:08, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose on principle per Correctron. Tendentious nomination. Strike the comment in question and we can start talking seriously about the merits of the deceased. --WaltCip (talk) 08:10, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - Don't know the guy, not sure which way to go on nom, but the incredibly childish personal attacks in the 'votes' above are deeply sad. Grow up, people. Fgf10 (talk) 08:15, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
What personal attack? Please explain your comment which I may as well interpret to be a personal attack. --WaltCip (talk) 11:54, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Q.E.D. 119.92.91.202 (talk) 12:06, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Feel free to interpret it any which way you want. Fgf10 (talk) 13:11, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment I've removed the pointless comment from the nomination. Now then. Let's talk about this individual. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:18, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - the tributes from current politicians imply that he was a significant figure in Indian history and in Pakistan and Bangladesh as well. The article seems thorough and referenced. MurielMary (talk) 09:44, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Not here, please. BencherliteTalk 13:44, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - let's keep RD focused on (North American) athletes and pop stars. 119.92.91.202 (talk) 09:51, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
What on earth is your problem? --WaltCip (talk) 11:53, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
To the IP: If you are dissatisfied with what is posted, please make your own nominations that you believe meet the criteria for posting. 331dot (talk) 12:04, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Although I applaud the use of humor to note the serious problem of systemic bias, this is not the place for it. Fgf10 (talk) 13:11, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support per MurielMary; seems to be important to the Indian military (DC2) and possibly significant impact(latter part of DC1) Article seems OK. 331dot (talk) 12:07, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - He masterminded Pakistan's surrender in the 1971 Indo-Pak War that led to the liberation of Bangladesh. He was regarded as "hero of the war" in India and Bangladesh. 117.221.123.238 (talk) 13:33, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose on quality, neutral on notability. Regardless of the above supports, the article is unpostable in its current condition - many paragraphs are completely uncited. The sentence about his death is ungrammatical as well. BencherliteTalk 13:44, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose for quality reasons only, article has numerous gaps in referencing, which is unacceptable for a biographical article we wish to post on the main page. I would never block this otherwise, but clearly we can't claim this is a quality product to ask others to read. If anyone does fully reference the article, consider my objections nullified, and consider this a full support at that point. --Jayron32 17:12, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Marked Ready an author, general, and governor, and a major player in "subcontinental" geopolitics for the 20th century. I see no reaon this eminently notable person should not be noted in RD on his passing. μηδείς (talk)
  • Removing ready; article is insufficiently well referenced for posting at the moment. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:52, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment Referencing has been improved significantly. 117.192.170.58 (talk) 03:31, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
What do you think, Espresso Addict? --George Ho (talk) 04:38, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Posted. Thanks to those who improved the article. Espresso Addict (talk) 07:14, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] Pritzker PrizeEdit

Article: Alejandro Aravena (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Chilean architect Alejandro Aravena wins the Pritzker Architecture Prize.
News source(s): Guardian
Nominator: Modest Genius (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: The world's highest prize in architecture. On ITNR. Modest Genius talk 18:02, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment I've adjusted the blurb to the right name of the award, and bolded the list of winners too (it's a featured list, so no reason why not to highlight it as well). The Rambling Man (talk) 18:06, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose target architect article is poor and needs some work (I'll see what I can do), target list article will be easy to update (I'll see what I can do). The Rambling Man (talk) 18:13, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Strike Comment I should have noticed this is ITN/R, my support isn't needed. - OldManNeptune 05:34, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment. The article is still barely more than a stub. Is anyone planning to work on it? Espresso Addict (talk) 03:54, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
    That's hardly true and meets the minimum requirements of ITNC. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:47, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Posted after reasonable improvements. Stephen 21:44, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

January 12Edit

Portal:Current events/2016 January 12

[Closed] Arrest of human rights activist Samar BadawiEdit

No consensus, and already over. Stephen 04:26, 15 January 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: Samar Badawi (talk, history)
Blurb: Saudi Arabian-American human rights activist Samar Badawi is arrested in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.
News source(s): New York Times The Guardian CNN
Nominator and updater: Timdwilliamson (talk • give credit)

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Badawi's arrest comes just weeks after Saudi Arabia executes dissidents, and her husband and brother are both imprisoned activists. Tim D. Williamsonyakkety-yak 06:02, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Indictment is not newsworthy by ITN standards; the story fits well at Wikinews. Until she is convicted or acquitted, we should avoid overemphasis and lowering standards to allow room for such hype. Of course, the "El Chapo" drug dealer is featured in Main Page as newsworthy, but his escape and recapture excited the consensus. Human rights concerns in Saudi Arabia aren't new compared to ones in Mexico. George Ho (talk) 06:53, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Article is sufficient quality and lacking any major problems (a few sentences have a cn tag, but mostly solid referencing), update is well referenced and extensive, event is current. I can't come up with any reason to block this from being posted. --Jayron32 11:41, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
  • CommentUpdated with release but also orders to report for more interrogation Thurs. a.m. Sca (talk) 17:41, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose According to the New York Times article cited, the Saudi government says that she has not been arrested. Detainment for questioning is not unusual in the East. Though, if this escalates and she is convicted this may merit posting. Mamyles (talk) 17:54, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose story has already moved on/concluded. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:14, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose too minor for ITN, which (except in rare cases) does not post arrests. BencherliteTalk 13:46, 14 January 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] RD: Ivan BukavshinEdit

No consensus to post. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:14, 13 January 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: Ivan Bukavshin (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Russia and India Report El Mundo
Nominator: EternalNomad (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: He won several notable events, including Russia Cup 2015, and was ranked in the top 100 globally. A totally unexpected and shocking death. EternalNomad (talk) 01:43, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose Given the number of grandmasters, it's hard to judge how much he represents the top of his field. But I would further have problems with the lack of any details outside of his chess victories. I realize it is a short life, but there's still more I'd expect to see if this person was that important. Granted, I would expect the likely sources to be in Russian and may be more difficult to get but that really should be done here if this is to be on the main page. --MASEM (t) 03:28, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment Here are his rankings. At his peak, he was Russia's 21st best player, Europe's 66th and the world's 92nd. Here is news from around the world, including mainstream Spanish sources El Pais, ABC and El Mundo. Quite logically, most sources are in Russian. I do not know Russian so I can not gage if this is widely covered by their main outlets and how much attention his tragic passing is getting '''tAD''' (talk) 04:11, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose Considering those rankings, I don't see how he qualifies as a very important figure in the field of chess. Neljack (talk) 04:39, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose the death isn't expected, but given the rankings above, I agree with Neljack, not seeing how he was truly important in the game. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:48, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose – unexpected death, but doesn't appear to be an important figure in chess, especially given the rankings (though maybe he just didn't have the time to climb up high enough?). International news coverage appears relatively limited too. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 05:58, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose as doesn't seem to meet the RD criteria of "important/significant in their field". Assume would need a high ranking (top 10?) and influence (introduced a new style of play etc) to meet that standard. MurielMary (talk) 07:33, 13 January 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] 2015 Ballon d'OrEdit

No consensus to post. --Tone 14:51, 13 January 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: Lionel Messi (talk, history)
Blurb: Lionel Messi wins the FIFA Ballon d'Or for a record fifth time
Alternative blurb II: ​In association football, Lionel Messi wins the FIFA Ballon d'Or
Alternative blurb III: ​In association football, Lionel Messi wins the FIFA Ballon d'Or and Carli Lloyd wins the FIFA World Player of the Year.
News source(s): Easy to find, viz [17]
Nominator: Banedon (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: One of the most prestigious awards in association football, and it's a record too. Banedon (talk) 11:35, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Worldwide covered recognition of a sportsman considered the best of his generation in the probably most international team sports. --PanchoS (talk) 15:34, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
  • This thing is probably at ITNR level. Nergaal (talk) 15:40, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I had the same thought, given that it has been posted for the last few years, from what I can see in the archives. 331dot (talk) 16:28, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment We should also mention that Carli Lloyd won the FIFA World Player of the Year, in the same line. [18]. --MASEM (t) 15:43, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Weakest of weak supports Essentially only because it's a record fifth time. Oppose mentioning player of the year in the same line; we had a similar discussion recently and practically everyone, including me, strongly agreed that we do not typically post individual awards in group sports. If it's true for LPGA, it's true for FIFA. This is also pending appropriate updates, if there's no more to write than "he won it for a record fifth time" then I don't think that cuts it. - OldManNeptune 16:25, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
  • You may or may not be right, but the LPGA is a very different animal from FIFA. 331dot (talk) 16:28, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. I cannot locate a substantial update to the article discussing this particular award. If someone could add it and/or link to it directly via a # link in the nomination, so readers can find out about it and its significance, I would consider fully supporting this. The article is really good, and we should be proud to post it, the only thing holding this up for me is the lack of (or the difficulty in finding) a paragraph or so explaining this specific news item. --Jayron32 17:17, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose FIFA navel gazing and nothing more. Who cares? An annual publicity stunt where Messi votes for his team mates, Ronaldo votes for his team mates, Belgian coaches vote for Belgian players, it's a little too much like the Eurovision Song Contest to be taken seriously. Seemingly only really important to Ronaldo who gets sniffy every year he gets beaten by Messi. Certainly not worthy of ITN, a trivial "popular voted for" award. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:00, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Neutral comment: As far as I can tell: (a) we posted this in 2013 as "In association football, Lionel Messi wins the FIFA Ballon d'Or" (linking to 2012 FIFA Ballon d'Or); (b) we posted this in 2014 with the blurb "In association football, Cristiano Ronaldo (pictured) wins the FIFA Ballon d'Or and Nadine Angerer wins the Women's World Player of the Year award" with a bold link to 2013 FIFA Ballon d'Or for "wins" in each case; (d) it was not nominated in 2015. I have added alt-blurbs along those lines. BencherliteTalk 20:33, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose on consistency. As noted above, a few months ago a nom for a similar individual award (Player of the Year in LPGA) was not posted as the consensus was that ITN does not post about individual player awards. MurielMary (talk) 21:41, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose posting any MVP trophy, regardless of league, but especially created by FIFA. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:31, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per every oppose above.--86.175.146.32 (talk) 00:45, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose per TRM and MurielMary ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 01:28, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comparing an MVP award of a continental competition (LPGA MVP) in a sports with limited popularity (women's golf) with the award for the best player in the most popular sports in the world does not make sense. The logic behind If it's true for LPGA, it's true for FIFA. could equally be used to say If it's true that we don't post the result of the Austrian Bowl to ITN, we cannot post the result of the Super Bowl - after all these are both national championships in the same sports in different countries. In reality, I assume that none of the oppose voters would have any doubt that in American Football even the US college championship is far more important than the national championship of Austria.
  • Regarding opposition based on Who cares?: The three finalists combined have a quarter billion Facebook likes. Messi plays against Ronaldo several times each year, and each time 400 million people all over the world watch the game live - every one of them surely has an opinion on who of them is better. The Ballon d'Or is the most objective decision available in this rivalry.
  • Opposing based on FIFA bashing also misses the point. The winner is not picked by the FIFA, it is chosen by vote by players, coaches and journalists. Messi votes for his team mates, Ronaldo votes for his team mates misses the fact that Messi got over 40% of the votes. While some sympathy votes might be going to fringe candidates from the same country or team, the vast majority of voters is not affiliated with any of the top choices.
  • Support This is actually in the news, and something a lot of people are interested in. LoveToLondon (talk) 02:46, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
    • So is 2016 College Football Playoff National Championship. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:52, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
      • Indeed. Personally, I never heard of this award nor do I care for soccer, but I recognize that it is important to others. 331dot (talk) 03:09, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
      • No, they differ by an order of magnitude. Literally, when it comes to the number of people who care - the number of people watch them play is 10 times the number of people who watched the college final. And even though the events were on the same day, I would be curious if you are able to find a single non-US media where the college football final is covered more prominently than the Ballon d'Or. Even now, two days after the event, you can still find articles with pictures of Messi on the sports pages of sites like BBC, Le Monde or The Australian. LoveToLondon (talk) 03:22, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
    • The LPGA comparison is not about the caliber of the sports, it's about not posting individual sport awards, which you conveniently left out of your quote from Neptune. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 03:16, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I omitted the LPGA part since it might sound like a PA when I just describe the truth.
The person on whom you base your opposition with that rationale is not Neptune, it is Mary.
The LPGA discussion was about an MVP in a relatively unknown sports, and the first Oppose vote (by Bongwarrior) actually mentioned FIFA Ballon d'Or as one that usually gets posted.
Neptune did neither here (weak support) nor in the LPGA discussion say that no individual sports award should ever be posted.
Mary tries to give the impression of consensus by making an incorrect claim.
Not a single Oppose vote in the LPGA discussion said explicitely that no individual award should ever be posted, with one even stating he might have supported the LPGA posting in a time with less ITN-worthy items.
The Close statement in the LPGA discussion is the first time where it is suggested (by Mary) that there was an agreement to exclude individual sporting awards - which is a clever way to prevent anyone else from raising disagreement with her incorrect claim that this was the consensus. Closing was without a doubt consensus, and arguing about details in the rationale is pointless.
But now she claims about that discussion that the the consensus was that ITN does not post about individual player awards.
  • As was already mentioned, two years ago the Ballon d'Or was posted.
  • And we do not typically post individual awards in group sports by Neptune (as well as Marys agreement to exclude individual sporting awards claim in the Close statement) is also not correct. I am counting four individual awards in team sports that should be posted every year according to ITNR - e.g. Super Bowl MVP is clearly an individual award in a team sports.
LoveToLondon (talk) 04:27, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment I would be appreciative if my comments would not be chopped into fragments, I don't think anyone really likes that being done to them and mine are right there at the top to be read in full. I gave weak support based on the trivia value of winning this five times, and I increasingly regret even bothering with that, as I have zero stake in posting an award that, as far as I can tell, actually impacts nobody (except Messi, who I'm sure is pleased as punch) and will have no further effects at all. I'm just an old man with an opinion, I don't think I quite merit a line-by-line rebuttal of a casual comment (which was perfectly accurate in its full context). Thanks. - OldManNeptune 06:32, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment to LovetoLondon - it's both unnecessary and unwelcome for you to assign motives to my statements, such as "a clever way to ..." or to hash out my statements line by line e.g. "she claims that...". The facts in the LPGA discussion are clear, and I'm unsure why you can't read them yourself - five experienced ITN editors/admins stated that individual sporting awards are not generally posted. That makes a consensus. That's why the discussion was closed. Simple. MurielMary (talk) 07:24, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Comment The reasons the experienced ITN editors stated in the discussion do not match what you newbie editor (1 month after your first edit) wrote in the Close statement.
  • The first of these five editors you mention stated We virtually never post individual sporting awards in any sport - the only one I can think of right now is the FIFA Ballon d'Or.
  • Another one of these five editors you mention even stated about LPGA on another day I might have supported this, but with the quantity of ITN-worthy items right now I think there is no space for this.
  • There was consensus that LPGA is not posted, and several editors correctly mentioned that posting such awards is rare. There was no consensus that no individual awards should ever be posted, that was not part of the discussion.
I do recommend that every editor basing his opposition on Marys LPGA claim reads the LPGA discussion and decides for herself/himself whether such statements by newbie editor Mary can be trusted. LoveToLondon (talk) 08:12, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Just going to drop a note that you're getting ever closer to a personal attack against MurielMary, here. Best you cease with the condescending attitude and name calling immediately. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 08:26, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Oppose - Meaningless award, not actually much media attention. Fgf10 (talk) 13:50, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Oppose - Consensus generally is against posting sports awards and record-smashing.--WaltCip (talk) 14:19, 13 January 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] Bombing in IstanbulEdit

Article: 2016 Istanbul bombing (talk, history)
Blurb: ​At least 10 people are killed when a bomb explodes in Istanbul, Turkey.

  • This is another unfortunate event. The story is developing. So far 10 reported dead by BBC. --Saqib (talk) 09:46, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support: Rare bombing for Turkey, death toll likely to climb.--193.39.5.10 (talk) 11:23, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support: Don't see any reason not to. The tense in the latter part of the blurb should be "when a bomb exploded" though. Banedon (talk) 11:37, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support act of terror in a highly populated area and popular tourist destination. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:07, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support: Another story linked to ISIS. Onur
  • Posting. --Tone 14:29, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

January 11Edit

Portal:Current events/2016 January 11

[Posted] RD: Monte IrvinEdit

Article: Monte Irvin (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): New York Times USA Today
Nominator: EternalNomad (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: Irvin was a renowned baseball player, Hall of Famer, and received the MVP award. EternalNomad (talk) 01:06, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Strong support I missed that completely, must've been buried by the Bowie news. As the nominator says, he was a truly excellent ballplayer who is in the Hall of Fame, had a long career split between the Negro Leagues and Major League Baseball, after integration. Deserving of RD. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:24, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Article could use a few more sources, but it should be ok. He's a Hall of Famer and his death is well covered. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 03:24, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support notability seems well-established, article is in reasonable condition. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:50, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. Article seems reasonably well referenced and makes a strong case for importance. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 05:54, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Posted RD ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 06:49, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] 2016 College Football Playoff National ChampionshipEdit

Closing for the third time already (apparently I forgot to sign the first time and someone else closed the second time). In any case, while both sides present relevant arguments, we aren't getting any closer to a consensus. Sorry guys ... --Tone 14:50, 13 January 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: Championship game for the second highest level of American Football play in the United States. Andise1 (talk) 05:30, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Article needs updating - still written in the future, "the game will" etc etc. MurielMary (talk) 05:34, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I found a very extensive game summary on one of the season pages and added it. It's written from Alabama's point of view, though. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:00, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - if it's the second highest level of American Football play in the United States, then there's a tier above it and it's not even a national championship (which are themselves hard to justify for ITN). Hard to see this as sufficiently noteworthy for ITN then. Banedon (talk) 05:38, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support because of it's significance in the U.S. Various non-Americans who don't understand this will now pile on opposes. My support is pending expansion though. The article isn't ready. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:42, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak support on notability but oppose article quality – College football is big news in the States, but still second highest level. No other US-centric stories up at present either. In regards to the quality of the article, there's very little prose at present, and almost none about the game itself. 2014 BCS National Championship Game shows that there's a lot to be desired. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 05:49, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose National competition for young amateurs in a professional sports. (And Super Bowl LI is in less than a month, so American Football will anyway soon be at ITN.) LoveToLondon (talk) 07:03, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I live in the USA. College football does not deserve attention in the Main Page. Same for Professional Development League and other youth leagues in other sports. Someone should write articles about such youth leagues in Wikinews. George Ho (talk) 07:40, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Ah it's this time of year again? Amateur competition, not notable. Fgf10 (talk) 08:05, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I may be wrong, but this doesn't evidence such, only that professionals may compete. The Olympics are, and to the best of my knowledge remain, an amateur competition - or has that changed? But to get right to the point, are you arguing that the Olympics were non-notable prior to more broadly permitting professionals to compete? If not, then this is a pointless sidebar of semantics, as you would then agree that amateur competitions suffer no particular notability handicap if other conditions are met, no? - OldManNeptune 08:56, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
    • The best of your knowledge is outdated by a quarter century. You did argue in favour of posting that the Olympics would be an amateur competition like college sports, and that argument of yours is complete nonsense. LoveToLondon (talk) 09:08, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
  • This is twice now you have told me what I have said - and incorrectly, though I have attempted to clarify. Perhaps we are merely separated by a common language, but I find putting words in my mouth rude. Good day. - OldManNeptune 13:15, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
  • The highest tournament of pro football is Super Bowl, but it doesn't reach the same level as Olympics, which is very global and international. College football playoffs ... is just American and not in the same league as Super Bowl. Of course, Olympics was supposed to be for only amateurs, but IOC decided to allow pro athletes into such tournaments. Actually, the athletics, including track and field, is the onlyanother amateur-only sport on Olympics. --George Ho (talk) 09:08, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
    • Wrong, athletics is not an amateur-only sports at the Olympics. LoveToLondon (talk) 09:13, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
      • My mistake; boxing and wrestling are amateur-only Olympic sports. --George Ho (talk) 09:20, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support Per Cyclonebiskit. It is ignorant to push the highest echelon of college football down to the level of youth league sports; the athletes competing will likely be among the next professionals to enter the highest tier of the sport, and college football (and basketball, for that matter) enjoys popularity comparable to professional sports, to the point that even if it were mere youth league sports, it would merit attention for the sheer number of people invested in it (this applies outside the US - by all means, if you know of a non-US youth league generating NCAA levels of revenue, nominate it and I would likely support it). However, the article is not fit for the front page at this time, so support is pending updates. - OldManNeptune 08:09, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
How many college athletes end up in pro sports? George Ho (talk) 08:30, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
For most American sports, the majority of professional athletes are recruited from college. I don't know that it's a fair metric to ask what percentage of college athletes go on to professional sports; "college athletes" covers everyone from these guys (of whom many will play professionally) to those who take fencing as an elective and who have no sports ambitions. It may as well be mentioned that it is an ongoing controversy in the US that college football and basketball players generate millions upon millions in revenue yet do not get paid - meaning many people feel they are roughly equivalent to professional atheletes in what they do, they merely do not collect a check for it. - OldManNeptune 08:56, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
"the athletes competing will likely be among the next professionals to enter the highest tier of the sport" - As you say yourself, they are not now, so oppose remains valid. And yes indeed, parochial. Fgf10 (talk) 09:31, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Two Words - Boat Race. This event is far more popular than that. It's also amateur. Correctron (talk) 10:16, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Two wrongs make a right? 131.251.254.154 (talk) 10:23, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for showing your ignorance once again. It is nowhere near as popular as the Boat Race, nor is it anywhere near as global as the Boat Race. But you keep thinking that we're all interested in college "football", good old USA, USA, USA, eh? P.S. if you're game for substantiating your hysterical position, tell me how many people watch the Boat Race live, versus this ball game. Then tell me how many watch the Boat Race on television around the globe, versus this ball game.... I dare you..... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:40, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
You have 2.5 billion people in ex-colonies to help you beat 30 million viewers (1.7 billion in the Subcontinent). And you have what at least 4 km of Thames shore to watch the race live (for free!) instead of a stadium. How is that an apples to apples comparison? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:51, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
I didn't make the original comparison. I simply added the facts, something which most fail to do when making such naive and and incompetent statements. As for ex-colonies, I seem to recall that the US is one of those....! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:55, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Isn't it implied that our popular sports have almost no overlap? Do you like basketball? No. Do you like baseball? No. Do you like ice hockey? No. NASCAR? No. Lacrosse? No. Do we even know the rules of cricket? No. Rugby? No. Field hockey? No. Rounders? No. Netball? No. Do we like European-style motorsports? No. UEFA Champions League? No. Rowing? Only at the Olympics. Cycling? Only at the Olympics. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:22, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
What a curious response. I like a lot of those sports, I just don't think they belong on the main page. Your rant is indicative of desperation. I'm not sure why. Probably best to walk away for a while now, before you do or say something regretful. Take some time to re-appraise how to engage in these debates. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:25, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
The point is that the other countries' colonial days are much less distant (~mid 20th century vs. 1776) and often didn't end by revolution, all the loyalists fleeing, and decades of cold relations and we have had time to invent our own sports and culture. Therefore we are not ex-colonies to the same degree as everyone else (Parts of France are ex-British too, not quite the same as India is it?) Why are you even comparing live viewership when you have miles of buildings and shore to watch from? At least you have a point with TV viewers but it's so easy to be in that position when USA barely had enough population to colonize 50 states by the time the rest of the Earth was already taken. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:02, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
I'll reiterate, as you seem incapable of reading, I made no comparison to the Boat Race, your esteemed countryman did. I simply expanded on it to state that the comparison was false, and went on to explain why. If you now wish to continue to embarrass yourself with this sad litany of excuses, that's fine, I'm not interested, nor, I doubt, is anyone else. Keep looking up the stats, if it makes you feel better. The bottom line is that this event is not newsworthy, it's not "in the news" in the same way the Superbowl is, we have no need for another "American football" story, so that's it. Of course, you are entitled to continue with your diatribe, but I doubt anyone's reading it by now. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:05, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Guess whether UEFA Champions League is newsworthy in the US. So salted by default just because our country didn't become 10 after football spread. That makes sense. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:34, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
If I understood your claims, I'd be able to comment. As I said, by now no-one's interested or reading or listening. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:39, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
That post was wondering if this would be opposed as much if the US had split into many sovereign nations but after football was entrenched and we now had an international college football competition (like UEFA Champions maybe). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:50, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Amateur sport, not the highest level of play, negligible global impact, clear oppose. This is not a US sports new service, it's a world wide encyclopedia. 131.251.254.154 (talk) 10:23, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Global impact is not required, and we discourage objections based on an event being from a single country above(under "Please do not"}. Very little would be posted if global impact was required. 331dot (talk) 12:13, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
  • THERE IS NOTHING 'AMATEUR' ABOUT U.S. COLLEGE FOOTBALL, at least at the top division. Those claiming otherwise are ignorant of the subject. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:55, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
  • How much do the highest-paid professional players in US college football earn? LoveToLondon (talk) 11:04, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Who the **** cares when colleges spend up to £1 billion a decade on youth football expenses? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 11:12, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Baseball Bugs seems to care a lot, in bold and uppercase. And he is clearly wrong on that. LoveToLondon (talk) 11:19, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
  • And Home Depot sponsors the Games by letting Olympic athletes sell drills and stuff whenever they have the timebecause they're so poor. How does not making a living from the sport necessarily prevent the competition from being high quality? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 11:37, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Well, the competition is second tier, so it can't be very high quality, can it? Banedon (talk) 11:41, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
I remember people actually wondering in 2008 if the best college team was better than the worst team in the top league that year. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 11:50, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. As I see it, this is to the Super Bowl what association football's Europa League is to the Champion's League—it's not nothing, it's just far from being as important as the next level up. That said, if it turns out we've posted the Europa League final recently then strike my opposition here. GRAPPLE X 11:53, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose we don't post the winners of the second tier of British/Spanish/Italian football, why we would make that exception for American Football is unclear. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:08, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. It's not accurate to say this is "second tier"; it's just a different 'league'. Many college stadiums are larger in capacity than professional team stadiums(such as Michigan Stadium) and the games get as much attention as the NFL. This is not a "youth tournament" as some call it; if you are 45 years old, attend college, and qualify for their football team, you can play. I think this gets the attention to be posted, and many readers will be interested in it. 331dot (talk) 12:16, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
    Even the nominator called it the second level of the game. We don't post, for example, the 2015 Football League Championship play-off Final, despite the fact the club that wins it will be £120 million better off and despite the fact its referred to as "the richest game in football". This is not America's top-tier American Football final, so it doesn't need to be posted at ITN. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:29, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
  • It seems like this competition gets nominated on a yearly basis in the hopes that it will eventually be posted by whomever is present at ITN on that particular day. However, as is similar with most recurring events, this championship is never going to change. A team is always going to win, a team is always going to lose, this will always be an amateur provincial sport concerning regions in the U.S. that international readers know next to nothing about, and this will always be second-tier to the NFL. None of this will ever change (maybe the athletes might be paid at some point in time, but that's neither here nor there). Yet year after year this is nominated, over and over again, and we have the same discussions each time and we return to the same conclusion. Not only do I strongly oppose posting this heavily U.S.-centric event, but I also believe we need to salt the earth and set up a "recurring items" list for nominations that will never have a chance of making it onto ITN. That's where this needs to go. We retread the same ground constantly and generate more heat than light talking about this silly parochial game.--98.180.123.57 (talk) 12:40, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
As stated above, "Please do not oppose an item because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive." Last year the NCAA March Madness made it so I don't see why this should be forbidden from being discussed just because you don't like it or understand what it actually is. What you consider "silly" may be considered important by others. 331dot (talk) 12:47, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
National sports always only relates to a single country, but international relevance measured by number of non-domestic people watching live does matter. Super Bowl is being watched live all over the world. El Clásico (happens several times each season) is every time watched by nearly half a billion people. LoveToLondon (talk) 13:26, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
That's a fair point, even if in my opinion this still meets the criteria for posting. 331dot (talk) 13:29, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Rambling Man. ITN is not a sports news ticker. 59.88.204.164 (talk) 12:45, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose and salt the earth per IP 98. Note we're not "complaining about this event relating to a single country"; we are pointing out that this story has very limited, if any, international impact. That in turn is affecting its notability.--WaltCip (talk) 13:11, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
If international impact is required, very little will qualify for posting here. If you're saying it's not notable, fair enough, as that's a matter of opinion. I oppose salting any subject from discussion as WP:CREEP; users already have the right to SNOW close discussions that have no support for posting. as I point out above, last year the NCAA Baskeball tournament made it. We don't know what will happen in the future. 331dot (talk) 13:24, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose College, youth and amateur sport all do not belong to ITN, no matter if it is football, American football or something else. The Youth Olympics are perhaps the most important event of that sort in the world but we have been even reluctant to posting it so far. @Baseball Bugs: It is not the end of the world if this does not get posted; otherwise, we would have not been here since this was nominated for the first time.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:28, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
College sports, even if the players aren't getting specifically paid to play(they get money other ways, though) is a large business in the US which draws as much attention as the NFL and as large audiences- with many stadiums larger than pro stadiums(as I note above). 331dot (talk) 13:33, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
8 college football stadia are bigger than any non-North Korean stadium on Earth period. Whether professional or amateur, football or cricket or field hockey or unicorn polo. 8 of the 9 biggest stadiums in the world are college football and no professional teams play in them. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 13:55, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
So what? Americans build big things. Big deal. There's a lot of money and a lot of space, it's easily done. It doesn't meant there's any impact because of it. Obviously. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:07, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
You don't do that if college football is a minor sport here. But I think everyone's realized that for a while already. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:56, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support we had this argument last year, and the consensus was to post; college basketball and football leauges in the US are in no way "junior" or "amateur" sports. They are dealing with legal adults who are often recruited to a school and given a full scholraship on that basis, and they constitute multi-billion dollar industries followed very widely and passionately across the US. μηδείς (talk) 18:31, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Um, no. Last year's college football playoffs was never posted. George Ho (talk) 19:17, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
@George Ho: I think Medeis is referring to the NCAA 'March Madness' men's basketball tournament, which was posted. 331dot (talk) 19:45, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
This is not college basketball, but we've already compared enough to other sports. --George Ho (talk) 20:05, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
  • (ec)Support per Muboshgu, Old Man Neptune, Correctron, Baseball Bugs, 331dot and Medeis. Americans are weird, okay. We do things in sports that seem bizarre to the rest of the world. No need to use the standards you're used to (college/amateur = causal/low standard of play) against this unique system where 10% of the population watches this college game every year [19] and where half a dozen home games per year causes us to go crazy and build the 8 biggest non-North Korean stadiums on Earth (The Super Bowl was indirectly named after the colleges' bowl shaped stadia). Maybe the second league of England football is not popular (IDK) but remember that America's huge. It's bigger than the continent of Australia, almost has the population of the Eurozone (1/3rd billion) and is 2-3 thousand miles wide. One league cannot satisfy all the demand for football like it can in England. So we have a second league with 128 colleges (if you're wondering this doesn't mean the top teams are weaker by talent dilution, au contraire the powerhouses would just beat the minnows by 80 points to 10 or so similar to Man U playing a team in a lower league) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:25, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support I'll just quote the comment I made last year:[20]

Sports events don't have inherent significance; their significance is cultural. So what that this is a university event? Who cares that it is nominally amateur? It is still an event with huge cultural significance and massive public interest in the US. It may seem strange to us that they care so much about a university tournament, but that's irrelevant. The fact that it is mainly of interest in one country is not disqualifying - we post the Gaelic football championship, which is ITN/R, despite it only being of much interest in Ireland. We do it because of its cultural significance and popularity in that country, and we should post this for the same reason. And frankly this is far more culturally significant and popular that the Boat Race, the one university sporting event that is on ITN/R - that certainly doesn't generate the same level of passion and interest that this does.

I will only add that it seems to me that this is not a second-tier league (like the English Championship), but a completely different sort of tournament. It's not like these are teams that could be in the NFL, but just aren't good enough. This is no more a second-tier tournament than the Champions League is a second tier tournament to the World Cup. Neljack (talk) 19:42, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
False analogy, there is no "world cup" for American Football, and if there was, it'd be the Superbowl. This is not the top level of American Football, and as such it's not suitable for inclusion at ITN when we always post Superbowl. One American Football story per year is sufficient since it is a sport limited to a small proportion of the world. The World Cup draws billions of viewers, as does the Champions League. This, on the other hand, does not. Yes it has impressive stadia, yes it's clearly important to Americans, but otherwise it's trivial. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:55, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Not a great analogy, really. The World Cup is for national teams only; the Champions League is for European club teams only. The Superbowl and this competition are both for club teams, one group competing through city-based franchises and the other competing through educational institutions. In any event, and not wanting to get involved in the rights and wrongs of the above arguments, the article is of poor quality and is probably only intelligible to American football fans in the first place. Perhaps some extra attention to prose, sources, explanations etc would help? Parts of it were still written in the future tense until I changed them just now! BencherliteTalk 20:19, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
But why is that difference relevant, Bencherlite? The point is that this tournament is not a second-tier of the same sort of league. It is a completely different tournament. To consider another case, are we going to stop posting the Premier League on the basis that it is a second-tier tournament of the Champions League? Neljack (talk) 05:05, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose on article quality only, would support on significance. I understand the argument "The world should be the kind of place where this kind of amateur sport doesn't matter to people at the level that it does". It's also an invalid argument when deciding if this is significant enough. This event DOES matter to a large proportion of our audience, if we have a quality article about the event. I can think of no reason why we wouldn't want to direct readers to the information about this recent event, given the level of likely attention to it by our readership, except to make ourselves feel morally superior to that readership simply because we're good enough to not find it important to ourselves. Unfortunately, we don't as yet have a quality article about it. If we get one, as in someone writes it and adds some prose to the current article, we should post this. --Jayron32 19:57, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
    It matters to Americans, no-one else. This is English language Wikipedia, not American sports Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:02, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
    "Please do not oppose an item because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive." I don't particularly care about Gaelic football or Australian rules football,(both of which have a much smaller percentage of the world population as fans) either, but I don't oppose posting them. 331dot (talk) 20:05, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
    The point is that you already have the Superbowl. Why should we post yet another American Football story which clearly doesn't rise to the ITN level of the Superbowl? We don't post minor results in other sports across the globe, why should we make an exception for this? Just because Americans like it? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:38, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
    Why are you arguing? The person opposes, and then as usual the bickering starts over statements. Please get out of the sandbox.... --BabbaQ (talk) 20:43, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
    Come back when you have something useful to add to the discussion. I recommend you learn how to read this opposition vote before you do that, clearly. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:45, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
    I don't "have" anything. The Super Bowl is posted through consensus, not my call or Americans' call to do so. If you consider this a "minor result", it is your right to do so, but there are others who, with good reason, do not. If you wish to propose some sort of limitation on the posting of different competitions in the same sport per country, or even just in general, you know how to do so. 331dot (talk) 20:50, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
    What other niche sports do we post second tier results? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:56, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
    I don't consider this "second tier", just a different competition. 331dot (talk) 21:03, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
    Okay, putting it another way, it's not as important as the Superbowl, is it? So as such, it's second (or, if you prefer, "lower") tier. Or are you going to argue against that too? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:05, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
    If you wish to consider it "second" or "lower", you can; I do not. It's just different. 331dot (talk) 21:09, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
    Is it as significant or notable as the Superbowl? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:13, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
    I'll say it clearer, you can think what you wish, and I'll think what I wish. You can think what you wish about me. I've probably said too much in this already. 331dot (talk) 21:17, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
    So is it as significant or notable as the SUperbowl? You didn't answer. I didn't say anything about you, did I? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:27, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Do we post, for example, the NCAA (US collegiate) men's and women's basketball championships each spring? That would be a direct analogy. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:00, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
    We did post the men's NCAA basketball tournament last year. 331dot (talk) 21:03, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment regarding notability. College football in the US is the most notable and significant of our amateur sports. Historically, the college football season ended with a series of 20 or more "bowl games" between teams that had done well in the regular season, but there was no mechanism for making sure that the best teams played off against each other. Thus, there was no national championship game; the selection of the season's best team was made by a poll of sportswriters and was often debatable and controversial. There were (and are) too many individual bowl games for the result of any one to be ITN'worthy (I candidly don't recall whether we posted the poll results but I doubt it). After many, many years of discussion, the system was changed so that there is now a single national championship game and a process for getting there. This has not by any means eliminated controversy over selecting the teams to play in that game, but it has at least created a system for determining which team is the national champion. While I won't claim that this championship is as important as the Super Bowl winner, it is now comparable to several other events that we usually list in ITN, and since there is now a unique national championship game and outcome, such a listing would be a single annual item at most and therefore would at least be reasonable to post. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:50, 12 January 2016 (UTC
    Yet we would never even consider posting the highest level of amateur football in the United Kingdom. That there are a proliferation of "bowl games" is simply a money-making exercise, nothing more. Why would the rest of the English-speaking world care about college football? The sport is played in a limited number of countries (unlike association football, for instance) and we always post Superbowl within an hour or so of its completion. Adding this college sport is just another foot in the door to the proliferation of further American college sports and sports people at ITN. We don't need to do that, nor should we. We are an international English-speaking encyclopaedia, not a sports ticker for American events. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:00, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
    Beyond the March Madness basketball tournament(for the men) and this, I don't seek any other collegiate sports, as no others get the attention of these two. 331dot (talk) 21:06, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
    Thin end of the wedge. This is becoming a joke now, what with college basketball coaches who win nothing listed at RD, it's as if there's some kind of horrific American college systemic bias at work... Who knew? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:08, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
    TRM drop the stick, 331dot do not take the bait. Move on all of you and stop bickering.. geez.BabbaQ (talk) 21:18, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
    Already there, but I truly appreciate your interjection. 331dot (talk) 21:20, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
    Me too, I hope someone will finally give some reasonable comparison to this college game and the Superbowl. But I truly appreciate your interjection. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:27, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment by the way, regardless of the pathetic bitching, this article isn't actually in a fit state to be featured on the main page in any case. If someone did a good job on writing up some prose on the event, including its impact, significance, etc, then it may help sway some of the opposition. Who knows? In the meantime, we can just slag each other off about the significance of US college sport. Which we all know that inside the US is massive, and outside the US is absolutely meaningless. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:32, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: ITNC votes (ok, ok, "discussions") are usually lacking in hard data; and even if we had hard data, it wouldn't help too much, because frankly, we're trying to maximize more than one variable, and that is usually not possible. We want to choose items that maximize: (a) being in the news (i.e. something in particular is happening now, and hasn't become stale; usually this boils down to "is it one of the top headlines on BBC/New York Times); (b) interesting to our readers (who come from a lot of different places and have a lot of different interests, none of which is really measurable but that doesn't stop us from guessing); (c) educate our readers (yes, elitist though it may be, we often put stuff in ITN that not many readers care about, but that we think they should care about); (d) reduce systematic bias (not just the claimed "pro-US" or "anti-US" bias, but also Young White Male bias, and Anglosphere bias; (e) feeling like an encyclopedia, not a tabloid or Sports Illustrated or the politics section of the Economist; all the while (f) showcasing decent articles. You can see how several of these conflict with each other.
And each of these isn't really measurable in concrete ways. I did some back of the envelope calcs here, for example, comparing the 2015 Boat Race to the 2015 Superbowl to the 2015 College Football championship, just to get an idea. Grabbed first numbers I saw, no idea if they're very accurate (doesn't really matter if they're accurate). But they give very different measures to "level of interest":
2015 Boat Race:
  • 9 million TV viewers (UK) (14% of population)
  • 400 million TV/radio (worldwide) annoyingly, I didn't get this broken down between TV and radio
  • peak traffic to article last year: 10,000/day
2015 Superbowl:
  • 115 million TV viewers (US) (36% of population)
  • 170 million TV viewers (worldwide) just *guessing* but Id assume radio is negligible, it's 4 hours long
  • peak traffic to article last year: 275,000/day
2015 College Football Championship (not yesterday, last year):
  • 35 million TV viewers (US) (11% of population)
  • no worldwide figures, but I have to believe TV viewership is really small compared to Superbowl
  • peak traffic to article last year: 13,000/day
So even for that one idea (popularity) with 3 measurements, it's unclear how you compare them; it depends on how you choose to measure.
Personally, I'd Support based on notability (and on the fact that I personally wish we posted more items with quicker turnover, because no one cares what happened 7 days ago), but Oppose on article quality, but that's based on a gut instinct weighting of all of these unknowable factors, not some scientific analysis. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:12, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Now that's a wise post. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:37, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
By the gods, what is with this obsession that supporters of this article have with comparing amateur sports to The Boat Race? These are two entirely different things.--WaltCip (talk) 02:44, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
The Boat Race is a notable rowing event between two universities that draws wide attention, large crowds, and much interest.(and rightfully is ITNR) This is a large tournament between many colleges, many games of which draw upwards of 100,000 people, and receives wide interest. College sports is not really "amateur", as they probably get more money than you or I do, in scholarships and other money. 331dot (talk) 03:13, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
I brought up the Boat Race because someone else brought it up earlier. And because it's a useful example for the point I was making. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:21, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
What money are you talking about in your claim they probably get more money than you or I do? If an athlete receives more than the cost of his education, that's a violation of the NCAA amateur rules and makes him ineligible to play. LoveToLondon (talk) 07:10, 13 January 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] Oldest teaEdit

No consensus to post to ITN, however, DYK is an option to consider. --Tone 20:34, 13 January 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: History of tea (talk, history) and History of tea in China (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The oldest known physical evidence of tea, dated to the 2nd century BC is found in the mausoleum of Chinese emperor Jing of Han in Xi'an.
News source(s): Nature, The Independent
Nominator and updater: Brandmeister (talk • give credit)

Both articles updated

Nominator's comments: According to Nature, this shifts the earliest known physical evidence of tea from Northern Song Dynasty to 2nd century BC. Update is open to further expansion. Brandmeistertalk 13:40, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
  • What does this have to do with the price of tea in China? ... Sorry, I couldn't resist. Support if this claim can be backed up by other reliable sources.--WaltCip (talk) 13:42, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I'd need a bit more evidence that this is a significant change. According to our article, "" (tu, bitter vegetable) appears in records as early as the 10th century BC and seems to refer to tea. This discovery just seems to be backing up what archives already told us. Smurrayinchester 15:00, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
    • Per article, "the first unambiguous textual reference to the consumption of tea as a beverage can be dated to 59 BCE during the Western Han Dynasty". So that 荼 seems to be ambiguous, unless some reliable source states otherwise. PS: Since The Independent broke the story several hours ago, I placed it here, but wouldn't mind moving it to January 7, when Nature published the related article. Brandmeistertalk 16:37, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - A significant finding on a popular beverage. STSC (talk) 16:55, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose, marginally pushes the unequivocal date of tea use back from 59 BCE to 2100 BP which means either 84 BCE or 150 BCE depending on how the authors mean BP. Abductive (reasoning) 18:42, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support interesting discovery and something readers would probably like to read more about. MurielMary (talk) 20:47, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - interesting and significant finding, readers will indeed find it interesting. --BabbaQ (talk) 22:00, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose target article commences with "An early credible record of tea drinking dates to the 3rd century AD". Nope. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:04, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
    • "Early", but not "earliest". Feel the difference. Brandmeistertalk 12:13, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose Not really in the news (solid scientific research picked up by one newspaper) and an expected result. Even the researchers don't consider the (expected) finding in China a huge discovery, and their paper instead emphasizes the finding in Tibet and makes conclusions on the history of the silk road based on that. LoveToLondon (talk) 04:46, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose per the arguments given by LoveToLondon, Abductive and BabbaQ. Though the latter interestingly saw it as an argument in favor of an ITN post, "readers will find it interesting" is the prototype argument for a Did you know feature. ITN however is about breaking news that is already widely covered in mainstream media. That doesn't seem to be the case here. --PanchoS (talk) 15:27, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
    You are mistaken if you believe that ITN is all about breaking news that is already widely covered in mainstream media. PanchoS.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:29, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose the steeping and brewing of plant material has been going on for tens of thousands of years, no doubt. Words like wine, mead, hemp, and soma have very old provenances. μηδείς (talk) 18:06, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose: This is a DYK item if I've ever seen one. Trivia, fun but not really "news". -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:49, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Kudzu. This is trivial. So we knew tea was consumed long ago, and now we know it was consumed a little longer ago. Not earth shattering, not especially significant. I'll stick with coffee. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:30, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment to Panchos - in the ITN purpose statement, the following is listed as a reason for posting: "To point readers to subjects they might not have been looking for but nonetheless may interest them." I take that to mean that "reader interest" is a valid criteria to judge nominations on. MurielMary (talk) 07:38, 13 January 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.

[Removed] Remove Syrian Civil War from Ongoing?Edit

Syrian Civil War is still on the news and ongoing. However, I have yet to see substantial updates of key events from this month. Also, the section that was linked in the Main Page hasn't had one update since 18 December 2015. George Ho (talk) 00:39, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Support removal of this article, or replacement with a different suitable target article. Target article, if this or otherwise, needs to be receiving consistent updates. SpencerT♦C 01:03, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Most of what is out of this is tied to the migrant crisis. --MASEM (t) 01:09, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
You mean keep or remove? --George Ho (talk) 01:18, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose because the war is clearly still ongoing, and it has had a history of generating news, many of which have international consequences (e.g. the Sukhoi shootdown incident). I do not consider the article not being updated consistently to be an important factor. Banedon (talk) 01:31, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
    • Ongoing is not meant for slow-moving but continuing stories. If it does change that suddenly there's day-to-day violence we can readd it but it should not languish in a slow period. --MASEM (t) 01:47, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
    • From Wikipedia:In_the_news#Ongoing_section: "The purpose of the ongoing section is to maintain a link to a continuously updated Wikipedia article...". Therefore, "I do not consider the article not being updated consistently to be an important factor." doesn't make much sense. If you prefer Ongoing items don't have this requirement, that's something that you should probably bring up at WT:ITN. SpencerT♦C 07:42, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
      • Did that before but it didn't gain consensus. Which is fine - consensus after all does not mean every editor agrees with the consensus. With that said, first half of what I wrote is not related to this. Banedon (talk) 08:04, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support removal Not a single significant contents update to the article for at least 2 weeks is clear proof that either the event is no longer ongoing, or that the article is very outdated and should be removed from ITN for quality reasons (in this case the latter is true). LoveToLondon (talk) 07:32, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support removal per Spencer ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 08:07, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support removal, not being updated sufficiently. BencherliteTalk 10:20, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Removed. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:39, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

January 10Edit

Portal:Current events/2016 January 10

[Closed] RD: Jeanne CordovaEdit

Stale. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:19, 16 January 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: Jeanne Cordova (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Frontiers Media Windy City Times Curve magazine Advocate.com Statement from Equality California Lesbian News Human Rights Campaign South Florida Gay News
Nominator: Ihcoyc (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: Appears to have been a fairly important and recognized early LGBTQ activist and author. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 05:49, 13 January 2016 (UTC) Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 05:49, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I don't know whether to oppose or support. Her LGBTQ movement causes has influenced just the United States. She hasn't influenced other regions. George Ho (talk) 06:47, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose This isn't in the news: The source listed in the nomination is a blog, and Google news doesn't find any media reports on her death outside of LGBTQ media. LoveToLondon (talk) 07:19, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Tricky to assess but I support - referring to the RD criteria of "regarded as important/significant in their field" it looks like she would pass as she pioneered many initiatives for lesbians e.g. in politics and journalism, and was recognised and awarded for these achievements. There is actually no requirement in the RD criteria that the death be reported in mainstream media, therefore the fact that her death is announced in alternative/non-mainstream media isn't a valid argument in opposition. MurielMary (talk) 09:25, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose popular but not in the news, not widely reported, indicative that the individual wasn't important in their field. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:16, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose; does not seem to meet the RD criteria, as mainstream sources seem minimal. 331dot (talk) 18:18, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment there is no mention in the RD criteria (that I can see) of the RD needing to be mentioned in mainstream media. MurielMary (talk) 18:58, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
    • While there is no requirement in general, for a figure that is said to have been important in the LGBTQ movement, the lack of mainstream coverage begs if that importance is really as claimed. LGBTQ rights is definitely is an area the mainstream media covers in depth, so one would expect in this case to be able to find sources for this outside of the LGBTQ field. --MASEM (t) 19:14, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
      • I'll second what Masem said- and stress that I'm not seeing a peep of this in the news. If this person was "very important" to their field(the relevant criterion) there should be something, not even necessarily a top story. 331dot (talk) 19:34, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
        • And to add a counterpoint, in the case of the chessmaster Ivan Bukavshin above, I would not expect to see coverage of his death in mainstream media (even limiting it to Russian media), and would be satisfied to see the coverage from more limited scope of chess news sites/etc. to support importance. Same would be true for, say, groundbreaking scientists and other academics that are not the type of topics mainstream stories regularly cover. --MASEM (t) 20:10, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
          • I do think that it depends on the situation- but for this one, I would expect someone important to a particular social movement to have some degree of reporting in regular news(again, even if not a top story). 331dot (talk) 20:32, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support per MurierMary. It seems to me that requiring coverage in "mainstream" news media for members of minority groups poses a real risk of systemic bias. Neljack (talk) 05:18, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
  • This is "In the news"; things posted must be shown to be in the news to some degree. Niche publications aren't necessarily that, even if they might be sometimes(I don't think they are here). As I indicate above, it doesn't have to be a top story, but its being in the news is an indicator of the subject's notability and also the potential audience interested in learning about it. 331dot (talk) 14:06, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
  • The issue though is "In *whose* news" ... if something is news in a niche/minority area then that's "In the news" for people involved in that area. There's an argument for an encyclopaedia to be inclusive and to acknowledge achievements in all areas not only those featured in the standard mainstream. MurielMary (talk) 22:45, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Her achievements are acknowledged and included through having an article. Anything else(like posting to ITN) is a bonus. This is "In the news", not "Good people Wikipedia Users Who Work at ITNC Think You Should Know About". I don't expect every person to be a top story, large print headline, but I haven't seen even one story about this buried in the news. I find it difficult to claim she was "very important" to her field if no one wants to run a story on her death, especially given recent gay rights developments in America. 331dot (talk) 12:20, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Within her field, and especially her career timeframe, I think she qualifies. It must be admitted that requiring mainstream coverage is practically endorsing systemic bias - not just against certain fields, but strongly towards entertainment related fields, which I think leads to poor practice on both sides. On some level, the importance of the field itself could matter - but LGBTQ rights unarguably meets that criteria. - OldManNeptune 14:00, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
    • But LGBTQ issues are hardly the no-go area for mainstream media that they once were - so why hasn't her death been picked up more widely there? BencherliteTalk 09:05, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
      • Presumably because mainstream press has different priorities. We could ask quite a few interesting questions about mainstream media that generally all come back to "because it's driven by money." No cynicism is even required - it is overtly the case, and I believe any reasoning person would have to acknowledge that this introduces unavoidable bias (which, I hasten to mention, is not always or necessarily malevolent - but it does necessarily exist), and hence confers that same bias to anyone relying on it as a chief or only source. It is unreasonable to think that we will eliminate all systemic bias from Wikipedia, as we ourselves confer our own biases to our work, but we probably should not adhere to a rule which we can easily demonstrate introduces an identifiable external bias. - OldManNeptune 11:35, 15 January 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] RD: George JonasEdit

No consensus. Stephen 23:09, 14 January 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: George Jonas (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): National Post
Nominator: George Ho (talk • give credit)
Updater: 192.235.252.195 (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 Canadian Jewish author, who wrote Vengeance, a novel later adapted into the film, Munich. Article probably decent. George Ho (talk) 12:06, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose There's nothing among the awards or other accomplishments indicating he was important enough for RD. LoveToLondon (talk) 13:38, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak support on the merits given the recognition he got, but the article does not go into much detail about it(like what exactly the awards were for) so I'm not sure it's ready for posting. 331dot (talk) 15:38, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose His obit reads as an interesting person but doesn't seem to meet the RD criteria of "important/significant" in his field. MurielMary (talk) 20:39, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose moderate sprinkling of middling awards but not enough to push him above the bar. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:06, 11 January 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 blurb] RD (maybe blurb) David BowieEdit

Article: David Bowie#Death (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: Musician, songwriter, and producer David Bowie dies at 69.
News source(s): Hollywood Reporter, Billboard
Nominator: Masem (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: Importance to music should be clear, hence the possibility for a blurb. RD is no question. MASEM (t) 06:57, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Support blurb. Household name, music pioneer, pop culture icon, legend. The world is that much darker tonight. He'd just released his latest album to critical acclaim, too. -Kudzu1 (talk) 07:10, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support blurb Major 1970s musician, article is FA class. Mjroots (talk) 07:11, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support blurb – iconic musician and doesn't hurt at all that the article is FA class. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 07:20, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support blurb one of the best known of his time and top of his field. RIP. —Jonny Nixon (talk) 07:22, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support blurb Very well known and influential internationally. - Kollision (talk) 07:23, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment Just to add support for a blurb: as Kudzu points out he just released an album 2 days prior, on his 69th birthday, and this day (the 10th) there was an announcement of a big Carnegie Hall tribute event for him, before the world knew of his death. While he was getting up there and his medical condition known, this falls into the "surprising" aspect that we do consider blurbs for, but that's atop his significance to music. --MASEM (t) 07:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support blurb, meets the criteria. © Tbhotch (en-2.5). 07:32, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support full blurb Just seen this on the BBC. How sad. RIP. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:46, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
comment Need some more update ...but twitter, etc reactions should followLihaas (talk) 07:55, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support blurb Top of his profession, internationally known.LM2000 (talk) 07:58, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Posted blurb - This is an obvious one, and the article looks fine. --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:02, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Obvious RD, but a blurb? Really? Isn't this opening the floodgates rather? Not sure I'm arguing for it to be pulled as yet, but how many aging rockers are we going to post blurbs for? Since his death was, AFAICT, entirely expected, I'm guessing the support for the blurb must be on the grounds that he was of similar stature to Nelson Mandela and Margaret Thatcher. Really? GoldenRing (talk) 12:32, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
    • The standard is not in fact "is the person of similar stature to Mandela and Thatcher?", as the history of RD-vs-blurb shows. Was Bowie at least as important to music as Maya Angelou was to literature or Christopher Lee to acting (to give two names that I remember having appeared in full blurbs)? Yes. And the ITN crew seems capable of distinguishing between "aging rockers" - compare Lemmy getting a RD with this. Post-posting support blurb. BencherliteTalk 12:53, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
    • First, the "Mandela and Thatcher" standard is bupkis. We have posted swathes and swathes of people to a blurb that arguably would not compare to these two individuals. Besides which, if any artist or musician deserves the blurb posting, that artist is Bowie simply because of his undeniable international recognition and the fact that he is at the pinnacle of his field. Post-posting support blurb.--WaltCip (talk) 13:02, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
      • If you want that to be the case, you need to start a discussion at WP:ITN. The criteria currently include: For deaths where the person's life is the main story ... the "recent deaths" section is usually used, and In rare cases, the death of major transformative world leaders in their field may merit a blurb. Is the argument then that David Bowie was a "major transformative world leader" in music? I can't see it. Maybe it's just my taste in music, but doesn't that tell you something? If someone's significance depends on your taste in music, I'm not seeing the case for a blurb. GoldenRing (talk) 13:53, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
        • There is a reason why we have WP:IAR and we work with consensus rather than being instruction creeps.--WaltCip (talk) 14:00, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
        • GoldenRing you said it yourself perfectly (perfectly and 100% incorrect that is) "...If someone's significance depends on your taste in music...". No. Exactly not that. We are here to judge significance regardless of personal preference. Bowie's influence over the past 40-odd years is indisputable with luminaries of the music industry from five decades telling us how influential he was. It's nothing to do with whether you liked Let's Dance or Under Pressure or any of his other oeuvre, it's that the world generally was moved by him. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:09, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
          • This might be something to explore more on the talk page, but this idea "the world being moved by his/her death" is really a good metric to determine the difference between blurb or RD. It applies rather well to many of the recent blurbs that I can think of (including Mandela, Thatcher, Robin Williams, and Christopher Lee), and distinguishing them from good RD candidates (Lemmy, Leonard Nimoy, etc.). The reaction to Bowie's death some 24hr later is still pouring in, so it was definitely affirming the blurb by this metric. But I also think the fact we had a quality article to start with was a clear factor too.--MASEM (t) 00:20, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
            • I'm clearly in a minority (of approximately one, it seems). I'll let it go here, I think. GoldenRing (talk) 10:58, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
    • Post-posting support for blurb. Bencherlite puts it better than I could have hoped to. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:03, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
      • Too kind, but WaltCip put it even better. BencherliteTalk 13:07, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
        • Well, I wasn't going to say anything but we had an e/c as he wrote what he did. You're both better at describing this than I could hope to. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:08, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
          • Thanks for the kind words! :)--WaltCip (talk) 13:20, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support for blurb per WaltCip and Bencherlite. They both put it well, and Bowie is definitely the kind of person who passes a blurb threshold. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:18, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support for blurb Without David Bowie the modern pop-music landscape would be very, very different (I can't imagine MTV having happened the way it did without Bowie having been one of the trailblazers, one of the first to put as much thought into his look as his sound). It's easier to say who wasn't influenced by Bowie over the past four decades than who was (Or maybe not, since the former might not have been so successful). Daniel Case (talk) 20:33, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support for blurb - Thousands of people out in London, Berlin, New York. Tributes from everybody, including the PM and the archbishop of Canterbury, SEVENTEEN minutes on the BBC news, ahead of doctor strikes etc. I think blurb may be appropriate. Fgf10 (talk) 22:20, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support for blurb - Going to add to the list of support for blurb even though I'm late. Also, as a Lemmy and Bowie fan, I will add that I support the way we handled both listings. Lemmy, as great as he was, is at the level of an RD listing and Bowie rises to the level of blurb. Great job, all, but so sorry to see to icons gone in such a short time! Rhodesisland (talk) 23:54, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Right now it's getting close to the bottom. When shall we move Bowie to RD? George Ho (talk) 18:35, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
When it drops off the bottom, as long as there's room in the RD section and it isn't stale by then. --Bongwarrior (talk) 19:09, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

January 9Edit

Portal:Current events/2016 January 9

[Closed] RD Ed StewartEdit

No consensus to post Mjroots (talk)
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: Ed Stewart (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC Guardian
Nominator: Mjroots (talk • give credit)
Updater: Martinevans123 (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: Veteran BBC Radio 2 DJ, active as recently as Xmas 2015. Also noted for presenting Crackerjack (TV series)Mjroots (talk) 21:38, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose doesn't appear to be any more significant than any other TV presenter. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:00, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Would not be any more significant than any other TV presenter, as he was mainly a radio presenter. At least actually read the nom before you oppose. Fgf10 (talk) 13:07, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Or radio presenter. I read the article and was not impressed. The "TV" at the end of the nom stuck with me when I wrote my oppose. Assume good faith. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:03, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
The host. The program wasn't built around him and he didn't have Roger's iconic status. Stephen 22:22, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Not that big a name really. Fgf10 (talk) 13:07, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Evergreen figure in UK broadcasting, of particular interest to those who grew up with him. Andrew D. (talk) 14:58, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose minor figure in broadcasting, not a Tony Blackburn, Terry Wogan etc, and just because he was on Crackerjack, moderate popularity with a particular generation of British children hardly qualifies him at RD. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:01, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
    • "Crackerjack!" (ok, that will only make sense to fellow-members of that particular generation of British children that TRM mentions...) He was one of the original Radio 1 DJs as well, but was not as important to broadcasting as some of his colleagues, so oppose as well. BencherliteTalk 10:28, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose Nostalgic, but not that significant. Stephen 22:22, 10 January 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] Remove European migrant crisis from Ongoing?Edit

No consensus to remove, as probably evidenced by the lead story on the BBC just today. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:15, 9 January 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.

Checking updates, the editing of "European migrant crisis" has mellowed (or slowed down). Updates seem to involve Finland and Sweden, but they do not majorly affect the crisis. Ongoing or not, it might no longer qualify for Main Page. --George Ho (talk) 00:38, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep Still a main news event many countries. Mind the -purported- relationship with the Cologne events on new year's eve, which are marked as a turning point in the public acceptance in Germany; besides legal challenges of the migrant distribution regulation by Hungary; closure of more borders (Denmark-Sweden last week) and the start of the rapid response border guard... L.tak (talk) 13:26, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep – Per L.tak. Sca (talk) 14:28, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep – still a major news story all over the world basically.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:19, 9 January 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.

January 8Edit

Portal:Current events/2016 January 8

[Posted] RD: Maria Teresa de FilippisEdit

Article: Maria Teresa de Filippis (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Fox Sports, Guardian, La Gazzetta dello Sport
Nominator: Fuebaey (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: Pioneering Italian motor racing driver. First woman to start and one of five to have competed in the male-dominated sport that is Formula 1 racing (Spa, 1958). Fuebaey (talk) 22:35, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Support - notable, leading in her field; article seems thoroughly cited. MurielMary (talk) 08:10, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - Per nominator. Marvel Hero (talk) 08:23, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support on notability, in particular as F1 is a worldwide sport and females compete alongside male drivers. - OldManNeptune 11:15, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - Being the first female in F1; also, article in good shape. George Ho (talk) 22:49, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD Stephen 00:02, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] El Chapo is recapturedEdit

I disagree with the posting, but the item has been posted, and further comment is unhelpful μηδείς (talk) 01:18, 11 January 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: Joaquín Guzmán (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Mexican drug lord Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzman is recaptured six months after escaping from prison.
News source(s): [21]
Nominator: BabbaQ (talk • give credit)

Article updated

 BabbaQ (talk) 20:05, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Hope this time they'll put him behind bars for good. Update may be slightly expanded. Brandmeistertalk 20:15, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Newsworthy. Curro2 (talk) 20:34, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support: Clearly newsworthy -- one of the world's most wanted fugitives. -Kudzu1 (talk) 20:36, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Just as the escape was notable enough to post, the capture is as well. Mamyles (talk) 20:45, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. Yep, a big deal. And hopefully, we won't be having any more escaped / captured posts for Guzman after this. Dragons flight (talk) 20:52, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Notable criminal, notable escape, notable manhunt, notable capture. Proposed image is non-free. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:55, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment certainly a rapid and clear consensus, and the article is in very good condition. Posting 64 minutes after nomination, I wonder how many people would crucify me for that? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:10, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
    • Sometimes, 64 minutes is more than sufficient. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:33, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
      • Yeah, thanks. Not according to some though. Just wait. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:34, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Strong Support. Notable as a criminal and for method of escape. The fact he was captured relatively quickly also adds to it. CrashUnderride 21:27, 8 January 2016 (UTC)