*'''Oppose''' an intercollegiate rowing event is more important than the Bulgarian general election? And needs to be nominated by an IP? No. I don't think so. This ould never be nominated on any other edition of WP. [[User:Medeis|μηδείς]] ([[User talk:Medeis|talk]]) 17:28, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' an intercollegiate rowing event is more important than the Bulgarian general election? And needs to be nominated by an IP? No. I don't think so. This ould never be nominated on any other edition of WP. [[User:Medeis|μηδείς]] ([[User talk:Medeis|talk]]) 17:28, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
::Struck comment that has no place here (the event is part of ITNR). 17:31, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
::Struck comment that has no place here (the event is part of ITNR). 17:31, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
::Sheesh {{replyto|Medeis}}, what '''is''' your problem with IPs?! [[WP:IPHUMAN]] [[Special:Contributions/72.46.247.116|72.46.247.116]] ([[User talk:72.46.247.116|talk]]) 16:31, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
*Marked as ready. [[User:Mjroots|Mjroots]] ([[User talk:Mjroots|talk]]) 17:39, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
*Marked as ready. [[User:Mjroots|Mjroots]] ([[User talk:Mjroots|talk]]) 17:39, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
*I've removed it and am formally stating '''oppose''' to it until it gets updated and/or there is an actual consensus to post. Also unstriking comment; if [[User:Medeis|μηδείς]] wants to amend their post, they can. An uninvolved admin can assess a relevant consensus otherwise. A nominator striking comments they dislike doesn't come off very well. [[Special:Contributions/Fuebaey|Fuebaey]] ([[User talk:Fuebaey|talk]]) 17:53, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
*I've removed it and am formally stating '''oppose''' to it until it gets updated and/or there is an actual consensus to post. Also unstriking comment; if [[User:Medeis|μηδείς]] wants to amend their post, they can. An uninvolved admin can assess a relevant consensus otherwise. A nominator striking comments they dislike doesn't come off very well. [[Special:Contributions/Fuebaey|Fuebaey]] ([[User talk:Fuebaey|talk]]) 17:53, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
This candidates page is integrated with the daily pages of Portal:Current events. A light green header appears under each daily section – it includes transcluded Portal:Current events items for that day. You can discuss ITN candidates under the header.
Blurbs are one-sentence summaries of the news story.
Altblurbs, labelled alt1, alt2, etc., are alternative suggestions to cover the same story.
A target article, bolded in text, is the focus of the story. Each blurb must have at least one such article, but you may also link non-target articles.
Articles in the Ongoing line describe events getting continuous coverage.
The Recent deaths (RD) line includes any living thing whose death was recently announced. Consensus may decide to create a blurb for a recent death.
All articles linked in the ITN template must pass our standards of review. They should be up-to-date, demonstrate relevance via good sourcing and have at least an acceptable quality.
Nomination steps
Make sure the item you want to nominate has an article that meets our minimum requirements and contains reliable coverage of a current event you want to create a blurb about. We will not post about events described in an article that fails our quality standards.
Find the correct section below for the date of the event (not the date nominated). Do not add sections for new dates manually – a bot does that for us each day at midnight (UTC).
Create a level 4 header with the article name (==== Your article here ====). Add (RD) or (Ongoing) if appropriate.
Then paste the {{ITN candidate}} template with its parameters and fill them in. The news source should be reliable, support your nomination and be in the article. Write your blurb in simple present tense. Below the template, briefly explain why we should post that event. After that, save your edit. Your nomination is ready!
You may add {{ITN note}} to the target article's talk page to let editors know about your nomination.
The better your article's quality, the better it covers the event and the wider its perceived significance (see WP:ITNSIGNIF for details), the better your chances of getting the blurb posted.
When the article is ready, updated and there is consensus to post, you can mark the item as (Ready). Remove that wording if you feel the article fails any of these necessary criteria.
Admins should always separately verify whether these criteria are met before posting blurbs marked (Ready). For more guidance, check WP:ITN/A.
If satisfied, change the header to (Posted).
Where there is no consensus, or the article's quality remains poor, change the header to (Closed) or (Not posted).
Sometimes, editors ask to retract an already-posted nomination because of a fundamental error or because consensus changed. If you feel the community supports this, remove the item and mark the item as (Pulled).
Voicing an opinion on an item
Format your comment to contain "support" or "oppose", and include a rationale for your choice. In particular, address the notability of the event, the quality of the article, and whether it has been updated.
Pick an older item to review near the bottom of this page, before the eligibility runs out and the item scrolls off the page and gets abandoned in the archive, unused and forgotten.
Review an item even if it has already been reviewed by another user. You may be the first to spot a problem, or the first to confirm that an identified problem was fixed. Piling on the list of "support!" votes will help administrators see what is ready to be posted on the Main Page.
Tell about problems in articles if you see them. Be bold and fix them yourself if you know how, or tell others if it's not possible.
Add simple "support!" or "oppose!" votes without including your reasons. Similarly, curt replies such as "who?", "meh", or "duh!" are not helpful. A vote without reasoning means little for us, please elaborate yourself.
Oppose an item just because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. We post a lot of such content, so these comments are generally unproductive.
Accuse other editors of supporting, opposing or nominating due to a personal bias (such as ethnocentrism). We at ITN do not handle conflicts of interest.
Comment on a story without first reading the relevant article(s).
A mother and two children drown after their car plunges into the flooded Tweed River, raising the death toll to eight people. A ten-year-old girl escapes and alerts authorities. (News.com.au)
Russian authorities arrest more than 100 gay men in Chechnya, including television personalities and religious figures, for "nontraditional sexual orientation." The Novaya Gazeta newspaper reported that three of the arrested men have been killed, while others reportedly were released for family honor killing. Chechen Republic leaderRamzan Kadyrov's spokesperson said this report contains “absolute lies and disinformation” since there are no homosexuals in Chechnya. (The Guardian)(The New York Times)
Media reports indicate that former National Security AdvisorSusan Rice improperly requested the unmasking of some American names, including those of Donald Trump's campaign staff, that had been incidentally collected during national security investigations. A National Security Adviser may request unmasking if specific criteria are met. A Rice associate denies that the unmasking was improper. (Fox News)(Business Insider)(The Blaze)
Wait Clearly going to be posted at some point, but let's make sure we have the details in place. It looks like they found an unexploded device elsewhere in the system, so that might affect the naming of the article for example. --MASEM (t) 13:39, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Article needs updating The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Nominator's comments: Results coming in. The Republican Party of Armenia has definitely won with just shy of 50% of votes. Seat numbers so far unclear, and the seat-allocating system seems quite complicated. Reports are equivocal about whether the Republican party will have enough seats for government without a coalition partner. LukeSurltc11:28, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Article needs updating The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Nominator's comments: Full official results are yet to come in, however it looks like Lenin Moreno will narrowly win but his opponent is alleging fraud. LukeSurltc08:49, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Nominator's comments: Vučić has declared victory and is well ahead in exit polls, in a significant election for head of state of a populous country. Neegzistuoja (talk) 08:12, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral – The article's quality is the only thing that could be holding such a blurb back, and right now I'm not sure if this article is up to par. There's awfully little prose in it. ~Mable (chat) 13:06, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A bus carrying around 50 school children rolls over on a highway south of Sveg in the northern region of Härjedalen, Sweden, killing three people. (Reuters)
Law and crime
An attack occurs at a Sufi shrine near Sargodha, Pakistan, killing more than 20 people. Authorities arrest a main suspect and several others. (BBC)
Voters in Ecuador return to the polls for the second round of a presidential election, which Lenín Moreno of the socialist PAIS Alliance is predicted to narrowly win over the center-right Creating Opportunities's Guillermo Lasso. With 94.18% of the votes counted, Moreno leads with 51.07%. According to the national election commission, it was a transparent and successful election. (SBS News)(TeleSUR)
Nominator's comments: Focus on the social unrest in French Guiana. The article could be expanded (there are articles in The New York Times, etc.). Open to other blurb suggestions. Zigzig20s (talk) 07:19, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose article is a stub, article is very poorly written, events seem to have started two weeks ago and the latest update here seems to be from about five days ago, so stale as well. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:35, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The article doesn't mention anything happening since March 28, which is what TRM means. Nothing is mentioned as happening on April 2; the fact that some information was added to the article on April 2 doesn't mean that it's still fresh. BencherliteTalk09:54, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
One or both nominated events are listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Nominator's comments: An important and magnificent occasion. Having taken place since before many countries were even founded, this race between the world's greatest universities is watched by hundreds of thousands, with hundreds of millions more watching on television. Despite annual cries of jealousy from some of those having no relationship to the universities, and confusion and misunderstanding from some of our colonial friends, the Boat Race remains the pinnacle of amateur sport and a much loved event in British society. 87.210.99.206 (talk) 14:31, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator. It should be noted that ITNR only includes 'The Boat Race', which is the men's (main) race. I presume we also want to include the women's race, but others might think differently because it has nowhere near the same prestige. The same goes for the Reserve Boat Race and the Women's Reserve Boat Race: do we want these included? 87.210.99.206 (talk) 14:36, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support on the merits is not required since this is ITNR. Last year we posted the men's and women's, but not the reserves, which I think is the right thing to do. 331dot (talk) 14:38, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but ITNR only includes 'The Boat Race'; that is, not the women's race. That is why there is a bit of ambiguity. I'd be supportive either way. 87.210.99.206 (talk) 14:44, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd need to look but I think we are simply trying to avoid instruction creep. If the women's event occurred on a different day or in a different place, it might need to be listed separately, but these races are basically one event. The reserves, though, are a second tier and shouldn't be mentioned. 331dot (talk) 14:48, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It depends how you see it. Up until a couple of years ago, the women's race was on a different day in a different place. It certainly would not get on ITNR on its own merits (and there are very strong arguments for its also being 'second tier'). However, do we want to be more fair, even if we are pushing ITNR rules? I'm open-minded here and would be interested to hear what others think. 87.210.99.206 (talk) 14:51, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support only the men/women's race, with the usual expectation that the race article will be up to par once the race is completed. Judging by the coverage of the Reserves races in previous years, it's like the Pro Bowl to the Super Bowl - of nearly no importance to the big major event. --MASEM (t) 18:43, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Despite annual cries of jealousy from some of those having no relationship to the universities, and confusion and misunderstanding from some of our colonial friends". Really? Sigh. Black Kite (talk)19:55, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Since the event hasn't occurred, we cannot judge the quality of the update. When we have prose describing the results of the event, we can assess it. --Jayron3220:05, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
CommentWP:ITN/R#Sports notes "Every entry applies to the conclusion of the men's and women's events (when simultaneous) in the tournament or series, unless otherwise specified." which was added by consensus last year. The men's and women's boat races will both take place on the same course tomorrow (closer together than the Wimbledon finals for example), and so both races are on ITN/R. Thryduulf (talk) 20:29, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is rather misleading. The same link explicitly uses the term 'The Boat Race' to describe what is included in ITNR. 'The Boat Race' is a single (men's) race: it does not include the women's race. This might be taken to be 'otherwise specified'. It is certainly nowhere near as clear-cut as you claim. If it should be, I would suggest a change to the page. 87.210.99.206 (talk) 21:07, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the event is now referred to as "The Boat Races" and that includes both men's and women's senior races. The term "The Boat Race" is now deprecated and refers to only historical events. "The Boat Races" also happens to include Goldie/Isis and Blondie/Osiris these days, but common sense should prevail, and we should post the winners of both the men's and women's senior race. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:07, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is it worth updating WP:ITNR to make this clear, then? What concerns me is that previous discussion has always focused on the Boat Race: do we have consensus for adding the women's race there, too? Either way, thank you for your incredible help with these articles! 87.210.99.206 (talk) 23:15, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm sure it'll be updated soon after the conclusion of the race, but if not, then I'll make sure it's up to scratch by about 10:00 p.m. (my time) tomorrow evening. Having said that, it might not even be rowed tomorrow so we'll have to see. Hopefully people can see that from the work done thusfar, the article (like its predecessors) will be complete, comprehensive (and featured, as it happens) and ready for ITN as soon as practicable. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:30, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As discussed above, at the moment, ITNR only includes 'The Boat Race' (that is, the main (men's) race). There seems to be support for including the women's race, too. I have made a suggestion at the ITNR discussion page so we can get this cleared up for next year. 87.210.99.206 (talk) 08:17, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Already this has reached an obvious support. I have closed in favour and changed the ITNR entry to make it clear that both races should be included. 87.210.99.206 (talk) 08:56, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No offence, but you seem to be the only person confused about this point.
a) Several editors above have pointed out that the preface to WP:ITNSPORTS applies here.
b) That preface was added almost a year ago after the 2016 Boat Race nomination and the resultant WT:ITNR discussion. One would think then that it would apply to the same nom the following year.
c) The pseudo-proposal you started on WT:ITNR with only two other participants, who both re-stated a), which you closed with your own opinion in 40 minutes, was pretty much splitting hairs.
The race still hasn't even started yet, let alone finished. No race = no update = no post. That there are no news sources attached to this nomination emphasises this. Other than ITN morphing into a future events portal, no amount of meta discussion is going to get this posted any quicker. Fuebaey (talk) 15:38, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Even if the preface to ITNSPORTS applies, ITNR only listed a single event: 'The Boat Race'; that is, the main (men's) race. There is clear consensus to include the women's race, too. ITNR has now been updated to include both events. You should thank me instead of failing to grasp the logic. As for having this posted, it will be updated and posted very soon. As it stands, ITNR has been improved and the nomination is ready for this important event. 87.210.99.206 (talk) 15:58, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose an intercollegiate rowing event is more important than the Bulgarian general election? And needs to be nominated by an IP? No. I don't think so. This ould never be nominated on any other edition of WP. μηδείς (talk) 17:28, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Struck comment that has no place here (the event is part of ITNR). 17:31, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
I've removed it and am formally stating oppose to it until it gets updated and/or there is an actual consensus to post. Also unstriking comment; if μηδείς wants to amend their post, they can. An uninvolved admin can assess a relevant consensus otherwise. A nominator striking comments they dislike doesn't come off very well. Fuebaey (talk) 17:53, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The article is not yet ready, The_Boat_Races_2017#Races is not updated adequately yet. Neither however should we be bogged down with notability questions on this, the place for that is WT:ITN/Rat any other time of the year other than when the item is "active". --LukeSurltc19:15, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support the basic information for each of the two races is in place, the article has be edited for tense issues, I will continue to expand it of course but there's nothing technically holding this back from posting to the main page now. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:33, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Midnightblueowl: This is on the recurring items list, which is why it was posted, and it has survived attempts to remove it. I would suggest reviewing the discussions regarding it to learn why this is a significant event in rowing and merits a place on the list. In short, it is a unique cultural event drawing hundreds of thousands to watch it live and millions on TV- aside from being significant to rowing itself(even more so than the world championships). 331dot (talk) 11:07, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A landslide in Colombia's southwestern border department of Putumayo sends mud and debris crashing onto houses killing over 250 people and injuring at least 400 others. In addition, 200 people are missing. (Hindustan Times)(Reuters)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Support on expansion Definitely a significant disaster for ITN but we have only a few sentences in this article, needs expansion. --MASEM (t) 20:39, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support on expansion - Please do add this section should we get a little more information. 250 people dead so far [1] so very important. Ravivyas1613:05, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Russian poet, also a novelist, essayist, dramatist, screenwriter, publisher, actor, editor and director of several films. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:25, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So, it's possible to copy them all across. Is it adequate to rely on translate.google.co.uk to validate their content? If not, we'll be no further forward. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:09, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(a) it's notable for RD because it has an article. (b) it's not about "lots of references", it's about everything that could be challenged being referenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:50, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: The demonstrations occurred due to a constitutional amendment that would permit President Horacio Cartes to run for re-election, a move described by the opposition as "a coup." 45.116.233.50 (talk) 17:04, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Officials state that repairs will take months following a fire that collapsed a bridge on Interstate 85 in Atlanta, Georgia. Police arrest three individuals in connection with the disaster, charging two with criminal trespass and one with first degree criminal damage. (WSB TV)
International relations
At a NATO meeting, German foreign ministerSigmar Gabriel rejects as "quite unrealistic" the belief that Germany would spend 2% of GDP on the military. He says other spending such as development aid should be taken into account. (BBC)
Some individuals set the Congress of Paraguay on fire. The attack occurs during a protest against a bill that would let the president seek re-election. (BBC)
Women's basketball Mississippi State defeats four-time defending national champion Connecticut 66–64, ending the Huskies' NCAA-record winning streak at 111 games. (AP via ESPN)
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
I've asked someone who may have one to upload it, but haven't heard back yet. By the way, we are citing his own website in three instances, which should be avoided. Is there a way to replace this with an RS please?Zigzig20s (talk) 06:27, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
A fire results in the collapse of a bridge on Interstate 85 in Atlanta, Georgia, during rush hour, stranding motorists and resulting in a state of emergency. Atlanta mayor Kasim Reed calls the situation a "transportation crisis" that could close the affected stretch of highway for days or weeks. A 2015 report stated that the highway carried nearly a quarter-million vehicles a day. (NBC News)
The state legislature of North Carolina repeals the Public Facilities Privacy & Security Act, more commonly known as the "transgender bathroom bill." In its place, the legislature enacts a ban on cities in North Carolina from enacting "civil rights" protections for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people through 2020. (Reuters)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Oppose - Infrastructural disasters happen all the time. And considering how little money and resources the U.S. federal government is willing to allocate to improve infrastructure, this should come as no surprise; incidents of this sort in the U.S. are likely to be more frequent overtime as are mass shootings.--WaltCip (talk) 18:22, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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: Needs a better-worded blurb in my opinion, the current one makes it seem like it's something internal to SpaceX. Targetting SES-10 is also possible. Banedon (talk) 03:28, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The blurb needs to be reworded. With the current wording, why is it so important that this type of rocket was reused? Is it not a first for any type? LordAtlas (talk) 07:01, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comments It is not clear to me why the partial re-use of a rocket is significant in the field of space exploration, and the article was no help in this regard, despite being overly detailed and quite long. I had to click on another article linked within, also very detailed and long, to find a partial answer. Additionally, I found the article to be jargon loaded, e.g. "They were equipped with parachutes but SpaceX was not successful in recovering the stages from the initial test launches using that approach due to their failure to survive post separation aerodynamic stress and heating". The update is two sentences long. I don't think readers are going to read through ca. 22,000(!) words, so the blurb really needs to get across why this is in ITN.128.214.163.211 (talk) 10:53, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Not notable. Not 'In the News' enough. Rocket launches happen all the time. If this is posted on ITN section, it will open a floodgate of other rocket launch ITN candidates. mfarazbaig --mfarazbaig 19:02, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think you've missed the crux of the story, that the booster is reusable. If it was simply a reusable space vehicle, I'd be with you, e.g. Space Shuttle. But it's more than that. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:22, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'll need to weakly oppose. I'm a lifelong space enthusiast so I understand what a momentous achievement this was, and that the implications for the future of spaceflight are difficult to overstate. That said, I don't think the general interest is there outside of the industry and its followers. From what I've seen, the response from the general public has ranged from "so what?" among those who know nothing about rocketry, and "didn't NASA already do that decades ago?" from those who know just slightly more than that. I'm afraid that fleshing out the blurb enough to give the layperson any idea of why this is significant will result in an unwieldy and convoluted spiel not suitable for ITN. I'm willing to be persuaded if someone can craft a satisfactory blurb and/or indicate somehow that this story has adequately broad appeal. – Juliancolton | Talk20:40, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Support major unexpected development with serious consequences. International reactions are coming in as well as domestic ones. I've expanded National_Assembly_(Venezuela)#Removal_of_powers to hopefully an adequate length. Note that this is an effective but not literal dissolution, so the altblurb should be used. --LukeSurltc22:24, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per TRM. No citations in the "1961 Constitution", "1999 Constitution", "Structure and Powers" sections, additional cites needed for the "Political composition" section. Improve those issues and I would support this. --Jayron3200:41, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per LukeSurl. To quote the CNN article, "The ruling sent shock waves across the region. The Peruvian government broke off diplomatic relations with Venezuela over the matter, recalling Mariano López Chávarry, its ambassador to Caracas". Banedon (talk) 00:44, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per TRM/Jayron, only on article quality. This is clearly something that should be at ITN, but the article needs a lot of fixing up, and following Ed, perhaps should be a separate article in the long-term (though that make take a lot more time). --MASEM (t) 02:11, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Still oppose the stand-alone article on the following issues 1) first paragraph on Background section lacks sourcing. 2) Outside of lead, NONE of the events of the actual Coup d'Etat are discussed at all. Indeed, outside of one sentence in a very short lead section, there is NO discussion of the events of the coup. The main body's last mentioned event is "a 7 February 2017 meeting" We'd need an entire new section to give the chronology and details of the dismissal by the judiciary. We have none of that yet. Still needs expansion before it is ready. --Jayron3211:47, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Article is no longer a stub and has some substance. International recognition has occurred, especially among controversy with OAS states.--ZiaLater (talk) 20:57, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support AltBlurbII and the self-coup article that it focuses on, but without the last bit about dictatorship (leave it up to the reader to come to that conclusion). --Tocino04:05, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is still a CN tag but otherwise it looks good. Fix the tag and I think we can post this. Side note- the article was briefly locked due to some POV Edit/Move warring. I have lowered the PP to extended confirmed and will be keeping an eye on it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:10, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. This is a rapidly evolving situation. It appears the Venezuelan Supreme Court is backpeddling on its decision after enormous international condemnation. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:36, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ready The article now looks to be in good shape now. I am going to suggest that the posting admin adjust the blurb to reflect recent developments. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:19, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I suggest changing it to something like "The Venezuelan Supreme Court strips the National Assembly of legislative power in a move widely described as a "self-coup". After, internal criticism, the ruling was reversed." Some called it a dictatorship move, but a more neutral description that is being used is an attempted "self-coup".--ZiaLater (talk) 21:23, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Nominator's comments: Park Geun-hye could also be the bold article. We posted Park's impeachment, but I feel it is at least worth a discussion whether this development merits a further ITN item. LukeSurltc18:55, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose good faith nom. We posted her impeachment and removal from office. Since she is no longer a sitting head of state/government I think we should follow our normal procedure for high profile criminal cases, which is to post convictions, not arrests. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:17, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It would seem she has been charged; the BBC writing "The Seoul Central District Court earlier issued a warrant to detain Ms Park on charges of bribery, abuse of authority, coercion and leaking government secrets, after a nearly nine-hour court hearing on Thursday." 331dot (talk) 19:54, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose normally we wait until conviction at least, and in this case we posted the impeachment so it's not as though the issue has not been looked at. Arrest by itself is not an encyclopaedic development, since either nothing will come of it, or we will have a no-doubt high profile trial and conclusion (either way) to consider including in due course. BencherliteTalk19:52, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would respectfully disagree with the assertion that the arrest of a former head of state on charges related to her conduct while in office is not encyclopedic. This also does not happen every day. 331dot (talk) 19:56, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I came here to read the discussion. I had been leaning on 331dot's side because the story of the arrest is in fact in the news right now and the article could surely use some attention. I think adding a news story like this would typically capture the spirit and purpose of this main page section. Also, to be honest, I keep seeing Carrie Lam and being like "is that the woman from the news that just got arrested?" and the answer continues to be no.
Support she's a former head of state. This kind of event is rare. Plus it has been reported in the news for quite a while, see [4] which showed that the preceding developments was reported in a major newspaper. Also: fighting the US/UK bias also involves supporting non-US/non-UK nominations. Banedon (talk) 00:41, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Comment Death is uncited in the article, and I'd want to see a better source than TASS for it especially given that he lived in California, not Russia; it's putting it mildly to say that TASS has got facts wrong on occasion. ‑ Iridescent19:20, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Given that there were two separate citations for his death prior to the first comment (TASS here and Interfax in the article), to suggest that it was uncited and/or not in the news is odd. I'm not sure why a Russian-based wire service would be considered unreliable, nor can I think of a [political] reason for why they would misreport the death of a scientist. Elsewhere, an American citation is available here from his former employer and a non-Russian news source can be found here from a Brazilian wire. I do agree, however, that the article itself needs substantial improvement with referencing. Most of the prose is unsourced, save the last paragraph in the career section and a handful of awards. Fuebaey (talk) 01:41, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Notable. Will start reactions. Sherenk1 (talk)
Support if and once it happens (far as I can tell, it hasn't happened yet). This has been lingering in the background for quite some time, and will likely be in the news for a while longer. Adding a blurb. Banedon (talk) 06:35, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The major world papers are covering it. Although it's been sort of inevitable since the referendum result, much like Trump's inauguration it's still headline news. — Amakuru (talk) 08:13, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this is the 3rd time this story would reach ITN. And there is going to be another nomination for the actual exit. Four entries for basically the same story is excessive. Nergaal (talk) 08:57, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a link to the second nomination? I only remember the first, and can't find the second after searching the February archives. Banedon (talk) 09:22, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point. I opposed the 2nd nomination, but it was posted anyway (and the fact that the objection at the time was overcome in two months says something about how it shouldn't have been posted ...). Still, having posted that isn't a very good argument against posting this - after all, this is the significant event that the 2nd nomination was referring to. Banedon (talk) 11:49, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes, this is the third major news related to the same story, but it is not less significant than the previous two. The news enjoys popularity and is widely covered in the media, which easily meets our notability requirements. I'd also support the news pertaining to the actual exit once it happens in two years from now.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:24, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not going to recommend pulling but will voice my Oppose. This is the start of a process (the signature on a letter) that will take many months/years to complete, and thus far too early in the situation to be at ITN. When the withdrawl is actually complete, then that was the appropriate point for posting. --MASEM (t) 14:07, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just being in the news is not a metric for inclusion; it's a minimum requirement but there are plenty of other factors to avoid having stories keep popping up over and over and over again (the same logic about being in the news means we should have a daily Trump ITN entry for all matters, and no, that's not going to happen). And historically, on things like this, where we know the end result (when the UK withdraw from the EU is completed) will definitely be a major bit of news, we generally wait on posting until all the red tape is resolved. We posted when the vote to affirm Brexit happened, we posted that the last internal legal challenge in the UK court was resolved assuring this was going forward, and so the next major point is either the completion of the process, or if there is some significant legal huddle from outside the UK that might stop it (I dunno if there is or not). --MASEM (t) 14:24, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This was a major point in the process, however. This was the point of no return that begins the withdrawal process. At any point before the receipt of the letter, the UK could have decided to do nothing, and Brexit would have not happened. The letter is the trigger that initiates the process, and for that reason, it receives the attention. It wasn't a mere formality, it literally is the only event that actually matter to start the withdrawal process. --Jayron3214:29, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Arguably, it feels like any of these points already posted were points of no return, given 1) the referendum vote result and 2) the intention by the PM to follow through on it, only hampered by the need to pass Parliamentary law to enable it. That this was signed was effectively no surprise, once that law passed. I agree that in the overall timeline of Brexit, this letter is a critical date as the official start of the process, but we have to be a bit more selective to avoid every step of this otherwise major ITN-appropriate process from being blurbed every time something happens. I'm not asking for anything to be pulled, there was clear consensus to post, but I'm concerned there's not long-term thinking going on here with Brexit in ITN, hence my oppose. (Whereas we have taken extremely great strides with things like the Syrian civil war or the US presidental election to post the very key highlights) --MASEM (t) 15:19, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd argue that this is one of the very key highlights. Assuming that the UK actually does leave the EU (whether it is possible to withdraw an article 50 notification is not clear in the legislation), this is one of the four most important points: from most to least important: Referendum result, leaving, triggering of article 50, passing to legislation to enable article 50 be triggered. Four stories in 2¾ years is hardly excessive in my view. Thryduulf (talk) 18:56, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, this is the key moment. Everything that preceded it and everything that follows it is somewhat irrelevant now. We can't go back and we are on a destined path. It's unique, it's something that could destroy both the United Kingdom and the European Union. So it's notable. Of course I understand that those outside this tiny blob "off of France" may not quite grasp it. But that's not relevant I'm afraid. It's in the news, it has strong consensus and it's here to stay. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:09, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd oppose that, even if it becomes a formal proposal. Per longstanding precedent, we don't post the initiation of referendums, only the results. Banedon (talk) 05:29, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Those above saying that the referendum was the key moment are missing the point; that was a purely advisory referendum which carried no legal powers, and the government was perfectly free to disregard it had they so wished. (Catalonia voted to withdraw from Spain in 2014 yet remains singularly non-independent; except in a few places like California and Ireland where they're written into the law, governments are under no obligation to respect referendum results.) The formal triggering of Article 50 is the declaration of independence; 12:30 today was when Brexit—and consequently the near-certain dissolution of the UK—went from "something that is likely to happen" to "something that is certain to happen". ‑ Iridescent19:05, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Strongly oppose. A law that was never actually implemented is now not going to be implemented? The very embodiment of "parochial non-story". ‑ Iridescent20:59, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Iridescent: Why would that be a "non-story" when considering its tremendious contents/repercussions? Also it's barring the FCC from similar regulations in the future and moves away its authority, more or less explicitly allows these things to be done and now it's "opt-out" while it has been "opt-in" previously. --Fixuture (talk) 21:19, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Six-month old protection (added in Oct 2016) is repealed by change of executive branch party. This really is a non-story but the US press is freaking out over something that has existed for more than a decade. --MASEM (t) 21:00, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's close to 90 degrees where I live but I see SNOW in the forecast for this nom. Good faith nom to be sure, but this is going nowhere. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:25, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose : It's not viable for ITN to follow developments of one country's domestic politics at with the thoroughness that posting this item would imply. --LukeSurltc21:33, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would support this if it were actually passed, since it would be of interest to at least half of our readers (those who get only the newsstand version of wp excluded). But it is a bill, not a law. Sixty votes in the Senate and the President's signature would be necessary. I suspect it won't go to cloture unless there is significant Democrat support. μηδείς (talk) 21:54, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
The Big Maple Leaf, a solid gold 1 million dollar Canadian coin weighing 100 kilograms (220 lb), is stolen from the Bode Museum in Berlin, Germany. (CBC)
The deadline for the Government formation in Northern Ireland has expired following the refusal of the Democratic Unionist Party and Sinn Féin to enter a power sharing agreement with each other, with both parties blaming each other for the impasse. (BBC)
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Oppose Why is this person's death considered in the news? The fact that a person has an article does not make his death notably in the news. The nominator should explain this. ITN is not an obituary, and that a dead person has an article does not make him ipso facto "in the news". μηδείς (talk) 04:06, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I always like to be spanked. Unfortunately, the RfC held that having an article establishes the decedent's notability. But what matters here is whether the death is notable; whether it is a notable death. Dozens of people who have articles about them die daily, we don't postevery stiff. It is the nominator's duty to show that the "death is in in the news". μηδείς (talk) 04:18, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's not the metric. As long as the death has been verified, and the person was notable, then the RFC says we can post the RD (as long as quality is met). It is not about the death itself being notable. (I do note that to the best I can tell, we have yet to have a case where a notable person's death has only been noted through way of the common "short form obit" used to document the average person's death; all deaths have been documented in at least one long-form obit, such as the NYTimes in this example). --MASEM (t) 05:12, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose what I meant was a widely noted death; I did not mean to imply that an unordinary death was necessary. It behooves the nominator to show this, as well as to justify the nomination in his comments. The RfC certainly does not say that we post any dead person with an article--the nominator has to justify the nomination. μηδείς (talk) 20:23, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "in the news"? Well if the BBC, The Guardian, The New York Times, The Spectator, The Times &c. &c. &c. are anything to go by, it's "in the news". A quick Google search demonstrates that perfectly adequately. The Rambling Man (talk) 04:39, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose the article needs a bit more, certainly from a reference perspective, and is sadly a little bit weak, but there's little doubting this individual's prominence given the wide and mainstream coverage around the world. The Rambling Man (talk) 04:40, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - There's no question the person is notable. But is the death notable? That notability needs to be verified within the article.--WaltCip (talk) 16:16, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There's no such requirement for the "death" to be notable, per the RD RFC. It only needs to be verifiable. (That said, the fact the NYTimes and BBC have a long-form obit leaves no question about the death being notable). --MASEM (t) 16:19, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support once minor improvements are made. Storey was a notable person and his death has received widespread coverage as per Rambling Man. It is quite likely that a notable person's death will receive widespread publicity in their native country and other countries where they are well known. Their death will not be as publicised in other countries as not every notable person is a household name throughout the world. Capitalistroadster (talk) 23:02, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Comment – on a global level, most major Australian cyclones fall far short of reaching ITN level as they strike largely unpopulated/sparsely populate areas (namely Western Australia) or effective preparations limit loss of life (ex: Cyclone Yasi). Would have to wait a day or two to see if the damage warrants this being posted. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 18:24, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Sagittarian Milky Way: the entire country can be affected by cyclones in one way or another (i.e. Cyclone Alby infamously affected areas around Perth as a non-tropical system). The two largest cities I can think of that are somewhat regularly impacted are Cairns and Mackay. Brisbane has been his multiple times by severe floods related to topical cyclones: 1974, 2010–11, and 2013 are the first three events that come to mind. Western Australia doesn't have any major cities along the cyclone-prone coastline, just towns. But it's the smaller towns that usually suffer the brunt of major cyclones, such as Innisfail in Cyclone Larry. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 17:45, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wait until impacts are clearer. Being the largest storm in 2+ years seems potentially noteworthy, but we can't post on potential article content, only actual article content. Once we have the article fleshed out with the impacts, which may include the effectiveness of preparations etc., then we can assess the article. --Jayron3218:39, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Damage thus far seems to be less than expected, but the storm has been significantly disruptive. The event is still ongoing, however, with torrential rains continuing to fall. Some areas have seen over 1,000 mm (half a year's-worth) in just 48 hours. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 19:25, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose although the article is top notch (as is usually the case with such strong support from the various weather-based Wikiprojects) the impact is not significant at this time. A lot of rain, sadly one fatality, and a lot of inconvenience, but not really rising to the level of ITN blurb. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:31, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – I don't see this reaching ITN level with the damage that has already taken place. The worst damage is relatively localized and thankfully there were minimal casualties. Can always be renominated if the flooding proves more notable. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 05:19, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support, currently the main national news story in Australia and one of the biggest floods in a long time (decades?), with millions of dollars of damage. Just scrapes into ITN in my opinion. Laurdecltalk05:00, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - doesn't rise to the level of significance that we usually require for ITN weather events. Landfalling tropical cyclones almost always dominate the news cycles in their respective regions, and while the damage is widespread, it's not exceptional by any means. – Juliancolton | Talk03:20, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
References
Nominators often include links to external websites and other references in discussions on this page. It is usually best to provide such links using the inline URL syntax [http://example.com] rather than using <ref></ref> tags, because that keeps all the relevant information in the same place as the nomination without having to jump to this section, and facilitates the archiving process.
For the times when <ref></ref> tags are being used, here are their contents:
In the news toolbox
