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 suicide bomber explodes a car bomb near a hotel, al-Shabaab militants then storm the hotel and a pizza restaurant, killing least 20 people and taking others hostage, in Somalia's capital Mogadishu. All five attackers are later killed. (Hindustan Times)(Reuters)
The U.S. Federal Reserve raises the federal funds rate by a quarter percentage point to a level between the 1.0-to-1.25 percent range, and outlines a plan to trim its bond holdings and other securities. This is the fourth increase since December 2015. (CBS News)(Reuters)
A large fire consumes the 24-storey Grenfell Tower apartment block in North Kensington, West London, with the entire building evacuated and over 40 fire engines and 200 firefighters battling the blaze. At least 17 people are dead and more people are treated for injuries, with more people possibly being trapped inside. (BBC)(The Guardian)(NBC News)(New York Times)(ABC via Yahoo!)
Australia agrees to pay AUS$70 million in compensation to 1,905 people who have been detained on Manus Island since 2012, so avoiding a public trial against the government and the Transfield and G4S private companies for the detainees' degrading and cruel treatment. (The Telegraph)
The woman whose remains were found scattered along the Military Road in Wicklow, Ireland was named locally today as Patricia O'Connor, a 61 year old from Rathfarnham. A man was arrested in connection with this on Tuesday. (BBC)
Nominator's comments: A US American Congressman was shot. It is breaking news in every international and most of the national newspaper. (Incomplete nomination by User:Rævhuld, completed by OZOO16:04, 14 June 2017 (UTC))[reply]
Oppose. No deaths (except the attacker), and mass shootings are (unfortunately) an almost daily occurrence in the US. Why would this attack have more long-term consequences than any of hundreds in recent years? This wouldn't even be in the media if it didn't happen to be a group of politicians, and the motive seems to be entirely speculative at this point. Lack of encyclopaedic value IMO. Modest Geniustalk16:19, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Please note, this is an assault against high-ranking U.S. officials, rather than a random shooting -- including the Majority Whip. That doesn't happen very often.
Is there any evidence that this was a targeted attack or assassination attempt? Let's not get caught up in media speculation on the motives. Modest Geniustalk18:04, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to step into the assassination charge just yet. Too little is known. Absolutely it was an assault with a deadly weapon, however. The odds of the shooter not knowing who he was shooting at, given the notoriety of the event, are impossibly slim.
Oppose, per Modest Genius. Yes, it is dominating news coverage both nationally and internationally at the moment, but I don't think it rises to the level of ITN, especially with the Grenfell Park fire (which actually did kill people) leading the section at the moment.
Comment. This was no ordinary mass shooting, but an assassination attempt against several Republican congresspeople who were apparently targeted because they were Republicans.(which is in the current reporting)[1] Oppose if you wish but this isn't normal for American politics. 331dot (talk) 16:41, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would say regarding the blurb that only the shooter has died; I think we typically don't include that information in a way that suggests the perpetrator was a victim. 331dot (talk) 16:43, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose This looks like a near miss from being a political assassination/massacre. Thank God for the police. But at the moment the only death is the gunman and the other injuries don't appear life threatening. If we were in one of ITNs periodic long dry spells I'd probably support this, but we are not. Right now I don't think it's enough for ITN, especially given the level of violent crime that routinely occurs in the United States and the fact that we generally ignore mass shooting that don't involve a very high death toll. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:44, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support this is big, an attempted assassination doesn't happen too often, and this can be tied to the Kathy Griffin and the Shakespeare play incidents. Regardless, someone targeting members of a specific party to kill, is notable. Sir Joseph(talk)16:57, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support The shooting is "in the news", so it should be "In the News". If you really care about the greater significance beyond the news of the day, it's an assassination attempt on members of the U.S. Congress. This is not a "run of the mill" shooting. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:00, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
ITN is not a news ticker. We're supposed to highlight articles which have been updated to reflect important current events which will have long-term encyclopaedic value. Not everything that appears in the newspapers is suitable for ITN. Modest Geniustalk18:03, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Not the typical type of shooting in the US. Politically motivated assassination attempt(s) that thankfully failed. Ample coverage of this story as well. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 17:09, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - ASITUSA. The only death was the shooter. We have to set the bar really high on attempted assassinations, and a Congressman isn't going to cut it for ITN.--WaltCip (talk) 17:21, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose Sounds rather macabre, but I would have supported if there were high-profile deaths. As it is, it's just a standard USA mass shooting that happened to include a few people of notability. Black Kite (talk)18:10, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: In the discussion at the time of the party leadership election the was a split between posting at the time and waiting for Varadkar to become Taoiseach (prime minister). It wasn't posted at the time. Leo Varadkar is the bold article if we go with the simple "there's a new Taoiseach" line. Alternatively we lead with the detailed Fine Gael leadership election, 2017 article which goes into more depth of how he came to be the successor, although this event actually occurred a few weeks ago. Both articles are in an OK state. LukeSurltc13:55, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support: As one of those who favoured waiting until he was actually elected by the Dail, I now support posting (subject to the usual quality checks, which I leave to others better qualified to assess such things), as he has now been elected. I will probably shortly add an altblurb that mentions the Dail vote, since that's what made him Taoiseach, but I'm happy to go along with the existing blurb if that's preferred. (I'm now off to bed, so I'll leave the updates to others, and I'll also let others worry about whether the blurb should mention that he's gay and half-Indian, which is arguably what makes his elevation more notable than usual). Tlhslobus (talk) 14:06, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose until the article is properly updated. As of right now this development is not reflected in the lead and there is scant information on his election as Taoiseach in the body of the article. Fix this and we should be good to go. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:24, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support altblurb 1. Not the most influential post in the world, and wasn't through a general election, but nonetheless an interesting appointment of a head of government. Modest Geniustalk14:33, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alt 2 per previous discussions – assuming the article is adequately updated. Fine Gael isn't needed in the blurb. Sca (talk) 14:52, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Leo Varadkar article contains the basic information now. If editors consider there to be deficiencies in this, please add them or outline what needs to be done. --LukeSurltc15:05, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - proposed this when he won the leadership election in Fine Gael. Certainly notable and the articles are ready to go as far as I see. Stormy clouds (talk) 15:58, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - strongly oppose alt blurbs 2 and 3 however. The links exist to inform curious readers what the Dáil and Taoiseach are. One would not describe the US Senate as (America's House of Lords) in an ITN blurb, and the same principle stands here. Original or Alt 1 are far better. Stormy clouds (talk) 16:03, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - as per previous nomination, additional notability is derived from his status as Ireland's first homosexual Taoiseach, as well as being the first Irish leader of Indian descent. Stormy clouds (talk) 16:47, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Article needs updating Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Article:Grenfell Tower fire (talk·history·tag) Blurb: The 24-storey Grenfell Tower in London (pictured) is gutted by fire. (Post) Alternative blurb: The 24-storey Grenfell Tower in London (pictured) is destroyed by fire with a number of fatalities reported. News source(s):BBC Credits:
Wait for sufficient details to emerge, though I find it difficult to envisage circumstances in which I wouldn't support. Would invite people who are minded to oppose until significance is demonstrated (I'm often one of them) to take a look at the pictures of the incident to understand why this is not a premature nomination. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 05:16, 14 June 2017 (UTC) Switched to support. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 07:20, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As an aside, I don't think the originally nominated image would be particularly helpful. Undoubtedly free images of the incident itself will be uploaded in the very near future. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 05:18, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I would support this - I'm watching Sky News and people are talking about the historic nature of the fire, and there could be hundreds of people killed - "unprecedented" is what they are saying. Of course we'll know more later today but there should be considerable interest in the article. —МандичкаYO 😜 05:19, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Unprecendented is one of those words that is used far too often nowadays. It was used on Sky's coverage of election night more than once. That said, my eyes and memory tell me that it's likely to be accurate in this instance. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 05:32, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A building with no real previous notability, and with no deaths that I see reported. Such fires happen all the time, this doesn't seem unusual. (Contrast that to the fire in a Baghdad building fire we posted about 6 monhts or so ago, that was notable before it was destroyed by fire, and which killed numerous people. This is an example of bad article that fails WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:NEVENT. --MASEM (t) 05:49, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The suggestion that entire 24 storey buildings are completely gutted by fire all the time is a complete nonsense, invalidating the rest of your argument about the article itself. That is of course separate from the question of whether we should post, where you're right to point out (by inference) that there is not yet sufficient evidence to suggest that this is exceptional enough. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 05:57, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A key point is what importance this building had before the fire. A 24-story building is extremely commonplace in the world (and certainly in London), and as it appears to be just an apartment building, that makes the importance even less important. If it was, say, The Shard or Canary Wharf Tower , which have a notable history due their importance/architecture, that might be something. But this is very much similar equivalent to BLP1E , for buildings. Without any significant casualities nor something appearing to have been set maliciously, it is something that happens, and not a news story. --MASEM (t) 06:05, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Shaanxi Y-8 8520 of the Myanmar Air Force had no notability before it crashed, much the same as Grenfell Tower before it was gutted by fire. So that's the end of the BLP1E-like argument. It is the biggest fire in London for decades, leaving 120 families (300+ people?) homeless. I don't know how you can say it is not news, when it is being reported in the Netherlands, Australia, Singapore and no doubt many other countries. Mjroots (talk) 06:16, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Accidents that cause significant causalities are different types of events, where it doesn't happen what happened before but the aftereffects. (and with any type of aviation event, there is usually an extensive detailed investigation to make sure it does not happen again, whereas building fires do not get close to the same detailed review). Also, to argue about the 300+ people temporarily displaced compared to deaths from other significant world tragedies going on (but which don't get significant coverage due to the long tail of events such as the Syrian civil war), this is arguably trying to push a first-world problem. Mind you, I suspect that there was initial concern due to the heightened terror situation that "a fire in a London skyscraper" could be a possible terrorist attack, but it's clearly been proven as a simple accident. --MASEM (t) 06:32, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We do not look at a spat of news to determine notability but the enduring coverage of a topic. There is no indication that in a week (for example) this will still be news. If it turns out there were significant casualities or damage in the surrounding buildings, maybe that's something, but this is a routine fire. This is what should be coverage at Wikinews, not an encyclopedia looking for long-term topics of importance. --MASEM (t) 06:32, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We won't know the death toll until firefighters are able to go through the building, but it has been suggested the ultimate death toll could be as high as 100. The fire department has confirmed fatalities, but has refrained from giving a number so far. Dragons flight (talk) 06:48, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Death toll aside, Ronan Point (half a century ago) is a good example of why the thrust of Masem's argument is garbage. Firefighters have confirmed "a number of fatalities", so clearly in that regard this at a minimum matches Ronan Point. Clearly it is not common for fires to spread so rapidly through buildings of this size - they're normally specifically designed to withstand and contain fire for a considerbale time (indeed it's being reported that the fire safety advice within this very building in the event of a fire below was to close the doors, block the cracks in the doors and call the emergency services). And if, as seems highly likely, there is a non-malicious root cause behind this fire, it's likely that the pressure to legislate and make changes will be on a par with Ronan Point.
All of this is of course separate from the question of posting, but for as long as an ITN regular is making the assertion that the article shouldn't exist stands (that assertion, if supported, would automatically prevent posting), it's appropriate to continue the conversation here. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 07:04, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep in mind, at the time of my comments, there were no reports of fatalities; injured yet, but no deaths. A lot does change now that there are fatalities. --MASEM (t) 13:27, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Clearly a very significant news event. Spurious arguments above suggesting this is a common occurrence should be discounted. Also important to note that some of the "refurbishment" regarding the addition of plastic cladding, concerns regarding health and safety and some of the advice issued by the authorities about staying inside in the event of an fire could have made this incident more newsworthy than usual. Also being live broadcast in several countries. AusLondonder (talk) 06:23, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wait. The speculation is that there is likely to have been a large number of fatalities. Assuming that is correct, I support posting once a preliminary death toll has been reported. Dragons flight (talk) 07:00, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sensational, for sure. But fires do happen, everday, around the world. That media coverage is skewed towards global cities such as London should not dictate what we post here and what not. 81.204.120.137 (talk) 07:01, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support due to it being confirmed that there are a number of fatalities, and due to the spread of a fire over such a large building in such a short space of time being unusual. Building regulations specifically require high rise buildings to be able to withstand the spread of fire for a certain period of time, and therefore either the nature of the fire was exceptional, or the shortcomings of the building have had exceptional consequences. In this regard this seems comparable to the Ronan Point explosion, with what appears to be a significantly greater casualty count.
My previous stance of wait and see seems untenable, because the nature of the opposition convinces me that the discussion will be stalled out indefinitely if I don't nail my colours to the mast. That is not a criticism of the people in question's stances, but of my lack of confidence in the functioning ITNC. I have no confidence that this process is anything other than a vote count nowadays. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 07:19, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Have removed the [Ready] - we don't have a suitable blurb yet ("gutted by fire" is simultaneously sensationalist, and yet downplays the fact that many people have lost their lives) and several people above have commented Wait. Smurrayinchester08:02, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, suggestions for alternative blurbs are welcome. Blurb can always be updated once posted (I can do this myself). I could have posted this myself, but I didn't because I nominated it. Admin tools are not to be used for an admin to gain an advantage over a non-admin. Marking as ready merely flags the situation up for an uninvoled admin to make a final decision on. Mjroots (talk) 08:09, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW I see little point in using the original image. I would actually rather people complained about us running the story with an unrelated image, as that tends to speed up the process of a free one being uploaded. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 08:39, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support as there were "several hundred people in the building" when the fire started, so it's clearly a rather notable event. Sentence needs a hyphen, though: "The 24-storey Grenfell Tower..."
Support It's in the news and the article title isn't obvious so ITN will help editors and readers in navigating to the topic. Such major fires are notable because they are not so frequent in London – see Fires in London. Andrew D. (talk) 08:22, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This is getting a great deal of news coverage and this sort of event is rare(large towers catching fire). 331dot (talk) 09:19, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment When the death toll is reported, please don't write "(including X children)" that always feels really tacky to me. Every death is a tragedy, and the # each of dead and injured will suffice. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 10:04, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
... and this one too. I think the first one is more illustrative. The photographer has put a CC licence on Twitter as noted in the file descriptions. Thincat (talk) 16:42, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A shooting occurs at a local train station in the Unterföhring suburb of Munich, Germany. The assailant shot a police officer in the head; she is in critical condition. Backup police engaged in a shootout where the suspect and two bystanders were injured. Police do not believe this is a terrorist attack. (Reuters)(NBC News)
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 Generally referencing is good. There are a couple of "page needed" tags for book references which ideally should be cleared up.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:48, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Don't bother, a fire in London is more important to the Wikipedia crowds.
If you don't like what the "crowd" chooses, feel free to join the crowd and/or contribute to the article to bring it up to an appropriate posting standard. 331dot (talk) 09:18, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's hard to judge this article because it is a stub, but to quote the BBC article: "Landslides caused by monsoons often occur in the southern hills in Bangladesh." So this isn't all that unusual there. Coverage of this, while it exists, seems limited. That said, if the article was significantly improved I could support it. 331dot (talk) 09:18, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support on notability. However, reluctant but strong oppose given the current state of the article. It is currently not in condition to be an article here at all, let alone on the main page. If it is fixed, post. Stormy clouds (talk) 16:24, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Article should be redirected to 2017 North Indian Ocean cyclone season, since it was Deep Depression BOB 03 that caused the landslides.Jason Rees (talk) 16:30, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Things are happening but its nearly all diplomatic actions and nothing like wars or other crisis. Barring major changes I don't think this is good ongoing. --MASEM (t) 04:34, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, albeit reluctantly as this is entirely sensible nomination and worthy of serious consideration. My view however, is that we posted the break-off of relations as a blurb, and what has happened since is not uncommon when countries in close proximity to one another have recently broken-off relations. There's the justification, there's the blame game, there's the hardening of stances, there's the linking of the other countries to crime and/or of a threat to peace.
For me, the justification for an ongoing would be the reasonable suggestion that the break-off of relations (and those things which were obviously going to be a direct consequence) are not as far as this situation goes. "Reasonable suggestion" is not a phrase we use often on Wikipedia, but seems an appropriate one here. No-one is going to scream at us from the rooftops condemning us for linking to this article on the main page if conflict does not follow. On the other hand, there will be people screaming at us from the rooftops if we do not treat future diplomatic disputes with the ongoing treatment, unless we have some form of reason to point to as to why this one was singled out.
I'll conclude on two points, with the caveat that if made in isolation the former would seem sarcastic and the latter trying to put off the posting of a story I'm opposing, but both are meant in good faith as entirely straight and respectful comments. Firstly, if irregular and less than friendly interactions between neighbouring nations were in and of themselves sufficient for ongoing posts, we would have Israel and North Korea hard-coded into the template. The fact is that we do post those nations in blurbs from time-to-time, as and when specific actions which really do go above and beyond the "norm" of their relations come to light. Secondly, and assuming the argument is that those situations are decades old and therefore not comparable to this one, I would say that now is too soon to really judge whether this should be an ongoing. The immediate practical aftermath of the diplomatic severance is still emerging, and while that process is taking place it's hard to make a fair assessment of whether things are still getting notably worse, or whether we're seeing a lagging effect of news that has already been reported. In another couple of weeks it would be easier to make this assessment. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 04:48, 14 June 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.
Article updated The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Only because we don't have room to explain "Hey this was him only a few years ago" with the jersey change. But if that's not seen as a problem, then we do have images. --MASEM (t) 04:45, 13 June 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.
I don't see any obvious connection to WP:PADMASOCK (as Vivvt suspected), or any glaring indication of sockpuppetry, but I do get the sense that Reddyvi is pushing ownership. Interested editors should keep an eye open for that. It's a brand new user making a lot of bold changes and strong assertions. Most of their edits are erroneously marked as minor, so they should probably be informed of the appropriate use of WP:MINOR. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:29, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Cyphoidbomb: for your comments. If not sock we might simply have to deal with him. But I doubt a new user would know how to revert an edit and also address an editor in almost all their edit summaries. I personally have no energy to sit and teach such people. I might let the article get hampered than let that happen to my brain. - Vivvt (Talk) 03:40, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - definite edit war. Messages left on talk pages. Cannot be posted mid-dispute, irrespective of all other factors. Neither parties, including the nomination, appear innocent, and the dispute must be resolved ASAP. Stormy clouds (talk) 17:14, 14 June 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.
(edit conflict) Oppose Per NBC, this was because of a result of low turnout because party leaders who opposed statehood asked their followers to boycott the referendum, and they did. Also, per the same source, the result of the vote was non-binding. If this had happened without the boycott, then I might consider supporting. The Rambling Man, to answer your question, according to NBC, the next step is for the Puerto Rican governor to take the vote to Congress as proof the PR wants to become a state. (That was my understanding, anyway.) —Gestrid (talk) 07:23, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This was pretty much a nonbinding poll of the populace where most of them didn't show up. Congress doesn't have to (and probably won't given everything else going on in DC now) listen to them. These votes have occurred every so often before without effect. Probably the President signing a statehood bill would be the only postable milestone in PR becoming a state. 331dot (talk) 07:39, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now. If this leads to any actual legislative movement (by the US Congress) towards making Puerto Rico a state, then we can consider it. A non-binding plebiscite which purely confirms the result of five years ago (which had no real result) doesn't change anything on its own. Modest Geniustalk10:51, 12 June 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.
Oppose According to the article, the most recent notable events happened on June 4, 6, 9 and 11, or just less than 1 update every two days. All of these, except the June 4 update were crime-blotter or body-count updates. Event has picked up in the news, but I am still unconvinced that the article is suitable for Ongoing.128.214.163.160 (talk) 07:02, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Technical question. Shouldn't this nomination be showing up in purple? The Ongoing line in the template is marked yes. 331dot (talk) 07:41, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot: I just previewed it with the parameter set to "add", and it showed up in purple then. It seems the parameter doesn't recognize "yes" as a valid answer, so it defaults to "no". I've gone ahead and fixed it. —Gestrid (talk) 07:52, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose While stuff has been happening in the past week, updates from that point (Marawi crisis#June 6 and on) have been underwhelming. This had been bumped to Ongoing before, but lack of consistent updates at that point led to removal. I'm not convinced it will stay at a reasonable enough update quality and quantity to be suitable for Ongoing. SpencerT♦C10:31, 12 June 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.
(edit conflict) This is on ITNR, adding the template parameter. Mostly looks good - there are referenced prose summaries of each game and a decent amount of content. However, the 'Teams' section is currently unreferenced. Fix that and I'll support the alt blurb. Note ITNR indicates we should also mention the Conn Smythe winner. Modest Geniustalk10:58, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The details in the Teams sections are lifted from the teams' respective 2016-2017 season pages, which are in turn sourced to the NHL. There's a convention that actors' and musicians' film/discography does not need to be sourced, so long as those items have a Wikipedia page and it is in turn acceptably referenced. Should there not be a similar allowance here?128.214.69.204 (talk) 11:43, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That "allowance" is lazy and should be discouraged. Relying on Wikipedia articles which change regularly to verifiably source information is inadequate. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:48, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No opinion on whether WP:ICEHOCKEY should have such a rule, but bold links from the Main Page are held to higher standards than other articles. Consensus at ITN has been that every section needs references. It shouldn't be hard to find sources to cite for those statements. Modest Geniustalk11:51, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Eight people are injured, two seriously, when a car drives into several people in front of the Amsterdam Centraal station in the Netherlands. Police say the driver may have taken ill; they are not treating this as terrorism-related. (DutchNews.NL)(Reuters)
Quebec police shoot and kill a 19-year-old suspect following a stabbing spree in the village of Akulivik which left three people dead and two others critically injured. (CBC)
Protesters stage rallies, organized by ACT! for America, against sharia law in major and small cities across the United States. Counter protesters also assembled at these locations. (Reuters)(AP via Time)
WaitTill both mens' singles and womens' singles winners have been announced, and we can include them in a single, grammatical blurb. Vanamonde (talk) 08:44, 10 June 2017 (UTC) till we have at least one winner, per below. Vanamonde (talk) 09:33, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Previously for tennis majors when the women's article was ready we've posted that and updated the blurb with the men's when that comes in. I prefer that approach. --LukeSurltc08:58, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you're right. We doesn't have to wait for both winners, because could be complicated to include Halep's World No.1 if she will win. EugεnS¡m¡on09:06, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lacks a match summary. When I click on an article I'd like to read what the French Open was about. What I got from the article is a bunch of stats (why don't I just visit the official website?) and trivia (why should I care that Ostapenko was the first Latvian?). What I don't get is a description of how she won the title. Did you know she lost the first set? How? Oh, I just read the score and clicked on a reference. That defeats the purpose of highlighting the article.
I would also wait for the men's singles to conclude before posting since ITNSPORTS explicitly states both male and female events. Posting one and forgoing consensus to post the other, to me at least, looks like an excuse to use ITN primarily as a news ticker. Fuebaey (talk) 16:44, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Global, highly notable news which got extensive news coverage around the world and is more than appropriate here.
What follows is a list of arguments that speak for an inclusion of the item in the In the news-section. Further down you will find a tl;dr.
Nominator's reasoning for inclusion
It is a bit lengthy as I intended to properly include all major arguments for inclusion and as I consider this a discussion of high global importance (due to which I dedicated my time and effort to it). I also ask for a proper discussion which requires some time to unfold and opposers to address the specific points made if they choose to oppose the inclusion:
It gained major news coverage around the world, among those covering it are:
on a highly signficiant subject that affects billions worldwide
where important and grand decisions that affect billions worldwide have been made
is very notable imo.
Some important decisions were made as outcome of the conference. Note that in the 1st discussion Sca stated "Wake me up when it's over." and 331dot stated "That would change if something of note occurs there, such as a notable agreement or other change in policy.". The conference has ended now.
The outcomes include:
Over 1300 voluntary commitments for action − such as on marine protected areas − have been made
Indonesia published its Vessel Monitoring System platform for fishing transparency and management
Delegates from China, Thailand, Indonesia and the Philippines made a promise to work to keep plastic out of the oceans([2]) among other things
China plans to establish 10 to 20 "demonstration zones" by 2020, introduced a regulation which requires that 35 percent of the country's total shoreline should be natural by 2020 and started an international sailing competition among other things and promises
Gabon announced that it will create one of Africa’s largest marine protected areas with around 53,000 square kilometres of ocean when combined with its existing zones.
The Maldives announced a phase out of its non-biodegradable plastic, Austria pledged to reduce the number of plastic bags used per person to 25 a year by 2019 and Pakistan announced its first marine protected area.
A $1 million grant was added to the US-based international wildlife organisation Wildlife Conservation Society's $15 million MPA Fund created in 2016
Germany pledged to allocate €670 million for marine conservation projects and made 11 voluntary commitments
Nine of the world’s biggest fishing companies from Asia, Europe and the US have signed up for The Seafood Business for Ocean Stewardship (SeaBOS) initiative, supported by the Stockholm Resilience Centre, aiming to end unsustainable practices.
Outcomes also include various statements of high-level national officials such as by Bolivia's President Evo Morales, Albert II, Prince of Monaco, India's Minister of State for External Affairs M. J. Akbar and many others
A "Call for Action" declaration signed by the 193 UN member states has been made unitedly; by consensus it adoption a 14-point Call for Action where participating Heads of State and Government and senior representatives "affirm our strong commitment to conserve and sustainably use our oceans, seas and marine resources tor sustainable development."
It has been called a success. (e.g. see [3], [4], [5])
Other conferences of similar kind have been featured earlier. They include:
The First gas summit of the Gas Exporting Countries Forum (note that a point for inclusions there was that it was the "first summit of the organization which members have 2/3 of world natural gas reserves"; similar to that this is the first UN Ocean Conference and members are responsible for the health of around 3/3 of the natural water reserves)
United Nations Climate Change Conference 2009 (note: while some leaned towards waiting until they "come up with something significant" it was added before anything of that sort occured due to consensus)
The 2011 United Nations Climate Change Conference (note: it was featured before it ended with a major point being it being a "major international event, though outcomes are currently unclear and articles will continue to be updated")
The 31st G8 summit where "Scotland pledged US$50 billion in aid to fight poverty in Africa"
The 36th G8 summit and 2010 G-20 Toronto summit in Canada (note that the size of the participating members' economies as well as their share in the world's population were points for the inclusion there; similarly the participating members' economies of this conference is huge as well and it affects all of the world's population)
The 37th G8 summit (note that it was featured while it took place after a decision of "financial support for the Arab Spring" has been made there)
The 38th G8 summit (note that it was featured while it took place and not afterwards)
The 39th G8 summit (note that this one was featured after it took place and with its conclusion of "nations signing a seven-point declaration on the Syrian civil war")
The 2012 United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development was not featured due to the opposition of 3 users of which 1 has been banned now and with another user stating: This is what those "people" get paid for. What editor here gets on ITN for showing up to work?The 2013 United Nations Climate Change Conference was also not featured due to 1 user opposing and a "walkout by ministers and NGOs" at / perceived failure of the conference.
To help readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news.
To showcase quality Wikipedia content on current events.
To point readers to subjects they might not have been looking for but nonetheless may interest them.
To emphasize Wikipedia as a dynamic resource.
I think this nomination perfectly fits this as a) it was extensively covered by the news and is of high interest to the public b) the article in question is quality content on a current event c) is about a subject many readers are likely to be interested in (as it affects all of them and as this subject is of high importance) d) it emphasizes Wikipedia as a dynamic resource of the world
If you don't like the blurb and altblurbs suggest more alternative ones. Please note that Wikipedia is not a democracy; its "means of decision making and conflict resolution is editing and discussion leading to consensus—not voting" and that such should be based upon the merit of arguments made. Especially due to this I ask opposers to make very clear why they oppose the inclusion of this despite the points I made here.
A conference a) by the United Nations b) on a highly signficiant subject that affects billions worldwide c) that is unique in kind and a premier and d) has gotten extensive press coverage around the world is very notable
Other conferences of similar kind have been featured earlier
The conference has been called a success and resulted in many significant outcomes
Can you please condense the above wall of text (preferably collapsed and then summarised in 1-2 short paragraphs or 6-8 sentences) so that those who may be interested in the nomination can assess it without being put off by the length. I personally do not enjoy having to scroll several times to get to the bottom of a nom (especially those 'heading towards a no-consensus' extended discussions). Fuebaey (talk) 17:27, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As a sidenote I'd like to clarify that no individual, organization, company or nation has asked me to create that article or any ITN nomination or has otherwise directed any of my contributions to Wikipedia. I did this entirely on my own, in my spare time, as citizen of Earth and out of interest in the preservation and well-being of my species, Earth and Wikipedia. --Fixuture (talk) 17:56, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. 9 June or 9 July? I've added altblurb4 to reflect this being the first conference. The article IMO requires some cleanup and more focus on the history of efforts and condensing the agreements into a more uniform section rather than a disparate list. If an online summary of the Call to Action is available, this should be cited and made easy to find in the article. 171.116.245.211 (talk) 17:49, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@171.116.245.211: Oops 9 June of course: fixed it. Thank you for adding an altblurb. The article might not be perfect but it's definitely of sufficient quality for ITN. But please go ahead and improve it. Furthermore it would be nice if you could specify what needs cleanup so that it could be carried out. --Fixuture (talk) 18:02, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose but principally due to the state of the article. There should be a clear section about the outcomes and summarizing the wall of text above, along with any pending things that are being taking back to national governments. It also needs to avoid a lot of prose line. I otherwise don't find any issue with posting the closing of the conference. --MASEM (t) 18:13, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Masem: Alright. I just added an "Outcomes" section to the article which should make that clearer. Which "pending things" are you referring to? What prose lines do you mean and why should respective be avoided? --Fixuture (talk) 18:24, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See the comments from Spencer and 331dot below. The importance is there, and sourcing might be, but we're still looking at a poorly written article which can't go on the front page yet. --MASEM (t) 19:22, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Leaning toward supporting, but the article seems to be sections filled with 1- or 2-sentence paragraphs/quotes, without good organization or flow, making it a little hard to follow. Were there any significant multi-national agreements? United_Nations_Ocean_Conference#Outcomes seems to be "Nation X did this, Nation Y announces this, Nation Z pledged money", but it's not grouped in an organized manner. First short paragraph is about plastics, second paragraph is about (actually I'm not 100% sure since the quote from China is a little bit vague)...fishing?, the third is about a marine protected area, the fourth has some information about plastics and then a marine protected area, etc. I don't know if a chronological ordering is better, or something based on themes (there are private sector and research projects section, but additional sections as well). SpencerT♦C18:59, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
but the article seems to be sections filled with 1- or 2-sentence paragraphs/quotes, without good organization or flow
Could you please help me correct these then? I don't see how they're badly organized or how the flow would be bad. However, English is not my native language so that might impair me a bit in improving its flow. I do think that the article's quality can be improved but that it's sufficient for ITN inclusion − especially when considering that the article hasn't existed since long ago and that articles are typically improved over time.
Were there any significant multi-national agreements?
Yes. See the outcomes section: mainly it's the Call for Action. But the outcomes aren't constrained to multi-national agreements. There have also been voluntary national commitments for instance.
"Nation X did this, Nation Y announces this, Nation Z pledged money", but it's not grouped in an organized manner. First short paragraph is about plastics, second paragraph is about (actually I'm not 100% sure since the quote from China is a little bit vague)...fishing?, the third is about a marine protected area, the fourth has some information about plastics and then a marine protected area, etc. I don't know if a chronological ordering is better, or something based on themes (there are private sector and research projects section, but additional sections as well)
Good point. I will try to improve the ordering. I think they should be ordered by theme and actor (e.g. private sector). However I invite you to help improve it according to what you think would be more appropriate.
@Spencer: I just improved it. I also added comments in the page's source that explain the content & ordering (note that subsections for each of them wouldn't make sense imo). --Fixuture (talk) 20:17, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I'm quite busy at work this week and don't have the time to work on correcting this on my own. I did a quick search for UN conferences that have been posted on ITN before, but none are similar enough to see if they're a good guide (I found 2011 United Nations Climate Change Conference and Durban Review Conference, but ITN standards may have changed slightly since those were posted). The organization is still confusing. I see in paragraph 2 that "China, Thailand, Indonesia and the Philippines" made plastics-related pledges, and then 6 paragraphs later, The "Maldives announced a phase out of its non-biodegradable plastic, Austria pledged to reduce the number of plastic bags used per person to 25 a year by 2019". Again, grouping these ideas thematically would make a little more sense in my mind (putting all plastics-related things together in a paragraph, putting all protected areas together in a paragraph, etc.). A summary of the Call to Action would likely be helpful as well. Thank you for your work on the article! Best, SpencerT♦C17:55, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Spencer: I'm not sure if collapsing my reasoning was a good idea - there I listed all the many similar conferences that have been featured (including notes). Please take a look.
I see in paragraph 2 that "China, Thailand, Indonesia and the Philippines" made plastics-related pledges, and then 6 paragraphs later, The "Maldives announced a phase out of its non-biodegradable plastic, Austria pledged to reduce the number of plastic bags used per person to 25 a year by 2019".
Okay, that's a good point. I wasn't sure if it should be kept like this. I will fix it. Note that those other countries don't work as directly to keep plastics out of the oceans as they're not bordering them.
Again, grouping these ideas thematically would make a little more sense in my mind (putting all plastics-related things together in a paragraph, putting all protected areas together in a paragraph, etc.). A summary of the Call to Action would likely be helpful as well.
That's a good point too and I will try to improve it further accordingly. It could mean that some country-paragraphs need to be split though. And I will also see if I can get together a proper summary of the Call to Action.
Support. Concerns have largely been addressed and I made a few tweaks. Would also like to see a summary of the call to action, but I think it's in a minimum state of readiness at this point. SpencerT♦C10:29, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Very Weak support of altblurb 1 pending article improvement as noted above. Given the TLDR wall of text(now condensed) above and other explanations by the nominator I'm concerned that this would be seen as promoting a cause which is why I strongly oppose the longer explanatory blurbs. I am also concerned because "calls to action" and "voluntary commitments" are largely toothless platitudes and talk(and likely these 'voluntary commitments' were things that were going to happen anyway) No binding treaty came out of this conference. Also, while this is mentioned in many news outlets it isn't top headline news. Other conferences (G7, for one) get far more attention. All that said, there probably is enough coverage on this, and there was enough participation(most countries, it seems) that it merits posting. This being the first such conference is notable as well. 331dot (talk) 19:01, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would also encourage the nominator to not try as hard next time. If a nomination merits inclusion it will stand on its own without long explanations and professions of posting this without prompting by anyone else. I (and others) assume nothing about the motivations of the nominator without evidence; repeated claims of a lack of association or prompting might lead some to think the opposite. Just a thought. 331dot (talk) 19:03, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am also concerned because "calls to action" and "voluntary commitments" are largely toothless platitudes and talk(and likely these 'voluntary commitments' were things that were going to happen anyway) No binding treaty came out of this conference.
You do have a point there. However the outcomes are not constrained to just "calls to action" and "voluntary commitments". Furthermore those are signficant enough already. Saying they are "largely toothless platitudes" would mean that the organizations and nations which made them have no credibility. I don't think that this is the case. And in addition to that they are also significant as they are the plans our species has come up for the management of a range of global problems.
Also, while this is mentioned in many news outlets it isn't top headline news.
True, but that's not a criteria for ITN inclusion. (Also it has been somewhat headliny in some countries and some press organizations, albeit definitely not "top headline news".)
@The Rambling Man: I'd like to note that the call for action is not the only outcome of this event. Please do see #3 of my arguments for inclusion above. Furthermore it's significant as that's basically the plans our species has come up for the management of a range of global problems. Furthermore it's not just some call for action but a call for action signed by all delegates of all UN member states. Its sufficiency for solving this problem is not a criteria for inclusion. It seems more like you'd oppose specific blurbs which may make it appear as if the call for action was the only outcome of the conference. --Fixuture (talk) 19:53, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but people make pledges and promises and sign up to treaties all the time and fail to meet the or remove themselves. This will be nothing different. I'm not changing my position on this, thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:25, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your elaboration. You don't need to of course. However I'd just like to note that the subject/cause of pledges, promises and treaties as well as the level they're made on / the participating parties can make them signficant despite of that. Furthermore I think that "this will be nothing different" and that basically "they're meaningless as they're not met all the time" is a subjective judgement which may or may not be a POV or accurate. --Fixuture (talk) 20:32, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment so far participation in this discussion is rather low. I hope it's okay if I invite more participants by creating requests for comments on relevant WikiProjects or should I rather wait with that? Note that RfCs come with info here on which audience was invited to the discussion and that others can create RfCs too. --Fixuture (talk) 22:05, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think that if you feel it necessary you are safe in notifying relevant WikiProjects as long as you do so neutrally(i.e. not encouraging only potential supporters to come here); any more and you might be considered to be canvassing. 331dot (talk) 22:15, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot: It's sad to see only so few participating. I will notify 3 of the 7 WikiProjects set on the article, namely WikiProject Oceans, WikiProject International relations and WikiProject Environment. I will do so in around 30 minutes and with a neutral message that only notifies them about this discussion. I have made the experience that only very few WikiProject members do check for new entries on the relevant talk pages so it probably won't help. However, if some actually come here due to these notifications and if other participants in here think there was bias in the selection of WikiProjects which were invited I suggest them to invite members of other WikiProjects via the same way. --Fixuture (talk) 17:31, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support - this sounds like one of those things where steady progress will be made, but there are no flashy headlines. If we look at the UN story on this [6] then there's quite a lot of reasons in favour of posting. It's the first conference of its kind, 6000 people participated (big by all standards for conferences), and there were 1300 voluntary commitments. Since there are fewer than 300 countries in this world, this is an average of some 5 commitments per country, which is certainly substantial. Add that to the fact that there clearly is space on ITN right now and I think it's sufficient to support this. Weak support because of the dearth of mainstream coverage - but as mentioned, it's something that doesn't have flashy headlines. Banedon (talk) 01:28, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - a short summary of the debate thus far: 5 supports; 3 oppose. The supports include 2 "weak" ones and the nominator. The oppose include 1 IP editor of 5 edits noncomprehensively objecting due to unnotability, 1 objecting due to the state of the article which has been improved therafter and 1 objecting due to notability concerns which are addressed in my collapsed reasoning, Banedon's rationale and my comment on it. --Fixuture (talk) 22:41, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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: Actor most famous for playing Batman. Article is lengthy enough but not everything is cited. Aiken D15:41, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now. This one is going to take a lot of work to get it up to scratch. Huge gaps in referencing to the point where putting up CN tags would be a waste of time. I just tagged the whole article for ref improve. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:49, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support The article seems adequate and, in any case, our readers will be reading it in large numbers regardless. The subject is a major pop culture figure and it looks insensitive and clueless if we don't update the main page in a timely way. Andrew D. (talk) 21:17, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not. We don't post poor quality articles to the main page. And there are orange tags on the article which are a showstopper at ITN. Referencing remains unacceptably low. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:28, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I know, and yet I have no idea why. It's in the news now, and should be posted now. The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit shouldn't worry about giving its readers reasons to edit. RamiR17:13, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for those who wish to post poorly sourced BLPs, both the German and the French Wikipedias promote that kind of approach, in fact it seems that a single admin gets to add these things to their main page. Here, on en.wiki, we have a threshold below which we don't publish articles onto the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:27, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - no way we're lowering our standards to get this up on the Main page: this RD-nomination still needs a lot more sourcing. But it has improved some in the last 2 days, I'll say that. Christian Roess (talk) 00:32, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Martinevans123 The same issue came up at #2017 Stanley Cup Finals. One editor's answer was: [B]old links from the Main Page are held to higher standards than other articles. Consensus at ITN has been that every section needs references. In other words, this article probably (I'm new to ITNC.) won't be accepted unless those refs are carried over to the Adam West page. —Gestrid (talk) 18:55, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think you're right there. I'm sure if everyone who's commented added just a couple of sources, the article would be ready in just a few minutes. Is IMDb acceptable as a source? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:01, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would say probably not. Even though every edit to IMDb pages is apparently reviewed, we have no idea how much effort they actually put forward in verifying the edits, and all those edits come from its users (WP:USERG). An essay (not policy) on citing IMDb can be found at Wikipedia:Citing IMDb. —Gestrid (talk) 19:11, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - the article now has only one remaining "citation needed" tag. If that really is a show-stopper, the claim could easily be deleted or commented out. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:14, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Marking as ready - There has been a noticeable shift to support in terms of consensus in latest votes following the significant updates. I'm marking as ready, though per Andrew D., we may have missed the boat on this one unfortunately. Stormy clouds (talk) 16:36, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. Not clear on the significance of this. Many of these sorts of groupings are largely toothless and/or have little influence on policies. I would need some sort of explanation about why this is important. Article quality is also a concern as TRM states. 331dot (talk) 09:36, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While it isn't an issue in this instance as the fact can easily be sourced elsewhere, the day Wikipedia accepts either RFE/RL or Russia Today as reliable sources is the day we may as well give up and go home. ‑ Iridescent15:21, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This seems to be a minor regional grouping, and even having read the article I don't get any sense of its actual purpose or that it undertakes really significant activities. This doesn't seem to be hitting the news anywhere outside the countries involved; whilst one might suspect that's a reflection of our bias, it may also suggest that the organisation just isn't that relevant in international terms. There's an absence of any compelling reasons to post - the nomination didn't even attempt to convince us. Modest Geniustalk20:03, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a reflection of bias. This organization covers most of Asia in area, and includes the two most populous countries in the world as well as two of the five permanent members of the UN security council. Saying it lacks international relevance is clearly incorrect too since there are so many countries in the organization (by definition making it international). If this is not posted it should only be because of article quality. Banedon (talk) 01:33, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Al-Shabaab militants storm a military base in Puntland. The subsequent battle with the Somali military leaves at least 70 people dead. Somali officials called the attack the deadliest in the country in years. (Al Jazeera)
In its third strike near the town of Al-Tanf in recent weeks, the United States bombs Syrian government and allied troops, striking two out of three technical vehicles about 24 miles from the U.S. Coalition's At-Tanf base in Southern Syria. (CNN)
Shortly after bombing Syrian government and allied troops near Al-Tanf, the United States shot down an Iranian-made Syrian government drone that was flying toward U.S.-led coalition forces in southern Syria. There are no injuries or damage. An American official says this is first time forces supporting Damascus have attacked coalition troops. (Reuters)(AP via The Washington Post)(CNN)
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration asks pharmaceutical manufacturer Endo International plc to withdraw its long-lasting (12 hours) opioid painkiller, Opana ER, from the market after an FDA panel concluded the drug's benefits no longer outweighed the risks of abuse. Endo is evaluating its options. (Reuters)
U.S. authorities charge two operatives, Samer El Debek, 37, of Dearborn, Michigan, and Ali Kourani, 32, of the Bronx, New York, belonging to the Lebanese Shiite militant group Hezbollah with terrorism offenses, accused of plotting to target American and Israeli targets in New York and Panama. (Newsweek)
The state of Hawaii becomes the first state to enact a law, to document sea level rise and set strategies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, that aligns the state's goals with the Paris climate accord. GovernorDavid Ige says the islands are seeing the impacts of climate change first-hand. (NBC News)
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 for now, because of close paraphrasing issues: [7]. I'm assuming the first, flagrant violation is youtube lifting from Wikipedia, but the second hit is also a problem. Vanamonde (talk) 16:53, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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 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.
Question - @Sherenk1:: how will this play out as a news item on ITN? If Theresa May and the Tories simply maintain a majority of similar size to their current one (a likely outcome, given polls), the status quo will only slightly be changed, as the only major difference will be the length of time the Conservatives have in power. There will be no new PM or governing party in this scenario. If this transpires, will we post? Stormy clouds (talk) 13:35, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A valid scenario but with a country as big/important in world politics as the UK, we would still post (presuming article quality), since the election results will be all over the news. The only time this may be a consideration is if we're talking a tiny nation where there's barely any coverage of an election that clearly was going to fall one way and did fall that way to no one's surprise; if we don't see major reporting about that, we'd possibly consider not posting due to lack of anything "newsworthy". --MASEM (t) 13:43, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's my understanding that ITNR covers even that scenario, so the only possibility that general elections are NOT posted is because they are not updated, article is otherwise in poor condition, or they are not nominated. Even the "election" of President of Somalia got posted. In any case, none of this applies to today's UK election.128.214.69.207 (talk) 13:50, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
ITNR says we shouldn't question whether the election results from country X should be posted as to avoid that discussion at ITNC; but they do allow flexibility that exceptions can be made in the case of a tiny election that occurs as everyone in the world had expected, to the point where the "in the news" aspect might actually fail and there's minimal coverage of it. UK's election is not going to have minimal coverage particularly in light of the events there in the last few weeks. This one will be posted. --MASEM (t) 13:58, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There may not be a new governing party, but technically there will be a new government. Parliament has been dissolved so a new government must be formed at the invitation of the Queen.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:44, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
National elections get posted even if there is no change in the status quo. Article looks great, looking forward to featuring once results are announced. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 16:21, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
↑ What he said. The unusual circumstances of this election, in which the North is expected to swing towards the Conservatives and the South East towards Labour, mean that even if the usual early-declaring northern seats like Sunderland show a huge Tory swing it can't be presumed that that swing will be replicated nationwide and that there will be a Tory landslide. Anyone who cares about the result of this election isn't going to be getting their updates from Wikipedia; this is a case where there really is no rush and it's better to be right than to be quick. ‑ Iridescent19:51, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is looking like it could be a nail biter (huge upset for the Tories) and will probably take all night before we know for sure what the new Parliament will look like. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:50, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Close – it's going to be several hours before it's appropriate to consider posting, and the only measure on which this should be judged is the accuracy/neutrality of the blurb and the quality of the update, neither of which any reasonable person can assess yet. Can be presumed notable per ITNR. There's no argument of this somehow slipping by unnoticed, which is the usual argument given when an election in a non-English-speaking country is prematurely nominated. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 02:30, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It makes no sense to close given that we do anticipate some type of result in 24 hr. The date (for tracking purposes) won't change, so it would be renominated on this same day. Unless we hear that a full by-hand recount is in store, this will still be posted once a result is obtained. --MASEM (t) 02:45, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For some actual constructive feedback, I've put up two blurbs, based on the two feasible outcomes at this point (Tories scrape a majority, or lose their majority but remain the largest party.) - based on the Irish election post from last year. Commented out is a blurb to be used if May resigns/is rolled. Smurrayinchester03:23, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Given that my suggestion of closure is not going to be implemented, I'd say that using the word "narrowly" in the event of a Tory majority would be inappropriate given that there was never a "large" majority post-2015. It would be narrow in the context of what was expected, anticipated, speculated upon, polling evidence and so on. But in the context of what Wikipedia would look back to – the 2015 result – it would not be that narrow. The primary blurb does seem the more likely to be needed at this stage, though we're firmly into tight marginal territory and therefore still too early to say.
But my whole point about the absurdity of this nomination remains true. And I challenge anyone. Anyone. To explain to me the sense of nominating an ITNR of this high a profile before the outcome is known. It's just ludicrous.
My reason for raising this question here, rather than take it to the talk page, is that the premature nature of this nomination will either slow down the posting of the article (as no-one has a clue when to look at the article to judge the update), or result in the article being posted before an update is here, as people vote based on the event's importance (which never was and never will be in doubt), and someone posts based on the votes. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 04:14, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It gives time for interested parties to review the rest of the article for completeness and the like, so that once the event happens, and the article is update, the blurb can be posted in a timely manner. This is commonly done when the event is known to going to happen like elections or sporting events and where news coverage is 100% assured due to the magnitude of the event. --MASEM (t) 04:33, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb 1. Barring the sky falling in in Fife North East and Brighton Pavillion, the Tories cannot mathematically reach 326. Sceptre (talk) 04:43, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now purely on article quality. There are some significant gaps in referencing near the top of the parties and candidates section and the results section needs significant expansion and better referencing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:57, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - FWIW, the result is definitely a hung parliament. There is one seat left to declare, but the count there has been suspended to allow counters time to recuperate - see here. The current blurb is fine. No comment on the state of the article - difficult to assess at the moment. Carcharoth (talk) 09:14, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now as it needs improvement in current state - one sentence in the body of the article about the result, plus some extra details in the lead, is not enough. No doubt it will improve later. BencherliteTalk09:42, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've added altblurb3 as altblurb2 seems factually wrong, but I've temporarily left altblurb2 in case somebody wants to correct it.Tlhslobus (talk) 10:05, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support original blurb. Posting coalition details is CRYSTAL, and blurb can be changed through ERRORS should it be desirable to include later details.128.214.163.159 (talk) 10:38, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support altblurb 4. The DUP issue is still unresolved and seems likely to be an informal understanding rather than a formal coalition. I therefore tweaked the blurb slightly to avoid mentioning them. Modest Geniustalk10:43, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not sure what we're waiting for here - marking ready. It's on ITNR, the article is fine, and the posting admin can judge which blurb to use. Modest Geniustalk13:09, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a clear consensus for which blurb to use, since there are subtle details about the election result that do seem to be needed to be communicated in this. --MASEM (t) 13:30, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Technically, she has been to see the Queen and says she intends to form a government. It can't be emphasised enough that there is no formal agreement yet with the DUP. Breaking news is that they are "entering discussions" with the Conservatives. It is not until those discussions have taken place that we can be sure that this will happen. Carcharoth (talk) 13:50, 9 June 2017 (UTC) For anyone needing a refresher or intro to this, see here. Carcharoth (talk) 14:01, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Posting (avoiding mention of the DUP) since article is in better updated shape than when I looked earlier. If there are any suggestions for a better blurb, please go to WP:ERRORS. BencherliteTalk14:33, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support major find in paleo-archaeology, increases the age of Homo sapiens by 50% and gives a broad continental domain for early humans. While there have been lots of paleo-biological discoveries in the past few years, this single one convincingly challenges established theories of genesis and migration of humans on nearly all points. Article is fine. News was frontpaged on the BBC and LA Times early today, and also on Natures feed.128.214.69.207 (talk) 13:36, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's a published study in Nature, and the article seems fairly updated (only nit being that the dates that the modern excavation/aging have been done aren't clear). --MASEM (t) 14:19, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's just a single study but it seems to be quite a significant challenge to the previous consensus about the date and location of the origin of our species. Andrew D. (talk) 15:01, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, it's actually two separate but complementary studies published simultaneously in Nature. So it's stronger than a single study. Prioryman (talk) 15:14, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support a major finding. Very notable global news and signficant coverage. However I think that the blurb could be improved a bit. Added an altblurb (which could also be improved) as a suggestion. --Fixuture (talk) 19:53, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting comment This story shows just how tenuous science's grasp is on the homonid family tree. It is fortunate that the Graecopithecus story from May was not posted, but that finding is consistent with this one. Abductive (reasoning) 04:08, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment@Espresso Addict and Prioryman: I do not believe we need to mention the Max Planck institute in this blurb. It seems to distract from the real story, which is the fossils. We could just begin "Analyses of fossils..." Would either of you object if I took it out? Vanamonde (talk) 10:45, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it's too long. I didn't add the first eight words of the blurb and I wouldn't mind if they were taken out. Prioryman (talk) 16:17, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sure! It looks like it's been edited to lengthen since I put it up. If you are editing ITN, you could consider swapping this item up one; I put it in the second slot because of the image, which has now been swapped for Theresa May. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:33, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The giant South Africa based cement company, PPC Ltd., presents its first quarter results, dominated by the "impact of a liquidity crisis precipitated by an unexpected S&P debt downgrade." (Reuters)
A U.S. House resolution unanimously passes 397–0 calling for all Turkish security guards involved in the May 16 clashes to be charged and prosecuted under United States law. (The New York Times)
The oldest fossil records of Homo sapiens are discovered in Jebel Irhoud, Morocco, dated at between 300,000 and 350,000 years old. The earliest Homo sapiens fossils had been dated as 200,000 years old. (Washington Post)
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.
Post-posted-support – yes agree, this article is comprehensive and the sourcing is very good. Maybe it should be up for GA consideration (?). I randomly checked various Italian-language sources via Google Translate, and it seems that this article has been carefully attended to, by various editors, for awhile now. Christian Roess (talk) 11:50, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[Closed] [Ongoing] The United Nations Ocean Conference
Closing good faith nom. Event not an ongoing ITN item. Consensus against posting was established when this was suggested as a blurb. Circumstances have not been altered since, and the nom features personal attacks on other editors. This won't be posted. Stormy clouds (talk) 00:29, 8 June 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: Global, highly notable news which got sufficient news coverage around the world and is more than appropriate here. I suggested a blurb, instead of an Ongoing-entry, earlier which was opposed.
A conference
By the United Nations
Unique in kind and a premier
With sufficient press coverage around the world
On a highly signficiant subject that affects billions worldwide
is very notable imo. We are allowed to and very much should make such decisions. Let's fairly decide on this together. ____________________________________
For those who say that there's many other conferences we well and that we haven't posted many so far or that it doesn't meet some current / alleged / personal requirements: why would a high number of conferences prevent conferences being posted to the In the news-section? Also I don't think that it's that many conferences. Especially when we only post the ones on highly notable, global subjects.
For those who say that the conference is "just talk", "means nothing" or would "only be relevant if there are some concrete outcomes or treaty of it" etc: the conferences themselves as well as potential non-agreements or inaction are of high interest to the public and notable. Furthermore there are already some concrete results such as over 800 voluntary committments on things like managing protected areas and a platform for fishing-transparency. As a sidenote events such as this one are uncomparably more significant than sports events which keep getting posted.
For those who say that the article is not in an appropriate state I ask them to elaborate what exactly they mean and that (at best) they themselves improve it. I don't think it's in an inappropriate state.
Furthermore while I do try to and still do maintain good faith it increasingly seems considerable that (mainly? US-based) users The Rambling Man, Masem, Iridescent, 331dot, WaltCip and Sca aim to hold monopoly on decisions being made here with a particular intend that might cause the In the news-items to be rather biased in a particular way. I say this because I've been a bit estranged by some of their participations here for quite some time and as the last discussion was closed with basically only their vote-comments rather quickly before others participated as well. That might very well be simply because they as interested citizens like to take part in the In the news-section discussions - but if that's indeed the case I still would like to include the possibility of bias. Furthermore I'd like to thank @EMsmile: for working some relevant info into Sustainable Development Goals. I hope that this time, today on the World Oceans Day, more people will participate in this discussion and ask it not to be closed too early and before quite a number of other people participated as well.
This is very important − imo everything is pointing towards inclusion in the In the news-section and I can't see any good reason not to. What do you say? Fixuture (talk) 00:00, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest Oppose This was closed once. You don't get to abuse the system and open a second nomination of the same thing. LordAtlas (talk) 00:04, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Please assume good faith too: I'm not "trying to waste people's time" - that makes no sense at all - and I am not trying to "game the system". --Fixuture (talk) 00:18, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Vehemently Oppose - As above. This is not ab ongoing news item, and was already shot down. You need consensus here - this page cannot be used as a battering ram. The story is important, but stop trying to force the issue. Moreover, don't levy baseless accusations against other editors. They are sinply following consensus opinion and procedure. This should not be posted, and you should reconsider rationally the way in which you approach this community and its project, as your current strategy will not suffice any further. To quote Leslie Odom Jr, "careful how you proceed good man, intenperate indeed good man" etc. We all have to adhere to the rules, even when we don't like the outcome. Stormy clouds (talk) 00:12, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The thing that was shut down was a blurb. This discussion is about an Ongoing item. The conference is ongoing. Yes and I hope to build consensus in this discussion. I'm not trying to force the issue but am taking up the responsibility for us, the Wikipedia community, to feature important stories / information when we can and when it's appropriate. These were not accusations but a note about a concern about bias that I have. I adhere to the rules.
Oppose as misunderstanding or misapplication of the system. Ongoing is for events which are long-term and persistently in the news, which have either had a blurb posted which cannot remain indefinitely despite the persistence of coverage, or are considered important enough but difficult to produce an appropriate blurb for. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 00:25, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This event is long-term in its effects and outcomes and is persistently in the news for the few days that it takes place. It would only be displayed under Ongoing for these few days. And it is certainly important enough. Please take a step back and reassess - we should not become a static bureaucracy but open-mindedly, progressively and lively assess each nomination and rationale even if they, potentially, might imply changes. --Fixuture (talk) 00:34, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Fixuture: - discussion is closed. I am issuing this comment to tell you to refrain from any further argument, a the discussion has been explicitly closed, and I have now brought that to your attention. Stormy clouds (talk) 00:38, 8 June 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.
Nominator's comments: I fleshed out the article to a significant degree and added multiple reputable references before suggesting it here. This story is certainly of international importance and is attracting worldwide attention, so merits addition to ongoing. The recent page activity backs this up in my opinion. Stormy clouds (talk) 23:37, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Raqqa has been repeatedly described as the de facto capital of the Islamic State, so this battle exceeds any regular conflicts in the region in terms of importance and scale. It means that the coalition forces have the opportunity to strike a serious blow to Daesh, and is being reported thusly globally. Therefore, it should be placed in ongoing. Stormy clouds (talk) 23:41, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. I would have liked to see a bit more coverage (for some reason it's not very widespread, although it's there if I look for it), but there's sufficient coverage regardless. Banedon (talk) 02:34, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not seeing this on frontpages. It's overshadowed by things like yet another NK missile test, new Homo sapiens find (which would make a great blurb actually), and UK elections. Additionally, this is not the first time that we've been told Raqqa is on the verge of falling. If this gets frontpaged by RSes then I would support this, but it could very likely turn into another abortive attempt that goes nowhere and has no definitive end. By the sources in the article, the battle started on the 6th and the first neighborhoods were captured on the 8th. Give it a day or two to see how this shakes out.128.214.69.166 (talk) 07:20, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support, though I'm a little concerned that the YPGs are not mentioned in the lead; they are the major constituent of the SDF, after all. Vanamonde (talk) 11:32, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment definitely in the news, article sufficient, looks likely to be ongoing, but we'll need to test it in a week's time, will it be updated? For now, it's good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:48, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
An aviation disaster of this magnitude is notable. Article looks in decent state considering how recently this was reported. --LukeSurltc13:47, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Most of the causalities were family of military members, so this would not qualify as "losses in line of duty" that other military aviation disasters are typically treated as, so agree this likely is ITN. Article is sufficiently detailed for now knowing there's a long tail of news around the investigation and like. --MASEM (t) 13:53, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment while it may be inevitable, isn't this a little premature? The source in the nomination says the aircraft has been declared missing, not that it has crashed. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:14, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Marked as ready, it's now night in Myanmar and little likelihood of major developments until tomorrow morning (about midnight UTC). Mjroots (talk) 16:38, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support as notability is undoubtedly there. Article a bit short for my tastes, but given that we don't deal in speculation I suppose there isn't too much more that can be said. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 00:41, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Blurb updated, although I would expect the posting admin to make a final check and make any small adjustments necessary. Mjroots (talk) 06:32, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Attacks of this sort are rare in Iran. Still developing; ISIS seems to be responsible. Also may be a hostage situation. Will be a bit before this is ready but I wanted to bring it up. 331dot (talk) 10:04, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This number of killed people, i.e. 8, contains the attackers, according to the Iranian official figures. We'd better report only the number of dead victims. Mhhosseintalk10:48, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment not rare in Iran, just in Tehran. A big attack was in Balochistan a few weeks ago and Zarif travelled to Islamabad after tat too.Lihaas (talk) 11:00, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Unless, you know something I don't, the attack Lihaas appears to be referencing [20] is still in Pakistan's Balochistan province and not in Iran's Baluchestan. Dragons flight (talk) 11:40, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nice try, but Lihaas clearly refered to the attack in Iran. But good to know that you have at least some basic search engine compentencies. 81.204.120.137 (talk) 12:51, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support in principle as unusual for Tehran, but yes, it's still sketchy, and I expect it may take a while for details to emerge. Sca (talk) 13:54, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Article is in my opinion long enough – though I'd never discourage more. However the unsourced statements tagged as citation needed are directly relevant to the argument that this is far enough out of the norm be posted (which I believe it is). Would be inclined to support when these are resolved. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 16:42, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See Mhhossein's comment above. We've had this confusing problem on a number of similar news items - sometimes attackers are included, sometimes they're not.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:21, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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.jpg)
