Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

This page provides a forum for editors to suggest items for inclusion in Template:In the news (ITN), a protected Main Page template, as well as the forum for discussion of candidates. This is not the page to report errors in the ITN section on the Main Page—please go to the appropriate section at WP:ERRORS.

This candidates page is integrated with the daily pages of Portal:Current events. Under each daily section header below is the transcluded Portal:Current events items for that day (with a light green header). Each day's portal page is followed by a subsection for suggestions and discussion.

Martin Truex Jr. in 2015
Martin Truex Jr.

How to nominate an item[edit]

In order to suggest a candidate:

  • Update an article to be linked to from the blurb to include the recent developments, or find an article that has already been updated.
  • Find the correct section below for the date of the event (not the date nominated) in UTC.
    • Do not add sections for new dates. These are automatically generated (at midnight UTC) by a bot; creating them manually breaks this process. Remember, we use UTC dates.
  • Nominate the blurb for ITN inclusion under the "Suggestions" subheading for the date, emboldening the link in the blurb to the updated article. Use a level 4 header (====) when doing so.
    • Preferably use the template {{ITN candidate}} to nominate the article related to the event in the news. Make sure that you include a reference from a verifiable, reliable secondary source. Press releases are not acceptable. The suggested blurb should be written in simple present tense.
    • Adding an explanation why the event should be posted greatly increases the odds of posting.
  • Please consider alerting editors to the nomination by adding the template {{ITN note}} to the corresponding article's talk page.

Purge this page to update the cache

There are criteria which guide the decision on whether or not to put a particular item on In the news, based largely on the extensiveness of the updated content and the perceived significance of the recent developments. These are listed at WP:ITN.

Submissions that do not follow the guidelines at Wikipedia:In the news will not be placed onto the live template.

Headers[edit]

  • Items that have been posted or pulled from the main page are generally marked with [Posted] or [Pulled] in the item's subject so it is clear they are no longer active.
  • Items can also be marked as [Ready] when the article is both updated and there seems to be a consensus to post. The posting admin, however, should always judge the update and the consensus to post themselves. If you find an entry that you don't feel is ready to post is marked [Ready], you should remove the header.

Voicing an opinion on an item[edit]

  • 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.
  • Some jargon: RD refers to "recent deaths", a subsection of the news box which lists only the names of the recent notable deceased. Blurb refers to the full sentences that occupy most of the news box. Most eligible deaths will be listed in the recent deaths section of the ITN template. However, some deaths may be given a full listing if there is sufficient consensus to do so.
  • The blurb of a promoted ITN item may be modified to complement the existing items on the main page.

Please do not...[edit]

  • ... add simple "support!" or "oppose!" votes without including your reasons. Similarly, curt replies such as "who?", "meh", or "duh!" are usually not helpful. Instead, explain the reasons why you think the item meets or does not meet the ITN inclusion criteria so a consensus can be reached.
  • ... oppose an item because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive.
  • ... accuse other editors of supporting, opposing or nominating due to a personal bias (such as ethnocentrism). Conflicts of interest are not handled at ITN.
  • ... comment on a story without first reading the relevant article(s).
  • ... oppose a WP:ITN/R item here because you disagree with current WP:ITN/R criteria (these can be discussed at the relevant Talk Page)


Suggestions[edit]

November 21[edit]

Portal:Current events/2017 November 21

November 20[edit]

Portal:Current events/2017 November 20
Disasters and accidents
International relations
Politics and elections
Sports

RD: Terry Glenn[edit]

Article: Terry Glenn (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): ESPN,USA Today, NFL
Nominator: GreatCaesarsGhost (talk • give credit)

Article updated

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

 GCG (talk) 22:37, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Support No major issues. I think it meets our generally applied standards. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:51, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

RD: Della Reese[edit]

Article: Della Reese (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): NYT
Nominator: Thechased (talk • give credit)

Article updated

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

 Thechased (talk) 21:22, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Oppose for now. Exceptionally poor referencing. This is going to take some work to get it up to scratch for the main page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:48, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] 1I/ʻOumuamua detection[edit]

Article: 1I/ʻOumuamua (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The first apparent interstellar object to pass through the Solar System, 1I/ʻOumuamua, is detected to be travelling at an interstellar speed of 26.32 km/s (58,900 mph).
Alternative blurb: ​The first apparent interstellar object to pass through the Solar System, 1I/ʻOumuamua, is characterized.
News source(s): Phys.org, BBC, The Guardian, Ars Technica
Nominator: Radagast (talk • give credit)

 Radagast (talk) 19:04, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Oppose Either stale or incomplete. The last information in the article is dated October 26. --Jayron32 19:10, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
    As a note, and to reply to several comments below, I have no problem with posting this so long as the article itself makes it clear why it is in the news now. I'm not particularly opposed to posting major scientific discoveries, it is just that the text of this article makes no effort to indicate why now is why it is in the news. --Jayron32 19:27, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
    The key reason it appears to be in the news now is the publication of the Nature paper that documents observations. I mention this only because it was also in the news a few days ago, for the selection of the Hawaiian name (but that's not the point of the ITN/C here), so that people searching for newsworthiness and finding these older stories, they should be aware that was a different facet; this ITNC appears to be slotted in the right place. --MASEM (t) 19:34, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
    Yes, but where does the article text say that? What you tell me, here, on this page makes no bit of difference. What you write, in the text of the article itself, is all that matters. --Jayron32 19:41, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
    Oh, absolutely. I don't see the Nature article sourced, or even the references published today acknowledging that publication. That has to be in first. I just want to be clear that in this discussion outside of article quality, today is the right day for this, and just caution those looking into the proper date to be aware of other news-worthy milestones that are not the same as this date (publication of studies in a reliable scientific journal). --MASEM (t) 20:53, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
    I have just added in the BBC article published today, and the Nature letter to the article (under "Observations") as to explain why today was important. I do note that the pre-published this 10 Nov, so conclusions by it seemingly were already discussed in various scientific circles, but today's the day that Nature publicly published it. This should now be ready to go. --MASEM (t) 22:11, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • This was actually nominated back in October, the consensus then was to wait until more is known (e.g. a paper is published). The interstellar status seems much clearer now, however, the question is what new happened recently? --Tone 19:13, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support in principle, but the article needs updating first. The problem last time was that many properties were still unknown and there wasn't a peer-reviewed paper. However, one was just published in Nature today. I think this is ITN-worthy, but the article will need updating to reflect the newly-published results (such as the unusual shape) and properly cite the paper, as well as the existing (non-peer-reviewed) MPECs, preprints and research notes. The blurb will need to be crafted to indicate that the results were just published, as there were various interim announcements a few weeks ago. Modest Genius talk 19:18, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose due to minimal coverage (at the moment) on the finding. Kirliator (talk) 19:21, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Confirmation of this is an amazing event. (orbital parameters get more refined the longer an object had been observed of course, it had to move before you can see the shape of its orbit) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:08, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment I think that with the Nature paper, we should use the blurb that was originally presented in Oct, this being that studies have identified this as first known extra-solar system asteroid to be detected/measured. The speed in the current blurb has little to do with this. Alternatively, the focus I'm seeing that the object has an extremely enlongated shape is possibly something to focus on. --MASEM (t) 19:24, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Maybe it's elongated cause it's an alien spacecraft.. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:14, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
At least we have the whales to save us then. --MASEM (t) 21:37, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment while I like the enthusiasm of this discovery (and would normally support this kind of nomination), the main problem is that posting a blurb that was initially created more than a month ago is technically stale as Jaycon32 initially stated. Although I do not necessarily oppose the current nomination, I agree with several of the above users that the content of the blurb should be updated before it can be posted to ITN. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 19:38, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • OP Comment - I was unaware of the October listing (I don't frequent this page). If anyone wants to offer an alternative blurb, please feel free. Radagast (talk) 20:36, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - to call this stale is another way of calling the ITN system broken. Back in October when there was more news coverage, some editors argued for waiting on the grounds that no peer reviewed paper had been published yet (or similar). Now there has been such a paper (+ several more preprints), the item is no longer in the news, so now the argument is that it is stale. If we accept this kind of reasoning the only way to feature this is to have a peer reviewed paper being written, reviewed and published within ~7 days - a pipe dream. I suggest an alt blurb saying it's been characterized, since what's so unique about this is not just the interstellar speed (its trajectory is another unique thing, for example). Banedon (talk) 20:57, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I'd support Alt1. --Tone 21:24, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Strongest Oppose no major news network is covering this, likely because they don’t give a hoot about it. 2600:1015:B121:C116:89AD:9FC5:411B:DD59 (talk) 21:29, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
    • It has just been reported in the last few hours, and I found BBC and Guardian articles rather easily. It's being covered. --MASEM (t) 21:37, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Difficult to ascertain intent here, but it is noteworthy that this strongest oppose originates from a IP SPA with only a solitary edit. Stormy clouds (talk) 21:50, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
    • First extrasolar object in solar system (or within 4 light years/25,000,000,000,000 miles actually) That's important. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:50, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. A notable scientific discovery; this isn't stale. It takes time to properly report and confirm these discoveries. 331dot (talk) 21:46, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Alt blurb that’s more like it. Good to go. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 21:49, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - this is significant scientific news. Stormy clouds (talk) 21:51, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment please fix the referencing errors before this is posted. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:54, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Refs fixed, posting. --Tone 22:49, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support. What clinches it for me is the bizarre shape. Abductive (reasoning) 01:49, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] Elizabeth II[edit]

Strong opposition against posting on grounds of newsworthiness. If her highness finds her way here though, congratulations to her and Philip. Stormy clouds (talk) 16:46, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Elizabeth II (talk, history)
Blurb: Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip celebrate their Platinum wedding anniversary the longest marriage in the history of the British monarchy
News source(s): Express, The Telegraph
Article needs updating

 81.158.74.1 (talk) 12:09, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Oppose, meaningless anniversary. The place for anniversaries is WP:OTD, not ITN. Modest Genius talk 12:12, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Agree, correct place is WP:OTD. But not sure why you see it as "meaningless". Are you arguing that all anniversaries are meaningless? Even if you see it that way, it certainly is in the news in UK. Not many of those other OTD items are on TV and radio news. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:31, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Meaningless in the sense that it has no impact or wider significance. If there was some kind of mass event or demonstration to mark the occasion, that could in principle raise a simple anniversary to an ITN story. But there isn't. Modest Genius talk 14:51, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
I see. Well they get some nice stamps. But I agree we're not seeing jubilant throngs on the streets of The Mall. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:01, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Oppose outside of what we usually cover here; routine aniversaries can be covered at OTD instead. --Jayron32 13:29, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Support and republican sentiments be damned. Oppose - Not newsworthy per se.--WaltCip (talk) 13:32, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Awesome news, but not worth posting. The article doesn't even mention this event, unlike her Sapphire Jubilee. ~Mable (chat) 13:59, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose good faith nom. Alas this just doesn't rise to the level of warranting mention on the main page. That said it is marvelous news. Many (more) years to the happy couple! -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:33, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose royal trivia. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:45, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

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

November 19[edit]

Portal:Current events/2017 November 19
Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents
Politics and elections
Law and crime