Wikipedia : In the news/Candidates/March 2016

Oppose. I don't view the program so, even from reading the article, not sure how Wikipedia and Mythbusters are similar. Besides, ITN doesn't exist to pay homage to or give free publicity. On a more serious note, I'm failing to see a cited update or this being in the news. Cancellations occur all the time, not seeing anything special with this one. Fuebaey (talk) 23:53, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd consider the show more akin to Snopes.com than Wikipedia. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:08, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose TV shows end all the time. This isn't any more special than any of the others. Call me when The Simpsons is cancelled. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:59, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There's only a few shows I would consider so much of an institute as to merit ITN posting, and that's a bare minimum to start (something akin to 60 Minutes or Meet the Press). --MASEM (t) 00:30, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose; As Masem states, I too think there are very few TV programs whose ending would merit posting. 331dot (talk) 00:52, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and suggest SNOW. I've enjoyed the show as well but the above comments pretty much say it all. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 02:07, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] RD: Nancy Reagan

Support Influential first lady and actress.--NortyNort (Holla) 16:59, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Certainly one of the most beloved and influential First Ladies of the nation. - TDKR Chicago 101
Weak support RD, oppose blurb I am a bit hesitant, as she was mainly known for being the wife of a famous person, and relatives do not automatically gain notability, but I think she was influential enough to be included, such as with the "Just Say No" drug awareness campaign, and starring in several films as an actress. However, I don't think she was a major world leader to merit a blurb. EternalNomad (talk) 17:06, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD only. Notability is clear.--109.150.5.94 (talk) 17:19, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD for certain. Article is featured and still appears to be in good shape. I would propose that because she was generally one of the few First Ladies, similar to Ladybird Johnson, that are well recognized for championing humanitarian causes (in her case, the Just Say No anti-drug campaign), that a blurb may be appropriate, particularly in light that we also have a featured article here to post at ITN. --MASEM (t) 17:24, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Template:Reply to - if you feel a blurb is appropriate, feel free to write one. Mjroots (talk) 17:27, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I added one, but that's only if there's clear support for it. I definitely can see where the line is drawn between RD and blurb being an issue here, but I think it's worth proposing given this is an FA. --MASEM (t) 17:32, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Posted to RD. Whether people want a blurb can be decided later. Thue (talk) 17:33, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose/pull. Would we post the death of the wife of a former Polish, German, French or Italian President? I think not. She doesn't seem to be independently notable for anything, and notability is not inherited from one's spouse. --Tadeusz Nowak (talk) 17:48, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Please name a wife of a "former Polish, German, French or Italian President" as well known or influential as Nancy Reagan. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:16, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I would also suggest you give the article another read, as she is notable on her own for her advocacy on drugs and stem cell research(the latter of which occurred after she was first lady). 331dot (talk) 19:28, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD, oppose blurb. Don't disagree with posting, but posting within the hour? Bit fast... Anyhow, influential for sure, but 'simply' death from old age, and not influential enough to still qualify for a blurb. Fgf10 (talk) 17:50, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting support Well known and influential First Lady, advocate for "Just Say No" and stem cell research. RD is appropriate. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:16, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD Many first ladies would not qualify, but Mrs. Reagan was active and influential in her own right, and quite well known for that. A blurb might be an overreach but RD is entirely justified. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 19:15, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD. Not every first lady would merit RD, but most sources describe Nancy Reagan as "one of the most high-profile and influential first ladies of the 20th century"[16] so she would seem to be very important among US first ladies. If someone could demonstrate that a first lady of another nation was equivalent to Nancy Reagan, I would support that too. 331dot (talk) 19:27, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sure Pat Nixon indeed would not. Barbara and Laura Bush probably shouldn't. Betty Ford might've, Hillary obviously should. Michelle Obama, too soon to know. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:34, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Obama definitely has her picture taken the most. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:57, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Post-posting support and thanks for posting so promptly, makes ITN look up-to-the-minute and responsive! MurielMary (talk) 19:57, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean a blurb or an RD, Mary? George Ho (talk) 03:33, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support for the post in the form it was made. MurielMary (talk) 03:36, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That would be RD. George Ho (talk) 03:40, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Babak Zanjani

Wait If I remember correctly, in case of death sentences they are posted when they are carried out. Brandmeister^talk 17:05, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wait and I'm not sure it would merit posting then; "rich person committing a crime and being punished" doesn't seem notable, unless it was a sham, but that's not clear in the article if that's the case. 331dot (talk) 20:52, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wait as per above. Blythwood (talk) 08:28, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Remove "European migrant crisis" from Main Page?

Template:Archive top The latest prose update is March 1 key event in "Greece" section. Even when the ongoing crisis is newsworthy, must I use this article as a precedent to other proposals, like the Syrian Civil War, which was featured for just one month due to this precedent? --George Ho (talk) 02:56, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there's been an increase in coverage of this lately, e.g. the BBC yesterday. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:14, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
remove the point of ITN has always been on an update not to cherry pick. Whether it is in the news or not WP/ITN precedence is (for ongoing) the necessity of an update.Lihaas (talk) 14:33, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Remove No recent updates - and by "update" I mean major developments, not some random politician making a sound bite. It's been up on the ITN template for six months now and, while undoubtedly still ongoing like the Syrian Civil War, there have been no significant events since January. I would expect Ongoing to be for articles that have frequent blurbable updates, not just constant media coverage. Fuebaey (talk) 20:47, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wasn't there something on a couple of days ago about some issue between Greece and Macedonia over a fence erected by the latter? Miyagawa (talk) 21:15, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the link I already provided. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:19, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Major changes to the article are going on a week stale. Article is not being updated regularly with new information. --Jayron 32 02:00, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment very much in the news, top story on the international BBC homepage right now is Migrant crisis: Leaders gather for Turkey-EU summit so our readers would most likely want to see this kind of article, even if it's a little behind. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:59, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If they actually close down the "Balkan migrant route", that may qualify for a full blurb (and then we could leave it roll out). --Tone 08:14, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If the government actually does that, Tone, a consensus for a full blurb is required. If not required, it should be recommended. We can't do as we please. Also, even the Balkan route closure seems to make no significant difference as there have been other border closures to EU territories. George Ho (talk) 08:21, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This time, it seems that there are several countries along the route agreeing on something, apart from previous unilateral border closures. So this is a bigger story. Anyway, it's up for discussion, as always. --Tone 08:30, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But we must add substantial updates in prose. I searched events of February 2016. So far, the 26 February one at "Slovenia" section doesn't look significant enough to strongly keep the link featured in the Main Page. Even the emergency funds proposal this month... How does that help? Same for NATO's comments this month. George Ho (talk) 08:43, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wikipedia's readers should really have this on the Main Page. As for updates, I will try to make some later today, once I am home. Instead of complaining about lack of updates, some of you might be bold and do the same... Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:39, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But we shouldn't overemphasize announcements or add pointless announcements of plans that do not yet happen. George Ho (talk) 08:43, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Reply No, we shouldn't. But when a refugee camp in Calais is torn down or refugees riot in Idomeni, that is newsworthy and should be in the article. Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:52, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can we propose it as a full blurb right away? George Ho (talk) 08:54, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd only opt for a blurb if the current summit would agree on something really substantial. If the Balkan route is actually closed, that might be worth a blurb, but to be honest, who believes that that will actually work? Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:05, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Remove - This is a very news-worthy event, but the article hasn't received substantial updates lately. As soon as updates to the article pick up again, I would definitely be in favour of adding again. Kiwi128 (talk) 09:46, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, by "substantial updates", I mean something similar to Fuebaey. Kiwi128 (talk) 09:56, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is still a major ongoing event. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:32, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Remove - Not primarily for lack of updates, but on quality grounds, broadly construed. This article shows Wikipedia at its Eurocentric/West-centric worst. In its brief section on the global refugee crisis, it briefly tells us there's a global crisis involving about 60 million refugees, and also gives us 'See also Syrian refugee crisis'; there then follows a very long article about the situation in Europe (unsurprisingly, given the title of the article). The net effect is that the intelligent reader is likely to get the impression (quite likely correctly) that about 75% of Wikipedia's refugee coverage is about 1 million refugees in Europe, about 24% is about 5 million other Syrian refugees, and about 1% is about the remaining 54 million refugees. Of course arguably all this is grounds for Keep, on the basis that the intelligent reader will be well-served, not by getting a balanced picture of the refugee crisis, but by learning something unflattering but true about the nature of Wikipedia. Tlhslobus (talk) 15:42, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Tlhslobus has it right. When the migrants first started to come to Europe, that was international news and brought attention to the civil war in Syria, but while there are still issues with the migrants in Europe, its so much of a narrow cut of the larger picture (That being the Syrian civil war which encompasses all 60 million refugees). To focus too much on the Euro-centric issues relating to the refugees is a problem. Further, this is not what Ongoing was meant for; we knew on posting this would be a high interest story for a few weeks, but this is now going on months, and is not serving the purpose here. The arguments being proposed to keep, that it's still in the news, I would argue means we should clearly post all the US election coverage too, since that dominates most news headlines too. Clearly, I do not propose this at all but the comparison is there. If there is a major change in the European side of this story, that can be ITN, but the ongoing has well served its time here. --MASEM (t) 15:51, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, MASEM. Though one minor quibble: it is not correct to say the Syrian civil war encompasses all 60 million refugees. It encompasses about 6 million of them, or 10% of the total, and they get perhaps 24% of our coverage, presumably mainly because they are the ones most likely to move into Europe next. The remaining 90% at least seem to get almost completely ignored by us - or at least that's the impression one gets from looking at our article (and the linked Syrian one). (Minor technicality: the 6 million figure for Syria perhaps omits a few million more internally displaced within Syria; and presumably 1 million of the 6 million are already in Europe; but such details don't change the substantive point about our absurd Eurocentric coverage). Tlhslobus (talk) 16:03, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have made a few updates. I would appreciate if some of you could look over them. Thanks. Zwerg Nase (talk) 21:17, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just plans. Just plans. All over the changes you made. I've yet to see the EU pass the proposal. Also, the article didn't have to be very big to collect news headlines or last year's troubles in Europe. ~~Although I didn't want to address it here,~~ Masem and Tlhslobus here addressed Wikipedia's Eurocentrism better than I could or could not. --George Ho (talk) 23:31, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, George Ho.Tlhslobus (talk) 08:10, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this crisis has had a history of generating news. Banedon (talk) 00:48, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So has the Syrian Civil War, but we haven't kept that. That was done correctly, per our rules. But by the same logic our rules should make us get rid of this item too, on grounds of lack of enough updates, and lack of quality(broadly construed) - unless of course you agree, per WP:IAR, that we do a service to our readers by showing them how absurdly Eurocentric we are, though the trouble with that argument is that intelligent readers mostly already know this, and the others probably mostly won't even notice.Tlhslobus (talk) 08:22, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Of course we could put the Syrian Civil War back up there, if alleged Eurocentrism is your main concern... I find that argument ridiculous. The section is called In the News. If what is actually in the news is centred in Europe, we will not be the ones who change that injustice. We have a duty to provide our readers with information about what they are interested in, which the Migrant Crisis certainly applies to. Even if I am repeating myself: Stop complaining, do something. Update the article. I started and I will add more again today. Everyone can feel free to join in, instead of waisting their time here. Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:16, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bravo! The Rambling Man (talk) 10:33, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't agree with the opposition based on this being a European story, neither do I agree with an update of old/not news (France/empty Turkish summit) to keep this up indefinitely. Expecting someone else not to disagree and to simply "update the article" is dismissive and doesn't bolster an argument. Fuebaey (talk) 14:37, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It clearly is not "not news" as evidenced by being the top story on the BBC News homepage. Expecting others to do all the grunt work while heckling from the sidelines is all too easy and doesn't improve Wikipedia for our readers which, after all, should be the primary reason we are all here. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:48, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think we have different definitions of news then. I personally wouldn't want to post everything BBC News puts on their main page onto ITN. If merely stating an opposing opinion is "heckling from the sidelines" then perhaps you should consider making a proposal on WT:ITN to change the structure of how we address candidates here. Fuebaey (talk) 14:59, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The point of "Ongoing" was to highlight a news story or two that had a longer burst of news (compared to a typical news story) that was coming in with frequent updates both in story and article updates. This was anticipated to be a week to a month or so. It was not meant to drop in a enduring piece of news (eg like the US election period which started mid-last year and would run to Nov of this year). The migrant situation has become that. It's a problem, its not going away in a long time. As such, while it might be highlighted as a top story regularly on RSes, does not make it an appropriate story anymore for "Ongoing". If there is a massive change in the future (like, say, a passage of bills that would affect a majority of the migrants in a major way) that would be ITN/C then. At this point, though, it has far served its purpose to highlight the large wave of migrants that happened late last year. --MASEM (t) 15:11, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Purpose of the ITN section, bullet 1: "To help readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news." Simple as that. Your opinions are both interesting, but the item is in the news, and its inclusion meets the primary purpose of this section. But it's clear we won't agree so I'll leave it there, I suggest you both do too, and actually crack on with improving some articles from which our readers can benefit. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:55, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Outdent What about bullet 2 and 4, respectively: "Template:Tq" and "Template:Tq"? The article itself seems to lack enough quality due to insufficient substantial changes within the major subject. Also, featuring the article itself on the Main Page doesn't make Wikipedia "dynamic" more than it makes Wikipedia... Euro-emphasized and Euro-exceptional. Check the dictionary and thesaurus of "dynamic". --George Ho (talk) 17:37, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As for bullet 1, that would be insufficient reason to keep it on the Main Page anymore. Anyone watching the news would search for the article, frankly. George Ho (talk) 17:52, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep & Update: Keep and update with the latest news which just came today regarding United Nations announcing the deal with Turkey might be illegal. That is a major news. News: U.N., rights groups say EU-Turkey migrant deal may be illegal Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 23:31, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How does the UN help much? By sending peacekeepers or peace troopers? If neither, how do their resolutions and wordings work for all five permanent Security Council members and more than one hundred UN members? Also, EU is more relevant than the UN nowadays. George Ho (talk) 00:46, 9 March 2016 (UTC) (Pinging Sheriff. George Ho (talk) 00:47, 9 March 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Remove This item has been on the main page for months now, and could stay there for months or even years more before the number of arrivals slows down. The article is already too long, and can’t be continuously updated with every little news or announcement reported by the media. Actually, what it needs is rewriting the part about the events since last summer, which is chaotic and doesn’t properly summarize the main events. I also agree that giving too much prominence for too long, on Wikipedia’s main page, to the consequences of the global refugee crisis in Europe, is rather Eurocentric. Nykterinos (talk) 12:40, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As an Italian and a European, maybe I'm a bit influenced but I think that the migrant crisis is a major current event and we should keep it on the Main Page. -- Nick.mon (talk) 20:48, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Remove "Zika virus outbreak" from Main Page?

Template:Archive top In prose, the March events of the Zika virus outbreak (2015–present) are absent, even when the ongoing event is currently newsworthy. Some sentences are tagged as "citation needed". Some other updates are also needed. --George Ho (talk) 02:51, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Still in the BBC news on an almost daily basis, highlighted article has been edited 50 times in March already, and there are at least five related articles, all being updated actively. If there are events that you believe should be added, feel free to add them, or ask for them to be added on the talk page, which is being actively patrolled by the medical wikiproject. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:07, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I also hear new reports on the virus each day basically. Too soon to remove.--BabbaQ (talk) 07:42, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I checked this just the other day, it's being regularly updated, and will no doubt rise to more prominence as we approach the Olympics. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:10, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Still receiving substantive updates. --Jayron 32 02:01, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Pandemic stories are boring. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:49, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, InedibleHulk. And if a story isn't boring to somebody or other, it clearly can't possibly be encyclopedic, so let's shut down ITN altogether, and boring old Wikipedia too :) Tlhslobus (talk) 05:10, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's still very much ongoing. STSC (talk) 05:16, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Archivetop Template:ITN candidate

[Closed] RD: Al Wistert

Oppose from reading the obit, it looks like he achieved at state level only?? Not national or international level. I know we shouldn't compare noms with noms, but I'm going to anyway - an Olympic medal winner was just considered unworthy of an RD so why should a state level athlete be judged worthy? MurielMary (talk) 02:47, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree, not top of his field (which we'd have to take as all of American football), more of a local legend. --MASEM (t) 02:52, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Not sure where this "state level" stuff is coming from. He had a very successful career in the National Football League, which is a top-level professional league, but apparently not successful enough to be elected into the Pro Football Hall of Fame. He was elected to the College Football Hall of Fame, but I don't think that's enough. Good player, but one that falls just short for our purposes - it's hard to justify posting a non-HOFer when being in a hall of fame is no guarantee of an RD listing anyway. --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:14, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose Echoing Bongwarrior, there is clearly some mistake about the level of football he played - he was certainly competing at the highest possible level for his sport. He was evidently good enough for his jersey to be retired, but not to be elected to the Hall of Fame; HOF isn't the one true dividing line but I agree that he falls short of RD notability. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 05:58, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - per Bongwarrior's excellent summary of the situation.Tlhslobus (talk) 06:12, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Close - This should be closed per WP:SNOW. I'd close it myself, except that having just posted my oppose, I think I should perhaps wait longer before doing so myself, but I don't think others need wait if they agree that it appears to be WP:SNOW.Tlhslobus (talk) 06:12, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Archivebottom

[Posted] Slovak elections

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2016 March 5 Template:Cob

Comment: This is unquestionably WP:ITN/R (as the President of Slovakia is a largely ceremonial office, so it's not a 'presidential system', where there's some room for debate over the meaning of 'General election', and it's also a single round of voting), so it should definitely be posted if and when quality standards are satisfied.Tlhslobus (talk) 05:53, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some prose. I'd appreciate it if someone could either mark this ready or point out what is lacking. Fuebaey (talk) 16:33, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this, Fuebaey. I think it still needs some citations for stats and the results source needs to be made into a proper reference. It would be useful to have more discussion of the results, which seem rather unexpected, with a selection of references to different sources not just a single one. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:38, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time. I've added a bit more info and refs. I'm not sure which stats you're referring to, but everything seems to be cited. I'm reluctant to add result analysis this early because of the lack of reliable sources (lots of speculation on why 'a' lost/won). The prior campaign background and the proceeding government formation could be expanded in the near future but I don't think either are a barrier to posting since the article is still larger than two of the previous three elections that have appeared on ITN.

Surprised this isn't bigger news actually; came across "'Neo-Nazis' making it into an EU parliament" a lot while looking for sources. Fuebaey (talk) 23:18, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a direct citation for the turnout but all now seems cited. I'd prefer more analysis before posting but other admins might disagree. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:53, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Posted Step hen 22:33, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

March 5

[Closed] Today's Zaman

Support, subject to quality, as it seems a significant and unfortunate development for democracy in the Muslim world. But see my Comment below.Tlhslobus (talk) 03:18, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm afraid you've basically got the wrong article, the English edition instead of the mass-selling Turkish one at Zaman (newspaper) (incidentally a much better article, tho I'm not a good judge of how good is good enough). I won't bother with an altblurb, as you have to correct the main blurb. (Incidentally I'm afraid I probably won't be helping with the editing, as I'm thinking of going on a kind of protest ITN private strike to remind myself that Wikipedia is not compulsory and in protest at things I don't want to risk saying about a third party due WP:NPA, so I probably won't be doing any more editing of ITN articles for quite some time - my previous one lasted about a year, triggered by the same third party).Tlhslobus (talk) 03:18, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, article link fixed. Thue (talk) 08:35, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think this is important news on a global level, given the broader implications of a seemingly overt setback to freedom of the press in a regional power. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 09:02, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst obviously not itself a BLP, there are claims against individuals within the article that are unreferenced. If more citations are added this could be posted. Step hen 22:27, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support A major national event, and interesting enough for the rest of the world to support. Banedon (talk) 14:50, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this is stale, the event actually happened on 4 March, eight days ago. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:20, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Closed as stale, per my note above. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:08, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] RD: Nikolaus Harnoncourt

Comment While he does seem to be at the top of his field (even won a Grammy), and the article prose appears sufficient, some things in the article lack references. Once those are added, I give my support. Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:47, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support on article improvements. Importance seems appropriate. There's a few unsourced statements, and in the awards, any no-link or red-link award line I would expect a source to confirm. --MASEM (t) 15:07, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose on quality alone. Article needs a few more cites (first paragraph in personal life section, most of the awards section). If that were done, this could be posted. --Jayron 32 19:07, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support A leading figure in historically informed performance, probably the most important movement in classical music in the past half-century. A 2010 BBC Music Magazine poll of 100 leading conductors ranked him as the fifth greatest conductor of the recorded era[17] (I am usually wary of "greatest ever" polls, but this does show the extremely high esteem in which he was held by his peers). Neljack (talk) 22:29, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support on notability; he was one of the founders of the authentic performance movement for Baroque music and some of his recordings have been very influential. The referencing has improved since I last reviewed it, but some more citations are still required. This discussion should probably be moved to his date of death (5 March). Espresso Addict (talk) 00:36, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Moved MurielMary (talk) 08:32, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Now fully sourced + Support. I have sourced the Awards section completely, and I think everything that needed to be done to get this ITN ready has been done. I fully support addition to RD, one of the few truly important classical directors. Fram (talk) 11:08, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Posted good work Fram. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:18, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] UFC 196

Oppose it seems that these "hyped up fights" occur all-too regularly, and that the "upsets" also seem to be quite standard. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:12, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe One record was already broken when McGregor made a million dollars in disclosed purse. Beat Anderson Silva's record by $200k. At the post-fight press conference, Dana White said it was set to break other sales records, without elaborating. If it turns out to be the biggest PPV draw, it's worth a mention. But Robbie Lawler is the Welterweight Champion. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:58, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The men's fight wasn't even a title fight as noted above. Even if it was, it would be the equivalent of posting every boxing weight championship fight, and we don't do that. Laura Jamieson (talk) 17:39, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose Highly anticipated card featuring not one but two upsets; unfortunately I don't know if either has enough impact on the sport to merit posting, as McGregor's fight was non-title and Holm's fight was her first defense of the title. I also don't especially love the idea of posting back-to-back McGregor fights (especially as his previous was, to my knowledge, the first and only MMA fight we've posted and kept up). - OldManNeptune ⚓ 19:10, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Holly Holm and UFC 193 had a few hours. During the 194 debate, there was some concern about a pattern of acknowledging these highly-covered extra-mainstream sport events. I said then that I'd probably not endorse another till UFC 200, and I'll probably stick with that now. That's not to say it isn't still "in the news" today, just that Wikipedia is also well-served by shedding light on more "highbrow" competitions that the typical reader hadn't already heard about. Rowing, decathlon and stuff. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:26, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] RD: Hassan Al-Turabi

Tentative support on significance for RD, not as a blurb. He seems influential enough to Sudanese politics, with the BBC saying he was 'the de facto leader of the country' during the 1990s, even though he is not a name I would know of without having to look up. I'll need a bit more time to assess quality, but on first glance it seems a bit bloated - excessive quotations and a massive lead section that could both do with trimming. Also, there has been no update other than the addition of his date of death in the lead/infobox. Fuebaey (talk) 23:45, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
support - for RD influential in Sudanese politics.BabbaQ (talk) 23:51, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support on article improvements There are a few cn and other tags but not too many. Importance seems high here for RD. --MASEM (t) 02:53, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

full blurb more than arguably responsible for the civil war that led to the break up of the country (that in itself is notable). Reponsible for turning Numeiri from secularism to Islamism and the consequent rift with the south. Just power mad plitcs that claims hes in opposition Bashar.Lihaas (talk) 14:20, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose clearly notable, but the article, a BLP, has numerous uncited claims which will need to be addressed before this is highlighted on the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:03, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Article seems sufficient quality for the main page. A few cn tags could probably be resolved, but I don't see anything keeping this off the main page. --Jayron 32 02:04, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Turabi is a very important figure in contemporary Sudanese politics, for better or for worse. He is significant enough for his own blurb. Kurtis ^(talk) 17:32, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] RD: Ray Tomlinson

Support - It appears he invented email. It's pretty tough to say no to that. Article needs work. --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:45, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support when updated. Invented system for e-mail between different computers and use of "@" for addressing. The article requires referencing. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:29, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support I think "invented email" qualifies as a pretty big deal, in so many words. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 06:02, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support on article improvement; article could use more references and is fairly brief. Historic significance seems to be well established in the article's text. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 06:46, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support notability but oppose on quality. Really needs a good overhaul. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:10, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support with improvements, per TRM and Espresso Addict. (Also to be clear, he invited the means to send messages across different parts of ARPANET, as intra-organization messaging had been in place; he deviced the @example.com aspect that we all know and love, which is still critically important for RD). --MASEM (t) 17:49, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support pending improvements. Speaks for itself. Daniel Case (talk) 19:32, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support, an obvious inclusion and a reminder that IT has a history of its own. This story is trending on BBC World Service. —Brigade Piron (talk) 14:49, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - please add ASAP. --Fixuture (talk) 22:11, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Ping If you wanted added ASAP, it is incumbent upon YOU that YOU fix the problems with the article so it can be added. Literally one second after you fix all of the problems, I or any admin can post it. The article is currently ineligible for highlighting on the main page because of quality issues that YOU could fix if YOU wanted it posted. --Jayron 32 22:20, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Ping So first of all I don't think important recent deaths just be excluded from the main page for quality issues (if they're not totally disastrous; saying not just incomplete and badly written but full of errors and vandalism). Then I don't think that the article is in such a bad state. Also I previously edited the article - not much of an effort, but as of right now I can't see how I can improve it further...also as of today I sadly don't have anymore time (if one could abandon sleep I'd do so). I'm kinda frustrated with the lack of people doing the relatively easy but significant major tasks as well. I also think that this could be solved if one would implement the appropriate technological changes to Wikipedia (e.g. somehow notifying the right people about the edit-task of improving / adding references to this article). --Fixuture (talk) 22:41, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I received an email today form a Nigerian Prince wanting help to fly to his funeral, all he needs is his visa fee paid up front... Guy (Help!) 22:46, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I dare say this is now good enough to post. Not great, but good enough. --Bongwarrior (talk) 02:33, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it's short but well-referenced and fairly comprehensive about the important bits of his career. Can we post it now? —Brigade Piron (talk) 09:56, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Posted The Rambling Man (talk) 10:05, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Samoan general election, 2016

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2016 March 4 Template:Cob

There has not been enough of an update yet. A results table is needed, for starters. 331dot (talk) 10:38, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It seems silly to be bigging this up when the entire electorate was about 100K and we're saying nothing about events like Super Tuesday. Andrew D. (talk) 12:49, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Then suggest an alternative to the current ITNR. WT:ITNR is a good place to start that discussion. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:51, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I gather this is a perennial issue there and so some new angle would be needed. Perhaps nations in Category:Small Island Developing States shouldn't get automatic acceptance but have to demonstrate significant news coverage? I'll give it some thought but have other things on my to-do list too. Andrew D. (talk) 13:16, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, it has been discussed ad nauseam. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:21, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Super Tuesday is political parties choosing their candidates, not the election itself. 331dot (talk) 21:13, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Per Andrew D. ITN/R or not, it would be illogical to run this when we didn't run the Feb. 26 Iranian legislative election. – Sca (talk) 15:10, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, we don't "not run A because B wasn't run". Consensus can change. Voting should be made on the individual merits of the nomination, not on some perceived logic. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:15, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merits addressed adequately by Andrew D., whom I cited. "We don't do this" is not logical exposition. Sca (talk) 15:30, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, and that's why we have ITNR to supersede your opinion on what is and what is not considered notable by default, in this case. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:19, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How would TRM rate the relative significance, politically and otherwise, of Iran and Samoa? Sca (talk) 22:10, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sca, we only closed the Iran elections while awaiting the second round of voting. Whenever that happens it can be re-opened and there seems to be a clear consensus that it is ITN/R and should be posted provided it meets quality standards.Tlhslobus (talk) 07:11, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support – This seems to be a matter more about the fact that it is Samoa. Had it been Germany or whatever country do you honestly think we would have had the same discussion. Doubt it. This is a General Election, results are in. post.BabbaQ (talk) 15:17, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about Samoa per se, it's about a country of fewer than 200,000 people vis-vis countries of 81 million (Germany), 78 million (Iran), etc., etc. Sca (talk) 15:36, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which is explicitly against our stated goals and purpose. It would appear that posting the Iranian election blurb was postponed due to an expected second round of the election; if a similar circumstance exists in Samoa then that may be taken into account, but what you've said here is entirely at odds with established policy. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 18:52, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Policy and previous practice are not prima facie evidence of logic, or of sound editorial judgment with respect to news. Sca (talk) 22:10, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Does this really strike you as a useful venue to bring forth an argument on the fundamental value of neutrality or policy by consensus on Wikipedia? The logic has been settled, repeatedly, hence its inclusion in ITN/R. You're comparing apples to oranges with the Iran blurb, for reasons I've explained already, and I'm certainly not getting sucked into an argument about whether we should intentionally introduce new bias to the project. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 22:35, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? See below. Sca (talk) 01:32, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose - I'm aware this is ITN/R, but posting this item when we failed to post the Iranian election is somewhat of an idiosyncrasy.--WaltCip (talk) 16:34, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It was my understanding that the Iranian election was not posted because there will be another round(and we typically only post the last round); is that not the case? 331dot (talk) 21:10, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is indeed the case.Tlhslobus (talk) 07:16, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Article appears to have a reasonable update and citations given the usual difficulty of finding sources for elections in nations of similar size. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 18:55, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Article is a reasonable length and election results are ITN/R (not "election results of large countries" or "election results of the countries which people personally have connections to" because either of these criteria would lead to systemic bias). MurielMary (talk) 18:58, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support The oppose votes citing the Iranian election are irrelevant - we didn't decide that the Iranian election was insufficiently important for ITN, we just decided to wait for the second round. Similarly, with regard to Super Tuesday, we aren't going to post all the different stages of the US Presidential election process, but nobody is suggesting that the US Presidential election is not important enough to be posted. This is ITN/R and the position of elections in small states has been discussed at great length, always with the conclusion that they should continue to be ITN/R. So we should not be relitigating that on this nomination. The only relevant question is whether the article is sufficiently updated, which it seems to be. Neljack (talk) 21:07, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Stats Here's some peak viewing stats for some of the articles currently in question. These are a good measure of relative importance and relative newsiness, in my view:

257,241 – Super Tuesday

14,412 – Iranian legislative election, 2016

8,672 – Berta Cáceres

4,667 – GN-z11

1,151 – Samoan general election, 2016

Notice that Super Tuesday had more readers than the entire Samoan population. Andrew D. (talk) 21:58, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All those stats aren't really relevant. You are welcome to attempt to somehow limit the nations that have their elections posted, but it has been tried and failed numerous times. Any limit is arbitrary- assuming one could be agreed to, which has never occurred, let alone a limit itself. Until such a limit is made, there is little reason to not post this. I actually learned quite a bit- which is the goal of this whole place. Excluding small nations would also be an example of systemic bias; every nation deserves a place here. 331dot (talk) 22:06, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support - let's not be biased towards the larger countries. Article is short, but well referenced. No reason not to post it. Mjroots (talk) 22:09, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From a journalistic point of view, gauging importance or significance on the basis of the number of people affected has nothing whatever to do with bias or discrimination based on inherent or purported characteristics of the populations affected; it has to do with logic. One person killed in a train wreck is of little note unless the person is very eminent or circumstances of the accident are highly unusual. It doesn't matter whether said train wreck is in Samoa, Germany, Iran or anywhere else. Fifty people killed in a train wreck is news. Sca (talk) 22:24, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And that's why this is Wikipedia, not a journal, newspaper or ticker. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:06, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Marking as ready Updated and ITN/R (plus a majority in favour of posting, not that it needs it). Neljack (talk) 04:56, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article states the results are not final: "The final count will commence on 7 March." Espresso Addict (talk) 05:22, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Espresso Addict, we don't usually wait for final results. To take an example I am particularly familiar with, New Zealand elections have preliminary results on election night and final results about two weeks later, but we never wait for two weeks to post the results (even though the number of seats won often changes slightly). Neljack (talk) 06:24, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Posted The Rambling Man (talk) 08:09, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

March 4

[Posted] Repercussions of Berta Caceres' assassination

Support big national news for Honduras, with impact not less than an election. Banedon (talk) 09:59, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose until an article exists for the unrest. If it's that big a deal, it shouldn't be too much to expect to see a fully referenced standalone article covering the riots. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:11, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, there is also an alt blurb there which focuses on the political response rather than the riot. MurielMary (talk) 18:43, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If the focus is now on unrest, I'd expect to see a new article about it, or at least a substantial section of an existing article. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:51, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this framing blows the violence out of proportion. Student protests often end in violence in Honduras. However, as suggested below, a blurb about the international reactions from the OAS, UNCHR, and so many others, would be appropriate. -- Irn (talk) 10:35, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So is that support for the alt blurb then? The alt blurb in this nom is taken from your suggestion on the RD nom discussion thread. MurielMary (talk) 18:43, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, absolutely! I hadn't even noticed the alt blurb, sorry about that! -- Irn (talk) 19:19, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't really matter, and it was a perfectly understandable mistake that anyone could easily make, but just for the record, that altblurb was actually from my suggestion, Irn merely supported 'a blurb'. In the event, Bongwarrior's better altblurb2 is the one that got used. Tlhslobus (talk) 04:44, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for setting the record straight, Template:Ping. I ought to have double-checked who exactly said what! MurielMary (talk) 08:40, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all, Template:Ping, life is far too short to be double-checking everything :) Tlhslobus (talk) 08:46, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Altblurb or something like it seems wiser to me, since the above objection could not apply to it, and it emphasizes international reaction. I would find it acceptable to have Cáceres and the aftermath that we are here writing about in the same article, as it is now; even if it is argued that the murder and reaction supersedes the person in importance, a title change would be more appropriate than an article fork given how inextricable the two subjects are (the background of the murders would be her bio, the Death section of her article would be a link to that article and a summary thereof, etc). But that's a matter to be settled in that article's discussion, no? - OldManNeptune ⚓ 19:27, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support notable enough for a slooooooow news period. Nergaal (talk) 20:46, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support per my earlier comments. I've added another altblurb because I think the main focus should be the murder itself - it's the larger event, and a much more ITN-worthy event. The violence and calls for investigation are secondary stories. The article has been much improved over the past two days or so, and it looks ready. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:17, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Posted with Alt2. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:33, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting Support (and support for the use of Bongwarrior's Alt2).Tlhslobus (talk) 04:44, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting support - interesting and unusual topic, worth covering. Blythwood (talk) 04:48, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting support - World Bank's role in covertly financing dam at issue should be included. Activist (talk) 07:56, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] RD: Pat Conroy

Weak oppose for now on quality only. There's some referencing issues in the article, and the writing needs to be cleaned up a bit. As soon as someone takes some care to improve the article, this would be an easy posting. --Jayron 32 05:04, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose poor article and no real claim of personal notability, the movies nominated for Oscars were not his nominations, and he seems to have very few awards, indicating that he's not important to the field. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:11, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. No awards, books made into Oscar nominations, but not for the writing. Article's not in the best shape either. Someone who definitely has his fans, but doesn't quite meet the bar IMO. Challenger l (talk) 11:32, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2016 March 3 Template:Cob

[Posted] Most distant known galaxy

Template:ITN candidate Nom. Typically encyclopedic news, if you ask me. --bender235 (talk) 15:04, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Does ITN make such an announcement every time a new farther-yet galaxy is discovered? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:11, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose "farthest observed" for now - Hubble and other telescopes will continue to scan and find even more distant objects. Now, recognizing that there is a correlation between distance and the time it took for the light to reach Earth, if this discovery led to a fundamental shift in understanding the age of the universe or the rate of its expansion, that would be interesting but this just seems to be saying "we found this". It's a metric that should easily be broken in time. --MASEM (t) 16:21, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- To add, this article is easily fair game for DYK. It's a perfect match there. --MASEM (t) 16:22, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Article is short, but appears to be as comprehensive as it can be, and is well referenced. --Jayron 32 16:22, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Does not represent a fundamental change in our understanding of the universe.--WaltCip (talk) 16:23, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's been less than a year since EGSY8p7 took the record for most distant galaxy; one expects that this record will be broken again and again, especially once new telescopes are in place. It would appear to be less than 2% more distant than the previous most distant known, and therefore does not change our conception of the universe. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 17:51, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

::Sorry, OldManNeptune, but with redshift up from 8.7 to 11.1 it seems more like 25% than 2%, or from 25 billion to 32 billion light years (though the 25 billion is my possibly mistaken calculation derived from the 32 billion and the 2 redshifts, as the EGSY8p7 article doesn't tell us how far away that galaxy is.Tlhslobus (talk) 10:05, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, OldManNeptune, the figures seem more like 5.8%, up from 30.5 billion light years, see my 'Correction' below.Tlhslobus (talk) 10:46, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if I have misrepresented facts; I based my (casual and inexact) figure on light travel distance. That may be in error; I chose it as we are comparing observation to observation, and in my thinking, estimated actual physical distance in the present day is a matter of scientific trivia. We certainly are not observing light originated 25 billion+ LY away or years old, though if this is an improper way of thinking of it then disregard my comments. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 19:59, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No matter how good a shape the article is in, if this article doesn't meet the ITN criteria, it shouldn't be posted. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:19, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. As others have said, this is likely to be superseded in relatively short order. 331dot (talk) 20:43, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per all the other "soon to be superseded, incremental change" opposers. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:12, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How soon is that, then? 217.38.79.252 (talk) 20:38, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Alt Blurb 2 it's redshift 11, compared to redshift 8. That's quite a large increase. Alt blurb 2 because it illustrates what is significant about the discovery. Banedon (talk) 09:21, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support: These records for the oldest and most distant galaxy/object are not expected to be superseded anytime soon, as part of this breakthrough is that astronomers literally do not believe the Hubble can go an iota deeper with exploration. Beyond that, the redshift makes for a significant increase in both age and distance from the previous record-holder, so I believe this merits a mention for ITN. DARTHBOTTO_talk•cont 10:42, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hubble is an aging telescope; the James Webb Space Telescope is scheduled to launch in 2018, and to quote our article, "One particular goal involves observing some of the most distant objects in the Universe, beyond the reach of current ground and space based instruments." Hence we might fully expect this record to be superseded in the predictable future, nevermind what Hubble might do in the meantime (as mentioned, it's been less than a year since the last time this record was broken). - OldManNeptune ⚓ 20:53, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I know; that leaves at least two years until the James Webb Telescope is put into space, meaning that it won't even begin to attempt to discover more primordial objects until then. As the astronomers said, the Hubble's at the edge of its limit, indicating there's not much likelihood for it being capable of finding something beyond over the next two years. Hence, the nearly-yearly records should be at an end for a while. DARTHBOTTO_talk•cont 21:35, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So is that "soon"? Does ITN ever report on things that happen annually? lol. 217.38.109.72 (talk) 21:53, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A record is less notable the more constantly it is broken. That's very different than an annual event. "lol". 331dot (talk) 21:55, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So how often has this record been broken? Maybe the table at Wikipedia article List of the most distant astronomical objects should have an extra column added to show date of discovery. 217.38.109.72 (talk) 22:08, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you think so, perhaps you can add that to the article. To answer your first question, "pretty often" I would say. I clicked the top six links on that list and all had pretty clear dates in the lead, if you're looking for specifics. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 22:43, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Large Hadron Collider began taking data in 2009, but it took till 2012 to discover the Higgs. I doubt this record will be broken for a couple of years more at least. Furthermore, I quote from the article, " The fact that a galaxy so massive existed, so soon after the first stars started to form, is a challenge for some current theoretical models on the origin of galaxies". If this record is broken again, especially if it's broken by a wide margin, there'd be more issues. Banedon (talk) 01:54, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support: - breakthrough. it is a record that will likely take a look time to be exceeded. BabbaQ (talk) 10:47, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What's the time gaps for discovering the most distance objects? If it's not happened for "a while", then I see no issue in posting this. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:08, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this is a galaxy, not object. Galaxies take time to form after the Big Bang. That means there will be a "most distant" galaxy simply because one further away does not exist (but there may be plenty of more distant objects!). Banedon (talk) 01:54, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support we would certainly announce a new planetary body in the solar system. Can someone who opposes list the last furthest galaxy we posted? It would be easier to switch to oppose if the difference were a minor one. Medeis (talk) 20:32, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I already did exactly that in my comment above. Additionally, the list of most distant known astronomical objects (most distant galaxies) will provide a more comprehensive overview. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 20:47, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~But your above comment appears to be partly mistaken or misleading, through ignoring redshift, a 25% difference of about 7 billion light years is not a minor one, unlike your claimed 2%.~~Tlhslobus (talk) 10:05, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, OldManNeptune, the figures seem more like 5.8%, up from 30.5 billion light years, see my 'Correction' below.Tlhslobus (talk) 10:46, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Support, mostly on the basis of Banedon's point that redshift is up from 8 to 11 (actually 8.7 to 11.1).Tlhslobus (talk) 10:19, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Adding altblurb saying it's about 32 billion light years away. That may interest, shock, and educate, a lot of readers who mistakenly think nothing can be more than 13.8 billion light years away because the Big Bang occurred 13.8 billion years ago and nothing can travel faster than light (the 32 billion is something to do with the expansion of the universe). ~~I'd like to be able to say 'up from about 25 billion' in an altblurb2, but that will need a reliable source, as 25 billion is currently just my possibly mistaken calculation.~~Tlhslobus (talk) 10:14, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Correction: My calculated 25% is also far too high, as this calculator here gives it up from 30.466 billion light years to 32.227 billion light years, or about 5.8%. Sorry about that. Tlhslobus (talk) 10:42, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are thinking about this in the wrong way ... the key variable here is not how far the galaxy is from us now; it is rather how soon the galaxy formed rather the Big Bang. Yes, these two variables are connected and one can be derived from the other, but the impact of this observation on astrophysics is based on the latter variable. Think about it this way. What emerged from the Big Bang was a hot "soup" of particles. No galaxies, no stars, just particles. At some point the particles coalesced into stars and galaxies. This, however, takes time. A theory of galaxy formation from the primordial soup must be able to account for how long it takes for inhomogeneities to form galaxies. If galaxies were able to form earlier, they'll be further away now, but we are still concerned mostly about the time, not the distance.

Based on the calculator you gave then, a galaxy at redshift 11 formed 420 million years after the Big Bang, while a galaxy at redshift 8 formed 650 million years after the Big Bang. That's a difference of some 30%, not 5.8%. Banedon (talk) 12:16, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, Banedon, though our blurb (and perhaps the article) arguably then needs re-wording to reflect this, as its talking about most distant from here, not nearest in time to the Big Bang (of course they're "both the same thing", but ...). An argument could also be made for 10 to 15%, based on distance from the beginning of the Cosmic Microwave Background, seemingly given in various places on Wikipedia as z=1089 and about 46.5 billion light years. All these figures (5.8%, 10-15%, 30%) are 3 to 15 times greater than OldManNeptune's 2%, and I may have been over-reacting a bit due to my embarassment at being so far out with my 25%.Tlhslobus (talk) 08:42, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Neutral: switching to neutral due above correction.Tlhslobus (talk) 10:52, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I fear those opposing because it is only an "incremental increase", or a record "soon to be superceded", are mistaken. Firstly, whereas previous records can be considered fairly insignificant increases, this one is significant: It is the first observation of a galaxy that has formed at the start of the reionization period (thought to be around ~z=10 or 11), an important discovery which adds to our understanding of the early universe, and provides some surprises regarding luminosity and star-formation rate. The fact that GN-z11 is am early reionization object wasn't mentioned in the article until yesterday. Secondly, as others have noted, the scientists involved all say that this discovery is at the limit of what is detectable with current equipment; the record probably won't be broken until at 2019 at the earliest. --Hillbillyholiday ^talk 14:41, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Adding 2 new alblurbs (one shorter, one longer) that mention the point made by Hillbillyholiday that the discovery (allegedly) challenges some current theory, as indicated in the article, backed by a RS (it'd be nice to have more on which theories are challenged, but I guess we can't have everything) - most importantly, this contradicts some of the Oppose claims that the record doesn't change our understanding of the Universe. I'd like to mention the beginning of the Reionization era too, but we currently seem to have a problem with sources and definitions on that - currently our wikilink goes to something which gives "This occurred between 150 million and one billion years after the Big Bang (at a redshift 6 < z < 20).[citation needed]". This covers both the current and previous records, neither of them at the beginning of that era, and those sources for our GN-z11 article that I've checked so far (including the one that was used as the RS for 'at the beginning of the reionization era', until I replaced it with a Citation Needed) don't mention that era except arguably implicitly with one scientist quoted (NOT in the RS that I replaced with a CN) as saying "very close to the end of the so-called Dark Ages of the universe". A Reliable Source for Hillbillyholiday's z=10 or 11 might help, but it would be hard to know whether that was representative given the z=6 to 20. I'm thinking of switching back from Neutral to Support based on the recent arguments by Banedon and Hillbillyholiday, but I'd like to hear a bit more about some of the points I've raised first.Tlhslobus (talk) 08:45, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Switching back from neutral to support after finding a RS for 'very beginning of the Reionization era' in Astronomy Magazine (here), which I plan to add to the article ASAP.Tlhslobus (talk) 09:19, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Above citation now added, along with useful quotes from it regarding challenged theories from several different scientists (so it's no longer just one scientist saying this - all the more reason for Support).Tlhslobus (talk) 10:04, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've reduced my altblurbs to 2 to leave 1 spare, and the first one now reflects the more relevant fact that it's unexpectedly early.Tlhslobus (talk) 10:30, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments/Questions: 1) Can somebody with more experience of such matters than me please indicate whether the quality of the article is sufficient to deem it ready for posting, and if not, indicate what still needs doing?

2) Blurbs: I'm equally happy with either alblurb, so altblurb2, favoured above by Banedon, will do fine. But I'm happy to see this posted with any old blurb, and leave any possible arguments about blurbs to WP:ERRORS (where they doesn't need to be consensus, so any alleged or actual lack of consensus over blurbs should not be used as an excuse for not posting).

3) Does anybody agree with me that, despite 4 initial opposes (and my period as a neutral), we now appear to have consensus for posting - there have been 7 new supports since the last oppose was posted 3 days ago, and since then the objection that "this doesn't change our understanding of the universe" has been thoroughly refuted, leaving only the questionable views that "it's only a small increase" (depends on how you look at it, as pointed out above by Banedon, and to a lesser extent by me, and in any case, so what, given that it changes our understanding of the universe), and "it will happen again soon" which is WP:CRYSTAL, is contradicted by the statements of knowledgeable scientists, and ignores the more fundamental point that this does challenge our understanding of the universe (or at least of that part of the universe that leads to galaxies getting built), according to many scientists.

4) Please note that time is fast running out on this. So if nobody responds by tomorrow, I plan to mark it as Ready myself. (Note: Jayron, who seems to know a lot about our quality requirements, was already agreeing it had the requisite quality 4 days ago, and there have been several further improvements since then). Tlhslobus (talk) 09:06, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There does seem to be an emerging consensus here, so posted. --Bongwarrior (talk) 09:54, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

March 3

[Closed] European Flag teared down in Bulgaria

Template:Archive top Followers of Attack teared down and jammed by their feet the European Flag at 3 March 2016, at the meeting of the party, dedicated to the commemoration of the 138 anniversary of the liberation of Bulgaria from the Turkish yoke.^[1] --Иван (talk)

Oppose not unusual to protest against the EU. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:40, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't see any significant update to either article about the event. --Jayron 32 20:55, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Unremarkable protest. 331dot (talk) 23:59, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Is this a nomination or just a general comment about a minor current event?--WaltCip (talk) 00:11, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Regardless of procedural irregularities with the nomination, simply tearing down a flag is a relatively civilized protest - meaning one that isn't exactly big news. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 04:26, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Request speedy close - no article and no chance of there being one. Nationalists stomped on the EU flag. Compared to Ataka's previous japes of stealing and burning prayer rugs and booing Islamic prayer, this has no perceivable victim '''tAD''' (talk) 07:52, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support For free speech in the free world! Power to those rascals! Or something. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:37, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Archivetop Template:ITN candidate

[Closed, but is now a March 4 news item, not RD] RD: Berta Cáceres

I think this should absolutely be a blurb rather than RD, if the story is big enough. I'm not sure that it is, but it's quite possible, so I'm probably leaning towards support right now. The article doesn't really tell us much right now. I'd also be careful about using the word "assassinated" rather than "murdered", but it's not quite an ITN-level story if this was just a random act of violence (it was posited by local police that this occured during a robbery at her home). --Bongwarrior (talk) 19:39, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Considering the government most likely ordered her assassination (according to what she told Al Jazeera), I'm not sure how much we can trust what the police say in this case. (If that sounds implausible, see Tlatelolco massacre and 2014 Iguala mass kidnapping.) Of course it's speculation either way, so I suppose we have to go with the more conservative interpretation of events. Kaldari (talk) 19:56, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose minor individual killed in a minor country. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:19, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Organized the indigenous Lenca people in a successful grassroots battle against construction of the Agua Zarca Dam. --The lorax (talk) 20:45, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Article is too short and does not have an adequately comprehensive biography of the person's life and work. If it were SIGNIFICANTLY expanded, I would consider supporting a blurb. --Jayron 32 20:56, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support notability seems to be established in the reports of her death e.g. won the Goldman Award for activism. Will do some expansion later and see if the nom is supported then. MurielMary (talk) 21:35, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I want to support this. If it's expanded, I will. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:10, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Support sufficiently expanded. No preference for blurb or RD. Whatever the consensus says. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:23, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I could potentially support an RD here, if the article is substantially expanded. At present it's hard to see this as quality content and equally tough to judge her importance (though the media coverage suggests it's significant). Almost half of the content is about her death. I would oppose a blurb though. Modest Genius ^talk 13:28, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support as a blurb. Berta was one of the most prominent human rights defenders in Honduras (possibly even the most prominent), and for years she had been denouncing threats she had received due to her work (specifically calling out the state). Global Witness highlighted her case as an example of the dangers faced by environmental activists in Honduras in their April 2015 report. -- Irn (talk) 15:23, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb, though would support RD. If this person is that important, we should have a much more comprehensive article. Yes, we're going to get more obits to help build out the bio, but that really needs to show a lot more than just being a local activist; right now it's just not there. --MASEM (t) 15:35, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think RD actually makes sense in this case. It's the murder itself that is notable, not her life. Berta herself doesn't come close to being notable enough to make the 2016 article, for example. However, it's her murder that's an important and notable event, given the context in which it ocurred (her work, its international recognition, the threats she faced, the recognition of the seriousness of those threats by various international NGOs, the harassment from the government of Honduras, and, utimately, the failure of the government of Honduras to protect human rights defenders). -- Irn (talk) 16:45, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's 100% the point. With respect, the story is important, not this individual. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:25, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
support continuing coverage; but the photo is a problem, maybe a fair use one will be required. Duckduckstop (talk) 21:14, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Great input. However, a fair use photo will not be applicable to Wikipedia's main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:16, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment+Question: Oppose RD, but I might well support a nom of a blurb somewhat like "The Organization of American States (OAS) and other international organisations call for an investigation of the murder of Honduran environmental activist Berta Cáceres" (plus a few altblurbs). So perhaps this should be closed as an RD and re-opened as a blurb story to see how it fares. What do others think? Tlhslobus (talk) 05:13, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would support a blurb pending updates (assuming a blurb can be made fit for the main page), but I oppose RD. RD carries an implication that the subject is independently notable such that their death is the whole story. In this case, the potentially state-sponsored killing of a political activist is the real story. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 05:32, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Archivebottom

[Closed] RD: Sarah Tait

Support upon expansion; seems to be important to Australian rowing, if not rowing in general. 331dot (talk) 10:25, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support will try and do some expansion tomorrow unless someone else gets to it first. MurielMary (talk) 10:35, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Minor athlete in a minor sport. For an athlete, winning a medal or being in a hall of fame has never been enough for RD on its own. The article is infrequently edited and infrequently viewed, and she doesn't appear to have made much of an impact in her sport. --Bongwarrior (talk) 18:55, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, I suppose being part of the world's best women's crew and winning an Olympic silver medal makes her a "minor athlete". If we're now looking to count edit counts and page views, please strive to have those included in the RD criteria. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:59, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, she's notable. Just not notable enough for RD, in my opinion. --Bongwarrior (talk) 19:03, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You missed the point. Never mind. Long live systemic bias. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:04, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty sure I didn't. I apologize for having a differing opinion. --Bongwarrior (talk) 19:05, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, you 100% did. But no need to apologize. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:08, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support Article does not have any obvious problems excepting its short length. It would be nice to have a more comprehensive biography. --Jayron 32 19:14, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose since rowing is a minor sport and even the most notable rowers are not going to be well known. Kaldari (talk) 19:30, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support I suppose one's opinion of rowing may differ, but she was a three-time Olympic medalist and the circumstances will arouse reader interest. μηδείς (talk) 20:07, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Slight correction: she was a one-time Olympic medalist, but a three-time Olympic participant. --Bongwarrior (talk) 20:10, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, she won three World Championship medals, including a gold, indicating that she was part of the best crew in the world, but "only" one silver at the Olympics in this "minor" (i.e. non-American-centric) sport. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:43, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you put a sock in it already. At least this is on the WORLD level unlike a purely amateur race between two schools.Correctron (talk) 22:48, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contribution but I'm not sure what relevance it has to this nomination. You sound confused. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:50, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can't agree with the judgment above by Template:Ping that "she doesn't appear to have made much of an impact in her sport" - as mentioned in the article, as she was the first mother to compete in high level rowing, Rowing Australia changed their attitude and policies around athletes who are parents, to enable athletes' children to spend time with them during extended periods of competing or training. That's an ongoing legacy for both women and men striving to excel in elite sport. In addition, she captained the Australian women's rowing team at four international championships i.e. showed leadership in the sport - also evidence of making an impact in the sport. MurielMary (talk) 21:24, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, lots of rowers (and other athletes) have won lots of medals in a lot of different events. We can't post them all, and there's nothing that sets this one apart from the rest of them. Her primary accomplishments were winning one Olympic silver medal and one World gold (as part of an eight-person crew). I don't think it can be objectively said that she meets the death criteria with those accomplishments - she's not any more notable than her Olympic teammate, or her seven World teammates, or any number of living rowers who have also won multiple medals. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:07, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The factors which set this person apart from the rest of the rowers have already been stated - captaining the team four times (which would suggest she was considered top of her field, which is the criteria for RD notability); and being a pioneer in terms of being a parent in elite sport and causing policy and attitude changes. If she is equally notable as other rowers then she is still notable. It doesn't make her less notable because other people are also notable! MurielMary (talk) 22:19, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think being a captain necessarily equates to being to being among the top of her field of rowing in general. A sign of respect and proficiency, absolutely. But every team has a captain. Her pregnancy resulted in a minor internal change to one country's rowing organization. That's some impact, but not really ITN-level impact. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:32, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Oppose Silver medalist. Correctron (talk) 22:48, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And a three-time world champion. How many world rowing championships have you won? 331dot (talk) 23:50, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By that logic, let's put every athlete in RD. I've never claimed to be top of my sport. However, I assume the Olympics are the most important for rowing and she didn't even win that. Correctron (talk) 23:53, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that winning three world championships is nothing to sneeze at. She is also important to her sport for reasons other than championships or medals. 331dot (talk) 23:58, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your logic is flawed, as is your assumption, you know what they say about assuming things!! The Rambling Man (talk) 06:50, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Rowing at the 2012 Summer Olympics shows 46 Olympic rowing champions just in 2012, and there were 25 other sports. She only got silver. The World Rowing Championships has far more disciplines than the Olympics, is held every year, and she only won one gold. World Rowing Championships#Multiple medallist shows seven rowers won at least 8 golds. I guess hundreds won more than one. Thousands of athletes at this level must die every year. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:26, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support for not only her accomplishments in the sport, but also her death at a young age, as she would have still been active in the sport if not for her diagnosis with cancer. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:10, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Satisfies virtually every RD criteria.--WaltCip (talk) 01:43, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per PrimeHunter, whose arguments are persuasive. Modest Genius ^talk 12:12, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The year she won her gold medal in the World Championships, there were 29 total gold medals awarded (including a few people who won multiple golds). Being one of ~25 world champions over a decade ago in a fringe (at best) sport is not worthy of RD. -- Mike (Kicking222) 20:12, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Utter bilge, you cannot claim a "sport" to be not worthy of RD. For instance, if Steve Redgrave died, are you seriously suggesting that he would not be worthy because he's a rower? Absurd thinking. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:17, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per PrimeHunter. Ninety-two individuals equalled or bested her 2012 Olympic medal in rowing alone, nevermind across other sports and other Olympic years, which must put her as one among tens of thousands. The numbers given for the World Rowing Championships suggest that the gold there is likely an even lesser accomplishment in terms of rarity of company. It is very sad to die at that age but I don't see a good argument for RD notability even within rowing. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 20:41, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] RD: Martin Crowe

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2016 March 2 Template:Cob

Comment I would support but I'm not well versed at cricket, and the problem is that it's difficult for me interprete his athletic career based on his stats; I would leave that to others to assess though everything else leans me to support. The article is otherwise in good shape with sourcing and updating. --MASEM (t) 00:21, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Widely considered one of the finest batsmen of the 80s and early 90s and the greatest one ever produced by New Zealand. Neljack (talk) 00:54, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Even as a proud Aussie, I have to acknowledge that New Zealander Crowe was one of the best ever. The article appears to be well sourced, so I see no problems with it being listed. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 01:44, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support One of the big players of the 80s-90s. He was the Player of the Tournament at the 1992 World Cup. He also introduced some tactical innovations at that WC when he captain. Things like attacking in the first 15 overs, or opening the bowling with spinners are common nowadays, but not then
Support on notability (one of the best cricketers in the world at his peak, one of New Zealand's greatest sportsmen), oppose based on article quality. Needs a lot of work, barely any detail on his career. Don't think it ought to go on the main page without an expansion. IgnorantArmies (talk) 05:30, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Article is now up to scratch as far as I'm concerned. IgnorantArmies (talk) 09:12, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support while the article isn't brilliant, what's there is reasonably well sourced and it covers the most major aspects of his career. I'll try to do a bit of tidying up later on today. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:47, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support as per The Rambling Man. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:52, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Posted good work from Template:U in particular in bringing the article up to snuff. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:16, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

March 2

[Closed] ISS year long mission

Support as it is a conclusion of an interesting scientific research. The news is widely reported in the media and is of very high encyclopedic importance. The article is also in fairly good shape.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:52, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Oppose Pointless misuse of scarce scientific resources hyped without contradiction on places like BBC News as supposedly being necessary for humans to go to Mars. If we ever decide to go to Mars, experiments about how the body copes with long periods of weightlessness will be irrelevant, as, if we want crews to be anything more than wrecks unable to walk on Mars, we will have to use artificial gravity - 2 spacecraft tied together by long cables and rotating about each other, as anybody who has thought about the problem must know, but which our readers almost certainly won't be told because that's not what the so-called 'reliable sources' will say - though I probably would change to support if a reliable source is found to say this, and this gets clearly presented in the article (because we would then be providing our readers with useful background information that they probably won't get from anywhere else, which is what ITN at its best is supposed to be doing). Tlhslobus (talk) 08:31, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree with you. See my criticism of the ISS here (you have to scroll up a bit to section: "Days occupied / continuous human presence in space"). Brian Everlasting (talk) 15:48, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose malformed nomination, weak "story", hardly in the news. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:37, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support due to the uniqueness of having one twin in space and one on the ground. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:54, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. For a start, it wasn't even a full year - making a mockery of the name. There are at least four people who have previously spent longer in space. The fact that a) they were Russian and one of the current experiment is American and b) he has been posting a lot on Twitter during the mission, means that this has received coverage in the media well out of proportion to its importance in the history of spaceflight. It's one more data point in an ongoing investigation. That's not ITN material. Modest Genius ^talk 13:23, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- How many of the others had their twin being tested on the ground? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:50, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- By a similar rationale we shouldn't have space launches as ITNR. Not sure why we wouldn't post A FEW of the more notable missions when they end. Nergaal (talk) 16:32, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support even though it wasn't a full year, or a "record" (who says only records get posted?) it's very important as NASA is testing the effects of being in space for longer times with an eye towards making the trip to Mars, which I read would take 2.5 years with current technology. That makes this significant enough in my view, and Twitter or no, it's been covered in the news. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:10, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The trouble is, Muboshgu, that a trip to Mars will almost certainly use artificial gravity so the idea that it's needed for a mission to Mars seems to be mistaken, so we will currently just be misleading our readers - see my above Conditional Oppose, and Brian Everlasting's "I totally agree with you". Tlhslobus (talk) 05:47, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point. You probably know more about this topic than I do. It doesn't seem there's consensus to post anyway. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:00, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on the basis of just being a "Year-long" mission. But I would support a different nomination (Which I don't know if can be made at this time) of the expected medical study to compare the influence of long-term weightlessness on humans that part of that year-long mission was to test, as this is a key factor for space travel. But it sounds like there are only preliminary results available at this time. --MASEM (t) 17:24, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose I think the big story will be the results of the medical experiment (if any) and I would definitely support the release of any significant findings. ZettaComposer (talk) 19:54, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per Modest Genius. I don't think this counts as a big deal as far as scientific advances go; on the other hand if it captures the imagination of the non-scientists, why not post it? Banedon (talk) 00:46, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Questions: 1) Does somebody have an answer to the artificial gravity objection raised above by me, and supported by Brian Everlasting?

2) Alternatively can somebody please explain why such experiments are still important and worthy of ITN even if they are irrelevant to a trip to Mars? Tlhslobus (talk) 07:39, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2016 March 1 Template:Cob

March 1

[Posted] Turing award