Jump to content

Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/December 2016

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:In the news | Candidates

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Legobot (talk | contribs) at 07:18, 21 March 2023 (Bot: Fixing lint errors, replacing obsolete HTML tags: <center> (1x)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

This page is an archive and its contents should be preserved in their current form;
any comments regarding this page should be directed to Wikipedia talk:In the news. Thanks.

December 31

[edit]
December 31, 2016 (2016-12-31) (Saturday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Arts and culture
  • China, with their largest television network China Central Television, announces a new launch of a global media platform extending globally and renaming the network China Global Television Network. (News Asia)

Disasters and accidents
  • In Helsinki, Finland, authorities detain an unidentified driver after driving at high speed, and veering for unknown reasons, into a crowd, injuring 7 people. Authorities quickly conclude no evidence points to a deliberate attack. (RT)

Science and technology

[Posted] RD: William Christopher

[edit]
Article: William Christopher (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): LA Times
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Sourcing seems okay, maybe a bit thin, but could use another check. MASEM (t) 05:50, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] UN council members

[edit]
No clear nomination or target article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:53, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

^ should be posted. Nergaal (talk) 23:58, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

December 30

[edit]
December 30, 2016 (2016-12-30) (Friday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime
  • A body found in a burnt-out vehicle north of the Brazilian city of Rio de Janeiro is confirmed to be that of missing Greek Ambassador Kyriakos Amiridis. A military police officer who had an affair with the ambassador's wife confesses to the murder. The wife and a second man are also detained. (BBC)
  • Sahaj International opens in Kochi in the South Indian state of Kerala. The country's first school for transgender pupils, it caters for adults who left school early. (BBC)

Politics and elections

Science and technology

Sports

[Posted] RD: Sutter Brown

[edit]
Article: Sutter Brown (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): CBS Sacramento, LA Times, San Francisco Chronicle
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

 Fuebaey (talk) 04:34, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Personally, I'd never take a dog to AN/I. Well, not unless I had a a bit of support. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:04, 3 January 2017 (UTC) [reply]
That Brad feels the need to threaten us all with ANI is purely symptomatic of his loss of connection with the community lately. We had another admin/checkuser/oversight in Mike V who suffered the same indignity. Honestly, if these individuals can't gauge current thinking, can't assess or respect community consensus, it's time for them to move on to something else. Plenty of other projects exist which, I'm sure, would welcome their input. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:46, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] RD: LaVell Edwards

[edit]
Article: LaVell Edwards (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): (The New York Times, The Salt Lake Tribune, The Washington Post)
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

 —MBlaze Lightning T 17:41, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. —MBlaze Lightning T 15:36, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] RD: Matt Carragher

[edit]
Stale- nomination is older than the oldest current RD. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:57, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article: Matt Carragher (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC Sport, ITV News, Stoke Sentinel
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: English footballer. Fuebaey (talk) 15:24, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Posted] RD: Tyrus Wong

[edit]
Article: Tyrus Wong (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): CNN
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: In the article, it says December 30. Might be 31st. (Referring to death-date) Dat GuyTalkContribs 17:35, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support issues resolved. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:53, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

December 29

[edit]
December 29, 2016 (2016-12-29) (Thursday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents
  • At least 50 people drown and thousands are left homeless due to flooding in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. (France 24)

International relations

Law and crime

Science and technology

Sports

Transportation

[Closed] RD: Barbara Tarbuck

[edit]
Stale. Older than oldest currently posted RD. Dragons flight (talk) 11:11, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article: Barbara Tarbuck (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): THR
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Needs significant sourcing improvement, but the THR article will help a bit, going to try to dig a bit more myself. MASEM (t) 17:32, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Closed] United States sanctions against Russia

[edit]
No consensus. With significant participation and voting split roughly evenly I see little hope if gaining consensus on this one. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:50, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article: 2016 United States election interference by Russia (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The United States announces the most extensive sanctions against Russia since the Cold War over interference in the 2016 election. (Post)
News source(s): [1],[2],[3],WP, 12-30
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: The most extensive sanctions by the United States against Russia since the Cold War, a major incident extensively covered around the world (covered in the "Government response" section of the article) Tataral (talk) 07:11, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
FYI Putin rejected his foreign minister's suggestion of retaliatory action against US diplomats. [4] 331dot (talk) 13:33, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Zigzig20s: As stated above, "Please do not oppose an item because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive." As Neljack states below, this is getting a lot of coverage for a "non-story". If you don't like what RS cover, you will have to take it up with them. 331dot (talk) 13:30, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's also extremely POV-pushing. It's a desperate attempt by the Obama administration and the Democrats to suggest HRC did not lose because she was a bad candidate. I find it extremely misogynistic to suggest she needs an excuse like this. Besides, both Russia and the United States (president-elect Trump!) deny it. So, this could be a rumour (or fake news?). Wikipedia is not supposed to be a tabloid. Let's move on.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:37, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think we will disregard your comments. And the United States has imposed these sanctions and the United States government, including its President and its official intelligence agencies, has concluded that Russia interfered with the election. The far-right politician you make repeated references to does not hold any government office, or other office, and doesn't speak for the United States. --Tataral (talk) 03:40, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean president-elect Trump? This is outrageous. Calling him "far right" as you just did sounds like an attempt to POV-push the "In the News" section of the main page. Please don't do that. Since the nominator is biased, I would suggest closing this ITN nomination. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 03:51, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
He is a far-right politician by any objective standard. That is purely a descriptive term. It was you who brought him into this discussion, although he has no relevance for what we are discussing. --Tataral (talk) 06:43, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's not objective at all. It's an opinion. Mentioning Trump here is perfectly germane because he denies these allegations pushed by the Obama administration two weeks before they become obsolete. Enough already! Time to retire gracefully. And no, we don't need this POV-pushing ITN, thank you very much.Zigzig20s (talk) 06:52, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, he's not relevant at all, he's a private individual who doesn't hold any public office. We just stick to what the US government says and the official actions it takes on behalf of the United States; in this case the US government has taken extensive actions against Putin Russia that have received broad coverage around the world and been described as highly significant. --Tataral (talk) 07:26, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ridiculous. Trump will be POTUS in 20 days. The USFG is currently under the leadership of Obama, but their position will change as soon as Trump becomes President. I don't think ITN should cover the tantrums of a lame duck president. I love Obama, but the context is too POV. Let's drop it and move on.Zigzig20s (talk) 07:42, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Private individuals are entitled to hold private opinions, but do not speak for countries, and certainly not for the United States. The United States government has taken extensive action against Russia in response to Russian cyber warfare, trolling and whatnot, and that's what we base our discussion on. --Tataral (talk) 10:17, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
He's not just a private individual; he's the president-elect! Anyway, lots of editors oppose this nomination, so I think it may be time for you to drop it.Zigzig20s (talk) 10:25, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The President of the United States is Barack Obama. Speculation as to who might become president of that country at some point in the future has no bearing on the issue discussed here; the sanctions have already been imposed by the current US government. --Tataral (talk) 12:08, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There's no speculation. Trump was elected.Zigzig20s (talk) 12:12, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The solution to this is quite clear. The U.S. political system was specifically designed so that one and only one person can speak for the U.S. and command U.S. foreign policy at any given time. Until January 19 and partway through January 20, that person is BHO. After his inauguration on January 20, that person will be DJT. The date of this particular action comes before the new inauguration. Political leanings have nothing whatsoever to do with it. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 15:30, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's still a non-story. Russia has not retaliated, and Trump is not impressed with Obama's tantrum. Nobody is. This ITN nomination is clearly partisan POV-pushing, but it's boring.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:45, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I am not sure how a diplomatic incident involving two of the most powerful countries in the world and the expulsion of dozens of diplomats is a "non-story". The media certainly does not seem to agree. Neljack (talk) 10:38, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose political sabre-rattling. If something tangible happens, then we could consider it. This story is going to run and run and run and run and obviously take a few critical turns once Trumpmeister takes his throne, this is merely an opening tit-for-tat volley. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:54, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@The Rambling Man:
This story is going to run and run and run and run
And still it wasn't linked in the In the news section?! --Fixuture (talk) 23:16, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree absolutely both saber-rattling and tit-for-tat volley, minor in the overall scheme of things. Agree at the same time that it is going to "run and run and run" ... at least for a few days. Insofar as it is noteworthy, it is noteworthy in that we truly have not seen anything on this scale since the Cold War, and certainly not since the current media environment. For whatever it is worth, I don't think we have ever seen this kind of action in response to a claim of domestic electoral interference. That last aside, these kinds of expulsion-counterexpulsion used to be quite common at that time (front section, but small mid-section mention), but the baby-boomer bulge has passed, and increasingly the majority of people never knew the everyday realities of the Cold War. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 15:40, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in principle, oppose at present. The US sanctions on Russia and Russia's reaction seems like a story that could be worth covering. However, the election interference article is huge and finding the "news" part of that is quite hard. At a minimum, I would want to be able to link to a specific section focused on the sanctions. Whatever article is targeted should also explain in what way these are the "the most extensive sanctions against Russia since the Cold War". The current target article merely parrots that claim, but doesn't give any additional historical context in the prose. Dragons flight (talk) 11:15, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Dragons flight:
However, the election interference article is huge and finding the "news" part of that is quite hard
The entirety of it is newsworthy imo. If this doesn't get added to the In the news section as a blurb (whether linked to a section and/or to the entirety of the issue) it might also get added to the "Ongoing" part of it.
--Fixuture (talk) 23:16, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Per TRM. Standard US/Russia diplomatic non-story. The US expels some diplomats, Russia does same. Its an old old story well trodden by both sides. Unlike the US-Israel issue recently, this is SOP. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:23, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    If the claim that these are the most extensive diplomatic sanctions on Russia in 25 years is accurate, then I have trouble seeing how this could be considered standard behavior. However, as I said above, the article doesn't do a good job of elaborating on that claim at present. Dragons flight (talk) 13:27, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on the merits but oppose at this time per Dragons flight. 331dot (talk) 13:47, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support posting now per Neljack. It is still a diplomatic spat between two of the most powerful countries in the world. If a particular section is desired then the "Obama_administration" section works. Banedon (talk) 13:57, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I saw this yesterday (hence why I moved it to the 29th) and was considering posting, but when you look at the "penalty", its a newspaper slap rather than anything devastating, and far from threatening US/Russia diplomatic relations since this was only aimed at intelligence officiers. There was reportedly going to be solid evidence presented for this reasoning but I haven't seen a story yet cover it. --MASEM (t) 14:33, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This is not a minor diplomatic tiff. The sanctions and in particular the expulsion of so many diplomats is without modern precedent. I'm not sure this was ever done even during the most tense periods of the Cold War. That combined with the US presentation of hard evidence of Russian meddling combines to make this ITN worthy. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:56, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • The evidence released so far is actually considered weak by security experts [5] and certainly not hard evidence of hacking the election. That someone in Russia was getting into various US systems, sure, but that doesn't tie it to the Russian gov't. --MASEM (t) 15:00, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Which "security experts"? Both the CIA and the FBI have repeatedly stated that Russia was responsible, going back at least as far as December 9. (The first CIA report confirmation is actually older than that -- the public statement was simply a report that it existed.) - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 15:48, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The Obama administration has three weeks left and has virtually nothing to lose from this act, similar to their abstention from the UN Israeli vote. We posted the election almost two months ago and we don't follow up with conjecture. If say, someone presents information which makes the election invalid then that would be worthy of posting. This no. That the Russians have chosen not to respond in kind makes this even more of a non-story. Fuebaey (talk) 15:07, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per User:Banedon & User:Neljack & because the 2016 United States election interference by Russia article wasn't in the in the news section yet which is really an omission... --Fixuture (talk) 15:19, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – I would have supported this startling diplomatic offensive, but the fact that Putin says Russia won't retaliate in tit-for-tat Soviet style takes much of the steam outta the story, for now at least. (Maybe he expects DT to reverse it?) Sca (talk) 15:37, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, the non-story becomes even more unremarkable. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:31, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- Was the interference ITN worthy? If not, then it's hard to see how this response is. -- Shudde talk 16:35, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Technically, the interference was unknown, subtle, and very diffuse over time as to not be any single event to be nominated at any point, it only became something ITN-able when the US gov't made the first allegations that Russia was interferring with the election. It's like any other cybersecurity hack - that "event" is usually not discovered until months later and after sufficient investigation and PR management has been set in place before it is publicly announced. --MASEM (t) 16:41, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Definitely ITN material considering that this will mean trouble for Trump when he becomes "President" in January. --BabbaQ (talk) 16:44, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    All "what" will mean trouble for Trump, a presumed ally of Putin? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:53, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Particularly given that analysts are taking Putin's non-response as trying to avoid any issues with the next administration, and most seem to recognize that this sanction will likely be revoked shortly thereafter. --MASEM (t) 17:23, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose because, as TRM described it, this is saber rattling. According to the NYT article listed as a source above "Despite the international fallout and political repercussions surrounding the announcement, it is not clear how much effect the sanctions will have, except on the ousted diplomats, who have until midday Sunday to leave the country. G.R.U. officials rarely travel to the United States, or keep assets here." Calidum 17:17, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If the D does undo it after he becomes the P, that would be blurbable – a significant reversal of U.S. policy. It would also make him look compromised, but that seems to be S.O.P. for him. Sca (talk) 17:55, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Calidum: Imo it doesn't really matter how much of an effect it has: the more newsworthy thing are the (severity/resoluteness of) the accusations by the US.
@Sca: Imo that would also be blurbable and a different subject. Probably it wouldn't even be linked to the same article. --Fixuture (talk) 23:16, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
--Fixuture (talk) 23:16, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My impression is the presumptive hackers are alleged to be in Russia; this is billed as a 'consequence.' Sca (talk) 19:39, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not all of them. Count Iblis (talk) 19:55, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
DTweets are not RSs, IMO. – Sca (talk) 22:42, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple actual reliable sources disagree with you, but thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:44, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Be that as it may, Yank is capitalized, according to my sources, whose identity I never will reveal. Sca (talk) 22:55, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. For one thing, it should be "alleged interference" since they still deny it. But this issue has been and will continue to be "ongoing," which if anywhere, is where it would fit, IMO. I added an updated source. And I'd suggest not using Wired as a source for this kind of issue, any more than I'd use Rolling Stone. --Light show (talk) 22:54, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't agree more that it should be "alleged" seen as both sides (Russia and the US/Trump) deny it. Or, it should be "the Obama administration's allegations of..."Zigzig20s (talk) 23:42, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Another reason for considering this as ongoing is it indirectly relates to this. --Light show (talk) 02:10, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ceasefire in Syrian Civil War

[edit]
Article: Syrian Civil War (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Russia and Turkey broker a ceasefire between Assad regime and the loose coalition of rebel groups calling themselves the Free Syrian Army. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ A Russian-Turkish brokered ceasefire comes into force between the Syrian government and opposition groups.
News source(s): [6]
Credits:

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by KTo288 (talk • contribs) 16:03, December 29, 2016 (UTC)

Comment I've put in the full nomination template and signed for the nominator. Mamyles (talk) 22:30, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

December 28

[edit]
December 28, 2016 (2016-12-28) (Wednesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

Science and technology

Sports

[Posted combined blurb] RD/blurb: Debbie Reynolds

[edit]
Blurb has been posted and would be inappropriate/disingenious to pull at this point, discussions should continue at WT:ITN --MASEM (t) 15:00, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Proposed image
Article: Debbie Reynolds (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ American actress, screenwriter, and author Carrie Fisher, 60, and her mother, 84-year-old actress and dancer Debbie Reynolds, die one day apart.
Alternative blurb II: ​ American actress, screenwriter, and author Carrie Fisher and her mother, actress and dancer Debbie Reynolds, die one day apart.
News source(s): Variety
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Notable actress from the 1950s and '60s. Calidum 01:51, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If we could figure out how to throw that together, I think it would be a good thing for sure.--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 02:01, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I tossed something up. I'm agnostic on including the ages. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:03, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think it looks better without the ages, but I could be convinced either way.--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 02:06, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing that seems to be immediately wrong with the Reynolds article is a lack of referencing in the filmography section. As soon as we can get that looked on—which never takes that long—we should be fine. --Sunshineisles2 (talk) 03:33, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please consider this recent post. No one has been able to respond after an entire day. --Light show (talk) 03:37, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if I'm in a position to answer those questions. I think it's better to have a source than not, but sometimes it seems a bit unnecessary—for example, we wouldn't need multiple reliable sources affirming that Humphrey Bogart was in Casablanca or that Janet Leigh was in Psycho. --Sunshineisles2 (talk) 03:42, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Are we looking at the same article? I'm looking at Debbie Reynolds and seeing massive gaps in referencing and multiple orange tags. As of right now this is far below acceptable standards for posting. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:40, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I see one orange tag in an early section which is likely merited, and I see a second, claiming a section with references currently being added to it contains no references. There looks to be a handful of editors going to town on this article right now, it should be fine very soon, thus explaining why I'm not concerned and feel no worry about a pre-emptive thumbs up. --Sunshineisles2 (talk) 03:44, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I see three and very large gaps. When you post a Support !vote you are saying the article is good to go, which this is clearly not. If and when it is I will be happy to change my position. We DO NOT post articles in this condition. Orange tags are a showstopper for any article nominated to be featured on the main page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:50, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I could change my vote to "hold" or something of the like, but I don't see how that would be explicitly helpful to the discussion at this stage. --Sunshineisles2 (talk) 03:57, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Have you even looked at the article quality or read the guidelines for ITN? -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:44, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I think that a 14-year-old article that has been actively edited by 1,100 different editors and has 160 watchers should not suddenly be considered no good. The article's history and the opinion of its regular editors should be considered and maybe have superior value. --Light show (talk) 03:49, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW I think the guidelines and standards upheld by longstanding consensus at ITN should take precedence. And no one is saying the article is no good. But that is a long ways from being up to scratch for being promoted on the main page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:54, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Ad Orientem: Yes. And I think it can be improved. But it doesn't need to be improved to a Good Article immediately. In fact, I don't think it can happen that fast. We have to consider the long history of the page (since 2002). epicgenius (talk) 03:59, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Ad Orientem: Please consider commenting at some point in that talk page post I noted. In any case, the only rationale I've yet seen for this filmography issue has been V, material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, which ignores the prior 1,100 editors' opinions about what is likely to be challenged. Does anyone think that of her hundreds of roles in film, tv, and stage, that anyone is seriously going to "challenge" it suddenly? All they have to do is Google the question or use IMDB or TCM. These aren't political opinions or quotes, after all. They're borderline trivia.--Light show (talk) 04:08, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Epicgenius and Light show: As always, I invite people who want to change the ITN standards to participate here more often. I'm on your side. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:18, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support combined blurb, very unusual and both were very notable people. --AmaryllisGardener talk 03:45, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We are still weak on sourcing. For example, we have a block quote that is not given an inline cite (though the prose claims it is on liner notes: this should have an explicit citation per QUOTATION), and her stage work is not yet sourced, particularly as there's a few non-linked works in there. --MASEM (t) 04:12, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Fixed --Light show (talk) 04:41, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support combined blurb Yes, I opposed the blurb for Carrie alone but that's water under the bridge. As noted, this is an unusual situation (And now watch Andrew Ridgely drop dead tomorrow). Daniel Case (talk) 04:37, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This article looks a lot better now. Sourcing is much more thorough and information and quotes for which citations cannot be found have been removed or commented out. I think this is ready to post as a blurb. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:45, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Commenting out quotes that appeared revelant (like the long block quote I mentioned before) is lazy, and not addressing the problem. For example, that block quote just needed to cite the details of the record that the liner notes appeared in. Should be very straight forward to do. --MASEM (t) 04:48, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I removed it because it seemed out of place and excessive for the small section. see edit. I considered just citing it, but it was still excessive for a pretty mediocre quote which was almost as long as the entire section. --Light show (talk) 04:55, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Removing relevant material can be seen as degrading the quality of the article. I can't say for sure in this case if it does or not, but that was an extremely easy thing to supply the source for (to whomever removed it, it looked like Light show). It's one thing if the quote was added with no idea where it came from or who spoke it, and you exhaust Google in trying to find it on the web or in books (in which case it has to be removed), but saying "Oh we can deal with that after it is posted to ITN" is not appropriate here. I know there's a sense of urgency to update the blurb (which I agree with given that we have decided to post Fisher's), but we cannot sacrifice quality just to expedite things. --MASEM (t) 04:52, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support combined blurb it's a slow time of year for news, and this is the news. Why the hell not make a combined blurb? – Muboshgu (talk) 06:33, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose not adequately referenced. If it gets there, it's RD only for me, a combined blurb is tabloid and kitsch. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:50, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support combined blurb - both very notable people in the film industry. The rarity of the coincidental timing. Seems biased to give one a blurb and the other a RD so all things considered a combined blurb is the way to go. Mjroots (talk) 07:40, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • RD only, no blurb, and wait for adequate referencing per The Rambling Man. Reynolds doesn't have the same level of fame as Fisher, and at this point people are just rushing in and trying to list things based on emotion rather than the guidelines.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:04, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted combined blurb. Thanks to those who improved Debbie Reynolds. I posted a version that included both ages, because ages are usually part of death blurbs. Though the result in this case is quite long, it didn't seem unreasonable on the current main page. I didn't use the blurb with ages above, as I thought the writing was a bit too awkward; however feel free to suggest other (shorter) phrasing. Dragons flight (talk) 08:25, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why not use two sentences? "American actress, screenwriter, and author Carrie Fisher (pictured) dies at age 60. Her mother, actress and dancer Debbie Reynolds dies one day later at age 84." -- reduces the number of commas in the sentence. Banedon (talk) 08:29, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I might also suggest changing "dancer" to "singer" since Reynolds seems to be better known for that part of her career than dance. -Kudzu1 (talk) 08:58, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support this suggestion by Kudzu. She could dance, but that was always in support of her acting on screen or stage, whereas she sang professionally for decades. -- Zanimum (talk) 12:01, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to "singer". Dragons flight (talk) 13:30, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who dafuk is the second female??? Did we get this low for the sake of Star Wars fandom? Didn't she die of old age? Can we remove all the other entries and say something about the Rogue One also? Nergaal (talk) 09:02, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Picture The combined blurb is sensible and sourcing of her filmography is a minor issue. The significant issue is the image which we now use. We have already had Carrie Fisher's picture for a day or two and so we should now use a photo of Debbie Reynolds such as the one pictured (right). Reynolds was more accomplished and a bigger star in her day and so should get top billing now, Andrew D. (talk) 09:26, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree with Andrew D. Tragic as this is, there is an element of irony here in the fact that some of the same people that lauded Carrie Fisher's accomplishments seem unaware of how famous Debbie Reynolds was in her day. She was not called 'Hollywood royalty' for nothing. Having them both up there is the best thing to do. Let's just concentrate on improving the articles and working on other articles in the news as they come in. Carcharoth (talk) 11:02, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support RD Article, is much improved. Oppose combined blurb Reynolds does not come close to meriting a blurb and we are not supposed to be a memorial page. Unfortunately it's starting to look like one. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:26, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What? She is both Academy Award and Golden Globe nominated. And had a leading role in an iconic film. Has had an extensive career in acting. You are wrong in your assessment.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:13, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Blurbs for deaths are extremely rare. The usual standard is that they were not just important, but at the very pinnacle of their field, a truly iconic figure and or their death was surprising to a degree that it was close to shocking. Robin Williams comes to mind in the entertainment field as justifying a blurb. If the standard you describe above were applied, ITN would be just a running obituary ticker.
Exactly. BabbaQ you are wrong in saying that Ad Orientem is wrong. Loads of people are nominated for GG and Oscars, if we included all their deaths, ITN would be swamped with them. I think if it weren't for the Carrie Fisher angle, nobody much would be arguing for Debbie Reyolds to have a blurb. Wikipedia is not fancruft or tabloid media.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:49, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You both make a assessment based on the notion of fancruft and disliking a joined blurb between mother and daughter. I make my assessment based on Reynolds career. She was a top-field actress, and a blurb is appropriate here.BabbaQ (talk) 14:58, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Closed] RD: Seth J. McKee

[edit]
Stale. Older than oldest currently posted RD. Dragons flight (talk) 11:10, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article: Seth J. McKee (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [7]
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.89.177.37 (talk • contribs) 20:16, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So with the PD citation, does that mean that inline citations are not needed? There are still whole paragraphs which are completely uncited, including one with a whole list of uncited awards and honours, and some paragraphs with one citation partway through. MurielMary (talk) 09:49, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose that depends on your interpretation of WP:Verifiability. Some people'll read All content must be verifiable and say well it is - the citation at the bottom of the page is a spitting copy of the article. Others might say All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material, which can be fixed by simply adding:
<ref>Seth J. McKee, US Air Force biography</ref>
to contentious statements (as of this timestamp). Could use {{sfn}}, but I'm not sure how that'll mesh with {{USGovernment}}. Fuebaey (talk) 18:05, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Posted] RD: Ratnasiri Wickremanayake

[edit]
Article: Ratnasiri Wickremanayake (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [8], [9], [10]
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

 —MBlaze Lightning T 05:56, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Still has several "citation needed" tags on key claims. MurielMary (talk) 22:40, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Late change of vote to support for referencing all claims. MurielMary (talk) 10:20, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ping @MurielMary and The Rambling Man: —MBlaze Lightning T 06:25, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I find it interesting that George Michael and Carrie Fisher were apparently shoo-ins for full blurbs, yet for this guy, the leader of a reasonably large English speaking nation for five years, it's not even suggested. ITN never used to be this full of tabloid click-bait rather than serious encyclopedic news, not to mention the WP:WORLDWIDE and WP:SYSTEMICBIAS issues here.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:10, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fully agree, ludicrous double standards. The foundation is all about claiming to make Wikipedia more inclusive and more representative, but as we see over and over again at ITN, that's talk. 81.204.120.137 (talk) 17:32, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted]: Ebola vaccine

[edit]
Article: VSV-EBOV (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ An rVSV-vectored vaccine is found to give substantial protection against Ebola. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ A vaccine is shown to protect against Ebola.
News source(s): [11][12]
Credits:

An Ebola vaccine has shown positive results[13] Trial published in the Lancet Dec 22, 2016fulltext Article on the specific vaccine is VSV-EBOV Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:51, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Will work on it. Have moved the article to VSV-EBOV vaccine to make it more clear. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:55, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and added a blurb. (Hopefully it makes a good compromise between accuracy and general comprehensibility without saying something silly like rVSV-ZEBOV vaccine.) "no cases among vaccinated individuals from day 10 after vaccination in both randomised and non-randomised clusters"! Thank you for drawing my attention to this. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 06:14, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment about timing. Per the instructions above, new nominations should be listed here under a heading for the day that they became news. In this case, your sources and others, e.g. [14] reported on the vaccine results on December 22. While this news is not so stale to completely fall off the page, this nomination appears rather untimely. Dragons flight (talk) 06:28, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes agree a little old. I nominated it as I was surprised it was not already there. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:31, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I apologise. I have fallen far behind a lot of things this year, including many things with which I should be much more in contact. However, as to "old", four of those days in between were Christmas holiday weekend, which does make the measure a little different. Even conventional newspapers did not publish on at least one of those days. So this is one case where a 6-day-old story really only comes across as two days off. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 14:06, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - A huge deal, and the target disease is well-known to the public too. Banedon (talk) 07:54, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support ebola has been one of the most horrible ways to die, and even if not that many people are still directly affected by it, it shows that even horrible rare diseases can be cured with enough interest (aka $$$). Nergaal (talk) 08:52, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It's a big deal. Article quality is adequate though it could use a little fleshing out. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:20, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted, though probably not for very long. Sam Walton (talk) 19:39, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • (laugh) And because this nomination has been artificially dated back to Dec 22 (even though the news outlets only posted it on Dec 23 - eg. http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/22/health/ebola-vaccine-study ) but the Aleppo offensive ending nomination was not equally dated back to its first media mentions on Dec 13 (eg. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-38308883), the ITN rules kick the Ebola story off almost instantly ... and that even though the Aleppo story had been in the continuing section of ITN for a month. (Coincidentally, the Ebola story also has priority over the Aleppo story based on nomination date.) This demonstrates very different bars for different kinds of story. Per what I said above, ITN has been developing a strong systemic bias toward some types of stories (politics, "if it bleeds, it leads"), while at the same time, those on the forefronts of research and medicine in a post-epidemic scenario simply don't have the same kind of time to push that level of awareness here. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 19:58, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The ebola vaccine news and journal publication were both first published on the 22nd. If you take a closer look at that CNN link you'll notice the page was updated on the 23rd, but the URL says "12/22", which is when most news outlets posted the news (see Google). As for the differing standards, Tone Posted the Aleppo candidate on the 23 Dec with a date of 20 Dec. I suspect the date may have simply been a mistake copied over from an entry below. ITN/A states that blurbs should be dated by "date of occurrence... not by date they were added", which is why I backdated this one to the actual news/publication date. Sam Walton (talk) 20:13, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hm, that must have been my mistake, likely copy-pasting the date from another item. Anyway, I see this has been posted now to the proper spot, good call. --Tone 21:10, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I simply pointed out that the true date of occurrence of the end of hostilities and victory in that particular campaign was more than a week earlier, and that reliable sources did cover it at that time (see earlier link). Surely GWB has taught us about the difference between victory and declared victory? - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 14:21, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment at least we posted it. If those sanctimonious passers-by who find this so funny that it might not reside at ITN for too long wish to actually constructively work on how best to counter such issues, that'd be helpful, otherwise I'd suggest their drive-by comments aren't really that helpful at all. Editing via IP is particularly a bizarre way to retain anonymity as to allows all readers at Wikipedia to geolocate via IP numerous times.... how odd. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:04, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think you miss just what I was laughing at. To clarify, it was neither at the actual fact of a quick posting almost immediately falling off, nor at any person. Incidentally, I also recognise precisely why this kind of thing, for these particular kinds of stories, will always happen at ITN -- if anything increasingly so, in parallel with other media attitudes -- and no amount of work on my side will ever change those underlying reasons.
As to working constructively, my IP changes, so alas, I cannot show off every single one of my article edits on a single proud Wikipedia page. (Nor have I such personal need, so I remain an IP, deliberately, for reasons mentioned elsewhere. People will keep or undo my edits as always, hopefully on their own merit.) But yes, you are right, I have been seriously behind in active constructive work of all kinds this year, in large part because 100-hour workweeks do not lend themselves to copious free time. (I also would not wish on any here such a year as I have just had.) - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 14:21, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-posting comment – I'm okay with this except that the verb create seems slightly inappropriate here. How about devise? Or better, some language attributing the evaluation to the 'scientists,' as in, "Scientists say a new vaccine is the first to be effective against Ebola." – Sca (talk)
PS: I will not post this at WP:MP/E, only to be told it's not an error. Sca (talk) 23:27, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What's wrong with 'create'? Banedon (talk) 01:08, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Too much Ex nihilo. – Sca (talk) 02:31, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But it's true? Banedon (talk) 08:53, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
a) It seems likely that said 'scientists' built upon an extant body of research.
b) Current verb "announce" works better, given context. Sca (talk) 16:21, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

December 27

[edit]
December 27, 2016 (2016-12-27) (Tuesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Science and technology

[Posted] RD: Maurice Failevic

[edit]
Proposed image
Article: Maurice Failevic (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): "Décès du réalisateur Maurice Failevic, spécialiste des luttes sociales". Le Parisien. December 27, 2016. Retrieved December 29, 2016.; "Mort de Maurice Failevic, éternel «rouge» du cinéma français". Le Figaro. December 28, 2016. Retrieved December 29, 2016.; "Le réalisateur Maurice Failevic, spécialiste des luttes sociales, est mort". Le Monde. December 28, 2016. Retrieved December 29, 2016.
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: French film director and life-long Communist, winner of many awards. Zigzig20s (talk) 09:02, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dragons flight: I've added a few more sources via Cairn.info.Zigzig20s (talk) 11:57, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted]: Carrie Fisher

[edit]
This has been posted as a blurb and there is no realistic likelihood of gaining sufficient consensus to pull it. I think we have reached the point where further debate is not likely to be productive. Note: I am INVOLVED so if anyone thinks there is something to be gained by continuing this already massive discussion feel free to revert my closure. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:02, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article: Carrie Fisher (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ American actress, screenwriter, and author Carrie Fisher dies at the age of 60.
News source(s): [1]
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
 Brianga (talk) 18:04, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the alt blurb, since it wasn't in my nomination, and people have already voted. If you suggest one be added, I suggest you add it to your comment/vote. Brianga (talk) 18:14, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I too am shocked, but that isn't a reason to support or oppose this nomination; it needs to be evaluated per the guidelines. 331dot (talk) 20:20, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree that "she was known for a single thing"(known for writing and mental health advocacy) as well as "died of poor health"; this states "Fisher showed no sign of being ill". This was a surprise. If you don't want to "appease the nerdom", fair enough. 331dot (talk) 21:50, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you go ask somebody on the street what do the know about Fischer will anybody say "writing and mental health advocacy"? At best they will mention she had an affair with an actual icon, icon which was married at the time. If SW7 didn't come out last year nobody would have remembered her, and with SW7 she had a very similar role to the freak death guy from the last ST. Nergaal (talk) 21:54, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nergaal, your rationale is confusing. She is a noted author as well as an actress. And for one of the most iconic roles ever. Are we suppose to take your rationale as a contemporary joke or are you serious?.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:00, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure Leia is "one of the most iconic roles ever". Do you have a source for that? Mary Poppins, Ripley, Hermione etc are all "iconic".... The Rambling Man (talk) 22:02, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For example, this. (But I think the search results speak for themselves.) epicgenius (talk) 22:06, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, ok, the character was iconic. I'm still struggling for "one of the most iconic roles ever", especially as the most iconic moment of her iconic role is her being stereotypically nearly naked and chained to a fat Hutt. Granted she took him out, with help.... The Rambling Man (talk) 22:53, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nearly naked and chained to a fat Hutt isn't that bad. Trust me, it could be worse. (Jar-Jar Binks was downright embarrassing.) epicgenius (talk) 02:07, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Fisher was known for being a main character in one of the most popular, iconic movie series of the entire century. (I'm assuming the above oppose vote ^^^ is a joke.) epicgenius (talk) 22:05, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support RD but Oppose blurb. George Michael and David Bowie and Prince, yes. Carrie Fisher is not at the same level as those celebrities. Carcharoth (talk) 22:06, 27 December 2016 (UTC) Of the Star Wars actors and people, I would only put George Lucas and Harrison Ford at the level of warranting a blurb. Carcharoth (talk) 22:09, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb. This is the sudden death of a well-known actress and writer. I don't see how people can feel she is less worthy of a blurb than George Micheal -- they both are. Calidum 22:07, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support getting SOMETHING up ASAP. She is so well-known that NOT having anything on the front page makes WP look like it's slow on the uptake. Yes, the blurb could be improved but getting it up there quickly as-is is better than spending time to change it around. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:08, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't fret, it'll happen, probably sooner rather than later as more American admins come online, but we aren't a news ticker, that's for Wikinews. We actually should be trying to exercise editorial quality control, and until such a time that the article is well sourced per WP:BLP and WP:V we shouldn't post it. However, that won't amount to hill of beans once the usual crew get involved, so start your stopwatch, not long now! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:18, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The reason 2016 has been a smorgasbord of celebrity deaths is that we are the right number of years away from the period in time when celebrity culture really took off. So each year will be like this for the foreseeable future, with every person weighing in to support a blurb for the celebrity they recognise the most from their personal memories. Objectivity takes a back seat to subjectivity. Carcharoth (talk) 22:24, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Davidwr: I completely agree, but we need people like you to participate more often to change the usual consensus in discussions here. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:28, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The usual consensus is for an American admin to steam-roller across whatever discussion is happening and post popular Americans to RD regardless. It's happened for a couple of a years. If we can "change the usual consensus" to avoid that, so much the better. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:34, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not at all what I meant. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:39, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm quite sure that's not what you meant but that's the truth. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:41, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not getting sucked into more of your shit, thanks. Please take your negativity elsewhere. Best, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:43, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Personal attack noted, looking forward to seeing you later! FYI: WP:ADMINACCT, WP:NPA, etc etc.. !! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:45, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a ... creative interpretation of NPA. Note away; not a single other person is going to read it as a personal attack. I'm out. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:49, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Not at all, you claiming what I'm saying is "shit" is abundantly a personal attack. Thankfully we have it on file, the ever-growing purple one. Good to see you're out, dereliction of your duty per WP:ADMINACCT, it seems you need to take a break to cool off. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:51, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Why am I not at all surprised that you -- particularly you -- would come to that conclusion? And why do I strongly suspect that you will automatically dismiss (as either inaccurate, inappropriate, or irrelevant) what I just said as shit ... although you will never say it in those words here? - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 05:18, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment still 10 [citation needed] tags to be fixed before this is even close to ready, even "just for RD". The Rambling Man (talk) 22:42, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb - Well known actress for 40 years, including an iconic role; well known author and mental health advocate. Also, if it matters, she is better known than George Michael. Neutron (talk) 22:46, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    "she is better known than George Michael" according to whom? What metric are you using? Did she sell over 100 million records worldwide? No, she was a supporting actor in a movie franchise. Oh yeah. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:48, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I could not find a figure for how many people have seen the Star Wars films she was in, but our Star Wars article does say the films (probably including the three she was not in) grossed $6.46 billion, which is pretty good. She was a co-lead in the first three films, not a "supporting actor." As for George Michael, he appeals to a much narrower demographic. Both my 85-year-old mother and my 25-year-old son knew who Carrie Fisher was, but I strongly doubt that either knew who George Michael was until after he died. If that's not scientific enough for you, it's all I've got. Neutron (talk) 23:11, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support blurb She had an iconic role in an extremely popular franchise. JDDJS (talk) 23:07, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Well, I kind of knew that my hatting of the discussion would be reverted ;) In any case, there's a consensus for a RD when the references are fixed. Everyone, be nice when discussing other possibilities. --Tone 23:09, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb I know it's a shock to us all and it's right after Christmas and George Michael just died and this is making 2016 suck even more but ... we did not give Leonard Nimoy anything more than an RD when he died, and I daresay that in the context of the Star Trek franchise he was even more iconic than she was in the context of her franchise (plus, despite his own battle with addiction, he still managed to do more other work outside of the franchise and offscreen as well than she did). So if Spock's actor isn't blurb-worthy, Princess Leia's isn't, either. Daniel Case (talk) 23:15, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Daniel Case: Hey Daniel, nice to see you around—I know we met in 2012, but I can't recall if we've interacted since then. Anyhow, who's to say that consensus can't change? :-) Put a different way, is there a compelling reason to not post Fisher that doesn't rely on past discussions? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:18, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@The ed17: Hi again . To me this relies on the outcome of past discussions, not those discussions themselves. Daniel Case (talk) 01:10, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • To be fair... I agree Nimoy is a legend, but he was pretty old and Spock had been played by someone else for years before he died, while Fisher was young and still has another role as Leia coming up. Nohomersryan (talk) 23:20, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, but I would argue that all things considered Nimoy was more accomplished:
Nimoy: Best known before Trek for guest appearances on a number of TV shows, particularly the original Twilight Zone, The Man From U.N.C.L.E. and The Lieutenant. After Trek, did Mission:Impossible Invasion of the Body Snatchers, In Search of... in addition to almost every movie in the franchise save the ones with the TNG cast, and did a two-part episode of that show as well. Did lots of stage work, playing Sherlock Holmes and Caligula among others. Behind the camera, directed two of the films plus a blockbuster comedy and one of Liam Neeson's first American leads. Wrote two books with contradictory titles. Published a lot of photography in books and galleries.
Fisher: Best known before A New Hope for her cameo in Shampoo where she became best known for something that happened off-camera: turning down Warren Beatty when he publicly propositioned her. Best known after, outside of the movies, for her supporting performance in When Harry Met Sally and a memorable 30 Rock episode. In between, was delegated by John Landis to keep John Belushi from using too much coke on the set of The Blues Brothers, in one of the all-time worst personnel decisions ever, and gave the best lowdown on what really happened on the sets of the Star Wars films in a lengthy Rolling Stone interview. Wrote the roman à clef Postcards from the Edge and the screenplay for its film version.
I'm not saying she never did anything else outside Princess Leia. But Leonard Nimoy was undeniably more accomplished, and we didn't give him a blurb either.

Oh, yeah, someone else was playing Spock, I know, to which I point you to the last scene of Rogue One (I joked when her episode on the plane was reported that that happened when she finally got a good look at how she looked digitally regressed in that scene). Daniel Case (talk) 01:10, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong support blurb – An iconic actor (and only woman) from one of the best-known films of all time. And to those who say she is less well-known than George Michael, tell Google that. "Carrie Fisher" has over 28 million hits, while "George Michael" (a more common name to boot) doesn't even have 10 million.  – Whaleyland (Talk • Contributions) 23:27, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Er, I Googled "George Michael" and got over 28 millions hits. "Carrie Fisher" gets over 34 millions. "Leonard Nimoy" gets 3.7 million. I wonder what the Ghits will be in 5 years time? Really, though, we shouldn't be resorting to Ghits for something like this. I'd support a blurb to end this increasingly fraught discussion. Carcharoth (talk) 23:59, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support for Blurb Can we just post it already? she died like 6 hours ago, she was a known celebrity mainly due to the Star Wars franchise so a blurb is acceptable. Fisher was young and I'm sorry that we have to move down George Michael from the news but this dead will be far more remembered in the next decade or so.--Stemoc 23:37, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    We should probably rename "In the News" to "In the Somewhat Recent Past". Neutron (talk) 23:42, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Blurb I think the correlation of Star Wars fans and Wikipedia editors is causing some to lost sight, especially regarding the "more known then George Michael" which is bollocks and as one of the first gay mainstream pop stars infinitely more historically important and yes will be remembered more in "the next decade or so". We wouldn't post Mark Hamil so why Carrie? GuzzyG (talk) 23:51, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support RD As much as I am a huge Star Wars fan, I have to admit I don't think the article really qualifies for a blurb because it needs some improvement and Fisher, while definitely a notable and relevant celebrity, has not achieved the level of stardom and international fame as George Michael, Prince or David Bowie, who had blurbs. κατάσταση 00:02, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Carrie Fisher herself said this:

    "Perpetual celebrity — the kind where any mention of you will interest a significant percentage of the public until the day you die, even if that day comes decades after your last real contribution to the culture — is exceedingly rare, reserved for the likes of Muhammad Ali." - Carrie Fisher in The Princess Diarist

    Quoted from the obituary in The New York Times. There is also an element of a quiet news period around Christmas and New Year giving greater prominence to celebrity deaths. Carcharoth (talk) 00:06, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In terms of expediting this, I see much sourcing has been added. There are about 4-5 places that need CNs, but this is far far improved from my initial !vote (notably, all films where she wasn't a major role are sourced, a key fact I am glad to see). I would propose to have this marked Ready for RD , and pinging @Ad Orientem:, @The Rambling Man: and @Black Kite: for concurrence. --MASEM (t) 00:19, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that there has been marked improvement but there are still serious gaps in the television and video game credits and further south. But we are getting there. On a side note, once the remaining cite gaps are filled I think we can put this in RD until consensus is gained on whether to blurb or not to blurb. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:34, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I just spent about 20-30 min to fill in a dozen+ gaps in the tv and video game sourcing. There are still some gaps, but of types that I am comfortable that can be fixed now this is at RD and balancing the timing aspect. --MASEM (t) 02:04, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Blurb This is looking in pretty good nick now. AIRcorn (talk) 00:32, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb - I'm seeing sufficient international coverage. Banedon (talk) 00:39, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb: And can I add it is frankly embarrassing Wikipedia hasn't posted this yet. The article is in fine fettle, the subject is an internationally known actress with a starring role in several of the most famous films ever made, and practically every major English-language media outlet in the country has this as a top or the top story. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:12, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb: Classic case of both systemic bias and inability for the Wikipedia 'mob' to follow stipulated guidelines currently at Wikipedia:In_the_news#Recent_deaths_section. There is a sui generis clause in the section on RD which references blurbs. I want to take everyone to this page and this page, demonstrating the comparison between a true sui generis situation such as the deaths of Michael Jackson and Nelson Mandela, compared to the deaths of Carrie Fisher and George Michael, who are orders of magnitude less impactful. To me the question should be - tomorrow morning when I get up, will the death of Carrie Fisher be such a momentous event as to be the top headline in newspapers from Mumbai to Tel Aviv to Seoul? Because the deaths of Mandela and Michael Jackson were. The deaths of Carrie Fisher and George Michael will not be. That's not to say these individuals were not important or that their deaths were not sudden and sad, but that's precisely what RD is for! Colipon+(Talk) 01:26, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Addendum: a similar and equally reliable test is to simply follow the "New York Times rule" - a very reliable gauge of any person's notability globally as it is widely recognized as the world's newspaper of record. The deaths of Michael Jackson, Nelson Mandela, and Margaret Thatcher were top "all-cap" headlines, taking up the majority of space on the front page of the print addition. The deaths of George Michael and Carrie Fisher will at most be a front-page inset, if it makes to the front page at all. Colipon+(Talk) 01:30, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot accept the idea that the New York Times is the world's newspaper of record, and I see no evidence that it is widely regarded as such. The NYT is hardly read in much of the world. The Guardian probably has a bigger worldwide presence. Neljack (talk) 01:47, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I accept your point, this is colored by my own bias. That said I hope you will also appreciate that I feel sometimes like I am the lone wolf fighting systemic bias here and giving things a truly global perspective- trying to bring perspectives from countries that ordinary Wikipedia editors have no exposure to or don't care to think about (with no malice of course). For what it is worth I have checked both state-run and more 'independent' Chinese websites and neither George Michael nor Carrie Fisher feature at all, let alone being the top headline - and if you respond by raising the 'state censorship card' I should make it clear that both the deaths of Michael Jackson and Nelson Mandela were top stories on Chinese web portals. Colipon+(Talk) 02:01, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Colipon, I do very much appreciate your attempts to combat systemic bias and I agree with you here that Fisher doesn't warrant a blurb and the rush to give her one seems indicative of systemic bias. Neljack (talk) 02:24, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Colipon, of the other large international wikipedias: dewiki, eswiki, ptwiki, frwiki, plwiki all have Fisher on their front pages - this does not appear to be solely an American story. — xaosflux Talk 02:08, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Xaosflux, my argument had nothing to do with notability or international reach; it was about the magnitude of international significance compared to other, far more impactful figures, specifically as it relates to what constitutes the standard for a 'blurb' vs an RD. As a side point, those wikis you pointed out have different systems for organizing RDs, so they are not comparable to the English wiki. Colipon+(Talk) 04:10, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For whatever it is worth, the NYT certainly used to share that position with the Times in the English-speaking world (including the ESL world and various Times regional editions). However, this is the post-truth era -- has been for at least 15 years now (correlated against certain world events and the rise of social media) -- and there is a significant percentage of the English-speaking population which no longer trusts any large-scale news source to give the appropriate weight to each piece of news, or even assumes that the really important news is being suppressed by precisely those institutions. All that being said, the front page/front section notability of either newspaper should not be taken as the sole measure of ITN notability ... although the front page/specific section (sports, entertainment etc) might be. Media outlets such as that are designed to have specialized sections. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 05:32, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The fact that I have to chime in to support, confirms my decision to retire a few years ago as this has become too big of a bureaucracy. Just about every major news source has Carrie's death on the main page. Carrie gained fame through Star Wars---arguably one of the most influencial films ever. The timeliness of her death, in conjunctions with Rogue One dominating the box offices and the revival of the franchise makes it timely. Wikipedia is one of the few resources that people come to looking for facts/information that still isn't reporting her death on the front page. Seriously, pick a media outlet, and she is on their front page! Even the Wall Street Journal has it on their front page! Breitbart---Check. Slate---Check. CNN/ABC/NBC/NYTimes/CBS/Washingtonpost/Huffingtonpost---check. And oh, between her glory days, she remained relevant as an author and advocate.2602:30A:C7F8:75A0:E131:D2B9:43E:BBBB (talk) 01:33, 28 December 2016 (UTC) (an admin known to use the ... a lot ;-) )[reply]
The US is not the only country with news sources to consider. Neljack (talk) 01:42, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
ITN is not a news ticker. It exists to promote high quality articles about topicla subjects that are "in the news." -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:46, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb It would be hard to describe Carrie Fisher as one of the leading actors of the past few decades. If she qualifies for a blurb, there must been dozens of actors who would. That would lower the bar too far. The concerns about systemic bias also seem to me to have force. Neljack (talk) 01:36, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted to RD - leaving this open for determination if 'upgrade' to Blurb is warranted. — xaosflux Talk 01:45, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb for much the same reasons as I opposed blurb for George Michael. The Wikipedia:In_the_news#Recent_deaths_section states "For deaths where the person's life is the main story, where the news reporting of the death consists solely of obituaries, or where the update to the article in question is merely a statement of the time and cause of death, the "recent deaths" section is usually used." Like my previous remarks, I would suggest that this is appropriate here as the other options (cause of death itself is a major story or rare cases [of] the death of major transformative world leaders) don't seem to apply here. Incidentally, while I would tentatively say that Carrie Fisher is a little more culturally significant than George Michael I don't think that argument really matters as neither of them were transformative world leaders. Greenshed (talk) 02:38, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • While I oppose the blurb in general, I will point that here, Fisher had been in the news a week prior for suffering a heart attack, but which she seemed fine and recovered from. And then news she died, which no one was expecting. This far exceeds the "merely a statement of time and death", as the death was surprising. I just feel that the press are putting far too much on her being a major star of one overly popular film franchise, making her death seem bigger than life. They did the same with Nimoy, and we kept him to RD. --MASEM (t) 02:49, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • You make a fair point (although I am not aware that any reliable source had said that she had recovered and was fine). However, the guidelines do not cover every eventuality and while the sad circumstances of Fisher's death are not quite a simple one-liner, her death itself was not a major news story like, for example the death of Gaddafi. Thinking about where to draw the line between RD and Blurb, I'd say that on the spectrum from a one line note of time and cause of death all the way through to a major news story about a death itself we are much nearer the beginning than the end. Greenshed (talk) 03:21, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Given a quick glance at this discussion thread, the number of comments already posted and the relative split between support and oppose on the question of a blurb, I think the odds of gaining consensus are somewhere between slim and none. And I think I just saw slim hopping the last train out of town. But I'm WP:INVOLVED so I will let someone else close this. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:43, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Ad Orientem: I disagree. :-) Even when you made your comment, in pure numbers it was approximately 2-1 in favor of a blurb, albeit it's difficult to parse all of the statements above (I accept that you might come up with different numbers, but not enough to say no consensus). Plus there's another four supports below. Marking [ready]. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:33, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Using a slightly longer glance I get a count of 14 people only supporting RD or actively opposing a blurb and 23 specifically supporting a blurb at the time of this comment. There are a few others that don't bold a preference saying things like Support getting SOMETHING up ASAP and just ordinary supports with no obvious position. Not quite 2:1, but not even close to slim. Especially given the four !votes below. AIRcorn (talk) 06:26, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment about "American bias": It's important to note that visitors from the United States account for the highest demographic of users to Wikipedia ([15]) with about 20%, or 1 in 5 visitors coming from the U.S. It would make sense to post something relevant to those users, even if it reflects an American bias. Additionally, most actors and actresses are born in the United States considering that is where Hollywood is located, so it would also make sense to post a large number of popular Americans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:A25F:FB9A:B15F:E82D:2A7D:BC0A (talk) 02:59, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot disagree too strongly with the above comment. We are not here to cater to any demographic or nationality. We are an encyclopedia, period. Nor are we a news ticker. If people want information that provides current news and caters to the interests of various groups, buy a tabloid newspaper. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:35, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My comment above is neither for, nor against this nomination. I'm just merely trying to rationalize as to why there is an inherent bias on ITN for American-related topics. The contributors to ITN are reflective of Wikipedia users as a whole, which is why there is always support for American-related topics. While it may be frustrating for us non-Americans, we cannot discount the importance and value of these American-related topics to American ITN contributors, and by extension, American Wikipedia users. Likewise, we cannot discount any other nation, like the United Kingdom or Canada or Australia or New Zealand or France or Germany, or, or, or.
  • Comment The division really seems to come down to two specific issues. Well, three, if you count personal opinions about "Star Wars" by people who either never saw "Star Wars" or never saw anything in it, but that third does not seem to hold very much sway here at all.
The more minor of the original two is Fisher's personal credentials. I say "minor" as, in such a case, looking only at the personal credentials will inherently be swayed by personal opinion as to their value. To that, I would say that Fisher's credentials are certainly significant, but that she was not the Everest of any of her fields. To use the Nimoy comparison, Nimoy certainly came closer, although ironically he may have been handicapped in potential subsequent achievements precisely by his association with his most well-known role.
The other issue is the real elephant in this room. The original "Star Wars" trilogy was unquestionably a highly significant change, not only in the standards of SF space opera or in the film technologies used, but also in the way it ushered in the blockbuster (multiple viewing by a highly targeted audience) and tied-in merchandising filmmaking trends. (That effect may have started in the U.S., but it has definitely spread worldwide. You personally may not own a piece of SW merchandise, but I strongly suspect nearly all of you know someone who does.) Fisher happened to be one of three leading actors in that trilogy. Her acting in those films was reasonably solid, but not truly exceptional, as might be expected of someone cast in part deliberately because of her lack of previous major roles. However, her having acted in that role has indelibly associated her with that film franchise, especially in light of its recent successful revival with her in a significant role.
So the decision of "blurb-level newsworthiness" here rests almost entirely on to what extent Fisher's accomplishments are inseparable from the "Star Wars" phenomenon. If her other accomplishments are truly to be considered independently of Star Wars, she does not rate even an RD -- not because she has not done good things with her life, but because none of those things were genuinely exceptional within their sphere. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 06:00, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need to be exceptional anymore to make it to RD, just notable. AIRcorn (talk) 09:11, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I personally, in this context, understand notability to require exceptionality in one's field, or possibly a key world event in which one was a major contributor. Otherwise we would be ITN'ing every single person who has ever appeared semi-regularly in the pages of a major newspaper. (Yes, "Star Wars" does qualify as a key world event, for the reasons outlined above. Not all key world events involve major loss of life, STEM advances, or politics. In fact, one of Wikipedia's ITN strongest systemic biases is the determination to share mass media's bias toward "if it bleeds, it leads".) - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 14:26, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you ignored anyone's major claim to fame, they'd be a lot less blurb-worthy. Calidum 06:32, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You will notice that I chose to stay out of this vote. I consider my final paragraph to be a question I should not personally be answering ... not if I want to see my own ITN choices with anything resembling neutrality in the future. (The last time I argued for blurb vs RD was for someone who was genuinely considered exceptional (not just notable) in their own field, on a worldwide basis -- and I was still accused of regionalism, ironically by someone who personally defines it without in the least realizing it.) However, I do think that the way the community answers this one will identify very important things about the current nature of the Wikipedia community. - Tenebris — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.11.171.90 (talk) 14:18, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[citation needed] Nergaal (talk) 11:36, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Postcards from the Edge Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:42, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
impact went beyond just the Star Wars films [citation needed]. Nergaal (talk) 11:36, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What consensus? I see many opposes, which in contrast to most supports are well-reasoned and based on policies and evidence. 81.204.120.137 (talk) 12:12, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quite surprised that she has a blurb. But then if Paul Simon writes a song about you, maybe that's enough. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:21, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I bet some supports came from Star Wars fans. Brandmeistertalk 12:57, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I bet you are right. That's a no brainer, seeing as to how Star Wars is one of the biggest franchises in the world. That being said, Carrie's fandom goes beyond just Star Wars. Her battle with depression and drug addiction helped to destigmatize the issues and make it something people talked about. Her openness about her personal demons, post Star Wars, have helped millions of people. Yes, interest in her is high due to her being in Star Wars---but isn't that why virtually every news media is covering her death on the front page? Because it is a lead story? Her millions of fans are looking for the story and information related to her death, which is exactly what makes this notable and worthy of a blurb as compared to some obscure issue nobody has heard about or cares about? (Admin note, I already supported above under a different IP.)74.124.47.10 (talk) 14:54, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We need an automatic tool to weed them out. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:03, 28 December 2016 (UTC) [reply]
  • Object to blurb post - What procedural legitimacy does the blurb have? Again, like George Michael below, this reeks of systemic bias. The more of these RDs we post as blurbs, the more we 'inflate' blurb-worthiness generally, as editors continue to cite precedence for later blurb posts. Colipon+(Talk) 13:20, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb. Yes, she also did work in mental health advocacy and as an author, but she was by no means famed for this work internationally to the level we usually require of these blurbs. — foxj 13:47, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pull blurb and restore to RD. There is no evidence of consensus for posting this even if we accept some of the !votes that are obviously fan based. The argument for a blurb is extremely weak when looking at the ITN/RD criteria. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:11, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the point of posting the blurb (which was within an acceptable timely manner to allow consensus to form given the time-constraints of ITN) there were approx 24 blurb supports, 9 RD supports but oppose blurbs, 3 opposes, and 4 generic supports. There was *clear* consensus to post a blurb by any standard under which WP:CONSENSUS is measured. If the best argument is 'fans voted for it' and other such vote-nullification arguments, you need to provide much better ones. As the choice between blurb and RD is basically a subjective opinion (not based on solely article quality like RD but on the super-notability of the person) complaining other peoples subjective opinion is wrong is not going to go far. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:25, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You said that much better than I can. The idea that there was no consensus was laughable. The pile-on opposes, from people who've already expressed an opinion, shouldn't change that. Calidum 14:32, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pull the bar is too low with this one. Maybe George Michael should be removed too, but that guy remained in the pop culture for a long time. Nergaal (talk) 14:28, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest we close this It's up as a blurb, it's not unanimous and doesn't have to be. This conversation isn't likely to be productive, unless we go to WT:ITN to try to establish a way to differentiate RD and blurb deaths going forward. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:44, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • We have done this - the guidelines are established at ITN/DC; no one cares to follow it because in reality, the closing admin looks at a group of "support" or "oppose" votes and decides based on their discretion as opposed to 'testing' the arguments presented against the 'rules' stipulated. Admins can step up and better enforce those rules - and remember that the most popular opinions are not necessarily the right ones. In my opinion a lack of standards also makes ITN one of the remaining 'amateur' corners of the main page, where our systemic bias is apparent for the rest of the world to see. Colipon+(Talk) 16:00, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Posted to RD] Richard Adams

[edit]
Proposed image
Article: Richard Adams (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Watership Down author Richard Adams dies aged 96 (BBC)
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

 Carcharoth (talk) 17:10, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Looks OK to me. I added a CN tag but I don't think that is enough to stop posting. The list of works is I think is fine with ISBN numbers. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:33, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ad Orientem, is it too soon to re-visit your oppose? The referencing has improved and a line has been added since you commented. There won't be much to say about his death, other than the statement issued that he passed away peacefully at 10pm on Christmas Eve. Carcharoth (talk) 18:26, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I dealt with that citation needed tag. Thanks for pointing that out. Carcharoth (talk) 18:38, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

December 26

[edit]
December 26, 2016 (2016-12-26) (Monday)
Arts and culture

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Science and technology

December 25

[edit]
December 25, 2016 (2016-12-25) (Sunday)
Arts and culture

Business and economy
  • Bezeq, an Israeli telecoms company, says that it has received word from the country's telecoms regulator that it will be allowed to end the "structural separation" of its business operations by product (i.e. mobile phone, internet, land lines). (Reuters)

Disasters and accidents

Health
  • Medical research reveals shrinkage in women’s brains as a result of pregnancy. Loss of gray matter in certain regions of the brain may make the brain more efficient and specialized for child-rearing. There is also evidence of links to long-term changes in brain. (ScienceNews) (Nature)

International relations

Law and crime

[Posted] RD: Sibylle Boden-Gerstner

[edit]
Article: Sibylle Boden-Gerstner (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Berliner Zeitung, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Mitteldeutsche Zeitung
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: German magazine editor. Fuebaey (talk) 01:22, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] RD:Elizaveta Glinka

[edit]
Article: Elizaveta Glinka (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [20]
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Russian humanitarian aid worker. Article seems fully cited. MurielMary (talk) 11:27, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up on those sources, I am sorting that out now (replacing with more reliable ones). As for the RD being redundant, I don't agree. She has died, the fact that the event which killed her is also featured on the MP at the moment doesn't seem relevant. MurielMary (talk) 10:16, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] RD: Vera Rubin

[edit]
Article: Vera Rubin (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Atlanta Journal Constitution, Washington Post
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Pioneering astronomer, worked on dark matter – Muboshgu (talk) 20:47, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted and added as blurb, and closed] RD: George Michael

[edit]
It's a blurb and staying as a blurb. Stephen 01:24, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article: George Michael (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Singer George Michael dies age 53. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ George Michael, a musician who has sold over a hundred million records, dies at the age of 53.
News source(s): BBC News
Credits:
Nominator's comments: English singer. Fuebaey (talk) 23:10, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Mentioning George Michael in the same sentence as David Bowie, Prince and Michael Jackson in 2016 is ridiculous. Outside the UK, he was hardly noticed in the past dozen or so years except by those obsessed with celebrity gossip. --71.183.132.17 (talk) 03:26, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect he'll be mentioned many times today in the same sentence as David Bowie, quite literally. I don't recall any requirement for a person to remain equally "noticed" throughout their life for them to be lastingly notable. Do you think that seven number one singles in the US counts for nothing? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:21, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Should the blurb mention that he was openly gay? He had a few songs about it, for example, Outside, An Easier Affair, My Mother Had a Brother, etc.Zigzig20s (talk) 02:36, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No. We don't post people's sexual preferences in ITN blurbs. If we have ever done so in the past I can't recall it. The only circumstance I might support doing this would be if that was the principal item for which the subject was known. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:45, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I can see your line of thinking and reasoning for proposing this, Zigzig20s, but I have to agree with Ad. Putting up a blurb like "Gay pop star George Michael dies at the age of 53" is going to give off unintended connotations, imho. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:02, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Oppose for now solely on article quality. There are a few too many gaps in referencing. That said, overall I think the article is not in horrible shape and it should not require much work to get it up to snuff. I have tagged the paragraphs lacking at least one citation. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:08, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose unless / until the article has shown significant improvement / new material. The point of ITN is to showcase new (including improved). material. Greenshed (talk) 02:11, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, there is no such requirement to feature "improved" material. The article must be updated to reflect the news factor, which here was covered in two sentences about his passing, and that's all we'd expect for such an update. --MASEM (t) 02:20, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • The Wikipedia:In_the_news#Recent_deaths_section states "For deaths where the person's life is the main story, where the news reporting of the death consists solely of obituaries, or where the update to the article in question is merely a statement of the time and cause of death, the "recent deaths" section is usually used." I would suggest that this this is appropriate here as the other options (cause of death itself is a major story or rare cases [of] the death of major transformative world leaders) don't seem to apply here. Greenshed (talk) 02:52, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Except that there have been several indepth bio articles on Michael's life that are being used by editors to clean up and/or improve the article. It's not going to transform the article dramatically at this point. And of course, these are guidelines - the ultimate decision is by consensus which is overwhelmingly in favor of retaining the blurb. --MASEM (t) 02:57, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • Leaving aside the fact that that the recent comments "oppose blurb", even the earlier remarks above are not overwhelmingly in favor of retaining the blurb. See "Support RD, neutral on blurb", "Support, would not outright oppose blurb", "Oppose for now solely on article quality" (and of course my remarks). I'd say that there was a general consensus in favour of blurb but that, with the new comments, now things are less clear. Personally, i'd move to RD - it only conveys a little less information - his age (cf "George Michael dies at the age of 53" with "Recent deaths: Rick Parfitt, George Michael, ..." - but it does reduce prominence which I think is appropriate per Colipon's remarks below. Greenshed (talk) 17:46, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb: Let me give another perspective. A blurb for a death, in my view, should truly be reserved for those individuals with vast international significance and the death itself garnering widespread coverage in multiple cultural spheres. I honestly do not believe George Michael to be a global figure to the same renown as, say, Michael Jackson. Jackson was a cultural icon on top of being a musician, truly one for the generations; his death was headline news from Senegal to South Korea, from Fiji to Kazakhstan. You go to those countries now, you may be hard pressed to find a person on the street who even knows of George Michael, let alone care about his death. I do not doubt George Michael's popularity in the anglosphere, particularly in his homeland of Britain, but to me this is an RD, not a blurb. Colipon+(Talk) 13:51, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, how do you know? There's media coverage, but there's also the fact that he sold 100 million records. And--even though the blurb does not mention it--he was openly gay. As a member of WikiProject LGBT Studies, I have no doubt that he may not be getting sufficient media coverage in a place like Kazakhstan because of anti-gay censorship. Let's not encourage that.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:44, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well he is actually getting media coverage in Kazakhstan. See http://kazakh-tv.kz/en/view/world_news/page_179274_the-sun-goes-down-on-beloved-pop-star-george-michael Greenshed (talk) 19:48, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Considering this is the English Wikipedia, I would expect most users to be from the English-speaking world (or anglosphere). 2607:FEA8:A25F:FB9A:EC7F:DEC2:A3DB:B838 (talk) 22:09, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Removing opposition per counterarguments given above. Banedon (talk) 01:16, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb unexpected death of a "pop icon", easily outweighs people like Paul Walker, although Michael wasn't American, he was Greek so perhaps that's part of the issue? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:24, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not sure how to decide where that line is between RD and blurb in some of these cases. At first I thought, well if there's a death article, like Death of Nelson Mandela, Death of Michael Jackson, Death of David Bowie, that shows the kind of significance of the death as an event to merit a blurb. But then Death of Muhammad Ali is a redirect, and I think his was a blurb-worth death as well. At first I thought, "this isn't significant enough", but then considering the LGBT angle, maybe it is. I dunno. Some of these cases are ambiguous. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:50, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think there's any angle at all per LGBT, who cares? He was an iconic song-meister, that we wouldn't consider him on a par with (or indeed, way beyond) a bit-part Hollywood actor is absurd. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:52, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The "angle" that I refer to is that he came out before many other celebrities had, and I've been reading some stories including quotes of LGBT individuals saying that it helped them to understand that they're normal even though they're not straight. If the "bit-part Hollywood actor" you're referring to is Paul Walker, I think it's clear that posting was a mistake. I opposed it. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:58, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    He "came out" after being caught in some toilets soliciting men, so let's not be too precious and laudatory about it. But nevertheless, his impact was significant enough for a blurb. No more needed. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:00, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, in the Will Rogers Memorial Park (created by guess who?). He also had quite a few gay-themed songs as I said before.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:15, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Point taken. I'm not opposing a blurb here, just trying to find consistency from one to another, including the deaths that haven't happened yet. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:04, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no requirement that an RD blurb have a Death of... with it, though having a significant Death of... article is a very strong indicator that a blurb shoukd be made. Also keep in mind he was only 53, and no indication of being in medical condition just before (the bout with pneumonia was in 2012, so not a leading indicator). Surprising deaths of notable people is a mertic we do consider too. --MASEM (t) 20:33, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb. I was never any fan of Wham! or George Michael (indeed I still bear the psychological scars of being forced to take my younger sister to the George Michael Faith concert in Birmingham in 1988), but this was one of the most iconic artists of the 1980s, without doubt. For those above suggesting that only the anglosphere would be interested in the story (which would be big enough as it is), I can assure you that Michael was a huge star in India (i.e. [21]) and Wham! were the first Western band to play in China, a huge issue at the time [22]. Black Kite (talk) 21:09, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support. World famous beyond reasonable doubt. --Barry Bubbles (talk) 06:35, 26 December 2016 (UTC) Moved post obviously posted accidentally in wrong section. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:58, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Posted] Black Sea crash

[edit]
Proposed image
Article: 2016 Russian Defence Ministry Tupolev Tu-154 crash (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ A Russian aircraft carrying 91 people crashes in the Black Sea en route to Khmeimim, Syria. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ A Tupolev Tu-154 aircraft (pictured) crashes off Sochi, Russia killing all 92 people on board.
Alternative blurb II: ​ A Tupolev Tu-154 aircraft (pictured) crashes off Sochi, Russia killing all 92 people on board, including 64 members of the Alexandrov Ensemble.
Credits:

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: High toll count althrough not known how many dead yet. Lihaas (talk) 06:43, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, okay, I stand corrected. Извини! Alt2 is fine, although I still like alt1 for brevity. Sca (talk) 17:24, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Supporr alt2 Should definitely note the loss of the ensemble. --MASEM (t) 17:30, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
ALT 2 is fine. Mjroots (talk) 17:57, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

December 24

[edit]
December 24, 2016 (2016-12-24) (Saturday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

[Posted to RD] RD/Blurb Rick Parfitt

[edit]
Proposed image
Article: Rick Parfitt (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Status Quo guitarist Rick Parfitt (pictured) dies at 68. (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Iconic musician, member of one of the top pop bands of the 1970s Mjroots (talk) 15:34, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose blurb- Do people not realize the threshold for deaths being blurbs? The person who died has to be someone fairly influential or who was fairly well known but died suddenly at not an old age. I do not think this person rises to either of those levels. Yes, he did die not totally old, but was he fairly well-known? Andise1 (talk) 17:22, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are unsourced paragraphs in the "Status Quo" section. If the sources in the last paragraph are meant to cover them, they still need to be used for each paragraph. And there's a {{when?}} tag, too. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:42, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, we weren't. It just looked a bit like Michèle Morgan blue-links all over again? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:44, 24 December 2016 (UTC) [reply]

[Closed] Trump foundation

[edit]
No consensus to post. Brandmeistertalk 19:02, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article: Donald J. Trump Foundation (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Donald Trump announces he is dissolving the Donald J. Trump Foundation in order to avoid potential conflict of interests. (Post)
News source(s): Fox News, WSJ, Washington Post
Credits:
 Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 06:20, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

22 December 2016 (UTC)

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

December 23

[edit]
December 23, 2016 (2016-12-23) (Friday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture
  • Carrie Fisher, the actress best known for the role of Princess Leia in the Star Wars franchise, suffers a massive heart attack while on a flight and is rushed to a hospital near Los Angeles International Airport in critical condition. (Mirror)

Business and economy

Health

International relations

Law and crime

[Closed] RD: Vesna Vulović

[edit]
Older than oldest RD item, closing as stale. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:51, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article: Vesna Vulović (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb:  was a Serbian flight attendant who holds the Guinness world record for surviving the highest fall without a parachute: 10,160 metres (33,333 ft) (Post)
News source(s): VOA
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: That air hostess who fell from ten kilometres and survived. Brandmeistertalk 12:35, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Unusual biography, but cited in all the right places and long enough. Valentina Cardoso (talk) 20:00, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

[Posted] RD: Piers Sellers

[edit]
Article: Piers Sellers (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2016/12/24/astronaut-piers-sellers-dies-61
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: A handful of unreferenced sentences that need fixing, but should be good to go after that. Sam Walton (talk) 23:03, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Does this spacewalk mean I'm notable enough for Wikipedia's RD section?"

[Closed] Afriqiyah Airways Flight 209

[edit]
No consensus to post. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:16, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Proposed image
Article: Afriqiyah Airways Flight 209 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Afriqiyah Airways Flight 209 (aircraft involved pictured) is hijacked on a flight from Sebha to Tripoli and diverted to Malta. (Post)
News source(s): Aviation Safety Network
Credits:

Article updated
 Mjroots (talk) 14:49, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Here's one I prepared earlier. You'll laugh your socks off. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:31, 23 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  • Is there any extra reason that this hijacking that was resolved without fatalities is notable? Or are we saying that any hijacking of a passenger aircraft is ITN-worthy? HaEr48 (talk) 02:18, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, we are saying that each individual hijacking that gets nominated is assessed on its individual merits. Hijackings are much rarer than they were 40-50 years ago. Mjroots (talk) 07:25, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So what additional merit does this hijacking have? Seems like no argument for "individual merits" have been given on this proposal. HaEr48 (talk) 08:04, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, the successful conclusion without bloodshed. Mjroots (talk) 08:11, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well if there were bloodshed, then wouldn't it also be notable because of the casualties? Then there is really no individual merits here. HaEr48 (talk) 08:53, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Posted] United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334

[edit]
Article: United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The United Nations Security Council adopt a resolution condemning Israeli settlements in the West Bank (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ The United Nations Security Council adopt the first resolution condemning Israeli settlements since 1980
News source(s): Times of Israel and BBC
Credits:

 Oncenawhile (talk) 22:46, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Unsure While the US letting this resolution pass (i.e. not vetoing) is certainly remarkable and maybe unprecedented, I think we need to have more explanations from reliable sources about its repercussions, before judging whether this is ITN-worthy. HaEr48 (talk) 02:11, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. A highly notable, binding security council resolution on a highly important issue, and massively covered in reliable sources. Its importance can be seen from the fact that it is the first security council resolution on the whole Israeli-Palestinian conflict in nearly ten years. --Tataral (talk) 02:50, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Its importance can be seen from the fact that it is the first security council resolution on the whole Israeli-Palestinian conflict in nearly ten years." Well this isn't an argument for importance. I imagine UN Security Council regularly pass resolutions on things they have never passed a resolution about before, but it doesn't mean that it's important. HaEr48 (talk) 09:00, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This is getting widespread coverage and leading the international news. The fact that the Security Council has finally adopted a resolution on this subject after many years of US vetoes preventing it from doing so is highly notable. The resolution has already had significant diplomatic ramifications, with Israel recalling its ambassadors to New Zealand and Senegal, cancelling visits from New Zealand and Senegalese officials, and cancelling all aid programmes in Senegal (in retaliation for their sponsoring of the resolution).[23] Neljack (talk) 06:29, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment aren't all such UN resolutions summarily ignored by Israel? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:53, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think they are usually General Assembly resolutions, which are nonbinding, but this one is Security Council resolution, which in theory is binding. I guess it doesn't mean that it will not be ignored, but it is different. HaEr48 (talk) 09:00, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I assume they would be if the US had ever previously let any pass... Israel in general ignores any individual or group international condemnation of its illegal land grabs. This is a security council resolution however, and ignoring it could have repurcussions beyond their usual 'everyone is against us' stance. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:02, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with the premise of the question here. One supporter has called this "binding". What is a binding condemnation? μηδείς (talk) 04:40, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

December 22

[edit]
December 22, 2016 (2016-12-22) (Thursday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Health
  • A vaccine for the ebola virus is discovered to be 99.78%–99.87% effective. (NPR)

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

[Posted] RD: Franca Sozzani

[edit]
Article: Franca Sozzani (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Guardian
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Editor of Italian Vogue magazine for 30 years. Article and publication list seem fully sourced. MurielMary (talk) 10:31, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Removed from ongoing and posted as a blurb] Aleppo

[edit]
Articles: Aleppo offensive (November–December 2016) (talk · history · tag) and Battle of Aleppo (2012–16) (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Syrian government forces retake control of Aleppo, effectively ending a four-year stalemate in the conflict over the city. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Syrian government forces retake control of the besieged parts of Aleppo, ending a four-year stalemate which left an estimated 31,000 people dead.
Alternative blurb II: ​ Syrian government forces retake control of the besieged parts of Aleppo.
News source(s): (BBC), (Al Jazeera), (France 24), CNN
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Also remove ongoing. Jenda H. (talk) 21:01, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we do on occasion. Stephen 04:35, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you search the archives? Stephen 08:43, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose then since the answer seems to be "too many times". Nergaal (talk) 15:53, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose due to current wording. It was not a four-year siege, but a four-year stalemate. It has only been a siege for the last half a year. Support if this is fixed. CMD (talk) 08:54, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wording is corrected. --Jenda H. (talk) 15:42, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Battle of Aleppo has a neutrality tag on the top, I would prefer not including it in the blurb. Just go with Syrian government forces retake control of the besieged parts of Aleppo. --Tone 08:56, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - per conflict escalation.BabbaQ (talk) 16:30, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support altblurb II due to issues with the Battle of Aleppo article linked to in the other two blurbs. Major event in the conflict. Kranix (talk | contribs) 17:45, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posting. --Tone 20:37, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Any support for changing "parts" to "areas" , we are talking about a geographical component only, correct? — xaosflux Talk 23:04, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pull - on quality grounds, at least until the 'International Reactions' section of the linked article is no longer so totally WP:POV. I was already considering asking for that article to be removed from 'Ongoing' for the same reason. The 'International Reactions' section currently (and quite rightly) gives several reactions that support Russia and the Syrian Government, but currently (and quite wrongly) gives not a single explicit condemnation of them (though the cited UN reaction arguably implicitly condemns them), even though it is quite obvious that there is a great deal of international condemnation of them. As such it seemingly no longer meets our quality standards for the front page (or anywhere else) to an extent that is potentially quite harmful to Wikipedia, especially in the Western and Sunni Muslim worlds (these front page articles are supposed to show us at our NPOV best; this article currently shows us at our POV worst). It should therefore be pulled from our front page until if and when the problem is fixed. Tlhslobus (talk) 03:41, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Why don't you add some referenced reactions that show international condemnation? Stephen 05:10, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
1) Because Wikipedia is not compulsory, especially not at Christmas time.
2) Because it would involve a lot of work to get the balance even approximately right.
3) Because we are not supposed to post stories on the front page until they meet our quality standards.
4) Because quite likely there will also be other quality issues that need fixing - I've merely pointed out the most obvious one.
5) Because the fact that it is in its present POV state, and has been for quite some time, gives me every reason to fear that I would be landing myself into a POV war, which I have no intention of getting into, and which I would almost certainly lose, so my efforts would likely be utterly pointless.
6) Because most of the harm to Wikipedia can be undone in a few seconds by pulling the item, which is what should happen according to our rules about quality and POV, etc.
7) Because the current POV status of the article violates the second of the Five Pillars of Wikipedia, and to fail to pull the article until the problem is fixed thus makes a mockery of our fundamental principles.
8) And so on. Tlhslobus (talk) 04:53, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

December 21

[edit]
December 21, 2016 (2016-12-21) (Wednesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology
  • Snow falls in the Sahara desert for the first time in 37 years. (CNN)

[Posted] RD: Corno

[edit]
Article: Corno (artist) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): CBC
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Canadian artist, article seems fully sourced. MurielMary (talk) 02:18, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for spotting that, will fix it. Marking as ready to post. MurielMary (talk) 04:24, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] December 2016 Congolese protests

[edit]
Article: December 2016 Congolese protests (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Dozens of civilians are killed by government security forces as protests breakout across the Democratic Republic of the Congo following the end of Joseph Kabila's term in office. (Post)
News source(s): Thompson Reuters, BBC
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Over 30 people killed at mass protests across a country that rarely gets talked about. Monopoly31121993 (talk) 20:22, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Such a shame that the picture of protesters was deleted... Is there really no Wikipedian in the DRC who could take a couple of pictures for us?Zigzig20s (talk) 22:47, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

December 20

[edit]
December 20, 2016 (2016-12-20) (Tuesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Politics and elections

Science and technology

[Closed] Campi Flegrei supervolcano may be about to explode

[edit]
No consensus to post, doesn't preclude another nomination if it does go pop of course. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:00, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article: Campi Flegrei (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The Campi Flegrei supervolcano in Italy is becoming unstable (Post)
News source(s): Nature; WaPo
Credits:

Article needs updating
 Count Iblis (talk) 21:41, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Posted] 2016 San Pablito Market fireworks explosion

[edit]
Article: 2016 San Pablito Market fireworks explosion (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ At least 31 people are killed and 70 injured in an explosion at a fireworks market in Mexico City. (Post)
News source(s): CBC, AP
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Seems to be a major explosion, judging by the videos. At least 10 dead so far. I started a stub, but it'll need significant expansion before posting. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:44, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] [Posted] RD: Michèle Morgan

[edit]
Discuss wider issues elsewhere please. BencherliteTalk 09:17, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Proposed image
Article: Michèle Morgan (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Bernstein, Adam (December 20, 2016). "Michèle Morgan, lustrous French actress of 'Port of Shadows,' dies at 96". The Washington Post. Retrieved December 20, 2016. ; Cheng, Cheryl (December 20, 2016). "Michele Morgan, French Actress in 'The Fallen Idol,' Dies at 96". The Hollywood Reporter. Retrieved December 20, 2016.
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
 Zigzig20s (talk) 22:11, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks TRM, I just went through and read the discussion on Gabor's nom, too, which I had missed the other day. At this stage my vote on this nomination is oppose due to lack of referencing for the filmography. Linking to another WP article isn't sufficient under the current reliable sources policy, which states that content from user-generated sources including WP isn't considered acceptable. Those films need to be referenced properly with in-line citations to a reliable source (not WP and not IMDb). MurielMary (talk) 11:17, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, you want me to add an in-line reference for each film? I've never seen this before in ten years of editing Wikipedia!Zigzig20s (talk) 13:12, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to browse any discography or bibliography featured list where WP:V is correctly observed. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:14, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Is this a new rule? I feel it may be a tad WP:OVERCITE.Zigzig20s (talk) 13:21, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How can it be overciting if no citation for each film appearance/role/director/year exists at this point in this article? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:30, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We don't usually cite this.Zigzig20s (talk) 13:37, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is at 'featured X' articles, which have a higher standard than general practice. Just inline cite the film as a primary source. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:39, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As an example of the referencing problem, I clicked on the blue link to If Paris Were Told to Us in Morgan's filmography. The article for that film appears to be lifted directly from IMDb, which is not a reliable source. It's virtually the same as linking to IMDb directly. Has anyone checked all of those blue linked articles to check that they actually use RSs, not solely IMDb? MurielMary (talk) 18:28, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is precisely the problem which all the supporters either ignore or aren't aware of. Relying on Wikipedia to be a reliable source is absolute nonsense. Like you MurielMary, I actually took some time to check the top ten or so of the filmography (unlike most/all of the supporters) and discovered that they had just external links, some of them just to IMDB, to "reference" the articles. Relying on the existence of a "blue link" as a "reliable source" to verify these claims is clearly preposterous and the sooner the nay-sayers understand that, and the sooner our admins realise they're tacitly (or in some cases, actively, twice) violating WP:V, where a challenge to any fact requires an inline source to be provided, the better. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:47, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Changing my vote to support as there is enough referencing in the filmography now (haven't actually counted but it looks like the majority is referenced. MurielMary (talk) 21:17, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose 16 unreferenced claims is better than 50! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:27, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for posting promptly. A requirement to insert a reference for every appearance as a precondition for posting to RD, particularly when the appearances are linked to other articles, is in my opinion not necessary or reasonable. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:35, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    As an admin and member of Arbcom, I had hoped you would know by know that Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and your personal feelings must have no bearing on our compliance with one of the pillars of Wikipedia, the policy of wp:v, just because people are too lazy to reference articles and rely on linked articles, most of which have just external links or rely on IMDB. It is perfectly reasonable to expect our BLP articles to comply with V and absolutely necessary. Thanks! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:12, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of calling other editors "lazy", why don't you go look for those references? I spent a lot of time adding in-line references throughout the body of text, but I am an unpaid volunteer and I don't log into Wikipedia in my down time to read words like "lazy". I would argue that I am fabulously productive on Wikipedia, actually.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:01, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Um, okay, we're all unpaid volunteers? I'm sure you are "fabulously productive" and I'm glad you're so positive about it, but the simple fact is that relying on Wikipedia links to reference articles is (a) against policy and (b) lazy. That's not directed at anyone in particular, it's just a statement of absolute fact. Hopefully you can find reliable sources for each and every entry. And hey, if not, those entries should be removed!! Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:15, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of criticizing others, please do it yourself! Several editors (including administrators) disagree with you and this is becoming tedious.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:43, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'll do you a favour, this one time. I'm not criticising others, I'm stating that to meet our site-wide policy the entries need to be cited. If this is becoming tedious for you then perhaps this isn't the right part of Wikipedia for you. There are loads of other projects or pages that need attention, that don't involve the main page, so maybe consider moving along to one or more of those? And, as a postscript, I'm fully aware that a number of admins disagree with me. That they do is actually quite troublesome. Some of them are deliberately violating Wikipedia policy, which should result in their de-sysop if it continues, some of them are trying to bias the encyclopedia by overlooking key policies and guidelines (and some actually abuse the tools to do so!), some of them are simply misguided and we can forgive that, surely?! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:51, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've had several fabulous RDs on the main page. I've been very successful at it, and I don't need you to discourage me. Please keep your negativity to yourself. There is Wikipedia:Ignore all rules of course, but most importantly, instead of spending your time berating us here, just find those references that you demand and add them yourself. That will at least be productive. I am done talking to you now.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:07, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't denied that your RDs may have been fabulous and that you are very successful. Moreover, I made it clear above that I'm not discouraging anyone, just reminding them of policy, and after all, WP:V and WP:BLP are about the most important policies with which we must comply. I don't spend any time "berating" people here, just highlighting the shortcomings in the articles, which fail to meet policy. I can't find reliable sources for a lot of these entries so I'd have to delete them. Is that what you want? Alternatively, do some research yourself for reliable sources that do back up the claims made in the filmography section. If you care, read other opposition opinions, and act on those instead of just arguing with mine. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:11, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a few more references. However, I think you should try to reach consensus. I've just done a browser search for "filmography" in those two policy pages you mention and I don't see it. The body of the text is fully referenced; I honestly believe that is sufficient, unless you can quote a specific passage from those policy pages. You may be over-interpreting them, in which case you are welcome to talk about them on their own talkpages, but not here.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:29, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No need, I use WP:V which is a policy. The policy doesn't pick out explicit article types. I'm not over-interpreting anything, thanks! If it helps, once again I'll re-state the policy wording which you can find right at the top of the page, for all to see, any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by inline citations.. If you need help interpreting that, let me know! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:35, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Are you the only person in the entire world wanting to challenge her filmography? Sorry but the filmography is uncontroversial content; there's no need to challenge it.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:42, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. But per policy, it's challenged, so it needs referencing, inline. And per WP:V it should be inline referenced in any case. If you need help with interpreting policy, let me know! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:08, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you are over-interpreting!Zigzig20s (talk) 21:17, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I believe in Wikipedia policy, not in what you believe. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:25, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be, or not to be, that is the question. I don't think the intent of V was to block posting something ITN. Therefore, a new editor to an article claiming suddenly, after an RD makes the news, that any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported, should bring that up now is wrong. The article and its editors' previous history should be the primary factor, IMO. Her article was created almost 12 years ago; it has had 174 editors since then, with 451 revisions, and has 76 page watchers. Those are the editors whose opinions should be most relevant in concluding whether some bit part in a film is "likely to be challenged." If they haven't felt the need to challenge a factoid, their opinion should have precedence.
Imagine some town with an unusual real estate rule: Mr. and Mrs. X want to sell their home. Over the years they have had hundreds of repairs made, countless visits by friends and neighbors, and none of them ever made mention of the fact that the roof looked worn, the carpet was a bit stained, the kitchen sink was leaking, or the windows had some cracks. But to sell their house, they are required, by a town rule, to have a city inspector first come out and do a detailed check for any imperfections. By the rules, the couple can't put their house on the market until all the imperfections, such as the carpet stains, noted by the inspector are fixed. "Them's the rules," he says. He's only following the letter of the law. --Light show (talk) 21:32, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to change WP:V, be my guest. Right now we have what we have and I've made the challenge, per the policy, so to fulfil the policy requirements, the challenged material must have inline citations. Until such a time that V is re-worded, that's what we have. Also, it's not what our "editors" and "page watchers" think that's important at all. This is about our readers and how they can verify the information presented to them in a WIkipedia article. Those are the opinions which should be most relevant in concluding whether some bit part in a film (or any part in any film) should be referenced. If they might need to find verifiable evidence for a factoid, their opinion should have precedence. We write this encyclopedia for "readers", not "editors". Appreciate your story, but let's just stick to the program. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:43, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Newyorkbrad. This is not FA. We should balance the desire for a comprehensive quality upgrade with the need for the front page's current events section to reflect current events in a timely manner. If there is a solid reason to dispute any uncited material in the filmography, then simply remove it. Gamaliel (talk) 17:28, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Nope, per WP:V anyone can "challenge" any claim, and I've challenged the filmography. Following such a "challenge", the policy mandates inline citations from reliable sources, not Wikipedia. I'm sure you know that, but I've repeated it here just in case. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:31, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - We are being overly pedantic in requiring every line in a filmography/discography be line-by-line referenced before posting. This is the textbook definition of "perfect being the enemy of good," and in this case not just good, but very good. This issue was also why Alan Thicke was never posted to the front page, despite the widespread interest in his life and the body of the article being very well developed and referenced. This is a sign that we are doing something wrong. I've had issues with the basic premise of ITN only showing high quality content (or some vague definition of that), and have tried to work within the framework of that understanding. But this goes too far, in requiring things above and beyond what most would consider high quality in Wikipedia. In short - the prose is well referenced, it passes BLP standards, it's good enough to post and put it on the front page. People are visiting the pages anyway (with more than 2 million hits on Thicke [24]), so why would we put our head in the sand and not serve the public interest? -- Fuzheado | Talk 17:35, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Not ready, we're duty-bound by WP:V unless, of course, someone, e.g. an admin or an Arcbom member continues to post such things against policy. It doesn't pass BLP, the claims of appearances in films remain unreferenced. We're not expecting perfection, just meeting the requirements of Wikipedia policy. We're not looking for FA, goodness knows this is nowhere near that, nor do we expect it. Hits are irrelevant, it's quality that counts. I have challenged every appearance in that table of films so per WP:V an inline citation must be provided. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:37, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Either the filmography needs to be sourced or it should be removed. I'd support in the case of either happening. Black Kite (talk) 18:42, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd argue removing the filmography (which could include outright removal or moving it to a separate list page as sometimes done) is avoiding the problem just to get an end result of posting. A notable actor's filmography is essential encyclopedic information, and removing it outright is completely out of line. Splitting off to a separate page as to remove the sourcing issue problems may seem okay, but that still means the sourcing issue is a problem on the new page. --MASEM (t) 18:47, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, I'd certainly immediately tag any such spin-off page (with or without IMDB refs) as {{unreferenced}}. Bypassing the problem isn't what's needed here, solving it is. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:49, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • I would not evaluate this as one of the forty thousand most pressing "problems" affecting Wikipedia today. And frankly, I think the filmography with all those footnoted references to webpages about the underlying films looks unduly cluttered and that we are not doing the readers any service by adding the footnotes in those locations—they would be better added to the existing, bluelinked articles about the films, where they would provide support not merely for this particular actress's appearance in the films, but for all the other information available on those pages as well. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:55, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • What a curious response, especially from someone who the community has trusted to protect Wikipedia and uphold its pillars, including WP:V. No-one mentioned any other problems, we're looking to keep this one within the remit of the existing policy. And to then express an opinion that it's better to bury references in sub-articles, that's simply absurd and shows how detached you are from the real workings of Wikipedia. But it's of little surprise. None of this is relevant, anyway, as I've challenged the content, so per WP:V I demand the inline references. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:04, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
            • I submit that there is a consensus on this page to proceed with posting the item without reference to your demands. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:06, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
              • I submit that, once again, you are circumventing policy. It's not my demands at all. You need to work on that Brad. Are you now suggesting that, per WP:V, which clearly states Additionally, quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by inline citations. is now to be ignored? I have challenged the unverifiable material. Please confirm now that you are advocating that this is posted against one of Wikipedia's core policies please? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:09, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
                • Obviously, I do not agree that posting would violate any policy or the underlying purpose and intent of any policy. Let's see what others think. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:14, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
                  • We have some good news Brad, now we've worked out it's possible to inline reference each movie appearance in a matter of hours, we can and should now expect this level of referencing for each and every American movie and television star before you someone promotes them! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:50, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Which, of course, is actually very bad news, since it implies that anyone can go to an RD article and slap as many cn tags on any uncited factoids they want. That would include not simply blue-linked lists of credits, but any fact anywhere in an article, under cover of just "challenging" a fact per V. That's all it takes. Never edited the article? Irrelevant. Remember, "We", not the hard-working editors, decide what needs to be challenged and blocked from the Main Page. --Light show (talk) 23:21, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
                      • If that's what a "challenge" to a claim constitutes, all good. About time we started complying with core Wikipedia policy and stopped pushing inadequately sourced articles to the main page just because they're about dead actors or actresses. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:13, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have in-lined every single one of her films. Good to go?Zigzig20s (talk) 22:21, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. By the way, there is a note about her possible Jewish faith on her talkpage, yet I've found no such info in her obituaries and her funeral is being held in a Catholic church. Would it make sense for an administrator to remove it?Zigzig20s (talk) 22:26, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Meh; as best I can tell it's someone clueless, confusing her with someone with a similar name. I don't think an admin needs to remove it, but if any editor did remove it, I imagine the odds of it getting put back are less than 5%. It's harmless and worthless, IMHO. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:36, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • (ec) No, it's all about WP:V. But, once again, the clique wins out. Bravo. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:29, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    "The clique wins out"? Didn't you get exactly what you wanted? Zigzig20s spent the afternoon sourcing the entire filmography. There was a time when you would have at least acknowledged the effort. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:36, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You're a little behind the times. But that's ok. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:38, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I was 4 minutes behind the times on that, my apologies. I gather you're not going to address the first part of my comment? --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:40, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, you were slack. As to "exactly what I wanted", I'd say "sort of", the references are great, and identify that she was in each movie, but not her role or necessarily the director, nor the notes, but it's much closer to what we'd expect per WP:V. And "what I wanted" also includes another example of how, relatively, simple it is to reference such lists, so we have a good precedent for such RDs going forward. Now we're setting the verification bar higher, i.e. closer to where it should be, so much the better. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:47, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I frankly think you could have added the references from the British Film Institute yourself, at the very least. And no, I truly hope and pray we have not set any bar any higher at all, please. This was extremely tedious and unnecessary.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:49, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Well thanks for your "frankness" but I'm not interested in the subject, just interested in maintaining one of the core policies of Wikipedia. Thanks again! The Rambling Man (talk) 08:11, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I continue to reject your overly literal and counterproductive interpretation of the policy and decline to follow such interpretation. All policies need to be interpreted in a proportional and reasonable manner, and an interpretation that required hours of editor time to be invested in a manifestly suboptimal manner cannot be correct. Newyorkbrad (talk) 08:30, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh Brad, I continue to reject your rushes to post items which you hare interested in despite them being under-referenced. I continue to reject sloppy work going to the main page for the sake of a few hours of work, as clearly demonstrated here. If you don't like the way WP:V is worded, you know what you can do about it. Thanks!! P.S. I'm shocked and surprised that you would consider the production of a fully referenced BLP to be a "manifestly suboptimal" use of time. Really, I am!! The Rambling Man (talk) 09:03, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Removed] Remove from ongoing: United Kingdom football sexual abuse scandal

[edit]
Article: United Kingdom football sexual abuse scandal (talk · history · tag)
Ongoing item removal (Post)
  • Oppose: The story is active and had a major write-up in the NY Times last week: "At least 20 police forces across Britain have opened investigations into 83 suspects in cases involving about 350 possible victims and 98 soccer clubs." --Light show (talk) 04:13, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • But that was last week; we appear to be at the point where there's good understanding of the width and breadth of this story is understood, and now we've just got to wait the years it would take to determine all end results. The article's updates have slowed significantly, another sign this is no longer appropriate for "ongoing". --MASEM (t) 04:20, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - has aged out. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:38, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose a casual Google news reveals this is very much ongoing and very much in the news. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:07, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - the article hasn't been updated (much) for days. Isn't that what we care about in the ongoing section? Banedon (talk) 06:15, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I always thought this was a poorly chosen use of ongoing. We can't include every story that the news media obsesses over in ongoing (Presidential elections, anyone?). Investigations and trials often present a slow trickle of news, and while interesting, their impact is usually limited to the immediate parties affected. In my opinion, ongoing is best reserved for those unusual cases where a story is both continuously discussed and broadly impactful (e.g. wars, disease outbreaks). If this story had been given a blurb, as always seemed more reasonable to me, we would have removed it already. With that in mind, I think it makes sense to remove this now that it has been posted for somewhat longer than a blurb would have been posted. Dragons flight (talk) 09:52, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove. Has definitely dropped off the news radar and isn't getting daily updates. Regardless of what you think about the original posting, it doesn't currently meet the requirements for the Ongoing section. Modest Genius talk 11:32, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removing. --Tone 12:12, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

December 19

[edit]
December 19, 2016 (2016-12-19) (Monday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy
  • Regulators in the European Union initiate a "public consultation" on Big Data looking at whether more regulation or supervision of the collection of high volumes of information on individuals is appropriate. (Reuters)

Disasters and accidents
  • Companies shut down production in Beijing and cars are taken off the road after a red alert for smog is issued in northern China. Dozens of cities have closed schools due to the smog. (AP)

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

[Posted] 2016 Irkutsk mass methanol poisoning

[edit]
Article: 2016 Irkutsk mass methanol poisoning (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Forty-nine people die in Irkutsk after drinking counterfeit bath lotion filled with methanol. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Counterfeit bath lotion filled with methanol kills 49 people in Irkutsk.
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Alcohol poisoning is far from the least common occurrence in Russia. That said, this particular incident has been called "unprecedented in its scale" by the AP, due to the number of deaths, and has mainstream pickup in outlets like the New York Times. Article could be expanded further. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:29, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - There is a factor that while the bath oil ingested was marked as having ethanol and in reality had methanol, there was still warning labels to not drink it, but still it sounds like they are approaching those that bottled the bath oil as acting improperly. --MASEM (t) 04:51, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not disputing your points, but plenty of Russians drink this sort of stuff anyway and are fine (... mostly) because it's ethyl alcohol. See eg the deputy prime minister's comment of such substances being 20%(!) of the total alcohol consumption in Russia. Unfortunately for these people, the labels here were wrong. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:54, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. It's a newsworthy mass casualty possibly caused by foul play; seems to meet our standards for posting. The last comparable event I can think of is the Mozambique funeral beer poisoning, which we posted. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 15:28, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support massive loss of life under very unusual circumstances in one of the world's most polarizing nations. Yeah, this is ITN-worthy. Lepricavark (talk) 15:34, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Comment – Can "foul play" be documented? Alas, Russians have been dying from drinking the wrong hooch-substitute for generations. Sca (talk) 16:42, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • From TASS via ABC news: "Russia's top investigative agency opened a probe into the incident and arrested several people suspected of involvement in selling the lotion. Officials found that the lotion contained deadly levels of methanol and antifreeze. Police have found an underground facility that made the counterfeit lotion, and seized 500 liters (132 gallons) of the substance at about 100 shops in Irkutsk, according to the Tass news agency." Foul play was definitely involved. --MASEM (t) 16:48, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Should be in the article, although another RS would be advisable. Sca (talk) 17:03, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I had just added the seizing part, but the arrests were already documented in there. (this actually is the AP article in this case). --MASEM (t) 17:09, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Berlin Christmas Market attack

[edit]
Article: 2016 Berlin Christmas market truck attack (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ At least 12 people are killed and 46 people are injured after a truck crashed into a market in Berlin, Germany. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ At least 12 people are killed and 46 injured after a truck is driven into a Christmas market in Berlin, Germany.
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Developing story, but appears to be a deliberate act similar to the 2016 Nice attack. Dragons flight (talk) 20:08, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Update – Outdated blurb should be revised to lead with fatal shooting of Amri by Italian police. Article has been updated at the end of this paragraph; lead should be revised as well. Sca (talk) 16:45, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Russian Ambassador in Turkey assassinated

[edit]
Article: Assassination of Andrei Karlov (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Russian ambassador to Turkey, Andrei Karlov, is assassinated in Ankara. (Post)
Credits:

Nominator's comments: This is a developing story, but terrorist execution of an ambassador is extremely rare. Not sure what article should be linked. Assassination of Andrei Karlov] (talk) 17:37, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have reformatted your nom using the proposal template and suggested a blurb using the current (very preliminary) article as the presumed target. Dragons flight (talk) 17:52, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I don't always have the time to fill out a complete nom, and I appreciate when somebody assuming good fait chips in. Nergaal (talk) 22:42, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Recently Dead nomination for the Russian ambassador Andrei Karlov? Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:39, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd suggest we Wait until we get an article up and see how big of a deal this is. My gut says this may warrant a blurb, but it's too early to say. Right now we don't even have a formal nomination. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:42, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well Assassination of Andrei Karlov already exists... Good luck with that not turning into a political cesspit. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:45, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The ambassador was Andrei Karlov (just created today). I do not think this would be an RD: it was a public shooting with apparent terrorism ties. [25], so a blurb would be important. I think the Karlov article would be the right one, but I would consider that moved to "Assassination of Andrei Karlov", as he was an otherwise non-notable person before. --MASEM (t) 17:45, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] RD: Lionel Blue

[edit]
Stale, older than the oldest RD posted. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:25, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article: Lionel Blue (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: BBC Radio 4's Thought for the Day and the first openly gay British rabbi. Article needs work. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:29, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Posted] Anti-Hydrogen Spectrum Observed for First Time

[edit]
Articles: Antimatter (talk · history · tag) and Antihydrogen (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Researchers at CERN's ALPHA experiment successfully measure the spectrum of antihydrogen, confirming that antimatter obeys the same laws as matter. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Researchers at CERN's ALPHA experiment observed the spectrum of antihydrogen for the first time. Within experimental error, the spectrum is identical to regular hydrogen, as predicted by the Standard Model of particle physics.
Alternative blurb II: ​ Researchers measure a spectral line of antihydrogen, testing how antimatter behaves in the Standard Model of particle physics
Alternative blurb III: ​ Measuring the spectral line of antihydrogen, researchers at CERN find it to be identical to regular hydrogen, as predicted by the Standard Model.
News source(s): [26]]
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: This is a fairly large milestone for particle physics, as it is the first time the electromagnetic spectrum of a pure antimatter atom has been observed. The matching spectrum confirms that the 1S-2S energy difference in anti-Hydrogen is identical to normal matter Hydrogen's. 96.88.65.241 (talk) 22:54, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Everything we can see is made of matter (protons, electrons, etc) - from the clothes you are wearing and your body itself to the furthest galaxies visible. However there is also antimatter, which is almost identical to matter except for electric charge. There is almost no antimatter in the universe, and antimatter annihilates violently if it comes into contact with matter. This makes its properties somewhat hard to ascertain. There is no guarantee that the scientific laws that apply to matter also applies to antimatter. We have no reason to suspect otherwise, but it's still something that needs to be tested. This is such a test. Measuring the spectrum of anti-hydrogen is equivalent to testing quantum mechanics (a tremendously effective physics theory) on antimatter. The null results indicate that, indeed, QM also applies to antimatter. Banedon (talk) 00:38, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Antimatter is like a mirror form of matter with similar properties except when it touches this universe's matter it explodes with the power of 1 Hiroshima per several hundred milligrams and stops existing. So no container can hold it but it can still be held in place by electromagnetic repulsion and thus kept on Earth (tiny, tiny, tiny amounts of antimatter are made in particle accelerators, small enough that a power cut wouldn't make the container/city explode or anything). If you send the light of a neon sign holding hydrogen through a prism like the Dark Side of the Moon album the light that comes out won't be a rainbow it'd be this: .
Scientists have just found that the same thing would happen with antihydrogen, as predicted. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:51, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And to note, the fact it has the same spectra, one readily predicted for hydrogen by quantum mechanics, also implies that the same fundamental particles work in the antimatter space, likely strengthening the theory of quantum mechanics since it would predict equivalent behavior. --MASEM (t) 01:15, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to Banedon, Masem, and Sagittarian Milky Way. :-) Support once an article is updated. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:33, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't think we need to mention the lab in the blurb - that's a non-vital detail that can be left to the article. Modest Genius talk 12:35, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That would be misleading: they've measured one line in one type of antimatter atom. That's not the same as demonstrating it for all possible forms of antimatter. Modest Genius talk 13:46, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neither article appears updated though. Nergaal (talk) 17:55, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Both articles are updated actually - the update is in the "properties" section of antimatter and "experimental history" section of antihydrogen. Banedon (talk) 01:23, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I more or less copied and modified the update from antimatter to the other article. Two sentences and two references. Not much of an update but if someone decided to write a bit more, that should be fine. --Tone 11:59, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

December 18

[edit]
December 18, 2016 (2016-12-18) (Sunday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Politics and elections

FIFA club world cup

[edit]
Articles: 2016 FIFA Club World Cup Final (talk · history · tag) and 2016 FIFA Club World Cup (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Real Madrid win the FIFA Club World Cup for the second time. (Post)
News source(s): See article
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: In the spirit of having fewer body count blurbs on ITN ... the blurb might have to be modified depending on target article. For some reason, although this is a world championship, it is not on ITNR (presumably because it attracts less media attention). Banedon (talk) 03:34, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So when a South American team wins the UEFA team was just lazy? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 06:28, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, not following that. This competition is barely reported, it doesn't mean anything. Plus article inadequate. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:12, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Good faith nomination, but sorry this just isn't important even within football. It's effectively a money-spinning friendly so FIFA can show off the sport in countries/regions where it isn't popular. A non-competitive 'tournament' that no-one really cares about. Modest Genius talk 11:45, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] RD: Zsa Zsa Gabor

[edit]
Article: Zsa Zsa Gabor (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NY Times, Washington Post, Hollywood Reporter
Credits:

Article needs updating
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

 Dat GuyTalkContribs 22:39, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support after needed improvements - The orange tag on the Career section reflects this being far too short for someone as influential as her. And as with other actors, the entire section about her film, TV and play career needs appropriate soucrcing (the rest of the article is actually decent, outside of the needed expansion above). --MASEM (t) 23:38, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Career section improved and could be expanded some more. Getting on average over 4,000 readers a day implies her bio is worth noticing. Throw in the fact that she was in such serious dramas as Won Ton Ton, the Dog Who Saved Hollywood and Frankenstein's Great Aunt Tillie, makes it a no brainer ;) --Light show (talk) 02:03, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I know I commented a while back about the ITN/RD section being trivialized and becoming irrelevant since anything "in the news is presumed to be important enough to post". So I'm again noting with amazement that among the posted RDs, Shirley Dysart had an average of 2 readers per day, and Shirley Hazzard got just few dozen daily. Which implies that essentially anyone who gets an obituary or minimal text in some local or niche papers can get on WP's Main Page, making "true" notability and readership meaningless, IMO. --Light show (talk) 21:23, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, you're always welcome to nominate such "trivial" individuals for deletion. The actual point here is that we wouldn't post Gabor before or after the changes to the criteria. Nothing about the quality aspects have changed, so I'm not sure what your point is. Get that filmography sourced, and we're good to go! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:25, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any connection between deleting a bio from WP or else assuming it's OK on WP's Main Page. There are only spots for a few RDs, so justifying keeping one off because each and every one of their minor film appearances hasn't been sourced and relying on the strictest interpretation of the guidelines seems overboard. It's too easy for anyone to go to any article and blitz-tag factoids at will, even for insignificant trivia unlikely to be challenged by common readers. Which makes any bio easily offed from consideration without lost time and massive efforts, as MurielMary's. In any case, I wan't referring to "trivial individuals," only the RD section being trivialized.--Light show (talk) 21:58, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Expand for a tangential discussion on the validity of list sources. Please continue this argument elsewhere, possibly WT:BLP.
  • Then I'm afraid you're wrong. Films without articles certainly couldn't pass your opinion, and we've already had a discussion about this below, so I'll restore the maintenance tag. Thanks! The Rambling Man (talk) 08:54, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you need to reply to me every time I contribute here? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:55, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    When you make false claims, yes. For your interest, the nomination where this has been discussed in more detail is the Alan Thicke one, below. You'll see there what is needed, not what is "commonly used" on this site. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:57, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The ed17 so where is the discussion you've started? You'll note that Masem has also objected on these grounds. So please, follow through with your BRD, especially considering that I have already pointed you to a discussion on this very page which discusses this very matter. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:04, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not interacting with you further here; it's not healthy for me or you. I've added my comments to the talk page there. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:08, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Have it your way, but I think that you, as an admin who seemingly isn't aware of WP:V's policy statement, i.e. any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by inline citations. ought to understand why this is so important. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:17, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The ed17 is correct. It is long standing practice on Wikipedia that filmographies are verified by the linked article on the film (no linked article = ref required). It is much the same that ships bluelinked to in shipwreck lists do not require a reference. This is all I am going to say on the matter. Mjroots (talk) 10:09, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Its to do with crediting. Since it is *trivially* easy in most cases to source credits from the film due to Holywood crediting practices, the film itself serves as a reliable primary source for cast, basic plot details etc. I can verify who was in Ghostbusters by popping in the DVD at home. Granted its more difficult for some films, but 'difficulty' is not an exclusion that prevents a source being useable. This is why no refs are used when there is a film article - the film article will either have an explicit ref for the cast, or an implicit 'its in the credits' one. This is only rarely challenged, and usually in that case its because someone has watched the credits and found no sign of person X. Assuming you want a valid source for person X's biography, it would be satisfied by just putting an inline citation for the film itself. Which is really pointless process-wonkery. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:26, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The point you're both missing is that this material is not verifiable to our readers. And how do you assume that television appearances could be credited? Several television articles don't even mention the individuals for which the credit is being sought. In any case, I'm sticking with Wikipedia policy here which states clearly that any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by inline citations. so I'm challenging them. If you all want to change the policy, do that, but in the meantime, that's what we stick with. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:45, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    As for the film article will either have an explicit ref for the cast, or an implicit 'its in the credits' one this is also contrary to WP:V. The former condition is seldom checked and normally incorrectly "assumed", the latter "its (sic) in the credits" isn't indoctrinated in any kind of policy or guideline that I'm aware of. I'd be happy to be corrected. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:47, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    For films WP:V is satisfied by providing the film itself as a valid primary source. Sources must be verifiable. Which they are by watching the film. Neither possession of the source, proximity, ease of access is a disqualifying criteria for using it. So you are welcome to go round challenging film credits if you want to in biographies, but what you will get is a citation to the film. I understand what you are getting at perfectly well, but its not as if people have not done that, editors have in the past, and end up very dis-satisfied when a perfectly valid primary source is offered. The end result is the current working practice. Which is that people tend not to challenge films credits unless they actually have a reason to doubt them, and that film credits are unlikely to be challenged. Granted I would expect anyone who is including a film in a biography filmography to have actually checked the relevant article. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:56, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll give an example of problematic verification... The Gabor article states she was in Batman. So you head to that article and discover .... no mention of Zsa Zsa Gabor at all. So in principle, I could just flood this table with bogus appearances because there seems to be a tacit acceptance that the use of reliable source to verify facts is not required for this very specific issue. Same is true of Bracken's World and Ninotchka etc etc etc... The Rambling Man (talk) 11:13, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    See my comment above, I would *expect* someone who has included that to have checked the article. Thats one I would want an inline cite for. Although she is listed at List_of_Batman_(TV_series)_episodes. (Given West's Batman often had guest stars, it certainly would not have been unusual for her to be in it.) Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:31, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no "gut reason" why she wouldn't have been in it, and I'm not saying that at all, I'm saying if the link provided in her article isn't referenced inline, and the article linked doesn't mention her, let alone have any mention of her inline referenced, it's safe to say this is not adequate WP:V. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:44, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Incidentally, where in WP:V does it say that details like cast (or run-time for instance) are verified by the film itself? As discussed in the Thicke nomination below, that's really not what PRIMARY is saying to us. Plots are very interpretive, hence they are usually given latitude to be described without reference. Hard facts, such as cast, run time, release year etc, are not qualitative and fall under the auspices of the Wikipedia verification policy. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:15, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:V states that information must be sourced to a reliable source. A primary source is (with some exceptions) reliable for the content/views/subject of the primary source. Uncontroversial hard facts like cast etc are fine for primary sourcing. RE plots, only basic uninterpreted plot points can be sourced to a primary - character X did Y and so on. If interpretation is needed, a secondary source is required. Its why so many bloody plot sections in films are 'And then blah did blah to blah with the blah'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:31, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    As I've said before, plots are one thing, subject to interpretation, cast, run-time, release classification etc are objective and should be sourced to a verifiable reliable source, inline if requested. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:43, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Which would be covered by a primary source. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:54, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Inline?! The Rambling Man (talk) 11:59, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    No reason why not to. If you want an inline citation, you get an inline citation. As I said, you are not the first to bark up this tree. This tree has been thoroughly well barked. What happens is people comply with the requests for inline citations, then person requesting gets bored once they realise the scale of the practice. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:03, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I see, so we just get lazy with this sort of thing? MurielMary has pretty much referenced over half of her appearances single-handedly in a couple of hours. There's no significant "scale" to the practice, just a reluctance to put in any real effort, unless you're writing an FL of course, where it's not just a "good thing", it's absolutely mandatory. As it should be. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:06, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    As for film credits are unlikely to be challenged - I did challenge them, that's why I added a perfectly reasonable maintenance tag to the section which was twice removed, counter to policy, by an admin. How else should I "challenge" such unreferenced and unreferenceable (within Wikipedia) material The Rambling Man (talk) 11:17, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldnt have just removed the tag. I would have removed the tag after providing a citation to the film to satisfy WP:V. Because it is generally a waste of everyones time arguing over if media serves as a valid source for itself, because the answer is almost always 'yes'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:31, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Well the admin removed it. Twice. And can you point me to the clause in WP:V that allows the existence of the film itself to be satisfactory enough to verify that someone appeared in it? I can just add barrel-loads of fake movie appearances here because no-one has checked this material, and because you and others are content that it doesn't need to be verifiable with inline citations (per policy, once challenged, as I have challenged), the bogus content can remain. Right? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:43, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:V just says articles have to be verifiably sourced to a reliable source. If you want to argue a primary source for media is not a valid source for that media, you would need to change the wording of the relevant supplementary sourcing guidelines (RS etc) to forbid primary source use in that context. Assuming you managed to actually get that to pass, there are probably over a million film, books, computer games, music etc articles that will need an overhaul. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:54, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Just because other articles aren't up to scratch, it doesn't mean we should accept it. Recent film articles and as I've mentioned, filmography and bibliography lists are supported with inline reliable sources for all works. It's really common sense to seek out good references, particularly when they've been challenged per the policy. As in this case. And I will continue to challenge all such lists whenever necessary. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:59, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I look forward to your discussion with the editors who curate 'list of' articles. Please let me know when you start in earnest, I need to get the popcorn on. Currently its only routinely used for Biographical-based lists due to the BLP problems. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:05, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I've already told you, featured lists demand inline citations, that's how it works. And that's really the minimum for V. I don't need to "forward [my] discussion with [sic] the editors who curate 'list of' articles", after all I'm one of them, but in any case, we know a lot of junk exists on Wikipedia, what we don't do is promote all that junk to the main page. So grab your popcorn, and please note that this RD is also subject to BLP! Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:53, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    We do allow under WP:V where an entry on a list is blue-linked to an article on the topic, and where the association with the list is 100% obvious (verification should require zero effort on the reader to deduce from the article, and it is a clear non-contentious fact at the end of the day) that an in-line cite works. So taking films, if Gabor was a lead actress in such a film, that's fine, but if she was only in as a cameo appearance, that likely needs a source on the list itself. For television, unless she was a lead actress, guest appearances are going to need cites for each one since guests are rarely discussed in that level of detail on the television show's page, so her appearance as a guest is not going to be 100% obvious from the show's page. And of course, any redirected topic, red-link, or non-linked absolutely needs an inline for this reason. --MASEM (t) 14:55, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Related to the talk page issue of whether most of IMDB can be a RS, I just checked most of the unsourced TV appearances and found they were all in IMDB, with dates, character, and links to the show. It's too simple to cull those uncited appearances, even though they're mostly trivia, but shouldn't the IMDB issue be considered first? --Light show (talk) 00:42, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
IMDB is user-contributed and while we do know they employ admins to catch problems, they aren't reliable. On the other hand TV Guide is (as best as I can tell). --MASEM (t) 00:50, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I added it to the top of the TV section. Such general lists were also allowed for Leon Russell's discography. Can someone comment or tag anything still unsourced? --Light show (talk) 01:03, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post soon. I appreciate the editors who are doing the work of providing the additional referencing, but I believe there are sufficient references now for posting without waiting until each and every listing in the filmography can be sourced. Nor do I agree with culling the currently unreferenced items there, because once removed they may never be put back and the incentive to source them would be lost. I understand the need for appropriate referencing of content, especially on mainpage-linked articles, and also the practical point that holding off on mainpaging pending referencing incentivizes interested editors to get the referencing done. But there is also a balancing necessary between maximizing the referencing and avoiding posting any actually disputed or incorrect content, versus the desirability of posting a "recent death" while it actually is still a recent death. In this instance and given where the article is now I believe the balance weighs in favor of posting. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:31, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The only surprise is that you didn't post it. No-one is going to reference things that are on the main page, every reader assumes by the time it gets there it's in a decent state. We know, hand on heart, that unreferenced claims of appearances in movies or TV shows is in direct opposition to WP:V but most are too lazy to do anything about it. That's the shame of it all. But as I noted above, MurielMary proved that it's a piece of piss to get the work done, it's just that most are more determined to argue why not to do the work and go the nth degree to do so, rather than actually do the work. Plus ca change. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:48, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    But doesn't the implied key issue become whether an unknown person with a brief bio, like Shirley Dysart's, who got 2 readers per day and is ITN with a handful of sources, have a much greater chance of being ITN than a celebrity with a hundred minor show appearances or songs, which needs every appearance or song to have a citation? Despite their bio maybe having 1,000 times more visitors per day, or being more well-known, or having 10 times as many references, before they died. If so, that would mean there is a built-in bias against actors and singers being ITN. --Light show (talk) 01:43, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Yup. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:47, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but why is that relevant? The quality threshold has not changed. It'd be better to spend time arguing about this finding references for the article(s) in question, right? The Rambling Man (talk) 06:14, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support About 308,000 readers yesterday. The bickering about the fine details should not delay posting of this major figure. Andrew D. (talk) 14:51, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as per reasons cited above. 207.107.159.62 (talk) 16:21, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted. While I appreciate that two or three of the above commenters likely still disagree, I believe the above discussion represents a consensus that the article is good enough to post even if it referencing of her roles is still incomplete. RD doesn't call for perfection. Dragons flight (talk) 16:33, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Nobody ever asked for perfection, just adherence to WP:BLP. But clearly that's no longer important. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:03, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Noted in my earlier post, a blanket TV Guide source was added to cover the missing TV cameos and trivial appearances. It also requested anyone to tag any missing cites. The article got 1.4 million readers yesterday, FWIW, and has been actively edited and cited with 90 references. She was not a movie star, after all, only a celebrity who did a multitude of minor and mostly trivial parts, so why require that every one of a hundred bit appearances be cited? In any case, they're all cited now.--Light show (talk) 20:32, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"why require that every one of a hundred bit appearances be cited?" then why require that every one of hundred bit appearances be noted? If they're that trivial, delete them. If they're there, reference them. The readership figures are interesting and yes, that means Wikipedia readers will be looking for her article, but they deserve a better fist of it than all the garbage mainstream articles I've read which are entirely unsourced. Ours is a lot better thanks to the efforts of MurielMary who, instead of whinging about things being perfectly acceptable and "normal practice" to leave most of a list of claims unreferenced, just got on with it and added a couple of dozen refs. It should also be noted that the absolute number of citations is absolutely irrelevant, particularly when it comes to BLPs, so the quicker some editors (and some admins!!) understand that, the better. Claims need references. If those claims are challenged (as I did twice with a tag that an admin removed, twice) then per WP:V, they need an inline reference. This posting is simply advocating that we overlook Wikipedia policy and go with, once again, a premature posting of an American television/film actor. Plus ca change, encore. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:44, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your efforts to improve the referencing of this and other articles. Dragons flight (talk) 21:09, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I completely agree with TRM's comments above. It wasn't hard to find the references which I did (google books was fruitful), I just ran out of time to work on it any further. The time that editors were spending arguing over whether to find references or not could easily have been spent producing the remaining references and ensuring the article adhered to current WP policy. Sometimes "just do it" is the way to go. MurielMary (talk) 21:58, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indonesian Air Force Lockheed C-130 Hercules crash

[edit]
Article: 2016 Indonesian Air Force Lockheed C-130 Hercules crash (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In Indonesia, a military aircraft crashes, killing all thirteen people on board. (Post)
News source(s): BBC USA Today Bangkok Post CNN
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Aircraft crash which killed all people on board. Andise1 (talk) 07:23, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Tim Duncan Jersey Retirement

[edit]
Closing good faith nomination; this is not uncommon enough for ITN; we don't generally post retirements of people, let alone their numbers. 331dot (talk) 10:46, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article: Tim Duncan (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The San Antonio Spurs officially retire Tim Duncan's Jersey. (Post)
News source(s): [27]
Credits:
Nominator's comments: As noted above, we could really use some new ITN candidates, and this one for a change doesn't cover the collapse of any big governments or the loss of life due to any major incident. Moreover, its is unusual for sports teams retire a jersey, and Duncan himself holds a handful of records for the NBA, including appearances in the Olympic games, goodwill games, a FIBA championships. In light of all this I figured I'd put him up here and see if there was any interest in supporting some happy news on the main page for a change. (Disclosure: my brother is a huge Spurs fan, so this is also a gesture of goodwill toward him on my part in the spirit of the season.) TomStar81 (Talk) 04:00, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

December 17

[edit]
December 17, 2016 (2016-12-17) (Saturday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Science and technology

[Closed] RD: William H. Hudnut III

[edit]
Stale. All current posts are more recent, making this ineligible for posting. Dragons flight (talk) 17:47, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article: William H. Hudnut III (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Indy Star
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Longest serving mayor of Indianapolis. EternalNomad (talk) 20:54, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2016 Kayseri bombing

[edit]
Article: 2016 Kayseri bombing (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ At least 13 soldiers are killed and 56 others are wounded in a car bomb attack in Kayseri Province, Turkey. (Post)
News source(s): BBC, The Guardian
Article updated

[Posted] RD: Henry Heimlich

[edit]
Article: Henry Heimlich (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): FOX BBC
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Inventor of Heimlich Manoeuvre: Henry Judah Heimlich (February 3, 1920 – December 17, 2016) was an American thoracic surgeon widely credited as the inventor of the Heimlich maneuver,[1] a technique of abdominal thrusts for stopping choking,[2] described in Emergency Medicine in 1974.[3] He also invented the Micro Trach portable oxygen system for ambulatory patients[4] and the Heimlich Chest Drain Valve, or "flutter valve," which drains blood and air out of the chest cavity.[5] μηδείς (talk) 19:26, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If Dr. Heimlich could title his first article "Pop Goes the Cafe Coronary" I guess we'll have to let you get away with that groaner. Sca (talk) 22:19, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

December 16

[edit]
December 16, 2016 (2016-12-16) (Friday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime
Politics and elections
Consensus against, and the sentencing (if nominated) can be considered separately. BencherliteTalk 11:28, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

[Closed] Dylann Roof convicted

[edit]
Articles: Charleston church shooting (talk · history · tag) and Dylann Roof (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Dylann Roof is found guilty of murdering nine churchgoers in a mass shooting in Charleston, South Carolina (Post)
News source(s): here and here
Credits:
Nominator's comments: They just convicted a mass shooter. Pretty big news update UN$¢_Łuke_1Ø21Repørts 00:34, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

December 15

[edit]
December 15, 2016 (2016-12-15) (Thursday)
International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

[Posted] RD: Craig Sager

[edit]
Article: Craig Sager (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Yahoo Sports New York Daily News CNN
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Needs more citations. If anyone is able to help add some to the article that would be great. Andise1 (talk) 20:40, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

December 14

[edit]
December 14, 2016 (2016-12-14) (Wednesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

RD: Halfdan Mahler

[edit]
Article: Halfdan T. Mahler (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): DR, NYT, Politiken
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Danish doctor. Third director-general of the World Health Organization (1973-1988). Fuebaey (talk) 14:24, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] RD: Shirley Dysart

[edit]
Article: Shirley Dysart (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): CBC
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Canadian provincial politician. Article seems to meet standard and is fully sourced. MurielMary (talk) 10:27, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some tidy up done and some extra information added. MurielMary (talk) 09:51, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:02, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yahoo! account hack

[edit]
Article: Yahoo! data breaches (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Yahoo! reports that sensitive details to over 1 billion accounts were stolen in August 2013 by hackers. (Post)
News source(s): NYTimes
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: A security hack that affects about 1/7th of the world's population is rather significant. This just was announced, so more details may be coming. Note this is not the same as the hack from Sept 2016 (which then was around 500 M affected accounts). MASEM (t) 22:51, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wait just a little bit. This almost certainly merits its own article and my guess is one will be created soon if it hasn't already happened. We can then make a judgement on the article quality. But for the record I support the nomination on its merits. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:24, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Can anyone find independent verification that this hack actually happened? 72.219.189.102 (talk) 05:33, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I very much doubt Yahoo would lie about something at this magnitude. Additionally, the company says it is working with appropriate law agencies to try to trace the perps, again something you don't lie about without fearing penalty. --MASEM (t) 05:52, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yahoo! Investor Relations. Stephen 05:56, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is definitely NOT "one of the biggest mergers in IT". The shareholder complaint against Mayers was that she couldn't get a decent price even when selling the world's fifth most visited webpage, and the world's third (or so) most used email domain. IIRC, the bid for Yahoo.com was about the same as Microsoft paid for Minecraft, an indie videogame. The business angle on this is weak, and given that the initial hacking news was already posted, I'm leaning towards oppose on this one.128.214.53.104 (talk) 13:43, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral - On one hand, holy crap that's a large hack. On the other hand, it's as stale as stale can be.--WaltCip (talk) 13:39, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose since the hack took place two years ago, it would more informative to see any signs of significant fallout of such a breach, rather than just report on the breach itself. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:51, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Discovering hacks is rarely something that happens the time it occurs, and once it is discovered, the proper response is generally to get to enforcement first and plan out a strategy to deal with it to its users and the public in general, so the timing of the hack relative to ITN is not really something to consider, as it is only first being reported now. As for the fallout, that might take years to understand since we're talking breach of private info and that can get distributed around black markets forever; the more immediate impact is that is going to affect ~1 billion people, and that now Verizon's buyout of Yahoo is in jeopardy. And like with most data breaches, it is unlikely going to be any type of court case because it is difficult to prove intentional malice or failure to correct for an service like Yahoo! (contrast this to the VW emissions situation where there was court action). This is the right time to post this, presuming that the significance is otherwise agreed upon. --MASEM (t) 14:36, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's the right time "in your opinion" of course. Personal data ages rapidly, so if it's not used swiftly, people will have a chance to do something about it. Nothing is being reported at this time. If something substantial occurs as a result of the hack, that's fine. As noted elsewhere, if this really was as super significant as is being propounded, it'd have its own comprehensive article at the least. Along with a rather empty "Aftermath" section .... The Rambling Man (talk) 14:44, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support - it's in the news now, not two years ago. Weak support because I would've expected an article on the hack itself, not the parent company (per AO). Banedon (talk) 14:01, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the issue of a separate article, we do already have Yahoo! data breaches, coverage principally the 500M hack. It makes sense to include details of this one into that existing article (Due to the near-timing of these reports), but I'm not 100% sure the best approach, since chronologically, this 1B hack was reported last but occurred earlier. Looking for opinions but the issue about having a separate article can be fixed. --MASEM (t) 14:50, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Comment – It is in the news but I doubt it will be for long due to staleness. Target article Yahoo! contains minimal info. on this topic. Agree with Masem that info on the two big 2013-14 hacks should be included in Yahoo! data breaches. – Sca (talk) 16:38, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The article we posted earlier this year has been moved to include the recently announced hack. This seems very sensible to me. The article appears to be in good shape overall. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:21, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose We just featured this article on ITN. This is a two paragraph article update, and covers a breach that is one year older than the last news. I don't think it's significant enough to feature this article a second time. Mamyles (talk) 17:34, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've spent a bit of time reworking the Yahoo! data breaches article to be the main article for this, and as to 1) include this new hack, including that Yahoo's discovery of this hacked helped them to identify how the 500M hack was done 2) remove some POV that had leaked into it and 3) updating some additional responses (specifically, Verizon may be trying to get out of the deal, and Sen. Warner is now calling for a full investigation of the security aspects). --MASEM (t) 18:00, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support – That does look fairly detailed. Dropped my 'oppose,' but I'm only weakly supporting because the effects or outcomes still seem quite nebulous. Sca (talk) 22:28, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support major news, even if it's only been reported recently. Probably not going to make it onto ITN for age though. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:51, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RD: E. R. Braithwaite

[edit]
Article: E. R. Braithwaite (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Guardian etc.
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Not the longest article I've run across, but I think it meets our standards. One unsourced paragraph that I will deal with presently. Ad Orientem 22:21, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:15, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was unaware that worldcat is not considered a reliable source. In the absence of adequate citations to reliable secondary sources I have removed the material. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:39, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point but without it the article looks most odd, even a touch disembowelled. I've put it back in for now ... can it not be sourced somehow? It was getting better with all the sorting out ... seems a shame to drop it completely. Best wishes 82.34.71.202 (talk) 11:33, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Appears to be in good enough shape for posting and has been receiving media attention upon his death. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:49, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Referencing could do with improvement. I have requested a couple of references but there is also a lot of material pending on offline material for which the full citation is lacking (current refs 1,5,6,10). The bibliography also needs work; WorldCat listings aren't reliable and there are entries for an entirely different ER Braithwaite. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:42, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have found sources for most of the items. The children's book appears to be his, but I have found no reviews in reliable sources so it does not appear notable. Espresso Addict (talk) 12:29, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

December 13

[edit]
December 13, 2016 (2016-12-13) (Tuesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

International relations

Law and crime
Politics and elections

Science and technology

[Posted] Muhammad V of Kelantan

[edit]
Article: Muhammad V of Kelantan (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Muhammad V of Kelantan takes the throne of Yang di-Pertuan Agong, the monarch of Malaysia. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Muhammad V of Kelantan becomes the Yang di-Pertuan Agong of Malaysia.
News source(s): BBC Channel News Asia
Credits:

The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

Nominator's comments: Succession of monarchy. Article seems sufficiently updated and referenced. Malaysia's unique monarchy may be of special interest to readers. HaEr48 (talk) 18:42, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Alan Thicke

[edit]
Article: Alan Thicke (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): LA Times
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

 – Muboshgu (talk) 02:25, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose for now. Huge unreferenced chunks. Shouldn't be too hard with obits coming out since it mostly pertains to credits, but still. Might take a crack at this later if I have the time. Nohomersryan (talk) 02:27, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It will probably take a bit for details to come down(the LA Times piece mentions that he sent a tweet three hours before the piece was written) but once those are added and the referencing resolved, it should be OK. Very shocking. 331dot (talk) 02:32, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - All sections have been fixed with citations. -- Fuzheado | Talk 04:02, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • The filmography still needs sourcing. For any movie where he wasn't a key cast member, or a TV show where he wasn't a main or significantly recurring role, or for any non-blue-linked work, those need non-IMDB sourcing. --MASEM (t) 05:57, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose lots of referencing missing. MurielMary (talk) 10:01, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as most of the filmography is unreferenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:21, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Silly as previously discussed, and as wikipedia policy, primary sources (i.e., identified episodes or movies) where the actor is credited serve as their own sources. There are a few problematic listed tv/filmography items where it is saaid that Thicke appeared on an show where he was obviously a guest (e.g., The Love Boat) but where no episode name or airdate is given. Hence those are under-referenced. But listings like that constitute less than 1/10th of the material, and they can be deleted, refernced, or commented out. μηδείς (talk) 18:24, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Not really silly. If someone is claimed to have featured in a television show whose article doesn't mention that individual at all, it's non-verifiable. If someone is claimed to have been in a television show or a film which has no article, there's no way of verifying the claim. The mere existence of a television show or movie article doesn't mean that the verifiability of people's appearances within them is possible. Plots etc can and routinely are based on the "primary" argument, but people making appearances, cameos, etc are not. Nor should they use IMDB or other similarly unreliable source (e.g. Wikipedia). For the avoidance of doubt, could you show me the policy page where it is stated as wikipedia policy, primary sources (i.e., identified episodes or movies) where the actor is credited serve as their own sources. please? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:19, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    To one point, we do allow non-interpretive summary of a work to be implicitly sourced to that work (plot summaries don't need references, basically). But that should be based on obvious points that do not require an intense reading of the work; anything more detailed must be sourced too, even if it is sourced to the primary work as to narrow down the point (by chapter, page number, timecode, etc.) In analogy, I do not expect one to have to source that an actor who is credited in a starring role of a film or television series to have to be sourced because that's easily checked, but a guest role in one episode (for example) requires the type of intense reading that should require a source to verify. That source could easily be a proper cite to the episode itself, but one cannot just leave it unsourced in this type of instance. --MASEM (t) 21:49, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:WikiProject Bibliographies has some sensible guidance. "If an entry has a Wikipedia article, merely wikilinking it to the article verifies it because the reader can navigate to the article and determine if the entry meets the inclusion criteria" and "If an entry does not have a Wikipedia article and there might be any doubt that it belongs in the bibliography, it should be cited with a reliable source that verifies its relevance" In the case of Alan Thicke, I would not expect an explicit citation (but would not remove one were it there) for his involvement in Growing Pains, but would for a one-off guest appearance in an episode of a TV show where he was not a well-known cast member. The latter would be an example of "there might be ... doubt" No one doubts he was in Growing Pains after checking the article. His involvement in The Love Boat, however, is not obvious from the article (he's not even mentioned) so a citation to a reliable source would be nice. --Jayron32 00:14, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, this is the paradigm I've been applying and trying to enforce for years. Simply pointing at empty articles or articles where individuals are not even mentioned, let alone reliably sourced, is simply inadequate. Glad we've cleared this up at last so we no longer have to re-read this recurring, incorrect assertion. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:03, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    If that's the case, then one can simply remove the examples such as the Love Boat where no episode is specified, or where he was not a regular cast member. Making this an issue of huge swathes of uncited material is disingenuous. μηδείς (talk) 22:44, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that's possible but that's also rather lazy. Spot checking the obits shows his guest spot on the Love Boat was noted so all that is needed is an inline cite (we don't need episode numbers/titles if we can source to a third-party). I am sure some of the other guest entries could be sourced the same way. There's a difference between removing information because one can't meet WP:V, and removing information because it takes some amount of effort to meet WP:V but WP:V can be met. --MASEM (t) 23:14, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    It is, indeed, a lazy option, but one which was exercised just today on the main page in the OTD section in response to an error report that I submitted. An entire unreferenced section was simply commented out for today, and will be restored tomorrow. I don't think that's appropriate, but what do I know? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:39, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean, Ian McKellen is a GA article without refs for credits, and a separate credits Ian McKellen, roles and awards article also without refs, including links to Richard_III_(play), Priest of Love, and A Touch of Love (1969 film) none of which have references for his credited role. The same is true for Philip Seymour Hoffman an FA which has appeared on the main page -- in this articles case the credits are in a sub article and the references dubious. Before I go and nominate these articles for GA/FA review, @The Rambling Man: could you kindly direct me to the policy which mandates inline refs for appearances in film and television when it's not a red link? --CosmicAdventure (talk) 22:56, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:V should do the trick. And WP:BLP. And I never said anything about not referencing red links. They need referencing too. Especially since they've all been challenged by me. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:40, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @CosmicAdventure: Do note that there's quite a debate on this; long-standing practice on WP is that filmographies don't require citations. I've started a discussion to this effect over on WT:FILM. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:28, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Lithuania PM

[edit]
Consensus against / stale. BencherliteTalk 23:27, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article: Saulius Skvernelis (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Following the Lithuanian parliamentary election, Prime Minister Saulius Skvernelis takes office. (Post)
News source(s): PTV
Credits:
Nominator's comments: We don't seem to have posted the election, and in the past weve posted aus/uk electionand taking office more than once so it seems worth posting now. Lihaas (talk) 18:29, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
He was appointed but the government was formed. They were sworn in today.Lihaas (talk) 19:25, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So what? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:27, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Its ITNR, we doint post it and we posted the anglo0 world more than once.Lihaas (talk) 19:30, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:43, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as stale; generally we don't post inaugurations/swearings in. If this wasn't posted before, there was probably quality issues with the article, or it wasn't nominated(I don't recall). 331dot (talk) 19:42, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Considering some people oppose for a lack of update and then nominate unupdated articles for postingLihaas (talk) 19:44, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to see something posted, you need to update it. You should know that by now. 331dot (talk) 19:49, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If this continues, I'll be seeking a topic ban on Lihaas from contributing at ITN. How many premature or non-in-the-news articles does it take? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:38, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Aleppo offensive (November–December 2016)

[edit]
Article: Aleppo offensive (November–December 2016) (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Syrian government forces take Aleppo after a month of heavy fighting. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Syrian government forces take Aleppo, and massacre 82 civilians.
Alternative blurb II: ​ Syrian government forces take Aleppo, and carry out the summary execution of 82 civilians.
Alternative blurb III: ​ Syrian government forces take Aleppo, with heavy civilian casualties including many summary executions.
Alternative blurb IV: ​ Syrian government forces and its allies conquered majority of Aleppo.
News source(s): Reuters Al Masdar news Tass, New York Times ABC News
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Major development in the Aleppo offensive. It has been in ongoing for a while now, but the rebel resistance has collapsed, and the Government forces are in control of all but a tiny sliver of the city. This happened suddenly over a few hours of December 12-13. Given the major development, it may be worthwhile to move this from ongoing to a blurb. Also open to reworking the blurb, I'm not a great blurb writer. Jayron32 12:55, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

strong support, original blurb I mentioned it below too. Although, I read the announcement is imminent and am not sure if its 100% yet. Also add re- to the blurb. They did have it before. At least this sordid saga should be ending now.Lihaas (talk) 18:02, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There are still uncontested suburbs of Aleppo under opposition control.--Jenda H. (talk) 09:44, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Seems fighting has resumed. Sca (talk) 17:26, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The blurb needs to be pulled, and re-discussed as right now we have a misleading piece of news at the top of the main page. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:31, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] 2016 Sakharov prize

[edit]
Withdrawn by the nominator. Modest Genius talk 10:40, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Articles: Nadia Murad Basee (talk · history · tag) and Lamiya Aji Bashar (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Lamiya Aji Bashar and Nadia Murad Basee are awarded the 2016 Sakharov Prize. (Post)
News source(s): PTV
Credits:

One or both nominated events are listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Nominator's comments: Dunno when the announcement was first made, but they were awarded it today and, as i recall, weve not posted this. Goes along with the Aleppo story today as a fight back against Daesh.
Nadia should be my wife Lihaas (talk) 18:29, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This was posted back in October, when it was announced. No reason to feature it twice. PS. I find your postscript sexist and distasteful. Modest Genius talk 19:37, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn (although it was awarded).
Hows that secist? Because it wasn't to a guy??Lihaas (talk) 19:39, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn by the nominator. Modest Genius talk 10:40, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

December 12

[edit]
December 12, 2016 (2016-12-12) (Monday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

[Posted] RD: Anne Deveson

[edit]
Article: Anne Deveson (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Guardian
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Australian writer and broadcaster. Article appears fully cited. MurielMary (talk) 11:17, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] RD Shirley Hazzard

[edit]
Article: Shirley Hazzard (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Guardian
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Australian/American novelist. Article appears fully cited. MurielMary (talk) 09:53, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. The article feels stubby & unbalanced, with very little about her career as a writer. I'm also concerned about the statement that Driscoll was autobiographical, which either needs expansion and better sourcing or qualifying. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:23, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments Espresso Addict, I have done some tidy-up and added sourcing. MurielMary (talk) 09:28, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I've added a little about her notable novels; though more would be good, I think it meets the minimum now. Espresso Addict (talk) 11:32, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] RD: Konrad Reuland

[edit]
Article: Konrad Reuland (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): ESPN, New York Post
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: It's short, but it's comprehensive and sourced. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:36, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's the one-sentence sections/paragraphs which make the article read as brief and lacking detail. If all of those parts of his career are separately of note, then surely there is more to say about them than just the start/finish dates of the employment contracts? Or if they are not separately notable, then combine them into one paragraph. MurielMary (talk) 20:16, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@MurielMary: I removed all of the subsections from the "Professional career" section, merging it into two paragraphs. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:31, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I change my vote to weak oppose - article still seems very stubby and lacking detail, and only lists start dates/finish dates, shifts between teams etc. Why was he notable? What was his style of play, what did he do that made him a notable athlete? MurielMary (talk) 09:37, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] RD: Msgr. Javier Echevarria

[edit]
Stale, older than oldest posted RD. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:22, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article: Javier Echevarría Rodríguez (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Catholic Herald, RomeReports, ABC.es, La Stampa, Deutsche Welle
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Prelate of Opus Dei (a 90k member Catholic institution) for 22 years, named by John Paul II. Close collaborator of St. Josemaría Escrivá. Cato censor (talk) 13:46, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm working on it. Is it better now? Cato censor (talk) 14:34, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely better, but still not good enough. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:36, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Romanian parliamentary election, 2016

[edit]
Article: Romanian legislative election, 2016 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In the Romanian parliamentary election, the PSD wins a plurality of seats. (Post)
Credits:

The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

Nominator's comments: Another anti-incumbent insurgent win to round up an exciting 2016 (Make Romania Great Again were not near). Article needs and update. -Lihaas (talk) 11:32, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] New Prime Minister in New Zealand

[edit]
Article: Bill English (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Bill English becomes Prime Minister of New Zealand. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Following the resignation of John Key, Bill English becomes Prime Minister of New Zealand.
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: The article has serious deficiencies in referencing which will have to be improved before this can be posted. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:21, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support upon major improvements I know we posted the resignation but this still is a typical news story we post (changing of the top executive position of a country's gov't). Major referencing is needed as well as some proseline removal to be fixed. --MASEM (t) 01:30, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • This may merit posting especially since we posted Key's resignation, but a change in head of government is not ITNR unless it is part of a general election(which this isn't). 331dot (talk) 01:41, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct. For some reason I always assumed that changes in government were ITNR. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:46, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's easy to think that, because usually it is seen as part of a general election posting. It has been suggested before to include all changes in head of government in ITNR, but it has never found consensus, I think because with a parliamentary system it is essentially a change in a party's leadership and does not usually result in dramatic changes for the relevant nation. 331dot (talk) 01:54, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support if improved. The ITNR rules are pretty stupid when applied to cases where the head of government and not the head of state essentially holds all the power such as Canada, Australia, NZ, and several other countries with ceremonial presidencies. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:03, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Even stranger when one considers that the actual head of state of all three of the countries you listed is Queen Elizabeth II. I believe there is someone who represents the Queen in each of these countries. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:11, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Governor-general. Stephen 02:29, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This was discussed roughly a year ago. I'll restate something here that I posted there: Changes in head of government are generally posted upon the result of an election, and rarely do they change outside of that. When they do, there is no reason ITNC cannot be used. Even in parliamentary democracies the head of state at least technically has some sort of power(even if not in practice or by convention only). Heads of state represent their nation to the world and its people; it's also a chance for every nation to get an ITN posting, whereas heads of government of smaller countries could be rejected on the grounds it is a small country with little power/influence. I still feel that way. Changes to head of government outside of an election rarely result in significant changes to the relevant nation, as the change is essentially the change of a party leader. 331dot (talk) 02:41, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's a silly reason to keep changes in positions like the Chancellor of Germany, PMs of UK, Japan, India, Spain, Canada, Australia, etc. off ITNR. There is a very big difference between parliamentary democracies with ceremonial heads of state and countries with a powerful head of state who controls the head of government. In the former, if the head of state tried to exercise any real power without the backing of the head of government, there would be a constitutional crisis (e..g King Byng Affair, 1975 Australian constitutional crisis). In the latter, the head of state is normally paramount and the head of government is significantly less important. There's no good reason to keep the former off ITNR because they're lower in diplomatic precedence, when in fact they have all the real power in their countries. For the record, with the exception of the one minor citation needed tag I added, it looks good enough to add to the MP.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:46, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Key's resignation announcement came as a total surprise. Nobody saw it coming. Therefore, that was news on an international scale. When he announced his upcoming resignation, he endorsed English as his successor. This succession has now happened; no bombshell, but simply what's been in the making over the last seven days. It's big news in New Zealand, but I can't see how it's of much interest beyond maybe Australia. Schwede66 10:26, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As a Kiwi I'm horribly offended by your rationale.--WaltCip (talk) 17:35, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Even knowing that you too are from New Zealand. It should be clear that Australia and New Zealand are two separate entities.--WaltCip (talk) 17:35, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Separated by that little bridge and Crowded House aficionados .... I get it Walt, I've spent a lot of time in both Oz and Godzone, and there's a huge gap (not just the geography!!). The Rambling Man (talk) 20:22, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another oppose from another Kiwi. Not big news, no change in government, it's really only a change in party leadership. The big news story was Key's resignation a week ago, which has already been posted. MurielMary (talk) 20:56, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure why such offense was taken at Schwedes oppose. I am leaning that way myself. About this time next year, depending on how long it takes Winny to make up his mind, we will have the posting for the New Zealand election. I would think it would be better to add English then if he makes it, not for what was a relatively routine leadership swap. AIRcorn (talk) 22:59, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
oppose per the Kiwi above. Plus first market to open hasn't had an adverse reaction (no idea if one of those tinpot islands' markets open first (or even if they have a liquid one)).Lihaas (talk) 01:58, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

December 11

[edit]
December 11, 2016 (2016-12-11) (Sunday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Crime
  • Cardell Hayes is found guilty of manslaughter by a Louisiana jury in the road rage shooting death of former New Orleans Saints star Will Smith. (CBS)
  • In West Virginia police officers executing a bailpiece shot and killed a man who "operated a motor vehicle in an aggressive manner" towards officers at a Walmart parking lot. (ABC News)
  • A man is killed and two wounded in a triple shooting in Algiers neighborhood of New Orleans (NOLA)
  • A person is sought who left after he accidentally dropped a gun which fired and injured a store employee at a Home Depot restroom in Sunset Hills near St Louis Missouri. (St Louis Post Dispatch)
  • In Miami Gardens Florida, one was killed and one wounded when a gunman approached and fired at two people in a parked car. Wounded they drove while still being shot at and crashed into two parked cars. (WSVN)
  • In Brooklyn New York, 2 brothers were stabbed, 1 fatally in a dispute after a school soccer match. (New York Daily News)

Politics and elections

Science and technology

Sport

Palmyra

[edit]
Articles: Palmyra offensive (December 2016) (talk · history · tag) and Palmyra (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The city of Palmyra is recaptured by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. (Post)
News source(s): The Guardian, Al-Jazeera
Credits:

Both articles updated

Nominator's comments: Not sure how long it will take to drive out those bastards again, but looks like major loss (the city is a UNESCO World Heritage Site). Brandmeistertalk 21:40, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment strikes me we need a combined "ongoing" for all of these events. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:31, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose (yet another takeover by either side) and Oppose ongoing. The whole issue with ISIS and events in that part of the world is that it is so long and drawn out, that it does not work well as a Ongoing (where we are expected daily if not more frequent updates , as well as a reasonable point where the ongoing should end in a limited amount of time). I do note that it is properly covered in the Current Events portal, but as an ITN that is meant to feature on quality articles, I'm not sure it qualifies. --MASEM (t) 23:04, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Why not? It's a significant milestone in the war. In World War II for example, Kharkov changed hands three times; that doesn't mean each individual changing of hands isn't notable. If the place changing hands is a major population center, industrial center, of psychological importance, etc, then I don't see why it isn't notable. Banedon (talk) 08:34, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Masem: this is a not-major engagement in a long-running war Nick-D (talk) 10:26, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – Kharkov was (and is) a major city. Palmyra is an archeological site. Sca (talk) 14:45, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
oppose Aleppo is about 98-100% in government hands (SOHR says 100% but Russia/Syria are saying 93-98%)...that's FAR more notable. Pretty much the end, if not there, but near.Lihaas (talk) 16:08, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you on notability of Aleppo. But I don't see a reason to oppose Palmyra story.--Jenda H. (talk) 13:43, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support There are oil wells around Palmyra. Only oil wells on ISIS controlled soil, now. Also it is a strategic location in the centre of Syria. ISIS is pushing Syrian forces more that 70km back from that "archaeological site" conquering airbases and capturing heavy military equipment in process. Seems pretty major event to me --Jenda H. (talk) 19:37, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Russian army blame US for its loss in Palmyra.here, here and of course here. So, tell me more about insignificant and minor engagement. --Jenda H. (talk) 20:47, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Macedonian parliamentary election, 2016

[edit]
Article: Macedonian parliamentary election, 2016 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In the Macedonian parliamentary election, the ruling coalition led by VMRO-DPMNE narrowly win relative majority. (Post)
News source(s): MIA
Credits:

The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

Nominator's comments: We can post it once the results come in and the article is properly updated --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:59, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Egypt church bombing

[edit]
Proposed image
Article: Saint Mark's Coptic Orthodox Cathedral bombing (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ An explosion at Cairo's Saint Mark's Coptic Orthodox Cathedral kills 25 people and injures many others. (Post)
Credits:

Nominator's comments: I've expanded it, and there isn't much to be added right now (waiting for the investigation results). This is the first church bombing in Egypt in over six years, the last one being the 2011 Alexandria bombing, weeks before the Arab Spring uprising. Saint Mark's Cathedral is the most important Coptic church in the world and is the seat of the Pope. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 14:16, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] RD: Esma Redžepova

[edit]
Stale nomination, older than oldest RD on main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:05, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article: Esma Redžepova (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): MIA
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: She was an internationally recognised singer, nicknamed the 'Queen of the Gypsies'. The article also seems to be in a good shape. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:52, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Posted] Uyo church collapse

[edit]
Article: Uyo church collapse (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ A church collapses in Uyo, Nigeria, killing at least 160 people. (Post)
News source(s): BBC News
Credits:

 The Rambling Man (talk) 10:22, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] MLS Cup 2016

[edit]
No consensus. Stephen 08:05, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article: MLS Cup 2016 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In association football, Seattle defeats Toronto to win the MLS Cup 2016. (Post)
News source(s): CBC News
Article updated

— Preceding unsigned nomination/comment added by 2607:FEA8:A25F:FB9A:CC87:8224:DE66:F936 (talk • contribs) 04:19, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose for now. I'm not overly impressed with the quality of this article as of right now. It needs expansion and there are significant gaps in referencing. I will be happy to reconsider on improvements. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:43, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
On a side note, I don't see this listed in ITNR but I may be missing something. Soccer is not my game. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:43, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is not. IIRC of previous consensus is that there are way too many domestic Association football leagues around the world. If we include Major League Soccer (MLS), we'd have to include all the other ones. Only the Premier League has consensus because, as mentioned in that article among others, is "the most-watched football league in the world". The nominator, after posting here, attempted to add MLS to ITNR,[34] then reverted himself.[35] Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:54, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on article quality and current consensus of league's status. I think, as MLS continues to grow in importance/TV ratings, it warrants new discussion on WT:ITN/R about making it a recurring event. The league is poised to become one of the football/soccer leagues in the Anglosphere (which this site covers). SounderBruce 05:37, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. MLS isn't in the top echelon of world association football leagues, doubt many Americans were aware this was going on (and even less from other countries). ¡Bozzio! 11:27, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on merits and article quality. Not a top tier sports league, either in the US or within the sport of soccer. I agree that most Americans likely weren't even aware of this. Article quality is, as already mentioned, not the greatest. 331dot (talk) 13:58, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on notability, even the English second division (EFL Championship) is way above the quality and viewership of this contest. Not newsworthy. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:19, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Closed] European Film Awards

[edit]
What a surprise, there's still no consensus to post second-tier awards. Stephen 22:31, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Articles: 29th European Film Awards (talk · history · tag) and Toni Erdmann (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The 29th European Film Awards conclude in Wrocław, with Toni Erdmann by Maren Ade winning the Best Film award. (Post)
News source(s): The Guardian
Credits:

Both articles updated
 Horst-schlaemma (talk) 14:07, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most important film awards in that season and a regular ITN itinerary. Cheers, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 14:07, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose good faith nomination, both on merits and article quality. It's not listed at ITNR and we just can't be posting every awards ceremony, there are too many of them. If we were in one of our periodic dry spells for news I might consider an exception but ITN is not lacking in major news events right now. Beyond which the article quality is well below our standards. There is little text and referencing is... um... not acceptable. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:11, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose (and while I've never heard of the "European Film Awards") not sure this is on a par with Oscars, Baftas, Emmys, Berlin, Cannes etc. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:33, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment When a Wikipedian is uneducated about a topic, that doesn't mean it's not news-worthy, sorry Ramble. Other than that, what's considered newsworthy at ITN these days? All I can see is catastrophes, crime and hatred. Come on, we can do better. In addition, you can help improving the articles. (Most others currently linked aren't linkworthy either). Cheers, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 23:02, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not that I'm "uneducated", I've just never heard of this in the context I've already described. It sounds like a fourth-rate film award ceremony. Plus, if all you have to offer is complaint about other ITN content (plus the sad but enlightening claim that "most others currently linked aren't linkworthy") then you're wasting our time. If nothing else, a quick glance at European Film Awards will enlighten our readers as to how much emphasis is globally placed on this "ceremony". The Rambling Man (talk) 23:06, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose principally that I don't see these awards discussed as being of the same high level as the Oscars or the BAFTAs. There are dozens of film award festivals, and we have to be rather selective and can't post every single one. I also agree that the article quality is poor, just barely explaining the ceremony here. --MASEM (t) 23:13, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are many important topics that aren't properly covered at Wikipedia. Which doesn't mean they aren't news-worthy. The EFAs are an institution in Europe and the only continental award of significance in this regard. Anyway, rather help improve the articles. English Wikipedia is increasingly taken by negativity it seems. Cheers Horst-schlaemma (talk) 11:37, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't follow this repeated "topics that aren't properly covered at Wikipedia" discussion, particularly with relation to this item. It does have an article, it is covered, there's just absolutely no consensus to post it to the main page. Even the Guardian's take on the awards is a little scathing. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:41, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

December 10

[edit]
December 10, 2016 (2016-12-10) (Saturday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Arts and culture

Disasters and accidents
International relations

Politics and elections

Sport

[Closed] Army beats Navy

[edit]
No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 08:17, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Articles: Army–Navy Game (talk · history · tag) and 2016 Army Black Knights football team (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Army Black Knights football team beats rival Navy Midshipmen, 21-17, ending Navy's 14 year winning streak in the Army–Navy Game. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Army beats rival Navy, 21-17, ending Navy's 14 year winning streak in the Army–Navy Game.
Alternative blurb II: ​ The Army Black Knights football team beats their rival Navy, 21-17, ending Navy's 14 year winning streak in the Army–Navy Game.
News source(s): ESPN, The Oregonian
Credits:

Both articles updated
Nominator's comments: Ends the second longest active winning steak in a college football rivalry game, as well as the longest winning streak in the game's history. Free images are likely to be available soon from the Defense Video & Imagery Distribution System. Not a lot of sources at the moment, because the game just ended. All three articles (2016 Navy Midshipmen football team isn't listed above) have been updated. Elisfkc (talk) 23:30, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Posted] December 2016 Istanbul bombings

[edit]
Article: December 2016 Istanbul bombings (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ 29 people are killed and 166 people are injured following multiple explosions outside a football stadium in Istanbul, Turkey. (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

 The Rambling Man (talk) 22:25, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Hitrino train derailment

[edit]
Article: Hitrino train derailment (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ A freight train derails, explodes and catches fire at Hitrino, Bulgaria killing 7 people and injuring 29. (Post)
News source(s): (BBC)
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Death/injuries toll likely to rise Mjroots (talk) 19:11, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] RD: A. A. Gill

[edit]
Article: A. A. Gill (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Notable British food critic. Article is reasonable. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:10, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Vela incident affirmation

[edit]
No consensus research with caveats. Stephen 08:03, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article: Vela Incident (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Researchers from Georgetown University conclude that Israel and South Africa did carry out the Vela Incident nuclear test. (Post)
News source(s): PTV JBN Politico
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: This maybe a long shot but its a notable conclusion to what was already known. And even JBN has cited it. Lihaas (talk) 09:42, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support this is definitely interesting and a half-decent article to boot, but this news story is the conclusion of just one group, i.e. it's altogether possible another study may result in a different conclusion. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:02, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
National Security Archive right there in Washington, where Georgetown is.Lihaas (talk) 10:20, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It DID happen in 79, firstly. Secondly, whats the POV?Lihaas (talk) 11:57, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is not the fact that it occurred, but a determination of who was responsible. 331dot (talk) 12:22, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Very POV to cite Press TV when talking about Israel, especially when it comes to nuclear tests.Zigzig20s (talk) 12:27, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree about Press TV(being Iranian) but the Jewish Business News seems to agree with them. Story in Politico as well. 331dot (talk) 12:34, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support. I'm in agreement with TRM; while the opinion of just one group, this is a reasonably decent article about a notable event, and determining who was responsible for it would be notable. 331dot (talk) 12:22, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - oddly enough, per TRM. We look at the same reasons and come to different conclusions. Since it is too early to draw conclusions this should not be posted (in the same way, breaking news theories of any kind ["researchers in _____ conclude that MH370 was due to aliens from outer space"] should also not be posted). Banedon (talk) 12:24, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. It is interesting, but reading the Politico piece (it's very good and worth a read!), written by the duo that published the paper, even they do not say that the documents conclusive proof that it was a nuclear test (e.g. look at the last 2, 3 paragraphs). The authors say that it showed that the US government did seriously consider the possibility that it was a nuclear test. As the Politico article makes clear, it was a view that existed since the very start of the controversy surrounding the Vela Incident, and openly expressed by several senior US governmental officials for years. The Israeli news sources on this new revelation also include statements from people saying that the credited sources of Israeli leaks could not have known this information. Given these issues and the fact that ITN is very lively in recent days, I would have to come down on the oppose side. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 15:10, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose While the evidence points to Israel and SA it doesn't sound conclusive. Too many qualifiers for my comfort level. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:26, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose – Suggest waiting to see if any mainline news orgs pick up the story, perhaps even 'confirming' for our purposes that Israel and Apartheid-South Africa were responsible. The sources cited above seem rather iffy. Sca (talk) 16:41, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ghanaian presidential election, 2016

[edit]
Article: Ghanaian general election, 2016 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Nana Akufo-Addo is elected President of Ghana, defeating incumbent John Mahama, while the New Patriotic Party wins a majority in Parliament. (Post)
News source(s): Reuters BBC News Al-Jazeera
Credits:

Article updated

 Varavour (talk) 01:59, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose The quality of an article that does not yet exist cannot be assessed. Create the article and then we'll have something to assess. --Jayron32 02:01, 10 December 2016 (UTC) Vote was made on a version of the blurb linked to a red-linked article. I am reassessing based on changes made by the OP to highlight a different article. --Jayron32 02:07, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose still for the new article. Completely missing prose narrative about the election itself. No results for parliamentary elections. Missing reference for change of election date. Please add prose narrative about the election itself, with references, and complete results for all parts of the election, before we can post this to the main page. --Jayron32 02:09, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Jayron32: Please reconsider, the link has been corrected. There is an article. --Varavour (talk) 02:05, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
support Just need the update 'cause this is important in the ranks of the global insurgency against the establishment from brexit to Bulgaria and moldova to Trump and Italy and Gambia (perhaps) Korea and now Ghana. Millenials are changing the world orderLihaas (talk) 16:59, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Update Okay, please do support. It is important Wikipedia avoid Western bias and give due focus to what is an important election in an emerging African nation. -- Varavour (talk) 01:18, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gambian presidential election, 2016

[edit]
Article: Gambian presidential election, 2016 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Gambian president Yahya Jammeh rejects the results of the Gambian presidential election a week after conceding to Adama Barrow. (Post)
News source(s): BBC, The Guardian,
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Unusual case where the sitting, longtime President conceded the election and then rejects the results a week later. Page is mainly updated, since it made it as a blurb that was on ITN until recently. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 01:47, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Article quality is sufficient, everything looks to be well referenced. --Jayron32 02:02, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Not opposed to reposting this item, but there's only a few sentences of update about this development, with one reference. It would be useful to have more clarity on what the situation is legally (does he have the right to do this?) plus reactions/analysis, not to mention broader references. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:31, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose we posted the original. Every step is not notable but les wait and see what comes of this before re-nominating. I always suspected hes waiting on a coup opportunity as he is from the military.Lihaas (talk) 09:23, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Lihaas. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:56, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Lihaas; when some tangible step is taken, such as a new election being scheduled, use of troops to prevent the change in power, etc., it would merit posting. 331dot (talk) 12:24, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support: Troops have been deployed and have taken up sandbagged positions with machine guns in both the capital and the country's largest city. Jammeh's rejection of the election results has been condemned by the U.S., Senegal, the African Union, and the United Nations Security Council (unanimously in an emergency session). The chair of ECOWAS attempted to come to help resolve the situation, but her plane was not allowed to enter the country. Jammeh's party has petitioned the Supreme Court to overturn the election, but the Court is not sufficiently staffed with judges to review the petition. Four West African heads of state are traveling to The Gambia today to try to dissuade Jammeh from his course of action, and a fifth African head of state has announced his intent to lead a delegation there on behalf of the African Union. Do you need more than that? This is a complete breakdown of the process. The story is on the front page of Google News and Bing News in the U.S. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:27, 10 December 2016 (UTC) – Updated several times including up to 15:58, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Lihaas, The Rambling Man, and 331dot: Several notable events have occurred since the rejection as noted by BarrelProof above, so I'm pinging you to see if the recent changes would change your view. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:41, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support not every step is notable but this kind of outright rejection of election results is very rare. This is also the kind of news that will totally dominate local headlines for the immediate future. If the blurb were still on ITN I'd totally support changing it, but since it's no longer there it should be reposted. Banedon (talk) 12:32, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment sounds more like an "ongoing" situation to me. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:38, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with The Rambling Man, ongoing seems a good option. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:11, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • It wasn't supposed to be "ongoing", of course. There was one event – an election – which seemed to be over on 2 December. Then there was one more event – the "lame duck" president declaring that, after thinking a little more about it, he didn't find the result acceptable. The rest of what has happened are the repercussions of that second event. All of that could either come to an end very quickly or could be "ongoing" for, as Jammeh once famously put it, "a billion years". —BarrelProof (talk) 04:56, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would prefer a blurb per BarrelProof, but if it gets it onto the front page, I would support ongoing ([[Gambian presidential election, 2016|Gambian president rejects election results]])? ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:15, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

December 9

[edit]
December 9, 2016 (2016-12-09) (Friday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Arts and culture

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections
Science and technology

Sports

RD: Coral Atkins

[edit]
Article: Coral Atkins (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Local newspaper
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Article seems just good enough for the main page. MurielMary (talk) 10:36, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support no obvious problems. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:57, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Looks good to me. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:45, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I'm a bit troubled by the quality of the sourcing. eg "[W]here they were both abused by caregivers" is sourced to a review of an adaptation of her memoir. (And these days "abused" is generally interpreted as sexual abuse, cf "deprivation and beatings" in the source.) Her list of roles is partly cited to a wiki and the sources don't seem likely to cover all the roles given. I'm also unconvinced this death is really in the news; national level coverage would be helpful, and A single good-quality obituary would clear up the referencing issues. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:57, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for fixing that expression Espresso Addict. There was another obit today so I have tidied up the list of TV roles accordingly. Are you able to look again and reconsider your vote? MurielMary (talk) 19:55, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately The Mirror's reliability can be gauged by its reference to "The Weeney". The Mail obituary might be slightly more reliable but it doesn't have the same list of roles.[36] Espresso Addict (talk) 01:38, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Looks like there's still a few citation needed tags, and iffy sourcing like [37] (is this reliable?) and to the Mirror, which AFAIK is a tabloid. Also not sure about the phrasing "disturbed' children, which seems antiquated. The first source cited for example, uses the term "disadvantaged children." ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:12, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Some of the sourcing is also surprisingly weak. The claim that she used her own money and corporate sponsors in her endeavour, is only sourced to some chemist industry advertisement trying to raise money for the house and which says nothing about the acting fees. Her first marriage is completely unmentioned in the provided sources, and those sources are also used to improperly synthesize that Atkins had a son named Harry with Peter Whitehead (the sources show she had a son named Harry and that she had a son with Peter Whitehead, but do not connect the two in any way). These issues, especially the last two, which are BLP issues, need to be fixed before posting. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:18, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Have fixed issues identified above, thanks Espresso Addict and Patar knight. MurielMary (talk) 09:11, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The use of the chemist advertising campaign is still borderline WP:OR, surely there's some source that would say she reached out for sponsorships that are better? The claim that Atkins self taught herself to become proficient at psychiatry is only referenced to an advertisement and an interview statement by a former spouse. Is there a better source for that? ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 15:07, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Impeachment of Park Geun-hye

[edit]
Article: Impeachment process against Park Geun-hye (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ President of South Korea Park Geun-hye is impeached by a vote of the National Assembly. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ The National Assembly of South Korea votes to impeach President Park Geun-hye, pending approval from the constitutional court.
Alternative blurb II: ​ President of South Korea Park Geun-hye is impeached by a vote of the National Assembly, making Prime Minister Hwang Kyo-ahn Acting President.
News source(s): The New York Times
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Time to get the ball rolling on this one. Impeachment article needs massive improvement, first and foremost. SounderBruce 07:17, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Article itself is bit premature but I don't oppose for that. (I actually support the article being ITN.) — regards, Revi 08:06, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • support and I also updated the next prez election article. Also perhaps add "Prime Minister Hwang Kyo-ahn will act as interim president" or something of the sort?Lihaas (talk) 10:59, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query? Is this "impeachment" in the American sense, meaning formally charging with offenses that could lead to her removal if convicted, or is it "impeachment" in the more internationally common sense meaning the actual judgment that has the effect of removing her from office? The bit in the article about the involvement of the Constitutional Court makes it sound like it could be former, but I am unclear on the process. Is it essentially already over for her, or does today's action just begin a process that might see her kicked out of office after a trial and/or other opportunities to contest the outcome? Dragons flight (talk) 11:33, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The former. She is suspended pending the Constitutional Court decision. -- KTC (talk) 11:51, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • We did post when Dilma Rousseff was in a similar position, so I'll support posting when the article is good enough. The blurb will need to be clarified so that readers don't ask the same question as Dragons flight above. -- KTC (talk) 11:57, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: I believe that no matter how poor the article is, a significant world news development belongs on the ITN UN$¢_Łuke_1Ø21Repørts 12:51, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@UNSC Luke 1021: The quality of the article does matter; a poor quality article will not be posted to the Main Page of a global encyclopedia seen by hundreds of thousands, no matter how much this may merit posting. This is not a news ticker. I invite you to improve the article if you want to see it posted quickly. 331dot (talk) 12:57, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I didnt know that the quality mattered. Ill try to work on the article with the little information that I have on the subject. UN$¢_Łuke_1Ø21Repørts 13:07, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The orange tag was most definitely appropriate. This is an article covered by BLP with all sorts of inadequately sourced claims. The tag was removed by another editor because the article had been posted to the main page (improperly). As of right now I stand by my oppose !vote. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:13, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The orange tag was appropriate and its removal was inappropriate. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:09, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

December 8

[edit]
December 8, 2016 (2016-12-08) (Thursday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

Politics and elections

                
Science and technology 








[Posted] RD: Putsy Caballero
[edit]




Article: Putsy Caballero (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): SportsNOLA, WWL-TV
Credits: 




Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: American baseball player. Fuebaey (talk) 22:24, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]



[Posted] RD: Warren Allmand
[edit]




Article: Warren Allmand (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Montreal Gazette, CTV, CBC
Credits: 




Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Longtime Canadian MP (32 years) who spent nearly a decade in Trudeau Sr.'s cabinet. As Solicitor General, passed legislation that abolished the death penalty in Canada. Also was a prominent Canadian human rights activist. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 19:26, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]



[Posted] RD: Peter van Straaten
[edit]




Article: Peter van Straaten (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NRC Handelsblad
Credits: 




Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Dutch cartoonist, one of the most famous in the Netherlands and Flanders, honorary doctor from the University of Leiden, had a career spanning more than 60 years. At first glance only the sentence "which became a huge success and even inspired a TV series." needs sourcing. Fram (talk) 15:52, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]



[Closed] Giraffe
[edit]






No consensus. Stephen 02:40, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]






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









Article: Giraffe (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The IUCN reclassifies the Giraffe as vulnerable.  (Post)
News source(s): Google News for "Giraffe". Example: [38] [39] [40] [41]
Credits: 




Article updated
Nominator's comments: Used to be "Least concern", and there's a long way still to go from "vulnerable" to "extinct". On the other hand, it's an easily-recognized animal, and the topic is completely different from the current ITN blurbs. Previous similar discussion here: [42] Banedon (talk) 04:18, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]


I have to 'stick my neck out'. Hehe. UN$¢_Łuke_1Ø21Repørts 13:08, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]



Just to comment, the amount of animals is not that big a deal when considered as a group. Its the change in status of such a high profile one that makes this interesting. As wikipedia is an educational project, it does behoof (ha) us to keep the public informed when such a high profile animal becomes more endangered. 'Slippery Slope' arguments are by their nature weak, and I am pretty sure most of the world is ignorant of the actual status of the Giraffe. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:54, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]


  • Oppose Follwoing from Only in death's rebuttal above, just because it is a well-known animal doesn't making an otherwise relatively common event more newsworth for us, particularly with how full ITN is. Maybe during a slower news period it might be worth considered, but not presently. --MASEM (t) 14:57, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support - I was very surprised by that, and I imagine others would be. It's a great example of something an encyclopedia can report to people that standard news organs might omit. And the articles it leads to should be examples of our core work as well.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:11, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Oppose regretfully. Are we going to do this for every animal that makes it onto this list? I like Giraffes but I think this just doesn't rise to ITN level. This is especially so given, as others have noted, that ITN has been unusually busy of late. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:16, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Oppose IUCN's version of missing white woman syndrome. μηδείς (talk) 18:43, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support when such a (seemingly) common safari spot becomes "vulnerable", we know we're destroying our planet.  Of course we don't do this for every animal that moves to that list, unless of course the move is widely reported in reliable sources around the world, as is the case here.  The Rambling Man (talk) 10:05, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support per TRM. It seems fine to post ITN blurbs for items like this concerning especially well-known animals such as the giraffe. The same principle laid out by TRM is already applied IIRC to animals coming off the critically endangered lists.  ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 15:14, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Oppose IUCN doesn't use the same species classification as our article on wikipedia, and acknowledges that things not settled when it comes to taxonomy. Notice how our article removed the IUCN status a few months ago. Narayanese (talk) 05:23, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]


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









[Posted] RD: John Glenn
[edit]




Article: John Glenn (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb:  Former astronaut John Glenn dies at age 95 from cancer.  (Post)
News source(s): NYT, Time, CNN, WSJ, Wash. Post, NBC, ABC, CBS, White House,
Credits: 




Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Article may need work. Glenn was surely a legend who warrants posting, however. Nohomersryan (talk) 20:27, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]



His article got 508,000 views yesterday, may get even more today. --Light show (talk) 19:09, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Comment: Is it worth reconsidering a blurb? He's been at the very top of Google News since his death. Of the 5 current ITN blurbs, two are people-killed disasters and three are political leader events. Glenn, as an icon, would help balance the section with a notable bio. It's also been a constant on TV news with some specials, and others to come. Thoughts? --Light show (talk) 21:20, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Given the hits he's had, it renders a blurb somewhat irrelevant.  Those who are interested have already found his article.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:22, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]



  • I have to agree. The article quality, and in particular the referencing is well below our usual standards. I appreciate that this is a very famous person and a national hero here in the US, but we can't throw our standards under the bus. Let's do this right and get the article up to snuff so we can post something that reflects well on the project. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:38, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]


The only uncited factoid as of now is "A specific cause of death was not immediately announced." --Light show (talk) 22:07, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment - Is the standard here supposed to be whether John Glenn was sufficiently newsworthy, or whether his article is of high enough quality? It seems to me that millions of people are probably going to search for and find his article today and over the next few days, whether we think it is of high enough quality or not.  So we may as well include his death as "news", because it is "news", even though the article may be currently sub-par.  Neutron (talk) 21:51, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    He's notable enough.  His article is crap.  And for what it's worth, people will find his article via Google.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:56, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]


  • The referencing is improving and I think all but one of the paragraphs have at least a single cite. The awards and honors section needs more though. The article doesn't need to be FA or GA but there should not be really glaring gaps in referencing. It's getting there. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:20, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]





It works OK for me.Try again. --Light show (talk) 22:48, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't need to try again, it's been edited since I reviewed it when it said that ref 20 was " Cite error: The named reference CBS was invoked but never defined (see the help page).".  Cheers.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:51, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]



Which sections are incoherent? All the early year, education, military, space, and political career sections seem very complete and biographical. --Light show (talk) 23:14, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Other parts are fine and improved since my !vote, but the personal life section remains primarily WP:PROSELINE, and rambles between elements. This absolutely needs a cleaner approach to consider including this as a front-page blurb, to start. --MASEM (t) 00:07, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]


  • Post-posting comment – From a strictly U.S. point of view he would be blurbable, but from a wider perspective RD seems appropriate. Aside from being the first American to orbit Earth half a century ago, he was one of those people who was famous mainly for being famous. And the man was 95. Sca (talk) 23:16, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Post-posting Support obvious RD, oppose blurb purely because the article isn't really good enough per Masem et al. Black Kite (talk) 00:55, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support RD, oppose blurb He wasn't even the first American in space. A significant figure, but not at the exceptional level required for a blurb. We need to be careful to avoid systemic bias towards the US in assessing significance. Neljack (talk) 01:50, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support blurb Unless we're putting forth that David Bowie and Christopher Lee were more significant personages?  Both died as old men, neither were Nelson Mandelas, but both had tremendous blurb support here.  Maybe we should change the title of this section to IEN - In Entertainment News? - Lvthn13 (talk) 05:23, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Oppose blurb I think RD is fine in this case. The story reporting his death was not even a breaking news and was quickly removed from the front page of the media. Since there is a comparison with David Bowie and Christopher Lee, I can't say anything about Christopher Lee but David Bowie's death received far more attention and there is even a separate article about it. If we're looking for a standard for posting death blurbs, take for example the most recent one about Fidel Castro. The article we have on his death and funeral is twice the size of the one about John Glenn. Not to mention how his death was reported in the media and how many news articles were published.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:53, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support blurb.  The article quality is far above what is normally posted on ITN, and links out to a plethora of other encyclopedic articles.  The guy was one of fewer than 200 people who have walked in space, was a Senator and a highly decorated war veteran.  His public life was high profile and lasted for over 40 years in a number of different fields.  That's more prominent than this or that crotchety old rocker.128.214.53.104 (talk) 13:17, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support blurb - Article quality is higher than many articles posted in ITN, and his varied (and impactful) career brings him over the notability bar in leaps and bounds.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:28, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Oppose blurb I think that this is perfectly fine as an RD. Mamyles (talk) 15:31, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Whilst an RD posting was certainly appropriate, I oppose a blurb. There are not major repercussions of his death - this was an important person who died of old age long after they retired. Exactly the sort of thing RD was created for. His life was notable, but his death has nowhere near sufficient impact to raise to a blurb. Modest Genius talk 19:32, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]


December 7
[edit]



















    

        
December 7, 2016 (2016-12-07) (Wednesday)
        

        
    

    

                
Armed conflicts and attacks






                
Arts and culture 






                
Business and economy


  • Carrier Air Conditioner move to Mexico

    • Union leader Chuck Jones criticizes Donald Trump's announcement of kept jobs saying that the numbers mentioned are lower. Jones says that 550 workers would actually lose their livelihoods, while other workers were never scheduled to leave. (Washington Post via MSN)
    • 

  • U.S. stocks closed higher Wednesday with the Dow industrials and S&P 500 notching new records. (Market Watch)





                
Disasters and accidents






                
Law and crime






                
Politics and elections 






                
Science and technology








[Closed] RD: Junaid Jamshed (*)
[edit]






Older than the oldest RD.  Stale. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:42, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]






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









Article: Junaid Jamshed (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): WSJ, CNN
Credits: 




Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: (*) Please note that Jamshed was one of those aboard the Pakistan flight; I tried to point it out there, but it got lost before it was posted, so this is by way of highlighting that. Note that he was the only individual for which we deem notable for an article. For that purpose, I also open up what I initially suggested , that the air crash blurb be modified to include his name as we did with the other crash that took the football club; otherwise, this is still a proper RD nomination. In terms of article quality, there are a few lingering CN tags and the discography should be sourced better, but it is not far from being postable. MASEM (t) 15:00, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support* per nom. Independently notable from blurb.--WaltCip (talk) 15:22, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Oppose covered on the main page already.  The Rambling Man (talk) 15:27, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • 

  • Oppose Per general consensus we are not posting to RD persons who die in incidents noted elsewhere on the main page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:41, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • What consensus? The argument was that the football club as a whole was mentioned in the blurb, so to necessarily call out any individual would have been a problem (otherwise, we shouldn't have mentioned the club at all). The last time this type of case happened before then, last year [43] we included the notable names of three individuals killed in a crash. That's why I note this should be amended to the blurb, rather than a separate RD. --MASEM (t) 18:19, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Oppose RD, however, an amended blurb is something worthy of Support. Mjroots (talk) 20:49, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Oppose Amended Blurb.  47 people died.  I think amending the blurb to name just one of them makes it look like we value his life more than the others.  In other words, I think it is rather crass.  I'm okay with including him in RD, though I wouldn't be upset with leaving him off either.   Dragons flight (talk) 21:03, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • Consider that for the aforementioned helicopter crash, we included 3 notable names but there were 8 on board, and that for the recent Columbian plane crash, the football team weren't the only people aboard. This actually mirrors the approach the press takes - that they will highlight anyone they deem famous/notable enough that has died in an accident, but generally ignore any non-notable passengers or otherwise just lump their names in a passenger manifesto without comment. We would not be doing anything different from the regular coverage of such incidents by the press. --MASEM (t) 00:46, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      • I think it was wrong to name the three people on the helicopter as well.  I don't object to mentioning the football team since they were the ones who chartered the plane in the first place.  Notable people who died in a crash can of course be included in the article itself, but pulling out a few "special" people for the headline (i.e. the ITN blurb) is inappropriate in my opinion.  We don't necessarily need to ape the attention grabbing instincts of the news media.  Dragons flight (talk) 11:06, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support, he was a highly notable figure in his country therefore it merits a mention. If not in the RD section, it should at least be covered in an amended blurb. Mar4d (talk) 21:25, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support for RD Question: would he have qualified for RD if he had died in another way?  Answer: yes, and the article is pretty good. So he should qualify for RD.  I realise there's the issue of the football team plane crash but that was mentioned in the blurb. Black Kite (talk) 00:52, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Oppose The blurb already covers his death. Also, the article has a tag stating it needs more sources for verification. Elia Soaten (talk) 02:16, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support amended blurb, or failing that, RD. As Black Kite said, he would have qualified for RD if he had died another way, so at the very least his article definitely ought to be directly linked from the front page. I think if we are going to mention his individual death (as I strongly believe we should), we should amend the blurb to do so, simply to demonstrate that these two items are the same event. Otherwise, they will be separated from each other in the ITN box, making it seem as though they were two separate events, and also adding to clutter in RD.  — TORTOISEWRATH 01:15, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]


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




[Closed] RD: İsmet Sezgin
[edit]






Older than the oldest RD.  Stale. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:42, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]






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









Article: İsmet Sezgin (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Yeni Şafak
Credits: 




Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Noted former Turkish Deputy Prime Minister, Finance Minister, Interior Minister, Football team manager etc. Nub Cake (talk) 17:42, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]


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




[Posted] Pakistan International Airlines Flight 661
[edit]




Article: PIA Flight 661 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ PIA Flight 661 crashes near Havelian, Pakistan, killing at least 21 people.  (Post)
Credits: 



Nominator's comments: Breaking news.  Article not ready. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:33, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

oppose for someone who complains about earliy postings and articles not bein ready it would help to put it up to scratch and make it worthwhile! Lihaas (talk) 13:02, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He just said in the nomination comments, in plain sight, "article not ready".--WaltCip (talk) 13:12, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, and as we all three of us know, these events attract a lot of attention, and I am certain this will be ready to go in two hours or so.  Unlike many of the election nominations which are posted prior to even the election completing....  The Rambling Man (talk) 13:16, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Lihaas, that was completely uncalled for, particularly when the edit history shows that TRM was working on the article well before you posted your comment (and in fact he started work by creating Pakistan International Airlines Flight 661, before deciding to merge that article into PIA Flight 661 which someone else started after he had begun work on the article with the longer name). BencherliteTalk (using his alt account Bencherheavy) 13:40, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]



[Posted] 2016 Aceh earthquake
[edit]




Article: 2016 Aceh earthquake (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ At least 54 people are killed as an earthquake of magnitude 6.5 strikes Aceh, Indonesia.  (Post)
News source(s): BBC, AP
Credits: 




Article updated
Nominator's comments: Death toll is above 50. Article needs cleanup. Yogwi21 (talk) 08:31, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

support high enough death toll, high magnitude at a low depth is going to cause damage. article is also well updated for only being 12 hours in.Lihaas (talk) 09:11, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]


support AP report puts death toll at 96 last I saw - it must be terribly difficult living in a seismically active region. EdwardLane (talk) 09:40, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]



I supported it, but wasn't it a it quick? Only 2 of us were here to support andless than 90 mnutes to post it. Lihaas (talk) 13:00, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]



December 6
[edit]



















    

        
December 6, 2016 (2016-12-06) (Tuesday)
        

        
    

    

                
Armed conflicts and attacks






                
Business and economy






                
Disasters and accidents







                
Law and crime


  • Amnesty International criticizes a Saudi court decision to impose the death sentence on 15 people in a case involving 32 people including 30 Saudis, one Iranian and one Afghan national in an alleged Iranian spy cell. (The New York Times), (Amnesty)
    • 

  • The U.S. Supreme Court upholds an appeals court decision in an insider trading case, Salman v. U.S., holding that there is no requirement that a tipper receive any pecuniary consideration for a breach of faith in order to predicate the prosecution of the tippee. (Scotusblog)





                
Politics and elections






                
Sports








[Posted] RD: Greg Lake
[edit]




Article: Greg Lake (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
Credits: 




Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: One-third of Emerson, Lake and Palmer. Article looks to be in good shape, although referencing needs a bit of improvement. Mjroots (talk) 12:49, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose for the minute, until I (or anyone else) have finished supplying citations for all the unsourced parts of the article. I have an excellent in-depth book source interview with Greg Lake that can cite almost everything, but I will not be in a position to access it until very late this evening when I get out of the studio. (FWIW I was going to add this candidate at that point if nobody else had done) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:17, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Support - everything now sourced Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:02, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]



@The Rambling Man: Sorted. I'm going to clone myself, one to source this article, one to handle reports on WP:ERRORS and one to make the tea. The article can obviously be improved further, but for now it does meet the criteria. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:55, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Everything still sourced, and article much improved by User:LowSelfEstidle. See no reason not to post now. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:32, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]



[Closed] RD: Peter Vaughan
[edit]






Older than the oldest RD.  Stale. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:43, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]






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









Article: Peter Vaughan (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits: 




Article needs updating
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Some work to be done.  Noted actor, particularly for Porridge and Game of Thrones. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:29, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]


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




[Closed] France Prime Minister
[edit]






Opposed. Sam Walton (talk) 12:05, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]






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













Proposed image


Articles: Bernard Cazeneuve (talk · history · tag) and Manuel Valls (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Bernard Cazeneuve becomes Prime Minister of France after Manuel Valls resigns to campaign for the upcoming presidential election.  (Post)
News source(s): Euronews
Credits: 




Both articles updated
Nominator's comments: These Prime Ministers fall like dominoes... Smurrayinchester 10:22, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]


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




December 5
[edit]



















    

        
December 5, 2016 (2016-12-05) (Monday)
        

        
    

    

                
Armed conflicts and attacks






                
Business and economy






                
Disasters and accidents






                
Politics and elections






                
Science and technology






                
Sports








[Posted] RD: Rashaan Salaam
[edit]




Article: Rashaan Salaam (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): ESPN, Sports Illustrated
Credits: 




Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Former Heisman Trophy winner – Muboshgu (talk) 21:22, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]



[Closed] Uzbekistani presidential election, 2016
[edit]






Closing good faith but duplicate nomination. See the original discussion below. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:43, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]






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





 



Article: Uzbekistani presidential election, 2016 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Shavkat Mirziyoyev is re-elected as President of Uzbekistan.  (Post)
News source(s): WSJ
Credits: 




The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Nominator's comments: Article has basic facts but not a lot of depth. Quasi-democratic election. LukeSurl t c 16:33, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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




[Closed] RD/Blurb: Jayalalithaa
[edit]






Stale.  Too many newer entries have already been posted, so this is no longer eligible for either RD or Blurb.  Dragons flight (talk) 17:04, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]






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





 



Article: Jayalalithaa (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Jayalalithaa, the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, dies.  (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Indian actress-turned-politician Jayalalithaa dies after 75 days of hospitalization. 
News source(s): See article, [44] [45] [46]
Credits: 




Article updated
Nominator's comments: The death of a governor of one of the many states of India would not normally be blurb-worthy, but this particular death is creating a lot of headlines. Banedon (talk) 05:20, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deserves blurb IMO: [47] —Vensatry  (talk)  08:35, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]



support blurb sitting CM with bigger ramifications. RD is a no-brainer, though.Lihaas (talk) 09:13, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]



@The Rambling Man: Can you have another look? The article is reasonably well-sourced now. —Vensatry  (talk)  13:29, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]


  • Support either Prominent figure in South Indian cinema and politics. Article looks decently sourced. 45.124.227.7 (talk) 16:31, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • A cursory skim through shows entire paragraphs without a single reference, and multiline paragraphs, with multiple asserted facts, with a single reference at the end of the block of text that does not support every assertion.  Is the quality we need so difficult to understand? Stephen 21:38, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]


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




[Posted] New Zealand PM
[edit]








Proposed image


Article: John Key (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Prime Minister of New Zealand John Key (pictured) announces his resignation.  (Post)
News source(s): BBC News, The Guardian, New Zealand Herald
Credits: 



Nominator's comments: Surprise change in head of government. Eight years in the job. Officially steps down next week. Fuebaey (talk) 00:43, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that's surprising news.  Nevertheless, let's wait until we actually have news who the next PM is. Redverton (talk) 00:51, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]



It's one thing to post that he has resigned and a successor chosen; it's another to post an announcement of a pending resignation; he could change his mind later. 331dot (talk) 14:02, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]



[Closed] Italy PM
[edit]






A good faith but duplicate nomination. See the discussion below. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:06, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]






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













Proposed image


Articles: Matteo Renzi (talk · history · tag) and Italian constitutional referendum, 2016 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Prime Minister of Italy Matteo Renzi (pictured) announces his resignation.  (Post)
News source(s): BBC News, CNN
Credits: 



Nominator's comments: PM Matteo Renzi announced his resignation after constitutional referendum defeat --Holapaco77 (talk) 08:50, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]


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




December 4
[edit]



















    

        
December 4, 2016 (2016-12-04) (Sunday)
        

        
    

    

                
Armed conflicts and attacks






                
Disasters and accidents






                
Law and crime


  • Imatra shooting

    • Three women, the Imatra Town Council chairwoman and two local reporters, are shot dead outside a restaurant in Imatra, Finland, a town east of the capital, Helsinki. A 23-year-old suspect is apprehended by police. (YLE) (AP)





                
Politics and elections








[Posted] RD: Sammy Lee
[edit]




Article: Sammy Lee (diver) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NY Times
Credits: 




Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: First Asian American Olympic gold medalist and lead an interesting life. Article appears to be in decent shape. - Ad Orientem (talk) 01:44, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]





[Posted to Ongoing]: English football sexual abuse scandal
[edit]




Article: English football sexual abuse scandal (talk · history · tag)
Ongoing item nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Guardian &c &c &c
Credits: 




Article updated
Nominator's comments: Last Tango in Paris rape was nominated below, involving a couple of people, this case involves hundreds and hundreds (probably thousands) of British footballers who were sexually abused by those very people who were supposed to be looking out for them, caring for them and training them. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:52, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Page is well maintained. This is a major criminal investigation, akin to the Saville scandal. I have seen this on the news in continental Europe so it is a matter of wide concern Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 19:52, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support Definitely something that is "in the news." Articles is solid and well sourced. To be honest I'd probably support a blurb for this. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:41, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support for ongoing, but I'm hesitant about a blurb, as it seems a topic that will precipitate new details periodically. Sca (talk) 23:09, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Strong oppose This can be an important story if it does prove out, but at the present time it is just allegations with some ongoing investigation. It very much treads a BLP line in that nothing concrete has been determined. If it turns out to be true (or determined to be a criminal charge in a court of law), then that will be an important story and the resulting outfall from it, but while no one has been found guilty yet, this is just a scandal that should not be covered at ITN. --MASEM (t) 01:52, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Oppose, British tabloid sensationalism. ITN posts only convictions by long-established consensus. Abductive (reasoning) 03:19, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]


  • Except it is being covered in every British news source, and many outside the UK.  Well researched. Black Kite (talk) 19:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Disgusting comment:  how is hundreds of children sexually abused "tabloid sensationalism"? Remarkably the lowest of the lowest comment I've read lately.  Still you've set your stall, we'll all know what to expect hereafter. And of course ITN posts only convictions by long-established consensus only applies to non-American stories.  Well played!  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:54, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]


  • The sensationalism in is the reporting, not the events. Unlike the Penn State scandal or Jimmy Saville, there is no evidence of a conspiracy connecting all the abusers, nor of a coverup. Also, there haven't even been any new arrests. This verges on WP:SYNTH.Abductive (reasoning) 23:09, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]









  • I know that this might appear to be one giant scandal, but is really just the newspapers mentioning a whole bunch of smaller scandals at once in order sell advertising--tabloid crap. And still no arrests, let alone new convictions. Abductive (reasoning) 17:25, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]


  • When you've got no clue what you're talking about, it's probably best to stop posting before it becomes obvious.  Sadly... Black Kite (talk) 19:13, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Honestly Abductive, a lot of the time you're spot on.  On this occasion, you appear to have absolutely missed the facts to the point that your posts are actually offensive.  Hundreds of people have been sexually abused and you're calling it "tabloid crap"?  I would desist from posting further in case you make your case worse.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:33, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]


  • Oppose per Masem. Banedon (talk) 04:50, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Comment no surprises here then.  Several of the coaches named have already been convicted for child abuse.  I see no BLP infringements at all, if there are any, please feel free to correct them.  Of course this will never feature in ITN if it doesn't feature now, hence the reasoning for an Ongoing item.  It's major mainstream news across dozens of reliable news outlets, items such as England's various football captains making a film about staying safe, such as a help-line receiving three times as many calls as did a similar one for the Jimmy Savile case, items such as the fact that many of these victims are actually notable, admissions from the FA that it's their biggest crisis.  Literally thousands of news articles in the past week and yet we're faced with the usual ITN obstinance to publish an article that would be interesting to our readers or one about a subject they might be looking for.  Smart move.  The Rambling Man (talk) 05:43, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • There's a lot of celebrity-type gossip that is in the news, interesting to readers and that readers are searching for that we would never allow at ITN; ITN - which is far too concise to allow for all subtlies of a situation to be explained - should never be for rumor-mongering while an investigation is going on. An article about the situation is fine, but the front page should not be used for highlighting these types of scandals or controversies, barring some type of firm judgement or result. Otherwise, we're becoming clickbait which we absolutely have to avoid. --MASEM (t) 06:21, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      • You're equating child abuse with "celebrity-type gossip"?  Well that says it all.  The Rambling Man (talk) 06:59, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

        • There is a lot of celebrity gossip that goes on that includes accusations of crimes and other facets (eg see Bill Cosby); it's not meant to reduce the importance of the charges of child abuse, just that it still remains unproven accusations, which we have to be careful about in reporting in the first place. With today's media that loves to put a spotlight on anything that makes celebrities look bad, we (WP editors) have to be a lot more careful and neutral about how these are presented. --MASEM (t) 15:14, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

          • I don't know what you're talking about.  This isn't a story about making "celebrities look bad".  This is a bunch of low-level support staff at more than 50 football clubs in England who have repeatedly sexually abused children within their care over decades.  Equating that to making Bill Cosby look bad is ... well, unbelevable. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:18, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

            • The key is "reportedly". We don't know if they did. If they did, that's absolutely something to post about. If they didn't, then this is a case of the media latching onto "gossip". It's why its a scandal, and at this stage of the story, we should not make any assumptions on the guilt of those charged, and to that end, we should avoid highlighting this as an ITN story to avoid making the wrong mistake if this turns out to be false charges. It absolutely is a serious issue , as demonstrated that there are police investigations, but its simply far too early for us to be trying to highlight it and stay absolutely clean of BLP issues with the front page. --MASEM (t) 15:25, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

              • No, the key is "it's in the news".  We absolutely do know that some of these individuals did as they have already been convicted of their offences.  To somehow claim this to be gossip is offensive beyond comprehension.  If you genuinely believe there to be a BLP issue then you need to AFD the article, which I note you won't do.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:19, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • 

    • On bias: there's no doubt we're biased in favour of Western news right now, such as John Keys' resignation being marked "ready" even though by precedent we do not post until he actually resigns (the same applied to David Cameron resigning). We also have lots of ITNR nominations here on ITNC right now as well as stuff like the 2016 Kashmir unrest that people don't even comment on; this is definitely a manifestation of bias. In fact simply by imposing an article quality requirement we impose bias into ITN. The bias is particularly strong towards both US and UK news. Unless we agree to embrace pro-US and pro-UK bias however, it is not a reason to post this. This event should be evaluated on its own merits.
      On potential interest and severity of the "crime": you may find this to be of interest, but that does not mean everyone else does. I for example do not find this article interesting. Sexual abuse may be severe, but it happens a lot (a quick Google search reveals that in the US alone, "683,000 adult American women are forcibly raped each year. This equals 56,916 per month; 1,871 per day; 78 per hour; and 1.3 per minute. Only 16% of rapes are ever reported to the police" [49]). That is also not a reason to post this particular incident. Similarly I did not find Kim Kardashian getting robbed some time ago to be an interesting story, and would've opposed posting it on ITN - which does not mean I condone robbery.
      On ITN being busting with activity: right now every blurb is less than seven days old. ITN may not be busting with activity but it's hardly a slow news period. Besides, you've argued in the past that slow news periods is not a reason for lowering standards, no?
      On significance: as mentioned, right now this is just allegations. Second, even if it's no longer just allegations, one can hardly call it significant by world standards. Currently there are millions protesting against South Korea's president, and an ongoing persecution against the Rohingya people in Myanmar, which directly affects a lot more people yet they're not featured.
      In a slow news period with a suitable hook to hang around ("e.g. ____ coach ____ is fired in response to [this sexual abuse scandal]"), I could support this. In the current situation however, I am opposing. Banedon (talk) 01:16, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support per TRM. BLP is not a straitjacket. This article is well-cited to reliable sources, and any BLP concerns should be directed the article's talk page. Would prefer a blurb. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:01, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • On the article, it's fine - you have plenty of space for prose to talk about the case and thus resolve issues in context and claims to allow any possible BLP violations to be smoothed out. But in a short blurb - or even just alluding to it by title on the main page, you don't have that context, and that is an issue related to BLP. As I point out above, it makes us a clickbait site if we do not use utmost care on articles based on accusations and rumormongering prior to any firm decision or result. --MASEM (t) 06:21, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • 

  • Strong Oppose as BLP and borderline OR.  In cases of potentially life-altering revelations, we should wait at least for a clear judgment from legal authorities, if not waiting for a confession or end of appeals.  In the entire article, which is not short, there is all of three sentences regarding actual criminal investigation into the whole of this matter.  Note that I make these objections without regard to whether the accusations or cover-up is true (they probably are), and without belittling the gravity of sexual abuse (it is grave).  Additionally, this seems to be making a larger conspiracy out of smaller individual cases.  If there were clear evidence of a larger conspiracy, and ongoing prosecution, then posting this would be a no-brainer.  As it is, it appears to be a lot of editors and reporters doing OR to conflate individual cases with the sport as a whole.128.214.53.104 (talk) 09:45, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Weak oppose.  Mainly, I'm opposed to using ongoing for crime stories.  Criminal accusations and trials can get a lot of news coverage and stay in the public eye for a long-time (e.g. O.J. Simpson trial, Amanda Knox trial, Donald Trump sexual assault allegations, Boston archdiocese sexual abuse, etc.), but even though such stories can be high profile and long-lasting, I'm not personally inclined to support including most of them in ongoing.  For me, personally, I'd rather an ongoing story have not just wide interest but also wide impact, e.g. directly impacting thousands of people.  However, if one can find a suitable moment in the narrative of the current story to build a hook around, I'd likely support a blurb about it.  Dragons flight (talk) 10:18, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]


I would not say that Donald Trump's sexual assault allegations, which have mainly been a recent phenomenon, reach the widespread notability of the O.J. trial or the Catholic sex abuse scandal. With that being said, I oppose posting. I equate it to the Penn State sex abuse scandal which was also a sports-related scandal not posted on ITN. --WaltCip (talk) 13:21, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Penn State was one individual predator.  This is dozens affecting hundreds if not thousands of victims. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:03, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]


  • Oppose for ongoing.  If there are indictments, or convictions, those events can appear "in the news".  Ongoing should only be used for things like wars (Battle of Mosul), epidemics (2009 flu pandemic), major government scandals (Watergate scandal).  Jehochman Talk 13:44, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Strange idea.  We use it for all sorts of things that you haven't covered.  If you want to enforce your view of what Ongoing should be used for, please indocrinate it in the guidelines. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:03, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I know when we proposed Ongoing for ITN, it was meant for stories that were going to be in the news for a reasonably fixed amount of time (on the order of a couple of weeks), and not meant for stories running for an unclear period of time. There is no indication how long we could expect this story to last, as an investigations and trials will take years to complete, so that's even more reason to avoid it as Ongoing. --MASEM (t) 15:14, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Well you're either opposing on BLP infraction or now it's on the Ongoing basis.  I think we understand your position.  The Rambling Man (talk) 15:18, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm actually arguing several reasons to keep this off ongoing. Both per what Ongoing was meant for and for the BLP aspects. --MASEM (t) 15:25, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    The BLP is bullshit as you know, if you really believed it you'd be AFD'ing the article.  So if I made a blurb which said something like "More than 50 English football clubs have now been named in allegations passed to police investigating child sex abuse" you can have no problem with it at all, right?  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:18, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    No, it's not that it's a BLP on the article, it's just you have 100k more characters and room for inline citations to establish the nature of the case instead of ~50char and zero citations in a news blurb. (That's the whole thing about clickbait titles that we should be avoiding). That said, based on comments below, a blurb rather than ongoing makes more sense. It deals with the issue that this is going to take years to resolve (eg why Ongoing is inappropriate), and it deals with providing enough context so that there's no BLP issues with a terse mention. I still balk a bit at sensationalizing accusations, but the scope of this (100s if not over 1000 ppl affected) is now sufficiently large that the blurb could be warranted. --MASEM (t) 00:32, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support The exponential spread of the allegations is far more important than any possible trials or convictions; but I suspect this might start to peter out as the number of footballers report former abuse; given that the number of reports is anything between 350 and 1000 though, this is a massive story. Black Kite (talk) 19:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    It's a huge story, a sad revelation.  On a par with Savile, if not worse.  Yet once again we're seeing Wikipedia's systemic bias at its worst, some individuals here aren't even reading the article, this isn't tabloid gossip, this isn't celebrity shaming, quite the opposite.  But I suppose that because this isn't an American basketball coach or similar, it's worthless, a BLP violation, a mere triviality despite being widely reported for the past two or three weeks in every single British reliable source.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:37, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I've kept my powder dry on this one because I'm not decided, but to say a U.K.-related story is suffering from systemic bias? That seems rich. Systemic bias on English Wikipedia benefits U.S. and U.K. stories the most, wouldn't you agree? Would we even be here if this was from a non-English speaking nation? – Muboshgu (talk) 19:42, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I've got no idea what you're talking about, I'm stating as a matter of fact that systemic bias favours American stories on English language Wikipedia. That's all.  In the meantime, and back to the actual discussion, here's a BBC synopsis of what we're actually trying to discuss: Football child sex abuse claims: What has happened so far?.  Of course, it's nowhere near as important as the Penn State coach and of course, it's a shocking violation of BLP (is it?) but it's actually in the news every single day.  What makes this any different to any "protest" Ongoing?  I wonder.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:50, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    You don't agree that systemic bias favors British subjects as well as American? That's my question right now. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:22, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree it favours American subjects, as evidenced by the number of American RDs posted by American admins, often with no consensus.  This is English language Wikipedia, so I'm guessing there'll be some bias towards English-language stories, but right now it's all about the dollar.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:32, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    It favors American subjects, and some admins have rushed to post American RDs, but I think you're being naive if you don't think British stories benefit from systemic bias here. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:44, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't see it I'm afraid.  This particular instance is a classic though.  We posted that Penn State story before a conviction, it was about a single individual (not dozens) who affected dozens (not hundreds).  There's your bias.  The Rambling Man (talk) 05:56, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]




[Closed] Italian constitutional referendum
[edit]






Older than the oldest story.  Stale. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:43, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]






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









Article: Italian constitutional referendum, 2016 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Voters reject constitutional amendments in Italy.  (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Voters reject constitutional amendments in Italy and Prime Minister Matteo Renzi resigns. 
Alternative blurb II: ​ Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi resigns following the voters' rejection of proposed constitutional amendments. 
News source(s): [50][51]
Credits: 




Article needs updating
Nominator's comments: Not ITNR but we posted Brexit and renzi and others in the media are saying the repercussions will be huge. Especially in light of Austria today. Lihaas (talk) 19:09, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]


In the 70 years since the founding of the Republic, there's been 41 PM's, and new government with many of them.  This is actually quite mundane.128.214.53.104 (talk) 12:14, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]



Apparently Renzi's resignation is to become official at 17:30. Then, suggest resignation be moved up to the first paragraph in the lead and blurb be posted. Sca (talk) 16:12, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]



So, he finally resigned, and this could be posted. However, the whole topic is getting pretty stale. Sca (talk) 16:06, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The resignation is still fresh. The Renzi article is in good shape, and we can unbold the referendum article if need to be post the blurb. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 17:32, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]


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




[Posted] Austria presidential election
[edit]








Proposed image


Article: Austrian presidential election, 2016 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Alexander Van der Bellen wins the presidency in Austria.  (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Independent Green Alexander Van der Bellen wins the re-run of the Austrian presidential election. 
Credits: 




Article needs updating
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Nominator's comments: This is more tight, but Hofer may take it. Reactions should be a plenty to update. Lihaas (talk) 10:18, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]



[Posted] Uzbek presidential election
[edit]




Article: Uzbek presidential election, 2016 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Shavkat Mirziyoyev wins the presidency in Uzbekistan.  (Post)
Credits: 




Article needs updating
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Nominator's comments: Expected result, despite other candidtes. So it should be straightforward when updated in a few hours. Lihaas (talk) 10:18, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]



December 3
[edit]



















    

        
December 3, 2016 (2016-12-03) (Saturday)
        

        
    

    

                
Armed conflicts and attacks






                
Disasters and accidents






                
International relations






                
Law and crime






                
Politics and elections






                
Sports








[Posted] RD: Rémy Pflimlin
[edit]




Article: Rémy Pflimlin (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Delcambre, Alexis (December 3, 2016). "Rémy Pflimlin, ancien président de France Télévisions, est mort". Le Monde. Retrieved December 4, 2016. ; Renault, Enguérand (December 3, 2016). "Rémy Pflimlin, un amoureux de la télévision et de la presse". Le Figaro. Retrieved December 4, 2016. ; "Mort de Rémy Pflimlin, ancien président de France Télévisions". Libération. December 3, 2016. Retrieved December 4, 2016.
Credits: 




Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: French media executive, former CEO of France Télévisions, France's public national television broadcaster, from 2010 to 2015. Zigzig20s (talk) 04:47, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]



Thanks. How many supports do we need? I understand there is a deadline with RDs. Not sure why it is taking so long to get approved...Zigzig20s (talk) 09:20, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]



Thanks. Do you mark RDs as good to go btw?Zigzig20s (talk) 09:40, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've marked this as [Ready], so all we need now is a trustworthy admin to pop by, agree with my assessment, and post it. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:45, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Can anyone mark it as ready? In other words, if I see another RD (not created or suggested by me) that looks food, as long as two other editors have supported it, would I be able to add "Ready" too? Just trying to learn how this works. Thanks.Zigzig20s (talk) 10:01, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is Wikipedia, anyone can make an assessment that a nomination is good to go.  Typically for RDs, as long as the quality checks out, and there are a couple of supports, it's ready. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:06, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.Zigzig20s (talk) 10:16, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]



[Closed] Last Tango in Paris
[edit]






Clear consensus against. BencherliteTalk 21:56, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]






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













Proposed image


Article: Last Tango in Paris (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In a newly unearthed interview, Bernardo Bertolucci revealed that the rape scene in Last Tango in Paris between Marlon Brando and Maria Schneider,was non-consensual.  (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Bernardo Bertolucci (pictured), acknowledged the rape scene in Last Tango in Paris was non-consensual. 
News source(s): ELLE Variety
Credits: 




Article updated
Nominator's comments: The culturally significant film, Last Tango in Paris, whose star and director were both nominated for an Academy Award, has been revealed to contain a non-consensual rape scene. --The lorax (talk) 22:01, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]


  • I note you have reopened the discussion. FTR I do not have an objection to re-opening a closed thread if it is believe the rational was incorrect. However, where consensus is clear, anyone, including involved editors, can close a discussion. See WP:RFCL (#1). -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:43, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]


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




[Posted] 2016 Oakland warehouse fire
[edit]




Article: 2016 Oakland warehouse fire (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ At least nine people are killed in a fire at a rave in a converted warehouse in California, United States.  (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ A fire at a music party in a converted warehouse leaves at least nine people dead, and two dozen missing, in Oakland, California. 
News source(s): BBC
Credits: 



Nominator's comments: Speculation is that the death toll will go above 40.  Stubby article, needs expansion, but this kind of incident isn't common in the United States. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:56, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Oppose for now, purely on article quality. It needs expansion, which I expect to occur as more details become available. Otherwise I agree with the nom, this kind of disaster is very rare in the US and is ITN worthy. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:15, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]





I think it's more the fact that it was a non-publicized paying event held in a warehouse (illegally) that also makes it akin to a rave.--Light show (talk) 05:23, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]


  • Posted - I had to edit the blurb to get rid of the very long string of prepositional phrases. It's shown above as the alternate blurb.  Also added the fuzzy number "two dozen missing" to reflect the fact that there were many more than 9 fatalities; they just haven't recovered the dead yet, so no accurate count.  This should be updated when facts become known.  As for "rave", I switched to the more general "music party", which is the wording used SFGate, a good local source. Jehochman Talk 15:37, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Update The death toll is now up to 24 with dozens still missing.[54] -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:56, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Capcom Cup 2016
[edit]




Article: Capcom Cup 2016 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In professional Street Fighter V play, NuckleDu wins the Capcom Cup  (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ The Capcom Cup was won by NuckleDu, defeating Ricki Ortiz in the finals 
News source(s): ABC News Red Bull ESPN
Credits: 




Article updated
Nominator's comments: This is what the past year of professional Street Fighter has been about. 72 tournaments across five continents were held prior to what has become the most prestigious fighting game tournament of the year. I've put a lot of work in this article (and so have others!), and I am confident that it is all up to par. ~Mable (chat) 19:35, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak support.  I know little about professional video gaming, but the article seems OK, and there does seem to be some coverage of this international tournament. 331dot (talk) 00:48, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • 

  • Question: isn't Evolution Championship Series the most prestigious fighting game tournament? Banedon (talk) 01:18, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • This is somewhat subjective. Evo is definitely bigger in size, but that's because it features ~8 major open tournaments (and several smaller ones). The Capcom Cup is a closed tournament with only 32 players, who qualified by doing well on tournaments like Evo, Tokyo Game Show, Canada Cup, CEO, etc. Because of this set-up, as well as the Capcom sponsorship and the large prize pool, the Capcom Cup is now considered the world championship for Street Fighter. I think for other games – like Super Smash Bros., Tekken, Guilty Gear – Evo is still the most prestigious tournament. Street Fighter is always the headline, though – it's what everyone talks about. ~Mable (chat) 12:30, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support multiple reliable sources covering it, very good article, no reason to oppose. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:36, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Weak oppose for now; article is in very good shape, but the "Results" section and table has no reference.  If we can get a source for the information in that table, we're good to go.  --Jayron32 13:10, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • 

  • Oppose. If 2016 League of Legends World Championship, which is by almost every metric a larger and more notable esport event, wasn't posted then this tournament, which isn't even clearly the most important tournament in the fighting game community should not be posted. The tournament summary is also extremely short and dense for non-players.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 16:27, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • The League of Legends page was only not posted because of the low quality of the article when it was proposed. The consensus started moving to supports after a few days, but it was too late at that point. I'd be happy to improve the summary in any way I can, though. I am not entirely sure how to improve it, as it is difficult to describe a double elimination tournament in my experience... Any tips? ~Mable (chat) 17:42, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      • First of all, I would add a results bracket to make things easier to visualize. I think the best way to deal with double elimination tournaments is to have section on anything notable in the winner's bracket, a section on the loser's bracket, and then a section on the grand final. That way the information is compartmentalized and it becomes easier to follow the overall narrative (i.e. who wins the winner's bracket, who wins the lower bracket, then the grand final).---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:15, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • 

      • [This was originally before the post above, but got lost in transferring it over] By the time of the last support at the [discussion for 2016 LoL Worlds], it would have been the second most recent item on ITN if posted, given US/Japan time zone differences, and without the last !vote, it would've been first. Looking at the oppose !votes, five of them say something to the effect that esports can never be on ITN because it's not important enough, one of them opposed based on the prize pool differential compared to The International 2016 (TI6: 21 million USD, 2016 LoL Worlds: 6 million USD, Capcom Cup: 350, 000 USD), while only two opposed on quality issues (one opposed on both quality and for it being esports). A neutral !vote said that they did not feel 2016 LoL worlds was an important enough esports event to post, while the struck !vote said that t wasn't clear that 2016 LoL Worlds was the pinnacle of the game (which for Street Fighter is likely EVO). Given that the article quality issues were largely fixed within 48 hours of the nomination, as noted by the switch to supports, in the end, it wasn't a fresh and up-to-date ITN that did it 2016 Lol Worlds in, it was the rationale of the oppose !voters, especially those that said that esports should never be on ITN. Sending pings @Notecardforfree, Ad Orientem, Nergaal, Lugnuts, Athomeinkobe, WaltCip, DatGuy, Only in death, Brandmeister, Black Kite, Prisencolin,  and Shoy:, whose !votes I mentioned above. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 13:22, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

        • I'll agree the flip-flopping is a bit arbitrary. If there were one eSports article at all to feature, it would be the LoL world championships, followed closely by The International DotA 2 championships. To oppose either of those two while supporting this makes no sense. Banedon (talk) 14:57, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • 

    • As noted, and the reason WHY it is bad to oppose an article solely because another article wasn't posted, the only reason the other article wasn't posted was that it was not of sufficient quality.  That's the main thing we judge on these articles anyways; is the quality of the article content.  "This shouldn't be posted because <other random article> wasn't posted" is not really a valid, actionable correction users can make to improve THIS article.  --Jayron32 17:48, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      • See above for why article quality wasn't the reason why LoL Worlds wasn't posted. Items for ITN are posted based on consensus on what is acceptable to post (see Wikipedia:In_the_news#Significance), and one way to do that is by looking to post nominations for comparisons for what to post. Except for reasons of article quality, ITN should not widely vary in what gets posted. If the championship of the world's most played most watched eSport doesn't get a blurb, I don't see much else getting a blurb. For comparison, this Capcom Cup got 87, 000 viewers on TV and a peak of 108, 000 concurrent Twitch viewers [55] , while Finals for the 2016 League of Legends Worlds had 43 milllion unique views and a peak of 14.7 million concurrent viewers.   ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:15, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Taking a closer look at the entire article, I think I have to oppose even more strongly. The entire first half of the article is not about the event in question, but the Capcom Pro Tour 2016. That information should either split or this article should be renamed to Capcom Pro Tour 2016. This is a BLP issue, because this article states as fact an allegation that one person who participated in the Pro Tour but did not qualify for this event committed sexual assault, which would violate WP:BLPCRIME and WP:BALASP. Also, besides the lede, the only prose in the article that is actually about the tournament itself at Capcom_Cup_2016#Tournament_summary. This section doesn't give us much more information than the results table, since it's just saying who was eliminated in what round of the double elimination. Maybe the reliable sources on this tournament aren't there, but there is nothing about in-tournament storylines outside that of the eventual winner and nothing about key events in matches or how they played out. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 13:39, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • I've removed the paragraph with the WP:BLPCRIME issue and revdeled the potentially defamatory revisions. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 13:45, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • 

    • The "Tournament background" section is also about the tournament itself. The Pro Tour (which is the qualification process of the tournament) indeed gets a lot of weight in this article, and I have been thinking about splitting it off for future years, though it has yet to be properly discussed. I disagree that half of the article isn't about the Capcom Cup, though, as its qualification process deserves a good amount of prose regardless, and the "Tournament background" section is a fairly large section on its own. As for the BLP issues – thanks for fixing that – I don't think I ever gave it a good enough look... ~Mable (chat) 15:45, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Weak support - Positives: it's Street Fighter, which is widely recognized and easy to understand for viewers; it's an invitational. Negatives: the prize pool isn't that big (LoL world championships for example was significantly larger), Evo is more difficult to win (I suspect all players in this tournament also played in Evo), Street Fighter isn't very widely followed compared to other esports (for example LoL world championships videos on YouTube have 5x the views of the SF V videos, although they are admittedly older). Eventually what tilted me to weak support is that Evo blurbs are hard to post, since there are so many games at that meet, and the odds of getting Evo into Ongoing is virtually zero. Banedon (talk) 00:44, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • 

  • Support - I agree with Patar above in spirit, if not in practice. Patar - the way to get more eSports coverage on the front page is to support quality articles on esports - Regardless of how previous discussions have gone. The LoL WC probably should have been posted, and next year I suspect it will be given the lessons learned this time. As *this* article is of sufficient quality and covered in reliable media, supporting. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:39, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Weak support - Article looks to be decently updated and shows independent coverage from multiple reliable third party sources. I still have reservations about posting E-sports on the main page.--WaltCip (talk) 13:51, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Procedural oppose I think before we start posting this, Capcom Cup should be first considered for WP:ITNR. But still I'm not sure it's as popular as, say professional StarCraft competition, particularly Brood War back in the day, maybe I'm just old-fashioned. Brandmeistertalk   14:51, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • 

  • Oppose, not really signficant enough really. Maybe if EVO 2017 is big enough, there will be a chance for an FCG event to get on the ITN section.––Prisencolin (talk) 07:01, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]


December 2
[edit]



















    

        
December 2, 2016 (2016-12-02) (Friday)
        

        
    

    

                
Armed conflicts and attacks






                
Business and economy






                
Disasters and accidents 
	





                
International relations




                
Law and crime






                
Politics and elections


                
Science


                
Sports








[Closed] Whitechapel Bell Foundry
[edit]






Consensus is to wait until the company closes its doors next year. Stephen






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.













Proposed image


Article: Whitechapel Bell Foundry (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Whitechapel Bell Foundry (pictured), Britain's oldest manufactory, dating from 1570, is to close  (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Whitechapel Bell Foundry (pictured), founders of the Liberty Bell and Big Ben is to close 
Alternative blurb II: ​ Whitechapel Bell Foundry (pictured), Britain's oldest manufactory dating from 1570, and founders of the Liberty Bell and Big Ben is to close 
News source(s): Wall Street Journal The Telegraph BBC News
Credits: 




Article updated
Nominator's comments: This is an incredible little piece of history that is about to go. It's been around for 450 years since the time of Queen Elizabeth I, in fact the bell makers of Whitechapel go back to 1420, and its bells ring out all over the world from New York to Washington to London, but the bell making could soon be over. EDIT: The business may be sold and could move elsewhere but the foundry will be gone, thanks :) Mramoeba (talk) 22:50, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]


If we accept this kind of reasoning, then we should also have e.g. the US Presidential Elections featured as ongoing, or Trump calling for Clinton's imprisonment posted as a blurb, because it's reported everywhere. This according to the blurb is "Britain's" oldest manufacturing company, which immediately means it has 195 counterparts, one for each country. Why post this one? It made Liberty Bell and Big Ben, okay, but there are also lots of other famous buildings in the world from the Eiffel Tower to the Great Wall of China. This is too minor to post, unless we agree to be biased in favour of the UK, in which case this is postable. Banedon (talk) 23:30, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think the point being made by the nomination is that a 1570 establishment now stated as Britain's oldest manufactory is somewhat significant in its provenance.  Can you name an American manufacturing firm from 1570?  Can you name any manufacturing firm from 1570?  P.S. The Eiffel Tower was erected late-19th century, the Great Wall of China was erected or built by a manufactory.  It's not about "famous buildings" by any means.  The Rambling Man (talk) 23:34, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]



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




[Closed] RD: Erich Bloch
[edit]






Older than oldest RD.  Stale.  The Rambling Man (talk) 15:54, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]






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









Article: Erich Bloch (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Washington Post Slashdot
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Computer pioneer, engineering manager for first transistorised supercomputer. gadfium 21:51, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]


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




[Posted] Gambian presidential election upset
[edit]




Article: Gambian presidential election, 2016 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Adama Barrow defeats incumbent Yahya Jammeh becoming the first newly elected president of The Gambia in 22 years.  (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Yahya Jammeh loses the Gambian presidential election to businessman Adama Barrow, ending his 22 year rule. 
Alternative blurb II: ​ Gambian President Yahya Jammeh concedes defeat to Adama Barrow, bringing an end to his 22-year-rule in the West African nation. 
Alternative blurb III: ​ Adama Barrow wins the presidency in the Gambia. 
Alternative blurb IV: ​ Yahya Jammeh loses the Gambian presidential election to businessman Adama Barrow in the country's first change of presidency by popular election since its independence from Britain in 1965. 
News source(s): The Telegraph, Al Jazeera, BBC
Credits: 




The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Nominator's comments: Unexpected turn of events, sources are calling this a "huge shock". Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:56, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]



P.S. I changed this to an ITNR nomination given that it involves national elections and a change in government/head of state. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:31, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]



@Beejsterb: Just FYI, support on the merits is not required as elections for head of state are on the recurring items list.  This discussion is only to evaluate the article's quality and agree on a blurb. 331dot (talk) 02:37, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

okay thanks. Why isn't it being posted, then?


  • Neutral article is sourced, but I'd really like to see a little more background on the candidates and the overall political context. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:33, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Find a better blurb: This event seems more historic than what is suggested by any of the proposed blurbs. This is the first time ever that a transition from one president to another has resulted from an election in The Gambia. Jammeh achieved the presidency by a coup d'état (in 1994), and the president before him was the only one who held the post after British rule ended (in 1970) with Elizabeth II as the official head of state. The first of the proposed blurbs above is factually incorrect – Barrow's predecessor was never "newly elected" (since, when he was new to the post, that was not as the result of an election), so it has been more than 22 years since there has been a "newly elected president of The Gambia".  —BarrelProof (talk) 20:13, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Oppose the target article is barely a stub, particularly given the nature of this nomination, where's all the reaction to such an "upset"?.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:52, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]


If you look for it, even slightly, there's plenty of confirmation of the historic nature of this election and the fact that the outcome was a surprising upset and that there are widespread celebrations in the country (along with some caution). If some of the major news outlets aren't putting it in their headlines, it's probably just because they don't pay attention to what's happening in small African countries that aren't major economies. It's currently on the front page of Google's World News section, with an AP article describing how Jammeh said he could "rule for a billion years" and saying that "Gambia under Jammeh became notorious for its abysmal human rights record as well as the president's erratic behavior", with his "literal witch hunt" in which he "rounded up nearly 1,000 people ... forcing them to drink a hallucinogen that cause diarrhea and vomiting ... [and] led to serious kidney problems, and two people died, according to Amnesty International", and his "vowing to slit the throats of gay men". The Reuters story is entitled "Surpise winner of Gambia...". Slate's story is entitled "Finally, a Victory for Democracy in 2016". The Star's headline starts with "Joy, disbelief". Many others have the word "celebrate" in their headlines. —BarrelProof (talk) 04:40, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I reiterate, the article is barely above stub and all the good stuff you've noted above appears to be missing from the actual article.  The Rambling Man (talk) 07:42, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Acknowledged. That situation will improve within three days. This story is dramatically more important than a fire in a warehouse, the official naming of a few atomic elements, the retention of the world chess championship title, and a Canadian football championship (to pick four of the six stories that are now on the Wikipedia front page). —BarrelProof (talk) 19:40, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, that's your opinion.  If the article isn't improved post-haste, it matters little whether you think it's important or not, it won't be posted.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:17, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps true, but nuts. I'll try. How about helping? —BarrelProof (talk) 00:36, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Better now? —BarrelProof (talk) 03:39, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Very good work.  I've removed my oppose and now support this, it's good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:33, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]


  • Support Altblurb3 as neutral and consistent. Lihaas (talk) 10:09, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • I have offered an Altblurb4 per above, since I think Altblurb3 doesn't convey any information to a reader who is not already familiar with The Gambia. The reader needs some clue as to why this is more newsworthy than the average change of presidency of a small country. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:40, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      • I modified my Altblurb4 suggestion, since no one commented about my previous suggestion and since the cited BBC article refers to 1965 (as does the Wikipedia article on the topic). Independence began in 1965 with Elizabeth II as head of state but not with the title of president. The first president took office in 1970. The first change of president was by coup in 1994, and the next one is what is happening now, as the first change of president by popular election. —BarrelProof (talk) 02:54, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]



[Closed] Nico Rosberg
[edit]






Consensus that this retirement does not warrant breaching the general rule not to post sporting retirements.  F1 Championship result itself is already stale. BencherliteTalk 21:54, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]






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













Proposed image


Article: Nico Rosberg (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Reigning Formula One World Champion Nico Rosberg (pictured) announces his retirement from the sport.  (Post)
News source(s): Sky Sports
Credits: 




Article updated
Nominator's comments: Unexpected turn of events Mjroots (talk) 14:21, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]





On the surface, I would say probably not, from what I know, and thus oppose this. 331dot (talk) 01:41, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]


  • Oppose not noteworthy enough for a blurb on the main page. MurielMary (talk) 11:05, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support The championship title wasn't posted although nominated on time, so it makes sense to post this. -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 12:15, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Oppose  I would consider supporting multiple-title winning sportpersons/legends retiring, not this. The length of time since a reigning F1 champion retired, like the fact that he was the second father-son champion duo, is more suited to DYK than ITN. Quality-wise, as a BLP, Rosberg's article is worse than the ITNR one. Several paragraphs in his F1 career section are unsourced, as is his racing record further down. Fuebaey (talk) 16:19, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Note, this probably isn't suitable for ITN alone but I've proposed a blurb below with both the Formula One winning news and this retirement. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:42, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Oppose I would support a blurb which focused on Rosberg's winning title with a subsequent postscript, e.g. "... announcing his retirement four days later ..." or something, but the point is that the target articles still have to be principally the F1 season followed by Rosberg.  Get those up to scratch and we may have an opportunity to create a decent and helpful merged blurb for our readers' enjoyment. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:39, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Oppose Sportspeople retire and make comebacks quite often (take Michael Schumacher for example). I support posting the F1 title (though we are in quite a hurry), but not the retirement. --hydrox (talk) 15:18, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]


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




[Posted] RD: Andrew Sachs
[edit]




Article: Andrew Sachs (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC, ABC Australia
Credits: 




Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Actor, widely known for starring in (arguably) UK's most famous sitcom. Adpete (talk) 01:59, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose I heard about his passing earlier and briefly considered nominating him myself. But the article is far below acceptable standards for linking on the main page, with multiple orange tags and very poor referencing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:36, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]


The tags look frivolous to me. Lead is adequate and most of the "citation required"s are there on his IMDB. (Not volunteering to fix at the moment due to time.) Adpete (talk) 02:45, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB is not a reliable source and we don't post articles with that many glaring gaps in referencing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:57, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]



Also gone. Smurrayinchester 10:43, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]



December 1
[edit]






[Closed] The Game Awards 2016
[edit]






Older than oldest story.  Stale.  The Rambling Man (talk) 15:52, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]






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







Template:ITN candidate



  • Oppose good faith nomination. It's just not significant enough for ITN. I would however suggest this as a good DYK nomination. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:56, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Can you demonstrate that this is the equivalent of the Oscars for video games? 331dot (talk) 10:14, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • In the VG industry, there are very few industry-wide award systems (there's dozens of individual newssite/websites awards sets). Of the industry wide, two are limited to the UK (BAFTA Game Awards and The Golden Joystick Awards (the latter being a popular vote)), and the other major one is the Game Developers Choice Awards but which is done by game developers, and not so much on the consumer/publisher side, like which how the Oscars/Emmys work. Obviously, in terms of viewership aspects, it is nowhere close to the Oscars/Emmys, but if we're talking the most prestigious award that can be won by a video game, these are pretty much it that any game could possibly win.--MASEM (t) 13:29, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • 

  • Weak support - the problem with this is that it's not widely accepted as an "Oscar" for video games. Furthermore, Overwatch is certainly a popular game (20 million as given in the article, even surpassing League of Legends in South Korea), but the number of video game players out there is vastly bigger than 20 million. It is something like posting the equivalent of a Tennis "player of the year" award - there are lots of other sports. How many tennis players even know the rules of kabaddi, for example? Similarly, most video game players are not going to know how to play Overwatch. Having said that, we do have awards like the Palme d'Or on ITNR even though most movie-goers are not likely to have watched the winning film, so why not this? It's not like the article is poor, either. Banedon (talk) 12:40, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Support.  The only reasons I can come up with against posting are: 1.) the referencing, which leans heavily on Twitter and subject-publications when wider-audience publications are available (I found Rolling Stone, Forbes and Pitchfork on a quick Google search); and 2.) the relative paucity of prose in the ceremony article.  The prose that is present is excellent though, linking this event with events in the wider industry and culture.  I would normally and flatly oppose videogame blurbs, but I think this one works.128.214.53.104 (talk) 10:21, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • 

  • Oppose per AO. SpencerT♦C 17:17, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Template:Archive bottom



[Posted] New IUPAC element names
[edit]


Template:ITN candidate






  • Hm, we (actually myself) posted this already in June, when the names were chosen. There was some discussion following whether the time for post was ripe but it stayed there eventually. Just a comment. --Tone 15:50, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • Completely fair point, but it looks like in post-review that that nomination and posting was really not appropriate (ITNR for this is when IUPAC affirms the names (eg this story), not just when IUPAC proposes them) nor seemed to have strong consensus (but that's water under the bridge). This should be noted in reviewing this ITN/C. --MASEM (t) 16:08, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]


  • Hi, Tone. There were only two supports in June (for "proposed" names). This should be posted now. May I please ask that WP:ITNR be written more precisely? This is the only entry under science and there are only 118 elements in the whole universe. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:59, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]


I agree. That it was posted before should not preclude it from being posted now that it is official. Posting, I see enough support. --Tone 10:20, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]



[Closed] RD: Ousmane Sow
[edit]


Template:Archive top
Template:ITN candidate




User:The Rambling Man: Happy to expand it. Do you know why the reference formatting is so weird? I have seen this several times; it is very confusing and annoying.Zigzig20s (talk) 09:38, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What's the particular problem?  It looks basically okay to me...? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:05, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's been changed again. See my wikilink in the comment above.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:51, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]



Is that a requirement? If so, how many characters do we need? The article does not appear to be a stub.Zigzig20s (talk) 12:23, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No set character requirement but the criteria state the article must be "Of sufficient quality to be posted on the main page, as determined by a consensus of commenters." The article lacks detail and depth IMO. MurielMary (talk) 20:20, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Template:Archive bottom



[Posted] RD: Joe McKnight
[edit]


Template:ITN candidate




[Posted] Thai prince Maha Vajiralongkorn proclaimed king
[edit]


Template:ITN candidate




Yes. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:49, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]



[Closed] FARC deal ratified
[edit]


Template:Archive top
Template:ITN candidate




Article doesn't say that. Nergaal (talk) 19:58, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]



comment' updated section and added more about what th deal now entails. Its been approved despite consertantion from Uribe. Done dea.Lihaas (talk) 19:26, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]



Template:Archive bottom



[Closed] Progress MS-04
[edit]


Template:Archive top

Template:ITN candidate




Template:Archive bottom



    

  1. ^ Template:Cite news

    2. 









Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates/December_2016&oldid=1145835839"