This candidates page is integrated with the daily pages of Portal:Current events. A light green header appears under each daily section - it includes transcluded Portal:Current events items for that day. You can discuss ITN candidates under the header.
Blurbs are one-sentence summaries of the news story.
Altblurbs, labelled alt1, alt2, etc., are alternative suggestions to cover the same story.
A target article, bolded in text, is the focus of the story. Each blurb must have at least one such article, but you may also link non-target articles.
Articles in the Ongoing line describe events getting continuous coverage.
The Recent deaths (RD) line includes any living thing whose death was recently announced. Consensus may decide to create a blurb for a recent death.
All articles linked in the ITN template must pass our standards of review. They should be up-to-date, demonstrate relevance via good sourcing and have at least an acceptable quality.
Nomination steps
Make sure the item you want to nominate has an article that meets our minimum requirements and contains reliable coverage of a current event you want to create a blurb about. We will not post about events described in an article that fails our quality standards.
Find the correct section below for the date of the event (not the date nominated). Do not add sections for new dates manually - a bot does that for us each day at midnight (UTC).
Create a level 4 header with the article name (==== Your article here ====). Add (RD) or (Ongoing) if appropriate.
Then paste the {{ITN candidate}} template with its parameters and fill them in. The news source should be reliable, support your nomination and be in the article. Write your blurb in simple present tense. Below the template, briefly explain why we should post that event. After that, save your edit. Your nomination is ready!
You may add {{ITN note}} to the target article's talk page to let editors know about your nomination.
The better your article's quality, the better it covers the event and the wider its perceived significance (see WP:ITNSIGNIF for details), the better your chances of getting the blurb posted.
When the article is ready, updated and there is consensus to post, you can mark the item as (Ready). Remove that wording if you feel the article fails any of these necessary criteria.
Admins should always separately verify whether these criteria are met before posting blurbs marked (Ready). For more guidance, check WP:ITN/A.
If satisfied, change the header to (Posted).
Where there is no consensus, or the article's quality remains poor, change the header to (Closed) or (Not posted).
Sometimes, editors ask to retract an already-posted nomination because of a fundamental error or because consensus changed. If you feel the community supports this, remove the item and mark the item as (Pulled).
Voicing an opinion on an item
Format your comment to contain "support" or "oppose", and include a rationale for your choice. In particular, address the notability of the event, the quality of the article, and whether it has been updated.
Pick an older item to review near the bottom of this page, before the eligibility runs out and the item scrolls off the page and gets abandoned in the archive, unused and forgotten.
Review an item even if it has already been reviewed by another user. You may be the first to spot a problem, or the first to confirm that an identified problem was fixed. Piling on the list of "support!" votes will help administrators see what is ready to be posted on the Main Page.
Tell about problems in articles if you see them. Be bold and fix them yourself if you know how, or tell others if it's not possible.
Add simple "support!" or "oppose!" votes without including your reasons. Similarly, curt replies such as "who?", "meh", or "duh!" are not helpful. A vote without reasoning means little for us, please elaborate yourself.
Oppose an item just because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. We post a lot of such content, so these comments are generally unproductive.
Accuse other editors of supporting, opposing or nominating due to a personal bias (such as ethnocentrism). We at ITN do not handle conflicts of interest.
Comment on a story without first reading the relevant article(s).
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)
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)
Nominator's comments: High toll count althrough not known how many dead yet. Lihaas (talk) 06:43, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - all 92 on board confirmed dead. Article in good shape. Added ALT blurb and img. Mjroots (talk) 09:15, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose article too brief, reference errors, otherwise a suitable candidate. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:50, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The reference error has been fixed. Article is being expanded as fast as sources allow. Mjroots (talk) 10:11, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support; the blurb could also mention that the Alexandrov Ensemble was on board (if a plane carrying the New York Philharmonic crashed, I would think we'd be more specific than "92 people") Albrecht (talk) 14:44, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That 64 members of the Alexandrov Ensemble were killed in the crash is definitely worth including in the blurb. --Hegvald (talk) 15:23, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alt blurb 2 given the above. Oppose image which is not clear and adds very little to the item. Sam Walton (talk) 15:27, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is Russavia. Perhaps add the fact that renowned Russian human rights activist Elizaveta Glinka was also killed. Ping Ymblanter: Dr. Lisa needs an article. 58.7.183.9 (talk) 15:55, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A passenger bus carrying 46 people, mostly school groups from Tonga, crashes in the Gisborne Region of New Zealand, approximately 30 kilometers south of the city of Gisborne. Two people died while several were injured, with some still hospitalized. (New Zealand Herald)
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]
Support. Article looks well-sourced. Support blurb for well-known musician. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:53, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This article is undersourced. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:09, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support. More recent than the other deaths current listed. Richard75 (talk) 16:47, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all a factor in this process. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:19, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD with improvements, oppose blurb There are a few CN tags in it. However I cant consider him iconic like suggested. The article does not suggest the importance of someone Bowie or Prince. --MASEM (t) 17:00, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose pending citation. The article contains: "he was told by doctors that he could die 'at any time' unless he changed his lifestyle of drugs, smoking and heavy drinking", without citation. It is also the only reference in the article to drugs (though smoking and drinking are discussed elsewhere with citations). Per BLP that kind of potentially defamatory statement absolutely needs to either be cited or removed. There are other details that could also use a citation, but others are comparatively innocuous. I have no opinion on whether he should have a blurb or RD. Dragons flight (talk) 17:08, 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]
Yes, I'd agree that 68 is "not totally old". He was well-known in UK. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:36, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD. Not seeing the level of importance compared to Bowie/Prince/Cohen and it appears he'd been ill for quite a while. Nohomersryan (talk) 17:24, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose until citations are provided. Definitely an RD only nomination, not significant enough and not enough significant reaction for a blurb. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:49, 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]
Gosh yes, they've just magically reappeared. Although his writing credits are sourced at each of those individual blue-linked song articles. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:46, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We're not evaluating those articles. I think this is now ready. Support RD only. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:27, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb influential in his field, but not at Bowie and Prince's level. Death is not shocking/suspicious to be its own story either Valentina Cardoso (talk) 19:55, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Posted to RD. Discussion about a blurb can continue if desired. Thryduulf (talk) 22:49, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD only there won't be a Death of Rick Parfitt article ever, and while his death was not exactly expected, it won't have the same impact as Bowie or Prince, as noted above. "Oh here we are and here we are and here we go. All aboard and we're hittin' the road...." RIP RP. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:57, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Firstly, per the NY Attorney General, the Foundation can't be dissolved while their investigation into past impropriety is ongoing. Hence, at best Trump is announcing his intention to do something that will happen at some poorly defined time in the future. In addition, even if the Foundation is dissolved, I don't think that event would be significant enough news to warrant inclusion at ITN. Dragons flight (talk) 08:08, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Dragon flight. Neljack (talk) 08:57, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The bodies of over 100 Syrian ArmyPOWs are reportedly found in what was the last rebel held territory of East Aleppo. Syrian Army officers claim they were executed by rebel forces. (Al-Masdar News)
An Afriqiyah Airways flight originating from Sabha, Libya, is hijacked and forced to make an emergency landing in Malta. Hijackers threaten to blow up the aircraft with grenades, but the standoff ends peacefully with all hostages released and both hijackers surrendering. (Chicago Tribune)
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
As new Libyan production comes on line, the world price of crude oil falls below $55 a barrel. (Reuters)
Bonanza Creek Energy says it plans to file for bankruptcy on or by January 5, 2017 and hopes to exit the process quickly, within the first quarter. (Reuters)
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]
Citation still needed for the claim she was regarded as a heroine, but good to go when that's fixed. Thryduulf (talk) 22:56, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've just taken another look and had to add another two citation needed tags and a by whom tag. Thryduulf (talk) 12:25, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: 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]
Article uses present perfect, a rationale and other references showing the notability would help. μηδείς (talk) 01:16, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I would prefer a chronological order with "early life", "career" (with subsections), and "death". The "personal life" section at the beginning is confusing.Zigzig20s (talk) 02:03, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Does this spacewalk mean I'm notable enough for Wikipedia's RD section?"
Hilarious that a request for notability is requested for an astronaut, doubly so since we no longer need that as a criterion for posting. But still.... the article needs work, but not much, so it's weak support for me right now. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:23, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My request is for more sources showing that the death is notable. A search of Google News shows an entire two headline stories of any import, from the WaPo and the BBC. As for the picture, it's pretty, and I have used it as wallpaper in the past. But the news coverage does not seem significant. Maybe the Sunday papers will have more obits. μηδείς (talk) 04:48, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you're joking. You asked for "references showing the notability", not "more sources showing the death is notable". This is all over the news and has been for 24 hours now. The Guardian, The Daily Telegraph, the BBC, the London Standard, NASA, Yahoo, dozens of crappy US regional news sites, all showing this story for nearly a day... The Rambling Man (talk) 09:57, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose trivia. There's probably a wider article in which this would have a one-line inclusion. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:34, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't that true of all notable aviation accident articles? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:04, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:AIRCRASH for one view, generally speaking the aviation project has it spot on, their editors are generally precise and objective. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:09, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So you won't personally be opening the WP:AfD for this "trivia", then? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:23, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's in the list of hijackings, yes, as it certainly should be. But you're saying it should not be an article, but just a redirect? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:45, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Is it more significant than all the other hijackings in that list? The Rambling Man (talk) 23:02, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why should it need to be? I see no guidance at all about hijackings at the WP:AIRCRASH page you linked. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:08, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, fair enough, I should have linked WP:AIRHIJACK, hmmm. In any case, the List of aircraft hijackings covers this well enough. It's still a bit of a "meh" story, and you'll come up with a suitable YouTube video to cover that, I'm sure... The Rambling Man (talk) 23:18, 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]
Oppose over lack of any argument for "individual merits", see above. HaEr48 (talk) 08:53, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support, it's all over the news, as major hijackings are rare these days, and we have a pretty decent article. If you don't think we should have an article, AFD is that way. Ed[talk][majestic titan] 17:55, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Hijackings are (thankfully) much, much rarer these days than they used to be (see the 1970s). Also, any hijacking which ends without bloodshed should be newsworthy in itself. (Merry Christmas to all, and to all a good night.) - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 22:23, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Marking as ready, seems to be a consensus in favour of posting. Mjroots (talk) 06:08, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[Posted] United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334
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).[1]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]
Support. While Netanyahu is already saying Israel will ignore this, it is a significant shift in US policy that this was allowed to pass(although a temporary shift, until January 20th) and, as pointed out, there are already diplomatic effects. 331dot (talk) 09:14, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Editor of Italian Vogue magazine for 30 years. Article and publication list seem fully sourced. MurielMary (talk) 10:31, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - article meets the necessary quality threshold to appear on MP. Mjroots (talk) 16:08, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - definitely for RD.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:23, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Posted - Looks good to go. Sam Walton (talk) 17:10, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting support good enough for RD, nice to see action in action. Well played. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:10, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[Removed from ongoing and posted as a blurb] Aleppo
Support obviously, with a section link to avoid a forced scroll down? Do we do that? Ed[talk][majestic titan] 04:05, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we do on occasion. Stephen 04:35, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How many times did the Syrian conflict get posted, and how often? Nergaal (talk) 07:27, 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? — xaosfluxTalk 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.
German officials offer a reward of up to 100,000 euros ($104,000) for 24-year-old Tunisian asylum-seeker Anis Amri, whose identifying information was found in the truck used in the attack. (Reuters)
Five people are killed in a Taliban attack on Afghan Member of Parliament Mir Wali's home in Helmand Province. At least three security guards and two civilians were killed in the assault; Wali and others were injured. The gunmen are holding a number of occupants hostage. (PressTV)(Reuters)
A federal jury orders DuPont to pay $2 million to a man with testicular cancer after finding the company liable for diseases linked to C8, a Teflon-making chemical. (Reuters)(CNBC)
Gambia's Chief Justice sets January 10, 2017, for the hearing by the Supreme Court, made up of judges from Nigeria and Sierra Leone, of PresidentYahya Jammeh's ruling party's legal challenge of the December 1 election results. (Reuters)
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]
Support one para uncited but the overall article is in good shape. Ed[talk][majestic titan] 04:06, 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]
Weak support some linkrot and one unreferenced claim, I did a tiny bit of tidy-up. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:41, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
PostedStephen 08:50, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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]
Support, ideally the article could be a bit longer. --Tone 20:36, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wait. This needs more in-line references, and it should be longer. Also, can we add a couple of pictures? (Is there a Wikimedia chapter in the DRC?)Zigzig20s (talk) 21:20, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have added some "international reactions". This still needs more in-line references, but I'll be happy to support this once they've been added.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:11, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral decent article, but needs more citations. Some contentious info there. Ed[talk][majestic titan] 04:07, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support- Additional references have been added. Images of current events from the world's poorest and most remote places are almost impossible to come by. I will try to upload a low resolution image under a fair use rationale as was done for the 2016 Eséka train derailment a few months back.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 11:01, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Posting. --Tone 11:14, 23 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]
The International Committee of the Red Cross claims that 25,000 residents of the rebel-held territories have been evacuated from Aleppo as Hezbollah warns remaining residents in the former rebel enclave to leave "as quickly as possible". (AP)
[Closed] Campi Flegrei supervolcano may be about to explode
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.
Oppose wait until it explodes, or its imminent explosion causes major disruption. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:45, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose posting a "maybe", unless it actually explodes or a large evacuation is ordered(like hundreds of thousands), something disruptive on a large scale. 331dot (talk) 21:53, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above ... although don't volcanoes erupt as opposed to explode? Banedon (talk) 03:01, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now. ITN isn't for things that might happen. It's for things that have happened. Lepricavark(talk) 03:25, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Volcanic eruptions, like earthquakes, are often separated by hundreds of years. An increased likelihood of an eruption is far different from saying an eruption is imminent. Dragons flight (talk) 07:30, 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.
[Posted] 2016 San Pablito Market fireworks explosion
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]
Support Now 27 dead, 70 injured and the story is receiving significant news coverage worldwide.Michael5046 (talk) 01:58, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Notable but to be posted after significant expansion Sherenk1 (talk) 07:13, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - pending improvements Spiderone 09:35, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Pending expansion. (Added AP as source.) Sca (talk) 17:39, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment thanks to all for your comments here. I'll try to expand this tonight after work, but that'll be several hours—if anyone else can pitch in, I'd appreciate it! Ed[talk][majestic titan] 18:07, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And others did. As an IP just added in the section header, this should be ready to post. Ed[talk][majestic titan] 02:31, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
PostedStephen 02:36, 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.
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Oppose under-referenced, particularly the vast filmography. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:13, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Commentwould love to see this go up with a few more improvements with references + the marked dead link. I'm not worried about the filmography; we posted Zsa Zsa, after all. (and no, I'm not participating in another discussion here about filmographies) Ed[talk][majestic titan] 23:52, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Zigzig20s:Are references 9 and 10 reliable? (I'm asking; I genuinely don't know). Aside from those, I think it's good enough/support for RD. Ed[talk][majestic titan] 01:29, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the prose is fine, it is referenced and updated. What is the policy on bluelinked WP articles - do they need to be referenced or are they accepted? (not looking for a discussion, but a statement of current policy). If this article's filmography is in line with policy then I'm happy to support its posting. MurielMary (talk) 11:00, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As per various discussion here and at the film project, having a blue link isn't sufficient. At the very least (and this is still way sub-optimal) the bluelinked article in each case should be checked to see that verifiable reliable sources (i.e. not IMDB) are used to reference the facts in question. Of course, depending on linked articles for verification is very poor and subject to flux. Also, per Wikipedia policy WP:V, anything which is likely to be or has been challenged (e.g. by my comment above, or by adding a maintenance tag) must be referenced with an inline citation. Tradition, and "what we normally do" and excuses around creating work for others is interesting, but irrelevant. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:06, 21 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]
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 [2]), 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]
Posted, due in very large part to User:Zigzig20s doing the grunt work in sourcing the filmography. The discussion on how much of this is required - which there seems to be quite a bit of disagreement about - would be better at WT:ITN than here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:24, 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]
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.
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]
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 Geniustalk 11:32, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Removing. --Tone 12:12, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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)
Three people are shot by a gunman at an Islamic centre near the Zürich Hauptbahnhof train station. A manhunt was conducted for the assailant, a 24-year-old Swiss citizen of Ghanaian descent, whose body was found close to the Islamic centre. (GlobalNews)
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]
Right, but it appears in this story, that the bottles were primarily methanol instead of as-labeled ethanol. EG from the RT article "A sticker on the bath lotion said that it contains some 93 percent of ethyl alcohol, hawthorn extract, lemon oil, diethyl phthalate and glycerol. A chemical probe of the bath lotion has shown that in reality, Boyaryshnik (Hawthorn) contains methyl alcohol and antifreeze, Russia’s Investigative Committee said." (Antifreeze is typically methyl and ethyl glycols which are equally poisonous too). --MASEM (t) 04:59, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Masem, I think we're talking in the same direction about different points. :-) Never mind me. Ed[talk][majestic titan] 23:56, 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]
Oppose unless there's some kind of lasting impact, it appears that this kind of thing is all too common. Yes the death toll is high, but then so are death tolls in the all-too-common bombings in Yemen that don't even get articles, let alone nominations. 2015 Mumbai alcohol poisoning incident with twice as many deaths wasn't posted, similarly 2012 Czech Republic methanol poisonings had a comparable number of deaths and wasn't posted. Not significant. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:39, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's pretty early to see lasting impact; such a standard would knock out a lot of ITN noms. That said, there's indications in Medvedev's statement that this will have a lasting impact. Second, you stated elsewhere recently that "Our community evolves in time and what found a consensus last year may not this year." Why would we let what was posted (a) year(s) ago dictate what we post now? Ed[talk][majestic titan] 23:54, 20 December 2016 (UTC) - revised 03:05, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone construct an alternative blurb that does not start with a number per our MoS? Stephen 00:52, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Stephen: Done, but it's a little warped. I'd prefer the first blurb with the numerals spelled out, as per WP:NUMNOTES' "There were many attacks. Twenty-three men were killed." part, unless you have a better way to word it? Ed[talk][majestic titan] 01:21, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Posted, accepting the original blurb Stephen 03:16, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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]
Wait. Could we please stop to out-run news media? Let this story develop and the smoke clear, then we'll post. --bender235 (talk) 21:07, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - there is nothing to wait. It is very clear that was a terrorist attack. - EugεnS¡m¡on 21:54, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is, when this was nominated, the article was one line long. Now it's better, except for the {{cn}}s... -- KTC (talk) 22:06, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support it seems that ISIS claimed responsibility. Nergaal (talk) 22:40, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wait until berliner police will have a press conerence. --Holapaco77 (talk) 22:50, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support once the tag is resolved. Could be expanded as well, but that'll be happening even as I write this. Ed[talk][majestic titan] 23:47, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wait This yet has been proven as a terrorist attack; the police are working under that aegis just in case, since the attack does mirror the Nice one very closely; but this could have simply been an out-of-control truck. That still would be ITN-able, but it would be best to assure the article reflects the details appropriately. --MASEM (t) 00:26, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article reflects the current state of knowledge about the event; it and the ITN blurb can be altered as more information is received. Ed[talk][majestic titan] 01:30, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Once more information becomes available. This is Paul (talk) 00:59, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Marked Ready as article meets three prose paragraph minimum, and has basic essential info without major dispute over accuracy. μηδείς (talk) 02:47, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support It needs expansion rather badly, but I do believe it meets, barely, our standards and appears to be adequately sourced. The merits of the nomination are pretty obvious. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:02, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Topic is ITN material, but perhaps some greater detail as story develops would be advisable. Sca (talk) 03:18, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support immediate posting. Clearly important enough to be posted, there are no glaring policy violations on the article currently (everything is sourced, etc.) and expansion/improvement is ongoing (which posting to the main page will encourage further). IgnorantArmies(talk) 03:54, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support per IgnorantArmies. Pretty sad to have another body count blurb on ITN, but then given the large amount of coverage it's not something to shy away from. Banedon (talk) 03:57, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support alternative blurb because this was intentional. Emily Goldstein (talk) 07:23, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Espresso Addict:This image of the truck you posted is clearly a copyviol and it has been proposed for speedy delection. Please use a free-licence image. --Holapaco77 (talk) 14:00, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As the news has come to report that this was an intentional attack, I have updated the blurb to match the article and its sources. JehochmanTalk 14:17, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The blurb previously said "is driven into". It now says "rams". Martinevans123 (talk) 16:53, 20 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
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]
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]
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. [3], 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]
Support blurb Both articles are looking good so far. I would like to see at least one section + a lead in the assassination article, and then this is postable. Mamyles (talk) 18:47, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nominator's reasoning. Merging of the articles for the incident and Karlov will definitely be unnecessary, so no need to wait for that. Aria1561 (talk) 20:29, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose there is not one single good reason to have a separate assassination article, so until the detail is merged back into the main article, this is a non-starter. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:29, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Karlov is notable enough to have a standalone article; the article also has a sufficient amount of prose, while the assassination is more notable than Karlov himself. This is all the necessary reasoning needed to have separate articles. Aria1561 (talk) 21:38, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The international reaction segment will likely grow a lot, and will have little to do with the ambassador article. Nergaal (talk) 22:46, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb. Significant international news development. The assassination article is the more significant but if desired the bio can also be linked. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:44, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb exactly per Newyorkbrad. Thryduulf (talk) 21:48, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb major incident with unknown consequencies. - EugεnS¡m¡on 21:53, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb and question: Could a screenshot of the video of the assasin standing there after the deed be included in the article under fair use? Zwerg Nase (talk) 22:11, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've marked this as ready. This can be posted with a merge discussion pending, since that tag is neither red nor orange. The blurb can easily be changed to feature the new merged article when/if that occurs. Mamyles (talk) 22:15, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment editorial nonsense. We have a near stub for the individual, a near stub for the assassination, so the two should be merged into the BLP and the assassination form a later section in the bio. We don't create spin-off stubs from stubs. Seriously, what's happening around here these days? The rush to post is overwhelming the encyclopedia's goals, enabled by certain admins. Terrifying state of affairs. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:46, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. - Merge discussion closed with consensus against merging, so no outstanding issues. Sam Walton (talk) 22:47, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Worst post of the day. That we have two plus-stubs covering mainly the same thing is stupid. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:50, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: 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]
support - for RD. first openly gay brittish rabi. significant.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:41, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There are a couple of in-line tags that need addressing. Sam Walton (talk) 12:07, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[Posted] Anti-Hydrogen Spectrum Observed for First Time
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]
Comment can someone explain what this means in somewhat simpler terms? :-) Is there an article to link to? Ed[talk][majestic titan] 23:47, 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]
Support on significance - easily. Now we just need an article ... Banedon (talk) 00:38, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps antihydrogen, but as of time of writing that article hasn't been updated yet. Banedon (talk) 00:49, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support with proper article I would think that antimatter may be better, but it would require a new "Properties" section to include this result. --MASEM (t) 01:15, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking perhaps CPT theorem, but that topic is quite technical. The antimatter article is probably the best place. Banedon (talk) 04:24, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support in principle, as this is a major advance in particle physics. However the blurb is terrible and too long (I've added an alt2) and the antihydrogen article needs a proper update. Modest Geniustalk 11:38, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Added Alt3, I agree that antihydrogen should be the target article. --Tone 12:19, 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 Geniustalk 12:35, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support but a simple blurb: "Researchers at CERN confirm that antimatter spectra is identical to matter spectra." Nergaal (talk) 13:33, 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 Geniustalk 13:46, 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]
Rebels attack and burn several buses en route to evacuate ill and injured people from the besieged Syrian villages of Al-Fu'ah and Kafriya. (The Guardian)
An explosion outside a military camp in southern Yemen kills at least 49 people and injures many more. The explosion is believed to have been caused by a suicide bomber wearing an explosive vest. (AP)(BBC)
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]
Oppose tinpot cup and deficient article. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:13, 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 Geniustalk 11:45, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Article needs updating Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
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]
Support - article has been improved. Mjroots (talk) 06:14, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose once again a filmography lacking in refs. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:03, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support it's my opinion that filmographies are supported by the films and shows listed, not unlike plot summaries. I've removed the citation needed banner given that barely any actor articles have fully cited reference sections on-wiki. Such a requirement here will have the practical effect of banning all actor articles from being posted on ITN. Ed[talk][majestic titan] 08:49, 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]
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]
Regretfully oppose in current state due to lack of citations for filmography. Have added some but the list probably needs to be culled to remove those which can't be/haven't yet been referenced in order for the article to be main-page ready. MurielMary (talk) 11:36, 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]
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
Oppose per TRM. I would add that while this is unfortunate, military personnel accept risks like this when they sign up. 331dot (talk) 11:57, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. If this was a slow news period, maybe, but military aircraft accidents generally aren't treated with the same severity as commercial aircraft. --MASEM (t) 20:56, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Masem:: If this was a slow news period ...—you do realize that the top item in ITN is currently six days old, right? :-) Ed[talk][majestic titan] 21:01, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support, well-cited air crash of the type ITN normally supports, and the top of ITN is in severe need of an update. Ed[talk][majestic titan] 21:01, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, "military personnel accept risks like this when they sign up" would be more pertinent if the aircraft had been shot down in a military conflict. But it seems this was simply a training mission with a landing in poor visibility. I don't know of any agreed fatality criterion for air accidents, civil vs military. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:32, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with above. Banedon (talk) 00:38, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken, although military training is also somewhat dangerous in some cases. 331dot (talk) 00:42, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support per The ed17 - I wanted to oppose on the grounds of there being too many body count blurbs, but then if this is posted it's also pushing out a body count blurb so it's no big deal I guess. Banedon (talk) 00:38, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it shouldn't really matter if news is slow or not, we shouldn't lower standards just because of that. This is a military crash, with no long-lasting impact, a crash in bad weather of a military aircraft is not significant per WP:AIRCRASH (an essay, yes, but a long-standing guide to such aircraft disaster notability). 2015 Indonesian Air Force Lockheed C-130 Hercules crash was significant, this accident simply is not. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:57, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ed and Banedon. --Tavix(talk) 21:45, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per TRM. Yogwi21 (talk) 02:18, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[Closed] Tim Duncan Jersey Retirement
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.
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]
At best this would rate DYK treatment, although I am not sure it would meet the update requirements. μηδείς (talk) 04:08, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose Extremely trivial sports news. Retiring a number is uncommon but far from unheard of. --MASEM (t) 04:08, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose This is sports trivia. Gfcvoice (talk) 06:43, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and suggest closure. Nice spirit in the nomination but simply not what I'd expect to see in the news section of a global encyclopedia. Would probably fill a 15-second slot on Fox Sports, but absolutely no real impact. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:58, 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.
References
Nominators often include links to external websites and other references in discussions on this page. It is usually best to provide such links using the inline URL syntax [http://example.com] rather than using <ref></ref> tags, because that keeps all the relevant information in the same place as the nomination without having to jump to this section, and facilitates the archiving process.
For the times when <ref></ref> tags are being used, here are their contents:
In the news toolbox.jpg)
_(cropped).jpg)
