Jump to content

Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:In the news

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mamyles (talk | contribs) at 20:04, 1 March 2018 (→‎RD: Barry Crimmins: support, +source). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Click here to nominate an item for In the news. In the news toolbox
Shortcut

This page provides a place to discuss new items for inclusion on In the news (ITN), a protected template on the Main Page (see past items in the ITN archives). Do not report errors in ITN items that are already on the Main Page here— discuss those at the relevant section of WP:ERRORS.

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.

Iga Świątek and Carlos Alcaraz
Iga Świątek and Carlos Alcaraz

view — page history — related changes — edit

Glossary

  • 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.

Purge this page to update the cache

Headers

  • 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.

Please do...

Shortcut
  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.

Please do not...

Shortcut
  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. Comment on a story without first reading the relevant article(s).
  5. Oppose a recurring item here because you disagree with the recurring items criteria. Discuss them here.
  6. Use ITN as a forum for your own political or personal beliefs. Such comments are irrelevant to the outcome and are potentially disruptive.

Suggesting updates

There are two places where you can request corrections to posted items:

  • Anything that does not change the intent of the blurb (spelling, grammar, markup issues, updating death tolls etc.) should be discussed at WP:Errors.
  • Discuss major changes in the blurb's intent or very complex updates as part of the current ITNC nomination.

Suggestions

March 1

March 1, 2018 (2018-03-01) (Thursday)
Business and economy

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

Sports

February 28

February 28, 2018 (2018-02-28) (Wednesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sports

RD: Barry Crimmins

Article: Barry Crimmins (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Rolling Stone
Credits:

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

 GCG (talk) 19:58, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support The article is of sufficient quality to post. Mamyles (talk) 20:04, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Canadian banknotes

Snow Close Obviously a good faith nomination but this is not going to get posted. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:47, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Articles: Withdrawn Canadian banknotes (talk · history · tag) and Canadian dollar (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In Canada, the banknote denominations of C$1,000, $500, $25, $2 and $1 are withdrawn as legal tender. (Post)
News source(s): CBC, Huffington Post
Both articles need updating
  • Oppose. Individual notes and coins cease to be legal tender all the time (the English paper £10 note also ceases to be legal tender this week), and the linked article makes it clear that these are obsolete notes which haven't been produced since the last century, not a current issue being withdrawn. ("Ceased to be legal tender" doesn't mean they suddenly become worthless, either; it just means you can no longer spend them in shops and need to exchange them in a bank.) This isn't remotely a big deal, and if it is ITN-worthy will open a spectacular floodgate; there are 200+ countries in the world, and probably on any given day one of them is either issuing a new note/coin or withdrawing an old one. ‑ Iridescent 23:19, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Iridescent. Not remotely ITN material. Black Kite (talk) 23:21, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - perhaps attempt a nomination at DYK, as this item would be more suitable thataways. Stormy clouds (talk) 23:25, 28 February 2018 (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.

February 27

February 27, 2018 (2018-02-27) (Tuesday)
International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

RD: M. Jaishankar

Article: M. Jaishankar (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The New Indian Express
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: Indian criminal who committed suicide at the age of 41. Article is reasonably referenced, but may require some work. Stormy clouds (talk) 18:14, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose that is one bleak BLP. But oppose anyway because of " presumably because he was upset over his failure to escape" for example. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:08, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@The Rambling Man: - Removed, as there is no source to justify such a claim. Please detail any other such issues so that I may rectify them. Thanks, Stormy clouds (talk) 20:12, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • This reads as a string of accusations, suppositions and arrests, but has little detail on actual convictions. Whilst few will mourn his man we must still adhere to BLP. Stephen 23:32, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for RD. I for one will not mourn this man, but the sourcing on the article looks solid. The facts appear to be presented as neutrally as possible. Challenger l (talk) 00:46, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Sourcing is adequate, and article seems to be neutral. --Jayron32 02:47, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't help but wonder if this is really necessary. Sure, we aren't supposed to evaluate RDs on the basis of anything but article quality, but do we really think it's a good idea to put a convicted serial rapist and murderer on the front page? We can post anyone who has recently died (if article quality is satisfactory), but that doesn't automatically mean we should. Lepricavark (talk) 05:56, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • RD is meant to be indifferent to why a person is notable (though it should be noted that not all convicted criminals necessary are notable per BLP1E). --Masem (t) 06:22, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I know that. I'm just saying that it's okay to make an exception to the rule once in a while. Lepricavark (talk) 14:51, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know that we should implement this policy - I can see it being a slippy slope argument (Charles Manson was posted, remember?), and we must refrain from righting great wrongs. Stormy clouds (talk) 07:35, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the actual text of RIGHTGREATWRONGS and it is not applicable here. I'm not suggesting that we implement a new policy. My point is simply that we should reconsider whether we want to give any acknowledgement to a recently deceased serial rapist and murderer. And I'm not sure the comparison with Manson is apples to apples, as Manson was a household name for decades. Lepricavark (talk) 14:51, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Lepricavark: I understand your logic, I just don't necessarily agree. Under the same principle, we would not post major terror attacks as they would bring attention to terror groups like Daesh. Recent death are posted provided the article quality is sufficient, and making alterations to this rule is not, admittedly only in my opinion, a good idea. If others do not agree, so be it, but we are an encyclopedia, and should refrain from suppressing encyclopedic content of sufficient quality due to moral quandaries. Stormy clouds (talk) 14:58, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing wrong with this proposal, if is presented in the proper forum and approved by the community. I think you'd find that the implementation would be extremely difficult. The current standard is very clean: omitting a honorable person is not a travesty, including a vile person is not an endorsement. We are only saying we have this article you can look at that we all think is pretty good. Once we get into moral judgements... how do we treat O.J. Simpson, Pete Rose, or Art Schlichter? Billy Graham faced opposition due to his homophobia. (Oh boy, it's going to be fun when this pushes Sridevi off MP) GCG (talk) 19:25, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support article seems adequate. RD is for all biographical articles. An RD posting does not imply a value judgement on a person, any more than the presence of an article in the first place does. --LukeSurl t c 17:54, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose RGR notwithstanding, this article reads like it was written by a fan; I keep hearing Bill Hader doing his macabre Keith Morrison impression as I read it. The proseline is rough. This really isn't spotlight material. GCG (talk) 19:38, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - we now have editors claiming that the article is not neutral as it consists of accusations against the subject, editors claiming that it is too positive towards the subject, and a majority claiming that it is in fact neutral. The discussion is now fractured into literally all possible viewpoints, so this may need the attention of an uninvolved admin to make an assessment one way or another. Stormy clouds (talk) 19:43, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have removed the Ready tag. Looking over the discussion I am not satisfied that there is an adequate consensus for posting at this time. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:27, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Too many sentences unsourced, or sourced to tabloid newspapers. Black Kite (talk) 20:44, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Are we reading the same article? Because I can't find a single statement in the article which does not have a direct, inline source to a reliable source. Most of it is sourced to the Times of India and New Indian Express, which seem to be legitimate journalism. Can you elaborate on which statements are not connected to reliable sources? --Jayron32 14:33, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Quini

Article: Quini (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Guardian
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Spain and Barcelona footballer who was kidnapped in 1981. Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:03, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak oppose Two CN tags and one unreferenced table. Otherwise not bad. Fix those issues and we should be good to go. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:54, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose RSSSF looks to be a wiki? GCG (talk) 02:05, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    No it's not. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:10, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
okay then. Support GCG (talk) 17:14, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Article needs more sources and copyedit. –Ammarpad (talk) 09:54, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I’m travelling and on mobile only right now but I will get to the referencing issues as soon as I can. Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:14, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

February 26

February 26, 2018 (2018-02-26) (Monday)
Arts and culture

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

[Posted] RD: Li Boguang

Article: Li Boguang (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Washington Post
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Article is rather short, but is sufficient given the subject. I spent a while on expansion and referencing, so I feel that references are to an alright, albeit not ideal, standard. Stormy clouds (talk) 21:18, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Support It's a step above a stub and I added a CN. But while not ideal, I do think the referencing is minimally adequate. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:26, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ad Orientem: - sourced the CN tag in this diff, so I removed it. Thanks, Stormy clouds (talk) 21:33, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose The article is in awesome shape, but it is lacking information on death (except for the one sentence mention in the lead). A section regarding his death would be perfect and would expand the article and seeing many attribute his treatment by the government as a contributor to his death, would make it great to include in the Death section. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:49, 26 February 2018 (UTC) Support Issues fixed. Perfect condition. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:59, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@TDKR Chicago 101: - as of this diff,  Done
  • Oppose until the death is better sourced; a statement like 'media outlets considering his demise to be "suspicious"' attributed solely to Radio Free Asia (a US government propaganda channel which doesn't even make a pretence of neutrality) isn't something that should be linked from Wikipedia's main page. ‑ Iridescent 21:54, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Iridescent: - missed that. My bad. It is now also attributed to Reuters and the Washington Post. Stormy clouds (talk) 22:20, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

February 25

February 25, 2018 (2018-02-25) (Sunday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sports

[Posted] 2018 Papua New Guinea earthquake

Article: 2018 Papua New Guinea earthquake (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ At least 34 people are killed in landslides caused by a 7.5 Mw earthquake in Papua New Guinea. (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Article is in good shape. Although earthquakes in PNG are not uncommon this one hit the main island causing more damage than usual (It seems that most of the other recent ones tend to hit on offshore islands). EternalNomad (talk) 22:12, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Most damaging earthquake in 20 years, and the article is well-updated. SpencerT♦C 23:34, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Large earthquake for Papua New Guinea. Over 30 dead and death toll rising. Good article. ShakyIsles (talk) 00:32, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - ITN ready, significant number of deaths as well.BabbaQ (talk) 00:33, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I don't think this one is going to controversial. The subject is clearly ITN material and the article is in good shape. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:46, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted Stephen 00:58, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Winter Olympics closing ceremony

Article: 2018 Winter Olympics closing ceremony (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The 2018 Winter Olympics closes with Norway leading the medal table. (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Because even some of our regular editors are confused, I'll nominate this, it's in a junk state but who knows, someone might fix it. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:20, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose Multiple completely unsourced sections, years old tag, very short not offering any new information. The content it offers was already more elaborately covered in opening ITN post and just removed ongoing item. –Ammarpad (talk) 05:45, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – The fanfares of the finale are fading fast. Sca (talk) 15:18, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was not confused, I merely pointed out below that ITNR lists that the closing merits posting, and thought discussing it in the ongoing removal discussion made sense. If the article is of poor quality, as is the case, it should not be posted. If people want it off the list, that discussion should be started. 331dot (talk) 16:35, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • We simply don't conflate the removal of an ongoing with a proposal to post a shambolic article. You know that. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:51, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Advisory: See this. – Sca (talk) 01:00, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:20, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • We conflated the opening plus moving it to Ongoing. (" would also support letting this go to ongoing when it rolls off the bottom of the blurbs list", "But sure, this is ITNR, and ongoing after the blurb rolls out is what we commonly do for the Olympics") This was simply the reverse. 331dot (talk) 00:30, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - article is dire. Stormy clouds (talk) 21:49, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Sorry but the article quality is not up to scratch for the main page. In this case the issues go beyond the usual poor referencing. This is a poorly written mess. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:05, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Not gonna make it. Suggest close. Sca (talk) 14:19, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] RD: Ainsley Gotto

Article: Ainsley Gotto (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Australian
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.

 --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:28, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[Removed] Remove: 2018 Winter Olympics

Article: 2018 Winter Olympics (talk · history · tag)
Ongoing item removal (Post)

Nominator's comments: It's all over. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:22, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Per ITNR the closing is posted. 331dot (talk) 15:24, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am actually not a fan of posting the closing, it is somewhat less prominent than the opening. We can remove the Ongoing tomorrow, for example. --Tone 16:47, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Converted type from rem to no, added possible blurb, if we wanted to have one instead. If I should have opened a separate candidate, please feel free to revert/fix 184.153.25.119 (talk) 17:05, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    This is about removing the event from Ongoing. If someone wants to nominate the closing ceremony then that's a different nomination. Please people, focus. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:09, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support my, how time flies! Lepricavark (talk) 17:36, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the right thing since it's over. –Ammarpad (talk) 20:31, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - it is no longer ongoing. Stormy clouds (talk) 21:09, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed Stephen 22:20, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

February 24

February 24, 2018 (2018-02-24) (Saturday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Politics and elections

Sports

[Posted] RD: Bud Luckey

Article: Bud Luckey (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Hollywood Reporter, Animation Magazine
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Article has been updated and is well sourced. Oscar-nominated Pixar animator. Death was announced today by his son. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:20, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - fully referenced, long enough. RD ready.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:22, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted Stephen 00:56, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Stephen: One support and already posted. Great double standards, keep it up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manish2542 (talk • contribs)

Manish2542 Stephen is more than capable of identifying whether an article is suitably updated and referenced for RD inclusion. There are no "double standards". Please don't make any further personal attacks. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:35, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[Needs attention] [Posted RD] RD/Blurb: Sridevi

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

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

 The Rambling Man (talk) 23:49, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Blurb - She was one of the best known comedians from Indian cinema and her career spanned several decades. She was the winner of several awards and played in numerous cult movies in both Hindi and Tamil. The article on her is detailed and well sourced --Manish2542 (talk) 02:13, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Manish2542: As this is a Recent Deaths nomination, support on the merits is not required; this will be posted once there is a quality update. 331dot (talk) 02:16, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. B class article and article is well sourced. Capitalistroadster (talk) 03:49, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose At least 12 paragraphs without a single reference, and numerous other uncited claims. Stephen 04:18, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Arguably the biggest 'Lady Superstar' in Indian cinema. The article needs a minor cleanup – there's a couple of {{cn}} tags in in the career section. —Vensatry (talk) 04:26, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Minor cleanup needed otherwise nicely sourced. Sherenk1 (talk) 04:48, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb - Nicely sourced with minor clean-up but the overall article state is nice. Honestly, a blurb could also be argued seeing the death is sudden and is being covered heavily international (from the BBC to CNN). --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 05:13, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - Would support blurb as well. Sherenk1 (talk) 09:36, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Very well sourced article. Sudden death which gained international coverage.--SouravDas1998t@lk to me? 06:32, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Article looks fine. –Ammarpad (talk) 07:48, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support when fully sourced It's mostly fine, but "Early years as child artist (1967–1975)" has no sources apart from the first sentence, the following paragraph has none at all. There are also a number of uncited claims in "Post-marriage and television debut (1998–2011)". These things do need to be fixed. Black Kite (talk) 09:46, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - when completed. Right now entire sections are unsourced so I have to give a weak oppose right now.BabbaQ (talk) 09:47, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose virtually unknown outside India. And very poor article with unreferenced claims — Preceding unsigned comment added by Numancia (talk • contribs) 11:09, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Numancia: Virtually unknown outside India? I'm from Mauritius where she is a household name just like in the whole of South Asia and everywhere where Indian films are watched. On the other hand, who is Billy Graham? Never heard of him before he somehow made the headlines on wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manish2542 (talk • contribs)
  • Well, I'm Canadian and I've heard of her. Every major media outlet here reported her death. Never heard of Graham though. 75.102.128.35 (talk) 17:49, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb, support RD this is what RD is for. For anyone tempted to scream about "American bias" and "Billy Grahm" pull that one and move it to RD. Per WP:USGOVERNMENTSHUTDOWN we now pull stories that have faded from the headlines, so go for it. --76.122.98.135 (talk) 14:22, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Graham is currently our most recent blurb. Pulling him would be a bad idea. Lepricavark (talk) 17:45, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support Blurb - The article is well referenced and of good quality, when considered on standalone basis. The actor was very popular in Bollywood in 80s and 90s. Making headlines and quite referenced in the subcontinent, the Middle East, and the leading US and UK publications ( CNN, Fox News, BBC News, The Guardian, Sky News, ABC News). The death was untimely which shocked everyone in India resulting in the outpouring of tributes. And regarding the popularity of the actor, one must have the knowledge on what Bollywood is all about!!! If a nomination in recent past did not make through, does not imply it will also not go through (US government Shut down was poplular but was not expected and did not make any short term impact).

Let's not delay the publishing of the post. We have enough support for publishing it to the ITN Regards, theTigerKing  16:04, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At least two of the supports above are actually opposes as of right now, because they are conditional on referencing being improved (Black Kite and BabbaQ). Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:38, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb on significance and RD on referencing gaps. Two sections with additional citations required banners, so not ready yet. Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:34, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support blurb - Billy Graham has lowered the bar. WaltCip (talk) 17:09, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb - does not cross the notability threshold in my view, and is not in the same league of significance and impact as Graham. Also oppose for an RD listing owing to referencing concerns. Stormy clouds (talk) 17:37, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Stormy clouds: It's not about who YOU know. She is known to hundreds of millions of movie fans in the world. And don't you get it? Noone ever heard of Billy Graham outside the US before you decided to prostitute your evangelist in the headlines.

  • Oppose blurb Graham may have lowered the bar, but not that much. Lepricavark (talk) 17:40, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb - Far more notable than Billy Graham. Death at 54 is also surprising when compared to a 99 year old's death which is expected. 75.102.128.35 (talk) 17:46, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The paragraphs above are still unsourced. "Support" voters - this isn't going to get posted to RD or ITN until the referencing issues are fixed. Black Kite (talk) 17:48, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support blurb on significance, oppose on quality I'm seeing this being reported a good bit more than I was seeing Graham's death; then again I don't read solely or even predominantly US news sources. It's certainly a more unexpected death than Graham's. Vanamonde (talk) 17:57, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb on notability, oppose RD on quality. We don't elevate everyone who dies young to a blurb; her death must be noteworthy per se ("murder, suicide, or major accident" is the suggested standard). GCG (talk) 22:46, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Changing my vote on notability to neutral due to the death seemingly being of non-natural causes (I'd put this on par with Heath Ledger, maybe?); but we are still miles away on the references. GCG (talk) 16:25, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@GreatCaesarsGhost: Can you explain what was noteworthy about the death of Billy Graham? Double standards.

@Manish2542: - First, please sign your comments inline. Second, give and get respect. By accusing me of double standards, you are not assuming good faith. I supported Billy Graham under the ITNRD qualification of a "major transformative world leaders in their field" which I believe Graham to be. Sridevi does not begin to fit this standard, even within India. We may consider her for a blurb under the standard of "the unexpected death of prominent figures by murder, suicide, or major accident." I'm conceding that she is a "prominent figure." Her death appears to be accidental, but not the result of a "major" accident (this implies a plane crash or similar). I think there might be a gap for this if the investigation becomes scandalous (murder? overdose? suicide?) This is all moot, as the article is woefully under-cited. If you care so much about this getting posting, help fix the article. Western actors get left off RD all the time for lack of refs. GCG (talk) 21:22, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. She has appeared in more than 300 films in Hindi and other languages.-Nizil (talk) 13:59, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb once lede is referenced If she was American, it probably would be posted already. That's impossible to eliminate, because many editors are from the US, but it can be counterbalanced, by improving and posting the articles of non-Americans. India is the second-largest English speaking country. That said, though, the lede is still unreferenced. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 15:24, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    A few points: no, it wouldn't already have been posted, and this is in no way related to any "bias", there's clear consensus in favour of the article being posted, but there's a great big orange maintenance tag on it which means no right-minded admin would ever promote it to the main page. No, we don't need to reference the lead. The lead should only contain information that's expanded upon in the main body, so referencing material there rather than in the lead is commonplace (just check any number of featured articles). Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:51, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If she was American, people would have sourced it already. Or for that matter, countless editors could come out of the woodwork and insist that it be posted despite the referencing problems, like happened in December 2016 (to quote Carcharoth from then, objectivity takes a back seat to subjectivity.) It shouldn't be posted in its current state. But American bias trumps all, apparently (based on 2016). -A lad insane (Channel 2) 22:08, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: I think you don't get it. There can be no better references! The only ones you will have are from movie related indian magazines. If you are waiting for the New York Times and Newsweek, that won't happen. In short, if Sridevi, arguably the first female superstar of Indian cinema doesn't even get an RD two days after her death, it means that no other indian actor will ever get one. While we are here discussing, an unknown british actress got to be in the RD. What you are saying to the world is that even third-category western actors are more noteworthy that first category indian actors. That's more than shameful, that's simply racist. Probably she is also too Hindu for the admirers of Billy Graham... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manish2542 (talk • contribs)

Manish2542 I suggest you read WP:V and then WP:ITNRD before continuing to make false claims and false accusations and personal attacks. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:38, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • RD is fine once the article is up to scratch, but I oppose a blurb. We should never have given Graham a blurb; let's not compound that mistake by dropping the bar even lower. Blurbs are for transformative world leaders (Thatcher, Mandela), not popular entertainers. Modest Genius talk 16:30, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"We should never have" -- Yet we have. As we have with Carrie Fisher. As we have with Christopher Lee. As we have with Gunter Grass. Your Thatcher/Mandela standard does not exist. It is utterly bunk.--WaltCip (talk) 17:18, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you disagree with my interpretation, but the criterion listed at WP:ITN/DC continues to be 'major transformative world leaders'. I think that has been ignored or watered down too many times, and will continue to assess blurb nominations by the actual criteria. Modest Genius talk 18:29, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You missed out "in their field." Consensus was that Graham was a "transformative world leader" in the field of Evangelical Protestantism. Also Bowie, Prince and Chuck Berry, while "popular entertainers" were without doubt transformative.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:55, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Pawnkingthree: Transformative means Western, we got it. Just like Gandhi was passed on for the Nobel Prize for Peace because he wasn't transformative enough... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manish2542 (talk • contribs)
I'm fairly sure that if ITN/C had been around in 1948 Gandhi would have got a blurb.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:08, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Pawnkingthree: How kind of you. Thank you, sahib. Some chai with your scone?. I'm out of here, namaste Manish2542 (talk) 21:29, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, the nationalities of RDs posted this month: Australia, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Canada, Chile, China (4), Iceland, India, Indonesia, Ireland (2), Pakistan (2), Russia, Sweden, Tunisia, UK (2), USA (10). Not posted: Canada (2), Cuba, Denmark, Ghana, Nederlands, UK, USA (5), Zimbabwe. Pending: China, India. If you can find bias in there, you gotta be working for it. (aside: nice work, ITNC!) GCG (talk) 21:46, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on article quality. Really serious gaps in referencing and there are orange tags which are a showstopper at ITN. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:37, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article still has one completely unreferenced section, preventing it from being posted. In terms of global notability and coverage though, her death has received much greater media attention than Graham in Australia, a majority white and Christian country, which puts things in perspective. Gizza (t)(c) 04:26, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support if issues with the article are fixed; otherwise regretfully oppose. Double sharp (talk) 10:31, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Large sections of the article text remain woefully unreferenced or underreferenced. Agnostic on the manner of posting, but this should not be on the main page until quality problems are fixed. --Jayron32 11:54, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If one more RD is posted, this will be stale and be removed. And still there's a whole huge paragraph almost completely unsourced which is stopping it from being posted. Black Kite (talk) 17:59, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This article is certainly notable for a blurb. For those who say that Graham was more notable, see this. 2.51.20.15 (talk) 18:17, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Page views should not necessarily be considered at ITN, as this could lead to systematic bias. If this were the case, Black Panther would merit a blurb at present. Stormy clouds (talk) 18:33, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, but many others were saying above that she wasn't much notable and her death wasn't covered in mainstream sources. It was, in BBC, NyT etc, and I just wanted to prove the point of global notability, when someone said more people know Graham than Sridevi, to which I disagree. I mean, Indians are 17 percent of the globe, compared to the much lesser number of Australians. 2.51.20.15 (talk) 20:49, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENT PLEASE READ THIS -> the article is too poor to even consider posting. All the dross above about systemic bias, inherent racism, and other such nonsense is actually completely irrelevant. For all the supporters of this individual, spend your time fixing the article rather than telling the rest of us why Wikipedia is broken because it won't post a hopelessly crap article to the main page. Once all the unreferenced material is referenced, it can go as RD. If you don't like the fact we don't post unreferenced crap to the main page either change the relevant guidelines and policies, or find another Wikipedia or project to work on where standards are lower. I understand that de.wiki and fr.wiki will post just about anything their main pages, so maybe that's a good place to start. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:04, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: Contempt much appreciated. Western-centric references are not an absolute sign of quality. If I may repeat myself. YOU WILL NEVER HAVE BETTER REFERENCES. She was an Indian star, these are the only references you will ever have not forgetting that she was mostly active in the 1980s and 1990s at a time when Indian magazines didn't publish online. Western-centrism masquerading as "serious work" remains western-centrism. In any case, the story is stale now. "Create your own wikipedia"?, like how afro-american actors created their own awards to counter bias at the oscars? Today it's more subtle, now an objectively major indian celebrity gets cast away in the name of "good references" which should be understood as "indian references are worthless". And yes, don't accuse us of personal attacks, you just did it yourself. Manish2542 (talk) 05:42, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a heads up, TRM does not like being the target of false accusations, so you might want to strike that last sentence unless you can substantiate your claim. I see no personal attacks by TRM in the post to which you were responding. Lepricavark (talk) 06:05, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone like being the target of false accusations? The difference is those who falsely accuse or personally attack me usually end up being rebuked and punished. There's no contempt in my post, no personal attack, please read WP:NPA to familiarise yourself with what constitutes a PA, and then check your own posts. Last chance. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:38, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm now ready to support the RD. It's far from perfect, but given the size, the refs are good enough for me. With the inquest now closed, there is no basis to consider a blurb. GCG (talk) 00:29, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posting. There has been a significant improvement of the article since I checked the last time. --Tone 08:10, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb it's been a few days since she died and it continues to make the news, especially in India. Banedon (talk) 08:56, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The consensus was for a blurb, not an RD. Jamming this entry in the middle of the RD section after how long it finally took to post just seems like an insult. WaltCip (talk) 11:12, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, I disagree - this is what RD is for. There would have to be overwhelming support for a blurb to override the normal RD posting, and I don't see that above. Tone made the right call.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:13, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The blurb supports never rationalized their argument under generally accepted rules or guidelines. If they want to IAR, fine but they have to say that, and give everyone else a chance to respond to that argument. I've made my own argument, the key point of which is an accidental one-off death is not blurb worthy, per se. Otherwise we'd be posting mid-range celebrities who die of an OD, or as a result of a fall in their later years. GCG (talk) 13:59, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb per Banedon and WaltCip. I'm aware that "if we posted X, then we should post Y" is not a strict rule here, but the double standard is very noticeable here. Sridevi's death is far more notable than Billy Graham's. Davey2116 (talk) 22:21, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I just took another look at the article. While I am neutral on the merits of a blurb, the first consideration when looking at any nomination here at ITNC is article quality. It pains me to say this, but I have to stand by my earlier oppose. The gaps in referencing would preclude any other nomination from being posted to RD much less a blurb. This article still needs considerable work if it is to be posted on the main page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:36, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I concur. There are still many unreferenced claims in this BLP. Never mind, it'll slip away in a few days. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:43, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb Sridevi was the first female superstar of Bollywood. She was also one of the most popular actresses in India and have acted in many popular movies. Sridevi's article is also properly sourced. Wiki.editAnshu (talk) 06:14, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Why "needs attention?" Clearly this is never going to reach consensus for a blurb. Should we just close it? GCG (talk) 19:54, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] RD: Yang Rudai

Article: Yang Rudai (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Xinhua
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.

 Zanhe (talk) 22:43, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - "Career data" (odd name) section is completely unreferenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:47, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@The Rambling Man: I was adding the source at the same moment you were writing your comment. Please check again. -Zanhe (talk) 23:02, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:17, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: One of the less well-known member of the CPC top leadership, pretty much away from the spotlight for the past 30 years. But since none of that is relevant, the article quality looks fine and therefore support RD (Source has been added for the "Career timeline" section). Alex Shih (talk) 06:57, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Now the article looks OK. –Ammarpad (talk) 07:48, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - article seems RD ready.BabbaQ (talk) 12:37, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - valuable contribution to economic reform, and combats systemic bias. Colipon+(Talk) 14:48, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted Stephen 22:35, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] RD: Emma Chambers

Article: Emma Chambers (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC The Guardian
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Although she died on the 21st it was not announced until today. The article needs more sources (which I'll get to later, I don't have time right now), but is reasonably comprehensive if not astounding. Obits will help with this of course. Thryduulf (talk) 19:54, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Ongoing: Rif Dimashq offensive (February 2018)

Article: Rif Dimashq offensive (February 2018) (talk · history · tag)
Ongoing item nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

Nominator's comments: This high-casualty military action has been in the headlines for the past week. Article seems adequate at the current time. LukeSurl t c 16:15, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - Turkey's Afrin operation is also making headlines from time to time. Having one Syrian Civil War story posted to Ongoing and not the other seems arbitrary to me. And posting both would be too much for one topic. I could, however, support a blurb. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 18:19, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment unanimous UN approval for a ceasefire seems notable enough, but should that make this ongoing, or should we have a whole new nomination with that as the crux? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:45, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support 1) It's a large scale and important offensive with huge civilian casualties, thanks to al-quaeda using the civilians as human shields. 2) it's all over the news. 3) the UNSC managed to secure a month-long truce, which is alredy ITN-worthy 4) Even Guterres commented on the offensive, stating that Eastern Ghouta is "hell of earth" Karl.i.biased (talk) 07:20, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This is effectively a siege within a national capital, with higher casualties than Afrin. 2607:FEA8:1CDF:DF8C:C1B0:FBFB:8134:E367 (talk) 05:21, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support ongoing, though it might be worth getting 'Ghouta' in the entry somehow, as that's the name in most media headlines. The UN ceasefire would be worth a blurb if it had held, but it doesn't seem to be having any effect. Modest Genius talk 16:45, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • 24 hours and no more comments. Marking as [needs attention]. Modest Genius talk 19:56, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Posting. --Tone 20:00, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

February 23

February 23, 2018 (2018-02-23) (Friday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sports

[Closed] Ongoing: Battle of Khasham

As pointed out by !votes below, this item is not ongoing. There is also no consensus to post the item. Stormy clouds (talk) 15:48, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article: Battle of Khasham (talk · history · tag)
Ongoing item nomination (Post)
News source(s): [1] [2] [3]
Credits:
Nominator's comments: The battle itself is long over but there's a surprisingly large amount of ongoing coverage. Details are murky. If indeed Russian mercenaries intentionally attacked a US base that should be pretty significant. Somewhat hesitant about this but nominating it to see what ITN thinks. Banedon (talk) 00:49, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • No It happened on February 7th. I would have supported it 2 weeks ago. But it's not ongoing, and the oldest ITN piece we have right now is the school shooting in florida, which happened like 10 days after the battle. If I were you and was interested in the syrian war, I'd nominate the SAA intervention in Afrin. Seems like the absolute madmen actually did it and that's actually hug news and a severe blow to the american attempts to destabilize the country and put as many of their bases there as possible. Karl.i.biased (talk) 01:53, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose "Ongoing" means the event, not the coverage. GCG (talk) 12:57, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose decidedly not ongoing. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:00, 23 February 2018 (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.

February 22

February 22, 2018 (2018-02-22) (Thursday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

[Posted] RD: Richard E. Taylor

Article: Richard E. Taylor (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Washington Post
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Nobel Prize-winning physicist who was part of the group who discovered quarks. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:50, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak oppose Awards section needs more sources and there is no section with death or later life info. I'll help fix it up. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:53, 25 February 2018 (UTC) Support Article has been fixed up and is g2g. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:05, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted Stephen 22:27, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stéphane Valeri elected as the new president of Monaco's National Council

Articles: Stéphane Valeri (talk · history · tag) and National Council (Monaco) (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Stéphane Valeri is elected as the president of the National Council of Monaco. (Post)
News source(s): "Stéphane Valeri élu président du Conseil national". Nice Matin. February 22, 2018. Retrieved February 24, 2018.
Credits:

Article updated

 We rarely post anything about Monegasque politics and while it is a small principality, it is home to many (billionaire) investors who play a huge role in our capitalist system globally. Valeri ran on a "Monaco first" platform.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:21, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose the target article is a bland stub. Valeri's article is barely more than a stub and shows not one iota of update. Perhaps this is why we "rarely post anything about Monegasque politics". The Rambling Man (talk) 22:44, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Not a head of state/government. I'd oppose even with expansion. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:48, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Not head of state, article sourcing issues. –Ammarpad (talk) 20:47, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Przewalski's horse

Proposed image
Articles: Przewalski's horse (talk · history · tag) and Wild horse (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Genetic studies determine the Przewalski's horse (pictured) to be a feral horse and not the last extant undomesticated wild horse. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ The Przewalski's horse is reclassified as a feral horse, making the wild horse extinct.
News source(s): Science, Times, Independent, Sky News, Science Daily
Credits:

Both articles need updating

Nominator's comments: Potentially major change published in the peer-reviewed Science, but I'm putting this before updating just in case. Brandmeistertalk 11:58, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • This blurb sounds a little esoteric, where the news is a lot more clear/interesting: wild horses are extinct. Should we go with something like "With the reclassification of Przewalski's horse, geneticists have determined the wild horse is extinct?" GCG (talk) 12:55, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I'm on the fence here. While the extinction of megafauna in modern times is extremely noteworthy, this event actually dates the last wild horse to 1909 at the latest. I'm going support because this should be of interest to readers. GCG (talk) 13:48, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - article quality is great. Makes for interesting reading for ITN. BabbaQ (talk) 13:55, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think there is something here but the blurb(s) may be misleading, at least reading through other articles, specifically the part of "wild horses extinct". (I can't see the full Science article, so I can't see how the authors put it). Perhaps something like the first blurb but as "Genetic studies determine the Przewalski's horse (pictured) to be feral domesticated horse rather than the last-known wild horse." Also, I think the target article needs a slightly larger update than two sentences in the lede. --Masem (t) 14:14, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Reassigning a subspecies that most people have never heard of doesn't seem like something that would interest many readers. zzz (talk) 14:28, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Random flight/train crashes aren't really that interesting either.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:40, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are many wholly unreferenced paragraphs in the Przewalski's horse article. In general, I'm in agreement with User:Signedzzz about the likely interest there is in this story. --LukeSurl t c 15:31, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Although I would probably argue this event is notable, it has enough problems as to make fixing the article a job for editors experienced in the subject, and unless you can find an editor who is willing to take the time, I cannot support it. Inatan (talk) 15:40, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Oppose. The article about the horse is busting at the seams. Although nevertheless an intriguing (and somewhat tragic) discovery, it is largely trivial and arbitrary. Although covered in several science papers and websites, most conventional news and media are turning away from this discovery, and those that do cover it are not front page news, this is what turns me off. SamaranEmerald (talk) 17:32, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@SamaranEmerald Coverage does not constitute whether or not an event is ITN worthy, I have seen world events before that that were posted on ITN and yet received barely any coverage. Kirliator (talk) 17:40, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose purely trivial as SE puts it, but still interesting, may reconsider if article is updated sufficiently. Kirliator (talk) 17:49, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Oppose. When information about the article in Science, etc. gets included in Wikipedia (specifically in Wild horse, Feral horse and/or Przewalski's horse) AND the horse is reclassified as feral not wild (by the IUCN or whoever) then we might try again. After all, we didn't publish ITN items saying "Billy Graham is gravely ill", "Billy Graham is on his deathbed" and so on. Once this is done (if it is done), I think I would support such an ITN item. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 19:36, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose interesting DYK but I don't think its ITN-worthy. – Nixinova ⟨T|C⟩ 02:35, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose Highly misleading. One peer-reviewed study showed that they are a feral horse. There's definitively no consensus on that matter. Wikipedia is not daily Mail. Karl.i.biased (talk) 04:06, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Sourcing issues and pretty much agree with all of the opposers above. I also concur it might be better nominated for DYK. –Ammarpad (talk) 21:06, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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:

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates&oldid=828306484"