::::Those are a problem since details like that are so specific they could be OR. But on the other hand, the detail is so trivial, who cares either way? Looking at the TOC, it's almost all about his tours, records, and songs, and most of those are linked to some article, which helps a bit. The good news is that the factual details about his life and third-party comments about his albums, are mostly well-sourced in the 146 cites. The same issues relate to many film actors, whose bios are mostly annotated filmographies, with little about the person. But since most of the films have linked articles, and the factoids are often trivial, they can either be deleted or relegated as a "who cares?" detail. But certainly details about or by the persons themselves, which is what most bios really need IMO, are usually well-sourced. --[[User:Light show|Light show]] ([[User talk:Light show|talk]]) 21:51, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
::::Those are a problem since details like that are so specific they could be OR. But on the other hand, the detail is so trivial, who cares either way? Looking at the TOC, it's almost all about his tours, records, and songs, and most of those are linked to some article, which helps a bit. The good news is that the factual details about his life and third-party comments about his albums, are mostly well-sourced in the 146 cites. The same issues relate to many film actors, whose bios are mostly annotated filmographies, with little about the person. But since most of the films have linked articles, and the factoids are often trivial, they can either be deleted or relegated as a "who cares?" detail. But certainly details about or by the persons themselves, which is what most bios really need IMO, are usually well-sourced. --[[User:Light show|Light show]] ([[User talk:Light show|talk]]) 21:51, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
:::::Hmm. A quick word count showed 2,000+ words solely about his personal life, which is the equivalent of a 10-page essay. Most major people's lives can be adequately bio'ed within two such pages (tightly written, of course). Barring classic "celebrity-style" scandals, it is hard to think on what should be added. The "themes" section, on the other hand, could probably be expanded (357 words). In fact, it currently includes not a single word about love and longing, or about spirituality in his writing -- but I cannot touch that until Monday at the earliest. (Personally I do think that Cohen's tighter creative focus was what gives Dylan the Nobel edge.) - Tenebris [[Special:Contributions/66.11.171.90|66.11.171.90]] ([[User talk:66.11.171.90|talk]]) 23:40, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
:::::Hmm. A quick word count showed 2,000+ words solely about his personal life, which is the equivalent of a 10-page essay. Most major people's lives can be adequately bio'ed within two such pages (tightly written, of course). Barring classic "celebrity-style" scandals, it is hard to think on what should be added. The "themes" section, on the other hand, could probably be expanded (357 words). In fact, it currently includes not a single word about love and longing, or about spirituality in his writing -- but I cannot touch that until Monday at the earliest. (Personally I do think that Cohen's tighter creative focus was what gives Dylan the Nobel edge.) - Tenebris [[Special:Contributions/66.11.171.90|66.11.171.90]] ([[User talk:66.11.171.90|talk]]) 23:40, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
'''No blurb''', fails the could there be an article called [[Death of Leonard Cohen]] test. <font face="Cambria">[[User:Abductive|<font color="teal">'''Abductive'''</font>]] ([[User talk:Abductive|reasoning]])</font> 01:41, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
*'''No blurb''', fails the could there be an article called [[Death of Leonard Cohen]] test. <font face="Cambria">[[User:Abductive|<font color="teal">'''Abductive'''</font>]] ([[User talk:Abductive|reasoning]])</font> 01:41, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
**I note that [[Prince (musician)|Prince]] does not have one. (Of course, whether this is correct or not is up for debate.) '''''[[User:Taylor Trescott|<span style="color:#B6B3FF; font-family: Courier">Taylor Trescott</span>]]''''' - <sup>[[User talk:Taylor Trescott#top|my talk]]</sup> + <sub>[[Special:Contributions/Taylor Trescott|my edits]]</sub> 02:06, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
*'''Support blurb''' — absolute legend, there aren't many more noted Canadian musicians. '''''[[User:Taylor Trescott|<span style="color:#B6B3FF; font-family: Courier">Taylor Trescott</span>]]''''' - <sup>[[User talk:Taylor Trescott#top|my talk]]</sup> + <sub>[[Special:Contributions/Taylor Trescott|my edits]]</sub> 02:06, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
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).
At least 52 people, including women and children, have been killed and more than 100 injured by a bomb explosion in the crowded Shah Noorani Shrine in Hub town, Lasbela District, Balochistan, Pakistan. ISIL has claimed responsibility. (The News)(GEO tv)(Daily Pakistan), (BBC)
A Zimbabwe high court judge drops charges against Theo Bronkhorst, the professional hunter who led the expedition that resulted in the death of the lion named Cecil, because the prosecutor's filing was not properly constituted, and was "too vague to enable (the defendant) to mount a proper defense." (UPI)(News24)
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.
Comment already added here by MisfitToys. Perhaps some of these admins need a refresher course on how things work these days!!!! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:06, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Don't pull I see this was posted by @MisfitToys: 4 minutes after this nomination. That's ... a bit quick, shall we say ... there needs to be consensus that the article quality is adequate before posting. In this case, the level of citation is on par with Leonard Cohen, which was just posted as a blurb. There are a few {{cn}} tags, but all seem to be about uncontroversial stuff (with one exception, and I just removed the unreferenced controversial material). So IMHO don't pull for rules' sake. Pull only if people comment that they disagree based on article quality. (added) I see TRM just tagged the article for verification; I gather that means you think the article quality isn't sufficient to post? --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:21, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously. I tend to find that actually reading the article and checking citations is beneficial in these situations, i.e. stop posting to main page articles of less-than-mediocre quality. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:53, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support with improvements (And recommend pulling at this point). The article has a big orange banner at the top and rightfully justified with lots of unsourced information (ignoring the CNs already added). It should not have been added to RD without proper reviewer (whereas at least with Cohen, there's enough discussion to know it was justified to some extent). --MASEM (t) 20:24, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK then, pulled until consensus here that article quality is acceptable. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:27, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose for now. It's not as bad as Leonard Cohen was the last time I looked, but there are a few too many gaps in referencing. Once those are fixed we should be good to go. Will happily reconsider on improvements. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:53, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[Closed] [Ongoing] World Chess Championship 2016
It may not have been written into the guidelines that sporting events don't get a mention at "ongoing" save for the occasional rare exception, but that is the practice. Closing without prejudice to renomination at the end of the championship for a blurb. BencherliteTalk (using his alt account Bencherheavy) 13:14, 11 November 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: I am wondering if the World Chess Championship can be added to the ongoing line. It starts today and is scheduled to officially end on 30 November. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 00:11, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ongoing This is a good faith nomination but we don't generally put sporting events or competitions into ongoing. The one customary exception being the Olympics. That said, assuming the article is in good shape, I'd probably support an ITN blurb once the tournament is over. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:16, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Winning the WCC is ITNR, I'm pretty sure. Banedon (talk) 00:39, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And the FIFA World Cup. But both because of huge international attention and audiences --MASEM (t) 03:17, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose'. Ongoing is not for sports events in progress, with the exception of the Olympics(a multisport event) AFAIK. This will be posted when it concludes, as I think it is ITNR. 331dot (talk) 01:08, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support there's nothing in the guidelines that say we don't put sporting events or competitions into ongoing, so as long as the article is continuously updated, why not. Banedon (talk) 03:14, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is longstanding precedent. The only exceptions have been the multisport Olympics(which are essentially many events going on at the same time) and, though I disagree with doing so, the FIFA World Cup, due to its worldwide appeal. If we start including other events like this, Ongoing becomes nothing but a sports ticker. 331dot (talk) 11:49, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Then we should change the guidelines and say "the only sporting events that can be posted to Ongoing are the Olympics and the FIFA World Cup", something like that. There was some discussion about adding the Euro earlier this year too, in my memory. Banedon (talk) 13:04, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per what's already been said. Good shout for when it's over, but this isn't for ongoing. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:22, 11 November 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.
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, but for a blurb. There's a quote in the lead of Cohen's article: "[he is] one of the most fascinating and enigmatic … singer/songwriters of the late '60s … [and] has retained an audience across four decades of music-making.... Second only to Bob Dylan (and perhaps Paul Simon) [in terms of influence], he commands the attention of critics and younger musicians more firmly than any other musical figure from the 1960s who is still working at the outset of the 21st century." Ed[talk][majestic titan] 02:17, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb. Bowie and Prince-levels, and he'd just released an album too. Nohomersryan (talk) 02:19, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support but needs improvement I could accept an RD right now for the current state of the article, and I completely agree that he's one of the few we'd put a blurb out for, but the article needs better sourcing at places - it's not in bad shape (hence immediate RD support) but its about 80% of the way there for a state I could accept a blurb. --MASEM (t) 02:21, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly support addition of Cohen's name at least to the "Recent deaths" line. We presently have Marc Sleen and Janet Reno and Cohen to my mind is equally notable if not even more. Later we can decide whether we need inclusion in the higher "In The News" items. But an immediate addition to "Recent deaths" is a no-brainer and can be effected right away. werldwayd (talk) 03:15, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now. Far too many gaps in referencing. Definitely someone we should have on RD, but the article quality is not up to scratch for the main page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:21, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Move to "Pull." See below for comment. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:29, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support - blurb, very notable singer/songwriter, multiple awards won. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:22, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb Absolute legend, tragic week. EternalNomad (talk) 03:46, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support but needs improvement Wonderful artist, terrible loss, absolutely deserves to have a blurb. Just wait a little bit for the editors on the page right now to find some more sources for the unreferenced statements, and then we're ready to go. --Sunshineisles2 (talk) 03:55, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support full blurb, an artist known globally, his passing is now the main news also in my little country. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 05:47, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb. The previously tagged unsourced details have either been removed or the source added. --Light show (talk) 06:18, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, there still remain several unsourced statements in article, about as many as when I first commented. --MASEM (t) 07:15, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The tagged ones have been fixed. There are 143 cites.--Light show (talk) 07:28, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No they weren't fixed. Most of the CN tags were simply removed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:33, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Surprised this wasn't on there already (although understandable if there were tags), but he is internationally notable and should have the full blurb on the MP. - The Bounder (talk) 08:35, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Poet and songwriter Leonard Cohen dies at the age of 82.
He's best known per the lead, as a "Canadian singer, songwriter, poet and novelist." The order is relevant.--Light show (talk) 09:26, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Added that as an alt blurb -- would debate the "best known" novelist part, however. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 09:29, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly support - Very surprised he wasn't on there already, high profile individual and, in my opinion, his article is in good shape CityFeedbacktalk 09:37, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb – a highly notable singer, famous worldwide, and with a long career: definitely worth putting in blurb. ~Mable (chat) 10:13, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For clarity, I have now added your suggestion at the top of this nomination. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:31, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. After the tenth or so time getting redline code in the right corner of the infobox, I was not going to try again. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 17:22, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Either that one or this one: [1], I like the colored picture used in the info-box. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:15, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am neutral -- other people's choice of image is fine. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 17:22, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support full blurb - this is at the Bowie/Prince levels of influential musicians. Black Kite (talk) 14:37, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are still issues of inline sourcing - a number of paragraphs lack a single inline source. RD is completely fine for the time but we need the sourcing fixed for a blurb. --MASEM (t) 15:06, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Pull This article is far below acceptable standards for the main page. There remain huge gaps in referencing with whole paragraphs lacking a citation. I added a large number of CN tags last night many of which were apparently removed without providing a source. This is unacceptable. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:33, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Ad Orientem: You have already voted above, and made your opinion clear. Please strike this one out as it is not helpful. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:25, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have struck the original vote to avoid the appearance of double voting. However, I would gently suggest that ignoring substandard article quality is what is really "unhelpful." -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:31, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The CN tags were removed as part of acceptable editing options: uncited and tagged text was deleted; uncited text had a source added; or tag was removed if the linked article included the unsourced details. None of the tags were simply removed for no reason. --Light show (talk) 17:58, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. That's why I was careful about that, as noted in this edit. --Light show (talk) 20:58, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD, pull blurb. Certainly an influential musician, but his death has nowhere near the impact on current events required for a blurb. Exactly the sort of person RD was made for, and there he should go. Modest Geniustalk 17:08, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Don't pull blurb: The level of citation is sufficient. It is imperfect, but we don't require perfection. I don't see any controversial or disputed facts in the article, just some non-controversial areas that could use some beefing up. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:47, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree per WP:SOFIXIT, enough editors are already watching the page. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:50, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Article needs a lot of work so I'd pull it, but I understand that emotions here are strong. SOFIXIT is all very well if you know the subject matter well and know where to go and find sources, and have the time to do so. In the mean time, we have a mediocre article heading up ITN on a website with 12 to 20 million main page hits. Not my impression of what an encyclopedia should be doing. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:09, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, the article is mostly an annotated discography, with little about Cohen's personal life. So tagged text such as this is almost irrelevant:
The tour finished with seven special dates added in Vancouver, Portland, Victoria and Oakland, with two final shows in Las Vegas' The Colosseum at Caesars Palace on 10 and 11 December.[citation needed]
Those are a problem since details like that are so specific they could be OR. But on the other hand, the detail is so trivial, who cares either way? Looking at the TOC, it's almost all about his tours, records, and songs, and most of those are linked to some article, which helps a bit. The good news is that the factual details about his life and third-party comments about his albums, are mostly well-sourced in the 146 cites. The same issues relate to many film actors, whose bios are mostly annotated filmographies, with little about the person. But since most of the films have linked articles, and the factoids are often trivial, they can either be deleted or relegated as a "who cares?" detail. But certainly details about or by the persons themselves, which is what most bios really need IMO, are usually well-sourced. --Light show (talk) 21:51, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. A quick word count showed 2,000+ words solely about his personal life, which is the equivalent of a 10-page essay. Most major people's lives can be adequately bio'ed within two such pages (tightly written, of course). Barring classic "celebrity-style" scandals, it is hard to think on what should be added. The "themes" section, on the other hand, could probably be expanded (357 words). In fact, it currently includes not a single word about love and longing, or about spirituality in his writing -- but I cannot touch that until Monday at the earliest. (Personally I do think that Cohen's tighter creative focus was what gives Dylan the Nobel edge.) - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 23:40, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I note that Prince does not have one. (Of course, whether this is correct or not is up for debate.) Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 02:06, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb — absolute legend, there aren't many more noted Canadian musicians. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 02:06, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
At least seven people have been killed and 51 hospitalised after a Tramlink light rail vehicle derailed and overturned close to Sandilands tram stop in the London Borough of Croydon early on Wednesday. It is believed to be the first tram accident involving fatalities in the United Kingdom since 1959. (BBC News)
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: Exact numbers are not yet confirmed. Will update and expand the article (currently a bit stubby) once known.Smurrayinchester 11:47, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support upon expansion. Any number of fatalities on a British tram crash (when did that last happen?) is notable, with a large number of injuries too... The Rambling Man (talk) 12:07, 9 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Support - deadliest tram accident in the UK for many, many years since 1959. Mjroots (talk) 12:08, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
True, as the article says. But mainly because tram systems rapidly fell out of fashion in UK after the 1960s? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:56, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on article quality. The article is quite short, and I have a hard time seeing how it could be fleshed out while still being encyclopedic. The driver was arrested, which seems odd to me. Perhaps link this back to an article about liability in the UK workplace?128.214.53.104 (talk) 13:29, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
UK public transport has quite extensive safety regs. So in the last 20-30 years its not unusual for an accident to be down to human actions rather than mechanical failure. The driver being arrested is not that surprising given the Tramline has only been open since what, 2000? There are going to be quite a few people in the UK who scratch their heads and go 'We still have trams?' though... Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:39, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate what you say about article quality, 128.214.53.104 but there's one story really dominating the news, with this one getting the occasional word in edgewise. Mjroots (talk) 13:47, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support once up to quality standards - AFAIK the first UK rail passenger fatalities in any form of transport since Grayrigg nearly 10 years ago. Optimist on the run (talk) 14:57, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose – Comparatively minor in the big scheme of things. Sca (talk) 15:37, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - article shaping up nicely. Image of tram involved is available on Commons. Mjroots (talk) 17:38, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - per Mjoots. - EugεnS¡m¡on 18:14, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above. I've updated the number of deaths from five to seven, too. LugnutsPrecious bodily fluids 18:48, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - per updates made.BabbaQ (talk) 19:20, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - would have been main UK news story if we had not had that "train wreck" of a different kind elsewhere today. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:32, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment any active admins, e.g. Ks0stm able to post this with the associated picture? Overwhelming consensus to post.... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:35, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Dragons flight we have an image of the crashed tram too, see above, please add that to the template. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:38, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Dragons flight: Mind if I give out ITN credits for this, or did you want to do that? Ks0stm(T•C•G•E) 19:58, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I would rather not post the photo, since we just put up Donald Trump's last night (as controversial as he may be). I'd wait on the photo for a day or two. Ks0stm(T•C•G•E) 19:39, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why? We have an image of the crashed tram. Are we favouring posting a picture of Trump over a newer news story? It seems like systemic bias to me. And can you point me to the instruction that suggests admins wait "for a day or two" before replacing old images with new ones? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:42, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, my rationale is slightly different from Dragons flight's below, though he does have a valid point. I would wait a day or two before posting this image because you never know how many stories with suitable images will come up in the time while this is on ITN, and I would rather not risk changing out Donald Trump's image so fast and then have the tram image up for a week. Better to space out the image changes a little when we have multiple stories with suitable images so the template doesn't get stagnant on one photo for as long if we don't have new stories with suitable images for a while after. Ks0stm(T•C•G•E) 19:52, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any precedent for this. It can't be the first time the issue has come up. AIRcorn(talk) 20:12, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm of a similar mind as Ks0stm. Call it IAR if need be, but I do think there is some value in recognizing that Trump is a much larger story than the tram crash and giving Trump's story slightly greater prominence on ITN by keeping his image. Dragons flight (talk) 19:47, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For clarity, I'm opposed to posting this image at this time, but I won't interfere if some other admin decides to post it. Dragons flight (talk) 19:54, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Conversely, we all know exactly what Trump looks like, and yet we have a more recent news story with an image that is more pertinent. At what point do we "allow" other news stories to supersede Trump? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:48, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Convention is that we use the image for the newest story for which an image is available. Currently' it's the tram crash story. Mjroots (talk) 19:49, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Except its not really of the actual story. It's a tram (and seems like the tram) but well before any accident. A more effective picture would be one of the crashed tram. And per IAR, the weigh of the US election is much much greater than the tram accident currently. --MASEM (t) 19:53, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And the photo of Donald Trump was taken long before he became President-elect. Mjroots (talk) 19:59, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The crashed tram still looks less like the uncrashed tram than elected Trump looks like 2015 Trump. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:20, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You wouldn't want that tram in dayglo orange, with a bouffant top, would you? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:30, 9 November 2016 (UTC) [reply]
What of my reasoning above, though? We don't want ITN stuck on this tram image for a week if we don't get other stories with suitable images when we currently have multiple stories with suitable images we can space out. Ks0stm(T•C•G•E) 20:00, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So the tram crashed at 6 a.m. GMT? When was the Trump victory announced? Does ITN consider the time of the event or the time it "becomes news"? (except that the whole Presidential election has been "news" for months now). Martinevans123 (talk) 20:05, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's right. The tram crash didn't have an announcement of deaths until several hours after Trump's win, but if it's the crash vs the election win, Trump wins again. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:32, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So, we'll just keep The Donald image until he takes up office in January? All agreed? Or is anyone going to at least discuss it? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:17, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As noted above, the tram crashed before the Trump win was confirmed, so their order in the ITN box is incorrect. The image selected usually goes to the most recent story. Clearly if we get another story on top of ITN, with a suitable image, Trump's image will go. It has no special status at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:41, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifyng that it's exact chronological order that's used for ITN. Does that count as a front page error, that should be corrected? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:22, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It probably ought to be switched around, if only to curtail this particular issue. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:29, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, it has long been discussed, and consensus has held in the past, that we generally don't dick around with the order of events down to an infinitesimal time; that generally items are posted in order by the day they occurred, but for events that occur on the same day, no special consideration is given to making sure we have them in the correct order by the exact second. The discussion simply isn't that important one way or the other. --Jayron32 13:32, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sincere apologies. I had thought it was about two hours difference, not just a matter of seconds. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:35, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify long established (and long unchallenged) guidelines for this, see WP:ITN/A, which states "Now, the tricky bit. ITN items are in a bulleted list, ordered chronologically by date of occurrence (but not necessarily chronologically within that date)" That "not necessarily chronologically within that date" bit has been in the text since March 2013, though it had been established practice for years. The lowest level of granularity we use is the date. There is no expectation we get it more accurate than that. --Jayron32 17:04, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't that so "Cork wins the Gaelic football championship" doesn't go on top of "nuclear war"? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:48, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, the purpose is to prevent the exact sort of useless debate we are having now over this. That is, it's a WP:BIKESHED issue: The amount of energy expended getting the order that correct is simply not worth it, so we don't even try. We get the days correct, and on those few occasions where there are multiple events on the same day, we don't care what order they are in. Not that we use other criteria than chronology (though I suppose someone might), merely that it is not something worth caring about at all. --Jayron32 19:09, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for clarifying the long established (and long unchallenged) guidelines. My enquiry was prompted by the question of whether or not, or when, the picture should be swapped. That seems to be an important question to some editors. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:15, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If it is a guideline that needs changing, by all means, start a discussion at WT:ITN to do so. This venue is probably not the correct place. You can find past discussions on the matter in the archives at WT:ITN, about a year ago I can remember at least 2 -3 different discussions started by George Ho (search for his name in the archives) and you can likely see what consensus was the last time it came up. Regardless, this really should be discussed elsewhere if you wish clarity or change... --Jayron32 19:19, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the link. I'll have a look. To save time, I guess someone might just remind everyone what the outcome of the last discussions was. So that, you know, no-one starts banging on about "systematic bias" or starts being "an asshole" to try and provoke discussion. I think I saw something in the guidelines about "24-36 hours." Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:58, 10 November 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.
Nominator's comments: Article still being expanded. More will come in the article as the long chain of events now beings. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 19:40, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Major economic implications, and completely taking up front page news space in one of the world's most populous countries. -- Fuzheado | Talk 23:37, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why is this a surprise? The article doesn't say it was and in fact suggests this has happened before. AIRcorn(talk) 00:43, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's not first of its kind and our blurb doesn't have to be "breaking". Hence altered it. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 02:11, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fine with alt blurb now that surprise is removed. AIRcorn(talk) 09:02, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support - per Fuzheado. Only problem: the article is rather sparse right now, and could use more text on 1) why the demonetization is happening and 2) the reactions to it. Banedon (talk) 03:05, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Article notes that this has happened several times in the past, so it's unclear how ITN-worthy this is at this point in time, given the limited coverage.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:06, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very notable Sherenk1 (talk) 05:04, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - It is a major decision taken by Indian government which will change many things and will have far reaching impacts! It might have been done in past but I do not remember any and though it is true that it was done in past, that does not reduce the importance of this major move by Indian government to fight black money. Thank you. -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 05:26, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support: This is a news that suddenly shook the nation. Very big news. I think this news should be highlighted. --Tito Dutta (talk) 06:06, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Article needs updating The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Nominator's comments: Might as well get this out now. Article looks to be in decent shape overall. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:23, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, this is getting silly so boldly collapsing. Let's wait for the real world to catch up with us before we start writing blurbs. The result will obviously be posted, so supporting in principle is pointless; nothing will be posted before we have the result; when we know what it is, we can write the blurb and see whether the article is ready to post. BencherliteTalk 09:08, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely could use alternative blurbs, as polls suggest Senate possibly changing hands. Something like: In the United States, (Hillary Clinton / Donald Trump) is elected President of the Unites States, while the (Republican Party retains / Democrat Party gains) control of the Senate. Also wait until either Clinton or Trump concedes, although if Trump loses he may not concede the same night... Also, we should link to the Senate election. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 00:44, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If there's a clear victor and multiple reliable sources are calling the election for one or the other, why should we wait for one to concede? Asking honestly. Ed[talk][majestic titan] 00:47, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Some states may have close voting. Also, 4 years ago the consensus was to post when results are made official or when Romney conceded. I mean, sure, if it's a blowout my argument above may not matter, but we're going for accuracy, not speed. (Think what happened in 2000...) As a side, I added a note above that we should link to the Senate election as well. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 00:58, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is no obligation to wait until a concession is made. Once multiple RS sources have called the election we can post the results. If either the Senate or the House of Reps flips that can be added to the blurb once we know it for certain. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:41, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the suggested blurb above; the Democrats taking the House is extremely unlikely so I didn't put that in there(but we always can later). 331dot (talk) 02:03, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What, there's an election? – Muboshgu (talk) 01:53, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Let's just say, it's a good year to be a monarchist. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:11, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious support after results and update article is in good shape. Go Hillary! EternalNomad (talk) 05:07, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support – This election is of international significance. Hundreds of millions of people are watching. Dustin(talk) 05:27, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support the version with the House and Senate outcome, and not the unnecessary detail of "January 20, 2017" -- Fuzheado | Talk 06:06, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose posting this early is just trophy seeking, and there is no guarantee either will become president, since it might be Johnson, or the next speaker of the house, or one of the VP's if the POTUS-elect dies. Let's wait for something better that the closing of the East Coast polls. μηδείς (talk) 06:45, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Question: What about the results of the House election? Is that not as important as the Senate, left off due to a lack of space, or not included for some other reason? AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 06:58, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - this election has been, and continues to be, "in the news" long before a result has been reached. I've added altblurb2 as an option to post before a winner is declared. Neegzistuoja (talk) 07:36, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb2 because we never say "voting is underway" for any election - we wait for the result. As for the rest, it's premature to discuss wording until we know what the story is, and voting "support" before that time is pointless because (a) it's obvious that the result will be posted and (b) we won't post anything until we have the story. This is all a waste of time. BencherliteTalk 08:13, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, mostly. The only thing this could be useful in achieving is bringing the target article up to snuff, but given that it will be flooded with edits over the next 24 hours, even that may be pointless. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:19, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have added "U.S. presidential election" to the list of ongoing events. Will have to be replaced with the above post once the result is known, of course. Sandstein 10:08, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So we can put all ongoing elections into the Ongoing section from now on, or just the American one? Or just the "important" ones? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:10, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I'm not sure that's what Ongoing Events was designed for. It's meant for long-term things, not for a one-day election. 80.68.32.198 (talk) 10:30, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I thought that it should be uncontroversial to have the major international news event of the month (if not the year) appear somewhere in ITN as long as it is ongoing. Evidently I expect that this will be replaced by a proper blurb as soon as the results are clear, as discussed above. Feel free to revert if I've misjudged this, though. Sandstein 10:44, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not all ongoing elections have a quality article and regular updates, so no, we can't put "all ongoing elections". However, this should be pulled from ongoing since it was added without consensus. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 10:49, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What I mean is that this will set a precedent (or a president). The Rambling Man (talk) 10:51, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely a good-faith addition, but I don't think adding a one-day election into Ongoing Events adds anything. We'll know the result in a number of hours anyway. My view is hold off on anything until we actually have a result. 80.68.32.198 (talk) 10:57, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Pull from ongoing and wait for the results. Way too soon, come on. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 10:49, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Removed from ongoing as suggested. --Tone 10:58, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wait until we have the result, like all other elections. Don't post to ongoing, or just when the polls close, or when broadcasters start 'calling' (i.e. predicting) it. Post once the actual result is known and/or the losing candidates concede, whichever is first. Modest Geniustalk 12:23, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If Hillary is elected, it may be worth mentioning that she is the first women to be elected president. We included a statement in 2008 that Obama was the first African American. In 2008 and 2012, we didn't mention the House or Senate, though we did post both the 2010 and 2014 midterms. Dragons flight (talk) 12:45, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If the Republicans keep Congress, I could see not mentioning it, though if the Democrats take the Senate I think it should be mentioned(it is extremely unlikely they will take the House). 331dot (talk) 14:56, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
futile oppose this is technically an advisory referendum when the real ITNR one happens in Dec and votes counted in jan. But people are too stupid to know the now-dead constitution. Heck they think the wannabe dictator is a legislative lawmaker (see mid tem turnout?).Lihaas (talk) 18:11, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind. This is for a different forum/fora or personal talk page.Lihaas (talk) 18:17, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is ITNR so your oppose is not relevant; aside from the fact there are other elections going on in the US, the presidential election is not "advisory" as most states have laws requiring the electors to vote for whom they are pledged to. The Electoral College meeting and the votes being counted are largely formalities. And there is no need for political statements here. 331dot (talk) 18:13, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is not ITNR . hats for election to heads of state. Please familiarize yourself with the constitituion. The prez is NOT directly elected.
And, as an aside, well played Tone. Thank you.Lihaas (talk) 18:15, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you reread the ITNR list, which states "Indirect elections, including papal elections, are also included". 331dot (talk) 18:19, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Lihaas are you okay? You seem to be editing almost randomly? Has your account been hacked? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:03, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Lihaas, what the hell are you doing?--WaltCip (talk) 18:23, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Should not have been put on "ongoing" per precedent. Shouldn't have been nominated here 24 hours before the results come in either. That's why we've got silly season here. Which I've contributed to. #ImWithHer. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:18, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would gently encourage editors to take a deep breath before collapsing/hiding discussions that are not obviously disruptive, off topic, or editorializing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:59, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I guess that's what happens when premature nominations are made. This has been wholesale waste of time and energy thusfar. Results due in 12 hours or so, let's wait. Please desist. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:59, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose voting in election will remain open for many more hours, and then counting will take many more hours after that, and then a result may not be known for many more hours or days after that. This nomination is way too early. Gfcvoice (talk) 19:53, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Calm down. Nobody is suggesting we post anything until the election is called. It is quite possible (maybe even likely) that we will know by 10PM (EST) who won. And if not, then we will wait until multiple RS sources have called the election. All we are doing is getting a jump on discussing the quality of the article and the eventual wording of the blurb. This is a useful exercise in that it can facilitate getting what is an obvious ITNR item up in a timely manner. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:01, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 1There is no need to direct me to calm down as I am feeling perfectly tranquil now. Alternatively, maybe I could (unnecessarily) direct you to calm down? Gfcvoice (talk) 20:07, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 2 I understand the rationale for discussing this hours/days before the result is known, however, given that the result is unknown, there are many different possible results, which would result in many different possible blurbs. This discussion could easily be held after the result is known. Gfcvoice (talk) 20:10, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Associated Press and FOX News have called the election for Donald Trump and Clinton has made the concession phone call. The Republicans have retained control of Congress. OMG! -Ad Orientem (talk) 07:45, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Google and other major news sources are now officially reporting that Trump has won/Clinton has conceded. We can put this out now once we get it polished. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:46, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to live on this planet anymore. Kurtis(talk) 07:47, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This blurb should be posted to the Main Page for obvious reasons. Dustin(talk) 07:52, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. There is no evidence he has won the election, by being formally elected, or even by winning a majority of the votes[2]. Whether he might be appointed president despite not winning a majority of the votes is pure speculation at this point. --Tataral (talk) 07:53, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support AltI. Very significant event in politics. Makes it plebs 2, Establishment 0 by my reckoning. Mjroots (talk) 07:56, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alt1. Hillaryhasconceded. The news of his win by itself is notable, and the news that Clinton conceded just adds to that. —Gestrid (talk) 08:00, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Donald Trump has won by every reasonable metric. Every major media agency has declared him the winner and Clinton has conceded. Joshua Garner (talk) 08:10, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - there's no doubt now. Blythwood (talk) 08:11, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - universally reported as the outcome -- samtartalk or stalk 08:12, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Posted - feel free to work on the blurb I derived from the candidates above. JehochmanTalk 08:16, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Jehochman Please fix the redirect and please address the nomination above this one. Oh, and surely we can now change the image? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:22, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Deciding on which image to use will be the bigger issue, lets stick with that weird cubs player (p.s i like the one on my userpage) ..--Stemoc 08:25, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, what an interesting User page you have there. I prefer the "weird" cubs player Martinevans123 (talk) 08:29, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't Donald Trump be bolded too? Mjroots (talk) 09:19, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It should be (pictured), not (pictured). And the redirect to "the House" could be fixed at the same time. And there are various other WP:ERRORS... The Rambling Man (talk) 09:23, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can any one explain what is wrong with the blurb saying "Donald Trump is elected President of the United States..." that was proposed in any of the lines above but was changed on the main page?--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:21, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See the page history at WP:ERRORS, but basically there was a complaint that he hasn't been elected President, merely become President-Elect. BencherliteTalk (using his alt account Bencherheavy) 14:36, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that the blurb is updated to reflect that Clinton won the popular vote. It's quite uncommon and therefore notable that the EC winner has not won the popular vote. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 11:03, 11 November 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: Veteran BBC broadcaster, one of the first Radio 1 DJs etc. Article needs work, lots of uncited material, but detailed obituaries are likely to be available soon to fill in the gaps (as long as they're not just copied from WP...)) BencherliteTalk (using his alt account Bencherheavy) 20:59, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose the singing career section appears to be entirely unreferenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:41, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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: Should we mention the parliamentary result? Lihaas (talk) 19:58, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Conditional Support While decently sourced the article is a bit short. Also the two tables need to be updated and filled in before this can be posted. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:11, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I've been hearing about this Daniel Ortega since the 1980s and the Irangate.--98.88.130.198 (talk) 20:41, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Updated backbone appears to be there, no need to wait, particularly considering slow news period. Brandmeistertalk 13:14, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose no prose synopsis of the election itself. A bunch of charts is not an article. If someone were to write a full synopsis of the election itself, that would be great. --Jayron32 18:18, 8 November 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: Belgian comics artist. Has his own museum in Brussels. Fram (talk) 10:16, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now, the categories weren't updated, there's still a large linkrot issue, and several sentences appear to not have any inline citations. Also the article could use a copyedit to refine the English language, but that's less critical. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:47, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The linkrot problems have been solved. Copyedit still needs to be done, and check of what still needs sourcing. Fram (talk) 11:10, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Some further cleanup has been done. If you can indicate the remaining problems I'll try to work on them. Fram (talk) 13:54, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support. yes, I'm the nominator, but as I'm not aware of any further outstanding issues with this article, as we have only one RD listed at the moment (and apart from this one other nominated), and as everyone seems rather focused on the US election only, it seems as if most other things here are a bit forgotten even though they could easily be posted or improved. Fram (talk) 13:52, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd never heard of him but he seems quite notable and big in his home country. The article mostly seems fine but it could use some clarification of his style and title "Marcel Honoree Nestor, Knight Neels". Presumably that's familiar to Belgians but I have some trouble parsing it to figure out what is his name and what's his title. Andrew D. (talk) 14:32, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Yes, he is mostly unknown outside Belgium (somewhat known in Wallonia, very important in his field in Flanders). I'll see what I can do about the name thing (everything but "Knight" is his full name) and about his style (an image would help, but they are copyrighted). Fram (talk) 14:35, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A footnote might be the best way to clarify the name. Andrew D. (talk) 14:58, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Footnote about name, short bit about style, and two images to illustrate his style and work, are added. Fram (talk) 10:57, 9 November 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: Former US attorney general Fuzheado | Talk 09:48, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support article seems well sourced and fairly thorough. MurielMary (talk) 10:25, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose far too many unreferenced claims. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:30, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Can you clarify - do you mean the list of actions taken while in post? Everything else seems cited (I removed a short paragraph which seemed opinion rather than sourced fact). MurielMary (talk) 10:53, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the version I reviewed had several issues which seem to have been resolved in the intervening dozen or so edits. So support now. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:35, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you posting your own nomination?--WaltCip (talk) 13:21, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed - nominators should not promote their own nominations, particularly in light of how fast this was done per Jayron below. (Though otherwise there's no reason to pull, TRM hit on sourcing in original comments and a check now shows it is okay, so no need to remove). --MASEM (t) 15:12, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, there is no suggestion to pull, merely a reminder on how to avoid problems in the future. I didn't even catch that the OP promoted his own proposal. That occasionally happens when a post has been sitting around a long time (a day or more) and there has been extensive support. Two votes in 3 hours is neither. --Jayron32 20:57, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit Conflict with above, when this was posted) The article isn't great, but it's good enough for my weak support based on the fact that everything there is cited. If anyone wanted to make this better, here's a few issues that those with the desire and the sources to do so could improve: 1) The U.S. attorney general section would be better as a series of prose paragraphs explaining each of the items currently there, rather than a bullet list. 2) A few key aspects of her life and career could be expanded. For example, most obits seem to be spending more time than we do on her failed 2002 bid for Florida governor; of which we currently mention in a sentence on "Post-political life", which is silly, because running for Governor seems entirely like a political event. Still, none of this completely holds this up from the main page for me, but still would be nice to see improved. --Jayron32 13:23, 7 November 2016 (UTC) Post edit conflict addendum: This was a bit fast for a posting, I count less than 3 hours between nomination and posting, with one vote to go on. I suggest, in the future, the posting admin wait for either more time, or more votes, before rushing to press. --Jayron32 13:23, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There were two supports at the time this was posted. Usually that's sufficient. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:26, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Add as blurb First female Attorney General in the US, second longest serving in history, and a true national hero. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.62.76.13 (talk) 16:42, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OPPOSE and PULL as COI and sub par cabinet post. Are we now going to post fgn min, fin min, def min too as theyre constitutionally higher in all countried?!Lihaas (talk) 19:56, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Per this RFC anyone who has been deemed notable enough for an article is eligible to be posted in ITN/RD provided that article quality is adequate. I am not seeing significant issues of that nature. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:03, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I mean really, Lihaas, you're regular enough here to know we don't judge RD based on notability now, right? Or did you forget? Good lord.--WaltCip (talk) 01:04, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As Ad Orientem has pointed out, the only issues are (a) does this recently deceased person have an article? (b) is the article of sufficient quality to post? Whether someone was famous or not, or any such variation of some sort of super-notability test, stopped being the test here some months ago. BencherliteTalk (using his alt account Bencherheavy) 20:54, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This has been the case for some months now. It's not odd at all, and every single RD has had a notice attached to it to allude to the discussion. If there's a consensus to return to the previous way of doing things, by all means direct us to it. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:11, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly not, it's been posted and rightly so. If you'd like to file a new RfC to return to "super notability" criteria, you are welcome to do so! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:25, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As many as 200 prisoners take over parts of HM Prison Bedford in Bedford, England, amid reports of a riot and explosions inside the Category B men's prison. (BBC)
Voters in Bulgaria go to the polls for a presidential election, with exit polls showing no candidate receiving the majority necessary to win outright, and Rumen Radev and Tsetska Tsacheva likely to face one another in a run-off on 13 November. (AP)
Electoral council official says high turnout among 3.8 million registered voters. Later, opposition Broad Front for Democracy Party says there was a low turnout as citizens responded to the call for a boycott. (BBC)(AP via The Caledonian-Record)
Kohlhepp, a man arrested in the American state of South Carolina for keeping a missing woman "chained like a dog", has reportedly confessed to seven murders, including four killed in an unsolved mass shooting at a motorcycle shop in 2003. (BBC), (CBS News)
A woman who was allegedly raped by Donald Trump drops her lawsuit against the presidential candidate. (Fox News)
Tens of thousands protest in the South Korean capital, Seoul, calling for the resignation of PresidentPark Geun-hye over her links with Choi Soon-sil, who was arrested on November 3, and charged with fraud and abuse of power. (BBC)
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)
![[1]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Leonard_Cohen,_1988_01.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}