Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/February 2016

[Closed] RD:Louise Rennison

• Support - clearly notable. You'll have to do some work on the article though - it looks well sourced on the face of it but a lot of citations are to
  IMDB which I believe isn't considered reliable by itself. Blythwood (talk) 22:56, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support per Blythwood, although it will have to wait until after diiner and Wheel of Fortune for me to scrub the article. μηδείς (talk) 23:01, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Once μηδείς has had a chance to review the sourcing. Miyagawa (talk) 23:10, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support; - Widely known character actor. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:14, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: - See above; this actor was well-known and has hundreds of TV and film credits. ~Lord Laitinen~ (
  talk) 23:16, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support: -
  open channel) 04:10, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support full blurb Although they say it has a 50/50 chance of being posted, though there's only a 10 percent chance of that. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:01, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support the awards which have [citation needed] need citations. Otherwise it looks good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:31, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ref'd them all, apart from the last one. Any help with that would be appreciated. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:42, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Support - Academy Award winner. Very notable actor. Oh No! It's Faustus37! it is what it is - speak at the tone 11:19, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I fixed the one CN tag, and Posted the article per consensus above to RD. --Jayron32 12:49, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Memorable actor; would be recognized by older moviegoers across the world familiar with Hollywood films. Daniel Case (talk) 02:27, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Vorkuta coal mine explosion

Nominator's comments: Per BBC " one of the worst Russian mining disasters in recent times"; there was an explosion on Feb 25 that trapped 26 miners, but this second set of explosions this morning killed those as well as 5 rescue workers trying to save them. MASEM (t) 17:24, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The article is fine. Any chance someone adds an infobox? --Tone 18:50, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I noticed past Russian mine disasters did not have an infobox, I am not sure if there is one for such or not. --MASEM (t) 19:01, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support on notability. Article seems adequate, if short. The BBC doesn't have much in the way of detail yet. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:55, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - A mine explosion with such a high death toll is definitely noteworthy enough to be featured on the main page. Kurtis ^(talk) 21:44, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Posting. --Tone 22:13, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Only 2 supports?

Anyways, I would support too as outside china's woeful industrial safety record, these are rare. Cmparable to Chile a few years ago (2010?).Lihaas (talk) 07:32, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Thane stabbing

• The article is still written in future tense. This will have to be rectified before it is posted. --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:22, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose until a suitable update is provided for review. Blurb corrected. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:36, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• support - when winner has been announced tonight.BabbaQ (talk) 10:09, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• C If Leo wins best actor, he should be in the blurb.--86.163.174.177 (talk) 12:08, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • And in the ITN image. 45.125.181.250 (talk) 13:19, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which works - likely, that would be "The Revenant wins X awards, including best picture, at the Academy awards (Leo who won best actor pictured)". Typically, we do go with "X wins Y awards, including best picture" - unless another movie wins the same or a higher number of awards, in which case we mention both. --Tone 17:05, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Suggest blurb to include Best Picture only or Best Picture + Best Actor + Best Actress (may get a little long?) MurielMary (talk) 16:21, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support and blurb per Tone. I think the picture should be of Alejandro González Iñárritu FWIW. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:32, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, if The Revenant wins, Iñárritu should be pictured - he'd be the first person to direct back-to-back Best Picture winners. Neljack (talk) 21:37, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Picture of Leo? Considering it's been a "thing" that he hadn't won one yet. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:28, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Spotlight is Best Picture, Leo wins Best Actor, Mad Max wins the most awards. I'd recommend Spotlight and Mad Max in the blurb, with Leo as the photo if we have one. --PlasmaTwa2 05:36, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support based on just the current blurb highlighting best picture (which is arguably the most important award); to highlight any of the other awards would be picking and choosing favorites so its simply best to go with the "big winner" to speak. Article is up to date including some details about the ceremony (I just added in a ref for the award list even though this is not contentious) --MASEM (t) 06:35, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Supportfor blurb of Best Picture only. As per Masem, adding any other awards such as Best Actress/Best Actor etc would require a consensus on which awards to add, which would make for a lengthy process. Good to get it posted as soon as poss. MurielMary (talk) 07:12, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Posting. I'll go with a combined blurb, feel free to modify it and check if there are any good images. --Tone 07:46, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Question Why is the picture of a nominee that did not win? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.95.148.250 (talk) 16:24, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  The film he directed won 6 awards. I would say that your premise for your question is incorrect. --Jayron32 16:25, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How is the premise incorrect? He was specifically nominated for an award that he did not win. None of the awards Mad Max won were a) major or b) for directing. It's a moot point now because the picture has been changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.95.148.250 (talk) 23:18, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Iranian legislative election, 2016

[Closed] RD: Don Getty

[Closed] Kosovan presidential election

[Posted] Irish elections

Article: 

Labour loses its parliamentary majority and over a third of its vote, but Fine Gael narrowly remains the largest party in the Irish Dáil.
News source(s): FT, The Guardian, The Irish Times

Credits:

• Nominated by
  Fuebaey (talk · give credit
  )

Article needs updating
The nominated event is listed on

WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

Nominator's comments: Prematurely based on exit polls. Fuebaey (talk) 01:08, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply

• If the government remains the same, this may be a case where we do not post the re-election of an incumbent, depending on other factors(news coverage, if we get a great update, etc.) 331dot (talk) 02:26, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why should we not post the re-election of an incumbent? I do not see why that is any less significant than the incumbent being defeated. Does anyone really think the 2012 US Presidential election was less significant because Barack Obama rather than Mitt Romney won? Neljack (talk) 19:07, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, this seems to be moot, since it is fairly clear that in light of the massive collapse in Labour Party support the Fine Gael/Labour coalition will not be able to continue in office. Fine Gael may still lead the next government, but they will need to find a new coalition partner. Neljack (talk) 19:19, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is indeed moot- I would say that it's been my understanding that while general elections in general are notable, there may be specific instances where they do not warrant posting, such as a rigged election(though we do post them occasionally) or one where there are no choices(North Korea) or elections in countries where an incumbent remains in power; the latter of which likely depends on the country and its political situation. 331dot (talk) 20:52, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• 331dot, You got our ITNR rules backwards. According to ITNR, the results of a general election should always be posted (assuming article quality is OK). Whether or not the incumbent wins is completely irrelevant for the notability of a general election. A change of Prime Minister (whether after a general election or otherwise) is a separate event not covered by ITNR, that has to be discussed based on its merits if it happens. LoveToLondon (talk) 19:11, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I have nothing backwards. ITNR is not and never has been a guarantee of posting any item; as stated at
  WP:ITNR: "Listing here is not an automatic guarantee that an item will be posted.". There may be specific exceptions if the community judges a particular election not worthy of posting due to its particular circumstances- which since this issue is moot here I won't go into. I was only referring to the PM to indicate that the majority party has remained the same. 331dot (talk) 19:47, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• The government staying the same is a pretty normal result of a general election, it might even happen in the majority of all general elections (for people in the US: there were 50 general elections in the US in the 20th century, and the majority in the United States House of Representatives changed in only 8 of these 50 general elections). Your attempts to claim that the common result the government remains the same could be a specific exception is simply wrong. If you are not happy with the status quo that all general elections get posted assuming sufficient article quality, then discuss that at ITNR. (There is also the obvious problem that whether or not there will be the non-ITNR event of a new Prime Minister is usually only decided weeks or months after a general election - whether Enda Kenny will stay Prime Minister or whether his party will have to go into opposition is not clear today after the ITNR general election.) LoveToLondon (talk) 20:19, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• It is not just my belief, we have discussed this before. I now think that this is drifting too far from the purpose of this discussion since the issue is moot here; we can discuss this in a place of your choosing if you wish. 331dot (talk) 20:24, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Consensus is to post all general elections, no matter whether anything changes, and no matter whether they were fair or fraudulent. So please stop implying there might be notability reasons for not posting a general election. LoveToLondon (talk) 20:34, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not implying anything; we
  state it outright on the ITNR page. I have nothing else to say in this location. 331dot (talk) 20:38, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Oppose a maintenance tag and incomplete, probably will remain so for a few days, seems like a premature nomination. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:44, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose until article is updated sufficiently. There is no prose synopsis of the results, and the information tables are as yet incomplete. If and when those problems are fixed, the rest of the article is in good enough shape, and this can be posted. --Jayron32 18:12, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

post the results upon update of FG plurality and we can post the ogovt formation later as a possible grand coalition. We did it for CAN/UK/AUS last time. (and Peple' Before Profit got in too...amazing. they were all over when I was in Dublin).Lihaas (talk) 03:25, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support article appears to have been tidied up since the previous comments. MurielMary (talk) 16:29, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Not Ready various sentences, whole paragraps, and entire sections remain without references. I have tagged some. μηδείς (talk) 20:53, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Also, there is still no prose overview of the results. Just tables and charts. --Jayron32 02:43, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Our current suggested blurb is misleading, giving the impression that FG are 'winners'. So I've added an altblurb based on the one we used for the recent Spanish elections, which produced a similar result. A second altblurb describes the fate of the coalition government (there was no ruling coalition in the recent Spanish elections). Tlhslobus (talk) 07:54, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Added in the word narrowly to both altblurbs, as FG is just barely ahead of FF.Tlhslobus (talk) 08:01, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed references and added a summary. Two seats have yet to be declared in an ongoing recount but won't change the outcome of the election. I'd compromise on the altblurb; second one seems a bit cumbersome. Can take out prime minister as well if still too long - the nom is mainly about the election result, not who is/was in government. Fuebaey (talk) 00:03, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support article is more than good enough for me. Banedon (talk) 00:57, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for same reason as Banedon above, plus it's fairly urgent as time is running out. Use altblurb as suggested by Fuebaey above. Tlhslobus (talk) 06:02, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Support. As of 08:30 today, counting of all results has now been completed. Recommend altblurb. --Kwekubo (talk) 12:00, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as mentioned the count is now finished in the final constituency. I think altblurb 2 better explains the result. --Boreas74 ^{You'll catch more flies with honey} 12:28, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support altblurb 2. Full results are now out and the article now is in sufficiently good shape. Marking [ready]. Modest Genius ^talk 13:34, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Please Post ASAP as there is clear consensus for posting, and there's just 27 hours left before this nomination gets lost thru being archived. Either altblurb will do, or, if necessary, a shortened version of either. Like the last 2 posters, I actually prefer altblurb 2, tho I earlier agreed with altblurb 1 (or a shortened version thereof) at a time when it seemed like a sensible compromise that offered the quickest way to get this posted. But the important thing is to get it posted with some kind of blurb, and any dispute over the blurb (which quite likely there won't be, almost certainly not from me anyway) can then be carried on at WP:ERRORS (where consensus is not needed, so any supposed lack of consensus over the blurb here should not be used as an excuse for delaying posting, especially when time is running out.)Tlhslobus (talk) 21:17, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted. I dated it 3 March as that's when the result was finalised. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:27, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Espresso Addict. Tlhslobus (talk) 05:24, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] 2016 FIFA presidential election

[Posted] Jamaican elections

• Oppose barely above stub and lacking in up-to-date information. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:38, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support in principle. The article needs to be expanded before posting, though.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:14, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose on article quality. Not enough prose to fully flesh out the subject. If article is fully expanded, this could be posted. --Jayron32 12:47, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Every country's general election should be featured. One country's change in government affects international relations across the globe.--Marlonja (talk) 16:40, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@

recurring items list, though in order to be posted we still need an adequate article. 331dot (talk) 21:53, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

• Oppose this is the re-election of an incumbent in a small nation. μηδείς (talk) 01:28, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An incumbent PM was not reelected; the current PM is Portia Simpson-Miller whose party lost its majority. Holness was PM before but was not the incumbent. Leaving that aside, with regards to ITNR I understand and accept that there is some wiggle room in posting(or not) re-elections of incumbents, but a "small nation" is not relevant as numerous proposals to exclude small nations from posting have failed. You are welcome to attempt to do so again, but as long as this is in the news and gets an update(which admittedly has not happened) it should be posted. Every nation's government affects the world in some way(as a user pointed out above). 331dot (talk) 02:22, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Excluding small nations could be seen as systemic bias, as well. 331dot (talk) 02:24, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the correction on the switch of party, I misunderstood what I read, and I have withdrawn my opposition. But I still oppose automatically posting elections in small countries. Jamaica has a population of 2.9 million. There are 91 world cities (not urban areas, but incorporated cities)

List_of_cities_proper_by_population with a greater population than Jamaica. μηδείς (talk) 23:28, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

I think we've visited this discussion numerous times. Ranking by election significance by population is illogical, attempting to create a "cut-off" mark has no consensus. Ireland wouldn't rank in the top 50 of the list you link, but you're not opposing that candidate on the same grounds, where's your cut-off point? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:41, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I also don't understand the reluctance to support things like this- aside from the systemic bias issue of favoring large countries- it's like people are afraid to actually learn something about another country. As TRM states, arbitrary cut-offs have been discussed to death as one will never be agreed to. 331dot (talk) 19:50, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support ITNR, article looks quality look sufficient now. LoveToLondon (talk) 19:16, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment What the article still needs is a couple of sentences regarding the outcome. Like reactions from the parties etc. At the moment it's just the result table. Add some prose and then it's ready to post. --Tone 20:13, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Not Ready even though I oppsed this, I was going to mark ready based on consesnsus, but the article is too small; one section being only one sentence, while the text should have at least three full prose paragraphs. It fails the Fuzhou derailment criterion in the ITN guidelines. μηδείς (talk) 20:18, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a bit more prose. As of this timestamp, it's roughly the same size as the previous election (2011) article and the last nomination that was posted to the ITN template. There's also a recount underway that might sway the seats 32-31, but blurb should still be okay. Fuebaey (talk) 01:51, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well done, that's all I wanted to see :) Posting. --Tone 08:09, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] 2016 Hesston shooting

[Posted] Tara Air Flight 193

Nominator's comments: Relatively high number of fatalities. Article is developing. Brandmeister^talk 10:12, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support significant loss of aircraft and lives, underlining ongoing weak standards in Nepalese aviation. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:40, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose as yet. The article is a bit light on information, as of my writing now. Would not oppose if it were significantly expanded. --Jayron32 11:29, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Change to support Article has been expanded to include enough information to be informative and useful. --Jayron32 14:42, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Wait. Fatal plane crashes are generally ITN worthy but as Jayron32 notes the article is light on information. The issue is that there doesn't seem to be a whole lot more available at present, and as it stands I'm not sure that is enough for the main page. Thryduulf (talk) 12:38, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Article has been sufficiently expanded. Though plane crashes are relatively frequent in Nepal, the BBC seems to be implying it's the largest death toll in that country since 2006. Espresso Addict (talk) 14:19, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Aviation Safety Network seems to think it's the worst in Nepal since 2000... here. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:45, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  The BBC is counting a WWF helicopter crash which killed 24 in 2006 [3], but wasn't a Nepalese flight. Espresso Addict (talk) 14:58, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Posting. --Tone 14:44, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Dalfsen train crash

[Posted] RD: Douglas Slocombe

• Support some tweaks needed to the article but notability is beyond doubt for RD. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:27, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support on notability -- I'm astonished at how many legendary films he was associated with -- but the article is going to need some work. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:29, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article is now expanded. Side note - I remember seeing the Titfield Thunderbolt on TV over Christmas and being staggered to see he was still alive when I looked at the cast/crew biographies on here. (One other person from that era you won't believe is still alive: the director of The Dam Busters, Michael Anderson.) Blythwood (talk) 21:33, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Another side note: Wow, you remember an entirely forgettable film. That's quite a feat. 87.154.210.6 (talk) 21:48, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support with article improvements - Importance is very clear not only between volume of works but awards and the various titles he earned. I see on glaring CN (about his creativity) that one of these pending obit articles should easily fill in for. --MASEM (t) 21:35, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article is, I think, basically ready now. I've gone through Google Books and found a real range of comments on his work, a photo, and a blockquote of his experience escaping the German blitzkrieg, which is really one heck of a story. Blythwood (talk) 23:27, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looks good now. (If this was FAC, one might ask to source each of the awards and nominations for completeness, but for ITN that's easily verifiable information and thus not required. Key is that the facts that make him important are all sourced now.) --MASEM (t) 00:05, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - not on par with Michael Ballhaus, Vadim Yusov, Sven Nykvist or other cinematographers who are at the top of their field. That's not the case with Mr Slocombe, who was a reliable cog in the wheel. That he never won the Academy Awards and was mainly involved in the production of schlockfest films (or what the editor above calls "legendary") speaks for itself. I am tempted to nominate Andrzej Żuławski for RD, just to see the massive difference nationality makes when it comes to ITN/C. 87.154.210.6 (talk) 21:44, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Please do but note that the nomination would become stale in two days time. It would have been better to nominate it five days ago. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:46, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Nationality is irrelevant; I will support nominations that are shown to meet the criteria, are adequately updated, and are shown to be in the news. If that person qualifies, please nominate them. We can only discuss what we are given for nominations. 331dot (talk) 23:31, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  (Personal attack removed) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.154.210.6 (talk) 00:03, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Article quality is sufficient for inclusion on the main page. Very well referenced, and relatively complete biography. --Jayron32 16:23, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted - Article has been updated to acceptable quality. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 18:44, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Note that I am not arguing pull, and he worked on a slew of great movies. But workmanship and notability (in the ITN sense) are two very different things. μηδείς (talk) 03:15, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - article quality if sufficient for RD.BabbaQ (talk) 14:26, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] 2016 Women's Bandy World Championship

Consensus against posting. --Tone 20:47, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

---

Article: 2016 Women's Bandy World Championship (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​  Sweden defeats  Russia to win its 7th workd championship title, in Roseville, Minnesota, USA. (Post)
Credits:

• Nominated by [[User:Skogsvandraren (talk)|Skogsvandraren (talk)]] ([[User talk:Skogsvandraren (talk)|talk]] · [{{fullurl:User talk:Skogsvandraren (talk)|action=edit&preload=Template:ITN_candidate/preload_credit&preloadtitle=ITN+recognition+for+%5B%5B2016+Women%27s+Bandy+World+Championship%5D%5D&section=new&preloadparams%5b%5d=2016+Women%27s+Bandy+World+Championship&preloadparams%5b%5d=nominated}} give credit])

• Oppose, many times over malformed nomination, incorrect blurb, appalling article quality. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:29, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Skogsvandraren suggest you edit the article so that it has some paragraphs describing the event. You also need to show that this event is being reported in mainstream media - is it reported by CNN news, or Yahoo news, or international sports news sites? MurielMary (talk) 08:43, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I googled "bandy championship 2016" and the top coverage of it seems to be in... are you ready? ... Wikipedia. I don't think it's on ESPN.com, for example. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:19, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose As of right now, the entire article has 39 words of prose. That is not the best we can do. --Jayron32 13:22, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• To quote
  Gunnery Sergeant Hartman: "What is this?!"--WaltCip (talk) 13:24, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Or as a certain Teletype operator was wont to say to certain AP writers, "What is dis shit?" Sca (talk) 15:48, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• • According to some people, prose had no place in an article like this. I don't agree myself, so I like the fact that I have found someone who agrees with me in that regard. As for the low quality of the article, please suggest improvements. Skogsvandraren (talk) 17:05, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Look at some other articles on annual international sports championships and notice what is included e.g. 2015 Rugby World Cup. MurielMary (talk) 17:12, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose on notability and quality grounds. I had to go to the article on bandy to figure out what it is, so if you want to improve the article, context would help. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:38, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think its popularity is right up there with 43-Man Squamish. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:46, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose on notability and quality. I don't need to know anything about bandy to know that the article is of poor quality, and news coverage seems limited anywhere, even in the US(where this occurred). 331dot (talk) 20:11, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

[Posted] 2016 Daytona 500

Nominator's comments: The biggest and most prestigious event in the Sprint Cup Series. Andise1 (talk) 22:05, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak support with final updates - I note Daytona is not an ITNR within Motorsport, and there was discussion last year to add it to ITNR (see [4]). That said, the race article is in good shape, all that it needs is the full result table and a few sources to add to the existing description of the race, which will come within a few hours from RSes. On the other hand, Hamlin's article is far from good sourcing and really needs work. As long as the race article is the only one highlighted, that should be okay, but really the poor quality of Hamlin's could limit this nom. --MASEM (t) 22:15, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support the "Super Bowl of Stock Car Racing" is a notable recurring sporting event that should be on the main page every year. Dough4872 00:38, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as last year's Daytona 500 ITN nominator, though I'd suggest possible change of the blurb to something simpler, perhaps: "In motorsport, Denny Hamlin wins NASCAR's [2016] Daytona 500" or something like that. --
  talk) 01:53, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support - Stock car racing's biggest event of the year. The page just needs some finishing up on the standings and we should be good to go.
  Mati 03:54, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose until all of the race section is referenced correctly. Otherwise it's a good article and can be considered a decent candidate for the main page. Traditional alt-blurb added. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:57, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose We already have 7 annual motorsport items at ITNR. If this is truly the Super Bowl of Stock Car Racing as claimed, we should remove the lesser NASCAR Sprint Cup Series (Drivers champion) from ITNR and replace it with the Daytona 500. Two blurbs in a year for Stock Car Racing (which is a US-only event completely unknown outside of the US) would be too many. LoveToLondon (talk) 13:40, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Who said anything about ITNR? This is not in ITNR, and this is not a proposal to add it to ITNR. --Jayron32 14:05, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  And not only that, but a discussion to add it to ITNR did not result in consensus to do so, so that isn't even an issue. Do you have any comment on the merits of this normal nomination? 331dot (talk) 14:09, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  I would further note that single-country objections("US only event, completely unknown outside of US") are not valid, as stated on this page. 331dot (talk) 14:11, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh, and furthermore, "completely unknown outside of the US" is a farcical statement when even TRM himself has said he will support this item once the race section is properly referenced, to say nothing of the fact that NASCAR has 23 international broadcast partners.--WaltCip (talk) 14:12, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The 23 international broadcast partners are various (often fringe) sports channels that show all kinds of sports from Darts to whatever else they can get the rights without paying much.
• This is a proposal to post a second blurb for an US-only motorsport series. Even for Formula 1, known worldwide and with races on all continents, the consensus was two months ago to post only one blurb per year. Is the most important title of the Sprint Cup Series the drivers champion or the Daytona 500? The most important one should be ITNR, and the lesser one not posted.

LoveToLondon (talk) 14:26, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's still hardly "completely unknown". The subject you raise about which is important would seem to have been resolved in the discussion last year(see above), but that does not preclude regular nominations. Objections to posting something because it is not ITNR are also not valid, as stated on this page. 331dot (talk) 14:29, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Except for really fanatic motorsport fans you won't find anyone outside the US who knows what Daytona 500 is. The average person does not have the slightest clue, and the casual motorsport fan who follows Formula 1 will assume it is an IndyCar race like Indy 500.
• An objection to post two blurbs per year for a lesser-known series when consensus was to post only one blurb for the best-known series worldwide is a valid objection.
• I would not object changing which Sprint Cup Series item is listed at ITNR, but two blurbs per year is too much.

LoveToLondon (talk) 14:43, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please link to the consensus where a general policy was established to post "one blurb for the best-known series". We consider each item on its own merits here. You are saying that you object because there should be only be one ITNR item in NASCAR and this isn't the one you believe it should be, so it shouldn't be posted. I don't see any other way to interpret that other than you objecting because this item is not ITNR. An ITNR listing does not preclude other traditional ITNC nominations. Do you have any comments about the merits of this specific nomination? 331dot (talk) 14:47, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again you are continuing to argue on the wavelength of this being a "single country event".--WaltCip (talk) 14:48, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Except for really fanatic motorsport fans you won't find anyone outside the US who knows what Daytona 500 is wrong, I'm far from a "fanatic" but I know what the Daytona 500 is. An objection to post two blurbs per year for a lesser-known series when consensus was to post only one blurb for the best-known series worldwide is a valid objection. wrong, there's no numerical limitation of blurbs relating to the same topic. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:52, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• You are saying that you object because there should be only be one ITNR item in NASCAR and this isn't the one you believe it should be, so it shouldn't be posted. No, this is not what I am saying. Perhaps you understand if I repeat bolded what I wrote directly above your incorrect claim: I would not object changing which Sprint Cup Series item is listed at ITNR, but two blurbs per year is too much.
• Again you are continuing to argue on the wavelength of this being a "single country event". Also wrong. I am arguing that we already have seven motorsport ITNR items, which is pretty huge compared to other sports. Consensus was not to post two Formula 1 blurbs every year, and the Sprint Cup Series has even less recognition worldwide for deserving two blurbs in one year.
• there's no numerical limitation of blurbs relating to the same topic There is the general question whether we want 7 or 15 or 70 motorsport blurbs every year. 7 are already listed at ITNR, and when Sprint Cup Series gets two blurbs more well-known series can't reasonably be denied more than one blurb per year.

LoveToLondon (talk) 15:14, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is the general question whether we want 7 or 15 or 70 motorsport blurbs every year. Nonsense. If 70 articles gain consensus, and are of sufficient quality, 70 we post. We don't arbitrarily define a cut-off for how many we're posting, not if we're being sensible. This particular edition of NASCAR has made it into international news for being won by the smallest margin ever, so there's good grounds for considering it despite what you may be suggesting. Besides all that, as evidenced by the recent Grammys article, ITNR is no guarantee of posting, quality has to be there too, so even your numerical cut-off is rendered somewhat meaningless. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:20, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@LoveToLondon: I understand that you wouldn't object to this being ITNR in place of the other one, but that only supports what I said, given the prior discussion on that issue. I did poorly word my post and I apologize. 331dot (talk) 15:22, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding ITNR, NASCAR should only be featured twice a year: the Daytona 500 winner in February and the Sprint Cup Champion in November. For other motorsports, the most prestigious race and the champion are also worth mentioning. For IndyCar, this would be the Indianapolis 500 and the champion and for F1 this would be the Grand Prix of Monaco and the champion. Dough4872 16:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Two months ago the consensus was to remove Monaco from ITNR, so your suggestion of doubling the number of Sprint Cup blurbs to two is not justified. The policy you suggest would also increase the amount of annual motorsport ITNR items from 7 to 13. LoveToLondon (talk) 06:54, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, that's really not at all pertinent to this discussion as there's no cap on types of story we run, so let's focus on this candidate. It's clear that LoveToLondon has opposed, there's nothing more that needs to be added I believe. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:06, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - there are far more notable motor sport events, this one is not one of them. 87.154.210.6 (talk) 16:58, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain how this is not notable. 331dot (talk) 17:36, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose mostly because this is just a single race from
  Sprint Cup Series. The conclusion of the Drivers Championship, which is already an ITN/R, is enough from this type of motosport. Posting a single race in stock car racing would, at least, require posting of every race from the Formula One calendar.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:44, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

It would require nothing of the sort. Each nomination is evaluated on its own merits. If other races similar to this one got decent articles and news coverage, I would support those too. If they don't get decent updates, then they shouldn't. There are no arbitrary limits on any category of posts, nor should their be. 331dot (talk) 19:46, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that each nomination should be evaluated on its own merits but we cannot post everything that appears in the media. If this one gets posted, then others will come with recurrent events of similar importance, thus artificially inflating the number of posted blurbs and leaving no room for incidental events. Daytona 500 takes place on annual basis but scientific discoveries, natural disasters, presidential changes and economic news occur only once. That said, incidental events are much more valuable than recurrent and should always be given priority.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:53, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I will just say that it is one thing to say "we post too many NASCAR races" but another to say "we should only post one NASCAR story". What we post should be determined as I indicated and not be an arbitrary limit. 331dot (talk) 20:56, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion is just yours and please keep it with no indication. We do not have clear guidelines about what to post as we do not have a numerical cut-off for how many blurbs should be posted every year.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:17, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Read your own statement again. How are you opposed? Your opinion is just yours and there is no limit.

talk) 23:05, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

You cannot turn down opinion that is not on the same line with yours. If the nomination is not on the top in the media, there is no way it be considered for inclusion, no matter how quality the article is. The two criteria for posting are: 1) breaking popularity in the media worldwide and 2) sufficient quality and update. What you seem to do is bypassing the first criterion and arguing that the second one has been met. Also, I am strongly against growing the number of nominations posted on the main page at a faster pace. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and what we need is paying more attention to several breaking news rather than growing on quantity and making the ITN a news ticker. If you do not like my criteria or think they are elitist, it is your own problem. Please show due respect to what others think. Thanks.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:54, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. I don't know if this should be posted every year, but this particular running of the race seems notable to post given the nature of the victory(whether or not the margin of victory is mentioned in the blurb; no opinion on that) Those opposing this seem to be doing so out of a desire to see some sort of arbitrary numerical limit on postings in auto racing. 331dot (talk) 19:49, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Article is in pretty good shape with extensive prose updates for the race, and it has been covered in the news. Spencer^T♦C 20:35, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - For whatever reason, this season-opening NASCAR event is considered to be its premiere event. It's not just any old NASCAR race. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:23, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Great article. Daytona is the premier race of the sport, combine that with the closeness of the finish makes this ITN-worthy. --Tocino 12:47, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support and marked as ready. The event clearly got news coverage and the article is now in good shape, with almost all sections referenced and nothing obviously contentious unreferenced. Thryduulf (talk) 13:52, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Just the five [citation needed] to fix and we're good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:54, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Posted - I hid two of the minor lines without refs, and the other three have refs now. Therefore, I'm going to add it to ITN at this point... while it's still news. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:56, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Eric "Winkle" Brown

• Support Notable in his field for sure.--86.135.159.20 (talk) 19:14, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support many firsts in aviation. Article is almost there. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:16, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support pending improvement to sourcing. Meets RD criteria, but large chunks of prose are without citations. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 19:20, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support on article improvements RD met, but as pointed out above, there's many sections and areas without inline cites. --MASEM (t) 20:10, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support It's in the news, e.g. top story on BBC. Andrew D. (talk) 20:23, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support described by the BBC as the Royal Navy's most decorated pilot and had a long and notable aviation career. --Bcp67 (talk) 21:32, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. A legendary figure, most decorated Navy pilot and, as a test pilot, Guinness world record for most types flown and for most carrier landings. First carrier landing of a jet aircraft (also first of a twin-engine and with tricycle undercarriage). Appointed MBE, OBE and CBE. Survived 11 plane crashes and the sinking of HMS Audacity in 1941, was at the liberation of Bergen Belsen and subsequently interrogated some of the leading Nazis after the war, including Heinrich Himmler, Hermann Goering and Belsen's chief guards Josef Kramer and Irma Grese. A truly remarkable man. And actually so interesting I think a blurb would be valid. Guy (Help!) 00:00, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, this is currently on the front page of the BBC News website. Most RDs don't get that. Guy (Help!) 00:45, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is on the front page of the BBC News website - only if you trawl down through international/UK/England/Sussex. Which means it's on the front page of the regional website. Not the national or international. MurielMary (talk) 08:51, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's on the main UK page of the international website. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:58, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

UK and international sites, actually. I have no possible reason to look at the Sussex page. The BBC News website is, however, highly dynamic, and this may have changed since. Guy (Help!) 09:15, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Try reading the article and also his death was on the front page - just the day before you read the article. Is your comment an oppose or just a pointy comment?--86.135.159.20 (talk) 10:33, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My point is the one that is clearly stated in the ITN criteria page - "Caution should be taken when assessing news sources for prominence, because most major news outlets provide individualized experiences for each user, based on geography and browsing history. What one user sees as a top headline may be buried for others, and vice versa. Do not assess whether a story is "prominent" or not based on where you see it reported on major news websites for this reason." I.e. what one person sees as "top" isn't necessarily what others see as "top". MurielMary (talk) 16:11, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But your claim was incorrect, it was on the main page of the UK section of the international BBC website, you did not have to go down to the Sussex page at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:23, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Clearly meets RD; given what I can read in his article, much like Guy above I'm wondering if he would merit a blurb. He seems like one of the top people in his field, not just 'very important'. 331dot (talk) 11:49, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support RD (only). Certainly a top pilot, holding a string of records and aviation firsts. Modest Genius ^talk 12:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Not ready yet; large sections remain largely uncited. Espresso Addict (talk) 16:46, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted to RD — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 17:04, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recommend pulling RD The article quality is still lacking from what others have pointed out. We have unsourced direct quotes in the article in the first main section, to start, which is a major no-no. I normally wouldn't challenge an RD posted like this if the quality was just a bit lacking, but this is a failure of having to follow proper sourcing requirements, period, and should not be on the front page yet until met. --MASEM (t) 17:11, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support pulling, per my comment above. Espresso Addict (talk) 17:24, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose pulling, the fact is that the article is RD and not ITN. BabbaQ (talk) 17:30, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • While an RD does not need as strong sourcing as an ITN blurb, there are outright failures of required sourcing policy going on here. This should not be linked to from the front page until fixed because it is far from our best work. --MASEM (t) 17:47, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support A remarkable and unrecognised hero of aviation. Deserves wider recognition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Demictetus123 (talk • contribs) 23:10, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - while the article is not well sourced, huge chunks of his autobiography are on Google Books. While I don't have time myself tonight, the article is probably quickly fixable if people want to try. Blythwood (talk) 17:49, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ever widening chasm between those who vote and those who improve, alas. He might be there by next week, maybe. 217.38.160.27 (talk) 22:44, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • It doesn't much matter because readers don't need ITN's permission to read an article. Currently the daily peak score is
        Ugandan general election 4,490. Anyway, I've sorted out sourcing for the quotes which were bothering Masem above. Andrew D. (talk) 08:24, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        • Kind of makes all this "readers should not be directed to low quality articles" a bit redundant. They just decide what to look at what's "in the news" (care of Google) and don't even bother with the niceties of the main page. If somebody dies their article should just be improved regardless? But thanks to User:Blythwood for their efforts. 217.38.135.36 (talk) 19:23, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • Actually yes, if the person died is actually important. An important person's death will nearly always be accompanied by detailed obituaries and "in memorandum" pieces that are great sources of information to fill out lacking BLPs. So we want to make sure that if posting as RD or blurb, that the article is in sufficiently good shape that editors that want to add with these obits know what to do properly. At least to me, the general purpose of TFA, DYK, and ITN is to highlight articles that can still be improved but are well past the initial stub/start class state that anyone that wants to improve knows where to add details. --MASEM (t) 19:29, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
            • We should not delay in posting recent deaths because the obituaries in mainstream media often draw directly from Wikipedia – I noticed some of that in this case. But the main page makes little difference to the general readership as they go straight to articles from search engines and other direct links. The main benefit of having something on the main page is that it will attract the attention of Wikipedian editors – the people who are mostly likely to be able to improve the article. So, waiting for a quality threshold is counter-productive. We should post immediately in order to drive the quality-improvements which will then feed directly into the mainstream media. Andrew D. (talk) 20:11, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
              • For one, the sources we expect as reliable for news for ITNC are not going to be using WP for their information, or if they do, they do cite it. But in considering the front page, based on statistics for DYK and FAC, it's clearly a portal unregistered users use and jump through for articles highlighted on that page. There may be some WPian editors that use it too, but the numbers most articles that are featured at the main page at some point are being driven by new or unregistered editors. Thus quality of articles is extremely important, we do not want to be linking to articles that violate fundamental policy like WP:V for quotes. (If this needs to be discussed more I suggest going to the talk page as this is getting off topic for this now-posted RD). --MASEM (t) 20:19, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
              • Also, RDs need to be thoroughly scrutinised for BLP violations. That's a fundamental requirement, so using a gung-ho "publish and be damned" approach is simply not going to happen, regardless of any "quality drive" clamour. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:48, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
                • That's
                  nonsense because such articles already exist, ITN does not prevent people reading them and, of course, BLP is largely irrelevant for dead people. Andrew D. (talk) 21:42, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
                  ]
                  • WP:BLP policy is very clear that BLP still applies to the recently deceased, roughly 6 months to 2 years after death. That absolutely applies to ITN. And ITN's purpose is to help highlight WP's quality work, in this case with topics that happen to also be in the news. If its not at quality, we can't feature it at ITN, but it might still appear at the current events portal links and of course it remains searchable. --MASEM (t) 15:46, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
                    ]
                  • Andrew, please read what Masem has written, perhaps a couple of times, it will help you understand why you're so wrong. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:49, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - an amazing figure. I've cleared the remaining CNs and added six extra citations. Blythwood (talk) 17:31, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • While there's a few paragraphs without sourcing, I feel these are far less contentious statements that can be cleaned up in the future (more facts of his test flights), and all quotes are now reasonably sourced, so this should be ready to go to repost. --MASEM (t) 17:39, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted The Rambling Man (talk) 19:14, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] UK EU Referendum

[Posted] Cyclone Winston

Article: Cyclone Winston (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Cyclone Winston (satellite image pictured), the strongest tropical cyclone on record to strike Fiji, causes extensive damage and prompts a nationwide curfew. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Category 5 Cyclone Winston (satellite image pictured) becomes the strongest tropical cyclone on record to strike Fiji.
Credits:

• Updated and nominated by Cyclonebiskit (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Meow (talk · give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: First Category 5 (on both

• Support - Category fives that make landfall are essentially ITN/R, I would think. --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:16, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait leaning support I'd rather make sure we have some idea of the type of damage. I don't question it could be extensive, but that's also a bit of speculation. I would expect we'll know within a day here of how bad this was with rescue efforts likely already en route to help. --MASEM (t) 14:07, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - category five. could need some more expansion before posting.BabbaQ (talk) 14:11, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - As things stand Cat 5 landfalls are extremely rare and there is probably going to be a lot of damage from Winston in both Tonga and Fiji.Jason Rees (talk) 15:10, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Oppose until the article is thoroughly copy edited. It currently contains such jewels as "and gradually developed further within a favourable environment for further development" and "Ahead of Winston affecting Fiji for a second time". Someone familiar with the event Cyclonebiskit(?) could undertake this. μηδείς (talk) 21:58, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed the two most outstanding issues, but not sure the rest of the article is that terrible. Might be difficult for me to tell though since I copyedited/wrote large portions of it. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 22:23, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have copy edited the entire article, and support is apparently unanimous (including mine), so I have marked the article ready. μηδείς (talk) 23:04, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support Exceeded by only one landfall known. (barely). 185 mph sustained. Hit the heart of the most populous Pacific country outside the Rim. Strongest Southern Hemisphere hurricane on record (whether landfalling or not). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:46, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 02:02, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Berlin International Film Festival

• Support with article improvements - As Fuebaey points out , the previous articles on this festival have been thin and we are now asking for more details than just the award list and winners. If it is a week long festival, there ought to be details on that actual event. --MASEM (t) 18:45, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose article is basically a stub prose with some tables. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:58, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as above, article is one paragraph with tables. Needs development. MurielMary (talk) 08:45, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support details present, but could be rewritten to improve readability. But the film that won the Golden Bear, Fire at Sea, has just three lines of text. Jose Mathew (talk) 15:19, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've expanded Fire at Sea a little. Espresso Addict (talk) 17:57, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] RD: Samuel Willenberg

No consensus. Stephen 02:51, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

---

Article: Samuel Willenberg (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [5]
Credits:

• Nominated by HonorTheKing (talk · give credit)

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see

WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: former prisoner of Treblinka extermination camp and the last surviving member of its perilous prisoner revolt, a participant of the Warsaw Uprising. --
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 10:52, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

• Comment Moved to the correct date. LoveToLondon (talk) 14:08, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• support - definitely RD material. Could need some c/e etc before posting though.BabbaQ (talk) 14:10, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support on article improvements - Article could stand a few more inline cites in places and I see some tense issues to be fixed. Weak support otherwise, primarily that while just being a prisoner of such a camp (and the honors awarded as a result of survival) is not so much an element to celebrate, he appeared to help educate and document his experiences for benefit for all to make him stand out. --MASEM (t) 14:10, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Opppose "last surviving" is not an accomplishment, and he would not be notable enough for RD otherwise. I thought we should have had blurbs for Scalia, Lee and Eco, but even then I would question posting this nomination. μηδείς (talk) 22:07, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, surviving to extreme old age is not an RD qualification. Abductive (reasoning) 04:03, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, he is in news. --Jenda H. (talk) 22:15, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support on notability, seems to have used his experience to create notable artworks, however oppose on article quality. It's a very disjointed read e.g. the key sections on the Nazi invasion and Treblinka; the writing needs to be improved so that it's easier to follow. MurielMary (talk) 07:51, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Whilst he seems to have been a worthy person, I don't see anything here that rises to the level of RD. Modest Genius ^talk 12:01, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Coming in rather late, but oppose per MG and Medeis. Rhodesisland (talk) 01:49, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

[Posted to RD] Umberto Eco

Article: Umberto Eco (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [6]
Credits:

• Nominated by Canadian Paul (talk · give credit)

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see

WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Well-known academic and novelist who I feel was at the top of his field and is thus suitable as a recent death. Canadian Paul 00:50, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply

• Support on notability for RD - Massively influential in both academia and literature. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:11, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• ASAP I'd address the one or two issues that need citing, but my computer is running way too slow. μηδείς (talk) 01:26, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support RD pending cleanup - A handful of paragraphs in the bio sections lack inline citation, even discounting those that are just saying what works he wrote as non-contentious, but it should be easy to get to par. --MASEM (t) 02:05, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongly support - Don't wait for cleanup - Featuring this link on the front page will undoubtedly lead to many eyeballs on the article, and the faster this happens, the faster appropriate cleaning will occur. KConWiki (talk) 02:58, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm afraid that's not how the main page works. No one is stopping anyone here from fixing problems if they wish, but the main page is for highlighting quality Wikipedia work, not advertising stuff that has yet to be cleaned up, but needs to be. --Jayron32 03:08, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong support - if for no other reason that Harper Lee is already up there in RD, and the comparisons (and accusations of Anglocentrism) are inevitable. Geodyde (talk) 03:55, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Does that mean you've fixed the problems noted above? Because if you did, I'll post this... --Jayron32 03:57, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Article looks reasonably well referenced to me, given that brief synopses of his major publications are essentially self-referencing. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 04:12, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb this novelist actually was well-known worldwide, unlike the US-centric Harper Lee.
  Nergaal (talk) 05:50, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose blurb - International figure indeed, but his works aren't his global signatures. Therefore, his mere name is significant enough. His only award was
  honorary doctorate, which doesn't top awards and honors more prestigious than this. --George Ho (talk) 07:46, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

You should ctrl+f "award" again.

Nergaal (talk) 09:51, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

The awards should be in prose, not in only navigational templates. George Ho (talk) 11:04, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support blurb Eco was very popular worldwide and will surely remain remembered as one of the classics of 20th and 21st century world literature. Elaborating medieval philosophical topics combined with semiotic elements in his works, he established a new style of presenting events and personalities from the Middle Ages. I think he definitely merits a blurb.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:34, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose blurb (support RD of course). He was a bestselling novelist and an important academic. RD is a no brainer of but certainly less worthy of a blurb than Lee below. Poeple have cited his global popularity--net's not confuse commercial popularity with influence. Definitely less significant than Harper Lee.--Johnsemlak (talk) 23:58, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Blurb hugely influential author and literary scholar, a must read for literary majors regardless of language, adapted for film, and basically the literary equal of James Joyce or Jose Luis Borges. Before RD existed, he would have been doubtlessly blurbworthy. μηδείς (talk) 00:31, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support RD, oppose blurb. We've had two borderline cases recently (Antonin Scalia and Harper Lee), and I fail to see how he is more blurb-worthy. Yes, he is more globally known, but then again both Scalia and Lee were more significant to the United States than Eco was to the world IMO, so in the end it's a wash. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:25, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb

• An associate justice of a Supreme Court is definitely not more than RD, chances are that for every other country in the world many from the US-centric crowd here would even oppose an RD for a Chief justice of the Supreme Court - if an associate justice was borderline between RD and blurb, then a Chief Justice would be a clear case for a blurb.
• Harper Lee was borderline between RD and blurb, that makes Umberto Eco a clear blurb. Harper Lee had one famous (and until recently her only) book that was turned into a famous movie. Umberto Eco had one famous book that was turned into a famous movie. He also wrote several well-known books afterwards.
• In addition to his novels, the scientific work of Umberto Eco alone would already without a doubt be enough for RD.
• He got more than 30 honorary doctorates, which is a remarkable achievement itself and shows the huge amount of respect he had in the scientific com,munity. If anyone finds an RS (this link to his page unfortunately isn't, and the page also doesn't list the ones he got after 2008) please add that to the article.

LoveToLondon (talk) 08:43, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Honorary doctorates aren't on the same level with medals or lifetime awards. Bill Cosby lost his honorary doctorates due to... well, you get the idea. --George Ho (talk) 08:48, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please name some medals or lifetime awards that would make you support a blurb. LoveToLondon (talk) 08:52, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how Austrian State Prize for European Literature would help. The awards page doesn't explain how prestigious it is. I know that he didn't win other lifetime achievements. George Ho (talk) 10:31, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that you think of him only as a novelist. He was also a leading academic in his field, and a well-known public voice (at least in Europe). LoveToLondon (talk) 10:47, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If he were merely a Semiotician and not a best-selling novelist then I don't think he would come up here.--Johnsemlak (talk) 16:28, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose blurb really don't need to set the bar this low for a blurb. King of Hearts sums it up, and Johnsemlak too. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:37, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Where would you place the bar for a leading academic in a field without a Nobel price? LoveToLondon (talk) 08:47, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How about around the level of the

Nobel Prize for Literature? Stephen 10:47, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Unfortunately the Nobel Prize for Literature is not awarded for research in the field of Semiotics. LoveToLondon (talk) 14:15, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is unfortunate. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:58, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Would and of the other semioticians listed in the sidebar be remotely notable enough for a blurb? Come on.--Johnsemlak (talk) 17:19, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Post-posting strong support RD, oppose blurb. Now here's a truly influential author - and one who had a world-leading academic career as well. However this is still nowhere near my bar for a blurb, because his death has no major repercussions on current events. Perfect subject for RD. Modest Genius ^talk 11:59, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Deaths generally do not have severe impacts on current events unless a political figure is assassinated or somesuch.--WaltCip (talk) 12:51, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Or dies in office, or were such towering figures that diplomacy goes into overdrive (e.g. Nelson Mandela). Which is fine, as that's the level I think we should have for blurbs. Modest Genius ^talk 14:00, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Strongly Support RD, consider blurb Top-level semiotist, well-known writer and cultural icon. WP article well-written and fairly comprehensive. I really do not understand how anybody can compare an associate judge (Scalia, that is) with someone like Eco. WP belongs to the world, not to the USA. RD necessary, but blurb might be better for such a man. Jose Mathew (talk) 15:31, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] [Posted to RD] Harper Lee