Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/October 2016

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

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

October 31

October 31, 2016 (2016-10-31) (Monday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
  • Police kill eight
    Students Islamic Movement of India members after their prison escape in Bhopal, India. (Reuters)

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Politics and elections

RD: Tina Anselmi

Article: Tina Anselmi (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Italian Insider
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Italian politician and first woman cabinet minister in that country. Article seems just detailed enough for main page inclusion. MurielMary (talk) 03:55, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

[Closed] Church of the Holy Sepulchre excavations

No consensus.
Bencherheavy) 19:00, 7 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.

Article: Church of the Holy Sepulchre (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Excavations in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre reveal the original rock believed to be the burial bed of Jesus and confirm the existence of the original limestone cave walls. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Excavations in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre reveal the original rock believed to be the burial bed of Jesus and confirm the existence of the original limestone cave walls.
News source(s): National Geographic, Live Science
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: The original layer was uncovered for the first time since at least 1555. Despite being uncovered on October 28, news reported it only now. Article has been updated. Brandmeistertalk 09:56, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support this is highly relevant to all Abrahamic religions.
    Nergaal (talk) 11:48, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Support This is a fine ITN material.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:24, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Article has a few missing cites, but nothing so contentious as to keep this off the main page. Suggest linking to section titled "later work" so that readers can find the information on the recent excavation; the article is quite long and thus linking to the specific section is a good idea. --Jayron32 13:15, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now, purely on article quality. Too many gaps in referencing. I have added multiple CN tags. Will happily reconsider on improvements. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:11, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose 35 [citation needed] tags? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:24, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Being a religious concern and reverence matter, bearing history since AD just after BC "CN Tags" hold no valid reason to drop it from Main Page. Nannadeem (talk) 20:58, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - Page nomination and cn tags date amazed me. Nannadeem (talk) 21:07, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing to be amazed at. I added most of them when I was reviewing the article as a candidate for ITN. Article quality is a major criteria when considering linking to the main page. And frankly the referencing is not acceptable. The article has a strong whiff of WP:OR hanging over it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:12, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, this is a fantasy; the identity of supposed crypt is the invention of a politician by the name of Constantine. There is no valid historicity. Also, note that the evacuations confirm something that has been known for hundreds of years and which nobody denies; the type of rock. Abductive (reasoning) 22:09, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds rather close to an "I don't like it" vote. If you believe the article or parts of it, are factually false you should challenge it with reliable sources. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:21, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is you who somehow thinks that this hyped up crap about the nonevent of confirming that cave is made of rock is remotely interesting. Abductive (reasoning) 18:03, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Oppose – So far I haven't seen anything indicating that they've found anything of significance. Sca (talk) 22:25, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Surely, they wouldn't find bones, because Jesus resurrected and ascended, you know... Brandmeistertalk 22:49, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I thought they might find a faded invoice for so many amphorae of water turned into wine – oops, I mean grape juice! Sca (talk) 23:43, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Per Sca. I don't see why this is a big deal. The article says a "layer of fill material" was found, as well as the "original limestone burial bed", which suggests that the tomb's[
    whose?] location has not changed over time. If THAT is the major discovery here, then I don't see it as a big deal. The work is too preliminary. If there were evidence that this is Jesus's tomb for example, or some other groundbreaking find, then that would be worth posting. Banedon (talk) 01:03, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Oppose per Banedon. This doesn't look like anything really groundbreaking yet.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 01:22, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Abductive. Also, since when do we post things related to the deaths of fictional characters? 86.28.195.109 (talk) 07:11, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
When it comes to the "fictional characters", read Jesus and historicity of Jesus. Brandmeistertalk 11:52, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - One doesn't have to think of Jesus as a fictional character to recognise that (a) the location of the tomb is almost certainly a pious fraud from the reign of Constantine and (b) that this excavation (actually an overdue bit of routine maintenance) has added nothing to the sum of human knowledge. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:53, 2 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.

[Closed] Ongoing: Dakota Access Pipeline protests

No consensus.
Bencherheavy) 19:00, 7 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.

Article: Dakota Access Pipeline protests (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: No blurb specified (Post)
News source(s): The Guardian ABC news NBC news CNN
Credits:
Nominator's comments: This story is prominent in the news and there is an article which is being kept updated with developments. Not sure though whether it suits a blurb (there doesn't seem to be any one particular action which could be put in a blurb) or would be more suited to the "ongoing" slot?? MurielMary (talk) 09:53, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support ongoing – Significant story about environment, indigenous rights and ethnic tensions in US. --Jenda H. (talk) 13:10, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for ongoing coverage is regular, article is receiving regular updates. Looks good to me. --Jayron32 13:16, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This has been much "In the News" over here and the article is in good shape with above average referencing. Even the lead is decently sourced. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:15, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'd prefer to put up a blurb first, if anyone would care to propose one? Espresso Addict (talk) 18:02, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose a minor news story in the US, with 140 arrests for trespass (which might have been the time to post, but it's stale). The article is written entirely from the anti-pipeline POV. Ongoing is hardly justified, since it is based entirely on
    WP:CRYSTAL. μηδείς (talk) 18:06, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Oppose as the article notes, there was limited mainstream media coverage of the events in the United States until recently and even lately, that coverage is limited, as exemplified by the article which appears to suggest that nothing notable has happened for at least three or four days. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:26, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Moving to Oppose per Medias. After reading his Oppose rational I took another look at the article. While I do think that this is a significant news item I have to agree that the article is woefully unbalanced. There is virtually no discussion of the "other side's" position. It's bad enough that I think I am gong to throw up a maintenance tag. This needs to be fixed before we can post this. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:29, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Oppose – Ongoing in U.S. media and somewhat elsewhere, but agree with μηδείς that the tone of article seems quite one-sided. And, at 5,400 words, it's overlong in relation to the import of the topic. Sca (talk) 18:32, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. A regional issue with limited coverage, that isn't having incremental updates to its article. 331dot (talk) 20:17, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not right to call it a "regional issue" considering the United Nations is now involved. (Not to mention the whole "don't oppose a story for only applying to one region" rule). This is complicated because of the sovereign nation within a sovereign nation issue. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:42, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • The UN has no say in US domestic issues. The rule says nothing about opposing a regional issue- it refers to opposing an issue because it does or does not relate to a particular nation- but I am much more concerned about the coverage(though admittedly this is starting to appear elsewhere) and the updates. 331dot (talk) 20:55, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • That story also cites "army tanks" being involved but the US Army is barred by law from domestic law enforcement. 331dot (talk) 20:57, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If anyone is interested I have opened a discussion on the NPOV issues with the article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:28, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd support this if the NPOV tag is resolved. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:42, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Jayron and Jenda. Jusdafax 20:48, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per TRM. Banedon (talk) 00:54, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Meddies and TRM.--WaltCip (talk) 13:33, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - News of global interest which is regularly covered in mainstream press (worldwide). The article is also updated regularly. Note that the interest in the media and the updates to the article are occurring despite the fact that the protests have been going on for some months now. Also, looks like NPOV tag has now been resolved. Kiwi128 (talk) 08:14, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Then provide some examples of ongoing worldwide reporting in notable sources, Kiwi128. Just asserting this without current citations is not helpful. μηδείς (talk) 03:41, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Guardian, a UK-based new source has reported on this quite a lot: see this, this, and this. Radio New Zealand: this, this, this. Associated Press, syndicated worldwide: this. BBC, UK-based: this. Al Jazeera English, broadcast worldwide: this. Many other examples exist. Regards, Kiwi128 (talk) 09:13, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Extensive international media coverage and addressed by President Obama.Zigzig20s (talk) 08:14, 5 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.

[Posted] RD: Natalie Babbitt

Article: Natalie Babbitt (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Hollywood Reporter
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Children's writer and illustrator. Article not long, but seems to meet the standard. MurielMary (talk) 09:36, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

I have addressed the bibliography citations - added citations and moved unverified works to the talk page. Therefore marking as ready. MurielMary (talk) 10:45, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Raoul Wallenberg declared dead

No consensus.
Bencherheavy) 19:00, 7 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.

Proposed image
Article: Raoul Wallenberg (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Swedish diplomat and humanitarian Raoul Wallenberg is declared dead by authorities, 71 years after his disappearance (Post)
News source(s): Guardian
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Good article, previously featured article candidate. yorkshiresky (talk) 21:50, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This is a purely pro-forma confirmation of what is already common knowledge. In short, it is not really news. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:39, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There needs to be a better update on the article, as to establish that the current 1952 death date is what is being stamped here and not an assured date of death. Also, and I presently have no opinion on this, but this appears to be simply a formality issued by the Swedish Tax Authority that as, after issuing a public request for Wallenberg to show himself to them to affirm he was still alive this year, that he didn't show up so was declared dead due to that. At this point, I don't think anyone had expected him to actually be living (he would have been 104), but more that because accounts from the Soviets were poor that there was no good closure on when he actually died, and this event here is simply to affix a date for accounting purposes. This is the part that I don't know if I'm committed on if we should highlight or not. --MASEM (t) 22:43, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose A similar story was posted in February this year, then pulled ([1]). I don't see sufficient difference to post this. Banedon (talk) 01:13, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support There seems to be a bit of a slow-down on updates over the last few days and this is a GA too, so it would be nice to promote that at least. And I find the whole mystery about his death quite interesting. Lugnuts Precious bodily fluids 07:53, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support we have already posted death of Nicholas Winton. Wallenberg is also one of most prominent victim of communism. --Jenda H. (talk) 13:17, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Winton's death was posted as an actual news item. This is not news in any sense of the term. The world has long known what happened to Wallenberg. If we had just learned of his death I'd support a blurb for him. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:27, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support good quality article and interesting. I understand that this won't pique the interest of many of our non-European readers, but nevertheless it's a good shout for ITN. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:29, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – Significant historical event illustrating Soviet mendacity. Sca (talk) 18:35, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose this is much more of a DYK type story, although it might be hard to meet the update criteria. Otherwise it's really (no disrespect) another "
    Generalisimo Francisco Franco is still dead" story. μηδείς (talk) 19:33, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Oppose per Ad Orientem. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 01:39, 2 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.

Lebanese presidential election, 2014–2016

Article: 
is elected as the President of Lebanon
, ending more than two years of vacancy in the position.
Credits:

The nominated event is listed on
WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

Nominator's comments: Election of head of state. The fact that the election took two years make it more newsworthy and interesting. HaEr48 (talk) 15:56, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

@
recurring items list, support on the merits is not necessary; all that is required is a quality update to the article and agreement on a blurb for this to be posted. Just FYI. 331dot (talk) 16:03, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
I have also greatly improved the intro section of President Michel Aoun article and the related section "Election as president" and "Political strategy" on the same page in expectation of it being one of the links used in the news item werldwayd (talk) 16:05, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now. Too many gaps in referencing. Additionally both of the secondary articles are in poor shape. Parliament of Lebanon is almost completely unsourced and I would oppose it even as a secondary link. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:38, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose appears to be double-orange-tagged, although I can only see three inline {{
    cn}} so perhaps it's not all that? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:12, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]

October 30

October 30, 2016 (2016-10-30) (Sunday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sport
  • 2016 World Series
    • The
      Cleveland Indians 3 runs to 2 at Illinois' Wrigley Field in Game 5 of the 2016 World Series to avoid elimination and force a Game 6 with the series standing at 3 games to 2 in favor of the Cleveland Indians. It is the Cubs' first-ever win of a World Series game at the stadium since October 1945. (MLB)

[Removed] Aleppo offensive

Could the current link be either removed (or replaced with

Aleppo offensive (October 2016))? Because the government offensive stalled like two weeks ago, and new info on the next piece of that years-long battle now go into a new article. Narayanese (talk) 08:45, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

I've removed the current link for now, as it seems to be no longer being updated. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:15, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

October 29

October 29, 2016 (2016-10-29) (Saturday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sport

LoL Worlds finals

Proposed image
Article: 
Samsung Galaxy in the finals. (Post)
News source(s): BBC ESPN Forbes
[
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Biggest tournament of the world's most popular game. 2620:101:F000:702:D8EA:622C:86E2:F126 (talk) 01:55, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. I don't think this is an event that attracts broad interest. There are also substantial portions of the article that need work. The rosters and results tables, for example, are almost entirely unsourced. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 02:09, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose primarily on article quality. There is virtually no narrative or text below the lead and referencing is unacceptable. I am Neutral as to the merits of the nomination. It might be an interesting alternative to our usual fair but as Notecardforfree observed, it's not clear what level of interest there is for this. In any event the article does not currently meet our standards and will require work before it could be posted. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:37, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Article quality has been greatly improved. While I am not completely sold on this event's ITN worthiness I am going to defer to other editors judgements here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:51, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We posted The International 2016 back in August, which had a larger prize pool but was a less popular game. Far as I remember, some people complained after it was posted. Banedon (talk) 05:29, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
When this event was proposed in 2014 it was rejected because it had no separate article. Not sure about 2015.
Nergaal (talk) 11:55, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
You do realize that there are probably less than 100 million casual players of American football or of baseball or of hockey? Meanwhile we have 4+ horseracing events on ITNR, all which have a comparable prize pool.
Nergaal (talk) 15:43, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Depends on how you define non-LoL player. If it's defined as anyone who's ever played any amount of LoL at anytime, probably not (i.e. the equivalent of "have you ever at anytime in your life thrown a football?"). But if it's defined as someone who doesn't regularly play the game on a daily basis, then it would be pretty common. It's anecdotal evidence, but I have many friends who play very infrequently or less than they used to, but followed the event. I've only ever played half an hour of LoL, but I found the time to watch a few games and write the prose for the article. In that sense, it's pretty similar to traditional sports. The paucity of information on viewership demographics likely means that not even Riot Games is perfectly able to answer your question. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 23:15, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Prize-wise, since at least 2014 The International offers the largest sums, according to this (for instance, 2016 The International offered roughly four times as much as this LoL Championship). Participants-wise, other tournaments had more players and teams (for instance, Call of Duty XP Championship 2016 had 32 teams and 127 players). Probably since the demise of World Cyber Games there's no single prestigious tournament that combines all popular games, so we need to be cautious when picking a video game tournament for ITN. Brandmeistertalk 21:43, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Tell me what other event with 20 million viewers we don't post.
Nergaal (talk) 21:49, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
I would be curious about the answer to that question as well, actually, though not being able to think of any doesn't mean there aren't any... ~Mable (chat) 21:54, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The 2014 International was watched by more than 20M (although naturally still small compared to
first US presidential debate with its 84 million). Viewership alone is a lopsided criterion. Brandmeistertalk 23:06, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Comparing viewership within its own category (e.g. sports and eSports competition) is a perfectly legitimate way to roughly estimate reader interest in topics and the relative importance of related topics. For example, the viewership for all games in the COD championship mentioned by Brandmeister is dwarfed by the viewership for the 2016 LoL world finals series alone. This would indicate that if one of the two were to be chosen for ITN, the latter is much more worthy. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 23:28, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Except for size of the prize pool, by any objective standard League of Legends Worlds is the biggest and most watched eSports competition out there. For example, the COD Championship in 2016 had 20 million views across all its games [2], while the 2015 League Worlds had 34 million viewers for the finals alone. [3] ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 22:45, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if we do post this, please post a blurb that matches our house style, i.e. don't include 2016 in the blurb, etc etc etc. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:01, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - don't find the oppose rationales convincing. To say that most LoL players don't play competitively is likely true, but the same could be said of any sport. Many games have championships and several are not only posted but also ITNR (e.g. Wimbledon), so why not this? Most non-LoL players are not likely to follow this championship, but the same could also be said of any sport. LoL's major drawback in that sense would be that someone not familiar with the game will find it hard to follow (unlike tennis for example, which is much easier to understand), but still lots of people watched the championship. TI6 did offer a larger prize pool, but this tournament still offered several millions of prize money, which is greater than the championships of many other sports. There are fewer teams and players, but that's only because the tournament is an invitational. Comparatively for example the World Chess Championship is contested between two players only, but it is still ITNR. Banedon (talk) 00:47, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • When evaluating whether an event like this has "broad interest," I also think it's important to consider the extent to which the sport or activity is part of a cultural ethos (or whether the event is widely recognizable to non-participants). Nearly every American knows what the World Series is, even if they don't play or follow baseball. Likewise, nearly every inhabitant of the planet Earth has heard of the FIFA World Cup. For people who don't follow this relatively new game, they will have no clue what "League of Legends" is. It certainly does not have the same cultural significance as other sporting events that are posted here at ITN. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 00:57, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's certainly the major problem with posting this, yes. Games like baseball and tennis are timeless, and the rules barely change over a century of play, but the same cannot be said of LoL. Thirty years down the line I'd be surprised if LoL is even still around ... but right now, with millions of people actively playing this, I still think this is worth posting. Banedon (talk) 01:05, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose We generally only post sporting finals or tournaments that are the pinnacle of the professional game. I don't see in this article anything that explains to me why this one is. It appears to be the finals for just one particular game amongst many that are played professionally. To give an analogy, it seems to me like posting the result of one Paralympic 100m final, when there are in fact many 100m finals in different categories. Black Kite (talk) 08:26, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To expand on that, I'm wondering how this can be the pinnacle of the 'sport' when the tournament is put on by the makers of the game, presumably to generate interest and sales. 331dot (talk) 08:40, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't follow LoL, but there are strong indications this is the pinnacle of this sport. First, it's called the "world championships". Secondly, it is an invitational tournament. Finally, it has a huge prize pool. If there's another LoL tournament with higher overall skill level than this one, it would presumably have a bigger prize pool, but I've seen no sign of this. That the tournament is put on by the makers of the game shouldn't detract from the tournament; besides the makers of the game have a strong incentive to showcase what their game is like when played at the highest level. Banedon (talk) 08:54, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's certainly true if you treat all eSports as one and the same, but then the same could be said of various ball games. Tennis and badminton for example are both ball games, but they are different ball games and the world champion of one cannot win the world championships of the other. In the same way while LoL is by no means the only eSports game out there, a LoL world champion cannot win TI6 (at least not immediately; he or she might be able to after a lot of training). Banedon (talk) 08:54, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is something that needs to be discussed - i.e. which, if any, e-sports championships are notable enough to be ITN/R, and which aren't? This is clear for other sports and we don't want to be arguing this sort of thing ad hoc every time someone wins an e-sport tournament. Black Kite (talk) 11:08, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
At this point only DOTA 2's The International and League of Legend Worlds are worth posting on ITN. Together, they dominate 60% of streaming time on Twitch [4], are the two most played esports [5] (WoW is huge as a game, but not as an eSport), and also have the biggest prize pools [6]. Counter-Strike:Global Offensive is also up there, but its lack of one single world championship in favour of three-four annual majors like tennis disqualifies it at this point in time. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 14:03, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I have struck my oppose, though I'm not convinced anough to support quite yet. Black Kite (talk) 14:07, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@
systemic bias. Besides, plenty of major Western non-gaming sites did cover it, from sports outlets such as ESPN, TSN, Sky Sports to Yahoo!, BBC, Forbes (quite extensive coverage by a staff writer), etc. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 14:00, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Apples to oranges.--WaltCip (talk) 16:33, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
List more than 5 items at ITNR that get 30+ million viewers of the event. Probably not more than 10 of those listed at ITNR have a prize pool of over 5 million.
Nergaal (talk) 10:47, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
It is true, LoL is an eSport played worldwide, Baseball is only of interest to a country no one really cares about ;) Oh and Japan. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:12, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Widespread coverage shows notability. Article quality seems fine. shoy (reactions) 20:56, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] 2016 Japan Series

Proposed image
Article: 2016 Japan Series (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The Hokkaido Nippon-Ham Fighters defeat the Hiroshima Toyo Carp, four games to two, to win the 2016 Japan Series (MVP Brandon Laird pictured). (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ In baseball, the Hokkaido Nippon-Ham Fighters defeat the Hiroshima Toyo Carp to win the Japan Series (MVP Brandon Laird pictured).
News source(s): USA Today
Credits:

Article updated
The nominated event is listed on
WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

Nominator's comments: Well updated, with game summaries, except for Game 6 that I'm writing now. I'll keep working on it. I'm not good at cropping photos, but that one should be cropped if used. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:41, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

  • Support Article looks solid with no major issues. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:14, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Reasonable sufficient prose for each game and no major issues that I can see. --MASEM (t) 18:20, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment house-style alt added. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:30, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Marking as "Ready." I prefer the alt blurb, but it's not a huge issue. However, I am going to register a weak oppose to adding a picture. My reason being is that the World Series is now underway here in the United States and that will certainly wind up on ITN and I think would be a better candidate for a baseball related picture. This will especially be true in the event that a) the Cubs win, and b) the world does not immediately end. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:51, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is no reason we can't have a picture from this up in the interim. In fact, we should
treat this just as we would treat the World Series. 331dot (talk) 23:00, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
I am just thinking about having back to back baseball related pics on ITN. There is no rule against it, but it might be a bit odd. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:06, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Better to have two back-to-back baseball players than no picture at all, no? – Muboshgu (talk) 05:56, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

October 28

October 28, 2016 (2016-10-28) (Friday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics

October 27

October 27, 2016 (2016-10-27) (Thursday)
Arts and culture

Disasters and accidents
  • United States Republican Party vice presidential candidate Mike Pence's campaign plane skids off the runway at LaGuardia Airport with no injuries reported. The runway is said to have sustained damage causing the closure of the airport; a planned fundraiser was also canceled. (Reuters)(CNN)(ABC)

International relations

Law and crime

Science and technology
  • Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory on the morning of October 25. (NASA)

RD: Takahito, Prince Mikasa

Article: Takahito, Prince Mikasa (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NY Times, Le Monde, good obituary in The Times today but I only have a paper copy...
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see
Bencherheavy) 10:07, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

[Posted] RD: René Chamussy

Article: René Chamussy (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Lesegretain, Claire (October 28, 2016). "Au Liban, le décès du P. René Chamussy, ancien recteur de l'université jésuite de Beyrouth". La Croix. Retrieved October 29, 2016. ; "Disparition de René Chamussy s.j., recteur émérite de l'Université Saint-Joseph". L'Orient-Le Jour. October 28, 2016. Retrieved October 29, 2016.
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see
WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Prominent Jesuit educator in Lebanon Zigzig20s (talk) 03:15, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

[Posted] RD: Susan Lindquist

Article: Susan Lindquist (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NY Times
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Noted scientist, article appears fully sourced MurielMary (talk) 04:17, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

[Closed] Sixth extinction

Clear consensus against posting this. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:52, 29 October 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: Holocene extinction (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ A new Living Planet Index report indicates that the planet's wild animal population could drop by two-thirds by 2020. (Post)
News source(s): Living Planet Index, CNBC, Euronews, The Telegraph, The Guardian
Credits:
 Fitzcarmalan (talk) 22:59, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose at least until the quality of the Living Planet Index page is upgraded, and the blurb revised. I would also suggest the "Living Planet Index" page (after revisions and cleanup), be used as the target article. Meanwhile, let's eliminate the other link to the Holocene extinction page via the phrase "drop by two-thirds." Isn't that editorializing? The reader can draw his own conclusions (let us hope). Meanwhile, the blurb is misleading because the two-thirds drop will have occurred between 1970 and 2020, specifically the planet's vertebrate population (is my understanding). The year 2020 is used in this particular study "because that was the target set by the United Nations to halt biodiversity loss." Finally, though, I will probably still oppose this because it is my impression that the "Living Planet Index" is some sort of PR & fundraising tool of World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and the Zoological Society of London (ZSL). Please correct me if I'm wrong. Christian Roess (talk) 00:44, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Having an article on this is fine, but we'd be in
    WP:NOT#CRYSTAL territory to post it as ITN with it being a hypothesis. --MASEM (t) 01:20, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Oppose Reading above observations and seeing merger tag, it is not proper for ITN. Nannadeem (talk) 09:12, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per
    WP:CRYSTAL and WP:TREEHUGGERY. Lugnuts Precious bodily fluids 09:21, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Oppose Per above concerns. This is a rather extreme, some might say alarmist prediction that as far as I can tell has not yet been embraced by mainstream science. Beyond which this sounds like a none-too subtle attempt to use ITN for editorializing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:29, 29 October 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] Sakharov Prize

Articles: 
Lamiya Aji Bashar win the Sakharov Prize.
News source(s): BBC

Credits:

One or both nominated events are listed on
WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

 The Rambling Man (talk) 10:01, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

October 26

October 26, 2016 (2016-10-26) (Wednesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Health

International relations

Politics and elections

October 25

October 25, 2016 (2016-10-25) (Tuesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture
  • The Sellout. (ABC)
  • The
    consecrated land, rather than scattered about or kept at home. The Church first permitted cremation in 1963, but still strongly favours burial. (BBC)

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

RD: Carlos Alberto

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

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see
WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Brazilian footballing LEGEND, possibly only superseded in notability by Pele. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:03, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

[Posted] October 2016 Quetta attacks

Article: 
an attack on a police training centre in Quetta, Pakistan. (Post)
News source(s): BBC

Credits:

Nominator's comments: Yes, the article title needs to be changed, yes the article needs a serious tidy-up, but the story is significant, as is the loss of life. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:42, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: article has been moved to
    October 2016 Quetta attacks, I have updated the template. — Yellow Dingo (talk) 08:03, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]

RD: Bruce Goodluck

Article: Bruce Goodluck (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Currently a bit of a stub — Yellow Dingo (talk) 06:55, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

October 24

October 24, 2016 (2016-10-24) (Monday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
  • Iraqi Civil War (2014–2017)

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime
  • Wendy Demchick-Alloy, a Montgomery County court judge in Norristown, sentences former Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane to serve 10 to 23 months in county jail for leaking confidential grand jury information and then lying about it to investigators. Specifically, she was convicted on August 15 on charges of perjury, false swearing, obstruction of justice, official oppression, and conspiracy. (Reuters)

RD: Jorge Batlle

Article: 
talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Washington Post, BBC and Reuters

Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: President of Uruguay from 2000 to 2005. Note that the banner at the top is not a template about work that needs to be done, but a notice about an ongoing move request. Cambalachero (talk) 00:30, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

RD: Bobby Vee

Article: Bobby Vee (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see
WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: I know quality is an issue here; this is a long enough article but the references are lacking. Still, I am nominating it mostly to attract attention from users who can improve the article. Jayron32 12:38, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Support: THIRTY-EIGHT Hot 100 chart hits, ten of which reached the Top 20. Six gold singles, yet no RD. Perhaps he should have been a one-hit wonder (among other things) so RD would be acknowledged on day one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.90.193.80 (talk) 21:51, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose for the avoidance of doubt, his notability is unquestionable, but the quality of his article certainly is. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:53, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for the avoidance of doubt, if the article could be sufficiently improved. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:59, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for that, and for avoiding the natural reflex to insult me or my dead relatives other than through your edit summaries. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:07, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    So sorry, Rambler. I never knew you and Bobby were related. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:49, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I'm sure you didn't. But in any case I'm certain it wouldn't stop you from making sick jokes about it. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:13, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dirty COW

Article: Dirty COW (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ A nine-year old privilege escalation bug in the Linux kernel, nicknamed Dirty COW, jeopardizes the integrity of Linux systems including Android. (Post)
News source(s): Ars Technica, Android Headlines, ZDNet
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Following the exploit presented today (see in particular the Ars Technica article), this bug has reached Heartbleed proportions (remember?) given that there are over a billion (basically unpatchable) Android devices out there. The blurb is not a masterpiece as of now, but this issue needs to be on ITN. bender235 (talk) 23:22, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose It is a threat, but one not yet acted on in any significiant scale (compared to say the Dyn attack). Should this become abused like Heartbeat, then that would be ITN material. --MASEM (t) 02:30, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, no one ever knew whether Heartbleed was abused at large scale (or at all), because it left no traces. This particular Linux kernel bug allows anyone to gain root access to any Android phone (an exploit that has been demonstrated yesterday), which means more than a billion smartphones worldwide are in danger. --bender235 (talk) 14:09, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am not going to vote on this per WP:CIR. My competency with tech pretty much tops out with the electric typewriter. I will however note as a tech illiterate layman, that you could have written the blurb in Koine Greek and it would not have in any way diminished my understanding of what is being communicated. Is this some kind of tech version of mad cow disease? -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:35, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The actual code would be like Linear A to me but COW means copy on write (I looked that up). Privilege escalation is where a hacker raises his privilege level as a result of a flaw in the code i.e. bug. i.e. the root privilege, the ability to do about anything you want to the phone: install malicious software, spy on you, make the backgound plaid.. The Linux kernel is the core of the Linux operating system. Operating system is to Windows, Mac, Android and iOS like animal is to dog, except Linux is too arcane for anyone but geeks to use. The kernal of Android is apparently the Linux kernel (I did not know that) so Android phones and the geeks using Linux have had this one weird trick that'd hack their system for 9 years and no one knew until know, or if any did they kept it a secret and maybe hacked your system. Geeks who can actually understand the Linear A look at the code all the time so no one spotting it for 9 years is like what the hell? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 05:37, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Heartbleed explained: [7]. It is not a dirty cow disease that makes hearts bleed. It's Heartbeat that allows you to bleed the next 65,535 bytes (a text character is 1 byte) of computer memory every time you check that the connection's still alive. Including secret contents. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 05:40, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry that the blurb was too technical for the layman. The bug basically allows an unauthorized person to gain superuser ("root") access to any Linux system (which includes Android)—this is called a privilege escalation. What does that mean? Well, the superuser can install and delete applications, or make any change to the system. Simplified, and with an intentionally scary undertone, this means a malicious app can take over your smartphone (if it's an Android), or web server (if it runs Linux). There's an FAQ website that explains more. --bender235 (talk) 14:09, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

October 23

October 23, 2016 (2016-10-23) (Sunday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

Politics and elections

RD: Jack Chick

Article: Jack Chick (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Boing Boing Christianity Today The A.V. Club
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see
(talk) 03:15, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

[Posted] RD: Pete Burns

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

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see
WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: He spun us right round, like a record player.... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:08, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

RD: Khalifa bin Hamad Al Thani

Article: Khalifa bin Hamad Al Thani (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Al Jazeera English the Guardian
Credits:

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 monarch and head of state HaEr48 (talk) 21:31, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

RD: Steve Dillon

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

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see
WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Seemingly sudden death of an influential and celebrated British comics artist. AlexTiefling (talk) 20:09, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

[Posted] RD: Jimmy Perry

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

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see
WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Weak article considering the warmth with which this individual is regarded, certainly in the UK. Half of the writing team for Dad's Army, Hi-De-Hi, It Ain't Half Hot Mum etc, amongst other classic British sitcoms. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:55, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

[Closed] Cubs win the pennant

Closing again. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:55, 23 October 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.

We'll post the winner of the World Series. This can be taken to DYK, if the article meets the criteria. --Tone 11:49, 23 October 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: Curse of the Billy Goat (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The supposed Curse of the Billy Goat is broken. (Post)
Credits:
Nominator's comments: In 1945 a guy bought a ticket for his goat to sit with him at the US baseball finals at Chicago's main baseball stadium. It's body odor was so bad that the farm animal was kicked out. The goat owner put a curse on the home team and their frequent reaching of the finals stopped after they lost the same finals the goat was evicted from. Many attempts have been made to end this curse such as partly destroying a baseball by electrocution, 5 men eating a goat in 13 minutes, 5 supporters walking with a goat for c. 2,736 kilometers, priests, and 3 separate incidents involving butchered goats or goat heads. In 2016 this curse was broken. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 04:23, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose With the series being Cubs vs Indianas, one of two long-standing drought will be resolved. Better to wait until then (and also going by the logic of not focus on the Cleveland Curse when the Cavs won the NBA finals). --MASEM (t) 04:25, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose this is not an encyclopedic topic. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:05, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Oh why not? It seems like a fun item for the main page. Although perhaps better suited to DYK/OTD, I can't see any harm that would come from posting this since it is, in fact, in the news. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 06:13, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Due to being unencyclopedic topic, and the fact that ITN will likely publish the World Series article as a story very soon. Gfcvoice (talk) 07:33, 23 October 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.
  • Support This might be the greatest event in all of human history. I ain't afraid of no goat. Go Cubs, go! 50.129.35.130 (talk) 14:31, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Repent! The End is Near! -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:44, 23 October 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.

October 22

October 22, 2016 (2016-10-22) (Saturday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Sports

AT&T buying Time Warner

Nominator's comments: According to USA Today, "The agreement, if approved by regulators, would be one of the largest acquisitions ever in the telecom-media sector." 

(talk) 20:10, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Support on improvements Both articles need a bit of spit and polish on sourcing but they aren't too far away. Deal is significant. --MASEM (t) 20:42, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now purely on article quality. Time Warner is not in horrible condition given its size and can probably be brought up to speed without too much difficulty. AT&T unfortunately, is in rough shape with referencing. There are a lot of major gaps that will need filling before we can post that one. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:55, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Significant transaction. Gfcvoice (talk) 01:58, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I added an altblurb, which uses the neutral word "agrees" instead of the somewhat emotive phrase "reaches a deal". I also added an explanation of who/what the two companies are. Finally I added the precise value of the purchase price, which is available in the AT&T PR. Gfcvoice (talk) 01:59, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • That makes that blurb super weighted. I think we can drop "American" and "multinational" and just leave it as "Telecommunications firm" and "media conglomerate". --MASEM (t) 02:09, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose we've been through this before, only to have regulators stop the merger. This can be posted if it is actually consummated. μηδείς (talk) 04:38, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment We have precedent from previous merger/acquisition announcements, where the Wikipedia ITN blurb is customarily published when the merger/acquisition is announced, not when the merger/acquisition is consummated. (Eg. Microsoft and LinkedIn in mid-June). It is similar to the publication of election results - where the announcement of the election winner is more important than the formal change of government. Gfcvoice (talk) 05:39, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose once again, per Medeis, this is "agrees to do something" rather than "actually does something". The Rambling Man (talk) 18:21, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - In the world of business deals, "agreeing to do something" is considered the story, or the interruption of said business deal is also a story, but the actual consummation of said business deal is not a story. We have EONS of precedence to back this up.--WaltCip (talk) 19:17, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support We should bold
    Time_Warner#Acquisition_by_AT.26T as our main link, the Time Warner article seems better quality. Also, regarding the timing, this should be posted when it is in the news. The news is the agreement to merge, not the minutiae of the merger itself, which doesn't make the mainstream news and is generally boring stuff hammered out by lawyers and accountants. The agreement is actually doing it. --Jayron32 20:28, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Neither did I what? I opposed it, and had no mistake to correct or to apologize to our readers for. If this actually gets approved, I will support it then. μηδείς (talk) 21:42, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You did not nominate an article to ITN when the deal was called off. It's rather presumptuous to demand that other people do work you couldn't be bothered to do yourself. --Jayron32 02:22, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, when the merger was called off, I did in fact support posting that bit of news because it was so unusual. So you are wrong. I await your prompt apology. Otherwise, shut up. WaltCip (talk) 22:08, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Good on you, Walt, but was there a thread on this page? If so, I don't remember. What is the polite response to "shut up" and a demand for an apology? Not effing likely. I have long ago learned not to obsess on a thread. μηδείς (talk) 23:28, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Posting to an inconclusive discussion, not an RfC or a policy simply weakens the argument for posting this as a matter of course. Thanks for the link. μηδείς (talk) 04:06, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome! What is a RfC ? Gfcvoice (talk) 04:14, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, let's settle this then! Any objections to setting up an RfC on what should be a pissingly simple matter of course? I'll have one up this afternoon.--WaltCip (talk) 12:05, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

October 21

October 21, 2016 (2016-10-21) (Friday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
  • Iraqi Civil War (2014–2017)
    • launch attacks on government buildings, police stations, and a power station in the city of Kirkuk, Iraqi Kurdistan, killing dozens of people. (BBC)

Arts and culture

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Science and technology

[Posted] RD: Lady Raine, Countess Spencer

Article: Raine Spencer, Countess Spencer (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see
WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Article appears to be in decent shape and adequately sourced. Ad Orientem (talk) 22:21, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

[Posted] Eséka Train Crash

Article: 2016 Eséka train derailment (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ 55 people die and nearly 600 injured following the Eséka train derailment (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ At least 55 people are killed and nearly 600 are injured in a train derailment in Cameroon.
Alternative blurb II: ​ Casualties follow a derailed train in Cameroon
News source(s): Reuters, TheSun (more updated)
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Perhaps would need some expansion. Hopefully this wouldn't be opposed to the ground though. Dat GuyTalkContribs 20:59, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Conditional Support Article needs expansion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:37, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support While somewhat light on details, the accident is very much confirmed in western sources, including issues that may have caused it (the excess passengers). The article is reasonably sourced for what is known at this time, and as Cameroon is not exactly the most connected country in the world, I don't expect we'll be getting full details for several days. (Also it looks like the injured is up to 570 now out of ~1300 on the train). --MASEM (t) 23:33, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the article is thin, this item is barely in the news, and death toll on it's own notability doesn't make. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 00:10, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment My understanding is that ITN candidates "are evaluated on two main grounds: the quality of the updated content and the significance of the developments described in the updated content." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:In_the_news#Purpose). There is no mention that lives in Cameroon are worth less in ITN currency when compared to lives in other countries. Gfcvoice (talk) 01:10, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Or worth any more. All I said was death toll on it's own notability doesn't make. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 01:56, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Significant train derailment with high death toll. Gfcvoice (talk) 01:10, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - significant rail accident, article in good condition with no referencing issues. Mjroots (talk) 06:16, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per above, in decent shape now. Brandmeistertalk 08:04, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Marked as ready. Mjroots (talk) 12:11, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted revised altblurb. SpencerT♦C 16:08, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Cyberattacks

Article: 
DDOS cyberattack. (Post)
News source(s): BBC CBC NYT

Credits:
  • Wait a bit for some more information. Leaning towards support oppose as it hasn't been that effective apparently. Dat GuyTalkContribs 20:35, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose not showing as historically notable at this time. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:22, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Definitely disruptive and noteworthy. -Kudzu1 (talk) 20:25, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You have read one of the sources, the BBC one, that states Massive web attacks briefly knock out top sites, i.e. "briefly". This isn't an encyclopedic article by any means. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:28, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - An exceedingly minor inconvenience to active Internet users - not to mention the mostly East Coast centralized attack took place at a time when most of the people in that region are at work.--WaltCip (talk) 20:25, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Until we have an idea whom might have initiated this (whether it was chan-type antics or a serious threat), this is a minor issue. The blurb is also wrong to a degree. The sites aren't offline, just that the DDOS is making it difficult to connect to them if your systems had to look up the hostname. --MASEM (t) 20:37, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Changing to Weak support as I've just read how this appeared to have been done and underscores an major security issue with the world of IoT devices (particularly consumer grade ones with crap security). There appears to be a third attack undergoing, and while the attacks are "fast", the subsequent cleanup by Dyn and others takes hours. --MASEM (t) 00:17, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: (per note on the merge proposal discussion page) The attack has been called by a few sources unprecedented in size and complexity. There are implications for US national security (giving the timing of the presidential elections), which make this notable in itself. To: WaltCip, this is not a temporary "blimp" in a few websites, it's hours-long disruption of platforms and services used by hundreds of millions of users and companies, including popular payment processors like PayPal, which affect the functioning of a large number of businesses in North America. The second wave of the outage mostly affected Europe and the West Coast, not the East Coast.--DarTar (talk) 21:13, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per TRM and Walt. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:14, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It would have been highly relevant if this had be acted on quickly, but even still, it was a big thing, per DarTar. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 21:21, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment As for the past tense, major outages for many of the affected sites are still ongoing on the West Coast as I write, i.e. about 5 hours since the start of the attacks.--DarTar (talk) 21:26, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now, unless there is word of larger international issues involved. I think there might be some demographic bias here. It might be a "big deal" for American internet users, especially on the east coast (I wonder how many editors here fit that demographic set...). But realistically, the UNHCR declaration that Sudanese refugees to the Congo have doubled last month - and that there are now >2.5 million Sudanese diplaced - is a bigger deal.
  • Support This attack is due to a new vulnerability that cannot be easily fixed. Using the newly released Mirai (malware), hackers have been able to infect millions of devices in the US connected to the Internet, things like webcams, toasters, thermostats, refrigerators etc., the so-called Internet of things, creating a huge botnet that is now used for this attack. Count Iblis (talk) 22:04, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    So presumably this is the end of the known universe? I am not belittling you, but since you've told me my toaster is now going to give me shit, not just my kids, I guess the end is nigh? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:09, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    It's the huge number of such devices connected to the Internet that lack security, they can easily get infected with malware. Add tot that the fears that Russia wants to derail the US elections, and you get the picture here. Putin has available an army on US soil, your toaster is one of his soldiers. Count Iblis (talk) 22:16, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I just gave my toaster a Purple Heart because I always underestimate how long it takes to make two decent slices of toast. If Putin and the enemy can make my toaster function correctly before making it take over the world, I'd be grateful. In the meantime, don't use your microwaves, they contain nuclear warheads.... (P.S. This is not a belittling thread, just a bit of a jokey one.) The Rambling Man (talk) 22:22, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - depending on users affected / hits coming to nothing / damage caused. And as of right now it looks like it's significant enough. Not sure to what extent it effects Internet voting in the
    United States presidential election, 2016. --Fixuture (talk) 22:51, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Why would it effect the election? Americans don't vote online. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:19, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yeah, Americans don't vote online. Any effects would be more tangential effects - i.e. lack of access to news or statistics, etc. ProfessorTofty (talk) 23:32, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, overseas and military personnel are eligible to vote online. Broadly, though, no. --MASEM (t) 02:17, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support pending update. It's in the news, but the article is a mess. A list of websites is silly, it was essentially all of Dyns customers. Strike that silly list, add some technical details, and sure, post it. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 00:01, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Legoless (talk) 01:11, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The outages were very brief during each attack, each of which lasted less than 2 hours and 15 minutes. Gfcvoice (talk) 01:19, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Limited lasting impact. If something with more of a last impact comes down the road (loads of personal information stolen, substantial impact on foreign affairs, etc.), I would consider that more worthy for ITN. SpencerT♦C 16:15, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, if and when the article is adequately improved. Most newspaper stories covering this event note that the unusual and relatively novel feature of the attack was that it used, on a vast scale, various small electronic devices connected to the internet, like baby monitors, cameras, routers, etc. As this BBC story[8] quotes Jeff Jarmoc, head of security for global business service Salesforce: "In a relatively short time we've taken a system built to resist destruction by nuclear weapons and made it vulnerable to toasters". That's what makes the story interesting. Nsk92 (talk) 16:53, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted --Jayron32 00:01, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The type of malware used is what makes this attack so noteworthy, as well as the number of users affected.
    ¤ 00:06, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]

South Sudan

Article: 
South Sudan civil war refugees in the DRC doubled in September, leaving over 2.5 million displaced in the conflict.
News source(s): [9][10]

Credits:

Nominator's comments: We posted this when it began but this s*** is going on despite agreements. Possible ongoing?
Disclosure: I created the original article a few years ago. Lihaas (talk) 16:53, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose appears to be a very minor increment to the whole issue. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:59, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose posting a general continuance of violence. A major battle or defeat might be different. If Lihaas thinks this should be Ongoing then they should nominate it as such. 331dot (talk) 17:06, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Lihaas: I was going to agree with The Rambling Man and 331dot: however sad this is, it seems like just another turn of events in an ongoing, very tragic war. I also don't think an "ongoing" post is justified, any more than "Afghan war" or "Iraq War" would be. But, the details in the second article about the explosion of refugees do convince me this is a major event. The UNHCR announced that the number of known Sudanese refugees in the Congo doubled in September, and the number of displaced people now exceeds 2.5 million people. I would support that as a news story: it's a really big deal. Am posting another possible blurb in case others think so too. -Darouet (talk) 20:02, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If we're looking at the altblurb, Refugees of South Sudan would be a better target article but needs expansion/cleanup. SpencerT♦C 15:28, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ICC Withdrawals

Article: International Criminal Court (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Burundi affirms its withdrawal from the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, while other African states re-consider membership. (Post)
News source(s): [[11][12]
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Withdrawal from a major international treaty is notable (dint we post DPRK from the NPT?) and its spawning off more (Kenya contemplated too)...and this while the ICC has its first African chief prosecutor. Lihaas (talk) 15:03, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

South Africa too. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:12, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And Namibia but theyre considering. Burundi have affirmed.
dunno why we haven't posted the civil war ongoing thereLihaas (talk) 15:21, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on the merits; that said, Burundi has passed a law enabling it to withdraw; they haven't yet actually begun to do so. South Africa has, perhaps the blurb should focus on that. 331dot (talk) 15:25, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now, purely on article quality. It's not in bad shape, particularly for such a large article but it has not been updated. Additionally there are a few too many gaps in referencing and there is an orange tag that needs to be addressed and removed. On a side note South Africa should be added to the blurb if/when the article is improved sufficiently to post. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:29, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Meh, I removed that particular criticism section outright that was tagged. Its been tagged since 2013, no substantial argument to keep it was made in the relevant section on talk page, just amendments that didnt really address the basic sourcing issue, and using the heritage foundation (a conservative think tank) as a reliable source for anything involving world politics is just ridiculous. It was only their criticism which would be undue anyway. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:43, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nkurunziza for all his lack of legitimacy has signed it (I was gonna nominate it before but waited for this).
Anyhoo, I may not be around for awhile to update it and the Libya one below (see top right of my user page) so I hope someone else can cover it.Lihaas (talk) 15:50, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Schmarrnintelligenz: Could you offer a reason for your support? It could help the discussion. 331dot (talk) 10:41, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I regard this as a globally significant issue, reflected by wide international media coverage.[13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21]... --SI 15:05, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Nintendo Switch

Product announcements are never posted. Stephen 03:11, 21 October 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: Nintendo Switch (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Nintendo announces the name of and premieres a trailer for their new Nintendo Switch console, previously known as the Nintendo NX. (Post)
News source(s): Nintendo Switch: what we know about the upcoming game console (The Verge)
Credits:
Nominator's comments: The console itself was announced in March of last year, but no details of it have been released until now. The reason I am nominating this is because of the uniqueness of the console itself. I will not explain in detail here why it is unique because the article (which until this morning was sitting at Draft:Nintendo NX) explains it pretty well. I'd also like to note that the linked source is a "gateway" to many other articles (currently 12 of them) on the same website. Many, many, more articles can be found by either googling "Nintendo NX" or "Nintendo Switch". — Gestrid (talk) 00:33, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Gestrid: Thanks for the nomination, but we don't generally post announcements of product releases, even if they are found in mainstream media. Having read the article I don't think this is radically groundbreaking, just a new way to use existing technology. I do oppose. 331dot (talk) 00:42, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait for release, then support. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 02:15, 21 October 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.

October 20

October 20, 2016 (2016-10-20) (Thursday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Science and technology

[Posted] RD: Junko Tabei

Article: Junko Tabei (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Japan Times
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: First woman to summit Mt Everest. Article could be expanded, but seems to meet the standard. MurielMary (talk) 11:24, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Have moved that list of books to the talk page to figure out what to do with it. Without that issue, nom appears to have plenty of support. Marking ready to post. MurielMary (talk) 05:55, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello? Is this thing on? Has been marked ready for over 12 hours now... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:22, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] RD: Simone Schaller

Article: Simone Schaller (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): LA Times
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Nothing stunning, but seems to meet the standard. MurielMary (talk) 10:55, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

  • Support Article not the longest but covers key areas of subject's life in reasonable detail and is referenced. SpencerT♦C 15:23, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Definitely for RD. Good refernces.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:24, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support The article really needs some expansion but I think it meets the minimal standards. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:30, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this has been marked Ready for nearly 24 hours. Is a trustworthy admin available to evaluate the nomination please??! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:23, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on sourcing. The "early life" paragraph and second "olympic career" paragraph contain many factual claims but only one citation each (to the same source). Perhaps that citation is meant to cover every fact in these paragraphs, but it isn't clear from the current presentation and the cited source is unfortunately a dead link so it is impractical to check. I'm opposed to posting without clearer sourcing for the details of her life and competitive career. Dragons flight (talk) 18:37, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Link fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:49, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted. SpencerT♦C 07:41, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Surprised to see something I threw together seven years ago with minimal access to sources make the front page; I didn't even bother to update after she died, assuming it wasn't worth the effort. Thanks to everyone who helped improve the article. Canadian Paul 20:35, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Pardons for gay men

A lot of confusion (although the law is not, as some reports have said, cancelled, it is some way from fruition), and arguably gay men have been de facto pardoned since the passing of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, meaning this will only have limited effect. So I'm closing this for now - will renominate when the German law passes (which will definitely have a practical effect, and will involve compensation). Smurrayinchester 13:58, 24 October 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: The Germany story is arguably stale - it was announced a week and a bit ago, but the formal law has not been promulgated - but it makes sense to have it here. There's a slightly fiddly detail in the England and Wales case in that the Home Office needs to clear the criminal record (check that the offence was indeed consensual sex, not rape or underage sex - this is a procedure that already existed (for any former criminal offence) but wasn't a full pardon), which is why some places are reporting it's not a blanket pardon, but it doesn't seem to be limited in any other way. Smurrayinchester 12:47, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose bolded article is a stub, and tenses aren't clear if the law has been passed already, been subsumed by other legislation, will be passed? If we had a good, clear, comprehensive article to review, that would be nice. This is not a good enough article. --Jayron32 12:51, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Changing to full support for the British article, weak to neutral on the German for timing and awkwardness of the blurb to include it. But the article on the Alan Turing Law has MUCH improved, and is easily main page ready now. --Jayron32 19:43, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be happy to skip Germany for now, and renominate when the law passes there (since Germany will also pay €30 million in compensation to victims, it would be good to mention that in the blurb, which isn't possible at present). Smurrayinchester 06:12, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're right about article quality. Have tried to clean up. Smurrayinchester 13:52, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not for the thousands of people still alive who carry the convictions. Also, in the case of Germany at least, the government will also pay compensation. Smurrayinchester 15:07, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • (
    Lawrence v Texas. I recall reading a few years ago that almost none of the states had applied the ruling retroactively and that sodomy convictions still stand. This is a significant event which if the articles can be brought up to scratch should warrant a blurb on ITN. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:17, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
I'll try to get the Paragraph 175 article up to scratch tonight. It's featured in German, so it shouldn't be too hard. The "orange tag" rule only applies to the main items, though - we currently have orange tags in
King of Thailand and Orbit insertion, but because these aren't bold items, it's acceptable. Smurrayinchester 15:30, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
OK, Paragraph 175 is cited now. I wish the German Wikipedia was better at inline citations... Smurrayinchester 19:33, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support alt blurb. Referencing on the 175 article, while not ideal, is I think now adequate. While I do not like linking articles with orange tags on the main page, even as secondary links, I appear to be alone in that. I have no other objections to posting this and support the rational for reasons stated above. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:18, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support assuming both articles are cleaned up. In both cases, the laws in question constitute a significant historic injustice. Germany in particular was the birthplace of the modern gay rights movement, so there's some fairly deep context. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:34, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support at least the Turing article variant. Far from a "symbolic act", this is a game-changer for the history of gay men who were persecuted, chemically castrated, incarcerated etc, for no good reason. Far longer and wider ramifications than yet another Iraqi offensive. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:03, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose As I understand it, since homosexuality is no longer penalized in those countries, this pardon is largely retroactive and doesn't affect any existing prison sentence or other form of punishment. But still a significant move in its field. Brandmeistertalk 22:10, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It affects the criminal and police records of a lot of people, many of whom are very much alive. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:51, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think those records are still valid due to law changes, so this looks moot. Brandmeistertalk 07:51, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not valid is not the same as not kept. In the UK if you are convicted of a crime it stays on your record unless it is removed (under the disregard process). Even if the criminal act is subsequently decriminalised. (This is particularly noticeable with drugs, due to the changing classification of them over the years) It is not automatic. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:53, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - seems like something internal to the UK and Germany. Banedon (talk) 00:37, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    "Please do not ... oppose an item because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive." -- KTC (talk) 00:45, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay. Oppose per Abductive & WaltClip. Basically the same argument, worded differently. Banedon (talk) 00:49, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support article is ok, though some reaction section would be nice, and the story is in the news. Ticks my boxes. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 02:17, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - not going to happen in UK. Mjroots (talk) 16:45, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Shambolic and embarrassing. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:03, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Please read the article. Two slightly different laws with the same effective outcome are under debate. "The government's rival measure, an amendment to the Policing and Crimes Bill announced on Thursday, would grant pardons for those convicted who have since died. Ministers say those who are still alive can go through a "disregard process" to clear their names. The government said it would not support Mr Nicolson's Sexual Offences (Pardons) Bill - which proposes a blanket pardon for the living - because it could lead to some people being cleared of offences that are still crimes." It was already announced that the other Alan Turing law bill (which was a
    Private Member's Bill, not a government Bill) would not be supported. Smurrayinchester 09:46, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Smurrayinchester Sorry, I was just horrified by the behaviour of that filibustering politician. And I genuinely mean horrified. But that aside, are the timescales for the (Pardons) Bill on a par with this? I.e. should we shut this nomination down and wait for the (Pardons) Bill to be passed into law before renominating? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:28, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm tempted to agree. Smurrayinchester 13:34, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support --SI 18:38, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest close with regret. This is not going to happen in Great Britain and there is a clear lack of consensus in the discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:44, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I would consider the supposed fact(?) that it's not happening in UK as notable. --SI 18:52, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't. In general we don't post decisions to not do something. And maintaining the status quo is not something we should be cluttering up the main page with. Lastly, were we to post the decision to not go ahead with the pardons I think it would be seen by some, maybe correctly, as a none-too-subtle criticism on our part. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:07, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not not happening - what happened is that there were two competing forms (one where the pardoning process would be automatic, proposed by
    Policing and Crime Bill 2016 where there would be a Home Office check to ensure that the offence was not still a crime (eg rape or sex with a minor) before granting the pardon). The Private Member's Bill was filibustered, but the government amendment is still current, and the government's position that it would not support the first one was already clear when I proposed this. Smurrayinchester 09:44, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    The government-supported one would not pardon living people at all. They would need to use the already existing disregard process (which I mentioned previously), which is not automatic and has a number of checks - and from speaking to someone who went through it, a lengthly and time-consuming process. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:59, 24 October 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.

October 19

October 19, 2016 (2016-10-19) (Wednesday)
Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sports

[Posted] RD: Yvette Chauviré

Article: Yvette Chauviré (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NY Times Guardian
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: French ballerina, article seems fully sourced now. MurielMary (talk) 10:07, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes there are many worthy, notable people whose articles on WP are too short/poor quality/unreferenced etc etc. That's the way it is unfortunately. Thanks TRM for picking up that uncited statement, have fixed that. And yes she seems to have had a long, quiet retirement from the 1970s until her death. MurielMary (talk) 11:00, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Article has been expanded from obituaries and is properly cited. Espresso Addict (talk) 12:43, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support. The article has been expanded with in-line references. The subject is notable and a little 'high culture' wouldn't hurt.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:26, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted. Meets minimum standards, but hopefully posting to RD will lead to continued expansion of subject's article. SpencerT♦C 15:49, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bemba conviction

Article: Jean-Pierre Bemba (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Former DR Congolese Vice President Jean-Pierre Bemba is found guilty by the International Criminal Court for bribing witnesses. (Post)
News source(s): [22]
Credits:

Nominator's comments: We usually post ICC convictions when updated. Lihaas (talk) 15:09, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose This is small potatoes. The big news was back in March when he was convicted of crimes against humanity for which he was subsequently sentenced to 18 years in prison. That was the time to bring this to ITN. I don't ever recall a conviction for witness tampering being posted on ITN. Additionally the article has not been updated. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:52, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would respectfully disagree that a conviction by the ICC on anything is "small potatoes". The number of people who have cases before the ICC is very small and they are all related to some sort of war crimes. Perhaps he should have been posted before, but even if he had, I would still support posting this. 331dot (talk) 00:50, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support. A conviction by an international war crimes court is notable, in my opinion; this one in particular is as the first ICC conviction for witness tampering/corruption. I would like to see more news sources, though. 331dot (talk) 23:50, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Ad Orientem. Should have been posted for the key crimes. SpencerT♦C 15:51, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per 331dot, and also because sources like Guardian [23] say this is an ICC first. Banedon (talk) 00:47, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support per the BBC article, It is the first such corruption trial in the history of the ICC in The Hague. hence its significance. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:48, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shenzhou 11 docking

Article: Shenzhou 11 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ China becomes the third country to successfully dock with a space station after the Shenzhou 11 is attached to the Tiangong-2. (Post)
News source(s): [24]
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Not sure if its ITNR, but anyhoo a mean feat on its own with only the usa and ussr/russa before. Lihaas (talk) 15:09, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Support on significance but the target article remains a stub. Espresso Addict (talk) 16:38, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose purely on article quality. While decently sourced, both articles are too short to be featured on the main page. Will happily reconsider upon expansion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:46, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blurb is false. ESA (Automated Transfer Vehicle), Japan (H-II Transfer Vehicle) and several private companies have also docked with a space station. Certainly not just USA and USSR/Russia. Smurrayinchester 20:37, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Third manned vessel docking capable country. So 1966 technology basically. But don't get cocky, China might be first with a human on Mars if the other space programs don't care enough. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:30, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay you're right, the crewed Shenzhou 9 docked with Tiangong 1. This is old news. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:11, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A manned orbital flight is ITNR, though we don't typically count shuttle missions to the ISS. This might be along those lines. 331dot (talk) 23:54, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Schiaparelli Mars lander

Proposed image
Article: 
Schiaparelli lander that attempted to land on Mars.
News source(s): Moment of truth awaits Europe's Schiaparelli Mars probe (BBC News); Fears grow for European Schiaparelli Mars lander
(BBC News)
Credits:

The nominated event is listed on
ExoMars Trace Gas Orbiter is not due to start science operations until aerobraking has finished in late 2017. This item should be about the Schiaparelli lander. Carcharoth (talk) 14:28, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

  • I've added an alt-blurb which mentions Trace Gas Orbiter - it doesn't start science operations until then, but it enters orbit today and will serve as a communication hub for Schiaparelli (plus, ITN/R says to post when they arrive, not when they start doing science). Smurrayinchester 14:30, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support first blurb when the official announcement is made and the appropriate updates are added to the articles. Both articles appear to be in decent shape. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:54, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Confirmation may have to wait a day if the probe antenna is pointing in the wrong direction after landing. Details on how they are tracking the lander are here. i.e. Failure to detect a touchdown signal today (by the Giant Metrewave Radio Telescope) doesn't mean it has failed. Signals were detected by the GMRT on the way down - see ESA Twitter feed. The data on the landing from TGO arrives later: "as TGO will be a little busy at the time with its own orbit entry, this data won't be down linked to Earth until sometime later and then processed in the early hours of the morning after landing, on 20 October". 15:10, 19 October 2016 (UTC) Actually, got that wrong. Confirmation of success or failure will be in about 1.5 hours after landing from the analysis of the Mars Express data, plus communications from Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter around 2 hours after landing. Carcharoth (talk) 15:27, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 • According to dpa, it was scheduled to land at 14:48 – "but scientists may not be able to confirm it for some hours." Sca (talk) 15:56, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Twitter feed says they are now analysing the Mars Express data. They should have just fitted the probe with a Twitter account... Carcharoth (talk) 16:04, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support alternate blurb I or II. It's a big deal whenever humans can get a piece of robotics onto another planetary body... and it's nice to actually see some good news once in a while! -Darouet (talk) 16:30, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like Schiaparelli may have come a cropper. Sca (talk) 23:46, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This was always a distinctly high possibility. I am surprised no-one has tried to rewrite the blurb. ESA didn't declare Beagle 2 lost until over a month after they failed to make contact with that lander (the 'landing' was on 25 December 2003, and it was officially declared lost on 6 February 2004). The ITN item for that spacecraft (21 January 2015) was about the eventual discovery (see archived discussion here). (Couldn't find anything in 2003 as ITN appears to have started in February 2004; is that really true, where is the earlier history?) Clearly the ITN item should now be the arrival of TGO in orbit and the failure to hear from Schiaparelli. I'll try and phrase another alternate blurb. Carcharoth (talk) 04:48, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added alt blurb 3 and replaced image and tweaked the blurbs accordingly (we really need the ability to propose more than one image). The Schiaparelli image is here. The latest BBC News article says ESA "will hold a press conference at 10:00 local time (09:00 BST; 08:00 GMT) on Thursday." (About three hours from now.) Carcharoth (talk) 05:00, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Alt III following the ESA press conference. ESA is working under the assumption that a "soft landing" didn't happen, so we can call Schiaparelli "lost". Smurrayinchester 09:24, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted a version of Alt 3. I debolded the mission as three targets is a bit much and it is least well updated. Espresso Addict (talk) 09:47, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Zeit says Schiaparelli "considered missing," while Spiegel says it has fallen silent "probably for ever" and calls it "lost" (verschollen). Sca (talk) 14:27, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

October 18

October 18, 2016 (2016-10-18) (Tuesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents
International relations

Science and technology

Libya

Article: 
attempts a coup d'état against the government of Fayez al-Sarraj in Libya.
News source(s): Voanews

Credits:

Article updated

 Panam2014 (talk) 16:36, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Add to my oppose rational As other editors have noted below, this looks like a fairly minor blip in the sad history of Libya. It has not garnered sufficient attention in the press and is very unlikely to have the significant long term impact to warrant any attention at ITN. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:30, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now – This looks like just a blip in the
    Libyan Civil War. Maybe VOA is onto something, but I found no reports of a "coup" among mainstream news sites – and VOA itself calls it "a low-level turf war." Sca (talk) 17:20, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]

@Sca and Ad Orientem: a new source. You could rewrite the candidate. --Panam2014 (talk) 18:21, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose for now.Support with the condition that our relevant text on the topic, currently found only at
    Timeline of the Libyan Civil War (2014–present), be sufficiently improved is currently inadequate. -Darouet (talk) 21:15, 18 October 2016 (UTC)Vote updated Darouet (talk) 16:32, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Hmmm. We'll see.... Sca (talk) 00:50, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I will create the article about coup. --Panam2014 (talk) 08:24, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
comment ive created an article but it needs just a little bit more work (or rather oversight) to affirm. I cant exactly follow amalgamation of twisted "government" here.
Also I tweaked the bulurb a bit.Lihaas (talk) 14:35, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Sourcing of target article seems quite thin, and penultimate graph rather murky as to outcomes. Sca (talk) 15:16, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ive added a few sources, including 1 that say it failed, although it is murky as is anything there. We could re-phrase?Lihaas (talk) 15:20, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@The Rambling Man: an attempt is important look as turkish attempt on July 2016. --Panam2014 (talk) 15:21, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That has seen huge and wide-ranging and ongoing ramifications. Will this? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:22, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
???
We posted that when it happened not after the ramfications.Lihaas (talk) 15:32, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Lihaas: the coup d'état attempt is ongoing since 14 October. It didn't finish again. --Panam2014 (talk) 15:36, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c) Sorry, I meant to be clearer: Turkey is on the brink of joining the EU and is not effectively in a state of war. Libya is an entirely different situation. By the way, reading the article, it appears that the coup attempt started a few days ago, not yesterday... The Rambling Man (talk) 15:37, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
One assumes most mainstream news org's haven't covered this topic because news-gatherers don't see the events presaging significant change. Sca (talk) 15:45, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I actually find it very difficult to understand, from the material we've developed so far, what is evening happening. @
Timeline of the Libyan Civil War (2014–present)#October 2016
so that it's clear:
  1. Not only who the generals/leaders are, but which organizations the represent.
  2. Which governments in Libya are recognized by which governments externally?
  3. Are the different domestic or geographic constituents represented by each party?
  4. What are the ramifications of a successful or failed coup?
Without this information it's impossible to judge whether this coup is worthy of the news here. More importantly, even if the coup is really important, it's useless to list it here when we have virtually no content on it. -Darouet (talk) 16:27, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Good questions. Let me attempt an answer
  1. Weve got the UN brokered GNA but it was opposed by many from Tobruk incl. Haftar, although he seems more interested to gain territory than fight politically at the moment (oil cooperation alne)
  2. the UN brought the agreement, so basically that is internationally recognized now and overpowered the old GNS (I don't have a damn clue what the hell is going on there).
  3. See above its harder to know than rocket science ;)
  4. More conflict, factionalism, and perpetual war.Lihaas (talk) 16:49, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Arab Fall? Sca (talk) 23:51, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Lets hope summer comesLihaas (talk) 20:16, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
'Comment turning out to be a successful coup and a blow to UN efforts.Lihaas (talk) 14:34, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article does not reflect your claim. I'm pretty sure this is not going to run at ITN in its current state. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:30, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

October 17

October 17, 2016 (2016-10-17) (Monday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

International relations
  • Yemeni Civil War
  • Syrian Civil War
    • The European Union condemns Russia's air campaign in Syria, saying it may be guilty of war crimes, and it vowed to impose more sanctions on President Bashar al-Assad's government. The bloc's 28 foreign ministers sought to show their anger at the Russian-backed campaign, which has killed several hundred people including dozens of children since the collapse of a truce brokered by Russia and the United States. (Reuters)

Law and crime

Politics and elections
  • conservative undercover video producer James O'Keefe releases a series of videos allegedly showing conversations with, among others, Scott Foval, the former national field director of Americans United for Change, speaking about his hiring of people to sabotage rallies for Donald Trump by staging fights in them in a process Foval called "bird dogging". (Salon)

Science and technology

October 16

October 16, 2016 (2016-10-16) (Sunday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

Sports

RD: Clyde C. Holloway

Article: Clyde C. Holloway (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see
WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Article at least appears to not be in terrible shape – Muboshgu (talk) 22:23, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

[Posted] RD: Delia Davin

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

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

Nominator's comments: Fully sourced article. I realise this is older than the RDs currently listed - could change out one of the older ones for this if agreed? MurielMary (talk) 11:32, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

  • Support. Good work on expansion. The remaining citation needed was in the Guardian obituary. Espresso Addict (talk) 09:05, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now per Espresso Addict. Article needs updating/expansion and improved referencing. I have moved it to October 16 after a quick look at Google News failed to show any discussion of her death prior to that date. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:48, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support looks reasonable enough, I made a few corrections. A {{
    cn}} still remains... The Rambling Man (talk) 08:32, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Posted Stephen 10:00, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Brics summit

Closed as its no longer on ITNR.Lihaas (talk) 20:27, 17 October 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: 8th BRICS summit (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The 8th BRICS summit is held in Goa, India. (Post)
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Just need the main section upate of the summit proper. Lihaas (talk) 13:33, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose good faith nomination. We don't usually post summit meetings unless something exceptionally significant comes out of them. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:29, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • And BRICS doesn't appear to be one of the ITNR summits that we normally would include. If there is a major event/decision that falls out of it, then that could be a story, but not at this point. --MASEM (t) 19:46, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline nom per above. This is not ITNR.--WaltCip (talk) 19:58, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and Brics summits were removed from ITNR in December 2015. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:59, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Its rmoved? We used to post it in the past.Lihaas (talk) 20:24, 17 October 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] Battle of Mosul

Article: 
talk · history · tag)
Ongoing item nomination (Post)
News source(s): MSN

Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Some 60,000 forces from the state, popular units and Peshmerga is massive and the last major stronghold in Iraq. (although many Daesh are now in Syria)
Could be a blurb or ogoing (or move to ongoing when it drops off) Lihaas (talk) 13:33, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ongoing?Lihaas (talk) 13:54, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Lihaas that this is a newsworthy event, whether the city is captured soon, or in a month. See my comments below. -Darouet (talk) 19:53, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nergaal or Brandmeister?Lihaas (talk) 15:53, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd prefer to wait and just post this as a blurb once the city is liberated. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:25, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"... once the city is liberated" - what if ISIL wins the battle? Banedon (talk) 00:47, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is a major Iraqi city with 1-1.5 million people in it: it is certainly not equivalent to other "pushes and pulls." -Darouet (talk) 20:16, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait until this is more definitive. Blurb only; as a new article it is hard to judge how much updates it has been receiving or will be receiving based on recent past performance. I think it's a good article, and I think we could post it based on the merits of the importance of this, if something comes of this, but I'd prefer to see us be a little more deliberative and let this wait a while to see if there comes a more definitive outcome; also wait for ongoing to see if this becomes a well-maintained and updated article. If so, that is an option too if it does drag out. --Jayron32 20:00, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the outcome is important, but the event of this conflict in such a major urban center is highly significant in itself, as it has thrown over a hundred thousand soldiers / militants and over a million civilians into a combat zone. High level international news coverage isn't always a barometer of newsworthiness here (e.g. samsung phone), but it should also be noted how much coverage this is receiving. -Darouet (talk) 20:16, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Per CNN reporting Iraqi forces claims heavy losses to ISIS, Kurdish president Masood Barzani also says for a potential success, and in fear of terrorists attacks by ISIS, page merits to be placed as an ongoing event Nannadeem (talk) 20:21, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait – Developing. AP story says the "operation is expected to take weeks if not months." Sca (talk) 20:37, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - @
    2016 Aleppo campaign? -Darouet (talk) 20:52, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
I think it could be posted as Ongoing to stay until the city is retaken when it could be swapped to a full blurb. Brandmeistertalk 21:25, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Re "ongoing," seems premature at this pt., since it's only been going on for one day. Wait. Sca (talk) 00:34, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If evidence, as opposed to media speculation, starts to suggest that this is going to turn into a major and protracted urban warfare campaign I will consider supporting it for ongoing. For now I am content to wait and see how this plays out over the next few days. There is no rush. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:49, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb per Darouet. Say the battle is beginning, then roll it over to ongoing when it falls off the template box - similar to how we treat the Olympics. After the battle ends, then we can have another blurb (regardless of who wins). Banedon (talk) 01:06, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we're leaning towards a blurb. The article looks good. Blurb suggestions? --Tone 07:50, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say something to the tune of "Iraqi government forces, allied militias and the
Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant". Banedon (talk) 09:02, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
I almost agree with it, although I would place the link on the operation (so something along the lines of "... launch
an offensive to retake the city of Mosul ..."). - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 11:57, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

[Posted] RD: Kigeli V

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

Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Article appears to be in decent shape. Last king of Rwanda. Brandmeistertalk 13:23, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

[Closed] 2016 UCI Road World Championships

Not sufficiently improved. Stephen 01:37, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Articles: Peter Sagan (talk · history · tag) and Amalie Dideriksen (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In cycling, Slovakia's Peter Sagan and Denmark's Amalie Dideriksen win the men's and women's road races respectively at the 2016 UCI Road World Championships. (Post)
News source(s): Men, Women
Credits:
Nominator's comments: These races are the final ones of the cycling calendar with the winners becoming the world champions until the next race the following year. Lugnuts Precious bodily fluids 07:57, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose no prose summary of the race itself in the target article. --Jayron32 12:15, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Jayron. Article needs some kind of a summary of the 2016 race. Otherwise it looks decent and reasonably well sourced. Also Amalie Dideriksen is a poorly sourced stub and would require improvement before it could be posted on the main page, even as a secondary link. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:21, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose sorry SlugNut but the general consensus these days, as noted above, is to have some kind of prose summary, at the very least for the title-deciding races.... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:56, 17 October 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.

RD/blurb: Arseny Pavlov

Article: 
Arseny Pavlov is killed, leading to allegations of a ceasefire violation between Russia and Ukraine. (Post)
News source(s): Sputnik

Credits:

Nominator's comments: According to Sputnik, this event is a major turning point in the Russian-Ukrainian conflict, with Alexander Zakharchenko declaring the action an act of war. Article is relatively brief but decently sourced. EternalNomad (talk) 21:28, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hasn't the ceasefire been very tenuous at best? Not sure that warrants a blurb, but the official (assuming quality is OK) will be posted to RD upon an update. 331dot (talk) 21:57, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait This seems to be "according to"-type news, and the actual effect on the ceasefire not yet sure. --MASEM (t) 22:00, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Still want to stress the only source that seems to be confirming this or used as a source for others is an "according to". Not seeing any confirmation from RSes. --MASEM (t) 23:54, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – The 'Donetsk People's Republic' is not recognized de jure as a country. Sca (talk) 22:21, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support RD. I added a fact tag for a factoid that's easily removed if needed. Act of war blah blah blah crystal ball no blurb here but RD is fine per new ITN/DC. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 23:46, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict)Strong Oppose blurb / Wait on RD for RS confirmation Military person is killed in civil war is not an event warranting a blurb. Beyond which I concur with Sca in his concerns about the wording of the blurb which is likely to be viewed as POV. The DPR is pretty much a Russian puppet state that is not recognized by the international community. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:52, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose unless the event does bring about a major escalation, in which case the blurb can be re-framed. -Darouet (talk) 00:24, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are many fallen officers and assassinated terrorist in Ukraine lately. What make this fighter so special? --Jenda H. (talk) 12:58, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Jenda H.: He was the head of the rebel army. Anyway, as long as he has a quality article, he can be posted to RD. 331dot (talk) 21:01, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose right, this is not going to a blurb, ever, so let's focus on the RD. It's a poor quality RD article, heavily steeped in political bias. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:58, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb - I don't understand the oppose rationales. One of the commanders of an independence movement in one of the world's flashpoints is assassinated: how is that not worth posting? Banedon (talk) 01:11, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Because military people and insurrectionists in civil wars are killed all the time. There is nothing unusual here. And as noted above the article has serious NPOV issues. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:52, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sure military people and insurrectionists in an active war are killed all the time, but high-ranking officers seldom die (e.g. Adolf Hitler survived all the way to just before the end of WWII, and so did the Commander-in-Chiefs of all the major powers). Plus Arseny Pavlov did not die in battle, he was assassinated. I don't understand how you say there is "nothing unusual here". NPOV issues are NPOV issues, but that would be "support on improvements", which is not among the rationales given right now for opposing this. Banedon (talk) 02:35, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know he was Commander-in-Chiefs perhaps it should be mentioned in article. --Jenda H. (talk) 15:48, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – Another death in the Ukrainian Civil War. Guardian quotes "observers" as saying Pavlov was "killed as result of either an internal feud or Russia removing 'inconvenient' separatist leaders" in the so-called 'Donetsk People's Republic.' Sca (talk) 17:40, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. So are we back to debating the merits of the person nominated or does that recent RFC still hold? Rhodesisland (talk) 21:49, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] RD: Anthony Foley

Article: Anthony Foley (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): http://www.bbc.com/sport/rugby-union/37672703 BBC
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Successful Irish rugby player and coach dies unexpectedly at just 42. The article is not incredibly long but everything in it has a source. Harambe Walks (talk) 18:56, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

[Closed] Montenegro election

Not sufficiently improved. Stephen 01:35, 21 October 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: 
Montenegrin parliamentary election. (Post
)
Credits:

The nominated event is listed on
WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Nominator's comments: Voting underway, esult should be out in under 12 hours. Lihaas (talk) 11:59, 16 October 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.

October 15

October 15, 2016 (2016-10-15) (Saturday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

[Posted] RD: Dennis Byrd

Article: Dennis Byrd (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [25][26][27]
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see
WP:ITNRD.

 – Muboshgu (talk) 02:32, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

  • Support I added a couple CN tags but overall I think it's in decent shape. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:52, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, pro American football player who was able to walk after an injury thought to have paralyzed him for life. Article in similarly good shape. Daniel Case (talk) 04:09, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral three years of Pro football covered in a couple in a sentences doesn't seem comprehensive to me. The rest is satis. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:56, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • This isn't a GA nom. Those sentences weren't there before I started working on the article. It is updated with his death and has no glaring omissions. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:24, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've made it clear, numerous times, that I'm not expecting ITN (or DYK) to be a GA nom. Nor am I criticising the work done by anyone thusfar expanding the article. I'm just surprised that there's nothing to add about his football career more than already exists. Please note, I didn't even oppose the nomination, I was just concerned with the very brief coverage of three years of his pro career, nothing more. You've done nothing to assuage that concern, so I'll stay as I am, but that must not impact decisions made by any trustworthy admin who wants to post this. I'm just not onboard with a "support" when it looks like the article is weak in a large portion of this individual's life. That is all. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:38, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Understood. I'll add a little more as I can (I added some on his college career just now), but I think Masem said it best: his career in and of itself wasn't that notable, but his paralysis is the reason I followed him (the Jets are my team, sympathies accepted). – Muboshgu (talk) 21:08, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • This article has some career highlights listed, including some of his best games. This article has some information not currently in our article. Here is a video which maybe useful as well. --Jayron32 12:20, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'll take a look at those later today. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:17, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
            • I added a little from the FanSided source, but I don't think the NYDN article or video has anything new worth adding. I'm gonna mark this as ready as it is updated and comprehensive. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:17, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think he had an significant career-setting milestones - the reason he's more notable is the accident that ended the career and what he did with that (eg the book etc.) I think the briefness about three years is about right, as one would otherwise then add career box stats to flesh that out. --MASEM (t) 18:39, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and good work on expanding the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:32, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted Stephen 22:16, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] U.S. prepares response to Russian cyber attacks

Strong consensus against posting. (I'm WP:INVOLVED, so if anyone disagrees feel free to re-open.) -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:16, 15 October 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 US Russian cyber conflict (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ US prepares response to Russian cyber hacking (Post)
News source(s): see article and talk page
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: This is major - the first public announced "retaliation" to state sponsored cyber hacking. Rick (talk) 17:18, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Threats, protests, plans etc. If/when something concrete actually happens we can revisit the topic. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:02, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Consider the SOURCE, the MEDIA where the U.S. chose to release this news, and it's TIMING. Isn't a VP hitting the news talk shows (especial for an NBC EXCLUSIVE) a "heads up" to everyone inside the beltway? This has gone high above the radar.

Why haven't we sent a message yet to Putin, Chuck Todd, host of the “Meet the Press” show on NBC, asked Joe Biden.
We are sending a message [to Putin]… We have a capacity to do it, and…
He’ll known it? Todd interfered.
He’ll know it. It will be at the time of our choosing, and under the circumstances that will have the greatest impact, the US vice president replied.
Rick (talk)

  • Oppose interesting story, especially with the allegations of electoral tampering, but there is no article here. Write one first and try again. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 18:48, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Saber-rattling. Also, Biden has been known for putting his foot in his mouth before.-WaltCip (talk) 20:03, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose this isn't even an actual story. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:33, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - this isn't even a remotely accurate statement. More appropriate would be "US government publicly considers cyber attacks against Russia in response to alleged Russian hacks," or something like that. -Darouet (talk) 21:06, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, the "article" is just a stub in very poor condition: almost no information, no background, no range of responses and viewpoints. -Darouet (talk) 21:09, 15 October 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.

October 14

October 14, 2016 (2016-10-14) (Friday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Health

Law and crime

Politics and elections

[Posted] RD: Jean Alexander

Article: Jean Alexander (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC, Guardian
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Prominent British soap star. Article is adequately referenced & has been greatly improved from obituaries. Espresso Addict (talk) 13:26, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

[Posted] RD: Jim Prentice

Article: Jim Prentice (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [28]
Credits:

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

 Ribbet32 (talk) 17:04, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

[Posted] RD: Helen Kelly

Article: Helen Kelly (trade unionist) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): stuff.co.nz
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Died in NZ October 14 but due to time lag, 14th not showing here yet. Will move to 14th when it ticks over. MurielMary (talk) 20:13, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes, point taken, adding some more details. MurielMary (talk) 21:28, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

October 13

October 13, 2016 (2016-10-13) (Thursday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economics

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime
  • Cyberthieves inject 5,925 online web retailers with website software malicious code that is stealing the credit card details of customers. (BBC)

Politics and elections

[Posted] Antonio Guterres and the UN

Nominator's comments: Now, Antonio Guterres has officially been appointed as the next UN Secretary-General. The nomination was made a week ago, when it was clear he'll take the seat, but the official confirmation was lacking. Now, the General Assembly confirmed him, though this news kind of went under the radar. We could go with posting now (provided the orange tag is fixed) or when he takes the office. Tone 11:10, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support on improvements I've provided a source and blurb above, giving two possible article targets, Guterres' or the article on the election. Both are not in great shape for posting presently, but this is the right point to post this. --MASEM (t) 14:10, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I will reiterate my concern that as with most election ITNs, it is the elected official that is the principle target, and we're still looking at a poor quality sourcing for Guterres. --MASEM (t) 14:13, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support after citations are added. There are a few missing on the election article, and a few dozen missing on the individual's article. Mamyles (talk) 19:37, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Despite reservations/observations placed above, nomination is supported for the due recognition at WP ITN. Nannadeem (talk) 20:15, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as this is not ITNR, it's my humble opinion that we should be looking to target the actual target of this news story, i.e. Guterres, not the election itself which is somewhat immaterial in the big scheme of things. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:25, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@The Rambling Man: Is there an alternate blurb wording that you would support? Mamyles (talk) 20:41, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not until the real target is improved. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:43, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree that I think Guterres should be the/a target of this, following nearly all other election ITN entries. --MASEM (t) 20:45, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now on article quality. I agree that the Guterres article should be the target but its referencing is well below our standards. The article on the election (currently the target article) is in somewhat better shape but still has some gaps in referencing. The article on the UN Secretary Generalship is a bit short and I added a few CN tags. But I think it is in acceptable condition for a secondary link. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:20, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Support The target article has been greatly improved. However the Guterres article remains unacceptable even as a secondary link. It needs to be either improved or de-linked from the blurb prior to posting. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:13, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Guterres article has been much improved. No objections to posting. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:50, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support definitely ITN-worthy event. The target article (
    United Nations Secretary-General selection, 2016) has been sufficiently updated and referenced. (I updated some after the oppose votes above, please take another look) HaEr48 (talk) 07:02, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The page proposed for ITN has been improved to a sufficient extent. Now we should care for the portfolio for its due respect being representative of globe, however procedure’s shortfall and questions over transparency may be placed at talk page of the article for future guidance Nannadeem (talk) 13:34, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I concur that that the target article has been much improved. Well done to the editors who worked on it. However
Antonio Guterres is still unacceptable even as a secondary link. If we want to post this event I suggest we just de-link his name in the blurb and leave the other two. The Guterres article is linked in both of those articles anyways so its presence in the blurb as a secondary link is not essential. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:13, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
All three linked articles are now good enough to post. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:50, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, posting. I wanted to bold Guterres article but it still has a bunch of cn tags. Well, good enough for secondary link, I'd say. --Tone 16:57, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Maldives leaves the Commonwealth

No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 13:30, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Articles: Maldives (talk · history · tag) and Commonwealth of Nations (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The Maldives officially announces the decision to leave the Commonwealth of Nations. (Post)
News source(s): Maldivian MFA, Guardian
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Possibly more update would be needed. Brandmeistertalk 15:41, 13 October 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] Nobel Prize in Literature

Proposed image
Article: Bob Dylan (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Bob Dylan (pictured) wins the Nobel Prize in Literature (Post)
News source(s): Guardian
Credits:

Article updated
The nominated event is listed on
WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

Nominator's comments: Because it's Bob Dylan. Donnie Park (talk) 11:11, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

  • Support. Per ITNR &c. --Bruzaholm (talk) 11:13, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Well known recipient, article is featured, totally unexpected, just post it. --cart-Talk 11:18, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted blurb. Image can go up when it's been protected, etc. Thryduulf (talk) 11:21, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree, this should be posted. But you should take enough time doing it to include a full stop. Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:24, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I spotted that after I saved. I've also expanded the blurb to include the citation and a bold link to the prize article per the other Nobel blurbs. Should have done this in a single edit, but it's sorted now. Thryduulf (talk) 11:31, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the Nobel committee's citation should be in quotes (Bob Dylan is awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature "for having created new poetic expressions within the great American song tradition."). Otherwise, good work staying on top of this Thryduulf, and I agree with the decision to post this promptly. The Dylan article is extensive, with more than 400+ citations, so it's impossible to review it, but it was a "featured article," (specifically on May 17, 2004--12+ years ago-- but it still hasn't been demoted from that status). - Christian Roess (talk) 12:13, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I added quotation marks, since it is a direct quote. Personally though, I'd rather either paraphrase or omit the citation since I think it looks weird to have a direct quote there. Dragons flight (talk) 12:34, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
yeah, I'm kinda curious: Is using a direct quote in an ITN blurb unprecedented? Anyhow, it is sort of odd, but I will lean toward weak support for continuing with the blurb as it currently stands with the direct quote. Or until an alternative is proposed that makes more sense. I say that because it is also unprecedented, as far as I know, for someone who's known primarily as a singer and songwriter to receive a Nobel Prize in Literature. Therefore, expanding the blurb to reflect that fact is justified (ie., instead of simply stating "Bob Dylan is awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature"). - Christian Roess (talk) 13:23, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest (in WP's blurb) "for his lyrical contributions towards American songs". --MASEM (t) 13:59, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-posting support – Dr. Bob deserved it. Sca (talk) 13:35, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-Posting Temporary Pull on quality grounds? I'm pleased he got it, I think it was an imaginative choice by the Nobel Committee, I'm not worried about the general quality of the articles, and I agree that the item should eventually be posted. My problem is we're not a news service, and these postings are supposed to provide the reader with useful background on the story. The two articles provide lots of useful background about Dylan and about the Nobel, but currently very little about the story itself. In particular we're currently not told the fact that the award is a bit controversial, nor given a decent summary of the arguments about awarding it to him (and especially the arguments against, and replies to those arguments), even though that is likely to be precisely what a lot of readers will be looking for in this case. I'm not 100% sure that's sufficient ground for temporarily pulling until the issue is fixed (hence the "?" in my heading) but I think it is at least arguably ground for giving the matter some thought. Tlhslobus (talk) 20:39, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think that having excessive information about this particular prize would actually make us more of a news ticker than the current situation. If people want to learn about Dylan's career, or about past Nobel Prize winners, this is the place. If they want analysis of the 2016 prize, a current affairs site would make more sense. It wouldn't make sense to overload either article with this information, but it might be good if we were to create a 2016 Nobel Literature Prize article (like we currently have for 2016 Nobel Peace Prize). Smurrayinchester 14:26, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Smurray. This isn't the place to air debate about the character of the award, which anyhow has been met with global approbation. (Dylan's article logged half a million views on Thursday.) Sca (talk) 15:17, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] King of Thailand dies

Proposed image
Article: Bhumibol Adulyadej (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ King of Thailand Bhumibol Adulyadej, the world's longest serving head of state, dies age 88 (Post)
News source(s): Hong Kong Free PressBBC, The Guardian
Credits:

Article updated
The nominated event is listed on
WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

Nominator's comments: An official announcement is reportedly expected at 6pm local time (11am UTC), but there have been no denials of the rumours and early reports afaict. The death of a reigning monarch I think deserves a blurb rather than just RD, I've marked this as ITN/R for the change in the head of state. Thryduulf (talk) 10:56, 13 October 2016 (UTC) Thryduulf (talk) 10:56, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

The throne is currently vacant as the succession has not yet been proclaimed. However I am sure that once it is announced formally the blurb will be updated. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:54, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have just read that the Crown Prince will succeed to the throne but he wants time to mourn first. Not sure if that means he will wait a year(the officially announced mourning period) or just until he is ready. I still think it might be beneficial to mention him. 331dot (talk) 22:03, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently the Legislative Assembly convened today with the initial expectation that Crown Prince Vajiralongkorn would be named King, but the Prince asked to delay his own appointment to the throne for "appropriate time" to allow the country and the Prince himself to grieve the passing of the former King. [29][30] As best I can tell, though there is no ambiguity in the succession, he won't officially become King until offered the position by the government (constitutional monarchies are confusing). At that point he would be the King, even though the actual coronation is unlikely to happen for months. Dragons flight (talk) 23:28, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand it, succession is automatic & no proclamation is required. Like in Britain, Elizabeth II succeeded her father on February 6, 1952 & proclaimed February 8, 1952. GoodDay (talk) 22:51, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have not found a single reliable source saying he is King. I have found dozens saying he is the heir presumptive. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:53, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] RD: Dario Fo

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

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see
WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Noted and award-winning playwright, half-decent article. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:22, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

  • Support Article looks fine. I removed an uncited statement, but other than that, I can't find any major issues. --Jayron32 09:46, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I added two citation needed tags, but they address minor issues that could probably be fixed or removed easily enough. Also, I do wonder if the red links are being used excessively. Not being an expert on Italian plays, I can't really say, but I wouldn't be surprised if some of his less successful works lack the secondary sources needed to ever stand alone as articles. However, I wouldn't oppose posting his article just on that regard. Dragons flight (talk) 10:15, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment There are some "[1]" style markings in the prose that suggest either someone attempted to add sources but didn't know how or copied and pasted the text from another article. I haven't got time to investigate whether this is an issue though. Thryduulf (talk) 11:12, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    It is in a section talking about 5 monologues. I think someone enumerated them [1] to [5], which is kind of awkward but I don't think it is related to sourcing. Dragons flight (talk) 12:27, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support. Nobel prize for literature in 1997. Why don't put his death on top news? --Holapaco77 (talk) 12:26, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Article looks solid with no significant issues. Referencing is refreshingly solid. I'm marking this as Ready. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:16, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this has been good to go for three or four hours, is there anything other than the lack of trustworthy admins holding it back? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:39, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have removed the ready status after reviewing the article & doing some copy edits. There are a few outstanding citations needed and one place where the meaning is unclear; also I note that a GA review failed in 2013 due to over-reliance on one (offline) source amounting at times to suspected close paraphrasing. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:06, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds dubious, all ways round. We assume GF on offline sources, but it they are offline, where is the evidence of "suspected close paraphrasing" please? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:12, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, before looking at the talk page, I removed one phrase that was obviously copied from somewhere, which the GA reviewer had independently highlighted. I think the reviewer was looking at fragments in Google snippet view. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:20, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like it should be taken to
WP:GAR given your concerns. In which case, somewhat paradoxically, I'll have to oppose my own nomination. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:23, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
It was (rightly, imo) failed back in 2013, but no-one seems to have looked into the issues the reviewer raised in the intervening years. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:29, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, my mistake, it's not a GA. Can you tag any of the remaining offending clauses? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:02, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Khazar2 (who has retired otherwise I'd ping them) appears to have been worried about all the article that is predominantly sourced to Mitchell -- "A second issue here, and a bit trickier to evaluate, is the article's almost exclusive reliance on Mitchell. I can't see more than a sentence or two at a time in Google Books preview, but I'm concerned that the article follows Mitchell's work to a degree that could rise to a copyright issue, including an unnecessary reliance on his language. For example, the description of the canned meat TV show gag appears to be closely paraphrased from Mitchell; describing the TV content as "diversionary and trivial" are Mitchell's words exactly; etc. This might not be a major issue if one of these was the only bit taken from Mitchell, but without other sources to interweave, I'm concerned about the copyright status." [edit conflicted with Christian Roess below] Espresso Addict (talk) 21:59, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (with a tentative support) - one of the GA reviewer's concerns was the over-reliance on only one source (Mitchell's book Dario Fo: People's Court Jester) throughout the article. So there is the need to verify against this source for those instances of "suspected close paraphrasing" throughout the article. Nonetheless, IMO, the article is of sufficient quality to post to RD, because after checking a few random citations, I didn't find anything overly suspicious. And I don't believe there's an

WP:OR issue here either, if that's a concern. But anyhow that's just my own quick look through. And that's based on a random check of 7 citations out of the 90+ references in Mitchell's book (yes, at least 90+ out of 118 use Mitchell!). Maybe that's not good enough, so I'll check some more and get back to you later if I can. Christian Roess (talk) 21:50, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

additional note - I'm having to use the book search feature on amazon.com, the Google books feature is a waste of time. As an example, I do see in citation #51 that it uses almost the same wording as Mitchell, so it probably should be quoted. But it is on page 122, that is correct, and it discusses a controversial instance of Fo's partner, the actress Rave, and mentions her rape, mutilation, and torture. So these are not wild speculations and gratuitous remarks being injected throughout the article. The citations are accurate and verifiable it seems, so far. Christian Roess (talk) 22:19, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've done a few spot checks too, and I agree with Khazar2 that, while there isn't frank copying of more than fragments, there is too close adherence to the source. [edit conflicted] Espresso Addict (talk) 22:24, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support I think the article is good enough and though no longer a requirement he has accomplished so many for the nation of Italy and his criticisms of politics along with his wit has become well known globally. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:12, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support The man deserves this. Banquo71 (talk) 14:08, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support Good article, recipient of the Nobel Prize in Literature.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:26, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support It's unclear, from the above discussion, if there are still unresolved issues with the article, or not. Currently it has five tags in the text. Are these actually preventing marking it as ready? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:28, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • The first "clarification needed" tag regarding Fo's explanation for his participation in the Republic of Salò is a bit of a problem. The clause "Fo did not deny this affiliation but supported this moot thesis" is indeed unclear unless one understands the succession of explanations, court trials, interviews, lasting over two decades. I don't claim to understand it, but it:wp has a summary on this controversy (it:Dario_Fo#La_controversia_sulla_militanza_nella_R.S.I.), thogh that entire section is tagged too. I do think it's muddled and misleading to leave it the way it's written now, but I don't have what it takes to fix it. ---Sluzzelin talk 19:22, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and marked as ready. Note that we don't require every minor tag to be resolved, especially in as long an article as this. ITN criteria simply state that bolded links must have no orange/red-level banners, and that the updated content be thoroughly referenced. Mamyles (talk) 20:37, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Point of information, the instructions state that Usually, orange and red level tags are generally considered major enough to block posting to ITN... and nothing more. I.e. the key word in the ruleset here is "usually"... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:40, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    True, even orange and red tags can be posted with consensus (though I doubt we'd ever do that). Criteria for blurbs also states "Other tags (such as yellow level tags, or notices about merge discussions, etc.) are not themselves sufficient to block an item which otherwise has consensus..." Mamyles (talk) 21:59, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Some admins have found it upon themselves to promote items that have been thus tagged. That's why we can't ever discount it happening. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:03, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Five in-line tags seems a long way down the list. Now two days since he died. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:17, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted Stephen 05:11, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

October 12

October 12, 2016 (2016-10-12) (Wednesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy
  • John Stumpf resigns as CEO and chairman of Wells Fargo amid a scandal over its sales practices. (BBC)
  • The U.S. firm Concentrix, which is used by the British government to cut tax credit payments, suffers a data protection breach where some claimants have had their personal information such as bank statements, self assessment details, and National Insurance numbers sent to other claimants. (BBC)

International relations

[Closed] RD: Jack Greenberg

Stale. Stephen 05:23, 19 October 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: 
talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NYTimes

Credits:

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: Famous civil rights lawyer. The background section could definitely use some flushing out / cleanup (3 subheads with a grand total of 5 sentences?!). However, most of what is presented seems well referenced. Dragons flight (talk) 08:38, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Closed] RD: Dylan Rieder

Stale and at AfD. Stephen 05:22, 19 October 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: Dylan Rieder (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): TIME Rolling Stone
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see
WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Professional skateboarder. Article is orange tagged for unreliable sources and would need considerable improvement. Dragons flight (talk) 08:47, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Oppose as already noted, tagged for poor sourcing. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:58, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per nom. Extremely poor quality. I know I have been beating this particular horse to death, but I really do not agree with nominating articles that absent a complete overhaul, have no chance whatever of being posted. (climbing down from my soapbox...) -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:29, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You only die once. (YODO?) As far as I can tell only a handful of wiki notable people die on the typical day, so it isn't exactly overwhelming and sometimes other people are interested in helping once they hear about the death. For example, sometimes ITN commenter MurielMary picked up working on Michiyo Yasuda's article after it was posted here. We could say that ITN/C is only for things that are nearly ready to post, or we could say that ITN/C is also for encouraging improvement to articles that are potentially eligible to be posted. Personally, I'm much more inclined towards the latter viewpoint. Dragons flight (talk) 19:36, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I do think it's a waste of everyone's time nominating articles of this quality level until some improvement has been effected. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:57, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I would tend to agree but marvellous things have happened to nominated RDs, some folks occasionally jump on board and improve Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:44, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If nominators are going to include every recent death, irrespective of article quality, we might as well just transclude the entirety of the recent deaths list here. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:25, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Unrelated to this particular nom, sorry, but just carrying on the conversation ..... I suggest we use a [tag] such as "[Needs work]" for noms which we know are a bit below-par but might interest other editors who could work on improving them. Or, only nominate articles which are already at the standard needed. I agree with EA, nominating every person with a WP article is pointless. MurielMary (talk) 20:48, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, my understanding of the "Deaths in..." list is that it goes so far as to allow red linked articles for something like 30 days, so we wouldn't be posting those. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:56, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Closed] RD: Tommy Ford

Stale. Stephen 05:21, 19 October 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: Thomas Mikal Ford (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): ET USA Today
Credits:

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: Actor. Article is orange tagged and badly under referenced. Needs a great deal of work. Dragons flight (talk) 08:54, 13 October 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.

October 11

October 11, 2016 (2016-10-11) (Tuesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health

Law and crime

Science and technology

RD: Michiyo Yasuda

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

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: Animator with five decade career, including head of color design at Studio Ghibli for the last 30 years. Her article needs additional references before posting. It appears she died several days ago, but the first news article announcing it that I could find was from the 11th. Dragons flight (talk) 15:51, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

[Closed] Samsung Galaxy Note 7

No Consensus Much higher than normal participation with voting split almost evenly. In order to gain consensus there would have to be a wave of votes breaking in one direction. If someone honestly thinks that is likely, feel free to re-open. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:02, 12 October 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: Samsung Galaxy Note 7 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Samsung Galaxy Note 7 stops production permanently (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Production of the Samsung Galaxy Note 7 permanently stops
Alternative blurb II: ​ Production of the Samsung Galaxy Note 7 is ended due to product safety concerns after devices that were replaced continued to catch fire.
News source(s): Telegraph
Credits:
Nominator's comments: Not sure if "permanently stops" or "stops permanently" is better. Dat GuyTalkContribs 16:23, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Without having decided on the merits yet, I think the blurb should mention the reason for ending production, otherwise it just sounds like a routine business matter. 331dot (talk) 16:27, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with better blurb.
    [majestic titan] 17:02, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • The reason for this being proposed is that the phone was recalled twice and permanently discontinued, something that is unprecedented. And it is especially noteworthy because it happened to the largest cell phone manufacturer in the world. —britannic124 (talk) 17:43, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Thousands of products are faulty and are recalled. In none of those circumstances would we post them on the main page, so simply because there are more of these products I don't see the issue. See, for example, Opel_Zafira#Known_issues where thousands upon thousands of cars were recalled (twice) because they kept catching fire. A few scorched pillows and outraged videos on YouTube doesn't equate to that, IMO. Black Kite (talk) 18:19, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ignoring history, cherry-picking lame examples. There are millions of phones being recalled, affecting millions of people. The product is discontinued, unlike even the Ford Pinto. Abductive (reasoning) 20:59, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • But I'm curious, other than inconvenience, is there any real issue here other than a recall of a commercial product? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:01, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • (comment removed by The ed17).
          • Again, I'm not sure why you take this tone, and I have noted it, once again, but Kim Kardashian's robbery was "all over the news", Brexit is "all over the news", mad clowns (inc. Trump) are "all over the news". I thought this was an encyclopedia, not a tabloid newspaper. We have Wikinews for that kind of thing. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:11, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, thanks for that, but I hardly think that pointing out that big product recalls that make the news happen all the time is "lame"; but I still consider the fact that this product (one of dozens made by Samsung) isn't going to be made any more to be interesting, but not ITN-worthy. Black Kite (talk)
  • Oppose: Even with the stature of the parties involved, this still boils down to "A product was discontinued because its battery explodes", which can also be said of self-balancing scooters (the recall of which was not advertised on the front page). A recall of an international product, in a category that many people take for granted in regards to product safety, might seem newsworthy at first glance, but there have been larger, more significant recalls in other product categories. It's significant for its sector, but in the grand scheme of things this is merely a blip. ViperSnake151  Talk  18:33, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The vast majority of people in most nations have mobile phones these days; the phone sector is much larger than the self-balancing scooter sector. 331dot (talk) 20:58, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the market is larger, but our article states that over half a million self-balancing scooters were recalled, so the magnitude is comparable. Also, the deaths/injuries are comparable, i.e. virtually nil. The Rambling Man (talk)
But the Galaxy Note 7 is also a relatively niche product (arguably, the series created said niche). Now, if Apple had to do this, or it happened to one of Samsung's more-popular models (i.e. a Galaxy S phone), that might be a bit more newsworthy. ViperSnake151  Talk  23:46, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose I'm not feeling this as rising to ITN level attention. On a side note the article appears to be in decent shape, so that's not an issue. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:32, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support. I understand the concerns given above but it is unusual for a product to be recalled, supposedly fixed, recalled again, and finally production outright ended. The article is also in decent shape. 331dot (talk) 19:55, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, millions of these are affected. Would ITN have posted the Ford Pinto recall? Abductive (reasoning) 20:55, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Probably, yes, because as that article expounds, The safety controversy of the vehicle is cited widely in case studies of business ethics. This product phase-out will be a shrug-of-the-shoulders moment in the history of mobile tech. No-one but Samsung really cares about this already. "Millions of these are affected". Did you mean millions of phones are now declared unsafe yet only one person hospitalised? People are now just looking for what they can get back from Samsung. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:07, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    It was hardly likely to have already been widely cited, if at all, at the time we would have been considering posting it. —
    Cryptic 22:38, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Oppose - I understand this event has some significance in the tech and consumer world, but in the larger scheme of world news, with sympathy to the proposers, I still think this is small potatoes. -Darouet (talk) 21:43, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - millions are affected by this. This has risen to ITN level.BabbaQ (talk) 22:42, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – A faulty tech product – of transitory significance. Sca (talk) 00:45, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - problem with this is that it's not really a signature product. Comparatively the iPhone 7/7+ for example is the one and only iOS-using (most modern) smartphone, and Windows 10 has a lock on the PC OS market. The Galaxy Note 7 however is just one of many Android products, and there are many Android phone makers. Considering we didn't post the iPhone 7 & Windows 10 releases, it's hard to see this as worth posting. Banedon (talk) 01:09, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - When the New York Times breaks with this as their lead story, it's safe to say that the impact of this cannot be overstated.--WaltCip (talk) 01:38, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - No, it's not the iPhone, but we're talking about something that the FAA issued orders against use on a plane (compared to all other phones). This is going to be costly to Samsung as they promoted the heck out of this. If we were in a busier news cycle I would probably be less hesistant to post this, but with the slow cycle, this is a big story, and the article seems in reasonably good shape. --MASEM (t) 02:54, 12 October 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.

October 10

October 10, 2016 (2016-10-10) (Monday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences

Articles: Oliver Hart (economist) (talk · history · tag) and Bengt Holmström (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Oliver Hart and Bengt Holmström are awarded the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences for their work on contract theory (Post)
Credits:

Both articles need updating
One or both nominated events are listed on
WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

Nominator's comments: Unfortunately Hart's article is completely unreferenced, whilst Holmström's is a stub. Contract theory is better, but it's not clear if the particular research that led to the prize can be sensibly incorporated there. Modest Genius talk 11:40, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Please do this somewhere else. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:51, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • An individual instance of an ITNR can fail for being a trivial case of the generalized ITNR even if the article quality is impeccable. It's highly infrequent but it is an option. "Support with improvements" is positive and helpful language to make it easy to those interested in getting the topic(s) posted to the ITN box that a commenter here accepts their nom as worthy of posting but that there are problems to be fixed, compared to an "Oppose" which may function as the same thing but looks more negative. It's far less bitey, effectively. --MASEM (t) 22:19, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, but I disagree. There's nothing "bitey" about opposing a nomination. It's a personal opinion based on the criteria used to determine whether an item should appear on the main page. If an item isn't ready, and per ITNR, the only thing that needs to make it ready is quality, then oppose is perfectly reasonable. We're not here to massage egos, we here to select items for the main page. I'm sorry if that sounds harsh, but that's the reality of the situation. There's nothing bitey or belittling about my opposition to items that aren't ready for the main page, but, as above, I'll take a record of this conversation in case it's held against me per the Arcbom ruling, just to let you know. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:24, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    An "Oppose" is not wrong nor should be discouraged from being used, but it is very curt and may be demoralizing to ITNC nominators when the chance for posting is still opened due to topic importance. (And this was a point I brought up last year [31] which had general agreement). Further, speaking for myself, I often will review an ITN/C entry and then not come back to it unless I'm either pinged or I have a strong interest in it or just happen to drop by the ITNC page again. Thus, I've actually found my "support with improvements" to be a way to signal to the review admin that I did not outright oppose the article, and that that (based on my timestamp) that if the article was improved to my concerns they can consider my new !vote a support without having to re-engage me for it. One can say the the same thing in the explanation in an "Oppose", obviously, but it can make analysis a bit more difficult, particularly if its not clear in one's explanation that if the article was improved one would support it. --MASEM (t) 22:34, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree. An oppose is merely a statement of a position. I oppose this nomination, it's not ready. When it is ready, I will happily strike my oppose. We should be able to trust our admins to assess the relevance of an oppose vote should some users not return to re-assess. I have noted this discussion, thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 04:49, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose There is no indication of which articles are intended as primary targets so I am grading all of them. Only the article on the actual award is in acceptable shape for posting. The others fall well short of our standards for linking, with referencing being the main deficiency. I don't have a problem with throwing out an occasional "conditional support" for a nomination that is close, but not quite up to scratch. That said, articles with obvious and very serious shortcomings really should not be nominated until they have been improved to the point where they have at least a chance of being posted. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:58, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:ITNR makes it very clear that the prize is the ITNR article, if that's not up to scratch then this isn't an ITNR nomination. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:02, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    I think you meant that the winner of the prize is the ITNR article? Stephen 21:23, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, my poor typing, per ITNR Unless otherwise noted, the winner of the prize is normally the target article.... applies here. Thanks for the nudge...! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:32, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose both target articles (redirect too) are tagged at the top with orange maintenance banners. Not acceptable for the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:42, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Someone is going to have to explain to me what the {{non-free}} tag is going on about at Oliver Hart? Dragons flight (talk) 22:45, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    It was tagged by @Ad Orientem:, who might explain. Stephen 23:02, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    It was added in error. Thanks for the heads up. I have removed it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:13, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

October 9

October 9, 2016 (2016-10-09) (Sunday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime
  • 2016 Ethiopian protests

Politics and elections

[Posted] RD: Ken Thompson

Article: Kenneth P. Thompson (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NYTimes
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Brooklyn’s first black district attorney, who died in office. The article is somewhat sparse but seems reasonably referenced and generally in a decent shape. Dragons flight (talk) 13:17, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

  • Support Article looks solid and decently sourced. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:47, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Sourced and beyond a stub and updated. --MASEM (t) 02:06, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:53, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pull I never heard of the individual, sure the article is in good shape but I don't think he has any significance or how he meets the RD criteria. This was also posted rather fast even only after two supports within seconds apart. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:28, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no RD criteria anymore, beyond article quality and update, per the RFC linked in the box above. As long as they are notable, they qualify for RD. --MASEM (t) 04:33, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I did post it quite quickly, but as quality & update are currently the only criteria for RDs, the fact that three admins (including myself) & one other ITN regular all reviewed it positively seemed adequate to post. Espresso Addict (talk) 06:35, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Trump vs Clinton : This time it's personal

Re-closing per very strong and longstanding consensus that we do not post election news other than the final results. Not every rule needs to be spelled out. For those interested, there is currently a discussion on the talk page as to whether or not an IAR exception should be considered for the US Presidential election. However, until/unless there is a consensus in favor of suspending this rule, it remains in place. This is without any inference of criticism for the good faith re-opening of the nomination. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:38, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Articles: 
Trump's controversial comments about women (Post)
News source(s): BBC News (debate), BBC News (comments), Washington Post
(comments)
Credits:
Nominator's comments: You can't have missed this, even if you've been living on Mars Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:17, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • SNOW close. We don't post every notable moment in a political campaign. If we did this for the US, we would have to do it for every nation. 331dot (talk) 11:19, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So what exactly is the point of ITN? It looks like a joke when you compare it to what I see on the news stand at my local shop, which has nothing but this, wall to wall. Also, it highlights a new article (or at least one which people have not seem keen to take to AfD yet). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:22, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The point of ITN can be found
very difficult to refuse to do so for other nations. The US election will be posted at some point soon after November 8th and short of a major change in the election we shouldn't post every step in it(Trump quitting would merit posting, I think, as that's unusual). We have WikiNews for persons interested in just posting news stories. 331dot (talk) 11:28, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
  • (edit conflict) Strong oppose and agree with SNOW closure. We'll post the result of the election when it happens. We cannot post every campaign event, debate or controversy. Imagine what would happen to ITN if we did that for every election worldwide - it would be a constant stream of 'politician X accuses politician Y of something, which they deny'. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a news website. Modest Genius talk 11:33, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)Donald Trump has called for Clinton to be jailed for months; at the debate he simply said it to her face. Suggest reclosure per WP:SNOW; this is not an election ticker(plus my already-mentioned statement above). The blurb is also a general blurb and would need to be refocused if that's what is desired. 331dot (talk) 00:31, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't realize we were talking about the jail thing. I'll reiterate: call me when the deplorables take to the street to try to revolt against President Clinton. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:35, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Posted] RD: Andrzej Wajda

Proposed image
Article: Andrzej Wajda (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see
WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Noted film director, article very light on references... The Rambling Man (talk) 05:54, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

October 8

October 8, 2016 (2016-10-08) (Saturday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections
  • Georgian parliamentary election, 2016

Sports

[Posted] RD: John Gleeson

Article: John Gleeson (cricketer) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see
WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Notable cricketer, article is B-class Joseph2302 09:56, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note, this has been marked ready for 15 hours now... The Rambling Man (talk) 10:42, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Frustrating, isn't it. :) Martinevans123 (talk) 10:48, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
More symptomatic than frustrating. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:09, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind, Rambler. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:12, 9 October 2016 (UTC) [reply]
  • Comment. Three demerits for marking this as "ready" while the article incorrectly reported his date of death. I also added two citation needed tags for interesting but unsourced factoids. Dragons flight (talk) 14:00, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The citation in use at the time was dated 8 October and had no more information, the one that subsequently arrived clarified it in terms of time zones. Great spot, but demerits rejected. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:44, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • {{cn}} tags fixed and Posted. Black Kite (talk) 18:39, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia election

Article: 
Georgian general election.
News source(s): PTV

Credits:

Article needs updating
The nominated event is listed on
WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

Nominator's comments: Voting underway. Result will tak some 12+ hours. Looks like a tight race. Lihaas (talk) 09:37, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Agree on the article for now, but that's the party name!Lihaas (talk) 09:55, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well it may be better to introduce them, e.g. "Center-left political party "Georgian Dream" wins..." to avoid the Europop/horse race analogy. But that's just me. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:04, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Added an altblurb that introduces them as the ruling party. HaEr48 (talk) 20:40, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that works well. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:42, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Morocco election

Article: 
Moroccan general election.
News source(s): PTV

Credits:

Article needs updating
The nominated event is listed on
WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

Nominator's comments: Article is not updated but notifying that the IRNR occurrence happened. About 90% of votes counted. Lihaas (talk) 09:37, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

comment results are in here and PJD won a plurality but needs more prose update.Lihaas (talk) 12:40, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait Article needs significant expansion and updating. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:27, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose a stub article and the ongoing issues over using terms such as "plurality" without linking or disambiguation need resolving. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:48, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done it before, and at any rate, youre an admin you can link it.Lihaas (talk) 09:56, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, not any more! But anyone can adjust the blurb, I'm just saying it ought to be done before it's posted (if it gets posted of course) to avoid a trip to ERRORS. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:41, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Added an altblurb that introduces the party as the "ruling party" and reworded plurality with link. HaEr48 (talk) 20:44, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support ITN/R and I think the article has sufficient update. HaEr48 (talk) 05:55, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Saudi Arabian-led intervention in Yemen

Article: 
carried out by Saudi Arabia, kills at least 155 and wounds 525. (Post)
News source(s): Indeprndent, CNN, The Guardian

Credits:

Article updated

 Mhhossein talk 07:51, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose in current form. Hook needs to be re-written and neutral in tone without speculation. The story is newsworthy however. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:57, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Rambling Man: What do you think about the new form, thanks to Banedon's edit. --Mhhossein talk 09:22, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not happy with a blurb which contains overt speculation, regardless of whether or not it's backed up with reliable sources. We, as an encyclopedia, should be sticking to the bare facts. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:31, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It would be better (for me) if it went along the lines of "Saudi Arabia pledge to investigate an airstrike that killed 151 people at a funeral in Yemen." or similar. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:34, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in principle but oppose as nominated, because the target article is not very related to the news item (which at present is one line of text in the article). I'm going to boldly edit the blurb as well since it contains several typos. Banedon (talk) 08:05, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, likely a war crime. Abductive (reasoning) 21:04, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose I am not opposed to the idea, but the hook needs to be more specifically directed than just to the article which is far too long to expect the reader to wade through looking for the referenced subject. That should be an easy fix. The not so easy fix is the article's excessive length. I really don't know how that can be solved without taking a scalpel to the article. But in any event it can't be linked on the front page with the maintenance tag still up. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:15, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Nor can a blurb with heavy POV be listed either. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:23, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. The speculative part of the blurb needs to go. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:27, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

October 7

October 7, 2016 (2016-10-07) (Friday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy
  • The pound sterling sustains a flash crash, dropping from an exchange rate of $1.23 per pound to $1.13 in a few minutes of trading today, then gaining much of it back. Observers blame this development on algorithmic trading. (MIT Technology Review)

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

[Posted] 2016 Nobel Peace Prize

Proposed image
Article: 
peace agreement five days earlier.
Alternative blurb IV: ​ Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos is awarded the 2016 Nobel Peace Prize.
News source(s): Sydney Morning Herald, ABC News

Credits:

The nominated event is listed on
WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

Nominator's comments: Article might need some work, but the recent referendum could be relevant to mention. Neegzistuoja (talk) 10:17, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

True. It would be a slap in the ace to his predecessor.Lihaas (talk) 14:16, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reading the Committee's statement further [32] a combined statement may point out that the prize is for his previous and ongoing efforts in negotiating peace despite the referendum going against the first plan, as he is still spearheading the discussions to affect the deal to make it more amenable to all. --MASEM (t) 14:25, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed - looking at paragraph three in particular (of that press release) it seems that the award was given not only despite the referendum loss, but even because of it - "The Norwegian Nobel Committee emphasizes the importance of the fact that President Santos is now inviting all parties to participate in a broad-based national dialogue aimed at advancing the peace process. Even those who opposed the peace accord have welcomed such a dialogue. The Nobel Committee hopes that all parties will take their share of responsibility and participate constructively in the upcoming peace talks." Wittylama 15:00, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've attempted to write an altblurb 3 connecting the two uncausally, with less over-linking. Neegzistuoja (talk) 23:38, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Typically the target article for the Nobels is the person(s) awarded, not the prize. And Santos' article unfortunately has a section of disputed neutrality (though its otherwise reasonably sourced). --MASEM (t) 14:11, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Even if I do say so myself (as the primary author of the page) the 2016 Nobel Peace Prize article is already more extensive and significantly more footnoted than the the preceding year's articles (e.g. 2015 = 6,000 bytes and 8 footnotes, 2016 = 12,000 bytes and 23 footnotes). Wittylama 14:57, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
merge bump the Colombia vote and merge these.
nobel war prize wants to be relevant now?Lihaas (talk) 14:14, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – Original or Alt2. Agree with Masem re target article. Oppose merger with Columbia vote. Sca (talk) 14:18, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The primary target article is fine. However, some of the other articles linked in the various blurbs cannot be linked on the main page in their current condition. While perfection is not required, any article linked on the main page must be in at least decent shape with no glaring gaps in referencing and no orange tags. On a related note, these blurbs look a bit over-linked. Most of the secondary articles are already linked within the target article.Ad Orientem (talk) 15:54, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support alt blurb 4. I have added a plain bare essentials alternative blurb. It removes the problematic secondary links most of which can be found in the target article anyway. This should resolve the issues cited in my above oppose vote. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:02, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted. I have used a version without mentioning the referendum, as there doesn't seem to be a consensus for including that right now. Dragons flight (talk) 20:54, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pull or de-link Colombian conflict which has massive gaps in referencing. That article is no where near in condition to be linked on the main page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:07, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that Colombian conflict has gaps in inline referencing, though the total number of references and referenced content is substantial. However, I disagree that the article's deficiencies rise to the level that would exclude it from being linked as a secondary article in an ITN item. Dragons flight (talk) 21:15, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I respectfully but strongly disagree. Linking an article on the main page is an endorsement of that article's quality by the community. Whether it's bolded or not is immaterial. The article in question does not meet the standards that I have understood to apply to articles being considered for that distinction. I would also note that the link is unnecessary as the problematic article is linked within the primary target article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:12, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • So sorry, but your assertion is incorrect. If we had to check the quality of all non-bolded article links on the main page, we'd be here all day. Perhaps you would like to propose some kind of amendment to the various main page projects? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:26, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yep. And it's
    WP:WORKINPROGRESS, so appearance on the main page could be even beneficial in terms of attracting more editors for improvement. Brandmeistertalk 17:27, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • What TRM and Brandmeister said.
    [majestic titan] 00:54, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Now there are 2 Colombia posts on the same issue (albeit when the elections above are posted tshould go).Lihaas (talk) 09:54, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] RD: Rebecca Wilson

Article: Rebecca Wilson (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
Credits:

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

 Yellow Dingo (talk) 05:22, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

[Posted] RD: Alistair Urquhart

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

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see
WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Survivor of the Nagasaki atomic bombing, article is brief but referenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:41, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

October 6

October 6, 2016 (2016-10-06) (Thursday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime
  • Pakistan's government removes a loophole allowing those behind so-called honor killings to go free with the new legislation instead requiring a mandatory life sentence. (BBC)

Politics and elections

[Closed] Steven Woolfe

No. --Tone 13:40, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Proposed image
Article: 
UKIP's Steven Woolfe (pictured) is hospitalised following an altercation with another party member at the European Parliament? (Post)
News source(s): BBC News, Sydney Morning Herald

Credits:
Nominator's comments: This was the main news story yesterday in the UK, and made worldwide headlines. Until two days ago, most Wikipedians probably didn't know Woolfe from a
hole in a ground; now they do and the article has been suitably beefed up Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:46, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
This doesn't look particularly trivial, well at least not to the subject photographed! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:39, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A guy got attacked at work. Ended up in hospital. That's the sum total of the story, which is why I consider it trivial. MurielMary (talk) 10:43, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Woolfe is reported as conscious, lucid and not with any potentially serious long-term harm. This is mercifully not at the equivalent of the murder of Jo Cox Valentina Cardoso (talk) 12:58, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Woolfe has sent his "olive brach email" to Hookem. Hookem has explained the "tussle" on BBC Radio 4. Big up to EU healthcare, of course. [33]. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:23, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Closed] RD: Brigitte Hamann

Too stale to post. Full RD list more recent than this. Dragons flight (talk) 09:11, 11 October 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: Brigitte Hamann (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see
WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Wrote important books about the lifes of e.g. empress Elisabeth of Austria, Adolf Hitler, and Winifred Wagner. Wwikix (talk) 12:02, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Posted] RD: Rod Temperton

Article: 
WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: "The Invisible Man", composer of many pop hits, notably some of Michael Jackson's biggest. Actual date of death not yet clear. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:08, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Do you think that a source is required for every item in the list of his compositions? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:20, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That would be the ideal. But at a minimum anything that does not link to its own Wikipedia article including the red links needs a cite. I would think that there must be a source somewhere that lists all of his compositions. That could probably be used as an omnibus cite for the entire section. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:27, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discogs source, given both as a global source and as an External link, covers all his songs. The redlinks have also been sourced separately. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:05, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Since when was discogs a reliable source? Anyone can submit anything anywhere at anytime. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:02, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was sure I'd seen discogs used in one of two other musician articles around here. I can revert all those additions if you think that would improve the article. There are two other sources there too. Meanwhile I see that User:Ghmyrtle has added this source to External links. Perhaps that could be used instead? (I guess maybe better to continue this discussion at the article Talk Page). Or does the nomination just fail anyway since we have no exact date of death? It may have been about two weeks ago already. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:11, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

October 5

October 5, 2016 (2016-10-05) (Wednesday)
Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

[Closed] United Nations Secretary-General selection, 2016

Per User:KTC below.Lihaas (talk) 09:28, 8 October 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: The selection/election article is quite detailed, and Ban Ki-moon received the same treatment in October 2006. Neegzistuoja (talk) 11:19, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait – 'Til he becomes secretary-general. Sca (talk) 14:36, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that it would be best to wait until the final vote in the General Assembly. Mamyles (talk) 14:46, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait per Sca. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:50, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
obvious wait and also add that he was ultimately elected by the 71st UNGA.
Done ALTBRLURB3 and also in line with consistency on electons.
question will we repost when he takes office on 1 Jan?Lihaas (talk) 15:48, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think that this should be posted after formally elected/acclaimed by the General Assembly, which should be sometime today. He is technically not even nominated yet. Mamyles (talk) 19:04, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Next week. -- KTC (talk) 20:10, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Closed] RD: Michal Kováč

Now too stale to post as we have a full RD list more recent than this. Dragons flight (talk) 09:09, 11 October 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: 
WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: First President of Slovakia, but the article currently needs improvement. Brandmeistertalk 20:30, 5 October 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] Hurricane Matthew

Article: Hurricane Matthew (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ At least 142 deaths have occurred in the Caribbean as Hurricane Matthew moves north towards the southeastern United States. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ "After killing at least XXX in the Caribbean, Hurricane Matthew makes landfall in the United States near City, State.
News source(s): Reuters, USA Today CNN (10/6)
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Deaths in the double digits so far, on its way for the U.S. and Bahamas, evacuations are under way – Muboshgu (talk) 19:21, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support I was thinking of nominating this for ongoing because it's already a major event and likely to continue to be one for at least the next several days. But IMO it deserves a blurb. The article is well written and decently sourced (one CN tag and the table of warnings needs a cite). It is also being updated regularly. One observation is that if/when this is posted we will likely have to update the blurb from time to time. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:57, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait - It's about to make landfall again in the Southeastern U.S. and there might be some additional damages. When that happens, the death figures in the Caribbean might be more solid and there will also be an opportunity to report on damages in the U.S. as well, particularly if there are any deaths as a result of this C4 hurricane.--WaltCip (talk) 12:24, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per updated death toll below, as that was something that was not known at the time this was initially nominated. Lugnuts, don't bloody misrepresent what I said.--WaltCip (talk) 19:14, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Not !voting because I'd like to post when the time comes, but I would suggest posting on landfall with the US with a blurb similar to "After killing at least XXX in the Caribbean, Hurricane Matthew makes landfall in the United States near City, State", if consensus ends up supporting posting. I have added this format as an alt blurb; feel free to tweak as necessary. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 17:36, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment 100 dead in Haiti, but we're waiting for some white Americans to be affected before we post it. Lugnuts Precious bodily fluids 17:46, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To be perfectly fair, at the time of WaltCip's original comment, the blurb indicated 17 deaths (source) Palmtree5551 (talk) 00:00, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: The death toll has now topped 1,000.
    [majestic titan] 00:53, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • I haven't made the change to 1,000 because the sources currently available seem insufficiently reliable to me. Reliable sources I've seen are continuing to say either c. 900 or 877. On the Effects of Hurricane Matthew in Haiti, the article quality is inadequate to link; it is completely out of date for a start. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:01, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reuters from about an hr ago? (BBC 4 hr back is at 900, but its obviously going up.) --MASEM (t) 03:03, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reuters says they came up with the number by adding up totals from reports, which is notoriously prone to double counting; I'd personally like to see someone reputable pick it up before we do. BBC doesn't update much at this time of night but has been stuck on c900 for more than 24 hours as I recall. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:08, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since when is Reuters not reputable? And they're not using random reports, they're using a "tally of numbers" from government officials—a similar way ("civil protection officials") to how the BBC figured the "nearly 900" figure we're currently using on the main page. Other news outlets are picking up the tally as well.
    [majestic titan] 05:19, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Best way to deal with these updates is via

WP:ERRORS. Most of the time, a posted blurb will be overlooked for correction purposes. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:10, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

[Posted] Nobel Prize (Chemistry)

Article: No article specified
Blurb: ​ Jean-Pierre Sauvage, Sir J. Fraser Stoddart, and Bernard L. Feringa are awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for the synthesis of molecular machines. (Post)
News source(s): NYTimes
Credits:

Article updated
The nominated event is listed on
WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

Nominator's comments: Sauvage's article is a tad short but reasonable sourced; the other two have actually articles in seemingly good shape. The molecular machines target is a bit weak in sources but its also not a target article. MASEM (t) 14:21, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

October 4

October 4, 2016 (2016-10-04) (Tuesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

Sports

Paris agreement

Article: Paris Agreement (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The Paris Agreement comes into effect after the European Parliament approves its ratification (Post)
News source(s): [35] [36] [37]
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Blurb's overstated right now. It should say there are no more real obstacles until the Paris Agreement comes into effect. Don't know how to word it better though. Banedon (talk) 06:57, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The article currently says "The agreement will only enter into force provided that 55 countries that produce at least 55% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions ratify, accept, approve or accede to the agreement; although the minimum number of ratifications has been reached, the ratifying states do not produce the requisite percentage of greenhouse gases for the agreement to enter into force". The infobox also says "Not in effect", so probably it's too early right now. Brandmeistertalk 07:33, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK when I lied when I wrote "article updated" - updating this now (see the sources for current situation). Banedon (talk) 07:36, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Nobel Prize (Physics)

Article: No article specified
Blurb: ​
condensed matter. (Post)
News source(s): NPR Nobel Committee

Credits:

The nominated event is listed on
WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

Nominator's comments: This nomination is bordering on wishful thinking, as none of the articles are remotely ready right now, but I'm hoping that by putting it up here it might help attract the attention needed to improve the articles before this grows stale. Dragons flight (talk) 11:48, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

October 3

October 3, 2016 (2016-10-03) (Monday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

[Posted] New Estonian President - first female

Article: 
elected President of Estonia, becoming the first woman to hold the position. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Kersti Kaljulaid is elected President of Estonia.
Alternative blurb II: ​ The Estonian parliament elects Kersti Kaljulaid as the President of Estonia, the first woman to hold the office.
News source(s): The Guardian

Credits:

The nominated event is listed on
Estonian presidential election, 2016, should that be linked as well? MurielMary (talk) 08:42, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

[Posted] RD:Hanoi Hannah/Trinh Thi Ngo

Articles: 
Trinh Thi Ngo (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Newsweek

Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Article is centred on her role in the war, not much about her previous life, but doesn't seem to be anything else to add to that period of her life. MurielMary (talk) 08:08, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Based on the below discussion, I would prefer it to be posted under her legal name rather than her American common name. ~Mable (chat) 13:32, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not post as Hanoi Hannah - That's not her name even if the GIs called her that.--WaltCip (talk) 11:36, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is a redirect from her real name
Trinh Thi Ngo to the HH page. Or is it appropriate to rename the HH page as her real name? MurielMary (talk) 11:47, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
We usually post the COMMONNAME, so if it shouldn't be Hanoi Hannah, the article needs to be moved. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:10, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Biographies may correctly be titled using a pseudonym if that is how the person is most widely discussed in reliable sources. See
WP:STAGENAME. As for which name to use at RD, I'm actually rather conflicted. If this is a valid application of STAGENAME (and never having heard of her before today, I don't know if it is), then presumably Hanoi Hannah is the better known name and would be more recognizable to our readers. To give a more modern analogy, I imagine that if Katy Perry dropped dead, it would be more useful to readers to list her stage name than to post her legal name, Katheryn Hudson, at RD. Is there precedent for the question of pseudonyms at RD? I notice the Newsweek source uses her pseudonym in its title but introduces and uses her real name in the body of its text. Dragons flight (talk) 12:13, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
I feel the same way. Has Trinh ever stated anything about her 'stagename'? Did she identify herself under that name, or was it a name given to her literally by her "enemies"? ~Mable (chat) 12:16, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, apparently "Hanoi Hannah" was an invention of the Americans, and not a name she knew about originally. On air she actually used a different pseudonym, "Thu Huong", during the war. [39] I don't know how she felt about the name Hanoi Hannah. Dragons flight (talk) 12:36, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's safe to assume that if she did not explicitly acknowledge that pseudonym, that it's not how she prefers to be remembered, thus not making it a "stage name". Referring to her using a demeaning Americanism is practically the strongest form of systemic bias you can get, falling just shy of actual full-blown racism.--WaltCip (talk) 12:40, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fully agree with this: unless we know for sure she heard of and accepted the American nickname, her article should be at her given name, not the nick name (though obviously the redirect there is fine). It's a flat out BLP violation. --MASEM (t) 14:22, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I want to note that if it's her common name, the article itself shouldn't be renamed. I can imagine this having influence on the RD, though. ~Mable (chat) 12:20, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Per commonname the vast majority of the English-language sources (both historical and contemporary) refer to her as Hanoi Hannah. The article is currently named correctly and any rename is likely to be instantly reverted. As far as I can tell there was no derogatory aspect to the name, (see Pyongyang Sally etc) other than the inability of the troops to accurately pronounce an asian name. Should she be listed at RD, I would expect the HH name to be blue linked and her actual name included. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:27, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am reading a consensus here to move the article, which I have just done, to
    MOS:FOREIGN. The Rambling Man's COMMONNAME argument is refuted by some, but Masem's BLP comment is well taken, as are Maplestrip and WaltCip's arguments about being named by an enemy and racism. Drmies (talk) 16:54, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Thanks for moving the article. I agree that it is appropriate here to use her real name as "HH" was a name given to her by the American GIs. So far the nom has one support vote - any more votes? MurielMary (talk) 19:24, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In consideration of the above discussion, I support posting.--WaltCip (talk) 19:27, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support after move. The referencing is otherwise there (though I believe there is more that could be added content-wise such as the actual origin of the nickname which I couldn't find easily on a quick google search, but that's not a reason to post RD). --MASEM (t)
  • Marking as Ready. MurielMary (talk) 19:36, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posting. --Tone 19:41, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post posting note - although "HH" is a name that she did not give herself, she did embrace it and consider it a stage name. Her notability is among English-speaking audiences, not among the Vietnamese (she's not very well-known in VIetnam). I think we're being hyper-PC in calling her by her birth name, which is rather obscure both in Vietnam and elsewhere. She is much more well-known as HH. Consider the Vietnamese language article, which uses the HH moniker, and this news story in the state-run radio station Voice of Vietnam (her former employer). In it, they clearly refer to "HH" as her "stage name" (nghệ danh). The story also made many approving references to the name "HH". DHN (talk) 22:01, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • That would have been nice to know.--WaltCip (talk) 12:11, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Its back at Hanoi Hannah. Taken with the above comment from DHN - If someone genuinely thinks the vast majority of English language sources per
        WP:RM. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:48, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
        ]
I have left a note on your talk page regarding this action Only in death - suggest you revert changes and open a discussion so that editors can discuss fully (rather than taking action and *then* telling anyone who disagrees to open a discussion!) MurielMary (talk) 10:12, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The onus is on those who wish to move it to do so. The page was already at Hanoi Hannah. Perhaps I was less clear above when I said 'any move would be reverted'. When perhaps I should have said 'If you move to this the vietnamese name in spite of the COMMONNAME guidelines I will revert it'. If you want to request a move, do so on the article talkpage or at
WP:RM. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:16, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

[Closed] Discovery of largest Iron Age Earthwork in Britain

No consensus. Stephen 22:24, 9 October 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: Skipsea Castle (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Archaeologists discover Skipsea Castle's mound is 1500 years older than thought, making it Britain's largest Iron Age Earthwork (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:
 ϢereSpielChequers 23:37, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now. I'm underwhelmed by the two sentence update over the recent discovery. If the recent archaeology could be expanded upon (how was the new determination made? What new work has been done? Etc.) then I would support this. --Jayron32 03:16, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, the interior part that was built in the Iron Age was smaller. So the blurb is not true. Abductive (reasoning) 01:19, 5 October 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] Nobel Prize (Medicine)

Article: Yoshinori Ohsumi (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Japanese cell biologist Yoshinori Ohsumi is awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for his discoveries of mechanisms for autophagy. (Post)
Credits:

The nominated event is listed on
WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

Nominator's comments: Needs some work but otherwise Nobel Prizes are ITNR. Tone 09:59, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

  • Support in principle on notability but the article cannot appear on the main page in its current shape.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:02, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    That's kinda what ITN/R is for. ;-) -- KTC (talk) 12:24, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Article is very poorly sourced. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:17, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The autophagy article is updated and good quality, use that as main link until the biography is in shape. Narayanese (talk) 17:33, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree that linking to autophagy as a main article is suitable. The Nobel Prize is specifically for Ohsumi's discoveries related to autophagy mechanisms. At present the autophagy article does not explain his specific contributions to this field of study. (Prior to the Nobel win his name didn't even appear in the body of the article.) I don't believe an article merely providing a general overview of autophagy is sufficiently connected to the Nobel prize to work as the main link. We often have difficulty with Nobel Laurettes, but nonetheless I believe the best approach is to improve his article to explain why he won the prize and add the missing citations. Dragons flight (talk) 00:47, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll second Dragons flight's determination here. We need a better article on the Laureate in order to post. --Jayron32 03:17, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support --74.190.108.253 (talk) 05:59, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose laureate's article is what qualifies under ITNR, not some other article. And it's not good enough. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:14, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - why hasn't it been featured yet? The only problem I see here is that there are many Nobel prize entries - it would be better if it was one page that lists the winners of the 2016 round instead of having an entry for each of them. I also think that somewhere on Wikipedia - not sure in which article (probably the person's one or a new one) - his findings should be elucidated. --Fixuture (talk) 19:16, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"why hasn't it been featured yet?" You answer your own question: "I also think that somewhere on Wikipedia - not sure in which article (probably the person's one or a new one) - his findings should be elucidated." SpencerT♦C 13:36, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

October 2

October 2, 2016 (2016-10-02) (Sunday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sports

Art & literature

[Posted] 2016 NRL Grand Final

Article: 
NRL title. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ In rugby league, the Cronulla-Sutherland Sharks defeat the Melbourne Storm in the NRL Grand Final
.
Credits:

The nominated event is listed on
WP:ITN/R is up to date. The match summary could be expanded but is otherwise good to go. Jarumain (talk) 12:10, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Conditional Support Overall the article is not in bad shape and just needs some minor fixes. I've added a few CN tags and the tables aren't clear where their data is coming from. Fix those and we should be good to go. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:23, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Jarumain (talk) 21:14, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Looks good to me. Thatsgold (talk) 11:13, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support
    WP:ITN/R article with updated match summary. Gfcvoice (talk) 12:04, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Posted. SpencerT♦C 17:26, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Could we clarify the blurb a little bit? For example by adding "Australian" to "rugby league", or expanding NRL to [Australian] National Rugby League? I'm sure many visitors (like me) have not heard of "rugby league", "Cronulla-Sutherland Sharks" or "NRL" before, so this blurb is a bit hard to understand. HaEr48 (talk) 21:21, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Hungarian Migrant Quota Referendum, 2016

Closing my own nomination. Consensus is against posting. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:24, 4 October 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: 
strongly reject European Union quotas for migrant refugees, although its validity is in doubt. (Post)
News source(s): 27, 28

Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Significant news from Hungary showing very strong opposition to EU quotas requiring member states to accept certain numbers of migrant refugees. Although it is likely to be declared invalid due to low turnout the over 90% oppose vote is certain to add fuel to the debate over Europe's immigration crisis. The article has been updated, looks well written and decently sourced. Ad Orientem (talk) 04:27, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Right-wing nationalism on the march. Whether enforceable or not, the article is solid (at a quick glance, at least) and this is noteworthy in the migrant crisis. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:37, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I cannot see why we would post a referendum that is invalid because of low turnout and therefore is not going to have any effect. Neljack (talk) 05:35, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Normally I would agree. But when you have upwards of 90% of the vote going against the EU quotas, legal validity is pretty much irrelevant. The referendum is sending shock waves through the EU. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:40, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not really; it was predictable the vote would go this way. The majority of Hungarians are anti-immigration, and remember the vote was not "should Hungary accept a certain quota of immigrants?" but effectively "Should the EU be able to force Hungary to accept a certain quota of immigrants". Given that, the only surprising thing is that the turnout was so low. Black Kite (talk) 09:27, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support covered in multiple major new services (UK, Australia, Qatar, UK again, Europe, USA, etc.) - Yellow Dingo (talk) 07:19, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think this is sufficient reason. Celebrities getting divorced can be reported in those countries too, but doesn't mean it's worth being ITN. HaEr48 (talk) 03:11, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The turnout was below 50% and according to Hungarian law this is insufficient to make the results valid. Brandmeistertalk 07:32, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on impact. The plebiscite failed on turnout, and so nothing will change. And the thing sending shockwaves through Europe is the migrant crisis itself, not a failed plebiscite.128.214.53.104 (talk) 07:35, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Unfortunately, my English grammar is quite poor, so I guess the article requires a susbtantial copyedit. In this light, I'd rather not support the candidacy. --Norden1990 (talk) 07:39, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per the reasons above. For a start, yes, the turnout is too low for it to be valid. Also, this was more an opinion poll than an actual plebiscite, the question was loaded very much with emotive language. Hungary will not be able to legitimately deal with the EU's rules while it remains an EU member - in the mother of all ironies, it remains very much in favour of the EU for the benefit of its own migrants in Britain Valentina Cardoso (talk) 11:18, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The blurb is misleading, the boycotting side won. Narayanese (talk) 17:34, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree that the blurb is terribly misleading. Those who opposed the ruling party in this question were encouraged to boycott the referendum (which was widely considered illegitimate and pointless; the Constitution of Hungary itself states that "No national referendum may be held on ... any obligation arising from an international agreement" [40]) I would love to see the referendum mentioned on the main page, because it shows that the majority of people definitely refused to be part of Orbán's hate campaign, but the blurb should reflect this, and not the opposite. Thank you. HungaryNews (talk) 18:16, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose because the turnout is too low. Can still be posted if we run into a serious lack of new blurbs, which was the case a week ago but we have several new nominations now. Banedon (talk) 01:02, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose routine local referendum. Haven't seen any coverage that claims that this has significance outside Hungary. HaEr48 (talk) 03:09, 4 October 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] Voters reject FARC peace deal

Articles: 
FARC leftist guerillas.
News source(s): BBC, AP, Guardian
.
Credits:

Both articles need updating

Nominator's comments: The landmark peace deal lies in tatters, it probably won't be possible to revive it. Count Iblis (talk) 22:43, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support A huge and unexpected setback. EternalNomad (talk) 22:46, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait Yes, this is big news and almost certainly ITN worthy. However, it is quite literally breaking. We have very little information and no idea of what this means. Also the articles have not been updated (as of my writing this). They will need to have this put in along with some RS sourced analysis. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:56, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • P.S. Huge gaps in referencing and I am not even halfway down the article yet. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:02, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait I think the article needs to have enough of "what happens now" (do they go back to renegotiate? do they try to pass without a vote, etc?) to know the implications of this. --MASEM (t) 23:58, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The uncertainty of what comes next is a big part of this news story, no need to wait for some resolution. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:23, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The unexpected result of the extremely close poll and the immediate aftermath shows that this is worthy for ITN. —SomeoneNamedDerek (talk) 00:40, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The only one of the various articles proposed for possible linking that is in reasonably good condition is
    Colombian peace agreement referendum, 2016. The others have serious deficiencies, especially in referencing. The one on the peace accord also has an orange tag. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:14, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Support What a disaster. Neljack (talk) 05:37, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This will have no effect on the agreement which will stay in force. Brandmeistertalk 07:30, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But it will expire; this deal would have been permanent. 331dot (talk) 09:32, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on impact. If the referendum failed, then nothing changes. The story here is people's disappointed expectations, not a change in law nor (as someone above pointed out) day-to-day life.128.214.53.104 (talk) 07:50, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support. The failure to approve a notable peace deal merits posting; though I'm not sure if we should do so now, or if/when the war resumes. 331dot (talk) 09:32, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Altblurb 2 – Due in part to extended, high-profile coverage of the FARC deal. Alt2 contains more information. (Vote needs more than one source, though. Two added above.) Sca (talk) 13:58, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Alt 2 A sad and unexpected setback Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:58, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Uusally its just a referendum but this was a major surprise with massive ramification akin to Brexit. I imagine its more in the news in the Spanish language media. Anyways support ALT as it links to the details..Lihaas (talk) 15:44, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As does Alt2. Sca (talk) 16:27, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, its too wordy.
Needs more prose reactions: FARC, Santos, Cuba, (Venezuela?), and troublemaker uribe. Also more analysis on the fact that the troubled areas approved it while the central areas less affected rejected it (was on bbxC tv).Lihaas (talk) 22:46, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support (prefer alt2) Updated article. The vote undoes the recent peace treaty. Narayanese (talk) 17:37, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - it's big national news and there's a good chance it will lead to more violence. I think either alt is OK. Banedon (talk) 00:57, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What are we waiting for? Sca (talk) 01:06, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Personally? Prose.
Colombian peace agreement referendum, 2016 seems to be the best choice for a target article, but only a single sentence of prose has been added since the vote result became known. [41]. Having a map and vote tally is nice, but there is literally more discussion of what this result means on this page than there is within the referendum article right now. I understand that the consequences might be uncertain, but even then the article could at least cite some sources saying that. Dragons flight (talk) 01:33, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Well,
Colombian peace agreement referendum, 2016 is a respectable 1,000 words, plus two charts, and seems just barely adequate. True, it would be better to have what in the news business we used to call "instant depth," but the referendum result alone seems very significant. Time's a' wastin'. Sca (talk) 14:04, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Now old news. If no one's going to post, suggest close. Sca (talk) 14:13, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted Alt 2. SpencerT♦C 17:30, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post Posting Comment There appears to have been very little consideration given to the quality of what we have now linked on the front page. While the primary target is not bad, the other two linked articles are really not in good shape, especially with referencing. IMO this is represents a regrettable lapse in our usual standards. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:32, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • My understanding is that only the bolded target article(s) must be at "postable on Front Page" standards; any non-bolded links should be clear of patently clear problems but do not need the same rigor. --MASEM (t) 21:41, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] 2016 Ryder Cup

Article: 2016 Ryder Cup (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In golf, Team USA wins the Ryder Cup. (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

The nominated event is listed on
WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

 The Rambling Man (talk) 21:40, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

[Closed] 2016 Ethiopian protests

No consensus. Stephen 22:23, 9 October 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: 
protests in Oromia, Ethiopia. (Post)
News source(s): BBC, The Guardian, Reuters

Credits:
 The Rambling Man (talk) 21:11, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose This sounds like something we should have on ITN. Unfortunately there are currently only three sentences on the subject in the linked article. Those three sentences are not only short on details, but seem unsure of the ones they are providing. It's not clear exactly when this happened. Rocks were thrown, or they weren't. Fifty-two were killed, or three hundred. And there is only one source cited. While the BBC is indisputably an RS source, I'd like to have more than one news source if we are posting something to "In the News." It doesn't need its own article but if we could expand this beyond three sentences and add another reliable news source (or two) I think we could post this. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:12, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Just Google News it, I've added The Guardian and Reuters to the template. The Rambling Man (talk) 04:48, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Posted] RD: Neville Marriner

Proposed image
Article: Neville Marriner (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [1] [2]
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see
WP:ITNRD.

 Dionysodorus (talk) 17:01, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

October 1

October 1, 2016 (2016-10-01) (Saturday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Politics and elections

Sport

[Posted] RD: Daphne Odjig

Article: Daphne Odjig (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): CBC News
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: First Nations artist from Canada. Article has been expanded and referenced. MurielMary (talk) 06:02, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

[Posted] 2016 All-Ireland Senior Football Championship Final

Article: 
1977 final. (Post
)
Credits:

Article updated
The nominated event is listed on
WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

 Greencauldron (talk) 20:15, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

[Posted] 2016 AFL Grand Final

Article: 2016 AFL Grand Final (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In Australian rules football, the Western Bulldogs beat the Sydney Swans to win the AFL Grand Final (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ In Australian rules football, the Western Bulldogs defeat the Sydney Swans in the AFL Grand Final, winning their first title since 1954.
Credits:

Article updated
The nominated event is listed on
WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

Nominator's comments: multiple updaters Yellow Dingo (talk) 10:03, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Although I note that the match itself isn't covered in the article, and I think that would have to be rectified before this could be posted. Gatoclass (talk) 11:05, 1 October 2016 (UTC) I now support this nomination as a match summary has been added. Gatoclass (talk) 08:34, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as ITN/R. The article isn't perfect, but the quality is certainly adequate enough for ITN standards (long enough, referencing is fine, no other tags). It makes sense to mention the Bulldogs' premiership drought in the blurb, and I've added ALT1 accordingly. (Note: "defeat" rather than "beat" is standard for blurbs, and I've used "title" rather than "premiership" as the latter is an Australianism that might not be understood by all). IgnorantArmies (talk) 11:17, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've taken the year out of each blurb, but please, let's try to avoid the usual ENGVAR debate here by selecting a blurb that is English-variant-agnostic. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:33, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose unless I'm missing something, I don't see any prose relating to the actual game itself. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:36, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Support Overall article quality is not bad though it needs a little expansion per TRM's observation above. Referencing actually looks pretty respectable which is a pleasant change from the norm around here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:23, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @
    Fuebaey. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 01:05, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Support ITN recurring item, which now has paragraphs of prose describing the actual game. Gfcvoice (talk) 08:15, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support now suitable prose update has been included. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:44, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted. Rephrased to avoid the ENGVAR problem (i.e. whether a team is singular or plural). Dragons flight (talk) 21:59, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    When plural team nicknames (such as "Bulldogs" and "Swans") are used, that isn't an issue. —
    David Levy 01:29, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  1. ^ https://www.theguardian.com/music/2016/oct/02/sir-neville-marriner-obituary
  2. ^ https://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/music/conductor-neville-marriner-dies-founded-london-orchestra/2016/10/02/86f82f68-88b9-11e6-8cdc-4fbb1973b506_story.html
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates/October_2016&oldid=1145833059"