Jump to content

Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/November 2017

Add links
From 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.

November 30

[edit]
November 30, 2017 (2017-11-30) (Thursday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Politics

Law and crime

[Posted] RD: Jim Nabors

[edit]
Article: Jim Nabors (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NBC
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Referencing looks pretty good, this shouldn't be too far away. Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:40, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How in the world do you get from "commenting out those specific items" to "commenting out large sections"? That's a total misrepresentation. μηδείς (talk) 16:58, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A problem at least to me is that (my impression) Nabors appearances on the Carol Burnett show are recognizable, but weren't trivial/cameo/one-offs, it was just less frequent than "recurring" to be considered within a main credits. Commenting that line to achieve a "quality sourcing" article would be misleading. Whenever these RDs that have unsourced film/discographs are "cleaned" by moving those to a separate page, that's a problem of sweeping a problematic quality issue under the rug that still has to be dealt with at some point. The sourcing has to be done, it's unfortunately more a effort issue than a difficulty in finding sources. --MASEM (t) 17:03, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have gone through each TV and film appearance listed and attempted to find a non-IMDB source for the show itself. For the most part that's done, but information on the number of individual episodes he appeared in for each series seems to be only available from IMDB. If this is enough to keep the article from being re-posted then I can only suggest removing the "Notes" column because I am absolutely stumped for finding a RS for that info.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:19, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For the purposes of posting this now, something like this which has a quote from CArol herself commenting on Nabors' frequency of being on her show would be sufficient to source "Various episodes". As more a variety than scripted show, that's fine to me. --MASEM (t) 17:29, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a note with a source that explains he appeared in the premiere episode of each season.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:35, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the tags as I feel the sections are now sufficiently referenced for an RD.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:02, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Very good work Pawnkingthree, much appreciated. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:36, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

November 29

[edit]
November 29, 2017 (2017-11-29) (Wednesday)
Arts and culture

Business and economy
  • Corporate bankruptcies
    • Cumulus Media files for Chapter 11 bankruptcy reorganization and enters into a restructuring agreement with some of its lenders to reduce more than $1 billion of the debt accrued by the Atlanta-based radio broadcasting group since its 2011 purchase of Citadel Broadcasting, towards the end of a 30-day period for the company to secure a financing plan after defaulting on a $23.6-million debt payment on November 1. In a statement, Cumulus representatives said that the company expects all operations, programming and sales for its 459 radio stations across the U.S. to continue as normal during the restructuring process. (Reuters) (Atlanta Journal-Constitution)

Health and environment

Law and crime

Politics and elections

[Posted] RD: Jerry Fodor

[edit]
Article: Jerry Fodor (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): New York Times
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Very sad news. Article is already GA, and is very well-referenced. Notecardforfree (talk) 08:18, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] RD/Blurb: Slobodan Praljak

[edit]
Article: Slobodan Praljak (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Former Bosnian Croat army general Slobodan Praljak dies after deliberately drinking poison when his conviction for war crime was upheld by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Slobodan Praljak commits suicide when his conviction for war crimes is upheld by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia.
Alternative blurb II: ​ Former Bosnian Croat army general Slobodan Praljak commits suicide after his conviction for war crimes is upheld by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia.
News source(s): BBC News
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Convicted war criminal drinks posion in The Hague after hearing the guilty verdict Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 18:59, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Normally this would belong to the RD section, but I believe the manner of death itself is unusual enough to merit a blurb. Inatan (talk) 21:43, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose for now purely on article quality. It needs better referencing and could stand a little expansion, especially about his death. However I Support a blurb in principle given the highly unusual nature of the event. This is pretty much a textbook example of when to support a death blurb. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:46, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks adequate. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:34, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I have added an alt blurb. The original is a bit wordy. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:48, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nice rewording. @Miki Filigranski: seems to be working on the article right now. It should be ready sometime soon. Inatan (talk) 21:53, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just an fyi, on ITN blurbs are written in the present tense. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:27, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but when one event clearly precedes the other, using present tense sounds weird if not outright wrong. Banedon (talk) 22:32, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It was supported by another previously cited ref in the section, fixed.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 23:44, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • "During the war" is more problematic. "Although he did not have any military education, he successfully defended this position from the technically superior forces of the Yugoslav People's Army and the Army of the Republic of Serb Krajina." <-- that's not in the ref (and it reads like it was written by an apologist for Praljak). --CosmicAdventure (talk) 23:08, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 23:44, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, not seeing the fix. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 00:25, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See edit.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 01:01, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now, the refs for "Background" and "During the war" don't support the text. The ref for the bridge says one thing, the article says the exact opposite. I don't have time to tag/dig for sources right now. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 23:15, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 23:44, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"an act that was, according to the ICTY justified by military necessity," is not in the ref. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 00:20, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 00:24, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to all those who worked on the article overnight. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:59, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Yokozuna's controversial retirement

[edit]
Proposed image
Article: Harumafuji Kōhei (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In sumo, yokozuna Harumafuji Kōhei (pictured) retires controversially after a brutal assault on Takanoiwa Yoshimori. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ In sumo, yokozuna Harumafuji Kōhei retires amid investigations into an assault on fellow wrestler Takanoiwa Yoshimori.
News source(s): AFP via Yahoo! News, Reuters, BBC

 222.10.15.215 (talk) 02:38, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will work on it.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:36, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

November 28

[edit]
November 28, 2017 (2017-11-28) (Tuesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

[Posted] RD: Shadia

[edit]
Article: Shadia (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Al Arabiya, Egypt Today
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Famous Egyptian actress, but most of the article is unsourced. I'll probably work something out within the next few hours. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 17:45, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't that be 'oppose' (pending improvements)? (Per ITNRD there is no need for support on notability grounds, as it cannot be opposed on notability grounds). Tlhslobus (talk) 03:33, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. We need to stop saying "support" when the article is clearly not ready for the main page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:17, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The assumption being that posting admins can't read past the first word? I support "support after improvements" as perfectly logical, and not needing to be struck, as to opposes which are actually "needs improvements" and not real opposition. μηδείς (talk) 00:29, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

November 27

[edit]
November 27, 2017 (2017-11-27) (Monday)
Arts and culture

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

[Stale] RD: José María Romero de Tejada

[edit]
The entry is now stale. Alex Shih (talk) 20:55, 4 December 2017 (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: José María Romero de Tejada (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [1] (Spanish)
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Attorney General of Catalonia. Referencing a little spotty. Will likely need attention from someone who can speak Spanish and/or Catalan. LukeSurl t c 23:51, 27 November 2017 (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] Mount Agung

[edit]
Proposed image
Articles: Mount Agung (talk · history · tag) and 2017 eruption of Mount Agung (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In Indonesia, the evacuation of 100,000 people from Bali is ordered due the the eruption of Mount Agung (erupting volcano pictured). (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ In Indonesia, the evacuation of 100,000 people from Bali is ordered due the the eruption of Mount Agung (erupting volcano pictured)
News source(s): (BBC)
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Major evacuation of populace, first major eruption in 54 years. Mjroots (talk) 14:43, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Oppose The article needs some expansion. There is not much there in terms of geological background etc. It's pretty much just some brief history of two eruptions. I don't think the article quality is currently up to scratch for the main page. Beyond which the current eruptions are not especially major. If that changes I'd reconsider. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:58, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning support if there is some expansion of the article. The eruption has quite some effects on the transport in the region, tourism, etc. What was the last eruption we posted? --Tone 15:00, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pedantic note The proposed blurb is incorrect since (at the time of writing) the thing hasn't actually erupted; the evacuation is owing to concerns that it might. ‑ Iridescent 15:02, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose, nomination is of good faith, but the article itself still needs some expansion in the section discussing the 2017 eruption before this is ITN material. Will support this once the conditions are met. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 16:37, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now while the evacuation is large, the eruption, at the moment is not “major”. I will reconsider my decision if the eruption does drastically change in the upcoming days, but for now my position is against posting this. Kirliator (talk) 17:16, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment +1 CN tag in the 1963-64 eruption - The fact that Besakih was spared is a big deal but it needs a ref. Otherwise looks fine to me. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 17:18, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - 2017 eruption of Mount Agung also available, ALT blurb added, image changed
  • Support Tens of thousands of people evacuated. Thousands of people stranded when the airport closed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:44, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in principle, Oppose on quality major evacuation indeed, however the new article provided for both blurbs is only in start-class at the moment. I agree with several of the above users that this eruption needs to be sufficiently updated before it can be posted. SamaranEmerald (talk) 22:31, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support but only with 2017 eruption of Mount Agung as the target. Article is adequate to post at this time. --LukeSurl t c 23:16, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted Stephen 03:00, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-posting support: this is dominating the news that I am seeing. Vanamonde (talk) 05:06, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-posting Comment/Question: Does this need temporary pulling to fix the Impact section? This has a CN, no citations, and an unsourced 40,000 evacuees claim that at least seems to contradict the 100,000 figure in our blurb and in the Sunday 26th section. (The contradiction is probably more illusory than real, but, if so, the section probably should be reworded to make it clear there is no contradiction, though, if so, I'm not clear on precisely how this should be done). There also seem to be impacts reported elsewhere in the article that are not included in the Impacts section. I feel neither willing (per WP:NOTCOMPULSORY) nor properly able to fix it myself. And quite likely the problem will get worse as the situation develops. But I don't know whether this requires pulling or is just the sort of thing we normally accept in ITN postings about developing situations. (Another alternative might be to re-word the blurb, but I don't know precisely what new words are needed, not whether re-wording would be a good idea or not). Tlhslobus (talk) 04:44, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Tlhslobus: at the time I originally nominated, the eruption article hadn't been created. It was subsequently created and I thought it might make the better target, hence the alt blurb, which was posted with some modification (which I support). Mjroots (talk) 14:11, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Mjroots: Thanks for your reply. For mine, see my reply below to CosmicAdventure. Tlhslobus (talk) 16:00, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • @CosmicAdventure: Thanks for your reply. This was the Impact section of the bold-linked article (including CN) just before I posted my above Comment/Question. And this was the same greatly improved (and now CN-free) section after 10 edits were made to the article in the subsequent 25 minutes by Lintang fajarmaliki and Medeis. My thanks to both of them. So it looks like my comment/question may have proved useful (though it could of course also just be coincidence). Some of my issues remain unaddressed, like the 40,000 v 100,000 and some impacts only being reported elsewhere, such as 5.6 million people expected to be affected by ash only being in the Monday November 27 section. But I now leave it to others to decide what, if anything, should be done about that. Tlhslobus (talk) 16:00, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

November 26

[edit]
November 26, 2017 (2017-11-26) (Sunday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Politics and elections

Formula One

[edit]
Proposed image
Article: 2017 FIA Formula One World Championship (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The Formula One World Championship concludes, with Lewis Hamilton (pictured) as the driver's champion and Mercedes as the constructor's champion (Post)
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: A few weeks ago there was some discussion on WT:ITN regarding whether this should be posted when Hamilton's lead became unassailable, or when the season actually ended. Consensus was for the latter, which has now happened. Unfortunately the main article has no prose on the course of the season itself, with everything hived off to separate articles on each race (of varying quality). The 2016 article had an extensive 'season report' section. At least a couple of paragraphs of prose summary will be required before this is postable. Modest Genius talk 13:54, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] 105th Grey Cup

[edit]
Article: 105th Grey Cup (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In Canadian football, the Toronto Argonauts defeat the Calgary Stampeders to win the 105th Grey Cup. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ In Canadian football, the CFL season concludes with the Toronto Argonauts winning the Grey Cup
News source(s): [2],[3]
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: ITNR. Game summary has been added, not sure if it is good to go or if people will look for something else to be added or not. --PlasmaTwa2

Maybe someone just added it? Else it's there at the section heading for each quarter. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 16:44, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I added it in response to Ad Orientem's comment. --LukeSurl t c 16:47, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Miss Universe 2017

[edit]
Consensus will not develop. Stephen 23:52, 27 November 2017 (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: Miss Universe 2017 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Demi-Leigh Nel-Peters of South Africa wins Miss Universe 2017. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Demi-Leigh Nel-Peters of South Africa is crowned Miss Universe 2017.
Alternative blurb II: ​ Demi-Leigh Nel-Peters of South Africa wins the Miss Universe 2017 beauty pageant in Las Vegas.
News source(s): [4],[5]
Credits:
Nominator's comments: The only prestigious pageant and the only important pageant in the world. --BabbaQ (talk) 03:36, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now, article has orange tag (event no longer an orange owner), and there is no prose summary. The story is top "entertainment news", I'm ok posting it. Treat it like a sports pageant (which we post all the time) and get some prose and refs in there I'll support. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 12:04, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Miss Universe" is really a white South African? SMH — Preceding unsigned comment added by CosmicAdventure (talk • contribs) 12:07, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, only those contests incorporating objective (i.e. objectifying) criteria should be considered. Sca (talk) 14:25, 27 November 2017 (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] 2017 Davis Cup

[edit]
No vote in support, and no sign of quality being fixed, with just one article edit in over 48 hours. So closing per WP:SNOW. Tlhslobus (talk) 04:08, 29 November 2017 (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: 2017 Davis Cup (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In tennis, the 2017 Davis Cup concludes with France defeating Belgium in the final. (Post)
News source(s): BBC, AP
Credits:
Nominator's comments: Premier international team event in men's tennis. Hektor t c 12:37, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose in the present state, there is no prose at all and I even had to check the tables to see who won - I'd expect this to be in the intro for starters. Needs lots of work. --Tone 19:19, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – It's a list of tables and not an encyclopedic article. ~Mable (chat) 19:57, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - article quality is non-existent at the moment. Irrespective of quality, I oppose, as it is not ITN/R for a reason. I consider it to be the seventh most important tennis competition, behind the Grand Slams, Olympics and ATP Finals, so it should not be on the main page. Stormy clouds (talk) 20:02, 26 November 2017 (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.

November 25

[edit]
November 25, 2017 (2017-11-25) (Saturday)
International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

[Posted] RD: Rance Howard

[edit]
Article: Rance Howard (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): CNN
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Article has been updated and is well sourced --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 09:28, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

November 24

[edit]
November 24, 2017 (2017-11-24) (Friday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

[Posted] Bir al-Abed attack

[edit]
Article: Bir al-Abed mosque attack (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ A bomb and gun attack on a mosque in Bir al-Abed, North Sinai Governorate, Eygpt kills at least 230 people (Post)
News source(s): BBC, AP, NYT
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Breaking story, developing article. Death toll tragically large enough that significance beyond question. Currently no article exists for the town of Bir al-Abed. LukeSurl t c 14:37, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Emmerson Mnangagwa

[edit]
Article: Emmerson Mnangagwa (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Emmerson Mnangagwa succeeds Robert Mugabe as President of Zimbabwe following a military coup. (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: A second, and (probably) final, update to the Zimbabwe-leadership blurb. As of a few minutes ago, Mnangagwa is now President. Successions to head-of-state offices are ITNR. LukeSurl t c 09:55, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The subject is ITNR so it's relative importance is not an issue. The only question is article quality. Saying you support an ITNR nomination once the article quality is brought up to speed is just stating the obvious. The question here is whether or not the target article is ready or not. As I noted above I can understand a "conditional support" for articles with just a couple minor quick fixes needed. But that is clearly not the case here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:33, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I think "support" should mean "I think this is ready to post now" and "oppose" should mean "this item is insufficiently notable". Everything else can be said without bold text. --LukeSurl t c 15:42, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Referencing issues. Sherenk1 (talk) 16:01, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Looks good to go now. Also, I agree with LukeSurl's suggestion on the use of "support" and "oppose". Davey2116 (talk) 18:29, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support MAINEiac4434 (talk) 20:20, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: As this is ITN/R it cannot be opposed on notability grounds, only on quality grounds. So I strongly disagree with LukeSurl's above suggestion that "oppose" should mean "this item is insufficiently notable". (But I have no views either way on whether the article is ready for posting or not). Incidentally, another reason for offering conditional support, especially in the early stages, may be uncertainty as to whether the ITN/R label may be challenged. (A good Wikilawyering case could arguably be made that this should not be ITN/R, as the head of state in Zimbabwe is an elective office and there has been no election; I have no wish to challenge the ITN/R flag, but I strongly suspect such a Wikilawyer would be technically correct). Tlhslobus (talk) 16:49, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support wow, much improved. Looks like Patar knight did the bulk of the work. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 23:32, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: (changed to Comment from Temporary Oppose, as I now support it, see below) I've temporarily removed the Ready flag, as it seemingly won't be Ready at least until somebody fixes the two 'Citations needed' that were added by CosmicAdventure, a few minutes before s/he posted the above Support (support which I consequently don't quite understand under the circumstances). Meanwhile leaving the Ready flag there would just waste more time by stopping editors from realizing there was something that needed fixing.Tlhslobus (talk) 00:39, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't think they were important enough to keep it off the main page. Statements aren't really controversial, BUT they're not in the refs provided. YMMV I guess. shrugs --CosmicAdventure (talk) 01:14, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your reply, CosmicAdventure. I'm not sure what YMMV means. I've fixed one of your CNs, but I have been unable to find a source for the other. My possibly mistaken understanding is that unfixed CNs normally mean an article fails ITN quality requirements (plus Referencing Issues are also the grounds for Sherenk1's opposition above). As far as I know I can't remove a CN placed by you. So you either remove the CN, or find a citation (there may be one in some unfree source, or one needing an e-mail address), or one of us (or another editor) removes the unsourced statement (it is of little significance, which is probably why it has proved hard to verify). Assuming a source can't be found, removing the unsourced statement is probably safest, as admins here may not accept quality is fixed by leaving a statement known to have failed to be verified. If you don't fix it yourself, and nobody else does, I'll try to remember to fix it (by removing the statement) before I go to bed in perhaps an hour or two (but right now I'd prefer to leave you or others a little more time to find a source first). Once fixed the Ready flag can presumably be restored. Tlhslobus (talk) 02:05, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Incidentally there's no difficulty in finding a source for the paragraph's first sentence (that he lost to Chebundi in 2005) which I'll add shortly - the problem is sourcing the claim about the Mujuru faction in the paragraph's second sentence.Tlhslobus (talk) 02:20, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Vanamonde. Tlhslobus (talk) 17:15, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

November 23

[edit]
November 23, 2017 (2017-11-23) (Thursday)
Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

[Posted] RD: Miguel Alfredo González

[edit]
Article: Miguel Alfredo González (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): El Nuevo Herald
Credits:

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

 – Muboshgu (talk) 02:09, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Return of Rohingya refugees

[edit]
Article: Rohingya persecution in Myanmar (2016–present) (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The foreign ministry of Bangladesh signs an accord with Myanmar to facilitate the return of Rohingya refugees. (Post)
News source(s): BBC The Guardian
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Further important development in a story that we have had at ITN before. If, given the Pope's pending visit and Tillerson's condemnation, we want to go for ongoing, I'll support that as well. Stormy clouds (talk) 22:09, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Oppose I'd like to see this on the main page but honestly it's not getting the level of attention that would justify it. Also the coverage in the article that corresponds to the blurb is little more than a paragraph. Beyond which there are a handful of gaps in referencing, although the article is not in bad condition overall. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:02, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As the author of said coverage, is there really anything else that needs to be said. I feel that this is an ITN story that stands on its own regard, and the specified section will likely see little development until the physical repatriation of refugees begins (at which point the world's cameras will undoubtedly be diverted elsewhere.) Stormy clouds (talk) 17:26, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
On that basis ITN should never report any agreement about anything (no ceasefire agreements, no peace agreements, no trade agreements, no agreements to try to combat climate change, and so on ad infinitum), since every agreement may in practice fail in its ostensible objective.Tlhslobus (talk) 06:07, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: though I'm not terribly happy with the structure of the article, it seems adequate. Vanamonde (talk) 05:40, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Seemingly potentially far more important than any of the current items showing in ITN (with the possible, but very far from certain, exception of the Zimbabwe leadership change) in terms of how many people are liable to be significantly affected by it. Of course we can't know that it actually will be in practice, but that is probably true of many, perhaps most events we report here (such as almost all the election results we report, probably all the sports events, probably all the astronomy events, probably almost all the terrorist events, and so on). And, as already mentioned above, if we were to take seriously the objection that the agreement may not work in practice, ITN could never report any agreement on anything (no ceasefire agreements, no peace agreements, no trade agreements, no agreements to try to combat climate change, and so on ad infinitum), since every agreement may in practice fail in its ostensible objective. Tlhslobus (talk) 05:54, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It might be different if there had already been lots of such agreements in this crisis and they had all failed, but this is the first such agreement in this particular crisis, so to simply assume it's going to fail seems a bit WP:CRYSTAL. (Of course it might be argued in reply that to assume that it might not fail is also a bit WP:Crystal, but I've already in effect mentioned above that taking that argument seriously would prevent ITN from ever reporting any agreement on anything). Tlhslobus (talk) 06:28, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted Stephen 00:34, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Stephen. Tlhslobus (talk) 05:28, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

November 22

[edit]
November 22, 2017 (2017-11-22) (Wednesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

RD: Maurice Hinchey

[edit]
Proposed image
Article: Maurice Hinchey (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Albany Times-Union, Middletown Times-Herald Record, Kingston Daily Freeman
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: My congressman once upon a time; a politician I knew personally through my previous work as a journalist and later as a local Democratic activist. Helped draw attention to Love Canal in his early years as a state legislator

Article will need some more sources and format work; I have done some but can't do it all right now Daniel Case (talk) 05:14, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it's not even close to ready for the main page. Totally ignoring the massive gaps in referencing it reads like a tribute page. Bluntly this is going to need some work before it can be posted. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:33, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Jon Hendricks

[edit]
Article: Jon Hendricks (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Fox News,NPR, NY Times
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Jon Hendricks, 96, brought a new dimension to improvisational Jazz singing.

[Posted] Trial of Ratko Mladić

[edit]

Article: Trial of Ratko Mladić (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia convicts Ratko Mladić of crimes committed during the Bosnian War and sentences him to life imprisonment (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ The ICTY sentences Ratko Mladić to life imprisonment due to war crimes, including the Srebrenica massacre and the Siege of Sarajevo.
Alternative blurb II: ​ The ICTY sentences Bosnian Serb general Ratko Mladić to life imprisonment for war crimes and genocide in the Srebrenica massacre and the Siege of Sarajevo.
Alternative blurb III: ​ Ratko Mladić is sentenced to life imprisonment by the ICTY for war crimes, including the Srebrenica massacre and the Siege of Sarajevo.
Alternative blurb IV: ​ Former Republika Srpska military leader Ratko Mladić is sentenced to life imprisonment by the ICTY for genocide and war crimes, including the Srebrenica massacre and the Siege of Sarajevo.

Alternative blurb V: Former Republika Srpska military leader Ratko Mladić is sentenced to life imprisonment by the ICTY for genocide and war crimes in the Bosnian War.
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Top line news story, conclusion of major war crimes trial. Dedicated article exists for the trial. Blurb could detail some of the convictions (including genocide at the Srebrenica massacre), though length is an issue. LukeSurl t c 11:53, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

However, I will say that the article is much too heavily larded with flag salad. All those quotes are are six years old. Comments on the conviction and sentencing would be far more relevant. Sca (talk) 16:38, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Whats the right way to tag a dead link for a source, and a "not in source"? There is this dramatic story of his arrest, the first link is dead, the second doesn't have any of the details presented in the article. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 15:48, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Altblurb3--it reads better, omits Serbia and the implication of collective guilt, and includes the specific crimes. μηδείς (talk) 15:50, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the blurb should indicate the nationality of the person; altblurb3 simply expects the reader to already know who Ratko Mladić is and which part of the world we are talking about. I believe we always mention the country of a person who is the subject of an ITN item. --Tataral (talk) 16:17, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If anything, Yugoslav should be enough. There were war criminals on all sides in that war, and saying Serbian in the blurb is inflammatory, it is the crimes (also "genocide" from what I heard on the radio) and not the evildoer's blood that matters. I'll go so far as to oppose posting with ethnicity mentioned. μηδείς (talk) 00:03, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That is is "inflammatory" to mention the nationality of an individual who is the subject of an ITN item is complete nonsense. This is basic encyclopedic information. Not mentioning it would be non-encyclopedic, as it would take for granted that all readers around the globe already know who he is and where he's from. Mladić is notable for his role as the military leader of Republika Srpska. Yugoslavia is not an adequate nationality, as it no longer exists. Mladić lived in Serbia when he was arrested and is notable for his role as leader of the military of Republika Srpska; he is widely described in the context in which he is notable as Bosnian Serb. --Tataral (talk) 03:53, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about ethnicity, it's about his status as the military leader of Republika Srpska, one of the specific participants in the war. We could just describe him as "former military leader of Republika Srpska." --Tataral (talk) 03:54, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't have a problem with that (Republika Srpska) except that the blurb would be extraordinarily long. See Alternative blurb V.
I think there are two fundamental things. At the time of the active fighting, Serbia was part of a rump Yugoslavia still including other nationalities. There were ethnic Serbs in Bosnia-Hercegovina as well as Catholic Croats and Muslims not identifying as Serb. There were war criminals of all ethnicities in that conflict.
Identifying Mladic by ethnicity is neither relevant to the crime nor neutral. We wouldn't point out that the DC snipers were black, that the Austrian dictator Hitler had shot himself, that the genocidal Georgian Stalin had died, or that the accused in the Trayvon Martin shooting was a "white Hispanic". I am far from being a Serbian apologist, but we simply don't need to be picking out issues of ancestry when the topic is a moral one which depends on the actor's choice, not parentage. μηδείς (talk) 16:19, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
⇒ Getting stale. No longer very prominent on news sites. Withdraw support. Sca (talk) 15:30, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
At ITN, "stale" means older than the oldest item in the template. This would currently be the newest item. If we abandoned every nomination that hadn't achieved consensus to post in 24 hours we'd hardly post anything.--LukeSurl t c 17:05, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what stale means in English, in which this site is written, or in journalism usage. Our readers don't care what it means "at ITN." Sca (talk)
Anayway, the article is still crammed with extremely stale flag salad – 20 flags, no less – and editorially it's not up to Main Page display. Sca (talk) 18:32, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • LukeSurl the arrest section still has statements like "The officers entered the village in four jeeps in the early morning hours, while most residents were still asleep" that aren't in any of the refs. re: flags - I agree, though I think you could remove any reactions from outside the Balkans if you wanted it. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 15:12, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. Still full of outdated comments. Sca (talk) 01:10, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a convenient Link to the Article Trial of Ratko Mladić, Sca. You can go correct the problems you see without any need for approval in this venue. μηδείς (talk) 01:41, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You go. Sca (talk) 18:28, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

November 21

[edit]
November 21, 2017 (2017-11-21) (Tuesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

[Closed] RD David Cassidy

[edit]
Stale, unimproved. Stephen 23:51, 27 November 2017 (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: David Cassidy (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): CNN
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Breaking news, article needs further updating and other work. Mjroots (talk) 17:58, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But, and I hate doing this post-closure, should Mr Cassidy ever shuffle off the mortal coil, his article will still need a load of work before it's suitable for the main page. So anyone actually interested in him should start that process sooner rather than later, to avoid disappointment. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:18, 19 November 2017 (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: Rodney Bewes

[edit]
Stale, unimproved. Stephen 23:50, 27 November 2017 (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: Rodney Bewes (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
 Black Kite (talk) 18:58, 21 November 2017 (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] Robert Mugabe Resigns

[edit]
Articles: Robert Mugabe (talk · history · tag) and 2017 Zimbabwean coup d'état (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Robert Mugabe resigns as President of Zimbabwe following a military coup. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Robert Mugabe resigns as President of Zimbabwe following a military coup.
News source(s): The Guardian NY Times
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: This is an obvious nom. It probably should replace the earlier blurb on the military coup. Ad Orientem (talk) 16:22, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

comment not techmicallya coup since he resigned voluntarily in the country while still being constitutional prez, granted chicanery pressure was unusual. That said by billion dollarnoteswill soon have antique value, soo just a quip ;)Lihaas (talk) 18:03, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Since he only resigned after being taken prisoner by the military, I think we can call this a coup. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:18, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we call it a coup.... -- KTC (talk) 20:28, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be incorrect to call his resignation "voluntary." He resigned as the legislative body was beginning to discuss his removal, and it was clear how the vote was going to go since the ruling party had already removed him as party leader. This coup did not follow the pattern of most such events, because the leader retained his title for a few days - though he had been removed from any real power. Fortunately for him he did not meet the same fate as most leaders who are ousted in a military coup. Neutron (talk) 21:42, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Hornetzilla78: This is a change in head of state, which is on the recurring events list, meaning the merits are not in dispute. Changes in head of government get discussed on their own merits(though most such changes are posted with general elections, which also are on the list). 331dot (talk) 09:13, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Kurtis: As a change in head of state is on the recurring events list(WP:ITNR) this does not require support on the merits, just for article quality. 331dot (talk) 09:13, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot: And the article happens to be of sufficient quality, so my support stands. Kurtis (talk) 12:58, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I agree with bumping and updating the blurb. Kurtis (talk) 13:00, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

November 20

[edit]
November 20, 2017 (2017-11-20) (Monday)
Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sports

[Posted] RD: Terry Glenn

[edit]
Article: Terry Glenn (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): ESPN,USA Today, NFL
Credits:

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

 GCG (talk) 22:37, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] RD: Della Reese

[edit]
Stale, unimproved. Stephen 23:47, 27 November 2017 (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: Della Reese (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NYT
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
 Thechased (talk) 21:22, 20 November 2017 (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] 1I/ʻOumuamua detection

[edit]
Article: 1I/ʻOumuamua (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The first apparent interstellar object to pass through the Solar System, 1I/ʻOumuamua, is detected to be travelling at an interstellar speed of 26.32 km/s (58,900 mph). (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ The first apparent interstellar object to pass through the Solar System, 1I/ʻOumuamua, is characterized.
News source(s): Phys.org, BBC, The Guardian, Ars Technica
Credits:

 Radagast (talk) 19:04, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose Either stale or incomplete. The last information in the article is dated October 26. --Jayron32 19:10, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    As a note, and to reply to several comments below, I have no problem with posting this so long as the article itself makes it clear why it is in the news now. I'm not particularly opposed to posting major scientific discoveries, it is just that the text of this article makes no effort to indicate why now is why it is in the news. --Jayron32 19:27, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The key reason it appears to be in the news now is the publication of the Nature paper that documents observations. I mention this only because it was also in the news a few days ago, for the selection of the Hawaiian name (but that's not the point of the ITN/C here), so that people searching for newsworthiness and finding these older stories, they should be aware that was a different facet; this ITNC appears to be slotted in the right place. --MASEM (t) 19:34, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but where does the article text say that? What you tell me, here, on this page makes no bit of difference. What you write, in the text of the article itself, is all that matters. --Jayron32 19:41, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, absolutely. I don't see the Nature article sourced, or even the references published today acknowledging that publication. That has to be in first. I just want to be clear that in this discussion outside of article quality, today is the right day for this, and just caution those looking into the proper date to be aware of other news-worthy milestones that are not the same as this date (publication of studies in a reliable scientific journal). --MASEM (t) 20:53, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I have just added in the BBC article published today, and the Nature letter to the article (under "Observations") as to explain why today was important. I do note that the pre-published this 10 Nov, so conclusions by it seemingly were already discussed in various scientific circles, but today's the day that Nature publicly published it. This should now be ready to go. --MASEM (t) 22:11, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was actually nominated back in October, the consensus then was to wait until more is known (e.g. a paper is published). The interstellar status seems much clearer now, however, the question is what new happened recently? --Tone 19:13, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in principle, but the article needs updating first. The problem last time was that many properties were still unknown and there wasn't a peer-reviewed paper. However, one was just published in Nature today. I think this is ITN-worthy, but the article will need updating to reflect the newly-published results (such as the unusual shape) and properly cite the paper, as well as the existing (non-peer-reviewed) MPECs, preprints and research notes. The blurb will need to be crafted to indicate that the results were just published, as there were various interim announcements a few weeks ago. Modest Genius talk 19:18, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose due to minimal coverage (at the moment) on the finding. Kirliator (talk) 19:21, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmation of this is an amazing event. (orbital parameters get more refined the longer an object had been observed of course, it had to move before you can see the shape of its orbit) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:08, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think that with the Nature paper, we should use the blurb that was originally presented in Oct, this being that studies have identified this as first known extra-solar system asteroid to be detected/measured. The speed in the current blurb has little to do with this. Alternatively, the focus I'm seeing that the object has an extremely enlongated shape is possibly something to focus on. --MASEM (t) 19:24, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it's elongated cause it's an alien spacecraft.. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:14, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
At least we have the whales to save us then. --MASEM (t) 21:37, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment while I like the enthusiasm of this discovery (and would normally support this kind of nomination), the main problem is that posting a blurb that was initially created more than a month ago is technically stale as Jaycon32 initially stated. Although I do not necessarily oppose the current nomination, I agree with several of the above users that the content of the blurb should be updated before it can be posted to ITN. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 19:38, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • OP Comment - I was unaware of the October listing (I don't frequent this page). If anyone wants to offer an alternative blurb, please feel free. Radagast (talk) 20:36, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - to call this stale is another way of calling the ITN system broken. Back in October when there was more news coverage, some editors argued for waiting on the grounds that no peer reviewed paper had been published yet (or similar). Now there has been such a paper (+ several more preprints), the item is no longer in the news, so now the argument is that it is stale. If we accept this kind of reasoning the only way to feature this is to have a peer reviewed paper being written, reviewed and published within ~7 days - a pipe dream. I suggest an alt blurb saying it's been characterized, since what's so unique about this is not just the interstellar speed (its trajectory is another unique thing, for example). Banedon (talk) 20:57, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd support Alt1. --Tone 21:24, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest Oppose no major news network is covering this, likely because they don’t give a hoot about it. 2600:1015:B121:C116:89AD:9FC5:411B:DD59 (talk) 21:29, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Difficult to ascertain intent here, but it is noteworthy that this strongest oppose originates from a IP SPA with only a solitary edit. Stormy clouds (talk) 21:50, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Elizabeth II

[edit]
Strong opposition against posting on grounds of newsworthiness. If her highness finds her way here though, congratulations to her and Philip. Stormy clouds (talk) 16:46, 20 November 2017 (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: Elizabeth II (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip celebrate their Platinum wedding anniversary the longest marriage in the history of the British monarchy (Post)
News source(s): Express, The Telegraph
Article needs updating
 81.158.74.1 (talk) 12:09, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, meaningless anniversary. The place for anniversaries is WP:OTD, not ITN. Modest Genius talk 12:12, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, correct place is WP:OTD. But not sure why you see it as "meaningless". Are you arguing that all anniversaries are meaningless? Even if you see it that way, it certainly is in the news in UK. Not many of those other OTD items are on TV and radio news. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:31, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Meaningless in the sense that it has no impact or wider significance. If there was some kind of mass event or demonstration to mark the occasion, that could in principle raise a simple anniversary to an ITN story. But there isn't. Modest Genius talk 14:51, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Well they get some nice stamps. But I agree we're not seeing jubilant throngs on the streets of The Mall. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:01, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose outside of what we usually cover here; routine aniversaries can be covered at OTD instead. --Jayron32 13:29, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support and republican sentiments be damned. Oppose - Not newsworthy per se.--WaltCip (talk) 13:32, 20 November 2017 (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.

November 19

[edit]
November 19, 2017 (2017-11-19) (Sunday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sports

[Posted] 2017 Monster Energy NASCAR Cup Series championship

[edit]
Proposed image
Article: 2017 Monster Energy NASCAR Cup Series (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Martin Truex Jr. (pictured) wins the NASCAR Cup Series championship. (Post)
News source(s): MRN, USA Today
Credits:

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

 Dough4872 15:12, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted to RD] Jana Novotná

[edit]
Article: Jana Novotná (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC Sport
Credits:

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

 Mjroots (talk) 11:27, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted to RD] Charles Manson

[edit]
consensus seems unlikely to develop to convert this to a blurb. It's been running either side of 50/50 depending on when one counts, which simply isn't the necessary agreement to make it a blurb. --Jayron32 15:42, 20 November 2017 (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: Charles Manson (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb:  American serial killer Charles Manson dies at the age of 83. (Post)
News source(s): Variety New York Daily News
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Infamous serial killer who was the leader of the Manson family. Added both a blurb as well as RD since I feel this could go either way. Andise1 (talk) 05:50, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly support blurb - very notable, infamous figure. Article high quality. 1779Days (talk) 05:54, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was too quick and hasty to support the blurb, as much as I admit I would do so, I find it too simple at the moment to consider support, I'll only support the RD for now. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 06:24, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb, because it says nothing the readership doesn't already know or can't get from the RD listing. His infamy does not change the consensus that unsurprising deaths of old people don't get blurbs. Abductive (reasoning) 06:05, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't change that consensus, but consensus has also been to post blurbs of those who are at the top of their field. Manson was arguably so. 331dot (talk) 08:49, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't get your line of thinking here. His death is unsurprising, so it doesn't warrant a blurb? There are plenty of cases in which quite "unsurprising deaths" still more than warrant a blurb. Master of Time (talk) 09:05, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support blurb Pending update to reflect death Manson was a infamous figure in America's history and has gained notoriety status. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 06:05, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support RB, oppose blurb - There's nothing special about a person dying at an old age, nor is the death having an influence on the world ala Mandela/Thatcher/Bowie. RD is fine. --MASEM (t) 06:06, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb As happy as I am that this monster is gone, other than to the families of his victims, I don't think he had a huge impact in any field (whatever that may be), and we all knew he was old and ill. RD should be enough. EternalNomad (talk) 06:14, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
He was tops in the field of crime, or notorious is the best way to put it. 331dot (talk) 08:49, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ironically Mandela and Thatcher are older then him and would fit that too, people just see blurbs as rewarding and they do not want to reward Manson. GuzzyG (talk) 08:14, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Except for who it was. Manson was not a garden variety thief or thug. 331dot (talk) 08:51, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing special about the death. By your logic all RD's would be worth a blurb as they are all notable because of who died. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:56, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, as some people are more notable than others. RD was created in part to get rid of arguments over notability for every single death that was nominated. It wasn't meant to affect the few deaths of extremely transforming figures or those who are at the tip top of their field who might merit blurbs. Manson was extremely notorious in his field (crime) and is an important part of US history. 331dot (talk) 08:59, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well don't argue his RD deserves a blurb because of who he is then. But since you mentioned 'transforming figures or those at the tip top of their field' Manson was well down the list of transforming figures in the world of serial killing. Being neither particularly innovative in the method, nor the numbers. Both prior and post Manson many other killers have been more successful in much more imaginative ways. The only reason Manson is not a footnote is because his targets included the rich and famous. So if you are seriously arguing Manson deserves a blurb because he is a (quoting from WP:ITN directly now) "major transformative world leaders in their field" then you seen many serial killer articles. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:15, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate this conversation but it seems we will have to disagree about the merits of this nomination. If there are other serial killers who merit posting I await their nominations. Thanks 331dot (talk) 09:17, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS what oher serial killers do to get to ITN are irrelevant. We are discussing Manson.--BabbaQ (talk) 09:54, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I quoted directly the part of WP:ITN that is relevant to bumping an RD to a Blurb. If you can explain how Manson is a "major transformative world leader(s) in their field" without comparing him to others in his field, go ahead. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:45, 20 November 2017 (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.
Still closed. If you have something useful to add, you can re-open it.

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.

  • Not a comment either way, and mere happenstance given the closure of the discussion, but the news of Manson's hospitalisation was sufficient to place him within the top 10 of last week's Top 25 Report. If ITN exists to make it easier for readers to find items which are in the news, it is perhaps inadvisable to not ponder the discussion further. Stormy clouds (talk) 16:54, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The same argument holds for putting his image in the infobox, in case any admins are wondering about that. Stormy clouds (talk) 16:55, 20 November 2017 (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: Mel Tillis

[edit]
Article: Mel Tillis (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Rolling Stone
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Country music legend

[Posted] RD: Pancho Segura

[edit]
Article: Pancho Segura (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The New York Times
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Article updated and well sourced --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:07, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

November 18

[edit]
November 18, 2017 (2017-11-18) (Saturday)
Disasters and accidents

International relations

Politics and elections

[Posted] RD: Gillian Rolton

[edit]
Article: Gillian Rolton (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [9][10][11][12]
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Olympian. Rode her horse Peppermint Grove to win a gold medal at the 1996 Atlanta Olympics with a broken collar bone, three busted ribs and a punctured lung. Article is still rated a stub, but Aussiesportlibrarian and I have expanded it. It is still short, but is fully referenced. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:36, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Azzedine Alaïa

[edit]
Article: Azzedine Alaïa (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): "Azzedine Alaïa: Popular Tunisian couturier dies aged 77". BBC News. November 18, 2017. Retrieved November 19, 2017.; Pithers, Ellie (November 18, 2017). "Fashion World Mourns The Death Of Azzedine Alaïa". Vogue. Retrieved November 19, 2017.
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Tunisian fashion designer. There is unreferenced content at present--let's try to fix it together! Zigzig20s (talk) 20:38, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Naim Süleymanoğlu

[edit]
Article: Naim Süleymanoğlu (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [13]
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: former Olympic athlete --Seyyed(t-c) 07:01, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Youssouf Ouédraogo

[edit]
Article: Youssouf Ouédraogo (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Voa Afrique
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Former prime minister of Burkina Faso --PootisHeavy (talk) 21:49, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Pawnkingthree: Just added it. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:20, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks but I would still like to see the copy-editing issues raised by Ad Orientem addressed. There is a lot of repetition in the article.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:33, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] RD: Malcolm Young

[edit]
Article: Malcolm Young (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Rolling Stone
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Co-founder and guitarist of AC/DC – Compy90 (talk) 10:05, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Keystone Pipeline oil spill

[edit]
Consensus against posting. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 03:58, 19 November 2017 (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: Keystone Pipeline (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ A leak in the Keystone Pipeline spills 210,000 gallons of oil in South Dakota (Post)
News source(s): CBS News, Washington Post, AP
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Environmental disaster in very controversial project 109.154.90.243 (talk) 09:55, 18 November 2017 (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.

November 17

[edit]
November 17, 2017 (2017-11-17) (Friday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Disasters and accidents

Politics and elections

[Closed] RD: Flawless Sabrina

[edit]
Stale. Death predates all other currently posted RD's. Stormy clouds (talk) 22:35, 23 November 2017 (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: Flawless Sabrina (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): International Business Times
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Drag queen and activist, article looks good. EternalNomad (talk) 02:31, 20 November 2017 (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] San Juan submarine

[edit]
Article: ARA San Juan (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Argentinian submarine ARA San Juan goes missing in the South Atlantic, with 44 crew aboard. (Post)
News source(s): ABC, BBC, Reuters
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: The emergency was formally upgraded to a "search and rescue" yesterday local time, so could be the right time for this. Brandmeistertalk 09:13, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support, waited long enough, good to go. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 23:42, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
⇒ Still not ITN-worthy. Bits and pieces continue to crop up, but the vessel's whereabouts remains unknown. Until it's found, this remains a developing story. Sca (talk) 22:31, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're both missing the point, this has sufficient community consensus now. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:28, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] RD: Rikard Wolff

[edit]
Article: Rikard Wolff (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [14],[15], [16]
Credits:

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

Tongan general election

[edit]
Article: Tongan general election, 2017 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In the Tongan general election, the Democratic Party of the Friendly Islands, led by Prime Minister ʻAkilisi Pōhiva wins a majority. (Post)
News source(s): Matangi Tonga
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Article may need expansion but is updated and well-sourced. EternalNomad (talk) 18:01, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes.[17] [18] Neljack (talk) 09:54, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Neljack: Thanks for that. 331dot (talk) 09:56, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Here.BabbaQ (talk) 14:49, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's still a general election, just like the last UK one, which was also held for political reasons. If you want to exempt such elections from ITNR, I await your proposal. Until then, this still merits posting. 331dot (talk) 20:39, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. General elections for any country should be ITN/R. As for it being a snap poll, they are quite common in countries without fixed terms. In the past year, we have had snap polls in the UK and Japan both of which have been covered. Capitalistroadster (talk) 19:12, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Capitalistroadster: General elections are ITNR for all sovereign states. 331dot (talk) 20:39, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not a huge deal to me one-way or the other, but this was not a snap election chosen to gauge support for a new policy, but in effect a vote-of-no-confidence which the opposition lost. I could see posting this if it weren't a pro-forma affirmation of the status quo. μηδείς (talk) 19:25, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The real news behind this would-be ITNR entry is a people's re-election, or affirmation, as you say, of a (Prime) Minister and other Assemblymen dismissed by the King for being a threat to the Kingship, in a recall election initiated by the same King. Bagoto (talk) 08:22, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support article is bare minimum. If the PM was trying to claim powers, then a background section ought be added. Elections are ITN/R so we don't end up in endless bickering about whose elections are important. Hurts nothing to post this. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 13:23, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - this is an election of a sovereign country, of course it is ITN-worthy. Whether it is a snap election or called for a particular reason is irrelevant, as others have pointed out. The only question is whether the article is up to scratch. All the numbers are there, which is the (IMHO) is the only essential part, so it should be posted. Adpete (talk) 01:10, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

November 16

[edit]
November 16, 2017 (2017-11-16) (Thursday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Politics and elections

[Closed] Cambodia National Rescue Party

[edit]
No consensus for posting. ~ Tlhslobus (talk) 19:56, 22 November 2017 (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: Cambodia National Rescue Party (talk · history · tag) and Kem Sokha (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The Cambodia National Rescue Party led by Kem Sokha is disolved by the Cambodian Supreme Court. (Post)
News source(s): (BBC)
Credits:
 Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 18:12, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Article has some organization issues, WP:LEAD and WP:SS recommends that an article's lead should summarize while the body should elaborate; and this article seems to turn that upside down; most of the good information is only in the lead, and not expanded on in the body at all. Still, the information is all there, it's well referenced, and this is being covered by news sources. Secondly, referencing in the article outside of the specific recent news is spotty and not well developed, many sections have either no sources, or have an unclear relationship between the sources and the text. It would need some work to be main-page ready. It's not awful, but someone who is knowledgeable about the subject has some work to do.--Jayron32 19:25, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, anti-democratic moves are common in undeveloped nations. Abductive (reasoning) 06:27, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in principle: I think this deserves in principle to be in ITN per WP:BIAS and WP:WORLDWIDE. This is a very important development for Cambodian democracy, far more important than 5 Australian Parliamentarians losing their seats because of dual nationality which we posted recently. And anti-democratic moves may be common in underdeveloped nations, but then elections are common in Western Nations and we still automatically report on most of them (subject only to quality) per ITNR. Similarly terrorist outrages are common throughout the world, but we still routinely post them at ITN. And so on. Put another way, if the main opposition party were outlawed in a Western nation we would almost certainly deem it notable enough to post, so claiming it should be ignored because it's not a Western nation seems like a classic instance of systemic bias. (And incidentally I'm not sure that there's anything particularly common about outlawing the main opposition party in 3rd world countries - I strongly suspect that it's actually a lot rarer than most of the elections and terrorist outrages that we routinely post). I'm not sure about whether the articles meet our quality standards, though they seem surprisingly good relative to most of our articles on such 3rd world topics, and I'm a bit concerned that demanding the same standards for such articles as for articles on, say, British or American politics, is itself a form of systemic bias.Tlhslobus (talk) 07:55, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose. I oppose this primarily because it doesn't seem to be a big news story, but I agree with Abductive that this is not uncommon. A western democracy outlawing a political party would indeed be posted, not due to bias, but because it is very unusual(and highly illegal). A dictator or oppressive government silencing opposition to their rule is hardly unique or unusual. Elections worldwide are able to be posted, not just those of western countries(even elections widely believed to be rigged or unfair in other countries are often nominated and posted), because the makeup of governments are often a worldwide and national concern. 331dot (talk) 10:22, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Anyone who's been following the news from this part of the world will recognise this as the largest political development in Cambodia of the past few years. Hun Sen's crackdown on the opposition has been ongoing for several months. The court decision was preceded by the forced closure of a major newspaper and an amendment to the party law anticipating the dissolution. All this really deserves a separate article to itself, along the lines of 2015–2017 Cambodian political crackdown. That we have only a woefully inadequate article on the party to base the ITN item upon reflects precisely on Wikipedia's systemic bias problem. --Paul_012 (talk) 12:47, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    PS Alternatively, it could be incorporated into Cambodian general election, 2018, which already briefly covers the series of events. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:42, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – Though I would support based on the impact of the news, I simply don't believe the article is of sufficient quality. It has no prose outside of its lead section, and consists almost entirely out of lists. If the article were improved, I would definitely change my !vote. ~Mable (chat) 13:47, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on notability, oppose on quality I think the dissolution of a major party in any country is ITN-worthy, even in dictatorships or repressive regimes. (The only "major" party of North Korea is the Workers Party itself, and a dissolution of the party would undoubtedly be the #1 headline worldwide.) In this case the dissolution of the party is a major development in the crackdown of opposition. EternalNomad (talk) 17:39, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: Is it time to close this per WP:SNOW? While I supported it 'in principle', there has been no unqualified support by anybody, due partly to inadequate quality which seems very unlikely to be fixed (and there has been no support for my tentative suggestion that we should perhaps consider lowering our standards for such 3rd world topics to avoid systemic bias). And there is also quite a lot of opposition on notability grounds too, so that even in the unlikely event of quality issues being overcome there would seemingly still be no consensus for posting. Tlhslobus (talk) 08:04, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's the Target Article? I can't even judge this as nominated, although am a possible support vote, having seen coverage of this in admittedly unintersted-in-Cambodia-in-general American press. μηδείς (talk) 19:28, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The two target articles are clearly and explicitly noted in the template, "Cambodia National Rescue Party" and "Kem Sokha". The Rambling Man (talk) 20:22, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I guess that's why they are both bolded. Do you also write reading glass prescriptions? μηδείς (talk) 22:34, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, I just stick to reading the template. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:37, 18 November 2017 (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.

November 15

[edit]
November 15, 2017 (2017-11-15) (Wednesday)
Arts and culture

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime
  • Rancho Tehama shootings
    • Authorities discover the murdered wife of spree killer Kevin Janson Neal under the floorboards of their home, raising the death toll to six with ten others wounded in eight separate shootings. (Los Angeles Times)

Politics and elections

Science and technology

[Posted] RD: Lil Peep

[edit]
Article: Lil Peep (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): 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 this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

[Posted] Sale of Salvator mundi

[edit]
Proposed image
Article: Salvator Mundi (Leonardo) (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Salvator Mundi (pictured), attributed to Leonardo da Vinci, sells at auction for US$450.3 million, a new record for an artwork. (Post)
News source(s): The New York Times, CNN
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Buyer hasn't been identified yet, but that's secondary to the importance of this Daniel Case (talk) 03:17, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And this would get Mugabe's puss off the page ... Daniel Case (talk) 03:19, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

post support obviously notable record and "minority topic" for arts.Lihaas (talk) 13:36, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support it's already been expanded considerable in the past two days, notably with images and sources, but text too. Good choice. Coldcreation (talk) 21:41, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] 2017 Zimbabwean coup d'état

[edit]
Article: 2017 Zimbabwean coup d'état attempt (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Zimbabwe National Army troops seize control of Harare amidst a military takeover of the country. (Post)
News source(s): Guardian live feed Al Jazeera, AP, DPA
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Military takeover of Harare, which seems successful. They do not classify their actions as a coup, but it de facto is, since they seem to be in control and have allegedly secured the president. Altblurbs are welcome. A new name might be required for the page as well. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 06:44, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

blurb change deceptive to say the country as the article does not mention beyond Harare and no idea of loyalists elsewhere will take some stand. (In principle, support though)Lihaas (talk) 10:53, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you propose a specific wording you'd like to see? WP:ERRORS may also be a better place to suggest changes to blurbs rather than here. But either way, you'll need to propose a specific blurb you'd like to see replace this one. --Jayron32 13:49, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 • Zimbabwe National Army troops seize control of Harare and place President Robert Mugabe under house arrest.
– Sca (talk) 15:17, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not only is that proposed blurb ungrammatical, it also fails to include a bold link to the target article! Modest Genius talk 15:44, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Dear 'Genius', it is not ungrammatical (unless you're referring to some usage peculiar to British English). Of course the blurb would include a link to the article; I was merely proposing phrasing. I agree with Only (below) that Harare shouldn't be separately linked. Sca (talk) 17:31, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Proper grammar in any standard dialect of English would prefer the word "and" instead of the comma in your proposed blurb. Your usage is only standard in headlinese.--Jayron32 17:36, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fine w/me – pls see ed'd blurb above. Sca (talk) 17:44, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, but now we're picking sides in the "He said-she said" thing; the Military has explicitly said that Mugabe is NOT under arrest, while others have said he IS under house arrest. The article itself hedges as well, or at least doesn't make it clear. It states only that Jacob Zuma has said that Mugabe is under house arrest. That is, the article never says "Mugabe was placed under house arrest". The article says "Someone else says that Mugabe was placed under house arrest" and those are NOT the same thing. The second statement of fact is insufficient to assume the first. I can say the sky is red, and that does not make it so. We would need reliable, independent sources to confirm his house arrest, and for the article to cite those sources and make an unambigious statement thereof. Without all of that, we can't force the blurb to make claims that the article, as yet, does not. --Jayron32 19:56, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In a story datelined HARARE (filed about 20:30), AP says "Zimbabwe’s military was in control of the capital and ... was holding President Robert Mugabe and his wife under house arrest." – Sca (talk) 21:44, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

→ See also DPA (English): "President Robert Mugabe... was under house arrest in the capital Harare after the military took control, plunging the country into political turmoil." – Sca (talk) 21:58, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's all fine, but it wasn't in the article at the time I raised my objection. Now that the situation has changed, it doesn't look like a problem. --Jayron32 12:05, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
unblue Harare and link 'seize control'? "While seizing control of Harare, Zimbabwe National Army troops confine Robert Mugabe to his home." - its also unclear if he is under house arrest or protection. The ZNA has been clear its targeting people around him, not him itself. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:12, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record, Mugabe isn't remotely the world's longest-serving head of state; I don't know where you've got that idea from. He's not even the longest-serving current head of state in Africa; Paul Biya and Theodoro Obiang have both been in office for five years longer than Mugabe. If only there were some kind of website where you could look these things up… ‑ Iridescent 16:59, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict, pfui!) See List of current state leaders by date of assumption of office. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:03, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
He's not the longest serving but at 93, he is the oldest.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:10, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I stand corrected. Guess I mis-remembered a phrase from AP. Sca (talk) 17:49, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Footnote: Reports on two evening news shows seen here in the U.S. said Mugabe was under house arrest. Sca (talk) 00:35, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes the BBC have updated since my comment above as well. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:17, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like he's about to resign... Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 19:03, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
...or maybe not. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 19:22, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

November 14

[edit]
November 14, 2017 (2017-11-14) (Tuesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents
  • 2017 Iran–Iraq earthquake
    • Thousands of Iranians are forced to spend a second night outdoors in near-freezing temperatures after an earthquake hit the country's western border with Iraq. (BBC)

Law and crime

[Posted] RD: Hou Zongbin

[edit]
Article: Hou Zongbin (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Sina News, The Paper, Phoenix 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 this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

 Zanhe (talk) 02:27, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sina is a major Chinese news site. I've also added a few others. -Zanhe (talk) 19:08, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

November 13

[edit]
November 13, 2017 (2017-11-13) (Monday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Politics and elections

Sports

[Posted] RD: Bobby Doerr

[edit]
Article: Bobby Doerr (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): 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 this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Hall of Fame baseball player. Is the sourcing enough or do we need more? – Muboshgu (talk) 14:43, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Sourcing needed in "Early career", "Later MLB Career" and awards, but doesn't seem to be too hard based on what is discussed. --MASEM (t) 14:47, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Article in its current state is fine for the main page. Nothing contentious is lacking a direct cite. A few cn tags could be put here or there, but I see nothing that should give us pause for posting this. --Jayron32 20:37, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose such a stat-heavy article requires citations for all such microscopic claims (e.g. "His 223 home runs were then the third most by a major league second baseman, with his 1,247 RBIs ranking fifth in Red Sox history.") so until we have them all done and dusted, this is not good enough. Given the mass of baseball stats websites out there, this should be easy. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:13, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Jayron32. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:15, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    No, such claims should be referenced Brad, and it's easy enough for you fans to do that. It would be good to see some article edits from some of our overlords, just to reassure us you all remember what you're doing. This is a good opportunity to demonstrate that, especially as we approach the next Arbcom elections. So many RD nominations here are given proper treatment, most of them are not about US citizens, but they are worked on hard and earnestly. Given the propensity of baseball sources, it should be simple to fix the outstanding unverifiable claims. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:37, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Not to repeat a point on which we've disagreed before (and on which you've moved me some distance toward your point of view, but not the whole way), there comes a point where a solid article contains sufficient referencing to be mainpage worthy even though not each and every statement in the whole piece has an inline cite. Consider two versions of the same article. The first contains 10 statements of fact, all fully referenced. The second contains 50 statements of fact, 48 of which are referenced and two of which are undisputed but unreferenced. I would consider the second article to be in a better state; I gather that you do not agree. The ArbCom elections are not relevant here and should not be mentioned again on this page. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:40, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm afraid your superficial review is inadequate. It needs more work to hold water, tagged as such. No reason not to mention Arbcom elections, a necessary requirement of any Arb is an appreciation of what us content creators do, daily. Some Arbs scarcely make a mainspace edit daily. Your threatening tone is not required. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:43, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    "In 1938 he became a regular in a powerful Red Sox lineup..." is a subjective statement that needs a citation (as noted). That's a clear definency and that's one of the one I noted originally. All the other current CN statements are contentious - maybe not BLP level type contentious but clearly language we can't use in WP voice without a source. This is a problem and not representative of WP's best work. --MASEM (t) 22:10, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I already edited that subjectivity out. And most of the {{cn}} tags. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:18, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, looks like just one (very important) fact to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:21, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @The Rambling Man: I've commented out all the things I can't find sources for. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:14, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted Stephen 05:27, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] RD: Thomas J. Hudner Jr.

[edit]
Article: Thomas J. Hudner Jr. (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Boston Globe
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Article Updated and Well Sourced (It is a Featured Article) --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:39, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Hypertension

[edit]
No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 14:37, 15 November 2017 (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: Hypertension (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The American Heart Association and American College of Cardiology issue new guidelines stating hypertension starts at above 130/80 mmHg, from 140/90 mmHg (Post)
News source(s): [19] [20]
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: A very common cause of preventable deaths, affects hundreds of millions of people. Could also use "high blood pressure" instead of hypertension in the blurb. Banedon (talk) 21:34, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't WP:NOTNEWSPAPER apply here? I might be wrong but I read your !vote as something like "It's been foreshadowed a lot and adults will need to know this". -A lad insane (Channel 2) 04:37, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A comment to that - you typically cannot require something in a medical context. For example it might be that a natural birth is dangerous for a particular woman, but a doctor still cannot force the woman to have a Cesarean section. It is not ethical. You can see similar language in medical recommendations. "See your dentist as soon as possible about your toothache if you have a toothache that lasts longer than 1 or 2 days". That's a recommendation, and can only ever be a recommendation, because nobody can require you to see a dentist if you have a toothache that lasts longer than 1 or 2 days. As for how many people care about it, there are hundreds of millions of people with high blood pressure. I don't know how many of those are self-monitoring their own blood pressures but I'd not be surprised if it's substantial. Are you (or your female friends if you're male) for example self-monitoring for lumps in your breasts that might indicate breast cancer? That's based off a guideline too. Banedon (talk) 04:39, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your arguments are largely correct, but this item does not belong on ITN. Abductive (reasoning) 07:35, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer using “High Blood Pressure” rather than “Hypertension”, largely because the former is more common in the general public. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 05:25, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose high blood pressure is an issue across the world, especially in advanced economies; changing the minimum blood pressure level by a few mmHg isn’t necessarily “small” but it isn’t really “big” either. 161.6.7.1 (talk) 04:32, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If one believes the sources, this change reclassified 30 million Americans as having hypertension. That should be pretty "big". Banedon (talk) 04:40, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in mind that what you said technically an opinion, no matter how you protest.161.6.7.1 (talk) 04:56, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I’ll give it 24 hours, if there is still no consensus to post by then, I’ll re-close it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hornetzilla78 (talk • contribs) 05:18, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're being silly, 161. A medical opinion is a professional judgment, not a statement of aesthetic preferences. This will have a greater effect than current HIV or Hepatitis prophylaxis, and insurance companies will have to absorb the costs, while many lives may be saved. The rush to close this seems to be based on recentism, not years of supporting research to the contrary. μηδείς (talk) 05:58, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
...and yet what you said is also a personal opinion Medeis. Opinions ≠ Facts. 161.6.7.1 (talk) 06:20, 15 November 2017 (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.

November 12

[edit]
November 12, 2017 (2017-11-12) (Sunday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Politics and elections

[Posted] RD: Edith Savage-Jennings

[edit]
Article: Edith Savage-Jennings (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NJ
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Article Updated and Well Sourced --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:19, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Short but adequately referenced.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:40, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support Quite weak indeed. The article is very short on useful information about her notable work, it asserts rather than demonstrates, which is always a pet peeve of mine; it states she'notable for her civil rights work, then does very little to describe any such work! Shame, really. I would consider this the BAREST of minimum to be postable, as the line has to be drawn somewhere, but this brushes right up against that line. --Jayron32 20:43, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support per Jayron, this is just above start class and isn't a comprehensive bio, but it meets our needs, and who knows, maybe having it on the main page will encourage others to expand it. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:11, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] RD: Liz Smith

[edit]
Article: Liz Smith (journalist) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Washington Post, Variety
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Article Updated and Well Sourced --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 02:58, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Kermanshah earthquake

[edit]
Article: 2017 Kermanshah earthquake (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ An earthquake strikes the border between Iraq and Iran, killing at least 214 people and injuring more than 2000 others (Post)
Credits:

 158.85.76.235 (talk) 22:29, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Slovenian presidential election

[edit]
Proposed image
Article: Slovenian presidential election, 2017 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Borut Pahor is reelected as the President of Slovenia. (Post)
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: The results are in, almost all votes counted. The article is updated. Tone 21:46, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

November 11

[edit]
November 11, 2017 (2017-11-11) (Saturday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

International relations

Politics and elections

Sports

[Closed] 2017 Australian parliamentary eligibility crisis

[edit]
Strong consensus against posting unless more substantial ramifications occur. Re-open the nom in such a scenario. Stormy clouds (talk) 16:32, 13 November 2017 (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: 2017 Australian parliamentary eligibility crisis (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The Turnbull Government loses its parliamentary majority, after Liberal Party MP John Alexander resigns from the Australian House of Representatives due to likely holding British dual citizenship (Post)
News source(s): http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/citizenship-crisis-turnbull-government-mp-john-alexander-resigns-from-parliament-20171110-gzj9hx.html
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: With the resignation of John Alexander, the Turnbull Government now holds only 74 out of 148 seats. Chrisclear (talk) 06:28, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How is this different to the 27 October nomination that you supported, which also did not involve the government "falling"? Chrisclear (talk) 15:32, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In that case a court ordered MPs removed, an unusual occurrence. This case is just a MP resigning, which is more common. 331dot (talk) 17:08, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That may be the case, however, the only reason Alexander resigned was because he knew that, if his case was referred to the High Court, he would almost certainly be found to be in breach of s44 of the Constitution. He did not resign for "family reasons" or "health reasons", for example. Although (technically) he was not removed due to court action, the underlying reason is the same as it was for those MPs removed on 27 October. Chrisclear (talk) 18:19, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I still would prefer that there be an additional hook such as the government falling or even another whole group being forced out. As stated above, this doesn't seem to be big news even in Australia. 331dot (talk) 18:53, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was really surprised to see that appear on ITN, and would have opposed it for the same reason I oppose this one. Adpete (talk) 02:33, 12 November 2017 (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] Ellyse Perry double century

[edit]
No consensus to post. --Tone 13:31, 12 November 2017 (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: English women's cricket team in Australia in 2017–18#Only Test (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ *In cricket, Ellyse Perry scores 213 not out, the highest ever individual score by an Australian in Women’s Tests. (Post)
News source(s): "Perfect Perry reaches maiden Test century". Cricket Australia. Retrieved 11 November 2017."Perry's record 213* gives Australia advantage". ESPN Cricinfo. Retrieved 11 November 2017.
Credits:
Nominator's comments: Major international sporting achievement (particularly as Women's Test cricket is presently quite rare) - and suitable photo available. Bahnfrend (talk) 13:33, 11 November 2017 (UTC) →[reply]
  • Oppose Just an individual score within one match, which merely improved the third highest by a woman overall from 204 to 213. I would maybe support posting the result of the Ashes series when it is concluded, but not this.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:15, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Pawnkingthree: The Ashes is on the ITNR list and does not need support on the merits, just FYI. 331dot (talk) 17:13, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot: The men’s is, certainly, but has there been a discussion about whether the women’s version is too? Pawnkingthree (talk) 01:23, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Pawnkingthree: I apologize. I did not realize there was a women's Ashes competition as well. 331dot (talk) 11:10, 12 November 2017 (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.

November 10

[edit]
November 10, 2017 (2017-11-10) (Friday)
Disasters and accidents

International relations

November 9

[edit]
November 9, 2017 (2017-11-09) (Thursday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Law and crime

Politics and elections

[Closed] Leakage of radioactive materials into the atmosphere in Eastern Europe

[edit]
Clear consensus against posting. Stormy clouds (talk) 13:31, 12 November 2017 (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: Nuclear and radiation accidents and incidents (talk · history · tag) and Isotopes of ruthenium (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Elevated Ruthenium-206 levels in Western Europe hints at a nuclear accident somewhere between the Volga and the Urals (Post)
News source(s): IRSN
Credits:

Both articles need updating
 The total amount of Ruthenium-106 released into the atmosphere is estimated to be between 1.9 to 5.7 grams, which is quite a large amount. Had this sort of an incident occurred in Western Europe or the US, emergency measures would have been taken affecting a region a few kilometers around the site of the release. Count Iblis (talk) 02:04, 11 November 2017 (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: John Hillerman

[edit]
Article: John Hillerman (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Variety
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Article Updated and Well Sourced --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:53, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Liberation of Abu Kamal

[edit]
Article: 2017 Abu Kamal offensive (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The Syrian Army and its allies announce the liberation of Abu Kamal, ISIL's last stronghold in Syria. (Post)
News source(s): BBC, The Sydney Morning Herald, The Telegraph and The Independent
Credits:

Nominator's comments: There is no article yet, so I'm pinging EkoGraf and Editor abcdef. This clearly needs some attention and I won't be around much these days. Given that no one nominated the liberation of Deir ez-Zor, a much more decisive battle, there is no harm in having this one posted. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 12:10, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • I can close this with a "[Wait]" or "[On hold]" tag in the header. But does it at least qualify for Ongoing at this point? Or was the initiative discarded since ITN/C was linked in T:ITN? I personally don't think we should post this with ISIL fully in control of the town, regardless of how we modify the blurb. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 09:45, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This is not a "stronghold," there are no more strongholds. Let's just wait for the end of major combat operations. GCG (talk) 15:36, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: Even when the place falls, it won't be the end of civil war in either Syria or Iraq. It will just be the latest reverse for Isil, a party which has been seen as a largely spent force, at least in conventional terms, for quite some time, roughly since they lost the ITN-worthy cities of Mosul and Raqah (although if and when they are fully defeated conventionally they may or may not then choose to carry on as a guerilla force for years). But there are plenty of other parties still standing (various groups of Sunnis, Shias and Kurds), so that claims that this event is 'significant' seem to be either propaganda or WP:CRYSTAL or both. Put another way, it looks something like that perhaps 5% of the problem last week has become perhaps 4% of the problem this week, entirely as expected, and propagandists are overhyping it as usual, because that's what propagandists are paid to do. Tlhslobus (talk) 06:36, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

November 8

[edit]
November 8, 2017 (2017-11-08) (Wednesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy

Law and crime

Politics and elections

[Closed] Paris Agreement

[edit]
Seems there's uncertainty about whether or not Syria has actually signed. In that case there's no sense posting this, by precedent. Banedon (talk) 04:26, 8 November 2017 (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: Paris Agreement (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Syria signs the Paris Agreement, leaving the United States as the sole remaining country to reject the accord (Post)
News source(s): [23] [24]
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Compare the nomination earlier this year for when the US decided to leave [25] Banedon (talk) 02:26, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is Syria is by itself not a very notable signatory; it is notable only because it is the last country in the world to sign it. But it's not strictly the 'last' country, because the US is rejecting the accord. It's difficult (impossible?) for me to construct a blurb without also mentioning the US. If you can see a way, please add an alt blurb. Banedon (talk) 02:54, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing that has garnered this any attention at all is that the US remains the last country not to sign. But the withdrawal of the US has already been posted, making this a duplicate post that seems to have no purpose other than to wag our finger at the US for its obduracy. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:00, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's narrow. We posted Saudi Arabia allowing women to vote for example [26] - something that's already allowed in the vast majority of countries in the world. Similarly we had Germany allowing same-sex marriages rejected because "being the Nth country to allow same-sex marriages in EU is not news" [27]. However where there is a first, there is also a last. If, a hundred years into the future, ___ becomes the last country in the world to allow same-sex marriage / women's suffrage etc, would you consider that news? If yes, then we're in a similar situation (the US is technically still part of the agreement). Banedon (talk) 03:06, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Allowing women to drive/vote in Saudi Arabia is comparing apples to oranges. And Syria is not the last country. It is the last save one. If/when the US rejoins the accord I will support posting it. For now this is still just wagging our finger at the US (or maybe Donald Trump). We have already posted the US withdrawal. Nothing has materially changed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:14, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The US's withdrawl was the story, not smaller nations signing onto it, even if they make the US the only party to not agree to it. --MASEM (t) 03:29, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Ad and Masem, when Trump announced the U.S. withdrawing from the agreement, it was a big story, but a smaller , less important country signing the agreement isn’t. Also keep in mind that the U.S can not effectively withdrawal until November 4, 2020. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 03:38, 8 November 2017 (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.

November 7

[edit]
November 7, 2017 (2017-11-07) (Tuesday)
Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

[Closed] Virginia and New Jersey elections

[edit]
Good-faith nomination, but no use leaving this open. WP:SNOW. --Jayron32 11:50, 8 November 2017 (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: United States elections, 2017 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Democrats win the gubernatorial elections of Virginia and New Jersey. (Post)
Credits:
Nominator's comments: Huge gains by Democrats, the first major elections under Trump. 172.58.100.215 (talk) 07:43, 8 November 2017 (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: Roy Halladay

[edit]
Article: Roy Halladay (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Sportsnet
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Former Cy Young winning pitcher, died in plane crash. --Compy90 (talk) 16:24, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] RD: Carl Sargeant

[edit]
Article: Carl Sargeant (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Welsh parlimentarian LukeSurl t c 13:50, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral The referencing appears to have been fixed, but I remain unimpressed by the article quality. In particular the single almost vanilla bland sentence discussing his being named in an ongoing scandal involving high ranking politicos from both parties in the UK over sexual harassment allegations really bothers me. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:28, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As no details have been released, I think a "single almost vanilla bland sentence" is very likely all that we will be able to put there for quite some time. Especially given the circumstances of his death. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:06, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is Wikipedia, which is based in the U.S., bound by British law? Also, haven't sources reported this was suicide? AusLondonder (talk) 14:42, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure it isn't. But if there is question over legal propriety for the UK, don't expect UK editors to want to contribute to the article or to support a posting at RD. The UK news sources have been careful to add "reportedly", "apparently", etc. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:08, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

November 6

[edit]
November 6, 2017 (2017-11-06) (Monday)
Business and economy

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

[Closed] Emmerson Mnangagwa

[edit]
No consensus. Stephen 22:26, 13 November 2017 (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: Emmerson Mnangagwa (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Zimbabwean vice president Emmerson Mnangagwa is fired by president Robert Mugabe (Post)
News source(s): [28] [29]
Credits:

Article updated
 Banedon (talk) 09:33, 9 November 2017 (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: Dick Gordon

[edit]
Article: Richard F. Gordon Jr. (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): New York Times, NPR
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Command Module pilot for Apollo 12. Referencing is in pretty bad shape right now. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 02:55, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

November 5

[edit]
November 5, 2017 (2017-11-05) (Sunday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sports

[Posted] RD: Dionatan Teixeira

[edit]
Article: Dionatan Teixeira (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Article well updated and sourced well --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:57, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Stale] RD: Mansour bin Muqrin

[edit]
Newer RD noms have already aged of the ticker. μηδείς (talk) 00:31, 12 November 2017 (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: Mansour bin Muqrin (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Prince of Saudi Arabia, Deputy governor of Asir province. Sherenk1 (talk) 00:29, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • update needed This

    Mansour bin Muqrin died in a helicopter crash near Abha (ِAl-Soudah) on November 5, 2017 The prince was killed along with seven other officials while returning from an inspection tour according to the Interior Ministry. The Cause was later said to be "Bad Weather". [9][10]

    is the entire update to the text since April 2017. The lead repeats the fact of his death, and some categories have been added or updated, as well as the infobox. But the text is insufficient. μηδείς (talk) 20:39, 8 November 2017 (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] Paradise Papers

[edit]
Article: Paradise Papers (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ 13.4 million financial documents regarding offshore investment are leaked. (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

Nominator's comments: One of the largest leaks of its kind. More details to emerge soon. 45.124.227.130 (talk) 20:41, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stupid media, prying into tax avoidance by our heads of state and government! AusLondonder (talk) 22:57, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't call it 'stupid', since the media is out to make a profit and as long as it sells, why not. But I would call it 'nosy'. The media is nosy about lots of things (such as the reasons ___ and ___ broke up), but they are private matters, and not things that should be posted on ITN. Banedon (talk) 23:16, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I can't see the connection between a celebrity break-up and tax avoidance by public figures, such as Prime Ministers, Presidents and Monarchs. AusLondonder (talk) 23:39, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
They're both private matters. Banedon (talk) 23:42, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm obviously not going to change your mind here but I'm astounded that anyone would seriously think tax avoidance by public figures is a "private matter". AusLondonder (talk) 23:46, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just as astounded you think it isn't a private matter. It's as though you think once a person becomes a public figure, the public suddenly has the "right" to know some (perfectly legal) thing that they don't demand of their next-door neighbour. If the public figure chooses to publicize it then sure, but (s)he should be under no obligation to do so. In the same way Trump hasn't publicized his tax returns and nobody is suing him for it (such a case would probably be thrown out, even). If anything this just makes me more convinced that the media - and by extension the public - should pry less. Banedon (talk) 00:22, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was under the impression that, in democratic states, we should expect our leaders to behave in a proper way. That includes not avoiding tax. Because I may not wish to vote for someone who avoids tax, and would be unable to make an informed decision otherwise, I have a right to know whether my leaders are engaging in tax avoidance I'd be imprisoned for. AusLondonder (talk) 07:59, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's where we differ. I think avoiding tax is fine, since it's legal. You should not be getting imprisoned for tax avoidance either, since it's legal. Anyway this is already posted so no point discussing it further. Banedon (talk) 08:33, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hope you don't drive on public roads, use public transport, or ever need the assistance of the police or fire brigade. AusLondonder (talk) 08:42, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rude. Banedon (talk) 08:59, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
By chance do you identify with the sovereign citizen or freemen on the land movement?--WaltCip (talk) 14:38, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Kirliator: More like self-defeating, given we posted the Panama Papers. AusLondonder (talk) 23:40, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. WP:RS is calling them "Paradise Papers", maybe add to blurb somehow? My blurb writing skills aren't up to the task. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 02:32, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Sutherland Springs church shooting

[edit]
Article: Sutherland Springs church shooting (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ A mass shooting at a Baptist church kills at least 27 people in Sutherland Springs, Texas. (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Omg. Not again. EternalNomad (talk) 20:26, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

November 4

[edit]
November 4, 2017 (2017-11-04) (Saturday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

[Ready] Lebanese Prime Minister resigns

[edit]
Article: Saad Hariri (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri resigns, citing threats to his life (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri resigns while visiting Saudi Arabia, citing threats to his life, and leaving a power vacuum.
News source(s): [30] power vacuum
Credits:

 Banedon (talk) 10:42, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'd want this story to also include the appointment of his successor, but as far as I can tell this hasn't happened yet? Has the resignation not taken effect or is the office vacant? --LukeSurl t c 11:45, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support unusual and notable given the underlying reason; Hariri's assertion that he fears his father's fate, assassination, at the hands of Iran-backed Hezbollah. And yes, he has been succeeded in office according to his info-box. Given this was a matter of discussion on the radio in the US today, it is hardly an unnoticed event on the world scale. μηδείς (talk) 01:52, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose follow the regular route, wait for his replacement. The resignation is meh. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:23, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The appointment of a new PM is not ITNR, and likely not ITN per se. The circumstances here, including reactions, are noteworthy. If the new PM was announced, it should be in the blurb, but the posting of the resignation should not be contingent on that happening. GCG (talk) 16:20, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ready Five sentence, six source update with successor noted given TRM's concern. Blurb could be changed to say he is replaced, but the resignation is the notable news, not that a vacancy was filled. μηδείς (talk) 01:33, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the ready tag. I still support the nomination conditionally, but it seems our article is incorrect in having named Mikati as the successor, and this NYT article says Hariri's resignation has not been accepted by the Lebanese president, and that Hariri may return on Thursday. μηδείς (talk) 02:49, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Why hasn't this been posted already? This is a huge ongoing international story, since it looks like Hariri resigned under duress and is being held involuntarily by the Saudi Arabia. There is now also an additional target article, 2017 Lebanon–Saudi Arabia dispute, that could be linked. Nsk92 (talk) 12:42, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - This is huge geopolitical news. It's been reported that Hariri resigned under coercion of the Saudi crown prince (he announced his resignation in Riyadh and has still not returned to Lebanon), and that Hezbollah has claimed that Hariri's resignation is "declaration of war" by the Saudis. -Zanhe (talk) 19:56, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Saudi purge

[edit]
Article: Mohammad_bin_Salman#Political_and_economic_reforms (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In the midst of announced reforms by Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman, 11 senior Saudi princes and 38 ministers are arrested on corruption charges, including media mogul Al-Waleed bin Talal (Post)
News source(s): Zero Hedge,Daily Sabah, NYT, HuffPo, Wall Street Journal Saudi Princes, Former Ministers Arrested in Apparent Power Consolidation, Saudi princes among dozens detained in anti-corruption purge1 hour ago BBC, El príncipe heredero saudí aplica el puño de hierro con la detención de 11 príncipes y cuatro ministros El Mundo
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Apparent purge meant to cement position of Crown Prince's reformist position, including arrest of Bin Talal, a major holder of Citi, News Corp, and Twitter shares μηδείς (talk) 23:19, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? Low international coverage? How did you figure that? As of this moment, the story is the number one story at the BBC News site [31], at France24 [32], at Deutsche Welle[33]; number two story at RAI[34]; it is listed in the top news stories section by the Times of India[35], lenta.ru,[36], listed as the top story in the Word section of South Africa's Mail&Guardian [37]], has an in-depth article by Hong Kong's South China Morning Post[38], etc, etc. Nsk92 (talk) 11:47, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait this is breaking news right now. Most of the sources I am seeing are reporting that 11 princes of the Saudi royal family have been arrested along with numerous former ministers. On the surface that sounds like ITN material to me. But I'd like to wait maybe 12 hours so we get an idea of what is actually going on before we throw this up on the main page. Also we need something that is adequately updated to link to. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:40, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It is now clear that this is very big news and while I could hope for a bit more expansion, or even a stand alone article, I think what we have is acceptable. The target article is in decent shape and adequately referenced. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:58, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's now in the New York Times [The Wall Street Journal] [The BBC], and HuffPo. I didn't expect this to go up as quickly as the disqualification of four Australian parliamentarians, and not being a Saudi, I have no personal opinion of the matter. μηδείς (talk) 00:51, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait per Ad, until further development and detail is announced which will likely be within the next 12-24 hours. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 00:56, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now, but ultimately Wait this initially does look like ITN material, but after reading the provided sources, there is little information as to WHY these Princes and the share-holder are being arrested other than ‘corruption charges”. I am willing to wait for further information to be released, but at the moment, I’m leaning towards opposition for the time-being. Kirliator (talk) 01:03, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a three-paragraph, ~2400 byte, four-source update of the target that gives multiple sources saying the is a consolidation of power by Crown Prince Salman's reform agenda. μηδείς (talk) 01:26, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning support, but this is breaking news and we need to wait a bit for things to become more clear. Otherwise it does seem worthy for inclusion. AusLondonder (talk) 01:31, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'll support this when you break it out into 2017 Saudi Arabian purges, list each of the ousted ministers (and many of them blue linked) with whatever the media thinks was the reasoning. Current target article is inadequate. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 01:46, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Who is "you"? You can create that article yourself. I am not interested in jumping through arbitrary non-guideline hoops for your benefit. The current update is quite sufficient, and the target very relevant. μηδείς (talk) 01:50, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not interested in doing the hard work for you. If the article were updated sufficiently, it'd be too big for Salmans article and need to be busted out. I actually read the articles, which is more than some people here, and if that fails some WP:ITN#Minimum_Participation take it over to AN/I. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 11:24, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be opposed to the hard work of reading the guidelines "a five-sentence update (with at minimum three references, not counting duplicates) is generally more than sufficient" and reading the target article updated with at least three paragraphs and five sources. I'm marking this ready. μηδείς (talk) 17:01, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, that's some Faux News copy/paste skills there Medeis, well done. Here is the part that you missed "The decision as to when an article is updated enough is subjective" and in my subjective opinion enough is listing each individual who was purged and some short bit about their role in the Saudi government. The current update mentions a handful of individuals and not even the #'s. Utterly inadequate. Have a nice day! --CosmicAdventure (talk) 17:55, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
^Assuming good faith here, but this is the first contribution from this editor. AusLondonder (talk) 07:58, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning Oppose I don’t doubt that this is a major breakthrough, but I really don’t see the long-term impact this will have on the both the national and international communities. What I’m saying is this is “in the news”, getting some reasonable coverage worldwide, likely because billionaire Bin Tatal is amongst those arrested, but I don’t think the international community, and perhaps the Saudi community will really give a hoot about this. 161.6.7.1 (talk) 08:12, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - They have arrested prominent business people. This definitely has an impact. Sherenk1 (talk) 11:36, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Doubts are not enough. This is an important event. Article looks ok for posting as well.BabbaQ (talk) 11:41, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in principle, for certain. These arrests are of a very large number of prominent Saudis: I'd say this has an internal impact greater than that of the Australian MP disqualifications, which we just posted. The section is not quite up to scratch in my view, though, with some amount of puffery with respect to the prince. Vanamonde (talk) 13:02, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, assuming the target article is in good shape. The story has received major international coverage, and most news sources describe the purges as an extraordinary development. Nsk92 (talk) 14:23, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems we have a rough consensus to post. Regarding the blurb: it says 11 senior Saudi princes and 38 ministers while the article states over 40 princes and government ministers. I'd like it to be consistent. Also, shall we mention individuals or not? --Tone 17:49, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Miss Earth 2017

[edit]
Strong consensus against posting. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:01, 6 November 2017 (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: Miss Earth 2017 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Karen Ibasco of the Philippines wins the Miss Earth 2017 beauty pageant. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Karen Ibasco representing the Philippines is crowned Miss Earth 2017.
News source(s): GMA News
Credits:
 BabbaQ (talk) 16:57, 4 November 2017 (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] 2017 Japan Series

[edit]
Article: 2017 Japan Series (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In baseball, the Fukuoka SoftBank Hawks win the 2017 Japan Series. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ In baseball, the Fukuoka SoftBank Hawks defeat the Yokohama DeNA BayStars to win the 2017 Japan Series.
Alternative blurb II: ​ In baseball, the Houston Astros and the Fukuoka SoftBank Hawks win the World Series and Japan Series respectively.
News source(s): The Japan Times
Credits:

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

 – Muboshgu (talk) 16:31, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is ITNR, so it will be posted upon adequate quality. Being Japanese or American is irrelevant. 331dot (talk) 17:53, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
ITNR only has two annual baseball events: the American and the Japanese. I didn't bother nominating the Korean series when it ended last week. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:39, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

November 3

[edit]
November 3, 2017 (2017-11-03) (Friday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

[Posted] RD: Abdur Rahman Biswas

[edit]
Article: Abdur Rahman Biswas (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Dhaka Tribune
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Former President of Bangladesh, article updated and well sourced. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:26, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@BabbaQ: This is an RD nomination, notability is not at issue. 331dot (talk) 09:49, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

November 2

[edit]
November 2, 2017 (2017-11-02) (Thursday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

[Posted] RD: Aboubacar Somparé

[edit]
Article: Aboubacar Somparé (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Guinee 360
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Former interim president of Guinea, article looks good. EternalNomad (talk) 02:46, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] New Orangutan species

[edit]
Proposed image
Article: Pongo tapanuliensis (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The discovery of a newly discovered species of great ape, the Tapanuli orangutan (Pongo tapanuliensis) of Sumatra, is announced. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Pongo tapanuliensis, a new species of great ape, is discovered in Sumatra.
Alternative blurb II: ​ The tapanuli orangutan is identified as a new species of great ape
News source(s): The Guardian
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Great ape species are rare. There are now 14.28% more species. Speciate (talk) 20:03, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am attempting an expansion, and the above oppose is very strictly temporary. Stormy clouds (talk) 20:37, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Article is good now, so support. Stormy clouds (talk) 09:40, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Seconded. I think the picture should go up, especially as this is the first item now. Stormy clouds (talk) 10:08, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Great Pyramid of Giza

[edit]
No consensus to post. Revisit this story if they find something interesting in there. --Tone 13:15, 3 November 2017 (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: Great Pyramid of Giza (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ A new hidden chamber is found in the Great Pyramid of Giza (Post)
News source(s): [39] [40]
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Should the blurb say it's the first such discovery in this pyramid since the 19th century? Banedon (talk) 21:50, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose not the first such chamber, and plenty of reasonable explanations already proposed (e.g. reducing the weight on top of the hall below), nothing at all to write home about, could be a borderline interesting DYK but even then it's just an observation without any real new explanation and nothing more. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:56, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It is an important discovery (all other "rooms" of comparable size were discovered in the 18th century; smaller cavities in the 19th century; in the 20th century only shafts) but 1) it is not a chamber (I would use "cavity"), (not sure what "not the first such chamber" above really means, though) 2) the article says very little about the history of the discoveries, so the reader gets no context from the article to make the news important. --WikiHannibal (talk) 23:32, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, still dicey as to whether or not a void was found, and empty spaces are by definition not interesting. In other words, people have been hoping for a secret burial chamber, and until a void is found containing anything other than rubble, dust and stale air, it is not ITN material. Abductive (reasoning) 02:14, 3 November 2017 (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.

"... nothing other than rubble, dust and stale air"? Sounds like an average day at ITN/C. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:52, 3 November 2017 (UTC) [reply]

November 1

[edit]
November 1, 2017 (2017-11-01) (Wednesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

Sports

[Posted] 2017 NTPC power plant explosion

[edit]
Article: 2017 NTPC power plant explosion (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ At least 32 people are killed and more than 90 others are injured in an explosion at a coal-fired power plant in Uttar Pradesh, India. (Post)
News source(s): BBC Reuters Bloomberg DW
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Just as tragic as Lower Manhattan and the church incident. 103.82.253.187 (talk) 18:29, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] 2017 World Series

[edit]
Proposed image
Article: 2017 World Series (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In baseball, the Houston Astros win the 2017 World Series (MVP George Springer pictured). (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ The Houston Astros defeat the Los Angeles Dodgers win the 2017 World Series (MVP George Springer pictured).
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: It's a best-of-seven series, and Game 7 is well under way. The Game 7 write up will be done in the same way as Games 1-6. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:38, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

comment on hyperlink better to link the astros to the current season page.
FINALLY...God bless Texas with his own hand/the stars at night are big and bright, deep in the heart of Texas/the yellow rose of Texas is the only girl for meLihaas (talk) 08:51, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates/November_2017&oldid=1202912271"