Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates: Difference between revisions
→RD: Dobri Dobrev: thanks |
|||
Line 289: | Line 289: | ||
*'''Comment'''. His life was unusual enough where I think if someone fixes the 2 unreferenced sentences and perhaps adds a paragraph more, I would support it. He was rather well-known both in Bulgaria and outside of it. [[User:Inatan|Inatan]] ([[User talk:Inatan|talk]]) 16:52, 15 February 2018 (UTC) |
*'''Comment'''. His life was unusual enough where I think if someone fixes the 2 unreferenced sentences and perhaps adds a paragraph more, I would support it. He was rather well-known both in Bulgaria and outside of it. [[User:Inatan|Inatan]] ([[User talk:Inatan|talk]]) 16:52, 15 February 2018 (UTC) |
||
**{{re|Inatan}}, for future reference, see the bottom line in the template above, which says that "the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post". The unusual nature of his life makes the article interesting despite its size, but isn't a factor in whether or not we should post it. Only the quality issues you and I have mentioned. – [[User:Muboshgu|Muboshgu]] ([[User talk:Muboshgu#top|talk]]) 17:03, 15 February 2018 (UTC) |
**{{re|Inatan}}, for future reference, see the bottom line in the template above, which says that "the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post". The unusual nature of his life makes the article interesting despite its size, but isn't a factor in whether or not we should post it. Only the quality issues you and I have mentioned. – [[User:Muboshgu|Muboshgu]] ([[User talk:Muboshgu#top|talk]]) 17:03, 15 February 2018 (UTC) |
||
:::Ah, thank you. [[User:Inatan|Inatan]] ([[User talk:Inatan|talk]]) 17:05, 15 February 2018 (UTC) |
|||
==== RD: Prince Henrik of Denmark==== |
==== RD: Prince Henrik of Denmark==== |
Revision as of 17:05, 15 February 2018
Welcome to In The News. Please read the guidelines. Admin instructions are here. |
In the news toolbox |
---|
This page provides a place to discuss new items for inclusion on In the news (ITN), a protected template on the Main Page (see past items in the ITN archives). Do not report errors in ITN items that are already on the Main Page here— discuss those at the relevant section of WP:ERRORS.
This candidates page is integrated with the daily pages of Portal:Current events. A light green header appears under each daily section – it includes transcluded Portal:Current events items for that day. You can discuss ITN candidates under the header.
view — page history — related changes — edit |
Glossary
All articles linked in the ITN template must pass our standards of review. They should be up-to-date, demonstrate relevance via good sourcing and have at least an acceptable quality. Nomination steps
The better your article's quality, the better it covers the event and the wider its perceived significance (see WP:ITNSIGNIF for details), the better your chances of getting the blurb posted.
Headers
Voicing an opinion on an itemFormat your comment to contain "support" or "oppose", and include a rationale for your choice. In particular, address the notability of the event, the quality of the article, and whether it has been updated. Please do...
Please do not...
Suggesting updatesThere are two places where you can request corrections to posted items:
|
.
Suggestions
February 15
February 15, 2018
(Thursday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and economy
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Science and technology
|
Ethiopia PM Hailemariam Desalegn resignation
Blurb: Hailemariam Desalegn resigns as Ethiopia's prime minister and chairman of EPRDF. (Post)
News source(s): (BBC), (DW), (VoA), (Fox news), (The Guardian)
Credits:
- Nominated by Jenda H. (talk · give credit)
Jenda H. (talk) 14:45, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- Comment Article needs a much better update to establish context for the resignation. --Masem (t) 14:48, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose too much unreferenced material in the target BLP. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:58, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
February 14
February 14, 2018
(Wednesday)
Arts and culture
Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Sports
|
[Closed] Florida school shooting
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.
Blurb: Seventeen people are killed in a shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Florida (Post)
News source(s): ABC, New Zealand Herald,
Credits:
- Nominated by Cyclonebiskit (talk · give credit)
- Support Significant death toll and article is ok - it will improve as more information becomes available. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:25, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Even by US standards, 16 deaths in a school shooting is a big deal. Article is short but I expect it to be rapidly expanded when new information becomes available. -Zanhe (talk) 23:27, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- Weak Support My default position on these is that they're generally non-notable (they run at around one every two weeks this decade), but this is the worst one for 50 years bar Virginia Tech and Sandy Hook, so I have to give it a weak support. Black Kite (talk) 23:29, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Sheriff just confirmed 17 victims, 12 inside the school. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 23:30, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose There's a mass shooting in the US every week. Already been 18 school shootings this year. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:32, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- 17 people aren't killed every week at school in the US. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 23:36, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- @Hawkeye7:: Wrong. Shooting yes it is frequent but not with this death toll. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:45, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- 17 people aren't killed every week at school in the US. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 23:36, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Big death toll. Article is ok and will be expanded and updated when more information is released. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:45, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support. A horrific and senseless tragedy. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 23:43, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- Weak Support - even though these are a frequent occurrence (which is a solid rationale for opposing such incidents elsewhere in the world), the death toll is large enough to make this event somewhat notable, and the article is of decent quality. Stormy clouds (talk) 23:45, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose - Mass shooting? Ah, it's Thursday again already? Not notable due to frequency. 86.28.195.109 (talk) 23:49, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support. Worst school shooting since Newtown, worst shooting at a post-primary institution since Virginia Tech, and worst high school shooting since Columbine, surpassing the former in death toll. 184.151.37.216 (talk) 23:54, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support - Could have been just another school shooting in the trigger happy US. But this one has a significant number of deaths. Plenty of media coverage above the usual level already at an early stage. Perp survived. Article is quite short but referenced and in good shape overall. BabbaQ (talk) 23:57, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Very sad news. Casualties approaching Sandy Hook. EternalNomad (talk) 00:33, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Large death toll, article is in good shape. Davey2116 (talk) 00:48, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- Administrator note Posted to ITN. — xaosflux Talk 01:00, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support – Yet another shocker. Sca (talk) 01:23, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose 27 dead in Benghazi bombing last month, not even an article, let alone a nomination . If you tell me "Well it's because Libya is a warzone" well guess what? The US is a warzone in regards to school shootings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.58.100.2 (talk) 02:17, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- Actually, the reason it wasn't posted is because you didn't create the article, and because you didn't nominate it. You can't expect anyone at Wikipedia to do any work you aren't willing to do yourself. --Jayron32 02:29, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- Jayron don't tell us main page quality articles on bombing in Pakistan or Afghanistan don't get nominated at ITNC. 39.57.176.239 (talk) 04:47, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- Pull - Shooting incident in a place where it is frequent. I don't see why this is notable than everyday shooting incidents in US. Why does this gets posted and a bombing in Pakistan let alone one in Afghanistan or Syria is regarded as usual incident in a conflict zone? All of us bleed red. May be WP:BIAS is at play here. 39.57.176.239 (talk) 04:47, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- I see systemic bias is alive and well on Wikipedia. Incidentally, pull as this is an utterly routine occurrence in the US nowadays. --WaltCip (talk) 05:03, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- @WaltCip: Yes school shootings are frequent but what is not frequent is a school shooting with this high of a death count. Look at School shootings in the United States and death count is usually 1-2. Not 17 and this shooting is nearly tied with Sandy Hook. It is a huge misconception of high death toll school shootings in the U.S.--TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 05:09, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- I do what I can to be aware of systemic bias in my nominations. I'd like to think I have that down pat with weather-related nominations, but in this case I weighed this against the multitude of previous shootings in the US and a death toll of 17 at a high school, even just a school in general, sticks out as unusual. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 07:11, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support – The death toll is significant. Mz7 (talk) 06:51, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- Post-posting support. School shootings are not normal. School shootings with double digit death tolls are rare. By death toll, this is the 8th largest school shooting in the history of the world. Dragons flight (talk) 07:07, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- Actually, school shootings seem to be very normal. From the BBC "Since 2013, there have been 291 reported school shootings in America, which averages out to about one per week." The death toll is higher than most of course but to say school shootings are not normal seems to be quite incorrect. 91.49.64.157 (talk) 09:01, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- Comment Of course, it won't be pulled now, but this really is routine now – we should be avoiding such postings just as we avoid routine bombings in warzones. A few more than normal were killed? Same shit, different day. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:23, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- Post-posting support Headlines in American news, top three news stories on BBC at present, but don't let that stop the cries of systemic bias, once consensus isn't in the usual favor. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 09:39, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- Don't worry, the rest of us have perspective: "The school shooting in Parkland, Florida today marks the 29th mass shooting in the US in 2018. There have only been 45 days in 2018." Marvellous. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:05, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- Procedural note: regardless of your opinion on this item, it definitely shouldn't have been posted after less than two hours of discussion, especially by an admin who was WP:INVOLVED in writing the article. The admin instructions say that if there is opposition to an item 'consider letting the nomination run for more time, especially if the nomination is less than 24 hours old'. Pinging Xaosflux (talk · contribs) for an explanation. Modest Genius talk 12:15, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) This was closed while I was typing my comment. I disagree with the closure anyway, as discussion is continuing and there are reasonable calls for the item being pulled. Modest Genius talk 12:15, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- If people want to keep this open, fine, but I don't think this discussion will be constructive, as the "reasonable calls" being made are arguments which were already made. 331dot (talk) 12:19, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- Hi @Modest Genius: The only edit I made prior to posting this was in checking references present because of this nomination, adding a source. The tally at the time was 11-2 in favor, the article didn't have any red flags, and it was being heavily covered in the media. After posting I started working on the page more just as any editor can. Was it "too soon"? - The majority of the responses above don't seem to think so, but support can always change - go ahead and pull if it there is support to do so. — xaosflux Talk 12:39, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- @Xaosflux: my apologies, I missed that those edits were shortly after you posted it to ITN. I still think there was too little time for discussion, even if the outcome was OK. Modest Genius talk 14:41, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) This was closed while I was typing my comment. I disagree with the closure anyway, as discussion is continuing and there are reasonable calls for the item being pulled. Modest Genius talk 12:15, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support 4 of the 6 current stories posted feature routine events of larger than usual scale. No reasonable editor would ignore the scale of an event in considering ITNC. A few drive-by snipes from IPs are not "reasonable calls" vs. the overwhelming support. GCG (talk) 12:34, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support per Dragons flight, who made the following observation:
By death toll, this is the 8th largest school shooting in the history of the world.
This is not routine. Lepricavark (talk) 13:24, 15 February 2018 (UTC)- Per our dedicated article on shootings in schools in the US (the rest of the world is covered in a single article): "There were 11 school shootings in the first 23 days of 2018.[45]" This is routine. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:51, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- How many of those had 17 dead? 331dot (talk) 13:52, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- None I expect. But this is just a glitch on the ever-increasing diagonal line of deaths so far this year from mass shootings isn't it? "There were 11 school shootings in the first 23 days of 2018." - I think there have been 11 school shootings in the history of Europe... The Rambling Man (talk) 13:56, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- Of those, only 2 actually have articles, and as best I known, this is the only one that has been nominated this year. We're well aware shootings in US schools are far too frequent, but most of the 11 in 2008 seem to be inter-personal issues where the shooter and victims had a past history; it is when we have a case of a person gone on a bent that is randomly shooting anyone that makes the situation very different, why this story grabbed international attention. We're able to make that distinction here at ITN so that we're not including every single event. --Masem (t) 14:30, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- Nonsense. The votes were simply for the numbers. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:41, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- Of those, only 2 actually have articles, and as best I known, this is the only one that has been nominated this year. We're well aware shootings in US schools are far too frequent, but most of the 11 in 2008 seem to be inter-personal issues where the shooter and victims had a past history; it is when we have a case of a person gone on a bent that is randomly shooting anyone that makes the situation very different, why this story grabbed international attention. We're able to make that distinction here at ITN so that we're not including every single event. --Masem (t) 14:30, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- None I expect. But this is just a glitch on the ever-increasing diagonal line of deaths so far this year from mass shootings isn't it? "There were 11 school shootings in the first 23 days of 2018." - I think there have been 11 school shootings in the history of Europe... The Rambling Man (talk) 13:56, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- How many of those had 17 dead? 331dot (talk) 13:52, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- Per our dedicated article on shootings in schools in the US (the rest of the world is covered in a single article): "There were 11 school shootings in the first 23 days of 2018.[45]" This is routine. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:51, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- Post-posting comment – This event is notable not because it's entirely unusual, but because it happened in a civilized ([citation needed] ?) country – one where the "well regulated militia" is always on duty. – Sca (talk) 14:39, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Resignation of Jacob Zuma
Blurb: South African president Jacob Zuma resigns amid corruption claims. (Post)
Alternative blurb: South African president Jacob Zuma resigns amid corruption claims and is succeeded by Cyril Ramaphosa.
News source(s): BBC
Credits:
- Nominated by EternalNomad (talk · give credit)
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: Perhaps we can create an article about his resignation. EternalNomad (talk) 21:20, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- 'Bout time. Citations needed in "Early life and political career". – Muboshgu (talk) 21:29, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support pretty obviously notable news. Aside from citations mentioned above article looks good enough. Resignation of Jacob Zuma might have to wait a bit though. Juxlos (talk) 21:34, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- Comment - the resignation of a leader is not ITNR as far as I can tell. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:49, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- The succession of a head of state is in ITNR. Perhaps the blurb should include mention of his interim replacement. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:57, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- I've always been confused when situations like this come up; is it ITNR when the head of state leaves, or when the new one comes in(if the change is not immediate)? Further, in this case, the successor is "Acting" President, and not actually President. Does that make a difference? 331dot (talk) 22:04, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- The succession of a head of state is in ITNR. Perhaps the blurb should include mention of his interim replacement. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:57, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- Add that I've always interpreted the head of state changing listing to simply mean "a change in head of state". 331dot (talk) 22:04, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- No confusion required, this blurb isn't about "succession", it's about "resignation". We should all be able to see that. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:08, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- Resignation includes succession, though yes the resignation is more important than the succession. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:53, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- No confusion required, this blurb isn't about "succession", it's about "resignation". We should all be able to see that. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:08, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- Add that I've always interpreted the head of state changing listing to simply mean "a change in head of state". 331dot (talk) 22:04, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support alternative blurb per nom. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 22:15, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support – "The President of the Republic of South Africa is the head of state and head of government." It leads many of the main Eng.-lang. news sites. (Support either blurb) – Sca (talk) 23:06, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Either blurbs, article looks decent and really in the news. –Ammarpad (talk) 23:15, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- Conditional Support - this is really big news and should be posted. Unfortunately the article has numerous unreferenced paragraphs. This BLP needs better sourcing before posting. -Zanhe (talk) 23:24, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Head of state resigning due to corruption allegations, especially from an influential nation. Article is roughly ok enough. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:47, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support the original blurb, as I feel that the significance of Zuma's resignation is the story here, rather than his interim replacement as an ITN/R proposal. Thus, we should WP:IAR and post the resignation. However, the article needs work. Stormy clouds (talk) 23:48, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support either blurb, this is notable regardless of nitpicking of whether this falls under ITN/R. However, there are still a few cn tags that need to be addressed. Davey2116 (talk) 03:35, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose for now. Article is close, but a BLP like this needs scrupulous referencing, and there's just too much in terms of missing references to post on the main page. --Jayron32 03:39, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support this is effectively ITNR, since it inevitably triggers an ITNR event. Banedon (talk) 05:47, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose on quality (support on importance); needs some more references I reckon - under-cited in some areas. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:12, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose BLP containing more than 20 [citation needed] tags? Seriously? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:29, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support alternative blurb. I believe his successor is officially elected by parliament today, so this should go up after that happens. This is Paul (talk) 12:25, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 12:55, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Article quality is not there yet - way too many citation tags for a BLP.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:31, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Referencing needs work. (Yes, this is ITNR.) -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:33, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose It's ITNR on principle, but man, I cannot make heads or tails of the article. It needs a massive rework and organization to flow better. --Masem (t) 14:40, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- ⇒ Looks to be 2:1 in favor. Needs attn. Sca (talk) 15:14, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- No, not one single of those voting support have addressed the fact that the article has no fewer than 20 [citation needed] tags which, for a BLP, means it doesn't get posted. Full stop. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:17, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- ⇒ Looks to be 2:1 in favor. Needs attn. Sca (talk) 15:14, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- The ITNR argument is moot; this seems to have support on notability. Which article is the quality issue with? We could omit Zuma under the ITNR, or only list Zuma's resignation for now if the issue is with Ramaphosa. GCG (talk) 15:48, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- If you looked, you'd see that both articles are unsuitable for inclusion as both contain dozens of unreferenced claims which is not acceptable in a BLP let alone one which is to be featured on the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:54, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
RD/blurb: Morgan Tsvangirai
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: Zimbabwean opposition activist and former prime minister Morgan Tsvangirai dies aged 65. (Post)
News source(s): The Guardian
Credits:
- Nominated by EternalNomad (talk · give credit)
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: He was internationally renowned for his opposition to the recently deposed Robert Mugabe. EternalNomad (talk) 19:32, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose article is both tagged and not updated. I imagine a blurb would be impossible too. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:36, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support as an addition to recent deaths, and pending improvements. This is Paul (talk) 20:12, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- Which means to say nothing really, RD will post this as soon as it's up to scratch, we only worry about quality, so supporting "pending improvements" is a waste of time. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:19, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose - serious quality issues. Regarding the blurb, I would oppose on notability grounds even if the article was impeccable. Stormy clouds (talk) 20:23, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose blurb. He was not a world transforming figure and it was known that he was ill. His opposition to Mugabe had limited effect. 331dot (talk) 21:00, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose blurb no matter what. Oppose RD for now because the quality is not good. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:08, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Blurb - I still don't like the new 'proposed blurb' I think "Long time Zimbabwean Opposition leader, Morgan Tsvangirai has died aged 65 following a battle with colon cancer" Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 07:21, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- Comment - @Stormy clouds: - If you think Morgan Tsvangirai is not notable enough, then you need to do your research, not only has he been the Prime Minister of Zimbabwe, but he is also a notable figure within the African Union and had relations in many other countries. While the quality of the article is not great, discussions about his notability are not suitable in this particular case anyways per RD. Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 07:33, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- Stormy clouds is opposing a blurb, not RD on basis of notability. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:41, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- I oppose a blurb in any circumstance, as the notability is not there. I oppose an RD listing at present as, while assessing article quality in the course of my "research", I found it to be inadequate for listing at the main page. Thus, my vote echoes many above, andnis not seeking a suspension of the rules of RD - if quality improves, post as an RD. Thanks to @Galobtter: for the clarification which you offered to User:ChieftanTartarus on my behalf. Stormy clouds (talk) 10:19, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- I'm sorry but neither of you are making any sense to me, you're opposing the blurb on the case of notability? That just doesn't make sense in my opinion, that's still opposing something on the basis of notability whether its targeted at the RD or not. I don't understand what you're getting at here. Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 10:34, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- @ChieftanTartarus: - I do not feel that Tsvangirai is a significant enough figure, as he lacks the notability to merit such a blurb. There is an informal Mandela-Thatcher-Bowie axis which is used to gauge whether or not the figure was transformative enough to deserve a blurb, and there is no way that this nomination surpasses this level of notability. Moreover, as 331dot alludes to, it was known that he was ill, so this is not a surprise and was expected to happen, meaning that there is minimal notability in this case. Thus, for a blurb, I agree with 331dot and Muboshgu that Tsvangirai does not merit a blurb, and will only receive an RD listing once the article has improved. Notability is not an issue for RD, but it absolutely is for a blurb. Stormy clouds (talk) 10:56, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- @Stormy clouds: I understand your point now, and I tend to agree with you that a blurb is not really suitable as we knew that he was ill for a long time, we were also told at the start of the month that he was critically ill so it isn't a surprise that he has passed. Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 12:32, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- @ChieftanTartarus: - I do not feel that Tsvangirai is a significant enough figure, as he lacks the notability to merit such a blurb. There is an informal Mandela-Thatcher-Bowie axis which is used to gauge whether or not the figure was transformative enough to deserve a blurb, and there is no way that this nomination surpasses this level of notability. Moreover, as 331dot alludes to, it was known that he was ill, so this is not a surprise and was expected to happen, meaning that there is minimal notability in this case. Thus, for a blurb, I agree with 331dot and Muboshgu that Tsvangirai does not merit a blurb, and will only receive an RD listing once the article has improved. Notability is not an issue for RD, but it absolutely is for a blurb. Stormy clouds (talk) 10:56, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- I'm sorry but neither of you are making any sense to me, you're opposing the blurb on the case of notability? That just doesn't make sense in my opinion, that's still opposing something on the basis of notability whether its targeted at the RD or not. I don't understand what you're getting at here. Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 10:34, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support in Principle He was significant enough that I heard about him while learning about the country while preparing to study abroad in Zimbabwe. I would support this. I'll let other folks decide on the blurb; if the article is ready, etc. TenorTwelve (talk) 14:30, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- RD only – Limited significance in the Big Scheme. And the man had been seriously ill. Sca (talk) 15:16, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
RD: Ruud Lubbers
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NL Times
Credits:
- Nominated by Mjroots (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Longest serving Dutch premier. Mjroots (talk) 17:20, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose more uncited than cited, the lead is somewhat too long for the length of the article, also very annoying unrelated images of his face, but that can reasonably easily be fixed. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:26, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Nowhere near ready. Still in present tense, no details of death, large gaps in referencing.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:34, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose too many odd images, too much unreferenced, and most importantly, too much emphasis on the sexual harassment complaint. Almost 1/3 of the decent prose relates to that. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:05, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- Comment well, when Harvey Weinstein kicks the bucket, I assume he'll get an RD specifically because of his sexual harassment claims. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 20:19, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- Anyone who is notable gets an RD if their article is up to scratch.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 20:23, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- MAINEiac4434 I have no idea what you're talking about. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:50, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- You said "most importantly, too much emphasis on the sexual harassment complaint" as if that was a reason not to RD. I disagree with that notion entirely. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 22:24, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- He's saying it's WP:UNDUE weight. That's a policy problem with the article. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:03, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- You said "most importantly, too much emphasis on the sexual harassment complaint" as if that was a reason not to RD. I disagree with that notion entirely. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 22:24, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
[Closed] Draft:United flight 1175
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.
Blurb: Engine Cover Blows Off on Draft:United flight 1175 (Post)
News source(s): New York Times
Credits:
- Nominated by AyaanLamar (talk · give credit)
- Oppose and SNOW close. The plane landed safely with no casualties; there is no issue. The NY Times piece also note that such incidents are not uncommon. I suspect the draft will not be accepted. 331dot (talk) 12:43, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- SNOW GCG (talk) 12:44, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
February 13
February 13, 2018
(Tuesday)
Disasters and accidents
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Science and technology
|
RD: Dobri Dobrev
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): "Bulgarian beggar, dubbed a 'living saint', dies aged 103". New Strait Times. 14 February 2018. Retrieved 15 February 2018.
Credits:
- Nominated by Zigzig20s (talk · give credit)
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.
Zigzig20s (talk) 14:54, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- @Zigzig20s: Kinda short, but I guess good enough. Need to cite about his father in WWI, and I don't like the "legacy" section at all. It's just a quote, with an internal link instead of a reference. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:00, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- Comment. His life was unusual enough where I think if someone fixes the 2 unreferenced sentences and perhaps adds a paragraph more, I would support it. He was rather well-known both in Bulgaria and outside of it. Inatan (talk) 16:52, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- @Inatan:, for future reference, see the bottom line in the template above, which says that "the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post". The unusual nature of his life makes the article interesting despite its size, but isn't a factor in whether or not we should post it. Only the quality issues you and I have mentioned. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:03, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- Ah, thank you. Inatan (talk) 17:05, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
RD: Prince Henrik of Denmark
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Kongehuset (Danish royal house)
Credits:
- Nominated by Grngu (talk · give credit)
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.
Grngu (talk) 03:53, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- Does this rise to the level of a blurb? Lepricavark (talk) 04:23, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- No; he was old, and he was not part of the governing body (hence the "consort" part of his title). RD is sufficient here. --Masem (t) 04:34, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose too many sentences without references, and still a few updates needed to cover the fact he was and no longer is... The Rambling Man (talk) 07:50, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Support. The man himself was quite notable. I went through the article, and about half of what looked at first like uncited claims are just unconventionally supported. The rest of the article is well-cited enough, with the glaring exception of the lead. Fix that, and the article is ready. Inatan (talk) 12:09, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- Um, "unconventionally supported?" Can you flesh out that thought a bit? GCG (talk) 12:47, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- The way I'm reading it, some of the lists of honors are sourced by one reference preceding the list rather that per-title. That's fine. But there remain other more critical sourcing issues like the children/grandchildren and various CNs tags about. --Masem (t) 14:41, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- It does not look like anyone will take the time to fix the issues soon. Inatan (talk) 16:48, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- The way I'm reading it, some of the lists of honors are sourced by one reference preceding the list rather that per-title. That's fine. But there remain other more critical sourcing issues like the children/grandchildren and various CNs tags about. --Masem (t) 14:41, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- Um, "unconventionally supported?" Can you flesh out that thought a bit? GCG (talk) 12:47, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
[Posted] RD: Marty Allen
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The New York Times
Credits:
- Nominated by TDKR Chicago 101 (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see 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) 22:20, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support seems alright to me. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:22, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- Posted Stephen 01:13, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
February 12
February 12, 2018
(Monday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Arts and culture
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
|
RD: Fethia Mzali
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): "Décès de la militante, ancienne présidente de l'UNFT et ancienne ministre de la Famille, Fethia Mzali". Huffington Post Maghreb. 12 February 2018. Retrieved 15 February 2018.; M'barek, Asma (12 February 2018). "Décès de Fethia Mzali". Radio Express. Retrieved 15 February 2018.; "FETHIA MZALI, PREMIÈRE FEMME MINISTRE DE L'HISTOIRE TUNISIENNE EST DÉCÉDÉE". Beur FM. 14 February 2018. Retrieved 15 February 2018.
Credits:
- Nominated by Zigzig20s (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Zigzig20s (talk) 14:45, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Malacidins
Blurb: Scientists discover a new class of antibiotics, the malacidins. (Post)
Alternative blurb: The malacidins, a new class of antibiotics, are discovered.
Alternative blurb II: The malacidins, a new class of antibacterial chemicals, are discovered.
News source(s): BBC, Nature Microbiology, The Independent
Credits:
- Nominated by Brandmeister (talk · give credit)
Nominator's comments: Currently stubbish, but maybe someone more knowledgeable will pick this up. Brandmeistertalk 14:55, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support, in principle. The discovery of a new antibiotic is undoubtedly important (even if we don't yet know if it can be used safely in humans), but the article still needs expansion before it would be ready for posting. Dragons flight (talk) 16:24, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- This now has my full support. The article has been expanded adequately. The concerns about WP:MEDRS are overzealous in my opinion, since this microbiology discovery is still years away from human testing, let alone being used as a treatment. Because MEDRS requires literature reviews and other secondary peer-reviewed studies, adhering to that standard would essentially prevent any new discovery from appearing in ITN, and I don't consider that outcome to be reasonable when the discovery is still far removed from any practical medical application. All the information has been sourced, and I would recommend posting in spite of the citation tags asking for secondary medical sources, since such literature reviews simply won't yet exist for ITN worthy discoveries. Dragons flight (talk) 10:36, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support I've added a section on their discovery which I believe helps to "dumb down" (at least, to the level that BBC was writing at which still was pretty high) the article to understand how these were found and their importance. --Masem (t) 16:30, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Support – major advancements in the medical field aren't terribly common and this seems worth posting. Amount of content in the article is borderline, but seems like just enough to me (>1,500 characters prose). ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 16:35, 13 February 2018 (UTC)- Rescinding my support due to concerns outlined by opposing comments. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:47, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support - an interesting discovery which may turn out to be very important and a decent enough article. I've put down an alt-blurb because I dislike "Scientists discover" as a term. --LukeSurl t c 16:40, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Seeing a lot about this, article seems adequate. Vanamonde (talk) 16:54, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose. The article is very preliminary, and all of this is based on one research paper. Natureium (talk) 17:47, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- This is generally the point where any scientific discovery is posted at ITN - a peer-reviewed research paper that is also covered in mainstream publications. The fact that it's a Nature-published paper means that the peers do not likely believe the researchers are wrong that this is a new family of antibotics. --Masem (t) 17:56, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support - adequate article even if short. Interesting discovery.BabbaQ (talk) 17:57, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- Comment I have no adequately educated opinion on this one, but consensus is clear. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:59, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support - exciting new discovery. Article is short but adequate. -Zanhe (talk) 19:20, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- Comment - Someone opened up discussion of this at WT:MED, where they are raising concerns about MEDRS issues. I personally don't think that's the case (Nature is on MEDRS), but may want to see their input here before posting. --Masem (t) 19:27, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- My personal opinion is that this is mostly a microbiology topic rather than a medicine one at this point. Right now there isn't a treatment available, or even a widely available compound that could be abused in untested treatments. Obviously, if things go well, the hope is to make a new treatment out of this, but treating this topic as medical information at this very preliminary stage feels like a bit of a stretch. Dragons flight (talk) 20:39, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- I wholly agree with Dragons flight here and have removed the tags. This currently is an article about microbiology, not a medicine (and will remain so for at several years at the least). Nature Microbiology is pretty much as good as it gets here. —LukeSurl t c 21:31, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- They were readded, but based on this discussion, it's clear that applying MEDRS at this stage is premature. I re-removed them. --Masem (t) 13:50, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support - an exciting discovery, happens rarely, has great implications. Banedon (talk) 20:00, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Article is currently tagged with possible issue of unreliable medical sources, talk at WT:MED about possible WP:NOTNEWS as well as needing genuine attestation by independent sources, this is not ready for mainpage actually. –Ammarpad (talk) 20:37, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- oppose -- the "excitement" here is exactly because we need new classes of chemistry for antibiotic drugs. It is kind of interesting from the standpoint of how some bacteria try to kill other kinds, but nobody really cares about that. The excitement is about the medical potential and the scariness of the "post antibiotic apocalypse" (actual phrase from the Independent article). And part of why MEDRS matters is keeping out all kinds of preliminary hype, be that from pharma or medical device shillers, or snake oil salespeople, or this kind of hype. Wikipeida's mission is to present articles that summarize accepted knowledge, not to be vehicle for hype. Jytdog (talk) 21:00, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- Mainstream coverage of science can go to hyperbole, no question the Independent here is opining that phrase. But we know we can avoid that here and stick to the relevant facts. From a scientific standpoint, it is a new class of antibiotics. It is comparable to discovering a new chemical element. Whether they end up in any practical application, that's only speculation, though understanding that it could fight drug-resistant bacteria is necessary to understand why the researchers ended up getting to this point. As long as we do not try to present this as snake oil either at the article or ITN, it is outside of the medical area at this point. Another way to view this is that this is at the basic research level; where MEDRS would be critical is when that research moved into the applied field. --Masem (t) 21:20, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- i could not disagree more. And while it remains true that the only reason anybody cares is because medicine, there are even more fundamental layers of risk here. The paper might not replicate at all. Even if it does, there is no way to know that any of these could be drugs (they might be toxic as hell for the liver for example). And even if they look interesting from a medical perspective, the chemistry might be impossible scale up (technically or economically). If the hook were way more microbiology driven (new class of chemicals that bacteria used to kill each other - who knows what it might be useful for) it would be OK with me. Not this. This is hype. (in case you are not catching it, the hook calls this "a new class of antibiotics". An antibioitic is a kind of drug. This will not be a new drug class until there actual drugs in it. We are at least ten years away from there being drugs based on this (if ever)
- News organizations jerk the public around with this kind of bullshit hype to make money. What is our excuse?
- it is actually really harmful. People see headlines like this, and they look around and wonder why we haven't cured cancer (or antibiotic resistance, or whatever) yet.
- everybody here should follow healthnewsreview.org. they are great. Jytdog (talk) 21:33, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- "Antibiotics" does not always mean "drug"; [1] "Originally, an antibiotic was a substance produced by one microorganism that selectively inhibits the growth of another." which is exactly this. That's how I read the research report; they are not speaking of it as a drug, only that it has potential for one if they can succeed in proving out its function and safety/non-toxicity to humans. --Masem (t) 21:45, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- you are arguing finely parsed rare shades of meaning, about a front page thing - you know as well as i do that every news organization that covered this, and the nominator, and pretty much every reader, thinks 'drug to kill bacteria" when they glance and read 'antibiotic". You are generally not a bullshitter. Don't start now. :) Jytdog (talk) 22:57, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- I'm not trying to BS here, I'm just recognizing that we have a terminology problem. I agree "antibiotics = drug" is the most common usage if we're looking at this from medicine/pharma, but "antibiotic = substance from a micro-organism that hampers other cells" is a valid term when talking from a biological aspect, and unfortunately lacking a different proper term (That I can find) to better distinguish it from the "drug" related definition. If we can apply more context in the blurb, that would help, but I don't know a simple way to do that yet. --Masem (t) 23:23, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- you are arguing finely parsed rare shades of meaning, about a front page thing - you know as well as i do that every news organization that covered this, and the nominator, and pretty much every reader, thinks 'drug to kill bacteria" when they glance and read 'antibiotic". You are generally not a bullshitter. Don't start now. :) Jytdog (talk) 22:57, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- "Antibiotics" does not always mean "drug"; [1] "Originally, an antibiotic was a substance produced by one microorganism that selectively inhibits the growth of another." which is exactly this. That's how I read the research report; they are not speaking of it as a drug, only that it has potential for one if they can succeed in proving out its function and safety/non-toxicity to humans. --Masem (t) 21:45, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- Mainstream coverage of science can go to hyperbole, no question the Independent here is opining that phrase. But we know we can avoid that here and stick to the relevant facts. From a scientific standpoint, it is a new class of antibiotics. It is comparable to discovering a new chemical element. Whether they end up in any practical application, that's only speculation, though understanding that it could fight drug-resistant bacteria is necessary to understand why the researchers ended up getting to this point. As long as we do not try to present this as snake oil either at the article or ITN, it is outside of the medical area at this point. Another way to view this is that this is at the basic research level; where MEDRS would be critical is when that research moved into the applied field. --Masem (t) 21:20, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support per Masem. Davey2116 (talk) 23:16, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- Weak Support - while I feel that some of the !votes are somewhat too enthusiastic, possibly ignoring the policy laid down at WP:CRYSTAL, there is no denying that this story is in the news, and that article quality is sufficient to merit posting at this juncture. Stormy clouds (talk) 23:23, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose per Ammarpad. Those tags have re-appeared so clearly the medical sourcing issue needs to be resolved before posting. Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:13, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- All the statements in Malacidin#Potential_applications are accurate summaries of statements from the Nature Microbiology paper and are sourced as such. This isn't a "classic" unsourced statements problem. This issue here is that at least one determined editor considers these to be medical statements, for which WP:MEDRS mandates that primary sources (which this is) are not acceptable. I don't think this is a medical article - there is no medicine that will be developed from this for years (if ever). I'm with Masem here, "antibiotic" does not necessarily equal "drug". This is a microbiology article. Perhaps we can rephrase the blurb and parts of the article to make this clearer, but I do think the tagging is over-zealous. --LukeSurl t c 09:59, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support. An interesting discovery in a field we rarely feature. The article itself does not appear to be making medical claims, just microbiological ones, so the arguments above based on WP:MEDRS do not convince me. Publication in a peer-reviewed journal is the standard we apply to scientific discoveries, which has been met. Over-zealous tagging should be removed, not prevent us featuring this on ITN. Modest Genius talk 13:22, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- I'll also add that we posted the discovery of teixobactin in 2015, without any MEDRS concerns. Modest Genius talk 19:01, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- that is a great example of WP:Other stuff exists. That article needs a bunch of work. Jytdog (talk) 20:29, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- Not really, this isn't an AfD discussion. My point is it shows we have previously seen the discovery of new antibiotic classes as important enough for ITN. If you think teixobactin needs improvement then feel free to work on it; it was good enough to post on ITN. Modest Genius talk 12:19, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- that is a great example of WP:Other stuff exists. That article needs a bunch of work. Jytdog (talk) 20:29, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support There is no suggestion in the blurb that this is a drug. As science news, this is as notable as the stuff we usually post. GCG (talk) 13:44, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- Comment Unrelated to this nomination, I've started a discussion at WT:MEDRS about delineating microbiological discovered from biomedcial coverage (eg when MEDRS does and doesn't apply). --Masem (t) 16:47, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support. An important scientific development. I don't see any tags in the article now, so it seems to me that it is ready to go. Nsk92 (talk) 17:24, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- You have no evidence that it is an important scientific development, except your slavish belief in the hype. Abductive (reasoning) 17:36, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- "Don't believe the hype!!" The Rambling Man (talk) 19:20, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose, just because the tags have been removed doesn't mean the the MEDRS problem was solved. There is still only one primary source and a bunch of hyping lay media "sources" doesn't fix that. Abductive (reasoning) 17:34, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- comment - I have gone through and removed medicalish claims (what we know now, is that these chemicals kill bacteria; we don't know that they can treat infections in people). I also added, per one of refs, that we won't know for many years if there will be a drug based on these. i also removed "antibiotic" from the first sentence and replaced that with "chemicals made by bacteria" with an underlying WP to secondary metabolites, which is what these are. Jytdog (talk) 20:01, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support. MedRS plainly doesn't apply as long as ITN & the article are completely clear that this is not a class of clinically active drugs. The problem is that 'antibiotic' has two meanings, 'clinical antibiotic' & 'chemical with antimicrobial activity', but most people will read it to mean the first. I have proposed an alternate wording that might help. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:33, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
[Posted] Cyclone Gita
Blurb: Cyclone Gita (satellite image pictured) becomes the strongest storm on record to strike Tonga and causes extensive damage. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Cyclone Gita (satellite image pictured) strikes Tonga, the strongest to hit the nation in over 60 years, and causes extensive damage.
News source(s): New Zealand Herald, USAToday, BBC
Credits:
- Nominated by Cyclonebiskit (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Jason Rees (talk · give credit) and Cyclonebiskit (talk · give credit)
Nominator's comments: Significant impact in a region (South Pacific islands) that rarely gets ITN attention. High-end Category 4 (Aus scale) impact in Tonga makes it the strongest on record (60+ years) for that nation. Damage reports are only just starting to come out, but it appears to have caused widespread damage. I think the record strength for Tonga should be enough for ITN but I'll leave that to you all. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 10:23, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support - weather phenomena are common enough at ITN, but the large scale of the storm means that this is notable. Normally, the low fatality count would deter me, but I will defer here to the wisdom of our resident meteorologist, as his judgement on storms is rarely awry. Stormy clouds (talk) 10:37, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- Wait until the dust settles. Currently only 1 unofficial death and one category short of strongest on the scale of 5. Brandmeistertalk 11:01, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- While it fell short of being a Category 5 on the Aus scale, it was only just short by 5 knots which ain’t significant since systems are regularly adjusted by 5-10 kts in either direction during post storm analysis.Jason Rees (talk) 11:19, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Opposeright now. Windy, inconvenient, damaging, but very limited in impact so far. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:26, 13 February 2018 (UTC)- The Rambling Man I wouldn't really say limited impact: nationwide curfew, estimated 40% of homes damaged/destroyed in capital city, "whole areas [flattened]". ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 11:47, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- Not to belabor the point, but generally "impact" for a storm in context to ITN usually refers to number of fatalities, rather than general land area affected.--WaltCip (talk) 12:01, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- WaltCip I try to keep my cyclone nominations contextual to the areas affected. In regards to Tonga, multiple fatalities are not common from these storms so impact is the better metric. Best I can tell, the last fatal cyclone in Tonga was Cyclone Ian in 2014 and the last one to cause multiple fatalities was Cyclone Kina back in 1993. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 12:15, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- I'll concede to Weak support - while the impact seems localised, it seems pretty devastating, so switching my position. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:01, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- WaltCip I try to keep my cyclone nominations contextual to the areas affected. In regards to Tonga, multiple fatalities are not common from these storms so impact is the better metric. Best I can tell, the last fatal cyclone in Tonga was Cyclone Ian in 2014 and the last one to cause multiple fatalities was Cyclone Kina back in 1993. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 12:15, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- Not to belabor the point, but generally "impact" for a storm in context to ITN usually refers to number of fatalities, rather than general land area affected.--WaltCip (talk) 12:01, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- The Rambling Man I wouldn't really say limited impact: nationwide curfew, estimated 40% of homes damaged/destroyed in capital city, "whole areas [flattened]". ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 11:47, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose – Per TRM, Walt. Plus, the article is not written in encyclopedic style. The first sentence says "is currently," and the article even includes a section headed "Current storm information." ITN, and Wiki, are not news portals. Sca (talk) 14:38, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- Sca: The "current storm information" has been around since tropical cyclone articles began populating Wiki in 2004. It has never been an issue with ITN/C nor Wiki as a whole to my knowledge. It's an easy-update that gets phased out once the system is no longer a tropical cyclone. I reworded the opening to avoid the non-encyclopedic style there, however. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 14:51, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- ⇒ The fact that it's been done does not make it ipso facto correct. IMO, current and currently should not be used in encyclopedia articles, as the reference could become outdated at any time. For similar reasons, past-tense verbs should be used, as most articles will outlive the present-tense status of breaking news. Sca (talk) 15:37, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- I would bet my house on this being updated in a timely manner once it's in the past. Due to a cadre of dedicated editors, the English Wikipedia has fantastic articles on tropical cyclones. Articles should strive to be accurate as possible, and this includes using the present tense when appropriate. We don't write all BLPs in the past tense because at some point in the future that person will die. The article in question here is headed with {{current weather event}} which expressly tells readers that information is subject to change. --LukeSurl t c 15:55, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- Are we a news-aggregation site or an encyclopedia? Other eds have been telling me for years that Wiki is not a 'news ticker' (to use the British phrase). Sca (talk) 16:03, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- I would bet my house on this being updated in a timely manner once it's in the past. Due to a cadre of dedicated editors, the English Wikipedia has fantastic articles on tropical cyclones. Articles should strive to be accurate as possible, and this includes using the present tense when appropriate. We don't write all BLPs in the past tense because at some point in the future that person will die. The article in question here is headed with {{current weather event}} which expressly tells readers that information is subject to change. --LukeSurl t c 15:55, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- ⇒ The fact that it's been done does not make it ipso facto correct. IMO, current and currently should not be used in encyclopedia articles, as the reference could become outdated at any time. For similar reasons, past-tense verbs should be used, as most articles will outlive the present-tense status of breaking news. Sca (talk) 15:37, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support A random bus crash or snooker tournament gets in ITN. Certainly a country's largest storm on record and the destruction of its parliament is worthy of note. Gamaliel (talk) 14:53, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support destructive storm, towards the low end of the disasters we typically post here in terms of the human cost. However the article is very good, and, if Cyclonebiskit & WikiProject Tropical cyclones track record is anything to go by, it will probably be literally good or better in short order. There seems to be very little to lose by posting this, and we have the opportunity to keep ITN fresh with a top quality article. --LukeSurl t c 16:03, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Storms of this intensity for this area of the world are rare, and it is fortunate that the death toll is so low (if not even nil). But the damage is extensive and the arpeggio nature of Tonga and other island countries hit make restoration going to be difficult. --Masem (t) 18:00, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support - in the news everywhere for destroying Tonga's parliament building. Article is well written. -Zanhe (talk) 19:24, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support a big deal for the country. Banedon (talk) 20:03, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Article looks detailed and well referenced. –Ammarpad (talk) 20:51, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- Posted. SpencerT♦C 00:25, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
[Posted] RD: Luo Haocai
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Zaobao
Credits:
- Nominated by TDKR Chicago 101 (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Zanhe (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see 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) 04:00, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support - as updater. -Zanhe (talk) 04:17, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- Weak support it's brief but what's there is referenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:10, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- Weak Support - Quite short but fully referenced. I think RD posting is to be accepted here.BabbaQ (talk) 09:02, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support - article is very short, but it is sourced to its fullest extent. Good work @Zanhe:. Ready to go now. Stormy clouds (talk) 09:08, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- Posting. --Tone 10:24, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
[Closed] David Grossman wins the 2018 Israel Prize for Literature
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.
Blurb: David Grossman wins the 2018 Israel Prize for Literature (Post)
News source(s): Zur, Yarden (February 12, 2018). "Author David Grossman Wins the 2018 Israel Prize for Literature". Haaretz. Retrieved February 12, 2018.; Grave-Lazi, Lidar (February 12, 2018). "ISRAEL PRIZE IN LITERATURE TO BE AWARDED TO DAVID GROSSMAN". The Jerusalem Post. Retrieved February 12, 2018.;
Credits:
- Nominated by Zigzig20s (talk · give credit)
- Comment This isn't my area of expertise, but I can't seem to remember us posting any national honors before; every state has a few, after all. Vanamonde (talk) 16:24, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Barring exceptional circumstances, awards of national recognition like this, National Medal of Technology and Innovation, etc. should not be featured in ITN due to the potential to flood the noms with several similar awards. --Masem (t) 16:24, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose. There are 200+ countries in the world, most of which are considerably more significant than Israel, and almost all of which have multiple awards of this nature. I could probably keep ITN full for an entire year just with the winners of equivalent awards in various fields in the US and UK, all of which are likely to be of considerably more interest to English Wikipedia's readers. If anything, we should probably be reducing the number of awards we cover (how many readers actually care about the Hugo Award for Best Novel), not adding more. ‑ Iridescent 16:33, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose national prize, and literature is just one field. List of Israel Prize recipients shows 257 total winners since 2000, 14 yearly on average. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:41, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Minor award. Unknown author. The blurb's probably created by a family member or the author himself. Should SNOWclose this. Naj'entus (talk) 17:08, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- That seems unlikely. Your theory would make sense if the nominator was a single-purpose account, but in the fact the nom has made nearly 150K edits over a span of more than 11 years. Lepricavark (talk) 17:32, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose per everything said above. So many prizes are given out each year, and this doesn't rise close to the level of ITN. Lepricavark (talk) 17:32, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
February 11
February 11, 2018
(Sunday)
Disasters and accidents
Law and crime
Politics and elections
|
[Posted] RD: Tom Rapp
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Rolling Stone
Credits:
- Nominated by Ghmyrtle (talk · give credit)
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: Updated article. Influential singer-songwriter from 1960s/70s as leader of Pearls Before Swine. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:53, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Article is well sourced and looks ready for RD. –Ammarpad (talk) 13:05, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support looks good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:47, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- Posted Stephen 22:51, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
RD: Chris Stockwell
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Toronto StarCBC
Credits:
- Nominated by Floydian (talk · give credit)
Article needs updating
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 long-term Toronto City Councillor. Article is decently sourced, but requires some work to bring up to par. Floydian τ ¢ 18:31, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose too much unreferenced material in there for this BLP. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:52, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
[Posted] RD: Jan Maxwell
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Playbill
Credits:
- Nominated by TDKR Chicago 101 (talk · give credit)
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: Well-sourced and updated --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:25, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Well-sourced, no quality issues here. --Masem (t) 02:49, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- Posted Stephen 03:05, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
[Posted] Saratov Airlines Flight 703
Blurb: Saratov Airlines Flight 703 (aircraft pictured) crashes in Russia killing 71 people on board. (Post)
News source(s): all over the news for example [2]
Credits:
- Nominated by Naj'entus (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Mjroots (talk · give credit) and Mareklug (talk · give credit)
Nominator's comments: Major crash. Naj'entus (talk) 13:28, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Short but fundamental details are there, more only to come in time. --Masem (t) 13:40, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support samee talk 14:01, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support - apparent mid-air collision, all on board the airliner killed. Mjroots (talk) 14:02, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support - many deaths. Mid air collision. Fully referenced.BabbaQ (talk) 14:04, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support per all the above. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 15:21, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- Posted -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:26, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
[Posted] RD: Asma Jahangir
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Tribune
Credits:
- Nominated by Saqib (talk · give credit)
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: Well-sourced and notable personality of Pakistan... Saqib (talk) 09:16, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support - Well sourced. Sherenk1 (talk) 10:41, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support - RD ready.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:45, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support - samee talk 14:00, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Ready for RD. –Ammarpad (talk) 14:59, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- Posted Vanamonde (talk) 15:37, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
February 10
February 10, 2018
(Saturday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
|
[Ready] Israel & Syria & Iran
Blurb: Israel attacks Syrian and Iranian positions in Syria after one of its warplanes is downed in the February 2018 Israel–Syria incident (Post)
Alternative blurb: Syrian air defenses shoot down an Israeli F-16 warplane, prompting Israeli retaliatory airstrikes on Iranian positions in Syria, which kill at least 25.
News source(s): [3] [4] [5]
Credits:
- Nominated by Banedon (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Ethanbas (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Nominator's comments: First time an advanced Israeli warplane has been shot down by enemy fire in 36 years. Banedon (talk) 09:59, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose put it on a watching brief and if anything actually happens as a result then reconsider. This isn't on the BBC News homepage, either the main one or even the "World News" one. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:06, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- As per the article “The February 2018 Israel–Syria incident took place on 10 February 2018”. This should be the date of the nomination and the blurb should be about that military exchange rather than the aftermath. —LukeSurl t c 10:11, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support in principle; article is in good shape; though as noted above this should be a Feb 10 nomination and the blurb should be one that highlights the plane shootdown, so the blurb needs some work. --Jayron32 15:25, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support per above, added alt-blurb. Davey2116 (talk) 06:22, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support - per above.BabbaQ (talk) 09:59, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- Comment still not really "in the news" is it? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:02, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose per TRM - this item simply is not appearing in any news feeds that I frequent, and I have to go digging to find it. If, while reading a wide and disparate array of sources, the discussion at ITN/C is the only place where I hear about a news story, it is an indication that it may not merit posting. Stormy clouds (talk) 10:41, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- This was headline news on February 10/11 when it occurred. --LukeSurl t c 10:53, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- Or it's a consequence of geographic bias ... Banedon (talk) 11:18, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- It wasn't in the news when nominated, and isn't in the news now. It's stale. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:23, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- One more thing about "the discussion at ITN/C is the only place where I hear about a news story" - modern websites are undoubtedly capable of tracking your browsing or search history and matching its featured stories to match your interests. For example if you read every darts story but ignore all soccer stories, the website will eventually customize itself to show you darts stories even though darts is a much smaller sport than soccer. That could explain why you only see this at ITN/C. Banedon (talk) 20:34, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- How bizarre. I saw this story break and then I saw it quickly evaporate. It's a rare case of Wikipedia benefitting from it not being rushed to the main page as it's truly no longer in the news in any real way. As for your claim about the "undoubtedly capable" websites, no that's simply not true for the majority of news website homepages. They tailor your view if you log in and adjust it so, but if you don't, you get to see what the rest of the world sees. And in this case it was about three hours of coverage of the downed jet, then some editorials about what might happen next. Stale. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:23, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support - this is a major story, as Israel's involvement could herald a completely new phase and escalation of the war. I certainly saw it covered on front pages at the time, and there are plenty of articles covering it worldwide.[6][7][8][9] — Amakuru (talk) 10:46, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- Yeah, but all those articles are just saying what I said in my opening comment - wait and see what (if anything) really happens. Nothing is giving this proper main page full news coverage because nothing is really happening. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:25, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support The escalation is the news; what has already happened is news. "Let's wait and see" leads to continual incrementalism where no single step is enough to post, then we break out the stale votes. GCG (talk) 12:46, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- No it isn't in the news. Analysis of things that might happen next is on page 11 of the news, but nothing is "in the news", and only was momentarily on the day it happened (10 Feb), not even when it was nominated. You're right, it's stale. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:49, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support, with alt blurb (or similar) and date as February 10 - the time of the principal part of this incident. IIRC this was headline news at the time of the plane downing. The article is adequate to post. We require an item to have been in the news, but it doesn't necessarily have to still be in the headlines at the time of nomination or of posting. In fact, delaying nomination until an article is higher quality is often preferable. This nomination should have been under the Feb 10 header, but we can deal with that. --LukeSurl t c 12:50, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Pretty humdrum right now. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:55, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose While there seems to be potential to change what is happening in Syria due to the incident, it's media speculation and not that much of such at this point. The incident itself seems relatively minor to not post. --Masem (t) 14:09, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Well sourced, developed new article. Saw this in the news on the 10 February. To suggest this is stale when it is newer than the oldest blurb on the template goes to explain why random readers perceive ITN as stale. It also defeats the purpose of having a week long nomination system. This marks a new overt participant into the Syrian Civil War, similar to the 2015 Russian Sukhoi Su-24 shootdown - which we posted. Fuebaey (talk) 15:34, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support - major escalation in a long-running war. I've moved the nomination from Feb 12 to Feb 10, the correct date. -Zanhe (talk) 19:41, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
[Posted] RD: Jóhann Jóhannsson
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Variety
Credits:
- Nominated by Yorkshiresky (talk · give credit)
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: Golden Globe winning composer. Died unexpectedly, aged 48. Cause of death is unknown. Article's in reasonable shape but needs further references, especially the discography/filmography. yorkshiresky (talk) 18:50, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose until it's better referenced. Some of the inline citations are to IMDb, which is not a reliable source. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:04, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose too many referencing issues. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:55, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- Comment I've added several references and removed the contentious ones. Some of the theatre work is finding difficult to ref. Can someone have a look to see what needs done? yorkshiresky (talk) 14:10, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- @Yorkshiresky: I've tagged two things that need citations. Everything else is there, and really is close. --Masem (t) 02:51, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- @Masem: filled in citations as requested.yorkshiresky (talk) 09:07, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- Comment I've added several references and removed the contentious ones. Some of the theatre work is finding difficult to ref. Can someone have a look to see what needs done? yorkshiresky (talk) 14:10, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Referencing issues appear to have been dealt with. --Masem (t) 16:01, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- Posted. --Jayron32 17:43, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
[Ongoing] 2018 Winter Olympics
Ongoing item nomination (Post)
Credits:
- Nominated by Kiril Simeonovski (talk · give credit)
Nominator's comments: I'm a bit surprised that this hasn't been added to ongoing as the Winter Olympics are underway and medals in several events have already been awarded. It's also a bit troublesome to navigate through the chronological summary without a direct link from the main page. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:02, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- With the current blurb on the opening ceremony, there's no need for ongoing, and I'm pretty sure its established once that falls off the ongoing is automatic. --Masem (t) 13:06, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- However, we always link to the main event page, not to the timeline. --Masem (t) 13:07, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- We have always linked to the chronological summary (please see for the 2016 Summer Olympics and 2014 Winter Olympics as an example) regardless of the blurb reporting about the opening ceremony (please see also for the 2016 Summer Olympics and 2014 Winter Olympics as another example).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:35, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- Nevermind, then. The only thing I would be concerned with is the collasped tables for summary of results - I would expect some visible prose on the list. (I see the 2016 one is the only other one with this collapsed format, and its not really helpful, to me. ) --Masem (t) 16:37, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- We have always linked to the chronological summary (please see for the 2016 Summer Olympics and 2014 Winter Olympics as an example) regardless of the blurb reporting about the opening ceremony (please see also for the 2016 Summer Olympics and 2014 Winter Olympics as another example).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:35, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- However, we always link to the main event page, not to the timeline. --Masem (t) 13:07, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose - do not feel that simultaneous listings at ongoing and as a blurb are required. Stormy clouds (talk) 21:50, 10 February 2018 (UTC) - NB: This nomination was previously closed by me, but has been reopened per the wishes of the nominator.
- Comment If the blurb reporting about the opening ceremony is the problem, then we could pull it in order to move the story to ongoing. The opening ceremony is not the main news for a such event any more.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:42, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support pull and move to ongoing. This is the logical decision in my view. Stormy clouds (talk) 15:35, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose doing anything until this naturally rolls off the bottom of the list, and at that point we can shift it to ongoing. --Jayron32 15:26, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- In my opinion, the suggested list of results (chronological summary) fails as an encyclopedic article and, as a stub, shouldn't be listed on the front page. Until proper prose sections are added, I believe 2018 Winter Olympics would be a more appropriate article to list on the front page. ~Mable (chat) 10:57, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support, even if we need to apply a little WP:IAR to the normal rules for ITN. It is definitely "in the news", it is well-updated and referenced, and it condenses all the most information related to the broader topic that is in the news into one convenient yet informative article. I don't really see the need to pull the opening ceremony if this were posted to ongoing, but I would support it if that were necessary for some reason, as this is the part that is currently "in the news" and the article that would be much more difficult to find than (rather than the opening ceremony one). Canadian Paul 15:11, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
[Closed] Gerry Adams steps down
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.
Blurb: Gerry Adams steps down as the leader of Sinn Féin. (Post)
News source(s): The Irish Times
Credits:
- Nominated by Stormy clouds (talk · give credit)
Article needs updating
- Comment. Retirements don't usually get consensus to post except in very rare circumstances which could probably be counted on one hand(during my time here at least). Adams might arguably merit a blurb when he passes(the case could be made at least) but I'm not sure about right now. 331dot (talk) 12:10, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose as it’s entirely expected - it was announced in November last year. There is no shock or scandal; this is routine. Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:59, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose good faith nom. Politicians come and go, even highly controversial ones. N. Ireland is not the only place that has them and if we post this we are opening a door that I think should remain closed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:28, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- Neutral I think the opposes are underselling just how big Adams' role was in contemporary Irish history. There aren't a lot of people like this, full stop. However, I think the time has passed for Adams resignation to really signal much of anything. Had he gone in '98 or perhaps in '06, that would have been quite indicative. Now it just seems an acknowledgment that the party is better off without his baggage. GCG (talk) 16:29, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose local politics, I remember him not even being allowed to be reported using his own voice ("Gerry Adams' voice is played by an actor"), but regardless, he's a politician who has announced retirement. No big deal. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:54, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose as local politics, and while he may be important in NI he's not remotely "one of the most significant and controversial figures in recent British history"; he's the leader of a party with 7 MPs, a handful of local councils and part of a power-sharing administration in a province whose entire population is roughly 2⁄3 that of Manchester, not some kind of major political force. Note that, even with the "allegedly" you've stuck in there,
Adams was (allegedly) one of the most important figures both in governing the Provisional IRA
is on extremely shaky ground legally, since he's always consistently denied that he has any connection to PIRA, and it's probably not a claim you want to be making on the sixth most-viewed site on the internet. ‑ Iridescent 22:05, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- Redacted. Stormy clouds (talk) 22:15, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
References
[Posted] Hong Kong bus accident
Blurb: A bus accident kills 19 in Hong Kong. (Post)
Alternative blurb: A bus accident kills 19 and injures 65 in Hong Kong.
News source(s): The New York Times, Time, The Guardian
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by Citobun (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Nominator's comments: Second deadliest road accident in Hong Kong history. Citobun (talk) 10:52, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- It's well-sourced and expanded for a new article, with international news coverage. While not the largest bus death toll this weekend, it occurred in an area that suffers from infrequent bus crashes (the last serious one being in 2003). I think it comes down to whether consensus wants to post another disaster on ITN. Fuebaey (talk) 13:03, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support - major accident with high death toll. Article is well written. If someone writes an article for the Indonesian bus crash, I guess the two can be combined in a single blurb. -Zanhe (talk) 20:38, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support - the high death toll, coupled with the rarity of bus accidents in that neck of the woods, give this item the required significance for posting in my view. Stormy clouds (talk) 21:02, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support per Zanhe and Stormy clouds. Davey2116 (talk) 00:20, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support - high number of deaths for this type of accident. article is well written.BabbaQ (talk) 00:41, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- Posted -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:58, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
February 9
February 9, 2018
(Friday)
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Science and technology
Sport
|
[Stale] RD: Reg E. Cathey
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Variety, Rolling Stone
Credits:
- Nominated by PootisHeavy (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Well-sourced and notable for his portrayal of multiple characters in popular TV shows. The only obstacle may be the article's modest size, however. --PootisHeavy (talk) 02:58, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support strongly. Portrayed important characters on some of the most critically acclaimed television series of the 21st century, as well as a multi-time award nominee. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 03:50, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose large gaps in sourcing. Needs work. About 1/3 of the text in the largest section lacks any references at all. Zero references for filmography. Very first reference in reference section is to an unreliable source. Needs a lot of work to be main page ready.--Jayron32 04:34, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose It's not horrible, but referencing does need some work. Hopefully this can be addressed in short order. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:32, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose very much under-referenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:53, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose per lack of sufficient sourcing. Lepricavark (talk) 00:37, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
[Posted] RD: Liam Miller
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Irish Times
Credits:
- Nominated by Harambe Walks (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Irish international soccer player whose career had time at Celtic and Manchester United. Good Article, only qualm is that the career statistics miss his last two seasons. Harambe Walks (talk) 23:45, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support and marked ready (I've sourced the last two seasons of his career). Everything else is fine - this is a Good Article. Black Kite (talk) 00:08, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Article is up to date, GA too. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 12:39, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- Posted -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:37, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
[Stale] RD: John Gavin
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NYtimes, variety
Credits:
- Nominated by GreatCaesarsGhost (talk · give credit)
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) 23:41, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support on improvement Reasonably sourced, but the Business Career paragraph needs a big haircut and the prose is mostly bullet-pointed, needs turning into actual paragraphs. Black Kite (talk) 00:33, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose too much unreferenced material in there, especially around the filmography, the "unmade films" etc. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:39, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
[Stale] RD: Ebony Reigns
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Evening Standard, Metro
Credits:
- Nominated by TDKR Chicago 101 (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Spot check shows decent sourcing but I think it has some rough edges for improvement. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 16:37, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Weak support Kinda thin but good enough. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:01, 9 February 2018 (UTC)- Switch to oppose Looks like some IPs have worsened the article since I last saw it. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:50, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose at the moment Majority of the article is unsourced. Black Kite (talk) 19:16, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose unreferenced mainly. By no means good enough. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:37, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- @The Rambling Man:, @Black Kite:, @Muboshgu:: I have no idea what happened to the article, but looking at the history of the article, the quality of the state of the article when this nomination was made was diminished in the time when the last two votes were cast. Please check the article now that it has been restored. Per Muboshgu is corrected the IP edits has worsened the article, but I have fixed it. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:21, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- Comment. The version I looked at was not of anything like acceptable quality. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:26, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose as a stub. Also unsure as to why my edits were reverted for ITN purposes. Fuebaey (talk) 12:21, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
[Posted] 2018 Winter Olympics
Blurb: The 2018 Winter Olympics open in Pyeongchang, South Korea. (Post)
Credits:
- Nominated by Yogwi21 (talk · give credit)
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 opening ceremony article in its present form is not ready for main page yet. Yogwi21 (talk) 13:23, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support article is in good shape; would also support letting this go to ongoing when it rolls off the bottom of the blurbs list. --Jayron32 13:32, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
- The opening is actually tomorrow. But sure, this is ITNR, and ongoing after the blurb rolls out is what we commonly do for the Olympics. --Tone 14:08, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
- Although some events do begin before the opening ceremony, I would prefer to wait until that occurs (this ceremony is the ITNR event, and "opening" generally implies the opening ceremony rather than the low-key first brush of the curling mixed doubles). We can see what the 2018 Winter Olympics opening ceremony article is like once the event has taken place. --LukeSurl t c 14:26, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support. Waiting of course about 24 hours from this comment, when the opening ceremony happens. Inatan (talk) 14:32, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support For obvious reasons. Major event. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naj'entus (talk • contribs) 12:19, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- Comment Moving to the appropriate date. Also, the opening ceremony article not being ready, we can use the main article and eventually update the blurb later. --Tone 12:21, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support the main article in the blurb as Tone suggests.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:24, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support in principle. The article is in good shape and a link to the summary can now be added to ongoing.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:07, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- Posting now that the tenses in the main article have been updated. --Tone 14:41, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
[Posted] RD: Jill Messick
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [10]
Credits:
- Nominated by Deoliveirafan (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Spot check shows decent sourcing but I think it has some rough edges for improvement. --Deoliveirafan (talk) 05:46, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- Weak oppose looks okay, most of what there relates to Weinstein which, while important, seems to me to be given a little undue weight. Her film career isn't really covered at all, and she's not even mentioned in some of those film articles, so references are required. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:17, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Well referenced now. GCG (talk) 13:26, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- Comment I'm not sure if this prevents posting but there are definitely undue weight issues as TRM notes. We have "Jill Messick was an American film producer" and then virtually the whole of the rest of the article is about Weinstein, McGowan and her suicide.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:52, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Opposereiterating the problems TRM and Pawnkingthree point out. The way this is presented, it fails WP:BLP1E (the event being the Weinstein accusations and her role in it) negliciting anything about her actual career. Unfortunately a search of pre-July 2017 stories shows very little (though I'm just scanning google news, this is by no means complete). If there is more outside of listing her film credits, that must be added. Otherwise, this should be merged elsewhere per BLP1E. --Masem (t) 14:16, 9 February 2018 (UTC)- All my issues with BLP1E have been dealt with by expanding her career section. Support. --Masem (t) 18:18, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose I agree the article gives undue weight to Rose McGowan and not enough weight to her own career. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:03, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- Comment as nominator. It is a new stub article that should be expanded (I'm currently too busy myself for the next few days) and a better search of older articles may result in a more complete Bio, but the recent death is currently newsworthy, which is why I believe it should be listed.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 16:46, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- No-one is stating they believe the death or the article to be non-notable, indeed it's on the homepage of the BBC News website right now, but we examine only quality here for RD, nothing else, and right now the strong consensus is that the stub (which it isn't) pays far too much attention to the Weinstein connection and not enough time coverage the individual in question's life in totality. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:49, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oh another posthumously created article. Tyler Hilinski didn't get posted in spite of it being a much higher quality article than this. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:51, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- (ec) I'm not sure what "except when..." relates to, or to whom it's addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:53, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- I reworded what I wrote around the same time you saw it. My initial comment wasn't clear. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:56, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- Hilinski was closed with no support as stale with concerns over GNG if I recall correctly, he certainly wasn't featured on the main page of the global BBC News website. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:58, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oh well then, BBC is the sole arbiter of everything then. Didn't realize. GNG concerns, but nobody took it to AfD. Meanwhile, this article is primarily about Rose McGowan and not Messick herself, so we're not concerned about GNG here? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:02, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- GNG is an issue yes, but it is more BLP1E (which has higher priority). By meeting the GNG here for anything outside of the Weinstein stuff, that BLP1E would go away as well. --Masem (t) 17:05, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- No, it's just an example of a report of a death that was certainly global since they weren't British and made it onto the homepage of the BBC. I suspect if you bother to Google it, Messick's death will be covered in multiple continents, across dozens of countries, etc etc. Your belated comment about GNG has been picked up by just about every reviewer (including me about 8 hours ago), so I'm not sure what additional information or point you're bringing to this. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:07, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oh well then, BBC is the sole arbiter of everything then. Didn't realize. GNG concerns, but nobody took it to AfD. Meanwhile, this article is primarily about Rose McGowan and not Messick herself, so we're not concerned about GNG here? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:02, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- Hilinski was closed with no support as stale with concerns over GNG if I recall correctly, he certainly wasn't featured on the main page of the global BBC News website. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:58, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- I reworded what I wrote around the same time you saw it. My initial comment wasn't clear. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:56, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- (ec) I'm not sure what "except when..." relates to, or to whom it's addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:53, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support Article seems to have evolved since the initial concerns. Reading this, I have no concerns about content or referencing in terms of main page readiness. --Jayron32 17:48, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- There remains - outside the lede - only exactly one paragraph that has zero connection to the Weinstein accusations. That's not sufficient. While its well-referenced, that state failed BLP1E. --Masem (t) 18:00, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Per the opposition above, the article only overwhelmingly reflects the Weinstein-McGowan events with little noting on Messick's career. I have faith however that the nominator, Deoliveirafan, as stated will expand the article when time opens up. Afterwards I will change my vote. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:55, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- In re:BLP1E, doesn't the manner of death constitute a notable event that is distinct from the scandal itself? GCG (talk) 23:16, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- As best as I read sources, her suicide was directly tied to how her involvement in the Weinstein accusations became known. It's part of the same event. And even still, if the suicide was fully separate (at which point I don't know how much coverage there would be with it), the combination of BLP1E and BLPCRIME would still suggest no article about her, barring the ability to fill in her career absent the accusations. --Masem (t) 00:41, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose, another posthumous article that would undoubtedly have failed WP:BLP1E yesterday. Black Kite (talk) 00:31, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- CommentIt has been expanded to the best of my ability to find older articles about her full career.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 08:13, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- Good job, thank you for expanding it. --Masem (t) 18:20, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- I'm happy enough to lend my support for this having seen the career section (and tag) I added yesterday expanded during the last six hours. Fuebaey (talk) 12:39, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- Posted Stephen 21:56, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
February 8
February 8, 2018
(Thursday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and economy
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Sports
|
[New] Khaleda Zia
Blurb: Former Bangladesh Prime Minister Khaleda Zia is jailed following a five-year sentence on corruption charges. (Post)
News source(s): NYT, BBC, AJ, DW
Credits:
- Nominated by 39.57.163.249 (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Mar11 (talk · give credit), Ominictionary (talk · give credit) and Zincozuma (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Nominator's comments: Still getting coverage on media like BBC though I anticipate oppose votes based on the depth of update. 39.57.163.249 (talk) 07:01, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support This seems pretty notable. The article update is adequate. Davey2116 (talk) 07:55, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose on article quality. Far too many unreferenced claims in this BLP. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:49, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support - She is the first Muslim female prime minister in the world and three times prime minster of Bangladesh. Currently, she is facing around 35 charges and for the recent verdict she will not be able to contest in the 2018 general election of Bangladesh. A serious issue for global politics. - Mar11 (talk) 05:05, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support per above, plus the fact that imprisoning a former head of state doesn't happen often. Banedon (talk) 05:13, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support:- Precisely, it is a important story and should be displayed at wikinews. I want to correct Mar11 about Zia's being first Muslim prime minister, it was Benazir Bhutto. This was a mistake by AJ, which has rcently claimed that Zia was first muslim female PM. Whatever it doesn't matter here. Ominictionary (talk) 08:40, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- This is not Wikinews. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:50, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- Regretful oppose based on article quality. Not only does the article have a lot of unreferenced material, it skates over the fact that her political stance has a strong strain of religious nationalism; which should be acknowledged, whether or not you support that sort of thing. Vanamonde (talk) 12:38, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- Comment I'm surprised to see so many people supporting a BLP which has so many unreferenced claims. We could have 1000 supports right now, but no capable admin is ever going to post this with so many problems. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:40, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose - almost half of the article is unsourced. No way this BLP can be posted in its current state. -Zanhe (talk) 19:38, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
References
Nominators often include links to external websites and other references in discussions on this page. It is usually best to provide such links using the inline URL syntax [http://example.com] rather than using <ref></ref> tags, because that keeps all the relevant information in the same place as the nomination without having to jump to this section, and facilitates the archiving process.
For the times when <ref></ref> tags are being used, here are their contents: