This candidates page is integrated with the daily pages of Portal:Current events. A light green header appears under each daily section – it includes transcluded Portal:Current events items for that day. You can discuss ITN candidates under the header.
Blurbs are one-sentence summaries of the news story.
Altblurbs, labelled alt1, alt2, etc., are alternative suggestions to cover the same story.
A target article, bolded in text, is the focus of the story. Each blurb must have at least one such article, but you may also link non-target articles.
Articles in the Ongoing line describe events getting continuous coverage.
The Recent deaths (RD) line includes any living thing whose death was recently announced. Consensus may decide to create a blurb for a recent death.
All articles linked in the ITN template must pass our standards of review. They should be up-to-date, demonstrate relevance via good sourcing and have at least an acceptable quality.
Nomination steps
Make sure the item you want to nominate has an article that meets our minimum requirements and contains reliable coverage of a current event you want to create a blurb about. We will not post about events described in an article that fails our quality standards.
Find the correct section below for the date of the event (not the date nominated). Do not add sections for new dates manually – a bot does that for us each day at midnight (UTC).
Create a level 4 header with the article name (==== Your article here ====). Add (RD) or (Ongoing) if appropriate.
Then paste the {{ITN candidate}} template with its parameters and fill them in. The news source should be reliable, support your nomination and be in the article. Write your blurb in simple present tense. Below the template, briefly explain why we should post that event. After that, save your edit. Your nomination is ready!
You may add {{ITN note}} to the target article's talk page to let editors know about your nomination.
The better your article's quality, the better it covers the event and the wider its perceived significance (see WP:ITNSIGNIF for details), the better your chances of getting the blurb posted.
When the article is ready, updated and there is consensus to post, you can mark the item as (Ready). Remove that wording if you feel the article fails any of these necessary criteria.
Admins should always separately verify whether these criteria are met before posting blurbs marked (Ready). For more guidance, check WP:ITN/A.
If satisfied, change the header to (Posted).
Where there is no consensus, or the article's quality remains poor, change the header to (Closed) or (Not posted).
Sometimes, editors ask to retract an already-posted nomination because of a fundamental error or because consensus changed. If you feel the community supports this, remove the item and mark the item as (Pulled).
Voicing an opinion on an item
Format your comment to contain "support" or "oppose", and include a rationale for your choice. In particular, address the notability of the event, the quality of the article, and whether it has been updated.
Pick an older item to review near the bottom of this page, before the eligibility runs out and the item scrolls off the page and gets abandoned in the archive, unused and forgotten.
Review an item even if it has already been reviewed by another user. You may be the first to spot a problem, or the first to confirm that an identified problem was fixed. Piling on the list of "support!" votes will help administrators see what is ready to be posted on the Main Page.
Tell about problems in articles if you see them. Be bold and fix them yourself if you know how, or tell others if it's not possible.
Add simple "support!" or "oppose!" votes without including your reasons. Similarly, curt replies such as "who?", "meh", or "duh!" are not helpful. A vote without reasoning means little for us, please elaborate yourself.
Oppose an item just because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. We post a lot of such content, so these comments are generally unproductive.
Accuse other editors of supporting, opposing or nominating due to a personal bias (such as ethnocentrism). We at ITN do not handle conflicts of interest.
Comment on a story without first reading the relevant article(s).
London's Big Ben, atop Elizabeth Tower, will fall silent for four years beginning 21 August while essential repair works are performed. (BBC)(The Washington Post)
A 13-year-old girl is killed when a car is deliberately driven into a pizza restaurant's sidewalk cafe in Sept-Sorts, France. At least 12 other people are injured, four critically. The driver is arrested. Police do not believe the incident was terrorism-related. (CBS News)(The Independent)
India announces that it is to deport an estimated 40,000 Rohingya refugees including 14,000 of those registered with the U.N. refugee agency. In the months leading up to the announcement, a string of anti-Rohingya protests had been held in the country. (Reuters)
At least 17 people, including two Canadians, are reported dead and eight others injured in an attack on a Turkish themed restaurant in Ouagadougou, the capital of Burkina Faso. (RT)(Reuters)
Nominator's comments: Burkina Faso has been spared much of the violence that have plagued other countries in the region, so this atack will almost certainly exacerbate the situation. The last attack with a higher deathtoll was in January 2016. EternalNomad (talk) 02:46, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
came here to nominate it. Certainly more notable than cville and it aint common in that part of africa either. Article needs a little more work but support in principle. Also remove "and hotel" from blurb. seems like just the Turkish restaurant and its also too wordy.Lihaas (talk) 03:29, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose on the state of the article. The "Background" section talks about conflict in Libya spreading to northern Mali but makes no attempt to explain why this is relevant to Burkina Faso. There is no mention of any suspected motive, nor whether this was targetted or random (or whether that is not known). Is there any significance to the location? Is this a part of the city that's thronged with visitors or is it mainly locals? I support the signficance of the event but the article isn't yet good enough for me. Thryduulf (talk) 09:34, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose article is a bit too light on useful information, Thryduulf makes some good points above; the article in the current state scarcely contains more useful information than the blurb. Needs some expansion to be useful to readers beyond saying "Here's a thing that happened". --Jayron3212:16, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Comment, leaning oppose We posted the July 2017 Lahore suicide bombing (happened 24 July, posted 31 July). That had a higher death toll (25) and was targetted at police and/or civilians rather than military personnel. Given the recency of this more significant attack I'm leaning oppose on this one, but could be convinced otherwise. Thryduulf (talk) 10:34, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support, marginally better than the attack in the nomination above this one, has just barely enough information to lift it above the stub phase, but really, could use some expansion. --Jayron3212:17, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support In Pakistan, 15 is not high death toll, but since this attack primarily targeted military it should be posted. But for that we'll have to mention that "Military was target of the attack" in the blurb.Amirk94391 (talk) 12:52, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
They are still military personnel in a volunteer army - potentially being attacked is something they agreed to when they signed up, which no civilian did. While I am not condoning the attack in the slightest, military targets are in my mind less unacceptable than civilian ones. Thryduulf (talk) 14:56, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Floods happen every year in that region with death tolls in the hundreds, and we usually do not post these due to their regular occurrence unless the death toll is much larger than expected. --MASEM (t) 05:54, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Masem. I was reading an article (I think on the BBC) a day or so ago that implied the floods were not as significant this year as they sometimes are and that the authorities are handling things competently. Thryduulf (talk) 09:43, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[Closed] RD: Lotfi A. Zadeh
RD entries require a reliably sourced confirmation of death, in this case is disputed whether the death is reliably sourced so it is not eligible for ITN. This nomination may be reopened if/when there is consensus that the subject has died and that this has been reported in reliable sources. Thryduulf (talk) 09:24, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Comment I'm confused. In Deaths in 2017 he is in fact listed as deceased whereas in his article he is listed as alive because there is no official statement regarding his death. So should we label his deceased or alive? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 07:04, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
wait - well, the nominator's source is Press TV, but is that considered reliable? In this case it probably is, though some would disagree. It's my understanding that Press TV is affiliated with the Iranian government, and expressly provides a counterweight to the strong western bias that exists in media coverage (as they perceive it). But in this case he's either alive or dead, no "western bias" to counter there. And no political advantage to be gained on either side by misreporting his obituary. But let's wait until it gets sorted out by consensus in the article and the death date (August 12, Saturday according to Press TV) is clearly established. Christian Roess (talk) 09:13, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Nominator's comments: Esports are going to have a tougher bar as I recognize there's a sizable portion of the general population and editors on en.wiki that do not consider it a legit sport, but the International is generally considered to have the highest prize pool available of any professional esport tourney (upwards of $23M this year). (Also, this week we learned that the 2024 Paris Olympics are suggesting the possibility of eSports as a medal-winning competition, so the legitimacy of eSports is not likely to go away any time soon). The main 2017 article is in good shape given what the tourney is. --MASEM (t) 05:54, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't have to believe this is a sport in order to support its being posted, but I would note a few things; the article states that this tournament breaks the prize pool record every year so that doesn't seem significant to me. This tournament is sponsored by the makers of the game involved(the blurb might want to state which game they are playing) to I presume generate interest in the game(and profits for the company). If this made it to the Olympics(which the IOC would need to approve) I would see that differently. Many games have tournaments like this and I would want to know why this game and this tournament matter more than others. I'm undecided at the moment. 331dot (talk) 07:28, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still undecided on this(perhaps leaning against) but thinking about it I would probably be more supportive if this was an independent body organizing a tournament(with or without prize money) of one game or multiple games. 331dot (talk) 08:12, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have decided I'm neutral on the merits of posting a company promoting its game with a tournament because it does seem to get news attention but I am a weak oppose on quality per Black Kite below. 331dot (talk) 09:54, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
comment The blurb definitely needs to mention that this is e-sports and/or what game they are playing. Without that context it's meaningless. I'm undecided about the nobility for ITN for similar reasons to 331dot. Awkward42 (talk) [the alternate account of Thryduulf (talk)] 07:54, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding notabilty I lean support - I think eSports is about at the stage where 1 ITN item a year would be appropriate, and The International is the premier eSport event as far as I am aware.
However the article is not currently ready, as there is currently no prose summary of any of the actual games. For sporting tournaments we usually insist on a prose summary of the final match and this eSport case should be no different. --LukeSurltc21:03, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's actually relatively difficult to write prose description of games like Dota 2 as there are multiple, simultaneous things happening over one hr or so, so it is difficult to know where attention should be given (contrast to soccer or football - there's only one ball to follow, though players should always be fielding for position when not near the ball). --MASEM (t) 23:13, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question - How do we treat the World Poker Tour at ITN? I feel this is about the same level in terms of non-active sports. - Floydianτ¢21:52, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a search of the archives, as far as I've found the only Poker tournament that has been nominated for ITN was the 2006 World Series of Poker which wasn't posted, at least in part because the winner was on DYK at the time (ITNC was a very different place back then so it's not really useful for comparison purposes). I find it hard to believe that nothing else has even been nominated, so I'd like someone else to double check my findings. Thryduulf (talk) 23:09, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Kommentar We posted this last year [6]. I'm still on the fence with it, personally, mainly because the article doesn't really explain anything about the game and how the tournament works, but is just a list of results with a bit of general supporting prose. Black Kite (talk)23:52, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but most people know what "football" or "American football" or "cricket" actually is, and at least vaguely how the game is played, and how the winning team actually wins a game. This doesn't contain any of this. Black Kite (talk)14:23, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support – As always with The International (and many tournament-related articles), the article forgoes describing anything that happened during the tournament and instead presents us with a series of tables that are difficult to parse. However, what also seems to be a pattern with The International is how the prose we do have is of great quality. Looking at this, I regret not having had the time to nominate Evo 2017 for ITN earlier this year. But this is good: article looks good, properly sourced, and the competition is among the few most notable esports events. Solid support. ~Mable (chat) 11:22, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Prose is insufficient. There's some prose on the background and buildup of the tournament, but nothing on the action in the tournament itself. All we have are some tables and nothing else. Surely, there's some sources out there describing the action of the tournament, key events and matchups, descriptions of the championship game, that sort of thing, right? Why does our article not use those sources to describe the tournament itself? --Jayron3212:20, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - My stance on E-sports has not changed. On a fundamental note, this does not rise to the general notability threshold that ITN sets.--WaltCip (talk) 12:24, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose on significance. I don't have a fundamental objection to e-sport, but I'm not seeing any attention in the general media (specialist gaming outlets and ESPN seem to be it) and this is fundamentally promotional marketing. The monetary prize is certainly eye-opening, though it strikes me as odd that last year's champions couldn't be bothered to defend their title. As mentioned above, poker seems a good comparator, but I'm not sure we've reached any sort of consensus there either. The article is indeed mostly table-cruft, and won't make much sense to anyone who isn't familiar with the game in question. Also, terrible name Valve. The international what? At least call it International Dota or something. I would be open to reassessing some of these non-sport sports in a holistic way, rather than having the same inconclusive discussion each time one is nominated. Modest Geniustalk13:59, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Across the board, sports articles are rarely interesting enough to meet the Purpose requirements outside of "quickly access content they are likely to be searching for." Unless the prose is exceptional, we need to see more page views before posting the results of a scheduled competition. GCG (talk) 14:10, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[Closed] [Posted] Violent alt-right rally
This has been posted. I'm closing this to keep discussion of changes to the blurb in one place: WP:ERRORS (which is the correct place to discuss changes to posted blurbs). Thryduulf (talk) 23:16, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Comment The blurb currently says "Virginia declares state of emergency as Charlottesville white supremacist rally turns violent." In which country are "Virginia" and "Charlottesville" located? Or is Virginia the name of a woman declaring the state of emergency? Gfcvoice (talk) 19:15, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Domestic, local issue (and I'm speaking as an American here). It's nothing yet like Ferguson. There have been many more violent protests in the last year+ that we aren't likely to cover. --MASEM (t) 19:22, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Oppose, no one died. Also, maybe you could update the article anyway, and contribute to the overall quality of Wikipedia, without the condition that this nomination gets support? The main page isn't the only thing that matters. -A ladinsane(Channel 2)19:24, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to write breaking news on a weekend if it isn't going on the main page. As a volunteer I maintain my right to hold off major edits if it isn't urgent. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 19:33, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is no minimum death toll for ITN. Nor should there be. Some events with major death tolls are insignificant, and some with small (or no) death tolls are hugely significant. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:41, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Very weakly support. "Weakly" because this is a domestic local issue with far less significance than rallies and demonstrations we wouldn't dream of supporting (White supremacists can be violent nutcases? Hold the front page!), "support" because it's adequately sourced and for whatever reason this is the main story on news media around the world (even on the local UK version of the normally relatively sober BBC News it's bumped North Korea out of the headline slot, while it's currently the lead story on sources as varied as German supermarket tabloids and The Irish Times. ‑ Iridescent19:31, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is it the city of Charlottesville or the entire state of Virginia which is under a state of emergency? Not clear from the blurb but not so clear either from the Washington Post.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:49, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support due to this being worldwide news and the article seems adequate as I look at it now. I understand the reasons to oppose this, though. 331dot (talk) 20:54, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support wow, what a clusterfuck, and at last a chance to stop the perpetual "about time Europe tightened their driving laws" nonsense. This is all-round a nasty story, but this instance of the use of a vehicle is just the beginning. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:52, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It fits what I consider terrorism to be (violence indented to cause as much harm as possible to non-specific persons for political reasons). But I'm not suggesting the blurb needs to use that word. --LukeSurltc22:18, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Very Weak Support Normally, I would oppose this kind of story, largely because of a low fatality count (only one confirmed death) and also because this is only a domestic/local incident; however because the ITN hasn't been very active lately and because this is getting international attention, I'll make an exception, albeit 'very weakly'. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 22:38, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I acknowledge that we frown upon this logic here, but it is pertinent to this case in particular: I am supporting as both the Congressional Baseball attack an the attack at the Finsbury Park mosque were posted. Both incidenrs had low fatality and casualty counts, but were posted due to the motives of the assailant. The scenario here is the same - it is the motivation behind the attack and the manner in which it unfolded that makes this newsworthy, and it is these circumstances that explain why it is the top item in Ireland, the US, the UK et al. Ergo, I deem it worthy of an ITN-support. Stormy clouds (talk) 00:59, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Trump has nothing to do with this... and the "international significance" argument is utter and complete rubbish considering there are international sources reporting on this as a top story.--WaltCip (talk) 01:16, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think the "International significance" is not so much what international sources are reporting on this, but how much this effect will impact the international community (which is, practically zero). --MASEM (t) 01:34, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. There is also a plane crash with two state police killed. There is worldwide interest and this is because the United States is not the only country where these divisions exist. [7]. Capitalistroadster (talk) 01:40, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose hysterically violates NPOV as is. One driver ran over one protestor. This is a driver ramming a crowd, not a "violent alt-right rally". If we posted violent rallies, then we'd be posting antifa arson and damage at California universities. This is the act of one person. μηδείς (talk) 02:08, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And Podestas email right? And Awan, and Seth Rich? Thing is, this actually happened, is making international headlines, and left a body count, so..... --CosmicAdventure (talk) 11:06, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This violent demonstration represents the huge backlash against those communities across the southern US who are pushing hard to remove Confederate iconography from public property, especially since the 2015 rampage killings of nine black churchgoers in Charleston, SC. So this violent incident in Virginia is visible evidence of what remains largely invisible: the rage and resentment seething below the surface as millions of Americans watch their Confederate history and their "southern" heritage being erased from public spaces. The removal of a Confederate statue (as one rally organizer told CNN) "itself is symbolic of a lot of larger issues. The primary three issues are preserving history against this censorship and revisionism — this political correctness." Anyhow, this is ITN-worthy because this kind of backlash was inevitable. And this is a particularly dramatic example, with international coverage, of the ongoing backlash that is taking place throughout the southern US. It could get worse: it seems that most of these folks are disappointed and enraged Trump supporters, and let's face it: they all have guns. Christian Roess (talk) 02:35, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The whole world doesn't revolve around around American culture wars. The current blurb would be true for a countless of rallies since Trump began campaigning. The car ramming is newsworthy, but not of ITN level with just 1 dead IMHO. Nothing is known about the helicopter crash and it isn't explained how this is "linked to the protest" other than that the helicopter was surveilling them. --Pudeo (talk) 03:14, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
oppose may be on international news (and good to get cville on the front page) but nothing in the larger scope of things)
there's a problem with using the term culture war here in this particular case. In this case, "culture war" is just a convenient euphemism, or rhetoric, used to "disguise the fact that American society truly is deeply divided...which is not an artificial creation of political parties seeking to drum up support." (Quote from the Wikipedia article). This incident exposes the festering open wound at the heart of American society. And it's not going to get fixed. Now, women marching on Washington wearing pussy hats and attending an Oprah rally in support of transgender bathroom rights is a "culture war". This "alt-right" rally turned violent in Charlottesville, VA is not an example of a "culture war". It is an example, quite frankly, of how and why the US (as a society) is unraveling, disintegrating, and becoming "unglued. " Christian Roess (talk) 09:56, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support This was a KKK march where they took off their robes and showed their face, because a POTUS blaming "many sides" made them feel they don't have to hide their faces any more. Significant news with repercussions and massive coverage. This is ITN material. Many opposer comments, like User:Pudeo's "The whole world doesn't revolve around around American culture wars", is attempting to dismiss the item on geographic scope, which is against the rules of ITN. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:07, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Modified blurb. @Spencer: Your version felt a bit wordy, and there appears to be some consensus here that the emergency was less important than the casualties and the violence. Feel free to revert/modify without consulting me. Vanamonde (talk) 06:06, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanamonde93: The current blurb states 3 people died as a result of the violence. Nothing is known about the helicopter crash yet, it was likely just an accident, not related to violence (like someone pointing a laser blinding the pilot or something). --Pudeo (talk) 14:41, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I reworded the blurb to mirror what is written in the article (e.g. describing the rally as "far-right" and not just "white nationalist", 19 versus 30 injuries, etc.). -- Black Falcon(talk)22:16, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:Black Falcon: I get that the lede of the article says "far right", but, with all due respect, I find the term "far right" to be too vague and potentially inaccurate, and thus problematic for the main page. Spencer calls himself a "socialist" for example. The term is contentious and I think it would have been preferable to ask for consensus before you changed the blurb. I believe you did this in good faith but I object to the change.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:56, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That change was completely inappropriate. I've discussed the original change in WP:ERRORS, that if we go off a simple google news test, "white nationalist" beats out any other descriptors by almost a factor of 10. --MASEM (t) 23:08, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Because of a recent pair of deadly crashes, the U.S. Marine Corps will ground its flight operations for 24 hours for an operational reset. The suspensions will be spread out over the next two weeks. (Reuters)(The New York Times)
Comment based on our articles this is the joint deadliest railway accident this year (same number of fatalities as Kuneru train derailment in January) and the deadliest railway accident in Egypt since 2009. The article is barely a stub at the moment so I'm not going to offer an opinion just yet. Thryduulf (talk) 09:39, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: For all our talk about fighting systemic bias, this is a story that really should've been nominated by now. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:54, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support in principle, but I'm finding that the article is writing on presuming the hospital is negligent when the NYTimes has statements from the hospital officials that deny that it was a lack of oxygen supply that should be included at this stage. (The blurb is fine though). --MASEM (t) 19:57, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Weak support. It's clearly significant enough, but ideally I'd prefer a bit more in the article than is currently there. Also we should definitely mention somewhere in the blurb that this is India, possibly also Uttar Pradesh. Thryduulf (talk) 20:00, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You've added Uttar Pradesh but not India. I think "India" is required and "Uttar Pradesh" optional - c.f. the complaint on the protest nomination that not everybody will know Virginia is in the USA, and speaking as a Brit the US states are far better known than the Indian ones. Thryduulf (talk) 21:52, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I tend to take to the idea that we should list "CITY, STATE" regardless of the country, and people can find out what country it is if they're so inclined, but I've changed the blurb to explicitly say it's India. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:00, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Support. Article is slightly thinner than ideal - although I recognise that online sources in English are not going to be the easiest to find given when and where he was active, but what's there is good and well sourced. Thryduulf (talk) 11:41, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Kommentar The lede says he was a journalist, but I don't see that in the "career" section. That seems problematic. If he was indeed a journalist, we would need to know which newspapers he wrote for. If it's too minor, it should be removed from the lede.Zigzig20s (talk) 12:08, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Zigzig20s:: Done I removed journalist from the article. In his obits and bio it stated he was a journalist but never mentioned background on it. - TDKR Chicago 101
Oppose. The article seems woefully incomplete - as Zigzag says, it mentions a career of journalism, but there's nothing about this in the article - and the most recent event in his career is 47 years old. Is there an article on the man in another language? If so, it may be a good idea to have it translated, but not by something like Google Translate, IMO. Challenger l (talk) 16:51, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Removing ready, per concerns above. I agree: a huge gap in coverage, even if the band was less popular, is inadequate quality for RD. SpencerT♦C05:39, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
TDKR, it is rather poor form to mark your own nominations "ready." As nominator, you bring the article here for scrutiny, and make any improvements if you feel so inclined; evaluating it should be left to uninvolved folks. Vanamonde (talk) 06:45, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[8] Apparently after 1975 he became a journalist, but the book preview ends after listing that. I still believe the article is incomplete without any description of that, especially since that seems to fill the gap of coverage 1975 to present. SpencerT♦C20:15, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Spencer: I've added information about his journalism career but from what I see it was brief and I also added information about why he retired from music and the controversy he saw due to his political views. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 03:57, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Yes and as you're supposed to be an admin, I'm surprised you'd suggest otherwise. Why someone would nominate a ITNR which is a sub-stub is beyond me, but I guess you have your own reasons, only to berate one specific user for pointing out it's sub-stub? You, admin, should know that already. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:14, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, perhaps I should just hide behind an "anonymous" IP address and criticise from the sideline instead? I have zero interest in this nomination other than its ridiculously premature nomination and other than the nominator getting all haughty about the inevitable opposition from me. IP, point to me where you (before you abandoned your account) improved an article? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:56, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'll nominate any article if I think it's worthy... there's no rule that says an article needs to be ready to run on the main page when nominated. And there's a chance that someone will pitch in and help finish the article if I post it here. Ed[talk][majestic titan]23:10, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose We need more than a stub for the book article. I can't remember which prize it was but we had a similar situation for a book a few months ago that started as literally no article and got to sufficient quality in a few days. For helping here. NPR, The Verge (in 2016), Atlantic, Wired, more Wired, as well as the fact that the book also was nominated for Nebula and Dragon awards [9]. --MASEM (t) 22:58, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Consider me "supporting" once the article has a plot summary and an info box. An image of the cover under a fair use argument can go in the article which would be a good addition. I think the Hugo is a sufficiently notable award. --LukeSurltc07:48, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, plot summary, however brief, is absolutely necessary. Inquiring readers don't much care that someone "couldn't put it down," they want to know what it's about. Sca (talk) 14:26, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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: QKD is the "easiest" quantum technology to realize. As of time of writing, neither article is updated. Banedon (talk) 03:35, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Here comes another train wreck nomination by User:Banedon. No update, and the "technically correct is the best kind of correct" crowd will defend the right of users to abuse the system by not updating before nominating. Abductive (reasoning) 04:09, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Again, there is no requirement for nominators to have updated the articles for ITN they nominate. Also please assume good faith. --MASEM (t) 04:14, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This Banedon user has only faith; faith that others will understand the difficult science and do all the hard work of updating the article and saving his worthless nomination. In spite of your Wikilawyering, the truth remains; the nominator does not have to update the article only because somebody else might have done it first. Abductive (reasoning) 06:29, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you have a problem with what I'm doing, lodge a formal complaint at ANI. Until you do that, I'll simply ignore what you're writing as not worth my attention. Banedon (talk) 10:44, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question what does this actually mean in practice? In simple layman's terms, what is the immediate effect of this "realisation"? Is it now something that can be implemented easily? Is it one step on the road to practical implementations but requires further research? Does it enable something else? Right now my initial reaction is "that's nice, I guess, but what does it mean?". Thryduulf (talk) 09:33, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like the source explains the significance pretty well. Quantum effects "decohere" - as they interact with the environment, they disappear. So this (they successfully sent a quantum key from ground to the satellite, and back again) is a significant result. Your questions are not easy to answer however; the following represents my understanding. Is it easy to implement, no, hence it hasn't been done until now. Telecommunications is not going to change overnight as well. Is it one step on the road to practical implementation, yes (in fact it's a major one). Further work could be aimed at teleporting quantum logic gates for quantum computing purposes, and building up a quantum internet. User:Modest Genius or User:Dragons Flight might know more. Banedon (talk) 10:44, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is a minor extension to a breakthrough result that was announced two months ago: Science. It's the obvious thing to do once you can distribute entangled photons. That earlier breakthrough was announced in a peer-reviewed scientific paper; as far as I am aware we didn't post it. This extension is fairly minor and I've not seen any peer-reviewed publication. It would make very little sense for us to ignore the major breakthrough and then post a minor update two months later. (Weirdly, the launch of the spacecraft in 2016 was posted, before any of the technology had been shown to actually work.) Modest Geniustalk11:20, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting; I'm surprised that wasn't mentioned in either the nomination or the news reports. In which case I would support if you can update the article to cover both steps (the entangled distribution in June, and the quantum key distribution in August). Modest Geniustalk12:01, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose News at its core requires the audience to have a baseline understanding of the subject at hand (you wouldn't preface Premier League scores by explaining the rules of football). Science stories tend to try to provide that baseline, but any breakthrough worthy of report is typically too complex, and News is not a practical forum to teach scientific concepts. An RS often resorts to reframing the issue (note the lede here talks about unhackable data transmission) in an effort to make a story relatable. Whatever your personal understanding is of "what belongs at ITN," I doubt this fits the bill. How many people will see this and understand it, even if they click through and read the article? GCG (talk) 12:56, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To continue your analogy: plenty of readers don't understand the rules of baseball or cricket, or the electoral system of the Netherlands, yet we post those stories. Besides, the whole point in quantum cryptography is to develop 'un-hackable' communications, and this is a big step in doing so. Modest Geniustalk13:45, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Canadian government says at least one of their diplomats in Havana has been treated for hearing loss, following up on yesterday's report that American diplomats had similar injuries. U.S. officials say the problems started in the fall of 2016. The Cuban Foreign Ministry says it was informed of the incidents in February and has been investigating since that time. (Time)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Nominator's comments: More deaths last year than Vietam war and Iraq war combined. Trump: "There’s never been anything like what’s happened to this country over the last four or five years." Light show (talk) 05:32, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support While this strictly is a national issue, the situation here would have worldwide ramifications, and thus declaring it a national emergency (and thus allowing states to take additional measures to combat it) is a key point that posting makes sense. And the article is in decent shape for that, outside the bit of proseline in the timeline section. --MASEM (t) 05:46, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it does. Per CNN's "President Donald Trump declared the opioid crisis a national emergency Thursday, a designation that would offer states and federal agencies more resources and power to combat the epidemic." emphasis mine. It's similar to when they call disaster-struck areas a "national emergency". The response isn't going to be as fast as it would be for a disaster (eg deployment of FEMA/other first responder agencies) but they have new legal tools and resources to use. --MASEM (t) 13:01, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Abductive et al. If something other than announcements happen that is worth considering, but its very rare that we announce someone saying they are going to do something rather than someone actually doing something - particularly when the person in question does a lot of announcing and not a lot of doing. Thryduulf (talk) 09:36, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Given his propensity for unrequited bluster and hyperbole, any story that begins with "Trump says" IMO is a Trump story unless there are any actual policy implications.--WaltCip (talk) 13:34, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair on this one, Trump is hardly the only person calling the opioid epidemic a serious problem, or for that matter was the only person involved in this declaration. This is on a greater level of importance than, say, a rando Trump tweet. pbp13:45, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The blurb here, and for any future noms about US policy, should be of the form "The United States declares…". This may seem like a trivial distinction, but we should be posting actual policy implementation (or at least, concrete plans to implement) by government rather than announcements that may or may not result in significant action.
OK. We should have a fresh nom if/when this occurs. US states of emergency aren't actually that uncommon (technically there are 30 currently active) but it would be a reasonable nomination if associated with a substantive update. --LukeSurltc15:05, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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: Dubbed as the Pakistan's Mother Teresa, her sad demise is making news internationally thus deserving of a blurb. Mfarazbaig (talk) 23:44, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD. The article is in good shape now, so I'll mark this ready. It's always nice to see an awards section fully referenced before it arrives at RD. Thryduulf (talk) 09:39, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD Tag but Oppose blurb The article does meet the requirements for an RD tag but I dont think the person meets the requirements for a blurb. I recommend changing this nomination for an RD tag. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:11, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In a suspected terror attack, six French soldiers are injured, three seriously, when a man drives a car into them at a barracks in the Paris suburb of Levallois-Perret. (Independent)
Support I don't agree with Thryduulf's oppose rationale, which seems more a critique of the way the nomination was made instead of the nomination itself. This is in the news, it's likely to be interesting for more readers, and the article quality is fine. Banedon (talk) 03:39, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware that I can do that given time but it isn't my job to justify other people's nominations. All I know is that I don't see this on the news sites that I frequent. 331dot (talk) 10:32, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's dangerous since it encourages sampling bias. After all, the news sites that you read is likely not to be representative. I'd also say it's unfair to the nominator if the information is easily available but you're not willing to search for it. Adding a BBC source anyway. Banedon (talk) 10:48, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware that the news sites that I visit is not representative of all news. You are certainly free to believe whatever you wish but I believe nominators should stand behind their nominations and do the work needed to convince others of their merits. Otherwise we wouldn't ask for sources at all since everything is easily available on the internet. Heck we wouldn't need Wikipedia at all for that reason. Whenever I make a nomination, I always try to provide adequate evidence of its newsworthiness. 331dot (talk) 10:52, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Comment Am already waiting for CosmicAdventures pointy comment about "meaningful vehicle control laws in europe" to... whatever the point is really. On another note, the police chase with police firing at the perpetrators vehicle on a highway, to me, almost seems more noteworthy as something like that is highly unusual for europe i would assume. But overall this does not seem to be that big a story. 91.49.94.182 (talk) 03:34, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Just as we don't most minor shootings in the USA we should not post all of these types of attacks (and attempted attacks) in Europe (and I say that as a European), and this is definitely a minor event that is unlikely to have any lasting significance. Thryduulf (talk) 09:27, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The article says "This was the seventh attack on French security forces in 2017." so were this AfD I'd be inclined to say merge to some bigger article rather than delete, but I'm not convinced it merits a standalone article. Thryduulf (talk) 09:36, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Then, @WaltCip:, we at least need to remove the entries that aren't news anymore. The British Open was weeks ago. The Cricket cup was weeks ago. Neither of them is rightfully classified as "news" pbp17:42, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Purplebackpack89: if you want to see new items on ITN, there are two elections below (Rwanda and Kenya) which are just waiting for sufficient text updates in the articles. Working on those would be a much better solution than lowering our standards. Modest Geniustalk18:27, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No reported deaths, and while it may be considered terrorist related, a lone-wolf operation that targetted police doesn't seem to be anywhere close to the degree of past vehicle-related terrorist incidents in Europe over the last few years. --MASEM (t) 16:56, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
[Closed] Mirza Olang Village Massacre
An existing article is an absolute requirement for ITN, so there is no point to a nomination without one. If an article is written or another article expanded to include this event, then it can be renominated or reopened, but adding a proposed blurb at the same time is strongly recommended. Thryduulf (talk) 10:56, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Nominator's comments: One of the deadliest attacks against Shi'ite civilians in Afghanistan lately by the Taliban. 60 people are dead, including women and children. --203.220.72.109 (talk) 09:22, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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: 80% of results in, Kenyatta has 55% of the vote against 44% for his rival, Raila Odinga ,so results should be out soon. Sherenk1 (talk) 05:01, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support When results are in and announced, we should certainly post. If there is controversy surrounding the vote (something likely), we should add that info into the blurb. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 05:22, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The article has not been updated - the infobox still says the president elect is TBD for example. Fix that and give us some prose to evaluate - the "Results" section consists entirely of one table and two empty section headers. We absolutely will not post without an updated article. Thryduulf (talk) 09:34, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support something related to the Kenyan election: When I heard about this last night on PBS, it indicated that the opposition candidate was contesting the claim that Kenyetta won by ~8-10%. Therefore, it makes at least a little sense that a "TBD" is there in the who won column. There's news here, easily-sourceable news here; maybe not as currently worded, but there's news. pbp16:27, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Purplebackpack89: This is certainly news, but the problem is that there is still no prose in the article. Since I last looked 9 hours ago there has been some quotes and flagcruft added as reactions but the prose hasn't changed since the first premature nomination. Thryduulf (talk) 18:12, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Purplebackpack89: one short sentence of prose about the results is better than nothing I suppose, but it's still nowhere near sufficient (we typically look for something around 5 sentences at least), and there is still nothing about the senate or national assembly. Thryduulf (talk) 18:49, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Certainly should be posted, but the text of the article makes no mention of results: 54.2 percent for Kenyatta's party, 44.9 percent for Odinga's. True, these are preliminary results contested by Odinga supporters, but an election story without results (except in boxed data) is ridiculous. Sca (talk) 15:16, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Oppose There is something likely to be posted involving NK soon, but a claim by a US intelligence agency is not sufficient for ITN. --MASEM (t) 05:13, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose posting a US intelligence report; a test, announcement, or use of such a weapon would merit posting. The US does not believe NK has actually mounted a warhead onto a missile yet. I've wondered if an Ongoing listing would be warranted for NK but I am unsure about an appropriate article(if it even exists right now). 331dot (talk) 08:14, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think the article I originally nominated would serve. It's a detailed account of the sturm und drang vis-a-vis North Korea's nuclear aspirations. pbp22:09, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose likely another exaggeration by the North Korean regime. Source is reliable and justified, but keep in mind that North Korea has made this claim numerous times in the past, but has not successfully proved this claim, even the photo from the unknown source a year ago has driven skepticism as it did not match the structure or shape of a miniaturized nuclear weapon. SamaranEmerald (talk) 11:16, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Truly these are really scary times when the only way North Korea's nuclear program will become notable or newsworthy for ITN purposes is if it nukes a city off the face of the earth. 2600:387:9:5:0:0:0:98 (talk) 12:53, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I actually think Trump's "fire and fury" comment is the bigger story. But inflammatory rhetoric is not going to be posted either.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:11, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with Pawnkingthree about the relative prominence of the stories, and about the ITN-worthiness of both. My personal threshold for posting a story about nuclear weapons is lower than TRM's though - I'd likely support the successful firing of a missing with an armed warhead regardless of outcome (I'm undecided about an unsuccessful firing). Thryduulf (talk) 13:37, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
“When it comes to how we should deal with evildoers, the Bible, in the book of Romans, is very clear: God has endowed rulers full power to use whatever means necessary — including war — to stop evil,” Jeffress said. “In the case of North Korea, God has given Trump authority to take out Kim Jong Un.”" Count Iblis (talk) 17:00, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Noting a tin-pot dictator threatening to nuke the U.S. is minor stuff compared to current ITN blurbs: Neymar getting €222 million to play football, Jordan Spieth winning the Open, and certainly minor compared to England's Cricket club beating India. Had Neymar only gotten €100 million, however, or had India won, TEOTWAWKI might be worth mentioning. --Light show (talk) 20:28, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support this is in the news, article is pretty good, opposes are usual "Wait until something happens" - something has happened: The leaders of the DPRK and the USA have ratcheted up their rhetoric, the USA is claiming the DPRK has miniaturized nukes, global media has been covering it for days. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 20:33, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It seems CosmicAdventure is a bit misunderstood by the article, sure it's been in the news, but only a handful of experts made the claim, not the U.S. itself, and that it has not gone on for days, just A day so far. SamaranEmerald (talk) 20:58, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well Dumps anti-NK rhetoric has been in the news since Monday, the miniaturization story is a little more recent. I take my queues from the media: the current headlines are about NK WMD, we have a decent article, put it up there. My two cents anyway. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 21:09, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The Pentagon is considering conducting airstrikes in Marawi, which if approved would later put U.S. troops on the ground to battle the ISIS-affiliated Maute group as well as related Islamist terror groups. A spokesperson later denied the claims as well as clarified that the Philippines has yet to make a request. (NBC News)
PresidentJacob Zuma survives his eighth no-confidence motion in parliament via a 198–177 secret ballot vote with nine abstentions. The rand fell by 1 percent on the announcement of the outcome. (Reuters)
Support The article at this point seems to be in agreement with current sources, though I'm not sure if we need the Casualties table that shows how the number increases as reports after the quake came in; we just need the latest update. But now otherwise reasonably sourced. --MASEM (t) 14:24, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Weak oppose Section "1967–72: Burning Bridges to The Goodtime Hour" Needs a lot of sourcing and section 1973–79: "Rhinestone Cowboy" and "Southern Nights" does not even cite any sources. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:54, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support: Posted: Haruo Nakajima, a hardly-known costumed actor getting few viewers to the 300-word article with 16 sources. Debated: Campbell, with over 3,000 words and 81 cites. His lead alone is the same length as the other bio. Nakajima's article got 3% the viewers on news of his death compared to Campbell's death news, and Campbell was also getting 3,000 viewers on an average day, whereas Nakajima was getting about 1.5 % as many.--Light show (talk) 18:31, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about article length or number of sources, but whether the article is fully cited to those sources as a measure of quality. Campbell's article has several failures of this as noted above, whereas Nakajima's article was readily sourced throughout (perhaps easier with shorter articles). --MASEM (t) 18:42, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the more famous a person is, especially if they're an American celeb, and the longer and more detailed their article, the more likely it will have facts without sources. That's a natural result of allowing any IP who can type add factoids to articles. But that result shouldn't override common sense and acknowledging major notability.--Light show (talk) 19:00, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The issue comes from "lazy editing" that editors include information that they may feel is fairly obvious but do not include sources, as required by WP:V. And so with famous people that get a large and lengthy articles, many of them go poorly sourced until this point where we're discussing them as RD, and where the laziness of editors in the past comes to prevent the article from being posted. It's a long-term symptom of WP as an open wiki that is difficult to correct. --MASEM (t) 19:22, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
By "common sense," I was referring to the fact that we probably already know that any drive-by with a smartphone knows how to write simple text facts but doesn't care enough about WP guidelines to learn how to cite the facts. An article such as this one had a dozen of the yet uncited factoids spread around the article. When a musician has been recording for six decades on over 500 records, as lead singer or backup, the article becomes a natural magnet for drive-bys. IMO, the problem is partly correctable if we rate unsourced details by importance. And wikilinks should be taken into consideration to decide if a detail really must be cited before posting. But editing takes time, whereas skimming and adding "cn" tags takes none. And the question really becomes who's being lazy.--Light show (talk) 19:40, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A blurb might be reasonable, since the last equivalent singer-songwriter blurb was for Leonard Cohen a year ago. Of the six blurbs posted now, three are for sports events. Something like this maybe:
Glen Campbell, American singer, songwriter and guitarist for nearly 60 years, recorded over 70 albums and sold 45 million records. Dozens of his songs, including "Rhinestone Cowboy," were top 10 hits, which led to him winning four Grammys in 1967 alone. --Light show (talk) 16:37, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Notability is neither in question nor relevant, what is relevant is the three citation needed tags and several untagged and uncited paragraphs. Thryduulf (talk) 19:35, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes? It wont get posted while sections are *entirely* uncited regardless of how notable they are. Numerous past discussions here should tell you that. Editors want it posted promptly, other editors dont want uncited sections on the front page. And since its a BDP, uncited sections can be removed and not replaced without *prompt* citations being added. Granted someone might object to it being on the front page with a 6 year gap, but hey, they could spend their time looking up citations for it while its there. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:10, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is unacceptable practice. I can see removing a sentence or two that may be difficult to source in the short term to clear out a few residual CN's, but removing a whole section that is likely true, not contentious but just is lacking sourcing, leaving a large chronological gap that we know can be filled, is not an improvement. Remember that WP is voluntary , no one is required to do anything. --MASEM (t) 23:38, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And likewise I am not required to go source an entire unsourced section to make it comply with policy. BLP applies. So suggest you go start a discussion to change the wording of that policy if you dont like it. Perhaps if the editors here spent less time argying about a few citations being needed instead of thinking about how ridiculous it looks when someone of this calibre doesnt get posted promptly. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:34, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well quite. Its a surprise no one did it *before* nominating or for hours afterwards. As far as I can see it was my blanket removal that prompted someone to go do so for that section. So in that respect, reasonably effective. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:40, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Plus it's not like unsourced text can't be added after this is posted... which it will as hundreds of anons view the article. I like this approach. - Floydianτ¢16:28, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak support Now that the section that was (quite ludicrously) removed is back and (mostly) sourced ... I think it's just about good enough. Black Kite (talk)23:58, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose still, why can't some of the enthusiasts reference the awards? I've been blocked (yes, blocked) for restoring awards that weren't inline referenced, so let's fix that ASAP. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:20, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. if that's the case, then I wouldn't use that as a cautionary tale at all, except to say "Sometimes, admins do the wrong thing and block someone when they shouldn't." That block was undone almost immediately (less than 1 hour later) and the lesson behind that should NOT be "people will get blocked for this" but instead should be "The universe is random and unfair, and there's not a damned thing you can do about it because you can't make someone not do something awful, and really there's no point bringing it up here because there's no chance you'll be blocked for the same reason ever." Thanks for clarifying, but it isn't a lesson for the rest of us. It was an admin overstepping their bounds, which can happen at any time for no reason at all, and has nothing to do with what you were doing at the time. --Jayron3217:17, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It had nothing to do with what I was doing at the time? What an odd assertion. Anyone vaguely interested would know that Kww was utterly insistent on inline referencing of all award claims, made many many edits to remove (not tag) unreferenced claims, and blocked me for adding unreferenced claims. He was desysoped but my original point remains 100% accurate. There are some reference extremists out there..... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:14, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Being accurate is in no way a synonym for being relevant. I could mention a story about how when I got my vasectomy the doctor didn't use enough local anesthetic, but that doesn't mean that people here can expect uncomfortable levels of genital pain for editing Wikipedia in good faith. There's no need to share stories about unfortunate (if true) things that happened to us if they are of no help to other people here. --Jayron3218:20, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh but there is. With rogue admins being encouraged to run the asylum, us mere editors should all be aware that you all just go ahead and do as you please and mostly get away with it. The vasectomy story is fascinating, but not relevant or analogous. I'm talking about being blocked for failing to provide sources for awards. We're talking about sourcing awards. Given the "spectrum" of admins we have, including one currently at Arbcom, it's worth reminding the good faith editors here that their edits may result in months of drama. That's accurate and relevant. Certainly of help to people here who wish to avoid that kind of clusterfuck generated by rogue admins. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:17, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See here if you want the extended version. Also see here for further evidence adding back awards without citations is generally not as clear cut as people would like. Also here. Now if the only objection preventing this from being posted is unsourced awards, I am more than happy to just go rip them out, and they can be re-added once someone finds a reference. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:20, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Policy idea: Since, as with McCartney and the hundreds of other singers, actors, musicians, etc., there are long wikilinked lists in their discography or filmography sections, why not include an exception to the RS guideline and consider a linked article as a RS in those list sections? If anyone clicks on the linked songs or movies they'll see that they all have references, along with commentary. Worth considering?
And for Campbell's RD, which is already stale history and could be closed, anyone who takes the time to read the bio with its 103 references, will discover that most of the songs, movies, and records are well cited within the body. Therefore the list sections become partly redundant. --Light show (talk) 19:07, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's actually not stale as Campbell died more recently than three of the four entries currently in the RD section (Thanks Thryduulf for educating me on that one). Your idea has been discussed before and there are some who share your view but WP:BLPSOURCE states that inline citations are necessary for any material that is "challenged or likely to be challenged."--Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:18, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Then the solution is simple: just modify to, ... challenged or likely to be challenged, and not already cited in the body or linked article. --Light show (talk) 19:55, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Kommentar. Poor Glen. His window appears to have passed. Perhaps he should have played soccer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.28.169.145 (talk • contribs)
Alternatively perhaps people should have spent more time sourcing his article than complaining about us only posting sourced articles. Hint: You don't need to wait until someone dies to improve their article. Thryduulf (talk) 15:27, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
I took your reference to V to mean RS, but I see now it may just be an issue with the formatting of the refs, which I'll try to clean up. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:52, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well no, they're different policies. I was questioning how a reader could verify something sourced by "First Department website.?" (for instance). And I've already cleaned up the references, but more is needed for this to be close to a main page inclusion. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:21, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've added some additional citations. I could add additional cited information, sourced to his New York Law Journal obituary, but it's behind a paywall so I'm not sure whether to do so. My thanks to The Rambling Man for his help with the formatting. I'd welcome input from any others as well. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:50, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If someone in good standing (such as yourself) asserts that the source does indeed verify the content that's normally good enough. If there is any doubt or if it's something very controversial and nobody else in the discussion has the relevant access and it isn't also verifiable in a non-paywalled source, then chances are that we'll just seek out someone else - for something as high profile as the New York Times there are likely to be plenty of Wikipedians who have a subscription (heck there might even be a category or list somewhere). I've never experienced a situation where that was necessary though. Thryduulf (talk) 21:04, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Oppose far too much of it unreferenced, including all those stage appearances, no verifiable reliable sources there to provide any evidence she was in any of them. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:47, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose still some missing citations (which I've tagged). The discography is largely sourced to Allmusic but I can't remember if that's regarded as reliable or not. Thryduulf (talk) 10:04, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article needs updating The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Wait. Why nominate this before it has even happened? This general election is on ITNR, so there's no need to build consensus. The only thing that determines whether this gets posted is the quality of the article & update, which is impossible to write or assess until the election has actually happened. Modest Geniustalk10:05, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Results from Saturday's constitutional referendum show Mauritanians have voted to abolish the Senate. Turnout was 53.73%, with 85% of voters supporting the change, according to officials. (BBC)
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.
Neutral – This got on my radar and I would like to see it improved. Right now, we have basically only one real section of prose and not all of it is sourced correctly. Needs work. ~Mable (chat) 15:08, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support. I just finished improving the article considerably, and made sure all information was reliably sourced. In my opinion, it's good to go. –Matthew - (talk)17:00, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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.
We shouldn't be looking at citation format quality as an issue for ITN; lacking citations is one thing, but editors (particularly newer) often just add bare URLs to at least get an inline cite in place, and that should be fine for breaking ITN item. Over time, we'd expect those replaced. However, there are still definitely other sourcing issues at play on this one. --MASEM (t) 13:46, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
At least for myself, we want to make sure new editors include inline citations (a core policy at WP:V), but compliance with MOS like consistent citation formats is a far less concern - a bare url still works to meet WP:V in the short term. Add that learning the citation templates is not trivial, and I'd rather see a new editor add useful info cited to a bare url (which can be easily fixed) than to include new information without any citation, which may be difficult to fix. --MASEM (t) 14:11, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I quite agree. Bare URLs can provide the necessary sourcing just as well for ITN success. Just thought I'd point that out. Any views on YouTube videos? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:28, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I like a sentiment expressed over at RSN that "editorial control is what makes something a reliable source" so we should consider if the uploader is an RS. GCG (talk) 14:49, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Per GCG, Youtube is not itself a source, it's a host of sources. Some will be good, some will be shit. Caveat videntium. We need to consider who created the video. --Jayron3216:09, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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.
Nominators often include links to external websites and other references in discussions on this page. It is usually best to provide such links using the inline URL syntax [http://example.com] rather than using <ref></ref> tags, because that keeps all the relevant information in the same place as the nomination without having to jump to this section, and facilitates the archiving process.
For the times when <ref></ref> tags are being used, here are their contents:
In the news toolbox
