In the news toolbox
Error reports Nominations (Archives) Discussion General criteria Death criteria Recurring items Admin guide Image protection Current events portal

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.

Mitchell Starc In cricket, the Kolkata Knight Riders defeat Sunrisers Hyderabad to win the Indian Premier League (player of the final Mitchell Starc pictured). Gitanas Nausėda is re-elected as president of Lithuania. A landslide in Papua New Guinea's Enga Province leaves thousands of people missing and presumed dead. The European Union passes the Artificial Intelligence Act, aiming to establish a regulatory and legal framework for AI. Ongoing: Israel–Hamas war timeline Russian invasion of Ukraine timeline Sudanese civil war timeline Recent deaths: Rolf-Ernst Breuer Bill Walton Ángeles Flórez Peón Morgan Spurlock Willi Brokmeier Paul Parkman Nominate an article

Suggestions

RD: Ed Lee

Nominator's comments: I didn't vote for him, but he was my mayor, the incumbent mayor. Needs a little work. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:06, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The source for the cause of death seems to be former Mayor Brown, with no confirmation by Lee's office. [1] This should be better confirmed before posting. 331dot (talk) 16:03, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Confirmed. James (^talk/_contribs) 16:18, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Acting Mayor London Breed announced it from City Hall a few hours ago. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:54, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support pbp 16:29, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Does anyone else find Ed_Lee_(politician)#Mayoralty to be a bit over-positive? It feels like it was written by a big fan of Lee's. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 16:53, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added a neutrality tag. Like I said, needs work. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:55, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Charles Robert Jenkins

Nominator's comments: Some referencing issues. American Soldier who defected to North Korea. Sherenk1 (talk) 08:55, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The "military awards" section is unreferenced.Zigzig20s (talk) 10:31, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Death to traitors. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:13, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your jingoism notwithstanding, we are not here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. RD postings need only verify the quality of the article, not the notability (nor any sort of moral standing).--WaltCip (talk) 13:03, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Fire

Article: Thomas Fire (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The Thomas Fire, the largest of an outbreak of wildfires in southern California, becomes the fifth-largest fire in California history. (Post)
News source(s): [2] [3] [4]
Credits:

• Nominated by James Allison (talk · give credit)
• Updated by LightandDark2000 (talk · give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Extremely large wildfire outside of the fire season. 1000 structures burned, 8000 people evacuated, citywide power outages in a ~100,000 pop. city, unprecedented disruption at a major state university, likely catastrophic damage to the nationally-significant state agricultural industry. James (^talk/_contribs) 16:49, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose See the previous Lilac Fire nom. Yes, there is destruction and people are disrupted but being the 5th largest fire in CA is not a reason to post. --Masem (t) 16:54, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Fifth-largest fire in California history is indeed not a reason to post. The impacts of the fire and the fact that they're "in the news" are two reasons to post. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:56, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Resignation of Indonesian legislative body speaker

Nominator's comments: This is following a multi-week news coverage involving a raid, manhunt and a car crash plus hospitalization, receiving pretty much 24 hour national plus significant external news coverage. Juxlos (talk) 16:33, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Article looks in good shape. --Jayron32 16:39, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. An unusual occurrence, especially when this is the second time he has quit due to scandal; we don't often post Indonesia, either. Article seems fine. 331dot (talk) 21:30, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support Generally we do not post political scandals that don't touch a head of state or government, but this is so bizarre I'm inclined to support with the understanding that this is an exception (sine exemplo) and should not be viewed as precedent for lowering our usual standards. I have no issues with the article quality. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:59, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support because of how much it has captivated the Indonesian population. The main problem is as Ad Orientem pointed out, it doesn't involve a head of state or government. Banedon (talk) 22:03, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per 331dot. Davey2116 (talk) 22:09, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose local politics, it's not clear why this is really something we should be posting at ITN and not at DYK. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:16, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, corruption is so common in third-rate (Redacted) countries that ITN should only post when it doesn't happen. Additionally, this goes against years of consensus here that such low-level political news is not postworthy. Abductive (reasoning) 22:23, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you oppose this, fair enough, but I don't think the leader of a national legislative chamber being arrested and subsequently resigning is "low level political news". 331dot (talk) 23:20, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak oppose per Abductive. The article for the legislative body outright says that the chamber has received multiple allegations of being rife with corruption.--WaltCip (talk) 13:24, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – Apart from Reuters (ystdy), haven't seen it on main Eng.-lang. sites. Sca (talk) 16:09, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• comment took a quick look, the refs need to be checked. Look for the word "crony" in the article see if the ref supports. I suspect npov issues. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 16:22, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Coverage and article looks good. James (^talk/_contribs) 16:24, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] RD: Vera Katz

 --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:53, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Posted Stephen 22:58, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] RD: Keith Chegwin

 The Rambling Man (talk) 14:27, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Insufficient lead section per WP:LEAD, much of body text is uncited. --Jayron32 14:40, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I suppose there's zero chance of the blurb "Cheggers goes pop.", is there? Mjroots (talk) 17:13, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  I did consider adding a note to the effect that "Cheggers finally went pop" but considered that it might be very lost on our non-Brit readers who no doubt would have found it incredibly offensive and sought my excoriation. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:29, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, it would have been lost on non-Brits, not so sure they would have found it incredibly offensive though. You should see the barnstar Iridescent left me (you probably have though, as I'm pretty sure you're one of my TPSs. Mjroots (talk) 06:43, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  You monsters! Suffice to say that if I lived in Tunbridge Wells, I'd be disgusted. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:16, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Funny you mention Tunbridge Wells, I live about 10 miles (16 km) from there! Mjroots (talk) 15:03, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support having added sources (Jesus H Christ TRM, you're using The Sun for this - I think not); I think it's all there now. So, on the main page - one, two, three .... [whistle] Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:23, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  I "Jesus H Christ His Lord Saviour Our God" used The Sun because it was the only source available at the time, plus the BBC Twitter link which my company firewall rejects. That was about six hours ago. JESUS. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:27, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll send you a donation by way of an apology - is the number still 01 811 8055? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:33, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

01 811 8055, a number etched in our brains. I liked Gervais' Twitter send off, "Pop Knob In Fanny"... (should be safe enough for those who get it and sufficiently mystifying enough for those who don't). The Rambling Man (talk) 20:58, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You can't beat a bit of Festive Fanny, can you? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:05, 11 December 2017 (UTC) [reply]

• Support Article now meets ITN standards.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:26, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted Stephen 22:55, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Post-posting support, now, what about that blurb? Mjroots (talk) 06:43, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, since you actually got a barnstar for the suggestion, it must be a shoo-in, surely.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:18, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh, and the BBC have already got in there with making people outraged: [5] so we'd be in good company...  — Amakuru (talk) 12:25, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I read the article ... And I still don't get it. To my friends across the Atlantic: sorry for your loss. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 16:37, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  @CosmicAdventure: the suggested blurb was a clever play on words referencing a children's programme Cheggers hosted. Mjroots (talk) 17:00, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Russian troops withdraw from Syria

Nominator's comments: It would by nice if we could put this right above the Iraqi announcement which also deals with the defeat of Daish --Karl.i.biased (talk) 14:17, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose None of the three articles cited has been updated to include the relevent information. --Jayron32 14:41, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Only Russian military intervention in the Syrian Civil War needs to be bold. This is the one article specific to this news item. Regardless the BBC report this as a partial withdrawal, which probably puts this in oppose territory for me. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 14:54, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And the BBC also says there "Mr Putin made a similar withdrawal announcement last year, but Russian military operations continued." But the BBC seems to be having its own problems - its article is all about 'partial withdrawal' but its headline currently just says 'withdrawal'.Tlhslobus (talk) 10:20, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Russia is keeping its base in Syria so the "withdrawal" is more of a troop movement than a pullout. 331dot (talk) 21:23, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support A withdrawal's still a withdrawal even if some bases remain. Sort of like how the US finished with WW2 years ago even though it has bases in Japan to date. Banedon (talk) 22:08, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not a good analogy - what happened with US troops in Japan at the end of WW2 was (for very good reasons) the exact opposite of a withdrawal.Tlhslobus (talk) 09:32, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, purely an announcement by a (Redacted) politician (Redacted) (Putin) made to promote his reelection. (Redacted) Abductive (reasoning) 22:25, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose current blurb: I'm currently neutral if the words 'partial withdrawal' are added to ALL blurbs under discussion. In other words, keeping the present blurb but adding an altblurb is not good enough for me, and I don't feel free to change the main blurb myself, which might also be problematic in that existing votes are for/against 'withdrawal', but not necessarily for/against 'partial withdrawal'. So it might be better to close this, and re-open it as a new nom about 'partial withdrawal' (though I'm at ITN too intermittently to know whether that's the recommended procedure or not).Tlhslobus (talk) 10:11, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] RD: Lalji Singh

Nominator's comments: Article updated and is a Good Article --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 05:08, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Only books are not referenced Sherenk1 (talk) 09:45, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support - now only one book unreferenced. Not much on Google either. Is it correct? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:44, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @The Rambling Man:: The book has been referenced. Is this G2G?--TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:01, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Posted Stephen 23:30, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] RD: Simeon Booker

 --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:25, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support A short but adequate article that is decently sourced. No issues. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:40, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support yup, good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:45, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted Stephen 22:57, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] RD: Max Clifford

 The Rambling Man (talk) 13:17, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Well sourced, ready to post.LM2000 (talk) 13:38, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support appears to be ready. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 13:46, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, can see no sourcing gaps. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:54, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Marking ready - good to go. Stormy clouds (talk) 16:29, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Posting. Alex Shih (talk) 16:33, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Attention Needed] RD: Grant Munro

 --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:23, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tombs discovered in Egypt

Nominator's comments: Two stubs, but only because there isn't much detail to be added yet. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 13:44, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose notable or not, we cannot put stubs on the main page. Suggest waiting until something substantive is found in the tomb, causing an update to the article, prior to posting. Stormy clouds (talk) 16:28, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose if something notable is discovered in these tombs, I'm all in, but we need notability and quality, neither of which seem present right now. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:48, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The state the articles are in now is not sufficient for the main page. Needs a serious expansion to be useful for readers. --Jayron32 12:44, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, minor discovery hyped by politicians to try to revive their moribund tourism industry. Abductive (reasoning) 22:26, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Iraqi Civil War victory

• Support if we can make the article better Karl.i.biased (talk) 14:50, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Due to orange tags. Otherwise I have no objection on its importance. Sherenk1 (talk) 15:08, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have examined the tags, and they seemed excessive to me, so I removed them. Inatan (talk) 21:26, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Blurb - Major event. The article still needs a little work though. – Nixinova ⟨T|C⟩ 18:52, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Although the conflict continues, it is limited enough that the head of state has declared the war to be over, and this is the proper time to announce the end in the news. This is a major event, and the article is already well written enough to post, though it could use some polishing, with a number of uncited claims (most of which can be supplied from the separate articles on the timeline of the war). Inatan (talk) 21:26, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Definitely ITN worthy. Major event.BabbaQ (talk) 21:37, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Notability is not in question. The article has been updated and improved. Davey2116 (talk) 23:16, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Clearly notable, but I don't think the article is well developed enough to post at the moment. In particular the section for 2017 is a list of largely unreferenced bullets in a timeline format with a mixture of tenses, which needs to be rewritten & condensed, with at least some added commentary. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:07, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, at least for now: (meaning Oppose on quality for now, still unsure about notability) Have I just walked into the Twilight Zone? The target article currently doesn't even mention our story (or at least the only mention of Abadi I found was in the list of commanders (Find Abadi here)). And it's admitted the conflict is continuing, but none of us 'amateurs' has been questioning the ITN notability of a story that the target article's editors (presumably the 'experts') seemingly haven't seen as notable enough to add to their article in over 12 hours.Tlhslobus (talk) 02:51, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose there has been no surrender or peace treaty, Al Baghdadi is still uncaptured and presumed alive, guerilla action continues. This is a unilateral declaration whose accuracy will not be known for some time. μηδείς (talk) 03:17, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suspect ISIL will neither officially surrender nor sign a peace treaty. It's too civilized for them, so they would fight until the last soldier or something like that. Brandmeister^talk 08:59, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I've just watched BBC News. Its (2nd or 3rd) headline was "Iraq declares the war with IS is over, but is warned the group still poses a threat from across the Syrian border". Later it quotes the British Defense Secretary as saying "the fight is not over" as IS can continue it in all sorts of ways. That version is a lot more pessimistic than our current blurbs, and seems a lot less misleading to our readers, and thus also a lot less potentially damaging to our reputation.Tlhslobus (talk) 05:35, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am leaning towards the second alternative blurb. What do you think (regardless of support)? Inatan (talk) 12:04, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See my reply below in my (first of possibly several) Post-posting Comment.Tlhslobus (talk) 00:32, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support This is a major event and I don't see any issues with the article. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:37, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose a quick look on my mobile makes the issues obvious: 2017 has bullet points missing refs, 2017 proseline really ought to be actual prose (2015 section is decent example) and worst of all, there is no update explaining the "victory". Just one bullet point "reinstated full control of the country" whatever that means. As a reader, I'd demand better from a main page link. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 12:49, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I will see if I can add references to the bullet point list, and then leave the rest up to the regular writers. Inatan (talk) 15:20, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I went beyond what I said I would do. The sections for 2015-2017 still need significant expansion, but apart from that, it should be ready to post. Inatan (talk) 16:25, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Posted Stephen 00:00, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Post-posting Comment (and reply to above question by Inatan). Thanks for all your hard work, Inatan. In answer to your above question, I think the blurb should now be changed to something like "Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi declares victory against ISIL, ...", with the "..." being something like either "whose supporters vow to continue a guerilla war" or "but is warned that the fight is not over". The guerilla bit is in the article but backed by a citation that seemingly says nothing of the kind. I didn't see the UK Defence Secretary's comment there, though I may have missed it somewhere else in the article. I think both those qualifiers need to be in the article, correctly cited, and some such qualifier also needs to appear in the lead. We may need that quite soon to avoid calls for pulling on quality grounds (but I'll probably soon have a go at fixing them myself, though I'm not sure how easy that will be). Assuming that gets fixed, I'll probably ask below here for such a blurb change (but not at wp:errors, except perhaps eventually as a brief informatory message about developments here, as it's not an error).Tlhslobus (talk) 00:32, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Post-posting Comment 2: (and continuing my above reply to Inatan)

• 1) I've now added cited warnings by the Australian Government, UK Defense Secretary Gavin Williamson, and Reuters, to both text and (in a shorter form) to lead.
• 2) I've replaced the incorrect source for ISIL supporters promising to fight on by guerilla war with a 'citation needed'. With a relatively brief google search, I have not managed to find such a source, at least not in the last 24 hours (anything earlier may be out of date now). Maybe more searching might find one. Or maybe we should just delete the statement due front-page quality concerns, but I'd prefer somebody else to tell me so, or to do it themselves (as little time has yet been given for a search, and I'll now be moving on to other topics for a while).
• 3) I think the blurb should ideally be changed to something like "Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi declares victory against ISIL, despite warnings that ISIL may fight on by other means"
• 3b) But I'm a bit worried that by doing so we may be inviting some censorship by editors working for the powers that be, that might be quite a bit worse than the limited self-censorship of not changing our blurb. Yesterday morning UK Defence Secretary Gavin Williamson's statement was part of item 2 or 3 on BBC News (and was implied in their headline, see my comment yesterday), whereas now I get just 10 relatively obscure sources when I google Gavin Williamson “The fight though isn’t over". This suggests that he was 'off-message', and that a British Defence Advisory Notice may well be at work (perhaps along with its equivalent in other countries). As the saying goes, truth is the first casualty in war. Though it's always possible that I'm just not using the best google search parameters, especially as I must have used other parameters to find my Derbyshire Times citation (though the fact that the best I found was the relatively obscure Derbyshire Times rather than the BBC or a major paper like The Guardian is itself consistent with a Defence Advisory Notice being at work).
• 3c) Maybe the powers-that-be have a not-unreasonable worry that over-publicizing warnings (that ISIL may continue by guerilla warfare or terrorism) may turn such warnings into self-fulfilling prophecies by reviving the morale of ISIL fighters and supporters. Putting such warnings on our front page might or might not be seen (by the powers-that-be and/or by some of us, possibly eventually including me) as an example of such over-publicizing.
• 3d) Anyway I'd prefer feedback from others before asking for such a blurb change.

Tlhslobus (talk) 02:37, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for all your work! I like one of your first versions of the blurb best, "Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi declares victory against ISIL, whose supporters vow to continue a guerilla war." Although the source did not match the second clause in its article. Thank you for correcting it. The reason for that is that when I added the source, the bullet point said "Islamic State supporters continue guerilla warfare after the Islamic State is defeated in the country." How about this one, "Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi declares victory against ISIL, whose supporters continue guerilla warfare."? Inatan (talk) 10:40, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which source was that, and is it still in our article text? (After I put the CN on it, the 'vow to continue guerilla war' line got removed by another editor, so now the only explicit mention of guerilla war that I see is from Reuters, and that merely says ISIL's enemies expect a new phase of guerilla war, with no mention of it having happened yet).Tlhslobus (talk) 12:24, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(If it was the Iraq News story, which is the one I removed, that now doesn't mention guerilla war or any kind of insurrection anywhere, so maybe the bullet point got removed for reasons similar to why the UK Defence Secretary's warning is now only found in places like the Derbyshire Times).Tlhslobus (talk) 12:33, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And if we can't find sources for actual or vowed guerilla war, we'd either have to go with something like "..., despite warnings that ISIL may fight on by other means" or "..., despite warnings that ISIL may fight on by guerilla war" or just leave the blurb as it is (which may well be best, especially if the powers-that-be are using things like Defence Advisory Notices to get warnings and guerilla war mentions removed from websites, in which case our current sources may become incorrect due updating).Tlhslobus (talk) 12:39, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile I note that the article is now stating as a fact that the war ended on 9 December 2017 (instead of merely being proclaimed over by Abadi, with every possibility he'll soon be proved wrong, always assuming he isn't already wrong, as suggested by your 'disappeared' bullet point, in which case our lead is definitely FAKE NEWS, though it's arguably that anyway). But I don't currently feel willing (and perhaps not able either) to risk various edit wars to try to fix that. So I think I'm just going to give up and find something a bit easier to work on elsewhere.Tlhslobus (talk) 13:08, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, the blurb is good enough. The article traffic is becoming too much for me to handle, and the protection process takes too long to be useful. I will move on as well. Inatan (talk) 13:47, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it seems that others have now managed to fix the worst problem without our help, but I think I'll just leave it in their competent hands.Tlhslobus (talk) 10:24, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment al-Abadias image adds no more to the ISIL blurb than Dolt45's image added to the Jerusalem story. Please bring the dinosaur back. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 12:45, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] DRC Peacekeepers attack

[Closed] Lilac Fire

[Posted and Closed] Recognition of same-sex unions in Australia

[Closed] Farthest black hole

[Posted] Halszkaraptor escuilliei

Nominator's comments: New species of dinosaur found that has been garnering quite a bit of news coverage. Andise1 (talk) 04:57, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps if the article was filled out more? Abductive (reasoning) 06:28, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose We can't post this when the target article is a stub. Needs a lot more work.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:04, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support pending improvements. This 18" animal is the first winged dinosaur described as having limbs modified as swimming fins and webbed feet. That material is in the popular press, and I assume it is reliable. I will be too busy for the next 10 hours to do the research, but will see what I can do before bedtime. μηδείς (talk) 15:49, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I have added a couple paragraphs of prose to the article, which I think should put it in a fit state to be posted. The Wicked Twisted Road (talk) 19:38, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Looks good now. Great work, Wicked Twisted Road. Davey2116 (talk) 01:50, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Notable subject, decent article. (Though if I have to choose between 2 science stories I'd go for the quasar, as that seems to require new scientific theories to explain it; but hopefully we can have both). Tlhslobus (talk) 03:29, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted with an expanded blurb. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:06, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Espresso Addict.Tlhslobus (talk) 16:52, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted and Closed] US Recognition of Jerusalem

[Closed] Time Person Of The Year 2017

[Posted] Johnny Hallyday

Nominator's comments: An odd one here. Hallyday is virtually unknown in the English-speaking world, but in France and the wider French-speaking world he was huge. Right now the "above the scroll" parts of the main page of France24 and Le Monde are almost entirely this story. He was described as the "French Elvis". Perhaps more pertinently for ITN, his iconic status and decades-long career is a close analogy to that of David Bowie, whose death by natural causes was posted as a blurb. I believe we aim to give ITN a global outlook, and try to "filter out" our anglophone biases.
Article is however not ready for main page posting and will need significant work. LukeSurl ^{t c} 12:03, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose blurb, full stop - he is a national treasure in France and other French-speaking countries (everyone in France has heard of him and Emmanuel Macron led the tributes), but nowhere else. Oppose RD for now but will revisit if I can find sources. The fr-wiki article is far more developed. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:12, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose blurb. This sort of posting is precisely what the current RD guidelines was meant to encourage, to give RD a better worldview, but I don't think this person meets our criteria for a death blurb. 331dot (talk) 12:16, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: your own observation about him being "virtually unknown in the English-speaking world" explains why he is nowhere near as notable as Bowie. Tend to agree with Threesie above, although I'd say "Oppose blurb, arrêt complet", of course. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:17, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Blurb and RD - Referencing issues Sherenk1 (talk) 12:30, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Sherenk1. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:35, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, the French version of the article is far more developed, certainly looks B-class to me, and most of the unsourced content here is cited over there ({{ouvrage}} is the equivalent of {{cite book}}) - so I'm not going to toss an RD out of the window just yet. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:37, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As any referencing issues are fixable, and there is no notability criterion for RD postings, it is not possible to "toss RD out of the window". If one bold-text opposes an RD on article quality issues, that opposition is countered when the article is improved, and not when/if the voter reevaluates their !vote. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 12:50, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose one could oppose an RD permanently if the article concerned was up for RfD? A person's death doesn't have to be "in the news", it just has to happen, regardless of how notable they are? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:31, 6 December 2017 (UTC) [reply]

A death does have to be in the news somewhere(that's usually what the evidence of the death is anyway) as this is "in the news". 331dot (talk) 14:16, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree there has to be a WP:RS source. My point is that it need not be widely reported. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:25, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose blurb, RD is fine. Exactly the sort of person RD was created for. FWIW, I don't think Bowie should have had a blurb either. Modest Genius ^talk 14:12, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• RD only – Per our resident Genius. – Sca (talk) 14:36, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support RD only, pending improvements The Rd/blurb arguments are given above. But the article quality is not there, several unsourced paragraphs. --MASEM (t) 14:59, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose blurb "virtually unknown in the English-speaking world"... this is the English-language Wikipedia. The French-language Wikipedia can do as it likes. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:09, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This should not be an argument, at least on en.wiki. If a person is notable in another language wiki, with sources to back it up, then we can have an article on it even if there's zero knowledge of that person from English-based sources. That said, we should be very much aware of issues (both ways) with people extremely well known in one country but virtually unknown outside that; we shouldn't push to post those as blurbs even if that country is something like the US or UK (just because we're the english wikipedia). --MASEM (t) 15:16, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • While other Wikipedias expressly focus on topics local to their nation/language community, the English Wikipedia aims to be global in perspective, and considers the inevitable favoring of Anglosphere topics to be undesirable Wikipedia:Systemic bias. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 16:38, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Masem and LukeSurl: If he remains "virtually unknown" in the English speaking world even after his death, then that means there's no depth of coverage similar to Nelson Mandela, David Bowie, etc. that would merit a blurb on the English language Wikipedia. That means RD is appropriate. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:43, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yeah, I'm not disagreeing with that assessment, at least here. I cannot envision a case where we'd have a blurb for a person that is relatively unknown going by English sources - if they were the Mandela-level, even at least BBC would be covering them. But we can always RD those that are well sourced in non-English sources but that do not have any English coverage. ----Masem (t) 14:49, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • That was basically my entire point. I of course support RD if the quality is fixed up (it wasn't last I checked, which was yesterday), but the lack of coverage makes this not a blurb case. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:47, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose blurb Not RD ready either.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:34, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support RD. I've added more in-line references and trimmed some unreferenced content. Perhaps we could trim more if that's the main problem. The "personal life" section looks a bit long anyway.Zigzig20s (talk) 10:43, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Right now the third paragraph in the career section really needs to be referenced. User:LukeSurl: Are you able to fix this please?Zigzig20s (talk) 11:22, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Got it down to two {{fact}} tags - what's a good source for French single chart positions? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:25, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure. Looks like only two sentences are not referenced though. Maybe this is sufficient for the main page?Zigzig20s (talk) 17:27, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Have added refs in place of those tags. Don't see any further issues.Martinevans123 (talk) 22:40, 7 December 2017 (UTC)...not sure about calling him a "rock star", though...[reply]

Now we suddenly have nine films left to source, although eight of these have linked articles. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:50, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Should be easy to source them in Hallyday's article then. Wikipedia is not a reliable source, regardless of this blue link excuse. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:57, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget the unreferenced progeny as well. BLP etc. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:58, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and now also a source for the adoption of his second daughter Joy (Maï-Huong). Ah yes, should be easy - by all means show us how easy it is. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:00, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No thanks, not interested in the subject matter anyway, just keeping standards for main page inclusion. BLP. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:08, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A yes, a stumbling point it seems.... good luck. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:16, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Posted Good enough for RD at this point. High-five to Martinevans123 for the work put in. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 01:30, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] RD: Jean d'Ormesson

Nominator's comments: French author. Zigzig20s (talk) 11:45, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose for now Citations needed, and an "immortal" with only 2kb prose? That can't be comprehensive. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:48, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've trimmed the unreferenced content, and I don't think we have a requirement of length for RDs, do we?Zigzig20s (talk) 19:46, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No hard and fast rule, but we want to make sure it covers all the main points. I guess this one does. The bibliography isn't sourced though. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:09, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose tagged. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:12, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Works referenced to both Académie française as well as the books themselves. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 00:15, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted with a hat-tip to Jnorton7558. What's up with that first ref in the bibliography, though? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 01:36, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] The CIA didn’t kill Bob Marley

[Posted] Russia at the 2018 Winter Olympics

Nominator's comments: Article (and its new "title") needs updating. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:38, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support on the merits; highly unusual move and a significant result of the doping scandal. 331dot (talk) 19:44, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Needs prose this is obviously notable enough in its effect to support, but there is really only one relevant sentence of prose, that on Dec 5 the Olympic committee banned the Russian committee but will allow individual athletes otherwise qualified to complete under the olympic flag. Everything else is either a pipelink to a main article about a Russian team or a rehash of Sochi. With that removed as padding, there are not even three paragraphs of prose to meet the standard new-article minumum. μηδείς (talk) 19:57, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  It's not a "new article" requirement, the Russia at the 2018 games article has been around a while (since August 2016), it's an "updated" article. And what else would you want to see? I'd be more than delighted to add more to that article if you believe it's somehow missing fundamental elements of the news story about which we're speaking. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:13, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, you do not in any way contest my assertion that the update so far was one sentence, just that the article wasn't created toda?. And your response is a snarky, so fix it if you realize it doesn't meet our standards? Well, no. All noms have a slot for updateder. Whose name did you put there? Only you can make you happy. μηδείς (talk) 21:59, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really follow your accusations but never mind, it's going to be posted soon regardless, and that's what's important, not who updates it or who makes incorrect claims over what's needed for it to be included. You failed to note what was missing, as I said, the offer stood and still does, if you could identify what was fundamentally missing from the article, I'd be happy to work on it, but as far as I can see, it's covered the bases needed for it to be reported. So that makes me very happy indeed. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:17, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support on principle I do note that the IOC allows "clean" Russian athletes to still compete but under the neutral S. Korean flag. But agree this is big. I wrote an altblurb and am surprised there's not really a separate article on the 2014 Russia doping issue, which this is probably better well documents and a target. Maybe the Doping in Russia article? --MASEM (t) 20:14, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - How often does this sort of thing happened, where an entire country is banned (clean athletes notwithstanding) from competition?--WaltCip (talk) 20:18, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Unique, global impact, plenty of RS out there, I was surprised this wasn't up yet. South Nashua (talk) 20:31, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support in principle This is a major sport news with high impact that does not happen often and a story that already occupies the place of a breaking news in the media.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:34, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - clearly of importance and in the news. Marking ready. Stormy clouds (talk) 22:13, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - unique and important.BabbaQ (talk) 22:20, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support alternative blurb - Russia is one of the largest nations in the world and one of the most successful at the Olympic Games. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 23:11, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted Stephen 01:25, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Post-posting comment: It's probably not worth pulling at this stage, but I might well have temporarily opposed on quality (meaning some arguably important info is missing) if it wasn't already posted, while calling for a few items to be added to the article, which I've suggested here. Per WP:NOTCOMPULSORY. I don't really want to get any more involved with this article myself (I only had a quick look at it after seeing a disagreement between editors above); I'm just briefly mentioning it here (and at the article's Talk Page, see above Wikilink) in case other editors might wish to do something about it. Tlhslobus (talk) 04:13, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted and Closed] RD: Michael I of Romania