Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/November 2016

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

[Closed] RD: Amar Ezzahi

 * Oppose article in current state is too brief/lacks detail. MurielMary (talk) 11:13, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose stub. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:44, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] World Chess Championship 2016

 * Support since it's one of the regular sports items to feature. Personally I'm in favour of replacing "win" with "retain", i.e. Magnus Carlsen defeats Sergey Karjakin to retain the World Chess Championship . What wording did we use when Carlsen retained the championship in 2014 (23-Nov-2014)? Adpete (talk) 00:42, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Support. The 2013 listing was here. The 2014 listing is here. Carcharoth (talk) 00:49, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 2013 was different because the challenger (Carlsen) won. 2014 wording was "Magnus Carlsen successfully defends his World Chess Championship title against the challenger Viswanathan Anand.", though I think the proposed wording here (with "retain" instead of "win") is tighter and better. Adpete (talk) 00:57, 1 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Weak Oppose for now. A few cites needed towards the bottom, but otherwise this looks like a solid article. Fill those in and we should be good to go. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:27, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Support I would suggest mentioning that match was won in tie-break. -Abhishikt (talk) 08:28, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Me too. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 19:11, 1 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Support Major sports event. -- Marvellous Spider-Man  10:00, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Nergaal (talk) 10:56, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Posting. --Tone 12:19, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] New Yemen government

 * Support a new phase of the war. --Panam2014 (talk) 09:07, 30 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose For now. -- Marvellous Spider-Man  16:13, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose unless this actually happens, there's nothing tangible here. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:15, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * it HAS happened and UN responded to it too!Lihaas (talk) 10:49, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The blurb says there's been an agreement to form a government. What I'm saying is that it will be news when the government has formed.  Or is the blurb out of date? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:04, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The cabinet took office on 28 November 2016 but Bin Habtoor is PM since 4 October when he formed a first cabinet. --Panam2014 (talk) 20:13, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * So the blurb is wrong. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:57, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] Korea protests

 * Oppose quick read of the article seems to indicate the last notable event took place on 26 November, so this isn't ongoing, and the proposed blurb isn't even reflected in the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:21, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * comment Nationwide action for ousting of Park Geun-hyeLihaas (talk) 08:48, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment doesn't change my vote. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:39, 30 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Wait. This is just a development. Resignation would be something we should post. --Tone 09:01, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Wait per Tone. If she resigns, or is impeached, or something similar, then we can post that. At the moment, it's still only "offers to resign". Banedon (talk) 09:30, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Wait until she actually resigns or is removed from office(which would be ITNR). 331dot (talk) 14:21, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Wait per above. A change in head of government and/or state is an ITNR item. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:31, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose ongoing, but clearly if the resignation does happen, that's an ITN for sure. Unless the protests are causing mass violence/injuries/deaths, protests alone are not sufficient for ongoing as per previous precedents with, say, the anti-Trump rallies, the Dakota pipeline protests, and so forth. --M ASEM (t) 15:33, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] India base attack
oppose tit-for-tat attacks have been happening for a while now. Maybe an ongoing, if updated regularly, would be more suited.
 * Further Alt1 is POV and WTA violation.Lihaas (talk) 07:53, 30 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment - this seems like a development in 2016 Kashmir unrest. No objections to featuring it but perhaps a more general blurb (or ongoing) is better. Banedon (talk) 09:41, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose per above. 45.116.232.17 (talk) 13:57, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

New Safe Confinement placed over reactor

 * Oppose for now pending article improvement. Interesting story, and comprehensive article, but sadly the article is mostly unreferenced, and needs a lot of citation work to bring it up to main page readiness.  Fix that and you'd have my support.  -- Jayron 32 14:04, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose as nominated. As stated above, there needs to be more referencing.  Additionally, the article doesn't make it clear whether this is actually complete or not; the lede notes that it should be completed in 2017.  An otherwise surprisingly nice and thorough article, though, and I'd love to see this on ITN.128.214.53.104 (talk) 14:07, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Wait – Until structure is completed and, so to speak, takes effect. Sca (talk) 15:41, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Or we risk meltdown on the mainpage?  Lugnuts  Precious bodily fluids 14:17, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * , have you considered changing your user name to Ripper? Sca (talk) 16:04, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Have you ever seen a Commie drink a glass of water?  Lugnuts  Precious bodily fluids 18:45, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Vodka is what they drink, isn't it? Sca (talk) 17:01, 2 December 2016 (UTC)


 * PS: After reading a couple current stories, I'm not sure to what extent the new structure may already be containing the radiation — ?? Sca (talk) 15:59, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * PPS: As I understand it, the new structure doesn't "replace" the old sarcophagus, it encloses it – along with the rest of the plant. Sca (talk) 16:03, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * According to my sources it will be used for disposal of reactor and sarcophagus in future so it must be able to somehow contain radiation. However the selling will be indeed completed next year that is correct. --Jenda H. (talk) 16:19, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Did you mean ceiling, not selling? Cheers. Sca (talk) 16:00, 1 December 2016 (UTC)


 * In principle this should be posted, but article is completely unreferenced. I recommend linking Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant since that one is decently updated. Nergaal (talk) 17:59, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose on article quality. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:16, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support and I don't agree with the opposers. --Fixuture (talk) 18:19, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Could you just clarify that, my oppose is on article quality, right now the Chernobyl New Safe Confinement article has no fewer than ten maintenance tags. Ordinarily we don't post articles at ITN with one.  Which part of my oppose do you disagree with?  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:24, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I would add that merely posting "support" does not provide much assistance in determining consensus(see "Please do not.." above). Could you elaborate? 331dot (talk) 19:28, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * & I simply disagree that the article quality is unsuitable for inclusion in the In The News section, no matter the count of maintenance tags. At worst case simply remove all those uncited sections - the article would be good enough without them (and readd them later once people added references on the talk page). --Fixuture (talk) 19:52, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Removing all the unreferenced information in the article would render it a stub. Not worthwhile.  If you're that keen to see this promoted, the best you can do is to start improving the article because, and I know this 100%, it will never be posted in its current state, no matter what.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:35, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose While the ceiling has been placed over the facility, the end walls have not been built so the structure is not complete. Wait until it is complete in August, 2017. Mamyles (talk) 15:31, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Cléber Santana

 * Comment Assuming that the full list of team victims will appear soon in the posted crash article, I don't see a particular reason to pick this guy from the roster. Brandmeistertalk  12:06, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Not one of the RD criteria. The article exists and is decent.  We don't have a rule that precludes people from a disaster being listed. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:09, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * There's an operational problem. If a dozen notable people die in the same disaster, do we list all the ones that have acceptable quality articles?  That could be awkward.  If we have the article listed, it may even be considered redundant. Not sure how to resolve. Jehochman Talk 13:21, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * A theoretical problem. Some of these players don't even have articles.  Those which I have browsed are nowhere near fit enough for main page inclusion except this individual.  It would be a nice problem to have if someone put the effort into getting all those articles up to scratch in the next seven days.  The Rambling Man (talk) 13:43, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm not so sure that it is Santana's death that is in the news as much as it is the plane crash and the large amount of deaths in total. In other words, it may not be the death of Santana himself that is the news story. Lepricavark (talk) 15:10, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter. It's an RD nomination so it's only article quality we're worried about here. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:13, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I read the note and it specified that the individual's death had to be in the news. My point is that I don't believe his death specifically is in the news. On that basis, and in accordance with the valid arguments of below, I oppose this nomination. Lepricavark (talk) 15:24, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You missed the reference I supplied which was specifically about Santana. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:31, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok, that requires me to remove that aspect of my oppose. That being said, I still agree with the other arguments that have been advanced for opposing. Unusual cases are often the ones in which IAR is best applied. Lepricavark (talk) 15:34, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose From the team's article, nearly all the players are notable, even if the article quality varies significantly. It makes no sense to post just one of them just because the article quality is already there, and ignore the rest - that's a systematic bias. And inversely, if we were to post all of them, that makes RD useless for several days. It should be taken a priori that the deaths from the team are covered by the crash's article, making the RD aspect moot. --M ASEM (t) 15:20, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Please read above. We won't be posting them all, some don't even have articles.  I take it you're invoking WP:IAR here as the current RD rules do not support your position at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:24, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It is a situation that we have not encountered before under the new RD approach and something that I don't think ever was considered - the death of several notable people in an otherwise ITN-worthy event. As such, while you can argue I'm asking for IAR-ignorance of the new RD rules, I think it's a brand new situation that really hasn't been set by theme (just as we had with the death of a notable animal that needed further discussion). I know you are saying right now, only one even comes close to qualifying, but knowing the avid football editors on here, and that there will likely be intense coverage of this from both news and sports media due to this happening in the championships, there's reasonable expectations that editors will expand several of the other players' articles. And that's the situation that worries me more than the apparent bias of pulling one name out from the bunch just because that person had the best article. (Imagine the situation if it were the case that a team like the 2016 Chicago Cubs had died in a plane accident on the way to Game 7 (heaven forbid that would occur)) I would argue that while this particular story predated the new RD rules, the approach we took for the helicopter crash from March 2015 that took 3 notable athletes is how we should handle these situations, having the crash ITN blurb serve as the effective RD for the notable people involved. --M ASEM  (t) 15:33, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * RD rules have changed since those nominations, but it's interesting that this occurence is more frequent than it first seems. Therefore we should modify the RD criteria to accommodate this scenario. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:37, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure, I recognized they changed, but as I noted, I don't recall, during the RFC of the new rules, anyone bringing up the situation if a mass tragedy (itself ITN-worthy) with multiple RD-qualifying deaths should occur, and since the new RD rules have been in place, I can't recall any situation of this ilk until now, so this should be taken as new territory.
 * Now, to that end, if there is a mass tragedy with many RD-qualifying persons involved, it becomes clear quite quickly that RD noms for many people does not work, as we do not scale well when multiple deaths happen at the same time. (Keep in mind: editors nominate RD-qualifying people with sub-par articles all the time here. There is no reason that all the other notable players on the team could not be listed now). So either we go with the more common sense approach that we took before RD - letting the tragedy blurb act as the RD for all involved - or we have to completely rework how the RD process is handled and how RD is presented to allow a large number of people to be listed at the same time. The path of least resistance seems the more obvious choice here. --M ASEM (t) 15:45, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * We should just add it into the RD criteria. As for listing all those who died, I don't see that as a major issue.  This isn't a paper encyclopedia, most of them won't get posted, as I've said a few times, because they either have no article or an article in poor state.  The Rambling Man (talk) 15:48, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Masem and commonsense. Santana's death is covered by the plane crash blurb. Given the highly unusual circumstances of his death he would be a serious contender for a blurb as opposed to RD even if all the other deaths had not also occurred. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:29, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:IAR? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:31, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think the guidelines were intended to create duplicate postings for deaths. I can't recall any instance where we gave someone a blurb and an RD. If you want to file that under WP:COMMONSENSE that works for me. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:38, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * No, it wasn't intended to do so, but in some cases, especially now RD criteria have changed to simply inspect quality, it is a byproduct. But as above, this has happened a few times over the last couple of years so we can modify RD criteria to accommodate this approach.  The Rambling Man (talk) 15:42, 29 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose Per above. Really, this is already posted as a blurb. We didn't add Fidel Castro to the "Recent deaths" section, because that would be redundant. Similarly, it doesn't make sense to list Santana twice. If you want to try to justify this based on a torturously strict reading of the death criteria, well, two can play at that game: "It is sometimes contentious whether or not the death of a person itself merits a blurb or a mere listing in the "recent deaths" section" suggests that a death should get either a blurb or a listing, but not both. Smurrayinchester 15:40, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Well we didn't add Castro to RD because his article was already targeted in the ITN section. That isn't the case here. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:42, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:IAR and the existence of a blurb.--WaltCip (talk) 15:43, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * However, I think it's worth amending the RD criteria as follows: "In the event of extraordinary catastrophic circumstances where the deaths of one or more individuals (with articles) are caused as the result of an independently notable event posted as a blurb, a recent deaths posting of all or most of the individuals can be forgone in the interests of avoiding redundancy."--WaltCip (talk) 15:49, 29 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Suggest speedy close per IAR and move the discussion concerning the RD guidelines to the talk page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:53, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose per all of the above. Yet another indication that our current RD criteria are a complete nonsense. We've really lost the plot here, thinking that article quality should be the only criterion for an RD listing. Modest Genius talk 16:02, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Not really. The change had a large consensus.  And all this rare event has done has shown there's at least one exception we haven't accounted for.  As is the case with many rules.  I don't think there's any need for the hyperbole.  Of course, no-one is stopping you starting a new RFC to overturn the change.  That would be very interesting.  The Rambling Man (talk) 16:07, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] LaMia Airlines Flight 2933

 * Support but note that casualty numbers are not confirmed at this stage. What is reported is that there are six survivors so far. Mjroots (talk) 08:27, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Sander.v.Ginkel (Talk) 08:31, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support, although, as Mjroots said, do note the number of casualties is unconfirmed at this point. WPancake (talk) 08:57, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Wait until numbers are confirmed. 197.15.224.56 (talk) 09:40, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Now numbers are confirmed. Smurrayinchester 09:41, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * (I would advise not using the current image though - it's an old one, and it shows the aircraft in Air France livery, not LaMia.) Smurrayinchester 10:10, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

An image of the aircraft in LaMia livery is now available. Mjroots (talk) 05:44, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment looks ready now. I would also advocate leaving the last story on ITN to help balance the main page, per my report at WP:ERRORS. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:56, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted Smurrayinchester 10:33, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 4 people originally listed in the passengers' list did not embark, bringing the death toll to 71. The source is in Portuguese [here]. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 21:20, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Please post this to WP:ERRORS where it may be ignored for 18 to 24 hours and then finally actioned by a decent admin. Nothing will come of it here.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:21, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I didn't know where to report it. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 21:28, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The death toll is correctly 71 at the article. Yes, you are right, the ITN blurb on the main page has to catch up. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:29, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I changed the blurb here thinking that it would reflect in the main page.Gsfelipe94 (talk) 21:35, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * No, that's why I said you should report it at WP:ERRORS. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:44, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * That's what I did. I was just explaining it to that user because he probably saw the 71 listed on the blurb and didn't understand. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 21:47, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Fixed by a decent admin (cough). BencherliteTalk 21:53, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * One of the finest in town. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:00, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Given the town I'm spending the week in, I doubt that's difficult... BencherliteTalk 22:02, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Major news event. -- Marvellous Spider-Man  14:48, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Too late. We're onto chess champions now.  The Rambling Man (talk) 23:59, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] New King of Thailand

 * Comment: Probably needs to wait for a bit longer still. More detailed reports indicate that the NLA has sent an invitation for the Crown Prince to access the throne, which still needs to be accepted. --Paul_012 (talk) 05:52, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment. The succession of a non-elected head of state is ITNR, though as Paul states I'm not sure that time is now. 331dot (talk) 10:06, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment. The Thai government has just announced that he is not king yet. Please see further information at Talk:Vajiralongkorn. --YURi (talk) 10:45, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Question is he or he is not the king of Thailand? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:16, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment. According to CNN, the Crown Prince is currently participating in ceremonies that will end in his coronation, so this event appears imminent (though I don't know how long the formalities are expected to take).  Dragons flight (talk) 11:51, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment BBC has confirmed he is now proclaimed as king. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:26, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

RD: Ray Columbus

 * Weak oppose while there's nothing terrible about the article, it's barely above stub level, and the majority of it deals with his health rather than his entertainment and pop star career. So, needs expansion to cover the major aspects of his life. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:26, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Article has since been improved. MaxBrowne (talk) 19:28, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The added material appears to be unreferenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:44, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

[Withdrawn] OSU Stabbing

 * Oppose - ASITUSA. And it doesn't look like there were any fatalities.--WaltCip (talk) 17:18, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Not sure what that acronym is, but I'm guessing its related to something "All USA-related news gets on ITN." There was one fatality, and that was a suspect. More may die from injuries. Dat GuyTalkContribs 17:26, 28 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Until more info rolls in, does not appear to be anything especially noteworthy, as the only casualty was taking down the assailant. -- Fuzheado &#124; Talk 17:28, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now. Reports say gunshots were heard, so why is the article titled "stabbing"? Still lack of clarity on situation and lack of clear notability at this moment.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 17:30, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Highly probable that gunshots were police shots fired. -- Fuzheado &#124; Talk 17:39, 28 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Support - when everything becomes clearer. and the article is fully sourced. otherwise it seems to be good for ITN.17:34, 28 November 2016 (UTC)BabbaQ (talk)
 * The odds are that the article may not even survive, and just be merged into List of attacks related to post-secondary schools -- Fuzheado &#124; Talk 17:40, 28 November 2016 (UTC)


 *  Wait  but leaning oppose. Nothing so far suggests this rises to the level that warrants a blurb on ITN. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:37, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose It is increasingly becoming clear that this is just another very sad but fairly common example of violent crime here in the US. Coverage is unlikely to pass SUSTAINED and I have doubts the incident even warrants a stand alone article per NOTNEWS and RECENTISM. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:13, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose Attacker was killed one minute after start of incident (according to FOX news). So if it is terrorism. It is like Thalys train attack and we didn't post that. Is that correct? --Jenda H. (talk) 18:09, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose mass attack in America with limited casualties. Nothing particularly newsworthy, I'd suggest a one-line update to any ongoing "Mass attacks in the United States in 2016" article or similar.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:20, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Mark Taimanov

 * Oppose chess career section is completely unreferenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:39, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support As of now I've added more refs. Brandmeistertalk  11:11, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - per the refs added. otherwise good for RD,BabbaQ (talk) 17:35, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Filled in a missing ref and Posted. Black Kite (talk) 09:42, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] Aleppo offensive (November 2016)

 * Support - the fall of Aleppo is developing quickly. There are no supplies in rebel parts of city. Also it is first time for Syrian army since 2012 to be in that part of city. Aleppo's significance for whole civil war is obvious. --Jenda H. (talk) 18:20, 28 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Support But what about a blurb instead (not that I'm against an ongoing), something like "The Syrian army seizes north-eastern Aleppo" (40% of the rebel-held part says BBC, so the fighting must have swept past many tens of thousands of residents). Narayanese (talk) 22:27, 28 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Support - For ongoing. Has been in the news lately. Sherenk1 (talk) 05:17, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support certainly in the news, certainly ongoing, and certainly a decent article. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:48, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Posting. I was the nominator but I see enough support. --Tone 13:47, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] 104th Grey Cup

 * Oppose for now. Extremely poor referencing. Whole sections lacking a single cite. This is going to need some work before it can be posted on the main page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:38, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Article is much improved. Well done to those involved. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:10, 29 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose as above. For information, the item was actually posted without discussion or consensus yesterday by another rogue admin.  Thankfully it was removed minutes later.  The Rambling Man (talk) 05:50, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Update: I have fixed the referencing issues and added a bit more information to several sections. I believe it is ready to be posted. -- Plasma Twa  2  08:58, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Still seems to be a vast number of [citation needed] to be resolved. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:00, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I was halfway through editing that section when I posted, thinking I'd be done by the time anyone responded. The citations for the Aftermath have been resolved and I'm working on expanding that section further with television ratings and overall impressions of the game. -- Plasma Twa  2


 * Comment still plenty of unreferenced claims, some POV in there, and really, the whole game is summed up in about 10% of the article. The game summary should be expanded about fivefold.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:19, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I've gotten the citations for the citations you requested and expanded the game summary. but asking for it to be fivefold is an exaggeration. The summary is now more in-line with those of previous Grey Cups, which were suitable to be posted. There's no reason for this to not be remarked ready.-- Plasma Twa  2  22:45, 29 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Support It strikes me that the page is sufficiently updated and sourced to be posted. It could benefit from more images, and expanding the game summary wouldn't be the worst thing, but it doesn't need a fivefold expansion from where it is. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:56, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted with the same format of blurb as last year (i.e. no mention of the cup number). BencherliteTalk 23:37, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

[Stale] 2016 Formula One season

 * Season report needs some references, otherwise the article is extensive. Remember to mention Auto racing in the blurb, perhaps it also makes sense to mention that Mercedes won the constructor's title. --Tone 16:13, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Blurb amended, do we really need to mention auto racing? Mjroots (talk) 16:32, 27 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Support - when improvements has been completed. definitely for ITN.BabbaQ (talk) 20:54, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid your vote is meaningless. This is an ITNR, so once "improvements have been completed", it will be posted.  Your voting pattern indicates that you do not understand how ITN works for RD or ITNR items.  Feel free to ping me if you need further explanation.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:10, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Question - could the blurb be posted with only Nico and Mercedes articles being linked. I realise that they are not ITNR but both articles are in good shape with no referencing issues. Mjroots (talk) 10:00, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - Definitely biggest sports' news in a while and we always had the formula 1 champion in the box. I altered the blue-ish part above so it's not misleading anymore. Cheers, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 12:31, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Question - Anyone there? The News administration became really darn slow.. :( -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 00:55, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It has. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:50, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Needs more sources to 2016_Formula_One_season. --hydrox (talk) 09:50, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * And there are other sections that have had orange-level tags about lack of references for months. This is still a fair way from being postable. BencherliteTalk 00:45, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * What exactly is far from being postable, Bencherlite? I don't see the issues. Horst-schlaemma (talk) 12:02, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * FYI your comment came like 3 days after the one you're replying to and there were multiple edits in the intervening time period Palmtree5551 (talk) 19:48, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Article looks a lot better. Are we okay with a blurb like Nico Rosberg (pictured) wins the 2016 Formula One drivers' championship and announces his retirement, and Mercedes wins the constructor's title. to bring in the more recent news as well? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:40, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - definitely. Not sure about adding in the retirement to the blurb though Palmtree5551 (talk) 19:49, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Sourcing has improved considerably. Notability is of course a no-brainer. Marking [Ready]. This would go between Casto's death and Grey Cup. --hydrox (talk) 15:15, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Closing as stale as it is older than the current oldest story on ITN. BencherliteTalk 21:43, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * With the addition of the retirement news (and assuming the articles truly are ready), it could be placed above the element names, which is where that aspect belongs chronologically. Just a suggestion...  EdChem (talk) 21:47, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Except I don't see a consensus in that discussion for posting his retirement. BencherliteTalk 21:52, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

RD: Ron Glass (actor)

 * Comment: This article is missing a few citations. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:59, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Yep, it's true. The article is not ready to go yet. The filmography list has the same issue that Henderson's did. However, I wanted to try my hand at offering a nomination. Only my second time doing so and last time (four years ago), I was yelled at for not following the correct format. So here's to second tries! Rhodesisland (talk) 05:36, 27 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose a lot of unverifiable material, many tags. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:15, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support once the last two cn's are addressed. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 13:11, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - definitely for RD,BabbaQ (talk) 20:54, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment many appearances in the tables are impossible to verify. That's why we have WP:V and WP:RS and WP:BLP.  It must be improved before it gets to the main page.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:03, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now. Very sad news. Alas there is far too much unsourced material. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:05, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Margaret Rhodes

 * Support It's not the strongest article I have seen but I think it meets our standards. I have added a couple references. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:57, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Marking as Ready in the absence of any opposing votes and before this becomes stale. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:59, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted. Jehochman Talk 21:09, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

RD: Pauline Oliveros

 * Oppose insufficiently referenced and not quite updated in all sections to reflect her death. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:16, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose - needs more citations. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 13:14, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - after improvements has been made. BabbaQ (talk) 20:55, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Pointless. RDs are now posted once they are up to scratch.  Saying something like "Support after improvements" is meaningless.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:04, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * please keep in mind: "The Rambling Man ... is prohibited from insulting and/or belittling other editors." Thanks! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:11, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It's a statement of fact, it is meaningless to say this kind of thing. RDs are posted once they're improved.  There is no notability requirement any longer.  And as you are involved and have abused your position numerous times, please refrain from pinging me again.  Thanks! The Rambling Man (talk) 07:15, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I would be involved if I took any administrator actions with regards to you, but I haven't. You should probably know that; you yourself just linked to the relevant policy. If you'd like to talk at me more, my talk page is open; this is getting beyond the scope of ITN. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:19, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I've asked you stop pinging me, so please respect that. You are involved already, so desist. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:20, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support. The recent edits seem to have addressed the citation needed tags.  Could still be improved but the current version appears adequate.  Dragons flight (talk) 12:32, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

RD: Trevor Goddard

 * Comment the nomination is incorrect, it points at Trevor Goddard and not Trevor Goddard (cricketer). The Rambling Man (talk) 07:19, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Andise1 (talk) 13:42, 27 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose the article is generally well-referenced but there are a few claims without citation and that needs to be resolved. One suspects it shouldn't be too difficult to find those missing refs.  The Rambling Man (talk) 07:25, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - I checked the article and graded it "B" class. It is at least as good as other biographies, in particular those of cricketers, with B class. I think that it would avoid redundant debate if we agreed that any article C (or B) class or better is ready for the home page if the notability criteria is satisfied. TRM, if you see problematic statements in the article, please fix them (preferably) or point them out so others can fix them without guessing. Jehochman Talk 15:52, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * If the subject has an article then the notability criterion for RD has been met. If you want to change the criteria to automatically post a certain grade of article then start an RfC.  If you have difficulty spotting sentences, paragraphs and list entires that don't have a corresponding reference the you should probably apply your skills elsewhere.  Stephen 11:00, 28 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Support - I agree with Jehochman. B-class.BabbaQ (talk) 20:55, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment for someone with your experience, I'm disappointed, but not surprised, that you are now asking for the obvious.  B-class classification is utterly irrelevant, is that in the criteria for RDs?  If you think that self-assessed B- or C-class articles should get a free pass at ITN, please start an RFC.  You should know by now how this sort of thing works.  As for pointing out issues, uncited claims should be referenced.  It's fundamentally simple to see that, if you have a problem finding them, let me know.  Proper citation is a natural part of the RD process, as I have described to you at least twice now.  If you wish to continue stalking me and harassing me, we'll go to ANI or Arbcom to discuss things since I'm under unclear and subjective sanctions.  Thanks!  (P.S. I've added some tags, it's abundantly clear you haven't actually read the article, which is more of comment on your contributions here than my determination to look for excellence on the main page......)  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:12, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose for now. Just a few cites needed. Articles don't have to be GA or FA to get through ITNC but the customary standard is no glaring gaps in referencing and at least one cite per paragraph. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:19, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] Fidel Castro

 * Support blurb very well known figure. &mdash;Jonny Nixon (talk) 05:43, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Speedy support Emily Goldstein (talk) 05:44, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Could it be a "blurb" instead? Emily Goldstein (talk) 05:46, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't doubt that Castro rises to the notability of a blurb. I only dithered on that because he presumably died of natural causes at 90 years old, and he stopped being President of Cuba as of 2008. Considering the article is in good condition, I think we should post it to the RD ticker as quickly as possible, and then discuss having a blurb.--WaltCip (talk) 05:49, 26 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Are. You. Insane? Abductive  (reasoning) 06:40, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The fuck is your problem? Do you have anything constructive to add? --WaltCip (talk) 16:37, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Fighting to be constructive with "The fuck is your problem?"???! you were in the right, til then.Lihaas (talk) 21:13, 26 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Support blurb: One of the world's longest-ruling leaders and most influential men of the 20th century. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:50, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support RD now We can promote it to a blurb later. Quality of the article is top notch. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:52, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Speedy support RD, support blurb I after with Mugoshgu. RD now, blurb later needed.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 05:59, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with Muboshgu's solution per his reasoning. If someone could propose a blurb, that'd be super. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:00, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support full blurb well... duh EternalNomad (talk) 06:02, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * No introduction? Who is this Castro fellow?
 * support blurb and added one.Lihaas (talk) 06:03, 26 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Support Blurb, add "one of the central figures leading the Cuban Revolution", or "the de facto leader of the Cuban Revolution".one of THE central figures in second half 20th century politics, up there with Kruschev, Nixon, Kennedy, and Kissinger in influence, if not in raw power. for people who recall him in his prime, there is no question. we very nearly engaged in nuclear war due to his alliance with the soviets.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:07, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Adding anything else beyond being the former president of Cuba may be inappropriate. We usually don't embellish on blurbs. --M ASEM (t) 06:16, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support full blurb One of the most notable deaths so far in 2016 WClarke (talk) 06:10, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support full blurb Kind of goes without saying.LM2000 (talk) 06:12, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Significant person that greatly impacted global politics in the late 20th century. so a blurb is perfectly in line here. Article may be a bit too long (see WP:SIZE and WP:SS) but meticulously sourced and otherwise fine for posting. --M ASEM (t) 06:14, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Blurb posted, image needs adding to template. Mjroots (talk) 06:18, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support blurb one of those people who thought he died a long time ago..shocking. Looks like Trump winning was his last horcrux..use a different pic though-- Stemoc 06:21, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Picture has been changed.--Jenda H. (talk) 10:49, 26 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Picture update on ITN requested, as soon as someone is able. The one here is better for this purpose than anything I found in a fast search. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 13:29, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Post Posting Support for blurb One of the great tyrants of modern history and a giant of the political left. His influence in the Cold War and Latin American politics is incalculable. The article quality IMO ranks in the top tier of BLPs. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:31, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Post Posting Support for blurb. I also would like to add support for a blurb. I see many similarities between our post of Mandela and our post of Castro. We posted Mandela as a blurb even though he was in advanced age, sick for many years, and also had been out of office for decades. We did so because of the impact his life and career had on the later years of the 20th century. All of these things are precisely the same for Castro--old, sick, death not a surprise really, out of office for years--however he also made a enormous impact on the 20th century. The world changed because of both of these men so we need to treat them equitably. Just my 2¢. Rhodesisland (talk) 04:22, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * PP support per exactly what said. The fact that we have RD now shouldn't stop us from posting all deaths, even if they're old and/or death was expected. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 13:04, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * We certainly are not going to be posting blurbs for all deaths. ITN guidelines and longstanding consensus here hold that only persons who have died under exceptionally unusual circumstances, usually notable in their own right, or who have had a truly enormous impact within their given field get blurbs. We also usually post heads of state/government who die in office. Castro got a blurb because the murderous SOB was one of the most important figures in global politics and the Cold War during his tenure. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:47, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I think you misunderstood me—I am saying that not all deaths should be relegated to RD. We actually agree on your basic points. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:52, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the clarification. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:56, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] Big Tree (Washington tree)

 * Oppose posting in its current form. Very short and provides little information on the tree itself, let alone its death(though the article notes it was with 'little fanfare'). 331dot (talk) 00:04, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Also oppose on procedural grounds per below; the tree has been dead for a year; but even accepting that, this doesn't seem to be "in the news". 331dot (talk) 00:15, 26 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Um, no. First of all, this is a very short stub.  Secondly, the tree died over a year ago.  Whilst an interesting subject, this is not "in the news". Black Kite (talk) 00:10, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Only as a procedural aspect, they had no way a year ago to know for sure the tree died. As the article states, they had an idea when the tree didn't grow its leaves in the spring, and they've basically confirmed it now. This is where RD would thus apply. No comment though otherwise for or against posting. --M ASEM  (t) 00:16, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, fair enough, but I don't see the amount of coverage I'd expect for ITN, and if the article covered a person I think they might struggle to pass GNG. Black Kite (talk) 00:22, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose It's a stub. Also we need a bit more coverage in mainstream news outlets. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:30, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Uh, is this nomination breaking the page for anyone else? Nohomersryan (talk) 03:45, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The nominator section looks kinda weird. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:55, 26 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Support on Improvement the tree and the beetle blight are both very notable. The article doesn't meet the three-prose-paragraph minimum, but it can be expanded, especially since much of the interesting info on the size, etc., is oddly confined to a quote in the references section, rather than the text itself.  I would fix it, but it is too close to bedtime for me to be carefully crafting prose. μηδείς (talk) 04:18, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose: It's a tree. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:31, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * RD now states "An individual human, animal or other biological organism that has recently died " merits a RD listing(assuming the article is OK). 331dot (talk) 10:05, 26 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose but not because it's a tree (RD instructions allow for these, so that's an invalid oppose), but because it's a stub. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:09, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: Keeping it as a stub may not be inappropriate. Are there any dead-tree publications covering this subject? --Hegvald (talk) 10:15, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: I am looking for more sources and trying to expand it. There is little news reporting that I could find.  Suggestions would be welcome?  Thanks.  7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 12:19, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I am not going to send this to AfD but I do think that the coverage of this tree from reliable secondary sources, outside of its death, is extremely thin. Unless someone can find some significant pre-death RS coverage I am unlikely to change my oppose vote. The claim to notability is weak. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:38, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Notability might be weak, but deletion would not be appropriate, just merge the content into Gifford Pinchot National Forest. --M ASEM (t) 15:53, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed. However if a subject is not notable enough for their own article, that's pretty much a showstopper for RD. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:57, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: David Hamilton (photographer)

 * Support RD only, not too many controversial photographers, he was one of them, but definitely not an ITN.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:14, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support The article appears to meet the customary standards for RD. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:53, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support. Seen several news stories about his passing, and if TRM thinks the article is good enough, it's good enough for me. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 23:56, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment. I can't agree that it is up to standards; there are a few citations that are needed before it is ready to go. Henderson's is better than this one, yet still wasn't up to standards when posted or re-posted. Rhodesisland (talk) 04:43, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I noted in the nomination that the article was weak. I agree that Henderson's article wasn't up to standard but then this isn't the kind of nomination that would gain much interest from those American admins.  The Rambling Man (talk) 07:26, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Marking as Ready Referencing is not ideal but there is at least one citation for every paragraph. That's pretty much our baseline minimum and the rape allegations are reasonably well sourced. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:05, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted. Dragons flight (talk) 11:45, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] Iran train accident

 * Weak Support It's not the most detailed article I've seen but it is no longer a stub and appears to be adequately referenced. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:55, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Posting. The article has been sufficiently expanded. --Tone 08:59, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support posting. I did a few copy edits. The article can benefit from more. Jehochman Talk 09:09, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

[Re-posted] RD: Florence Henderson
What SPECIFICALLY is the problem with this article. It has more references and is better quality than other things already posted. I do not see a standard here. I see a double standard. Jehochman Talk 02:16, 26 November 2016 (UTC) Why don't yougo find an example of an error. It is not necessary to have an inline citation for every fact. Only facts likely to be challenged. If you click the links I think you will find many citations in the referenced articles. The reader is not being mislead. Your ad hominem attack reveals your bias. Jehochman Talk 02:57, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose per the issues mentioned by the nom. Additionally the tables need more references. Otherwise it doesn't look bad. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:17, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Evaluation: I did not post this because it hasn't been substantially improved since the above comment. If you'd like to see it posted, please help improve the article. Jehochman Talk 16:43, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support on improvements, per Ad Orientem. At least at minimum, any red-linked or unlinked entries on the table need a source at this point, though ideally each line needs one. --M ASEM  (t) 17:19, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted - The most serious deficiency was corrected with an expansion of the personal life section. Other issues are not major, there is no information that appears dubious or wrong, and there are no maintenance tags on the article.  I expect that there will be continued improvements. Jehochman Talk 17:50, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment now then, a post to ITN with no consensus at all, in fact, almost the opposite.... would the subject matter be ... American? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:55, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Pull serious lack of referencing on her appearances, a heavy dependency on IMDB for BLP information (as we all know, IMDB is not a reliable source), and unreferenced claims of her being a Catholic. Really, we ought to read these articles before posting them just because they're popular American individuals.  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:59, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Pull Setting aside his unwarranted crack about Americans, TRM raises a legitimate point of order. We don't post things w/o consensus. There are still issues here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:06, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not unwarranted at all, it's exasperation at the alarming joy-riding that's conducted with regard to these kind of subjects. How many times have we seen drive-by postings  by American admins of American RDs like this?  Do you ever see an Indian or a Greek or a British RD posted in such a manner?  I don't think so.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:09, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * As an American I would say that I can't really blame TRM for his comment and that I understand it. Systemic bias is something that we should all think about. 331dot (talk) 20:57, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks 331dot. I don't believe my comment to be revelationary in any sense.  We all know this kind of thing has happened numerous times.  It needs to stop.  The individuals involved need to be asked, told, made to stop.   The Rambling Man (talk) 21:00, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note This item has been pulled pending consensus. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:53, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support: Article updated and souced good. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:04, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Apart from all the parts of the article that aren't sourced you mean? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:06, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The sourcing hasn't be significantly improved from when I casted my !vote above. --M ASEM (t) 22:08, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, apart from some quite major statements about her personal life and the entire filmography. The Career section needs improvement too as it's a litany of stand-alone sentences (She did this. Then she did this. Then this. And this. etc.)  This was posted without a single support (Masem posted "Support on improvement", but it wasn't improved, as he's pointed out.)  People seriously need to stop pulling stunts like this on the Main Page. Black Kite (talk) 23:58, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Can anybody point out specific facts in the article that are wrong or dubious? Additionally, if you think copy editing is needed, lend a hand. TRM especially could have left me a note or sent an email instead of raising a fuss on multiple pages.  Very bad form!  I know TRM dislikes all things American, but this is just absurd bureaucracy for the sake of obstruction. Jehochman Talk 01:38, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not that the facts may be dubious, it is about the quality of articles highlighted on WP's Main Page. Sourcing problems for BLP are not acceptable. --M ASEM (t) 01:54, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * What facts are dubious? What contentious material is unsourced?  You don't seem to understand the letter or the spirit of the relevant policy.  These rules aren't meant to create huge bureaucracy.  This article is quite informative and useful to anybody looking for more info about the subject, as many people are because it's "in the news".  If we wait until its no longer in the news, we are failing our readers. Jehochman Talk 01:56, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Jehochman, thank you for your comment. I think a number of editors on here have made quite clear their reservations about the quality of this article. There is a longstanding, albeit informal consensus on this page with regard to minimum standards, including referencing, for articles that we recommend for linking on the main page. In general they include at least one cite for all paragraphs excepting very short and obviously non-controversial claims, and that all tables be decently sourced. As for bad form, what would you call unilaterally posting an article against consensus? -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:58, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The tables are almost completely unsourced and it has an orange tag which reflects this. Orange tags are generally a showstopper here. Clearly you disagree with the rest of us. Why don't you just post a Support vote with your rational? That's how things generally work around here. We vote, we discuss and we strive for consensus. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:24, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Is any info in the tables wrong? Show one example and I will accept your thesis. The msintenance tag was added after the fact, by TRM. Jehochman Talk 02:35, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't know if it's all factual or not because the claims mostly lack reliable source citations that can be checked. That is the whole point of references. That an Admin does not grasp this is somewhat unsettling. And I would argue that TRM was quite correct to add the tag. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:40, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:V says otherwise, that all material must be verifible. Now, in terms of a BLP, it only becomes an issue if the fact is contentious, at which point unsourced statements should be removed until they can be sourced. Her appearances in various shows isn't contentious, but they still need to be verifible. Now, that said, I of the mindset that as long as the blue-link for a show exists, that's at least barely sufficient to post to the front page for an RD, the implication is that the blue-link would confirm the information. (At the time I !voted, there were several red links, they have been removed). But that's my stance, I think others want to see each row sourced. --M ASEM (t) 03:11, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You think that having entire lists of claimed appearances on TV, in film or on the stage, almost entirely unsourced is not a problem? Really? Have you read WP:V? Even by the standard of merely likely to be challenged that is a lot to take on "I trust you." Our standards are not quite as extreme as WP:V, but by longstanding consensus, at ITNC we do require that tables must be at least generally sourced. I get it that you do not agree with that. But clearly you are arguing against consensus here. At this point I think that all we can do is agree to disagree. Again I suggest you post your Support vote and rational. Beyond that I think we have both made our arguments and it is time to move on. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:18, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * As a non-American, I think Florence Henderson is certainly prominent enough to be known to readers across the English-speaking world and thus her posting news of her death is RD-worthy. I made an edit or two about her death, haven't looked in detail at the bio, so no comment on the article being main page-ready, but the death certainly is, IMO.  On TRM, as a regular at DYK, I would say that his manner of communication there has improved substantially of late and there is usually a basis for his comments on article quality, so I encourage all to try to look dispassionately at his points on that topic while putting aside manner-related issues to the extent that that is practicable.  Just my $0.02.  EdChem (talk) 02:04, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * If you look at the article before opining you would see. Jehochman Talk 02:16, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not a dislike of all things American, it's a dislike of the arrogance of some American admins who summarily post American topics when they're clearly not ready and against community consensus. That's poor behaviour and should stop.  The Rambling Man (talk) 06:58, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Ready all tags have been addressed, with uncited claims removed and verifiable primary sources (show episodes for which she is credited) serving as their own support. μηδείς (talk) 03:20, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Not ready I see no improvement in referencing for the tables. Not sure why the ref improve tag was removed w/o any improvement. WP:Wikipedia is not a reliable source. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:41, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * See WP:PRIMARY. A named or dated episode of a show serves as its own primary source for credited cast or simple plot summaries.  It is up to you to challenge specific claims if they are incorrect, but other than the name of the show and the episode, which can be verified, no other source is necessary to prove her mere appearance.  That there was an award, or an analysis of the show would need a source, since those matters are not themselves contained in the primary source:"Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.[4] Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge."  But things such as "Julie Andrews played Maria in the 1965 film The Sound of Music are verifiable from the credits alone.  Obviously, reading the credits is a straightforward descriptive determination.  This is long standing policy and practice. μηδείς (talk) 04:04, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that's nonsense. How can I verify she appeared on Ellen in 2007?  The linked article makes no mention of her at all.  It's just one of many unverifiable claims.  Worse are the stage credits, generically linked to the shows themselves.  This claim that somehow PRIMARY means we can bypass verifiable reliable sources is bunkum.  The Rambling Man (talk) 07:05, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak support Article seems to have improved sufficiently, but it's not quite as great as one would hope after 24 hours of revisions. --Sunshineisles2 (talk) 05:06, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support RD mention. seems adequate. people coming to WP when someone dies will always be mystified by us not including significant deaths just cause the article is not, say, GA or B. please, just no stubs, ok? (im sort of a gradualist, so im biased)Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:19, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support this is ready to post. – Muboshgu (talk) 06:23, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support: Just added citations for a few last unsourced statements. Why it is so difficult for people to do a cursory Google search to find a reliable source supporting something and add the proper citation to Wikipedia is beyond me. This is ready to go. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:26, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment not ready, most of the tables are unreferenced, including claims of appearances on stage shows which don't link to anything but the generic show article. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:05, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment see Sharon Jones (singer) for an example of a recent suitably referenced RD. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:08, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Reposted, per subsequent discussion and article updates Jehochman Talk 07:52, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * For the record, re-posted by the involved admin in spite of unaddressed referencing concerns. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:14, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * This isn't WP:FAC. Please identify any libelous, controversial or erroneous statement and I will deal with it immediately. Jehochman Talk 08:50, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Who mentioned FAC? We normally reference all claims on BLPs, as I have already demonstrated to you.  Your personal attacks, harassment and involved behaviour are most unbecoming of an admin.  The Rambling Man (talk) 08:52, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your high standards, but let's not have perfect be the enemy of good. Jehochman Talk 08:58, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Then stop your personal attacks. As an admin you should know better.  And no-one said anything about perfection.  It has already been demonstrated to you that BLPs can and should be fully and verifiably referenced before they're posted.  You and your rogue colleagues are bypassing policy and consensus.  You should do better.  The Rambling Man (talk) 09:18, 26 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Post-posting support - article is of good enough quality. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 13:09, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Re-corrected note: Article got 535,000 views Friday, 232,000 Saturday. Sca (talk) 16:52, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * No, it's not good enough, and sorry, those hits aren't based on the quality of the article. So I'm not sure what point either of you are trying to make.  Mind you, one of you abused his tools (on one of a few instances) by turning the text purple when Prince died, so I'm not sure how much to consider your opinion...  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:26, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Musta been Ed. I would never do such a low-down thing. Sca (talk) 22:51, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It's great to have the pre-arb case back. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:37, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I understand the point you're making. There are still changes that need to be made here, in particular with the cadre of American admins who routinely abuse their position and tools.  I'm just highlighting that issue, I suppose you wish it'd just go away, right?  Well I'm afraid not.  While there's an appetite to strongly enforce WP:ADMINACCT, I think we should be more closely examining a number of other admins' behavioural competencies.  Cheers!  The Rambling Man (talk) 05:47, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Not sure where you think that applies to me, systemically speaking, but cheers indeed. I'm out of this unproductive conversation. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:00, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Did you forget that you were hauled to ANI regarding your abuse of the tools? I haven't.  The Rambling Man (talk) 07:05, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Organosilicon

 * Question This is all quite fascinating as well as a bit over my head. Could someone explain to me the practical implications of this is layman's terms? Thanks. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:24, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Silicon is the next row down from carbon on the periodic table, and thus has a similar valence shell - namely it can create four covalent bonds with other materials. As such, everything that happens with carbon based organic chemistry should hypothetically happen with silicon-based chemistry. Hence the sci-fi-ish idea of "silicon-based life forms". That said, silicon is one of those things than our known carbon-based organic chemistry rarely interacts with. The ability to form a carbon-silicon bond by a carbon-based enzyme potentially sets of a pathway towards orgo-silicate chemistry. --M ASEM (t) 16:53, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Carbon-silicon bonds are not found in biochemical processes--basically, living organisms cannot form these bonds (like they do for other compounds: carbon-hydrogen, carbon-oxygen, carbon-carbon, etc.). The enzymes in living organisms are what catalyze these reactions. Organosilicon compounds (compounds with carbon-silicon bonds) are widely encountered in commercial products, like sealants, caulks, adhesives, and coatings made from silicones. Basically, these cannot be made from plant matter; chemists must invent different chemical reactions to form compounds with these bonds. These reactions are not very efficient. Now, for the first time, scientists have modified a certain enzyme (by introducing mutations-different amino acids in the enzyme part that catalyzes the reaction) from a hot springs bacteria than can form these carbon-silicon bonds. This shows that an organism with carbon-silicon bonds could exist in theory, and also provides a much better process for making these compounds that could be used commercially ("the enzyme can forge silicon-carbon bonds 15 times more efficiently than the best catalyst invented by chemists, and is also comparatively easier to modify, it can eventually serve as an alternative to the current techniques used to manufacture organosilicon materials widely used in semiconductors and pharmaceuticals.")  Spencer T♦ C 17:00, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: Organosilicon is likely the best place for an update.  Spencer T♦ C 17:00, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak Support Seems scientifically significant based on the comments above EdwardLane (talk) 17:53, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak Support per EdwardLane. I have also added a bold link to the blurb. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:21, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support thinking a theory for bio+abio nanotech in future. Nannadeem (talk) 18:28, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose for two reasons. First, the nominated articles are not remotely updated. Second, this is mostly hype. The compounds already can be made; an enzyme just is more efficient. If the articles could be updated to properly reflect the finding and avoid speculation and exaggeration then it would be okay to post this. Abductive  (reasoning) 18:42, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Not yet: The organosilicon article linked in the blurb does not use the word "enzyme," so the blurb does not suit the article.  I would avoid the word "create" in the blurb, too, as it sounds like the work took an existing enzyme and modified it, which is a long way different from creating an enzyme de novo.  The updates are clearly not sufficient for a main page appearance at the present time.  EdChem (talk) 02:29, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support This is the sort of discovery/innovation that leads to a Nobel Prize, and the source itself says "Modified bacterial enzyme taught to make bonds that evolution avoids" which is more important than the wording of our article, which is not itself a source. μηδείς (talk) 03:29, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment both articles updated now, and proposing alt blurb that uses both articles. Banedon (talk) 09:56, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Not anymore in the case of Organosilicon, apparently wasn't considered a suitable article to update (no research in there). Narayanese (talk) 17:36, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment the main excitement, if there is any, about this news report derives from the assumption that something important of highly novel was achieved, because few or no editors understand organosilicon chemistry. In my opinion, the making of Si-C bonds by enzymes is overhyped. --Smokefoot (talk) 15:21, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Any reasons to back up the assertion that this is overhyped? Banedon (talk) 15:53, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * How about the fact that it has vanished from the news media? Abductive  (reasoning) 20:04, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] Hillah suicide truck bombing

 *  Oppose  for now on article quality. No issue with the ITN worthiness of the nomination, but the article is a stub. It needs expansion before we could seriously consider it for linking on the main page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:31, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak Support Still very short, but probably meets the minimal standards. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:18, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Ad Orientem: I've done some edits now and will make some more so that the article find its requisite qualifications. -- M h hossein   talk 18:12, 25 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Support Its still short, but all major details are there and I've filled in a few missing sourcing gaps, and updated the death toll. --M ASEM (t) 17:17, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Because its contents are short in length but it is easy to remember and understand. Nannadeem (talk) 20:45, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose on article quality alone. It's barely written in English and is scant on fact.  Once expanded beyond a stub and copyedited for English language, I'd probably consider re-reviewing.  The Rambling Man (talk) 23:13, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The Rambling Man: It has improved a bit, I think. -- M h hossein   talk 07:30, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Striking oppose at this point, it's been expanded a bit and looks more reasonable. I'd trim down the See also to about four rather than the current nine, particularly as you have the templates to the side and bottom of the article which link to some of those See also's already.  I made a few tweaks.  The Rambling Man (talk) 07:36, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Is this incident/terrorism still in pending ques? Nannadeem (talk) 15:15, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * What are we waiting for? -- M h hossein   talk 19:10, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, I was not following this one. The article is in a good shape, posting. --Tone 19:32, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Israel wildfires

 * Oppose While affecting a large number of people, the amount of damage seems very small compared to the 2010 wildfires, and there's only reports of people treated for smoke inhalation as opposed to 40 deaths from 2010. Add that some of this appears to be started by arsonists, making it more domestic crime than a natural disaster aspect. --M ASEM (t) 14:40, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose. Being a small country(in terms of area) an evacuation of 60,000 does not seem insignificant to me- and Israel is getting international help in fighting the fires; but I would like to see coverage of this outside of Israel in some form, and maybe more discussion in the article about significant damage in order to support. 331dot (talk) 14:49, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I mean, there's this BBC article. Dat GuyTalkContribs 14:53, 24 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Support on significance - with all due respect to Masem, the impact of this kind of event should not be measured by the lack of dead people. 60k people is not little. Having said that the article is only two short paragraphs right now, which is hard to post. Banedon (talk) 14:52, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose inconvenient. If it gets substantially worse and hundreds of millions of dollars of damage and/or many lives are lost, it's news.  The Rambling Man (talk) 14:55, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - I am now writting the article and the reality is much more of a clusterfu.. than the article is. There were fires pretty much all across Israel and many of them were reportidly arsons that might"ve been caused by nationalists. I"ll suggest to wait a few hours with the nomination.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 14:56, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Adding to what Bolter said, I have a way of viewing Israeli TV and it definitely looks like cluster duck. Being broadcasted most of the time. Dat GuyTalkContribs 15:36, 24 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Wait – Developing. BBC said at about 15:00 "no deaths or serious injuries" reported. Too early to say if it's "politically motivated arson." – Sca (talk) 16:32, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: I just removed "wild" from the article name, and from the header here. --Smack (talk) 18:36, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak support: Note that 75,000 people have been evacuated in Haifa. --Smack (talk) 18:39, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment outside Israel, is this really featuring in neutral news outlets? Genuine question folks... The Rambling Man (talk) 23:15, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It's fairly big in U.S. media, with dramatic images. And the story is looking bigger, too. Sca (talk) 01:17, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * But not so much on Saturday. Sca (talk) 16:19, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

2016 Kashmir unrest

 * Support - Definitley an escalation. Article is up to shape. Definitely for ITN.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:45, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support per above. 45.116.232.43 (talk) 05:32, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak support good quality article, not seeing it in many news outlets I visit, but if I dig deeper I can find it. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:59, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose there is nothing about this in that article, because it's been moved to 2016 India–Pakistan military confrontation. Perhaps that article should be nominated instead. As far as I can see, 2016 Kashmir unrest (the article nominated here) has nothing from the last week. BencherliteTalk 08:46, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, fair point. The article you have suggested does have a small update and seems in a reasonable condition as well.... The Rambling Man (talk) 09:15, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support for 2016 India–Pakistan military confrontation as the topic. However not sure how the number match. Blurb says "20 people including 10 civilians" but when? And which people? The 2016IPmc article has infobox total death toll quite more. Either the blurb should clarify when these 20 people died or something different shall be proposed. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:11, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Btw, this article seems more suitable for on-going as it covers events of 7, 8, 11, 14, 18, 19, 22 and 23 November. It's gonna be difficult to put in blurb some specific event. Or we might have to run a generic and vague blurb like "India-Pakistan military confrontation leads to deaths of civilians, militants and military of both countries." §§<i style="color:#E0115F;">Dharmadhyaksha</i>§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:17, 24 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Support: It's ITN noteworthy. -- M h hossein   talk 11:46, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Ralph Branca

 * Comment I don't get In 1951, Branca gave up the "Shot Heard 'Round the World" to Bobby Thomson. at all. Can anyone rephrase this so those of us who don't live in the American baseball universe can understand it?  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:08, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment It's one of the most famous home runs in baseball history. I've linked to the article in your comment for more detail.  caknuck <sub style="color:black;">°  needs to be running more often  21:13, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I rewrote the sentence. It's now In 1951, Branca gave up a walk-off home run to Bobby Thomson, known as the "Shot Heard 'Round the World". The link, and the article body, give more detail on the home run. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:18, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Both, I understand what the words mean, but "gave up"? Perhaps this is a serious case of ENGVAR that will never be resolved... Do you both mean he "pitched the ball tha resulted in the "shot heard round the world"? I'm still not clear...   The Rambling Man (talk) 21:33, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Rambling, your interpretation of the text is correct. "Gave up" is the correct wording in this instance, but that may not be inherently clear to someone who isn't familiar with baseball. I can't think of any improvements to Muboshgu's revision.  caknuck <sub style="color:black;">°  needs to be running more often  22:04, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll change it to "allowed". "Gave up" is commonly used, but a bit colloquial. Branca was pitching, he threw a pitch, and Thomson hit one of the most famous home runs in baseball history. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:32, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose On his own merits, I don't think Branca was notable-enough of a player to make the front page. He wasn't a Hall of Famer, and probably falls into that massive category of "good, but not great" professional athletes.  caknuck <sub style="color:black;">°  needs to be running more often  22:04, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Please read the "Per RfC" message in the template. We post all articles of recently deceased persons whose deaths are covered in the news and whose articles are of "sufficient" quality to post. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:31, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support The article is solid and well referenced. The Giants Win the Pennant! The Giants Win the Pennant! -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:59, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support looks in good nick. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:55, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Marking 'ready'.  Spencer T♦ C 16:52, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks good; I added some more to see also. I would note that his participation in a legendary moment in the game's history has given his death more notice (didn't hurt that today's Thanksgiving, too). His obit was on the front page of The New York Times. Daniel Case (talk) 03:29, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted. Dragons flight (talk) 11:37, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] Khieu Samphan and Nuon Chea sentenced for Cambodian genocide

 * Comment We actually posted that in 2014. This is the result of the appeal. Not sure if it merits another posting. If so, the articles still lack updates. --Tone 17:19, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Did we? Well I didn't remember that. So I propose withdrawal. sorry--Jenda H. (talk) 22:23, 23 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose We don't generally post the results of appeals unless the previous convictions/sentences are overturned which is not the case here. Also the blurb is factually inaccurate. They were not sentenced. That happened two years ago. All that happened is that the appellate court upheld the earlier convictions and sentences. Lastly, per Tone, the articles have not been updated. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:33, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

RD: M. Balamuralikrishna

 * Weak Oppose for now. The article has a rather promotional and unencyclopedic tone to it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:59, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose the article looks like a bad school project. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:16, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Undoubledly notable but not par our standards, much content is unsourced. I will try and cleanup and try getting sources too. But I won't be able to be find regional sources and especially classical music related ones. Lets try though... §§<i style="color:#E0115F;">Dharmadhyaksha</i>§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:54, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Withdraw - This requires a lot of time and effort. &mdash; Vensatry (talk) 09:26, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

RD: Ram Naresh Yadav

 * Oppose. The article hardly mentions his achievements in office, and concentrates on his alleged involvement in wrongdoing which is insufficiently explained within the article. Also underreferenced, with tense problems and no information on his death. Espresso Addict (talk) 11:06, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

RD: William Trevor

 * Oppose for now due to poor referencing. First, welcome to Wikipedia and thanks for your nomination. The unofficial minimum standard around here for nominated articles is usually at least one RS citation for each paragraph and all tables need cites. Exceptions for obviously non-controversial material per WP:BLUE. The article doesn't need to be GA or FA but it does need to be reasonably well referenced with no glaring gaps. I will happily reconsider my oppose on improvement. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:31, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose and I note the OP removed several CN templates. No doubt in GF. I've reverted the edit. ... richi (hello) 23:43, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose inadequate referencing. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:08, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] 2016 Fukushima earthquake

 * Wait We need more information and it too early to say how serious this is. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:36, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose I saw news of this breaking, but the end result was seriously less disastrous than it could have been (warnings of 3m high tsunamis only ended up being 1m, and the reactor there was safely shut down and brought back up without incident. BBC reporting "minor injuries". --M ASEM  (t) 02:42, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose and suggest close, this was certainly a "what-if" story, but there's been no real consequential fallout. This stuff happens all the time.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:18, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] Protest against Dakota Access Timeline

 * Is there a reason you posted this at the bottom, where it will drop off the page in about 5 hours? Please also note that Wikipedia is not for bringing attention to good causes.  That said- is this article being continually updated with new information?  Ongoing is not just for posting events in progress. 331dot (talk) 21:10, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * that was a mistake, I've corrected it now Mannydantyla (talk) 21:15, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * And it looks to me that it's just as continually updated as the only article in the Ongoing list right now, which is the Battle of Mosul. As for Wikipedia is not for bringing attention to good causes, I honestly don't know what to say about this... if it's a relevant article that meets the requirements then what's it matter if it's a "noble cause" or not? I really wish that Wikipedia wasn't so uptight and institutional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mannydantyla (talk • contribs) 21:25, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Aside from the occasional celebrity or politician appearing at the protest, what tangible actions are occurring other than the mere occurrence of the protest? 331dot (talk) 21:35, 21 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose it's "ongoing" but it's not really "in the news" is it? The article appears to use a Facebook update to claim something happened yesterday, yet nothing before that appears to be reliably sourced post 14 November beyond conjecture.  Not convincing at all.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:47, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose The article fails NPOV. When I attempted to raise concerns about the one sided nature of the article I was accused of disruptive editing and drive by tagging. Another editor noted that "covering a protest movement will always seem "biased" to those who think protest movements shouldn't exist." Anyways I took the hint and moved on (for which I was also abused). All of which said, this article has no business being anywhere on or near the main page in its current condition. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:49, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Link to 1st November ITN nomination (no consensus). BencherliteTalk 23:55, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose per TRM - it's a very slow movement event and realistically being made larger than it actually is. Also agree with Ad Orientem that there's a neutrality problem here that needs a lot of work to be on the front page. --M ASEM (t) 02:53, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Unless/until there's a significant result. All I've seen so far is a woman being seriously injured two days ago. Not nice, but not ITN. Sca (talk) 15:54, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

RD: Irving A. Fradkin

 * Comment. The article is pretty brief with some bullet-point lists, and a few citations are marked as required. It also needs updating in tense. Espresso Addict (talk) 07:33, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support on improvements - There's a few CNs in the awards section, but otherwise sourced and updated. --M ASEM (t) 14:59, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose he did nothing of note between 1961 and 2013? Really?  Plus some citations needed and linkrot issues. (PS I will never understand Support on improvements for RD.  That's now Wikipedia's default position....)  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:15, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Stubby article with very spotty referencing and TRM is right - I see about four sentences for anything the man did during the course of the last 55 years - it's a sad sight for someone with a career this long. Challenger l (talk) 08:26, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] Jimmie Johnson wins 2016 NASCAR Sprint Cup Series championship

 * Weak Oppose solely based on some gaps in referencing. The unofficial standard around here is that all paragraphs need at least one citation and tables need to be referenced with common sense exceptions for obviously non-controversial (see WP:BLUE) material. Otherwise this looks like a solid article. Will happily reconsider once those gaps are filled. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:35, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Referencing is much improved. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:38, 22 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Support. There's a paragraph on every race (which is great), and every one of them has a citation. I don't think it's worth nit-picking over a couple of sentences in the 'changes' section. This is in better shape than many sporting articles that we post. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 13:35, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support on improvements I do think that the "changes", particularly the Technical changes section, needs better sourcing. Also, that entire section is written in future tense but if this event is over, that all has to be fixed. But otherwise nearly all complete and ITNR. --M ASEM (t) 14:58, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I converted the entire article to past tense, and added a source to the Technical changes section. The other changes were sourced by a citation that was already there so I just reused that source for each segment. –  Nascar1996  ( talk •  cont ) 18:45, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose we don't put the year in the blurb, it's obviously the 2016 series. But that's nothing compared to lack of references throughout the article.  I don't understand "support on improvements" which is the default position of ITNR.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:16, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - I have added additional sources to the article.  Dough   4872  01:22, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: all the rule changes now have references. Are there any other outstanding objections, or can this now go up? <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 17:30, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * No-one seems to object, so I'm marking this ready. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:31, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted, but the image needs sorting. Mjroots (talk) 17:51, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] Pukhrayan train derailment

 * Support: One of the deadliest disasters of the year and among the deadliest rail accidents in history. Should be on main page. Pratyush (talk) 08:03, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support -- KTC (talk) 08:38, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support but article needs expansion with incoming information before being posted. High casualty and deadliest accident in years. Small change in blurb needed, say near Kanpur instead of in as accident happened near Pukhrayan town, few km from Kanpur.-Nizil (talk) 10:52, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - Top news. Sherenk1 (talk) 12:02, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support and Question: Shouldn't there be an ITNR-like criterion for disasters? Where is the right place to discuss that? Cato censor (talk) 12:34, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Disaster-based ITNR has been discussed before but that becomes a numbers game, and becomes problematic. It's just better to have these as ITNC nominations. --M ASEM  (t) 13:14, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support on improvement - We should have more details on the actual incident (the responses stuff is okay and all but that's not the core of the article). Also the line "It is the deadliest documented rail incident in Uttar Pradesh, and in India since the Jnaneswari Express train derailment in 2010." needs sourcing. --M ASEM (t) 13:14, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Posting. I'll comment out the problematic sentence in the intro until the source is found. --Tone 14:16, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I've changed "in" to "near" as per above, BBC, and the article itself. -- KTC (talk) 14:45, 20 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Support - definitely for itn.BabbaQ (talk) 22:28, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

RD: Denton Cooley

 * Comment. Interesting article, but the referencing needs substantial improvement before it can be posted. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:30, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose whole paragraphs unreferenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:32, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now, uncited material could/probably should be challenged, especially the quotes. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:28, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now per above. Very poor referencing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:01, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Poor referencing - and the alleged "major career events" section makes no reference to even the little I've heard of the man - the artificial heart transplant (which is mentioned without references in the infobox). Challenger l (talk) 08:30, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

[Posted to RD]: Sharon Jones

 * Oppose whole paragraphs unreferenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:32, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - article quality is good enough; uncited material doesn't seem particularly contentious. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:27, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 *  Weak Oppose  for now. It's not horrible but there are too many gaps in referencing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:03, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Much improved. Well done to all involved. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:32, 19 November 2016 (UTC)


 * and, every paragraph and bulleted list item now has a reference. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:19, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Gamaliel  ( talk ) 19:30, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment. There are still no references for the discography. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:30, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed, that admins who post to the mainpage think that's acceptable for a BLP is disappointing. Noted.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:40, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Wait, why are we applying BLP to a RD nomination? —Akrabbimtalk 23:41, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * BLP applies to the recently deceased for some period after their death, generally a few months. --M ASEM (t) 23:57, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * What's most important is that the items in the discography which don't even have articles should be correctly cited. It may be that a single reference (AllMusic perhaps?) would cover them all...  The Rambling Man (talk) 09:00, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - per improvements.BabbaQ (talk) 22:28, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Per TRM, if someone can find and add a reference for the discography, I'll post this. That's the one major hold-up right now... -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:21, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * How's this? – Muboshgu (talk) 22:39, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It's better but incomplete, e.g. "Day Tripper" isn't listed. It's very well to add a generic source (as I suggested) but you have to actually check off each claim.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:46, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The singles all have sources now. —Akrabbimtalk 14:13, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted Thanks to all who improved the article and also to those who pushed for improvements. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:17, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

[Withdrawn] Arba'een Pilgrimage

 * If this is the largest world gathering, it may merit posting as a traditional ITN item, but not Ongoing. Ongoing is meant for continually updated articles, not just for events that are in progress. Are their frequent changes/additions to this event's article? 331dot (talk) 12:19, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 331dot: Then I have to tell you that it's the largest as the sources say. You can see Independent, Al-Jazeera, and IBTimes. You can probably find more. Btw, this is an ongoing event, i.e. it has started some days ago and will last some more days. However, the article does not need frequent changes. -- M h hossein   talk 12:28, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Also see using this source I support my claim that 'Arba'een pilgrimage is the largest annual gathering in human history'. -- M h hossein   talk 12:30, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * For Ongoing, articles do need to get frequent updates. Please review the Ongoing section description on this page.  As I indicated, Ongoing is not for merely posting events in progress. I don't dispute that this is a large gathering being covered in the media, which is why I stated that it should be nominated as a regular nomination.  331dot (talk) 12:32, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 331dot: Thanks for the useful link. So, can you help with this? -- M h hossein   talk 12:35, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * What is it you want help with? Changing this to a regular nomination? 331dot (talk) 12:40, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes. But I think that needs a fresh reliable source allowing us to update the article which I could not find. -- M h hossein   talk 12:42, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Knowing little about this event, I probably would not be helpful in finding sources about it, but I have changed the nomination- though I'm not sure about what the blurb should be. 331dot (talk) 12:49, 18 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose no sources here or in the article about the 2016 event (all the sources provided at this nomination are from 2014 or 2015) so nothing to show that this is actually "in the news" at present. BencherliteTalk 12:53, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose ITN is not for standard annual observances (Eid, Thanksgiving, Hanukkah, Christmas, etc). Try OTD. Fuebaey (talk) 15:32, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Withdraw: I agree with the comments made above. Closing the discussion saves time and energy. -- M h hossein   talk 15:49, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] Warren Mitchell

 * Support with improvement There is one appropriate CN tag in the article . There is an unreferenced paragraph too but it appear to be all non-contentious info (shows he was in that are blue-linked so should be easy to source). --M ASEM (t) 06:51, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Sure, he died last year, but it's probably a good time to remember that dear old lovable racist Alf. --Hillbillyholiday talk 07:28, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] Canadian national bird

 * Oppose good faith nomination. I know things are kinda slow right now but this is just not ITN material. Cute bird though. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:07, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose this is only a recommendation to the Canadian government. Obviously this will be huge news if they endorse the choice, but no posting for now. Stephen
 * Huge, huge news. Abductive  (reasoning) 18:05, 20 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose – I can't imagine this being particularly impactful even within Canada (unless there is some controversy going on that I am not aware of), let alone globally. "Call me if Canada plans to change their flag," I'd almost say :p ~ Mable ( chat ) 19:49, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the nomination, but I oppose posting a mere recommendation. I'm not even sure it would merit posting if this goes through, but certainly not now. 331dot (talk) 20:27, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Mose Allison

 * Oppose concur with nom, needs work but worth re-visiting once the heavy stuff has been done. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:09, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Moving to weak oppose, I've added a cn which needs to be fixed but the work done has been good! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:47, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Looks to have been fixed. Are you able to support now, The Rambling Man? Espresso Addict (talk) 07:27, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support. Some of the heavy stuff has been improved. --Light show (talk) 21:35, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:31, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted. Espresso Addict (talk) 08:07, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

RD: Paul Rosche

 * Support on update - The article makes no mention beyond the first line about his death. This needs to be included. The article could be better assembled (even though he's notable for those cars and engines given, I'm not a big fan of these types of galleries), but those issues themselves should not stop this being an RD once the update is done. --M ASEM (t) 16:23, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose as noted by Masem, the article is a little "different", while the galleries are nice, there's not so much detail on the bio itself. I'd like to see fewer images and more detail on his life, but I know I'll be a lone voice.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:11, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support based on fully cited article, although an image or two from the now-deleted gallery should probably be preserved, and the news of his death expanded (there's one mention at the end). Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:22, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, this seems somewhat unhelpful. Of course a fully cited article would garner your support, are you actually saying that all there is all you deem necessary for an RD article?  We simply don't post under-referenced BLPs.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:42, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The article does not provide full coverage of the subject's life. The problem with deaths reported in specialist publications is that they don't tend to include the basic biographical details that a newspaper obituary would provide as a matter of course. I'd also like to see a reference for the third paragraph of the lead, which doesn't appear to be directly referenced in the body. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:10, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - definitely for RD,BabbaQ (talk) 22:29, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

[Posted to RD]: Sixto Durán Ballén

 * Support Sourcing appears to be in order. --M ASEM (t) 15:22, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support looks good, just fix bare URL please. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:26, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * : I think it fixed all bare URLs. Please tell me if I missed any! Is it looking good enough for posting soon? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:59, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I made a spot check. There's a sentence in the article, "During his time as president he actively pursued structural reform to modernize the Ecuadorian state and cut down wasteful bureaucratic spending."  This is cited to Britannica but their entry doesn't mention structural reform or bureaucracy; instead it talks about trade and the budget balance.  Looking at the history of this sentence, we find that it was added to the article in 2006 by an IP editor.  The citation to Britannica was added more recently.  If you find a source which actually talks about the structural reform program, it seems that it ran into the sand, "the structural-reform program failed to progress".  So, this detail seems rather half-baked.  But the important question is whether he's actually dead or not.  When I search the news. it only seems to be reported by sources like The Indian Express and Fox News.  I'm not seeing news media like the BBC confirming this yet.  Andrew D. (talk) 17:23, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Its covered by El Universo who I would expect to get this right. Its also covered by other Spanish-language websites and print news. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:26, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * According to this source, El Universo is now rated "not free", being subject to significant government pressure and legislation. Andrew D. (talk) 17:38, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The Britannica source has been resolved. Awaiting further obits to be published soon. Just added the NYT obit. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:16, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The sentence in question is still unchanged from 2006. The source has been changed from Britannica to the Indian Express which seems to have even less to say about the subject's economic policies.  And the citation calls the newspaper the Times of India for some reason.  The NYT obituary is quite unconvincing as it's just a brief wire story.  If ITN is supposed to be a mark of quality then please put me down as Oppose. Andrew D. (talk) 21:20, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, are you saying ITN should use a quality threshold or are you saying ITN should post items regardless to appease our readers (like Fr and De Wikipedia)? I'm not clear on your various messages at all. Could you summarise your position for the benefit of the rest of use please?  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:42, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * In the previous case, I was discussing people who are so famous that their articles will be read regardless. This chap doesn't seem in that category.  His death did cause a spike in readership yesterday but it was only 648.  That's not 648 thousand but just 648.  Andrew D. (talk) 22:14, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid you're still not being clear on what you expect at ITN, and that's what we're here to discuss. Yesterday you were happy to void the compliance with BLP, today you're suggesting this RD shouldn't be posted because of a lack of quality.  Is it because it's not featured on French or German Wikipedia that you object, or is it because it has a mechanical count of too many citations, or does it not comply with ITN criteria somehow?  I'm afraid I'm finding your interjections a little too confusing.  I may be the only one, but gauging it on comments of other contributors, even that doesn't appear to be the case.  Are you commenting here, just as you do at RFAs, to token-oppose?  I'm not seeing any value in many of your recent contributions here, but please, if anyone else can find something positive, let me know.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:20, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm really confused and trying my best to make this article worthy and okay enough to post because I think he meets the requirements. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:27, 16 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Posted. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 02:24, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Marti Friedlander

 * Support Seems to meet minimal quality standards. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 09:43, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support decent enough. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:04, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted. Espresso Addict (talk) 07:59, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Gwen Ifill

 * Support. She will be missed. R.I.P. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:34, 14 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Support Very sad news. The article is in decent shape overall. A couple cites needed but I think it meets our standards. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:35, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Nannadeem (talk) 20:45, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support -- Notecardforfree (talk) 20:48, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I will note for, and others that support on the merits is no longer required for RD nominations; only article quality needs to be assessed in order for this RD to be posted. 331dot (talk) 20:56, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok. I have already seen the page, which presents a good synopsis dully referenced.  Nevertheless, thanks for my GK.  Nannadeem (talk) 21:04, 14 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Support - article quality is not perfect, but good enough for posting. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:57, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Marked as Ready -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:07, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support. --  Zanimum (talk) 22:09, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted -- Fuzheado &#124; Talk 22:11, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Moldova presidential election

 * Comment - There seems to be concern that this might be a sham election.--WaltCip (talk) 13:41, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Officially run by the state. Fraud has only been an accusation.Lihaas (talk) 18:27, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Whether it is a sham election or not is irrelevant; it's their election. Information about the legitimacy and fairness of the election can be put in the article, and readers can decide. 331dot (talk) 21:01, 14 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose - needs info on the election's background and the campaigns. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:56, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - Looks ready to go Vegemighty1 (talk) 17:34, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Bulgarian presidential election

 * Support Have added alt-blurb. Smurrayinchester 09:40, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * comment id remove "Independent candidate" as we only add that for parliamentary elections. but otherwise good one!Lihaas (talk) 10:01, 14 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose until updated Nergaal (talk) 11:13, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now, not enough content. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:54, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Protests against South Korean president

 * Neutral on the merits - Oppose on article quality. This is a huge political scandal in S Korea which I tend to think is worth a mention on ITN. My preference would be to address the scandal more so than the protest. Political protests, even very large ones, are far more common in that part of the world than in the West. Alas I am not impressed by the article which I think is just too thin for linking on the main page. I would be happy to reconsider upon expansion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:33, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support on significance, although ongoing might be better considering it's an ongoing scandal. Article quality is sufficient to me. Banedon (talk) 06:10, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose, barring confirmation on the size of the protest. A million+ protest would be something, but we don't have this confirmed. --M ASEM  (t) 06:18, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * A person that's there said there are 500.000, but the Korean propaganda lowers that number. Dat GuyTalkContribs 06:45, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Umm, there are a lot more people protesting in South Korea than protesting against Trump. Banedon (talk) 06:50, 14 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose These protests are, at least, much more convincing than those in the United States, because the protests clearly know what they want to achieve. However, there were many protests demanding the same in other countries that failed to succeed. I don't know why we should particularly stress this one. Please wait until the resignation actually takes place.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:04, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * To answer the question of "why", it is because this protest is in the news now. The failure of past protests in other countries is irrelevant. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 08:43, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * There are several hundred stories in the news at the moment but not enough room on the main page to post all of them. This is nowhere on the top and some media have even removed it from their main page (e.g. BBC, The Telegraph) or have hidden it as a marginilised side story (e.g. CNN).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:35, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support on expansion. Even going by conservative estimates, 250,000 people in one city across one day is a sizeable protest. This is probably the most significant political story out of East Asia since Duterte's rhetoric over the summer and Hong Kong's legislative issue. South Korea is known for Samsung and its neighbour. This story involves neither. Its first female head of state is facing calls to resign over allegations that a friend is influencing government policies (i.e. conflict of interest/cronyism/corruption). Unfortunately, neither the scandal or the protest article reflects its importance at this time. Probably should be moved to the day of the protest (12 Nov) as well. Fuebaey (talk) 14:05, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support on some article expansion; the current state doesn't really explain much about the protests. This is a big story. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:35, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - on significance. BabbaQ (talk) 22:29, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose stale. 95% of the article is written about events that took place nine or more days ago.  And linkrot-tastic.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:41, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

(Closed) Protests against Trump

 * Support for Ongoing This is big news and the article is being updated with great regularity. Article quality is solid and referencing is excellent (for a refreshing change around here). -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:56, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note I took the liberty of moving this from November 9th to the 14th as it is an Ongoing nomination. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:02, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support ongoing. These protests have received major coverage in media across the globe. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 05:05, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose I imagine this will continue for approximately four, or even eight, years. It's not particularly interesting and it's not particularly surprising.  The Rambling Man (talk) 05:59, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support ongoing per Notecardforfree. If we adhere to a strictly "all countries are equal" rule then this would not be postable; on the other hand I do not think we should adhere to such a rule, and this development while internal to the US attracts a lot of international attention. Banedon (talk) 06:12, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose The problem with this type of story for ongoing is that what is the "end" of the story? There is no defined end, and I expect these protests to continue up through and beyond innaugeration day. Unless we're talking protests that are completing shutting down cities, or causes severe injuries (eg like the riots after the Rodney King verdict), we should avoid these vague stories, even if they are covered regularly in the newspapers. --M ASEM (t) 06:16, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * In my memory, mass protests end after a while. People can't be expected to keep protesting forever; fatigue inevitably sets in. See e.g. the Occupy protests, or Gezi Park protests, etc. Banedon (talk) 06:52, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * For whatever it is worth, the Occupy protests are documented to have had among the longest lifespan of any coherent series of protests in modern history. In fact, any series of protests which exceeds a month is already in rarified territory.
 * (The reason this is not quite so evident currently is because we have had in rapid succession multiple major events which each impact on the other: 9/11, invasion of Iraq, financial crash 2008+, Arab Spring, Syrian civil war, rise of ISIS, economic warfare between Saudi Arabia and Iran (oil market crash), Greek/EU economic crisis, Ebola epidemic, migrant crisis in Europe, Brexit, major Brazil economic and political crisis, and now Trump (which was just as much a "change" reactionary vote as Obama's election was in 2008). Such a series of extreme events with worldwide impacts is by far the exception, not the norm. The last time I can think of that was so negatively turbulent ended in the mid-1970s. Even the falling of the Berlin Wall, collapse of the USSR etc -- seriously major event -- did not spark the same kind of extended turbulence outside the Warsaw Pact countries themselves.)
 * The anti-Trump protests have been going on for over a year now, which definitely puts that coherent protest movement up into the exceptional category. As to when it ends for Wikipedia ITN purposes, simple: when international news no longer covers it as a front section story, and when the article is no longer updated frequently every day. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 16:31, 14 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Support for ongoing — these protests are significant, with widespread and worldwide media coverage. Although the longevity of the protests is unknown, for as long as it is covered by the media and is considered significant, it would merit its inclusion on ITN. However, I suspect these protests will die down, just as we never thought there would be a definite, short-term end to Black Lives Matter, Occupy Wall Street, protests against police shootings, but these protests have come and gone and were featured on ITN. 2607:FEA8:A25F:FB9A:555:EFD0:F1BC:D30 (talk) 06:32, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * This should NOT be moved to ongoing before dropping off the regular ITN. Nergaal (talk) 06:58, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose on impact, and as unsuitable for Ongoing. As others have noted, protests of some sort will occur probably for the entirety of the Trump presidency.  We can know this, because protests against the previous president went on for years after his inauguration, and there's little reason to think that anything will be different this time.  Ditto for the president inaugurated eight years before that.  Similarly, the protests last time had little effect and I expect the same efficacy this time.  Ongoing is meant for events which either 1.) generate so many ITN entries that they would otherwise clutter the ticker (as a means to reduce a events to a single entry), or 2.) to allow related events, which would otherwise not have enough prominence for ITN individually, to be grouped together and posted.  So, which is this?  It can't be the first one, because I can't think of a single thing that has happened in these protests which we would post.  Someone will have to convince me that these separate events, non-notable individually, have a deep impact when taken together.  Because I can't convince myself of that case.128.214.53.104 (talk) 07:58, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, the protests against Obama and against Bush were tied to specific policy, not to their election itself. The anti-Obama protests kicked into high gear with Obamacare. The anti-Bush protests kicked into high gear when the U.S. invaded Iraq. Neither was subject to major protests simply on the basis of their candidacy, platform, endorsers, and election. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 17:17, 14 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose People protest every day in many countries against different things. Here it seems like the protesters even don't know what they're protesting about and what they realistically want to achieve. I'd like to reconsider once there are real consequences from these protests.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:01, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose on poor nomenclature, for one. Trump was actively campaigning for a year and a half without protests. The day after he wins, the protests begin. So these aren't "protests against Trump," but against his winning the election. The article could even be renamed to reflect that. There would have been no protests had he lost, which makes it closer to a protest against losing. As Leonard Cohen sings, "Democracy is coming to the U.S.A." --Light show (talk) 08:24, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, per the article Protests against Donald Trump, protests against Trump actually started in June 2015, more than one and a half years before the election. (As to the second part, amused: Clinton actually won the popular vote, and the continuing counting of votes seems to be expanding her lead.) - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 16:36, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

I am going to go out on a limb here, and just guess that a fairly high percentage of the opinions here are going to split along political lines. (laugh -- if you are a UK voter, you are not exempt. The equivalent would be whether you voted Yes or No on Brexit.) So long story short: there will not and cannot be consensus here, in either direction. For the most part (keeping in mind that there will always be a few exceptions), Trump voters will dismiss the protests, while anti-Trump voters will not. I am certain that Wikipedia editors are just as divided as the U.S. and British electorate generally. I should also add that, after allowing for how poverty (which frequently limits Internet access) corrolates with voting patterns, I fully expect that the division here will break down roughly 2/3 oppose to 1/3 support. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 16:58, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong support for ongoing — Per above. 45.116.233.63 (talk) 08:32, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong support for ongoing- these are unprecedented protests. Good sourcing.--BabbaQ (talk) 08:35, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose posting just the occurrence of protests (which is their right to do in the US) unless steps are being taken to advance their goals, such as Electoral College electors stating they won't vote for Trump. 331dot (talk) 09:47, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose Slow news day fodder. Is it half-term in the US, as most of the great unwashed seem to be out.  Lugnuts  Precious bodily fluids 09:58, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Super duper strong support - As per above, this is incredibly unprecedented and has a broad scope with potentially global influence.--WaltCip (talk) 12:59, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose at this time. Not seeing any real impact other than small (couple of k) sporadic protests across the country. That there is constant news coverage reflects how the media follows American politics. ITN is more selective. More than willing to reconsider if the political situation changes or if the protests become larger and more disruptive. Fuebaey (talk) 14:22, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Fuebaey's reasoning. Open to renomination if something of impact occurs. Mamyles (talk) 15:33, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose – per TRM, Fuebaey. No tangible effect. Sca (talk) 16:03, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Suggest close as no consensus There are enough votes and comments in, with oppose and support split roughly evenly, that I think we can agree that we are not going to agree on this one. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:24, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose Manufactured news receiving disproprortionate coverage from US news sources, much as was/is done with the rest of this election's coverage. The bizarrely frequent use of "unprecedented" used in comments here to describe this suggests that the media did a great job of making people forget that election protests are a common occurrence, both historically and around the world. - Lvthn13 (talk) 08:10, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] New Zealand earthquake

 * According to GNS Science here it was 7.5 - the 7.8 figure seems to be from the US Geological Survey. It was very scary - the biggest earthquake I've ever felt, but looking at it objectively I'm not sure it warrants posting unless the death toll rises (which hopefully it won't). Neljack (talk) 20:16, 13 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Support The same area relatively recently had a similar magnitude quake (I think it was last year), article seems up to par even given the early details. --M ASEM (t) 20:33, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Wait Significant magnitude, but very few reported casualties and no actual tsunami so far. Brandmeistertalk  21:12, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose it's a huge quake but not too significant results. This is a good example of why we don't set a bar at "7.0 = ITNR", because if this 7.0 happened in London or Paris it would have killed tens of thousands.... Thankfully in this case it has no such consequences. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:28, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose per TRM. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:06, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support well-covered and the newest ITN blurb is now four days old. While I know some here don't care about timeliness, it rather defeats the purpose of "in the news" to no longer have ... well, news. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:08, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * We don't just lower the bar because there hasn't been much notable news. If you'd like to formally propose something, I suggest you do it on the talk page so it can be discussed in depth.  The Rambling Man (talk) 06:00, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * In no way was I advocating for a lower bar. Just pointing it out. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:51, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support despite the thankfully low number of casualties, there is still widespread damage. The Prime Minister has estimated the repairs will cost in the billions. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 08:50, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Wow, I was just trying to speculate on its depth and I was thinking 20km give or take 10...was it a v. rural area? In an urban area that would be way worse.Lihaas (talk) 08:55, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * This link has all the latest information on depths, strength etc. Updates within minutes of quakes occurring, too. The area was provincial/rural but the main issue is that it has cut off the main rail and road route through the upper part of the South Island, and destroyed wharves on both sides of the strait between the two islands, so travel and access is now very poor. MurielMary (talk) 10:31, 15 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Weak support Low death toll, but was a massive quake. Major damage and disruption, including a town being cut off and closures of schools when exams were supposed to be taken. In the end very lucky, but still significant. AIR corn (talk) 11:17, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - earthquake of significant strength, major impact to infrastructure. Mjroots (talk) 16:41, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - major earthquake.BabbaQ (talk) 16:45, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - earthquakes of this strength and causing this amount of damage are thankfully still very uncommon. Note - if you thought there was an unusually large number of extreme earthquakes in recent years, you are right. In fact, the numbers recently set historical records ... but still fall within normal statistical variations. Btw I would put a heads-up for newsworthiness right now, since Oklahoma is entirely likely to get a magnitude 6 or even 7 earthquake within the next few years. That state is now more seismographically active than California, entirely human-caused. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 17:07, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted. Dragons flight (talk) 20:17, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] [Posted] RD: Leon Russell

 * Weak oppose lead needs significant expansion, article devolves into bullet point lists of his activities. Not clearly seeing where a lot of the chart information is derived from.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:35, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Lead now expanded. --Light show (talk) 21:15, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but now we need to work on the unreferenced claims. I don't want to tag-bomb, but to my eyes there are easily half a dozen claims which aren't cited... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:29, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It actually would help to have some tags, since there are statements throughout lacking cites. Although I assume many of those may not need them, especially if they have links to articles. --Light show (talk) 21:42, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'll do that, but assuming that "they have links to articles" is sufficient is a complete and epic fail. Target articles may exist but they may be entirely unreferenced as well.  Stand by for tags.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:46, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Ready. But if they're fixed, will that make it an Epic success? --Light show (talk) 21:56, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Done, I've tagged everything I think is needed. I understand it may be a bit anal but I never rely on other articles via wikilinks for verifiability.  You fix these, epic is an understatement.  GO DOG GO!  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:59, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Just hit the Discography wall . As a drive-by to the article, if I start messing with other people's meticulous charts, it could cause some problems. --Light show (talk) 23:05, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Append: I held on a bit longer and added four comprehensive sites that listed all, if not more, of the albums and singles listed. Can the tag be removed based on those? This dog's getting tired.--Light show (talk) 00:47, 14 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Support – In a long career, Russell and his style influenced many artists. Now he's finally gone back to the island. Sca (talk) 22:27, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose at this stage. Article starts out ok but then the parts on 1980s, 1990s and 2000s are lists of one-sentence points. Need to be tied together into prose. Also some proofreading needed e.g. "Released blah blah" isn't a sentence but is used numerous times. MurielMary (talk) 02:30, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support. This looks good enough to post. Of course it's not FA quality, but that's not the standard that's necessary. Everything looks verifiable and there's no glaring errors. -- Tavix ( talk ) 21:27, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support per, although all of the one-sentence paragraphs are a bit frustrating. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:37, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It's time this was posted in RD. (It's been on French and German WP for some time.) Sca (talk) 23:26, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The standards of those two Wikipedias are way below those used here to judge article quality. For instance, the French article on Leon Russell has one (1) citation in total and a maintenance tag.  Best we don't look to them for guidance on what should and should not to be posted to the main page which receives 15 to 20 million hits per day.  Especially when it comes to BLPs of course. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:05, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Who knows; consensus on ITN standards could change. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:22, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The figure of 15 to 20 million is misleading. RD generates comparatively few views by itself.  For example, consider Aileen Mehle which was posted at ITN two days ago.  The number of daily views then went from a tiny 895 on 13 Nov to 11,101 on the 14 Nov.  In other words, an entry at RD gets you about 10K views – a consistent level whenever I have checked this.  Now compare this figure of 10K with the number of views which Leon Russell has had, even though he is not yet listed in RD.  That's much greater – 255,652 views on 13 Nov and 206,340 on 14 Nov.  So, the idea that RD is acting as a gatekeeper of quality is nonsense because hundreds of thousands of readers are paying no attention to it and are just going straight to the page in question.  In such cases of famous people, we should put the entry up at RD as soon as the death is confirmed.  This won't make much difference to the readership because that will be large regardless.  The point of listing at RD will be, firstly, to make Wikipedia look like it's paying attention and, secondly, to attract the attention of the few Wikipedians like us who might then make a difference to the article's quality.  So, famous people like Robert Vaughn and Jimmy Young should have been listed days ago, rather than giving those 15-20 million people the impression that Wikipedia doesn't know or doesn't care about their demise. Andrew D. (talk) 14:03, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * That's actually 100% wrong. The point of EVERY section on the main page is to highlight quality Wikipedia content.  To "make Wikipedia look like it is paying attention" has never been a goal of any part of the main page.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:07, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The result of this practice is to make the main page look like it is poor quality because it has such glaring omissions. If other language versions like French and German get this right then we should follow their example. Andrew D. (talk) 14:22, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Not unless you're advocating that we continually ignore WP:BLP multiple times per day. Like the French and German Wikipedias do.  That's not getting it "right", that's being sloppy and ignorant of core policy. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:33, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * This is largely beside the point. The reader perception (those people who are actually clicking on the links on the main page) is that it is a current events ticker. This is at odds with the much smaller group of people who maintain it. If your consumer has expectations that are unfilled, they will eventually go elsewhere. People expect current events in 'in the news' like they expect famous recently dead people in the recently dead. Quality is a secondary argument to managing the reader's expectations at this time. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:46, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * That's not the point I'm making, whether you think it's beside the point or not. We do not willfully violate core policies such as WP:BLP, particularly not on the main page, even though other Wikipedias do.   Now, if you want to rename the section, that's a different discussion entirely.  The Rambling Man (talk) 15:16, 15 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Posted. Dragons flight (talk) 14:54, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * good work! The Rambling Man (talk) 15:21, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Try checking the quality. Look at the first paragraph starting "Born in Lawton, Oklahoma", for example.  The sources for that paragraph are Answers.com and the subject's own record company.  Neither source would usually be considered reliable and, in any case, there are numerous facts in the paragraph which don't appear in either source, such as the connection with Anita Bryant.  So, there's little verified quality here.  It's just a mechanical matter of counting citations without any proper fact-checking, right?  So, we should not be asserting that a quality threshold has been passed.  All that we're saying on the main page is that the subject has died and that seems to be the one fact we can be sure of. Andrew D. (talk) 16:36, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Biography.com is usually fairly reliable (it is the website of the TV Series Biography (TV series)), and it reports the same. Also, WP:ABOUTSELF (which would include his personal information as published by employers) would be fine for non-contentious simple statements such as this.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:28, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Also Wall Street Journal. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:29, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Also The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. Also Rolling Stone.  Also the New York Times.  Now, are there any other statements in the article you don't believe to be true or accurately represented?  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:32, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, sample size of one from the last few days, Janet Reno experienced a 25k+ increase in traffic following her RD posting, it's very easy to pick and choose your statistics to suit your own argument but you also say The figure of 15 to 20 million is misleading followed by rather than giving those 15-20 million people the impression. Is that misleading or not?  Are there 15 to 20 millions main hits or not?  I'm afraid I find that there's not much logic or consistency with your statements.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:03, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Reno was posted on 7 Nov, just two hours after the nomination, and so it is not easy to separate the effect of RD in that case. The 25K bump happened two days later on 9 Nov and so must have been due to some other effect.  The overall readership during that period was about half a million. Andrew D. (talk) 08:19, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

please don't deliberately and wilfully misinterpret my comment to. He put in a lot of work on the article, which has since been posted. Your flip of attitude is bemusing, on one hand you're all for completely disregarding one of our core policies in WP:BLP yet now it's complaints about the veracity of sources. On one hand you're advocating we follow the French and German Wikipedias who clearly pay no heed to core policy, and then you complain about quality of posted articles. Then you make a bizarre and utterly unfounded claim about "... a mechanical matter of counting citations without any proper fact-checking .... How bizarre.  I'm sorry, but I for one don't follow your line(s) of argument at all.  In fact, all I do know is that you are in favour of ignoring core policy, which is particularly peculiar since you seldom make any kind of talk page response without at least one link to a policy or guideline or essay.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:50, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The ironic thing is that AD in his previous incarnation before he was restricted to one account, used to regularly vote to Keep articles at AfD that had little in the way of reliable sourcing at all, and remove PROD tags from similar. Still, it is what it is. Black Kite (talk) 18:53, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Ironic indeed, and yet while I find no major issue with someone who always goes against the tide, I do question the flip-flop approach to the argument here regarding sourcing of RDs, and I most definitely question the calibre of an editor who is more than happy to ignore WP:BLP just because some other Wikipedia does. Astonishing.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:05, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Conor McGregor's victory at UFC 205

 * Comment: UFC 205 needs prose expansion for the different fights, but at least for the ITN highlight "Alvarez vs. McGregor".  Spencer T♦ C 13:17, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Neutral on the significance of this to make it to the front page. But if it stands a chance, the blurb needs to explain what UFC is, who defeated who, etc. Right now it's not understandable to the random reader. -- Fuzheado &#124; Talk 18:56, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose only about ~1 million viewers, less than $100k for a win of an event numbered 205 in about 2 decades. Which of these figures is outstanding? Nergaal (talk) 19:14, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The event broke the UFC's pay-per-view record, the MSG gate and attendance record, and it is estimated that McGregor will make more than 40 million this year. Those $50K awards are the traditional post-fight bonus. LlamaAl (talk) 20:02, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * By the way, as of UFC 205: Alvarez vs. McGregor, there have been 377 UFC events held in 128 cities in 22 countries. LlamaAl (talk) 20:14, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Events with better figures than this nom didn't get posted, recently. Nergaal (talk) 21:35, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Can you provide an example? LlamaAl (talk) 22:05, 13 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose not seeing the encyclopedic significance of this. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:36, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The Guardian, The New York Post and the BBC described McGregor's victory as 'historic'. Forbes labelled the event as "arguably the biggest fight card in MMA history. LlamaAl (talk) 20:21, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Precedent: . Kind regards, LlamaAl (talk) 20:24, 13 November 2016 (UTC)695489569&oldid=695489294
 * Yes, I accept we have promoted a UFC before and yes, I accept that popular news outlets will be journalistically covering this. However, as has been said before, 205 episodes of this saga since 1993 (i.e. eight or so per year), we're not going to post each and every one.  The records it broke are all "in-universe" and don't really scale up to anything significant, e.g. biggest Superbowl attendance, global World Cup final viewing figures, Premier League money, so this is really a minor event with a minor interest outcome.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:33, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * UFC 205 social media impressions: 14 billion. Super Bowl 50 Twitter impressions: 4.3 billion. LlamaAl (talk) 02:07, 18 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Support - This is a huge and unique moment in the sport. Here's a guy who won in three different weight classes in less than a year, and now holds two different belts (a feat never done in the UFC). As ESPN describes it, this is "One of the most staggering achievements in the history of the sport..." ComputerJA ( ☎  •  ✎  ) 21:58, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Why is it any different to a boxer winning belts in different classes? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:00, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Boxing has a lot more weight divisions (17 to UFC's 8), so it is easier to become a multi-divisional champion. LlamaAl (talk) 22:04, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Sounds a little desperate I'm afraid. Who cares how many divisions there are?  Boxing also has multiple versions.  It's a bit muddled, yet a UFC fighter holding two classes simultaneously seems utterly unremarkable, especially given previous similar sports precedents.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:40, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It's pure logic. And who cares about similar sports? Irrelevant. LlamaAl (talk) 01:08, 15 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose McGregor got titles in two divisions simultaneously because UFC allowed him to avoid responsibility of Featherweight champion. McGregor didn't made his Featherweight title defense for 3 straight bouts. Recent UFC is completely joke. --219.108.134.12 (talk) 08:50, 14 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment lukewarm on the topic, but it's worth noting that UFC 205 doesn't exactly say much about the 'historic' victory. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:53, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose Apart from the somewhat flaky notability of this, the actual article says practically nothing about it. A reader clicking on the link to find out the story would learn nothing. Black Kite (talk) 01:19, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support something along these lines, though the record MSG gate should have a bit more blurb weight. The multidivisional reign of terror is historic fun, too, but that arena has been hosting fights for a lot longer than UFC's been setting them up. Both are more notable because of each other. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:21, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - As InedibleHulk mentioned, the MSG gate record is significant as well as McGregor's win. I see the opposers views that there are so many of these events, why post this one? I think it's notable not only for the reasons mentioned, but because Conor McGregor is essentially the face of UFC. He's the biggest fighter, he's the one people really pay attention to and watch, and so I think his win should be highlighted, especially if records are broken alongside it. Andise1 (talk) 00:21, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Ilse Aichinger

 * Support - plenty of good sources. and notable person overall. RD is appropriate.BabbaQ (talk) 17:57, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Marking as ready to post. MurielMary (talk) 17:59, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - Plz post - Nannadeem (talk) 18:07, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment very well referenced and decent article, for consistency I had to tag the last to items of her translations list because all the other works were cited. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:38, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:39, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Aileen Mehle

 * Weak Support Referencing appears to be adequate but I am not impressed by the depth of this article. That said I think it meets our standards for linking on the main page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:07, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 *  Support - per references. it meets ours standards for appearing in RD at Main page.BabbaQ (talk) 17:22, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Marking as ready to post. MurielMary (talk) 17:54, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak support it's a brief article but everything seems in order. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:40, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:39, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Robert Vaughn

 * Comment already added here by . Perhaps some of these admins need a refresher course on how things work these days!!!! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:06, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Don't pull I see this was posted by 4 minutes after this nomination.  That's ... a bit quick, shall we say ... there needs to be consensus that the article quality is adequate before posting. In this case, the level of citation is on par with Leonard Cohen, which was just posted as a blurb.  There are a few cn tags, but all seem to be about uncontroversial stuff (with one exception, and I just removed the unreferenced controversial material). So IMHO don't pull for rules' sake.  Pull only if people comment that they disagree based on article quality. (added) I see TRM just tagged the article for verification; I gather that means you think the article quality isn't sufficient to post? --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:21, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Obviously. I tend to find that actually reading the article and checking citations is beneficial in these situations, i.e. stop posting to main page articles of less-than-mediocre quality.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:53, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support with improvements (And recommend pulling at this point). The article has a big orange banner at the top and rightfully justified with lots of unsourced information (ignoring the CNs already added). It should not have been added to RD without proper reviewer (whereas at least with Cohen, there's enough discussion to know it was justified to some extent). --M ASEM  (t) 20:24, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * OK then, pulled until consensus here that article quality is acceptable. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:27, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose for now. It's not as bad as Leonard Cohen was the last time I looked, but there are a few too many gaps in referencing. Once those are fixed we should be good to go. Will happily reconsider on improvements. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:53, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - when improvements has been made. clearly a RD standard person in terms of acting career.BabbaQ (talk) 17:29, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * , you are aware, aren't you, that for the last several months the "RD standard" has simply been "do they have an article?" rather than some super-strength-notability test? BencherliteTalk (using his alt account Bencherheavy) 11:02, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support: Sourcing seems to be good right now for posting. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:10, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] [Ongoing] World Chess Championship 2016

 * Oppose ongoing This is a good faith nomination but we don't generally put sporting events or competitions into ongoing. The one customary exception being the Olympics. That said, assuming the article is in good shape, I'd probably support an ITN blurb once the tournament is over. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:16, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Winning the WCC is ITNR, I'm pretty sure. Banedon (talk) 00:39, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * And the FIFA World Cup. But both because of huge international attention and audiences --M ASEM (t) 03:17, 11 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose'. Ongoing is not for sports events in progress, with the exception of the Olympics(a multisport event) AFAIK. This will be posted when it concludes, as I think it is ITNR. 331dot (talk) 01:08, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support there's nothing in the guidelines that say we don't put sporting events or competitions into ongoing, so as long as the article is continuously updated, why not. Banedon (talk) 03:14, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It is longstanding precedent. The only exceptions have been the multisport Olympics(which are essentially many events going on at the same time) and, though I disagree with doing so, the FIFA World Cup, due to its worldwide appeal. If we start including other events like this, Ongoing becomes nothing but a sports ticker. 331dot (talk) 11:49, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Then we should change the guidelines and say "the only sporting events that can be posted to Ongoing are the Olympics and the FIFA World Cup", something like that. There was some discussion about adding the Euro earlier this year too, in my memory. Banedon (talk) 13:04, 11 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose per what's already been said. Good shout for when it's over, but this isn't for ongoing.  The Rambling Man (talk) 07:22, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

India, Japan nuclear deal

 * Weak oppose - international coverage looks a bit weak here. Besides, isn't India already a nuclear nation? Banedon (talk) 06:48, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] Leonard Cohen

 * Support, but for a blurb. There's a quote in the lead of Cohen's article: "[he is] one of the most fascinating and enigmatic … singer/songwriters of the late '60s … [and] has retained an audience across four decades of music-making.... Second only to Bob Dylan (and perhaps Paul Simon) [in terms of influence], he commands the attention of critics and younger musicians more firmly than any other musical figure from the 1960s who is still working at the outset of the 21st century." Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:17, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support blurb. Bowie and Prince-levels, and he'd just released an album too. Nohomersryan (talk) 02:19, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support but needs improvement I could accept an RD right now for the current state of the article, and I completely agree that he's one of the few we'd put a blurb out for, but the article needs better sourcing at places - it's not in bad shape (hence immediate RD support) but its about 80% of the way there for a state I could accept a blurb. --M ASEM (t) 02:21, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Strongly support addition of Cohen's name at least to the "Recent deaths" line. We presently have Marc Sleen and Janet Reno and Cohen to my mind is equally notable if not even more. Later we can decide whether we need inclusion in the higher "In The News" items. But an immediate addition to "Recent deaths" is a no-brainer and can be effected right away. werldwayd (talk) 03:15, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 *  Oppose  for now. Far too many gaps in referencing. Definitely someone we should have on RD, but the article quality is not up to scratch for the main page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:21, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Move to "Pull." See below for comment. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:29, 11 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Strong support - blurb, very notable singer/songwriter, multiple awards won. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:22, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Absolute legend, tragic week. EternalNomad (talk) 03:46, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support but needs improvement Wonderful artist, terrible loss, absolutely deserves to have a blurb. Just wait a little bit for the editors on the page right now to find some more sources for the unreferenced statements, and then we're ready to go. --Sunshineisles2 (talk) 03:55, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support full blurb, an artist known globally, his passing is now the main news also in my little country. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 05:47, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support blurb. The previously tagged unsourced details have either been removed or the source added. --Light show (talk) 06:18, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * No, there still remain several unsourced statements in article, about as many as when I first commented. --M ASEM (t) 07:15, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The tagged ones have been fixed. There are 143 cites.--Light show (talk) 07:28, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * No they weren't fixed. Most of the CN tags were simply removed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:33, 11 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Support Full blurb. Very notable individual, etc.  Lugnuts  Precious bodily fluids 07:40, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - Surprised this wasn't on there already (although understandable if there were tags), but he is internationally notable and should have the full blurb on the MP. - The Bounder (talk) 08:35, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I added a blurb, as below, but it does not seem to be appearing properly in the infobox. I do not know why. Also a relevant addendum pro blurb - many major news sources immediately started comparing Cohen and Dylan after the latter's Nobel. Many carried Cohen's comments re Dylan, eg. https://www.theguardian.com/music/2016/oct/14/leonard-cohen-giving-nobel-to-bob-dylan-like-pinning-medal-on-everest - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 09:27, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Poet and songwriter Leonard Cohen dies at the age of 82.
 * He's best known per the lead, as a "Canadian singer, songwriter, poet and novelist." The order is relevant.--Light show (talk) 09:26, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Added that as an alt blurb -- would debate the "best known" novelist part, however. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 09:29, 11 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Strongly support - Very surprised he wasn't on there already, high profile individual and, in my opinion, his article is in good shape City Feedback   talk  09:37, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support blurb – a highly notable singer, famous worldwide, and with a long career: definitely worth putting in blurb. ~ Mable ( chat ) 10:13, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, I found this image in the Commons - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Leonard_Cohen_2008.jpg . Uncropped etc as of yet, please do what you will with it (I am a text-spinner, not an image-spinner), but what do you think? Another one is more recent -- https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Leonard_Cohen_3_2013.jpg -- but it seems less fitting than the other. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 11:39, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Any movement on posting this? It was nearly 12 hours ago since it was nominated.  Lugnuts  Precious bodily fluids 13:31, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - still waiting for it ... --User:Haraldmmueller 13:46, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted Tags are gone, seems very clear consensus for blurb. Any consensus on pictures? Smurrayinchester 13:48, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Image - I propose https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Leonard_Cohen_2008.jpg, which should work decently at 100x100. I cannot seem to post the name correctly in the infobox, but here it is in any case. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 14:11, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * For clarity, I have now added your suggestion at the top of this nomination. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:31, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you. After the tenth or so time getting redline code in the right corner of the infobox, I was not going to try again. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 17:22, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * No worries. ITN can sometimes be tricky. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:26, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Either that one or this one:, I like the colored picture used in the info-box. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:15, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I am neutral -- other people's choice of image is fine. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 17:22, 11 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Support full blurb - this is at the Bowie/Prince levels of influential musicians. Black Kite (talk) 14:37, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment There are still issues of inline sourcing - a number of paragraphs lack a single inline source. RD is completely fine for the time but we need the sourcing fixed for a blurb. --M ASEM (t) 15:06, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong Pull This article is far below acceptable standards for the main page. There remain huge gaps in referencing with whole paragraphs lacking a citation. I added a large number of CN tags last night many of which were apparently removed without providing a source. This is unacceptable. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:33, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You have already voted above, and made your opinion clear. Please strike this one out as it is not helpful. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:25, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I have struck the original vote to avoid the appearance of double voting. However, I would gently suggest that ignoring substandard article quality is what is really "unhelpful." -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:31, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The CN tags were removed as part of acceptable editing options: uncited and tagged text was deleted; uncited text had a source added; or tag was removed if the linked article included the unsourced details. None of the tags were simply removed for no reason. --Light show (talk) 17:58, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * All claims of fact excepting those of an obviously non-controversial nature require citations to reliable sources. Links to Wikipedia articles are not a substitute for inline RS citations. Wikipedia is not a reliable source. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:48, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree. That's why I was careful about that, as noted in this edit. --Light show (talk) 20:58, 11 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Support RD, pull blurb. Certainly an influential musician, but his death has nowhere near the impact on current events required for a blurb. Exactly the sort of person RD was made for, and there he should go. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 17:08, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Don't pull blurb: The level of citation is sufficient. It is imperfect, but we don't require perfection.  I don't see any controversial or disputed facts in the article, just some non-controversial areas that could use some beefing up. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:47, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I have to agree per WP:SOFIXIT, enough editors are already watching the page. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:50, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Article needs a lot of work so I'd pull it, but I understand that emotions here are strong. SOFIXIT is all very well if you know the subject matter well and know where to go and find sources, and have the time to do so.  In the mean time, we have a mediocre article heading up ITN on a website with 12 to 20 million main page hits.  Not my impression of what an encyclopedia should be doing.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:09, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * FWIW, the article is mostly an annotated discography, with little about Cohen's personal life. So tagged text such as this is almost irrelevant:"The tour finished with seven special dates added in Vancouver, Portland, Victoria and Oakland, with two final shows in Las Vegas' The Colosseum at Caesars Palace on 10 and 11 December.[citation needed]"


 * Those are a problem since details like that are so specific they could be OR. But on the other hand, the detail is so trivial, who cares either way? Looking at the TOC, it's almost all about his tours, records, and songs, and most of those are linked to some article, which helps a bit. The good news is that the factual details about his life and third-party comments about his albums, are mostly well-sourced in the 146 cites. The same issues relate to many film actors, whose bios are mostly annotated filmographies, with little about the person. But since most of the films have linked articles, and the factoids are often trivial, they can either be deleted or relegated as a "who cares?" detail. But certainly details about or by the persons themselves, which is what most bios really need IMO, are usually well-sourced. --Light show (talk) 21:51, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Hmm. A quick word count showed 2,000+ words solely about his personal life, which is the equivalent of a 10-page essay. Most major people's lives can be adequately bio'ed within two such pages (tightly written, of course). Barring classic "celebrity-style" scandals, it is hard to think on what should be added. The "themes" section, on the other hand, could probably be expanded (357 words). In fact, it currently includes not a single word about love and longing, or about spirituality in his writing -- but I cannot touch that until Monday at the earliest. (Personally I do think that Cohen's tighter creative focus was what gives Dylan the Nobel edge.) - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 23:40, 11 November 2016 (UTC)


 * No blurb, fails the could there be an article called Death of Leonard Cohen test. Abductive  (reasoning) 01:41, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I note that Prince does not have one. (Of course, whether this is correct or not is up for debate.)  Taylor Trescott  - my talk + my edits 02:06, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support blurb — absolute legend, there aren't many more noted Canadian musicians.  Taylor Trescott  - my talk + my edits 02:06, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] Tramlink crash

 * Weak support upon expansion. Any number of fatalities on a British tram crash (when did that last happen?) is notable, with a large number of injuries too... The Rambling Man (talk) 12:07, 9 November 2016 (UTC).


 * Support - deadliest tram accident in the UK for many, many years since 1959. Mjroots (talk) 12:08, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * True, as the article says. But mainly because tram systems rapidly fell out of fashion in UK after the 1960s? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:56, 9 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose on article quality. The article is quite short, and I have a hard time seeing how it could be fleshed out while still being encyclopedic.  The driver was arrested, which seems odd to me.  Perhaps link this back to an article about liability in the UK workplace?128.214.53.104 (talk) 13:29, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * UK public transport has quite extensive safety regs. So in the last 20-30 years its not unusual for an accident to be down to human actions rather than mechanical failure. The driver being arrested is not that surprising given the Tramline has only been open since what, 2000? There are going to be quite a few people in the UK who scratch their heads and go 'We still have trams?' though... Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:39, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Appreciate what you say about article quality, but there's one story really dominating the news, with this one getting the occasional word in edgewise. Mjroots (talk) 13:47, 9 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Support once up to quality standards - AFAIK the first UK rail passenger fatalities in any form of transport since Grayrigg nearly 10 years ago. Optimist on the run (talk) 14:57, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose – Comparatively minor in the big scheme of things. Sca (talk) 15:37, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - article shaping up nicely. Image of tram involved is available on Commons. Mjroots (talk) 17:38, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - per Mjoots. - Eugεn  S¡m¡on  18:14, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support per above. I've updated the number of deaths from five to seven, too.  Lugnuts  Precious bodily fluids 18:48, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Good work. This is good to go.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:20, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - per updates made.BabbaQ (talk) 19:20, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - would have been main UK news story if we had not had that "train wreck" of a different kind elsewhere today. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:32, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment any active admins, e.g. able to post this with the associated picture?  Overwhelming consensus to post.... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:35, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Per the nomination File:London Tramlink tram number 2551 in Wimbledon Station (geograph 4343958).jpg is the actual tram that crashed. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:36, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted. Dragons flight (talk) 19:37, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * we have an image of the crashed tram too, see above, please add that to the template. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:38, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Mind if I give out ITN credits for this, or did you want to do that? Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 19:58, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Feel free. Dragons flight (talk) 20:00, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I would rather not post the photo, since we just put up Donald Trump's last night (as controversial as he may be). I'd wait on the photo for a day or two. Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 19:39, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Why? We have an image of the crashed tram.  Are we favouring posting a picture of Trump over a newer news story?  It seems like systemic bias to me.  And can you point me to the instruction that suggests admins wait "for a day or two" before replacing old images with new ones?  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:42, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Honestly, my rationale is slightly different from Dragons flight's below, though he does have a valid point. I would wait a day or two before posting this image because you never know how many stories with suitable images will come up in the time while this is on ITN, and I would rather not risk changing out Donald Trump's image so fast and then have the tram image up for a week. Better to space out the image changes a little when we have multiple stories with suitable images so the template doesn't get stagnant on one photo for as long if we don't have new stories with suitable images for a while after. Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 19:52, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Is there any precedent for this. It can't be the first time the issue has come up. AIR corn (talk) 20:12, 9 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm of a similar mind as Ks0stm. Call it IAR if need be, but I do think there is some value in recognizing that Trump is a much larger story than the tram crash and giving Trump's story slightly greater prominence on ITN by keeping his image.  Dragons flight (talk) 19:47, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * For clarity, I'm opposed to posting this image at this time, but I won't interfere if some other admin decides to post it. Dragons flight (talk) 19:54, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Conversely, we all know exactly what Trump looks like, and yet we have a more recent news story with an image that is more pertinent. At what point do we "allow" other news stories to supersede Trump?  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:48, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Convention is that we use the image for the newest story for which an image is available. Currently' it's the tram crash story. Mjroots (talk) 19:49, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Except its not really of the actual story. It's a tram (and seems like the tram) but well before any accident. A more effective picture would be one of the crashed tram. And per IAR, the weigh of the US election is much much greater than the tram accident currently. --M ASEM (t) 19:53, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * And the photo of Donald Trump was taken long before he became President-elect. Mjroots (talk) 19:59, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The crashed tram still looks less like the uncrashed tram than elected Trump looks like 2015 Trump. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:20, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You wouldn't want that tram in dayglo orange, with a bouffant top, would you? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:30, 9 November 2016 (UTC)


 * What of my reasoning above, though? We don't want ITN stuck on this tram image for a week if we don't get other stories with suitable images when we currently have multiple stories with suitable images we can space out. Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 20:00, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * So the tram crashed at 6 a.m. GMT? When was the Trump victory announced? Does ITN consider the time of the event or the time it "becomes news"? (except that the whole Presidential election has been "news" for months now). Martinevans123 (talk) 20:05, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * About 8 am GMT. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:20, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * That's right. The tram crash didn't have an announcement of deaths until several hours after Trump's win, but if it's the crash vs the election win, Trump wins again.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:32, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * So, we'll just keep The Donald image until he takes up office in January? All agreed? Or is anyone going to at least discuss it? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:17, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * As noted above, the tram crashed before the Trump win was confirmed, so their order in the ITN box is incorrect. The image selected usually goes to the most recent story.  Clearly if we get another story on top of ITN, with a suitable image, Trump's image will go.  It has no special status at all.  The Rambling Man (talk) 12:41, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifyng that it's exact chronological order that's used for ITN. Does that count as a front page error, that should be corrected? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:22, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It probably ought to be switched around, if only to curtail this particular issue. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:29, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, it has long been discussed, and consensus has held in the past, that we generally don't dick around with the order of events down to an infinitesimal time; that generally items are posted in order by the day they occurred, but for events that occur on the same day, no special consideration is given to making sure we have them in the correct order by the exact second. The discussion simply isn't that important one way or the other.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:32, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Sincere apologies. I had thought it was about two hours difference, not just a matter of seconds. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:35, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * To clarify long established (and long unchallenged) guidelines for this, see WP:ITN/A, which states "Now, the tricky bit. ITN items are in a bulleted list, ordered chronologically by date of occurrence (but not necessarily chronologically within that date)" That "not necessarily chronologically within that date" bit has been in the text since March 2013, though it had been established practice for years.  The lowest level of granularity we use is the date.  There is no expectation we get it more accurate than that.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:04, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Isn't that so "Cork wins the Gaelic football championship" doesn't go on top of "nuclear war"? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:48, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually I think the fallout from a Cork win might be quite serious. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:04, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * No, the purpose is to prevent the exact sort of useless debate we are having now over this. That is, it's a WP:BIKESHED issue: The amount of energy expended getting the order that correct is simply not worth it, so we don't even try.  We get the days correct, and on those few occasions where there are multiple events on the same day, we don't care what order they are in.  Not that we use other criteria than chronology (though I suppose someone might), merely that it is not something worth caring about at all.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 19:09, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying the long established (and long unchallenged) guidelines. My enquiry was prompted by the question of whether or not, or when, the picture should be swapped. That seems to be an important question to some editors. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:15, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * If it is a guideline that needs changing, by all means, start a discussion at WT:ITN to do so. This venue is probably not the correct place.  You can find past discussions on the matter in the archives at WT:ITN, about a year ago I can remember at least 2 -3 different discussions started by George Ho (search for his name in the archives) and you can likely see what consensus was the last time it came up.  Regardless, this really should be discussed elsewhere if you wish clarity or change... -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 19:19, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the link. I'll have a look. To save time, I guess someone might just remind everyone what the outcome of the last discussions was. So that, you know, no-one starts banging on about "systematic bias" or starts being "an asshole" to try and provoke discussion. I think I saw something in the guidelines about "24-36 hours." Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:58, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] Indian currency

 * Support - Major economic implications, and completely taking up front page news space in one of the world's most populous countries. -- Fuzheado &#124; Talk 23:37, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Why is this a surprise? The article doesn't say it was and in fact suggests this has happened before. AIR corn (talk) 00:43, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not first of its kind and our blurb doesn't have to be "breaking". Hence altered it. §§<i style="color:#E0115F;">Dharmadhyaksha</i>§§ {Talk / Edits} 02:11, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Fine with alt blurb now that surprise is removed. AIR corn (talk) 09:02, 9 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Weak support - per Fuzheado. Only problem: the article is rather sparse right now, and could use more text on 1) why the demonetization is happening and 2) the reactions to it. Banedon (talk) 03:05, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Article notes that this has happened several times in the past, so it's unclear how ITN-worthy this is at this point in time, given the limited coverage. Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:06, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - Very notable Sherenk1 (talk) 05:04, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - It is a major decision taken by Indian government which will change many things and will have far reaching impacts! It might have been done in past but I do not remember any and though it is true that it was done in past, that does not reduce the importance of this major move by Indian government to fight black money. Thank you. -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 05:26, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support: This is a news that suddenly shook the nation. Very big news. I think this news should be highlighted. --Tito Dutta (talk) 06:06, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:17, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Please note: this occurred before the US election results. Abductive  (reasoning) 08:44, 9 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Posted -- Fuzheado &#124; Talk 09:23, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] US Election

 * Definitely could use alternative blurbs, as polls suggest Senate possibly changing hands. Something like: In the United States, (Hillary Clinton / Donald Trump) is elected President of the Unites States, while the (Republican Party retains / Democrat Party gains) control of the Senate. Also wait until either Clinton or Trump concedes, although if Trump loses he may not concede the same night... Also, we should link to the Senate election. - Penwhale &#124; dance in the air and follow his steps 00:44, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * If there's a clear victor and multiple reliable sources are calling the election for one or the other, why should we wait for one to concede? Asking honestly. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:47, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Some states may have close voting. Also, 4 years ago the consensus was to post when results are made official or when Romney conceded. I mean, sure, if it's a blowout my argument above may not matter, but we're going for accuracy, not speed. (Think what happened in 2000...) As a side, I added a note above that we should link to the Senate election as well. - Penwhale &#124; dance in the air and follow his steps 00:58, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * There is no obligation to wait until a concession is made. Once multiple RS sources have called the election we can post the results. If either the Senate or the House of Reps flips that can be added to the blurb once we know it for certain. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:41, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I've added the suggested blurb above; the Democrats taking the House is extremely unlikely so I didn't put that in there(but we always can later). 331dot (talk) 02:03, 8 November 2016 (UTC)


 * What, there's an election? – Muboshgu (talk) 01:53, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Let's just say, it's a good year to be a monarchist. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:11, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not so sure about that. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:14, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Even better. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:36, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Obvious support after results and update article is in good shape. Go Hillary! EternalNomad (talk) 05:07, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support – This election is of international significance. Hundreds of millions of people are watching. Dustin  ( talk ) 05:27, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support the version with the House and Senate outcome, and not the unnecessary detail of "January 20, 2017" -- Fuzheado &#124; Talk 06:06, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose posting this early is just trophy seeking, and there is no guarantee either will become president, since it might be Johnson, or the next speaker of the house, or one of the VP's if the POTUS-elect dies. Let's wait for something better that the closing of the East Coast polls. μηδείς (talk) 06:45, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Question: What about the results of the House election? Is that not as important as the Senate, left off due to a lack of space, or not included for some other reason? AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 06:58, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - this election has been, and continues to be, "in the news" long before a result has been reached. I've added altblurb2 as an option to post before a winner is declared. Neegzistuoja (talk) 07:36, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb2 because we never say "voting is underway" for any election - we wait for the result. As for the rest, it's premature to discuss wording until we know what the story is, and voting "support" before that time is pointless because (a) it's obvious that the result will be posted and (b) we won't post anything until we have the story. This is all a waste of time. BencherliteTalk 08:13, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed, mostly. The only thing this could be useful in achieving is bringing the target article up to snuff, but given that it will be flooded with edits over the next 24 hours, even that may be pointless. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:19, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose Unless Trump wins, builds the wall and David Hasselhoff single-handedly tears it down.  Lugnuts  Precious bodily fluids 08:43, 8 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I have added "U.S. presidential election" to the list of ongoing events. Will have to be replaced with the above post once the result is known, of course.  Sandstein   10:08, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * So we can put all ongoing elections into the Ongoing section from now on, or just the American one? Or just the "important" ones?  The Rambling Man (talk) 10:10, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I'm not sure that's what Ongoing Events was designed for. It's meant for long-term things, not for a one-day election. 80.68.32.198 (talk) 10:30, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, I thought that it should be uncontroversial to have the major international news event of the month (if not the year) appear somewhere in ITN as long as it is ongoing. Evidently I expect that this will be replaced by a proper blurb as soon as the results are clear, as discussed above. Feel free to revert if I've misjudged this, though.  Sandstein   10:44, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Not all ongoing elections have a quality article and regular updates, so no, we can't put "all ongoing elections". However, this should be pulled from ongoing since it was added without consensus. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 10:49, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * What I mean is that this will set a precedent (or a president). The Rambling Man (talk) 10:51, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Definitely a good-faith addition, but I don't think adding a one-day election into Ongoing Events adds anything. We'll know the result in a number of hours anyway.  My view is hold off on anything until we actually have a result. 80.68.32.198 (talk) 10:57, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * @User:The_Rambling_Man lets continue this at WT:ITN if you think it's worthwhile (I do). --CosmicAdventure (talk) 11:15, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Pull from ongoing and wait for the results. Way too soon, come on. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 10:49, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Removed from ongoing as suggested. --Tone 10:58, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Wait until we have the result, like all other elections. Don't post to ongoing, or just when the polls close, or when broadcasters start 'calling' (i.e. predicting) it. Post once the actual result is known and/or the losing candidates concede, whichever is first. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:23, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment. If Hillary is elected, it may be worth mentioning that she is the first women to be elected president.  We included a statement in 2008 that Obama was the first African American.  In 2008 and 2012, we didn't mention the House or Senate, though we did post both the 2010 and 2014 midterms.  Dragons flight (talk) 12:45, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * If the Republicans keep Congress, I could see not mentioning it, though if the Democrats take the Senate I think it should be mentioned(it is extremely unlikely they will take the House). 331dot (talk) 14:56, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * futile oppose this is technically an advisory referendum when the real ITNR one happens in Dec and votes counted in jan. But people are too stupid to know the now-dead constitution. Heck they think the wannabe dictator is a legislative lawmaker (see mid tem turnout?).Lihaas (talk) 18:11, 8 November 2016 (UTC)


 * This is ITNR so your oppose is not relevant; aside from the fact there are other elections going on in the US, the presidential election is not "advisory" as most states have laws requiring the electors to vote for whom they are pledged to. The Electoral College meeting and the votes being counted are largely formalities. And there is no need for political statements here. 331dot (talk) 18:13, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * This is not ITNR . hats for election to heads of state. Please familiarize yourself with the constitituion. The prez is NOT directly elected.


 * And, as an aside, well played Tone. Thank you.Lihaas (talk) 18:15, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I suggest you reread the ITNR list, which states "Indirect elections, including papal elections, are also included". 331dot (talk) 18:19, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * are you okay? You seem to be editing almost randomly?  Has your account been hacked?  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:03, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Lihaas, what the hell are you doing?--WaltCip (talk) 18:23, 8 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Should not have been put on "ongoing" per precedent. Shouldn't have been nominated here 24 hours before the results come in either. That's why we've got silly season here. Which I've contributed to. #ImWithHer. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:18, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I would gently encourage editors to take a deep breath before collapsing/hiding discussions that are not obviously disruptive, off topic, or editorializing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:59, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I guess that's what happens when premature nominations are made. This has been wholesale waste of time and energy thusfar.  Results due in 12 hours or so, let's wait.  Please desist.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:59, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose voting in election will remain open for many more hours, and then counting will take many more hours after that, and then a result may not be known for many more hours or days after that. This nomination is way too early. Gfcvoice (talk) 19:53, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Calm down. Nobody is suggesting we post anything until the election is called. It is quite possible (maybe even likely) that we will know by 10PM (EST) who won. And if not, then we will wait until multiple RS sources have called the election. All we are doing is getting a jump on discussing the quality of the article and the eventual wording of the blurb. This is a useful exercise in that it can facilitate getting what is an obvious ITNR item up in a timely manner. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:01, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment 1There is no need to direct me to calm down as I am feeling perfectly tranquil now. Alternatively, maybe I could (unnecessarily) direct you to calm down? Gfcvoice (talk) 20:07, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment 2 I understand the rationale for discussing this hours/days before the result is known, however, given that the result is unknown, there are many different possible results, which would result in many different possible blurbs. This discussion could easily be held after the result is known. Gfcvoice (talk) 20:10, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Google and other major news sources are now officially reporting that Trump has won/Clinton has conceded. We can put this out now once we get it polished. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:46, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The Associated Press and FOX News have called the election for Donald Trump and Clinton has made the concession phone call. The Republicans have retained control of Congress. OMG! -Ad Orientem (talk) 07:45, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't want to live on this planet anymore. Kurtis (talk) 07:47, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * :( Dustin  ( talk ) 07:53, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * This blurb should be posted to the Main Page for obvious reasons. Dustin  ( talk ) 07:52, 9 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose. There is no evidence he has won the election, by being formally elected, or even by winning a majority of the votes. Whether he might be appointed president despite not winning a majority of the votes is pure speculation at this point. --Tataral (talk) 07:53, 9 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Support AltI. Very significant event in politics. Makes it plebs 2, Establishment 0 by my reckoning. Mjroots (talk) 07:56, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Alt1. Hillary has conceded. The news of his win by itself is notable, and the news that Clinton conceded just adds to that.  —  Gestrid  ( talk ) 08:00, 9 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Strong support Donald Trump has won by every reasonable metric. Every major media agency has declared him the winner and Clinton has conceded. Joshua Garner (talk) 08:10, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - there's no doubt now. Blythwood (talk) 08:11, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - universally reported as the outcome -- samtar talk or stalk 08:12, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted - feel free to work on the blurb I derived from the candidates above. Jehochman Talk 08:16, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Please fix the redirect and please address the nomination above this one. Oh, and surely we can now change the image?  The Rambling Man (talk) 08:22, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * What did I tell you? You thought he had no chance! Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 08:28, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Image suggestion: File:Donald_Trump_August_19,_2015_(cropped).jpg
 * Deciding on which image to use will be the bigger issue, lets stick with that weird cubs player (p.s i like the one on my userpage) ..-- Stemoc 08:25, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Wow, what an interesting User page you have there. I prefer the "weird" cubs player Martinevans123 (talk) 08:29, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * We need to put up a new photo. The one from Trump's article is the obvious candidate. -Ad Orientem (talk) 08:42, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ - Fuzheado &#124; Talk
 * This should say "Donald Trump (pictured) ...", and the other mention removed. Banedon (talk) 09:04, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * - Fuzheado &#124; Talk 09:12, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't Donald Trump be bolded too? Mjroots (talk) 09:19, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It should be (pictured), not (pictured). And the redirect to "the House" could be fixed at the same time.  And there are various other WP:ERRORS... The Rambling Man (talk) 09:23, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Can any one explain what is wrong with the blurb saying "Donald Trump is elected President of the United States..." that was proposed in any of the lines above but was changed on the main page?--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:21, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * See the page history at WP:ERRORS, but basically there was a complaint that he hasn't been elected President, merely become President-Elect. BencherliteTalk (using his alt account Bencherheavy) 14:36, 9 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I suggest that the blurb is updated to reflect that Clinton won the popular vote. It's quite uncommon and therefore notable that the EC winner has not won the popular vote. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 11:03, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * oppose the above suggestion. Roentgenium111 is correct that this is not common. It's actually damned rare. But under the American election system it is not especially relevant. There is a lot of venting going on right now over this election. While I in no way doubt the good faith of the above suggestion, a lot of eyes are on us and I think we should tread carefully when discussing anything that might give even the slightest hint that we are editorializing. Trump won according to US law and the Constitution. Saying more than that on ITN could raise questions about our neutrality. Any statement that Hillary won the popular vote w/o an explanation of the US electoral system would almost certainly be read by some as "Trump stole the election." -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:50, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * And I'll support it. You're reading too far into neutrality. That Clinton won the popular vote is factual and unbiased. Should readers desire to know more, they can click through. Ed [talk] [majestic titan]
 * Factually accurate I would agree with. But it is substantively irrelevant and on that basis I would question its inclusion in the blurb, unless one is attempting to make a point. Stating that someone won an election but the other person got more votes w/o further explanation is not unbiased. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:09, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * We could easily supply further information by mentioning (and linking to) Electoral College (United States), which explains the details. I think it's highly relevant both because the split is so rare (both nationally and internationally - usually "winning an election" means winning the popular vote), and because there's substantial bipartisan support (including Trump himself in 2012) for making the popular vote relevant in future elections. We'd still clearly state that "Trump wins the elections". There's no question of "stealing" since Clinton accepts the EC system for all I know and has admitted defeat. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 14:04, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

RD: Sir Jimmy Young

 * Weak oppose the singing career section appears to be entirely unreferenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:41, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Nicaraguan general election

 * Weak Conditional Support While decently sourced the article is a bit short. Also the two tables need to be updated and filled in before this can be posted. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:11, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support I've been hearing about this Daniel Ortega since the 1980s and the Irangate.--98.88.130.198 (talk) 20:41, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose incomplete and stubbish. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:26, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Updated backbone appears to be there, no need to wait, particularly considering slow news period. Brandmeistertalk  13:14, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose no prose synopsis of the election itself. A bunch of charts is not an article.  If someone were to write a full synopsis of the election itself, that would be great.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:18, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:19, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support All national elections should be here. South Nashua (talk) 18:05, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Marc Sleen

 * Oppose for now, the categories weren't updated, there's still a large linkrot issue, and several sentences appear to not have any inline citations. Also the article could use a copyedit to refine the English language, but that's less critical. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:47, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The linkrot problems have been solved. Copyedit still needs to be done, and check of what still needs sourcing. Fram (talk) 11:10, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Some further cleanup has been done. If you can indicate the remaining problems I'll try to work on them. Fram (talk) 13:54, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support. yes, I'm the nominator, but as I'm not aware of any further outstanding issues with this article, as we have only one RD listed at the moment (and apart from this one other nominated), and as everyone seems rather focused on the US election only, it seems as if most other things here are a bit forgotten even though they could easily be posted or improved. Fram (talk) 13:52, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I'd never heard of him but he seems quite notable and big in his home country. The article mostly seems fine but it could use some clarification of his style and title "Marcel Honoree Nestor, Knight Neels".  Presumably that's familiar to Belgians but I have some trouble parsing it to figure out what is his name and what's his title. Andrew D. (talk) 14:32, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Yes, he is mostly unknown outside Belgium (somewhat known in Wallonia, very important in his field in Flanders). I'll see what I can do about the name thing (everything but "Knight" is his full name) and about his style (an image would help, but they are copyrighted). Fram (talk) 14:35, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * A footnote might be the best way to clarify the name. Andrew D. (talk) 14:58, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Footnote about name, short bit about style, and two images to illustrate his style and work, are added. Fram (talk) 10:57, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted

[Posted] RD: Janet Reno

 * Support article seems well sourced and fairly thorough. MurielMary (talk) 10:25, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose far too many unreferenced claims. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:30, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Can you clarify - do you mean the list of actions taken while in post? Everything else seems cited (I removed a short paragraph which seemed opinion rather than sourced fact). MurielMary (talk) 10:53, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, the version I reviewed had several issues which seem to have been resolved in the intervening dozen or so edits. So support now.  The Rambling Man (talk) 11:35, 7 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Posted -- Fuzheado &#124; Talk 13:17, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Why are you posting your own nomination?--WaltCip (talk) 13:21, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed - nominators should not promote their own nominations, particularly in light of how fast this was done per Jayron below. (Though otherwise there's no reason to pull, TRM hit on sourcing in original comments and a check now shows it is okay, so no need to remove). --M ASEM (t) 15:12, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed, there is no suggestion to pull, merely a reminder on how to avoid problems in the future. I didn't even catch that the OP promoted his own proposal.  That occasionally happens when a post has been sitting around a long time (a day or more) and there has been extensive support.  Two votes in 3 hours is neither.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 20:57, 7 November 2016 (UTC)


 * (Edit Conflict with above, when this was posted) The article isn't great, but it's good enough for my weak support based on the fact that everything there is cited. If anyone wanted to make this better, here's a few issues that those with the desire and the sources to do so could improve: 1) The U.S. attorney general section would be better as a series of prose paragraphs explaining each of the items currently there, rather than a bullet list.  2) A few key aspects of her life and career could be expanded.  For example, most obits seem to be spending more time than we do on her failed 2002 bid for Florida governor; of which we currently mention in a sentence on "Post-political life", which is silly, because running for Governor seems entirely like a political event.  Still, none of this completely holds this up from the main page for me, but still would be nice to see improved.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:23, 7 November 2016 (UTC)  Post edit conflict addendum: This was a bit fast for a posting, I count less than 3 hours between nomination and posting, with one vote to go on.  I suggest, in the future, the posting admin wait for either more time, or more votes, before rushing to press.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:23, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * There were two supports at the time this was posted. Usually that's sufficient.  The Rambling Man (talk) 13:26, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Add as blurb First female Attorney General in the US, second longest serving in history, and a true national hero. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.62.76.13 (talk) 16:42, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * OPPOSE and PULL as COI and sub par cabinet post. Are we now going to post fgn min, fin min, def min too as theyre constitutionally higher in all countried?!Lihaas (talk) 19:56, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Per this RFC anyone who has been deemed notable enough for an article is eligible to be posted in ITN/RD provided that article quality is adequate. I am not seeing significant issues of that nature. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:03, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I mean really, Lihaas, you're regular enough here to know we don't judge RD based on notability now, right? Or did you forget? Good lord.--WaltCip (talk) 01:04, 8 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Support Famous AG.--98.88.130.198 (talk) 20:38, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * As Ad Orientem has pointed out, the only issues are (a) does this recently deceased person have an article? (b) is the article of sufficient quality to post? Whether someone was famous or not, or any such variation of some sort of super-notability test, stopped being the test here some months ago. BencherliteTalk (using his alt account Bencherheavy) 20:54, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * "notability test, stopped being the test here some months ago"...Huh, fascinating. This is highly illogical--98.88.130.198 (talk) 21:09, 7 November 2016 (UTC).
 * This has been the case for some months now. It's not odd at all, and every single RD has had a notice attached to it to allude to the discussion.  If there's a consensus to return to the previous way of doing things, by all means direct us to it.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:11, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * This is a case in point for the need to ignore--at least--this rule.--98.88.130.198 (talk) 21:17, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Clearly not, it's been posted and rightly so. If you'd like to file a new RfC to return to "super notability" criteria, you are welcome to do so!  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:25, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Hong Kong LegCo members' oath-taking controversy

 * Oppose good faith nomination. This is too parochial for ITN. Further I don't think it really is much of what could be described as news. Hong Kong is a de-facto colony of the PRC, a Communist authoritarian police state. The idea that Hong Kong enjoys any true autonomy, that is to say the ability to do anything to which Bejing strongly objects, has never been anything other than pure fantasy. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:13, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak Support I don't see this leading any headlines, but asking Google turns up plenty of news items for this story. For the article "LegCo" needs to be either expanded or dropped, the shorthand feels awkward to me. I'm also not thrilled about so many references from South China Morning Post -- by now some wire services must be reporting on this. Few sentences without inline refs. Otherwise article is in OK shape. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 01:40, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support An interesting, current story with a well written article. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 02:23, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose per AO; "weak" due to article quality. DYK a possible alternate since the article is pretty recent?  Spencer T♦ C 09:56, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose I might've supported this three weeks ago when the two first attempted their expletive/insult-laden oaths. This event is "national politician sends letter to notify local government of a future clarification", which is essentially like the previous Clinton email nomination - "Biden says government will respond to alleged Russian hacking". There is no substance to this story yet. May reconsider at the conclusion of this episode, when they are allowed or prevented from taking their seats. Fuebaey (talk) 15:26, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Update: The threatened "interpretation" has taken place, there are significant and apparently escalating protests that are hitting the world news, meaning it can no longer be considered "parochial".Time NYT Al Jazeera
 * Support pending article improvement. Reuters: "Beijing's most direct intervention in the territory's legal and political system since the 1997 handover." zzz (talk) 08:56, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose, interesting but too parochial. If protests get up to the level of the 2014 protests, it would merit posting, but it doesn't seem to be that level yet. Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:51, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * So the result of any election gets posted, but shutting down the electoral process is "too parochial". Ok then. zzz (talk) 04:26, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Lebanon PM

 * Comment. Since the PM is appointed by the President (if I read it right) this could be combined with the presidential election blurb(which has quality issues keeping it from posting). 331dot (talk) 10:27, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

First launch of Long March 5

 * Support on improvements The entire "Design" section prior to the tables is unsourced (there's a solitary CN tag there too). --M ASEM (t) 14:31, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Sourcing is terrible right now: entire paragraphs with no citations. Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:52, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] MLB World Series

 * Tentative support assuming there is prose added for Game 7 commensurate with the other games. If and when that happens, anyone can assume I didn't write the word "tentative" there.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:36, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support on completion of the game and conditional on solid updating of the article. As it stands the article looks good with just a few spots that I think could use a cite. I'm not seeing anything right now that would prevent posting. GO CUBS! -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:37, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support first blurb  if Indians win. If the Cubs win, although the Billy Goat thing is amusing, it might be more factual to note that they would have broken the longest current World Series championship drought. I'm an O's fan so my opinion is impartial. :) ZettaComposer (talk) 18:01, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Adding myself as an updater. It's in decent shape. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:05, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support I played Rounders at school, so I consider myself an expert even if I haven't got a clue how this game works. No seriously, notability not in question, article looks fine and no reason to think it won't be updated properly, apparently this is quite a popular sport. Black Kite (talk) 19:33, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support good shape. popular sport.BabbaQ (talk) 20:19, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment under no circumstances should we be posting "breaking a 'curse'" which is nonsense, and house style usually prevents us from adding a "since". Both alts are not adequate.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:22, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree about the curse part, which is silly. I don't know where "house style" prevents mentioning the drought, but it's not crucial to add. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:25, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support post-game, subject to article quality. Suggestion: at the end of the blurb, add "..., securing their first title since 19__" (1908 if the Cubs win, 1948 if the Indians win). Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:24, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support a blurb with the year, since both teams have long droughts- once quality is OK. 331dot (talk) 21:33, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Alt2 - either team winning breaks a significant drought. In the case of the Cubs, I believe this is the longest professional sports team drought ever, surely in North America at the least. -  Floydian  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  23:13, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * And if not worldwide promotion and relegation makes it easier for a team to avoid a championship by being relegated. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:59, 2 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Support Alt2 for the mention of each team's last World Series victory, since a long drought will be broken either way. Canuck 89 (chat with me)  00:01, November 3, 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Alt2 per Canuckian Palmtree5551 (talk) 04:01, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * OMG Bottom of the 10th, 2 out and a 1 run game. I'm dying. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:48, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support CUBS WIN! CUBS WIN! Daniel Case (talk) 04:49, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * +1908!!!! CUBS WIN!!!!-Ad Orientem (talk) 04:50, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * And I should add that I say this as a lifelong Yankees fan who thinks it was about time (so there is one more less team whose fans complain about how the Yankees have always seemed so blessed). But seriously, they deserve it for that level of loyalty to their team for so long ... does this begin to redeem 2016 at least a little bit? However, having once lived in Cleveland for a year or so, I was sort of pulling for them. I hope they don't have to wait too much longer. Daniel Case (talk) 05:05, 3 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Support Even if the World Series was not notable in itself (or met ITNR), the breaking of one of the longest streaks in sporting history certainly is. Joshua Garner (talk) 04:53, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support per Canuckian, obviously. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:55, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Alt2 I mean, 108 years. 108 years!  —  Gestrid  ( talk ) 04:58, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Posted. Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 05:00, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Ben Zobrist is the MVP. Can we swap out Brandon Laird for Zobrist, with the above image? – Muboshgu (talk) 05:12, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I think it would be better to put up an image of the pitching mound pile on. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:15, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I would support changing the picture to that if we can get one that qualifies for use.  — Gestrid  ( talk ) 05:37, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ by someone else. Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 20:19, 3 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment: Could someone pipe the links Chicago Cubs → 2016 Chicago Cubs season and similarly Cleveland Indians → 2016 Cleveland Indians season. It's this year's teams who played. --bender235 (talk) 14:38, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 20:19, 3 November 2016 (UTC)