Wikipedia : In the news/Candidates/December 2020

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2020 December 14 Template:Cob

Oppose - Lots of cn tags. Poydoo can talk and edit 19:29, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have reduced it to two citation needed tags. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 09:29, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Template:Re All citation needed tags have been fixed. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 13:19, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Posted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:39, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

December 14

(Posted) RD: Ann Reinking

Oppose Seeing uncited sentences here and there; the credits section needs a lot more sources and the awards are completely unsourced. Gotitbro (talk) 00:58, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Template:Re Sources have been added, thanks to User:Aoba47. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 05:19, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Support Looks good to me now. Gotitbro (talk) 06:26, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I believe everything is cited Scaramouche33 (talk) 06:43, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm not sure how standard some of the table formatting is, but everything is cited. Looks like we can confirm Playbill archives for Broadway credits. Kingsif (talk) 17:27, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Article well-referenced. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael ^(marhata) 02:04, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Posted — Amakuru (talk) 12:37, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Totilas

Support Article is good enough for RD. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 11:10, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Posted — Amakuru (talk) 12:37, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Roddam Narasimha

Support Looks fine to me. Gotitbro (talk) 12:42, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment bare URLs need fixing. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 16:45, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Template:U, thanks for the catch. Fixed them. In addition, some links were dead / returning 404s, replaced them as well. Ktin (talk) 18:23, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Article well-referenced. Note on the last book in the "Book" section: it would be better if someone gives a translation to the title. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael ^(marhata) 02:06, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Template:U, Done. Good idea. Thanks. Ktin (talk) 03:35, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I was considering posting this but it looks like much of the article was orginally a cut & paste from his profile [26]. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:06, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Template:U, Eikes. Let me have a look once I get back. Ktin (talk) 04:23, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to needing the copied material on his career and awards rewritten and replaced, little of it seems to be cited to proper independent sources; usually all awards need a proper source, not just the academic bio. The material on his research that I removed as a copyvio was cut and pasted from the bio, and so was not an independent appraisal of its significance. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:07, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:U, please have a look now, have given this one a thorough rewrite. Happy to make any edits. I will be awake for the next hour. Ktin (talk) 05:54, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ping Sorry, my internet went down shortly after I commented, and now I'm headed offline for the day. Will take a look once I'm back, if it isn't posted before then. Espresso Addict (talk) 09:57, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Posted - it looks OK from my angle, thanks to Ktin's rewrites. Template:U if you do see any further issues then please let me know or remove it directly. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 12:42, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Template:U, I love the new template with comma separated values for updater names. Thanks to the folks who enabled that one. Very nice touch. Ktin (talk) 15:03, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Ping as far as I can gather, we can mainly thank Template:U for this nice improvement to the templates. Plus maybe others behind the scenes. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 23:27, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Template:U, thanks Martin! Very nice touch. Ktin (talk) 00:00, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome Template:Ul. If you have any further ideas for improvements, feel free to post at Template talk:ITN candidate — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:57, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Herman Asaribab

Support Looks good. Gotitbro (talk) 12:42, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
cricket noises
Support Seems cited fine enough, though there's a bit of odd grammar in "Enembe remarked that 'Papuans should be reach the rank of general, either in the police or in the armed forces'". I'm not sure if that's translation error or just a mistake on his behalf, so I'm not willing to remove it. Gex4pls (talk) 18:57, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I have fixed the grammar. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 01:30, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Template:Done Fixed the quote. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael ^(marhata) 01:59, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note to admin please decide the fate of this RD nom; otherwise it would be stale and not recent anymore.Regards, Jeromi Mikhael ^(marhata) 05:33, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Posted — Amakuru (talk) 12:37, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Benjamin Abeles

Support Barely long enough for RD and well-referenced. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 16:48, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from a duplicated nomination: Austrian physicist. Unfortunately, I couldn't find the news in English media. Article is a tad small in size, but is start-class. Article seems to pass hygiene requirements for homepage / RD. I did not have to make any edits. But, if there are any edits required, I can give it a go, albeit with Google Translate as my aide. Ktin (talk) 03:43, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Very stubby on his career and research. The lead is inappropriate in its focus, and material appears there that is not expounded in the body. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:31, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support, notwithstanding the above comment which is reasonable, I do think it is acceptable for RD. —Brigade Piron (talk) 21:48, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Meets minimal standards. Items in the lead are sourced in the body, though not explained in detail any further.—Bagumba (talk) 08:57, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Posted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:41, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Sudan's removal from U.S. SST

Comment Wasn't this linked to relations with Israel of Sudan? Also this is stale now, was already known/"in the news" a few weeks back; this is just procedural. Gotitbro (talk) 00:55, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Create altblurb 2 Its important to note how Sudan was removed from the list. Albertaont (talk) 03:04, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose it seems we're nominating US foreign policy announcements on a near-daily basis. This is not interesting. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 12:34, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not notable event. --cyrfaw (talk) 13:25, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Many countries have some kind of list like this. It just happens that one big country took a country off their list. Gex4pls (talk) 13:39, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Quoting Template:U: Template:TqRegards, Jeromi Mikhael ^(marhata) 13:47, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think this one warrants an article, but it's abundantly clear the SST label is political BS. Witness Iraq being removed only for the length of their war with Iran. GreatCaesarsGhost 14:14, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose We need to be wary of any policy decision that is being made during the lame duck period of Trump's presidency, as all are subject to change subsequent to Biden taking office in January.--WaltCip-(talk) 14:08, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Per Walt. Quack! – Sca (talk) 14:19, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as the US State Sponsors of Terrorism list is not notable enough for ITN, no matter who the president is. NorthernFalcon (talk) 16:12, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This user gets it! 😊 Regards, Jeromi Mikhael ^(marhata) 16:34, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Total solar eclipse

Oppose on quality. Article is really bare bones at the moment. The lead needs expanding to actually cover the details of this eclipse (it is mostly about eclipses in general right now). And the "Visibility" section has no refs at all. — Amakuru (talk) 20:42, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on quality - for now. Ping me when improved/expanded.BabbaQ (talk) 22:54, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per above. Needs sources and better/more prose. Gotitbro (talk) 00:52, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the article is poorly referenced and has minimal prose. Given that most observing events were cancelled due to COVID, there might not be much to say about this particular eclipse, which is a shame. I'd be surprised if there aren't at least a dozen popular news stories though. Modest Genius ^talk 12:01, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on quality little more than a stub, and poorly referenced. Particularly the sections on Argentina and Chile- though that may be due to the pandemic. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:18, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ Comment – Ephemeral event. – Sca (talk) 14:21, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As stated in the proposal, this is covered by WP:ITN/R, so please restrict opposition to article quality issues only. 73.81.117.35 (talk) 16:46, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

pokes IP editor Who are you, IP editor? Jeromi Mikhael ^(marhata) 02:01, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Gérard Houllier

Weak support that "award section" needs a ref otherwise ok. RIP. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 12:35, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose "Return to the French national team" and "Awards" sections and one paragraph of the Liverpool section is unsourced. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:37, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Ping the sections you mention are now fully cited I believe. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 18:10, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose the update is not sufficient. Any cause of death? Related to his heart problems?-- P-K3 (talk) 15:52, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Update is all we have. No RS that I have seen do anything more than you have done, i.e. speculate. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 16:03, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There you go: "... following a heart operation." added. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 16:08, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's better, thanks.-- P-K3 (talk) 17:32, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Return to French..." and "Honors" sections need sources. Gotitbro (talk) 17:05, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support now well sourced. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:39, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above JW 1961 Talk 21:21, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks good. Tradedia^talk 22:02, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this one looks ready, if anyone's around to post it! — Amakuru (talk) 08:54, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I haven't looked at sourcing but the tone veers out of encyclopedic in several places, there's no section on his personal life (marriage, children?), and his activities after retiring in 2011 only seem to be mentioned in the lead. Espresso Addict (talk) 10:50, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not perfect, but good enough for RD — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:37, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Posted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:37, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Huang Zongying

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2020 December 13 Template:Cob

Oppose Article hasn't been updated to reflect her death and the filmography is completely unsourced. Gotitbro (talk) 10:01, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Gotitbro, just done my first run through and think I've covered all the missing refs and updated tense etc - Dumelow (talk) 10:28, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Re Can you cite/remove the brother (Huang Zongluo) part from the lead/ib, isn't mentioned in the body as well. Gotitbro (talk) 10:37, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Gotitbro, done - Dumelow (talk) 10:41, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks very good now. Gotitbro (talk) 12:59, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Indeed, looks good now.BabbaQ (talk) 18:03, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support looks good, I have marked as ready to go as well. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:05, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Posted — Amakuru (talk) 18:14, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

December 13

(Closed) RD: Vasubahen

Template:Atop Template:ITN candidate Template:Abot

(Re-posted) Blurb/RD: Ambrose Mandvulo Dlamini

Template:ITN candidate Support RD once article is expanded beyond stub tier, and willing to support blurb on the significance of an incumbent head of government dying, especially being the first incumbent to die of COVID-19, despite the fact that Eswatini is officially a monarchy. Vanilla Wizard 💙 01:49, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

support The article is well sourced and has enough information. Not only being the first incumbent world leader to die in office because of Covid, but Eswatini is notable for its traditions and status in the world as an absouloute monarchy. I would be willing to support a blurb as well Cavejohnson13 (talk) 02:05, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OR Alert Before weighing significance, do any sources say COVID killed him? InedibleHulk (talk) 02:14, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He died in a South African hospital while being treated for COVID-19, so the consensus among sources is that COVID is the assumed cause of death, but it's fair to say that this is still just an assumption unless or until Eswatini officials announce it. Nearly every result for the term "eswatini" in DuckDuckGo's news tab reads something along the lines of "dies after testing positive for COVID-19", but it's also true that his cause of death still remains unspecified for the time being. If he's notable enough for a blurb regardless of the cause of death, then we can post it without mentioning the cause of death and update the blurb once we get some sort of confirmation from Eswatini. Otherwise, if the cause of death being COVID is what makes the story notable, then we can post it to RD first and then move it to a blurb if it gets announced that he died of COVID. Vanilla Wizard 💙 02:45, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do any sources say he did anything except die after diagnosis? InedibleHulk (talk) 02:51, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment, no, which is why I agree with you that we shouldn't yet use a blurb that says he died of COVID. Vanilla Wizard 💙 02:54, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you support a blurb at all? If he did nothing, what's the impact, the loss, the effect? Not seeing it a bit. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:01, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:S
- Deputy shouldn't be redlinked because he has an article at Themba N. Masuku. I fixed it by creating a redirect. I assume he's acting PM now but I haven't seen any sources saying so.Johndavies837 (talk) 03:01, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:05, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Precedent His more successful predecessor was nommed in nearly identical circumstances two years ago and went stale after weak RD support, worth a link, I can't paste. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:26, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support RD, per improvement. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:05, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD I don't mind changing this to blurb if a few more sources on his life and premiership can be added, right now I would say it is a "high-quality" stub. Albertaont (talk) 06:10, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weakly support blurb in principle, as a deceased sitting head of government. If it turns out he died from Covid, we can (but by no means must) break the "no Covid blurbs until it's over" guideline and mention it in the blurb. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 06:25, 14 December 2020 (UTC) Oppose blurb per absolute monarchy. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 07:49, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Neither does the prime minister hold real power in Eswatini (the king does), nor is the article up to par for an RD let alone a blurb. Gotitbro (talk) 07:10, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nor does Prime Minister of Eswatini have a standalone article; hard to be blurbworthy without general notability, one should think. Survivor Series (1989) is notable, and Zeus was the first from his match to die, of anything! Give him the presumptive COVID bump, if anyone. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:22, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support RD contingent on article's expansion and outright oppose for a blurb. I fail to see any significance of a prime minister, albeit sitting, in an absolute monarchy and the fact that the article is merely a stub at the time of his death tells a lot.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:38, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
oppose blurb I think we should blurb prime ministers from constitutional monarchies and parliamentary republics only ( and maybe semi-presidential republics as well),but since Eswatini is an absolute monarchy, I don't think he's blurb-worthy Scaramouche33 (talk) 07:42, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD only just about long enough for RD but what is there is decently referenced JW 1961 Talk 08:21, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose RD only article is barely above stub, hardly a good summary of someone who purports to have held such a prominent position. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 08:33, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Posted to RD — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:46, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Pull / Oppose on quality~~. Article has no detail whatsoever on his tenure as PM, and is basically a glorified stub. — Amakuru (talk) 18:16, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There were several unaddressed opposes with this one even before posting, and it needs improvement before it would be ready for the main page. No detail on his premiership at all. Please can someone remove it. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 23:04, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Pulled. Per Template:U, this is a stub with no information about his notable role as PM. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:22, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD Information about him as Prime Minister has been added by Joofjoof. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 04:00, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD - thanks to Template:U for the updates, it looks much better now. I think it can be re-posted. — Amakuru (talk) 09:06, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Restored. Thanks everyone. Espresso Addict (talk) 10:16, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

December 12

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2020 December 12 Template:Cob

RD: Gideon Gartner

(Closed) MLS Cup 2020

Oppose. Leaving aside any notability concerns, Template:Em the only coverage of this match in the article is Template:Tq. And that's uncited. ‑ Iridescent 19:22, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Big 5" North American sports isn't an actual thing like the "Big Four" is. --Bongwarrior (talk) 19:51, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Re For what it’s worth, the MLS Cup 2019 was listed on the “current events” page for November 10, 2019; there’s precedence for it being notable enough. The Kip (talk) 20:22, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Template:U, that is not "precedence" for ITN/C. Anyone can edit the current events portal. I don't think the MLS Cup has ever been posted by ITN/C. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:28, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's precedent to add this event to Portal:Current events/2020 December 12, which anyone is welcome to do. It's not precedent to list it in the ITN box on the Main Page. Modest Genius ^talk 14:42, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Footy is well covered by ITN/R, and some special reasoning would be needed to post another tournament that isn't on the list. MLS is widely considered an inferior league to the leagues that we do blurb. Iridescent is also correct that, while the article is substantive, the update is not. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:30, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Re My mistake, carry on. Close this if you wish. -The Kip (talk) 20:34, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No need to, you made a good faith nomination and consensus can change. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:36, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I've been a fan of the winning side since their inaugural season, & even I must acknowledge there is not "wide interest" in the MLS. GreatCaesarsGhost 21:15, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's how I feel about UFC Flyweight Champion Deiveson Figueiredo's legit thrilling draw last night, not worth getting his record-breaking accomplishment yawned at, fighting ain't sportsmanlike here! InedibleHulk (talk) 04:40, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Seems notable, but the article isn't great. Wouldn't know enough about soccer to oppose. –Cavejohnson13 (talk) 22:26, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose "Big 5" is not a thing, "Big 4" is. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:30, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Already have enough football/soccer leagues at ITNR no need to go outside of that. Gotitbro (talk) 07:13, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose but ONLY because I don't see a prose summary of the final. Also, I added an alt blurb per house style. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 08:39, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per TRM, not enough content about the match itself, which is what is expected from an article about a soccer final. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:42, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Even if we pretended if there was a Big Five (and NASCAR would probably be the 5th, so Big Six I guess), the other leagues are also the consensus top leagues in their respective sports while the MLS is not. Teemu08 (talk) 14:36, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. A minor competition in world football terms. We can't publish every country's champion, and sticking with those listed on ITNR is plenty of coverage. Modest Genius ^talk 14:40, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Charley Pride

Comment He seems like a popular figure. His death due to Covid is notable, as is the trend of his songs. I'm not quite supporting it because something is going on with the reference tag down at the bottom. –Cavejohnson13 (talk) 22:23, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment.~~ Support.Will support once sourcing is complete for "Awards" and "Personal life and death". Joofjoof (talk) 00:32, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment will revisit in the morrning (my time) hopefully the references will be fixed by the US Country music editors, RIP Charley JW 1961 Talk 00:50, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It was "complications related to" COVID, possibly better noted as a death following "Kiss an Angel Good Mornin'". InedibleHulk (talk) 01:49, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment.~~ Support. I went in and added sources / citations for the awards section. ~~The main article still has some Template:Cn tags if someone has a few cycles to source them. Cheers.~~ . Nice stuff Template:U in seeing this one through! Ktin (talk) 04:34, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. It's pretty thoroughly reffed up now, and more comprehensive than many RDs I've seen. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 04:23, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This is a no brainer, there have been multiple recent RD's that were far worse but because they had 5 sentences with 5 references that somehow qualified them for RD since they were "well-referenced". Albertaont (talk) 04:35, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Article quality has improved. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 05:05, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Added—Bagumba (talk) 08:48, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: U. A. Khader

Support. Decent article. Ideally the "bibliography" would be cut down to reflect significant works only. —Brigade Piron (talk) 20:26, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Suitable for RD JW 1961 Talk 20:31, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Ping, pardon the intrusion. This article is good for homepage / RD. Ktin (talk) 02:05, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Posted – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 02:06, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted RD) Blurb/RD: Ruhollah Zam

Comment. It's mostly there, I guess, but it is very stubby at present. Can't we have more information on the nature and stance of "Amadnews", for example? —Brigade Piron (talk) 20:27, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb Just heard about it. Shame our media is silent about it, I guess Biden really is banking on renewing the nuclear deal. Anyhow, I think his death is highly unusual. Being executed for your journalist integrity under the charge of "corruption on Earth" after being lured into your country by an islamic extremist analogue of CIA/KGB? Now that doesn't happen every day. CoronaOneLove (talk) 00:02, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This has gotten no coverage compared to the execution of the Iranian scientist, nor is this particularly noteworthy. Also more general concerns with article quality and the fact that it is a stub. Albertaont (talk) 01:00, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD, oppose blurb I think this is good enough for RD, but this got less coverage than the Mohsen Fakhrizadeh murder, so I don't think that this is worth a blurb. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 05:32, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb The article looks good now. Quite unusual story. Tradedia^talk 06:49, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb Capital punishment is not uncommon in Iran with several hundreds executions every year, so this is not a ruling with an extraordinary rare outcome. Also, the media report that the journalist was found guilty on corruption charges and, according to the Iranian law, such crimes usually end up with execution. As for the reactions, it's normal to see Reporters Without Borders and the media worldwide condemning the execution of their colleague but, frankly speaking, so much ado is done only in cases when the victims are journalists (they are not sacrosancts and cannot be pardoned for whatever they do).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:15, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb Don't see the coverage here. Meanwhile, the article claims his death was on both the 11th and the 12th December, and the blurb doesn't fit with "(The Islamic Guard) announced they had lured Zam back to Iran and arrested him, although according to other sources he had been arrested in Iraq". Black Kite (talk) 10:44, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD only just about enough in there for RD. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 11:59, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD only – Per TRM, Kiril. The execution was fairly widely covered, but was what one would expect from the Iranian theocracy. – Sca (talk) 13:22, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD, Oppose blurb. Article quality is decent. ~ Destroyer 🌀🌀 16:27, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD Numerous executions in Iran, don't think this is especially notable for a blurb. Barely passable for RD though. Gotitbro (talk) 18:01, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD only good enough for RD JW 1961 Talk 20:07, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on quality, oppose blurb Too short and a few uncited statements, just simply not important enough for a blurb per others. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 05:51, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What's your threshold for length? And I can't see any uncited statements, care to point them out? The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 08:52, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's obviously a know-it-when-I-see-it proposition, but the "Arrest and execution" section is only a paragraph long, and the "Reactions" section has only three reactions that are mostly straight quotes. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 08:59, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Niche subject matter I suppose. And the missing refs? The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 12:36, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Posted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:41, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: John le Carré

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2020 December 11 Template:Cob

Support. The article is in good shape. Alexcalamaro (talk) 22:59, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Multiple paragraphs and sections lacking a single reference. Step hen 23:39, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done! All sourcing has been completed. Template:Ping have a look and let me know if you see any other misses, I am around for the next hour or so. Ktin (talk) 03:23, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support, with blurb. One of the most significant spy novel authors ever. BD2412 T 03:41, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- He doesn't readily meet blurb material. "spy novel authors" is rather a niche area of writing overall, so while he may have been a big name in that small part of that field, as an overall writer, he's not rather groundbreaking. --Masem (t) 03:50, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't think it's fair to pigeonhole it by genre. There is limited information on his sales figures, but one source notes he sold 3.55 million books between 1998 and 2018 - already thirty years after his main period of prominence. —Brigade Piron (talk) 08:43, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree, it's nonsense. He was a "fiction writer", so that should be where he's judged. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 12:37, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - FWIW, Terry Pratchett sold 70 million books and didn't get a blurb. Modest Genius ^talk 14:48, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb. He's a huge name in the UK at least; eg look at the index page of The Guardian atm: [27]. Among the best-known popular novelists here. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:30, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD only - He's nowhere near blurb-worthy. This is what RD is for. 1779Days (talk) 05:30, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on quality, and absolutely not for a blurb if Chuck Yeager didn't get one. Still a few uncited statements blocking RD, although otherwise decent quality. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 05:53, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb. As well as a major figure in English literature for almost a half-century, he was the emblematic writer of the Cold War in Europe. —Brigade Piron (talk) 08:38, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD only I am revealing my ignorance here, but based on the comments I assumed this was the author of James Bond works. On reading through I was surprised to see that it's an author that only wrote two works that I can recall. I can't see how this should go up as a blurb.130.233.213.199 (talk) 08:46, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, certainly that's misguided thinking. Le Carré was a fine author, far superior to Fleming in every sense. And just because you can only recall two of his books, I'm not clear why that should influence whether this is a blurb or not. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 08:51, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I would support a blurb for Fleming. The fact that Tom Clancy didn't get a blurb either makes this further a non-starter in my book. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 08:54, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD definitely good enough right now, ambivalent on blurb, certainly a English-language literary giant, but as people are declaring "popular fiction" to be niche and the individual isn't American, I guess this is a non-starter. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 08:51, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The horrible Americans raise their ugly heads once again. Help! — Sca (talk) 14:08, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support RD came here to nominate this, but realised it was already nominated. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:47, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD Mjroots (talk) 13:47, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD only – While justly famous within his genre, Le Carre's historical fiction seems less than 'transformative' for English lit. – Sca (talk) 14:04, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD. Article looks fine to me - the two Template:Tl tags are unimportant. Well-loved author but not blurb level. Modest Genius ^talk 14:48, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Posted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:36, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

December 11

(Posted) RD: James Flynn (academic)

weak support I think almost everything in the article is cited,but since this is a biography, shouldn't there be a section that talks about his personal life? Scaramouche33 (talk) 11:14, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Decent article. —Brigade Piron (talk) 20:24, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. He is notable Hugo999 (talk) 23:06, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Added—Bagumba (talk) 08:49, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Zodiac 340 Cipher

Comment I found it hard to find mention of the solving in the article (it's in a text box in small print) perhaps it should be more prominently mentioned in the article, if that is where we are pointing readers to with the blurb. JW 1961 Talk 23:37, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose While quite interesting, I don't really see how people figuring out what a killer tried to say in one of many statements is news. Gex4pls (talk) 23:45, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose While this is news, it isn't very significant that someone decoded what a killed had to say. Send to DYK. ~ Destroyer 🌀🌀 00:08, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose but Comment I think this is perfect for DYK actually. Albertaont (talk) 00:17, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose but suggest a nomination for DYK This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 00:40, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DYK. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:41, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, propose SNOW close. Interesting tidbit and good faith nom, but hardly making headlines or having lasting significance. Pretty much impossible to pass, anyway. Juxlos (talk) 01:29, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose If anything related to this was going to be posted should've been the arrest of the possible perpetrator. Gotitbro (talk) 03:56, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Kim Ki-duk

Oppose Filmography and awards almost entirely unsourced, will revisit if fixed JW 1961 Talk 18:13, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose At this time until improvements memtioned already above are complete. Ping me and I change.BabbaQ (talk) 23:52, 11 December 2020 (UTC) [reply]
Oppose per the above, also not notable. --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 01:54, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Re As mentioned in the template above notability is not a criteria for WP:ITN/R (recurring items) or WP:ITN/RD (recent deaths) only the articles need to be of competent quality, i.e., meet basic sourcing/size. Only blurbs should be debated be bated on their notability. Gotitbro (talk) 03:53, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To be more clear, is a subject is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article it is notable for RD. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:23, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Ping I suggest you strike the Template:Tqqi. ~ Destroyer 🌀🌀 14:49, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok; let me be more clear; sorry if I wasn't clearer before; but if you went to a printed encyclopedia, would you ever find it on the main page? Generally, that's my criteria. --Hurricane Tracker 495 18:05, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Ping You have clearly not seen the text on the ITN box nor have read the instructions. Template:Tqqi. If you cannot follow the instructions, I suggest you back away from ITN completely. ~ Destroyer 🌀🌀 19:07, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ping Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. Your personal "criteria" does not reflect the Wikipedia consensus on notable content, nor on content for In the news. If you fail to understand this nor follow simple instructions and guidelines set in stone by many Wikipedia editors, you are bound to be accused of not being here to build an encyclopedia. Chlod (say hi!) 19:14, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Filmography, awards and a few paras need to be sourced. Gotitbro (talk) 03:53, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I have added citations, now only the filmography needs citations. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 10:33, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Looks fine now, Template:Re the refs should have their own row in filmography though (for better formatting). Gotitbro (talk) 00:49, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose clearly under-referenced. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 08:56, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Almost there. Filmography needs a few more refs. ~ Destroyer 🌀🌀 14:49, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I have added some references in the filmography section. I think it is ready. Alexcalamaro (talk) 23:02, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment better, but that "uncredited" Secret Reunion needs a source. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 08:47, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Template:Reply to Ok. I have added a source for that movie (I have found an article from 2013 in an Italian film magazine). Alexcalamaro (talk) 22:37, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I am pinging Template:Ping , maybe they could take a look at the article, now that is referenced, and maybe they want to change their !vote. Alexcalamaro (talk) 22:50, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - change to support. Ready for posting. Sourced and ready.BabbaQ (talk) 22:53, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also changing to Support nice work tidying up the article Template:U JW 1961 Talk 23:14, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Pulling the above has potentially left a last-minute slot for this, but I'm uncomfortable posting an article where more than half of the text is controversy. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:47, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice work adding citations. ~ Destroyer 🌀🌀 02:01, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Posted, into 7th position — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:44, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) RD: Tommy Lister Jr.

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2020 December 10 Template:Cob

Oppose Barely sourced, entire sections almost go without refs. Gex4pls (talk) 14:31, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Not any longer. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:01, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support A verifiable story, just a bit unlikely. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:10, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose All film + TV appearances need sourcing. --Masem (t) 22:27, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - after everything is sourced. Ping me.BabbaQ (talk) 23:53, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Most looks fine but the filmography section needs sourcing. Gotitbro (talk) 03:48, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose huge number of claims unsourced. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 08:53, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose a editor copy and pasted a move and now the page history is split. the article is too much of a mess. so oppose for now. GuzzyG (talk) 10:51, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cite web I had put it in, and one of our editors removed it. Perverse result. Not the first time. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:58, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd not consider that page a reliable source even though its likely true (the home page is "best online casinos".... --Masem (t) 16:00, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The best online casinos aren't sketchy, that's their appeal. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:14, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You disqualified Dr. John and Neil Peart because they were prolific, and didn't have the hundreds of citations that would satisfy you. The views by readers were to the contrary. Happening here, too. Oh well. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:28, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ITN articles, as part of being the main page are supposed to highlight some of WP's best work. Lack of sourcing is not our best work. A highly questional RS to source films is not our best work. The problem is that these are BLPs before they died and are supposed to be in far better shape per BLP policy but people don't edit them appropriate when they add information. That's not ITN's fault that editors didn't do their jobs in the years before. --Masem (t) 18:31, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion. It still creates perverse results. That's my opinion. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:41, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That ITN looks at article quality is not my opinion, that's the purpose of ITN. While what is "quality" is subjective for sourcing, the lack of quality sourcing for any of the filmography is clearly and objectively not appropriate. --Masem (t) 18:56, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your work, if that counts (and added the Grantland feature in 2017). But wrestling's curse is strong here, and this actor got too close. That's my conclusion, if it counts. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:03, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As for Template:U, the idea that advertising a legal casino makes a source "highly questional" is where your opinion perverts appreciation of facts you admit are "likely true". In my opinion, you should stop distrusting casinos, they've gone mainstream. As a matter of fact, commercial media is questionable, not illegal. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:27, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am just saying that a site that purports to describe the best online casinos and no other signs of reliability is a far cry for reliability for a BLP (of which Lister is still under). Just because the website name shares the same as Lister doesn't mean it has any association with him at all. --Masem (t) 05:06, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will never understand how a hypothetically miscredited bit role (or even a few) is potentially harmful to a dead person's survivors. But it's just one source, among a now-ridiculous number. Relax the restrictiveness, I say. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:14, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty of other Wikis out there, this is an encyclopedia, so no, do not relax exacting standards. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 08:42, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What quality publication do you trust to safely support filmographies? InedibleHulk (talk) 09:28, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tommy Lister, Jr. page views. The readers find it without you. More than 200 acting credits. Template:Cite news Template:Cite book7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:11, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The alternate way to handle this is to entirely strike the individual filmography listings. I think that is Throw out the baby with the bathwater but it could be done. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:57, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The reason his page is getting page views is for being a character actor in a fair number of films. That would be inappropriate to remove that section. --Masem (t) 18:02, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. But if that's what it takes to sway the naysayers... 200+ acting credits per CNN, and the list is incomplete. Sourcing every appearance is a Sisyphusian effort that I will not choose to do. Article is in my opinion otherwise well sourced. But butting my head against this wall is futile. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:55, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not ITN's fault that editors failed to follow BLP's policy when they added his credits without sources in building up the article. --Masem (t) 19:09, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about fixing the blame. It is about fixing/solving the problem. This is a well sourced article about a prolific actor. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:01, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:U, I am pinging Template:Ping for their guidance since the carousel might move past this date anytime now. I think part of the problem is also because WP:IMDB is not allowed as a source for filmography, if that is allowed, it will solve a significant problem. I see IMDB has over 200+ entries for this subject. I also agree with Template:U that some of these are beyond this group. Good luck. Ktin (talk) 20:13, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stale - unfortunately it's now too late for this one. The oldest RD is currently from the 12 December. There do seem to have been a glut of them today, and more possibly on the way. — Amakuru (talk) 20:18, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Self fulfilling prophecy. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:54, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

110,000 views as of today. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:54, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So? ApLundell (talk) 22:50, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

December 10

(Posted) RD: Hasu Yajnik

Support Looks fine, could do well with a bibliography though. Gotitbro (talk) 18:03, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Though I feel like it could use more than 5 sources for it's length. Gex4pls (talk) 20:00, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support good to go. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 08:43, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Posted - Dumelow (talk) 09:44, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Garry Runciman, 3rd Viscount Runciman of Doxford

Weak support ref 2 is showing perm-a-dead, but otherwise ok. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 12:02, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks okay to me, seeing a single dead link which shouldn't stop this from RD though if anyone can replace it please do so. Gotitbro (talk) 18:08, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ref 2 is used only to support the relation to an uncle, which can be inferred by other references. What's the standard here? Is it enough to put two references that can infer the relationship logically ([1]Garry is the son of Leslie and [2] Leslie is the brother of Steven) or does there need to be an explicit statement from an RS ([1]Garry is Steven's nephew)?130.233.213.199 (talk) 09:17, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References such as the above would be sufficient - Dumelow (talk) 09:44, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Posted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:30, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Brandon Bernard

Support good to go. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 12:07, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks pretty fine. Gotitbro (talk) 18:07, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ANYONE? 18 hours later.... The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 08:44, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support As pile-on, certainly should go up.130.233.213.199 (talk) 10:25, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Posted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:36, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) RD: Richard Corben

Comment A lot of paras in the bio & awards sections are unreferenced. A long list of sources is given at the end but need inline cites. Could also do well with a biblio (if original works exist). Gotitbro (talk) 09:24, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose both image files were being used illegitimately (I removed them, no need to thank mee) and the article needs more sourcing. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 08:49, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Joseph Safra

Oppose A bit stubby for RD, can clearly be expanded and needs some additional sources. Gotitbro (talk) 04:41, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ lamentable article for "one of the richest men on Earth". The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 08:47, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support good work. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 08:45, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support The article seems ok as of now. Being "The richest banker in the world" makes him especially notable. Tradedia^talk 21:40, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, there's still a "failed verification" claim up there. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 12:08, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the heads-up. I just looked at the article now and the "failed verification" is gone and everything seems to have been referenced. Tradedia^talk 17:50, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Posted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:26, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Barbara Windsor

Oppose There are several uncited statements. Please fix them. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 01:21, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too many unsourced paras with the filmography being completely unsourced, also please find a more apt image for the infobox (at the peak of her career etc.) now that she is deceased. Gotitbro (talk) 04:44, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Surely the current image—from 2010, when she was the main character on the country's most-watched TV programme—Template:Em the peak of her career? Carry On was a vehicle for Sid James and Kenneth Williams; people tend to remember Windsor as more associated with them than she actually was, she didn't even appear in most of them. ‑ Iridescent 07:21, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. And that's not really a discussion for ITNC in any case. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 09:58, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's only a few TV shows without reference. If that's a showstopper then I'd just remove them. yorkshiresky (talk) 16:51, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I have removed the filmography entries without references. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 06:00, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support some bare URLs in there but otherwise much improved. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 12:11, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Re The article has improved, would you change your position? Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 04:17, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Posted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:31, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) US policy Western Sahara

Comment It does appear important but I am conflicted as to how significant or headline grabbing this is when compared to the Israel recognitions. Gotitbro (talk) 23:03, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like the Morocco recognition of Israel is linked to this which definitely makes it more significant. If the (now closed) blurb from below can be combined onto here that would be better reflection of the situation. Gotitbro (talk) 23:17, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have proposed an altblurb to combine both. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 01:21, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment From what I am reading, it looks like no country recognizes the independence of Western Sahara. Not sure how the US move is therefore significant. Albertaont (talk) 00:07, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Ping Currently 40 UN member states recognize Western Saharan independence. The US is the first state to explicitly recognize Moroccan sovereignty over the entire territory. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 00:34, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't that mean that (X-40) UN member states implicitly recognize Moroccan sovereignty over W.S.? And besides, American policy on Western Sahara conflict section in the Morocco–US relations article seems to indicate that Trump's statement is simply an explicit restatement of existing policy that W.S. is sovereign Moroccan territory. Juxlos (talk) 22:51, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support on principle, oppose on quality. As noted earlier, I thought this was the more notable outcome of the Morocco/United States/Israel agreement. However, the target article currently lacks a number of citations, which must be fixed before it can be blurbed. NorthernFalcon (talk) 05:11, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose but would support if merged with Morocco's normalised relations with Israel. I don't see how recognising Morocco's claim over a territory that is also claimed by a state effectively recognised by only around 50 countries in the world is important. A vast najority of the UN member states (including all permanent member states of the Security Council) don't recognise SADR, which goes in favour of Morocco's claim over that territory. Additionally, the United States has never recognised SADR, so their support of Morocco's claim is not really big news.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:02, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
support alt blurb First country recognizing anything is generally significant to global politics as opposed to 163rd country doing so,however,I believe it's important to mention the full extent of the agreement Scaramouche33 (talk) 12:42, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly don't know: does the fact that this is being done by a lame duck president matter? Biden could revoke recognition in 40 days right? And normally state recognition is a domino game; that won't happen here. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:02, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Would Biden do that though? I don't see why the US would have any interest in supporting the SADR. Considering the US provided arms support to Morocco during the Western Sahara war, I think the recognition is here to stay. Has Biden ever made a statement about the dispute? Scaramouche33 (talk) 14:29, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A country recognizing another country, and another country recognizing the former's disputed land as belonging to the former. Doesn't really seem important. Gex4pls (talk) 13:07, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ec

Oppose – Per previous. Big wow. – Sca (talk) 14:16, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose same as below; the article update is insufficient. In the case of both of the bolded articles, there is a single, short sentence in the lead that is the total amount of information about the subject; even more important neither article currently discusses the deal itself. If you want this posted, you should include a lot more prose in the target article, so that we have something worthwhile for people to read. --Jayron 32 14:14, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I suspect that Biden will most likely ignore this recognition and hope people forget about it(doubtful he actually reverses this). 331dot (talk) 14:17, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The "big wow" arguments aren't entirely fair, as by doing this the US is essentially sending a massive "fuck you" to the African Union (in African terms, this is roughly as inflammatory as formal US recognition of the Turkish occupation of northern Cyprus would be in terms of relationship with European institutions or that a US recognition of Pakistani claims to Kashmir would have on relations with India), but if you need a lengthy explanation before most readers can understand the significance, it's generally not suitable for a short-format ITN blurb. ‑ Iridescent 16:49, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, we're not a DT-ticker. – Sca (talk) 19:09, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The first international recognition of the annexation of Western Sahara is a big deal in its own right. Coupled with Morocco's recognition, I think it is easily ITN-worthy in a way which the recognition of a Gulf states is not. Morocco is a serious regional power in its own right. —Brigade Piron (talk) 22:00, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose currently, 40 countries, never including the United States, recognize W.S.' independence. Implicitly this means that 150-160 countries recognize that the region is Moroccan sovereign territory, and as the US has never recognized WS the only other option is recognizing that the region is Moroccan. The United States seem to have a past stance which also sides with Morocco, too, and this announcement is just reiterating existing policy. Juxlos (talk) 22:54, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sidenote: the AP source mentions nowhere the claim that the US was the first country to recognize Moroccan sovereignty over the region (the "first" is Morocco recognizing the US back in 1777) and I'm reasonably sure putting that blurb on ITN would count as a hoax. Juxlos (talk) 22:57, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- This Al Jazeera source mentions that "William Lawrence, a professor of political science and international affairs at the American University, said the move “makes the US … the first country in the entire world to recognise the Moroccan claim”." Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 04:48, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose transient, soon-to-be-overturned nonsense as the orange balloon chapter edges nearer to a welcome close. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 08:45, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is interesting as Morocco was the first country to ally with USA, very soon after it declared independence and it has been an ally of America ever since. And though it makes far, far, far less human rights violations than Palestinians Western Sahara doesn't want to recognize Israel so it's hard to imagine why anyone would expect the US might recognize them. Unfortunate if you're Sahrawi when some less deserving governments are full UN members but they've got some bad luck. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:26, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I imagine the shades of both the American and Moroccan troops killed during the the US invasion of Morocco in 1942 might somewhat dispute the "it has been an ally of America ever since" part. ‑ Iridescent 16:10, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe there's an asterisk somewhere like the US considered the Axis government they fought an illegitimate coup of the real Moroccan government? Like how the Polish government in exile was the real government and Hitler the fake one. Of course the Axis Moroccans would instead consider it the Moroccan patriots saving the country from things like the bad Moroccans with these German chaps conveniently here to bleed with us. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:44, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was always under the impression that Morocco viewed both the Third Republic and Vichy France to be oppressive,but being a French protectorate didn't give them much choice during the war.I do know that when Roosevelt met Sultan Mohammed V, he said that he was confident that Morocco would have an independent future,which further fuelled the liberation movement in the country. But I think we're going off topic here Scaramouche33 (talk) 18:14, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Moroccan recognition of Israel

Oppose only because this is like "gay marriage" recognition - ITN can't support a nom from every country that acknowledges Israel here. --Masem (t) 17:42, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support only because it's a country from the Arab world. In fact, any normalisation of the diplomatic relations between Arab countries and Israel is big news.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:13, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Article update is shorter than the blurb. If THIS is all of the information that the highlighted article has on the topic, maybe we don't need to post it in ITN? --Jayron 32 18:16, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I believe it is more notable that the United States has become the first nation to formally recognize Moroccan sovereignty over Western Sahara, which it has done as part of this deal. Morocco becoming the fourth Arab state to recognize Israel is not as notable. NorthernFalcon (talk) 19:00, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We didn't post the last countries that normalized relations with Israel. ~ Destroyer 🌀🌀 19:21, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose At this point, not particularly notable. We correctly posted the normalization of ties with UAE, if there is normalization with Saudi Arabia, might be noteworthy too. Albertaont (talk) 19:32, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The first recognitions might have been notable but as this point this is just headline grabbing point scoring. Gotitbro (talk) 21:12, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Snow close and quickly hide this under the rug. We can't have positive news being posted on ITN, especially if it makes a certain person which weallhate look good. 2601:602:9200:1310:2C6C:F13B:C2A2:4547 (talk) 21:31, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) RD: Yevgeny Shaposhnikov

Oppose It is a stub and is lacking inline citations. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 12:15, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Almost completely unsourced stub. Gotitbro (talk) 12:48, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unsourced stub. LefcentrerightDiscuss 21:43, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Iman Budhi Santosa

Support The article looks good --Tensa Februari (talk) 11:07, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Article is good enough for RD. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 12:15, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks fine. Gotitbro (talk) 12:49, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Ping, pardon the intrusion. This is ready for posting onto homepage / RD. I was waiting for a bit to see if a couple of December 7 articles would move in, but, seems like they are not ready. Let's go ahead. Ktin (talk) 19:02, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Posted - Dumelow (talk) 19:43, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Astad Deboo

Portal:Current events/2020 December 9

Support Article in good shape. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 12:05, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Article is good enough for RD. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 12:15, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks fine to me. Gotitbro (talk) 12:51, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well sourced and whatnot Gex4pls (talk) 15:11, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Ping, pardon the intrusion. This is ready for posting onto homepage / RD. I was waiting for a bit to see if a couple of December 7 articles would move in, but, seems like they are not ready. Let's go ahead. Ktin (talk) 19:02, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Posted, there's one IMDB reference in there which should probably be replaced but I'll not hold it up for that - Dumelow (talk) 19:43, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:U, Replaced. Thanks. Ktin (talk) 20:10, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

December 9

Template:Cot

Template:Cob

(Posted) RD: Stanley Smith

Support Short but passable. The table for Daytona 500 is uncited, but I think it can be fixed. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 01:40, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- Template:Done - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:15, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Half the article is just tables, can use some more prose. Gotitbro (talk) 05:15, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- ~~There's no more to add, sadly, given the available sources.~~ The tables should probably be collapsed though, ~~I'll work on that~~Template:Done. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:35, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- - Template:Ping A full obit was published and some information has been added. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:52, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Looks okay now. Gotitbro (talk) 03:44, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Seems fine enough, sourced passably. Gex4pls (talk) 16:19, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Posted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:54, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Raymond Hunter

Support Could do with a few more sources but overall is pretty fine. Gex4pls (talk) 15:57, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Nice little article, per Gex4pls sourcing could be improved but nothing drastic to hold up posting to RD JW 1961 Talk 22:36, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support This looks good enough to go - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:32, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Posted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:56, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Manglesh Dabral

Support Article is good enough for RD. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 12:15, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support good enough. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 13:37, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Posted - Dumelow (talk) 15:47, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Paolo Rossi

Support Looks good. Also saw it on my EU football feed. Albertaont (talk) 05:40, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Posted. Regards So Why 08:28, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:U, Please consider posting WP:ITNRD from the bottom of the stack given that the carousel moves pretty fast. There are articles below including Dick Allen which were potentially ready, but, now run the risk of having the carousel move past. This one could have waited until those were posted. Ktin (talk) 08:35, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Re I was working through the page (while I had some time) and I have now added some of the others. Dick Allen seems to still need some discussion though, so I left it for now. Regards So Why 10:42, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) 2020 Ghanaian general election

Neutral significant but Ghana isn't. --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 22:39, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See below. HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 23:38, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:U Please read WP:Systematic bias. Just because it's not the US, that doesn't make it unimportant. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:58, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- Template:U General elections are on the recurring events list, meaning notability is not at issue. 331dot (talk) 23:02, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- - Template:Ping yes, but Ghana is not notable. Haven’t really even heard that they had that. And we have few African readers, HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 23:10, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- - - Please read about systemic bias. We do have African readers. And it doesn't matter if we did or not. Ghana is a sovereign state and its elections are ITNR. I'm sure one or two Ghanians might find their way to this page; if I were you I'd consider retracting your statement. 331dot (talk) 23:26, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - Template:Ping Per WP:ITN/R, the general elections of every single country on the page list of sovereign states are intrinsically considered notable enough for inclusion. Not just a select few that an editor might perceive to be more "notable" than others.--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 23:36, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - Stating "Ghana is not notable" indicates a supreme misunderstanding of how notability works to the point I have to wonder about WP:COMPETENCE. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:36, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support presidential elections of all countries are ITNR, and this article is in good shape. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:58, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Looks good, its not like Ghana is less important than Montenegro. Re-edited some of the indents. Albertaont (talk) 00:03, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support The article is good and it's important to post for African readers. Just as important as Montenegro. Cavejohnson13 (talk) 00:10, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support The article is good enough and the event is ITNR. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 01:36, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Perfectly good article, and Template:Ping's comment is something we really shouldn't dwell on. People make mistakes sometimes, especially when not knowing the guidelines. Gex4pls (talk) 02:52, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've added an alternative blurb to emphasise his re-election. The phrase 'second term' has broader meaning and may be misunderstood as second assumption of the office.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:03, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Could use more prose/seeing a single content tag but mostly okay. Gotitbro (talk) 12:47, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Posted — Amakuru (talk) 15:41, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Reply The blurb with this wording is misleading. Could you change it to 're-elected' or 'second consecutive term' because 'second term' may also indicate that he assumes the office after a break?--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:15, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't think that meaning is implied in "second term". —Brigade Piron (talk) 16:59, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do and had to check if he was re-elected just to make sure that it has the same meaning. Also, I can't remember if we've ever used this wording for a re-elected president before.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:11, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it didn't really seem like a bit problem to me, but using "re-elected" is OK too, so I've changed it to that. — Amakuru (talk) 18:27, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Its not rare at all, which is why Kiril Simeonovski mentioned it and it had to be corrected. The last 2 presidents of Chile are both back-to-back alternates of each other. Thaks for correcting it.Albertaont (talk) 00:04, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Harold Budd

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2020 December 8 Template:Cob

Template:Strike Support Template:Strike Perfectly sourced now. Big thanks to Template:Ping, Template:Ping, and others for really turning this one around. Gex4pls (talk) 14:25, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Poor referencing all over. Gotitbro (talk) 16:38, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Much improved with references and a lot of the cruft removed.yorkshiresky (talk) 20:18, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:U, nice work! I have removed the yellow box; don't think it needs one. Added a minor Template:Cn tag which should be easy to fill. Ktin (talk) 20:41, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reference added. Hopefully good to go. yorkshiresky (talk) 21:26, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Well referenced and looks clean for homepage / RD. Ktin (talk) 21:32, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Greatly improved article since I looked in earlier, looks good for RD now JW 1961 Talk 22:00, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Article is now good enough. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 01:46, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Posted. Regards So Why 10:40, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

December 8

(Closed) RD: Alejandro Sabella

Oppose Per nom, too many unsourced statements for my liking. Gex4pls (talk) 03:35, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Seeing unsourced paras and even sections. Gotitbro (talk) 04:27, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with previous comments, after looking at the article, I believe there is not enough information that has been properly sourced to warrant inclusion for "In the News". Jurisdicta (talk) 05:25, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
N Stale—Bagumba (talk) 08:32, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Mount Everest

Oppose Interesting and perhaps DYK, but not really a news-breaking type thing compared to everything else going on. --Masem (t) 14:51, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Doesn't really seem like "encyclopedic news" and more like a fun fact for the main page of nat geo (though this would make a good dyk, per above) Gex4pls (talk) 15:04, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Per previous posts. Reminds me in a way of an old TV ad for a cigarette that was "a silly millimeter longer." ;-) — Sca (talk) 15:21, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Definitely DYK per Masem, but not not sure it would qualify as news. Albertaont (talk) 15:54, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Mildly interesting story, but the outcome is trivial. I agree it would make a good DYK blurb, but the article isn't eligible there. Modest Genius ^talk 16:05, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this has one sentence in that article. Whilst mildly interesting, it's not important enough for ITN. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:10, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Gerard Stokes

Support Per nom. Everything looks sourced. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:38, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well referenced but there is 1 dead link (Ref 13 that IABot couldn't fix) if someone with Rugby knowledge could get a new reference for that JW 1961 Talk 18:43, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks okay. Gotitbro (talk) 04:22, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment been 10 hours since the last comment, and only support so far. Can an admin review this and promote? Joseph2302 (talk) 14:39, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Posted — Amakuru (talk) 15:01, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) COVID Vaccine

Oppose first proposed blurb as written. I did see this where I am this morning, but the breakthrough would have been the approval of the vaccine, not the first person to receive it outside of a trial. Perhaps a more general blurb that the UK is the first to approve and administer a vaccine, but I don't think we need to use this person's name. 331dot (talk) 13:58, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment dup from a very similar nom. It seems the only difference is that someone (not part of a trial or part of the privileged class) has actually received it.130.233.213.199 (talk) 14:01, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Didn't see that, my bad. It still is a different angle but I understand that Rockin (Talk) 14:02, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurbs as written. Focus should be on the beginning of non-clinical trial rollout, rather than who is the first to receive a vaccine.--WaltCip-(talk) 14:03, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think I have ever editing this article before, let alone significantly updated it. Did you forget to change it when copying the template? MSG17 (talk) 14:11, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Hype. Other Brits already have been vaccinated. And would we run a blurb every time someone in some 'notable' country is the first to be vaccinated? No. – Sca (talk) 14:27, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand it this is the first one worldwide, right? I guess we've always said that only highly significant Covid blurbs would be posted outside of the ubiquitous box-at-the-top. Perhaps this one is it, because it could signify the beginning of the end of the pandemic, but I'm slightly undecided on that point. — Amakuru (talk) 15:17, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ec

Another consideration is that thousands were vaccinated in pre-release tests. And the recipient of the first official UK shot, Margaret Keenan, bless her 90-year-old heart, is not herself independently notable. – Sca (talk) 15:51, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. If we had wanted to carry a vaccine story, I think the point of approval would have been more logical. There is no obvious importance in the physical act of injecting it, especially since the Russian vaccine has already blurred the border between trial and roll-out stages. I suspect the hype comes from British internal politics and the desire for the government to look better amid the Brexit talks... —Brigade Piron (talk) 15:27, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Covid vaccines are already in the banner and consensus was against posting the UK approval of this vaccine. There's nothing particularly notable about the first dose after approval compared to the last one during the trials phase. Modest Genius ^talk 16:07, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support A shot in the arm for Britain. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:40, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support big moment. --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 18:23, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose Factually incorrect since the head of state of Dubai and crown prince of Bahrain have already been injected outside of vaccine trials. Albertaont (talk) 18:26, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The proposed blurb, altblurb and altblurb2 are incorrect. People have been vaccinated with Sputnik V well before the Pfizer vaccination commenced in the UK. The only accurate blurb is altblurb3. However, the wording of altblurb3 revelas that this news isn't such a big deal after all, but PR coming from Pfizer. Chrisclear (talk) 19:11, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and suggest closure per WP:SNOW. Firstly, this is already covered with the COVID-19 banner on the top. Secondly, vaccination of people with Sputnik V has already been reported, which automatically makes most of the blurbs incorrect. Thirdly, it's not our business to make celebrities of those who have taken the vaccine first. Fourthly, the only correct blurb would be the one including Pfizer but we can't accept it per WP:PROMOTION.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:24, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Eluru outbreak

Oppose at this time. When up against COVID, one death/400 infections is a ripple. It might grow to something larger, but at this point, we can't tell if this is a significant event relative to everything else going on. --Masem (t) 05:28, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wait I think in next 1-2 days we will know if this is something serious or not. Albertaont (talk) 05:30, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Dead guy died an "unrelated" death, the sick are mostly better now (hundredish "left hospitalized" are stable), the disease has no name, no known cause and no apparent reason to fear it. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:57, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As the creator and nommed updater, I agree with everyone else. Preliminary results indicate that the disease is not contagious and instead arises from contaminated water and/or milk, so although more people could also fall ill and this is a quite tragic turn of events. I don't think it will be enough to be major. Additionally, considering that there is both a more important Indian event and a global pandemic on ITN currently, I don't think it fits. Although cases have risen to 500, over 75% of them have now been discharged.MSG17 (talk) 14:11, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Template:SOppose Almost completely contained, still 1 death. ~ Destroyer 🌀🌀 14:52, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Template:StrikeOppose Template:Strike It's been a while and it has become abundantly clear that this is just a small poisoning incident. The cases are barely growing and there hasn't been a new death yet. Gex4pls (talk) 14:59, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wait It looks like a pollution incident, possible organophosphates contaminating drinking water. At most there has been one death. If deaths regrettably increase or if some surprising mechanism is discovered, might be worth posting. Jehochman ^Talk 16:00, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Round two? This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 21:34, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Looks like a non-starter, newswise. – Sca (talk) 15:35, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - done and dusted, not news. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 13:38, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2020 December 7 Template:Cob

December 7

(Posted) RD: Pumza Dyantyi

Template:Archivetop Template:ITN candidate

Support Excellent "overnight article"! Fully referenced, no close paraphrasing seen. Ready for the main page. Yoninah (talk) 20:52, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Quality is sufficient for RD. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 02:09, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Short but sweet, nice to see a fully sourced article nominated. Gex4pls (talk) 03:36, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks fine. Gotitbro (talk) 04:29, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Posted, prose could use a little work but it's good enough - Dumelow (talk) 07:59, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support RD. The nominator has considerably improved the article, in particular by adding references (helped by the multitude of obituaries!). Thincat (talk) 10:34, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. Good work as ever, Ktin. — Amakuru (talk) 15:13, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Blurb/RD: Chuck Yeager

Support blurb in principle, I just found out about this and haven't looked at the article. RIP. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 04:14, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking at the article, unfortunately I have to oppose at the moment due to uncited paragraphs and no prose update for his death. This would be a damn shame to miss, however. (And yes, there is probably some level of dispute to whether he "really was" the first to break the sound barrier, but he is the canonical first supersonic.) – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 04:20, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb when the article is ready. Davey2116 (talk) 04:22, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb Randy Kryn (talk) 04:26, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now, too many uncited paragraphs and whatnot. Support Blurb once fixed up Gex4pls (talk) 04:28, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why is this a blurb no-brainer exactly? Not to downplay his significance, but he was exceptionally old, and I'm not sure if he's still much of a household name. Considering John Glenn and John Lewis didn't meet blurb criteria, I'd like to see some rationale. As for the article, it's in better shape than I expected, though does need some work before it's main page ready. Nohomersryan (talk) 04:29, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Template:Yo All of the space firsts, from Armstrong to Shephard to Gagarin to Glenn, follow from his achievement of breaking the sound barrier. If anything, the fact that he lived for so long after his achievement makes this even more incredible and interesting; even if, for the sake of argument, no one knew who Chuck Yeager was anymore (doubtful, since I'm just shy of 24 and knew of him in high school), readers would be astounded to know that the person who broke the sound barrier was still alive for so long. Indeed, if this is a blurb the story it would bump off is the Indian strikes, which is a good target for Ongoing, so that argument against a blurb is moot here as well. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 04:40, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd argue that John Glenn was the third man to orbit the earth; John Lewis, while an important member of the Big Six, was secondary to Martin Luther King Jr. in the civil rights movement; but Chuck Yeager was the first man to break the sound barrier. That said, while I would agree with a Yeager blurb, I don't think Yeager is a "no-brainer." NorthernFalcon (talk) 05:12, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Very minor point, but we no longer consider Newsweek a reliable source at all. Not that others have reported (eg NYtimes) but just as a reminder for the future. --Masem (t) 04:43, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on quality for now. When the article has been fixed, I would offer a weak support for blurb. We have had a number of blurb deaths recently, but the deaths of major world figures seem to come in bunches, and Yeager certainly meets the definition of "transformational figure in their field", as Yeager is arguably the most famous post-World War II aircraft pilot in the world, as well as the holder of a major aviation first. However, I think Yeager does suffer from having lived so long that his memory has been partially forgotten, particularly by the younger generations who perhaps are less aware of the significance of the sound barrier achievement. I would caution against quickly posting this as a blurb until we've had more weigh-in from the rest of the world. NorthernFalcon (talk) 04:58, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on Blurb, support for RD A stretch to call him transformational, he was right person selected for the right flight. He doesn't clears the bar for blurb (which has been set very high), and this shows US bias. Albertaont (talk) 05:34, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough for the first part, but saying that breaking the sound barrier shows US bias is like saying the Apollo Program-Main Page shows US bias. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 05:40, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, Neil Armstrong is very well known throughout the world. Chuck Yeager very much less so, even in other parts of the anglosphere. Albertaont (talk) 05:52, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - I knew what he did, but my generally less-informed brother who remembers what Neil Armstrong is known for did not. He said he didn't care after I explained. Canadians who care remember the name, but he's not the Babe Ruth of aeronautics like Armstrong became (nor as obscure as the recently deceased Neil Armstrong). He's like Pat Patterson or Bruce Prichard to people who only remember Vincent Kennedy McMahon, dammit. Not biased to credit an American, that barrier was a problem for pilots and missiles across the planet. Early intercontinental champion, you could say. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:03, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb Transformative figure, while I acknowledge there is US bias when nominated RD blurbs, I can see here that he is notable enough to merit a blurb and it so happens to be he's American. I'll fix up the article. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 05:50, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb His jet was fast, he just survived. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:04, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's not to say piloting supersonic aircraft is easy, but many pilots since have, largely thanks to brilliant innovative engineers. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:11, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose blurb. Whilst notable, I don't see anything to indicate he was top of his field, and is only remembered for a single event. — O Still Small Voice of Clam 08:55, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb per VoC. If anything, it's an achievement attributable to the engineers who designed the plane. Yeager wasn't transformative in his own right. — Amakuru (talk) 09:11, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources do not typically give engineers the glory, but those who take the risk and operate a new technology. Wikipedia follows the sources. 331dot (talk) 10:25, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. Unless there's something spectacular about the pilot's efforts, they tend to herald the feat, rather than the individual. This was how the Aberdeen Press and Journal recorded it when the news broke:

Template:Quote

Which seems to focus primarily on the achievement, with the name of the pilot as a mention. In any case, while Wikipedia does follow the sources, it's up to us on this page to determine which individuals get blurbed, and the bar is rightly very high. I just don't see Yeager as transformative or the "Nelson Mandela" of his field. — Amakuru (talk) 12:59, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support blurb. Regardless of his own participation, Yeager was certainly the public face of a project which, in itself, was transformative. The analogy to an astronaut is a reasonable one. —Brigade Piron (talk) 10:19, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose On quality, a lot of uncited paras here and other. Conflicted about a blurb if the issues are fixed, he is clearly notable in the US with a 'first' to his name but the notability doesn't go beyond that. Gotitbro (talk) 11:29, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb I'm baffled as to how this could be considered a no-brainer or how breaking the sound barrier is in any way comparable to being the first person to step foot on the Moon. He is nowhere near as well known as Armstrong. P-K3 (talk) 13:30, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb - In a field of highly competent test pilots - a category that includes other greats such as Jim McDivitt, Wally Schirra, Alan Shepard, and of course Neil Armstrong himself - he happened to be the one that broke the sound barrier. But that doesn't have the same impact to humanity as Neil being the first man on the Moon did. Great guy, but not a sui generis blurbable figure.--WaltCip-(talk) 13:42, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Support blurb - He's not notable for only one event. He was a fighter ace, which he achieved in one day. He is most remembered for breaking the sound barrier, which is a landmark achievement in human history, and certainly more impressive than a career actor. -- Veggies (talk) 14:16, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Marked Ready The article has 66 citations, at least three were added in the last 24 hours. The number of uncited paragraphs is a small fraction of the total. There are no maintenance tags on the article. It is rated B-class prior to the numerous updates of the last 24 hours. As for "transformativeness", the fact that the death is front page news across the United States, and even on the BBC and ABC (Australia) websites at the moment (load them and ctrl-F for "Yeager"), indicates that the subject's legacy is very strong and that a blurb is appropriate. Jehochman ^Talk 14:25, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I opened to check and saw a wall of CN tags. it is definitely not ready, so I have removed that tag. Even one unsourced paragraph (outside the lede) is not appropriate for a bio , especially if editors are arguing for a blurb. --Masem (t) 14:40, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Template:U heavily tag bombed the article[28] after I reviewed it. This is not WP:FAC, but it seems like some editors want to treat it that way because they like to set higher standards for topics related to the United States. Sigh. The article quality is reasonably good and comparable to other articles we post here, and while it could be improved with more citations, none of the material lacking citations appears to be dubious. Jehochman ^Talk 14:50, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's a bio, still under BLP (per the recent death aspect), and thus still subject to the same sourcing standards. And bios at ITN we expect quality sourcing (this is why many actors and the like tend to not get posted because their bios are not fully sourced). --Masem (t) 14:55, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - I think you're being too rigid. I agree that any potentially controversial fact in a bio must be cited. Looking at the article, the missing cites are a bunch of nit picking. The uncited statements could be removed and the article would remain intact and sufficient. All Wikipedia articles are works in progress. We should not let perfect be the enemy of good. Our readers are looking for information about this person now. We should deliver it on the home page. Jehochman ^Talk 15:00, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        That they have to type "chuck yeager" in the search bar vs a click in the ITN box should not be a reason to rush through an article that is currently at poor quality just to have it on the front page. Too many times in the page that's been rushed (importance over quality) only to have to pull back. Readers can still find the article, its not like we're hiding the article from total exposure at all. --Masem (t) 15:06, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I don't think Template:U did anything unproductive. THey tagged the article, but are now busy adding references. That's good work. Jehochman ^Talk 15:37, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- Template:Ec I question your conceptual understanding of transformativeness if all that is required in your view is for the death to be front page news in that individual's country.--WaltCip-(talk) 14:52, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeager, 1947

Comment – Is that 1969 Air Force photo the best pic to illustrate this? He's still generally remembered for breaking the sound barrier 22 years earlier in the Bell X-1 he named "Glamorous Glennis." – Sca (talk) 14:41, 8 December 2020 (UTC) →[reply]

The photo you suggest is much more interesting. Jehochman ^Talk 14:53, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose blurb The name is "household" probably for a narrow demographic - after the test flight he was a hero figure for numerous kids and got attached to a lot of toys and video games. But unlike, say, John Glenn, who expanded on his achievement even more by entering politics, Yeager didn't really do much else. He wasn't a transformational figure for that purpose, as others have suggested, the right man at the right time for that flight. --Masem (t) 14:58, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Sean Connery was transformational because??? Chuck Yeager is such a cultural icon that he was featured in the movie The Right Stuff (film) in the first scenes of the film. "The name is household for a narrow demographic"? Thanks for your ill-informed personal opinion. If that's true, why is Chuck Yeager featured on the front page of every American newspaper at the moment. Go ahead and point out any major United States newspaper website right now that doesn't contain the word "Yeager" on its home page. I'll wait. Jehochman ^Talk 15:04, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I would consider myself part of that narrow demographic - an American youth with a bent in science/engineering/thrill seeking in that time period. I fully respect his name and the milestone, but I also recognize that unlike someone like John Glenn or Neil Armstrong, Yeager did not get much further recognition for most things outside this. Go a generation or so after me and its hard to find name recognition there at all. (Not that his fame was "fly by night", simply that history does not have the same recall as it had for Glenn or Armstrong). He further didn't "transform" the field of test flights, only became the name most associated with that. --Masem (t) 16:23, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb due to the massive achievement of breaking the sound barrier --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 15:07, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support That fool McGuckett sprayed runway foam all over Chuck Yeager's Acura! Now get posting, or I'll tear you up like a Kleenex at a snot party! etc, etc.... Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:34, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:-

Ready We currently have Sébastien Ogier as the featured ITN picture. His article is rated C-class. Yeager is rated B-class. This anti-American bias has to stop. Let's please post this. If you want to really be a help, please add references where needed. I support article quality improvement. I don't support using different standards for different articles. Jehochman ^Talk 15:33, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- We don't consider the assessment scales since those are done by Wikiprojects and have different standards. And its nothing against American here, just that we have a person that has been well documented for being an American "hero" but editors that have put this article together in the past failed to include references so there's a rush to add them now to fix that. That's not a bias against American bios, just sloppy sloppy editing from the past on American bios, which is not ITN's fault. --Masem (t) 15:47, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose blurb as he's just one of many people in the same field, as mentioned by many editors above. The fact he broke a record when many people were doing similar things doesn't make him "top of his field". Sébastien Ogier is not a relevant comparison, as that ITN is not for a death, but an ITNR event. Also don't believe this should have been marked as ready when there isn't a clear consensus to post. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:39, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unmarked as Ready There is clearly no consensus to post a blurb (at the moment) and it isn't ready to post anyway due to a significant number of CN tags in it. If it's important it should be easy to cite, and if it's obscure or trivial it doesn't need to be there. Black Kite (talk) 15:43, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support – (When issues fixed.) Breaking the sound barrier was a significant, and at least thematically transformative, event. – Sca (talk) 15:59, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb, but oppose both for quality per Jehochman. Granted that my childhood was perhaps more focussed on aviation and aerospace programs than others, but he is and was was definitely a household name to me. There are, though, far too many CNs for the front page right now. -- a lad insane (channel two) 16:14, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb Though quality issues are present currently. Very notable guy. ~ Destroyer 🌀🌀 16:32, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose blurb - there is absolutely no way this guy meets the threshold when we wouldn't post Eddie Van Halen or Alex Trebek. I'd never heard of this man until today, and aside from being the first person to fly faster than sound (a rather arbitrary milestone IMO), his death was not unexpected, notable, nor has it resulted in an international outpouring of grief. He is not at the top of his field (unless "Test pilots" represents a substantial enough field). John Lennon's death is receiving more coverage today, and it happened 40 years ago! If this is posted as a blurb then it will show not only a horrific American bias, but a pile-on for hardly-game-changing military veterans. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 16:48, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The horrific Americans raise their ugly heads once again. Help! — Sca (talk) 17:10, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment just to clarify, the speed of sound was not some arbitrary milestone, as if we picked a number because it sounded cool. Flying at exactly the speed of sound means that you're perpetually flying on top of your own pressure wave, which increases its strength and instability and puts it directly on top of your own plane, which is death to aircraft, especially back then. This effect increased the closer you were to the speed of sound, which is why it was a major barrier to early pilots and aircraft designers. NorthernFalcon (talk) 17:20, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I should have clarified that comment better. I agree breaking the speed of sound is a milestone for aircraft. I don't agree that it is for the pilot that happened to be in that aircraft when the test was scheduled. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 17:34, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'd never heard of this man until today... What are you saying, that your ignorance is an argument? -- Veggies (talk) 20:03, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What are you saying, that because you know him by name that he's a household name like every other non-head-of-state death blurb that we post? - Floydian ^τ _¢ 20:09, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update: About 70% of the citations needed have been supplied. The article now has 80 citations. There are 5-6 cn tags remaining. Please help fix them. Jehochman ^Talk 17:13, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb, support RD: I usually groan when people reject things due to being American-centric as I usually think those people go a bit too far, but I just don't think Yeager is as transformative a figure in American aviation, let alone the world. Bait30 ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 17:15, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, at the time, it had never been done, and people weren't entirely sure what would happen if it was. Some WWII piston-engine fighters, in high-speed dives, had encountered a violent shaking problem near the speed of sound.
(There was some speculation the a German Me 262 jet might have exceeded the speed of sound in diving, but this was never substantiated.)
– Sca (talk) 17:49, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose blurb. I think I have to come down on the oppose blurb side, but I think it is a close call. I'm persuaded by what I see here. I would note that "we didn't post X, so we shouldn't post Y" is a poor argument against posting. 331dot (talk) 17:52, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Blurb when article cn's are finalised (5 left -v- 106 references). Absolutely a leader in his field JW 1961 Talk 18:28, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just fixed the last 6 citation needed tags. As far as I know, there are no remaining issues with the article. Jehochman ^Talk 18:45, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Attention needed Could an uninvolved admin please decide whether to post this to RD or a blurb? At least the article update and quality issues have been resolved. Jehochman ^Talk 18:50, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Posted to RD, discussion on blurb can continue. Good work on fixing the CN tags. Black Kite (talk) 18:55, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This is a cluster. We have roughly equal numbers of people, on one side claiming that Yeager is transformative, and on another side claiming that he isn't. This is why the sui generis discussion took place in terms of what is considered suitable for posting a recent death as a blurb. There needs to be a clear dividing line wherein the discussion is not swayed about by subjectivity and the numbers of people gathering on one side of an argument versus another. As long as we don't have that line, we'll always be mired in this mess. --WaltCip-(talk) 19:54, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think the issue is that people are divided on what "transformative figure in their field" means, or how it applies to this specific case, which is why we have this division. I'm not sure we can or should define it more stringently than that--those five words speak for themselves--and while for some emotions run high, I think this discussion process leading to a consensus or non-consensus has to be the way to go. Some people truly believe that Chuck Yeager was transformative for his field, other people believe he was not, and that difference of opinion is okay. NorthernFalcon (talk) 20:37, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And worth pointing out that where there is such an even argument, there is no tragedy in posting nor omitting. (Buridan's ass? Bike shed? I forget). GreatCaesarsGhost 20:53, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose blurb Notable yes, transformative no. I don't see how his feat transformed aviation or, at the very least, exerted major changes in the production of new aircraft. And frankly speaking, the record is mere trivia with the sound barrier being an arbitrary threshold. An example of first-time event event with transformative impact is Alexei Leonov's spacewalk, which literally changed the history of astronautics (of course, we posted it).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:12, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No opinion on blurb, but I suggest whoever does ultimately try to evaluate this for consensus ignore comments from people who say breaking the sound barrier is an "arbitrary threshold", as they do not know what they are talking about. Or at least don't know what the word "arbitrary" means. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:16, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Reply Thank you for making me stupid. I didn't have a clue what the sound barrier is before noticing your comment and checking afterwards. Highly educational warning from you.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:30, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support blurb I guess you die a hero or live long enough to have dopes dismiss you with "Garsh, what's the 'sound barrier?'" GreatCaesarsGhost 21:00, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please brief by reading Sound barrier. Template:Tquote Yeager was the first pilot to break the sound barrier in level, controlled flight, something that many had considered "very difficult" or "impossible" until then. If that's not transformative, I don't know what is. Jehochman ^Talk 21:08, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Edit conflict Template:Reply I think people don't get the point of my comment but that's their own problem. The sound barrier was known to be breakable through whipping long before he did it while operating an aircraft. So, he didn't prove that something physically impossible was, in fact, possible but provided another instance of how it can be done. Furthermore, similar problems occur at any speed higher than the speed of sound and that makes any improvement in the maximum achievable speed a new threshold on its own. Putting this aside, those claiming that this is transformative have provided absolutely nothing to support how his feat transformed aviation. Finally, Andy Green has become the first person to break the sound barrier while navigating a land vehicle. Does this make him blurbworthy when he dies? It's the same here.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:08, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Archivebottom

(Stale) RD: Dick Allen

Oppose Seeing a lot of uncited info in the career. Gotitbro (talk) 23:47, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Strike Support Template:Strike All sourced up and ready to go, post this one before it gets stale! Gex4pls (talk) 04:32, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've beefed up the citations. What other tags are missing? Dralwi k|^{Have a Chat} 21:39, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Still missing quite a few citations. I'll go in and add a few tags later today. Gex4pls (talk) 03:20, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ping, Template:Ping How does the article look now? Dralwi k|^{Have a Chat} 21:13, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ping Seems perfect, I'll change my oppose to a support. Thanks, Gex4pls (talk) 02:46, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Still seeing some dangling sentences (without refs) in the career section and the statistics table needs sources. Gotitbro (talk) 03:48, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The stats table comes from Baseball Reference (which is cited elsewhere in the article) and I wasn't sure on where to place the citation in relation to the overall table. Dralwi k|^{Have a Chat} 05:01, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've stuck cites on the table itself, and cited more spots in the career. Too late now for the main page, but at least the article is much improved in honor of Allen. Dralwi k|^{Have a Chat} 21:36, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:U: It's still not older than the last RD currently on the Main Page, so technically it still qualifies be posted. I added a few more refs. However, I tagged a ref needed at the start of the "Chicago White Sox" section regarding the statement about his attitude and changing positions.—Bagumba (talk) 07:34, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

N Stale—Bagumba (talk) 08:31, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Stale) RD: Natalie Desselle-Reid

Oppose unreferenced stub. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 21:18, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per The Rambling Man. I tried to help by adding citations to the "Filmography" section, but I may have done more harm than good. Either way, it is a stub and would need to be expanded. Aoba47 (talk) 22:54, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too short and still missing references. Gotitbro (talk) 23:45, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Exactly as Template:U says. Yoninah (talk) 00:40, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've cited the remainder of the text, could someone go in and finish up the filmography? Thanks in advance, Gex4pls (talk) 18:41, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The remaining items in the filmography that are not cited are films that don't have Wikipedia articles, for which reliable sources that contain the role are difficult to find. What can we do? Remove the entries? Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 17:03, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
N Stale—Bagumba (talk) 08:31, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Attention needed) 2020 Venezuelan parliamentary election

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2020 December 6 Template:Cob

Surprise! – Sca (talk) 14:10, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why are we using <small> here? Regards, Jeromi Mikhael ^(marhata) 16:05, 7 December 2020 (UTC) [reply]

'Cuz it's an aside. – Sca (talk) 23:10, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support blurb or Altblurb As with any other election in a major country, article appears well sourced. There are controversies with this election which are addressed but still kept factual in the altblurb. Albertaont (talk) 17:20, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support for main blurb, as it is customary for this type of election. I'd suggest more information from the introduction is reflected, such as the rejection of the results by other countries, but this is probably one of the most neutral and non-controversial blurbs, so it should do. --NoonIcarus (talk) 18:03, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not really big on venezuelan politics, but this seems important enough and controversial. Gex4pls (talk) 20:16, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Support on quality but shouldn't we like include in the blurb a mention that the election was illegitimate? I genuinely don't know post elections from for example North Korea, but we don't post them as is, right? CoronaOneLove (talk) 21:12, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We don't post judgements about the legitimacy of the election. The current President of the United States and his supporters say the 2020 election he lost is illegitimate. We post rigged Russian elections. 331dot (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Citation needed

But that it was boycotted is not a judg(e)ment, it's a fact, from the RS stories I've read. So it should somehow be included in the blurb, IMO. – Sca (talk) 23:20, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:U Mentioning a boycott is different than saying the election was illegitimate(as the OP said). 331dot (talk) 10:19, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose results section is tagged as unreferenced. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 21:20, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Rambling, need sources there. Also, seeing two blurbs here not really sure which one is better. Gotitbro (talk) 23:43, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support alt blurb Seems more apt and the referencing issues have now been addressed. Gotitbro (talk) 11:17, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The blurb should mention that the election was considered not free and fair by the UN, EU, and several other international organizations. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 00:51, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Template:Ping The Results section has been referenced and updated. --NoonIcarus (talk) 09:50, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the changes :) --cyrfaw (talk) 14:05, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ping Welcome! I'll look forward to help out with any other possible improvements. --NoonIcarus (talk) 14:27, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nearly all of the seats of the Assembly have been confirmed, and the quality of the article is good enough to post. --NoonIcarus (talk) 12:20, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The international reactions of the election should be added as well, as there are divided reactions across the world, including Latin America. Add in a different section of the article. --cyrfaw (talk) 14:49, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Fake parliamentary election in a non major country does not deserve a blurb. Tradedia^talk 04:56, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What is holding this up from being posted? The article quality has improved and the event is WP:ITN/R. This is about to get stale. Marked this as Attention needed. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 02:28, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

December 6

(Posted) RD: Soedardjat Nataatmadja

Support Article is in good shape, all paragraphs cited. Yoninah (talk) 17:59, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Posted — Amakuru (talk) 21:33, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Paul Sarbanes

Support Very good nom, the table might need some width fixes though. Gotitbro (talk) 10:15, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Looks good. Here's the NYT obit with more info which might be an useful source as well. Regards So Why 13:13, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Seems well-written. – Sca (talk) 14:12, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well sourced and ready to go. Gex4pls (talk) 15:05, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Posted — Amakuru (talk) 21:33, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) RD: Peter Alliss

Oppose There's a large amount of uncited content in the prose and the tables also need citations. P-K3 (talk) 02:42, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose All stats are unsourced along with some uncited sentences here and there. Gotitbro (talk) 07:55, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Yet another rd nom in need of some better sourcing (I'm too lazy and too terrible at this to do it myself, so kudos to whoever can clean it up) Gex4pls (talk) 20:42, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely, I'm no golf aficionado so it was just because it popped up on my news feed and I have know Alliss commentating on golf for almost my entire adult life. Shame golf editors (especially UK ones) can't help out. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 21:22, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Withdrawn) Juliari Batubara

Oppose – Country (Indonesia) not ID'd in blurbs. Juliari "could face life imprisonment or the death penalty if convicted." Posting might be appropriate if convicted & sentenced. – Sca (talk) 14:43, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on principle - he has only been arrested, no trial has yet been held. It would be different if we were talking the sitting PM of India or the like. --Masem (t) 14:48, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Re I think you meant Indonesia in your comment above. Gotitbro (talk) 17:01, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Re We don't have one. The last time we had a prime minister was about 54 years ago. Jeromi Mikhael ^(marhata) 23:46, 6 December 2020
Template:Re I see, but my comment was in the context that Masem probably confused the Indonesian nom for Indian. And please sign your comment above. Gotitbro (talk) 08:51, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Re Thanks for reminding me. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael ^(marhata) 10:09, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
NO, I think Masem was implying that if this "event" had been the PM of India it would have been more notable. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 21:24, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well I guess an Indonesian example (like its president) would've been more apt then. Gotitbro (talk) 23:39, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) 2020 World Rally Championship

Support alt-blurb 3 Largely okay, needs more sources in the results section though. Gotitbro (talk) 13:30, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Added sources from the FIA. Unnamelessness (talk) 14:35, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support slow week This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 16:47, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment two things, we don't need "in rallying" because the sport is in the title of the award, and second we don't put year in the title of the award, so something like ""Template:Xt" But since we already have about three hundred blurb options, I thought I'd just toss in one that was properly formed. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 22:57, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Made some tweaks. Unnamelessness (talk) 02:57, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Marked as ready as they were no real oppositions for the last 24 hours. Would suggest ALT III personally. Unnamelessness (talk) 13:25, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Posted — Amakuru (talk) 20:14, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Tabaré Vázquez

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2020 December 5 Template:Cob

~~Oppose~~, article has vast swathes of unreferenced material. A lot of work will be needed to get this mainpage-ready - Dumelow (talk) 11:08, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support RD after excellent referencing work by TDKR Chicago 101 - Dumelow (talk) 12:02, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Referencing issues all over. Gotitbro (talk) 11:31, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Oppose blurb just not seeing blurb worthy significance here. Gotitbro (talk) 16:59, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:U Template:U: Comment, I would not oppose that he wouldn't be posted as blurb, even though he was a transformative Uruguayan president. The article is a mess but until the middle of next week I will not have the time that I would like to dedicate to improve it, so I would be grateful if someone could give me a helping hand, to me and some who are doing some specific editions. Alsoriano97 (talk) 22:04, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support RD Looks fine now. Gotitbro (talk) 11:29, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Ping Challenge accepted and accomplished (hopefully). --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 11:30, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ping You did a great job! Thank you very much!! I'm trying to improve it in my little free time, so I will try to keep improving it. Alsoriano97 (talk) 12:36, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose blurb because I'm not seeing the regional or international significance necessary. Oppose RD as well, because the article is missing a ton of citations, and furthermore says virtually nothing about his second term in office. NorthernFalcon (talk) 00:45, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD tag Made ref improvements. Template:Ping, Template:Ping, Template:Ping: Made article improvements for RD tag approval. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 11:20, 7 December 2020 (UTC
Support after ref improvements. --NoonIcarus (talk) 12:51, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support good work cleaning up article, looks fine for RD now JW 1961 Talk 14:28, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Like it was never even unreffed Gex4pls (talk) 15:56, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Posted — Amakuru (talk) 21:33, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

December 5

(Posted) RD: Belinda Bozzoli

Oppose Too short on political career. Gotitbro (talk) 11:30, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not much time to edit today but I have expanded a little more here - Dumelow (talk) 14:02, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support It is now long enough for RD. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 10:41, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks ok for RD now following improvements JW 1961 Talk 14:41, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Short but decent article, well sourced and well written. Gex4pls (talk) 15:11, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well done to all who worked on the article. Lefcentreright ^{Talk | Contribs | Global} 15:31, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Posted — Amakuru (talk) 21:33, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Hayabusa2

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2020 December 4 Template:Cob

Comment I see a couple of uncited paragraphs in the "Rovers" section. Mlb96 (talk) 21:03, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not many sample returns in history. Albertaont (talk) 21:48, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seems like the perfect science achievement to put ITN, though from a cursory glance appears to have some referencing problems. Gex4pls (talk) 22:56, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on quality due to various unreferenced paragraphs. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:20, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per above, would support if referencing is fixed. A nitpick but "Science Alert" shouldn't be up there. Gotitbro (talk) 03:19, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hayabusa2 has not returned to earth and its mission has been extended. The sample return capsule has returned. The blurb needs changes. Support in principle but few paragraphs needs references. -Nizil (talk) 06:53, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added altblurb to indicate that the original parameters (returning samples to earth) is complete. If they do extend the mission, we're not talking about destinations until 2026 or 2031, so well beyond the current issue. --Masem (t) 07:01, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nizil makes an excellent point. Hayabusa2 still has about half its fuel left and it appears that it will continue to explore the solar system, visiting other bodies such as Venus, until the fuel runs out. As the nomination seems confused about this, we should not rush at this until the details and outcome are clear. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:55, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - There was one original mission for this craft: go to the asteroid, get samples, go back to earth, and deliver sample. That they found they have more fuel left over to possibly do it again is great (a similar story of the Mars rovers) but the original mission has been completed, and if these extended missions are taken, it would be years before any "success" is determine. --Masem (t) 14:46, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support alblurb ITNR and no serious quality issues now. Brandmeister^talk 16:34, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Brandmeister — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orbitalbuzzsaw (talk • contribs) 16:50, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Blurb should say it's Japanese. – Sca (talk) 19:42, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support alt, important mission. There are a few paragraphs needing refs, though. Nixinova T C 04:46, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support alt, per nom.-- P-K3 (talk) 19:44, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Posted — Amakuru (talk) 20:14, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

December 4

(Posted) RD: James Odongo

Support Just passes basic RD-needs, would like to see more info about his activities as a Bishop though. Gotitbro (talk) 11:25, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support ok for RD JW 1961 Talk 12:43, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Posted — Amakuru (talk) 22:45, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Ferenc Tóth (politician)

Support A bit short but RD-passable. Gotitbro (talk) 11:22, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Posted — Amakuru (talk) 22:45, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) RD: David Lander

Oppose Basically a mostly uncited mess ATM. Gotitbro (talk) 03:21, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sadly about 40% uncited. Gex4pls (talk) 15:01, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) RD: Jayant Meghani

Oppose practically a stub. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 11:01, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Per TRM. Bio section = 90 words. – Sca (talk) 14:16, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose While notability is not necessarily a criteria, this person's page was created for the purposes of RD and is less than a day old. Albertaont (talk) 03:47, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Template:U, there is a subtle difference. It is not true that notability is NOT a criteria for WP:ITNRD. It is assumed that anyone by virtue of having a Wikipedia article (obviously non PRODed or non AFDed) is inherently notable. Now, with this being stated, imo, it does not matter if the article was recently created as long as it meets the notability guidelines to exist as an article within WP. Hope this helps. Ktin (talk) 06:01, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there is an issue about notability. --Gazal world (talk) 06:45, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support The article covers enough basic info about a person and his works (300+ words). It is a start-class article in my opinion. I will try to add additional info. -Nizil (talk) 06:21, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now. There's no issue with an article being created posthumously, RD rules still apply. But that said, it is currently effectively a stub. The "Works" section is really just a list, formatted to look like prose. More info on his life and work is needed in the bio section. — Amakuru (talk) 07:52, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Bsrely long enough, could use some more expansion. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 16:13, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Narinder Singh Kapany

Support Looks generally okay to me. Gotitbro (talk) 03:11, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly fine. The artist section is not fully supported by the single reference provided. As near as I can tell, he was not a serious artist, so I wonder if that should be stricken from the lede. We could certainly call him an art patron. GreatCaesarsGhost 03:45, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Template:U, done. Removed artist from the lede. Agree, primary focus should be on the physicist portion. Added another source as well. Ktin (talk) 04:24, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support looks alright to me. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 11:02, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support good to go. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:48, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Posted — Amakuru (talk) 15:26, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Montenegrin PM

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2020 December 3 Template:Cob

Oppose for now, the personal article needs more references, the PM of of Montenegro article has only 1 reference (to an article on the PM of Kosovo) JW 1961 Talk 16:55, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think that this news is important enough for publication, also i think that the main article is more informative, as well more referenced than the recently published article on the new Lithuanian PM, for example. -WalterII (talk) 13:35, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes of course it is important enough. It was the article sourcing quality I had reservations about. The article on Zdravko Krivokapić is now improved enough for the main page, but, I would still have concerns that the PM article has only a single source JW 1961 Talk 15:33, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Since this is not a normal electoral change, it should be explained in the blurb how he came to power; also an uncommon acronym (DPS) shouldn't be in there. Gotitbro (talk) 16:58, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Now that the referencing issues have been fixed, would still to see an alternate blurb though. Gotitbro (talk) 17:28, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose I support the idea of a blurb, once the issues Joseywales1961 raised have been resolved. I also agree with Gotitbro's comment on the potential blurb. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:01, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support All citation needed tags have been resolved. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 00:58, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose we already featured the elections, but it's a slow week This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 01:02, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is a significant news about regime change by a democratically election. --Tensa Februari (talk) 02:24, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Changes of heads of state/government (whoever holds actual power) are (such as this one) WP:ITN/R , i.e., their significance is already known only the article quality needs to be fine. Also, this particular change was not through an election but internal parliament shuffling. Gotitbro (talk) 04:48, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The new PM and his cabinet were formally voted in the parliament, following the results of the 30 August parliamentary election (negotiations on the formation of the new government lasted for three months), which resulted in fall from power of the DPS of Milo Đukanović, which had ruled the country since the introduction of the multi-party system in 1990. -WalterII (talk) 13:35, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support This information is of merit considering that the former ruling party firmly ruled for 30 years, that is, from the very start of multi-party system in Montenegro. Additionally, the article has been updated and it looks better now. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 02:33, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose from read of the article, does not seem like an "independent" in the regular sense, could support if WP:NPOV. Albertaont (talk) 03:50, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The article has been significantly improved, and the news is important due to the overthrow of the authoritarian regime after 30 years.--WEBDuB (talk) 09:39, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Per comment above this one Elserbio00 (talk) 17:55, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. I removed Prime Minister from the latter portion of the blurb as posted as it seemed redundant, and I left off the last portion of the proposed blurb as it seemed unnecessary if we are stating that he's the first independent. 331dot (talk) 18:43, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

December 3

(Posted) RD: Maria Fyfe

Weak support seems brief but what's there is ok. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 11:03, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Taut but RD passable. Gotitbro (talk) 11:46, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So taut it's thin. – Sca (talk) 14:21, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Posted — Amakuru (talk) 15:26, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Alison Lurie

Comment - The sourcing is very bad. There are entire sections without a single ref. This article needs a lot of work to be ready for posting.--SirEdimon ^Dimmi!!! 01:24, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with comment above, sources needed for 3 sections, as well as numerous statements throughout article. Not to mention an orange tag. Gex4pls (talk) 01:58, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per above and could also do well with MOS:LAYOUT edits. Gotitbro (talk) 02:14, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have added citations to the "Awards" section and changed the "Selected novels" section to a "Bibliography" one with further citations. Apologies if these edits are not constructive as I usually do not edit these types of articles. Aoba47 (talk) 17:12, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak support~~. It's been massively improved (thanks Template:U), but still not sufficiently comprehensive as to her literary impact. I've added what I could but more is needed. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 18:49, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I would do more, but I am not familiar with how this kind of article should be structured. I agree with you that it is not comprehensive with her literary impact (or writing career in general). Aoba47 (talk) 19:16, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's enough in there now about her life and work for a full-throated support. (Not to toot my own horn re: the additions, of course :) ) Important, Pulitzer-winning novelist with obits in all major English-language papers, and would be a nice corrective the pretty egregious male dominance of RD these days. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 20:23, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

support - seems ready after improvements.BabbaQ (talk) 20:47, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support good to go. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 22:50, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Posted — Amakuru (talk) 10:24, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Bill Fitsell

Support Looks good. Gotitbro (talk) 03:12, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Posted — Amakuru (talk) 10:24, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Jutta Lampe

Support good enough for RD. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 22:48, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support This one looks good to go for RD JW 1961 Talk 00:17, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Article quality is good enough. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 01:21, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fine for an RD. Gotitbro (talk) 03:13, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Posted — Amakuru (talk) 10:24, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Betsy Wade

Template:ITN candidate Template:Collapse top

Support Looks fine for an RD, though could do well with an infobox. Gotitbro (talk) 15:47, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support just about adequate. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 16:05, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The career section, particularly the bottom half, suffers from WP:PROSELINE. In 1972...., In 1974 ...., In 1987 ...... A round of copy-edits would be good. Also, the 'Spencer' test -- currently, the article has a lot of positions, and some notable firsts, which is good. But, the article should add some of Ms Wade's works as well. E.g. what notable news topics did she cover? Some elaboration of her Pultizer winning work? I think the article is almost there, but, needs some work to get it to homepage / RD. Good luck. Ktin (talk) 16:25, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Running a bit thin on sources and some grammatical issues per above, but it seems passable. Gex4pls (talk) 16:40, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I was going to nominate this article just now! Article is in good condition, great length and sourcing is good enough. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 16:55, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Posted — Amakuru (talk) 10:24, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Dharampal Gulati

Comment Mahashay is an honorific not a name, should be removed from the title/lead/ib per WP:NCIN. Gotitbro (talk) 04:00, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Template:U, If some other knowledgeable editors want to chime in and / or even go directly make the move, I will not object. None of the articles that I have read so far seem to indicate this, and I do not want to be guilty of WP:OR Ktin (talk) 04:07, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Re Removing honorifics doesn't fall under OR. Many Indian sources (which are used in the article) don't bother removing honorifics. His WP:LEGALNAME is listed without the honorific in official company filings. Gotitbro (talk) 04:12, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Template:U, I will admit, I am not knowledgeable about this topic. I do not want to use a collins dictionary link to make a translation myself as you have done above, to say that it is a honorific. I am not saying you are wrong. All I am saying is if there is a more knowledgeable editor (including yourself) and they want to move the article, I will not object. My sources have been The Hindu, Indian Express, ThePrint. Good luck. Ktin (talk) 04:20, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Edit: For what it is worth, the Padma Awards site here has him called out as Mahashay Dharampal Gulati. Also seen here in the notification. Seems like the above move was hasty. Ktin (talk) 04:28, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Re I've gone ahead and made a WP:BOLD move as I am pretty sure about this. Yeah, Padma Awards add their own numerous honorifics (for e.g. Shri) to names so not surprising. Anyway WP:LEGALNAME is also a precedent here which is fulfilled by the company records. Gotitbro (talk) 04:45, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Template:U, Shri is equivalent to Mr. in this context, and should not be misconstrued. E.g. Shri John Chambers. I am always weary about statements like "I am pretty sure about this" as a leading statements here, since that is the definition of WP:OR while WP:RS sources say otherwise. But anyways, I do not have too strong an opinion on this one, unless a different editor wants to chime in one way or the other. Ktin (talk) 05:14, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Collapse bottom

Support Seems fine. Ref spot check is good.130.233.213.199 (talk) 08:28, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Decently referenced article, suitable for RD JW 1961 Talk 11:58, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Posted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:36, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Ongoing: 2020 Indian farmers' protest

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2020 December 2 Template:Cob

Support The article is light on the scale of the protests (no mention of number of protesters), but its definitely in non-indian news as well over the past week. There are sympathy protests with the farmers outside of India, to a lesser extent. Albertaont (talk) 04:19, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Number of protestors added. DTM (talk) 09:59, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support on significance, Wait due to grammar issues. The article could use a thorough grammar and MOS cleanup. 45.251.33.78 (talk) 10:23, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One round of copyediting complete. DTM (talk) 13:20, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could use some more cleaning. "Awards return", "announced to return his award" and "Chief minister of Punjab" not being properly capitalised are 3 grammar/MOS issues in just the last 2 lines of the article and a subsection's title. The article may need some editors who focus on grammar and MOS. 45.251.33.78 (talk) 04:24, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support in principle, oppose on quality what exactly are the provisions/policies in the bills that cause concern, and what specifically are the demands? – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 12:22, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have listed the demands in its own section 2020 Indian farmers' protest#List_of_farmer_demands. The provisions are elaborated in the clearly linked parent article Indian farm reforms 2020. However as the demands show, the demands encompass more than just the three new laws. Nevertheless, changes can be made as you said. DTM (talk) 12:39, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – RS coverage seems slight, although AP carried a photo series with brief descriptions of protest conditions. – Sca (talk) 14:30, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"RS coverage seems slight" — seriously? DTM (talk) 15:08, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One source listed above. – Sca (talk) 15:42, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support once MOS issues have been fixed because... yikes This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 15:19, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Article quality seems to have improved; it's not perfect and I encourage continued work, but it looks passable. It is very well referenced, and seems to cover well all of the main issues. Seems like a good target for an Ongoing link. --Jayron 32 15:24, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I was going to oppose this yesterday as "tens of thousands" is not a high percentage in India and the quality of the article wasn't there, but after separately reading that these were in the 100k's of ppl now and seeing that incorporated into this article as well as the further expansion, this is clearly significant with the events from last weekend (road blockages, etc.) --Masem (t) 15:30, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on quality grounds. The article may be well-referenced, but it is poorly written. One of the purposes of ITN is "To showcase quality Wikipedia content on current events," and I do not believe the article meets that standard. -- Calidum 15:32, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think I've fixed most of the writing and grammar issues; there were a number of them. Black Kite (talk) 01:16, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: don't we usually blurb first and then consider ongoing later? Could a blurb be proposed for this item? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:25, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The protests have been going on since August so a blurb would be "stale" but they have ramped up over last weekend. There is no requirement for a ongoing to start with a blurb. --Masem (t) 14:08, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- This was my thought as well. Usually if something is newsworthy enough for Ongoing, it starts with a blurb. Readers won't necessarily know what this is about, but if we give them a headline story first, then bump it down to Ongoing once that's rolled off, it's much better. — Amakuru (talk) 10:12, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - the protests follow the 26 November 24-hour strike by 250 million people (= 25 crore) according to trade unions' estimates (Deccan Herald; Tribune (Chandigarh)). Without a police (or BJP) counterclaim, the estimate so far appears to be unchallenged. This does sound like a world record. The Delhi ongoing blockade is gradually attracting more and more worldwide media attention. I did a bit of tidying in the article. Boud (talk) 02:10, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification - I see that there are two separate articles Indian general strike of 2020 and 2020 Indian farmers' protest. I only saw Indian general strike of 2020 up to now. The ongoing action is that of 2020 Indian farmers' protest. I support 2020 Indian farmers' protest for the reasons I stated, but "did a bit of tidying" applies to the strike article, not to the farmers' protest article. Boud (talk) 02:17, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - please could a blurb be proposed, as per MSGJ above. It should be blurbed before it goes to Ongoing. — Amakuru (talk) 10:15, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blurb1 proposal:

In India, a quarter of a billion strike for 24 hours and 100,000 continue with a farmers' siege of New Delhi.

Boud (talk) 20:36, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - since the BBC says "hundreds of thousands", we could put 200,000, following the minimal literal interpretation policy that seems to be the preferred en.Wikipedia standard. But this is not the place to dispute numbers, so 100,000 would seem safer to me. A tricky thing for the blurb is the historical ambiguity in the word "Indians" - people of India versus Native Americans, which is why I avoided the word. Boud (talk) 20:41, 5 December 2020 (UTC) I fixed the typo (seige/siege) and posted the blurb above, and removed 'add' from the 'ongoing' parameter since otherwise the blurb would not display. Boud (talk) 21:49, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Journalism rule: Never assume anything. We definitely should not guess at the number of protesting farmers. (And the blurb is sensationalized in this respect.) Topic getting stale. – Sca (talk) 14:50, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've no idea what "assume" is supposed to apply to - these numbers are from the sources. India Today says 200-300,000 farmers have besieged Delhi. As for "stale", the next national strike is planned for 8 December. There's no sign of the farmers giving up. Boud (talk) 16:22, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is there a reason this hasnt been posted? We have gone straight to on-going in the past, and a blurb just belabors the point since it would just be an attempt to capture what is going on today. Added altblurb 2 if blurb seems sensational. Albertaont (talk) 15:33, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Whether with a blurb or directly to Ongoing, this should be posted. There seems to be a last-minute objection from Sca, but the objection lacks explanation and is difficult to understand in comparison to the article. Boud (talk) 16:22, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest you rewind your watch. – Sca (talk) 17:14, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let's quote the source(s) on "hundreds of thousands," then. Let's not pull a number out of the air, however reasonable it might seem. – Sca (talk) 17:02, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

India Today Template:Tquote
BBC News Template:Tquote
Business Standard Template:Tquote 1.5 to 2 lakh = 150,000 to 200,000.

Boud (talk) 21:33, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is an ongoing siege of the government of the biggest democracy in the world, it's well-covered in en.Wikipedia by the usual criteria, and we have a strong (not perfect) consensus to post. Boud (talk) 16:42, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose blurb – It seems very appropriate for Ongoing, but not for a blurb. Factors include lack of reported casualties and its essentially parochial character, regardless of whatever numbers may be guessed at – and the lack of general RS confirmation. – Sca (talk) 17:06, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Whether this is posted with a blurb or immediately as Ongoing is a minor issue. Regarding deaths or injuries ("casualties"): Wikipedia ITN is not intended to be a tabloid where blood is required for coverage. Regarding "parochial" - India is the world's biggest democracy. There are plenty of sources: claiming otherwise won't make them disappear. This is not the USopedia or UKopedia. Boud (talk) 21:17, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The world's most populous democracy. – Sca (talk) 23:25, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Are we missing something right here? There doesn't seem to be opposition (the only oppose was for quality issues that had long been fixed). Do we have conflicts of interest which prevent this from being posted? Albertaont (talk) 04:25, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Posted altblurb — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:33, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Pull The article seems to be quite poor quality. I just read it to understand the issue, as it had not appeared in any news report that I'd read or seen, unlike Brexit say, which is all over the news. The article kept talking about the "mandi" system as a key demand of the farmers but doesn't explain it and we don't have an article. After some research, I find a source which explains that these mandis are local markets for produce – the sort of topic that we might cover under a English title like marketplace or agricultural marketing. The word seems to be Hindi but this is the English-language Wikipedia. The article uses other foreign words like Gherao, Dharna and Raasta roko which will likewise be incomprehensible to our English-language readership.

Now, this may not just be a matter of language. While searching the BBC for this topic, the main article I found was India farmers: Misleading content shared about the protests from the BBC Reality Check unit. This explains that misinformation about this matter is being spread deliberately online. As we therefore need to be extra vigilant, we should not be promoting the topic on our main page without more scrutiny. Getting it all written in English would be a start.

Andrew🐉(talk) 20:20, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is no requirement for an en.Wikipedia article to be necessarily written in US or UK English, it can perfect well be written in Indian English, especially for a topic about the world's most populous democracy, in which English is an official language, but diverges in ways that are unsurprising when a huge number of people use the language regularly. The boundary of when a word counts purely in one language or not is fluid.

Misinformation occurs on almost any topic that is newsworthy. Should we remove the COVID-19 related links from the main page because there are anti-vaxxers and conspiracy theorists who think COVID-19 is a hoax? Obviously not. You are welcome to edit the article to improve the understandability for English speakers whose knowledge of English is restricted to only the UK and US versions and who are upset that a part of the world that Britain massively pillaged from to build its wealth has dared to develop its own, rich variety of English.

There seems to be a hint here that the argument is that brown-skinned Oriental people who speak another variety of English than UK or US English seem to be organising mass civil disobedience because they're incapable of understanding that they've been politically manipulated and misinformed. That would not be a valid reason for removing the link. Mahatma Gandhi responded to that over 70 years ago. Boud (talk) 01:51, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am quite familiar with Indian English – usages such as "updation" and "doing the needful". But, as that article explains, this should not be confused with Hinglish. Boud's harangue demonstrates the reward that one will get for making such updates. दिल्ली अभी दूर है. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:44, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pull – Per previous and my posts above, this one time I support pulling the blurb. This smacks of an overblown cause celebre. The AP photo series of three days ago was very good at illustrating the event(s) but not really informative at all. – Sca (talk) 23:30, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Don't pull. I see little wrong with the article myself, and this is clearly a very major deal and ongoing headline news in India. — Amakuru (talk) 23:45, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

December 2

(Closed) RD: Rafer Johnson

Oppose Way to many unsourced statements. Gex4pls (talk) 02:01, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Half the article is unreferenced. Gotitbro (talk) 02:16, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Article references have been improved - looks good to go. Joofjoof (talk) 04:40, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Template:Ping could you check this? Joofjoof (talk) 23:23, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  @Joofjoof yeah, it kind of looks OK now, but unfortunately I think the boat has probably sailed on this one. His death was on December 2, but the oldest RD entry currently on the main page is dated December 4. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 23:39, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh well, that happens. Thanks anyway. Joofjoof (talk) 23:50, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Blurb posted) RD: Valéry Giscard d'Estaing

Support This may be blurb worthy, had massive impact on European politics. Albertaont (talk) 23:05, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article needs some more references. I added CN tags at honors but I see there are more unsourced paragraphs throughout the article. A blurb is possible, indeed, once the article is fixed. --Tone 23:11, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ping I've added sources and the article should be looking good for a blurb right now.--TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 13:27, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now, way too many uncited sentences and paragraphs. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:53, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ping: I've added the sources and made sure everything is cited. Should be good for a blurb. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 13:27, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Blurb, not enough coverage/impact of death and funeral. Contrast with Diego Maradona's death which now has doctors' offices being raided by the police. Abductive (reasoning) 01:26, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb Recognized for his pro-European stance, but criticized for his aloofness. (He died of covid-19 complications.) Mathsci (talk) 01:54, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ Would support blurb on significance (not every death has to be of Maradona standard) but the article and its referencing is just too poor, whole paras and sections are missing any cites at all. Gotitbro (talk) 02:24, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ping: Fixed all the issues and article should be looking good. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 13:27, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support blurb now. Gotitbro (talk) 13:45, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RD is for deaths that aren't important enough for blurbs, such as this one. Importance means; a stand-alone article on the person's death and/or funeral could be supported. Note the distinguishing between the person and their death. Abductive (reasoning) 07:35, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Re I think you put your reply in the wrong place. Gotitbro (talk) 13:46, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support blurb subject to quality standards being met. Important French politician of the 60s and 70s. Mjroots (talk) 07:46, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose never going to be satisfactory. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 10:46, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ping How about now? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 13:27, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Splendid work so I can support for RD without hesitation. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 13:29, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Also Oppose even for RD until citing is improved, way too much uncited in there now. JW 1961 Talk 11:00, 3 December 2020 (UTC)~~ Good job on the fixing Template:Ping, post posting blurb Support JW 1961 Talk 14:58, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ping: Fixed it. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 13:27, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support blurb Former president of a major country, gaining significant coverage and I will work on the article to make it up to date. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 11:58, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb Former president of a permanent member state of the United Nations Security Council should merit a blurb in principle. There are people who become transformative because of their work and people who are made transformative because of their office. He belongs to the latter.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:22, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but that makes no sense; by that logic Gordon Brown or François Hollande would warrant a blurb when their time comes. Holding a notable job doesn't confer automatic notability on the holder, it just puts the holder into a position in which they're potentially able to do notable things. ‑ Iridescent 13:30, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
After posting blurbs for the deaths of some office-holders in the United States just because it's a large and powerful country, I don't see a reason why the death of a former leader of another large and powerful country should be omitted. I was one of the fiercest opposers to lowering the bar for death blurbs when we introduced RD and I still have relatively high criteria but it's simply not equitable to apply double standards given the mistakes made in the past.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:50, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Per Kiril and it is also important to mention Giscard d'Estaing's works for the European Union and his presidency during France's modernizing shift as the NYT remembered him. Also worth mentioning Chirac's RD blurb was only largely opposed based on article quality and when India's PM Atal Bihari Vajpayee died in 2018, he also had a blurb posted. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 13:58, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, ITNC has a bias towards American officeholders. He is more notable than many American non-President officeholders that have been given a blurb. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:00, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb agree with reasons above, and article is well sourced now. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:28, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support article quality is sufficient. Agnostic on blurb/RD. --Jayron 32 13:38, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD only Not one of those rare cases where a blurb is necessary. This is what RD is for.-- P-K3 (talk) 14:09, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment blurb has already been posted. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 14:11, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, Template:Posted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:13, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Template:Ping Should the discussion be closed soon as it may lead to unconstructive arguments? Just curious. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 14:16, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. Consensus may swing the other way and people have a right to express their opinions — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:20, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha I just wanted to know the ropes here when it comes to closing discussions because I've seen some discussions close the moment something's posted. Good to know! --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 14:27, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's actually never happened. Discussions have only been closed once people stop being useful and start to focus on defeating people they don't like. --Jayron 32 15:33, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting comment – A familiar name, but Giscard seems not widely remembered for his policies. At 2,800 words, his article is modest – and since he died at 94, albeit of Covid, the death isn't surprising. If our main reason for the blurb was to counter a perceived U.S. bias, that's not valid. But I'm NOT for pulling it; we've taken the plunge. – Sca (talk) 15:09, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I will note that the only time anyone mentioned a U.S. bias, it was you, right now. --Jayron 32 15:20, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not correct, the first mention of bias was me at 13:00 UTC today. But I think the right outcome has emerged- an important head of state should have a blurb. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:38, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed: "ITNC has a bias towards American officeholders." Anyway, some users have alleged such here in the past. – Sca (talk) 15:47, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong post-posting blurb support Household name in Europe. We posted some literalwho American judge who was like a 100-years old when she died, and people are opposing the blurb about the last president of France under whom the country actually meant something on the world stage? Cringe.
Also, proposing an alt-blurb that mentions Covid-19. CoronaOneLove (talk) 17:06, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb regardless of being a household name or not, I think blurb posting for any former leader of the G7/8/20 countries is a no-brainer (as long as the rest of the ITN requirements are met). --Masem (t) 17:09, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Zafarullah Khan Jamali

Comment Just needs a couple of citations in the first two sentences of "Prime Minister of Pakistan" section JW 1961 Talk 21:33, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose poor quality PROSELINE and inadequate sourcing. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 21:53, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support definitely worse RDs out there (although we may need to revisit RDs). Albertaont (talk) 23:04, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose Two unsourced statements, and could use a few more than 26 sources. Gex4pls (talk) 01:27, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lead needs reworking and some unreferenced statements here and there in the article. Gotitbro (talk) 02:20, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb - marked it ready as the article is now fully referenced. At least a photo must be posted along with the RD, if not a blurb. Otherwise it will cement the perception of biasness here with the French guy getting a blurb. Depressed Desi (talk) 13:54, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Ping this needs attention. Depressed Desi (talk) 14:04, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Posted to RD - looks like referencing issues were sorted. There isn't a consensus for blurbing right now, but people can continue discussing that if they wish. Not sure he's really comparable to Giscard, as he was only in office for 1.5 years. Also we wouldn't put a pic if he remains only at RD. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 15:21, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Walter E. Williams

Support good article, would encourage Template:U to take it to WP:GAN after expanding the lead a little. This is good to go. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 21:06, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support looks good to go JW 1961 Talk 21:35, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Article looks very good, nice find, and previous work by editors. Gotitbro (talk) 02:15, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Added—Bagumba (talk) 10:19, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) RD: Pat Patterson

Oppose multiple unreferenced paragraphs. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 21:06, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Seeing a lot of unreferenced paras in there. Gotitbro (talk) 03:58, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Full of unreferenced and citation needed tagged sentences. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:06, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for article quality, but want to remind people that being a gay wrestler is like maybe 10% of his transformative effect on the WWF (and thereby the whole damn industry). If it was a good article, I'd blurb it for sure. If I booked this promotion, I mean. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:30, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Mohamed Abarhoun

~~Weak oppose~~ it's still marked as a stub and excluding the lead we've got fewer than 1500 characters. Not convinced this is all there is to say about a player who admittedly died young but still managed more than 200 professional appearances. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 21:09, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point, I'll see if I can find something more on his career. It'll probably be tomorrow - Dumelow (talk) 22:01, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi The Rambling Man, I've fleshed out the club career section a bit more now - Dumelow (talk) 08:48, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support good work. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 08:56, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Looks okay now but can still be expanded. Gotitbro (talk) 02:13, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Still ready almost 13 hours later and not been posted. Any admins out there? Joseph2302 (talk) 12:51, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Posted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:24, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Banner updated) BNT162b2

Not being pointy/obtuse here, I just think we need to say it: why is first in the West worth making note of? 75.188.224.208 (talk) 12:24, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose it’s moreso the level of testing for BNT162b2 than the UK being in the West: Template:Tq (NYT). It's also the first time that an mRNA vaccine has been approved. — MarkH₂₁^talk 13:07, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alt 3 in that case. 75.188.224.208 (talk) 13:58, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Its an important step towards beating Covid-19, regardless if its the first western country to approve of a vaccine. Any move forward is a good move forward. Fusioncore21 (talk) 12:29, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Update BannerTemplate:S Is this not already covered by the banner? Is there some reason that we should focus on this vaccine over ones from Russia (widely available, released earlier), China (available in large numbers, released earlier), or even more niche vaccines that have been used previously?130.233.213.199 (talk) 13:03, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In light of comments below, I think we should make COVID-19 vaccine a link in the banner. It's already there in many of the links, but we might as well put it directly.130.233.213.199 (talk) 05:49, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Well first off, its not wide-spread approval, its Emergency Use Authorization. Second off, other countries like United Arab Emirates and Bahrain have also approved a COVID-19 vaccine and the ruler of Dubai himself already got the injection. Not exactly sure why this becomes notable, unless you wish to say "The United Kingdom approves BNT162b2 for widespread use, becoming the first G7 country to approve a COVID-19 vaccine. Albertaont (talk) 14:08, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
UAE ran Phase III trials with 31,000 volunteers, and Bahrain with 7,000 volunteers. (Reuters) (CNBC).Albertaont (talk) 15:03, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stop directly changing the nomination.Template:Pb Emergency Use Authorization is an article about an FDA authority, not the authorisation in the UK.Template:PbALT3 is directly from the NYT: Template:Tq, while the Bahrain/UAE approval is for the aformentioned Chinese vaccine that was approved Template:Tq.Template:PbThis is also notable for being the first approved mRNA vaccine of any kind (ALT4), as mentioned in the NYT, BBC, and WSJ articles. — MarkH₂₁^talk 14:39, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The very same NYT article said approval in UK is for emergency use. It says it in the very first sentence. Albertaont (talk) 14:48, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the article Emergency Use Authorization, it is strictly about the FDA in the United States. That article should not be linked here. — MarkH₂₁^talk 14:51, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose for two reasons. Firstly, this should already be covered with the banner and, if not, the update should be done there. Secondly, we didn't post the approval of Gam-COVID-Vac in Russia, so this is not the first country in the world to approve a COVID-19 vaccine (And before coming to contest this view, please provide scientific evidence that this vaccine is better and more efficient). I also don't think that the clarifications 'first Western country' and 'after large-scale testing' in the proposed blurbs make a lot of sense (yet the fact it's the first mRNA vaccine is noteworthy). Let's wait until the World Health Organisation approves its production and distribution, and then discuss posting it as the first widely approved vaccine. Nonetheless, this nomination is a timely warning that the banner should be updated with a link to COVID-19 vaccine.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:24, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A "strong oppose" carries no more weight than an "oppose." – Sca (talk)

Template:Reply I know. But when you see that people continue to nominate COVID-related items for a blurb while the banner is still on the top and, more importantly, it can benefit from the nomination, you need to react somehow and that's a good sign to use an intensifier.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:33, 2 December 2020 (UTC) [reply]

We should rely on the sagacity of our comments to persuade our colleagues. "Strong" seems to imply an emotional commitment more than a reasoned argument, IMO. – Sca (talk) 15:51, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the comment about it being the first in the West is a bit of a red herring, the point is it's the first that has completed clinical trials and been demonstrated to be effective. Modest Genius ^talk 15:20, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It has not "completed trials", because otherwise it wouldn't have been given emergency authorization. Volunteers continue to be monitored, and its not like those in the placebo group are now authorized to take the full vaccine as the study has closed. Albertaont (talk) 15:49, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – In widespread RS coverage, the vaccine is generally referred to as "the vaccine from American drugmaker Pfizer and Germany’s BioNTech (AP) or simply "the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine (Guardian). For Wikipedia's audience, there's no point in calling it "the BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccine." Why force readers to follow a linked jargony acronym only to read in the first sentence that it's a vaccine "developed by BioNTech and Pfizer" – ?? This is pure techie obfuscation – and it doesn't read well either. – Sca (talk) 15:31, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A rename or pipe to a more common / descriptive name would be pretty reasonable! Something like Template:Tq -> Template:Tq or Template:Tq? — MarkH₂₁^talk 20:14, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support and/or Update banner As Kiril Simeonovski notes, there is no reason why we shouldn't have a link to COVID-19 vaccine in the banner since that is the main focus of news coverage at this stage. I'm not opposed to posting this story in lieu of that, however. Teemu08 (talk) 16:00, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not opposed to the COVID-19 vaccine link, just to the BNT162b2 one – which BTW makes a very clumsy title for an article.
– Sca (talk) 16:15, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I also thought that the article title is clumsy and not intuitive, but it turns out that is the convention per WP:NCMED: Template:Tq. Bait30 ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 20:20, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IAR – Our loyalty should be to the readers, not to to the multifarious Rule Book. – Sca (talk) 23:24, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update banner seems reasonable. Its one of the most popular pages on wiki right now, outside of temporary news. Albertaont (talk) 16:11, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Big news no matter how you look at it. It's a vaccine for one of the worst pandemics in human history, released in an extremely protracted time period.--WaltCip-(talk) 17:58, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I want to oppose based on the fact that no matter how we phrase the blurb it is necessarily going to sound like it's the UK making an important step, rather than being the quickest to rush emergency authorization of an international vaccine. Even without that fact, we can't have a blurb that sounds celebratory of a certain country/it's government. If we could update banner to highlight the vaccine, that would be suitable. I might bring it up at the portal whether to create a new box on the emergency use, too. Great news for a small part of the British population, though! Kingsif (talk) 20:58, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Update Banner and if not Oppose per Kingsif Thanks, Sixula^Talk 22:30, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Update Banner Covid news is supposed to be covered by banner, unless it's a major, major development. Gex4pls (talk) 01:29, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alt 1. Well written article. -SusanLesch (talk) 01:35, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose We have a banner for a reason. And if we are going top be blurbing about COVID (which has been avoided like the disease itself on here) make it generic (about vaccines, other advancements etc.) not about news specific to a country. Gotitbro (talk) 03:55, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Update banner – told you so. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:03, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Done with link to COVID-19 vaccine — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:47, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2020 December 1 Template:Cob

December 1

(Posted) RD: Hugh Keays-Byrne

Support. Clean and well referenced article, somewhere between a Start-class and a C-class biography, though Rater.js suggests B. Good to go to the homepage. Ktin (talk) 00:03, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Posted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:30, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: George Ross Anderson Jr.

~~Oppose~~ Article is fine except for a single cn tag in there. Template:Re Please fix it. Gotitbro (talk) 02:11, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support now. Gotitbro (talk) 03:51, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Template:Re I have fixed the CN tag. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 03:04, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Posted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:34, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Maria Itkina

Support Looks okay to me. Gotitbro (talk) 12:43, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Article is start class or better. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:31, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seems fine for RD JW 1961 Talk 21:21, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support good to go. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 21:48, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Added—Bagumba (talk) 10:19, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Brian Kerr, Baron Kerr of Tonaghmore

Support Agree, its a short but well sourced piece that covers all his his roles JW 1961 Talk 22:39, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good enough.--SirEdimon ^Dimmi!!! 01:03, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks okay to me. Gotitbro (talk) 02:17, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't like "Selected cases" and I don't like one of them not being linked/referenced. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 21:51, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, there was no criteria for selection. I've removed the section and added those not mentioned in the text to "see also" - Dumelow (talk) 23:07, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Posted Step hen 00:57, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Arecibo observatory

Comment didn't we already post the closure of this? The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 17:04, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose it was closed because of the same issues that caused the collapse, and there was no reason to believe it would be saved. Ergo, the collapse is not sufficiently distinct from the closure decision to be posted as a separate item. GreatCaesarsGhost 17:29, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure that this was posted before? In any event, this is analogous to a death. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:31, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Closure was on ITN from 20 Nov to 25 Nov. Just answering the question, no opinion on adding a new blurb. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:48, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose We already posted this, so recently that I think it was the last blurb to roll off the main page. --Jayron 32 17:50, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (Yes we posted the decommissioning already). They knew that if this wasn't decommissioned in a controlled manner soon, it was going to collapse, the question of how disasterous the collapse. While this has destroys the dish and receiver, ending the telescope's "life", the damage from it was not as bad as they had feared (no injuries, some structural damage to remaining buildings), so while a sad event, I think most were already prepared back on Nov 19 when the decommissioning was announced. --Masem (t) 17:52, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: we posted that it was being decommissioned already. It was being decommissioned because it was old and on the verge of collapse. Now it collapsed. Not really unexpected or newsworthy. Bait30 ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 19:01, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Per previous. Suggest snow. – Sca (talk) 19:33, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Chang'e 5 Landing

Oppose I think we want to affirm it returns to Earth, which should be in two weeks, IIRC. That would mark the successful mission. (It hasn't made the return so its not really a full sample-return mission yet). --Masem (t) 17:53, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Masem. The spacecraft has not yet reached its destination, which is Earth. GreatCaesarsGhost 18:00, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's quite frankly ridiculous. If you go on holiday to X. Your holiday distination is X, not your home despite knowing you would be returning with souvenirs. -- KTC (talk) 18:02, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it matches the ITNR, but the fact that its return would also be an ITNR means we'd probably want to wait for the latter since it will be very very soon. If this was a return-sample mission to Mars where the return would take several months, that would be different as we'd not have to worry about piggybacking stories on the same thing. --Masem (t) 18:08, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I tried to reduce the number of space exploration (wouldn't have affected this one) on ITNR, those that supported on here didn't comment, a number of those that commented objected to it there. They suggested that if people bothered to update the articles, it should be posted. So here we are, an article that has sufficient details, meets ITNR, so post it. -- KTC (talk) 18:20, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is not listed as ITNR on return to earth, only on reaching the moon. There is no ITNR for returning to earth in the criteria. Albertaont (talk) 20:00, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be so obtuse. A destination is the end of a journey. I go on a journey to my holiday destination, at which point the journey is over. The trip home is a separate journey. Has Chang'e reached the end of its journey? No. GreatCaesarsGhost 19:45, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:U I can equally argue that Chang'e has reached the end of it's "first" journey but that's not what's important. What's important is whether this meets the ITNR criteria, and it does, when applying the criteria as it was intended. Also: the point of the mission is to go to the moon AND come back, NOT only coming back. Had Chang' e not landed on the moon, this mission would have been useless. 74.101.118.65 (talk) 21:31, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Correct - you could argue either way; my position is not "ridiculous" as another editor rudely opined. You say the distinction is unimportant because this is ITNR, but the distinction defines if it is ITNR. Given that the key objective of the mission is to return specimens, the return to Earth would seem to be plainly more significant than the craft reaching the moon. GreatCaesarsGhost 14:13, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NPC, boys. – Sca (talk)

Support - it's a spacecraft, it has arrived at a destination in lunar orbit and beyond, don't quickly see a problem with the article itself. -- KTC (talk) 18:02, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per KTC. Mjroots (talk) 18:24, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per KTC. It's a moon mission, not an Earth mission. 331dot (talk) 18:40, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - notable space mission, regardless if it gets back to Earth or not.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 19:09, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - This is an unmanned space probe. Success is defined by whether or not it is able to return samples to Earth. If it doesn't make it back to Earth, it's a failed mission and would get posted on ITN either way under ITN/R rules.--WaltCip-(talk) 19:24, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Success or failure of the mission is not part of the criteria of WP:ITN/R for spacecraft, if there was an intent to use it as a criteria, then it would be there already. The only mention of failure in the criteria is "launch failure" which this is clearly not. The criteria of arrival of spacecraft (to lunar orbit and beyond) is very clearly stated. WP:ITN/R does not say a return to earth would qualify, only that it reaches lunar orbit or beyond. Albertaont (talk) 19:54, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I would actually go so far as to say that none of the existing ITN/R criteria cleanly cover this particular mission, particularly the "lunar orbit and beyond" criteria, mostly because a mission of this particular kind hasn't been done since the 1970s (predating Wikipedia, let alone ITN/R). The mission's goal is sample return and that should be when a posting is made.--WaltCip-(talk) 20:19, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - We have had a few comet missions which are also in sample return category, how were they treated? Might provide precedent. Albertaont (talk) 21:48, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - This is not a lunar crasher. The spacecraft made a soft landing which means the objective is to return with physical samples. WaltCip-(talk) 03:31, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support ITNR and article quality is good. 74.101.118.65 (talk) 21:31, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support An ITNR that a an aacceptable article JW 1961 Talk 22:43, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Same as the last nom for this. Are we going to post when it reaches (or fails to reach) Earth, yes?, then we needn't post the same thing multiple times. It might be ITNR but we can better use our own judgement here. On a side note is mentioning Luna in the blurb necessary/relevant? Gotitbro (talk) 02:07, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Finally, something worth putting up This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 04:04, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose While I'm all for posting science milestones, this specific mission is not complete yet, and I say we wait until the sample returns to earth. Gex4pls (talk) 04:33, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wait. It returns in two weeks. When we post multiple blurbs about a single space mission, they are typically months or even years apart. --Tone 08:49, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This exactly, posting multiple blurbs about the same thing in such close time-frames doesn't seem right. Gotitbro (talk) 13:05, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Don't count your chickens before they hatch. In any case, we posted OSIRIS-REx THREE times already and it doesn't even return until 2023. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 14:16, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Because the events are months/years apart. The only issue here is that if we post now, then by the usual ITN posting timing, a few days after this falls out from other stories being posted, the rocket will have returned to Earth and mark the successful end of mission and we'd want to post again. We can wait the couple weeks. If the return was a month out, I won't be as worried about the double post. --Masem (t) 14:38, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Template:U, the oldest item now is from Nov. 23 (9 days ago). This is the slow season. It is likely that it won't roll off at all and we can simply update it. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 15:03, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But what if it does roll off? Then people would want to readd it, and then we get to a situation like the Arecibo Observatory (where a second event that was known to be coming in a few weeks wasn't posted because it was expected). It is simply better to wait for the return to Earth at this point to minimize problems. --Masem (t) 15:08, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Waiting seems sensible, as returning to Earth is part of the mission.-- P-K3 (talk) 13:39, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support – This is ITNR and a major achievement. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 14:02, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wait for sample return to Earth, which is only a fortnight away. That's the final destination of the mission - getting to the Moon is a major step along the way, but not the actual goal. I agree with Masem that we could have posted those stages separately if they were months or years apart, but it makes little sense when they're only a few days. See also the discussion a few days ago on the launch, where we agreed to wait for sample return. Modest Genius ^talk 15:17, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wait – Per Modest, P-K3, et al. – Sca (talk) 15:54, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wait - it seems preferable to report on it completing its successful mission. Obviously if something goes wrong before it returns to Earth, we would report that as well. — Amakuru (talk) 00:26, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To add, it has appeared to lifted off safely from the moon, so very extraordinary chance of not being able to complete the main mission by the 15th-16th. --Masem (t) 14:26, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support now it's only the 3rd successful lander since the 70s. The other two were also Chinese, but there have been more successful landings on Mars in the last decade alone. It's weird to see this bias on ITN. 2601:602:9200:1310:FC9F:418A:1BFE:3AE0 (talk) 20:32, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Mahara prison riot

Comment I have done a full article CE. Coverage is global and the article is well composed and referenced. The lede is too long, and the parts dealing with the riot should be broken off into their own section. It is odd to find an article with only sections named Background and Aftermath. Perhaps Riot and fire is needed in between. A few details don't make sense to me; was the "fire from the Mahara fire" a secondary fire, and is "succumbed" used to mean "died" (the 8 prisoners) or "subdued" (in the whole prison population)? Will support once these are done.130.233.213.199 (talk) 07:50, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose For now, too short ATM. Also this seems to be connected with COVID, which is being avoided for blurbs unless especially notable (the blurb should also reflect the COVID relation which is the reason for its coverage in news). Gotitbro (talk) 10:56, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not widely covered in media, lede is much longer than body, among other general quality concerns with the article. Albertaont (talk) 02:50, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Not widely covered, article is not great This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 04:04, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Article is stubby, and event seems a bit too local for ITN (though if death toll rises past say, 30, I'd support) Gex4pls (talk) 04:35, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While I agree that the article quality needs to improve, what's the objection to coverage? CNN (sourced from Reuters), Guardian (apparently independently sourced), and Al Jazeera (sourced from AFP). That's at least 5 sources representing 3 languages and 3 continents, just taking the links in the nom.130.233.213.199 (talk) 06:14, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]