(Closed) Largest contract in team sports (excluding secret soccer contracts?)

(Posted) RD: Norma Paulus

Nominator's comments: GA quality. EternalNomad (talk) 02:58, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Looks ready to go. There is one cn tag but the unverified statement could just be removed. Hrodvarsson (talk) 04:30, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support cn resolved, good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:17, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Looks ready. –Ammarpad (talk) 05:19, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
•  Posted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:40, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Pulled): André Previn

 Mjroots (talk) 18:36, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support No major issues in article, important figure in music world Zingarese talk · contribs 19:35, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support in principle. Article main body well-sourced. Unfortunately the huge list of recordings has not a single source; suspect it may need to be hived off before the article can get to Main page. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:29, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I would support a blurb once the article up to scratch - definitely one of the leaders in his field (I would also suggest for best effect not necessarily putting the blurb in the right order...) O Still Small Voice of Clam 22:20, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support RD on quality - @Martinevans123 and Voice of Clam I just added 33 refs for the recordings section - support blurb pending improvements - marked as ready (for RD) --DannyS712 (talk) 22:32, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
•  Posted to RD — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:43, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Look I am putting in the right support ..... but not necessarily in the right order. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:20, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb  — Amakuru (talk) 23:24, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• WP:CFORKED André Previn discography--DBigXrayᗙ 04:57, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb transformative figure. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:05, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb – Although I'm a little unsure of his wider notability, in the U.S. Previn was a household name for decades. – Sca (talk) 13:21, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  He was a household name in the UK (though chiefly thanks to Morecambe and Wise more than anything else) and continental Europe, so support blurb. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:28, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support blurb Very well known in U.K. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:34, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
•  Posted blurb — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:32, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment LOL -- that was fast. TWO dead Germans in the box in just two weeks. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:45, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting comment. – Sca (talk) 13:49, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• • Too fast. Abductive (reasoning) 13:48, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Post-posting oppose, goes against consensus on RD blurbs. Abductive (reasoning) 13:48, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  LOL - we went fron "major transformative world leader" to "Very well known in U.K." Quick, somebody start WP:LagerfeldEffect GreatCaesarsGhost 21:38, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't recall seeing "major transformative world leader" written down anywhere as the agreed criterion. My comment was, in part, a response to Sca. My comment may not even be a fact, although I think you'll find it could be easily sourced. It's just my opinion. Also, Previn used to wear those terrible polo-neck sweaters. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:45, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And what did you wear in the mid-'70s? Post a pic please. – Sca (talk) 21:50, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All hands needed on deck, as vast armies of vandals, trolls and Putinbots are clearly conspiring to keep "wearing terrible polo-neck sweaters" out of the criteria for RD blurbs (but fortunately it's not needed explicitly, as it makes him a transformative world leader in the field of fashion). Tlhslobus (talk) 06:02, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if joking? "Major transformative world leader" is the explicit standard for if one deserves a blurb. So maybe pull until everyone can review the agreed upon criterion? GreatCaesarsGhost 22:04, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's "major transformative world leaders in their field", isn't it. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:10, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not. It's "In rare cases, major transformative world leaders in their field". I assert that this is not such a case. Pull. If, a week from now, there are still wall-to-wall headlines about this person's death, you may all point at me and laugh about how I was wrong. —Cryptic 22:39, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So we first apply the MTWLITF bit. And then we whittle it down with an additional percentage criterion? What does "rare" mean? Only 5% of the leaders get posted? I must admit, I had always thought the "rare cases" to mean "rare cases of all RDs". Martinevans123 (talk) 22:54, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Post-posting pull - I actually do not expect this to be pulled (minimize disruption), but I am stating the obvious, the lack of sources on the recording section should have kept this off the RD or blurb to start. Any non-blue-linked work needs a reference. --Masem (t) 16:30, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The refs are pretty bad for works and awards, many an RD have been shot down for much less. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:44, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Which recordings do you believe are hoaxes, and what searches for sources have you tried? You have checked this first, right? Alright, I know the burden is on those supporting the blurb to get the sourcing sorted out, but now it's on the main page we might as well roll up our sleeves and help out. It'll get done in half the time. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:14, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's about quality, not contesting the information. A non-blue-linked source, I have no easy reference to look at to determine if he was involved with it. My !vote here is not so much to demand a pull but to issue my concern that it was posted with no acknowledgement about the poor reference for a main-page featured article that Martinevans pointed out. And its not that one or two missed references would be a problem, its that around 20% when I checked were unsourced, and that's just too high. --Masem (t) 17:44, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I want to stress that I never actually expected this to have been pulled. I can understand pulling a blurb that had been up under a couple hours , but this one was on the main page long enough to make the pull disruptive. I also note I would have supported a blurb in this case otherwise, outside the ref issues. --Masem (t) 16:43, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Pull upon reflection, it needs to come down. I'm rather surprised at some of the supports above, given the usual eye for missing refs and quality around here. There were recent RD noms that were shot down for unreferenced lists of works, not speedy posted as a blurb. Come on. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:17, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Pull - Is this real life? Looks like strong bias over here. So many unrefs in the article! Sherenk1 (talk) 03:18, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Pull - I'm not sure whether it's fair that the article has so many CNs (for instance some of the CNs were added in such a way that they broke wikilinks, which were then left unfixed until I fixed them just now). But the fact remains that it has about 80 CNs and 3 orange tags, including one at the start of the article, which is surely some kind of record for a front page blurbed article.Tlhslobus (talk) 06:37, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Pulled, neither blurb nor RD worthy as heavily tagged. Stephen 07:06, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb in principle. Obviously it had to go because of the ref issues, but if they're fixed it should go back to a blurb. He was certainly a transformative figure in the music world.  — Amakuru (talk) 07:40, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, only 64 56 ^{[citation needed]} tags left to go folks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:16, 2 March 2019 (UTC) Little point. Fighting a losing battle, it seems. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:33, 2 March 2019 (UTC) But now we're back down to 39 tags left to go...[reply]

• Comment – Pulling Previn makes English Wikipedia look very amateurish. Well, he's still on the French, German, Dutch, Danish and Norwegian Wikis. – Sca (talk) 13:50, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Most readers won't ever know. I suspect they'll just guess that English Wikipedia considers André Previn less notable than George Pell. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:09, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I know they ain't supposed to be relevant, but Google hits would also seem to suggest that Pell is more notable.Tlhslobus (talk) 14:35, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Pulling (which probably few readers will even notice) doesn't make us look anywhere near as amateurish as leaving the article linked to the front page with vast numbers of tags, which would be actively advertising our amateurishness. Though ironically the only remotely sensible argument for not pulling is that we are almost all supposed to be amateurs Tlhslobus (talk) 14:26, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I see "Les Wikifrogs" are happy to display AP in "Nécrologie" with a grand total of five sources.... sacre bleu! Martinevans123 (talk) 14:40, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE, no Gershwin! (Or Copeland, either.) – Sca (talk) 16:33, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Looks like he's being well rewarded for changing his name from Andreas Ludwig Priwin to André George Previn, even tho he should really have changed it to André Georges Prévin if he wanted a blurb. Tlhslobus (talk) 16:30, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Or even Andrew George Preview. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:40, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It was pulled because of 82 cn tags. Openlydialectic (talk) 14:36, 2 March 2019 (UTC) Blocked sock. Zingarese talk · contribs 05:17, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• We obviously have a debt of gratitude to whoever had the time and inclination to add those 82 separate tags. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:10, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"The Devil finds work...." – Sca (talk) 16:48, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose blurb on importance, oppose RD on quality still dozens of CN tags. No notability - virtually unheard of outside of the UK and a few other Western European countries. Considering how we barely managed to post blurb about the death of Indian Prime Minister who ruled the country for more than 10 years and gave it nukes, I strongly believe posting this guy would just look outrageously biased. But then again, we almost posted blurb about Chicago mayoral elections a week ago so what do I know. I guess soon we'll be posting mayoral elections in swiss villages and blurbs about deaths of local british DJs too. Openlydialectic (talk) 14:36, 2 March 2019 (UTC) Blocked sock. Zingarese talk · contribs 05:17, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense, as Swiss villages don't count as part of the Anglo-American world Tlhslobus (talk) 14:50, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

... "virtually unheard of outside of the UK and a few other Western European countries". Is that a joke? You're seriously comparing Previn to a "local british DJ"? Wow. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:41, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What an absurd comment, Openlydialectic. This is one of the most important figures in the arts world in the 20th century! And if he is “virtually unheard of outside the UK and a few other Western European countries”, explain how the hell he won four Oscars and ten Grammys!! I don’t need to go into details about what makes your comment so absurd, but just because you have not heard of Previn doesn’t mean other people haven’t. Zingarese talk · contribs 15:21, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The trouble is the rest of us are all living in some strange parrallel universe in which the British foolishly went home after burning down the White House in the War of 1812, so we ignorantly fail to realize that Oscars and Grammys are awards of the most glorious British Empire Tlhslobus (talk) 15:46, 2 March 2019 (UTC) [reply]

That's why we're so keen to post a blurb about a dead American-German. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:50, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, well, this user was just blocked indefinitely for evasion, so he needn't do any explaining now... Zingarese talk · contribs 03:48, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I saw it coming that the formality of lacking references would make "him" unfit for our holy Main page. However, the readers were interested in him even without it - the first day was Feb 28, before he appeared on the Main page. - Not that it belongs here, but to have Pell pictured (instead) hurts. Why give him prominence? No smiley. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:42, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree completely. I really think this pulling of Previn from the main page did more harm than good. Zingarese talk · contribs 15:21, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But on the plus said, we can now feel smug about the Überheiligkeit of our Holy Main Page, as Gerda calls it. – Sca (talk) 16:56, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I know of no more polite way to say it, but this is at least the 6th recent example of this particular posting admin jumping the gun. GreatCaesarsGhost 02:26, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Seemingly not on this occasion (assuming you're referring to the poster rather than the puller) - there was only 1 CN and no orange tags when the blurb was posted (see here) and the same when the article was earlier posted to RD (see here). There had been 4 unopposed supports for a blurb in the previous 15 hours, and the article was marked Ready for blurb, before the blurb was posted. Two minutes later another support was added by MartinEvans123, who had earlier said quality needed improving, but was seemingly now satisfied. Over 80 tags were added after the blurb was posted, most or all by just 1 user, since indefinitely blocked as a suspected sockpuppet (although many, most, or all of the tags would have been/ would be at least arguably legitimate, at least if they had been made by a legitimate editor - I'm not sure how we are supposed to treat them given that he wasn't legit) . Tlhslobus (talk) 07:00, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• One problem may have been the incorrect claim above (before the blurb was posted) that the discography had been content-forked when all that had happened was that it had been copied to a new Wikilinked article, but without being removed from the parent article; however many of the new tags were added outside the discography section, so a proper content fork would presumably not have been a complete solution. However 11 of these non-discography CNs (those for the Grammys) are arguably inappropriate (as well as added in such a way as to break existing wikilinks, which had to be fixed later), being arguably already covered in the 1 citation for the Grammy section , and have since been removed, so that a content fork may arguably now come fairly close to fixing our problem (tho a counter-argument is that our awards don't normally precisely match the source, with differences in wording and in year numbering, our years usually being 1 year ahead of the source's year both in the Previn article and in our Grammy articles (because the 2010 awards are given early in 2011, etc) , and we were/are linking to the wrong awards at least once (but it gets worse as his Lifetime achievement is 53rd Grammies, but we currently list all that year's Lifetime achievements as 52nd Grammies, etc, so just fixing this one digit error may be a fairly major hassle); also the source, www.grammy.com, confusingly says he won 10 Grammys but lists 13 wins for him, while we list 11). And so on. Tlhslobus (talk) 07:00, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• That seems a very fair analysis. As explained above, I'm sorry if my support for the blurb was premature or was less clear than it could have been. We're now down to only 36 indef-block-sock-tags, by the way. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:30, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• No need to apologize for such a peccadillo, Martin, otherwise this place may end up looking like a queue outside a Catholic confessional, and none of us will have any time to do any proper edits. Tlhslobus (talk) 15:15, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Maybe it would be a good idea to complete that fork? The RD nomination is not yet stale, although there are now three more on the table. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:06, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• So the solution for content which could fail WP:BLP is to whisk it off to another article? That feels like a cop-out to me. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:09, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• It was fine for Michel Legrand. In fact with a substantial article there's an argument for doing it anyway. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:22, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The fork might have to be changed from discography to 'discography and awards' (if that's legit - I'm not sure it is), as I gave up trying to fix the Grammies section after discovering that might be a lot harder than I had originally expected (for reasons partly mentioned above, and partly also at the Talk Page for the 52nd Grammy article). Tlhslobus (talk) 16:42, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I say, in a rather blasé way, "it was fine" but, just to remind everyone, a month later and we still have Michel Legrand discography, which also includes his filmography, and with a single source (for a computer game!). There's a small discussion at Wikipedia talk:In the news#Content forking around a BLP. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:01, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• From above: "The posting admin, however, should always judge the update and the consensus to post themselves". judge the update, seems clear to me, though I've not ascended to the ranks of adminship. Perhaps if we had not rushed this "critically important dead German jazz composer" to the front page in just 15 hours, the glaring defects would have been tagged and ITN spared the embarrassment. Oh well. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:09, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But the update (which in this case was just the bit saying Previn was dead) and consensus to post were fine. The problem (if there actually was one at the time, which seems debatable even with the help of hindsight) was with article quality, and I'm not sure who, if anyone, is supposed to be accountable for judging that. But even if it turns out that's also the responsibility of the posting admin, if posting admins are going to get crucified by us for a case as complex and unclear (and unusual) as this one, we may end up with a lot of infuriatingly unnecessary posting delays. Also, 15 hours here (actually quite a bit more if counting from nom time) doesn't seem outrageously short, at least to me. And almost all the blame for any brief and minor ITN embarrassment at least arguably belongs to a reckless POV-pushing sockpuppet, not to the posting admin. Tlhslobus (talk) 15:42, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Did you want to make any improvements at André Previn? I'm not sure he's a "dead German jazz composer", critically important or not. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:15, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Laserlegs doesn't work on content. However, while the RD was posted and I supported the blurb, and made a clear call on consensus, it was still down to the posting admin to read the article for quality. Oh, and forking off discographies, filmographies, or whatever, has been going on for a while so to be somehow surprised or disappointed is simply mildly amusing. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:20, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I read articles before !voting. Oh well. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:24, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and good for you, great job. Thanks for being that last line of defence, "your country needs you"! It does appear we may need to look at admins posting material too swiftly, regardless of consensus, as I noted, which is, as always, a shame. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:33, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In fairness, TRM, the fact that you gave this one the green light with your support vote may well have contributed to this one being posted prematurely. I don't disagree that the admin should have checked the thing over before posting, but given your eagle eye for all matters main page, I would personally tend to assume that something you've personally OKd is good to go, or at least less in need of detailed checking...  — Amakuru (talk) 11:36, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Haha. Laser, you were the first to congratulate the Admin on his speedy posting with your "two dead Germans in a box" comment! Martinevans123 (talk) 11:41, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I'm not sure you should load me with that responsibility. I'm not an admin, and the posting admin has made a few quick choices. If I could offer any reasoning to my position, I already have, it was posted as RD with no objection (at the time) and I simply offered my perspective that I believe Previn to have been transformative and thus worthy of a blurb. No point in pursuing blame beyond that, after all my opinions and posts could have simply been ignored, I'm not a superuser, more like a personnongratauser, so I'm not taking any flak on this one, admins need to take full and 100% responsibility for their actions when creating and updating the main page. Perhaps someone would like to encourage the posting admin to comment rather than uniquely conversing with one or two of the contributors. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:43, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't blaming you, just offering a potential scenario that may have occurred, and which may or may not be a reason for the premature posting. Anyway, I'm not going to get dragged into this any further... others can be the judge of what happens next. And if I'm ever posting stuff myself in future then I'll certainly take care whether the thing has your vote or not. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 11:52, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You shouldn't take care whoever is voting. It doesn't matter, the admin responsibility is to maintain the integrity of the main page, not to simply vote count, or even see a consensus where one doesn't exist. Admins are charged with this responsibility, and if they continually make errors of judgement in this regard, they should not be allowed the tools to continue to do so. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:58, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Repost I would not have pulled it. pbp 14:28, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks to User:Grimes2, only 6 tags now remain. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:26, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Repost debatable as to whether it should have ever been pulled in the first place. Lepricavark (talk) 20:53, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• So is this nomination stale yet or not? The small "Orchestral music" sub-section seems to be the main part of the residual problem. Sources could perhaps be found. Or it could be commented out while we search. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:09, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• It's not stale, there are older blurbs still in the box. The large "Jazz recordings as leader/co-leader" section missing refs is an issue. You can't comment out a list of what makes a person WP:Notable and still be "minimally comprehensive" as stipulated by WP:ITN I'm afraid. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:21, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, I thought that section was fully sourced. But I see now that about 30 albums (mostly relinks) need a source. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:25, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• don't repost - It was deplorable that "he" was pulled (instead of improved or shortened) for formality reasons, but to bring him back now would look even sader. What can we do to not let such a thing happen again? The stats show that our mentioning or not doesn't make a difference when the public is interested (note that the first peak was the day before he was posted), and not to show a person on the Main page in whom the public is interested is no service to readers. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:40, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Somewhat ironic. Maybe a re-vote is required for Previn, unless already stale of course. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:07, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• He could replace the last RD if the article was ready. Stephen 12:11, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I've commented out the giggling item as not important. However the "Orchestral music" sub-section is quite important - someone more familiar with classical music might be able to find sources or take the bold decision to comment it out while the search continues. Being the last entry means he's likely to be pushed off soon anyway. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:20, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Re-posting as a blurb is a separate question. Looks like it's not going to happen. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:27, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• News-wise, it's stale. After 4,200 words, suggest close. – Sca (talk) 16:45, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Cairo train disaster

(Posted) 2019 India–Pakistan standoff

Nominator's comments: This is a new article for a recently escalated conflict, and is worth mentioning in the Ongoing line, particularly since it involves two nations with nuclear bombs that are now apparently shooting down each other's aircraft. Mikael Häggström (talk) 12:25, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support ... in principle, as this tit-for-tat conflict – which seems more posturing for domestic consumption than anything else – is likely to go on for some time. Sca (talk) 13:24, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• We currently have a blurb about the airstrike. We can consider ongoing when it rolls off the list. Or update the blurb. But not having both at the same time. --Tone 13:23, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support updating blurb. We already have a blurb on the issue that's out of date. We should update the blurb and consider ongoing if necessary one it expires off ITN. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 16:04, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Also support updating the blurb, pointing to the 2019 India–Pakistan standoff article as it has the more updated information.Bless sins (talk) 17:00, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Not a war but a tit for tat airspace violation. This is over and not an ongoing war. At least not yet. There is no evidence or implication that any of the 2 countries will take further military action. Infact we have statemens where both countries have clearly indicated their stand that they have no intentions of escalating this. --DBigXrayᗙ 17:23, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you clarify your position? Are you opposing including this as "ongoing", or changing the blurb about the Balakot airstrike to include the India-Pakistan standoff, or both? There are two different proposals here.Bless sins (talk) 17:32, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support and I would say we need to take off "2019 Balakot airstrike" from ITN now since the recent conflict has moved ahead from that single incident. ML ^talk 17:47, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose leave and update the blurb, if it's still "in the news" when the blurb expires off, drop it into ongoing. When did "ongoing first" become all the rage? --LaserLegs (talk) 18:23, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Update blurb and once it rolls off, post into ongoing. Banedon (talk) 18:26, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per LaserLegs. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:38, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Propose updating the blurb to one of:
  • Military confrontation between India and Pakistan escalates after both countries conduct airstrikes.
  • India and Pakistan conduct airstrikes in each other's territory.
  • India and Pakistan skirmish in Kashmir; both claim to shoot down each other's fighter jets.
• Bless sins (talk) 22:53, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Update blurb rather than add to ongoing. Nice4What (talk) 00:24, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb The Balakot airstrike has now become an Indian offensive in this tit for tat aerial conflict and so I would support removing Balakot and instead updating blurb to first blurb proposed by Bless sins with the appendix of the phrase, "in each other's territory." Thus making it,
  • Military confrontation between India and Pakistan escalates after both countries conduct airstrikes in each other's territory. Amir (talk) 03:55, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Update blurb - As per Bless Sins Sherenk1 (talk) 04:50, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Update blurb - per Bless Sins. -Zanhe (talk) 05:41, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Remove the "2019 Balakot airstrike" because, now it much more than a single air strike. Pakistan has already responded in equal. Wikipedia shouldn't act as a mouthpieace for Modi. --43.251.252.148 (talk) 05:59, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I now also support blurb, as nominator, and added an alternative at top. Mikael Häggström (talk) 06:51, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
•  Posted blurb1 by Bless sins — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:01, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – Seems rather outdated. – Sca (talk) 02:42, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Altblurb can have this photo after it says "an air strike by India". wumbolo ^^^ 10:22, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Some editors have suggested in WP:ERRORS that this blurb needs an update, and some others have suggested it should be moved to Ongoing. Comments please? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:46, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• The military confrontation between India and Pakistan escalates ....

– Outdated – it's not escalating at present. This complex and frequently changing story belongs in Ongoing. – Sca (talk) 14:14, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I've moved it to ongoing for now. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:27, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Stephen: can you contribute to this discussion instead of just reverting? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:41, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per the other discussion on errors you mean? Stephen 21:49, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to “Heightened tensions remain between India and Pakistan after both countries conduct airstrikes.” Improvements welcomed. Stephen 22:25, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support move to Ongoing - on reflection I think MSGJ made the right call in moving it to Ongoing. It's true that the original story has been superseded by the thawing of relations in recent days, and the new phrasing makes it no longer look like a news story, but rather something which is ongoing... which is precisely the purpose of the Ongoing section Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 22:34, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  If there are no further comments then I will stick it back in ongoing — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:16, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Why not let it cycle off the list like every other item does? Stephen 12:20, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I suggest the blurb be updated to:

"Pakistan releases the captured Indian pilot of downed MiG-21 Bison as a 'peace gesture'."

Pakistan returns Indian pilot shot down over Kashmir in 'peace gesture' - The Guardian

Indian pilot handed back by Pakistan in ‘peace gesture’ - Arab News

Abhinandan: Captured Indian pilot handed back by Pakistan - BBC News120.18.121.9 (talk) 04:14, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) 2019 Nigerian general election

Nominator's comments: General Election in one of the most important African nations. Article is being updated. SirEdimon (talk) 04:42, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm really not sure how this works, but the leading opposition rejecting the result isn't such a big deal. All elections held in Nigeria since 2003 (except 2015) sees the opposition challenging the result in court. Something along ​Muhammadu Buhari(pictured) is reelected President of Nigeria seems OK by me. Pinging @Ammarpad: - for his views as an experienced ITN contributor. As I said earlier, I'm new to ITN so if this comment seems inappropriate, kindly remove. Regards, Mahveotm (talk) 10:40, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for the ping @Mahveotm: The blurbs are just suggestions and you can add alternatives like I just did. Also I don't think the rejection is that an uncommon thing to be worthy of mentioning in the blurb. –Ammarpad (talk) 10:57, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • If there were widespread reports by third parties (e.g. EU monitors) of irregularities, those would be worth mentioning. But that may not be the case here.Bless sins (talk) 17:34, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• In response to our posting of Putin's "reelection" last year, I suggested that show election should not be posted as they are not inherently newsworthy. I was met with near universal consensus that it is not for us to weigh in on the legitimacy of elections. Fair enough, but that must hold here, too. We should not suggest Buhari's victory is tainted while refraining from a similar comment for show elections. ghost 15:12, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support the blurb as is.Bless sins (talk) 17:34, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I included the "...and the oppositionist Atiku Abubakar rejects the results." because I saw it in some important newspapers. But I'm not an expert in Nigerian politics, so I accept any other blub suggested. No problem for me.--SirEdimon (talk) 21:25, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted Stephen 01:08, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• ​Comment. Photo. wumbolo ^^^ 10:11, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree with Wumbolo. Can we please take down the photo of the convicted child molester Pell and replace it with the President of Nigeria? -Zanhe (talk) 23:10, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) 2019 Taplejung helicopter crash

(Closed) Rabindra Prasad Adhikari

(Posted) RD: Wang Yening

Nominator's comments: She died on the 22nd, but it was not reported until the 26th. Zanhe (talk) 05:49, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Article seems fine to me.--SirEdimon (talk) 06:00, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
•  Posted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:41, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) 2019 Chicago mayoral election

(Posted) 2019 Balakot airstrike

Nominator's comments: A major international event. The terrorist camps in Pakistan were hit. Pakistan confirmed that incursions by the Indian Air Force occurred and Pakistani jets were scrambled in response. DBigXrayᗙ 06:45, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support based on the significance of the event. The story is still developing. The article needs expansion with additional information before posting. Regards,-Nizil (talk) 06:57, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Altblurb V: Indian military aircrafts dropped bombs in Balakot, Pakistan.
• Proposed most neutral altblurb5. It is a claim which both nations agree upon without any dispute. Voice your opinion.-Nizil (talk) 16:08, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - As above. Sherenk1 (talk) 06:59, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sherenk1, the problem with Blurb2 is that it is factually incorrect, they are "Pakistani" militants. Jaish-e-Mohammed#Membership consists primarily of Pakistani citizens and not Kashmiris as it is being claimed in the blurb2.--DBigXrayᗙ 09:00, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:DBigXray This is the wording used in BBC news article.Sherenk1 (talk) 09:35, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - I support it in principle as it seems to be an important diplomatic event for that region. The article is small, but for sure it'll be improved in a short time. Like everything that involves the relations between India and Pakistan, it's a controversial matter, so I suggest we be very careful with the blurb and all the information on the article before publishing it.--SirEdimon (talk) 07:09, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind comments.SirEdimon, indeed since it is a controversial matter, the blurb I proposed is based on news that is confirmed by both Indian and Pakistani official sources. Even Pakistani ISI Spox has confirmed that Balakote was bombed by Indian jets. Source: Dawn (a Pakistani Newspaper that kowtows official narrative) --DBigXrayᗙ 07:15, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DBigXray I think you misunderstood it. I did not specifically criticize your blurb. I spoke in a general way, as this matter is very contentious, I think, in a general way, we should be prudent to avoid issues. This is what I meant.--SirEdimon (talk) 07:22, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. I clarified just in case someone else has this thought. Regards.--DBigXrayᗙ 07:26, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment as usual, the article needs a copy edit. "pre-emptive" is a marketing term, added alt-blurb 3. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:30, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem with your blurb is that it is denied by Pakistan, who insists that the raid hit no militant at all. --BorgQueen (talk) 12:06, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • "India conducts airstrikes targeting the militant group Jaish-e-Mohammed in Balakot, Pakistan." 159.53.110.142 (talk) 12:24, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's why I said "suspected" --LaserLegs (talk) 12:44, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

...and we can hardly have a blurb that says "India pretends to launch an airstrike...", etc., whatever the BBC say; we'd be laughing stocks! ——SerialNumber54129 12:46, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, alt blurb 3 looks OK to me. Nsk92 (talk) 12:50, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, but none of the blurbs seem okay. I don't agree that the militants targeted were Kashmiri militants. The territory where the strikes allegedly happened is undisputed Pakistani territory (India does not claim this land) called Khyber Pakhtunwala. The people residing there may not be Kashmiris. Alt blurb 3 is okay for me if you remove "Kashmiri". Breakfastisready (talk) 14:03, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Breakfastisready  I added blurb4 based on your feedback. Even  I support the same. --DBigXrayᗙ 14:23, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Wait – Potentially significant, but no reliable sources provide NPOV info on results. India says hundreds killed, Pakistan says none. – Sca (talk) 14:33, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right, but reliable sources reliably report India claiming 100's and Pakistan claiming 0. No issue here. WP:VNT applies --LaserLegs (talk) 15:15, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but just repeating opposite, mutually exclusive claims doesn't inform readers very well. This incident could be just a footnote or a new chapter, depending on what actually happened on the ground. Sca (talk) 15:45, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The airstrike happened, we can inform readers of that, and inform them about the conflicting reports of casualties from the involved parties. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:39, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – Major development in Asia with huge implications in India-Pakistani relations. Article is good and this is in the news right now. MX (✉ • ✎) 16:43, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support altblurb IV or V. India's unverified claims who was targeted should not be in the blurb. Regards SoWhy 17:18, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – India has claimed that Pakistan retaliated with heavy shelling along the Line of Control in Jammu and Kashmir. I think this should also be added. (NDTV news article) --ASF23 (talk) 17:29, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, this remains a developing story. Wait. Sca (talk) 18:14, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

•  Working Bringing article up to ITN standards. --QEDK (後 ☕ 桜) 18:25, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Very cool ideogram. Sca (talk) 23:00, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Indian General Elections will take place in April. These airstrikes are just an attempt by the Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi to be seen as a strong leader. These won't have any lasting impact. --Suraj.sharma.1992 (talk) 18:45, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Suraj.sharma.1992: Even if that is true, (it just seems to be your opinion at the moment) the motivation of the attack is not relevant as to whether it merits posting to ITN. If anything, attacking another country for political purposes at home is more of a reason to post it, not less. 331dot (talk) 18:48, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See this: "This Is Called 56-Inch Chest": BJP Leader Praises PM Over Balakot Strike. Operations like these are used by the PM to project that he is astrong leader. --Suraj.sharma.1992 (talk) 19:01, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Following articles also say this: 1 2 3 4 --Suraj.sharma.1992 (talk) 20:37, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See this CNN article: Why being seen as tough on Pakistan helps India's Modi --Suraj.sharma.1992 (talk) 22:11, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Which only proves that the attack is significantly in the news, and those reading about it in the news might find it helpful to easily locate the Wikipedia article about it. These are reasons to post it, not keep it off. 331dot (talk) 22:13, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. I have withdrawn Oppose vote. --Suraj.sharma.1992 (talk) 22:29, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support on both quality and significance. This is a really good article! It just doesn't have any photo. I'm not sure which blurb is the best. wumbolo ^^^ 23:31, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as an international incident that's clearly newsworthy. Favour a combination of alt blurb & alt 3: both say what happened, and why India are doing it. Banedon (talk) 23:39, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - and ready to be posted.BabbaQ (talk) 23:40, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Posting ALT4. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:09, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Muboshgu. Can someone give the credits. Regards.--DBigXrayᗙ 04:26, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Post-posting comment – Needs updating, as Pakistan says two Indian warplanes downed, two pilots captured. [11], [12], [13]. This topic really belongs in Ongoing (see nom. above). – Sca (talk) 13:37, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) George Pell

Nominator's comments: This dovetails nicely with the allegedly ITN-worthy summit the Pope held earlier and can be folded into that blurb if so desired. Abductive (reasoning) 08:28, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Significance needs to be assessed with the knowledge that Pell was convicted on 11 December and our article stated this soon after (th e blurb should be refactored to be clear on this). It is only making the press today because the Australian gagging order has been lifted. Some foreign press such as the Washington Post reported it at the time - Dumelow (talk) 08:40, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support. (If article us up to scratch). This is the major story about this at the moment, not the pope's summit which shouldn't even have been posted. The Pell conviction is front page news in the UK, France, US etc. and is of general news worthiness for ITN.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:42, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support posting the conviction of such a high ranking church official. 331dot (talk) 11:55, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any thoughts on the staleness? If WaPo had it in December, surely the word got back to the Aussies, no? ghost 12:28, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • The news clearly indicates that this decision hasn't been publicly release until today because of a potential parallel legal case, which has been dropped due to lack of evidence. We have no need to worry about "staleness". The Rambling Man (talk) 13:21, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree that this is not stale; it is an unusual case of timing. --Masem (t) 14:21, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support vitally important newsworthy quality story. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:19, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – Support in terms of significance, but it really should link to a separate article on Pell's trial and conviction. The target biographical article, in its first sentence, identifies him as "an Australian prelate ... and the Church's most senior official to be convicted of a sexual offence." Normal bio articles don't usually spotlight the subject's most egregious misdeed right off the bat. Apropos BLP, note that Pell says he plans to appeal. And more than one source is mandatory. – Sca (talk) 14:57, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment this OR the Popes summit, not both. At some point we need to stop reporting every minor development in the internal scandals of a private members organization. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:15, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination should be considered on its own. At times it's been a fairly high-profile story in the English-speaking world. Sca (talk) 15:49, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose That's a fine argument at ITNC, but we should still consider the risk of giving undue weight on the main page to clergy rape stories when a) the summit was a nothing-burger and b) the conviction of Pell was widely reported months ago. It's an accepted fact the clergy at all levels were engaged in this behavior. Many have been convicted. It seems the argument for posting today is a) this is the official announcement of the conviction and b) this guy is a cardinal. This is perverted logic; the fact that he's a cardinal has no impact on his ability to commit crimes and be convicted of them. ghost 16:20, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This user does not reply to users who don't exist. – Sca (talk) 16:28, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ghosts are people too, you know. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:36, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Were people, you mean. Sca (talk) 17:09, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But do Scas exist, and, if so, what are they? (Admittedly I'm also not too sure about the existence and nature of tlhslobusses either, but then consistency is reportedly the hobgoblin of little minds) Tlhslobus (talk) 15:00, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think it's fair to call it "widely reported months ago" when it was not reported in Australia, Pell's home country, at all until yesterday. -dmmaus (talk) 05:02, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Australia has the internet. It may not have been reported in the MSM due to the gag rule, but even the great firewall of China could not have prevented this info from reaching anyone who cared. Separately, I'm striking my opposition in light of the fact that posting this would bump the pope story, thus greatly mitigating UNDUE concerns. GreatCaesarsGhost 18:58, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Considering how rare it is that major members of the clergy are convicted of such crimes and the widespread reporting, this seems to be ITN worthy. I understand the problem with staleness but agree with my fellow editors above although the blurb needs to be rephrased to clarify that. Regards SoWhy 17:14, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose on article quality. There are multiple CN tags that need to be resolved. Weak Support on significance. We already have the Vatican's summit posted (which I opposed). Posting two stories on what is realistically the same topic does look UNDUE. IMO this is by far the more relevant but I don't like having both up on ITN.. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:28, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose per LaserLegs - one or the other, but not both. I'm OK with merging this into the Vatican summit blurb. Banedon (talk) 23:35, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support on notability. This is notable, and is news worldwide. The article has several cn-tags though. Davey2116 (talk) 08:02, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Davey2116. The cn tags have been fixed. This is definitely notable, and its posting will push the Vatican summit off ITN, so there won't be two blurbs about the same topic, a concern raised by some. -Zanhe (talk) 00:34, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted Stephen 01:55, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Blurb may be OK, but why do we add a child molester's picture on the front page?--Joseph (talk) 18:05, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Because he's in the news? We have criminals' pictures on the main page regularly, in all the different sections, if an article about them is in the appropriate slot. ‑ Iridescent 20:05, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) School strike for climate

(Posted) RD: Paulo Nogueira Neto

Nominator's comments: Brazilian environmentalist. Fuebaey (talk) 21:31, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Article seems fine to me.--SirEdimon (talk) 23:08, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Article has an unsourced section — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:13, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I fixed that - sourced the list of publications. Dropped one from 1955 not found, added two more recent ones. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:48, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted Stephen 22:34, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Beverley Owen

Nominator's comments: Start Class article with everything sourced. The news reports were only published on 25 Feb, even though she died on 21. DBigXrayᗙ 16:25, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Support It's a bit thin, but I believe it passes muster for RD. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:39, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good enough. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:20, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Article is small, but well referenced.--SirEdimon (talk) 23:24, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• If she died on 21 Feb then this one is stale unfortunately. What are the rules regarding late reports? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:15, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MSGJ we have a very recent example of the Argentina footballer Emiliano Sala. His RD was posted after confirmed reports were published. I think it is fair to consider the date of the reports of death to decide stale or not. There is no way anyone can nominate an RD unless death is reported in media. --DBigXrayᗙ 19:14, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Posted as last item, there's nothing that will bump her for a while. Stephen 22:48, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Ernst-Wolfgang Böckenförde

Nominator's comments: Important German expert for constitutional law, former judge of the German Constitutional Court. Zwerg Nase (talk) 14:31, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as nominator. Have added references, hopefully sufficient. Zwerg Nase (talk) 14:31, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Decent article and adequately sourced. No issues. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:40, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Although since it's RD only, that's not necessary. But influential in his field for sure. (Nice work, Zwerg.) Sca (talk) 18:22, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
•  Posted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:20, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Mark Hollis

Nominator's comments: Known as the singer of English pop-rock band Talk Talk. While an official date of death has not yet been confirmed, Hollis has been reported dead as of 25 February 2019. —BLZ · talk 01:36, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Fully referenced article so far as I can see. Exact date and cause of death have not yet been reported in any reliable sources, though the fact of his death has been widely reported. A very well-respected and much-loved musical figure. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:38, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Sufficiently relevant, sufficiently referenced. Mark in wiki (talk) 09:43, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted. Black Kite (talk) 11:07, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Biman Bangladesh Airlines Flight 147

(Posted) RD: Mac Wiseman

Nominator's comments: Start Class article with everything sourced. American bluegrass music (country) artist. --DBigXray (talk) 11:04, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Short, but there's enough there for the main page. Scrupulously referenced. --Jayron32 14:08, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose In its present state, insufficient coverage of the subject's musical career to merit RD posting. Spencer^T•C 15:37, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• User:Spencer thanks for your kind feedback, I have now expanded the Music career. While it is far from GA I believe the article now deserves the ITN RD slot. --DBigXrayᗙ 16:59, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the expansion. I think more could be added regarding the subject's career, but it meets minimum standards, so I will weak support. Best, Spencer^T•C 20:29, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

•  Posted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:16, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Lothar Zenetti

Nominator's comments: Writer and publicist, influential hymnwriter - I began his article in 2016. Sad. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:42, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Short, but there's enough there for the main page. Scrupulously referenced. --Jayron32 14:09, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
•  Posted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:18, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Margaret Scott (dancer)

Nominator's comments: influential ballet dancer, article looked already decent when I checked --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:32, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support The organization, with every paragraph getting its own header, is a bit whack, but I won't hold up the nom over that. Everything is referenced, the article covers the breadth of her life. --Jayron32 14:10, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
•  Posted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:22, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) 91st Academy Awards

Nominator's comments: Preping this with only two awards to go in the ceremony (Director and Film). The article has been updated as it has gone on, and it is more than just tables (it discusses the controversy of the host) Masem (t) 04:05, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment and support. All the awards are in now. References seem adequate for a recently made article. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 05:11, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support updated and ready IMO. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:47, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Presenters need a reference. Also, we usually also mention which movie got the most awards if it is not the best picture winner. --Tone 08:06, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  As of now, the entire presenters list has 7 distinct references. I'm not sure we need an 8th. --Jayron32 14:13, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I can't find anything wrong. Looks good to go. Favor alt2, second choice alt1. Alt2 is, IIRC, how we have usually formatted these sorts of postings in the past, but if people prefer alt1, it's OK also. --Jayron32 14:13, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer alt1. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 15:02, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Is alt2 even gramatical? I can't parse it — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:07, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  If you take out "with four" it is much better — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:14, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support the original blurb. Including the tally winner is just a habit, not an obligation. IMO, it looks odd when the number is so small. ghost 16:16, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • A concern of mine is that 4 awards are not great. Unless those four locked up Best Picture, Director, Actor and Actress (a sort of trifecta), 4 is a relatively small number. --Masem (t) 16:55, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Posting. I'll mention Bohemian Rhapsody since it at least got the Best Actor of the big ones, also giving the opportunity to use a picture of Rami Malek. Feel free to change. --Tone 16:58, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Antoine Gizenga

Nominator's comments: Congolese politician. Fuebaey (talk) 19:52, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment He was the DRC's Deputy Prime Minister in 1960 under Patrice Lumumba, led a breakaway government from 1960 until 1961, and was Prime Minister of the DRC from 2006 until 2008. One of the Congo's more famous politicians, and one of the last of his generation to die. -Indy beetle (talk) 19:58, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Looks okay — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:16, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted Stephen 23:09, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Vatican sexual abuse summit

Nominator's comments: Unprecedented summit on clerical sexual abuse. It ran from Feb. 21-24. Article was thrown together just now, so there might be some things missing. Could use some pictures. Ununseti (talk) 15:32, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support posting. You've done a good job with the article — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:14, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• We typically post summits when they result in something significant, which does not seem to be the case here. Stephen 23:08, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Support – It certainly has gotten a lot of coverage, and Francis's statement comparing sexual abuse of children in the Church to pagan child-sacrifice rites does seem noteworthy. Sca (talk) 23:19, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - the summit is unprecedented and tries to address a serious issue that's widely reported and has global impact. Article quality is good. -Zanhe (talk) 02:01, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Stephen. The summit has been criticized as long on rhetoric but short on substance. Which criticism does not appear to have gotten much attention in the article. Also there have been some very public complaints to the effect that certain topics were off limits at the meeting including the abuse of seminarians and the question of the prevalence of homosexuality within the clergy. Agan, I'm not seeing much discussion of this within the article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:37, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Zanhe. Seems kind of like a big deal. ―MattLongCT -Talk-^☖ 03:27, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, as sources say, "short on details". Also posting this would run afoul of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Abductive (reasoning) 04:16, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Major event in the history of the largest Christian denomination. Received massive international news coverage. Perceived inadequacies in the results, the day after its conclusion, also run afoul of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 05:05, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I'm on the fence on significance, but quality more than compensates for that. I don't follow the WP:RGW argument. If we were posting clergy molestation stories back in the 80s, yeah, that would be RGW because we'd be drawing attention to that which was otherwise being kept quiet or denied. ghost 12:35, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Prominently covered by news source, and Wikipedia has a decent article to highlight. Checks all the right boxes. --Jayron32 14:14, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Conditionally. There are two cn templates in the article that need to be referenced. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:52, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I added an infobox with the summit's logo since no photo has been added yet, hope that helps. Nice4What (talk) 15:16, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I've been seeing this in the news a lot recently. I added refs for those two cns. Ahiijny (talk) 15:17, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I support this but I feel the blurb needs a bit more to explain what happened or will happen. I know the next step appears to be the Vatican writing out new policies and processes for dealing with the issues around the matters. Just saying a summit was held gives no context. --Masem (t) 16:02, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support on notability - very much in the news and quality is up to par --DannyS712 (talk) 20:33, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I have commented so will not post, but I have marked it as ready — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:05, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted Stephen 22:22, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Unlike the Pell story (see above), unless there is something I'm missing, this doesn't seem like a world changing story. Not sure what the significance is.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:45, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Li Xueqin

Nominator's comments: The most famous living historian in China, until now. Zanhe (talk) 02:13, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Looks fine to me. -- Ununseti (talk) 15:37, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Looks good.  Posted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:08, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Douglas

Nominator's comments: Brazilian actor. Fuebaey (talk) 20:23, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Looks OK to me. –Ammarpad (talk) 03:56, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Thought I'd stick my beak in, and the article could turn out to be a cracker. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:09, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Not just pining for the fjords, it seems. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:30, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
•  Posted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:57, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: the notability of this article has now been challenged. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:40, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Proposed deletion rationale is as follows: "This is a parrot that had one film role. Not at all notable. Most actors/actresses who have had only one film role usually have their wikipedia pages deleted as there isn't enough merit to this 'celebrity' status. Same should apply to animal actors." Martinevans123 (talk) 23:03, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• It's no longer on the MP.--SirEdimon (talk) 23:06, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• So perhaps this entry should state: "(Pulled)"? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:15, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure if it was pulled. I think it left the MP because new RDs took its place.--SirEdimon (talk) 23:34, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Yup. This happens sometimes when there's a lot of RDs on one particular day. There's got to be a DYK here though, surely? Black Kite (talk) 23:36, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Martinevans123: But it wasn't pulled. It moved off the end of the template like all postings do, it just moved really really fast (see this edit). --DannyS712 (talk) 23:37, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh, I see. Thanks for the clarification. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:38, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @Martinevans123: ...and @Stephen just put it back with this edit --DannyS712 (talk) 23:40, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Given that we've moved to 6 RDs if they fit on 2 lines, I've put him back. Stephen 23:40, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, too confused to keep track any more. The PROD has now been removed anyway. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:42, 25 February 2019 (UTC) .... let's hope it doesn't get "nailed to its perch." [reply]

Pretty flighty RD stint. Maybe that means he's not still dead? A winged vampire? Sca (talk) 16:53, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Assam alcohol poisonings

(Posted) RD: Stanley Donen

Nominator's comments: Director of Singin’ in the Rain. Article is rated GA class. Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:28, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Provisional support - director and producer of one of my favourite films, Bedazzled ("You fill me with inertia"). Although a GA there are a few issues with unsourced claims, I've tagged those pending a fix. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:43, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Article text seems reasonably referenced. The filmography, as is often the case, is not referenced at all. Capitalistroadster (talk) 15:56, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose – All his films are referenced in the body. There is no need for citations again. We just need to take care of the 6 citations needed. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 16:21, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. The filmography is also fully sourced in a separate article. I'd be happy to look over the other refs.--Phibesfan (talk) 18:02, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All citations accounted for. User:Yorkshiresky did some great work and hopefully will vote. I think some of the unreferenced info was added after it became a GA.--Phibesfan (talk) 19:02, 23 February 2019 (UTC)--Phibesfan (talk) 19:02, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support, but also believe that it should be a main headline instead of just Recent Deaths.--Phibesfan (talk) 19:35, 23 February 2019 (UTC)--Phibesfan (talk) 19:35, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I believe all the outstanding issues have been addressed. yorkshiresky (talk) 19:12, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support on quality; no comment on notability/blurb. Marked as ready --DannyS712 (talk) 22:29, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
•  Posted in RD. Blurb will need more explicit consensus for that — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:30, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: This peppering citations into filmography list is imho a bit nonsensical. Did you actually discuss/check that with Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers, other film related projects pages and with peoples writing articles in that area. To my knowledge filmography entries only need to have citations in cases were a verification might be difficult. That means in particular cases which are not listed in various film databases and/or film that are hard to accees. Also note each filmography entry is already a primary source for itself of sorts and this only fails for films which are lost. So in particular adding citations in Donen filmography seems completely unnecessary.--Kmhkmh (talk) 23:52, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shipping of humanitarian aid to Venezuela

Nominator's comments: I know I'm nominating this some days late, but the event is not stale. Worthy of mention is also the burning of three trucks containing aid; there has been a lot of coverage regarding the event. The crisis will probably have important news while it is ongoing, and we don't know for sure how much it will last. That said, I truly think that nominations should have a blurb when a notable event in Venezuela happens, such as this ammount of these deaths. I encourage any recommendation and fix regarding grammar. Jamez42 (talk) 14:09, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak oppose this is already in Ongoing, isn't it? Also, it seems to have dropped off international news already. Banedon (talk) 11:12, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Morgan Woodward

Nominator's comments: Start Class article about an American actor with everything sourced. DBigXrayᗙ 09:14, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Posted Stephen 21:59, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted to Ongoing) Sudanese protests (2018–19)

Nominator's comments: Important political event in Africa. Article needs to be updated. --SirEdimon (talk) 03:46, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Sounds like this might be an Ongoing posting, if updated, I'm not sure. 331dot (talk) 11:03, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Better suited for Ongoing, and it needs some copyediting. –Ammarpad (talk) 12:15, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support on significance, but the narrative needs a lot of work. We should feel no need to rush to post; this story is not going stale. Ongoing does seem like the best option. ghost 02:09, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as one of the lead authors (weirdly). The central and regional governments were just dissolved. That's rather big news. Compare the monthly views to Yellow Vest Movement which did not lead to government dissolutions (only to one mayor being sent off to the Conseil Constitutionnel). Help improving the article would be appreciated. ^^ SashiRolls ^{t · c} 14:19, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Now that this is an ongoing nom, it fulfills the criteria. Article is pretty good. Davey2116 (talk) 17:42, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted to ongoing — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:03, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) RD: Clark James Gable

(Closed) RD: Brody Stevens

(Closed) Biodiversity loss

(Posted) Four new letters in DNA alphabet

 Banedon (talk) 05:18, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Cool concept, but so theorhetical as to what it could mean. If it were the discovery of four new naturally occurring base pairs, that might more significant, but this seems far too novel to have any real application now. --Masem (t) 06:59, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why would discovery of new naturally occurring base pairs be more significant? Banedon (talk) 11:24, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Maybe The article needs work to explain what's new rather than just speculation. And the blurb needs work because the concept is four new letters rather than four new alphabets. The potential is enormous though. I suppose that evolution already tried and rejected this way of doing things but introducing alien DNA into our environment could literally change life as we know it. Andrew D. (talk) 10:35, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose this has no context at all, completely "meh?" moment. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:54, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Soft approve Scientific research and success are notable, this certainly is interesting. doktorb _words^deeds 20:06, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, but to 99.9995% of our readers, it's intractable. Could you suggest a blurb which is meaningful and contextual to the masses? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:30, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Scientists manufacture DNA with 8 bases."? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:08, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose – Rather obscure; significance unclear. Sca (talk) 21:33, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Creating artificial nucleobases and doubling the number of DNA letters is absolutely revolutionary. Nobody can tell what the long-term implications will be (this could lead to things we can't even imagine), but it'll surely be more significant than 100% of the sports tournaments we regularly feature on ITN. The research is published in Science so it's solid, and the article is good quality, kudos to Drbogdan. -Zanhe (talk) 06:34, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Yes - *entirely* agree with comments above supporting (or approving) this proposed candidate for ITN - another possible blurb (or equivalent) may be as follows: "Scientists create viable DNA, using four additional new bases, greatly expanding the types of life forms that may exist in the universe." - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:20, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • We don't know if it's "viable". Yes, it forms a double helix but they haven't shown anything like replicability, and decoding to actual proteins. Also "may exist" is far too speculative. Basically, this is far too basic research at the current state for the ITN; if they demonstrated a viable single cell organism that actually used the 8-base DNA, then that might be worth talking about. --Masem (t) 16:37, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Masem: Apparently, the researchers adapted an enzyme ("T7 polymerase") to produce unnatural "Hachimoji genes", which, in turn, were used to produce unnatural "Hachimoji RNA", and later, "Hachimoji proteins".^[1][and related refs at "Hachimoji DNA#References"?] - afaik - this is, in itself, at least a form of "viable DNA" I would think - although there may be greater degrees/levels of "viability" as noted of course - in addition - expanding the usual genetic code from 4 natural bases to 8 bases suggest that the usual 4 natural bases (A,C,G,T) are not unique to producing a successful molecular genetic system - and, as a result, opens up the possibility of life existing in the universe of a kind not as we know it - iac - hope this helps in some way - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 18:37, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- Added an alternate blub. There is no need to dumb it down. Readers can go to the links and learn more. We have a Featured Article on DNA and an OK article on Nucleobase. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 15:01, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support alt-blurb 2. I've got no idea what this is, but it sounds cool so let's post it Openlydialectic (talk) 15:54, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose using DNA for data storage is over-hyped vaporware, and this is still just a lab demonstration. I'm not convinced it is as important as its proponents think it is. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:56, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, with some preference for the original blurb but the alt blurbs are also OK. This is not about storing data, but about scientists creating, for the first time ever, four new basic blocks of life. Nsk92 (talk) 17:26, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Interesting story, in the news, and article looks okay. Support — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:24, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per above. Davey2116 (talk) 03:56, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:12, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank for that! I just learned= something new! :) ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 04:46, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The good news is, we got Mr. Iconic's dark glasses out of the ITN box. – Sca (talk) 15:26, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]