[Closed] RD: Amar Ezzahi

[Posted] World Chess Championship 2016

Article: World Chess Championship 2016 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Magnus Carlsen (pictured) defeats Sergey Karjakin to retain the World Chess Championship title. (Post)
News source(s): Euronews, The Guardian
Credits:

• Nominated by Kiril Simeonovski (talk · give credit)

Article updated
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

Nominator's comments: The article is being updated as the tie-breaker is going on. We can post it once the winner is known. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:56, 30 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support since it's one of the regular sports items to feature. Personally I'm in favour of replacing "win" with "retain", i.e. Magnus Carlsen defeats Sergey Karjakin to retain the World Chess Championship . What wording did we use when Carlsen retained the championship in 2014 (23-Nov-2014)? Adpete (talk) 00:42, 1 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support. The 2013 listing was here. The 2014 listing is here. Carcharoth (talk) 00:49, 1 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2013 was different because the challenger (Carlsen) won. 2014 wording was "Magnus Carlsen successfully defends his World Chess Championship title against the challenger Viswanathan Anand.", though I think the proposed wording here (with "retain" instead of "win") is tighter and better. Adpete (talk) 00:57, 1 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Me too. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 19:11, 1 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

[Closed] New Yemen government

[Closed] Korea protests

[Closed] India base attack

New Safe Confinement placed over reactor

Articles: New Safe Confinement (talk · history · tag) and Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ New Safe Confinement, world's largest moveable metal structure, was placed over the stricken fourth reactor in the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant to replace old sarcophagus. (Post)
News source(s): (RFE/RF), (Reuters), The Guardian, (Fox news), (DW)
Credits:

• Nominated by Jenda H. (talk · give credit)

 Jenda H. (talk) 13:53, 29 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Oppose for now pending article improvement. Interesting story, and comprehensive article, but sadly the article is mostly unreferenced, and needs a lot of citation work to bring it up to main page readiness. Fix that and you'd have my support. --Jayron32 14:04, 29 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose as nominated. As stated above, there needs to be more referencing. Additionally, the article doesn't make it clear whether this is actually complete or not; the lede notes that it should be completed in 2017. An otherwise surprisingly nice and thorough article, though, and I'd love to see this on ITN.128.214.53.104 (talk) 14:07, 29 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Wait – Until structure is completed and, so to speak, takes effect. Sca (talk) 15:41, 29 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Or we risk meltdown on the mainpage? Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 14:17, 30 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

^{Lug, have you considered changing your user name to Ripper? Sca (talk) 16:04, 1 December 2016 (UTC)}Reply[reply]

Have you ever seen a Commie drink a glass of water? Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 18:45, 1 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

^{Vodka is what they drink, isn't it? Sca (talk) 17:01, 2 December 2016 (UTC)}Reply[reply]

PS: After reading a couple current stories, I'm not sure to what extent the new structure may already be containing the radiation — ?? Sca (talk) 15:59, 29 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PPS: As I understand it, the new structure doesn't "replace" the old sarcophagus, it encloses it – along with the rest of the plant. Sca (talk) 16:03, 29 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

According to my sources it will be used for disposal of reactor and sarcophagus in future so it must be able to somehow contain radiation. However the selling will be indeed completed next year that is correct. --Jenda H. (talk) 16:19, 30 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

^{Did you mean ceiling, not selling? Cheers. Sca (talk) 16:00, 1 December 2016 (UTC)}Reply[reply]

• In principle this should be posted, but article is completely unreferenced. I recommend linking Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant since that one is decently updated. Nergaal (talk) 17:59, 30 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose on article quality. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:16, 30 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support and I don't agree with the opposers. --Fixuture (talk) 18:19, 30 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Could you just clarify that, my oppose is on article quality, right now the Chernobyl New Safe Confinement article has no fewer than ten maintenance tags. Ordinarily we don't post articles at ITN with one. Which part of my oppose do you disagree with? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:24, 30 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  @Fixuture: I would add that merely posting "support" does not provide much assistance in determining consensus(see "Please do not.." above). Could you elaborate? 331dot (talk) 19:28, 30 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  @The Rambling Man: & @331dot: I simply disagree that the article quality is unsuitable for inclusion in the In The News section, no matter the count of maintenance tags. At worst case simply remove all those uncited sections - the article would be good enough without them (and readd them later once people added references on the talk page). --Fixuture (talk) 19:52, 30 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Removing all the unreferenced information in the article would render it a stub. Not worthwhile. If you're that keen to see this promoted, the best you can do is to start improving the article because, and I know this 100%, it will never be posted in its current state, no matter what. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:35, 30 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Oppose While the ceiling has been placed over the facility, the end walls have not been built so the structure is not complete. Wait until it is complete in August, 2017. Mamyles (talk) 15:31, 1 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

[Closed] RD: Cléber Santana

[Posted] LaMia Airlines Flight 2933

Article: LaMia Airlines Flight 2933 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ A charter aircraft crashes in Medellín, Colombia, with the Chapecoense football team on board, killing 76 people. (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

• Nominated by The Rambling Man (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Breaking news, there are fatalities and there are survivors, that seems to be all that's clear at the moment. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:11, 29 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support but note that casualty numbers are not confirmed at this stage. What is reported is that there are six survivors so far. Mjroots (talk) 08:27, 29 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 08:31, 29 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support, although, as Mjroots said, do note the number of casualties is unconfirmed at this point. WPancake (talk) 08:57, 29 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Wait until numbers are confirmed. 197.15.224.56 (talk) 09:40, 29 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support Now numbers are confirmed. Smurrayinchester 09:41, 29 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(I would advise not using the current image though - it's an old one, and it shows the aircraft in Air France livery, not LaMia.) Smurrayinchester 10:10, 29 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment looks ready now. I would also advocate leaving the last story on ITN to help balance the main page, per my report at WP:ERRORS. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:56, 29 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Posted Smurrayinchester 10:33, 29 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• 4 people originally listed in the passengers' list did not embark, bringing the death toll to 71. The source is in Portuguese [here]. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 21:20, 29 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Please post this to WP:ERRORS where it may be ignored for 18 to 24 hours and then finally actioned by a decent admin. Nothing will come of it here. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:21, 29 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Thanks, I didn't know where to report it. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 21:28, 29 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  The death toll is correctly 71 at the article. Yes, you are right, the ITN blurb on the main page has to catch up. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:29, 29 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  I changed the blurb here thinking that it would reflect in the main page.Gsfelipe94 (talk) 21:35, 29 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  No, that's why I said you should report it at WP:ERRORS. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:44, 29 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  That's what I did. I was just explaining it to that user because he probably saw the 71 listed on the blurb and didn't understand. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 21:47, 29 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Fixed by a decent admin (cough). Bencherlite^Talk 21:53, 29 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  One of the finest in town. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:00, 29 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Given the town I'm spending the week in, I doubt that's difficult... Bencherlite^Talk 22:02, 29 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support Major news event. --Marvellous Spider-Man 14:48, 30 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An image of the aircraft in LaMia livery is now available. Mjroots (talk) 05:44, 1 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Too late. We're onto chess champions now. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:59, 1 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

[Closed] New King of Thailand

Closing out of deference to the new and more up to date nomination on December 1. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:53, 1 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article: Vajiralongkorn (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ After seven weeks' delay, Crown Prince Maha Vajiralongkorn succeeds his father Bhumibol Adulyadej as King of Thailand. (Post)
News source(s): Bangkok Post
Credits:

• Nominated by Paul 012 (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: The late king's death was posted last month, but his son's accession was, in a break with tradition, held of until now, so ITN didn't mention it then. Not sure if this qualifies as ITNR for a new head of state. Could do with some more details on the succession. Paul_012 (talk) 05:27, 29 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RD: Ray Columbus

Nominator's comments: Notable New Zealand entertainer who was also a pop star in Australia during the 1960s. MaxBrowne (talk) 06:01, 29 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Weak oppose while there's nothing terrible about the article, it's barely above stub level, and the majority of it deals with his health rather than his entertainment and pop star career. So, needs expansion to cover the major aspects of his life. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:26, 29 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Article has since been improved. MaxBrowne (talk) 19:28, 1 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The added material appears to be unreferenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:44, 3 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

[Withdrawn] OSU Stabbing

[Posted] RD: Mark Taimanov

Nominator's comments: He was famous Russian chess player and pianist. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:38, 28 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

[Posted] Aleppo offensive (November 2016)

Nominator's comments: I think it's time to bring this back to ongoing, lots of new developments in the last couple of days, the article gets updated. Tone 08:29, 28 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

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

[Posted] 104th Grey Cup

Nominator's comments: Surprised this was not nominated yesterday after the game. Grey Cup is ITNR and is posted every year. If we want to, we could use a photo of the trophy or of Henry Burris, the Most Outstanding Player of the game. If we want to be 100% accurate, the official way to write the team's name is the Ottawa REDBLACKS. --PlasmaTwa2 02:20, 29 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Oppose for now. Extremely poor referencing. Whole sections lacking a single cite. This is going to need some work before it can be posted on the main page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:38, 29 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support Article is much improved. Well done to those involved. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:10, 29 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Oppose as above. For information, the item was actually posted without discussion or consensus yesterday by another rogue admin. Thankfully it was removed minutes later. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:50, 29 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Update: I have fixed the referencing issues and added a bit more information to several sections. I believe it is ready to be posted. --PlasmaTwa2 08:58, 29 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Still seems to be a vast number of [citation needed] to be resolved. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:00, 29 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah, I was halfway through editing that section when I posted, thinking I'd be done by the time anyone responded. The citations for the Aftermath have been resolved and I'm working on expanding that section further with television ratings and overall impressions of the game. --PlasmaTwa2

• Comment still plenty of unreferenced claims, some POV in there, and really, the whole game is summed up in about 10% of the article. The game summary should be expanded about fivefold. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:19, 29 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've gotten the citations for the citations you requested and expanded the game summary. but asking for it to be fivefold is an exaggeration. The summary is now more in-line with those of previous Grey Cups, which were suitable to be posted. There's no reason for this to not be remarked ready.--PlasmaTwa2 22:45, 29 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

[Stale] 2016 Formula One season

Articles: 2016 Formula One season (talk · history · tag) and Nico Rosberg (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Nico Rosberg (pictured) wins the 2016 Formula One drivers' championship; Mercedes wins the constructor's title. (Post)
News source(s): (BBC Sport)
Credits:

• Nominated by Mjroots (talk · give credit)

Both articles updated
One or both nominated events are listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

 Mjroots (talk) 14:47, 27 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Season report needs some references, otherwise the article is extensive. Remember to mention Auto racing in the blurb, perhaps it also makes sense to mention that Mercedes won the constructor's title. --Tone 16:13, 27 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Blurb amended, do we really need to mention auto racing? Mjroots (talk) 16:32, 27 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support - when improvements has been completed. definitely for ITN.BabbaQ (talk) 20:54, 27 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  I'm afraid your vote is meaningless. This is an ITNR, so once "improvements have been completed", it will be posted. Your voting pattern indicates that you do not understand how ITN works for RD or ITNR items. Feel free to ping me if you need further explanation. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:10, 27 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Question - could the blurb be posted with only Nico and Mercedes articles being linked. I realise that they are not ITNR but both articles are in good shape with no referencing issues. Mjroots (talk) 10:00, 28 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support - Definitely biggest sports' news in a while and we always had the formula 1 champion in the box. I altered the blue-ish part above so it's not misleading anymore. Cheers, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 12:31, 28 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Question - Anyone there? The News administration became really darn slow.. :( -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 00:55, 29 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  It has. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:50, 29 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Needs more sources to 2016_Formula_One_season#Championship_conclusion. --hydrox (talk) 09:50, 29 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • And there are other sections that have had orange-level tags about lack of references for months. This is still a fair way from being postable. Bencherlite^Talk 00:45, 30 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• What exactly is far from being postable, Bencherlite? I don't see the issues. Horst-schlaemma (talk) 12:02, 2 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • FYI your comment came like 3 days after the one you're replying to and there were multiple edits in the intervening time period Palmtree5551 (talk) 19:48, 3 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Article looks a lot better. Are we okay with a blurb like Nico Rosberg (pictured) wins the 2016 Formula One drivers' championship and announces his retirement, and Mercedes wins the constructor's title. to bring in the more recent news as well? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:40, 3 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support - definitely. Not sure about adding in the retirement to the blurb though Palmtree5551 (talk) 19:49, 3 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support Sourcing has improved considerably. Notability is of course a no-brainer. Marking [Ready]. This would go between Casto's death and Grey Cup. --hydrox (talk) 15:15, 4 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Closing as stale as it is older than the current oldest story on ITN. Bencherlite^Talk 21:43, 4 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @Bencherlite: With the addition of the retirement news (and assuming the articles truly are ready), it could be placed above the element names, which is where that aspect belongs chronologically. Just a suggestion... EdChem (talk) 21:47, 4 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Except I don't see a consensus in that discussion for posting his retirement. Bencherlite^Talk 21:52, 4 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RD: Ron Glass (actor)

Nominator's comments: Prominent character actor for more than 30 years with a cult following. Rhodesisland (talk) 04:52, 27 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment: This article is missing a few citations. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:59, 27 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

[Posted] RD: Margaret Rhodes

Nominator's comments: Cousin of Elizabeth II, weak article. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:36, 27 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

RD: Pauline Oliveros

Nominator's comments: She was a notable musician, referred to as a "pioneer" of "deep listening". Andise1 (talk) 05:53, 27 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Oppose insufficiently referenced and not quite updated in all sections to reflect her death. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:16, 27 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose - needs more citations. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 13:14, 27 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support - after improvements has been made. BabbaQ (talk) 20:55, 27 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Pointless. RDs are now posted once they are up to scratch. Saying something like "Support after improvements" is meaningless. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:04, 27 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  @The Rambling Man: please keep in mind: "The Rambling Man ... is prohibited from insulting and/or belittling other editors." Thanks! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:11, 29 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  It's a statement of fact, it is meaningless to say this kind of thing. RDs are posted once they're improved. There is no notability requirement any longer. And as you are involved and have abused your position numerous times, please refrain from pinging me again. Thanks! The Rambling Man (talk) 07:15, 29 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  @The Rambling Man: I would be involved if I took any administrator actions with regards to you, but I haven't. You should probably know that; you yourself just linked to the relevant policy. If you'd like to talk at me more, my talk page is open; this is getting beyond the scope of ITN. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:19, 29 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  I've asked you stop pinging me, so please respect that. You are involved already, so desist. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:20, 29 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support. The recent edits seem to have addressed the citation needed tags. Could still be improved but the current version appears adequate. Dragons flight (talk) 12:32, 1 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RD: Trevor Goddard

Nominator's comments: He was a noted Cricket player for South Africa Andise1 (talk) 05:53, 27 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment the nomination is incorrect, it points at Trevor Goddard and not Trevor Goddard (cricketer). The Rambling Man (talk) 07:19, 27 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fixed. Andise1 (talk) 13:42, 27 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Weak oppose the article is generally well-referenced but there are a few claims without citation and that needs to be resolved. One suspects it shouldn't be too difficult to find those missing refs. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:25, 27 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support - I checked the article and graded it "B" class. It is at least as good as other biographies, in particular those of cricketers, with B class. I think that it would avoid redundant debate if we agreed that any article C (or B) class or better is ready for the home page if the notability criteria is satisfied. TRM, if you see problematic statements in the article, please fix them (preferably) or point them out so others can fix them without guessing. Jehochman ^Talk 15:52, 27 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If the subject has an article then the notability criterion for RD has been met. If you want to change the criteria to automatically post a certain grade of article then start an RfC. If you have difficulty spotting sentences, paragraphs and list entires that don't have a corresponding reference the you should probably apply your skills elsewhere. Stephen 11:00, 28 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

[Posted] Fidel Castro

Article: Fidel Castro (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Former President of Cuba Fidel Castro dies at the age of 90. (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

• Nominated by WaltCip (talk · give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: I assume this needs no introduction. WaltCip (talk) 05:41, 26 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support blurb very well known figure. —Jonny Nixon (talk) 05:43, 26 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Speedy support Emily Goldstein (talk) 05:44, 26 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Could it be a "blurb" instead? Emily Goldstein (talk) 05:46, 26 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't doubt that Castro rises to the notability of a blurb. I only dithered on that because he presumably died of natural causes at 90 years old, and he stopped being President of Cuba as of 2008. Considering the article is in good condition, I think we should post it to the RD ticker as quickly as possible, and then discuss having a blurb.--WaltCip (talk) 05:49, 26 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support blurb: One of the world's longest-ruling leaders and most influential men of the 20th century. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:50, 26 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support RD now We can promote it to a blurb later. Quality of the article is top notch. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:52, 26 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Speedy support RD, support blurb I after with Mugoshgu. RD now, blurb later needed. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:59, 26 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• I'm fine with Muboshgu's solution per his reasoning. If someone could propose a blurb, that'd be super. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:00, 26 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support full blurb well... duh EternalNomad (talk) 06:02, 26 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No introduction? Who is this Castro fellow?

support blurb and added one.Lihaas (talk) 06:03, 26 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Picture has been changed.--Jenda H. (talk) 10:49, 26 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Picture update on ITN requested, as soon as someone is able. The one here is better for this purpose than anything I found in a fast search. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 13:29, 26 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Post Posting Support for blurb One of the great tyrants of modern history and a giant of the political left. His influence in the Cold War and Latin American politics is incalculable. The article quality IMO ranks in the top tier of BLPs. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:31, 26 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Post Posting Support for blurb. I also would like to add support for a blurb. I see many similarities between our post of Mandela and our post of Castro. We posted Mandela as a blurb even though he was in advanced age, sick for many years, and also had been out of office for decades. We did so because of the impact his life and career had on the later years of the 20th century. All of these things are precisely the same for Castro--old, sick, death not a surprise really, out of office for years--however he also made a enormous impact on the 20th century. The world changed because of both of these men so we need to treat them equitably. Just my 2¢. Rhodesisland (talk) 04:22, 27 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• PP support per exactly what Rhodesisland said. The fact that we have RD now shouldn't stop us from posting all deaths, even if they're old and/or death was expected. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 13:04, 27 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We certainly are not going to be posting blurbs for all deaths. ITN guidelines and longstanding consensus here hold that only persons who have died under exceptionally unusual circumstances, usually notable in their own right, or who have had a truly enormous impact within their given field get blurbs. We also usually post heads of state/government who die in office. Castro got a blurb because the murderous SOB was one of the most important figures in global politics and the Cold War during his tenure. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:47, 27 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ad Orientem: I think you misunderstood me—I am saying that not all deaths should be relegated to RD. We actually agree on your basic points. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:52, 27 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for the clarification. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:56, 27 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

[Closed] Big Tree (Washington tree)

No consensus to post. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:09, 29 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article: Big Tree (Washington tree) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb:  World's tallest Ponderosa Pine died (Post)
News source(s): [9]
Credits:

• Nominated by 7&6=thirteen (talk · give credit)

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

• Oppose posting in its current form. Very short and provides little information on the tree itself, let alone its death(though the article notes it was with 'little fanfare'). 331dot (talk) 00:04, 26 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also oppose on procedural grounds per below; the tree has been dead for a year; but even accepting that, this doesn't seem to be "in the news". 331dot (talk) 00:15, 26 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The nominator section looks kinda weird. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:55, 26 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support on Improvement the tree and the beetle blight are both very notable. The article doesn't meet the three-prose-paragraph minimum, but it can be expanded, especially since much of the interesting info on the size, etc., is oddly confined to a quote in the references section, rather than the text itself. I would fix it, but it is too close to bedtime for me to be carefully crafting prose. μηδείς (talk) 04:18, 26 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose: It's a tree. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:31, 26 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Kudzu1: RD now states "An individual human, animal or other biological organism that has recently died " merits a RD listing(assuming the article is OK). 331dot (talk) 10:05, 26 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Posted] RD: David Hamilton (photographer)

Nominator's comments: Weak article, prominent photographer. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:55, 25 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support RD only, not too many controversial photographers, he was one of them, but definitely not an ITN.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:14, 26 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support The article appears to meet the customary standards for RD. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:53, 26 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support. Seen several news stories about his passing, and if TRM thinks the article is good enough, it's good enough for me. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 23:56, 26 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment. I can't agree that it is up to standards; there are a few citations that are needed before it is ready to go. Henderson's is better than this one, yet still wasn't up to standards when posted or re-posted. Rhodesisland (talk) 04:43, 27 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  I noted in the nomination that the article was weak. I agree that Henderson's article wasn't up to standard but then this isn't the kind of nomination that would gain much interest from those American admins. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:26, 27 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Marking as Ready Referencing is not ideal but there is at least one citation for every paragraph. That's pretty much our baseline minimum and the rape allegations are reasonably well sourced. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:05, 29 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Posted. Dragons flight (talk) 11:45, 1 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

[Posted] Iran train accident

Nominator's comments: Significant passenger train incident. It only happened about an hour ago as I type this, so giving this a few hours for additional details to come in would be good. MASEM (t) 17:11, 25 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

[Re-posted] RD: Florence Henderson

Organosilicon

Nominator's comments: Both articles not updated, not sure where to put the update either. But significance should not be in doubt, and the current blurbs are a little old. Banedon (talk) 06:29, 25 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Question This is all quite fascinating as well as a bit over my head. Could someone explain to me the practical implications of this is layman's terms? Thanks. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:24, 25 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Silicon is the next row down from carbon on the periodic table, and thus has a similar valence shell - namely it can create four covalent bonds with other materials. As such, everything that happens with carbon based organic chemistry should hypothetically happen with silicon-based chemistry. Hence the sci-fi-ish idea of "silicon-based life forms". That said, silicon is one of those things than our known carbon-based organic chemistry rarely interacts with. The ability to form a carbon-silicon bond by a carbon-based enzyme potentially sets of a pathway towards orgo-silicate chemistry. --MASEM (t) 16:53, 25 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  (edit conflict) Carbon-silicon bonds are not found in biochemical processes--basically, living organisms cannot form these bonds (like they do for other compounds: carbon-hydrogen, carbon-oxygen, carbon-carbon, etc.). The enzymes in living organisms are what catalyze these reactions. Organosilicon compounds (compounds with carbon-silicon bonds) are widely encountered in commercial products, like sealants, caulks, adhesives, and coatings made from silicones. Basically, these cannot be made from plant matter; chemists must invent different chemical reactions to form compounds with these bonds. These reactions are not very efficient. Now, for the first time, scientists have modified a certain enzyme (by introducing mutations-different amino acids in the enzyme part that catalyzes the reaction) from a hot springs bacteria than can form these carbon-silicon bonds. This shows that an organism with carbon-silicon bonds could exist in theory, and also provides a much better process for making these compounds that could be used commercially ("the enzyme can forge silicon-carbon bonds 15 times more efficiently than the best catalyst invented by chemists, and is also comparatively easier to modify, it can eventually serve as an alternative to the current techniques used to manufacture organosilicon materials widely used in semiconductors and pharmaceuticals.") Spencer^T♦C 17:00, 25 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment: Organosilicon#Preparation is likely the best place for an update. Spencer^T♦C 17:00, 25 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Weak Support Seems scientifically significant based on the comments above EdwardLane (talk) 17:53, 25 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Weak Support per EdwardLane. I have also added a bold link to the blurb. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:21, 25 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support thinking a theory for bio+abio nanotech in future. Nannadeem (talk) 18:28, 25 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose for two reasons. First, the nominated articles are not remotely updated. Second, this is mostly hype. The compounds already can be made; an enzyme just is more efficient. If the articles could be updated to properly reflect the finding and avoid speculation and exaggeration then it would be okay to post this. Abductive (reasoning) 18:42, 25 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Not yet: The organosilicon article linked in the blurb does not use the word "enzyme," so the blurb does not suit the article. I would avoid the word "create" in the blurb, too, as it sounds like the work took an existing enzyme and modified it, which is a long way different from creating an enzyme de novo. The updates are clearly not sufficient for a main page appearance at the present time. EdChem (talk) 02:29, 26 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support This is the sort of discovery/innovation that leads to a Nobel Prize, and the source itself says "Modified bacterial enzyme taught to make bonds that evolution avoids" which is more important than the wording of our article, which is not itself a source. μηδείς (talk) 03:29, 26 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment both articles updated now, and proposing alt blurb that uses both articles. Banedon (talk) 09:56, 26 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Not anymore in the case of Organosilicon, apparently wasn't considered a suitable article to update (no research in there). Narayanese (talk) 17:36, 26 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment the main excitement, if there is any, about this news report derives from the assumption that something important of highly novel was achieved, because few or no editors understand organosilicon chemistry. In my opinion, the making of Si-C bonds by enzymes is overhyped. --Smokefoot (talk) 15:21, 26 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Any reasons to back up the assertion that this is overhyped? Banedon (talk) 15:53, 26 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  How about the fact that it has vanished from the news media? Abductive (reasoning) 20:04, 30 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]