Wikipedia : In the news/Candidates/September 2023

Oppose Early life and political career sections need refs. Scientia potentia est, MonarchOfTerror 09:27, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Lucrecia Hernández Mack[edit]

Weak Oppose there are a few citations which need to be added but look like that could easily be done by a Wikipedian skilled in the art and science of citation (AKA not me at 11 at night). ❤History Theorist❤ 05:53, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@HistoryTheorist: looks like the one "citation needed" tag has been cleared and the article is well referenced now – mind checking if anything else may be missing? :) –FlyingAce^✈hello 18:44, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
looks good. I'll Support the nomination. ❤History Theorist❤ 23:38, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 14:51, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Ian Hamilton[edit]

Weak Oppose the article could use some more citations before we release it to ITN. ❤History Theorist❤ 23:32, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Article needs citation work. The Kip 04:42, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, article has unsourced content. Suonii180 (talk) 15:28, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Template:Ping, I've cleaned the Template:Temp tags in the article. — Knightoftheswords 00:34, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I will rescind my oppose. ❤History Theorist❤ 01:39, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rescinded. Citations seem adequate. The Kip 06:00, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Opposition rescinded, no longer citation issues. Suonii180 (talk) 15:31, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support Article is good enough for RD. Marking as ready (this technically has 3 supports since Template:Noping and Template:Noping have rescinded their opposes, 3 supports is plenty of consensus for an RD). Scientia potentia est, MonarchOfTerror 14:46, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose Up until his playing career in 1999, most of the body is a list of clubs he played for, without any description of his accomplishments or notable achievements there. Similar to a CV in prose format, insufficient depth of coverage IMO. Spencer^T•C 00:01, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the older refs need refreshing. I ran into a few deadlinks while performing spot-checks on the refs. Please update them. --PFHLai (talk) 10:03, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Posted although the article could still be improved, there are no active problems. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:22, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Burning Man 2023[edit]

September 2023 southwestern U.S. floods is also nominated at DYK, but really, it's better suited here. —Cryptic 02:15, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's an event in the desert based in self-sufficiency. "Stranded" is misleading, and most would have stayed for the end burns.—Bagumba (talk) 03:04, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Fyre Festival II, for all purposes. --Masem (t) 03:29, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not a good analogy. There's a difference between a fraudulent festival containing 500 folks that was inherently doomed from the start vs a festival of record with nearly 100k attendees that only had conning done by mother nature. — Knightoftheswords 14:34, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Having a major event in a remote, desolate location was always set up for a problem like this. While not a scam, it is about people with disposable income making a poor choice. Masem (t) 15:24, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
NYT Quote (Emphasized): Template:Tq InedibleHulk (talk) 03:49, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Local event. Bedivere (talk) 04:02, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Tqb — Knightoftheswords 14:30, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - one (possibly related) death so far. 70,000 stranded leans in the favour of the blurb, but given the floods are now over, I don't think it'll reach the severity required. Anarchyte (talk) 05:45, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose — Content on ITN needs to be significant, not interesting. If you're looking for a "compelling story", DYK may be of interest. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 06:16, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Tqb

Per WP:ITNPURPOSE - Template:Tq (which is what I was referring to with the "interesting" story bit). If you have an issue with that, take it to WT:ITN and propose it be removed. — Knightoftheswords 14:26, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is a textualist interpretation of what ITN is. Standards have changed as more extreme weather events have occurred. The flooding aspect of this blurb is not exceptional for the world nor the country. If hundreds had died—ergo, an exceptional flood—such an event would be suitable for ITN. A major scientific discovery meets the criterion you mentioned even though it may not be in the news. There is a degree of conservatism that is necessary here. Geographic bias is a considerable factor in ITN, including this nomination. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 16:18, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support. "70 thousand" should read "70,000" or "70 000". It's worth noting that this morning it was announced that the death appears to have been from intoxication, not the weather. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 10:50, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I would have been more willing to support a few days ago, but I feel like this event is getting a little stale PrecariousWorlds (talk) 12:41, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by staleness? Rager7 (talk) 14:55, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose First off, this does not feel significant enough to be ITN-material, and it is at most DYK. secondly, This event has been going on for a few days, and it is thus stale. This also has no impact outside of Nevada, so it is not that important. Editor 5426387 (talk) 13:06, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not stale; not even a week old, let alone older than the oldest item on ITN and again, we don't dismiss stories because they happened in one location for whatever reason. Also, can we please stop with the "this is DYK-material" mantra? However good-faith these statements are, they come off as just lazy rationales for opposing (especially considering a lot of the topics on ITN have articles that don't meet any of the WP:DYK eligibility criteria). — Knightoftheswords 14:40, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nah, not that significant. Local and stale. Per all above. _-_Alsor (talk) 13:11, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Tqb

Or additionally,

Template:Tqb — Knightoftheswords 14:30, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Local", "stale" and "Per all above" are exactly my reasons for opposing it. _-_Alsor (talk) 14:36, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How is it stale, and what about it being local is an issue? — Knightoftheswords 14:44, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the event is not even a week old, and thus by default is not stale; additionally, per repeated consensus on WT:ITN, staleness refers to any item older than the oldest ITN blurb, even if it's seven days old or more (the oldest item is from August 23), so the arguments that oppose due to staleness are invalid. — Knightoftheswords 14:22, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do not bludgeon discussions by responding to each post in opposition to your view. Masem (t) 15:25, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe make !votes based on policy? Seriously, this willingness to ignore policy when it suits us is why ITN was on the gallows a few weeks ago. — Knightoftheswords 16:07, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The policy is "We talk it out civilly, and follow what the consensus tells us to do". The reason ITN was on the gallows is because people aren't willing to let consensus be consensus, and want to argue and berate and WP:BLUDGEON every discussion that isn't going their way. Back tf down dude, you've said quite enough. --Jayron 32 16:14, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about that; we've been doing that for a while now, but that never produced any results. — Knightoftheswords 17:22, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you can certainly keep doing what you're doing with the arguing and bludgeoning, and we can come back later to ANI and see if they have anything different to say as a result. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 17:48, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support Article quality for both bolded articles is sufficient, event is current and covered sufficiently by news to indicate significance. --Jayron 32 15:49, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, as a story of insufficient impact. And I'll note that "Please do no oppose an item solely because the event is only relating to a single country" is written because very significant events are sometimes largely restricted in impact to single country, not because significance does not matter as a criterion. Nobody here is opposing because this is a US-specific event; we're opposing because at the scale we usually consider, it's not significant. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:24, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Vanamonde. Hard to see the significance in deaths resulting from, as stated by the above, poor planning combined with force majeure. Based on the outcomes of recent prior nominations, it looks like ITN as a whole seems to be steering away from posting disasters that don't carry any long-term significance. That's not an entirely bad thing. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 17:36, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as blurb is misleading per Bagumba. The roads were closed off well in advance of when people would be trying to leave anyway. "Porto-potties at Burning Man worse than usual due to lack of pump truck access to Playa" and "Weekend Burning Man attendees unable to show up for two days of partying and then bail immediately due to road closure" don't seem ITN-worthy. Would support a later story if BLM revokes the land use permit due to insufficient cleanup, but we won't know that for months. Folly Mox (talk) 17:42, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2023 September 5 Template:Cob

September 5[edit]

(Posted) RD: Antonio Galves[edit]

Comment Template:U, can you add a citation for the last section and add an explanation for how Galves is related to that (other than the name)? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:27, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Ping Thanks for looking at the article. Reference added, and explanation of the connection clarified, how does that look? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 16:43, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Support. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:45, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Article looks good. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:33, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Posted per additional support being given beyond mine; feel free to pull if that's an issue. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:23, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Anatol Ugorski[edit]

Support I tagged one reference with Template:Tl but I don't see that as a problem for RD. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:31, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I took it out, - there are others. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:57, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Article quality is sufficient for RD. Scientia potentia est, MonarchOfTerror 09:23, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Posted to RD. Spencer^T•C 21:44, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: María Teresa Campos[edit]

Support Article looks good enough for RD, AGFing Spanish sources. Scientia potentia est, MonarchOfTerror 15:02, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support , a very popular Spanish TV presenter. Article ready (improved by _-_Alsor, good job !). Alexcalamaro (talk) 18:57, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Alexcalamaro, also for your early updates! _-_Alsor (talk) 19:16, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Posted. AGF all non-English sources. --PFHLai (talk) 22:04, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Molly Holzschlag[edit]

Support Article looks good enough for RD. Scientia potentia est, MonarchOfTerror 11:11, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Article looks fine. Ahiijny (talk) 18:18, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Well sourced, no reason not to post now. Jusdafax (talk) 19:05, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Posted Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 17:13, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Necmettin Cevheri[edit]

Support. Looks good to me. OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 14:33, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Any more materials on what he accomplished as minister of ...? even deputy prime minister? --PFHLai (talk) 03:51, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Posted but Template:U, it would be great if you could add info that would answer PFHLai's questions above! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:00, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template:U I will try, thanks, Egeymi (talk) 05:31, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Yunus Bandu[edit]

Support. Looks good to me. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 14:47, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Any more materials on what he accomplished as regent? --PFHLai (talk) 01:42, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Re I've added one more stuff about his accomplishment as regent. It's hard to find more about him in national publications. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 14:36, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Posted Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:03, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Adam Exner[edit]

Support Article is well sourced. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:36, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well sourced, and covering all the major contours of his life in detail. Bremps... 01:08, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Article's sourcing, depth and length is good enough for RD. Scientia potentia est, MonarchOfTerror 09:32, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support article is in great condition. _-_Alsor (talk) 14:41, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - A fine example of good writing based on sources. Jusdafax (talk) 21:19, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. Anarchyte (talk) 07:59, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Albert Azaryan[edit]

Oppose Sourcing issues. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:42, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Quite a few paragraphs with zero footnotes. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 12:51, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New PM in Vanuatu[edit]

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2023 September 4 Template:Cob

The update is one-sentence but I guess there is not that much to say? Still, I'd like to see more text before I am comfortable by posting. Tone 14:29, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The first article has not been adequately updated. The lead doesn't mention anything about this. It also doesn't cover anything about how he became PM, just that it happened. Needs some expansion. The second article should not be bolded, it does not contain sufficient prose about the event to qualify as a bolded link. If these problems are fixed, ping me to re-assess. --Jayron 32 15:10, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jayron32 I expanded a little bit the election mention on their biography. Bedivere (talk) 23:02, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Ping So, like right now, the lead states "He is Prime Minister of Vanuatu on four occasions, most recently from June 2015 to February 2016. Kilman was previously Prime Minister from December 2010 to April 2011 and from May to June 2011, though his premiership was subsequently annulled by a court of law." That is both grammatically incorrect and factually incorrect. That needs some major work before we can post this. --Jayron 32 18:08, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes on blurb, No on picture, I don't think it needs a picture, never the less it's still a new head of government, just remember to get the article and it sources fixed first.

4me689 (talk) 15:18, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Tq

ITN doesn't particularly care about that and I'd strongly recommend you strike this comment. What is or isn't a significant country is highly subjective, and voicing opposition to something because of the country's "insignificance" goes against point 2 of WP:ITNCDONT. The Kip 18:29, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@The Kip, I said no on picture, not on the blurb, never the less, I'll still reword it. 4me689 (talk) 18:38, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would probably note how he got ousted rather than succeeded in an election. Other than that, I would probably say it's fine.

River10000 (talk) 15:20, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on quality - Article has only a single-sentence update, with no further details given. The Kip 18:29, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@The Kip It's been expanded (a bit). Bedivere (talk) 23:03, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Include the blurb and picture. Vanuatu is such a small country that representing them on the main page would be superb! Bedivere (talk) 04:02, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Tqq Curbon7 (talk) 04:06, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I know that. I see a sentence that needs referencing and that's all. I still support this. Bedivere (talk) 05:36, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I could easily find a reference for that, and it's ready to go IMHO. Bedivere (talk) 05:39, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Articles also need to be updated sufficiently, see WP:ITNUPDATE: Template:Tq They also need to be minimally comprehensive, per WP:ITNQUALITY: Template:Tq.

This is the concern expressed by other !voters here. Scientia potentia est, MonarchOfTerror 09:11, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did extend that little sentence there was regarding their election as PM. Just for the record Bedivere (talk) 13:24, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There's no separate article about the event and the nominated articles don't give it much prominence or give a coherent narrative. For example, Prime Minister of Vanuatu has a section called Disputes which says nothing about this even though the outcome depended on controversial rulings by the Supreme Court. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:49, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the Sato article needs more sources. starship .paint (RUN) 15:37, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

September 4[edit]

(Posted) RD: Walter Arlen[edit]

Support Article is adequate for R.D. Ollieisanerd (talk • contribs) 19:04, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 21:24, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Douglas Lenat[edit]

Oppose Article needs extensive citation work - for instance, there's just a single ref in the "Background and education" section, and only two in the "Research" section. The Kip 18:39, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Edith Grossman[edit]

Support Article quality seems good enough. Extensively cited. The Kip 18:31, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Article is well cited. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:41, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gonna go ahead and tag @Admins willing to post ITN - this has been tagged as ready for about two days now. The Kip 19:16, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Posted Step hen 01:19, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Gary Wright[edit]

Support The quality of this article is excellent and already far superior to that of Steve Harwell. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:42, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well-sourced and thorough article. JumbledPasta (talk) 18:11, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As per usual, the discography/charting section is almost wholly uncited. The Kip 18:33, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Discography section unsourced. Support All issues fixed. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 16:57, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support I've added sources for discography and charts. --Vacant0 (talk) 09:27, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support The reliability of some of the sources isn't the best in the world but it's good enough for RD. Scientia potentia est, MonarchOfTerror 14:10, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Clearly ready to post. Jusdafax (talk) 14:55, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Posted to RD. Spencer^T•C 02:46, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) 2023 unrest in Kirkuk[edit]

Premature The article needs significant work and as such had to be draftified first. Honestly there's no significance internationally, so this should not be on ITN. MarioJump83 (talk) 16:44, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wait for the actural civil war to happen before we post the blurb. Editor 5426387 (talk) 17:26, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Recommend close With all due respect - general lack of notability aside, the article and blurb itself are both in disastrous shape. There’s arguments to be made this should still be a draft, and as such I’m recommending closure. The Kip 17:32, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Snow close provinical, crystal, article quality. Ooh baby, a triple. This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 19:38, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Pulled) RD: Steve Harwell[edit]

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2023 September 3 Template:Cob

Support - a little on the short side, but should be fine for RD. Anarchyte (talk) 16:02, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Opposer per WP:ITNQUALITY. I think this is too short to the point of not being "minimally comprehensive". From a quick read, what stands out to me is there's nothing on his early life (like where he was raised, what high school he went to), it doesn't say what year he formed Smash Mouth, has one unsourced sentence to note that he is "best known for" the big hit single that probably needs to be more of the bio, and it doesn't say anything about the mother of his child (wife? girlfriend?) – Muboshgu (talk) 16:44, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Article is short, but good quality and well cited. –DMartin 18:52, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Muboshgu - there's literally nothing in the "Career" section between forming the band (1994) and 2006, this omitting a huge chunk of the entire career of the band that he is only notable for. Black Kite (talk) 19:13, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support when all sources are fixed, but after that he should be included. R.I.P to this All-Star. 4me689 (talk) 19:34, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support Article should be expanded but it appears to be good enough to post. Johndavies837 (talk) 19:41, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support The article in question covers the main contours of his life and is verifiable. Bremps... 23:22, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose More detail needed on his career with Smash Mouth for this to be adequate. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:31, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support The article needs some expansion but it is of good enough quality as it doesn't omit any major items, the main information which readers would be looking for is mostly in the article. Happily888 (talk) 01:44, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Posted Not wowed by the article quality. But what's there is adequate for RD. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:02, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Considering he just died, and given the opposers saying its not comprehensive with examples, it seems we could have waited to at least have the page cover as much as basic obituaries (The New York Times)—Bagumba (talk) 05:54, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a basic obituary. It's a full-scale news article from a powerhouse outlet which pays its staff to work together quickly. This is what your basic Boise decedent gets in the line of "tribute", and our article covers those bases (minus the POV). InedibleHulk (talk) 22:40, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Except we're not talking about a random Steve from Boise, and all it minimally takes is paraphrasing from one (of many) readily-available comprehensive obits. —Bagumba (talk) 00:15, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Tq: Undesirable to omit POV per the WP:YESPOV policy: Template:Tq2 —Bagumba (talk) 00:23, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Random Steve (not his real name) has a lead that calls him a revered patriarch who left his descendants a legacy of unwavering loyalty and is now in the doubtlessly warmest embrace of his beloved wife, Peggy. That's the sort of POV I mean. I suppose it wouldn't hurt to say that most people know this Random Steve from "All-Star" (or one of its videos). I think that's a pretty widely held belief in the mainstream media. And yeah, there are other factoids out there in the sources (including your example) that could make this link to a better than decent overview of the man behind the myth. It's not stubby enough to pull, though. At least that's what I'd opine if I still worked here. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:22, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting oppose Two cn tags and article is a bit lacking in terms of his career. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:04, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And zero mention of "All Star" now. —Bagumba (talk) 01:08, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Restored, by virtue of the edit summary simply not being true. DarkSide830 (talk) 04:21, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pull. I'm in agreement with TDKR. For being arguably the most well-known member of a fairly prolific band, this article is pretty sad. A certain depth of coverage of a person's life should be needed even for RD, and this article doesn't have it. DarkSide830 (talk) 04:17, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pull there are two cn tags in important content of the article and much of it is about his private life. Far from the type of article we would/should post. _-_Alsor (talk) 14:39, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pull If this article had been written today and the subject wasn't dead, it would have been instantly merged with Smash Mouth as there's barely anything on the page about him as an individual, except for a blow-by-blow of his physical decline. And even the Smash Mouth bit is barely there. I took five minutes to add from a reference that was already there his reason for leaving rap in the early 1990s, as that's about his personal artistry besides Smash Mouth. Unknown Temptation (talk) 17:56, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pulled Quality concerns were noted before this was posted, and there's been significant continued quality concerns after it has been posted. Pulling until those have been addressed. After the article has been fixed per all of the notes above have been addressed, this can be re-posted. --Jayron 32 18:03, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No objection. At the time I posted this there was a roughly 2:1 consensus supporting. That has clearly changed to a degree that justifies pulling the RD pending article improvement. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:20, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No fault on your part, in case that wasn't clear. It was a legitimate read of consensus at the time you posted it. You were fine. --Jayron 32 18:22, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

September 3[edit]

(Posted) RD: Paul Roach[edit]

Are there refs for the table of Head coaching record at the bottom of this wikipage, please? Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 03:55, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Template:Ping I added one (it doesn't verify everything (like the one national ranking) but it should be enough). BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:49, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for the extra footnote, BeanieFan11. With 1100+ words, this wikibio is more than long enough to qualify. Formatting looks fine. Earwig has nothing to complain about. Footnotes can be found at expected spots. There is a single {cn} in the table of the subject's coaching record, but it's just one and it's not anything controversial. IMO, this wikibio is READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 15:58, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Posted -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:56, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Piloo Reporter[edit]

Support Cited, long enough. Bremps... 23:23, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support Looks good enough. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:39, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Article's sourcing, length and depth is sufficient for RD. Scientia potentia est, MonarchOfTerror 09:35, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support good to go. _-_Alsor (talk) 14:37, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Posted Step hen 06:32, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed; stale) Resignation of Krišjānis Kariņš[edit]

Both of those sources are from August 14, almost three weeks ago. —Cryptic 01:00, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Stale - Fine if posted when new, but old news now This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 02:01, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose beyond the fact that it's stale, we usually don't post resignations. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 03:47, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is stale & what’ll be notable enough for ITN is when a Latvian PM comes to power. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 05:02, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and recommend close per all above. The Kip 06:16, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Carme Junyent[edit]

You just caught me with the intention of creating her article and nominating her afterwards. Thanks for anticipating. I'm working on expanding its content, which I think it needs to be posted. _-_Alsor (talk) 21:05, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's wonderful, thank you for your help. --Brunnaiz (talk) 21:45, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support This article is still a bit short, but it looks alright! Oltrepier (talk) 15:29, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support work done. I think it's good enough. Template:Ping When you can, can you take a look at the article and let me know how you see it? Thanks! _-_Alsor (talk) 20:21, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template:U I think there is still room for writing improvement, but you added relevant information to the article, so thank you a lot! --Brunnaiz (talk) 20:31, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support Article looks good. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:39, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Posted Step hen 00:46, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Heath Streak[edit]

Comment See Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates/August_2023#(Closed)_RD:_Heath_Streak for the earlier report of his death, alluded to above. Nigej (talk) 08:39, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well sourced. Nigej (talk) 08:42, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well sourced article. Fahads1982 (talk) 09:29, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. Black Kite (talk) 11:07, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Attention Needed) Eritrean clashes in Tel Aviv[edit]

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2023 September 2 Template:Cob

At this point, I'm leaning towards oppose, but I'm open to being persuaded otherwise. Riots happen all the time, all over the world, for all kinds of different reasons. While the high number of injuries is concerning, I'm not convinced that this event will have major repercussions beyond what has already transpired. If the Israeli government does something drastic—for instance, deporting all 25,000 Eritrean asylum seekers living within its borders—I'd support blurbing it. Otherwise, I'd need a compelling reason for getting behind a blurb in this case. Kurtis ^(talk) 02:42, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for pretty much the same reasons cited by Kurtis. Doesn’t appear to have much immediate or lasting impact, especially considering they’ve already been suppressed. The Kip 02:57, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Similar clashes happened in Canada and in Switzerland (per the Current Portal news links here) so it appears to be part of a broader story. If this can presented as such in the blurb that would be better and would raise its significance further. Gotitbro (talk) 07:23, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking the same thing, this doesn't seem to be an isolated story, and therefore that raises its significance. Flyingfishee (talk) 18:53, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per Kurtis. This doesn't seem to have a major impact, not yet at least. Also I linked the target article since it wasn't linked for some reason. Scientia potentia est, MonarchOfTerror 07:58, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose due to a lack of importance. It's notable enough for an article, but not for ITN - unless there's a major reaction such as severing of international relations or a large number of deportations. The blurb is far too long. Jim 2 Michael (talk) 09:13, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wait. Not ready to write this story off already. Netanyahu just demanded all the protestors be deported. Might see some protests to this decision as well. Story is still developing. DarkSide830 (talk) 19:23, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

move it's international. The same thing was in the diaspora in Oslo too (possible elsewhere). Tel aviv was biggest, but its not country specific. Maybe 2023 Eritrean diaspora clashes.81.16.1.205 (talk) 15:15, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support Article seems to be in good shape, news sources have covered the topic in a manner that indicates significance. --Jayron 32 12:10, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

September 2[edit]

(new) RD: Walter Arlen[edit]

(Posted) RD: Amin Syam[edit]

Support Appropriate depth of coverage, fully referenced. Spencer^T•C 02:43, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 01:34, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) RD: N. Valarmathi[edit]

Please remove this mistaken identity nomination (see Talk:N. Valarmathi) Celjski Grad (talk) 11:48, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2023 September 1 Template:Cob

September 1[edit]

RD: Raymond Moriyama[edit]

Oppose Multiple uncited passages. The Kip 18:37, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Uncited issues. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:38, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Bill Richardson[edit]

Still needs some ref improvement currently. - Indefensible (talk) 18:50, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support: p b p 19:04, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support when all sources are fixed, but after that he should be included in recent deaths because the news is on it and he was a prominent New Mexican governor. 4me689 (talk) 19:04, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There's a good amount of uncited information throughout the article. Also I implore editors to read WP:ITNRD or the little notice at the bottom which says Template:Tq before !voting. To meaningfully contribute please discuss the quality of the article. Scientia potentia est, MonarchOfTerror 19:42, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Still unsourced content. Either it needs sourcing or it needs deleting. Nigej (talk) 08:44, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Article looks good enough for posting, one cn tag in an overall well cited article shouldn't stop it from posting. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:32, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per TDKR. DarkSide830 (talk) 04:44, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Posted Step hen 00:43, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Jimmy Buffett[edit]

Oppose RD right now, but willing to switch once fixed As mentioned by MonarchOfTerror below, there are several problems. If fixed, I'll change it to support. Also, he's not big enough for a blurb. If this was Paul McCartney or Ringo Starr, then maybe or for sure. TheCorriynial (talk) 13:01, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As a long time reader and supporter of Wikipedia, I recognize the importance of the impact Jimmy Buffett's live shows had on so many people in the U.S. - to just have a good time and take a fun break. He may not have been huge on the charts overseas, but in the U.S. - during the formative 60s-70s rock and roll, he found a true/huge following for his 'brand' so to speak.

So - for a long-time west-coaster /California guy, Jimmy's passing is noteworthy. Dougbeadle (talk) 19:10, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose 5 cn tags and additionally several other unsourced paragraphs and statements throughout the prose; discography, filmography and concerts and tour sections nearly entirely uncited. The article needs major ref work before this can get posted. Scientia potentia est, MonarchOfTerror 13:06, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support: p b p 19:04, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why?—Bagumba (talk) 13:30, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose All of the lists and at least 3 sections are either unsourced or nearly so. Black Kite (talk) 19:13, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose solely on quality due to multiple unreferenced sections. RIP to a music legend. The Kip 19:41, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Legendary music figure in the USA even if not known abroad this should be posted on ITN 107.115.147.81 (talk) 20:24, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are you proposing a RD or a blurb? Kevinishere15 (talk) 21:42, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's no blurb proposal in the nomination. Your comment only sidetracks the discussion. —Bagumba (talk) 13:14, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well said - Thank You.

If not clear from the above reply to TheCorriynial above, I SUPPORT Jimmy Buffett's recent death to be listed in a RECENT DEATHS. Dougbeadle (talk) 23:21, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Tqq Curbon7 (talk) 00:34, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support RD Oppose Blurb see earlier comments on generally opposing RDB for non-heads-of-state This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 02:20, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support once more citations are added. This article looks a lot better than it did yesterday, but it still has a bit of a way to go. There's still 6 CN tags in here, plus the wholly unsourced filmography appearances. Once those get fixed, I'll bump my vote up to a full support. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 14:09, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Moot FYI, this was by a wide margin, the top read article on Wikipedia yesterday, getting over 1.6 million views. For comparison, ITN's top blurb got just about 13 thousand. So, whether this is run as an ITN blurb, RD, or not at all, won't make much difference. As for quality, there's some discussion of particular issues on the article's talk page but I don't get the impression that they are a big deal. Me, I'd not heard of this guy before and so his name meant little to me. I was curious about whether they were related to Warren Buffet and so was gratified to find that the article explains their relationship. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:29, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Article and references seems to be in good shape now. A true Gulf Coast legend! --CaptainTeebs (talk) 02:03, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Still orange tagged. Anarchyte (talk) 03:49, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I checked and found that the lists of tours and TV appearances had been tag-bombed by an ITN regular. These are quite tedious appendices at the bottom of a long article – 4,600 words of prose in 99Kb of Wikistuff. The article already has 158 citations and so most readers would think that it's impressively well- verified. But ITN wants to see a citation for every appearance on Letterman, Leno and the other talk shows. Like it matters. In the meantime, our readership continues to read the article regardless and so it was still the top read article for the second day. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:08, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If it was one or two cn tags that's one thing, but tagging completely or almost completely unsourced sections is hardly tag-bombing. If Buffett is so popular you'd think that someone would come along and try to actually source the bits that aren't sourced, wouldn't you? This is the problem with entertainers - their articles get stuffed up with trivia by their fans, who are generally not regular editors and therefore don't source things. Black Kite (talk) 17:48, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's tag-bombing because it seems to have been done in an indiscriminate way from 10,000' without regard to the nature of the content. It seems purely concerned with cosmetic appearance rather than actual fact-checking.

The section that ought to be getting attention is the paragraph about the death because that is the specific news that we're reporting. That currently has a citation to the Washington Post but it does not verify the sentence about Paul McCartney that it's attached to. It's no good for the preceeding two sentences either and they don't have other citations.

So, checking for the presence of citations in a facile way is quite inadequate because there's no guarantee or mechanical linkage which ensures that the text corresponds to the citation. When you have a hurly-burly of many editors and many edits then it's quite likely that you'll get garbling per Chinese whispers, as in this case. The bigger the article, the more likely this is to happen.

Other main page articles such as TFA and DYK tend to avoid this issue because they have a primary author who is familiar with the topic and details and so is able to keep it coherent. Hot news articles are otherwise and so ITN's fact-checking should be more specific and focussed rather than wasting time on ancient and unimportant details that no-one cares about.

Andrew🐉(talk) 21:20, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I cut the McCartney claim out of the article entirely until a reliable source can be found for it that isn't TMZ - It looks like someone cut the TMZ reference but did not replace it with anything else that specifically verified the claim. I also fixed a few other sources in that section that were not pointed at the correct sentences. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 01:35, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are still lots of readers of this article but the top spot has now passed to Steve Harwell. It's remarkable that, because Harwell didn't achieve so much and so doesn't have long lists of awards and appearances, that their article has been posted straight away, even though it has just has 22 citations. Quality! Andrew🐉(talk) 08:39, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Based on how noteworthy he was compared to other people mentioned in RD. The article doesn't need to be perfect, and with more eyes on the article via RD, it will improve in quality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zombie Philosopher (talk • contribs) 17:22, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support: This article has received significant attention since nomination and is suitable for RD. CoatCheck (talk) 20:43, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Article needs source work with two sections needed refimporvement. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:33, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I added citations to Buffett's tour history... now his filmography remains. As of me typing, it's pretty late where I live, but I intend to ensure he gets on the main page; anyone is free to help. I support adding him to RD once it's determined he's ready, though, if I had my druthers, I would put him up now regardless. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 02:37, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support especially after Brainulator9's recent edit that cited one of the two tagged sections. Article seems good enough. 98.170.164.88 (talk) 05:36, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Sad to say in this case, but references alone do not make an article. The article is a mess; the music section is a bullet list without the bullets. — AjaxSmack 14:36, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. RIP Jimmy RD CoatCheck (talk) 15:17, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Milka Stojanović[edit]

Support Serbian-language sources that are cited are reliable. --Vacant0 (talk) 18:53, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I just started updating~~, and will continue later today~~. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:22, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did what I could for today, but can't confirm that the Serbian sources support the facts. I added Operissimo (in German), but have no time today to make it a ref. We might wait if we get an obit in English, for everybody to verify more easily. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:21, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I made it a ref now for some more precision of places and dates, and for more roles. There are many short obits on German radio, - one is a source, the others are similar, but I found nothing in English (besides translations). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:40, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The lead has "regularly at the Bolshoi", but that should also be in the body. GSL (Operissimo) doesn't have it. - That she performed there is sourced (by BR), but the "regular guest" would need a reference, or be modified in the lead. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:10, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Article looks good enough for posting. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:37, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Posted Step hen 00:30, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Tharman Shanmugaratnam elected as the next Singaporean President[edit]

Comment Lede should be updated and there should be at least some prose in the aftermath section before posting. Overall, the article is in good condition. --Vacant0 (talk) 16:43, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
These should be out soon. – robertsky (talk) 16:44, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak oppose Overall, the article is well sourced (minus the two/three cn tags). The aftermath section is empty as well, however I understand this section will be expanded once more info is known. Once the aftermath section is added and properly sourced, I'll support this decently sourced article. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:05, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose solely due to the lack of an aftermath section. Once that’s filled in, easy support. The Kip 17:12, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The president appears to be a largely ceremonial role in Singapore, most of the governing power is held by the prime minister. - Indefensible (talk) 17:30, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Article looks to be in good shape, as far as I can tell. Not sure what the hubbub about "aftermath" is above, that seems like the kind of historical assessment that can only be given after a significantly long time frame, certainly at least months or years later. The article has sufficient prose about the election and its results, and is well written and well referenced. Checks every box for me. --Jayron 32 18:09, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Aftermath section has been changed to Reaction section by Template:U, of which I agree. There may be other sections appearing over the coming days, i.e. post-election reactions, calls for reforms, etc. as seen in 2011 Singaporean presidential election. – robertsky (talk) 19:10, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It might be better to include an image of Tharman to accompany the blurb. JaventheAldericky (talk) 19:55, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The president of Singapore is a ceremonial role, and these typically don't get posted. Khuft (talk) 19:56, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Ping Per WP:ITNELECTIONS, elections for a head of state (such as the president of Singapore) are routinely deemed notable enough to post. JaventheAldericky (talk) 20:06, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly the rule I was referring to. A change in the "holder of the office which administer the executive" traditionally gets blurbed. According to the list cited on the policy you refer to, that's the Prime Minister of Singapore, not the President. See: List of current heads of state and government Khuft (talk) 20:15, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Ping I've had a look through the corresponding discussion here, but considering that the president of Singapore does has some executive powers, it is incorrect to say that the president of Singapore is a "powerless figurehead", nor is it a completely ceremonial role. JaventheAldericky (talk) 20:51, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't claim that the President of Singapore is a "powerless figurehead", I highlighted that he's not the holder of the office which administer the executive. So there's no automatism that the President of Singapore should be posted - in contrast to a change in PM of Singapore, which would be. It's not ITN/R. A case can be made why other offices should be posted (for Singapore or any other country), but no such case has been made so far in this case. Why is this election important? What will it change within the political system of Singapore? Khuft (talk) 21:10, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Ping I'm back. I should have been more specific - unlike ceremonial presidents elsewhere, the president of Singapore has some executive powers that the prime minister of Singapore does not have. See robertsky's comment below. You are correct that the prime minister of Singapore is the main role that administers the executive, but dismissing the presidency as merely "ceremonial" is disregarding the executive powers the presidency has that the prime minister doesn't have. The corresponding discussion established consensus that "powerless figureheads" that have no executive powers should not be ITN/R - does this apply to the president of Singapore, which has been proven to be more than a ceremonial role? JaventheAldericky (talk) 05:15, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support in Principle. Issues still need to be resolved. But the president of Singapore does appear to be more then simply a "ceremonial" position. DarkSide830 (talk) 20:11, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See my reply above. The colour-coded List of current heads of state and government has typically served to determine which role is the "most important" one in any given country. In Singapore, that would be the Prime Minister. Khuft (talk) 20:21, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware, and I don't completely disagree that this should at least be de-classified as a ITN/R item for that reason. But I don't see why we have to pick just one office's elections to blurb. DarkSide830 (talk) 20:44, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Other offices can of course be proposed, and if a good case is made why they are notable, they can also be blurbed (Queen Elizabeth II's death being the obvious example). I have seen no arguments so far, however, why this presidential election was special at all. The reasoning that the President of Singapore has some constitutional powers is not convincing in and of itself either - many such ceremonial roles have residual powers, e.g. to dissolve Parliament. But a quick glance at the history of Singapore would show that in this particular case, the position of Prime Minister has been paramount since the country's independence. Khuft (talk) 21:03, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The president holds virtually no power in Singapore. Only prime ministerial changes are of any significance and are infrequent (for e.g. Lee Kuan Yew who served for the longest time as PM). Gotitbro (talk) 20:22, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Which also makes this non-ITNR. Gotitbro (talk) 20:27, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - we generally don't post the transition of head's of states that are not also heads of government, barring some exceptional circumstance. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 21:21, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've suggested an altblurb. I'll need to log off for now, but I'll return later to address any concerns. JaventheAldericky (talk) 21:44, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While this is not ITNR as the president does not hold the executive, that fact alone does not prevent it from being posted if it is significant. For example, we posted the election of Petr Pavel, which was seen as a major benchmark for assessing support of NATO. Is there a broader geopolitical story here? Curbon7 (talk) 21:56, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Emphasis. Curbon7 (talk) 18:18, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support article is of sufficient quality. Lightoil (talk) 01:17, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For those who says the Presidential role is ceremonial, it is largely is, until it isn't. The President can choose not to assent to any new laws. Yes, the Parliament can veto the veto, but this is also a feature in other countries like US. The President has the choice to not sign against any death sentences, and did so. The President has the choice not to release any past financial reserves which estimated to be in trillions of dollars. Imagine that the President refused to release the reserves to deal with COVID-19 pandemic against better reasonings or judgement? ($40+ billions were spent [29]). The President has the choice to start any corruption investigation, even against the Prime Minister. (We have yet to come down to this, fortunately.) The President has the power to grant clemency to any sentence, which isn't afforded to the Prime Minister. The power to grant clemency was used as a geopolitical bargaining chip, as seen in 2016 Standard Chartered bank robbery where a promise not to cane the foreign national upon conviction for robbery was made before extradition of the said person went through. The reason it is largely ceremonial for now is due to a general alignment of... interests/thoughts(?) between the President, Prime Minster, and Government. – robertsky (talk) 02:17, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These are standard powers that most non-executory heads of state hold in various countries, and does not really take away from the much more significant role of the head of government (here the PM). Similarly we did not post Xi Jinping's re-appointment as President as well since he already held the mantle of the much more powerful role of the CCP Secretary. On ITN, we look for changes to heads of state/government that hold real power and not one that is residual. Gotitbro (talk) 10:54, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Xi's reappointment is not comparable to this, since Xi is holding both position, but here are two separate roles by two separate persons. – robertsky (talk) 18:03, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That was an example of what we do not effectively post, for another take the recent Presidential change in Vietnam which wasn't as well (the main centre of power here again being with the Secretary). Gotitbro (talk) 19:16, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support per robertsky. S5A-0043^Talk 04:23, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support and Comment It's both ways and I was thought of being divided after reading the comments and the results (I was currently doing analysis of the elections just as usual for local trends and what I did in GE2020), I don't think that might have be recognizable or able to help Singapore in a big way, but however, being the highest role in the state and meeting them (I did met both Halimah and Tharman before for the record) was a privilege, I will support as well. Sculture65 (talk) 07:40, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: further, I will also want to suggest a Did You Know? on both the Singapore Portal and the main portal, but I not sure what to do (long time I haven't touch Wikipedia though), so I will need some help about this one. Thank you. Sculture65 (talk) 07:43, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Template:Ping I've created a nom per your suggestion. Thanks. JaventheAldericky (talk) 08:56, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Template:Ping Thanks. Oh and please do support Battle of the Buskers as well, which I also began my project. Sculture65 (talk) 09:25, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ceremonial figurehead with mostly nominal powers. AryKun (talk) 12:31, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per AryKun. Banedon (talk) 14:20, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as others have said, President of Singapore is a de facto ceremonial position. Yes they theoretically wield executive powers, but that's just indulging in "what if" situations. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 05:48, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Posted There was initial reluctance by early commenters about article quality but otherwise, those editors were supportive of this being a notable event. The quality issues have since been resolved. Since then, there has been discussion whether the role is ceremonial or holds enough executive power for this to meet ITN's notability criteria, with those voters roughly evenly balanced. I find that overall, there are more editors in support than in opposition due to the early voters who were only held back by concerns that have since been resolved. Schwede 66 22:23, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pull - This is a SUPERVOTE. Even with the justification provided, I count the ratio being 7 Support !votes : 6 Oppose !votes (excluding the nominator, posting admin & myself). Oppose on notability, I don't see this ceremonial change being In the News. 119.157.66.93 (talk) 02:14, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I counted 8 support to 5 oppose. Schwede 66 05:55, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why would we exclude the nominator? I've always counted them as an implicit support. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 16:52, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Many of the early supports (and one of the early opposes) were based solely on article quality, since for a long time this nomination was mislabeled as being ITNR. I not only don't see consensus to post this; I see a positive consensus against posting it. If discussion here is going to be treated as a sysop suggestion box, with comments contrary to WP:ITNPURPOSE accorded zero weight, that's all well and good; but if so, it's got to be done a lot more consistently than it has been. Otherwise, pull. —Cryptic 02:36, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Tq It was labelled ITN/R for only less than 5 hours... if that is considered Template:Tq on ITN, we might need to consider urgently working on adjusting expectations... JaventheAldericky (talk) 17:06, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting support. If this was the Irish presidential election (same non-executive president, same population size), it would be posted in a heartbeat. Howard the Duck (talk) 05:59, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It probably wouldn't, at least currently. It seems that recently consensus for it doesn't develop. For example, in May this year we didn't post the president of Latvia (see archived discussion) and in March this year we didn't post the the president of Vietnam (see archived discussion). Scientia potentia est, MonarchOfTerror 08:09, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Singapore is 5 times more populous than Latvia, and the presidential election is by assembly. The Vietnamese president didn't have a dedicated elections article (it seems that the election is via assembly, and not via popular vote). Even the Võ Văn Thưởng article right now leaves a lot to be desired on how he became president.

The Irish presidency is going to be posted come hell or high water. If it's not posted except to quality issues, an admin can permanently ban me from Wikipedia. I'm that confident. Howard the Duck (talk) 18:44, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it depends on the exact scenario I suppose. It could be posted, iirc we did post the 2018 president of Ireland, but ITN is so inconsistent so unless it's obviously notable then the assortment of random people that show up to the discussion decides if it gets posted or not. I wouldn't bet my life on it, you might get a ton of people really concerned with systemic bias on ITN who will oppose it for being non executive leader in the western world, you could also get a ton of people with fairly comparatively low or even no significance standard who would just support it no matter what. It's just how ITN works. Scientia potentia est, MonarchOfTerror 19:00, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This election had a turnout of 93%. Singapore is not the most democratic of places, but there's good reason to believe those numbers. Singapore is not even guaranteed to have an election; the last time there was supposed to be an election, only one candidate was eligible and she was elected via walkover. This article is the best article among the four non-RD ITN entries. Why deprive our readers of such quality and timely content? This kind of election happens once in six years, and we're not even guaranteed of one in six years; we really are opposing such articles that will stay for a week at most, never to be seen again in six years? We'd have two Olympics articles in six years, and just one (not guaranteed) of this. Seriously people, what's wrong with you? Howard the Duck (talk) 19:14, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that was a bit needlessly uncivil. Some people just have really high significance standards for ITN, some of them very consistently so and some of them don't like ITN/R either. You could try asking someone else with a more concrete, decided stance, I myself don't really have a defined standard yet, I'm still exploring where I find myself philosophically when it comes to ITN significance, so I always flip flop between really high or really low standards. Also there are various reasons people opposed this, some people just think that all non executive heads of state shouldn't be posted bar extremely exceptional circumstances and if they consistently apply that standard that's fine. It's just how ITN discussions work with how vague WP:ITNSIGNIF is. Scientia potentia est, MonarchOfTerror 19:36, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting oppose Mostly ceremonial role as stated above. I don't think this should've been posted, but I'm not really sure if it should be pulled, it might be a fait accompli at this point. Scientia potentia est, MonarchOfTerror 08:18, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting oppose and pull. We don't post ceremonial roles. — Amakuru (talk) 08:25, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support The article's quality is quite good, which is what pushes it over the top for me. A number of opposers are stating that Template:Tqq (not calling you out specifically Amakuru, you're just right above me!), but this is simply not true. While most of these ceremonial elections are indeed relatively minor, we have posted them when they are are part of a broader regional story. As I mentioned above, we posted the election of Petr Pavel to the ceremonial role of president because there was a broader regional story about Czech realignment towards the west following the Babiš years. While the broader story isn't entirely clear in this case, the article indicates that this may be part of a broader racial realignment within an extremely polarized country. Curbon7 (talk) 09:49, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If there's some specific angle to this that needs to be given to readers, then the hook should focused on that, although unless it was a really momentous thing, I doubt the community would support it - we can't cover all news everywhere, after all. However, this was presented as a simple change in the head-of-state, and appears to have been nodded through despite there being little evidence that this particular head of state has much more than a ceremonial role. This story is not major headline news. — Amakuru (talk) 10:38, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Post-posting support - comprehensive article, the role is not entirely ceremonial, the margin of victory is exceptional, the result shows a rejection of racial politics, and we've really not have much in ITN recently, the other three items are from 23 August, 30 August, 31 August, that's nine to sixteen days old, we could really use a different news item. starship .paint (RUN) 13:25, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're free to support for your other reasons but we still keep our significance standards even if our blurbs are old. It's a WP:SLOWCYCLE argument to say we should post something because we haven't posted in a while. Scientia potentia est, MonarchOfTerror 14:44, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is a personal essay you quoted, and no, it isn’t that “Template:Tq”, nor is it “Template:Tq”, this is an election where millions voted. In any case, this reason about the context of the current news is only on top of the other arguments I raised. starship .paint (RUN) 15:31, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I said that you were free to oppose for your other reasons. The main point of the essay is that the notability of things in ITN is independent of the news cycle. This can range from clear "man bites dog"-ish stuff to things that are very on the border of notability, like elections of mostly ceremonial positions. You say that it's just on top of the other arguments you cited which is in essence true, but you did still put a very strong emphasis on your WP:SLOWCYCLE argument (to the point of bolding the "nine to sixteen days old" part) so I wanted to address it. Your other arguments are sound reasoning for supporting posting this, even if I personally don't, I only wanted to address the WP:SLOWCYCLE argument. (Yes it is an essay, but I'm just citing it to explain my reasoning, not because I think other viewpoints are invalid or it makes me instantly win the argument). Scientia potentia est, MonarchOfTerror 16:06, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Post-posting support per above. Good article quality and the story is in the news. Case closed. (Although we really ought to reconsider WP:SLOWCYCLE, as why would we expect readers to use ITN if it's rarely updated?) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 16:52, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, WP:SLOWCYCLE is an essay so people are free to ignore it or apply it however they want. It's imo more about individual situations where people argue "ITN is stale so we should post this", which is more of a symptom of how ITN currently works. If ITN wants to get rid of the WP:SLOWCYCLE, basically meaning posting more so that readers use ITN, then it’s significance standard and nomination system needs to be reformed, so that we post more and therefore eliminate WP:SLOWCYCLE naturally. If we just delete/depreciate WP:SLOWCYCLE or add it to WP:ITNATA, then what will really happen is that people will make WP:SLOWCYCLE arguments, but then the more conservative ITN participants will simply still oppose on significance, some of them will even still cite WP:SLOWCYCLE or use similar arguments to refute people using WP:SLOWCYCLE arguments if we just add it to WP:ITNATA, since some arguments there are still consistently used and, we will end up with discussions bloated with a bunch of WP:SLOWCYCLE arguments, but with no real change as more conservative participants still oppose and consensus won't really develop, which wouldn't really help in the end. The real problem, as always, is with ITNs significance standard and nomination system. Scientia potentia est, MonarchOfTerror 17:17, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why are we posting now? Don't we usually wait until they are seated, with small exceptions? QueensanditsCrazy (talk) 17:08, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ping As the poster mentioned, Template:Tq The resulting discussion was why it took this long for closure (and subsequent posting). JaventheAldericky (talk) 17:13, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm asking about the timing of the post (and whether we should post their election or their taking office), not whether the office is relevant. QueensanditsCrazy (talk) 17:21, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ping We would have (normally) posted the election upon its conclusion, as the election itself is the subject. As such, the date and time when the elected person takes office has no bearing on when the article is posted. JaventheAldericky (talk) 17:47, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hrngg, looking in the archive (eg. Turkish election earlier thisyear) seems we now post elections, not just when the winner takes office. I concede defeat here QueensanditsCrazy (talk) 18:59, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Post-posting Comment: I feel that much of this whole brouhaha could have been largely avoided (or at the very least minimised) if we had consensus over what constitutes a Template:Tq, seeing as the discussion here was what led to the guideline in question being added onto WP:ITNELECTIONS. That discussion, in which participants had agreed not to post elections of Template:Tq, neglected to draw a line between political office holders with no real power, and those with some degree of power - instead assuming that only the executive role will always wield all of the executive power. JaventheAldericky (talk) 17:39, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Joe Biggs sentencing[edit]

Template:Atop

Template:ITNcandidate

Oppose One more case in a very large one. Come on Knight, you know how this discussion is going to end. _-_Alsor (talk) 16:49, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please cite anywhere in ITN policy that your oppose is based on? — Knightoftheswords 16:58, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As long as it’s not ITNR, I’m giving my opinion. _-_Alsor (talk) 17:54, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No need to be patronising PrecariousWorlds (talk) 18:05, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This is neither the longest sentence nor most publicized case to come out of January 6th, and there’s still plenty more on trial that may get longer, but I’m not sure I’d support any of those either (except for Trump, should he be sentenced). Not close to ITN material. The Kip 17:14, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. Besides the reasoning above, I would equate this to similar opposes from the Lucy Letby case - this isn't going to have any significant consequences in justice within the US at this point. Obviously, the awaited breath are the cases against Trump that are far more significant. --Masem (t) 17:58, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So first of all, the blurb is a mess. Without even voting on this, he wasn't sentenced by a grand jury. Grand juries don't sentence, they indict. That's at the complete opposite end of the trial process. It actually wasn't a jury of any kind that sentenced him. It was Timothy J. Kelly that sentenced him. See [30].--Jayron 32 18:04, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Per above.

In regards to January 6th court proceedings, I don't think they're notable enough for ITN unless some really high-profile individual (obvious example would be Trump) is sentenced PrecariousWorlds (talk) 18:07, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - this isn't groundbreaking. As PrecariousWorlds says - save it for someone prominent. Like Trump or Pence. Nfitz (talk) 18:40, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In the US, grand juries indict, juries convict, and judges sentence. This whole blurb is wrong. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 19:51, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]