[Posted] RD: Tokitenkū Yoshiaki

Nominator's comments: Former top sumo wrestler. Died at age 37 after retiring just last year due to cancer. Some of the minor events in his career are unsourced, but overall I think the article is in good enough shape. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 01:48, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose referencing needs significant improvement. Stephen 02:12, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you be more specific? Every section has multiple references. Are there particular statements that concern you?--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:01, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I'm not sure if the article has changed since Stephen voted or not, but I can't find any contentious information that lacks citations, referencing is exemplary and better than the minimum standards we usually require. This looks good to go. --Jayron32 15:13, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support As Jayron32 points out, the current state of the article seems appropriately sourced and acceptable, maybe the sourcing had been improved since Stephen's !vote. --MASEM (t) 15:18, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Seems like it --Jnorton7558 (talk) 15:28, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• When I looked at it the career section was pretty much unreferenced. There's a few more citations needed then it's good to post. Stephen
• Comment There are currently two "citation needed" tags in the article. The first deals with the subject suffering a losing record at all six tournaments in a calendar year. The fact that he did so has now been referenced. I have not been able to find a reference to support the claim that he was the first person to do so in five years. Ideally it should be referenced, but I would say it is not a hugely contentious claim. The second tag is about his sudden movement up the rankings. To put it in layman's terms, he was ranked 25th in May, had a decent tournament with a 10-5 record, and got promoted all the way up to 10th at the next tournament in July. This is all sourced, except for the claim that he was the first person in 25 years to jump so far up the rankings. These two pieces of trivia have probably been copied from the Japanese wiki article. If they are the only thing stopping this article being posted, I would gladly delete them. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:51, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted after hiding unreferenced claims. Stephen 02:33, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Trump picks Neil Gorsuch for Supreme Court

[Posted] 49,000 UK men retroactively pardoned under the "Alan Turing law"

 109.144.213.90 (talk) 22:56, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Why is this in the news now? Also, the article says that the law is part of the Policing and Crime Act 2017 which is a microstub which doesn't even mention the Turing law. Black Kite (talk) 23:08, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Because the law was enacted today, posthumously pardoning some 49,000 men. Stephen 23:15, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Ah, right (there's a news link there now, there wasn't before). The article says "As of January 2017, some 49,000 men had been retroactively pardoned under the terms of the Policing and Crime Act 2017" which should probably read "On 31 January 2017...". A tentative Support in that case. Black Kite (talk) 23:33, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose on quality. Article is an underreferenced stub. No comments on significance at this time. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:26, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I clicked on the Policing and Crime Act 2017 link instead of the bolded link. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:28, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support A noteworthy event. The article looks solid. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:44, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support on principle - I too was confused why this is news "today" but if what Stephen says is true, the article should be updated to reflect that the law came on the books today, and thus this retroactive pardon only started today. Once that's cleared up, this is a significant event and appropriate ITN material, and outside this issue on the timing, the article is in good shape. --MASEM (t) 23:52, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose unless altblurb Referenced and nuanced thanks to the "reaction" subsection, but the law only applies to England and Wales apparently ("As the law – and the disregard process – only apply to England and Wales, groups in Northern Ireland and Scotland have campaigned for equivalent laws in their jurisdiction"); neither Scotland nor Northern Ireland are included (so it's not "the UK"). I also wonder if we could add a list of all the MPs who voted for and against it?Zigzig20s (talk) 00:02, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think a list of MPs would be useful, as this was part of a much bigger piece of law, and thus MPs could, for example, have voted against the bill because of a completely separate part of the legislation that they did not agree with. Agree about the altblurb (done, see above). Black Kite (talk) 00:09, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - this is not just internal to the UK, it's a natural continuation of previously-posted items such as this and this. Banedon (talk) 00:50, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Arguably the previous ITN postings were specific to Alan Turing, but that's why this new piece of law is named after him. It is a continuation of a principle, but definitely not a continuation of the same story. --MASEM (t) 00:55, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well let's suppose that a new law is passed ("_____ is no longer a crime, retroactively applied to 2010"). You would expect then that "_____ people are pardoned" will happen. The first implies the second. The same applies to e.g. "Trump signs law banning travelers from ____ countries" and "____ travelers from ____ countries are unable to travel to the US". If we have posted the first, we do not need to post the second. Banedon (talk) 01:02, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • But that's not the case here. 2009 (the 2nd link) we have a British PM apologizing for how they treated Turing under existing laws. The first link was when he was posthumously pardoned by the Queen - while this was important it was also recognized as more a ceremonial process since Turing has passed away to enjoy any benefit of it. Now, and what is important here, is that the UK Parliament, after a few years of debates, have created a law that mirror what the Queen did for one person (one rather famous and important person) to 49,000-some individuals retroactively, including some who are still alive. While not all these people are as important as Turing, the impact is much greater, and reflects that the UK gov't recognized these previous laws anti-gay laws were harmful. --MASEM (t) 01:09, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't see that we did post the passing of the law. We posted the pardoning of Turing, but that's only tangentally relevant (i.e. to the - unofficial - name of the law). Black Kite (talk) 01:10, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Let me try this again. If Obama had decided to pardon Julian Assange, would you also expect him to pardon Chelsea Manning? Similarly, if the UK government decides to pardon Alan Turing, would you also expect the many other homosexuals in the country whose names are too minor for the press to mention to also be pardoned? If you answer yes, then where is the notability of this nomination? Banedon (talk) 01:13, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm not entirely sure of the thrust of your Assange/Manning argument, but I'd argue that the pardoning of 49,000 (plus many more to come) people is more notable than the pardoning of one high profile individual. Black Kite (talk) 01:19, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support the pardoning of nearly 50,000 individuals is highly notable, much more so than the commutation of the sentence of one highly notable individual. Let's have some consistency here people. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, presumably quite a few of these men are still alive. Abductive (reasoning) 07:29, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - as The Daily Telegraph makes clear, it's slightly different for the living, who have to personally apply for a pardon: "As well as the posthumous pardons, the new law will allow 15,000 living men who were found guilty of sexual acts that are no longer illegal to apply to the Home Office for a pardon." Note that those pardonned posthumously include Oscar Wilde. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:40, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, noble, but moot decision. Retroactive pardon means they already served their sentences and only then were pardoned. Also it's unclear what percentage is still alive. Brandmeister^talk 09:02, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• (see my comment above). Martinevans123 (talk) 10:58, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The 49,000 are all posthumous, though living people can apply to be added to the list, and these will be considered on a case-by-case basis - it is not guaranteed that those applying will be pardoned. To my mind, that muddies the water enough that we shouldn't post this. GoldenRing (talk) 11:09, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• That is not my understanding. Provided the crime is on the list, a pardon will be issued. It's just an administative process. Perhaps the article doesn't make this clear. The Daily Telegraph says: "A spokesman for Stonewall, the gay rights charity, called the new law: “Another important milestone of equality.” Martinevans123 (talk) 11:19, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Martinevans123: I don't have a source to hand, but my understanding is that, in the cases of those living, each will be checked that the conviction would not be otherwise covered by a different crime today. For instance, there are cases where homosexual sexual assault was prosecuted as gross indecency and these would not be pardoned. GoldenRing (talk) 13:11, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, I now see that the article says this: "This means that the Home Office will investigate each case involving living people to ensure that the act that the petitioner was convicted of is no longer considered a criminal act, to avoid pardoning men convicted of underage sex or rape." There is a BBC source in support. But I don't see that this procedure affects the fundamental notability of the event. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:26, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Such large mass pardonings of people, alive or deceased, are rare and notable. 331dot (talk) 11:48, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Alt3 made for conciseness. As for a vote, this strikes me as an incremental step in a process that no one really doubts any longer. On the other hand it apparently affects living people, so I'll just say neutral.128.214.53.104 (talk) 12:32, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Based on the statement by the Stonewall spokesman, it seems to be notable. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:27, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Reluctantly oppose, despite it being a worthy cause. This is an entirely symbolic gesture, and whilst it's clearly important for those directly affected it doesn't lead to the sort of societal change that e.g. gay marriage did. We already posted the pardon of Alan Turing himself, which led to this law, and I don't see any reason to feature the story twice on ITN. This is also only getting muted media coverage, reflecting a 'well that's nice, but doesn't really change much' response. Modest Genius ^talk 15:43, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted. There is consensus for this. Just because the law is informally named for someone who we have posted before is irrelevant. That the 49,000 are dead does not lessen the social impact of this legislation to their friends and families. Stephen 22:30, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Pull. 7 supports and 5 opposes isn't consensus. 2.102.185.203 (talk) 02:29, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• We don't count votes. Stephen 07:05, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Correction: good admins don't count votes. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:47, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Post-posting support. Large number of people pardoned in the context of a controversial former British law. Even if it is largely symbolic, symbols, matter. In this case, the law not only pardons the dead, but allows those living with convictions under the overturned laws to apply for pardons. Don't why this shouldn't be posted because we posted related stories 3 and 8 years ago. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:01, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Post-posting support per Patar knight – I understand that this is mostly symbolic, but as it stands, the pardoning of 49,000 people at one time is still significant enough for ITN in itself. Mz7 (talk) 04:47, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Please make concise This blurb is 5 lines long and contains language that has currency only within UK legalese ("cautioned"), is redundant ("retroactively pardoned") and unneeded ("historical legislation...").128.214.53.104 (talk) 12:31, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Please take such concerns to ERRORS, per the notice at the top of this page. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:41, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] RD: John Wetton

[Posted] African Union decides to readmit Morocco

 Jenda H. (talk) 12:40, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support and I cleaned up the blurb. Obviously encyclopedic subject with updated articles. The AU article is in good order despite the lede tag.128.214.53.104 (talk) 13:03, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment "decides to" or actually "does"? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:07, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the sources above Morocco seems to have actually rejoined(one has a quote to that effect) so I've posted an altblurb. 331dot (talk) 13:17, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The 28th Summit of African Heads of State and Government is made up of representatives from the AU, which voted "overwhelmingly" to readmit Morocco. The Moroccan government website notes this, as well as votes in their own parliament, but the AU website has not yet updated their member states list to include Morocco. Whether the AU and Morocco have "decided to" or "did" rejoin depends on whether or not the vote at the Summit is binding, and on that I don't know anything.128.214.53.104 (talk) 13:24, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By reading the AU's own Constitutive Act, it's clear that this Assembly is the body empowered to make decisions about membership, which must be reached by consensus or by 2/3 majority. So, "did" rejoin.128.214.53.104 (talk) 13:47, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support on principle - this is the equivalent of the EU for Africa, so any changes in member-state status should be reflected as ITN. It would help if the blurb had some clarity; it seems that this isn't so much "readmit" but "admit" for the first time into what we know as the Africa Union, as Moracco had withdrawn a few decades earlier from the AU's predecessor organization. I don't know if we can make a succinct blurb to explain why Moracco withdrew before. --MASEM (t) 18:06, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support alt2 Nergaal (talk) 18:15, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Event has continent-wide implications and notability. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:09, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support altblurb, notability should not be in question. Banedon (talk) 00:53, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support alt blurb -- Yogwi21 (talk) 01:21, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support alt blurb per above. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 01:29, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted alt-blurb. If anyone wants to discuss further the admits/readmits issue this can be done at WP:ERRORS. Thryduulf (talk) 02:28, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SUGGESTION This may be an opportune moment to tag on the new AU chief. We do post EU? Lihaas

Which one? Chairperson of the African Union is a ceremonial post, roughly equivalent to the Presidency of the Council of the European Union, which we don't post. Chairperson of the African Union Commission might be postable, but it's not clear how much power this role has. Smurrayinchester 16:22, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Rohingya people

[Closed] Miss Universe

[Posted] RD: Masayaa Nakamura

Nominator's comments: Founder of Namco and who developed Pac-Man. Article is woefully short, and I'm going to ping the VG project to see if they can jump and help to expand. Also note: as Variety points out, he died on the 22nd, but only today was his death announced. MASEM (t) 13:57, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Myself and other editors have greatly expanded the article, so it should be ready to go (in terms of ITN/C review, not to post). --MASEM (t) 19:12, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support "Father of Pac-Man". Article is decently written and suitable for posting. 117.192.6.179 (talk) 19:25, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support good work, good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:48, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted Stephen 22:37, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Winter X Games XXI

Nominator's comments: I updated the article with a day by day summary of the final events. I do not believe we have ever posted the X Games before on ITN but I thought it would be worth updating the article and nominating it here. Andise1 (talk) 23:13, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak oppose - I'm seeing only regional coverage for this event. If this is posted regardless I would strongly oppose "... with the United States winning seven gold medals" in the blurb, since it is a multi-national event and highlighting only one country's medal tally is not fair. Banedon (talk) 01:34, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support this is even being covered in countries with virtually no winter sports pedigree, e.g. the UK, and it's perfectly normal to include which country came top in the overall standings of such a multi-national multi-sport contest. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:44, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean no pedigree??!!? Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:08, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just pointing out that the UK won two medals in this very event, so I do not agree that the UK has virtually no winter sports pedigree. Banedon (talk) 09:10, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support sporting event with world-wide participation, and a First to boot (successful quad underflip).128.214.53.104 (talk) 10:17, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted Stephen 02:29, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The article Elena Hight is in terrible shape. How can it be linked on the main page?--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:56, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  So terrible it doesn't exist! You mean Elena Hight. But why pick that one? Quebec City is awful. Western Sahara is awful. If you're now reviewing non-target links, please seek a change to the ITN criteria to ensure all linked articles are up to scratch. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:00, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Not to mention that Winter X Games XXI mostly consists of tables with insufficient prose and many of the references are just copied URLs. The discussion with two support votes (with one by an IP-address) against one oppose vote does also confirm that the posting was premature. I don't think we need changes of the ITN criteria when it's glaringly obvious that some nominations cannot be posted because of the insufficient article quality. I'd also like to see what Stephen was thinking when posting this.-Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:56, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  P.S. Quebec City and Western Sahara are in much better shape than Elena Hight, which has an orange tag, lack of references and extremely poor style (please note that much of it contains sentences without full stops).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:15, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  The references were added by me to appease yet another complainant, feel free to pad them out properly, I don't have time right now, but I'll get back to it if no-one else does. At least it makes the article referenced. As for orange maintenance tags, Quebec City, Western Sahara and Elene Hight's articles all contain orange maintenance tags. The article has four cited paragraphs, easily sufficient to meet the ITN rules. Of course, in all that time, you could have worked on making the article better. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:00, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  I can re-work the article to make look better, but sometimes you have to complain. Posting 'crap' on the main page with the argument that you can spend time on improving it rather than complaining about it is useful in terms of efficient editing but not in raising awareness about content quality.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:51, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Can you point me to the rules which state that we have to review all the auxiliary links in a blurb to ensure they're up to (some unknown standard of) quality? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:19, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  We don't have established rules on checking all articles linked in a blurb, but it doesn't mean we shouldn't give a damn about the quality beyond the links visible on the main page. Compare this simply to the RD nominations and the strive for quality before posting. I don't think these two things drastically differ so that a different reasoning should be used.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:18, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Then your point applies to the other two links (the only two I checked), and there are doubtless more across the main page. RD nominations are the whole target article so the comparison is void. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:23, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, it should apply to all articles linked on the main page, but I can't go to each nomination and start up discussion about the same thing. My complain here generalises the case and doesn't defend the insufficient quality of articles that I haven't checked. After all, no-one can check all articles to draw conclusions with highest accuracy.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:47, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Ok, so no action needed until we change the various main page sections to include a guideline to check that all auxiliary links are up to a particular (defined?) quality. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:08, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  I think the distinction here is that the Quebec City or Western Sahara links are integral to the blurb itself. A link to a pictured gold medallist (1/7), is not really integral to the understanding of the Winter X games. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 15:16, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Then replace it with an image of Turing which is two stories newer. You're an admin, this should be the stuff you can easily do. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:19, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm pretty confident that neither TFA or DYK have a similar check of auxiliarly linked article quality of the text posted to the main page. Both emphasize the quality of the bolded link article, and the text that is to be put to the main page, but not any other links from that text. --MASEM (t) 14:53, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support removal on quality/notability grounds, per my earlier comments at WP:ERRORS. IgnorantArmies (talk) 10:47, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Every issue you raised has either been resolved or refuted. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:19, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Reword blurb I would strongly suggest we reword it to "with the US team winning most gold medals" or similar. As it stands, it makes the blurb sound like it's simply pointing out the US team's results for no reason. Smurrayinchester 15:01, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree with above, but would prefer omitting the entire latter half of the sentence entirely ("The 2017 Winter X Games conclude" or "The 2017 Winter X Games in Aspen, Colorado conclude"). Banedon (talk) 02:48, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Pull. Besides the questionable ITN-notability grounds. The X games are not even the top multi-event Winter action sporting games, since it also hosts the Winter X Games Europe, which is of equal status (if maybe not viewership). This year's Winter X games had severe viewership drops [4] in almost all time slots [5], and never getting more than 1 mil. Compare this to other winter sporting events such as the US figure skating championships, which got 3.7 million viewers [6] not counting the widespread international figure skating audience, and the Winter X games wouldn't seem to make the cut. The update is also not very good – I count only a handful of facts that are not just merely X won Y – and combined with the lack of ITN-notability, I think it justifies pulling. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 15:12, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The story will be moved off the ticker soon so I do not think removal is necessary. Andise1 (talk) 23:15, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Quebec City mosque shooting

Nominator's comments: Happened in last hour. Give time for details to emerge. MASEM (t) 02:46, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Please note There is also presently a second article created just a minute afterward 2017 Quebec City mosque shooting on the same event. These should be history-merged to one article to cover it, but I don't know which one is the better name to do that with. --MASEM (t) 03:00, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The articles have been merged; Blurb/target updated to reflect the target. --MASEM (t) 03:56, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Anti-islamic attack on a religious service. And it was in Canada, so it won't be rejected here for being "just another U.S. shooting". – Muboshgu (talk) 03:26, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support'. Mass killings in Canada are extremely rare. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:36, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Provincial police just gave an interview confirming the number of deaths/wounded and that all subjects are in custody. Article should be stabilizing now and is well-sourced and probably good to post. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 06:01, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. This is more significant in terms of fatalities than both the Ottawa attack and the vehicle ramming attack in 2014, both of which I think made ITN. 207.107.159.62 (talk) 04:23, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Mass killings of this nature are exceedingly rare in Canada. Kurtis ^(talk) 06:35, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. The article is in good shape and this is getting worldwide coverage (see, e.g., coverage from the BBC and Al Jazeera). -- Notecardforfree (talk) 06:57, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Latest count is 6 dead. Isa (talk) 07:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait, due possible quality issue? Currently the Suspects section a) wikilinks to a disambiguation article for Quebecquois, and b) links to a written (and unconfirmed) news report that one of the suspects is of Quebec origin and the other of Arab origin, while the same item also has a spoken (and unconfirmed, and perhaps evolving) video news report that seemed a bit confused, but appeared to be saying that both arrested suspects may be of both Quebec and Arab origin. I don't know whether this is sufficiently serious to require us to wait or not. And I don't know whether including such unconfirmed reports is 'encyclopaedic', but it's not what I would expect to find in Encyclopaedia Britannica. And I'm not sure what, if anything, should be done to try to fix the matter. Tlhslobus (talk) 07:44, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Put another way, the Suspects section may currently violate WP:NOTNEWS, along with its Disambiguation quality issue (see above). As I am not sure whether this should stop posting, I have temporarily removed the Ready tag from this item, to give others a little time to have a look at the matter, after which somebody else may want to restore the Ready tag. Tlhslobus (talk) 08:02, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The disambiguation issue now seems fixed, and there is now also a link to a tweet by La Presse, that they had learnt that a suspect was of Moroccan origin. Our text said 'attacker' (which I corrected to 'suspect'), possibly because the tweet says suspect in French, but is immediately followed by tweets from private individuals (not from La Presse) saying 'attacker' in English - most of our readers who bother to check this source will thus probably see the English mistranslation 'attacker' instead of the French 'suspect'. I leave it to others to decide whether this is now 'encyclopedic', and, if not, what to do about it. Tlhslobus (talk) 08:12, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The reporter in the TVA video clip basically says what's in the article text (i.e. one Arab, one Quebecois) in the first minute of the clip. Not seeing how NOTNEWS applies here. Unless you're suggesting that La Presse and TVA Nouvelles, and other sources reporting the same thing now (e.g. CBC) are unreliable, or that the identity of the perpetrators of one of Canada's worst mass shootings is unencyclopedic, I'm not sure how that would apply. There are potential BLP problems with content of this type, but here all the claims are sourced to reliable sources, are stated as being from those sources and not in Wikipedia's voice, and have their lack of official confirmation mentioned in the article.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 08:39, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, just for the record, the TVA video clip (which hasn't changed) basically says in French 'two people of Quebecois origin, ... and two people of Arab origin, ...(more talk)... to confirm our story, two people of Quebecois and Arab origin' - in other words it appears confused, but may (or may not) be saying two people of both Quebec and Arab origin - such apparent confusion and ambiguity is hardly what one would normally describe as 'reliable' (as in 'reliable source'). The La Presse tweet may be consistent with either of the two different interpretions, since it only speaks of one of the suspects being of Moroccan origin (especially if we are correctly translating 'origine' as 'background', implying possibly multiple 'ancestry' rather than unique 'birthplace'). But, as already mentioned, this is just for the record, since I said I'd leave it to others to decide what to do about all this. And if CBC is actually reporting all this more reliably, it might be a good idea to add in that report in addition to, or in place of, one or both those reports. Tlhslobus (talk) 09:17, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Again just for the record, the tweet has now been removed by somebody else as an alleged violation of WP:RS (which seems correct, at least by my reading of the relevant sections of WP:RS). Meanwhile about 40 minutes ago the Washington Post was saying nothing about the suspects, while CBC News was saying:

A witness, who asked to remain anonymous, told CBC's French-language service Radio-Canada that two masked individuals entered the mosque.

"It seemed to me that they had a Québécois accent. They started to fire, and as they shot they yelled, 'Allahu akbar!' The bullets hit people that were praying. People who were praying lost their lives. A bullet passed right over my head," said the witness.

Note that this does NOT confirm that the attackers are of Arab origin. They are masked and speaking with a Quebec accent. The fact that they shout 'Allahu Akbar' may mean that they are Quebecers who have converted to Islam, or that they are non-Muslims trying to blame their crime on Islamists, but it is NOT CBC confirmation that one of them is of Arab origin. So we are currently just left with one source for that, and it is a source which appears ambiguous, confused, and self-contradictory. Tlhslobus (talk) 10:12, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. - article is in good shape. Worldwide covered incident.--BabbaQ (talk) 08:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted. Dragons flight (talk) 08:53, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• This was called a terrorist attack by Trudeau. Any reason we don't call it that? Or is it only terrorism when it's Muslims pulling the trigger? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.251.254.154 (talk) 17:02, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Incidents like this are often prematurely labeled as terrorist attacks, or may be treated like terrorist incidents as to engage special law enforcement provisions, but only until the motives of the shooters are figured out could we call it a terrorist attack. And that's not known at this stage. --MASEM (t) 18:36, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] 2017 World Men's Handball Championship

[Closed] Australian Open

Unimproved. Stephen 23:31, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[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: 2017 Australian Open (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In tennis, the Australian Open concludes with Roger Federer winning the men's singles and Serena Williams winning the women's singles. (Post)
News source(s): ABC, ABC
Credits:

• Nominated by Samuel Wiki (talk · give credit)

Article needs updating
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.

 Samuel Wiki (talk) 13:32, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment the structure of the article seems odd compared to the previous years'; it's the same general layout but there's excess detail in places. It looks weird from that stance, and may need to be fixed to meet what other years have had. --MASEM (t) 15:11, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Probably the main thing you're noticing is the day-by-day summaries section is not split into separate article like previous years. Additionally, the prose summaries of notable events is organized differently and bigger than previous years (not neccessarily a bad thing). - Samuel Wiki (talk) 21:04, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural oppose the article hasn't been updated post-conclusion of the tournament. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:28, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Updated. - Samuel Wiki (talk) 21:04, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Still loads of sections without inline citations. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:12, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: Looks pretty good to me. Obvious notability as one of tennis' four Majors. -Kudzu1 (talk) 20:38, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Notable enough, but don't think the article is up to main page quality. For example the short prose update is squeezed into a list of trivia under a misleading "notable events" heading. AIRcorn (talk) 06:47, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - the real news here is that both winners have extended their overall records, and that Federer in particular has made sporting history here. I don't have the time (so no snarky comments to do the work needed on the article, please), but I really hope someone will be able to do the work needed here (several of the last few tennis Grand Slams have failed to get into ITN because the work is not being done on the articles). Whether or not Federer wins another Slam this year, I suspect he will retire at some point relatively soon, and that really will be the end of an era. Carcharoth (talk) 07:05, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: Non-notable event. Tennis has gotten so ridiculously stagnant with the same men & women's champions over the last 15-20 years that even the media is tired of covering it. In the US, Trump's immigration orders have gotten the bulk of the media attention this weekend; this was only a footnote. Aaaaaabbbbb111 (talk) 07:19, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 Australian Open is thataway. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:30, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong link, this should be the place: [7]. This item is on ITNR, so opposing it on merit is pointless. Banedon (talk) 10:46, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong oppose not a major event. 45.116.233.26 (talk) 10:11, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Struck, it's at ITN/R, which means if it meets quality criteria it will get posted. Mjroots (talk) 11:16, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support significant news headlines around the world; Federer and Nadal are considered two of the best tennis players of all time, and to have a five-set rematch at their age is unusual. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:30, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support This has been updated with significant prose for the singles and sourced per The Guardian match reports.Dustblower (talk) 05:43, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Still out of date (e.g. lots of "Matches start at 11:00 am, Night matches do not start before 7:00 pm") and sections of stats without a single citation, e.g. the ranking points changes has no verifiable reliable sources at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:45, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  I fixed the problem with the phrasing and sourced the seeds, points, and rankings by Tennis Explorer.Dustblower (talk) 06:32, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  The tense issue remains (at the bottom of all the schedule tables). The Rambling Man (talk) 06:52, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  What about the following phrase. "The day match session commences at 11:00 am local time, whilst the night match session commences at 7:00 pm local time."Dustblower (talk) 06:59, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry, they've all already happened. These should all be past tense. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:07, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  I've corrected the tense issue. - Samuel Wiki (talk) 08:24, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[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.

[Closed] Plan to Defeat the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria

[Posted] RD: Stuart Timmons

Nominator's comments: Award-winning gay historian and activist Zigzig20s (talk) 07:22, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, whilst notable enough for an article, his death does not seem to have been reported in the mainstream news, Stephen 12:09, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Per two RFC discussions, the existence of an article is a high enough threshold for RD. Please assess article quality only. --Jayron32 13:54, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  ITN's overall rules require that the nominated event be in the news. Abductive (reasoning) 17:37, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  That was a question I had on this too. He's notable but his death has not really be noted (LA Pride being the only major source I could find, and that's far too narrow for "news"). It is an interesting issue, but I would be tempted that the intent of the RFC is that as long as the notable standalone article is there, and the death is in an RS even if not "news", that RD would fit the intent that we have from that RFC. If we had to use a forum post, for example, or a standard newspaper short obit, that would be different. --MASEM (t) 19:18, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thoughts. I've added this obituary. I think we could WP:IGNOREALLRULES in this case and then try to reach consensus to change ITN rules. As a member of WikiProject LGBT Studies, I am struck by the way our current rules seem to reinforce the heteronormativity, if not the homophobia, of the mainstream press. A similar argument could be made about RDs from Zambia or Paraguay--unlikely to be on the front page of The Wall Street Journal, but as long as they have good articles, they should appear on the main page IMO. It seems amoral to reinforce the discriminatory and exclusionary biases of the Western press via ITN rules.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:01, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I find an obit in the LA Times, which is pretty mainstream. SusunW (talk) 21:24, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. User:Stephen: Do you formally support this now please?Zigzig20s (talk) 07:54, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support One of the films is not sourced, but I hope that should be trivial to fix, but otherwise the "lack of being in the news" discussed above is resolved with the LATimes obit. --MASEM (t) 22:37, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• A couple of references needed and this is good to go, now that it is 'In the News'. And please, this has nothing whatsoever to do with homophobia, so it's extremely disappointing to see that card played. We had another recent example of Mark Fisher, who had an article but no-one reported his death until several days later. Stephen 22:46, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think the media is inherently heteronormative/homophobic. That was my point. I didn't say ITN was.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:51, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You said "our current [ITN] rules seem to reinforce the heteronormativity, if not the homophobia, of the mainstream press." Reinforcing rules is an active behaviour. Stephen 23:04, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, not actively. Passively. But that's inevitable unless one lives in a gay bubble.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:10, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose for now for the same reason as Bland at this point. The two sources alluded to are local LA media. If this is in the news it should be covered more broadly than by those who knew the man. μηδείς (talk) 23:47, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Los Angeles Times is a major newspaper though, isn't it? It has a daily circulation of 653,868.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:17, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is, the death has coverage in reliable sources so any opposition on that point is, well, pointless. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:47, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since you're here--feel free to let us know formally if you support or oppose this...Zigzig20s (talk) 06:28, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak support still one [cn] in there, I made a few tweaks to the article, but otherwise it's ok. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:56, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted Stephen 08:44, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Vatican forces the leader of the Sovereign Order of Malta to resign in condoms row

No consensus. Stephen 22:32, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[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: Sovereign Military Order of Malta (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ *Pope Francis takes de facto control of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta (coat of arms pictured), forcing its leader Prince and Grand Master Matthew Festing to resign. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Pope Francis takes de facto control of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta, forcing its Grand Master Matthew Festing to resign in a dispute partly about contraceptives.
Alternative blurb II: ​ Pope Francis takes de facto control of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta, forcing its Grand Master Matthew Festing to resign in a dispute partly over a rift between liberals and conservatives.
News source(s): (The New York Times), (Vatican Radio)
Credits:

• Nominated by Bruzaholm (talk · give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Notable news as one sovereign entity (Vatican) takes de facto control of another (the Order). The Sovereign Military Order of Malta retains sovereignty under international law, including United Nations permanent observer status, issuing its own passports, currency and postage stamps with the Maltese cross insignia. There are even speculations that the takeover will end the history of the almost 1000-year-old Military Order. Bruzaholm (talk) 11:47, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose for now mainly on article quality. Referencing is very poor with whole sections lacking a citation. Beyond which I am concerned by the wording in the blurb. As a matter of private opinion, I entirely agree that one sovereign country has effectively overthrown the government of another. However neither side in this dispute is characterizing things in that language and the wording of the relevant section does not support it. All of which said this is beyond unusual, to the point of virtually unknown in modern political history. When was the last time a Pope deposed another head of state? This is definitely ITN material, but it needs work and unless the section is rewritten with solid sourcing, the blurb will need to be changed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:20, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – Interesting to history buffs (like me) but of little general significance. Sca (talk) 16:09, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support in principle, conditional on article quality. NOT just of interest to history buffs, but potentially of interest to over a billion Catholics (and quite a few non-Catholics) worldwide in terms of what it says about the unusual measures the present Pope is prepared to take in dealing with various kinds of internal problems in the Church. It is arguably ultimately also about the Church and contraception (and thus global population and the global environment and poverty and sex and health and Women's Rights, etc), since the Pope was opposing the dismissal of the Chancellor of the order by its Grand Master "for allowing the distribution of condoms in a medical project for the poor".Tlhslobus (talk) 18:11, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Could an altblurb give some indication of what the dispute is actually about? Tlhslobus (talk) 18:14, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've now added an altblurb mentioning that it's partly about contraceptives. Tlhslobus (talk) 18:33, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's bigger than that. This is the latest battle in the Catholic Church's ongoing civil war between progressives aligned with Pope Francis and conservatives. Among the latter Cardinal Burk has been seen as a leader even before his de-facto banishment from the Vatican, where he was one of the most powerful figures in the Church, to the relatively obscure and ceremonial post of Chaplain to the KoM. There is a lot going on here that people who don't pay close attention to what's going on in the Catholic Church aren't seeing. It is one of the biggest power struggles in centuries with the future course of the RCC being the stakes. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:20, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Username give away your views much, Ad Orientem? Why do I suspect you are a partisan of Cardinal Sarah? (All in jest!) --Varavour (talk) 21:26, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I'm not Catholic, but I do try to keep up on things. And yes, I'm sympathetic to Card. Sarah among others. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:40, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support As a sovereign entity, leadership changes are on par with leadership changes in sovereign states, which generally make ITN. --Varavour (talk) 21:26, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support an encyclopedically interesting and notable event. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:28, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TRM. Are you endorsing the nomination with the article in its current condition? -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:46, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm endorsing the newsworthy element of the story. I'm trying to rely on admins to gauge encyclopedic quality from now on. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:49, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tu es homo summa fide... -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:58, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ita vero, but some of your fellow admins are fully focused on getting me blocked, thanks <orange>The ed17</orange>! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:03, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Methinks that should perhaps read either "Es homo summae fidei" or "Es homo fidelissimus", and I can't even remember whether "Ita vero" is correct or not. Sigh! It looks like I wasted 6 years of my life studying a dead language to no other purpose than to make me unable to resist the temptation to be absurdly pedantic over 40 years later :( Tlhslobus (talk) 06:56, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The section about the Festing's resignation is now reasonable referenced (some 30 notes). As to the background is concerned, I think alt-blurb 2 gives a fair picture - this is basically a conflict between the "liberals" (Pope Francis and Boeselage) and the "conservatives" (Cardinal Burke and Festing). "Modernists" vs. "traditionalists" may be preferable concepts as the term "liberal" might be rather misleading as to the policy of Pope Francis. --Bruzaholm (talk) 23:58, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd not use the term "modernist" which is a pejorative among Catholics, given that modernism is a condemned heresy since at least the reign of Pius X. We don't want to be calling the Pope a heretic. Well, at least not in wiki-voice. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:26, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think condoms (or contraceptives) may be both more meaningful and more interesting to the average reader (as well as avoiding any dispute over what the sides should be called) - 'liberals v conservatives' can probably be used to describe almost all disputes within the Church (eg child sex abuse, whom to canonize, women priests, attitudes to gays, stem cell research, euthanasia, abortion, etc) and is thus not very informative. Although the dispute inevitably grew to embrace other issues such as the extent of papal authority, etc, it was triggered by a row over condoms. Tlhslobus (talk) 06:42, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Article quality is not what's required and the story is fast fading from public consciousness outside of certain circles. It's already footnote material. And I don't think any of the blurbs catch the essence. Agree that "liberal" is a poor word choice. Francis defeats a challenge to his leadership from forces of the old guard. (I jest.) Better: Pope takes control of Order of Malta, defeating those who ignored his advice to avoid publicity and drama. Sad! Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 00:20, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[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.

[Closed] RD: Christopher Bland

[Posted] RD: Many Clouds

 Fuebaey (talk) 15:28, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Early part of the racing career section is undersourced. --MASEM (t) 15:42, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Looks OK now. Tigerboy1966  19:17, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support article is in good shape and is ready to post, if others agree. Bencherlite^Talk 20:45, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support yep, good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:48, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted Stephen 22:46, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Withdrawn] Ongoing: Trump's 1st days in office (previously called Trump's 1st 100 days)

• Note I've opened a discussion on how to handle the Trump problem on the talk page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:36, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Trump's executive order on immigration

[Posted] RD: Arthur H. Rosenfeld

Nominator's comments: A highly regarded physicist and public servant called the "Godfather of Energy Efficiency". Unfortunately, his article is barely more than a stub at the moment. I am going to try to find some time to work on it myself later today. Dragons flight (talk) 08:58, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. So we've more than doubled the length of the page and it is looking a lot better. I need to take a break for a while, but will come back to add more later. I think we will have it in a good state for posting before too long. Dragons flight (talk) 10:43, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Length and sourcing are fine. --MASEM (t) 14:12, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Article is in good shape. It's not every day that a highly-respected energy physicist did more than just talk about global warming, and saved us a $billion while doing it. --Light show (talk) 23:04, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the article is at Arthur H. Rosenfeld so shouldn't that be the name we use in ITN? If we use Art then arguably we should be moving the article to the "common name" if that's actually the case. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:39, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm probably a little too close to the issue to judge fairly which name is more common, but I don't think either is a terrible choice. Probably just use Arthur unless the article gets renamed. Dragons flight (talk) 15:08, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, it wasn't a criticism, just a note that we normally post the items by their article name (excluding dab caveats, of course). If there's good grounds for Arthur H. to become Art, I'm all for moving the article. Or at least, all for someone else moving the article! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:30, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clicking on Art and ending up on an Arthur article comes across as an error. For the time being, unless the article name is changed, I (boldly) changed the article name for the RD to match. --Light show (talk) 20:23, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Posted Stephen 00:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] RD: Buchi Emecheta

 —MBlaze Lightning ^T 04:43, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak oppose Support - until a few things get more attention so that article is at a minimum quality standard. Ie., the section "Early life" needs a citation(s), and the list of her books under the "Works" section needs a citation(s), or at least ISBN's. But I do have a question about the "References" section: why is it included here? I ask because none of the "references" listed is used or cited in the article itself. I'm guessing this section needs to be renamed "Secondary literature." But then the question remains: why are these works listed and not others? Why are these particular "secondary" sources considered authoritative, and not others? - Christian Roess (talk) 05:40, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - referencing issues have been resolved. —MBlaze Lightning ^T 12:33, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• nice work, and thank you. The article's quality looks decent now. I changed my vote above. Christian Roess (talk) 16:26, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I glanced at this before but hadn't commented but saw sourcing issues. But at this point the sourcing is now fixed and looks ready to go (Only oddity, not critical, is that in the list of articles he wrote, only one has an article title, the rest just give the publication. If the articles are untitled, that's okay, but those titles should be provided). --MASEM (t) 14:14, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted Stephen 22:25, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] RD: John Hurt

 Nohomersryan (talk) 02:50, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: Notable, but most importantly article is properly sources (but I will take care of sourcing for needed areas) and article is being updated to reflect his recent death. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 02:59, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are gaps in the filmography - fortunately most is sourced to TCM, but there's still a lot of appearances w/o sources and I did catch a few cn's in the body. --MASEM (t) 03:09, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Masem: I already covered the cn's in the article. Let me cover the filmography. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 03:17, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Some bits of his personal life still give at least the appearance of being undersourced. Tlhslobus (talk) 04:34, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Article is in very good shape. It's a sad irony that the more an actor has done, the less likely they make it ITN. All the blue-linked films are good enough, and the few unlinked films or tv roles are unimportant and can be ignored. Had he only been in a few major films and tv shows, instead of 200-plus, the article would be near perfect, IMO, with its 64 cites. --Light show (talk) 06:26, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support the substantial filmography has been forked out to another article. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:51, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - per Light Show. Jusdafax 07:57, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted. Black Kite (talk) 08:18, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Note He died on the 25th - note added to the template. Black Kite (talk) 12:16, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] 2017 North India cold wave

Nominator's comments: North India is suffering from intense cold and snowfall early month of Janaury which has resulted in avalanches in Kashmir Junosoon (talk) 05:38, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak support we posted the European cold spell which killed scores, but this, in India, is somewhat different. The article needs a little bit of polishing, those sources are terribly formatted, some unreferenced claims, but the notability of the news item is without question. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:32, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support international coverage is quite limited and the article is pretty bad too. But it's something, and judging from the list of references in the article, has dominated regional news. Banedon (talk) 10:07, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted, will not be there for long. Stephen 02:41, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] RD: Lindy Delapenha

Nominator's comments: Jamaican footballer. Fuebaey (talk) 21:21, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support not seeing any major issues with this at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:31, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted. Stephen 22:21, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Metallic hydrogen created in the lab

Nominator's comments: Metallic hydrogen is predicted to be metastable at atmospheric pressure (e.g. compare this to diamond; under normal pressure graphite is the stable form, but diamond at ordinary pressures takes an astronomically long time to change into graphite) It may also be a superconductor at room temperature. Count Iblis (talk) 23:19, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak oppose They key is the metastable nature- right now the sample they made is sitting between two diamonds to keep the high pressure on it; if they release that pressure and the material remains solid, that's the breakthrough. It doesn't seem to have really been a question of making metallic hydrogen, but how stable they could make it to observe it long enough to validate that it is metallic hydrogen. I do note that the article could probably explain more about this paper's result since it doesn't catch this subtly (that's its not yet proven metastable). --MASEM (t) 23:36, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - seems obvious to me. Quoting the The Independent article, "This is the holy grail of high-pressure physics". Banedon (talk) 02:55, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Leaning support. Really tough one this. I can't find any fault in anything either Masem or Banedon say. For balance the very same article Banedon quotes goes on to state "But the prospect of this bright future could be at risk if the scientists’ next step – to establish whether the metal is stable at normal pressures and temperatures – fails to go as hoped.." But what leans me towards supporting is on the grounds that this is a long sought-after scientific feat in its own right, and that this would be true even if it's ultimately found that the material's practical potential is non-existent or not as hoped-for. Scientists had been looking to demonstrate metallic hydrogen for a good 80 years or so. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 05:13, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support NYT quotes an awful lot of skeptical solid-state physicists - but then again, this is in the news and if someone does confirm the result, the second discovery won't be in the news. I've added a slightly more non-committal altblurb. Smurrayinchester 09:48, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe, and metallic form has only been theorized. This is highly relevant for example to the core of Jupiter and other gas giants, and may be relevant to star cores also. Nergaal (talk) 11:16, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support altblurb on the merits as a notable discovery in chemistry/physics; Masem is correct that the article could do a better job of explaining this. 331dot (talk) 11:18, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Strictly speaking, the experiment with deuterium last year actually did this first (as it is an isotope of hydrogen), but the common parlance of these things and the trouble in conveying this distinction in a blurb, and the impact of this finding on normal hydrogen, as opposed to rarely-occurring deuterium, makes me want to overlook that very slight inaccuracy.128.214.53.104 (talk) 11:35, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This is a good science story and I see a strong support here. I will wait until the cn tags are fixed, then ready to post. --Tone 12:05, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I have a conflict of interest here, so won't !vote, but I will say that it's very odd to name the authors' institution in the blurb. That's not really information that a general Wikipedia reader needs to know, and the space could be better used to highlight other good articles. I've added an alt2 blurb. Modest Genius ^talk 13:05, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • To not name the institution is sweeping the contributions of the real researchers/scientists under the rug. We have tons of acknowledgements for success for sports, politics, entertainment, etc. but this aversion to including the institution, at minimum, for a major scientific breakthrough is counter to all that. There can be issues of space problems if there are multiple institutions involved in a discovery, at which point we do need brevity, but here, work done from one specific school, there's no reason to not give some acknowledgement, given how infrequent scientific breakthroughs are posted here. --MASEM (t) 15:36, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree, but given my conflict of interest I won't argue further. Modest Genius ^talk 18:17, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Naming the institution is disgusting. Who gets the Nobel Prizes? People! Abductive (reasoning) 18:02, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sure, there's usually one or two professors that are the centerpoint of knowledge for these discoveries and whom in the scientific literature, get credit for it, but within the way these stories are reported, the media and even works like Science and Nature nearly always start with the research institution. My impression is that it is not just one or two people that are involved but the students/grad/post-docs/assistants that work with those professors, the supporting functions (like analysis laboratories, machine shops, etc.) that help with the experiments, and the admin side to make sure things are funded or distribute funding. Further, the institution's name (like Harvard here) carries weight that the work done is of good quality, hence why it is featured over the actual researcher. This is a situation tied with the whole issue of notability of academics, in that few actual researchers are ever notable. Since we can't really change that, it still makes sense to follow how discoveries are credited in the reporting media. --MASEM (t) 19:19, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support altblurb. Seems like the experiment has resulted in an important scientific discovery, which itself is of high encyclopedic relevance and a fine ITN material.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:13, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Posting alt. --Tone 13:27, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I know this has been posted, but I see that there is significant doubt to the validity of this expirement (and Nature is not one to necessary throw out random speculation from other scientists). This leans further to something that we should not be posting since the method of determining is not apparently strong enough to support their claims. --MASEM (t) 14:47, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been in review for like 3 months and was published in the highest tier journal in the world. Nergaal (talk) 14:50, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"peer review" even in a top-ranked journal like Science does not equal "truth". (and that only means 3 people reviewed it, not the scientific community as a whole) From the Nature article, it is not that they disagree with the methods, but that they are judging the formation of metallic hydrogen by an appearance factor rather than a chemical factor, meaning that other things with similar appearance could have been made instead (eg like aluminum used to make the anvil apparatus). --MASEM (t) 14:56, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing equates "truth". I can't even prove you exist. However, for the purposes of scientific journalism, this passes the highest tests for reliability. There have never been, are not, and will never be any proof of anything ever. However, in terms of reliable science, this is pretty damned good. --Jayron32 15:24, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Peer-review, even at Science or Nature, is only as good as the peer-review process, which is not infallible, and the fact that there is some vocal questions to the validity of the claim by other scientists at the same peer level is important. The updated blurb (to include "claim") at least addresses this point. --MASEM (t) 15:36, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that absolute perfection and certainty in anything is an unsustainable standard in anything, and science is no exception "but it isn't perfect and immutably true" is a completely ridiculous standard. All we can do is maintain what the best journals do. That even the best is not absolute perfection is not a reasonable objection, as your apparent standards here would make, quite literally, absolutely nothing knowable. That's just silly. If the best journals report it, that's the best we've got. That the literal best is not perfect is unreasonable, because if the best isn't perfect, nothing will ever be perfect, and thus perfection is not attainable. It's quite good enough. --Jayron32 05:31, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I just posted at ERRORS before checking here. Needless to say, I agree with Masem above. I am not familiar with ITN but I think an acceptable compromise would be to keep it in the news but with a "Scientists claim" rather than "Scientists have" - for instance, the alt blurb #1 is good. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 15:15, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Per my comment above, I agree that the blurb should start "Scientists at Harvard claim...". Have changed. Smurrayinchester 15:23, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agreed. --Tone 15:33, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Claim is typically used to imply skepticism. How about a more neutral "say they have," etc.? Sca (talk) 15:56, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sca: the current wording has been changed to alt #1, "report". That seems neutral enough. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:30, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Sca (talk) 01:41, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Thank you for drawing my attention to this. Considering how long I have been waiting for experimental confirmation of this theoretical extrapolation, it is distinctly embarrassing to have missed it when it finally came out. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 19:14, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Lost in the "Sea of Trump"... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:17, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, lost in the sea of work, so that I only first saw it on ITN. How do some of you people have so much free time? - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 15:28, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] RD: Tam Dalyell

Nominator's comments: long-serving politician who was known for his formulation of what came to be known as the "West Lothian question", relating to political devolution and for his questioning of Margaret Thatcher over the sinking of the General Belgrano during the Falklands War.

• Weak oppose still several unreferenced sentences and the odd para. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:23, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @The Rambling Man: Fair point- I haven't posted at ITN before. I have gone through the article and added several relevant sources and removed a few that were a bit questionable. I think I've now addressed the concerns you raised. Drchriswilliams (talk) 06:14, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - now adequately referenced. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:16, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Well referenced and (though not a requirement) is notable and has made a name for himself! --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 02:48, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support RD - Quality now seems fine, which is basically all we now need for RD. So Marking as Ready. Tlhslobus (talk) 04:23, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted -- KTC (talk) 17:39, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Doomsday Clock 2.5 minutes

Consensus against. --Tone 16:21, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[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: Doomsday Clock (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The Science and Security Board of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists announces the advancement of the Doomsday Clock by 1/2 minute to 21/2 minutes to midnight. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ The Doomsday Clock advances by a 1/2 minute to 21/2 minutes to midnight, the second closest approach to midnight ever.
Alternative blurb II: ​ For the first time in two years, the Doomsday Clock moves, advancing by a 1/2 minute to 21/2 minutes to midnight.
Alternative blurb III: ​ Citing the rise of nationalism, climate change, and the increase of nuclear tension, the Doomsday Clock advances by a 1/2 minute to 21/2 minutes to midnight.
News source(s): Official website listing, Official statement, Washington Post, NYT, & NPR
Credits:

• Nominated by Elisfkc (talk · give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Other blurb nominations welcome. While this is currently listed in Portal:Current events/2017 January 26, I believe it belongs inside of Wikipedia:In the news. Elisfkc (talk) 17:15, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support altblurb III Important, and although I suspected this would happen, still notable enough to be posted. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 17:35, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The NYTimes frames this well by quoting "...the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists is marking the 70th anniversary of its Doomsday Clock on Thursday by moving it 30 seconds closer to midnight." My opinion is that this action is simply an attempt to attract publicity on its anniversary, and does not have impact or significance. Mamyles (talk) 18:27, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mamyles: That was the first link I found from them. I just realized that apparently that is an editorial. Here is a non-opinion article. Elisfkc (talk) 18:35, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral I'm a bit torn on this. Obviously the Clock is an important issue, but given the reasoning for why they moved it "We’re so concerned about the rhetoric, and the lack of respect for expertise, that we moved it 30 seconds ... Rather than create panic, we’re hoping that this drives action." (from the linked NYTimes non-op-ed), it feels less like a scientifically-backed decision and one specifically targeting President Trump's policies. I know it has nearly always been a subjective matter when the clock is moved, but this feels more politically driven than scientifically. --MASEM (t) 18:44, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - You're telling me we're "closer to midnight" than we were during the Cuban Missile Crisis or the days of the "Evil Empire" attitude of the Reagan administration? This is politically driven, pure and simple.--WaltCip (talk) 19:13, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Doomsday Clock#Symbolic timepiece changes says: "The closest nuclear war threat, the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, reached crisis, climax, and resolution before the Clock could be set to reflect that possible doomsday". PrimeHunter (talk) 21:23, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, though they could have retroactively set the clock for posterity.--WaltCip (talk) 12:57, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• • It now factors in climate change and other issues. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:33, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support funnily enough I was having a conversation about this at work just yesterday, with Trump so keen on nuclear proliferation, torture, building walls, ignoring climate change, I'm not surprised by this. Having said that, of course what Walt says is probably true too, this is a device used to beat the world up. Could be right though... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:22, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral - Like Masem I'm torn. My main concern is noteworthiness. They change it relatively often and the news coverage I've seen has been relatively minimal. I'm not concerned about motive (it's always political because it's in response to politics). If I see coverage gain or lose more steam, I may lean toward one side. Until then... neutral. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:30, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support because I do see a lot of news coverage of it, and I don't see many mentions of its 70th anniversary. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:33, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose reflects no reality other than a policy statement by a political body. μηδείς (talk) 21:58, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: Since it was inspired by Trump's recent comments, as their spokespersons stated, it seems a bit early and too reactionary. Agree with Masem, it implies a political aspect. --Light show (talk) 22:06, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Forget about whether or not this is politically motivated, and forget about whether it's 30 seconds or 5 minutes. The move is only worthy of consideration because of how close to midnight it takes us.

  However it is as close as it is because the boffins behind it considered the 2007–2012 period to pose a more immediate risk to the future of civilisation than most of the Cold War and the immediate aftermath of 9/11, greatly diminishing the clock's significance and credibility. Come back when the radio stations are introducing this story with Iron Maiden, and I might consider supporting despite my reservations due to the long-standing and high-profile nature of the clock. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 22:26, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • As I said above, during the Cold War they didn't factor in climate change or other issues that they now do. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:34, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • That weakens both the historical significance argument, and the implication that it is a scientifically-based predictor of the relative likelihood of rapid global catastrophe. Tsunamis, earthquakes, hurricanes and tornadoes are all potential mass casualty, devastating events, and a rising sea level will reduce the ability of a steadily rising population to live off the planet. All serious stuff, all worthy of the scientific, media, business and politicial circles to put it as a very high priority. But none of it rises to the level of an immediate threat to the survival of humanity as a race, in the same way as nuclear war (indeed, the very outbreak of open, conventional war between nuclear powers), a global pandemic, or an object the size of Majorca hitting the planet. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 00:28, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb III. The report also said "new global realities emerged, as trusted sources of information came under attack, fake news was on the rise, and words were used in cavalier and often reckless ways" and "Today’s complex global environment is in need of deliberate and considered policy responses. It is ever more important that senior leaders across the globe calm rather than stoke tensions that could lead to war, either by accident or miscalculation" - not sure if that should also be reflected in the blurb. --Fixuture (talk) 22:42, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose A highly political statement by a highly political group. We don't play politics with the main page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:26, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - if there were any reason to believe the clock had some predictive value, maybe. Otherwise it's WP:CRYSTAL in a non-WP forum. Banedon (talk) 02:25, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose political nonsense that deserves no representation on the Main Page. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 04:16, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I'm no fan of Trump but this sounds like Orwellian 'War is Peace' (or in this case 'Peace is War') - the Inauguration of a US president who is accused of being too friendly to Russia is being used to say the world has just got more dangerous. One might have expected these scientists to at least have the common sense to try to protect their credibility by waiting until there was some evidence of a breakdown in the Trump-Putin love-in. Maybe somebody should tell them the story of the boy who cried 'Wolf'. Even the usually fiercely anti-Trump New York Times seems to regard it as a 70th anniversary publicity stunt, so it seems implausible to claim that most quality sources are treating this 'news' seriously. Tlhslobus (talk) 04:55, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Actually I personally am a bit worried about Trump's possible effect in the Baltics, as I mentioned at the time of his election in the Talk page of International Reactions to Trump's election, but the Baltics are seemingly not mentioned by the scientists, so I couldn't support the nomination on the basis of nothing except what is seemingly just my 'WP:OR') Tlhslobus (talk) 05:14, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose as a judgement call by a group(and for the same reason I opposed the last time; as I said then, maybe- and I stress maybe- if it goes to below two minutes (the closest it has been) it would merit posting. 331dot (talk) 11:21, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – Though many might empathize, it's obviously a subjective statement. Suggest close. Sca (talk) 16:01, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[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.

[Closed] Around the world sailing

Stale, no consensus to post a potential record. Stephen 02:34, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[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.

---

Articles: Around the world sailing record (talk · history · tag) and Jules Verne Trophy (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ On 26 January 2016, Francis Joyon led a six-men team aboard its Trimaran IDEC sport to beat by more than four days the crewed around the world sailing record in 40 days, 23 hours, 30 minutes and 30 seconds in an attempt for the Jules Verne Trophy (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ A team led by Francis Joyon sets a new around the world sailing record of 40 days, 23 hours, 30 minutes and 30 seconds in an attempt to win the Jules Verne Trophy
Alternative blurb II: ​ A team led by Francis Joyon sets a new around the world sailing record in an attempt to win the Jules Verne Trophy.
News source(s): http://www.reuters.com/article/us-sailing-joyon-idUSKBN15A0WA http://www.ybw.com/news-from-yachting-boating-world/francis-joyon-smashes-jules-verne-trophy-record-46891
Credits:

• Nominated by Marc Lacoste (talk · give credit)

 Marc Lacoste (talk) 13:30, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Wait until this team is awarded the trophy they are seeking or the record is otherwise certified. I've also suggested a less awkward blurb(no offense intended to the nominator). 331dot (talk) 13:43, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait per 331dot. Never heard of this trophy but definitely seems a top achievement in sailing. It would be best to wait for the Trophy to be actually awarded and certifying the time. --MASEM (t) 14:50, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the rewrite. The trophy is secured, I'm not sure waiting for a ceremony would add any value to the information, the achievement is today. --Marc Lacoste (talk) 15:17, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The suggested blurb said they made an "attempt" to win the trophy but didn't say that it had been determined that they had met the criteria for the trophy- which it seems that they have now. I wasn't suggesting we should wait until they take possession of the trophy, only for the determination that they won it. However, the article on the trophy needs much improvement before this is posted. 331dot (talk) 15:22, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose the JV trophy page is a complete mess, mostly unreferenced, some written in abbreviated French... And out of date. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:19, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I think we can discard mention of the Jules Verne Trophy altogether. The story here is breaking the around the world sailing record, which I support posting in principle. However it's unclear to me whether this still requires validation by the relevant body or not. There also needs to be a proper update somewhere, though I'm not sure what the best place is. Joyon's article is a bit of a mess and has an orange-level tag. Modest Genius ^talk 17:08, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • PS. I assume this happened in 2017, not 2016! Modest Genius ^talk 17:24, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I'm pretty sure the main blurb is grammatically incorrect. It should probably read either "On 26 January 2016, Francis Joyon led a six-man team aboard its Trimaran IDEC sport to beat, by more than four days, the crewed around the world sailing record in 40 days, 23 hours, 30 minutes and 30 seconds in an attempt for the Jules Verne Trophy." or "On 26 January 2016, Francis Joyon led a six-man team aboard its Trimaran IDEC sport to beat the crewed around the world sailing record by more than four days, finishing in 40 days, 23 hours, 30 minutes and 30 seconds, in an attempt for the Jules Verne Trophy." Elisfkc (talk) 17:32, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• We don't need to list the time, at least not to the second. Stephen 03:07, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - although the word is worded pretty strangely (an "attempt" to win the trophy would imply the record's not been broken yet). Why not just say they broke the record? Banedon (talk) 22:36, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[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.

[Closed] Mental performance enhancing drugs