Revision as of 05:52, 30 September 2017

In the news toolbox
Error reports Nominations History (Posts · Nominations) Discussion General criteria Death criteria Recurring items Admin guide Image protection Current events portal
v t e

• WP:ITN/C

This page provides a place to discuss new items for inclusion on In the news (ITN), a protected template on the Main Page (see past items in the ITN archives). Do not report errors in ITN items that are already on the Main Page here— discuss those at the relevant section of WP:ERRORS.

This candidates page is integrated with the daily pages of Portal:Current events. A light green header appears under each daily section – it includes transcluded Portal:Current events items for that day. You can discuss ITN candidates under the header.

Manmohan Singh Former prime minister of India Manmohan Singh (pictured) dies at the age of 92. Azerbaijan Airlines Flight 8243 crashes near Aktau International Airport, Kazakhstan, killing 38 people. A multi-vehicle crash in Minas Gerais, Brazil, leaves 41 people dead. A car attack at a Christmas market in Magdeburg, Germany, kills five people and injures more than two hundred others. Ongoing: Israel–Hamas war Israeli invasion of Lebanon Russian invasion of Ukraine timeline Sudanese civil war timeline Recent deaths: Patrick Pillay Ann Hartley Gaboro Slim Dunlap John Marsden James E. Malone Jr. Nominate an article view — page history — related changes — edit

Suggestions

September 30

September 29

2017 Mumbai stampede

'Article: 2017 Mumbai stampede (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ At least 22 people are killed and 39 others injured in a

• Nominated by Mfarazbaig (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Elton-Rodrigues (talk · give credit) and Mfarazbaig (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: A significant no. of deaths and the incident received global news coverage. Mfarazbaig (talk) 05:51, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Sun Zhengcai investigation concluded

• Updated and nominated by Colipon (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: I nominated this item in July but received resistance from some quarters that we should "wait for the results of the investigation." Now that the results are out, I am relisting this for nomination. To be clear, this is the most senior sitting Communist Party official to be expelled from the party since Bo Xilai (which was posted on ITN). The expulsion of a sitting Politburo member is a momentous political event - having happened only four times since Tiananmen Square in 1989. Colipon+(Talk) 04:55, 30 September 2017 (UTC) Colipon+(Talk) 04:55, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose This is not important enough to be on the main page.--Seyyed(t-c) 05:06, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

September 28

Russia and WMD

• Nominated by Banedon (talk · give credit)
• Updated by YantarCoast (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Going in the opposite way of North Korea ... I'm leaning towards not mentioning the US in the blurb (see sources), but up to ITN. Banedon (talk) 22:00, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose Has this been verified, or just reported? And who needs sarin when you've got Polonium and the Satan 2 Missile "powerful enough to take out The UK, Texas or France? μηδείς (talk) 01:12, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose A single sentence in our article, tied to a single source, being Putin and Putin alone, reported by Russian State Media (Russia Today), who's not exactly a reliable source for these things. When neutral international inspectors come out with a report, come back at us. This is blather. --Jayron32 01:15, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
• Err Medeis & Jayron32, see sources in the nomination. Banedon (talk) 01:18, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

  OK. Oppose on quality: the only source cited in the article is unreliable, and the updated content is too short on details. --Jayron32 01:22, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• Comment I think Chemical Weapons Convention needs to be linked in the blurb, but which to that point, the US and Russia are but 2 of the 190some signing nations bound by it and both are waaaaaaaaaay late to complete. I would also say that if Russia is actually stating this, we shouldn't be playing the "but did they really?" line here. --MASEM (t) 01:32, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose I think it is not a notable issue by itself.--Seyyed(t-c) 07:31, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose – The update to the article is one line, "On 27 September 2017, Russia announced that it had destroyed its entire chemical weapons stockpile." Surely, the conclusion of such a massive and important endeavour should have some strings attached to it? I don't believe this article is a "howcase quality Misplaced Pages content on current events," that it "emphasize Misplaced Pages as a dynamic resource", or that it helps readers find the exact content they were looking for. There just isn't enough prose. Of course, the thing I am wondering the most is if this has been confirmed in any way. Our article doesn't really comment on it, so I'm just assuming we are taking Russia's word for it while writing this blurb? ~Mable (chat) 09:33, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

September 27

RD: Hugh Hefner

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.

• Nominated by SounderBruce (talk · give credit)

• Blurbs shouldn't be fore "immense cultural presence", but the reaction to the death becoming a story in and of itself beyond the death. Too soon to know about that. This needs a few more citations before I can support. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:37, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support RD, oppose blurb. He apparently died of old age, so the blurb doesn't have anything to add beyond the fact of the death. While I'll agree that he had a large cultural presence, I am skeptical that he rises to the very high level of someone who deserves a blurb to report the mere fact of his death. Dragons flight (talk) 03:40, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• There's a 30-year gap in the career section from going to court and appearing on The Simpsons. Stephen 03:43, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support blurb in principle Obviously not usual ITN blurb material, but then again, Hefner was not a normal person. He had a massive cultural influence in founding and running Playboy, which (under his direction) was the highest-circulated magazine in the world at a time when magazines were actually a thing many people bought. It and the various spin-offs helped fuel the sexual revolution in the western world; normalize pornography and homosexuality; booked African-American artists despite segregation laws; and more. Esquire once called him "the most famous magazine editor in the history of the world"; Hollywood Reporter says "Hefner became the unofficial spokesman for the sexual revolution that permeated the 1960s and '70s ..."; The Los Angeles Times says " redefined status for a generation of men, replacing lawn mowers and fishing gear with new symbols: martini glasses, a cashmere sweater and a voluptuous girlfriend, the necessary components of a new lifestyle that melded sex and materialism." That said, the article needs some help. Ed  03:50, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support blurb Hefner is an intrumental figure in the business world perhaps on the global scale. He was very influencial in the American business sector.Article does need a bit of a face lift so I'll get to is tomorrow. Fixed and added citations. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 03:59, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support Very well known publishing icon. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:16, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support Blurb not a personal fan, but how many magazine publishers can you name? Highly influential, before RD would definitely have been posted as blurbworthy. μηδείς (talk) 04:45, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support blurb. He was an iconic figure and the article is in good shape. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 04:48, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose blurb Being "iconic" doesn't mean he should get a blurb. IF the reaction to the death was so massive that it was a story beyond the death, it'd deserve a blurb. A man in his 90s dying isn't likely to meet that. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:54, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• Actually, being iconic is the exact reason why someone would be featured on the Main Page when they die. How distinguished or notable do you have to be than 'iconic'? This certainly isn't the case of just being a "man in his 90s". Regards, — Moe Epsilon 05:17, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• His death is receiving widespread media coverage; see for exmaple The New York Times, NPR, the LA Times, and many others. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 05:24, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• This kind of news coverage is typical of many RD noms. Doesn't make this one different. And no, it's the specific response to the death, the outpouring after Bowie, Michael Jackson, Carrie Fisher that made it a story beyond the death. That went beyond obituaries. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:29, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support RD only I see the article has been improved when this first was nom'd, so the quality is fine and ready for RD. I don't think this is the type of blurb worthy death, as he was 91 (was a matter of when, not if), and was far outside prime of life. --MASEM (t) 05:38, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose blurb - Uncontroversial death at 91. Not a world transforming leader. If a blurb is posted it would amount to WP:BIAS. Also death section needs expansion before posting. - Mfarazbaig (talk) 05:57, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support blurb – article looks decent. Hefner has had an incredible cultural impact in North America and Europe and I think a blurb is aprropriate. ~Mable (chat) 07:58, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support RD - No real opinion either way on the blurb. Miyagawa (talk) 08:04, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support full blurb Mainly for the juxtaposition with the Saudi Arabia story. Lugnuts 08:29, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose blurb I'm not convinced he is quite at the very high level of significance we require for a blurb. RD will suffice. Neljack (talk) 09:04, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support blurb. He was tops in his field. 331dot (talk) 09:14, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support RD only unless a media circus erupts around this (doubtful) RD is appropriate. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 10:16, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support full blurb. This guy actually changed the world. That's what the ITN blurbs are for. Nsk92 (talk) 10:27, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support RD only Old man dies. Although it is amazing given his lifestyle he wasn't dead 20 years ago, the fact he lived to his 90's is pretty impressive. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:31, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support RD, strong oppose blurb. Why do we keep having this debate every time a minor celebrity dies of old age? This is not a world-changing event with major repercussions. The standard for a blurb is Nelson Mandela or Margaret Thatcher, and Hefner is nowhere near that level. RD is fine. Modest Genius 10:42, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support blurb. An RD mention alone might not make a connection with readers of the man's legacy, entrepreneurship, and philanthropy. It's not like Playboy was a local rag. — Wyliepedia 10:55, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

No, it was a national rag. Sca (talk) 23:42, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

This map says it was an international rag. ---Sluzzelin talk 00:02, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

•  Administrator note Posted to RD, leaving open for evaluation if "upgrade" to blurb is warranted. — xaosflux 11:29, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support blurb Massive cultural influence. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:43, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support blurb. Although the digital age really swept him under the rug, Hefner had a significant cultural impact back in the day. ZettaComposer (talk) 11:53, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support RD, oppose blurb. Per Modest Genius above. Given that we have limited lines available for "In the news", and Hefner would instead be appearing in RD, I would prefer us to be able to highlight another story. Jheald (talk) 11:56, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support RD, maybe tinker with the blurb a bit pbp 13:14, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

  What should be changed? ~Mable (chat) 13:18, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose blurb 91 year-olds dying of natural causes is what RD is for. Unless his death is leading TV bulletins worldwide, it should not be a blurb. "Widespread coverage" is not enough; it needs to be exceptional.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:20, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• RD only: It's arbitrary, but this comes on that side of the line for me. --LukeSurl 13:45, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose blurb – Support RD only. Hefner, an inveterate self-promoter, is an interesting footnote to U.S. cultural history but not significant in any broader sense. Sca (talk) 13:53, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Quality of Support if we just count ivotes, the tally is about 12 to 12 with two undecided/unclear supports for posting. But the criterion for a blurb is the nominee's influence in his field, and I think User:The ed17's post in favor of a blurb is determinative. Opposes based on "just because he was iconic doesn't..." Contradict the guidelines--iconicity has always been a reason for a full blurb. Likewise "he was old" is entirely irrelevant. An unexpected death at a young age is one reason to support a blurb. But a long successful life has never been a reason to oppose a blurb. Most of the opposes can be discounted as not relevant reasons to prevent a blurb. Again, had he died before the establishment of RD, we wouldn't be having this discussion--he'd already have had a blurb yesterday. μηδείς (talk) 16:41, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

That's not my reading of WP:ITNRD. Look at those three bullet points. (1) The news is mostly obituaries and the article update is just a statement of his death. (2) The cause of death is not a major story. (3) Is he a "major transformative world leader"? He was transformative for the sector of pornography, and to an extent free speech, but was he truly a "major transformative world leader"? I don't think so. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:45, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

See the full bullet point, there's a problem with your argument. "In rare cases, the death of major transformative world leaders in their field may merit a blurb." As you just said, "He was transformative for the sector of pornography, and to an extent free speech ..." 174.193.128.139 (talk) 17:11, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Okay you're right, I did leave off the "in their field" qualifier which is important. However, it starts with "in rare cases" and I don't see how this meets the "rare case" standard of a Bowie, Mandela, or Fisher. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:59, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• Comment As I type this, it's on the front page of CNN (US), BBC News (UK) and news.com.au (Australia), and the New Zealand Herald - just to name a few. In fact, this isn't just on the front page, CNN has 3 front page stories on Hefner, BBC News has 3 front page stories and news.com.au has 2 front page stories and the New Zealand Herald has 2 front page stories on Hefner. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:53, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

  Most news websites tailor the stories on their front page to the geolocation of the IP used to access them. They're showing you more stories about Hefner because they don't have many other articles related to your country right now. For comparison, as UK reader I see only one story about Hefner on the BBC front page, and it's well below the fold. Modest Genius 10:34, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose blurb I think that he's just another person known because of the success of his product sold to a specialist group of consumers, which puts his notability in line with that of Mikhail Kalashnikov because of AK-47 or Liliane Bettencourt because of L'Oréal whose deaths we didn't post. Importantly, we have never posted the death of an actor/actress because of a single movie or the death of a singer because of a single album. After all, it's not Hugh Hefner who has exerted any tremendous influence to the field but the Playboy magazine.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:22, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

As I stated above, it's more than just a magazine. — Wyliepedia 18:36, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Anyway, it's the brand, not himself. And he's not Steve Jobs, nor is Playboy comparable to Apple to make me reconsider my vote.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:11, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Well it helped to inspire the creation of the web - and without killing child workers or strip mining in Africa, so its got one up on Apple for me. Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:02, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose blurb, as others have stated, RD, not a blurb, is suitable for the death of a 91-year-old. --AmaryllisGardener 19:45, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• RD only, oppose blurb famous but not famous enough for a blurb, with coverage simply not dominating the news as it did for e.g. Bowie, Thatcher. It was the "and finally" item on BBC Radio 5 news this morning, not even the lead story. A Quest for Knowledge counted 3 stories about this a few hours ago on the main page of the BBC news website, but it's now just the one, and that is way "below the fold" rather than being anything approaching an ongoing lead story. Saying that "pornography" is a "field" for the purpose of being a "transformative world leader in their field" sets the bar too low. Bencherlite 20:09, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose blurb To warrant a blurb on a global encyclopedia an individual must have enormous significance. That would mean in my view someone such as a long-serving or transformative national leader or an artist of international renown, such as Michael Jackson. I just cannot see that Hefner meets that very high bar. While it has been mentioned by outlets globally (as with Liliane Bettencourt), it certainly has not led stories - and we didn't post Bettencourt. AusLondonder (talk) 20:45, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• For those who are interested: the Hugh Hefner article had 3,371,095 page views yesterday, Sept 28. I know that we don't care what our readers want to read because we here know better what's good for them, but still... Nsk92 (talk) 09:30, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

  You DO know there is currently, and before you wrote this, already a link on the main page directing our readers to Hugh Hefner's article, right? Because there had been, for some many hours, already been so. --Jayron32 16:15, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

  Yes, of course I do know that. But that's an RD link for which we have the lowest possible notability threshold: just the existence of a Misplaced Pages article, and that article being in a well-referenced state. My point is, that for the ITN blurbs (if ITN should exists at all) we should be more respectful of what pages Misplaced Pages readers are in fact reading and take some cues from that in terms of what stories they consider important. For example, the story about the New Zealand general election, 2017 has been an ITN blurb for quite a while. But, despite being given this highest degree of visibility in the ITN section of the main page, New Zealand general election, 2017 the most page views that the article generated was 41,207, which was on Sept 23, 2017, two days before the story was posted to ITN. The fact that over 3 million people on September 28 viewed the Misplaced Pages page about Hugh Hefner shows that he was much more than just another 91-year-old celebrity finally dying of old age. If that's all he was, several million people would not be reading a Misplaced Pages article about him in a single day... Nsk92 (talk) 02:11, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

RD: Zuzana Růžičková

• Nominated by Sherenk1 (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Ser Amantio di Nicolao (talk · give credit), JezGrove (talk · give credit) and JackofOz (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Harpsichordist and Holocaust survivor. Lots of citation issues Sherenk1 (talk) 01:33, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose Article needs a lot more sourcing. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 03:58, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Article has several maintenance tags and unsourced paragraphs. However, should these be rectified, then hit me up and I'll switch this to a support. Miyagawa (talk) 08:05, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose The article can not go to the first page due to its tags.--Seyyed(t-c) 07:32, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Deep Space Gateway

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.

• Nominated by Banedon (talk · give credit)

• Weak Oppose NASA has been talking about this since March/April, but the only thing changed today is that they secured that Russia's agency will also help build it; the way it reads is the if Russia didn't join, it was still a long-term plan to be built but would take many more years to get going. And since we're looking to something that won't launch until 2020, this is just a bit premature. (Also regardless, the article does not have a discussion of these agencies' actions, which it needs to reflect this update) --MASEM (t) 00:17, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• That's not really fair, is it? Earlier this month we posted blurbs on the host city for the 2024/2028 Olympics being selected, and those events won't happen for even longer. Banedon (talk) 03:07, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• The Olympics are pretty much sure things (within a scope of NOT#CRYSTAL), the announcements of host cities sets committments in motion to build and prepare the cities. This is very preliminary stages without any immediate set schedule or commitment of funds. It's not a sure thing that it will happen. --MASEM (t) 03:17, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose while a lunar space station being built is a major step to space exploration, an ITN for such would make more sense once the actual space station is completed. As Masem notes, there's been talk about this thing for roughly 6 months now, posting a message stating that the U.S. and Russia have agreed to build the station is Current News worthy, but not ITN worthy. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 00:39, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• Weak oppose primarily because the article is still a stub. The article hasn't even been updated in accordance to this news. I agree that running a blurb on this topic when the only news is that the two countries have agreed to work on it together is pretty weak as well. ~Mable (chat) 08:01, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. They've agreed to combine expertise in a study and to come up with some joint standards so their spacecraft can work together. Nothing is even being built yet, and the recent history of planning manned space missions only to cancel them before getting close to launch means it could very well never happen. We can post this if/when a mission actually launches. Modest Genius 10:47, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• Wait. The idea of the Soviet Union Russia and the United States collaborating on a space project is significant, given past history and current events, but I think we should wait and see if something concrete actually comes out of this. ZettaComposer (talk) 12:09, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• Wait this is like all those announced mergers we post that never actually happen. Post this when the first modules land on Luna. μηδείς (talk) 16:44, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Ongoing: Hurricane Maria

• Nominated by Cyclonebiskit (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Ongoing humanitarian crisis in Puerto Rico with aid not reaching people fast enough. Today is one week since the storm and many have yet to even see aid workers. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:58, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

• Weak oppose This has the potential of being a 4-6 month long ongoing at minimum (due to power restoration issues), and that's well outside the nature of what we consider ongoing usually. Also, with the story becoming more a political mudslinging ("is Trump doing enough?" type questions) it seems more sensationalist news. I'm not entirely against it if we say that it is kept ongoing for one or two weeks, and then pulled unless there's a new angle to the story that comes up. --MASEM (t) 21:04, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

• Trump stuff aside, take a read through this article by NBC. "This is a big S.O.S for anybody out there" - San Juan Mayor Carmen Yulin Cruz. Hospitals are running out of fuel for generators, bedridden elderly don't have access to water, supplies not being moved. The bigger story is the suffering going on. Mudslinging will be present as someone is at fault for how slow things are moving, but the is indeed a massive crisis unfolding. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 21:10, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

• I agree there's a crisis, but there's a crisis after any major storm disaster like this (Houston had there's a month ago). This is more severe in that because it is an island territory and that their power infrastructure is down, it is making relief efforts much more difficult as something like Houston, but this is a common story to any major disaster. Hence why I'm not against a short-term ongoing as long we recognize that once they can secure regular flights into the country and get the Comfort there for hospital care, its going to have a long, long tail. (Hence I would even anticipate that when the power infrastructure is restored, that itself would be a potential ITN). --MASEM (t) 21:24, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - I'm not certain Hurricane Maria is the best title here as it implies Hurricane Maria is currently an ongoing threat. Current projections have it dying out out in the Atlantic Ocean. I'd suggest adding something like Aftermath or Rebuilding Efforts to show that the focus is on rebuilding and/or the problems in Puerto Rico after the storm. I think a short-term ongoing is ok as long as the scope is clear. ZettaComposer (talk) 12:00, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• Weak oppose only because this kind of situation is not uncommon. Similar situations in Syria led to the European migrant crisis, for example, and the humanitarian issues there have persisted for years as opposed to weeks in Puerto Rico. Banedon (talk) 22:02, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

September 26

Women driving in Saudi Arabia

• Nominated by Anarcho-authoritarian (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Quite a no-brainer for notability, the end of a dinosaur rule that was unique around the whole world. Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 19:43, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

• Generally support, oppose on quality of update I think it's fair this is a drastic shift in women's rights in the Arab world, and significant in that fashion. Unfortunately, the section of the target article about mobility has all but a one line update (I just reordered it in an edit) and should have a bit more to explain any reasoning or if there are any major reactions to this. --MASEM (t) 19:50, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Note that I've expanded and also did a bit of narrative ordering for that section, but there's still glaring CN tags right before this new news. The rest of the target article is nearly there. --MASEM (t) 20:04, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
• News only recently came out. I'd give it at least a few more hours for until more news is out. Master of Time (talk) 19:55, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Misplaced Pages has a very dedicated team of editors who address the balance by editing on topics relating to women's history and women's rights, so it will not take too long Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 19:59, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support - has only taken four years since the mass protests. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:43, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support this major news in women's rights. — Crumpled Fire • contribs • 20:48, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support no-brainer. EternalNomad (talk) 21:40, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support it's a historic decision, and I saw enough coverage of this to support. Banedon (talk) 22:12, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support when the CN tags in the Driving section are addressed. There are only three left as of right now, but I don't have time to source them myself. Thryduulf (talk) 22:14, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support it's a landmark decision. Sources are somewhat weak on the page, but that can be easily fixed. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 01:29, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
• Big Support and Comment This is very historic for women's rights. Is there any way we could indicate that Saudi Arabia is still a major violator of women's rights? TenorTwelve (talk) 02:26, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
  • We can recognize this, but it would be POV-ish to call SA as a major violator of women's rights in this manner - that's a controversial statement that would need attribtion that would not be possible for ITN. --MASEM (t) 02:38, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
    • People would see that if they were to click the bold link in the blurb. The fact that the country legalized women driving in 2017 may also tell people that women's rights in this country are still limited. Either way, I think the blurb is fine. ~Mable (chat) 06:47, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support Very historic and remarkable event for women's rights in the middle east. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 02:30, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support Historic event. Like when the company I worked in the US for allowed women to wear slacks. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:48, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
  • A great look under a hijab, I always find. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:56, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support/Ready - I'm marking it ready, after having provided citations to above mentioned CN tags in the article. Posting admin is requested to review my edits. - Mfarazbaig (talk) 10:53, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Looks good. Posted Smurrayinchester 14:54, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Question - is "women drivers" good enough? The article does say "women drivers" a few times, but it's mostly not written like that in the reliable source. RS also don't tend to say "women drivers", and "female drivers" for that matter. I wonder if it should be reformulated. Wumbolo (talk) 19:46, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
    •  Done Wumbolo (talk) 08:44, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support I know that it's already been posted but I just want to voice my support. This is a significant break through for women's rights in a very oppressive kingdom. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:54, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Nice to know they've decided to join the 20th century. Sca (talk) 00:13, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

September 25

RD: Tony Booth

• Nominated by TDKR Chicago 101 (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Article has been updated and is well sourced. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:30, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support, looks in good shape. Bencherlite 22:58, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support Article is much improved from when I looked at it this morning pre-nomination. Good work.Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:37, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support Article looks ready to post. Mamyles (talk) 13:59, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
• Posted Ed  03:59, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• @The ed17:: The Tony Booth article right now is linked to a disambiguation page. The article article is Tony Booth (actor). --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:11, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Fixed, thank you! Ed  04:15, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

RD: Elizabeth Dawn

• Nominated by TDKR Chicago 101 (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Article has been updated and is well sourced. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:42, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support looks sufficient cited. Bencherlite 22:58, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support - no issues. Mjroots (talk) 06:08, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support Aiken D 06:22, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support Article looks ready to post. Mamyles (talk) 13:59, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
• Posted Ed  03:59, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

RD: Eman Ahmed Abd El Aty

• Nominated by Sherenk1 (talk · give credit)

 Sherenk1 (talk) 02:34, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. A couple of uncited claims (I've tagged them), but I don't expect they'll be too difficult to source. Other than that, the article is basic but there are no obvious missing gaps. Thryduulf (talk) 08:34, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Ongoing: 2017 North Korea crisis

• Nominated by Banedon (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: I don't understand why it's fashionable to close nominations with suggestions for a new one, but wait for someone else to create it. Banedon (talk) 21:29, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose Because there's WP:SNOW chance of this being posted, and the closers are WP:UNINVOLVED. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:35, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
• Comment I'm slightly more tolerate towards an ongoing nomination, however like I said before, the source used in this nomination (as well as the previous one) is misleading, De Telegraaf mistranslated the report, stating that North Korea or the U.s. has declared war, however in actuality neither side officially made a declaration, as mentioned by other major news such as the New York Times, BBC, and Fox News, all of which covered this event but did not say it was a true declaration of war. I suggest changing the source to a more reliable source such as one of the ones I mentioned. SamaranEmerald (talk) 21:50, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Feel free to edit the nomination. I don't own it, and don't mind you changing it. Banedon (talk) 21:52, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Okay, that's better, at least that issue's resolved. SamaranEmerald (talk) 21:55, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose until someone makes a Celebrity Deathmatch involving Kim Jung-Un and the orange warmonger. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:02, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Tweets and insults do not an ongoing make. Missile launches and the like can be evaluated on their own. Warmonger? As in against the NFL? The bigotry is stale. μηδείς (talk) 22:32, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose It is not really a crisis per se, it is heightened tensions between the US, NK, and other countries. It's a war of words, which happens all the time. --MASEM (t) 00:04, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per Masem. No official declaration of war has been made and no significant actions have occurred aside from a lot of grandstanding. ZettaComposer (talk) 12:47, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support - fits all the criteria for ongoing. Regular updates to the article, recurrent topic in the news, serious, real-world impact as evidenced by diplomatic efforts. And please, next time a) the closer should determine consensus based on the merits of the oppose/suppose and b) editors like Ramblingman or Muboshgu should provide a rationale instead of just posting some juvenile nonsense.

Preceding posted by IP user 81.204.120.137, who arbitrarily reopened discussion. Sca (talk) 15:52, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

And closed again, as there is no consensus, notwithstanding the grumblings of an anon user.--WaltCip (talk) 16:38, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

As I provided reasons, this is hardly arbitrary. This should run its course, not be closed prematurely. The nomination deserves a serious discussion, not the nonsense posted by the likes of Waltcip, Muboshgu or RamblingMan. 81.204.120.137 (talk) 09:16, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I've attempted to reclose this, but have been reverted by the above IP user. Given this discussion and the prior discussion, there seems little chance this will be posted as it stands now, and I believe this should remain closed. 331dot (talk) 09:39, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

2017 North Korea crisis

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.

• Nominated by Mjroots (talk · give credit)

• Misleading - North Korea has claimed that the U.S. has declared war on North Korea. Nothing has actually happened. NYT--WaltCip (talk) 16:05, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose, suggest close - the reality is that Norea Korea is saying that the US has declared war on it, not the other way around, and it "will have every right to make countermeasures." --Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:14, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - War of words, it looks like. 42.109.130.44 (talk) 16:19, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
• ALT Blurb added. Mjroots (talk) 16:20, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose at this point. X saying Y went to war with it without Y actually formally declaring it is not "going to war". Yes, there are things to watch for but let's not jump at a misleading statement here. --MASEM (t) 16:26, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Still a Trump/Kim dick measuring contest. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:32, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support pbp 17:52, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support, but would strongly prefer ongoing. The crisis is clearly ongoing and significant, given that this war of words has clear real-world ramifications. Unrelated, the quality of some of the oppose votes here is shocking. Fly-by graffitis. 81.204.120.137 (talk) 17:57, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

This screed right underneath another support vote which doesn't even provide a rationale. But forget about that; those opposes are "fly-by graffitis".--WaltCip (talk) 18:45, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

• Strongest Oppose this is 100% misleading, other sources have stated that North Korea has only 'accused' the US of declaring war. Besides North Korea does this regularly during the annual military exercises conducted by the U.S. and South Korea. SamaranEmerald (talk) 18:16, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Der Telegraaf really screwed up and misinterpreted the actual statement, this is what happens when you translate a foreign language into English, you get poor...well...translations. Besides the BBC report on the CE page states that North Korea is accusing the flyby of U.S aircrafts as a declaration of war, however no official declarations have been made by either side. Kirliator (talk) 18:30, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
• De Telegraaf is fairly tabloid-y as far as Dutch newspapers go, but regardless, this incident is in the news at plenty of places. A quick Google search brings up NBC News and The New York Times, among others. The quality of the source listed in the template shouldn't be too big an issue. ~Mable (chat) 18:38, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose When North Korea actually shoots down an airplane we can reconsider. For now this is just tough-talk. EternalNomad (talk) 18:39, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Iraqi Kurdistan independence referendum, 2017

• Nominated by Sherenk1 (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Ahmedo Semsurî (talk · give credit) and Koopinator (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: World news. Landmark decision by the Kurds. Sherenk1 (talk) 15:08, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

• At least wait until the results are in ^_^; ~Mable (chat) 18:29, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
• Wait. The results, either way, will be ITN-worthy and any significant violence or other events during the polling might be, but that the vote is happening is not. Thryduulf (talk) 19:56, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak support. Most of the article is fine, but the "reactions" section is misleading in that it mixes reactions from before and after the results. Thryduulf (talk) 22:30, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support as a notable, important news story. Wait till results. It'll be important to note in the blurb that the referendum is not considered legal by Baghdad. The probable "yes" vote shouldn't be reported in a way that makes it seem like a new, de jure, internationally recognized, sovereign state is to be created. --LukeSurl 20:46, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support - now there are results, I've tweaked the blurb to match the Scottish referendum blurb. Smurrayinchester 12:32, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support Important story, and article looks ready bar the final results. Although votes are still being counted a big "yes" is expected.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:44, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support - Major development covered by the global media houses. Albert Dawkins (talk) 18:10, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support once official results are declared. Important poll, even though it's unlikely to come into effect. The article looks sufficient on a brief look. Modest Genius 11:04, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

September 24

German federal election, 2017

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.

• Nominated by Tone (talk · give credit)

• Comment "... wins a plurality ..." again, this isn't common parlance outside some jurisdictions. For instance, I looked at the BBC article and that term isn't used at all. Can we either link or rephrase appropriately? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:43, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Agreed, "wins most seats" is probably the better alternative, as indicated in the NZ nomination below. --Tone 21:28, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
    • I'd argue that "wins a plurality" is better here. In NZ, it's plausible that either Labour or Nationals will be able to get a coalition majority. Here, the only possible coalitions are CDU-led ones (CDU-SPD grand coalition or a CDU-Green-FDP Jamaica coalition - numerically, there's no coalition that makes Schulz Chancellor, since traffic light and red-red-green both fall well short), so the election is Merkel's win. Smurrayinchester 08:02, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose this POV blurb. A quick look at the FT suggests Merkel is significantly weakened ("Merkel set for fourth term but support weakens") and "Nationalist AfD make historic breakthrough in German elections". The blurb should reflect that.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:51, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
  • The originally proposed blurb does not express a POV (in any direction) it simply states facts. whether Merkel is weakened (or not) is a point of view however and so not appropriate for a blurb - the article can and should reflect the balance of opinions about the election noted in reliable sources, but there is not space to do that here. Thryduulf (talk) 22:58, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

I think there may be space to reflect reliable third-party sources.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:17, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

• We should definitely reflect that the AfD has become the third-party in German politics. It's the first time in more than half a century that a far-right party has entered the German parliament, and with a significant proportion of the seats (The Times of London predicts about 90), which, in and of itself is significant, not PoV and also fact --Andrew 23:20, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

The AfD, a small party that received 13% of the vote and that isn't expected to form a government, doesn't belong in the blurb. The main story is that the CDU/CSU became the largest party (allowing Merkel to continue as Chancellor). --Tataral (talk) 10:32, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

How is "win plurality" POV? It's a positive fact. --bender235 (talk) 23:39, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support – No-brainer: No. 1 political story in the world. That the results were predicted doesn't lessen its importance. (It will be interesting to see how a coalition including, presumably, both the traditionally business-friendly FDP and the environmentalist Greens functions.) Sca (talk) 01:12, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support This is clearly an event of international significance. Angela Merkel is regarded as one of the three most powerful people (and most powerful woman) in the world; with some even regarding her as "leader of the free world" I support the current proposed blurb or something along the lines of "most seats" or "largest party". I oppose mentioning the AfD in the short blurb, that is something readers should go to the election article to read about. AusLondonder (talk) 03:55, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support Should be mentioned as major news. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:58, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support – How about "retains plurality" in the blurb? I think that's more accurate to the sources. Regardless, the article looks good! ~Mable (chat) 08:24, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

@Maplestrip: I'm not entirely sure why but we seem to avoid the term 'plurality' here. 331dot (talk) 10:12, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Apparently, it's called a "relative majority" in the UK, so I suppose that's a more European-focused alternative? What dialect do we usually use on the front page? ~Mable (chat) 10:29, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I think you are right that "plurality" is not understood or familiar to all readers. I believe we usually just state the winner "won the most seats". 331dot (talk) 10:31, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I think it's very odd that a word like "plurality" is apparently not well-known. "Won the most seats" looks both unspecific and awkward to me. It could mean either a majority or a plurality, after all. Readers can always click the link to the election if they are unclear on how many seats the party won exactly. ~Mable (chat) 10:37, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I've followed UK elections for 25 years and I have never heard the word "plurality" used in any media coverage or analysis of them. Sorry, I'm just not familiar with the term and I know I'm not alone in that.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:40, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

• Comment. Remember folks that this is ITNR and as such does not need support on the merits. 331dot (talk) 10:11, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support. No-brainer. --Tataral (talk) 10:24, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
• Posted altblurb. --Jayron32 11:46, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

  So we're just not going use the word 'plurality' on the frontpage? "Relative majority" isn't a good replacement either? ~Mable (chat) 11:49, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

  Is the word "most" confusing to any English speaker? --Jayron32 17:48, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

  Yes, one could easily read it as "over 50%". Are the two alternatives confusing to any English speaker? They're not used often, but they are accurate, specific, and easy enough to comprehend. I don't have reason to believe these terms are confusing. ~Mable (chat) 18:26, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

  Well, I suppose if you didn't know what the word "most" meant, then anything is possible. Most means "more than anyone else". It has never been a synonym for "majority". Can you propose a word that means the exact same thing as "most" in all English countries but which is not the word "most" then? Because we've never found one. But I'd like to see you try. --Jayron32 18:32, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

  Funnily enough, if you ask it like that, "majority" does come to mind first. This would be a good replacement in sentences like "most countries" or "most planets"; "the majority of countries" and "the majority of planets." In this context, "plurality" is probably a better word to use, as "plurality" and "majority" have two different meanings when it comes to vote counting. ~Mable (chat) 18:42, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

  Majority means ONLY more than 50%. The word "plurality" is largely unknown outside of the U.S. Keep trying though. It's fun to watch. The universal word that means only "more than every other one" without meaning more than half is "most". --Jayron32 19:00, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

• Post-posting comment – I'm posting this here rather than at WP:MP/E because there it would be summarily dismissed as "not an error."

The current blurb's phrase "wins the most seats" is the most bland, misleading and uninteresting choice possible. As all major news sites have reported, the news is that the CDU/CSU's share declined by almost 21 percent, from 41.5 percent of the vote in 2013 to just under 33 percent, and that as a result Merkel will have to form a new coalition – presumably with the Greens and the resurgent FDP – while the right-wing AfD will be in opposition. Complicated for sure. But how about a blurb that at least gives a hint of what happened:

The CDU/CSU, led by Angela Merkel, loses ground in the German federal election. — ??

Sca (talk) 14:57, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Bland is not misleading. Did any other party win more seats? --Jayron32 17:48, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

You must have misread something Sca, the CDU "only" fell by 8.6% to a total of 33% of the vote. Still a big loss but not by 20%. The 20.5% figure in the results of the election is for the SPD, which lost 5.2% from the prior election.91.49.76.32 (talk) 18:21, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

 • Take 41.5% of vote (2013 share), subtract 32.9% (2017 share) = 8.6 fewer percentage points = 20.7% drop in percentage share of vote.

 • Take 311 parliamentary seats (2013), subtract 246 (2017 result) = 65 = 20.9% drop in number of seats.

Sca (talk) 20:41, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Oh it appears i am stupid and misread your comment... oops. Sorry about that haha. Although it is a bit weird to give a relative percentage drop of the two results instead of saying they lost 8.6% of the vote.91.49.76.32 (talk) 19:22, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

The news – the main news story as covered by reliable sources – is that CDU/CSU won the election (as expected) and that Merkel will continue as chancellor (presumably with a new coalition). That Merkel "loses ground" is an interpretation/POV. That the CDU/CSU lost some seats compared to the unusually good result back in 2013 doesn't change the fact that they won this election. Furthermore, as all other parties consider the two extremist parties on the far right and the far left to be toxic and are unwilling to form a government with them, the CDU/CSU hasn't necessarily lost that much, if any, influence, when it comes to the question of forming a government, or adopting government policy. The extremists can show up in the Bundestag and rant and shout, but if no other party is willing to cooperate with them, they won't have any influence. --Tataral (talk) 19:11, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

• @Sca: Indeed it would be closed at WP:ERRORS as "not an error", this is because it is not an error and changing the venue does not change this and I'm rather tempted to hat this, but will leave it for now. Thryduulf (talk) 20:00, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
• Not an error Misplaced Pages is here to report bare facts, not slants on those facts as directed by certain factions of our usership. This should be closed. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:28, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Tataral: Re Merkel "loses ground" is an interpretation/POV. Absolutely not, it's a fact, and one all the mainline news sites led with. The fact is that the CDU/CSU lost 20.7% percent of it's share of the vote compared to four years ago. Not unepected, but very significant since, with the departure of the SPD, it means a new government. Thus, the blurb is misleading in that by itself, it implies no change. Sca (talk) 20:42, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

That's bordering on nonsense. It does no such thing, you have simply inferred "no change". There is no implication of such. Has any one single general election resulted in an identical outcome to the status quo? I doubt it. To start adding a slant on it is not Misplaced Pages's job, leave it to WikiTribune or WikiNews or some such other doomed project, I'm certain they'd welcome input from such an experienced Wikipedian. That stuff doesn't belong on our main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:46, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

2017 Spanish constitutional crisis

• Nominated by Banedon (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: From below, courtesy of Jenda H. Banedon (talk) 21:13, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose ongoing, as before. 331dot (talk) 22:55, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support Article is receiving adequate, regular updates, about every day or other day as new information becomes available. That's all we really need for ongoing. --Jayron32 02:26, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support This is a major constitutional crisis occurring in a significant European country generally regarded as democratic. No credible reason to ignore any longer. AusLondonder (talk) 03:57, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support Major news of international interest. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:00, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support as before. ~Mable (chat) 08:25, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support Focus on the Spainish/Catalonia tensions rather than the pending vote is the right way to present this as ongoing. --MASEM (t) 13:34, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose ongoing perhaps pointlessly but this is way down at the bottom of the bing and google world news sections, and not even ranking on the top stories. Maybe a weak benchmark, but it's one I use to judge "in the news" vs "in the I think this is important and should be on the main page". Even a blurb is questionable since the referendum is non-binding, but we'll see if it makes headlines. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 19:49, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose hardly being updated. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:28, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support per above. Many recent updates, very major news story. Davey2116 (talk) 00:01, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support as before. Ed  02:21, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
• Comment interestingly the ES wiki does not have this very important item in it's "events" feature of the main page. Same with the DE and FR wikis. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 19:05, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Es.wp does not seem to have the same criteria for "events" as we do (I think?). It's front page on ca.wp, though obviously that's a smaller language. Ed  03:59, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• I think we should decide one way or another before the vote, which is intended to take place in less than 48 hours. Davey2116 (talk) 23:40, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

September 23

New Zealand general election, 2017

• Nominated by This is Paul (talk · give credit)

 This is Paul (talk) 20:25, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

• Comment the article still seems to need some final updates, which is understandable, but in the meantime, we do tend avoid terms like "pluarilty" which are meaningless to a vast majority of readers, or if necessary link. Do you mean a "simple majority" or similar? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:38, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
  • This is my first go at nominating one of these, and I based this entry on the one for Merkel so apologies for any misunderstanding. The party is the largest party in the NZ parliament, but doesn't have a majority so would either need to form a minority government or have some kind of confidence-and-supply agreement. Perhaps it's easier just to link the term, or wait till a decision is made on who will form the government. This is Paul (talk) 20:54, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
    • No wuckers, just a case of not using odd terms for such elections. I'd say at least link the term, but BritEng, (and I thought maybe NzEng) would never use such terminology. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:59, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
      • As I mentioned in one of these two threads, relative majority is the UK version of this. ~Mable (chat) 12:00, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
• comment I've suggested a couple of alt-blurbs using "wins the most seats" rather than "plurality". The article does use the term "plurality" in the lead, but I've got no idea how commonly used that term is in NZ English. Thryduulf (talk) 21:14, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks, both sound pretty good. Not sure whether the term is used in NZ English, but like The Rambling Man I suspect it probably isn't. This is Paul (talk) 21:23, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
• Comment Maybe we should wait until the government is confirmed as there is a reasonable possibility of it being Labour led. AIRcorn (talk) 06:00, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support blurb 1 – I do believe "plurality" is a perfectly fine word to use, at least in international English. As for New Zealand's dialect, I would not know. Either way, any of these blurbs is fine, really. "Wins the most seats" is a bit awkward and difficult to parse for me personally, but oh well. ~Mable (chat) 08:28, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

  Apparently, a plurality is called a "relative majority" in the UK. Is that term used in New Zealand? If so, that may be a logical alternative. We may want to standardize our wording, though, seeing as the front page is "one page" and using different dialects on it may be unusual. ~Mable (chat) 10:30, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

  No one has even commented upon the "relative majority" option in either of the threads, and now the above thread is closed because of a different reason, I'm not even sure what to do. Bring it up at WP:ERRORS? I figured issues brought up before the blurb actually went up should reach somekind of consensus before the blurb goes up, but I guess not? ~Mable (chat) 05:46, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

• Posted Altblurb. --Jayron32 11:43, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

RD: Charles Bradley (singer)

• Nominated by Sherenk1 (talk · give credit)

 Sherenk1 (talk) 11:20, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. More citations are needed (I've tagged several places) and at least one of the citations that is there doesn't verify the adjacent text - I've tagged the one I spotted but I haven't got time to check all of them. Thryduulf (talk) 11:38, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose a little more tweaking required around the referencing. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:41, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

References

Nominators often include links to external websites and other references in discussions on this page. It is usually best to provide such links using the inline URL syntax rather than using <ref></ref> tags, because that keeps all the relevant information in the same place as the nomination without having to jump to this section, and facilitates the archiving process.

For the times when <ref></ref> tags are being used, here are their contents:

• Misplaced Pages In the news
• Main Page discussions