Open main menu

Wikipedia β

This page provides a forum for editors to suggest items for inclusion in Template:In the news (ITN), a protected Main Page template, as well as the forum for discussion of candidates. This is not the page to report errors in the ITN section on the Main Page—please go to the appropriate section at WP:ERRORS.

This candidates page is integrated with the daily pages of Portal:Current events. Under each daily section header below is the transcluded Portal:Current events items for that day (with a light green header). Each day's portal page is followed by a subsection for suggestions and discussion.

The aircraft that crashed, pictured in 2011
The aircraft that crashed, pictured in 2011

How to nominate an itemEdit

In order to suggest a candidate:

  • Update an article to be linked to from the blurb to include the recent developments, or find an article that has already been updated.
  • Find the correct section below for the date of the event (not the date nominated) in UTC.
    • Do not add sections for new dates. These are automatically generated (at midnight UTC) by a bot; creating them manually breaks this process. Remember, we use UTC dates.
  • Nominate the blurb for ITN inclusion under the "Suggestions" subheading for the date, emboldening the link in the blurb to the updated article. Use a level 4 header (====) when doing so.
    • Preferably use the template {{ITN candidate}} to nominate the article related to the event in the news. Make sure that you include a reference from a verifiable, reliable secondary source. Press releases are not acceptable. The suggested blurb should be written in simple present tense.
    • Adding an explanation why the event should be posted greatly increases the odds of posting.
  • Please consider alerting editors to the nomination by adding the template {{ITN note}} to the corresponding article's talk page.

Purge this page to update the cache

There are criteria which guide the decision on whether or not to put a particular item on In the news, based largely on the extensiveness of the updated content and the perceived significance of the recent developments. These are listed at WP:ITN.

Submissions that do not follow the guidelines at Wikipedia:In the news will not be placed onto the live template.

HeadersEdit

  • Items that have been posted or pulled from the main page are generally marked with (Posted) or (Pulled) in the item's subject so it is clear they are no longer active.
  • Items can also be marked as (Ready) when the article is both updated and there seems to be a consensus to post. The posting admin, however, should always judge the update and the consensus to post themselves. If you find an entry that you don't feel is ready to post is marked (Ready), you should remove the mark in the header.

Voicing an opinion on an itemEdit

  • Format your comment to contain "support" or "oppose", and include a rationale for your choice. In particular, address the notability of the event, the quality of the article, and whether it has been updated.
  • Some jargon: RD refers to "recent deaths", a subsection of the news box which lists only the names of the recent notable deceased. Blurb refers to the full sentences that occupy most of the news box. Most eligible deaths will be listed in the recent deaths section of the ITN template. However, some deaths may be given a full listing if there is sufficient consensus to do so.
  • The blurb of a promoted ITN item may be modified to complement the existing items on the main page.

Please do not...Edit

  • ... add simple "support!" or "oppose!" votes without including your reasons. Similarly, curt replies such as "who?", "meh", or "duh!" are usually not helpful. Instead, explain the reasons why you think the item meets or does not meet the ITN inclusion criteria so a consensus can be reached.
  • ... oppose an item because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive.
  • ... accuse other editors of supporting, opposing or nominating due to a personal bias (such as ethnocentrism). Conflicts of interest are not handled at ITN.
  • ... comment on a story without first reading the relevant article(s).
  • ... oppose a WP:ITN/R item here because you disagree with current WP:ITN/R criteria (these can be discussed at the relevant Talk Page)


SuggestionsEdit

May 20Edit

Portal:Current events/2018 May 20
Law and crime
Politics and elections

May 19Edit

Portal:Current events/2018 May 19
Armed conflicts and attacks
  • Russian military intervention in Ukraine
    • Ukraine's Joint Forces Operation says Russian-led militants have mounted 43 attacks on Ukrainian troops in Donbas in the past 24 hours, using artillery systems and 120mm and 82mm mortars 10 times, with no casualties among the Ukrainian servicemen. According to intelligence data, two militants are killed and three others wounded. (UNIAN)
Arts and culture
International relations
  • China–United States relations
    • China says it will "significantly increase" purchases of U.S. goods and services to help reduce the trade tensions between the two countries, with increased purchases mainly in agriculture and energy. (CNN)
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Sports

RD: Bernard LewisEdit

Article: Bernard Lewis (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The Washington Post
Nominator: TDKR Chicago 101 (talk • give credit)

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Article sufficiently well sourced for overall article length --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 05:37, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Weak oppose a handful of [cn]s added in which need resolution, but otherwise good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:14, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

2018 Cannes Film FestivalEdit

Article: 2018 Cannes Film Festival (talk, history)
Blurb: Shoplifters wins the Palme d'Or at the 2018 Cannes Film Festival.
News source(s): France 24
Nominator: Fitzcarmalan (talk • give credit)

Nominated event is listed at WP:ITN/R, meaning that the recurrence of the event should in itself merit a post on WP:ITN, subject to the quality of the article and any update(s) to it.

Nominator's comments: Both articles require some serious updating/expansion. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 22:34, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment - Both updated now, though the film article might need a plot section. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 22:54, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose basically no prose (lead material is either not expanded upon or mentioned in the body) and no key/symbol combination for winners (per accessibility requirements), but comprehensive and referenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:54, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Iraq ElectionsEdit

Article: Iraqi parliamentary election, 2018 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​An alliance headed by a former Shia militia chief Muqtada al-Sadr wins the Iraqi parliamentary elections.
News source(s): BBC
Nominator: Sherenk1 (talk • give credit)
Updater: Ahmedo Semsurî (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Nominated event is listed at WP:ITN/R, meaning that the recurrence of the event should in itself merit a post on WP:ITN, subject to the quality of the article and any update(s) to it.

Nominator's comments: Results are out. Sherenk1 (talk) 12:30, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Some of the tables need citations, and the results need prose, too. Vanamonde (talk) 13:05, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support all issues look fixed, good to go. 97.46.0.216 (talk) 14:16, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • ”Wins the most seats” would be better in the blurb, as no bloc reached a majority of seats. —LukeSurl t c 14:40, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment The blurb should specify that it's about Iraq. People shouldn't have to click the link to find out which country the blurb is referring to. TompaDompa (talk) 15:11, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - seems ready for posting.BabbaQ (talk) 23:06, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose the prose needs thoroughly checking for statements which are out of date (e.g. "the Civilized Alliance,[38][39] led by Faiq Al Sheikh Ali, which currently has 4 seats") and the "Seat allocation" section is unreferenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:01, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) Royal WeddingEdit

Article: Wedding of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In the United Kingdom, the Royal Wedding between Prince Harry and Meghan Markle takes place.
News source(s): ABC News, BBC
Nominator: SamaranEmerald (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: Now before everyone starts blasting this nomination with opposes (which is highly certain), keep in mind that this has been the talk of the world within the past few months. This has been getting massive attention in the last hour by various news sources across the globe. P.S. give me some slack as I have never posted a nomination before. SamaranEmerald (talk) 12:04, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Support notable event with loads of press traction Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 12:16, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - huge event of global interest, estimated to be watched by over a billion people worldwide FF2010 12:22, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - World wide coverage. BabbaQ (talk) 12:23, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - I'm no fan of royalty, but this is a highly notable event, and significant for bringing a mixed-race divorcee into the royal family. We missed a trick by not having this on the front page during the ceremony. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:29, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support the BBC commentators say almost 2 billion people watched this live. I think it ought to be noted, since there won't be another Royal Wedding for some time. Plus the number of A-List stars who turned up was impressive. JLJ001 (talk) 12:33, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - This is in the news and historic. Perhaps we could add the tax bill for UK "commoners" too? (e.g. "takes place at a cost of...")Zigzig20s (talk) 12:36, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment if someone can find an image, I would be pleased if you add it, thank you. SamaranEmerald (talk) 12:39, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • The Swedish commentator said the broadcast from the wedding was royaly free, could this mean something for WP-good licence for pics? cart-Talk 12:42, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Huge world-wide interest and we need some joy once in a while at ITN. Get it up there as soon as possible or we look like squares. cart-Talk 12:40, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support ground-breaking royal wedding, global audience of the order of 2 billion, long-lasting, high-impact news. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:46, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - we serve to drive people directly to articles which they will be looking for anyway due to the news. Judging by last year's records, people will absolutely be searching for this item, and the article quality is decent. Stormy clouds (talk) 12:48, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support time to post this. Aiken D 12:54, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted I'm one of the "what's the fuss all about" people, so maybe I'm the right one to post this. Vanamonde (talk) 13:03, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support (ec) The uncertainties have been resolved now and, yesterday, the article got more views than all the other ITN blurb items combined. Andrew D. (talk) 13:05, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Support with two billion people around the world watching the event on live television, it’s safe to say this is a big deal. 97.46.0.216 (talk) 14:18, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Request - Could someone please change so Meghan, Duchess of Sussex is the page direct in the blurb at ITN. Right now its Meghan Markle which is a redirect.BabbaQ (talk) 18:33, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I see that we're continuing our dubious tradition of titling articles about British Royalty, but not many others (particularly outside Europe), their official titles. Vanamonde (talk) 05:14, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
  • How else would we name her and the article since it is her official name, she now has no last name but her title. "Meghan (formerly Meghan Merkle)"? cart-Talk 09:55, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Well, we've no problem referring to the emperor of Japan as "Akihito", or the king of Thailand as "Vajiralongkorn", right? We seem to get by without the official title there; I'm sure we could think of something. But really that's not my point: I'm not too bothered by giving people their titles. My point is that we take so much care to get the titles of British royals right (your comment being a case in point) but don't seem to bother with most others. Just as, for instance, knighthoods are an exception to WP:HONORIFIC, but other national honors are not. Vanamonde (talk) 10:22, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
  • We seem to use titles for European royals and not for the rest, so there is some "method in the madness". cart-Talk 11:55, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Post-posting oppose - I know my opposing of it won't make much of a difference, but Prince Harry is currently sixth in the line of succession to the British throne, so this feels more like a celebrity story (which I have yet to see on List of most watched television broadcasts) than a game changing event. ITN shouldn't be a news ticker. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 19:04, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Since most of that article is unreferenced, it's probably not something to use evidentially in any way. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:04, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose and pull. Absolutely not. Minor royal who is merely 6th in the line of succession to the throne in his country and utterly unlikely to ever become head of state. This belongs in the gossip press in the UK, not on the front page of an international encyclopedia. We should ask ourselves: Would we post the wedding of, say, the guy who is 6th in the line of succession to the throne in Thailand with no prospect of ever succeeding, or the grandchild of Donald Trump (arguably a much, much more influential person than any member of this minor royal's family) merely on account of being the grandchild of Donald Trump? --Tataral (talk) 21:00, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
    Two billion people round the world disagree. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:03, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Two billion people (may have) watched the event. Doesn't mean they agree that it's ITN material. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 21:18, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Pull the other one, it's got bells on!! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:32, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Two billion people around the world are a bunch of twits.--WaltCip (talk) 00:51, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
Why? It was a really nice event, nothing but full of positivity, bridged gaps, shook up the traditions, showed the new generation of progressive Royals, there's nothing to dislike about it. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:04, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Long term significance is not clear but when you have billions watching your wedding and you are on the front page of pretty much every newspaper in the world... Anyways, many years to the happy couple. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:23, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

May 18Edit

Portal:Current events/2018 May 18
Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
Health and environment
Law and crime
Politics and elections

(Ready) RD: Stephanie AdamsEdit

Article: Stephanie Adams (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC News, Fox News, NYT
Nominator: Fuebaey (talk • give credit)

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: American model. Fuebaey (talk) 02:10, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Support adequate. Fucking tragic that she took her child with her. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:14, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - Thin but postable. Death section needs expansion. Jusdafax (talk) 09:25, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - just about adequate for posting.BabbaQ (talk) 10:18, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Looks OK. –Ammarpad (talk) 03:32, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) Cuba aircraft crashEdit

Article: Cubana de Aviación Flight 972 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​More than 100 people are killed when a passenger airline crashes shortly after takeoff from Havana, Cuba.
News source(s): BBC, CNN
Nominator: Masem (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: There's no yet official word of number of deaths/survivors, but initial statement suggests only a few people may have survived this. Masem (t) 18:29, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose - The article badly needs expansion before it can be posted to the main page.--WaltCip (talk) 18:46, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose at this time. Needs expansion. Less relevant right now than the shooting in Texas (which does need to be added to the main page, in my opinion. Rockstonetalk to me! 19:08, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Wait - The event is obviously worthy of being posted, but the article needs to be fully fleshed out first.--Minerman30 19:09, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Not productive. 331dot (talk) 19:47, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Question so far, just in 2018 we posted US-Bangla Airlines Flight 211 (51 dead), Saratov Airlines Flight 703 (71 dead), 2018 Russian Air Force Antonov An-26 crash (39 dead), Iran Aseman Airlines Flight 3704 (66 dead) and 2018 Algerian Air Force Il-76 crash (257 dead). With you people frantically tripping over eachother to write off 9 dead kids in Santa Fe as "routine" and "already falling out of the headlines" could someone please tell me what could possibly make the 6th fatal commercial airline crash of 2018 so "obviously worthy of being posted" that we all know will be out of the headlines in a day anyway. Anyone? --LaserLegs (talk) 19:30, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
    This is an accident? And if not, it's even more notable. The gun crimes in the US are inexcusably self-inflicted. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:33, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
    An "accident" sounds like poor aircraft safety and design and training regulation to me. Obviously inexcusably self-inflicted. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:35, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
    It's a good job we're not really interested in speculation then, particularly from a non-expert. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:41, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
    No TRM, you've helped me see the light. When tragedy strikes, someone is at fault, and it is the societies fault for not taking appropriate steps to prevent that tragedy. So when this latest fatal crash is proven to be either pilot error or mechanical failure, I look forward to you heaping scorn upon the supporters of this nom, pointing out that it is the entire nation of Cuba and Mexico who are at fault here for either not having or not enforcing adequate training and maintenance regulations. Thank you for helping me to see the way TRM! Oh lord, THANK YOU! --LaserLegs (talk) 19:45, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
    Can you please stop this LaserLegs, this is not helpful at all.  Nixinova  T  C  20:03, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose also, not even the deadliest crash this year, not the first incident involving a 737. As routine as a van attack I'm afraid. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:46, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment BBC reporting 100+ deaths. --Masem (t) 19:55, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Over 100 dead—that is an extremely high number.  Nixinova  T  C  20:03, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Wait per Minerman30, we can't post a stub, but once it's a para or two thicker, it's good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:06, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Not yet It's a stub. Once expanded I will reconsider. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:24, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - significan accident with a high death toll. Mjroots (talk) 20:55, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support, the article now appears to be long enough. -- Tavix (talk) 21:05, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment This accident merits inclusion and the vote count so far largely confirms it, so we're going to post it once the article's body gets expanded from its current state of being shorter than the introduction.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:06, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
    • I've been expanding it. There's not much to say yet, no one has postulated why it crashed. --Masem (t) 21:09, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support: Significant air disaster. Clearly notable. Article has been improved. -Kudzu1 (talk) 22:53, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - the recent expansion covers all the information that is known at the moment; the article is brief but well referenced. –FlyingAce✈hello 23:32, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - clearly a tragic event internationally. The page has been updated with essential information. HaEr48 (talk) 23:51, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per above. Davey2116 (talk) 01:19, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted. I've left the death toll at >100 for now per BBC, as the 110 in the article doesn't appear to be referenced yet. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:47, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Post-posting comment - I've modified the wording to "passenger aircraft" as used in the article. It's quite impossible for an airline to crash. ansh666 04:30, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support - But suggest that the blurb gives accurate death toll of 110. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:47, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
    • @Martinevans123: the blurb has been updated since your comment, but WP:ERRORS is the place to request changes to posted blurbs. Thryduulf (talk) 13:15, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
      • That's why I posted there? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:16, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
        • They meant that ERRORS is the place to go to report issues and updates in the headlines.  Nixinova  T  C  19:41, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
          • Yes. And I meant that I reported it there first, and only came back here when I got no response. All fixed now anyway, thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:53, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Pull if we aren't going to post a second major school shooting because there are a lot of minor ones that don't even have their own articles, we certainly shouldn't be posting six airplane crashes in less than six months. Lepricavark (talk) 21:36, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
This started out as irrelevant and went down hill from there. Thryduulf (talk) 00:53, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Sour grapes. These aeroplane crashes kill hundreds, occur for many different reasons around the globe and affect tens of thousands. The parochial slaughter of kids in schools is not in the same category. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:38, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
    You're perfectly comfortable comparing the parochial slaughter of kids in schools to a Kardashian Instagram post, so I don't think you have a point. Lepricavark (talk) 21:40, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
    Duh, the regularity and therefore meaningless-ness of it all. Yes. We don't post bombings in war zones, so we don't post shootings in the US unless they are extreme. Now change the record. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:42, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
    I believe shootings with 10 or more casualties qualify for a post. Obviously you don't, and that's fine. The problem is that you keep insisting that such shootings are regular and mundane and run of the mill etc., despite the clear evidence that they are not. Lepricavark (talk) 21:45, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
    Well it's not just me, obviously, or it would be posted, right? That's how consensus works, right? Sour grapes, exacerbated by the truly sour oppose on the crash in Havana which killed more than 100 people and has caused two days of mourning and knocked the school incident right out of the news. Poor form. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:47, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
    Consensus (or a failure to arrive at one) can be wrong, and on Wikipedia it frequently is. This is one of those cases. Lepricavark (talk) 21:51, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
    In your own opinion. Moving on now, just like the news, just like the gun lobbyists, see you back here in a couple of months time to revisit the same old cracked rotating disk. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:54, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) Santa Fe school shootingEdit

There's clearly not going to be a strong consensus to post this, and discussion is starting to veer off ITN appropriateness and into random spats. Inappropriate. --Masem (t) 15:08, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
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: Santa Fe High School shooting (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A shooting at a high school near Houston leaves at least ten dead
Alternative blurb: ​In the United States, a school shooting in Santa Fe, Texas, kills at least ten people.
Alternative blurb II: ​A school shooting in Santa Fe, Texas, U.S., kills at least ten people.
News source(s): CNN, NYT, BBC
Nominator: 107.19.188.168 (talk • give credit)

Article needs updating

 107.19.188.168 (talk) 16:02, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Umm.. it’s not “business as usual”. We can’t just sweep this under the rug and say “another day, another shooting”. Eight people were brutally murdered for no reason! #NeverAgain 107.19.188.168 (talk) 16:07, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia and ITN are not for righting great wrongs. 331dot (talk) 19:35, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes, 107.xx, it is "business as usual" in America these days. I wish it were not so, but school shootings are now a fairly regular occurrence in the United States. Kurtis (talk) 19:52, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
No it's not. See below, where Brandmeister points out that this is a once in every three year occurrence, so not "fairly regular". – Muboshgu (talk) 23:54, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support in principle There's no WP:MINIMUMDEATHS; this is in the news, not only all over the U.S. but it's also the lead story on the BBC, etc. However, the article is a stub at the moment. Davey2116 (talk) 16:10, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Good work. Full support from me. Davey2116 (talk) 20:51, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Weak Oppose I hate citing WP:BODYCOUNT, but mass shootings are just so common in the US that I can't see posting them unless there is something that sets them apart from all of the others. That usually comes down to an unusually high death toll, which this comes close to, hence the "weak," or terrorism. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:15, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
    • Support It now appears the death toll has broken double digits. That's enough for me. Mass shootings may be fairly common but this level of casualties is still, thank God, not. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:49, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Sadly, it is just another day another school shooting in the USA. It is appalling that this is the case, and something does need to be done but ITN is not the venue for that. Thryduulf (talk) 16:19, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose.(edit conflict) Yet another mass shooting in a country where such things are (sadly) common. I'll be willing to reassess if unexpected details emerge, but right now I'm not seeing anything that makes this one so exceptional that it merits an ITN blurb (c.f. Mass_shootings_in_the_United_States#Deadliest_mass_shootings). We're not here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Nor is merely being in the news sufficient; we must consider the long-term encyclopaedic importance of the event. Modest Genius talk 16:23, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose yet another school shooting in the US, I am not surprised, the death toll is notably low and these are starting to become commonplace as one user above notes. Despite common belief, It will likely have no long-term impact, similar to most of the other shootings in recent years. SamaranEmerald (talk) 16:32, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Let's just accept it's become a part of the ingrained culture nowadays like taking out the garbage or going to the supermarket.--WaltCip (talk) 16:36, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. This is in the news and the article is in good shape, the reports of explosives could be classified as "unexpected details". -- Tavix (talk) 19:00, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support school shootings may not be rare, but most of them don't result in this many deaths. Lepricavark (talk) 19:18, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Ten should meet your WP:MINIMUMDEATHS for a mass shooting. Article is short, but okay, and will be expanded. This shooting is in the news, which is allegedly our purpose. Certain disparaging remarks made in opposition should be disregarded by uninvolved admins. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:23, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
    I don't see any disparaging remarks. They are all opinion based in very real fact. This has already started dropping down the news following the Cuba crash. This is completely unremarkable and will have no long-term impact, and has happened many times before and will happen many times again, probably this year. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:25, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
    Of course you wouldn't see "business as usual" regarding a school shooting to be in any way disparaging, or a comment comparing a school shooting to "taking out the garbage or going to the supermarket." You were pretty sure the Parkland shooting would have no lasting impact as well, as I recall. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:30, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
    Clearly it has not made any difference whatsoever. Or do you think there would have been even more mass shootings? I'm unclear. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:31, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
    If you Google "Parkland shooting", you'll see the ongoing coverage. I wasn't suggesting that would be the last straw that would ban guns. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:33, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
    Yeah, thanks for the advice, not required. Nothing significant has changed. We (or at least some of you) said Sandy Hook would be the last time. Tsk. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:35, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
    The process continues with another notable development, and you don't want to post it because bad things have happened before and you don't expect anything good to happen in the future. Shame that's not a reason to oppose posting a story that's in the news. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:00, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
    No it isn't, but opposition based on the fact this is routine, just like Kim Kardashian's latest Instagram photo, is a reason to oppose it. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:08, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
    So now we're comparing a school shooting where 10 people died to a Kardashian posting on Instagram. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:07, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
    Yes, both are regular, mundane, inexcusable and unending. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:38, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
    Baloney. School shootings in general make be regular and mundane, but not shootings where 10 people died. This has been clearly and repeatedly explained to the point that you are now in IDHT territory. Lepricavark (talk) 15:03, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - A number of deaths. Large coverage beyond the "usual school shooting" in the US.BabbaQ (talk) 19:28, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose according to CNN their have been 22 shootings within the 20 weeks in 2018, which roughly one per week. This is becomingthe norm in America these days, but I’m with the opposition because we should not post every single notable shooting in the US, otherwise the topic will be attributable to US-centric views. Kirliator (talk) 19:29, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • How many of those shootings have been nominated here? Lepricavark (talk) 19:41, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - A large number of deaths, and likely to hae a long term impact on politics, at least in Texas --Rockstonetalk to me! 19:30, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Regular events should not be promoted to ITN unless there is something particularly unusual and newsworthy about them. This appears, unless further facts emerge, to be a run-of-the-mill US school shooting. Black Kite (talk) 19:31, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Most school shootings don't result in 10 deaths. Or any at all. This is a notable event. --Rockstonetalk to me! 19:47, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment can we please just close this before I have to read any more "Oppose - more dead kids in America" comments that disregard the fact that this item is actually "in the news"? We know it won't be posted. Please just close it and be done. Please. Please. I can't stand to read another smug comment about "gun control in the USA". Just shut it down already. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:34, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
No one compels you to read any post here- and I'm still waiting for your formal proposal to make "in the news" the only criterion for posting. 331dot (talk) 19:40, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
From Wikipedia:In_the_news#Purpose "To help readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news." so you just let me know where it says that "significant deaths" are required, or that a story pass the "would we post it from Uganda" test, or "we don't post subnational elections" or whatever other made up fake requirements you arbitrarily hold nominations to and we'll be all set. I'll continue to look and see if the item is "In the news" per the purpose of ITN. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:38, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
I don't have any requirements, fake or otherwise- just consensus, as with almost all Wikipedia decisions. I don't see why ITN should be different than the rest of Wikipedia. There's a lot more to ITN guidelines than that one line. Still waiting for your news ticker proposal, or your proposal to eliminate all criteria other than "in the news", or even for your nomination of the latest Kim Kardashian story. 331dot (talk) 22:11, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Lots of people dead. This is sadly getting normal in the USA, but this is a lot of deaths.  Nixinova  T  C  19:38, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment for context, see List of school shootings in the United States (the only nation with its own dedicated article) where the sheer size of even the tables from the start of the 21st century indicates that this is just a really regular event. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:42, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • The vast majority of those shootings resulted in no more than two deaths. This nomination is for a shooting that resulted in 10 deaths. Lepricavark (talk) 19:45, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • My opposition is not on the number killed (which is startlingly small compared with events in other war zones), it is on the alarming regularity with which this kind of event happens. It is, literally, business as usual. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:49, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • School shootings are alarmingly frequent, but that does not mean we should avoid posting the worst of them. Lepricavark (talk) 19:57, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • It is among the worst. While there are many school shootings, most have no more than two deaths. This one had 10 deaths, so the "business as usual" argument is bogus. Lepricavark (talk) 22:40, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Black Kite, US school shootings that are no different from previous ones put there notability at a dangerously controversial position on ITN, this no different from Stoneman Douglas, this is no different from Sandy Hook, this is no different from Virginia Tech except for the notably lower death toll. I agree with Muboshgu that somewhere in the double digits should be the standard for the unofficial WP:MINIMUMDEATHS, but I wouldn’t call this a “large” shooting. This is the kind of nomination where bias emerge from most often. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 19:44, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak support. The cynical response of "business as usual" is accurate. But, double digits might be enough to warrant posting. That would reduce us to only two or three American school shootings in ITN a year. Resolute 19:57, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Agree with Muboshgu that 10 deaths at minimum should be the standard for WP:MINIMUMDEATHS, as death tolls less than that generally are not warrantable to ITN unless there is a significant individual is killed as a result.Python Dan (talk) 20:05, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak support per Resolute, 2 or 3 school shootings a year on ITN is not too many. zzz (talk) 20:12, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
    I think everyone around the world should read that comment, and reflect on its significance. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:14, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support School shootings in the US may be increasingly frequent but they do not all get this level of attention. Ten deaths is a significant loss of life. Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:20, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose I have to agree with others that school shootings in the USA are too common to be posted here regularly. It is getting some coverage so will keep the oppose weak. However the coverage in my neck of the woods, which usually loves this sort of news, is lower than expected so I lean on the oppose side of the debate. AIRcorn (talk) 20:49, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose I agree with Aircorn that Shootings in the United States is becoming too common in today’s world, however this is getting notable coverage in various media outlets, but this is the only reason why my oppose is weak. Python Dan (talk) 20:55, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per others. Another day, another shooting in the United States – it's the same old story.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:59, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support I'm not an American, but two-digit death tolls from school shootings are high enough to post, article in reasonable shape.Brandmeistertalk 21:21, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Routine in the US. Nothing is every done about them. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:23, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Although major mass shootings in the U.S. like this are common, it's still an extremely terrible event and to not include it in the main news section would be potentially offensive - it would imply that 10 people being shot and killed in a school isn't serious or truly newsworthy. PlanetDeadwing (talk) 21:29, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support The is a school mass shooting in the double digits. TheHoax (talk) 21:30, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • oppose school shootings in the USA are becoming too common and mundane for ITN, it’s time standards be set for disasters like this. Also most of the supporters are simply putting canned explanations which isn’t very convincing. 24.100.167.151 (talk) 21:41, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is just another plain old US school shooting, and nothing is special about it. Maybe there could be an additional panel on the main page for such events? ie, one for "news", one for "recent deaths" and then one for US school shootings. Chrisclear (talk) 21:56, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Saying "this is too common" is merely a knee-jerk reaction without context. Per List of school shootings in the United States, in this year there were only two two-digit death tolls so far. Before that, a 2-digit death toll was in 2015, three years ago. And before that a 2-digit death toll happened in 2012, also a three-year gap. Judge for yourself. Brandmeistertalk 22:00, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
@Brandmeister, they are talking about the frequency of shootings overall, not “double digit” shootings, read this [1]. Python Dan (talk) 22:08, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Frequency is another matter, that's why we posted Stoneman Douglas High School shooting based on death toll alone. Transport accidents are common too, but 2018 Kazakhstan bus fire was posted. Now we're abandoning this long-standing criterion, essentially saying "we don't want the reality anymore, it's too dull". Brandmeistertalk 22:39, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. The frequency of relatively minor incidents should not cause us to ignore the major incidents. I hope whoever makes the decision on this nomination can see the silliness of the "business as usual" argument. Lepricavark (talk) 22:47, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • @Brandmeister: One can reasonably argue for or against listing this. But don't dismiss the opposers like that. I mean, come on, it's only May and there have "only" been two double digit mass murders US schools? In other words, there have been 20 school shootings in the United States in the first 5 months of 2018, 10% of which have a death toll in the double digits. But people who think it's "too common" are being unreasonable and reactionary? What sort of metric would have to be satisfied for you to think that this has become too common? Swarm 22:48, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, the year hasn't ended, but let's compare apples to apples, not oranges. In the historical perspective, per the above list, there were a total of six double-digit death tolls in 18 years (including this shooting). Six in eighteen years, since the 2000s, meaning about once every 3 years. That's hardly common or frequent. Brandmeistertalk 23:05, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • "Double digit" is an arbitrarily-selected limit, but convenient for advocates of this ITN candidate because the death toll happens to be 10. HaEr48 (talk) 00:12, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • No, it's a precedent per Stoneman Douglas High School, Sandy Hook and likely other previous shootings posted. Brandmeistertalk 09:52, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak Support Just over three months since the last one, I guess this barely makes the cut. Juxlos (talk) 22:42, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support: Ten civilians being shot dead in broad daylight in a country that, despite its outrageously high rate of gun-related deaths, is not in fact a warzone is still notable. The "22 school shootings" figure elides the scale of a shooting like Santa Fe or Parkland in which many people (children, at that) die, as opposed to one or two. -Kudzu1 (talk) 22:51, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Sadly, a US school shooting of this magnitude is no longer an event of international significance :( HaEr48 (talk) 23:46, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
    • Who said it has to be of international significance? From above: "Please do not ... oppose an item because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive." – Muboshgu (talk) 23:50, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
      • I agree an event does not have to be related to a single country—but in my view the impact should be. For example, a head of state election is a single-country affair but has international impact. Major terrorist attacks normally elicit international responses. But this kind of event is no longer significant outside the US. If you see the linked BBC article, it just reports the event as-is (as if just a local news from USA) without any in-depth analysis. HaEr48 (talk) 23:56, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Routine for a country with poor health care and laughable gun control. Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:18, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Close? I am thinking it might be time for an uninvolved admin to close this as no consensus. This discussion has gotten a lot of participation and I see no realistic likelihood of overcoming the sharp divide. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:16, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support As much as I hate to say it is business as usual, once a death toll for a school shooting like this has broken the double digits, it is news worth having on the front page. Plus, it's been a while since the last one. If it had only been, like, a few weeks or something, then I'd reconsider. -Beowul116 (talk) 02:35, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - Wikipedia doesn't split European and American mass murders. Yes, the situation is far too common, but no one has given an actual reason it shouldn't be included.AJackSpear (talk) 02:42, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • "far too common" is an actual reason it shouldn't be included. HaEr48 (talk) 02:56, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Made the news in Australia. We are discussing "In The News". HiLo48 (talk) 03:15, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Australia? You mean where this sort of thing doesn't happen? At all? I thought you were one of the big pushers against systemic bias.--WaltCip (talk) 03:28, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oh my goodness. Do I need to spell it out for you? The support for this story is predicated on systemic bias.--WaltCip (talk) 03:55, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Do start spelling. HiLo48 (talk) 04:06, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • It made worldwide news. At this point, I'm not arguing on whether it is newsworthy or not, or whether it's happened far too often, I'm saying if this has made news all across the world, which it has, if the whole world has woken up, turned on their TV, and saw "Santa Fe High School shooting leaves 10 dead", it should be on ITN. -Beowul116 (talk) 03:45, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Comment on content, not on the contributor. See WP:No personal attacks. TompaDompa (talk) 09:09, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I should remind everyone that HiLo48 attacked several users on this page last month when a controversial nomination regarding a penis transplant was nominated, he attacked several users who opposed it, namely those that called it inappropriate and obscene. Python Dan (talk) 03:50, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
I am not the topic here. HiLo48 (talk) 03:52, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
No, you shouldn't remind us of that because it's not relevant to this discussion. Lepricavark (talk) 05:10, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm neutral on this at the moment, but I find it quite interesting that school shootings in the US attract far more support along the lines of "this is dreadful! It must be posted!" than bombings in Iraq and Afghanistan with far larger casualty totals. Vanamonde (talk) 05:54, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Indeed. What baffles the mind here is those who think that "two or three US school shootings per year isn't too much". This is a single classification of crime (mass shooting) occurring at a single type of location (education facility) in a single country (the US). The style of crime happens at least on a weekly basis. And all because of the negligence of those who allow/enable such events to take place due to archaic and irrelevant gun laws and incorrect interpretations of amendments to constitutions. And, of course, political funding. Schools in the US are war zones, and as such we should dismiss these nominations as so often those bombings in Iraq and Afghanistan are dismissed. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:21, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • That seems a reasonable rule of thumb. As with air crashes, there should be some flexibility. But thst's notability. A higher bar is required for ITN. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:53, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment ironically, someone above noted today's Royal Wedding. Now I suspect this may get nominated and snow-closed, but goodness me, it will be viewed by hundreds of millions of people around the world, will be remembered for years to come and has a real impact in the history of the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth. Meanwhile, this standard gun crime will be nearly instantly forgotten outside Texas and the anti-gun lobby (it's already third in the list of main news items). Perspective is required here. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:34, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
    • Both made it into history and will be remembered in its own right. But comparing a wedding with a shooting is apples and oranges again. Brandmeistertalk 07:53, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
    • The wedding won't really have "a real impact in the history of the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth". Harry is only 5th in line to the throne. Never likely to be king. This couple will fade into standard obscurity for minor royalty in a couple of years. The school shooting is part of a a much more major issue. HiLo48 (talk) 07:57, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
      The school shooting will be just another statistic next month. Harry will be headlines for years to come. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:44, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
      Many more people in AmuricA will be talking about the Royal Wedding than this specific shooting, and for years to come! The Rambling Man (talk) 12:37, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:ROUTINE. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap shit room 09:09, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - Worldwide news, article OK, opposes seem rote. Jusdafax (talk) 09:30, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • There are a consensus for posting now.BabbaQ (talk) 10:20, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • No, I don't think there is. We're at 20 supports versus 17 opposes, and I'm not seeing a good reason to discount any of the comments at the moment. Given this level of opposition, I'd like to see a significantly higher proportion of support; and even so, whoever posts this is going to face criticism, I'm afraid. Vanamonde (talk) 10:27, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Would need at least 2 to 1 for a consensus I think. Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:12, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Conditional Oppose this nomination has drawn a significant amount of criticism and controversy amongst a number of users within the past several hours. Their have been multiple cases of users attacking other users because one voted for support or oppose for various canned summaries (we.g. “common event in USA” by opposition and “large, notable attack” by the supporters). If this trend continues for the next few hours or even days, their will be no chance this nomination will be posted with a clear consensus. I choose to oppose not because of the story itself, but because of the fighting users have caused as a result of this nomination. 174.231.128.143 (talk) 11:24, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I think the fact that this story has already started to disappear off front pages (the Parkland one didn't) is very telling. Black Kite (talk) 12:34, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I decided to let this one sit for a while before casting a !vote, to gauge the impact. Aside from the usual "thoughts and prayers", there has been no tangible observable impact, beyond the ten fatalities. While a significant number, this is below the threshold for what I would consider to be important enough to post at ITN. We regularly discount items from countries on the grounds that they are war-zones, even with more than 10 fatalities. It is time to confront the reality that this is a frequent occurrence stateside, and we must account for this appropriately. It has only been three months since the Parkland shooting, and there will undoubtedly be another major shooting before the year is out (it doesn't take a crystal ball to guess that). Most of those in support are in support because they are shifting goalposts - picking an arbitrary number of deaths as being enough, and claiming that the fact that the mass shooting was in a school makes it different. There is simply not enough lasting impact to justify posting this item from a country where such events are now routine. I would suggest closing this nomination soon, as consensus will not develop. Stormy clouds (talk) 13:15, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - Fact is, this is in the news and in public interest, politicians have responded to it, and it'll be kicked off the page once the news dies down anyway. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 13:44, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Oppose this is already becoming yesterday’s news, as many of the major news outlets are now concentrated on the Royal Wedding now, leaving this event fading from memory. 97.46.0.216 (talk) 14:13, 19 May 2018 (UTC)


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

(Posted) RD: John CarrickEdit

Article: John Carrick (Australian politician) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): AFR, news.com.au, The Australian
Nominator: Fuebaey (talk • give credit)
Updater: Ivar the Boneful (talk • give credit)

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Australian politician. Fuebaey (talk) 14:20, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

May 17Edit

Portal:Current events/2018 May 17
Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents
Politics and elections

RD: Richard PipesEdit

Article: Richard Pipes (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The New York Times
Nominator: Pudeo (talk • give credit)

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: The most famous critical historian of the Soviet Union after Robert Conquest - an important theme in the 20th Century. Article is well-sourced. --Pudeo (talk) 13:03, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose I disagree; there are far too many unreferenced statements for a BLP. ghost 14:12, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
    I removed[2] two unsourced paragraphs I thought were editorialized and added one source, so hardly too many unreferenced statements anymore. There's just one unreferenced statement about his view of the Russian revolution, which I think is a fairly uncontroversial summary of his book, but could be removed too. --Pudeo (talk) 15:47, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose nearly there but a couple of unreferenced claims, plus a section of Works with no inline verification. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:10, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) Gina Haspel confirmedEdit

Consensus will not develop. Stephen 06:07, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
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: Gina Haspel (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In the United States, Gina Haspel is confirmed by the Senate as the first female director of the Central Intelligence Agency.
News source(s): CNN NPR BBC
Nominator: Everymorning (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: To me, the fact that this is an important position in the United States federal government (if not internationally) + first woman to be CIA director + significant controversy regarding her past supervision of torture at black sites = significant enough to post on ITN. Every morning (there's a halo...) 21:25, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
  • We need to ask ourselves if we would post this if it was the Russian GRU, MI6, or any other nation's intelligence agency. 331dot (talk) 21:50, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
    • Probably yes. The impeachment of the Philippine chief justice I think proves that nicely don't you? --LaserLegs (talk) 23:32, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
      • Not at all. The CIA director does not lead a branch of the US government; technically she works for the President. 331dot (talk) 23:37, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
        • Point is, not only would we consider the appointment or dismissal of a non-head of state government official, we in fact have posted such event. Frankly the statement "would we post this from some non-America country" has gotten rather tired. It's either in the news, or it isn't. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:19, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
          • My point is that the CIA director does not lead a branch of government, as a chief justice does. Apple's and oranges. Now, if we have posted a change in the head of MI6, please tell me. 331dot (talk) 00:27, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
            • More like gala apples to red delicious, but whatever. Section is "in the news" not "in the what I think should be news". Oh well. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:41, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
              • It's not what I think, but what the community thinks, which is how most decisions are made on Wikipedia, using editorial judgement as any publication does. I await your formal proposal to make ITN a news ticker, or Wikinews is thataway...... 331dot (talk) 01:04, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
                • Wikinews is a project for posting original research I'm not sure what it has to do with the ITN section of Wikipedia which posts articles attributed to reliable sources which are actually "In the news". Thanks for nothing though. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:11, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose good faith nom per 331dot. Its 88 degrees here but I see snow in the forecast. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:15, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Given that most of Trump's choices for these positions have been controversial, we have to look past that to see what else makes this notable, and given other women have been placed in key executive branch positions, I don't see as a significant groundbreaking achievement. (Maybe if we were talking Secr. of Defense, but even then that's a stretch). --Masem (t) 22:17, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:SYSTEMICBIAS. Similar positions requiring confirmation in other countries wouldn't be nominated. Not significant enough an event, like the Philippine chief justice impeachment, to justify. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:58, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
    • Right? We'd never post the dismissal of a supreme court justice from another country! --LaserLegs (talk) 00:23, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose not because of the inaccurate screams of "bias" but because it's barely in the news. The nomination of one of Bush's chief torturers just as Bolton is pushing us out of the Iran deal (also not posted) was the news here. There would always be some sort of senate procedure or other to get her confirmed, no story there. Weak because the article is decent, especially the section about her nomination. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:23, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per 331dot. There're many ministers in every country, so the appointment of a single one has a very high bar to clear. Banedon (talk) 02:59, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose local politics, welcome to the 20th century. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:55, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

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.

(Attention needed) Congo Ebola OutbreakEdit

Article: 2018 Democratic Republic of the Congo Ebola virus outbreak (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Ebola outbreak in the Democratic Republic of the Congo has spread from the countryside into a city, with atleast 23 people dead.
Alternative blurb: ​An Ebola outbreak in the Democratic Republic of the Congo kills at least 25 people.
News source(s): BBC
Nominator: Sherenk1 (talk • give credit)
Updater: The Anome (talk • give credit)
Other updaters: Ozzie10aaaa (talk • give credit) and Geraldshields11 (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: 23 people have died. Sherenk1 (talk) 06:29, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment article seems satisfactory, news item is notable, but would it not be better suited to Ongoing, or are we looking to make it a blurb which could then drop into Ongoing once it falls off the bottom if still relevant? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:08, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Reaaaaaally would like to see the proseline removed from this, but I do agree this is an appropriate ITN topic and well sourced. I'm indifferent to ongoing vs blurb, but suggest blurb for now and if we're still seeing major coverage when it drops off, move to a ongoing. --Masem (t) 13:51, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Wait. The article is decent, but is this really a major outbreak yet? Clearly Ebola attracts attention in the media, but I'm not convinced we would post a localised outbreak of (say) anthrax or Legionnaire's disease that killed ~20 people. If this spreads further then it might justify posting, probably to ongoing rather than a blurb, but we don't seem to be there yet. Hopefully it won't happen, but let's wait and see. Modest Genius talk 15:49, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. Has been in the news for days and now spread to an urban area. Afaik, this will be the first use of the ring vaccination strategy, which is going to be newsworthy even if it works and the virus is successfully contained. The article appears acceptable. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:26, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak support This was a top news story today on several major outlets, however the article is a bit on the brief side. Well referenced, at least. Like to see some more meat on the bones here, but it's passable. --Jayron32 18:39, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I changed "Congo" in the blurb to "the Democratic Republic of the Congo" so as to avoid confusion with the Republic of the Congo. People shouldn't have to click the link to find out which country the blurb is referring to. TompaDompa (talk) 20:24, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support as ongoing this will be a continuing story for some time. I've added an alt-blurb, neutral as to whether a blurb is necessary. The death toll numbers will likely continue to change; WaPo says 25 now. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:20, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • WHO (17 May) still states 23 deaths [3]; the press figures are often inaccurate (deaths can go down eg if a suspected case is shown not to be Ebola). I prefer a blurb mentioning the move to Mbandaka, because rural outbreaks occur relatively frequently but cases in urban areas are thankfully rare. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:44, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Note that Ebola has a mean incubation period of between one and two weeks. So, when it spreads into a big city you won't see the number of cases go up very rapidly in the first week, but after a week or so, you can expect to see a large number of new cases. Count Iblis (talk) 03:40, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment, per the BBC, "A [WHO] panel will decide on Friday whether to declare a "public health emergency of international concern", which would trigger a larger response." I suggest if this declaration is made, it's significant enough for Wikipedia to post. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:59, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
    • WaPost says that WHO is not yet declaring this a global health emergency (primarily as there's yet a means of this impacting other countries). --Masem (t) 14:42, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per Espresso Addict. -- Tavix (talk) 13:38, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per above. I'd prefer ongoing, but I'm not opposed to a blurb. Davey2116 (talk) 01:19, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

May 16Edit

Portal:Current events/2018 May 16
Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections

RD: Gérard JouannestEdit

Article: Gérard Jouannest (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Lesprit, Bruno (17 May 2018). "Gérard Jouannest, pianiste et mélodiste de Jacques Brel et de Juliette Gréco, est mort". Le Monde. Retrieved 19 May 2018. 
Nominator: Zigzig20s (talk • give credit)

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: French pianist and composer of over 250 songs. A bit short but we don't have a length requirement, do we? Zigzig20s (talk) 11:29, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose not comprehensive. Just take a look at the French Wikipedia entry. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:06, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment. It's essentially a stub. Espresso Addict (talk) 10:42, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

RD: Miriam GriffinEdit

Article: Miriam T. Griffin (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Somerville College, Oxford
Nominator: Fuebaey (talk • give credit)
Updater: DonPantalone (talk • give credit)
Other updaters: Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk • give credit)

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: American historian. Fuebaey (talk) 15:40, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Weak oppose unless it's because I got up too early, I can't see anywhere in the prose any mention of her death, the manner of it, and any reaction to it. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:09, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment. Not seeing any evidence this death is in the news. Espresso Addict (talk) 10:34, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Anwar Ibrahim pardonedEdit

Articles: Anwar Ibrahim (talk, history) and Anwar Ibrahim sodomy trials (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Malaysian reformist politician Anwar Ibrahim is freed from prison after a royal pardon by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, Muhammad V of Kelantan.
News source(s): [4] [5] [6]
Nominator: Banedon (talk • give credit)
Updater: 211.25.227.162 (talk • give credit)
Other updaters: 3rdDivision (talk • give credit)

Both articles updated

Nominator's comments: I'm not sure about this one. He's the de facto leader of the Pakatan Harapan, the coalition that used to be the opposition but won the elections a week ago. We featured his conviction and imprisonment in the past. He's not the prime minister however, although there's apparently an agreement with the current prime minister to pass the reins to him in 1-2 years. The situation in Malaysia appears to be developing rapidly, with the former PM's home being raided by police recently. Ongoing might be more appropriate, although I don't know which article to have there. Banedon (talk) 02:58, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose individual is pardoned, happens all the time. Updates are absolutely trivial in nature and not worthy of main page exposure. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:57, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support major political figure, active at the head of Malaysian politics over the past two decades, is released as shown by the extensive background towards this event in the article(s). We have posted similar situations in the past, such as the pardon Peru's former president six months ago and the release of Ukraine's former prime minister in 2014. Fuebaey (talk) 13:55, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Head of state/government is objectively more notable than the head of a political party. ghost 14:19, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
FWIW, he was once deputy PM, and was prevented to become PM because of these sodomy cases. I dunno if pardons happen "all the time" (LOL), but a deputy prime minister (or equivalent) being pardoned doesn't happen all the time. –HTD 14:23, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
FWIW, ITN posted Queen Elizabeth's royal pardon of Alan Turing in 2013. –HTD 14:29, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
I respect that he's not a bum off the street, but the comparisons are not beneficial to your case. Turing is one of the most influential scientists in modern history, to say nothing of the civil rights aspect. We literally would not be having this conversation without him. ghost 17:27, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per nom, seems notable. The precedent pointed out by HTD helps as well; while Anwar Ibrahim won't leave a global legacy as strong as Turing's, from what I'm reading he's certainly an important figure in Malaysia. Davey2116 (talk) 16:03, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Joseph CampanellaEdit

Article: Joseph Campanella (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Variety
Nominator: TDKR Chicago 101 (talk • give credit)

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Article has been updated and well sourced --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 02:22, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

May 15Edit

Portal:Current events/2018 May 15
Armed conflicts and attacks
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections

RD: Ray WilsonEdit

Article: Ray Wilson (English footballer) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): [7]
Nominator: GreatCaesarsGhost (talk • give credit)

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Member of the English squad that won the '66 World Cup. Not quite ready, but pretty close. ghost 16:52, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose I was thinking of nominating this before I saw the article, but I don't think it is that close, sadly. The referencing is way short.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:45, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) Crimean bridge openedEdit

No consensus to post, and unlikely to achieve it by leaving this open any longer. –Ammarpad (talk) 13:46, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
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: Crimean Bridge (Crimea) (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Crimean Bridge is opened, becoming the longest bridge in Europe
Alternative blurb: ​The longest bridge in Europe, the Crimean Bridge, is opened, linking Crimea with mainland Russia
Alternative blurb II: ​The Crimean Bridge opens linking Crimea with mainland Russia.
News source(s): [8]
Nominator: Banedon (talk • give credit)
Updater: 99.229.32.103 (talk • give credit)
Other updaters: Rwxrwxrwx (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: We've posted other bridges opening before [Posted_Third_Bosphorus_bridge] [Posted_World's_longest_cross-sea_bridge_opens]. Banedon (talk) 22:31, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support There's some odd random Russian in the article (copied from the Russian WP?) but easily fixed, sourcing looks good. --Masem (t) 22:35, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. Aside from the structure itself, there is a geopolitical element in that the bridge ties Crimea closer to Russia. 331dot (talk) 22:40, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Not only is the bridge notable itself, but this is also a highly symbolic move given the recent events in Crimea. EternalNomad (talk) 00:41, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per above. Davey2116 (talk) 00:47, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support considering the fact that the majority of the events that get posted to ITN are disasters, sports, and politics, this would be a change for once. Python Dan (talk) 01:25, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment – Article lacks comparison with the longest bridges in the world, dozens of which are longer. Sca (talk) 01:41, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
    • Disagree, this is "in Europe", which is a large enough geographic area to be considerable. --Masem (t) 01:57, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
⇒ Maybe, but in that case it should contain a comparison with the previous longest-in-Europe bridge, the Øresund Bridge, which spans 7,845 m – 25,738 ft. – 7.85 km – 4.87 mi. (And it would be still more complete to mention that the claimed longest bridge in the world, the Danyang–Kunshan Grand Bridge in China, officially measures 164 km = 102 mi.)Sca (talk) 15:49, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment It's built on the Ukrainian territory however. IT should be noted in the blurb.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.67.223.186 (talk)
  • Comment. Support on notability; independent of the greatest length, this is clearly a politically important development. However there are multiple citation tags and other tags which suggest some of the article might not be unbiased. Espresso Addict (talk) 06:14, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose based purely on the lack of quality in the article. Several personal opinions appear to be in there, hardly encyclopedic. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:41, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
    • Thanks for tagging, you beat me to it. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:47, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I've added an altblurb that addresses the geopolitics of the situation, while hopefully being sufficiently ambiguous about Crimea's status. --LukeSurl t c 08:14, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support in principle. There are a bunch of tags in the article that need addressing first, but this is an important bit of infrastructure. We can surely come up with a blurb phrasing that doesn't repeat 'Crimea' and 'bridge'. Modest Genius talk 10:44, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Too many gaps/tags for the main page. Further, I don't think the votes above indicate that we would post the 39th longest bridge absent geopolitical concerns just because it's in Europe. We should consider a blurb that doesn't mention length. ghost 14:25, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
How about one that doesn't mention countries either? Sca (talk) 15:51, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Correction, 126th longest in the world; something like 7th longest in Europe? Thanks for the correction, Floydian.ghost 18:59, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - "Longest bridge in Europe" is based on a false interpretation of "bridge". The actual overhead span of the structures is about 5.3km, the rest is a causeway. - Floydian τ ¢ 16:43, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
We would need a source for that number, because even the direct length between the beginning of the bridge in Crimea and it's contact with the island in the middle gives a larger number is longer, so you're blatantly lying. Not to mention that, you know, ordered by their lengths over water and excluding causeways, it will be one of the longest bridges in the world — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.67.223.186 (talk) 21:49, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
I don't always accuse 15-year veteran editors of lying without clicking on the article myself. But when I do, I do it as an unsigned IP. ghost 00:17, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
I literally gave you a link to a screenshot from Google Maps where I measure the length of the direct path between the start of the sea portion of the bridge in Crimea and the point where the bridge enters the island at the center of the strait, and that length, which measures less than a half of the bridge already turns out to be longer than what he claims is the entire length of the bridge and instead of countering that you reply with description of that editor's tenure on wikipedia? Damn, you'd think long-tenure editors on Wikipedia would have seen a diagram like https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Graham%27s_Hierarchy_of_Disagreement.svg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.67.223.186 (talk) 05:46, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
You linked to a straight line measurement that in no way reflects the location of the actual bridge. ghost 11:35, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose – In that case, oppose because it appears to actually be shorter than the Øresund Bridge between Sweden and Denmark, mentioned above. Sca (talk) 20:09, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
No it's not. Just by measuring the distance between the point of the start of the sea portion of the bridge in Crimea and it's end on the island in the center, and the point of the start of the second sea portion of the bridge on that island and it's end on the Taman peninsular that bridge is already longer than the entire Oresund bridge. And obviously the bridge doesn't follow the straight shortest path between those points. I am not that fluent in English, sorry, but see this picture: https://imgur.com/a/Koj5QDC. You can go to google maps and just measure directly too. Stop trusting over editors without waiting for them to provide at least some form of argumentation first. As for the length of the bridge, Wikipedia sadly lacks a list of all bridges by their length over water, but I am pretty sure that by that length, if you exclude causeways like the New Orleans causeway, this bridge would be in the top 5 longest bridges in the world. You can just go to the list of longest bridges and count all bridges that go over significantly large bodies of water. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.67.223.186 (talk) 07:17, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
A causeway is a road sitting on an embankment. A bridge is suspended over something with air in between. This is not quantum mechanics. The NO Causeway is, despite the name, actually a bridge. The Crimean "Bridge" is a path composed of (north to south) a causeway of 1.25 km, a bridge of 4.25 km, an island road of 6.75 km, a bridge of 1.16 km, and a causeway of 3.7 km. ghost 11:35, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
I don't normally add to a closed discussion, but my measurements were done using Google Earth path measurements of the two over-water structures. The NO Causeway is technically a bridge, as a causeway has land embankments. My measurements were likely incorrect/generalized, but my point remains. - Floydian τ ¢ 14:27, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Regardless of the dispute about length, the article is not suitable for the Main Page at this time, with a number of unsourced statements and poor English. It's also now the subject of an RM. Black Kite (talk) 22:13, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support The bridge is definitively one of the largest bridges built over water in the world, and even more importantly the political implications of it's construction were huge. Those claiming the article is PoV should cite examples of such PoV editing, because I don't see any that I can claim are PoV without doubt. The blurb should be the 2nd one, since it mentions the political implications. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.67.223.186 (talk) 07:19, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment article is a propaganda piece, lots of flowery predictions about the economic boon it'll bring to Crimea, zero mention at all of the impact to the wetlands and fishing settlement on the island. It also has a strange ESL feel to it. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:07, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
I am sure your assessment is neutral, non-PoV, and not at all determined by your views on the Russian-Ukrainian conflict. By the way, as faf as I can see those "claims" are actually well-sourced predictions, whereas your claims are not soured at all. Maybe we should stick to the facts and not calling whatever opinion you personally dislike to be "propagandist"?
I'll repeat, because apparently I wasn't clear on the talk page. If you see a problematic sentence in the article - go on and cite that sentence on the talk page, provide an explanation why you think that sentence is problematic and then we can discuss and improve it together. So far all opposition just dumbs down to namecalling, because people have apparently very strong political opinions on the conflict and that results in them trying to push the artile of the ITN because "muh russia" and "muh trump puppet". Jesus christ, when did Wiki devolve into something as bad as this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.67.223.186 (talk) 11:34, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Who mentioned "Trump" besides you? --LaserLegs (talk) 12:07, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - And article is indeed ready for posting.BabbaQ (talk) 11:31, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
    • Nah, there are still numerous unreferenced claims. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:07, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose partly because of the POV concerns, partly on account of the bludgeoning that seems to be going on.--WaltCip (talk) 12:48, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
In addition to the technical-data objections variously detailed above, the project lacks significance in the big scheme of things. Suggest close. – Sca (talk) 13:36, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

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

(Posted) RD: Jlloyd SamuelEdit

Article: Jlloyd Samuel (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC
Nominator: Harambe Walks (talk • give credit)

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Anglo-Trinidadian footballer, died suddenly at just 37 this morning. I went through the article and scythed away the unsourced content, although this might have made it too underdetailed to post. Harambe Walks (talk) 20:49, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) Pakistan Ireland Test MatchEdit

There seems to be a blizzard around these parts. -A lainsane (Channel 2) 17:28, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
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.

 Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:28, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose The article is in OK shape, but a lot of the phrasing is awkward, such as the use of tour and series; generally a tour involves multiple stops, and a series involves multiple events. This was one match played at one location. The article needs some love to rewrite it into actual, natural English, and should not use incorrect terminology, especially for such simple concepts. --Jayron32 15:33, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
[[Category:Canadian cricket tours of Ireland]] and its article say the same thing. Perhaps that is normal cricket terminology, I don't know. And Tests are usually in series, perhaps the name stuck for single games of Test. I've heard it complained that cricketers play too much (Test/ODI/T20/state/county/city club) and categories like that for the other 10 teams show tours booked years in advance so it looks like perhaps the scheduler only had tone to squeeze in 1 Test before one of the tours of the nearest country (England). The games probably can't be too close together after all, the Test before this had a dude pitch 294 times in 4 days and run before each pitch and a slow knuckleball-type pitcher pitched 486 times. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:52, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
I just checked the first four sources in the article, and none of them call this a "tour" or a "series" though the article uses that terminology. They all call it a "match". My point is you should fix that because it is wrong. --Jayron32 16:54, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
I have changed the two articles mentioned in the thread. The word series is hardwired into the infobox. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:12, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose: We already posted Ireland (and Afghanistan) being promoted to Test status. --LukeSurl t c 15:34, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose As LukeSurl says, the promotion was posted in 2017. This would be akin to posting a conviction and a sentencing for a criminal case. We only post once. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:38, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Oppose. It's good to see the matches happening, but we did indeed post the story already when they were promoted to Test status. No need to double dip. Modest Genius talk 15:39, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose as we already ran this in 2017 when they got the status. As an aside in case it does get posted, in UK/Irish English, it should be "Ireland become" not "Ireland becomes". Joseph2302 (talk) 17:15, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose could make a useful DYK? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:43, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Are yu familiar with DYK. I t cannot make it there as it is not knew nor a big enough recent update. I know its not ITN=worthy as the 11th test nation (as you rightly said about the X number of same-sex legalizations) but that would be a better rationale.Lihaas (talk) 10:52, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
I think it's you that's unfamiliar with DYK. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:22, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose – On lack of significance. Sca (talk) 15:57, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

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.

Bruce McArthurEdit

Article: Bruce McArthur (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The largest forensic investigation of the Toronto Police Service continues in the probe of alleged serial killer Bruce McArthur, beginning a search of 100 properties.
Alternative blurb: ​The Toronto serial murder investigation of landscaper Bruce McArthur continues, beginning a search of 100 gardens by cadaver dogs.
News source(s): National Post
Nominator and updater: Reidgreg (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: Article had a recent 7,000-word update though what happened this week was a minor part of an ongoing investigation. The investigation received more media coverage in January and February; searches were held off until the frozen ground thawed but now with 100 properties connected to the landscaper being searched by cadaver dogs there could be significant movement in the case. It may also see more coverage with the Toronto Pride festival in June. (Using the ongoing parameter hid the blurb, however.) Article is under a move discussion due to BLP concerns; it may be better to hold this a little while until that is settled and the lead adjusted. Reidgreg (talk) 15:31, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

May 14Edit

Portal:Current events/2018 May 14
Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections

RD: Doug FordEdit

Article: Doug Ford (golfer) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Golf.com, Golf Digest
Nominator: Compy90 (talk • give credit)

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Member of the World Golf Hall of Fame. Two-time Major champion. Compy90 (talk) 18:11, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose Info after bio such as awards and stats are unsourced and for someone with Ford's record and larger lead would be appropriate. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:06, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

RD: Tom WolfeEdit

Article: Tom Wolfe (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): NYT, WaPo, ABC
Nominator: Davey2116 (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Famed American author dies at 87. Some sourcing issues. Davey2116 (talk) 15:24, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose Referencing is actually quite dreadful. Not bothering with CN tags. I'd be at it all day. This one is going to need some work before it can be posted. Orange tagging... -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:27, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) U.S. Supreme Court strikes down PASPAEdit

Not happening, and has degenerated. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:51, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
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: Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The US Supreme Court rules the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act of 1992 unconstitutional, paving the way for legalized sports gambling in the U.S.
News source(s): Irish Times Daily Mail Mainichi
Nominator: GreatCaesarsGhost (talk • give credit)
Updater: Masem (talk • give credit)

Article updated

 Hear me out! Yes, this is a "local" story. But it is getting significant coverage in the media, where it is being seen as one of the most widely-impactful decisions in years. Further, ITN exists in part to highlight quality updates, and SCOTUS case articles at WP are among the best we have. This is a situation where people will be coming here to read about the case, and we will be giving them a better account of facts than any single RS. ghost 11:45, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Close good faith nom. The overall impact this has in terms of newsworthiness is minimal. The sports gambling industry is not overly significant in the U.S. even with the advent of companies such as DraftKings.--WaltCip (talk) 11:52, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
You don't know Americans. A huge amount of sports gambling will happen now that it's legal. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 13:28, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
That doesn't change the limited scope of this fairly niche SCOTUS case.--WaltCip (talk) 13:29, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
I would add that this ruling does not immediately legalize sports betting; it merely permits the states that were prevented from legalizing it to do so. That will take a little time. 331dot (talk) 13:39, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Technically, in NJ's case, they are ready: the whole challenge at the present was challenging their law to overturn a former ban, and its expected that they'll have sports gambling happening within a month, no later than the NFL season. I read some 30 states are looking to seek allowing sports gambling, but even if they all moved as fast as NJ could, its still not that big an issue for an ITN story compared to other cases in the queue. --Masem (t) 13:45, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
There are also calls for a federal standard for legalized betting, but I digress. 331dot (talk) 13:53, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment SCOTUS is set to rule on a range of hot button issues, this is probably the least exciting of them. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:20, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Article quality is sufficient for main page, topic is demonstratedly in the news. --Jayron32 12:42, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Sports betting is a trivial facet in considering ITN. Of the SCOTUS cases still open, I would argubly say either Gill v. Whitford (the partisan gerrymandering case) or Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission (freedom of expression/religion v. non-discriminatory practices) will have much more significant impact that would be appropriate for ITN. --Masem (t) 13:17, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
I think those decisions will be SAID to be more significant, but in terms of actual effective impact this will affect more people. But if the editor who took the time to update this is opposed, we can SNOW this nom. ghost 13:56, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
FWIW I updated the article once I saw the decision, but I had no expectations of having this at ITN. --Masem (t) 13:59, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose I thought this was a joke nomination at first. Local politics which is of limited interest, even in the US. It's a bit like the continual nominations of the legalisation of same sex marriages, the United States is just catching up with the rest of the world. No big deal. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:09, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
It's not interesting when what is widely regarded as the least progressive advanced economy (and also happens to be one of the biggest, advanced or not (population/land/GDP)) catches up to the rest of the world in its federal law in a field at least as less niche as gambling on sport? (i.e. "all races can vote" (US, 1965) is obviously less niche than sports gambling even if there's little to no money involved). Oh well you're entitled to your opinion. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:49, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Don't bother, it's an automatic response. I'll let Doug Stanope explain. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:16, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per BIAS. It would most likely not be posted in Tanzania. -A lainsane (Channel 2) 14:14, 15 May 2018 (UTC) Edit: Apparently a whole bunch of people have an issue with my rationale. Maybe they're right. Perhaps it would be posted. I still don't really think it is important enough to be posted though, so I remain opposing. (17:55, 15 May 2018 (UTC))
Tanzania is not a big economy like US or EU. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:21, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
(Very) conservative estimates put it at $67 billion, or 1/3 the entire GDP of Tanzania. ghost 14:30, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Please read the "Please do not" section of this page's header, regarding events relating to a single country. That is true of almost all events and is not a helpful oppose reason. Mamyles (talk) 15:05, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm not opposing because it only relates to one country. I'm opposing because it may not have been posted if it was a different country. -A lainsane (Channel 2) 17:55, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
@A lad insane:What article about Tanzanian sports betting have you upgraded to a status that would be suitable for viewing on the main page? --Jayron32 15:44, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
None, admittedly. Although, that is also BIAS, but I can't exactly complain, I suppose. -A lainsane (Channel 2) 17:55, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
You don't fight bias by suppressing stories from an "over represented" part of the world, you do it by improving article from "under represented". As an aside, we'd almost certainly post it from a not-America country ... see the Philippine supreme court justice removal below. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:18, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Fair enough, I may be wrong here. I do feel like supreme court justice removal is more important than sports betting, though. -A lainsane (Channel 2) 17:55, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Important story, in the news and with a good article update. Davey2116 (talk) 15:15, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - It should also be noted that this was a Tenth Amendment case. In other words, states can also still have their own laws in place banning sports gambling. I imagine those states that already abode by the federal standard will continue to do so. This is not a blanket legalization of gambling by any stretch.--WaltCip (talk) 15:18, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
I imagine those states that already abode by the federal standard will continue to do so. That's not a fair assumption as the Federal law in question explicitly forbade them from changing such laws prior to this decision. Reports today that most states are considering changes in light of the ruling. ghost 16:30, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. As far as I can tell from the articles, this just enables the gambling industry already operating in four US states to expand into other states, if each state legislature decides to allow it. That's local politics. It may well lead to (say) bookmakers opening in New Jersey, but I don't think that rises to the importance of an ITN blurb. Modest Genius talk 17:54, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
[9]
By the way those states are 45th, 44th, 33rd + 27th in population which only sums to 3% - my hometown has that much people (which is only a short subway ride from New Jersey). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:26, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment – Might be prudent to wait & see whether any legislature votes to allow state-sanctioned sports gambling. N.J. may do so, but no impact yet. Sca (talk) 20:33, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Wouldn't it then not be important since only 3% of Americans live in New Jersey? Or if you meant the state after New Jersey that might be small too and even the biggest is only 40 million people. A lot of states that sum to a lot of the population have already said they'll legalize. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:26, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
It could be argued that the first state to pass sports betting after this ruling would be significant. By itself the court ruling has no tangible impact. Sca (talk) 21:35, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Oh I see what you mean now. Like how if a state copied the Autobahn speed limit that'd still be interesting even if it was as few people as Wyoming but the second small state would be much less interesting. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:52, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
It would be a tangible change. – Sca (talk) 20:19, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose this is a relatively specific topic confined entirely in a local area. I very much doubt this will be of matter to users not in the US, and even in the US this affects only a small subgroup of people. Juxlos (talk) 02:30, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Rambler, can you provide geographic locators for this civilis(z)ed world? Sca (talk) 13:47, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
        • You're right, the worlds third largest population and largest economy is "catching up" with our former colonial overlords -- is that not newsworthy? Cue: the college basketball mud-slinging! :D --LaserLegs (talk) 12:13, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
          • No, it's trivia. We welcome our former colony to the 20th century. Take it to DYK. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:15, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
            • How's that empire thing working out for you?--WaltCip (talk) 12:50, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Pitcairn Island keeps the Sun from setting on the British Empire while the Sun sets on the American Empire hundreds of nights a year since at least the 1940s. Astronomers know which empire is superior. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:12, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Question to RM. A lot of the 2002 Olympics state is of English ancestry. Lotteries will stay illegal there for the foreseeable future, 4.01% beer is severely restricted, almost any U.S. adult can openly have loaded guns in bars and banks as long as they're uncocked or on safety when there's no deadly attackers around, applications for concealed carry licenses that let adults carry guns in schools whether they want that or not are almost rubber stamped and they have one of the highest speed limits in the world. What time period are they in? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:08, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Typical America-bashing aside, I think it's clear this nom is going nowhere. Can we close? 159.53.174.144 (talk) 14:26, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

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

(Posted) RD: William VanceEdit

Article: William Vance (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): France info
Nominator: Fram (talk • give credit)

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Article updated Fram (talk) 08:26, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose Unreferenced content.Zigzig20s (talk) 09:05, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
    • Can you indicate which bits need referencing? I think nearly everything in the article can easily be referenced, but I don't want to overload the article with references on each and every line if I can avoid it. All paragraphs already have multiple references. Fram (talk) 09:33, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
      • His awards and bibliography, then it looks good to go, albeit a little short. Stephen 10:23, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment. Very short; missing some basic personal details eg his wife is mentioned towards the end but there's no details of marriage. The critical appreciation in the lead also needs sourcing. Espresso Addict (talk) 11:16, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
    • Lead now sourced (article discusses his "style inimitable", other articles calling him a "monument in the world of comics" and "one of the most important artists in contemporary com!ics)" ("een van de belangrijkste tekenaars in de hedendaagse strip") or discussing "Le dessin de William Vance ne ressemblait à aucun autre dans le domaine de la bande dessinée réaliste." (Le Monde) are already used in the body of the article. He was a rather private man though, so very little info on his personal life can be found. I have sourced the bibliography more clearly (the source was at the bottom of the article), and removed the awards I couldn't immediately verify again (the old sources are no longer available it seems). Fram (talk) 12:27, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. The personal life isn't important if sources don't cover it. It would be nice to have a brief section discussing his drawing style with these quotations. What's the position on fair use of a sample of his work? Espresso Addict (talk) 12:53, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Everything now sourced (I think, please indicate if anything further needs a source), short section on his style added. Fram (talk) 08:36, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted. Thanks, Fram. Espresso Addict (talk) 10:06, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Elaine EdwardsEdit

Article: Elaine Edwards (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Nola
Nominator: TDKR Chicago 101 (talk • give credit)

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Article updated and well sourced --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:26, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Support Good work. Davey2116 (talk) 23:54, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support article seems adequate to post. --LukeSurl t c 09:08, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Why was she appointed to the senate by her husband? No election?Zigzig20s (talk) 09:09, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • @Zigzig20s: The incumbent (Allen J. Ellender) died in office as is mentioned in the article. It varies between states, but often it falls to the Governor to appoint a replacement (either until a special election, or to fill the entire remainder of the term) [10]. In Edwards' case, there was only a few weeks left in Ellender's term before the 1972 General Election so she served until then. --LukeSurl t c 09:17, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
That is strange. I would think the seat would remain vacant until the next election, or there would be a special election.Zigzig20s (talk) 09:19, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
I think this needs to be contextualized a bit more in the article.Zigzig20s (talk) 09:20, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment. There's lots of unreferenced material in the lead that isn't repeated in the body. There's a bit of a confusing hole formed by Edwin Edwards' political career being mentioned in the lead but not repeated in the body. Also out of the blue in the final section her ex-husband is convicted along with their son; this either needs expanding/contextualising or deleting altogether. Espresso Addict (talk) 11:05, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • @Espresso Addict: Issues noted and fixed. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 11:49, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
I've highlighted the comments not yet fixed. The conviction material is clearer but it's now far too much; you could just have the conviction? When were the offences committed (during or after the marriage)? Espresso Addict (talk) 12:15, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • @Espresso Addict: Fixed the underlined issues. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:17, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I've removed the section about Edwin Edwards' criminal convictions, as this is wholly about someone who is not the subject of the article. Tellingly this paragraph doesn't even mention Elaine Edwards and concerns events which occurred after their divorce. --LukeSurl t c 13:29, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - Just about adequate.BabbaQ (talk) 15:43, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 02:07, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) Catalan PresidentEdit

No consensus to post. Fuebaey (talk) 14:37, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
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.

Nominator's comments: Not ITNR, but the importance of the move after referendum and the process of choosing a new leader after a new regional election that again resulted in seperatist majority, in addition to the nature of his hardline stance, should make it more important that ordinarily. Lihaas (talk) 22:26, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This is just a group of people who claim to be the government of a territory choosing someone to be its leader. Catalonia is not recognized as a sovereign state by any other sovereign state or international body- and legally is still part of Spain. Who the specific leader of this group is matters little- and no sources have been offered to indicate the newsworthiness of this event. 331dot (talk) 22:47, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Um, whilst I'm not going to support this, "a group of people who claim to be the government of a territory"?? He is the elected President of Catalonia (whether you agree with the method of his election or not) - I suspect you need to read a bit more on this situation. "Claim", honestly. Black Kite (talk) 23:37, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
  • As I understand it the Catalan government has been legally dissolved, with Spain ruling Catalonia directly. That means these people are just a group claiming to be the government as they have no legal status. 331dot (talk) 01:38, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
It was dissolved, central rule occurred until an election for the new regional parliament wholly acceded to by the central state took place. It IS recognized and it does have legal status (there was the imbroglio of trying to get Puidgemont back now that the seperatists regained a majority, that fell through and hence this result happened).Lihaas (talk) 07:14, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Even if that is true, still no sources have been offered indicating this is in the news. 331dot (talk) 08:19, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
It is true and easiy to verify here and elsewhere
[11]Lihaas (talk) 09:14, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
I did not claim it was not true, but the evidence that this is in the news needs to be here. It isn't up to me to look for and post sources to support your nomination. 331dot (talk) 09:15, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I am awqare, hencde i posted the link above.Lihaas (talk) 10:46, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
331dot, you do realize this was the election that Rajoy called, right? The one following the dissolution of the former Catalan government to elect a new one? This wasn't election called by the self-declared Catalan Republic, it was called by Madrid. I'm sorry, I don't mean to disrespect you or de-legitimize the good contributions you do at ITN by saying this, but you truly have no clue what you're talking about here. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ 14:24, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
I seem to have not been clear on that point, I thought this was the dissolved body, not a new one. My apologies- but I still oppose posting this subnational election. 331dot (talk) 14:30, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose NY Times headline "Catalan Parliament Elects New Leader, a Separatist Not Under Indictment" is "not under indictment" their high water mark? Anyway, it's in the news, but so are a number of sub-national elections around the world and for better or worse, "ITN doesn't post subnational elections". If there were an article about the actual election with a prose update, you might change my mind. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:17, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak support mostly as a continuation of a long-running story that we did run in December. (That's how most press outlets are covering it as well.) In that vein, I would prefer that the blurb make that link clear, though this may be too long: "Months after the Catalan declaration of independence and subsequent imposition of direct rule by the Spanish government, separatist Quim Torra is elected as President of the Generalitat of Catalonia." Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:00, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose we almost never include sub-national elections. Catalonia is obviously something of an exception, but, based on the references, I don't see this as changing the political situation in any important way. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:27, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Given the current situation involving Catalan and Spain, and the decent population (7.5 million, which would rank it 103rd if independent), I think that we can make an exception here even though it is not in WP:ITN/R. In fact, I believe we posted an election in Hong Kong not too long ago. EternalNomad (talk) 05:30, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. This is a legitimate election for a devolved regional government, and has appeared in plenty of international media, so some of the rationales above are dubious. There is of course more interest in this than most sub-national elections due to the independence movement and suspension of his predecessor. Nevertheless, I think we should hold the line on not posting sub-national elections. If/when something dramatic happens in the Catalan independence story then we can post it, but this election is a minor twist to that story. Modest Genius talk 11:02, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Article quality is fine, topic is being covered by news source. --Jayron32 12:44, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Per power~enwiki. Kerfuffle about an unofficial a domestic political shuffle. Sca (talk) 13:52, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support With all due respect, 331dot has absolutely no idea what he's talking about. The President of Catalonia is a position within Spain, not within an unrecognized state. This is the election that was called by the Prime Minister of Spain and results were pending for over half a year because pro-independence parties won again but most of their leaders either fled the country in fear of being tried for the independence vote or were already detained, meaning that Quim Torra was one of the only options for the winning pro-independence parties. This is another part of the ongoing 2017-18 Spanish constitutional crisis and demonstrates that the ongoing movement for Catalan independence is alive and well. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ 14:20, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per power~enwiki. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:39, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now There would need to be an article specific for the election to post on ITN, not for the person elected, in line with other ITN election nominations and postings. SpencerT•C 12:21, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

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

RD: E. C. George SudarshanEdit

Article: E. C. George Sudarshan (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Link, Indian Express, Times of India
Nominator: NorthernFalcon (talk • give credit)

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Was nominated for the Nobel Prize in Physics on nine occasions; theorized that Tachyons move faster the light, which would prove one of Einstein's theories wrong. NorthernFalcon (talk) 18:46, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Chuck KnoxEdit

Article: Chuck Knox (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Washington Post, NFL.com
Nominator: NorthernFalcon (talk • give credit)

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Chuck Knox was the first NFL head coach to lead three different teams to division titles. He is currently 10th on the all-time NFL wins list with 193. NorthernFalcon (talk) 18:46, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose Was going to nom this, but it's a vast sea of unref'd claims. Will need a real white knight to get it up in time. ghost 20:17, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Not sure when GCG viewed the article, but as of now the article is well referenced and relatively complete. Seems fine for the main page. --Jayron32 12:45, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Support Northern Falcon did some nice work on this. ghost 14:48, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted Nice work. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:40, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) MH 370Edit

SNOW CLOSE good faith nomination but this is not going to be posted.-Ad Orientem (talk) 16:09, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
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: Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Aviation experts conclude that Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 was deliberately crashed in 2014, by the captain in a murder-suicide.
News source(s): CBS, Independent
Nominator: Davey2116 (talk • give credit)

Article needs updating

 Davey2116 (talk) 15:55, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose Closure on MH370 would be nice, but this is a conclusion by a panel of aviation experts brought to a TV program to decide what happened, and not any official statement. --Masem (t) 16:01, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Update has been removed from the article - discussion on the talk page is taking place over whether this is a case of WP:FRINGE.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:12, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

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

(Posted) May 14 clashesEdit

Articles: 2018 Gaza border protests (talk, history) and Embassy of the United States, Jerusalem (talk, history)
Blurb: ​At least 28 Palestinians in Gaza have been shot dead by Israeli troops after bloody clashes erupted on the border, Palestinian officials say.
Alternative blurb: ​At least 55 Palestinians killed in Gaza after bloody protests ahead of opening of the embassy of the United States in Jerusalem.
Alternative blurb II: ​Fresh protests against Israel are expected in the Palestinian territories, after Israeli troops killed 55 people in the Gaza Strip.
Alternative blurb III: ​Over 50 Palestinian protestors are killed in the Gaza Strip, on the same day as the United States moves its embassy to Jerusalem
News source(s): BBC
Nominator: Sherenk1 (talk • give credit)
Updater: 45.116.232.32 (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: Either we post as blurb or place in ongoing. Sherenk1 (talk) 11:58, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Oppose Article is not sufficiently updated. Except for a vague sentence in the lead, there's no information about the recent developments to sufficient detail to merit posting on the main page. Please update the article. --Jayron32 12:44, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Since someone has recently added an altblurb, Oppose the altblurb because that highlighted article is also not sufficiently updated. --Jayron32 13:31, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Updated. 45.116.232.32 (talk) 13:54, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Insufficient. The update consists of a single sentence which doesn't contain much more information than the blurb does. --Jayron32 14:36, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Oppose The border protests have been going on for a while, and their planned culmination is tomorrow (May 15th) for the 70th anniversary of Israel's founding. Thus, the claim in the blurb that the protest is in response to the movement of the US Embassy is dubious. I think a blurb should try to be neutral on this subject, by not juxtaposing these events. Also, I don't think that this particular article (2018 Gaza border protests) is one of Wikipedia's best. OtterAM (talk) 14:34, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment OpposeForty-one killed may be blurbable, but it's hiding under 350 words of background. Also, article is at least partly in present tense. Sca (talk) 14:37, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support it's in the news now, update is adequate. Reliable sources are tying this to the US embassy move, so the blurb is accurate. I think 41 people killed vs 1 Israeli soldier injured is "notable enough" for ITN. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:06, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support in principle. There are now over 50 dead and it's hitting headlines around the world. This is not a normal protest and the opening of the Jerusalem embassy has clearly escalated the situation. However 2018_Gaza_border_protests#14_May is short and almost entirely concentrates on the IDF side of the story, to the point of violating WP:NPOV imo. Modest Genius talk 18:29, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - all over the news now. Deadly clashes with plenty of deaths, most since Gaza war. BabbaQ (talk) 18:33, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - major news with significant death toll - I'd say a few issues can be forgiven for the time being. Juxlos (talk) 19:52, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment This is certainly in the news, but the US embassy move is not even mentioned in 2018 Gaza border protests and Embassy of the United States, Jerusalem is one line long. Where are the updates? --Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:14, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support the reaction was predictable for Palestinians, but the coverage is widespread and the death toll is significantly notable. I agree with Juxlos that some of the missing content can be overlooked. SamaranEmerald (talk) 22:21, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support About as many people died here as in, e.g., Las Vegas or Orlando. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.118.96.3 (talk) 23:51, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - although article improvement would be helpful, this is postable. I prefer the wording of the altblurb, in regards to use of the term “clash.” Jusdafax (talk) 03:52, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - Updated blurb to 55 count. Added new blurb. Sherenk1 (talk) 06:17, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - Bloodiest single day for Palestinians since 2014, alternative blurb seems suitable now. --Mido (talk) 06:38, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support -According to Independent, at least 58 Palestinians have been killed[12]--Seyyed(t-c) 07:25, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. Major news story. Owen (talk) 07:46, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: there is broad support for a blurb here, but the embassy article is insufficiently updated, while the protests blurb is out-of-date and otherwise weaselly. Call me over-cautious, but I don't want to post a blurb that I've crafted entirely myself. Furthermore, the deaths are obviously a matter of great contention, but at the moment the only international reactions included are those of the US; we should include other commentary, particularly from human-rights organisations and/or the UN, if available. Vanamonde (talk) 07:59, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
I've added some reaction from the UN to 2018_Gaza_border_protests#14_May and attempted to tidy up the NPOV issues, though it still seems rather favourable to Israel. That seems the best target of a bold link. Altblurb3 added to reflect this. Modest Genius talk 12:00, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
I've tidied up the POV to my own satisfaction, but given the divergent views on this issues I would welcome some additional eyes on what I've written. Modest Genius talk 12:19, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Hezbollah pokes wasps nest, is surprised when wasps get angry. Mjroots (talk) 09:27, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • That would be Hamas in this case. - Floydian τ ¢ 12:11, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Marking as ready - article has sufficient updates and sourcing. Blurb 3 seems appropriate here, as the focus is the protests; the embassy is merely the cause du jour. "Fresh" is a terrible word choice and the blurb is written in future tense. - Floydian τ ¢ 12:17, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict × 2) Posted slightly modified ALT3, as the best of the blurbs above. It does not include the fact that Israeli troops were doing the shooting, which was part of some blurbs but not others; I would like to see further discussion on this question. Vanamonde (talk) 12:21, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

May 13Edit

Portal:Current events/2018 May 13
Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and economy
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Sport

(Closed) RD: Glenn BrancaEdit

Stale. SpencerT•C 17:18, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
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: Glenn Branca (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Nominator: SusanLesch (talk • give credit)

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Article does not seem ready. Nominating only in hope that someone can source what Wikipedia has. SusanLesch (talk) 00:20, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
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: Margot KidderEdit

Stale. SpencerT•C 17:18, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
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: Margot Kidder (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): NBC News
Nominator: Masem (talk • give credit)

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

 Masem (t) 17:20, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose based on major referencing gaps. - Floydian τ ¢ 17:26, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Household name. Shouldn't even be a question. Ryan Reeder (talk) 19:06, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
    • @Ryan Reeder:, please take note of the message at the bottom of the template, starting "Per this RFC". All biological organisms with their own articles are now deemed noteworthy enough to be posted. The article's quality, though, may prevent posting, as in cases like this one. The article needs more sourcing. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:59, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose filmography is unreferenced. -A lainsane (Channel 2) 20:40, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
    I've made some headway, but dang if she wasn't in a lot of obscure stuff. ghost 16:51, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

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.

Kundal Shahi bridge collapseEdit

Article: Kundal Shahi bridge collapse (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A bridge near Kundal Shahi, Neelum Valley in Pakistan collapses killing 12 tourists and injuring 11 others.
News source(s): Geo News, Daily Times, Mail Online, Washington Post
Nominator: Nauriya (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: Article is ok mostly but as new information unfolds will add a bit about casualties, more information regarding the victims. Nauriya (talk) 19:14, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Weak support The article is in good shape, but the notability seems borderline to me. I don't know much about how common similar incidents are in Pakistan, but I would think that it is unusual enough to merit posting. EternalNomad (talk) 05:25, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Tweaked the blurb for grammar. I'm looking at both the article and news sources but don't get a figure for 12 dead, so am not sure if that can be used in the blurb. Significance wise, it looks like an unfortunate accident. Fuebaey (talk) 14:09, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Steve HoganEdit

Stale. SpencerT•C 17:18, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
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: Steve Hogan (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Denver Post
Nominator: EternalNomad (talk • give credit)

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Article is mostly in shape; perhaps a bit more detail about his early life would be useful. EternalNomad (talk) 21:28, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak support article is nothing to write home about, and has one unreferenced claim in his early life section, but the rest is adequate. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:01, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak support i agree. The article is just about ready for posting. Borderline, but sufficient.BabbaQ (talk) 22:36, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Wait "At some stage becoming a Republican" and "his image as an adept budget manager" should be cited. The undergrad degree we can ignore. ghost 20:26, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Questions Is this rated B-Class because of all the formatting puffery involved? Last I checked, the criteria for B-Class includes "no obvious omissions". I'm seeing the usual POV/UNDUE exercise as it concerns political biographies, namely an article that's heavy on praise and worship of particular offices and titles and quite short on substance when it comes to actual biographical details. The sourcing is rather lacking compared with what I normally see in B-Class articles, too. It's all too obvious that someone decided in 2012 that we needed an article on this guy all of a sudden in the wake of the cinema shooting and not because he had already had a decades-long claim to being notable (see WP:COATRACK). Also, reading various articles on the Colorado legislature would lead me to believe that legislative terms begin and end in January of odd-numbered years, as is the case with most state legislatures. Do we have an explanation for why his term is said to end in an even-numbered year besides this being another case of allowing a media outlet's style to overtake reality and then blindly parroting it as fact? RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 22:05, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

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

(Posted) RD: Donald Gary YoungEdit

Article: Donald Gary Young (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): MLN News Report
Nominator: TDKR Chicago 101 (talk • give credit)

Article needs updating

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Article is fully sourced --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 15:40, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Support looks fine, although it's protected so I guess there's some controversy here... The Rambling Man (talk) 22:02, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
  • support ready for postingBabbaQ (talk) 22:36, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 02:00, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) English Premier LeagueEdit

Article: 2017–18 Premier League (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In association football, the English Premier League concludes with Manchester City winning the title.
News source(s): Guardian, BBC
Nominator: Yorkshiresky (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Nominated event is listed at WP:ITN/R, meaning that the recurrence of the event should in itself merit a post on WP:ITN, subject to the quality of the article and any update(s) to it.

Nominator's comments: Previously nominated on April 16th when City won the title. However it wasn't posted as it lacked a prose summary and consensus was that it should be posted at end of the season. Season concludes today and there's now a summary of the season. yorkshiresky (talk) 18:55, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Note, although this won't affect the winner/blurb, the final matches occur today, concluding at about 16:00 UTC. --LukeSurl t c 11:28, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support, no objections. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 17:15, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support looks good, we even managed to cover 380 matches in a few paragraphs. Good job this wasn't MLB! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:03, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
I guess I don't get it. Do you normally get those two sports confused with each other? I can understand if you're new to either -- I'm sure there are many here who would help differentiate them for you. 165.225.0.95 (talk) 12:20, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
I find it funny TRM brings up an unrelated topic right after decrying someone else for bringing up an unrelated topic. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:19, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Oh... my apologies. I took that to be a good-faith edit in which he might require some additional clarity, especially in light of the planned MLB participation in the 2019 London Stadium Games. If that was, instead, a jab at the MLB contributors, then I should likely recuse myself from the thread. 165.225.0.95 (talk) 15:21, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Updated and a decent amount of prose. We could have posted it when City won but they just kept on going and have now reached 100 points so it’s by no means an old story. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:26, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted ITN/R, no issues. Black Kite (talk) 22:30, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment nice prose update, good job this wasn't La Liga or Bundesliga! Apparently Manchester City set a record number of points, want to squeeze that into the blurb? --LaserLegs (talk) 00:25, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Post-posting comment: it was definitely the right move to wait for the end of the season. The article is much better and more informative as a result. That rule is in place for a good reason and should be followed for all leagues. Modest Genius talk 14:14, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, but I'd point out that many soccer leagues end at the same time. If we were to post the winners of La Liga, the English Premier League, Ligue 1, Serie A, and Bundesliga at the conclusion of the season, then we'd end up with five soccer related ITN's at the same time; whereas if we post when the winner has secured the trophy, then that spaces out the soccer-related ITNs a bit better. And it would be a good debate to have, whether Bundesliga, Serie A, and Ligue 1 are worth posting, given that each of those leagues is within the top 10 of the richest sports leagues in the world by revenue. (NorthernFalcon (talk) 20:18, 14 May 2018 (UTC))
"If we were to post the winners of La Liga, the English Premier League, Ligue 1, Serie A, and Bundesliga at the conclusion of the season, then we'd end up with five soccer related ITN's at the same time". You're right, that would be too much soccer. Head on over to WT:ITNR and let them know! --LaserLegs (talk) 00:19, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
We post 6 Nobel prizes on successive weekdays, but no-one complains about too many awards. Besides, those five aren't all on ITNR and they rarely happen all on the same weekend (e.g. La Liga finishes a week after the Premier League this year). Modest Genius talk 10:50, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) 2018 Surabaya churches bombingsEdit

Article: 2018 Surabaya churches bombings (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Suicide bombers attack three churches in Indonesia's second-largest city Surabaya, killing at least 13 people.
News source(s): BBC, DW, Straits Times
Nominator: Sherenk1 (talk • give credit)
Updater: Flix11 (talk • give credit)
Other updaters: PaPa PaPaRoony (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: Referencing issues. Sherenk1 (talk) 08:52, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Support - though I might be biased. In any case, this attack is the largest in terms of death toll in Indonesia since the 2005 Bali bombings. Juxlos (talk) 10:34, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - very well referenced, significant death toll Spiderone 13:02, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. Widespread news coverage and condemnations throughout Indonesia and the world. 184.151.37.153 (talk) 15:29, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support – Per previous. And because it's unusual there. Sca (talk) 15:58, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Uncommon and high death toll. Article looks pretty OK.–Ammarpad (talk) 16:28, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I just noticed some oddity about the target article. There are two articles on the attack. 2018 Surabaya church bombings and 2018 Surabaya churches bombings. The target article of this nomination was created at 8:14 (UTC) approximately 1 hr, 30 minutes after another article was created at 06:40 (UTC). So before further quality assessment and/or posting this issue should be resolved as we must have single verifiable article, and the creation timepost also matters.–Ammarpad (talk) 16:49, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Most content in the singular church article seems to be by @PaPa PaPaRoony:, who also wrote up the Attacks section. The latter article is better-fleshed out (basically the first article but updated). I say we turn the Church into a redirect. Juxlos (talk) 17:01, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
  • As an addendum, the church was in Draftspace until about 2 hours ago, so it makes sense that it wouldn't have had much edits. I imagine PaPa had made a draft, AfC'd it, saw an article already in the mainspace, and then decided to dump the Draft to move on the Churches. Juxlos (talk) 17:03, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak support - looks ready for posting.BabbaQ (talk) 22:38, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - One of the highest death tolls in Indonesia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffreyjahja (talkcontribs) 23:57, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted --Masem (t) 02:32, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment – The blurb should be updated to include the police headquarters suicide bombing. FallingGravity 16:46, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Update - per The Jakarta Post death toll has risen to 25, although this does include an accidental blast. Juxlos (talk) 17:14, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Tessa JowellEdit

Article: Tessa Jowell (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC
Nominator: Drchriswilliams (talk • give credit)

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Former Labour cabinet minister Drchriswilliams (talk) 07:07, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Conditional support If the unsourced parts, especially the quotes are attributed. Aiken D 09:12, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. Referencing needs work. -Ad Orientem (talk) 12:44, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak support four [citation needed] is all I see here out of around a hundred refs and a decent enough article to grace our main page. RIP. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:05, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak support - Article is ready for posting. But just.BabbaQ (talk) 22:38, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:08, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

ReferencesEdit

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 [http://example.com] 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: