Open main menu

This page is an archive and its contents should be preserved in their current form;
any comments regarding this page should be directed to Wikipedia talk:In the news. Thanks.

Contents

July 31Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sports

(Posted) RD: Tony BullimoreEdit

Article: Tony Bullimore (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC

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.

 The Rambling Man (talk) 13:21, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Weak support Not the most fleshed-out article, but meets minimum standards and is referenced. SpencerT•C 00:50, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 01:28, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

July 30Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

(Posted) RD: Ron DellumsEdit

Article: Ron Dellums (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): NY Times

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: Political titan. Article needs some more sourcing, which I can work on tonight. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:37, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Support when fully sourced; Mobushgu, if you need any help tomorrow (it's midnight here) let me know. Black Kite (talk) 22:49, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
    • @Black Kite: I didn't get to it last night. I'd appreciate any help you can offer, since I don't know that I can get to it today. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:17, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Cited pretty fully now. Black Kite (talk) 15:33, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Well-referenced, covers subject fully. SpencerT•C 16:10, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:02, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

(Posted to Ongoing) Carr fireEdit

Article: Carr Fire (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A wildfire in the vicinity of Redding, California, has burned over 125,000 acres (506 km2), caused the evacuation of over 38,000 people, and resulted in at least six deaths.
News source(s): BBC, Al Jazeera, CNN, NBC news, NPR, AP, Guardian.

Nominator's comments: Article quality seems sufficient, no obvious referencing errors, and updated within the past 24 hours. Jayron32 12:10, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Support in the news all weekend, article is pretty good, especially for a recent disaster. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:28, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment. The BBC notes that "Wildfires are a common occurrence in California during the state's long, hot, dry summers." That said, I would submit this may be better suited for Ongoing, as this is not the only active wildfire in California right now. 331dot (talk) 12:31, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Typhoons flood in the wet season, summer heat scorches. The number of evacuations of the Carr makes it unusual. Still if you have a candidate for ongoing, let me know. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:44, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment – It's a big, fierce fire that has affected thousands of residents, but – despite the tragic death Sunday of a firefighter – the number of victims isn't large on a global scale. Sca (talk) 14:52, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Because early warning, fire fighting, and infrastructure systems in the United States are more developed? WP:MINIMUMDEATHS is a red link once again. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:15, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
It's a natural (or semi-natural, depending on cause) disaster for the area affected, but as yet poses no wider significance. (I say this as someone who has a close relative, a USFS employee, currently deployed on a 27 sq. mi. / 71 sq. km. wildfire in Idaho. You won't see any mention of this fire on major news sites, as such fires aren't unusual this time of year – and there have been no casualties.) Sca (talk) 21:53, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose Unless this grows larger, I'm w/ Sca on this - while this wasn't a natural wildfire, (a vehicle started it) its spread has followed the typical wildfire pattern and timing. That said, it is still growing, they are only about 20% contained, I would not rule out any posting if the death toll increases, but as they've been issuing a huge swath of evacuations, I doubt the number will grow much more. --Masem (t) 15:03, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support, significant wildfire that continues to be in the news. -- Tavix (talk) 18:01, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose we keep getting told how California is like the 9th biggest economy on the planet, so an evacuation of a handful of residents doesn't seem notable during a season where fires are commonplace. Sure, it's inconvenient, but then so was 64 days without rain for my grass. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:28, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Fifteen thousand is rather more than a handful. Sca (talk) 22:01, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Have you seen my hands? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:46, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
No, but I've seen a lot of your handiwork. Sca (talk) 14:26, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Oh, the 100+ FLs, the nearly 200 GAs, the couple of dozen FAs, two FTs etc? Why, thank you for noticing! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:13, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
On second thoughts, hatting is arguably a commendable way to advertise the bits that people like me would never bother to read except for the hat.   Except that advertising tends to disimprove it by removing the element of surprise. Tlhslobus (talk) 04:20, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment a little context --LaserLegs (talk) 18:38, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
    Oh, I didn't realise the Greek fires were a seasonal event with a highly limited impact, I thought they killed nearly 100 and were probably a result of multiple arson events combined with unseasonal weather? Tsk, must try harder TRM. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:42, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
    Was it that many, I didn't realize that there was a WP:MINIMUMDEATHS for wildfires caused by human activity. If you could just point me to the relevant policy, we'll be all set. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:03, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
    I don't follow you at all. This has nothing to do with something you've made up. This is about impact and notability. Regular wildfires which disrupt a tiny, tiny, tiny portion of a village don't equate to rare arson attacks which leave scores dead. So you actually didn't really provide "context", more you provided a story we did post about a completely different event. And as you know, ITN is not governed by "policy" outside the usual Wikipedia policies, so asking me to point you to a "relevant policy" is actually pointless if you aren't already aware of WP:POLICY. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:12, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
    Yes, I shared a link for another wildfire which forced evacuations and fatalities. You're welcome. "I thought they killed nearly 100" so if you could just let me know what the WP:MINIMUMDEATHS for a wildfire to be notable is, we're all set. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:17, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
    You're missing the point again. It's not just the deaths, it's the irregular nature of it. Of course, California has such inconvenience annually. If you can point me to the last time a mass arson event occurred in Greece, we're all set. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:20, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
    Ohhhhh, the "irregular nature"? Ok, how about some record heat? Just let me know the WP:MINIMUMTEMPERATURE for heatwave notability and we're all set. Sorry about your lawn, I hope it's not a raging inferno that's destroyed nearly one thousand structures! --LaserLegs (talk) 17:56, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
    MINIMUMHEAT: 85 in Britain, 129 in California. But in all seriousness MINIMUMHEATWAVE and MINIMUMFIRE should be based to some degree on rarity so California wildfires do have a higher bar. 101.424242424242 degrees happens a lot in California but would be a blurb in Britain. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:10, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Rancorous chatter
  • WP:CIVIL please. Why are you attempting to antagonize a fellow editor? Do you think you are going to win an argument? Richard-of-Earth (talk) 18:05, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
    Don't stress it Richard. This is how LaserLegs plays. It never works, but it's just how he plays. Sometimes it ends up at WP:AN. We like to play with each other a little, but it rarely turns out in LaserLegs' favo(u)r. Once again he's failed to note the multiple arsons, the mass death, the irregularity, unlike Cali which is rife with kind of regular inconvenience. I think we should consider a "wildfire ticker" alongside that long-awaited "school massacre ticker" perhaps? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:12, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
    Well I drew attention to the record heat, and the literally 1000's of structures destroyed so far, and though there are no WP:MINIMUMDEATHS for notability this fire has killed 6. I wouldn't be supporting a brush fire in the middle of nowhere, but 1200+ buildings isn't an "inconvenience" I'm afraid. As for your proposed ticker, we could create a "dead kids ticker" and combine it with the children who are executed in cold blood by the despotic NHS and inhumane courts who write death warrants by ordering the end of care. I think that could work! --LaserLegs (talk) 20:11, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
    Yeah, none of that's going to work, nor is this going to be posted. A mild inconvenience that happens every year and nothing more. Wake me up when the next US "disaster" occurs. But not too soon, I need a couple of hours' rest. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:14, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
    I could, but we may be speedy posting a poor quality article about a tropical storm impacting a tropical country, or an earth quake on a volcanic island in one of the most earthquake prone parts of the world. Oh well. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:21, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment California has wildfires on a regular basis. They threaten to destroy significant towns once or twice a year, at least recently (the Tubbs Fire last October, the Thomas Fire last December, a smaller one earlier this month). If a significant part of Redding is destroyed, this is notable. As something that has caused evacuations but only minor (500 houses being minor in comparison to 50000) property destruction, I don't think it quite reaches the notability threshold. If it gets worse, it will. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:38, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Meh That shit burn all the time. That ain't news.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 21:23, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose this fire is certainly unfortunate for those affected, but others have noted that wildfires in California are somewhat common. I agree with TRM that this is quite different from the wildfires in Greece that killed at least 91 people. Lepricavark (talk) 22:04, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
  • It was interesting to me that both the LA Times and the NY Times covered it in depth (major sources from the two largest cities in the US). However, we do have a lot of fires. Killiondude (talk) 22:13, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Minor fires on a global scale. HiLo48 (talk) 22:31, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Fatalities, made the news. pbp 23:37, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per Sca and others – if more people are killed, maybe, but California seems to always be on fire.  Nixinova  T  C  00:50, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • The magnetism this discussion board has for measuring newsworthiness with death count is interesting. Killiondude (talk) 05:16, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
It's due to our magnetic personalities. Sca (talk) 21:03, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Not at all. It's the magnetism for a few individuals who keep trumpeting the same non-guideline. If you spend any time around here at all, you'd see that. It's not interesting, it's depressing. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:06, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Wildfires in California are a fairly regular occurrence.--WaltCip (talk) 11:03, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support I think the WP:MINIMUMDEATHS debate here and elsewhere points to a logical re-calibration on these types of events. ITNC is meant to judge coverage, article quality, and significance. While any disasters (natural or man-made) can draw coverage, those with greater than normal fatalities can draw greater than normal coverage. Body counts can be a useful counter-argument to those who dismiss widespread coverage as sensationalism, but it should not apply to discussion of significance. Further, because significance is so subjective, we should be lenient on significance when quality and coverage are both high. ghost 11:36, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Note Updated values in blurb due to most recent estimates. --Jayron32 13:48, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment-2 – Now, with more than 800 homes torched, thousands more threatened, 3,600 firefighters deployed, and the fire only 27 percent contained, this is beginning to look like ongoing material. Sca (talk) 14:26, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Wildfires in California.--WaltCip (talk) 16:20, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment With over 1200 buildings destroyed, it's already more destructive than last years Thomas fire and is the third largest in CA history. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:00, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
    7th actually. But at this rate it's quickly rising in rank. Global warming, yo. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:34, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
    It became 6th sometime between then and now. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:03, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
    I was referring to number of structures destroyed, my bad. This is what "minor inconvenience" looks like for the people who are so quick to dismiss. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:49, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb, neutral ongoing - the fire has not yet reached a threshold of significance at which I would consider a fully fledged blurb to be required. Low quantity of deaths, and only the seventh most destructive fire in one state means that the impact is not there yet, especially compared to the Greek fires. I would be more open to an ongoing listing, directed either at Carr fire, or to the broader 2018 California wildfires, with improvements to article quality for the latter, as the Carr fire is just one of many ongoing wildfires at the moment. Stormy clouds (talk) 21:32, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support blurb or ongoing I've seen lots of coverage of this. Developing story. Davey2116 (talk) 23:25, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support blurb or ongoing I’m still seeing plenty of coverage of this. Pawnkingthree (talk) 01:01, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support blurb or ongoing with the same reasons as above. Abequinn14 (talk) 15:41, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
irrelevant towards consensus building. --Jayron32 19:10, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • They should probably close down the news channels in the USA. Nothing remarkable ever happens there. Except for sinking duck boats, that is... Howard the Duck (talk) 16:45, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
There must be a joke somewhere involving the Oregon Ducks, Long Island Ducks, Duquesne Dukes (pronounced Dookane Dooks), duck boats (DUKW brand wheeled boats) and maybe ducks. Last week Furnace Creek, Death Valley, California (non-aboriginal population: 6) reached 127F four days in a row. It only needed 129.25 for America to get another blurb. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:36, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Only a matter of time before the Arrowhead Pond, home of the Anaheim Ducks melts to become an actual, real pond, and it still won't be laughingly enough for ITN. Another sinking duck boat won't cut it anymore since there'd be like one sinking per month, just like there is an average of 1 European election per month that would surely be posted... Howard the Duck (talk) 19:08, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Alrighty. That's enough. Carry on. --Jayron32 19:10, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment at least the pets have found somewhere to call home. Phew! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:02, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
    • Thousands of people have lost their homes TRM, why the drive by sarcasm? You've made your opposition clear already. Come on. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:23, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support let's not be anti-US biased. This caused evacuations, dominates local news, killed people - should be sufficient, even if it's sort of a common event. Banedon (talk) 23:55, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted to ongoing. The proposed blurb is too wordy and the fire will likely last at least another week, so ongoing makes sense. -- King of ♠ 03:28, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Probably the thing to do when the fire is out is to blurb that and let it expire off. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:39, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

National Register of Citizens of IndiaEdit

Article: National Register of Citizens of India (talk, history)
Blurb: India has published a list which effectively strips some four million people in the north-eastern state of Assam of their citizenship.
News source(s): BBC

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Big impact. Article has not been updated. Sherenk1 (talk) 09:18, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose on quality: not updated, missing refs everywhere, needs copyedit. As for the "significance", Bangladesh was East Pakistan before independence, not an Indian state, these people were never citizens. The policy is cruel, but "stripped of their citizenship" is a tad alarmist. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:12, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose for all the same reasons as above; lack of quality update, poor quality of article in general, sensationalist tone in blurb. --Jayron32 12:00, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support in principle, due to the story's importance, tho in practice I don't expect this to make the grade on quality grounds (and I've got no plans to work on it). The story seems to be of relevance both to well over a billion people in India and Bangladesh, and to every other democracy with a large unpopular group of actual or alleged 'illegal immigrants', including the USA and much or all of the EU, perhaps especially (but not only) when these tend to provide votes disproportionately for the opposition. It's also of relevance to our readers' understanding of issues such as Islamophobia, racism, multi-culturalism, right-wing populism, the so-called clash of civilizations, and so on. Tlhslobus (talk) 05:15, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

July 29Edit

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sports

(Posted) RD: Chrysa SpiliotisEdit

Article: Chrysa Spiliotis (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): https://vaaju.com/greeceeng/fire-in-the-eye-chrysa-spiliotis-is-dead/

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: Most sources in Greek and translation tools lack finesse however think it meets quality standard for MP. Have listed this nomination on the date her body was identified. MurielMary (talk) 10:17, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Support Notable and the article is referenced enough. I spot checked a few refs and we can accept the rest on good faith. BTW, what a heroic and tragic death. Spiliotis apparently reached safety at a beach, where she left her dog, but returned to the area of the fire to find her husband. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 01:58, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 22:50, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Oliver DragojevićEdit

Stale, unimproved. Stephen 03:29, 2 August 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: Oliver Dragojević (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination

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: A famous singer from Croatia. The article needs some work with the references. Tone 10:04, 31 July 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: Brian ChristopherEdit

Stale, unimproved. Stephen 03:28, 2 August 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: Brian Christopher (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): CNN

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: Notable wrestling figure passed away today. StrikerforceMobile (talk) 22:31, 29 July 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) 2018 Tour de FranceEdit

Article: 2018 Tour de France (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In cycling, Geraint Thomas wins the Tour de France.
News source(s): The Guardian

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: May want to mention in blurb that this is a first win by a Welshman. yorkshiresky (talk) 17:40, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Support A very notable win. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:54, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Article is in good shape so should be posted pronto. There's a ref error that I'll fix. Schwede66 19:15, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Everything looks in order. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 19:28, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose vast sections of the race overview without sources. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:05, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Most of Route and stages and several bullet points in Classification leadership without refs. If we're "not a ticker" then we don't need to race to post this. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:24, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Looks fine now. Black Kite (talk) 20:33, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Ready to go. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:03, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted Had seen article state at posting, but didn't comment then, but definitely improved since. --Masem (t) 23:25, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Question: Why are we providing free advertising for Geraint Thomas to about 12 million people per day? 2600:100F:B11B:F7E4:112F:611C:677A:FD99 (talk) 05:51, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Because we are corrupt and evil. (What a strange question?) It's actually because he won the biggest bike race in the world. HiLo48 (talk) 06:13, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Tomasz StańkoEdit

Article: Tomasz Stańko (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination

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: Polish trumpeter, composer and improviser strongly associated with free jazz and the avant-garde. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:53, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Support Although brief, article adequately covers the subject's life and work. SpencerT•C 20:45, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose some of the latter sections are weakly referenced, e.g. "Tomasz Stańko Quintet", "Video albums", "Appearances"... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:35, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Article is satisfactory and notable enough for RD Mkwia (talk) 18:51, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose per the state of "Appearances" section. That is not a negligible section for a jazz musician. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 20:12, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm sure you won't mind helping to find refs for a few of those 10 unsourced items. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:21, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
As always, it would be a pleasure. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 20:24, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Discogs is not RS. Even I can edit Discogs.com, and I have before.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 21:19, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
So looks like 8 sources are now still needed. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:30, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Support Good to go. We can can crowd source formatting the refs per MOS. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 14:30, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Have now added the remaining three sources. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:09, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
@Ad Orientem: Thanks. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 18:36, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) Malian presidential election, 2018Edit

Good faith nom but far too early. This can be re-opened once we have election results and a decent article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:14, 28 July 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: Malian presidential election, 2018 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​[insert candidate] is elected as the new president of Mali.
Alternative blurb: ​[insert candidate] wins the Malian presidential election.
News source(s): "Insecurity Shadows Mali's President. It May Also Help Him Get Reelected". The New York Times. July 27, 2018. Retrieved July 27, 2018.; "24 candidates get go ahead in Mali election". News 24. Retrieved July 27, 2018.

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: Referenced stub in need of a major expansion before Sunday. For example, there are 17 confirmed candidates and possibly 13 more. We should list them all. Zigzig20s (talk) 22:41, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: The results of general elections in all states on List of sovereign states are WP:ITNR. I changed it. TompaDompa (talk) 23:11, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Premature: the election is not until the 29th, results are unlikely to be available until the 30th, and due to the two-round voting process, may no give a winner yet. --Danski454 (talk) 11:17, 28 July 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.

July 28Edit

Arts and culture

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

Politics and elections

(Posted) 2018 Lombok earthquakeEdit

Article: 2018 Lombok earthquake (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A 6.4 magnitude earthquake struck Lombok, Indonesia, killing at least 16 people.
News source(s): BBC

Article updated

Nominator's comments: 14 dead on tourist island of Lombok. Sherenk1 (talk) 11:19, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Support Breaking News: The number has just risen to 15. I'm from Indonesia BTW, so I saw it on TV but up to this moment I haven't been able to find any international sources stating it.–Angga1061 12:10, 29 July 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Angga1061 (talkcontribs) I think this has yet to be verified, but still, it is a pretty high death toll. (P.S. I moved it to July 28, because it happened on that date at UTC although it happened on July 29 at local time.) –Angga1061 16:49, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
More—updated—international coverage:
–Angga1061 06:00, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support BBC has toll up to 16. Article has good coverage, and its got clear international coverage (just slow reaction due to the remote location) --Masem (t) 14:57, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support good article, good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:38, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 23:01, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) North American Heat WaveEdit

No consensus. Stephen 23:00, 30 July 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: 2018 North American heat wave (talk, history)
Ongoing item nomination
News source(s): CBC

Article updated
Nominator's comments: I realize there happen to be several other weather-related ITN items at the moment. Nevertheless, I think that this event is newsworthy even so. OtterAM (talk) 18:16, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Question: Is there a particular recent event within this heat wave that should be covered? The vast majority of content in the article is from June or early July, and recent updates in the article are sparse at best. SpencerT•C 18:37, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose There are much worst diasters/weather events going on to make this a minor inconvenience for those suffering. --Masem (t) 18:41, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose – ITN-worthy events from the ongoing heat wave were in June with the significant fatalities in Canada and northeastern United States. Just atypical heat at the moment. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 18:48, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose it's been a bit hot here too. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:54, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Question could someone tell me the difference in significance between a heat wave in Japan and one in North America? --LaserLegs (talk) 20:08, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
    Or the UK? Hottest/longest heatwave since 1976. Record-breaking. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:12, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
    Madness. Is there an article to consider for posting to ITN? I'd support it (if were of decent quality). --LaserLegs (talk) 21:04, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
  Working 2018 extreme weather events --- Coffeeandcrumbs 01:33, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
Nevermind, way beyond my skills.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 02:10, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
The Japanese record is 106, the New England and New York City records are 107, the 5 cities of Bowash record is 108, the New York State record is 109, the New Jersey and near New York City record is 110, the Pennsylvanian record is 111, the Bowash and Northeast states record is 112, the Atlantic states record is 113, the US forest biome record is 120, the US city over 3 million record is 122, the Mexican record is 126, the Old World record is 129 and the New World record is 129 maybe 130 at Furnace Creek, Death Valley, USA. The ground at Furnace Creek has also reached 201F which is 31 degrees above steak well done. Of course effects like hotter places having way fewer people without air conditioning evens things out and UK heat waves can still kill people. And being close to the sea in every direction probably makes record UK heatwaves more humid. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:31, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Very little of that still very poor article tells me that folks there are seeing anything more than a few hot days. I would change my view if there were well-sourced comparisons with long term, official records, and if it only included temperatures recorded by proper scientific methods, i.e. not by sitting a thermometer on a road in the sun. HiLo48 (talk) 01:37, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
After two days of 101 F (38 C) heat, my AC conked out Tues. night. But I guess that doesn't qualify for ITN? Sca (talk) 01:59, 29 July 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) Archbishop Theodore McCarrick Resigns from the College of CardinalsEdit

Article: Theodore Edgar McCarrick (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Following allegations of sexual misconduct American Archbishop Theodore McCarrick becomes the first cleric to resign from the College of Cardinals since 1927.
News source(s): NY Times Washington Post The Guardian

Nominator's comments: Major scandal receiving global news coverage. The section on his early career has some serious gaps in referencing. Otherwise the article is not in bad shape. Ad Orientem (talk) 15:39, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Support. I have taken care of some of the referencing gaps. First resignation since 1927 seems highly significant to me. Neutralitytalk 15:47, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Nice job on the article cleanup and referencing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:34, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Notable, and the article is ready. Davey2116 (talk) 17:16, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment The blurb should specify the country, maybe something like "American Archbishop...". Isa (talk) 19:41, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Good idea and done. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:05, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Article good and ready to go. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:52, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support the house of cards is creaking... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:07, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose no refs for the first para of the retirement section. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:05, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Few other missing refs and a dead link - don't have time to read/check the rest now, maybe later. Probably a waste of time anyway... --LaserLegs (talk) 21:14, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Ok, I'm done tagging, not terrible, but needs work. I'm concerned that a lot of his history is from primary sources (web archive copies of his bio from the Archdiocese of Washington and Archdiocese of Newark) - none of the content is alarming, but it'd be nice to not rely on WP:PRIMARY sources for this. Regarding "significance" I'm not sure how this is any different from Harvey Weinstein - McCarrick hasn't been convicted or even charged - which makes this stink of WP:RGW. Story was headline news today, which is all I care about if the refs are fixed. #twocents. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:40, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
These reference issues are all fixed. Neutralitytalk 14:51, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
Support now GTG nice work.
  • Comment In the blurb, there ought to be a comma after "misconduct". Personally I would rewrite it as Following sexual-misconduct allegations, American Archbishop Theodore McCarrick becomes the first cleric to resign from the College of Cardinals in 91 years. — Hugh (talk) 20:37, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted with comma comment above. --Masem (t) 23:24, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

July 27Edit

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Science and technology

(Posted) Longest lunar eclipse of the 21st centuryEdit

Article: July 2018 lunar eclipse (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The longest total lunar eclipse in the 21st century occurs.
News source(s): The Guardian Business Insider The Telegraph

Nominator's comments: Also anyone who looks at the eclipse will surely notice the unusually color saturated (see mesopic vision) and bright "star" about 6° away (the brightest Mars between 2003 and 2035). Since the Red Planet is only this bright for like 3 weeks once per 15, 17, 32 or 47 years and there's only c. 0.04 total lunar eclipses per 3 weeks then just having a "blood moon" and "blood planet" this bright at the same time won't happen again till everyone alive now dies of old age. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 09:07, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment I added sources and a blurb. TompaDompa (talk) 10:08, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Insufficient citations. I'd only support this if it gets up prior. "There's a lunar eclipse tonight" is not terribly exciting. "There was a lunar eclipse last night" is utterly banal. ghost 12:06, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Comments: lunar eclipses are fairly frequent, see List of 21st-century lunar eclipses. According to that article, this one will be 104 minutes, whereas several others this century will be 102 minutes and there was one in 2000 that was 108 minutes. So while the blurb is technically correct, it's a tiny difference and rests on knowing the exact definition of 21st century. Does that really make it more notable than other lunar eclipses or merit being the main focus of the blurb? If this does get posted, I don't think any ITN blurb should ever go up until the event happens, but this one could go up as soon as the eclipse begins (IIRC we've done that before with eclipses). Modest Genius talk 13:04, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
The longest of the 4203 total lunar eclipses from 3000 BC to 3000 AD is 106.6 minutes, 104 is not that far from the maximum possible. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:00, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
Then it looks like the 108 minute entry on List of 21st-century lunar eclipses is incorrect. Modest Genius talk 16:17, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
Some predictions, especially taken from books before fast computers, might still be using a spherical Earth even though other(s) try to figure out the exact density altitude that on average causes the sharpest dropoff in brightness (somewhere around the troposphere-stratosphere border I think, troposphere has a lot of clouds and can make even the Sun dim enough to look at remember) and account for the equatorial bulge of this altitude (which is more bulged than sea level). The place I got 106.6 minutes says 2000 was 106.4 minutes. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:42, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
To clarify: I'm not opposed to posting this if lunar eclipses are considered to be notable enough every time they occur (though in which case they should be added to ITNR). I've not been through the archives to see how we treated earlier ones. Right now this is all rather moot anyway, because the article is woefully under-developed, under-referenced and mostly just repeats material from lunar eclipse. Modest Genius talk 13:49, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
For the record: We posted the total lunar eclipses of December 2010 (first to coincide with a December solstice since 1638), April 2014 (nothing special to make it more notable than a "regular" total lunar eclipse as far as I can tell), and January 2018 (first "super blue blood moon" in 35 years). The September 2015 and April 2015 ones weren't nominated, whereas the April 2015, December 2011, and June 2011 ones were nominated but not posted. That's a complete rundown of the total lunar eclipses of the past 10 years. TompaDompa (talk) 13:54, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Mostly based on Modest Genius; a 104 min vs a 102 min in an otherwise frequent event is not all that great. Also, while I know the motion of the moon/earth/sun are generally fixed and calculated so that we have reasonably strong assurance that this is the longest one of the next 80 years, I think it is brushing up on CRYSTAL to make this claim. (It's not that this won't be 104 min, but that if some asteroid hits the moon and shifts its orbit a bit, things could change). --Masem (t) 13:30, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support before the eclipse happens. "You'll be able to witness this cool astronomical event" is a lot more notable than "You missed seeing this cool event. Too bad we didn't tell you about it earlier, lol." Databased (talk) 13:41, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support if it can be reworded per asteroids and aliens, i.e. "likely". Just kidding about the aliens.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 20:06, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
I don't the the Moon's orbit has ever been affected by an impact event enough for man to notice. If man was around billions of years ago sure but the oldest Moon position records are only a few thousand years old. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:27, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
With scientists doing things like this, can we really be sure the moon's orbit will not change for the next 82! years. It likely won't change.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 22:11, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
I don't think anybody doubts that the moon's orbit will change in the next 4.75 × 10122 years. TompaDompa (talk) 22:48, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
Touché! Nice one. In the end, I am in the support camp. I feel no need to fight over symantics.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 23:15, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
I wouldn't recommend it ether. Sca (talk) 21:43, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment we passed on ten new moons for Jupiter, posting this would be obvious earth-bias. This isn't earth-o-pedia, we need to have a galactic view. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:48, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
Virgo cluster of clusters of groups of galaxies bias! Only 0.0000005% of stories should be from that supercluster of galaxies. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:37, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose but only because lunar eclipses are pretty dull. I imagine that's why they're not on ITNR. Banedon (talk) 01:37, 27 July 2018 (UTC) Switch to Support since I'm seeing lots of coverage now that the event is taking place. Post ASAP. Banedon (talk) 04:42, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per above. Also, this should be posted before the eclipse occurs. Davey2116 (talk) 02:31, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per LaserLegs, in the interests of avoiding geocentrism on astronomical topics.--WaltCip (talk) 13:10, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support We've posted notable lunar eclipses before. Article is good enough. Passes WP:MINIMUMLENGTHOFECLIPSE. Black Kite (talk) 13:25, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose — No doubt it'll be a dramatic sight in many places, but practical impact and long-term significance are nil. (This user speaks as a veteran of the 2017 solar eclipse.)Sca (talk) 14:37, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per WaltCip; 100% of Wikipedia's customers are Earth-based and we should not be concerned about "geocentrism" for content on the main page. This should be posted in the next hour; there's no point posting it after the eclipse. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:35, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Is there some sarcasm I'm not getting, or are people actually opposing this because it's "Earth-centric"? Everything we post is "Earth-centric"! Davey2116 (talk) 21:02, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Aside from being the longest in a century, the eclipse also falls on the opposition of Mars which is a rare coincidence. Brandmeistertalk 21:04, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
Once per 1,113 years on average (1.428 years per total lunar eclipse, 1 out of 780 UTC days is an opposition of Mars) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:49, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - only local news coverage. wumbolo ^^^ 21:53, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
Here your go.[1].--- Coffeeandcrumbs 22:52, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
And you gave me a link to an Earth-based search engine. Such geocentricism! wumbolo ^^^ 23:08, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
Non-intersupercluster search engines make Glaaargxkhxtht'x mad. Virgo Supercluster chauvinism. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:16, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
I love this thread. We should create WP:GEOCENTRICISM as a redirect to here. Admin watching, it is well past the time you should have posted IM!HO. I think it is not too late.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 23:23, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - Interesting, thought-provoking. Agree that this should be posted asap for timeliness. Jusdafax (talk) 23:36, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
    • Marked for admin, indeed it's a time-sensitive item. Brandmeistertalk 19:06, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - God bless Earth! And nowhere else! Spengouli (talk) 04:14, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Close – The big event is over, continuing coverage is nil, and this item is getting stale fast. Sca (talk) 14:32, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Close - Event's already happened, no longer in the news. Stale.--WaltCip (talk) 16:30, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
Almost every item in the box is for things which have already happened. I'm not sure why this would be different. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:06, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
⇒ Because it had zero practical affect on anyone. Sca (talk) 14:58, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Exactly. Closing would be repeating the mistake of pulling the U.S. government shutdown in January. Davey2116 (talk) 20:22, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
We've already used up all the longest eclipses of the century (solar, lunar, annular). I'll nominate the 22nd century's longest (2141, 2168, 2186) further in advance. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:20, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Do not close I'm not sure why this hasn't been posted. There's a narrow but definitive consensus. Davey2116 (talk) 19:59, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I miscounted. Going on !votes, there's a 10–4 consensus, and that's counting a nonsensical !oppose based on WP:GEOCENTRISM. It would be an egregious mistake to not post this. Davey2116 (talk) 15:15, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 • Dang, I was hoping we could say goodnight to this old moon story. Sca (talk) 15:04, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) Disney acquires FoxEdit

Nominator's comments: This is effectively completing the merger beyond a few smaller details; Comcast's withdrawn their offer, and Disney's already got the DoJ's approval by splitting off some of Fox's networks. As we generally post business details when the ink is dry on the agreement, this seems like the time to post. And the size of this merger is huge. Masem (t) 15:34, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Support as the proposer mentioned, this is done and huge. Sir Joseph (talk) 16:28, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose article title says it all. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:57, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
    • The article likely needs to be moved. It's no longer proposed, it's done. --Masem (t) 17:21, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: Didn't we already post it when it was first announced? Cambalachero (talk) 18:36, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
    • We did actually [Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/December 2017 in December], but given the whole aspect of Comcast's attempt, causing the deal to be raised and requiring the shareholder input, this changed significantly. --Masem (t) 21:51, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. Obviously notable. The article should be re-named as above, but otherwise it's good to go. Davey2116 (talk) 21:05, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Stricken per minor regulatory hurdles mentioned below. However, this is still clearly the time to post. Davey2116 (talk) 00:53, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Users at the talk page seem to disagree about the acquisition being completed. Dat GuyTalkContribs 22:13, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
    • There are a couple more hurdles in terms of foreign gov'ts but most sources consider this deal to be done and over with, given the Justice Dep'ts earlier signoff. Those gov't could block the deal, but that rarely makes the news as much as events like this here - hence the wording of the blurb (which I did just change to reflect it being an acquisition rather than a merger_) --Masem (t) 00:13, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Really big news. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:55, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support this is huge news. Lepricavark (talk) 02:28, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Very notable development. Hrodvarsson (talk) 22:46, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support The largest movie studio acquires #4? Bigger news than anything we have up now. ghost 14:10, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 22:51, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Chiyo MiyakoEdit

Stale and at AfD. Stephen 23:44, 30 July 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: Chiyo Miyako (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination

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: Oldest living person at death. Died the 22nd, but wasn't made public until today. 2nd oldest Japanese person in history, and 8th overall. Spengouli (talk) 15:12, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose It's stub length, so it needs more content. Unfortunately there probably isn't much more to write about, as she is only notable for her longevity.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:20, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
And being the last verified 19th century person (in the womb). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:50, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Randykitty is objecting to my SNOW close of his AfD. That said, this is still better suited for DYK; it's a stub and a newly-created article. power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:59, 28 July 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) Pakistani general election, 2018 / Pakistani general election, 2018 violenceEdit

Articles: Pakistani general election, 2018 (talk, history) and Pakistani general election, 2018 violence (talk, history)
Blurb: Imran Khan's (pictured) Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf wins a plurality in the Pakistani general election.
Alternative blurb: Imran Khan's (pictured) Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf wins a plurality in the Pakistani general election that was marred by violence.
News source(s): Al jazeeraEvening Standard, AP. BBC

One or both nominated events are 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: Opening again. Polls to close in 10 mins. Results in 12 hours. Sherenk1 (talk) 12:49, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

  • So nominate it in >12 hours, after the article has been updated with the results. There's nothing to discuss until then! Modest Genius talk 16:17, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment To repeat a comment from another editor from a ITN discussion about a previous election, "All we are doing is getting a jump on discussing the quality of the article and the eventual wording of the blurb. This is a useful exercise in that it can facilitate getting what is an obvious ITNR item up in a timely manner". Chrisclear (talk) 00:39, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I have added a second article about all the violence for combined alt. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 01:31, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
Support as plurality is official. Sources:[2][3] --- Coffeeandcrumbs 06:30, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Quality articles about an ITN/R item. Chrisclear (talk) 04:13, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Once all the results are in, etc. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 12:01, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - Imran Khan (PTI) has claimed victory: BBC
  • Strong support Although election results are still coming in, however, clearly Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf is the winner. I'm ready to support this once the counting is over and article is updated. A major election in a major country. --Saqib (talk) 15:57, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose "General Elections 2018 was held under new delimitation of constituencies which was result of 2017 Census of Pakistan" article needs a copyedit before it can go to MP. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:39, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - Party of Ex-PM Nawaz Sharif concedes to Imran Khan BBC — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sherenk1 (talkcontribs) 13:34, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment – Khan wins 43 percent of seats in the National Assembly; must form coalition to govern. Sca (talk) 14:48, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. Its ready to get posted. The article has been c/e and looks good to go. 122.8.251.250 (talk) 15:21, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support, preferably alt-blurb. Articles are pretty good. Davey2116 (talk) 17:19, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Not quite ready yet(Now Ready): [RTE] says, among other things, "European Union observers were critical of the political climate in the run up to the vote, saying there was not a level playing field. The United States voiced similar concerns." The article has quite a bit about the EU position, but seemingly nothing yet about the US position, even tho most of our readers are probably from the US, and the US-Pakistan relationship (quite unlike the EU-Pakistan relationship) has been a rather important issue in geopolitics for decades. The US response is presumably also of far greater interest to our Pakistani readers than is the EU response. But I'm not sure that I'm the best person to try to fix this myself, and I expect there are better (more detailed) sources to quote on this than RTE. Tlhslobus (talk) 17:54, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Some other possibly relevant sources from Google:
Tlhslobus (talk) 18:20, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
I have started Pakistani general election, 2018#International.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 19:06, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. I think I'll now check the other sources above to see if anything more is needed, and whether or not any of it is important enough to need a mention in the lead. I expect to accept that it's ready to go in between half an hour and two hours from now.Tlhslobus (talk) 19:18, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
I've added a bit more from the above sources, and I'm now withdrawing my objection and restoring the Ready tag.Tlhslobus (talk) 19:58, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support alt blurb. Khan should be mentioned. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:27, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment "Fairness of election was also doubted due to non-provision of Form 45" These ESL articles have the worst grammar -- whatever post it then. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:21, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
"Few days after the election, casted ballots belonging to" --LaserLegs (talk) 23:28, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
I've removed Ready (which I had simply restored after temporarily removing it until an objection of mine got fixed), as it's preventing your objections getting fixed - these presumably also explain why it wasn't getting posted.Tlhslobus (talk) 00:15, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
@LaserLegs: I copyedited the entire paragraph.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 01:05, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
After reading the above, I then had another look at that paragraph and made another 10 changes or so in 3 edits. About half of these seemed definitely necessary, at least to me, and about half desirable and possibly necessary (except perhaps for an s changed to z which may just be a question of spellchecker settings). I then made one 'correction' and 3 wikilinks in the lead, and I then had a look at Laserlegs' original objection of 19:39, 26 July 2018, and found that it was still 'unfixed'. And I then decided to give up, partly because I wasn't sure how to 'fix' it, and partly because I wasn't sure whether it should be 'fixed' at all, as it might well be wholly or partly 'correct' under 'Pakistani English' and my 'fix' might then just be 'Western cultural imperialism' or whatever. For instance 'General Elections' (which is also the opening expression of the lead) seems wrong to me, but it may well be correct in Pakistan (and it might be wrong of me to replace it with 'A general election and 4 provincial elections'). And the same may apply to 'fixes' to the rest of the article, including some of the 'fixes' that I've already made. I'm also unclear who such 'fixes' are meant to satisfy: maybe it's Laserlegs, or maybe it's admins who haven't posted and haven't said why they haven't posted (quite likely for very sensible reasons in both cases). And any non-western editor likely has an equally difficult set of problems of their own. And I don't pretend to know what should be done about any of this.Tlhslobus (talk) 04:52, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
I pointed out a few grammar issues, but it's not the same as BLP vios or bad refs. Item is ITN/R and the article is ok, even with the ESL ENGVAR issues. IMO just post it. Its much better than it was. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:37, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted alt-blurb. I do not know the right steps to protect Khan's image, so left that out, but that's reasonable to add to this. --Masem (t) 23:22, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Vladimir VoinovichEdit

Stale. Stephen 22:53, 1 August 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: Vladimir Voinovich (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Source at RFERL, More exact source at Lenta.ru (in Russian)

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: Important literary figure and dissident. Yakikaki (talk) 08:00, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - no sources for the filmography section and some paragraphs not completely referenced e.g. quite a bit of the "early life" paragraph. MurielMary (talk) 10:17, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I've removed content without sources just now, including the filmography section. Yakikaki (talk) 10:33, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
Why did you edit the article like this? It was perfectly referenced in Voinovich's memoirs published at his personal site. You just removed all the sentences that don't contain reference links. This is not how Wikipedia articles are written, not every single sentense have to contain a reference link at the end. Then you merged other sentences into huge paragraphs for no reason, making them hard to read. And his filmography is perfectly referenced at the IMDb site in /*External links*/AveTory (talk) 11:18, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
@AveTory: Falsely accusing someone of vandalism is grounds for a block. Please strike that word. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 12:02, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
      • As I pointed out in the comments to the article, it wasn't an accusation, but a matter of speech. I'll change the word if it's of so much concern to you. AveTory (talk) 12:15, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
I didn't take it that way, I made major changes to the article so I can understand the emotional outburst. It happens to all wikipedians every now and then. I do however maintain that the article was improved by my edits, and should now be able to pass front page exposure. Yakikaki (talk) 12:21, 29 July 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.

July 26Edit

Business and economy
  • Facebook stocks drop 20% (US$118 billion), setting a record as the biggest single stock market loss in one day, and marking the first time that a stock lost over $100 billion in one day. (CNBC)
  • Disney announces plans to eliminate all plastic straws and plastic stirrers from their parks by mid-2019. (NOLA)

International relations

Law and crime

Science and technology

(Closed) Gravitational redshiftEdit

No consensus and stale. Stephen 23:17, 31 July 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: Gravitational redshift (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Astronomers in Chile observe Albert Einstein's theory of gravitational redshift near the black hole Sagittarius A*.
Alternative blurb: ​Astronomers in Chile observe Albert Einstein's theory of gravitational redshift near the black hole at the center of the galaxy.
News source(s): BBC
Nominator's comments: Notable observation in the field of astronomy; will help scientists understand black holes better. EternalNomad (talk) 01:36, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I have no doubts about the significance. The article on the otherhand is a dud for ITN. No way we could improve it in time. If anyone is will to give a try with me speak up. But this article would need a major overhawl in referencing before we can add to MP.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 04:06, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose lacks ITN-level significance. Gravitational redshift has been known and measured for a very long time. There's no reason to suppose that General Relativity will suddenly break down near black holes (heck, black holes are even GR objects) so this isn't surprising at all. It's not a bad piece of work, but it's not that interesting. Banedon (talk) 23:35, 30 July 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) Facebook largest one-day stock drop in historyEdit

No consensus to post. Stephen 00:31, 30 July 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: Facebook (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In US stock market, Facebook becomes the first company to lose over $100 billion worth of value in one day.
News source(s): The Verge CNBC
Nominator's comments: Zuckerburg's personal losses aside. A record-setting drop in US markets. CoatCheck (talk) 23:11, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Question I'm not opposed, but what's the measure for "largest one day slide"? Dollar amount? % market cap? --LaserLegs (talk) 23:36, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
    • Also, where is the update? --LaserLegs (talk) 23:38, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
I see it now, it's a one-liner. Do better, at least a paragraph explaining why the share prices plunged. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:39, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose don't get me wrong, I was just reading about this and I find it very interesting indeed. But after having rejected nominations about the Dow reaching record highs or Google (temporarily) becoming the largest public company by market capitalization, it's hard for me to support this. Banedon (talk) 23:55, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose this isn't a stock ticker. While it is a record, I'm not sure it's an important record. This isn't the Crash of 1987, just one company with a bad earnings report that's still priced well within its price range for this year even after the drop. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:48, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
Thing is, we routinely post the record sales of fine art. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:03, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
The next time one of those is proposed, I'll oppose it as well. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:11, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support I think this is a notable record. The article update should be expanded, however. Davey2116 (talk) 02:30, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak Support if updated, oppose otherwise Based on the graph in the CNBC article, this type of record-breaking is rare enough to not be a floodgate for ITN and the story is covered. But at the same time, there are several other stories that I would argue need to be on the blurb list that this might take up space better left to these other stories. That said, a one line update is not sufficient, "weak sales report" isn't sufficient (For example, I believe there is a series of events that can be followed over the last few days, ended with 3 analysts downgrading Facebook's stock this morning that triggered the selloff). --Masem (t) 02:53, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose It's not insignificant, but in the end this is a single stock. Now if the S&P 500 dropped 20%, I'd support. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:04, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Don't let one day of panic selling be an indicator of notability. This stock could just as easily rebound within the next week.--WaltCip (talk) 11:09, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Ditto. (It traded virtually flat on 7/27, down less than 1 percent.) Sca (talk) 14:32, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support when sufficiently updated. Per Davey2116, this is a noteworthy record. Lepricavark (talk) 14:42, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose a purely arbitrary record. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:58, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I disagree that it is arbitrary. This is the largest one-day loss of market value of any entity in the history of the world. "Arbitrary" should be reserved for numerical milestones such as "Dow hits 25,000" or similar. Abductive (reasoning) 17:15, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
  • But does it mean anything apart from numbers flying on a stock ticker? Are there any long-term implications for this? Is this indicative of an overall downturn in the tech sector of the market? Until we answer these questions, there's no newsworthiness to be found here.--WaltCip (talk) 17:49, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
  • You don't see me supporting posting it, do you? Abductive (reasoning) 00:40, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
  • It's arbitrary. A $100bn is an arbitrary number to select. It could be $105bn, or $99bn. And since the $ fluctuates too, it's even more arbitrary. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:37, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
  • The number is a number. The amount of market value lost is the greatest in the history of the human race. Would you have been against posting the Tsar Bomba test because the largest nuclear explosion in history reached an "arbitrary" number of 50 Megatons of TNT? Abductive (reasoning) 05:52, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Probably not, but that's apples and pears. Facebook could easily regain $100bn of market value the following day. You couldn't unexplode the Tasr Bomba test now could you? (clue: you're wasting your time here I'm afraid). The Rambling Man (talk) 06:22, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Suppose 24% of all apple trees in the world suddenly died. Would you oppose posting it because "24%" is an "arbitrary" number, and apples are likely to recover at some point in the future, and besides, pears didn't die? Abductive (reasoning) 06:54, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
  • This is becoming silly (and a little tedious). Those apples won't suddenly come back to life now will they? Nope. Really, if you want to find a suitable analogy and let me know, that'd be fine. Right now we're talking about a blip in a market capitalisation which has simply restored it to values that it sat at around three or four months ago. It lost around 80 billion over a few days in March. This is, I repeat, arbitrary and in today's climate, completely artificial. Now then, back to something useful for me. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:05, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Your definition of "arbitrary" keeps changing. What I am saying is that consensus has been that numerical milestones are not worth posting as they are arbitrary. Your arguments are all over the place, and you invent new definitions of arbitrary, but all of them are most assuredly not the ITN consensus definition of arbitrary. Abductive (reasoning) 05:28, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Now you're wandering into the world of the bizarre where ITN gets to define the meaning of a word in the English language, but thanks for your input. I would think it better to work on your analogies than to claim my arguments are "all over the place". I've been consistent, you've made up a load of interesting counter-examples, none of which are appropriate. So much for wandering around!! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:53, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose The share price has only fallen to what it was a few months ago, and there is no indication this will mark the downfall of FB. The $100 billion figure is good for the headlines but it is not particularly significant other than that it is a large, round number. Hrodvarsson (talk) 22:22, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose A big fall but not significant in the grand scheme of things. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:18, 28 July 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: Simegnew BekeleEdit

Article: Simegnew Bekele (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination

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: Manager and public face of a national prestige project (Hidase Dam) who was mysteriously found dead in the most public place possible in the country, thus his death has extremely high profile Ethiopia and beyond. It's as if a a top executive was found lying dead off Times Square, by way of comparison. Varavour (talk) 22:58, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose for now. I have doubts that the subject passes WP:ANYBIO. I will have to look more closely at the article and sources. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:22, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
Followup I think the article fails WP:VICTIM. Maybe some of this can be merged into another article, but IMO this individual is not independently notable beyond the circumstances of his death. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:31, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Ad Orientem.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:26, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose while subject to AFD. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:58, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support The AFD was closed as keep.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 22:51, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Note The article has been taken off AFD by Ad Orientem, and there was a wide array of sources covering the story:
A detailed analysis of source material
Created with templates {{source assess table}} and {{source assess}}
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Overall value toward GNG
BBC News     Major international news organization   The source discusses the subject directly and in detail  
Deutsche Welle     Major international news organization   The source discusses the subject directly and in detail  
The Times (London)     The source is a major newspaper   The source discusses the subject directly and in detail  
New York Times     The source is a major newspaper   The article discusses the subject directly and in detail  
Al Jazeera (English)     Major international news organization   The article discusses the subject directly and in detail  
Voice of America     Major international news organization   The article discusses the subject directly and in detail  
Le Monde     The source is a major newspaper   The article discusses the subject directly and in detail  
CNN     Major international news organization   The article discusses the subject directly and in detail  
France24     Major international news organization   The article discusses the subject directly and in detail  
Thank you for that. I have collapsed it to make discussion easier.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 23:43, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. I'd have done that had I known how! I would note the article is ready and incorporates the latest developments surrounding his death. --Varavour (talk) 02:54, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 22:48, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

July 25Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

(Posted) RD: Ellie SoutterEdit

Article: Ellie Soutter (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): https://www.news.com.au/sport/sports-life/snowboard-star-ellie-soutter-dies-on-18th-birthday/news-story/4951ca2a12a52e1cf7fad686c5af1818

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: Fully referenced MurielMary (talk) 21:32, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Support Notable per Youth Olympics medal. Fully referenced. Mentions death in prose, citing two reliable sources.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 01:27, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Oppose Does not meet notability per WP:YOUNGATH. WP:NOLY delineates Olympics from Paralympics, where participation in the former is notable but the latter requires a medal. "Youth Olympics" are not included at all. Similar to Tyler Hilinski, coverage outside the death is trivial. Suicide of a young person does not establish notability. ghost 11:55, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

K, withdraw opposition as I respect process and concede the point on re-litigation. But WOW!!! is that exchange ever an indictment of the AfD process. Not one Keep vote (and votes they are) makes a valid policy citation. ghost 15:39, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 22:44, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Judith AppelbaumEdit

Article: Judith Appelbaum (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Publisher's Weekly Book Industry Study Group

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: Fully referenced MurielMary (talk) 11:09, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Support It's short but just about adequate length, and referencing looks ok.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:29, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose At present, insufficient coverage of the subject. The introduction says she was active in the publishing industry for 50 years, but doesn't have anything specific about her career between the time she was in college and 1998. SpencerT•C 18:20, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
  • The article says she was an editor at Harpers and Publisher's Weekly during that time. I will try to add some more.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:40, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Her positions in the publishing industry from college to 1998 are stated in the article. MurielMary (talk) 08:45, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Also the third paragraph of the main text describes her life-long achievements which obviously occurred during the period you are querying. MurielMary (talk) 21:35, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) 2018 As-Suwayda attacksEdit

Article: 2018 As-Suwayda attacks (talk, history)
Blurb: ​At least 302 people are killed in a series of attacks in and around As-Suwayda, Syria.
News source(s): Washington Post, AP

Nominator's comments: It may be best to merge this with the previous blurb about Syria. Even though it is a war zone this is still an exceptional (and horrifying!) level of casualties, most of them civilian. EternalNomad (talk) 02:23, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Support - Yes merge it. Sherenk1 (talk) 03:55, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support – Horrendous. I'm not sure the two topics can be readily merged in a blurb, though. (AP added as source.) Sca (talk) 13:46, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Very weak oppose posting separately and merging. Although they are related, looking at other noms on this page they are not likely to be visible at the same time and the two are both independently news-worthy. The South Syrian offensive is about to roll of the page. This is basically an update and bump. Only problem is the page needs a little more expansion and it needs at least a mention at 2018 Southern Syria offensive.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 20:25, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now, article is barely better than a stub. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:55, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support the article seems fine now, considering how much information we have on our hands as of yet. It's a warzone after all. As for notability - I certainly support it, it's the 13th deadliest terrorist act in the history of the world. Openlydialectic (talk) 00:48, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
It's questionable to call this terrorism. Around half of those killed were belligerents. If high civilian casualties were the standard for "terrorism" we'd be posting many attacks by Assad (and drone strikes by the US). One might also consider statehood of the attackers, but I think ISIL operations in Syria meet the standard of state actions. ghost 13:32, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
Comment I've updated the nubmer of deaths to 302 (including the 56 terrorists) Openlydialectic (talk) 11:05, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted, combined with the July 23rd blurb. --Masem (t) 23:20, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) 2018 Quetta suicide bombingEdit

Posted within the election item. Stephen 00:30, 30 July 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: 2018 Quetta suicide bombing (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A suicide attack kills at least 31 people and injures dozens others in Quetta, Pakistan.
Alternative blurb: ​A suicide attack at a polling station, kills at least 31 people and injures dozens others in Quetta, Pakistan.
News source(s): Telegraph The Australian

Article updated
 122.8.100.126 (talk) 20:47, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Wait for this to develop, but this is a terrorist attack in an area of frequent terrorist attacks. 331dot (talk) 20:52, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps, a combined blurb with the Pakistani general election, 2018 results maybe considered. Something like, "Pakistani general election results in ____ party winning a majority despite election day violence that killed at least 31 people in a suicide attack." A bit long but still worth a thought. 122.8.100.126 (talk) 21:08, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Agree. We are most certainly about to post the results of election. This is at least the fourth bombing this election cycle. We also have Pakistani general election, 2018 violence which details several other violent incidents including a section for this one. The best option is to wait for election results and post along the lines of:
"... wins a majority/plurality in the Pakistani general election that was marred by violence.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 21:04, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I agree this would be better combined with the election. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:46, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
See Pakistani general election, 2018 / Pakistani general election, 2018 violence --- Coffeeandcrumbs 01:31, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - The violence article looks good. So yes to above. Sherenk1 (talk) 06:17, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Wait – Per Coffee. – Sca (talk) 13:50, 26 July 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: Corinne GallantEdit

Article: Corinne Gallant (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): [4] [5]

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: Professor emeritus and Acadian feminist who received the Order of Canada. Recently deceased, as announced by the Universite de Moncton, where she was professor emeritus. I will be updating as more information becomes available. Acebulf (talk) 20:23, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Support Ready to go.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 23:40, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 06:50, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: György SzepesiEdit

Article: György Szepesi (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Hungary Today

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: Article is well sourced --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:03, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Support Can we give him a little more credit in the lead? The man is the longest-serving sportscaster in the world.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 20:41, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 04:32, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) Japan heat waveEdit

Article: 2018 Japan heat wave (talk, history)
Blurb: ​An "unprecedented" heat wave in Japan leaves 80 people dead and sends more than 22,000 people to the hospital
News source(s): BBC, The Independent, Japan Times

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Continuing the trend of heat-related disasters across the globe...record-breaking heat wave is raging across Japan and causing further misery after deadly flooding and mudslides earlier this month. The nation's weather agency is calling the heat wave unprecedented and Kumagaya saw the highest temperature ever observed in Japan on July 23. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 17:02, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Good idea. There have been a string of such extreme events this summer. Just this month, we have articles for Hurricane Beryl, heat waves in United Kingdom and Ireland, and in North America, as well as Tropical Storm Son-Tinh and 2018 Attica wildfires. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 21:28, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support, the death toll is significant, article looks okay. Mz7 (talk) 21:02, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Nolo contendere. -The Gnome (talk) 21:10, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per Masem. Banedon (talk) 01:33, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Similar death toll to the wildfires in Greece, and the article is okay. Hrodvarsson (talk) 01:38, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support – Ditto. Ready. Sca (talk) 01:50, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - per above supports. Article on the short side but presents facts in a straightforward way. Jusdafax (talk) 03:26, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:31, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) Sub-surface lake discovered on MarsEdit

Article: Water on Mars (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Mars Express Orbiter discovers a 20 kilometres (12 mi) sub-surface lake of water on Mars.
Alternative blurb: ​The Mars Express Orbiter discovers evidence of a 20 kilometres (12 mi) sub-surface lake of water on Mars.
Alternative blurb II: ​The Mars Express Orbiter discovers a 20 kilometres (12 mi) sub-surface lake of water on Mars.
Alternative blurb III: ​The Mars Express Orbiter discovers evidence of a 20 kilometres (12 mi) sub-surface lake of water on Mars.
News source(s): BBC Science aricle Wired

Article updated

 Masem (t) 16:38, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Support This is definitely a major discovery.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:29, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support the type of science articles that get picked up by news outlets aren't usually published in Science. Even if the "liquid water" is just perchlorate brine, it is still just 1.5 km deep. Even Lake Vostok deeper than that. Nergaal (talk) 17:54, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
    • It's 1.5km under the surface, that's not the depth of the water itself. But it is at least more than 1m deep for it to be detected via the radar instruments per the paper/reports. --Masem (t) 18:02, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - The discovery of a lake of Martian water, however you define “lake,” is big news. Jusdafax (talk) 21:19, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment first, the update relies almost entirely on a single source. Second, I found a number of statements missing refs and whole paragraphs with a single ref - not usually a good sign. I'm not going to !vote because I don't have time to read this monstrous article, but before rushing to post this "very important news" we should take care to check that the article is coherent and well sourced (quantity of sources != well sourced). --LaserLegs (talk) 21:35, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Any scientific discovery is likely only to going to have one strong source to support the update: the peer-reviewed paper (the Science article, in this case). For ITN, we just want to make sure that more mainstream sources cover it, which they certainly are; it just doesn't require us to use those mainstream sources in the article itself. --Masem (t) 21:40, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - genuinely exciting for astrobiologists, and likely the general population at large. Banedon (talk) 01:33, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support alt a very informative and well-sourced Wikipedia article, a significant discovery, a peer-reviewed paper published by a reputable scientific journal.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 02:11, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per everybody above. But please change the link to the relevant section, Water on Mars#Subglacial liquid water (with an anchor if one is needed), as otherwise it's difficult for readers to find what most of them will presumably be looking for.Tlhslobus (talk) 02:28, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
    • I've now added the anchor in the article (which protects against section name changes, per MOS), and added altblurbs 2 and 3, which are the blurb and altblurb 1, but now linking to the relevant section.Tlhslobus (talk) 02:47, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:06, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Sergio MarchionneEdit

Article: Sergio Marchionne (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC

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: Fully referenced Sherenk1 (talk) 10:00, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Support - article looks in good shape, a couple of typos in references need sorting. Mjroots (talk) 10:55, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I have added some CN, about 10, that need to be sorted. I am going back to help now. Do not post yet.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 11:49, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - The article looks good, moreover Marchionne was a key figure in world automotive industry, an executive who saved historic companies like Fiat and Chrysler from probable bankruptcies. -- Nick.mon (talk) 11:57, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support This should be ready to go.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 13:04, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Support, article seems to be ok, and quite important person in business world -->Typ932 T·C 14:12, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Notable person, good article. Hope it goes quickly to the homepage. --Checco (talk) 14:14, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted. Black Kite (talk) 16:43, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

July 24Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Science and technology

(Posted) RD: Mary EllisEdit

Article: Mary Ellis (pilot) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jul/26/mary-ellis-the-last-female-second-world-war-pilot-dies-aged-101

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: Fully referenced MurielMary (talk) 12:00, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Support - the last surviving woman to have flown with the Air Transport Auxiliary in World War 2. Rob (talk) 17:24, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 23:00, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) Pakistani general electionEdit

Closing as there is nothing to discuss until the election is over. 331dot (talk) 13:40, 24 July 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: Pakistani general election, 2018 (talk, history)
Blurb: Pakistan Muslim League (N)/Pakistan Peoples Party/Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf wins a majority/plurality in the Pakistani general election.
News source(s): Al jazeera

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: Please feel free to update anything I missed. 45.116.232.30 (talk) 13:14, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment The results of general elections in all states on List of sovereign states are WP:ITNR. I changed it. TompaDompa (talk) 13:19, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Premature. The elections don't happen until the 25th, and results won't be available until at least the 26th. Events should not be nominated before they have happened, particularly ITNR events where the notability is not in doubt. We need to assess the quality of the update and the suitability of the blurb, neither of which can be done until the results are in. I suggest closing this and starting a new nomination once we have an actual result. Modest Genius talk 13:33, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Polling set to begin in about 12 hours. 45.116.232.30 (talk) 13:38, 24 July 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) 2018 Attica wildfiresEdit

Article: 2018 Attica wildfires (talk, history)
Blurb: ​At least 76 people are killed and over 100 injured in wildfires in the Greek tourist resort Mati.

Nominator's comments: Just started the article. Lots of work still needed, but this was a catastrophe. --Tone 07:25, 24 July 2018 (UTC) Tone 07:25, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Support and note – support, but a small note: I don't want to make a history merge while the article is probably being edited, but it's generally accepted that when two identical articles are made in short order, the first should get the full edit history, in this case 2018 Greek wildfires. Then it can be force-moved to whatever title we want. If you are editing the article, please make the merge and let me know if you need help with the move. —Ynhockey (Talk) 07:43, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support, but beware These fires are extremely serious, but don't expect precision in casualty numbers for quite some time. Weeks at least. I say this as a mature person from a part of the world which has had a number of such events. No matter the usual quality of sources, they depend on emergency services for such numbers, and they will be busy. So just don't put precise numbers in the article and blurb. HiLo48 (talk) 07:56, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose/Wait. The article quality is very minimal; it's a sub-stub as of now that has almost no more information than would be in the blurb itself. When and if the article is expanded to a reasonable length, I would support posting this. --Jayron32 11:06, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support – ...in principle, pending expansion of article.
Suggest title of article be changed from "2018 Attica wildfires" to "2018 Greece wildfires" or "2018 Greek wildfires," as the Attica region isn't widely known as a geographic term outside Greece. Second, "Attica" was made (in)famous among U.S.-Eng. speakers by a huge and deadly prison riot in Atticca, N.Y., in 1971. Sca (talk) 14:30, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Indeed, as the feller says, "They wanted Attica, they wanted Kent State". —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 14:37, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Oppose the title change. Attica is geographically more defining than the whole country. In addition, Attica should be instantly recognizable to anyone who has listened to even the tiniest amount of ancient history in school (as opposed to prison riots in the 1970s) :P In any case, the article is ready now. I will ask another admin to post this since I nominated it. --Tone 20:56, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Tone, it may shock you to learn that a great many Eng.-lang. readers did not study even the tiniest amount of ancient history or the classics in their school days; however, a great many were alive and aware in 1971. Sca (talk) 21:36, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
FWIW, I think you're both wrong. Most readers won't know either of those meanings of the name Attica, so it's good we avoid it in the blurb. However, 70s prison riots do not have any bearing on WP:COMMONNAME, and the Greek region is clearly the dominant usage, so the article title is fine. Modest Genius talk 09:59, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

July 23Edit

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

(Posted) Major dam burst in LaosEdit

Article: Attapeu dam collapse (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In south-eastern Laos a dam bursts, resulting in houses, roads and bridges being swept away, and over 6,000 people estimated homeless.
News source(s): BBC News (24 July 2018). "Laos dam collapse: Hundreds missing after flash floods hit villages"; Doom, J.; Gittleson, B. (24 July 2018). "Several dead, hundreds missing after dam collapse in Laos", ABC News.

Nominator's comments: Massive disaster, homelessness, probable deaths (sorry), set-back for a national buliding program, international implications, etc. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 14:01, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Support – ...in principle, pending expansion of article. Widespread coverage on prime news sites of a significant disaster. (Details may not emerge soon.) Sca (talk) 14:34, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. Used to work in Laos and this is all over the news; one of my students from Attapeu is missing. Although a lot of the news from the country is from non-reliable sources on Facebook, I'll see if there's anything I can find and translate to add to the article. SpencerT•C 17:48, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support: nice work on the article. I cannot believe we are missing articles on three rivers. That is a shame!--- Coffeeandcrumbs
The sheer number of redlinks in that article makes WP:BIAS so blatant. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 18:44, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support though I'd try to work in the number of missing into the blurb. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:34, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Truly more redlinks than I would like to see in an article that will be linked from the Main Page, but I will support this on principle. StrikerforceTalk 19:43, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Redlinks are not necessarily a bad thing. In fact, I would argue they are a good thing as they expose deficiencies in the encyclopedia. But we can do away with the companies. Then maybe editors will feel encouraged to create articles on the rivers. Already done.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 21:55, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Article appears to be in good shape. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 19:57, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support many deaths, rare type of event - dams dont burst so often. Openlydialectic (talk) 22:06, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 22:58, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Paul MadeleyEdit

Article: Paul Madeley (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC Guardian Reuters

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: England and Leeds United footballer, 724 appearances for one club. Article updated and decently sourced now, I think Black Kite (talk) 22:37, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Posted Stephen 02:16, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) White Helmets / 2018 Southern Syria offensiveEdit

Articles: White Helmets (Syrian Civil War) (talk, history) and 2018 Southern Syria offensive (talk, history)
Blurb: ​More than 400 volunteers for the White Helmets were evacuated out of Syria by Israel.
Alternative blurb: ​More than 400 White Helmets are rescued after being trapped by the approaching Syrian offensive near the neighboring Golan Heights
Alternative blurb II: ​In the Syrian Civil War, a Syrian Army offensive captures all Syrian Opposition-held regions in the south of the country
News source(s): BBC,Times of Israel

Article updated

 OtterAM (talk) 21:23, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose Insufficient update --LaserLegs (talk) 22:15, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose insufficient update, and insufficient context. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:39, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support major news. Openlydialectic (talk) 01:04, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support either alt 1 or 2 Oppose original blurb. No offense to the nominator, but the blurb makes the mistake of burying the lede like every Western media source. I don't blame you. You were following the media's lead. But more important is Why would rescuers need rescuing? Why should we focus on the pat on the shoulder for Israel like every news source seems to be overeager to do? We should "co-focus" on 2018 Southern Syria offensive, a much more informative article. I recommend something along the lines of:
More than 400 White Helmets are rescued after being trapped by the approaching Syrian offensive near the neighboring Golan Heights.
I predict giving Israel undue credit for doing what any decent neighbor should do will cause much indignation and controversy on the Main Page. I like that it was Israel that did it and I congratulate them but we need NPOV. I cannot help but imagine the reaction of a Palestinian reading this blurb, especially since the recent amendment to Basic Law. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 02:05, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
I think alt 1 as you wrote it is fine. However, just for the record, Israel's participation was more than just opening its border, because the rescue involved a complex IDF operation. Several other countries were also involved in the planning and/or providing new homes for the evacuated people, including the the UK, the US, Canada, and Jordan. OtterAM (talk) 15:14, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
I also have to disagree a little with some assumptions from your last sentence that reads "I cannot help but imagine..." The NPOV of an encyclopedia Wikipedia should be based on fact, not on hypothetical reactions of people to the text. OtterAM (talk) 15:19, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose not really seeing widespread coverage of this, seems more like a minor chapter in an ongoing war. Banedon (talk) 06:44, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 
This does not seem minor.
Really? I would have to disagree.[6][7][8][9][10][11][12]--- Coffeeandcrumbs 07:14, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
They're all US/UK sources however, bar the one by Al Jazeera, which doesn't focus on the evacuation even though it's mentioned. Can you find widespread coverage in non-Western sources? I'm not opposed to a blurb on the territorial changes in the Syrian Civil War, only to this particular evacuation. Banedon (talk) 09:34, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
There was a second link from Al-Jazeera about the bigger evacuation (thousands of Syrians, not getting attention).[13]. Why not do both the evacuations and the border offensive in one blurb? Their are plenty of sources for both and one is the cause of the other. Here are more for the White Helmets. Brazil:[14][15], Indonesia: [16], Czech Republic, Český rozhlas:[17], Lebanon, Al Mayadeen:[18], Turkey, Hürriyet: [19].
I can find more for the Syrian Offensive, if anyone like a demonstration of that being a major story as well.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 12:09, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Switch to Support alt 2 per Modest Genius. Banedon (talk) 23:10, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support featuring 2018 Southern Syria offensive, rather than explicitly the White Helmets or Israel. This appears to be a major change to the strategic situation in the ongoing civil war. Following this offensive the Syrian Opposition is restricted to a few northern areas, and Isis is down to its last few isolated pockets. The story is much bigger than the evacuation of a few hundred aid workers. Even better, the article on the offensive is of high quality and ready to post. I've added an altblurb2. Modest Genius talk 12:33, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
I would remove "In the Syrian Civil War,". It is not necessary. I would hate to think our readers are that uninformed.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 12:59, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Widespread coverage but it seems to have been overplayed. Sca (talk) 14:37, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose main, support alt 2 - The offensive is definitely more noteworthy than only one of the many groups being affected by it. YuriNikolai (talk) 01:04, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose main, support alt 2 - As above.Sherenk1 (talk) 10:04, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support alt 2 Notability is borderline (we don't post ever campaign of an ongoing war) but article quality more than makes up for any question of significance. ghost 11:46, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I came by to post this, but now find myself removing the ready tag. The target article has changed half-way through, the earlier assessments of quality are now out of date, and we have people expressing support and opposition for two very different blurbs. Meanwhile, the blurb which has the broadest support (ALT2) is actually stale; the offensive began long before our oldest story, and it isn't finished; so what are we posting, and for what date? Marking "needs attention" so these questions may be addressed. Vanamonde (talk) 12:04, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
My intention with altblurb2 was to mark the government occupation of the last opposition-held territory in the south, hence the wording, which was completed on 22 July (if I've understood the article correctly). The Isis part is still ongoing. Modest Genius talk 12:11, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support alt 2 - Big story, as I see it. Jusdafax (talk) 12:22, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Posting alt 2 per consensus.--Tone 12:42, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Roh Hoe-chanEdit

Article: Roh Hoe-chan (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Korea Herald

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: Article updated and well sourced --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 06:16, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Support Article seems up to snuff. StrikerforceTalk 15:13, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose concerns over copyvio and poor referencing I'm afraid, e.g. "He graduated from the Kyunggi High School in 1976.[3]" is sourced to the CIA Factbook but no mention of this 1976 graduation from Kyunggi High School is mentioned. "In July 2018, Roh was under investigation into accusations that he accepted ₩50-million from an aide to an influential blogger, known by the nickname "Druking", at the center of an opinion-rigging scandal.[13]" is virtually verbatim from the source. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:15, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
    @The Rambling Man:: With more obits coming in, I found more reliable sources to replace the dead link and the unreliable one. I tried to re-word the copyvio to prevent it from being copyvio (I had no intentions of making it copyvio). Please leave anymore specific issues so I can fix. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:12, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
    I understand TDKR Chicago 101, not a problem. I'll take a look in due course. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:14, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
    Support my concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:27, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support This is good to go.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 05:32, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted. 331dot (talk) 12:52, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) Toronto mass shootingEdit

There's a consensus against posting, though I wouldn't characterise it as a blizzard just yet. However, the wave of !votes urging us to wait for further data, along with the arguments of opposers in relation to significance, merit a temporary closure until we see how this develops. If significant new information arises, re-open by all means. Stormy clouds (talk) 21:14, 23 July 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: 2018 Toronto shooting (talk, history)
Blurb: ​At least three people are dead and twelve others injured after a mass shooting in Toronto, Canada.
News source(s): CBC News, CNN, NBC News, BBC

Article needs updating
Nominator's comments: Police have confirmed fatalities, but not yet released. At least 15 people shot, awaiting updates. Mass shootings rare in Canada where guns are heavily restricted or prohibited. 174.116.222.58 (talk) 04:36, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. Article is too short, and there is no indication just yet that this is anything other than an ordinary crime. EternalNomad (talk) 05:42, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. An apparently random crime with no major implications. Also, the article is barely a stub. Modest Genius talk 10:28, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Article is not a stub, and mass shootings aren’t “random crimes”. A random crime would be a murder by a gang after dark in a run-down area of a city. 2600:387:0:805:0:0:0:84 (talk) 11:41, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Wait – Dust hasn't settled. They haven't ID'd the (dead) shooter yet. So far looks like just another nutcase. Article is stub-like. Sca (talk) 13:15, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Wait Article is too short.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:25, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose doesn't meet the Belgium standard Support - Very unusual for this area of the world, despite its proximity to a country where this sort of thing is - well, as Obama put it, routine.--WaltCip (talk) 13:46, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
    • Wow, that's quite a mischaracterization of what Obama said and meant when he invoked the word "routine". He said we shouldn't become numb to it, the way ITN commenters often are. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:53, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
      • And yet here we are.--WaltCip (talk) 13:54, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
        • Speak for yourself. Not everyone is numb to mass shootings. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:03, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
From a news standpoint, increasingly it depends on whether the event appears to have other than local significance, e.g. terrorism. Sca (talk) 14:32, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Yet another mass shooting. Boardhead (talk) 14:02, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now based on quality. Article is a stub. I could support based on the merits if the article is expanded. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:04, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose not to pile on, but the article really is very short. News worthy and receiving coverage, but article is not ITN worthy. Tillerh11 (talk) 15:06, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Article isn't ready yet and details are still emerging about the incident itself. Willing to reconsider my stance at a later time, however. StrikerforceTalk 15:11, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong support pending article changes. I’m up in Canada. Toronto and Canada aren’t places where mass shootings occur regularly. Even given the spate of gun violence in Toronto this type of event is extremely rare. Comparable in significance to the Danzig Street shooting. Also extremely rare is that an entire district of Toronto (Greektown) is closed off. With almost 20 dead or injured, this is comparable in scale to the recent Toronto van attack. For some perspective. 173.32.99.138 (talk) 15:39, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose although not US-centric, this is a minor shooting with short-term impact. SamaranEmerald (talk) 15:48, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
  • We should consider that this incident is being covered by news internationally, which points to the fact that this is not just a local crime story or an ordinary/routine shooting as some commentators have suggested here. You don't hear the term "mass shooting" in Canada, much like how they are rare anywhere else in the world other than the U.S. - see the U.K., Australia, New Zealand, etc. they are extremely rare. 15 people getting shot just doesn't happen. 174.116.222.58 (talk) 16:24, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment international coverage does not automatically warrant an event as ITN Worthy, this has been mentioned several times in past nominations of similar incidents among others. SamaranEmerald (talk) 16:32, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
That wasn't my point. My point is that international coverage means that this is not just a local crime story as some have suggested; if it was local crime, it would only be covered by local news stations. My point is that it's ITN worthy because of the rarity of the event - mass shootings don't happen outside the U.S. 174.116.222.58 (talk) 16:42, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
The final sentence disproves your point. Also a shooting is a shooting, so one in Canada should not be treated anymore special than one in the U.S. SamaranEmerald (talk) 17:09, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
or Sweden, or Japan, or Norway or Germany or anywhere else right? --LaserLegs (talk) 17:11, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
While I can certainly see the argument that this shooting by itself is not notable, saying that a shooting shouldn't be treated any more special in one country than another is utterly ignorant, particularly when access to guns vary so widely from country to country.--WaltCip (talk) 17:24, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose the item is "in the news", the article is no worse than some Venezuelan night club, and WP:MINIMUMDEATHS is a red link again - but even though it's no worse than many of the boiler plate death toll disaster articles we post, it's still too short on details for MP feature IMO. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:12, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Neutral On one hand, this is clearly not being considered terrorism, and more just a guy that that appears to decide to fire on people, for reasons we'll likely not know. It caused a panic, two people are dead + the attacker, but this isn't that major of a crime relative to other stories we post. That said, this is part of a larger story of events as Toronto is dealing with more unusal levels of gun violence from gangs (though they're ruled this not related), and that's bringing the eyes of the world on this. I can't justify posting or not either way at this stage, but can see arguments both ways. (The article's been expanded so that's no longer an issue). --Masem (t) 17:15, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. Insufficient information and the number of fatalities is extremely low. I know some people flip out over MINIMUMDEATHS, but two (not counting the perp) really is not ITN material. More than that are killed every day all over the world. Will reconsider if this turns out to be more than what it looks like at the moment (think terrorism related). -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:17, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
  • (ec) Oppose unless there's substantive evidence that it was some kind of terrorist attack. While these kinds of mass shooting death tolls occur every day in some countries in the world, and not in Canada, this is already dropping off the main news pages (probably because it's in Canada and not in some other countries in the world). The Rambling Man (talk) 17:19, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Wait - it's simply too early to know right now, though I doubt it'll end up being significant enough anyways. ansh666 18:40, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - This does not even belong on Wikipedia, let alone an ITN candidate.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:46, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
    Well that's certainly one perspective. Mass shootings in Canada are rare as, and this one has certainly been in the news, indeed still top of the BBC World News. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:54, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
    That is not unusual for the day of a shooting. Lasting significance cannot be determined within a day. We need to understand the world does not run on ponies. “Exciting”, breaking news like this reaches the media in an instant, but it typically disappears within a few days.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:02, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
    It's unusual, especially for Canada. If you have a wider issue around rapid news reporting, that's for WT:ITN, not for individual candidates. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:13, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose – ... for now, at least. Seven hours later, I haven't seen anything to substantiate wider significance of this rampage, in which two victims died, and the shooter still hasn't been identified. Sca (talk) 20:58, 23 July 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.

July 22Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

Law and crime

Sports

(Closed) RD: Elmarie WendelEdit

Stale. Stephen 06:55, 26 July 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: Elmarie Wendel (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Variety

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: Sourcing is poor. TompaDompa (talk) 12:59, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose lead isn't adequate, it has all the trappings of a stub with a table from IMDB right now. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:20, 23 July 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) 2018 Open ChampionshipEdit

Article: 2018 Open Championship (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In golf, Francesco Molinari (pictured) wins the Open Championship at Carnoustie.
News source(s): Golf Digest ESPN

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.

 Compy90 talk 09:50 22 July 2018 (UTC)

  • The prose summaries of the third and final round look good but there are a few {{cn}}s to address. I'd also like to see similar prose treatment for the first and second rounds, and some tidying up / reformating of the 'field' section, which is a mess. Nevertheless the article looks much more promising than the recent failed Wimbledon nomination. Modest Genius talk 10:32, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
    • Support. The article has improved to the point where I think we can post this. TRM's concerns also seem to have been addressed, and no-one else has commented, so I'm marking this ITNR item (Ready). Modest Genius talk 10:22, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose while we have tabloid commentary like "an exciting, hotly-contested and unpredictable Open Championship." unless it's quoted. Like Modest Genius, the first two rounds need a little fleshing out as well. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:23, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
    Yup, I'm cool with the changes. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:26, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 23:19, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Tony SparanoEdit

Stale. Stephen 06:53, 26 July 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: Tony Sparano (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): NYT, ESPN

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: American football coach dies at age 56. Several paragraphs lack sources. Davey2116 (talk) 20:02, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. Some work needed on sourcing. Capitalistroadster (talk) 01:57, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Article is in reasonable shape and it appears that the sourcing issues have been addressed. StrikerforceTalk 15:18, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose several unreferenced claims in this BLP. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:24, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support No more CN tags, looks good to go. shoy (reactions) 12:22, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Still have 3 para with no sources in §Coaching career and 1 para in §Personal life. And the §Coaching tree is entirely uncited.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 12:49, 24 July 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.

July 21Edit

Business and Economy

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sports

(Posted) RD: Jonathan GoldEdit

Article: Jonathan Gold (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): LA Times, Variety

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: Influential food critic in LA who won the Pulitzer Prize. Nominating in good faith. A number of gaps in sourcing throughout the article. --PootisHeavy (talk) 02:29, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Weak oppose. Couple of citations missing. Capitalistroadster (talk) 03:40, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
    • Comment: Resolved the CN tags that were placed and it seems that the article is good to go now. --PootisHeavy (talk) 06:37, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Not quite. There is one remaining CN and it is not trivial in my opinion. I don't think it is true at all that his editor Levin encouraged him from the start. Gold is quoted as "in the mid-’80s, food-writing was not respected. Jay [Levin, founder of the Weekly] thought I was wasting my time. And [film critic John] Powers thought that I was wasting my time."
Perhaps the solution is to comment it out OR say something like "Despite his colleagues and editor saying he was "wasting his time", he started his "Counter Intelligence" column..."[20] --- Coffeeandcrumbs 07:56, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Decided to go with the latter route. I honestly didn't even see that one. Now I think all the CN tags have been resolved. --PootisHeavy (talk) 14:10, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Wait Curiosity killed the cat! I went poking around and found something I didn't want to find, Earwig flags substantial copyvio from LA Weekly article on April 16, 2007 and copied on to Wikipedia on January 28, 2009. Not the nominator's fault, it was just never good to begin with.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 01:46, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Comment: Reworded a good chunk of the statements that were found to have been copy+pasted, as well as added the L.A. Weekly as a source to a number of the sentences.--PootisHeavy (talk) 02:04, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Support --- Coffeeandcrumbs 03:37, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) Tropical Storm Son-TinhEdit

Article: Tropical Storm Son-Tinh (2018) (talk, history)
Blurb: Tropical Storm Son-Tinh leaves 20 21 32 dead and another 1617 people missing in Vietnam
News source(s): ReutersCNN[21]

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Still needs work but with 20 21 32 deaths and 1617 missing definitely ITN-worthy --- Coffeeandcrumbs 01:43, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

It is looking much better. The lead has been fleshed out and an impact section has started to develop.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 04:37, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

  • The article looks good. It seems the storm has weakened enough that we can consider damage and casualties numbers as final? --Tone 14:29, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
    • @Tone: effects are still being tabulated, unlikely that numbers are final especially since the storm is still in the region. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 17:24, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
@Cyclonebiskit and Tone: Does it qualify as ongoing for now and upgrade to a blurb when final numbers come in?--- Coffeeandcrumbs 18:07, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
@Coffeeandcrumbs: Ongoing is for events that fall off the ITN ticker. A blurb is more appropriate for this. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 18:42, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
I think this is ready for posting now, I would only like to see some more support first. --Tone 19:00, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose I'm not really seeing this "In the news" -- at least not as a lead story. The article isn't really good enough to overcome that for me. 21 deaths? Where? Vietnam? Korea? Thailand? A list of Thai provinces "most affected by the storm" but ok, how? The impact section, for me, doesn't tell enough of the story for main page featuring. Thanks to all involved for the improvements to date. My two cents anyway. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:42, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Wait – Agree with Legs. Little or no Eng.-lang. coverage that I've seen so far. Sca (talk) 21:04, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
    • If covered in major non-English news source but not English ones, that does not invalid it for posting in ITN, as long as we can write a sourced en.wiki article on it. --Masem (t) 21:20, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
No, but preferably we should have at least a couple of mainline English-language sources, since non-Eng. sources will not be intelligible to most readers. (Odd that it's not on main AP, BBC or NYT pages yet.) Sca (talk) 22:49, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
It's on AP now: [22] Haven't seen it on BBC, but NYT has been covering this using stuff from Reuters since July 19. ~ KN2731 {t · c} 14:12, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
      • There are English-language sources as well, even in unaffected countries.[23][24]. There is also interest in scientific media sources.[25][26] CNN reports 21 deaths.[27]--- Coffeeandcrumbs 21:35, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Article is mostly in good shape. This isn't being reported widely in the English world because it is affecting a poorer non-English speaking area, but that doesn't negate the notability. EternalNomad (talk) 21:27, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
⇒This is not about socioeconomic status, it's about reliable information. Sca (talk) 23:06, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support I'm seeing this in my news feed, and it seems very notable (even by the ridiculous WP:MINIMUMDEATHS standards). The article is pretty good. Davey2116 (talk) 01:03, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
News feed? Sca (talk) 01:52, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes. Am I using the term wrong? I'm referring simply to Google News and such, and I'm well aware that it shows different stories to different people based on their preferences. For me, I prefer international stories, so I guess I'm more likely to see a story such as this one. Davey2116 (talk) 03:18, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
To feed your news hunger allow me to recommend the following mainline Eng.-lang. int'l. news sites. These aren't computer-generated news-aggregation pages, but active journalism entities employing reporters and editors:
AP, BBC, Guardian, NYT, Reuters.
Sca (talk) 13:27, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm mostly seeing these sites in the "feed" anyway; it's not as if I'm blindly clicking Google News links to Breitbart, or whatever. It works for me, and I do check Reuters and the Guardian pretty often. Davey2116 (talk) 17:30, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
OK, but you might want to check AP now & then. World's largest 'wire' service (aka news agency), with 3,200 employees and countless stringers. Sca (talk) 21:10, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Okay, thanks for your concern. Davey2116 (talk) 03:43, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

July 20Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Disasters and accidents
Law and crime

Politics and elections

(Posted) Ride the Ducks boat sinksEdit

Article: Table Rock Lake duck boat accident (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A Ride the Ducks boat sinks in Table Rock Lake near Branson, Missouri, leaving at least seventeen dead.
News source(s): CBS news

Nominator's comments: Significant loss of life. -- Tavix (talk) 15:00, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose - Tragic, but boating accidents happen all the time.--WaltCip (talk) 15:48, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose on article quality. Conceding some rare exceptions, we usually want a stand alone article for linking in ITN blurbs. The currently linked article deals with the business and has all of three sentences with one citation on the incident. That is completely inadequate for ITN. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:03, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Struck oppose. See my comment below. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:36, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Ad Orientem. I agree with the nominator that it is a significant loss of life, but we need a more substantial update, either to the linked article or (preferably) a standalone one.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:06, 20 July 2018 (UTC)<
  • Oppose per above. The article is not of great quality right now, and features only a short paragraph on the accident itself. Tillerh11 (talk) 16:32, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: We now have a stand-alone - Table Rock Lake duck boat accident. Home Lander (talk) 16:48, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support the alternate article, created by me, but acknowledge that it needs to be expanded. I've only got about another thirty minutes or so that I can work on it today, though, so I greatly appreciate any and all help to expand it. StrikerforceTalk 17:12, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose apparently insufficient to merit its own article. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:34, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support New article appears adequate. I did add a single CN tag but it's not enough to hold up posting. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:36, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I've since cleared it. Thanks! StrikerforceTalk 17:54, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support new article.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:39, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support new article. Sir Joseph (talk) 17:44, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support new article. Notability seems good and article is of sufficient quality. Teemu08 (talk) 17:52, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm not wild about the name of the standalone article. If anybody has a more concise suggestion, I'm all ears. StrikerforceTalk 17:54, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
A more concise version based on the WP:NCEVENTS "when, where, what" convention would be 2018 Missouri capsizing, but I'm not sure that's an improvement. TompaDompa (talk) 18:37, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support with article and significant coverage of this tragic event. Spengouli (talk) 17:56, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support notable, and the stand alone article is a clear upgrade over the previous nomination. Tillerh11 (talk) 18:38, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Posting. --Tone 19:30, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Post-posting comment – Since the discussion of the term "duck boat" has disappeared from MPE, I offer this prepared comment here as an aside:
Amphibious "duck boat", the current wording, is fine. Most U.S.-Eng. readers will know what it means, others will know it's an accepted term and can follow (two) links to learn about it. Sca (talk) 14:17, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

July 19Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

(Closed) Akainacephalus johnsoniEdit

Stale. Stephen 02:39, 26 July 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: Akainacephalus (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A new species of armored dinosaur, Akainacephalus johnsoni, is discovered in Utah.
News source(s): Peerj, Science Daily, CNET

Article updated
Nominator's comments: New species of dinosaur discovered. Andise1 (talk) 01:18, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: The significance is certainly there - but the entire article relies on a single source. Challenger l (talk) 16:45, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
  • This is interesting, and a break from our usual run of disasters and sports, so I'd like to support it. At the moment, though, the blurb looks a bit misleading: the first few paragraphs are not entirely clear to the layman, but it does seem as though the species was actually found ten years ago, and only described now. Vanamonde (talk) 11:55, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
  • At this point, this is effectively stale (older than the oldest current blurb). Unless there's a really good reason to post this (and the lack of quality at the target article is working against that ) this should be closed. --Masem (t) 13:59, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Regretfully, this is indeed stale. Try with DYK, though. --Tone 14:01, 25 July 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: Shinobu HashimotoEdit

Article: Shinobu Hashimoto (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Variety

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: Japanese screenwriter. TompaDompa (talk) 23:33, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Weak oppose what's there is okay, but when I read about 16 awards and they're barely covered, it gets me thinking this isn't as comprehensive as it should be. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:19, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
I agreed on both points. I made an attempt at this after wading through a lot of Google Translate. Is that enough or were you hoping for more prose? I think there is now enough to post.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 19:39, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per above comment.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 19:39, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 06:34, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Rayo de Jalisco Sr.Edit

Article: Rayo de Jalisco Sr. (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): ESPN (in Spanish)

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.

  MPJ-DK  02:15, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Support - Looks sourced and good 2 go--BabbaQ (talk) 06:59, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - nice work. I agree this is ready. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 12:05, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
The article seems to need {{Spanish name}}. I added the hatnote but an IP reverted. Can someone more familiar check this? @MPJ-DK:? See for example Andrés Manuel López Obrador.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 12:32, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
@Coffeeandcrumbs: I agree that the template is needed for this article, and have reverted the IP. –FlyingAce✈hello 16:00, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Yup, good call on the template, thank you.  MPJ-DK  21:28, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak Neutral No mention of his death anywhere in the article beyond the date. That's something we usually expect for an ITN recent death nom. I would probably have posted but for that. Otherwise the article looks good. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:18, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
  • What a rookie mistake on my part. Added.  MPJ-DK  00:32, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Adrian CronauerEdit

Article: Adrian Cronauer (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Roanoake Times, Newsweek, All Access

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: Adrian Cronauer was a prominent entertainment figure during the Vietnam War and was the subject of Good Morning Vietnam StrikerforceTalk 14:52, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Article needs to be expanded, in my opinion, before we give full consideration to posting. I'm working on doing that, but of course welcome others to help! StrikerforceTalk 15:00, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support good enough. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:53, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support The article is fine, in my opinion. Hrodvarsson (talk) 22:22, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Well-sourced. Capitalistroadster (talk) 23:06, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - good enough.BabbaQ (talk) 06:58, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted. --Jayron32 11:27, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Denis TenEdit

Article: Denis Ten (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Kazinform, BBC

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: Denis Ten won a bronze medal in men's singles figure skating at the 2014 Winter Olympics, and is a two-time World medallist. JuneGloom07 Talk 14:28, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Article is now updated, but some sections need sourcing. - JuneGloom07 Talk 15:13, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose with regret. The earlier sections are very well referenced. The latter sections, not so much. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:51, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support after revision. It will be good to go especially if there are some sources added to the detailed results. Well down JuneGloom Capitalistroadster (talk) 01:01, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
    • I've taken care of the sourcing issues in the Career sections, so it's just the Detailed results table left. - JuneGloom07 Talk 02:50, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Looks good source-wise now. Openlydialectic (talk) 06:05, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support With all the excellent work from JG. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 06:39, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - looks good to goBabbaQ (talk) 06:58, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Tragic death. Good work on the article. Davey2116 (talk) 10:25, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted. --Jayron32 11:28, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) Israel nation-state of Jewish peopleEdit

No consensus to post, and article was not sufficiently improved. Stephen 23:17, 24 July 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: Basic Law: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Israeli Knesset passes a law that declares Israel the nation-state of the Jewish people.
Alternative blurb: ​The Israeli Knesset passes passes a law declaring that only Jews have the right to self-determination in the country and removing Arabic as an official language
News source(s): BBC Guardian
Nominator's comments: This is having significant impacts on Jew/Arab relationships. Masem (t) 04:35, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose sounds internal to Israel. It's also a law about Israel itself. Israel can presumably call itself whatever it wants, it's whether or not others agree with Israel that matters. Banedon (talk) 05:14, 19 July 2018 (UTC) Switch to Support alt blurb per arguments below, which I find convincing. Banedon (talk) 10:36, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
    • The crux of the bill is that it essential degrades any Arabs in Israel to second class citizens, compared to apartheid. Yes, it's internal to Israel for all purposes, but Israel is a centerpoint of the political strive in the Middle East, this only working against that. --Masem (t) 05:54, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
      • compared to apartheid. The "segregation" clause was removed last week. [28] wumbolo ^^^ 10:27, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
        • The article I linked above is still calling what remains comparable to apartheid, since it still appears to treat Arab Israelis as a different class of citizen than Jewish ones. --13:31, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support This is one of those rare pieces of legislation that is simultaneously both intra-state and transnational. In the latter case, it has significance beyond borders and seems to have received some traction in the news. Chetsford (talk) 09:02, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  • It is worth to add that Arabic language is no more an official language of Israel (if someone can confirm it and add to the articles). Шурбур (talk) 09:33, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support in principle, though the article needs work and has two orange-level tags. It is highly unusual for a democracy to pass a law that legally favours one race over others. This appears to have significant human rights and racism implications, as well as for the peace process. I've added an altblurb that hopefully makes this clearer (based on the Guardian report), though admittedly it's a bit long. Modest Genius talk 10:18, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support alt blurb per above. Rarely does a state engage in such overt racism and discrimination as a matter of public policy. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:29, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes, the practice fell out of favor in 1945 – for a while.... Sca (talk) 14:27, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  • What is the official religion of Egypt? Afghanistan? Iraq? Syria? Saudi Arabia? etc. quit your hyperbole, it makes your bias even more outlandish. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:44, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
And since you think this is about religion, once again demonstrating your ignorance of the difference between religion and ethnicity when it comes to Jews, your blatant Israel flag-waving can be safely ignored. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:39, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per above. Ouch.--WaltCip (talk) 11:02, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  • This is notable as per Chetsford, but the article isn't yet adequate. --LukeSurl t c 11:25, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support in principle – (Prefer alt blurb.) Egregiously xenophobic and discriminatory ethnocentrism that will further inflame incandescent regional passions. Sca (talk) 14:25, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support alt blurb as per above. This will have quite an effect on international policy. Dreigorich (talk) 14:33, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support alt blurb per above. Highly significant, aggressively invidious legislation that will have consequences throughout the Middle East. Davey2116 (talk) 16:33, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support alt blurb when the article is good enough. Black Kite (talk) 17:24, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - And ready for posting. But the Moons of Jupiter article should be posted first.BabbaQ (talk) 17:40, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
In a blue moon. Sca (talk) 20:42, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose this is basically saying that the Jewish state is a Jewish state, nothing inherently new. We didn't post when Afghanistan's new constitution came into force, proclaiming Islam as the state religion, we don't care that most/many other countries have official religions, why should we care when it's Israel? And note also the lead says, "The law is largely symbolic and declarative." Sir Joseph (talk) 20:46, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with state religion. The law relates to the rights of various ethnic groups in the country, not which religion is formally established. You're comparing apples and oranges. Modest Genius talk 16:11, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose article is not in a good way. And that's being generous. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:48, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose alt blurb as it omits the fact that Arabic became the special status language of Israel. wumbolo ^^^ 21:18, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
It includes the fact it was removed as an official language. It has been downgraded. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:47, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support alt blurb It is a notable development, though the article is currently in poor shape. Hrodvarsson (talk) 22:18, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Article lacks citations and is in bad shape. In addition it doesn't fit ITN as nothing was changed practically. The Jewish state puts its nature in formal terms, continues its democratical traditions, and fully respects all of its minorities. ie. nothing really changed. Noon (talk) 12:08, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Netural main blurb, but Oppose alternative blurb. For two reasons - first, the right of self-determination is not specific to Jewish individuals - but rather a national right of the Jewish people/nation - this needs to be made clear. Second - the law did not " removing Arabic as an official language" - The law did state Hebrew is the official language, and stated that Arabic has a special status (to be determined in separate legislation) - with this legislation not modifying the previous status of Arabic (clause 4-C). I'll also note that the "official" status of Arabic prior to the law was somewhat ambiguous (and relied on an ordinance from the British mandate harking back to 1922 - the Israeli system adopting the previous Ottoman and British ordinances on establishment of the state). While some news orgs are not terribly specific on the specifics of the legislation - we should be.Icewhiz (talk) 14:07, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support alt blurb. The main blurb meaninglessly vague; the alt blurb clarifies why it's getting attention. --Calton | Talk 14:12, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Question I keep seeing that this is significant, but no indication why. There can be no reasonable debate that Arabs are second-class citizens in Israel yesterday, today and tomorrow. Insomuch as this legislation codifies the situation it is relevant. But surely prior legislation did so as well. What are the actual real-world impacts of this on the average Israeli Arab? ghost 14:24, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
So previously almost all discrimination was as a result of selectively enforced laws etc. This makes the racism constitutional - which has a knock on effect on society in general. See here for one analysis. There are many others. See Linguistic discrimination for what happens when you start suppressing a people's liguistic heritage. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:28, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose orange tag for lack of citations is a disqualifier to me for the Main Page. The law is purely symbolic, and makes no changes that have any concrete effects. Strong oppose alt-blurb per Icewhiz. Some supporters above speculate greater significance than is immediately apparent. Gluons12 | 15:42, 20 July 2018 (UTC).
My understanding is that this Basic Law must be taken into account by the courts whenever they interpret other laws. So whilst it doesn't immediately change things, it will have a large and ongoing impact. Modest Genius talk 16:08, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Mainly the Supreme court (lower courts do not generally interpret laws, as there is usually a higher binding precedent, though in some cases this is done by lower courts as well) - who may choose to apply the law - or - quite possibly given the current make up of the court - ignore it (which has been a matter of criticism from the Israeli right regarding this legislation).Icewhiz (talk) 19:22, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Regarding it will have a large and ongoing impact, this is not a convincing argument to me per WP:CRYSTAL. Gluons12 | 22:14, 21 July 2018 (UTC).
  • Oppose countries amend the constitution with great regularity, and put people in positions of power to interpret constitutions with even greater regularity (in the US we have a pending supreme court nominee who could alter the balance of power on our supreme court). Why Israel's changes merit special attention that other countries don't - like Mexico's 2011 constitutional amendment guaranteeing the right to food (probably the first in the world to do so) and probably myriad others that only get passing mention in high-brow media - seems to further the first-world bias of Wikipedia. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:31, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose on article quality. Multiple issues including orange tags, which are a showstopper at ITN. This is going to need some work before it can be linked on the main page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:32, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: Article needs more fleshing out to clarify impact and notability. For example, sections like Basic_Law:_Israel_as_the_Nation-State_of_the_Jewish_People#Purpose_of_the_law are highly reliant on quotes, and more content should be added. SpencerT•C 00:59, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support first blurp. The second blurb mentions the removal of Arabic as the second official language without mentioning that it has "special status" and that it was in any case not in any official use as a second language, so is not neutral. Debresser (talk) 19:39, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose I appreciate Only in death's response to my question above, but I think it does seem to suggest an incremental change that merits local note but not the international coverage of ITN. In the context of the 2018 Gaza border protests, the Knesset saying "we stand for Jews and against Muslims" is sad but hardly surprising. ghost 14:23, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment the Alt-Blurb is false from the start. The bill is not removing Arabic as an official language. It says that Arabic language will have the same status as it was. Currently, the Arabic language gets its "officialness" from a British Mandate era regulation and this bill will keep it as such. Saying that this bill removes Arabic as an official language is false. Sir Joseph (talk) 21:22, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose: the Wikipedia article (mostly just an outline of the bill and some political reactions) is not worth being in ITN and it's talk page describes itself as "low importance". Second, this is potentially quite a contentious issue – I would say the alt blurb is quite misleading and not generally accepted (see article). OtterAM (talk) 21:41, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong support major event, even for an apartheid state to declare their racist views as openly as this is both suprising and notabe Openlydialectic (talk) 01:08, 24 July 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.

July 18Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks
Arts and culture
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
  • European migrant crisis
    • A migrant boat capsizes off the northern coast of Cyprus, killing at least 19 people, while 25 are reported missing, and the Turkish coast guard rescues 103. (AP)
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Science and technology
Sports

(Closed) Russian cruiser Dmitrii Donskoi wreck discoveryEdit

Good faith nom but consensus is against posting at this time. In the (unlikely) event that the ship does turn out to be packed with bullion we can open a new discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:32, 20 July 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: Russian cruiser Dmitrii Donskoi (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A joint-team of South Korean, British, and Canadian explorers discover the wreck of Russian cruiser Dmitrii Donskoi off the coast of Ulleungdo island, over a century after its scuttle during the Russo-Japanese War.
News source(s): BBC; The Daily Telegraph; The New York Post

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Major discovery of a Russian warship, believed to carry $133 billion in gold. 203.78.118.34 (talk) 13:12, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Not a very large (5,800 tons) or important warship, and the death toll of crew members (60) was comparatively small. Per BBC, "no proof exists that the ship carried gold, with academics raising doubts that a warship would carry such valuable cargo." Sca (talk) 14:36, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment. This would certainly be notable on the Russian Wikipedia! First see if it has been proposed here. Inatan (talk) 16:10, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose: A salvage team is planning to raise the ship; we should hold off till then (if it ever happens). Firebrace (talk) 17:21, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Per #Shipwreck discovery, South Koreans claim to have discovered the wreck before. That needs sorting out in the article. Brandmeistertalk 19:58, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose right now. A more interesting story will be if/when they recover $100 billion in gold. Now that would be newsworthy. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:54, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose That's most likely a scam. No proof it has any gold on it and why would a ship full of gold be sent to fight Japanese forces is an open question. Wait for them to actually raise anything. Openlydialectic (talk) 00:40, 20 July 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.

July 17Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

International relations

Politics and elections

Science and technology

(Closed) New moons of JupiterEdit

No consensus to post, but recommend renomination when peer-reviewed publication is released. See further comments at the bottom of the nom. SpencerT•C 01:33, 21 July 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.

Articles: Moons of Jupiter (talk, history) and Jupiter (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Astronomers discover 10-12 new moons around Jupiter.
Alternative blurb: ​A team of astronomers led by Scott S. Sheppard discover 10 new moons around Jupiter.
Alternative blurb II: ​In astronomy, scientists announce the discovery of 10 new moons around Jupiter
News source(s): CBC News, The Guardian, TIME, Reuters, USA Today, The Wall Street Journal, LA Times Science Magazine

Both articles updated
 174.116.222.58 (talk) 22:44, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose There were some discoveries of new moons last year, and the implication that there are many more to be found still. We're also talking moons with sizes on a few kilometers, not massive bodies. Interesting, but it is not a major astronomy discovery. --Masem (t) 23:07, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong support. I wanted to nominate this myself. Increase of 10 moons from 69 to 79 is very significant in astronomy. I wonder if NASA will ever discover more moons orbiting Uranus? 107.77.205.138 (talk) 01:50, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
In astronomy, perhaps, but not here on Earth. Sca (talk) 15:14, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - It's not everyday that you discover new moons, especially such interesting ones that mostly have retrograde orbits and two or more of which are on potential collision courses. They will almost certainly be the subject of intense astronomical scrutiny in the months and years to come. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 02:53, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Sounds interesting to me. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:11, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm unsure how well the target article has been updated (or not). Abductive (reasoning) 03:18, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. Many articles have been updated to reflect the new information, including this one. Also ten moons, not twelve. Twelve accidentally double-counts S/2016 J 1 and S/2017 J 1. Dreigorich (talk) 03:29, 18 July 2018 (UTC) As for my rationale (forgot earlier) how often is it what you get ten new moons reported in one day? Especially for the same planet? Especially one that is going the wrong way in a large crowd of moons? This is huge. Of course, there are likely still a few more moons to be found, so this may not be the last of it. Recent discoveries have only been one or two at a time, so ten is highly unusual. The last time something like this happened if I remember correctly was in 2004 2006, I stand corrected around Saturn when nine moons were reported. Dreigorich (talk) 03:37, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
    • As I read the sources, its not that within one day of observation they found 10-12 moons. It's an accumulation of data over the last year, and published today to report all findings. --Masem (t) 03:42, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
      • Riiiiight. I forgot. facepalm Dreigorich (talk) 03:45, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support 10 is a significant amount.  Nixinova  T  C  04:47, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support the blurb and the bolded article which is much improved since the announcement, largely thanks to the work of Exoplanetaryscience (several credits added for major updaters). Oppose the picture which does not represent any of the discovered moons. I see no place for it in the blurb. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 05:40, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Oppose changing my vote per my comments below about precedent. This should be posted when the eventual paper is published.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 01:39, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support but would like a better blurb pointer to material on the new moons. Jusdafax (talk) 06:29, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
I have linked to Moons of Jupiter#Discovery which I have copyedited. @Jusdafax: would that work?--- Coffeeandcrumbs 07:53, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks! Jusdafax (talk) 08:03, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - interesting and well written article.BabbaQ (talk) 07:42, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - clearly significant astronomy news. 10 meets the WP:MINIMUMMOONS criteria for me. Stormy clouds (talk) 08:31, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support a good interesting story with a decent article section behind it. I've added a bit about S/2016 J 2. --LukeSurl t c 08:34, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Is there a way we could mention Scott S. Sheppard? By my count, he has led various teams that have discovered over 56 of these moons. There are other members that go in and out of these teams but he has consistently been the lead author on almost all of these recent discoveries of the last decade and a half.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 09:21, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Alternative proposed.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 09:27, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
I don't think it's a good idea (or precedent) to pick out individual scientists from a team. Modest Genius talk 10:09, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support This is an interesting discovery and a good ITN material.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:46, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support It's not everyday that 10(!) natural satellites have been discovered. In fact, has this ever happened in the history of mankind? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 09:51, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
    • Yes: the eleven satellites of Jupiter S/2001 J 1 through S/2001 J 11 (now Jupiter XXVIII through XXXVIII) were all announced on 15 May 2002. Double sharp (talk) 14:08, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Question: have these discoveries been published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal? That has been our standard for science items, but I can't find a paper, just press releases and newspaper reports. Modest Genius talk 10:09, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
According to the Guardian, "Sheppard, whose report appears in the International Astronomical Union Minor Planet Electronic Circular." There is no pretty prose but it is confirmed and published by the International Astronomical Union. See data publishing. Are you saying it is not peer reviewed until some old-school publisher extracts its pound of flesh? --- Coffeeandcrumbs 11:07, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
I apologise for the tone of my response. Time for me to get some sleep. Good morning to you all.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 11:21, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes I found the MPECs, but they're just lists of ephemeris coordinates and orbital elements. MPEC is not a journal, and as far as I am aware it isn't peer-reviewed either. Modest Genius talk 11:55, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes, but the MPECs are exactly the standard channel where newly discovered minor planets and natural satellites are announced, after the IAU Minor Planet Centre calculates their orbital solutions based on the team's reported observations; there is not that much else to say about most of the new moons except for the oddly placed prograde one (S/2016 J 2). Given that the paper detailing the team's 2000 and 2001 discoveries was published only in 2003 (10.1038/nature01584), it seems safe to say that if a paper does come out, it won't be news anymore by the time it does. Double sharp (talk) 14:18, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Sure, but if these are a sufficiently important discovery to interest ITN they surely merit a full description in a paper. 'Oumuamua was written up, peer-reviewed and published a month after its discovery, and that is when we posted it on ITN. I am uncomfortable posting science news which has not been through formal peer review. Tbh I don't think the scientists should have issued press releases for unreviewed work either. Modest Genius talk 14:32, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
As Double sharp said, the paper for Jupiter's 2000 and 2001 moons was only released in 2003. That means that we could expect a paper about the 2016-2018 moons in 2020-2021 or so. It won't be news anymore by then. We shouldn't count on a paper being immediately released for these new moons yet. Dreigorich (talk) 14:36, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
That tardiness is because the authors didn't bother to submit their paper until December 2002. That sort of delay is not normal, and the counterexample of 'Oumuamua shows it is far from necessary for new Solar System discoveries. Modest Genius talk 15:57, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
True. Logical fallacy, logical fallacy. Dreigorich (talk) 16:02, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
In past ITN science stories, what usually happens is that Nature or Science or a otherwise high-ranking journal publishes the key paper and then has a news release themselves to go to the media about the paper, which is how those stories get in the news. The fact that these astronomers decided to go to the press before getting a peer-review paper published breaks that cycle, and it's not really appropriate for us at ITN post without the peer-review having been done. --Masem (t) 14:42, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose & wait for a peer-reviewed paper. The discussion above has made it clear that this is based merely on a table of orbit calculations and a press release. For scientific stories, I feel we should wait until any discoveries have passed peer review and been formally published, which this hasn't. Modest Genius talk 16:50, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
I completely understand - just keep in mind that it may be anywhere from next week to a few years, by which this news article will go stale. Dreigorich (talk) 17:16, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
That's not how this works, I'm afraid. Sheppard has discovered numerous other moons of Jupiter (nearly all of the outer retrograde ones, actually) and has submitted them to the minor planet center, which is considered the largest authority on this sort of thing. This sort of discovery is almost routine for him and his team at this point, and the fact that all of these objects have been observed for more than a year AND passed Gareth's rigorous scrutiny is proof enough of their existence. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 19:05, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
I know exactly how this works; Sheppard may have provided evidence to the IAU, and convinced one researcher there, but it has not been published or made available to other scientists. Nor has it been subjected to formal peer review, which I regard as a requirement before posting on ITN. Incidentally, by your own logic this would be a 'routine' discovery and therefore unsuitable for ITN... Modest Genius talk 10:26, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for that pointer. This was what I was going to say but didn't exactly know how to say. Dreigorich (talk) 19:43, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose alt blurb, horrible idea to single out member of team for ITN praise. I shouldn't have to even say this. Abductive (reasoning) 12:32, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Consider it withdrawn. I can see that it was a bad idea on my part.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 21:52, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Highly significant, and the article is in good shape. Davey2116 (talk) 16:42, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Modest Genius. Peer review tends to annihilate most unfounded scientific discoveries.--WaltCip (talk) 17:57, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Meh the number is the only notable news here. All of the moons are at most 2 km wide (1 mile in Murican). Neat, but more like space debris for Jupiter. Nergaal (talk) 20:34, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment in the rush to support this, did no one notice the missing refs in the target article? --LaserLegs (talk) 21:13, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
@LaserLegs: Please be more specific. This is an issue that can be resolved. May I suggest some {{Cn}} tags would be helpful.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 21:49, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Per Walt, Genius, Nergaal. Not convinced of significance. Sca (talk) 21:17, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Sca. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:24, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Question Opposers who are against because of the small sizes of the moons - how is this not significant? Sure, the sizes are insignificant (we will never discover large moons of planets ever again) but what about the number? This is the most that has been reported at once since 2002, as Double sharp states. Dreigorich (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:45, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
    • The fact that they are small moons, and clustered in bands, and with very odd orbits, from what I've read, would give some more prove of how planets were created at the start of the solar system. That's great and all, but that is the type of thing that needs to filter through a peer-reviewed paper. --Masem (t) 21:50, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
      • For those asking for peer review, please read Exoplanetaryscience's comment on how things are verified above: "Sheppard has discovered numerous other moons of Jupiter (nearly all of the outer retrograde ones, actually) and has submitted them to the minor planet center, which is considered the largest authority on this sort of thing. This sort of discovery is almost routine for him and his team at this point, and the fact that all of these objects have been observed for more than a year AND passed Gareth's rigorous scrutiny is proof enough of their existence." Dreigorich (talk) 21:59, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - the issue, as far as I can see, with waiting for peer review, is that the story will no longer be in the news when such a journal or paper is published. A large problem with scientific research is that the media don't report on peer review papers to a large extent, and that leaves us in a predicament. Either we post this item now, in the knowledge that it may not be supported by future papers (which may warrant a further blurb if it happens, as it will be a significant time from now), or we don't post it at all. I understand the rationale for waiting for peer review, and in an ideal world would endorse it. But, with the scientific method being what it is, I don't feel that this is compatible with ITN in this case. As pointed out be Exoplanetaryscience, there is significant evidence to bolster the claims of Sheppard and his researchers. The debate should focus on whether it is enough to post now, as waiting is likely not an option. Stormy clouds (talk) 22:24, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
    • ^ This. This exactly. Dreigorich (talk) 22:26, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
    • This is not true. Most science stories that are nominations or posted here are those are ones that the press have published about because Nature, Science, or some other high level journal had just published the peer-review journal. Most scientists do not talk about key results to the press until they have their peer-reviewed paper out. This is true for astronomy too - at least with agencies like NASA and ESA too. Why this is special , I dunno why, but it is not true that press don't report when peer-reviewed papers come out. --Masem (t) 04:11, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
I concur with Masem: the vast majority of scientists follow this convention and avoid promoting their work in the media until it has been peer-reviewed. The ancient humans story on the ITN template right now is an excellent example - it was reported when the paper came out, not when they first found the artefacts. I don't know why the convention wasn't followed in this case, but for me lack of peer review is important enough to preclude posting. Modest Genius talk 10:35, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
@Masem: - however, this is the exception. There will not be a furore regarding verification of this paper in the media - they won't report heavily on this story again. A large number of the discoveries posted here go through a more conventional route before publishing, but this story hasn't. As to the media not reporting on peer-reviewed papers, the consensus amongst the scientific community is that they don't. Here's John Oliver (I know, not ideal, but he cites reliable sources) discussing the issue. Often we get lucky and post items from thorough researchers, who comply fully with the rigours of the scientific method. This time we didn't, and we have to decide what to do to rectify this. Not posting is understandable, and part of me wishes to go along with it. But we must recognise that it is likely now or never. Stormy clouds (talk) 08:56, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment this doesn't seem too important; I feel these are "moons" to a lesser extent than Pluto (planet) is a planet. On the other hand, there's not a significant amount of news happening elsewhere. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:43, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Not a reason to post. Sca (talk) 00:35, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. Concerns about the lack of peer review are irrelevant, as explained by Exoplanetaryscience. Double sharp (talk) 23:26, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
    • @Double sharp Sorry for accidentally crediting you earlier! Dreigorich (talk) 23:29, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
What I want to know is, is the moon in the seventh house and is Jupiter aligned with Mars? Guess not. Sca (talk) 00:53, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
The Moon is currently in the seventh house in Kolkota (Calcutta), India and/or similar longitudes and Jupiter is a full 82 and 39/60ths degrees from Mars which is obviously not aligned. The Age of Aquarius song thing happens everywhere every 2 years by the way (possibly excluding the polar regions where some astrologers consider houses to be undefined), and the Age of Aquarius happens when the start of the sign of Aries moves to the constellation of Aquarius which (though debatable) is very clearly not the 60s or New Millennium but more like 2600 AD (the song 2525 is much better) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:00, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Maybe, but let's not forget 3-5-0-0. – Sca (talk) 21:49, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I searched through our ITN archives for precedent and read through many of them. This decision to post 1I/ʻOumuamua's detection only after the paper was published was the most relevant. There seems to be precendent for waiting to post when the eventual paper is published, even if the news is stale.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 01:35, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Here is the earlier decision not to post about 25 days earlier.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 01:47, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose these moons are just so small. If natural satellite is to be believed, there's no well-defined limit on what the size of a moon is. If we take this at face value, Saturn would have tens of thousands of moons in its ring system, and every new satellite we send into orbit is a moon! What this discovery is really saying then is that there's a need to define clearly what a moon is (c.f. the redefinition of a planet to exclude Pluto), and this discovery itself isn't very interesting. Weak oppose only because it's still been covered in the media. Banedon (talk) 03:14, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
    • Well to be fair, I don't think we've launched a single object into space more than a couple hundred meters across even on its longest axis. And I get your gist. In the asteroid belt, there's about 500,000 asteroids more than 1 km across, in the kuiper belt, several million or more. But, I'd say it depends quite a bit where they are. a few new kilometer-wide objects in a huge ring system is definitely a lot less notable than a few new ones in a system with only a few dozen of those total. For instance, you'll see that the newly-announced S/2018 J 1 is the 27th brightest moon of Jupiter, making it roughly as notable as, say 92 Undina, the 27th brightest asteroid in the asteroid belt. If they happened to suddenly announce 10 of the 100 largest objects in the asteroid belt, there wouldn't be any doubt that it'd be notable. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 04:03, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
      • Well Jupiter also has rings. Also, personally I'm not so sure about the last part - discovering objects 91-100 by mass in the asteroid belt sounds pretty uninteresting to me, unless there's something special about those asteroid. Banedon (talk) 05:11, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose WOW! We found rocks . . . floating in space . . . in orbit around something! Let's make a big deal about it! Not buying it. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 05:46, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
    • Let's not be ridiculous. If a new planet were discovered it would almost surely be posted, even though it'd just be a rock (or ball of gas) that's floating in space in orbit around the Sun. Banedon (talk) 06:39, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment. Isn't it twelve? I counted them in the table and there are twelve of them. wumbolo ^^^ 08:56, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Ten. Twelve double-counts S/2016 J 1 and S/2017 J 2. Dreigorich (talk) 14:30, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. I would rather read a Wikipedia Featured Article than slog through this discussion. Congratulations to the authors of Moons of Jupiter. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:34, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
What? Only 4,600 words (and counting). Where's your academic stamina? Sca (talk) 01:54, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support This is a very significant discovery. The authors waited a year for it to be confirmed by the International Astronomy Union. This is already a much higher standard of evidence than many things posted in the news, where the only requirement is a "reliable source" reporting on it. Databased (talk) 15:28, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support they're tiny but there's ten of them. Also support mentioning the prograde moon. wumbolo ^^^ 15:46, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
There are 10 of them? Three more than the seven dwarfs? Just counting them is enough to make me sleepy. Sca (talk) 20:58, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. Although the formal acceptance of these newly discovered moons is not yet complete, I doubt any astronomers would doubt the accuracy of anything that has made it past Williams and his team. It is in the news now, and it is notable for the sheer increase in number. As relatively unimportant as they may seem in comparison to, say, the discovery of a dwarf planet, this is the kind of statistic children learn in elementary school. Inatan (talk) 16:00, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. Pretty big discovery, and the article is in good shape. ZettaComposer (talk) 17:01, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose Neat discovery, but as someone else has pointed out, these are insignificant objects in overall size. They're not asteroids or anything else that would pose a threat, at that size, to another celestial body, if they weren't in orbit around Jupiter. I wouldn't be terribly upset if this garnered enough support to post, but I can't place myself into that column. StrikerforceTalk 17:23, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is such a bait and switch (I was reminded of that Carlin joke about an explosion in Pakistan[29]) because it plays on what the average person thinks a "moon" is. No one cares that you found a pebble that maybe kinda sorta orbits Jupiter. ghost 17:44, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Update: This discovery has now been reported in Nature, vol. 559, p. 312-313 (2018). 138.51.55.195 (talk) 17:53, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not seeing the significance of this.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:21, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Reluctant Oppose I really wanted to support this but we aren't talking about moons as most people would understand the term. This sounds like a discovery of orbiting space debris. That is likely to be extremely common for many of the planets in our solar system. Sorry, but in the grand scheme of things this is astronomical trivia. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:28, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Ha! astronomical trivia, that's a funny oxymoron. 174.116.222.58 (talk) 21:41, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Question. Wikipedia is a perfect place for people to find out they are marble-sized moons. There's no question this story was taken up by multiple major news sources. Why do you guys get to decide to keep two Featured Articles off the main page? -SusanLesch (talk) 22:03, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
    This is Wikipedia and it uses consensus to determine what is and what is not suitable in a number of processes. If you'd like to learn more about that, don't hesitate to drop me a line. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:05, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Fair enough except the majority of people here have !voted in Support and you removed the [Ready] flag unilaterally, did you not? -SusanLesch (talk) 22:18, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Sure, if you count votes, it's something like 18-14 in support, but as I'm sure you know, we don't just count votes. In any case, the (Ready) "flag" is merely an informal note to admins when something is a racing certainty, i.e. unanimous or near-unanimous support. This is not that. It needs careful reading. If you'd like any further help, don't hesitate to drop me a line. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:21, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Correction, not marble-sized, "the new ones range in size from about six-tenths of a mile (1 km) to 2.5 miles (4 km)". Thank you, Reuters! -SusanLesch (talk) 00:50, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Unfortunate, because it's not often we get a Featured Article at ITN, but as others have said, these are effectively orbiting debris, and I'm concerned about the peer review aspect as well. Black Kite (talk) 22:10, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I think this may have reached the point where it's time to think about closing the discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:36, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
It seems to me a large portion of opposing votes (and supporting votes for that matter) do not understand why the moons are significant. Sure, they are practically just asteroids, having little significance overall (excepting S/2016 J 2). But they orbit Jupiter, and 10 is no small number when it comes to moons (read the "Discovery" section of Moons of Jupiter to get an idea of how often it happens). The discovery of 1000 asteroids would probably not be worthy of featuring here at ITN (and that does happen from time to time), but with these moons, it is not so much what they are that makes them important, as what the general public attributes to them. Almost no one who has done their reading has any concerns about peer review, so that leaves very few legitimate arguments "against". Inatan (talk) 09:26, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
it is not so much what they are that makes them important, as what the general public attributes to them. That's the best argument against that I've seen. "Hey general public, I just discovered 10 new moons of Jupiter!" "That's amazeballs! How did we miss 10 whole moons all this time?" "Oh, they're pretty small." "Oh, like smaller than our moon?" "Yeah, you could fit a billion of these into the volume of our moon." "Um...that doesn't seem so amazeballs. Why should I care about this? Aren't there a lot of small things floating around the solar system?" "Yeah but these ones orbit Jupiter!" "...I have to go now." ghost 11:24, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
I don't think a random hypothetical dialog is a strong argument to convince me that the general public doesn't care about this issue. In fact, the wide coverage in the news suggests that people care very much. This story has been covered in (Nature) (Discover Magazine) (CNET) (Yahoo) (Wired) (Space) (The Guardian) (Vox) (ABC) (NBC) (CBS) (The Weather Channel) (Popular Science) and (CNN) among others. Databased (talk) 13:58, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
It's not hypothetical at all- it's the reaction of a dozen editors in this very thread. I reviewed three of those article at random. The earliest any of them mention the size is the seventh paragraph. They know full well disclosing the size will make people dismiss the story, so they bury it. Saying "We just found TEN new moons of Jupiter!" will draw peoples attention, which is the media's job. ITNC's job is to separate the wheat from the chaff. ghost 14:44, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
The New York Times discusses the size in the second paragraph. More important, they share the problem of smaller moons with their readers. Sorry but I don't think you guys are allowed to draw this line (you call it chaff) for the whole world. -SusanLesch (talk) 00:45, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment So... end of discussion, anyone? –Angga1061 12:58, 20 July 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Angga1061 (talkcontribs)
18 supporting !votes to 14 opposing. No, thank you, do not close this. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:05, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
At least, not until we get up to 5,000 words. This is a mere 4,600 now. (The target article is 2,600) Sca (talk) 14:19, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
As you have already been told, we don't count votes. Close or post, I think we've heard from enough people to make a decision. ghost 14:32, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Kindly post this story and let Wikipedians join the discussion instead of deciding for us. -SusanLesch (talk) 00:45, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. Wow, I actually learned something major about an astronomical topic. --Calton | Talk 14:15, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
These objects presumably have been orbiting Jupiter for countless eons. How does their discovery by Earthlings change anything for any sentient beings anywhere? Sca (talk) 14:25, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Well, that's not the dumbest thing I've read all week, but it has been a long week. --Calton | Talk 14:56, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Rationale for the closure: This was a difficult call but I'm closing this as no consensus. There are a large number of !votes on either side, and I will summarize statements made in support and in opposition: in support, the item is interesting and has been covered in the lay press and science journalism; the overall article Moons of Jupiter is a FA and is as a whole of good quality; 10 new moons is a large number. In opposition, the announcement has not been published in a peer-reviewed article (counterpoint: IAU standard are higher than those in the lay press and should be considered a level above regular "news"), the moons are relatively unimportant and small, and prior precedent of waiting to post until the peer reviewed article has been released. Overall, the discussion as a whole did not have a strong consensus to post either in favor or in opposition, and has thus been closed as "no consensus to post." Additional comments: 3 users supporting the nomination have fewer than 20 edits; I factored in the weight of their arguments but did assess for the possibility of double voting, as has happened previously on contentious ITN/C nominations (I encourage IPs to create an account and new users to continue contributing here at ITN). Lastly, previously posted articles of similar content such as S/2004 N 1 (moon of Neptune) and ʻOumuamua (comet passing through the solar system) had robust updates of content related to the item, whereas Moons of Jupiter features only a 2-sentence update related to the nominated item (with S/2016 J 2 as a stub). Best, SpencerT•C 01:33, 21 July 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.

July 16Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

(Closed) Trump-Putin SummitEdit

No consensus to post and the discussion is not developing well. --Tone 18:20, 16 July 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: 2018 Russia–United States summit (talk, history)
Blurb: United States President Donald Trump and Russian dictator Vladimir Putin hold a summit in Finland.
Alternative blurb: ​!-- An alternative blurb. Leave blank if not needed -->
News source(s): The Washington Post, New York Times, TIME Magazine, CNN
Nominator's comments: High-stakes meeting between two controversial leaders. Definitely in the news. 38.122.127.226 (talk) 15:53, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose barring any major outcome of the talks. In contrast to Trump meeting with Kim Jung-un a few months ago, Trump's met with Putin at past G20-type events, so this is just a formal summit between these two. I don't see it groundbreaking at this point. --Masem (t) 16:04, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Wait - no outcome of the summit thus far beyond some soundbites that the media will latch upon. Certainly in the news, but let's await the conclusion of the summit (and the enhancement of the article) before deciding to post or not. Stormy clouds (talk) 16:13, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Wait but currently leaning oppose. Nothing of significance has come out of this so far. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:47, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Trump said exactly what we expected him to say, and did exactly what we expected him to do. Ditto with Putin. The overall newsworthiness of this is nil. Francisco Franco is still dead.--WaltCip (talk) 17:29, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose – per Walt. Daniel Case (talk) 17:32, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support two "world leaders" meet, but I think using "dictator" is not very neutral. Stryn (talk) 17:37, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose this is the type of "Trump + X" story that we should avoid posting. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:46, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose World leaders meet on a regular basis. The term "dictator" is POV. Putin is the president of the Russian federation. We are neither Trumpedia nor Russophopedia.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:47, 16 July 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.

July 15Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

Sports

World Series of PokerEdit

Article: 2018 World Series of Poker (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In poker, the 2018 World Series of Poker conclude with John Cynn winning the main event.
Alternative blurb: ​In poker, the 2018 World Series of Poker concludes with John Cynn winning the main event over Tony Miles.
News source(s): ABC News/Associated Press Los Angeles Times Edmonton Journal ESPN

Nominator's comments: Top tier event in poker. Andise1 (talk) 04:50, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose - Playing cards is not a sport. WaltCip (talk) 10:47, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
ITN is not restricted to sport, so whether or not poker counts as one is irrelevant. Modest Genius talk 10:55, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Indeed, it's more about the significance of the news, rather than a debate over whether poker (or chess or darts or snooker) is a "sport". The Rambling Man (talk) 21:25, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm not opposed to this on notability grounds, but much of the prose currently talks about the event in the future tense. --LukeSurl t c 11:02, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I agree that this meets significance threshold. Final Table needs more prose; the final hand at least would be required, IMO. There are also some citations needed. ghost 11:56, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support saw enough coverage of this, plus the large prize pool is a strong indication of notability. Banedon (talk) 03:20, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support on notability grounds but the article still needs some work. The Final Table section in particular talks more about the events leading up to the final table than the actual final table itself. ZettaComposer (talk) 10:50, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose the article is just too weak. A lot of tables and statistics, sure, but nothing proseworthy, and really quite boring to look at too. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:56, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Little to no coverage due to lack of significance. Sca (talk) 14:27, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ray EmeryEdit

Article: Ray Emery (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Sporting News

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: Featured Article Teemu08 (talk) 19:26, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment It may have been listed as a featured article about ten years ago, but it doesn't appear to be featured quality at present. Ray_Emery#Personal_life is a mess. Also, the article isn't updated to reflect his death other than a death date put at the top. How did he die so young? The article doesn't say. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:29, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
    • Yea, this should definitely be FAR-bound, but everything is at least cited. Death info has been added, not that there are very many details. Teemu08 (talk) 19:36, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
      • Not everything. I added some {{cn}} tags. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:53, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
      • I'm glad this got worked on. Support. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:23, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - article may not be FA quality, but good enough for RD. -Zanhe (talk) 01:13, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Complete coverage and referencing of subject. SpencerT•C 01:18, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. No cn's currently in article although it has been worked on since his death. There is a group citation for his stats which may potentially be a problem. Capitalistroadster (talk) 02:27, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Marking as ready. I made some significant improvements to dead links and other refs.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 03:18, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - Good 2 go.BabbaQ (talk) 11:15, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support I'm unclear why this has been sitting here for a day or so without being posted. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:17, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted. Courcelles (talk) 21:18, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

WimbledonEdit

Article: 2018 Wimbledon Championships (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In tennis, the 2018 Wimbledon Championships conclude with Angelique Kerber winning the women's singles and Novak Djokovic winning the men's singles.

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: This is on ITNR. The article 2018 Wimbledon Championships has more prose, but I used the same articles as last year's nom. power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:46, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose Both proposed articles are stubs with all prose in the lead followed by table cruft. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:37, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Conditional strong support - subject to some expansion to the target articles - though this was slightly before the World Cup finals, true? Juxlos (talk) 17:11, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
    • Yes, it ended before the World Cup final. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:25, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose currently both articles are completely sub-standard regarding prose. I think this happened last year as well. Black Kite (talk) 17:28, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment as nom I fully agree that the prose isn't good enough yet. I'll try to improve it around 0200GMT if they're still in this state. There may be an option for different articles in bold, as well. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:32, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Every tennis article I've seen on Wikipedia has lacked prose when the tournament ended, yet I still find those articles to be very informative. The people who write them have found a way to convey a lot of useful information through tables. While I do think the article should have more prose, I would support posting it anyway, since it nevertheless contains the information I would want to know about the tournament. Calathan (talk) 20:36, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per Calathan. As I've written before: in articles of this kind, prose is overrated. What I really care about is 1) who won and 2) what the score was, and both are in the article. Banedon (talk) 02:08, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
    • Baloney. When I see an article packed with tables like this, I scroll to the end to look for prose. This one fails to deliver. Also, the tables that I checked don't meet MOS:ACCESS requirements. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:01, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
      • If you're looking for prose on how one-sided the final was, the reasons for the one-sidedness, how this was Djokovic's first championship in ____ time, etc, you're looking at the wrong venue. There are much better venues to read about those than an encyclopedia, which by construction can't even be written in an engaging manner. Banedon (talk) 04:39, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
        • Actually, that's precisely what an encyclopedia does (see Britannica[30]). What you are describing is called an almanac. ghost 13:42, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
          • That's the equivalent of the Wimbledon article proper, which is not the same as the 2018 Wimbledon article. Banedon (talk) 22:01, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
        • If I was expected to beef up the prose to get 2017 World Series, 2018 NBA Finals, and 2018 Stanley Cup Finals posted here (go ahead and look in the archives for those discussions), then why should Wimbledon be posted without prose describing the final match? The Wimbledon article should have prose mentioning all those things that I don't know about as someone who didn't follow the tournament. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:46, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
          • You shouldn't have been expected to beef up the prose of those articles. Or are you saying I should have commented on those nominations to support them without prose summaries? Banedon (talk) 22:01, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Virtually all the prose that is there (and there isn't much) was written before the tournament began. Where is the summary of what actually happened?--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:54, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose junk factoid article, no encyclopedic content beyond tables and stats, not something we would ever feature on the main page, shocking that some people think we do. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:08, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support: tournament articles are like that, this seems at least good. – 333-blue at 11:06, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Not ready. The bolded article is in terrible shape. There's no prose whatsoever on the tournament, and even the data tables are overwhelmingly related to the pre-tournament seeding rather than the competition itself. The supporting men's and women's singles articles have just one sentence each on the finals, and a handful on the rest of the tournament, so are no better targets. This is woefully short of being postable. For such a high-profile event I'm amazed we have such poor articles. Modest Genius talk 13:54, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose in the current state. Needs more prose; notably if every person here who argued that adding quality writing to the article wasn't worth their time had spent that time writing quality text in that article, it probably would have been posted already. Sports journalists have written pages upon pages of text describing every match in excruciating detail. It should be trivial to glean that already written text for sources to expand this to a summary of tournament highlights. --Jayron32 11:30, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) 2018 FIFA World CupEdit

Articles: 2018 FIFA World Cup (talk, history) and 2018 FIFA World Cup Final (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In association football, the FIFA World Cup concludes with France defeating Croatia in the final.

Both articles need updating

One or both nominated events are 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: The ongoing item should be removed when this is posted. Davey2116 (talk) 03:08, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment we just call it the Final, not the "final match". The Rambling Man (talk) 06:53, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment since this is likely the next blurb getting up, please prepare some picture to update the Thailand cave, since it will be replaced. This should have happened yesterday already but I instead removed another item that took place on the same day, in order to keep an image. --Tone 08:58, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Note: it's also the finals of Wimbledon today, so the NSU story will probably go as well if the Wimbledon article is in decent shape. Black Kite (talk) 09:06, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  • It's likely that a freely-licensed photo of the winning team or a scene from the match will be uploaded within a few hours of the final, thanks to the OTRS from Soccer.RU. Until one is ready, the winning team's captain should be featured. SounderBruce 14:23, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Or possibly the scorer of a winning goal, if available. We have free images of most of the players, but some are not great (i.e. Lloris, the French captain). Black Kite (talk) 14:27, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  • On second thought, the Man of the Match should be featured. Griezmann seems to be an early contender, having been involved in all three goals so far. SounderBruce 16:23, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Griezmann photo for entry. Mikael Häggström (talk) 17:22, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Griezmann as photo until free image of the winning team surfaces. He is the official MOTM. Nice4What (talk) 17:46, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong support. Perhaps we could add the final score, 4-2?Zigzig20s (talk) 16:54, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong support - nothing left to say Juxlos (talk) 16:57, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  • support - Definitely for ITN.BabbaQ (talk) 16:58, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per above. --AmaryllisGardener talk 17:02, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong Support - Speedy add Nice4What (talk) 17:08, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted Quality appears sufficient pretty quickly. The main article can use some more sourcing here and there but nothing worth holding this up for. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:09, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Note I've added the image of Luca Modric (which was taken at the current tournament) to the Commons protection queue, as he won Best Player of the Tournament. This would seem to be a good stopgap until we get a free image of France actually winning the trophy. Black Kite (talk) 17:42, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
    • This entry is about the winning team, not the best player of the tournament. I think it would be misleading/confusing to have Modric's picture since Croatia lost. Nice4What (talk) 17:48, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
      • No, the entry is about the whole tournament. Also, we're only talking about a temporary image until we get a good free one (in which case, it'd be nice to show Modric if only for a few hours). If Griezmann is MOTM then use him instead. Black Kite (talk) 18:00, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
        • OK, he is. Adding image until we have something better. Black Kite (talk) 18:02, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
          • Wow... Also, as stated above, let's keep the Griezmann photo until the group image is released. Nice4What (talk) 18:10, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Suggestion - How about adding the score to the blurb? Thanks. Jusdafax (talk) 18:08, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
    • Support - Add 4-2 score, notable since it is one of the most amount of scores in a final. Nice4What (talk) 18:10, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
      • Done. Black Kite (talk) 18:21, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
        • Removed the result. We never post results. Strangely enough, 4-2 is the most common result in WC finals ;) --Tone 18:34, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
        • @Tone:, you removed the 4-2 score without participating in discussion. From the Washington Post on its notability:
"The six goals were as many as the previous four finals combined. They were the most in a final since England beat Germany, 4-2, in extra time in 1966 and the most in regulation since Brazil’s 5-2 triumph over Sweden in 1958." ( Source )
The match also notably didn't go into overtime as most finals do. Nice4What (talk) 18:36, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
All true. However, this is still super-arbitrary. If we insisted on breaking the rule of not including the result in the blurb, the explanation would have to be provided there as well - for which we have no room. My humble opinion ;) --Tone 18:39, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Where can this rule about excluding results be found at? And it's not "super-arbitrary", it is notable a 4-2 number is recognizable by even a non-fan of the sport to be a great score. Nice4What (talk) 18:41, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
The blurb could easily be changed to "In association football, the FIFA World Cup concludes with France defeating Croatia 4-2 in the highest-scoring final since 1966." Many sources are reporting on this. Nice4What (talk) 18:43, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
When have we ever posted a score in a blurb about a sports championship? Why should we start now? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:44, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
May be the case where the result (not the score) is a world record. We did this for marathons and 100m a couple of times. Also, "since 1966" is again totally arbitrary. First time since 2002 that it ended in regular time? --Tone 18:47, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps, but there's no record here. These are bits of trivia that are not significant enough to belong in one of our blurbs. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:51, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
I don't think the score of the biggest sporting event in the world, only held every 4 years, was trivia. I didn't think it was a major issue at all, to be honest. But, if that's "how we do things", then ... whatever. Black Kite (talk) 19:06, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
No, we never post scores. Plus, if we ever did, we'd use the manual of style with en-dashes and not hyphens. *shudder* The Rambling Man (talk) 19:21, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
This no-score rule scores big on the counter-intuitive scale. Oh well, it's only ITN. Sca (talk) 20:16, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Including a linked mention of VAR would be far more relevant, especially as it directly led to one of the goals. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:22, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - We have never included the score for any sporting event on ITN. Let's not start now just because it's the World Cup.--WaltCip (talk) 22:40, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
No, let's wait 'til it's Word War III, when we can say we won 3-2 over them. Sca (talk) 23:41, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
    • As @Black Kite: mentioned before, the World Cup is the biggest sporting event in the world that's only held every 4 years. If there were a sporting event to have the score posted, it would be this one. I still believe that the 4–2 score should be attatched. Nice4What (talk) 23:45, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment The score was posted in 2014, was still there when combined with Klauses record hotdogs, and later removed by Tone, re-added by Jayron32, re-removed by Fox, was not included when the hotdogs were removed. It looks like that's how it stayed: "The FIFA World Cup concludes with Germany (captain Philipp Lahm pictured) defeating Argentina in the final.". Personally, I don't care how popular soccer is, the scores look tacky in the blurb and unless we're going to do it for every sport, we're best off doing it for none. I was thinking to close this, but I commented instead. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:26, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
    • Arguably, a 1-0 score in the World Cup final is significantly, implying a very difficult match. A score of 4-2 is not as impressive as a metric. I would argue that if any other finals event ended with a very unusual score or some significant record. --Masem (t) 00:44, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
      • The thing is, there will always be some factoid that seems significant in a "world cup". Most goals scored in total WC appearances, most shots on goal, most goals scored as penalty kicks from blatant dives in the first half, most head butts to the chest, whatever. There will never be a world cup where someone doesn't find some factoid and prop up as "extra important because OMG soccer". Like Tone pointed out, 4-2 is actually the most common result. Instead of pretending soccer is special and having this argument every four years, lets just be happy that it sat in ongoing for six weeks and now it's posted in a blurb within minutes. Isn't that good enough? --LaserLegs (talk) 00:51, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes, the score is the least significant "factoid" about a game. Right? Gimmie a break. Sca (talk) 01:54, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: An image of the French team hoisting the trophy has been uploaded from the Kremlin website. Would look good on the main page, though some players are cropped out. SounderBruce 05:04, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support new photo @Muboshgu, Masem, Stephen, Black Kite, and Tone: Please post this glorious photo. "(French team pictured)" would perhaps work.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 10:47, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support new photo - Assuming the photo is free to post, I strongly suggest replacing the current image. It’s of the best sports photos I have ever seen. Jusdafax (talk) 10:54, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Is it correct to say "(team pictured)" when "France" means the team (not the country), and the squad is pictured? wumbolo ^^^ 11:28, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I think it's a bit irrelevant because the whole squad is in every match-day team (i.e. you can bring any of the other 12 players on as a substitute), but if anyone wants to change it I'm not particularly bothered. Black Kite (talk) 12:33, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Article does not mention the dodgy referring nor the riots in paris...meanwhile Zagreb was the greatest place on earth! (I have pices)Lihaas (talk) 01:38, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support: the top soccer cup deserves a place in the news. – 333-blue at 11:08, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

July 14Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Science and technology
  • In data collected by NASA's Juno spacecraft, an INAF team discovers suggestions of a new volcano close to the south pole of Jupiter's moon Io. (Tribune)

Sports

(Posted) RD: Theo-Ben GurirabEdit

Article: Theo-Ben Gurirab (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The Namibian

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 updated and well-sourced. EternalNomad (talk) 17:03, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Support article is fully sourced. -Zanhe (talk) 23:52, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:54, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - referenced fully. good 2 go.BabbaQ (talk) 14:03, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted. SpencerT•C 01:19, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

July 13Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents
  • An explosion at a chemical plant near Cairo, Egypt, injures 12 people. (BBC)
  • An explosion at a chemical plant in Sichuan, China, kills 19 people and injures 12 others. (BBC)

Politics and elections

(Posted) Bombings in PakistanEdit

Article: 13 July 2018 Pakistan bombings (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In Pakistan, at least 136 people are killed and more than 335 others are injured in multiple bombings in Mastung and Bannu.
News source(s): Geo News, The Express Tribune, The News International

Nominator's comments: Huge nums of deaths. Bigger attack than Peshawar's one which was also posted. Amirk94391 (talk) 16:42, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Support - There is no official minimum deaths rule on ITN, but logic follows that if we post the disaster in the same area with fewer deaths, we post the subsequent larger one also.--WaltCip (talk) 17:28, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support in principle – But article looks quite thin. Sca (talk) 20:35, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
    • @Sca: the article is now updated and it'll be expanded even more.Amirk94391 (talk) 03:38, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Looks good – thanks. Sca (talk) 13:45, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support with the expectation of expansion. It is adequate (though only barely) for now. The attacks are horrific even by the bloody standard of that part of the world and are certainly ITN worthy. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:48, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support on notability. Massive death toll. Lepricavark (talk) 21:51, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Article is not very informative in its present state but the event is notable due to the huge number of casualties. Hrodvarsson (talk) 22:46, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support It is one of third recent attacks on a Political party before General Elections of Pakistan, 2018 and death toll is massive. Nauriya, Let's talk - 06:07, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - As per comments above. Sherenk1 (talk) 04:34, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment article needs aligning (lead with infobox figures), the blurb here needs fixing for dab link, the dab links in the article and the raw URLs need to be addressed, but otherwise it seems ok. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:56, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Fixed everything else but we still have a discrepancy. The lead and infobox say 4 people died in Bannu, the section on the attack says 5. Are we counting the perpetrator.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 07:15, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
@The Rambling Man: and @Coffeeandcrumbs: fixed all issues.Amirk94391 (talk) 07:46, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - Notable bombing, article postable. Suggest moving forward. Jusdafax (talk) 07:51, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - Very notable bombing. Ready for posting.BabbaQ (talk) 08:27, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Posting. --Tone 09:29, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

July 12Edit

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Science and technology

RD: J.H. MensahEdit

Article: Joseph Henry Mensah (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): [31]

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: Ghanaian finance minister and minority leader. ghost 16:00, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

RD: Roger PerryEdit

Article: Roger Perry (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Variety

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: Referencing needs to be improved. TompaDompa (talk) 13:12, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose inadequately referenced still, and IMDB isn't an RS as far as I know. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:55, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

July 11Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents
International relations

Law and crime

Sports

RD: Tom NeilEdit

Article: Tom Neil (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC

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: Second World War flying ace The Rambling Man (talk) 05:55, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose - far too much unreferenced text. Mjroots (talk) 08:50, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - just enough references but just barely to include it. Article in good overall shapeBabbaQ (talk) 09:33, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
    • Three out of four paras in the Military career section are unreferenced. Mjroots (talk) 13:55, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose I think BabbaQ is looking at a different article. 159.53.110.140 (talk) 11:19, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment it's not ideal by any means but I'll hopefully get a chance later to fix it all up. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:36, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
History buffs may wonder how his 14 kills rank among WWII RAF aces. Sca (talk) 20:39, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) ShangchenEdit

Article: Shangchen (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Scientists discover the oldest evidence of hominins outside Africa in Shangchen, China, dating to 2.1 million years ago.
Alternative blurb: ​Scientists discover stone tools dating to 2.1 million years ago in Shangchen, China, the oldest evidence of hominins outside Africa.
News source(s): Nautre, Science, BBC, NYT

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Major discovery published in Nature. Reported everywhere. Zanhe (talk) 01:14, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Support Article in good shape. Of particular note is a quote from the BBC entry on this: We are now moving beyond a Eurocentric view of human evolution in Eurasia: the Asian record for human evolution is proving to be as complex and fascinating as in Europe and Africa -- Prof. Robin Dennell. CaradhrasAiguo (talk) 06:00, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - Interesting, article in good shape.BabbaQ (talk) 09:31, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Article is good, and the story is very notable. Davey2116 (talk) 22:24, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support, marking ready. Added an Alt clarifying exactly what was discovered (stone tools). SpencerT•C 22:27, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support, expected, but still a notable discovery Openlydialectic (talk) 23:09, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:51, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Terry ToddEdit

Stale. Stephen 01:46, 13 July 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: Terry Todd (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): My Statesman

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: Article has been updated and well sourced --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 03:46, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Note Wikipedia took notice of his death on this day, despite his death being announced on the 9th. Perhaps, if needed, this nom. should be moved to the 9th to avoid it going stale or briefly being placed last on ITN.--TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 03:55, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Revision history shows that Wikipedia took notice on the 8th, same as the reliable sources. This belongs on the 7th, so it is unfortunately stale. ghost 11:43, 12 July 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) NSU trial ends in Munich after 5 yearsEdit

Article: National Socialist Underground trial (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In Munich, the National Socialist Underground trial ends after more than five years with the conviction sentencing of the main defendant Beate Zschäpe to life in prison.
News source(s): SZ.de BBC, AP, Guardian, CNN

Article updated

Nominator's comments: First major neo-nazi related trial in recent history with worldwide coverage over five years. See also National Socialist Underground and National Socialist Underground murders for more details. Regards SoWhy 09:00, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Beate Zschäpe has an article. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:07, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
    • Added and updated. Thanks! Regards SoWhy 10:11, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support – A landmark, controversial and long-running, high-profile case. Zschäpe, who mostly refused to testify, claimed not to have been a member of the NSU. (Blurb corrected to Eng. usage with "sentencing to" rather than "conviction to.")Sca (talk) 13:59, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support The article meets ITN criteria and the news is getting media coverage worldwide.Amirk94391 (talk) 14:21, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Certainly headline news here in Germany but it does not rise to the level of ITN in my opinion. There is some controversy surrounding the role of the Verfassungsschutz, which is the main source of the interest in the case i believe, but that has little to do with the conviction. As a side note, there will be an appeal from what i have seen so this may not be over. 31.150.101.31 (talk) 14:29, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Appeal or not, the sentencing is significant – particularly given the context of ongoing ethnic tensions involving, among others, neo-Nazis and right-wingers. Quite widespread coverage on mainline English-language sites and in other languages as well. Sca (talk) 14:42, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Why does it not rise to the level of ITN in your opinion if it has been in the news worldwide (e.g. Italy, France, Israel), something I'm pretty certain I can say from experience is not how German trials are usually reported on? The fact that an appeal was announced does not change the ITN part: Either it is unsuccessful (likely), then we won't hear from it this way again or it is successful, in which case ITN-worthiness can exist again. As a side note, the appeal was always clearly coming. Regards SoWhy 14:46, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
It certainly was reported on more than other court cases. But this case also gets that media and political attention because of the role of the Verfassungsschutz, like destroying data, perhaps ignoring crimes and so. We just don't know and probably won't find out. That is what really interested many people, from personal experience anyway. The convictions itself are an end to criminal proceedings, more or less anyway, but unresolved questions remain. And i just don't see this domestic court case important enough to be posted. Were other cases of similar nature posted by the way? If so, then i could very well be swayed. And i just noted that there will be an appeal, not that i was opposing because of it. 31.150.101.31 (talk) 15:06, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Well, i guess if so many people do find this important enough, then so be it. I just set the bar too high it seems. I have struck my oppose anyway. 31.150.101.31 (talk) 16:20, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment most of the refs are German, which take longer to check, and should be checked because of the risk of a BLP vio in these articles. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:43, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm concerned about these "inter alia" list of charges - either list the charges in their entirety or don't list any. "Cherry picking" the "wost / most important" is deceptive. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:03, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose The main source of the "list of charges" in the lead is a PDF [32] which doesn't have (that I can make out) a publication name or author -- which likely fails WP:RS, that's not even consider if that wordpress site has the authority to reproduce it. Deutshelobby.com "German Lobby - Yes to the German empire"? Ok, that link fails WP:RS. I don't have time to check the rest of this, but at the very least, this can't go up where the charges against the accused are attributed to the "German Lobby". --LaserLegs (talk) 16:10, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes, there is no way a far right blog can be a reliable source for anything. That has to be sorted. 31.150.101.31 (talk) 16:52, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
I have looked for replacements. Links are on the talk, but i rather not break anything so if someone could do the change in the article that issue should be sorted. 31.150.101.31 (talk) 17:17, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
I replaced the ref with newspaper articles and the official press release detailing the charges. I don't think "inter alia" is problematic, at least not for the lede. Regards SoWhy 07:41, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Very significant news. The articles look good, though as LaserLegs points out, the German sources should be checked. Davey2116 (talk) 15:48, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support I'm seeing many unique articles (i.e. non-wire) from diverse international sources, which is an important consideration for significance. ghost 16:10, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Important and noted decision. 7&6=thirteen () 16:15, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 06:58, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - story has clear significance, support upon removal of dubious German-language sources. Stormy clouds (talk) 10:23, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Which dubious sources? Looking through the reference list they all look like reputable newspapers and the like bar one to a tabloid, which only supports a very minor fact about the proceedings. 85.16.166.77 (talk) 12:12, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
It's not just having WP:RS but confirming that the source supports the content -- I've seen far too often a "well sourced" article where the refs don't back the claims. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:40, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
They probably meant the PDF mentioned above by LaserLegs which was since removed as a ref. Regards SoWhy 12:14, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
I was indeed referring to issues raised by LaserLegs. If addressed to the satisfaction of other editors, consider my !vote a full support. Stormy clouds (talk) 17:40, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
⇒ Looks like consensus. Marked ready. Sca (talk) 13:25, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
"Although a Parliamentary Committee of Inquiry into the NSU is said to confirm that German authorities were not involved and did not cover up the NSU killings" is a deadlink ref, and "doubts remained" has no citiation. And seriously, the only mention of a "cover up" is in that lead, not in the rest of the trial article or in the NSU main article. The whole thing needs a copyedit and a ref check. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:49, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
@LaserLegs: None of that is relevant to the trial article, so I removed the whole paragraph. Regards SoWhy 14:41, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Not ready. More fact tags, more dead links. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:27, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
@LaserLegs:   Done. Regards SoWhy 18:03, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
More dead links -- you should try to see if you can find new sources for content instead of removing it, that bit about complaints to the court about process that I tagged previously had value, it'd be nice if it could be kept. Since you're a native speaker, it'd be faster for you to check these than I. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:23, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
I removed it because I couldn't verify it. It's not in the de-wiki version about the trial either. As for dead links, they can easily be replaced, although per WP:DEADLINK that should not matter. I replaced them anyway. Stupid German law requires public broadcasting corporations to remove content after a certain amount of time. According to W3C's validator, all other links should work. Regards SoWhy 18:38, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

───────────────────────── It seems quite counter-productive to obstruct posting of a timely and widely reported item which has drawn a clear consensus on account of a few dead links. Sca (talk) 20:00, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

WP:BLP? Nevermind, I guess I was wasting my time actually checking refs. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:30, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I guess ref checking is "counter-productive" and "obstruction", and it certainly feels like a waste of my time now, but the statement "Schulze ... also provided useful information for the process and has acted as a very important witness." (is ESL for one thing) and is not supported by the source which only mentions his juvenile sentence and his "showing remorse in court". I've not checked the whole article, but almost every statement I looked at had some issue with WP:RS or WP:V yet here it is, marked "ready" again ... --LaserLegs (talk) 22:12, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
And the BBC ref doesn't state Gerlach was "convicted for aiding a terror organization" it says "Holger Gerlach received three years for giving his birth certificate and other ID to Uwe Mundlos". Oh well. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:17, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
I went through every source in the lead and 'proceedings' section and everything is in the sources, bar one minor detail i noted on the talk, and i would certainly say the sources are reliable. Which sources don't support the article as written other than the one you noted? Which sources have issues with reliability or verifiability? If you could point them out, i could perhaps improve it. 85.16.166.77 (talk) 23:11, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
I put a link supporting Gerlach being convicted for aiding a terror organization on the talk. If anyone could make the change, that should be solved as well. 85.16.166.77 (talk) 23:31, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted. I've removed that odd sentence that needed a citation at the end of the article that was pointed out by LaserLegs. Black Kite (talk) 22:32, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) Onging: 2018 Japan floodsEdit

No consensus to move to ongoing. Stephen 01:44, 13 July 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: 2018 Japan floods (talk, history)
Blurb: No blurb specified
News source(s): [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38]
Nominator's comments: Almost 200 dead; big event. Will be bumped off soon.  Nixinova  T  C  08:01, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Wait until the blurb rolls off the MP, then reassess. The most recent updates are from 9 July so it may not be suitable for ongoing then. --Tone 08:35, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose All natural disasters leave a period of clean-up and "Day 2 stories," but the flooding itself is over. "The rain has relented but the country is still struggling to deal with the extensive damage left in its wake."(BBC[39]) ghost 12:51, 12 July 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.

July 10Edit

Arts and culture

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sports

RD: Clive KingEdit

Article: Clive King (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-44823636 https://www.theguardian.com/books/2018/jul/13/stig-of-the-dump-author-clive-king-dies-aged-94

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: English author Aiken D 15:31, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose a couple of unreferenced sentences/paragraphs, and the bibliography could use ISBNs and/or references. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:56, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

(Ready) RD: Haroon BilourEdit

Article: Haroon Bilour (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination

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: killed in the 2018 Peshawar suicide bombing which was posted on ITN (see right below), but has been pulled since. Source: The New York Times wumbolo ^^^ 12:11, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose take away the stuff about his father, his funeral etc, and you're left with a sub-stub about his life. Also needs work on references. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:57, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
    @The Rambling Man: how about now? wumbolo ^^^ 09:19, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - Decent enough for posting.BabbaQ (talk) 14:02, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Significantly improved to establish notability clearly. Egad!!! This family has been targeted so many times.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 15:32, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Let's get this up before it goes stale.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:48, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) Peshawar bombingEdit

Article: 2018 Peshawar suicide bombing (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A suicide bombing in Peshawar, Pakistan left 20 people dead and wounded 63 others.
News source(s): Geo News, The Express Tribune

Nominator's comments: Significant number of deaths in a notable city. The blast is getting media coverage and the article is also of good quality. Amirk94391 (talk) 08:35, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Support, CNN, NYT and The Guardian also gave coverage but we are seeing the usual WP:GEOBIAS at the ITN. The modus operandi here is to ignore it till it gets stale. 39.57.157.188 (talk) 05:25, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - terrorist attack with relatively high death toll. Victims include an important politician according to NYT. Article looks decent. -Zanhe (talk) 06:49, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support --UkrainianCossack (talk) 06:53, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 01:38, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
  • How about a RD for Haroon Bilour who was killed in the attack? wumbolo ^^^ 10:19, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
    Feel free to propose it as an RD nomination. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:31, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Tin Ka PingEdit

Article: Tin Ka Ping (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): SCMP, The Standard

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: One of the most famous Hong Kong philanthropists, funded hundreds of schools, dozens of hospitals, and thousands of libraries. Zanhe (talk) 06:46, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) Kavanaugh nominationEdit

SNOW CLOSE Good faith nom, but there is no chance that this will be posted. ITN does not post domestic political news including changes in cabinet positions or the judiciary. Consensus on this is long established and very strong. Additionally as noted by power~enwiki, this is only a nomination. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:16, 10 July 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.

Articles: Brett Kavanaugh (talk, history) and Supreme Court of the United States (talk, history)
Blurb: President Donald Trump has nominated Judge Brett Kavanaugh to fill justice Anthony Kennedy's seat in the Supreme Court of the United States.
News source(s): BBCNew York TimesNBC
Nominator's comments: Important United States news. Henry TALK 04:04, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose I supported posting about Kennedy's retirement, and I might support the final confirmation vote, but this isn't the right time to post this. I expect a bunch of other oppose votes to sink this quickly. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:10, 10 July 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: Lord CarringtonEdit

Article: Peter Carington, 6th Baron Carrington (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Times (paywall)

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: Former UK Defence and Foreign Secretary. yorkshiresky (talk) 11:34, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Comments @Yorkshiresky: The article is very well sourced however the "In popular culture" doesn't have one source and should probably be removed if no citations can be found. Govvy (talk) 13:48, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
    • Maybe it's been edited since you posted, but the "In popular culture" section seems to consist almost entirely of people who have played him in films, plus Rowan Atkinson in a celebrated Not the Nine O'Clock News sketch. The section could be better written by condensing into a single paragraph, but in terms of sources, surely those works source themselves? Jheald (talk) 14:49, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • The article is in a good shape, as noted above. I suggest commenting out the popular culture section. In the intro, there is "As Secretary General of NATO, he helped prevent a war between Greece and Turkey in 1987". This is not mentioned later in the text, though it would be appropriate to add something more. --Tone 13:57, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support "In popular culture" section now all sourced and copy edited. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:45, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Suppport but remove the title of nobility. We don't post those in the RD ticker except for kings or queens, and even then.--WaltCip (talk) 18:54, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Posting. --Tone 18:59, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment. Every article I have ever read about him uses the spelling Carrington. Using the form with a single 'r' - however it may be justified - renders the name incomprehensible to the overwhelming majority of readers. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:12, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • The first line of the article has an "explanation" from Debrett's that I personally find almost impossible to understand. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:26, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Agree. "Lord Carrington" is a renowned figure; "Peter Carington" is a cipher. But WP:RULES say we can't use titles of nobility. To what extent are we dancing on the head of a pin by insisting on the one-R spelling? Downing St's statement speaks of the "death of Peter Carrington", and the Lords gives his full name as "Peter Alexander Rupert Carrington". Not sure what the answer is, but as it stands it's very odd. Moscow Mule (talk) 21:39, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Comments There is a decree of peerage and an "in lieu" of, if you scroll down to the Ancestry tree and have a look you will see 2nd Baron then skips to the 4th Baron. The "in lieu" is a substitute in name due to something happening in the family, why, what happened to the 3rd Baron I don't know, seems to revolve around this issue. Govvy (talk) 22:27, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Baron Carrington Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:32, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Can someone point me to this rule we're deferring to? WP:OBE does not seem to preclude the use of titles. ghost 16:40, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
I don't think there's a rule per se, but our precedence on ITN has always been to omit the title of nobility.--WaltCip (talk) 11:35, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
If there is no explicit rule, might I respectfully submit that it be changed to "Lord Carrington", the name by which he is (by far) most commonly known, at least for his remaining days here in the front-page limelight? (Comparisons are odious, but Piratita Morgan's not a baptismal name, either). -- Moscow Mule (talk) 15:38, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
I support this, but suggest you take it to Errors to actually request the change. I would further like to respectfully submit that discussion of name parsing for RDs should be permitted in noms. CAT:WNC does not have the brevity requirements that RDs do. I suspect (but do not know) that the convention Walt refers to was in the interest of brevity. We would not post as titled (Peter Carington, 6th Baron Carrington) because of length, not because the title is superfluous. ghost 15:59, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Right, that was my actual concern, that it would take up too much real estate on the RD ticker as compared to other entries who aren't of nobility.--WaltCip (talk) 16:39, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Note that we also have this Peter Carrington, who seems to be very much still alive. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:51, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. Query posted on errors. -- Moscow Mule (talk) 17:13, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

July 9Edit

Disasters and accidents
International relations

Law and crime
Politics and elections

Sports
  • Former NFL cornerback Brandon Browner is arrested after allegedly breaking into a home of an ex-girlfriend who has a restraining order against him. (UPI)

(Posted) RD: Hans Günter WinklerEdit

Article: Hans Günter Winkler (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Associated Press and others

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: Article had no ref this morning, but now has several. We don't know exactly if he died 8 June or 9 June, because it happened over night. The German Hall of Fame has 8 June. I am not a sports person, checking of equestrian terms wanted. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:22, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Please look again. You requested a citation for the Olympics in 1956 split, Melbourne/Stockholm. I added one, but think it is common knowledge and has nothing to do with his bio. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:25, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Support Issues have been addressed. Good work indeed. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:36, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Support Ready to post.BabbaQ (talk) 19:08, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Good to go; bereit zum posten. Sca (talk) 20:30, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - article is well referenced. -Zanhe (talk) 00:02, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 00:33, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

RD: Tab HunterEdit

Article: Tab Hunter (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): People

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 a few CN tags that need cleared. StrikerforceTalk 14:40, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose Article has sections with no sources. Ref work does need to be made. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:43, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose More work needed on sourcing especially on the filmography. Capitalistroadster (talk) 02:37, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose last time I looked, IMDB wasn't considered a reliable source. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:42, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose A lot of contents present needs verification and the article also has some non-rs such as IMDB. Amirk94391 (talk) 14:15, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) Eritrea–Ethiopia warEdit

Articles: Eritrea–Ethiopia relations (talk, history) and 2018 Eritrea–Ethiopia summit (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The leaders of Ethiopia and Eritrea have signed a declaration saying that the "state of war has come to an end"
Alternative blurb: ​The leaders of Ethiopia and Eritrea (pictured) sign an agreement declaring an end to the "state of war" between their two countries and re-establishing diplomatic relations.
News source(s): BBC

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Positive news. Article is not updated. Sherenk1 (talk) 11:23, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Eritrean–Ethiopian War may also be a good article to link to. Too early to say anything about this, as the articles have not been updated fully yet. I think the blurb needs some work too. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 12:49, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
  • The peace itself is significant enough to post, but the process is long and winding. It's difficult to decipher (from any potential single target article) why this is particular moment is the time to post, and not (for example) back on June 5th when Ethiopia decided to pull out of the disputed territories. ghost 14:16, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I think the fact this was the first meeting between the leaders of these countries in 20 years, and signature of the declaration, makes this the right time to post. Ethopia has seemingly been doing steps ahead of time as GCG points out above, but this is a formal declaration that they have ended the conflict. I can't readily tell if there is some action their respective legislators need to do to cement that. --Masem (t) 14:30, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
  • support notability and timing not sure about blurb or article though EdwardLane (talk) 16:29, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support in principle Seems to be a significant international development. I saw the photo of the two leaders hugging over the weekend. We just need updates in articles and a bolded link in the blurb. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:49, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. It was formal and significant, and considering how gradual the transfer of Badme and other disputed territories to Eritrean control will likely be, this event seems like a good news-flagship for the process. I have added a link to the relevant article to the blurb. Inatan (talk) 17:52, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Support Interesting and article seems ready.BabbaQ (talk) 19:08, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
  • ALT2: Ethiopian and Eritrean leaders (pictured) agree to end the "state of war" between their two countries.
My two cents --- Coffeeandcrumbs 00:47, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

July 8Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

(Posted) RD: Piratita MorganEdit

Article: Piratita Morgan (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Medio Tiempo sports website

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: Newly created article. I have been meaning to write this for years, that'll teach me to procrastinate  MPJ-DK  04:03, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Support Nice job on the article, I don't see any referencing issues.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:38, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 01:30, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) Çorlu train derailmentEdit

Article: Çorlu train derailment (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A train derails in Çorlu, Turkey, killing 24 people and injuring over 300.
News source(s): BBC

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Article is brief but solid. Major disaster for a developed country. EternalNomad (talk) 23:07, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Support - major accident with high casualty, reported worldwide. -Zanhe (talk) 00:09, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support on notability. Article is probably sufficient, but could definitely use some expansion. Lepricavark (talk) 02:18, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support rarely happens in civilized countries like Turkey Openlydialectic (talk) 05:18, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted --Masem (t) 05:47, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Consensus? Sca (talk) 20:25, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Alan GilzeanEdit

Article: Alan Gilzean (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: Dundee and Tottenham Hotspur footballer who was also a Scottish national footballer and Hall of Famer.
News source(s): https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/44757890 / https://www.tottenhamhotspur.com/news/2018/july/obituary-alan-gilzean/

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.

 Govvy (talk) 10:12, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Weak oppose Article is overall very well sourced but has cn tags. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:46, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
@Govvy:: Support Good work indeed! --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:52, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Support Good 2 goBabbaQ (talk) 19:09, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted. Black Kite (talk) 23:00, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Question, heh, is it wrong to give myself credit? Govvy (talk) 12:15, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Robert D. RayEdit

Article: Robert D. Ray (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Politico

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 fixed up in sourcing --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 02:53, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Update Note Recently DN tags have been addressed and fixed. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 08:10, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) Tham Luang cave rescue: Successful exit of the first boysEdit

This story has reached its conclusion, and no further discussion is needed..--WaltCip (talk) 13:51, 10 July 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.

Articles: Tham Luang cave rescue#Successful exit of six boys (talk, history) and Tham Luang cave rescue#Successful exits of the first children (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Six of the twelve children trapped are rescued successfully from the Tham Luang cave in Thailand.
Alternative blurb: Four Eight of 12 boys are rescued from Thailand’s Tham Luang Nang Non cave after two weeks of being trapped there, while rescue operations continue.
Nominator's comments: Templating correctly. No comment on the nomination Stormy clouds (talk) 17:45, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I have already bumped the cave rescue with the start of the actual recovery, but its going to take a few days to complete (10-20hr to reset supplies after each few persons saved). When it is considered complete, then updating the blurb appropriately makes sense. --Masem (t) 16:49, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
    • Its clear we're going to have a couple intermediate updates to this before the rescue operation over. I have no question this is ITN, but let's not make a gawking spectacle of it. That there in the middle of rescue operations right now is important, how many have been rescued or left to be rescued is not material at this point. --Masem (t) 01:00, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose just bump where necessary. If the predicted rescue takes place, it's not going to be an "ongoing" issue for Wikipedia, yet there's probably going to be practically zero objection to a "conclusion" blurb given the global coverage. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:53, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Alt1 – But keep the total rescued so far to four, per AP, BBC and Guardian (as of 21:30). Guardian says "eight [boys] remain trapped ... with rescue operation to resume on Monday." Alt1 with four rescued offered above. Sca (talk) 21:40, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Update blurb and bump to top - seems pretty obvious. Banedon (talk) 22:57, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Alt1 update has received significant coverage Yeenosaurus (talk) 🍁 00:38, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Update this isn't a news ticker; "Rescue operations are ongoing" is still accurate. We can update this once the rescue operations are no longer ongoing; hopefully that will happen in the next 24-48 hours. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:03, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Update current blurb. There's no need for another blurb when the current blurb is the second entry on the ITN list. ZettaComposer (talk) 11:21, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Blurb is still accurate. Wait until rescue operation is complete. Teemu08 (talk) 13:29, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose updating for now - the current blurb is accurate. Trying to keep a precise count on the number rescued will result in inaccuracies (news media appear to not know exactly most of the time) and is unnecessary. Indeed, giving the impression ITN offers this level of precision in reporting is counterproductive. We should update when operations are complete, but not rescue-by-rescue. --LukeSurl t c
  • FWIW, eight total have been rescued with operations now on pause for the restocking period. Still see no immediate need to update blurb beyond "Rescue operations underway" --Masem (t) 14:00, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
The "underway" bit is accurate, but "12 boys and a man trapped in Thailand’s Tham Luang Nang Non cave" no longer is, as it's now four boys and their coach who are trapped. (Alt1 updated above.) – Sca (talk) 14:46, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
The blurb right now says "Rescue operations are ongoing to recover twelve boys and a man trapped ..." That's true, until the point all 13 are rescued and/or the operation considered complete. (I would say if it ends up the case that they they have to abandon the attempt until October due to pending rains, that would also be a notable change for a blurb). --
Preceding comment posted by Masem.
Beg to differ. Twelve boys and a man are not trapped now, though they were. We're talking now, not what was. Sca (talk) 20:47, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
  • comment can someone check the copyright on that image? It's a screen grab from local TV, can't be free can it? I'm unable to check myself right now. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:49, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
    • I checked it, it is from National Broadcasting Services of Thailand, so it is a work of govertment. They have a copyright law that (from c:Template:PD-TH-exempt) placed "News of the day and facts having the character of mere information which is not a work in literary, scientific or artistic domain" as public domain. --Masem (t) 15:02, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
  • All of the children and the coach have been rescued and the blurb has been updated. Still waiting on a doctor and another diver to get out, but this can be closed. ZettaComposer (talk) 12:47, 10 July 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) 2018 Japan floodsEdit

Article: 2018 Japan floods (talk, history)
Blurb: Flooding and landslides in western Japan kill at least 81 people and leave 92 others missing.
News source(s): BBC, AP

Nominator's comments: 60 people have died. Sherenk1 (talk) 04:47, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Support – Could use some expansion but this easily meets natural disaster notability for Japan. Deadliest flood event in four years, and possibly the deadliest since the 2011 Tsunami pending rescue efforts. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 07:18, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. News reports suggest that the amount of rainfall is unprecedented, so it could be a once in a millennium event that now happens a lot more frequently due to global warming. Count Iblis (talk) 11:28, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support – As of 14:00, AP puts toll at 76. Sca (talk) 14:07, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted --Masem (t) 16:15, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

July 7Edit

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

(Closed) RD: Steve DitkoEdit

Stale. Stephen 01:32, 11 July 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 Ditko (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): SFGate

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: Marvel Comics artist. Spiderman and Doctor Strange co-creator. Spengouli (talk) 01:14, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support generally. I think the book list needs to be significantly trimmed or sourced, but that's the only quality issue I see - the rest is well sourced. Please note that while they found his body on June 29th, and that the reports state he may have died a few days before, only today did the news break of his death, so this is the right date nor is this stale. --Masem (t) 01:53, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Article is well-sourced. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:56, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support but I am concerned by the overuse of quotes from sources. I will wait till it rolls off RD to tag.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 02:21, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
Oppose After a second deeper look, I am also concerned by the referencing, many of which are primary when secondary sources are abundant. That along with the sea of quotations in lieu of summary in our own words leads me to recind my support. This is not ready for MP.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 06:33, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose awards are mostly unreferenced, and where are the non-notable items in his bibliography (i.e. works without articles) referenced? The Rambling Man (talk) 05:26, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
He would be credited in the work itself. As a primary source its valid for who worked on it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:03, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
Given that he is only credited in certain issues, and not an entire series, that's the same type of situation as an actor's guest spots on TV series rather than a lead, and for us, the blue link is not sufficient for that. (And as comics tend to lack ISBN, we can't use that approach either). And as there are a large number of non-blue linked books, we need WP:V to even verify they existed. --Masem (t) 13:12, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - per above supports. Jusdafax (talk) 08:53, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - It needs more citations as the entire summary has only a single reference which is to a book most of us can't easily verify, but he's a notable figure. Uses x (talk) 14:56, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support: There are a pair of unreferenced sentences, but they are a minor part of a section about his obscure works. The rest of the article is fine, and it's not a good reason to keep the article from the main page. The sentences may be easily commented out or removed to the talk page during that time, if needed be. Cambalachero (talk) 15:13, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment His awards and works lack sufficient reliably sourced references. I'm concerned about the overwhelming support here for such a clearly lacking article. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:36, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Main text of article is reasonably well sourced but awards and works are not. I think this is another case where article would be better off if it did not have an unreferenced list but focussed on the main works. However, this is not policy. Capitalistroadster (talk) 02:44, 8 July 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.

July 6Edit

Arts and culture

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

Law and crime

Politics and elections

(Posted) RD: Kimishige IshizakaEdit

Article: Kimishige Ishizaka (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Asahi News

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: Japanese scientist, discoverer of Immunoglobulin EZanhe (talk) 19:54, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Support good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:56, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Again, this another article in which editors assume that, just because a citation appears at the end of paragraph, that everything in the para is sourced.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 21:43, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
    Please tag anything you find that is unverifiable. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:45, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
    Zanhe it would seem that the good faith I have extended to your nominations has been seriously challenged by Coffeeandcrumbs. I have no dog in the fight, so it's your call. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:31, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
There is no need for a "fight". I have added many sources. We should be able to post this soon.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 22:36, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Support I have fixed the sourcing in the entire article. This is ready to go.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 23:19, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
@Coffeeandcrumbs: Thanks for adding extra sources. I've added you as an updater. -Zanhe (talk) 23:48, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 00:01, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

(Pulled) Nawaz Sharif sentencingEdit

Article: Nawaz Sharif (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A Pakistani court has sentenced former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif to 10 years in prison on corruption charges related to four luxury London flats.
Alternative blurb: ​Former Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif is sentenced to 10 years in prison on corruption charges
Alternative blurb II: ​Former Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif is sentenced to 10 years in prison after conviction on corruption charges.
News source(s): BBC

Article updated

Nominator's comments: At last decision has been made. Sherenk1 (talk) 12:21, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Support well sourced, suprisingly for a controversial topic. I removed the POV tag after a cursory read of the article and tracking down the original reason for the tag which was a dispute about a single sentence that has long been removed.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 13:36, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment. Typically we post convictions and not mere sentencing. 331dot (talk) 14:26, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong Support the news is getting media coverage worldwide. The article is also well sourced. Must be posted without any delay. Amirk94391 (talk) 14:34, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
I can think of almost nothing that should "be posted without any delay", as this is not a news ticker. 331dot (talk) 14:44, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - But we're not in a rush. This can wait for a consensus to build.--WaltCip (talk) 14:55, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Point of conviction and a former world leader (from how I read the articles, the conviction and sentence took place at the same time, in comment to 331dot above). I'd argue that there should be a split of that page, but what is all there is all sourced, so whether it is split or not before posting, it appears fine. --Masem (t) 16:34, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. I've proposed an alt blurb mentioning that he was convicted. In many jurisdictions conviction and sentencing are not necessarily at the same time. 331dot (talk) 19:41, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Huge story, and article is in good shape. Davey2116 (talk) 17:49, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Just making sure, we post only the convictions, not the initial arrests, right? So Najib Razak (former PM of Malaysia) would only be posted if there's a conviction in February? Davey2116 (talk) 17:49, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
    • If he was sitting in office at the time (akin to an impeachment), that might warrant its own story atop the conviction. But as this was post-office, I believe that we would not post the arrest and initial details (from the last few days), and would wait for when the conviction (if one is made) is issued. --Masem (t) 18:00, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Not to sound like an elitist, but could we please add where the flats are located? Or would our readers not care?Zigzig20s (talk) 18:41, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support the shorter ALTBLURB. Details about the flats are not ITN-worthy. -Zanhe (talk) 18:47, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support I prefer (a modified form of) the original blurb. More details are good, not bad, especially if they can be given in so few words. Banedon (talk) 20:30, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support alt blurb. Surprisingly decent article. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:33, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support – Per others. High-profile case. Sca (talk) 20:45, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support the altblurb per existing comments above. StrikerforceTalk 21:36, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Question does it make sense to mention his daughter (Maryam Nawaz) sentence as well who is seen as the political heir to her father. --Saqib (talk) 06:51, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted alt blurb, since that's what there seemed to be consensus for. 331dot (talk) 08:07, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Pull please because the criticism section of Nawaz_Sharif article needs better references. Brian Everlasting (talk) 12:13, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
    • From an ITN standpoint, I'm not seeing anything so far out of balance that needs to be addressed for posting via ITN. All the sources in that section seem reasonable, including major Pakistani papers as well as US sources - RS certainly seems met. There might be some issues on NPOV that would need fixing, but again, a read through the section doesn't show anything immediately actionable that would have prevented posted ( Brain just added the sources tag following posting) --Masem (t) 12:39, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Pull The reason for him being jailed is hardly explained at all. What was the issue with the flats in London? We don't know from the article. Meanwhile, the Criticisms section includes a description of a murder and four disappearances without ever explaining how they are supposedly linked to Nawaz. That's a BLP problem. The article is full of grammar and spelling errors and parts of it are out of date. Important and sometimes contentious sentences are not sourced. Black Kite (talk) 10:42, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I've pulled this after seeing it at errors for an unrelated reason. I have no problems putting his conviction on the main page, but the grammar in the article is truly terrible, including things like "Financial policies drafted and approved by Sharif, who was backed by General Zia, Punjab Province benefited with the better financial capital and purchasing power of Punjab Province's locals were greatly and exponentially improved". Vanamonde (talk) 10:48, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) China–United States trade warEdit

Article: 2018 China-United States trade war (talk, history)
Blurb: China and the United States each impose $34bn in tariffs on each other's goods.
News source(s): BBC, Guardian

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Current tariffs equal 0.1% of global GDP, and could be the start of an escalating trade war. These are the first actual actions in this much-discussed trade war. Economically, these are big numbers already. Article is unfortunately pretty terrible shape (and I myself can't do any work on it until at least tomorrow) and doesn't currently contain an update for these new events. LukeSurl t c 10:44, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

    • Weak Oppose Nice work Teemu08. It could use some expansion though, there is already some measurable effects from this, should be added. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:20, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose small potatoes for these guys, a bunch of posturing, and no doubt not the end in another tedious chapter of Trump's first fiefdom. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:52, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - I disagree with TRM. I happen to think that this story is notable, as it has the potential to have major long-term impacts on global economies, and indeed, we're already seeing the repercussions of it with businesses scaling back their operations or moving them elsewhere. It also involves the world's biggest importer and the world's biggest exporter in a spat, as well as the U.S. straining trade relations between its key allies. This isn't just Trump being Trump (well, it is, but it's still economically major).--WaltCip (talk) 13:25, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose because of the Timeline-based structure and Weak oppose per lack of detail of the page. But Support on news worthiness and strength of source material. Posting should be contigent only on the article being fleshed out.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 14:15, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Support either blurb or ongoing.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 03:24, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Too soon to tell if this will have an impact. It's what he ran on ("bringing jobs back from China"), so he is just implementing his agenda. And it's not a war, it's an attempt to shake up the status quo.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:17, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
    • Shanghai stock market is down 20% since this rhetoric started, so that's an impact. WP:RS is calling it a trade war, and the big deal here is that he's circumvented congress using an arcane national security clause to implement these tariffs -- and that they're already causing job loss in the United States. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:41, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
    • Campaign promises are meaningless. This is the actual start of the trade war and definitely newsworthy. -Zanhe (talk) 23:42, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support I agreed with the soft consensus earlier to post these as they went into effect. I updated the article so that it is no longer a timeline. Teemu08 (talk) 15:19, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Good work. —LukeSurl t c 16:03, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose though I'd be fine with an "ongoing" about Trump tariffs as a whole. This specific announcement isn't particularly notable compared to the rest of the stream of trade announcements. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:18, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
I wouldn't be opposed to an ongoing announcement either.--WaltCip (talk) 16:25, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support blurb or ongoing per above. Davey2116 (talk) 17:50, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - a trade war between the world's two largest economies is definitely ITN worthy. -Zanhe (talk) 18:45, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per Zanhe. Saying this isn't significant enough is like saying a trade war is never worth posting. Banedon (talk) 20:32, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Oppose ongoing post as blurb first, then move to ongoing. Banedon (talk) 09:29, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support ongoing – Immediate impact appears muted – NYSE closed flat on Fri., July 6. Sca (talk) 20:50, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support as Ongoing the trade war itself is undoubtedly newsworthy, however posting this as ongoing is more fitting than a blurb that will likely only stay up for a week a two before being overtaken by future ones. Several experts have noted that the trade war could last several months, if not a year or more, thus making more sense as ongoing. SamaranEmerald (talk) 21:07, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment re: ongoing - this is going to be a slow moving thing more suited to occasional blurbs. BREXIT is ongoing but not in the box. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:19, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Newsworthy, and putting as ongoing is better than a blurb. Ultimograph5 (talk) 22:49, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support ongoing per SamaranEmerald Openlydialectic (talk) 02:19, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong support ongoing or blurb because of all the reasons already mentioned. Brian Everlasting (talk) 06:26, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support ongoing immediate effects are not noticeable at first and are largely “muted” as noted by one of the above users. Effects will become more evident as time progresses, but will likely achieve this long after the blurb for this nomination (should it be posted) expires. Kirliator (talk) 09:22, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support blurb - Notable indeed. Let’s wait a bit for a decision on ongoing. Jusdafax (talk) 09:35, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted I see consensus. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:29, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Question about the wording: Is it correct that $34 billion in tariffs were imposed by each country, or should it state that tariffs were imposed on $34 billion worth of goods? These are quite different, since the usual tariff is 25%. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:56, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Post-posting comment – The conventional wisdom is the markets had already priced in the new tariffs last week. Note that NYSE closed up 320 Monday. Thus, this topic still seems more Ongoing-ish to me. (And BTW, $34 billion isn't so much compared to GDPs of $19 trillion (U.S.) and $14 trillion (China) in 2017.)Sca (talk) 21:16, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
I think you're misunderstanding the stock market. The stock market can go up in the short term even during a recession. Banedon (talk) 22:02, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
The DJIA and even the S&P500 us a poor indicator of the effects of these tariffs, as the effects will take a long time to materialize in the form of lower corporate earnings and poor jobs numbers. This is ongoing the same way BREXIT or the Mueller investigation are onging: long periods of silence punctuated by occasional bursts of news coverage. It's actually the perfect use case for blurbs. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:55, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Up a bit again Tuesday. Sca (talk) 21:45, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Using short-term fluctuations in the stock market as an overall indicator for economic cycles is about as reliable as betting hot numbers at roulette tables.--WaltCip (talk) 19:58, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Shoko AsaharaEdit

Stale. Stephen 01:36, 11 July 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: Shoko Asahara (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC

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: Japanese cult leader responsible for nerve gas attack on the Tokyo subway in the 1990's has been hanged. This is just breaking news. Updating in progress. Referencing needs work. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:42, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
    • Still a couple of citations needed but article is much improved. Not far to go until it is posted. Capitalistroadster (talk) 04:17, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Reopening and giving my Support. I've significantly cleaned it up. As of this comment, there is one CN tag remaining and a page number needed tag. StrikerforceTalk 16:33, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I have removed the one sentence that had a CN tag and boldly removed the page number tag, for reasons explained in my edit summary. Article now has no remaining tags. StrikerforceTalk 20:14, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Good work. Davey2116 (talk) 17:52, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Nice job on the referencing work Strikerforce. If the main article on the gas attack were in decent shape I'd consider supporting a blurb. Hanging seven men in a single day by a developed democratic state is w/o modern precedent. I think you would have to go back to the post WWII war crimes trials for anything like this. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:39, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose I really want to support. The most serious problem is the unsourced quote (second sentence in §Accusations, trial and death). There are also a couple more claims without sources in that section. I added two news sources including a book that would be helpful.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 23:18, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Good work actually. I see no problem in posting this.BabbaQ (talk) 14:05, 10 July 2018 (UTC)ä

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.

July 5Edit