Open main menu

Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/March 2018

< Wikipedia:In the news‎ | Candidates

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

March 31Edit

Portal:Current events/2018 March 31
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

Sports

[Posted] RD: Margarita CarreraEdit

Article: Margarita Carrera (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Nominator: Dumelow (talk • give credit)
Updater: FlyingAce (talk • give credit)

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: Article perhaps a little short but has been updated and sourcing seems OK Dumelow (talk) 09:14, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose One of the main references is a WordPress.Zigzig20s (talk) 09:37, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Support Problem solved.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:08, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment. The bio needs expanding. The bibliograpy is unsourced. Espresso Addict (talk) 09:41, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I'll try to improve with local sources. –FlyingAce✈hello 17:23, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose "selected works" is unreferenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:59, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
  • @The Rambling Man: Newbie question – would adding the ISBN be sufficient, or do we need a RS stating these works were authored by her? I am honestly not sure about the correct way to source lists of works. Thank you! –FlyingAce✈hello 16:52, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, ISBNs are usually considered acceptable from a verifiability and RS perspective. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:41, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
  • P.S. I do realize that the existing sources are problematic as well – I'm currently looking for better sources to replace the Wordpress blog. –FlyingAce✈hello 16:53, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Peg LautenschlagerEdit

Article: Peg Lautenschlager (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Nominator: Dumelow (talk • give credit)

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: Article has been updated and appears to be fully referenced Dumelow (talk) 09:08, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi The Rambling Man, I have now added reliable references for these results - Dumelow (talk) 21:46, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Support good enough for me now! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:50, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Chris EdwardsEdit

Article: Chris Edwards (boxer) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC, World Boxing
Nominator: Black Kite (talk • give credit)

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: British national boxing champion. Pretty well sourced now. Black Kite (talk) 12:51, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Weak support references aren't well written and some are out of order, but it's good enough. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:23, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Looks OK now. –Ammarpad (talk) 18:48, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted. SpencerT♦C 19:51, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] 2018 Land Day incidentsEdit

Article: 2018 Land Day incidents (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Admittedly, I'm struggling to think of a blurb that is both succinct and neutral
Alternative blurb: Clashes kill 16 at the border between Israel and the Gaza Strip.
Alternative blurb II: Clashes kill 17 Palestinian protesters and injure more than 1,400 others at the border between Israel and the Gaza Strip.
Alternative blurb III: Clashes at the border between Israel and the Gaza Strip leave 17 Palestinian protesters dead and over 1,400 others injured.

It seems like an entry of some kind for the 2018 Land Day incidents would be in order, if anyone can come up with a suitable blurb. 89.240.143.247 (talk) 21:20, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Weak support this has been trending on social media yet failing to break any mainstream news (how curious) but it's a significant clampdown and attack. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:22, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Possible blurb Clashes kill 16 at the border between Israel and the Gaza Strip. 89.240.143.247 (talk) 21:27, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Added  Nixinova  T  C  01:20, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - per TRM, and support proposed blurb, which I find to be phrased quite neutrally. I’d support a mention of the now 17 Palestinian protesters that died, actually, but this blurb should be acceptable. Jusdafax (talk) 21:42, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment this can't go up with a list of the dead. That's silly. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:35, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - Referenced. Sherenk1 (talk) 04:55, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - It's an important event. Oranjelo100 (talk) 05:24, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - I would clarify 16 (now 17) Palestinians died so no one concludes both sides sustained the same casualties. Other than that, I support - this major event and don't find the dead to be "silly".TheGracefulSlick (talk) 05:37, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support َA major even with significant toll in a day. Moreover, as per TheGracefulSlick, the blurb needs to include 16 Palestinians! --Mhhossein talk 06:51, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. This is actual news, as opposed to whatever this ridiculous cricket ball-molestation story is. Sandstein 10:08, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
  • You mean the biggest story for years about the second-biggest sport in the world? Black Kite (talk) 10:10, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
  • The one that's no longer in the news, that's right. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:41, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I think Sandstein needs to stop being a dick here. His edits are becoming disruptive here and if they continue I will seek for him to be topic-banned. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:57, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. All over the news, will run for a while. Black Kite (talk) 10:10, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment The article is level 4 edit protected or somesuch, I've asked that the list of victims be refed or deleted but it's gone no where. Maybe someone here with the right barnstars and flags can go and clean that up so we can post it. Without that section it's easily as long as the slew of other irrelevant disaster stories which are routinely posted. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:41, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
  • There is an unsourced paragraph, in addition to the above mentioned issue with the victim list. When those two issues are resolved, I support. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:30, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
@Muboshgu and LaserLegs: I tried to add some citations and fix the raised issues. --Mhhossein talk 20:55, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Indeed it is fixed. I now Support as it's ready. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:08, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. I still don't think a list of the individuals is encyclopedic but it's refed so support GTG --LaserLegs (talk) 23:24, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Blurb suggestion: Clashes kill 17 Palestinian protesters and injures 1,416 others at the border between Israel and the Gaza Strip. --Mhhossein talk 20:59, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
    • I'll add that as an altblurb for an WP:UNINVOLVED admin to post. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:08, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
      • I fixed that suggestion to something that might be acceptable in written English and moderately future-proofed. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:22, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Another possible blurb Clashes kill 17 Palestinians and injure more than 1,400 others during protests at the border between Israel and the Gaza Strip. Suggesting this form because Israel would strongly dispute the claim these were all merely protestors, and is accusing the majority of the dead of terrorism. -- BobTheIP editing as 89.240.143.247 (talk) 21:45, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Lots of people involved; newsworthy.  Nixinova  T  C  21:49, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support altblurb 2 & 3 - I'm amazed this hasn't been posted yet. No need to whitewash this. The fact that the people killed are Palestinians needs to be in the blurb. --39.57.233.22 (talk) 07:54, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment anyone here to post this? It's been ready for a couple of days now. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:42, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted. Alt3. SpencerT♦C 19:46, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
  • not 3: I would leave out the number injured because it is not independently verified, and including it supports the Hamas POV. OtterAM (talk) 22:30, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

March 30Edit

Portal:Current events/2018 March 30
Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Politics and elections

Law and crime

Science and technology

Sports

[Closed] Win Myint appointed President of MyanmarEdit

Stale. Stephen 01:07, 6 April 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: Win Myint (politician) (talk, history)
Blurb: Win Myint is sworn in as President of Myanmar.
Alternative blurb: Win Myint is elected by the Electoral College as President of Myanmar
News source(s): BBC
Nominator: Lihaas (talk • give credit)

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

Nominator's comments: ITNR as head of state change and it ain't a small country barely in the news. Lihaas (talk) 18:34, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support-Head of state changes are important, no matter the importance of the country, should be posted once the article is no longer a stub. Awestruck1(talk) 22:35, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment- I would support it, but the article is not good enough. It's a stub or a start at best.--SirEdimon (talk) 22:54, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
  • It's long enough, but it needs sources. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:54, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose There are 5 {{cn}} templates that must be fix them. Hanamanteo (talk) 04:30, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Per BBC, this should be under 28 March, when the MPs elected him. Added altblurb for clarity. Brandmeistertalk 07:27, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per Awestruck1. Some extensions needed. Juxlos (talk) 10:11, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose the ITNR is for the article about the election result. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:24, 1 April 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: Bill MaynardEdit

Stale, unimproved. Stephen 03:43, 3 April 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: Bill Maynard (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-43596854
Nominator: Aiken drum (talk • give credit)

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: British actor. Needs a few extra references. Aiken D 12:57, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Needs more sourcing mainly towards information regarding his career.--TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:38, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Poor quality, undersourced article. Television and Filmography section is completely unreferenced. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:38, 30 March 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.

March 29Edit

Portal:Current events/2018 March 29
Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sports

[Updated] Update on Russian diplomat expulsion storyEdit

Article: Poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal (talk, history)
Blurb: No blurb specified
Nominator: WaltCip (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: Cross-posted from ITN/Errors where it was deleted: Apparently Russia now intends to expel at least 60 diplomats as a retaliation for having their diplomats expelled by the Western nations. Should we update the blurb with this? This is pretty serious. WaltCip (talk) 11:24, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Support - yes we should. Expanding the blurb to include the Russian retaliation makes sense, and this expansion is clearly notable, representing escalation and development to an already listed item. Stormy clouds (talk) 12:20, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Bump as combined blurb, something like "Russia and over 20 countries expel each other's diplomats in response to the poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal", perhaps with the Reactions to the poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal as a new target. Brandmeistertalk 13:38, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Maybe this should be moved to Ongoing. Natureium (talk) 14:23, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Update and Bump My gut says this may be winding down so I don't think ongoing is the optimal course. But who knows. This has already gone on longer than I expected. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:47, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support updating without bump So long as it's on the main page, it should be up to date. However, it's still second on the ITN list. By the time it is pushed off, it should be done. I don't feel that it's necessary to keep having the latest news on Russian international drama posted and bumped to the top of the main page every time something happens, but with all of that being said I still agree that this is an important story that belongs on the main page because of its unquestionable impact on global diplomacy. I also support the phrasing in Brandmeister's proposal as the nominator did not provide a proposed updated blurb. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 15:36, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support blurb update The current blurb has a few days still, so adding this makes the most sense rather than a new blurb. --Masem (t) 18:38, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Update and bump agree with Brandmeister. Banedon (talk) 21:15, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support updating without bump - Agree with the update, but no bump is needed per BrendonTheWizard. Jusdafax (talk) 00:00, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Since there seems to be consensus for doing so, I have updated the blurb but not bumped it, as suggested. Think I did it right. 331dot (talk) 08:17, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Egyptian Presidential election 2018Edit

Articles: Egyptian presidential election, 2018 (talk, history) and Abdel Fattah el-Sisi (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Incumbent Abdel Fattah el-Sisi wins the Egyptian presidential election, 2018
News source(s): [1] [2]
Nominator: Banedon (talk • give credit)
Updater: Number 57 (talk • give credit)

Article updated

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.

 Banedon (talk) 22:41, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose According to the article, the winner will not be announced until 2 April, assuming there is no run-off. TheMrP (talk) 03:06, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Wait until formal announcement on April 2 as noted in article.--Jayron32 03:37, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support- A new president in such a country such as Egypt should be posted Awestruck1(talk) 22:37, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Well of course, but it’s ITN/R, so we’re looking at article quality. To me it makes no sense to post this until results are confirmed on April 2. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:43, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - Confirmed by Economist as well [3] Sherenk1 (talk) 05:00, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose obviously. The second sentence of the lead says "A runoff, if necessary, will take place 19 April to 21 April outside the country and 24 April to 26 April within the country.". So this is clearly not ready. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:25, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per ITN/R. --Jamez42 (talk) 00:43, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment. The election article is not updated fully and has no post-election section. In particular, The Guardian source above is commenting on the high proportion of spoiled ballots. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:29, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Emiliano MondonicoEdit

Article: Emiliano Mondonico (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BT
Nominator: Harambe Walks (talk • give credit)
Updater: Danieletorino2 (talk • give credit)
Other updaters: Messirulez (talk • give credit)

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

Nominator's comments: This article is looking very well referenced due to the work of two specialists in Italian football. Harambe Walks (talk) 20:50, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Support Looks good. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:40, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:26, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment coming up to being ready to post for 24 hours now. Anyone here? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:43, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted. If an admin could doublecheck that I did it right, I'd appreciate it. 331dot (talk) 18:49, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
    • 331dot All fine. And congrats on becoming an admin ;) --Tone 18:54, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

[Closed] Pope says there is no HellEdit

Nomination withdrawn per 331dot's comment. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:50, 29 March 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: Pope Francis (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In an interview, Pope Francis states there is no Hell.
News source(s): Newsweek and numerous other sources.
Nominator: Ad Orientem (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Religious news doesn't often make it on here but this sounds pretty significant not least because it at least appears to contradict what the Roman Catholic Church has traditionally taught on this subject. Ad Orientem (talk) 16:39, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment. I honestly am not sure about the merits of this at the moment. But skimming the Newsweek piece, the Church is stating that it was not a formal interview but a private conversation and is challenging the accuracy of the transcript. Either way, this isn't the Pope making a formal declaration of Church policy/teachings. 331dot (talk) 16:42, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
That's a fair point. This is not an ex cathedra pronouncement and it changes no doctrine. I may withdraw this. However the Vatican's response is not really a denial. They play this game whenever this Pope puts his foot in his mouth by issuing a non-denial denial. "Well he may not have been accurately quoted... blah blah blah." -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:44, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Also a fair point. 331dot (talk) 16:48, 29 March 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: Rusty StaubEdit

Stale, unimproved. Stephen 03:43, 3 April 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: Rusty Staub (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): ESPN
Nominator: Everymorning (talk • give credit)

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: Looks mostly well sourced (but there are some unsourced bits and pieces that need to be cleaned up). Every morning (there's a halo...) 15:39, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Some sections of the article have less than three citations. Overall yes it's not in bad shape, but there is room for more citations (plus I'm not sure if this is a merit for the nomination but the article does have a very few bare URLs that wouldn't hurt to clean up). --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:09, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose not the greatest article, and a few citations missing, but not far off. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:59, 29 March 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.

March 28Edit

Portal:Current events/2018 March 28
Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

[Posted] 2018 Valencia, Venezuela fireEdit

Article: 2018 Valencia, Venezuela fire (talk, history)
Blurb: A fire in a police station in Valencia, Venezuela kills at least 78 people.
News source(s): Guardian BBC CNN ABC
Nominator: Everymorning (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Large death toll, lots of media attention, but article is very new and also very small, so expansion is clearly needed. Note also that ABC News [4] says this is "one of the worst catastrophes involving the nation's prison system." Every morning (there's a halo...) 15:20, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Support - short but sufficient. High number of deaths.BabbaQ (talk) 20:33, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - but it needs expansion, as noted. I just rated it as a “stub.” Jusdafax (talk) 20:42, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose clearly not suitable for main page, a handful of sentences, barely a stub. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:51, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment. Not currently of sufficient quality but there's a lot more in the Guardian article, so expansion is possible. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:57, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose stub. What, beyond the death toll makes it notable? It'll probably be out of the headlines by morning. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:00, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - Sufficiently developed. - Sherenk1 (talk) 02:37, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, I’ve been adding a bit. It’s now a “start” class, and I’ve rated it as such. Jusdafax (talk) 05:13, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Article has been expanded. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:39, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support- This fire made major news for many reasons, such as corruption, etc. Awestruck1(talk)10:57, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
I have now added a “Background” section and upgraded the article class to C. Jusdafax (talk) 23:27, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Article has improved, and the story is getting significant coverage - was front page of the New York Times today. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:31, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted. Thanks everyone who improved this. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:15, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment. I'd like to ask for a change in the blurb, the official death toll given by William Saab was 68 deaths, like BBC, CNN and ABC reported, I'm not sure why the Guardian has a different figure. Here are other sources that show the same official estimate: [5][6][7][8][9] --Jamez42 (talk) 02:04, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I've edited this. I don't know where the 78 figure came from. The Guardian now seems to state 68 too. Thanks for commenting. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:29, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment "A fire" can't kill people. Please fix the grammar of this blurb. — Hugh (talk) 21:38, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
    Yes it can. We use regular English here. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:39, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Clément RossetEdit

Stale, unimproved. Stephen 03:42, 3 April 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: Clément Rosset (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Truong, Nicolas (28 March 2018). "Mort de Clément Rosset, philosophe de la joie tragique". Le Monde. Retrieved 29 March 2018.; Franck-Dumas, Elisabeth (28 March 2018). "LE PHILOSOPHE CLÉMENT ROSSET RATTRAPÉ PAR LE RÉEL". Libération. Retrieved 29 March 2018.
Nominator: Zigzig20s (talk • give credit)

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

Nominator's comments: French philosopher Zigzig20s (talk) 12:28, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose on quality The list of works in French will need sourcing. If we take the bibliography out, the article is woefully short, and really needs some expansion to get past a stub. This might be a language barrier issue. --Masem (t) 13:52, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Bibliography needs sourcing and the article is basically a stub. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:03, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per both above. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:51, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment User:LouisAlain improved the bibliography. We don't have a rule against stubs, do we?Zigzig20s (talk) 21:12, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia:In_the_news#Article_quality: "Articles should be a minimally comprehensive overview of the subject, not omitting any major items. Stub articles are never appropriate for the main page." This includes RDs as well. Looking at Rosset's article, there isn't sufficiently comprehensive coverage of the subject's work as a writer and philosopher (there are only 4 sentences dedicated to that). SpencerT♦C 02:33, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
User:LouisAlain: Would you like to help with this please? It would involve translating the French text.Zigzig20s (talk) 08:35, 2 April 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: Sir Eric McClintockEdit

Article: Eric McClintock (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The Australian Financial Review
Nominator: TDKR Chicago 101 (talk • give credit)

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

Nominator's comments: Well sourced article --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 06:45, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Support looks okay. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:43, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment. Not sure it's ready, let alone "Ready!!!!!!!" On a quick scan, the article looks well enough sourced but it is still very short, as it was the last twice I looked. Personally I like two different reviewers to check, though I know other admins differ. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:33, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Short but meets RD requirements. Pawnkingthree (talk) 03:35, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Short but well referenced. -Zanhe (talk) 10:39, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted. Black Kite (talk) 12:26, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

[Closed] Galaxy seemingly without Dark MatterEdit

No consensus to post. Stephen 23:29, 2 April 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: NGC1052-DF2 (talk, history) and Dark matter (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Astronomers report that galaxy NGC1052-DF2 has no detected dark matter.
Alternative blurb: ​Astronomers report that galaxy NGC1052-DF2 has no detected dark matter.
Alternative blurb II: ​Astronomers report that galaxy NGC1052-DF2 appears to contain little or no dark matter. (Please note: this is the original blurb, to which many of the comments below refer)
News source(s): BBC, Irish Examiner, Herald Scotland, National Post (Canada)
Nominator: Tlhslobus (talk • give credit)

Both articles updated

Nominator's comments: The most important possibility is that this unexpected discovery, the first of its kind, may eventually prove that dark matter is real, and not just an illusion caused by a currently unknown effect of the gravity of ordinary matter. But, as with all important discoveries, further study will be needed before any of this can be confirmed (so using that argument to oppose posting would seem to logically rule out all or almost all important discoveries, with the initial story being rejected as unconfirmed, and the eventual confirmation(s) later rightly rejected as not news). Also the first of the two main target 'articles' is currently a section of another article (reached via a Redirect), which, for all I know, may well have to be changed to being its own article. Tlhslobus (talk) 05:28, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Dark matter is 85% of all matter so this is.. interesting. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 05:50, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose "appears" and "little or no" render this DYK material. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:23, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Agree with TRM, this is probably better suited for DYK although I am not sure if there are enough information at the moment to expand. Alex Shih (talk) 06:59, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support on merits, though I haven't had a chance to look at the article quality. This is in the news and I think fits points 1 and 3 of the purpose of ITN. GoldenRing (talk) 10:45, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose - certainly significant, but I agree with TRM and Alex Shih that this is probably better suited to DYK. Stormy clouds (talk) 11:07, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak support Interesting and noteworthy. The blurb does not sound news-y, and if this were good to go for DYK then I would tell them to go there. But I support it on its merits per GoldenRing. talk to !dave 12:25, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose it’s a single paper, and may be overturned. With the “appears to” it makes little sense to report it as fact. Juxlos (talk) 13:06, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose While astronomic topics are a welcome addition for ITN, this appears highly speculative and will be impossible to prove out in any real time scale. --Masem (t) 13:50, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support if areas of concern are fixed. I support this based on merit, but I do agree with the oppose !vote rationale that DYK is more fitting. Blurb should be modified if added into ITN, as Juxlos pointed out that "appears to" heavily implies that these findings remain early and speculative rather than confirmed and objective. It is also worth noting that this blurb puts both in-text links in bold; the primary article for this ITN submission should be bolded, and all article links should simply be non-bold links. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 15:19, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: Thanks for all the replies, and especially all the suggestions to take it to DYK. I've never done a DYK before, and I'm finding all sorts of potential banana skins when trying to prepare this one for nomination there, such as whether what is currently a Redirect to a section of another article will do (seemingly not), and whether, despite TRM's comment above, 'appears' and 'little or no' are incompatible with "The hook should refer to established facts that are unlikely to change" (from here), and whether it is problematic that the 'little or no' is another editor's paraphrasing of the Nature paper, whereas the cited BBC article just says 'no', and so on. So I've decided I would probably prefer to leave any DYK nom to some editor more familiar with that process than me (and find some simpler case for my first DYK nom some other time, if ever). Meanwhile I was thinking of withdrawing this nom here due to the DYK suggestions, but as DYK also seems problematic, and as there have so far actually been 4 support !votes (5 if you include me, as against 5 opposes), so that it is just possible (tho seemingly unlikely) that a consensus for posting could yet emerge, I've decided to leave any decision on closing this nom to others. Thanks again to all, and regards, Tlhslobus (talk) 16:02, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Re DYK, redirects are out and the entire article, never mind the hooky section, is far too short for DYK at present. If it could be expanded I see no reason in principle why it should not be acceptable there. You can always write a hook that quotes someone; that will remain true (ie that s/he said x) even if the opinion subsequently turns out to be incorrect. (Which is the line the BBC report has largely taken.) Espresso Addict (talk) 18:49, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the helpful info (but see item 3 in my comment below). Tlhslobus (talk) 10:52, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment
    • 0) As I don't expect this nom to succeed, this comment is probably mostly 'just for the record' and/or 'just for future reference', etc
    • 1) Bold Links: Per Brendan The Wizard, I've changed the blurb to just one bold link.
      • 1b) Currently that is NGC1052-DF2 because, being short, it has no Citations Needed issues, etc
      • 1c) However if Dark Matter is deemed (now or later) to be of adequate quality then I would marginally prefer it to be the bold link, as somewhat better serving ITN's stated purpose of giving readers the background to the story, so I've added this as altblurb1
      • 1d) But actually WP:ITN is currently a bit ambiguous about how many bold links there can be, tho the '(s)' in "with an emboldened link to the updated article(s)." (here) appears to imply that one can have more than one, so if a posting admin wants to bold both articles (in the unlikely event this gets posted), please feel free to do so.
    • 2) Re-wording: Due to various objections above about 'appears' and 'little or no', I've re-worded the blurb as: Astronomers report that galaxy NGC1052-DF2 has no detected dark matter. (This is repeated with Dark matter bolded in altblurb1, per item 1c above).
      • 2b) However I've left the original wording as altblurb2, as I think the original wording is actually much better. As far as I'm concerned, objections to 'appears' and 'little or no' and objections like "it’s a single paper, and may be overturned" and "With the “appears to” it makes little sense to report it as fact", etc, are dangerously misguided. With science stories, the only thing we should normally report as fact is that scientists have published something. Anything else tends to mislead our readers about the inherently speculative and reversible nature of Science, thus encouraging Cargo Cult views of Science. It has also led us to mislead many of our readers in practice (even if in theory we can always arrogantly blame them for their 'ignorant misunderstanding', etc), and perhaps also unnecessarily damaged our reputation, by posting stories like Dua's layer without qualifying words like 'possible' (for all except that story's last day at ITN). And it comes from a mindset that would prevent us reporting many of the most important results in Science (such as the Michelson–Morley experiment, and Eddington's 1919 General Relativity test, etc), initially (and wrongly) because they might be reversed, and later (and rightly) because they were no longer news.
    • 3) DYK v ITN: Despite above suggestions, I no longer think this is suitable for DYK, as, among other things, it would seemingly require questionably moving an article section to become a new article, and then padding it out with unencyclopedic waffle to fill the size requirements, etc. Meanwhile I think it remains entirely appropriate for ITN, for reasons well stated above, especially by GoldenRing (for which many thanks).
    • 4) Regards, Tlhslobus (talk) 10:52, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support, if that even carries any meaning given my perceived inconsequential status. I would like to at least thank Tlhslobus for the hard work and determination in bringing this article to discussion. As little as a year ago, this page was highly informative with genuine discourse from international viewpoints. I could always count on it to educate me regarding various news items with commentary from those more familiar with the events than populist news outlets. These days, sadly, it degenerates far too quickly into passive aggression and nasty attitudes. It's neither enjoyable nor educational when that happens. There also seems to be far too much weight given towards pointless sporting events, but that's only my opinion. I come here for the education, not the drama, and not for its value as a sports almanac. 165.225.0.85 (talk)
Thanks for your kind words and your support, 165.225.0.85. Incidentally, if you're worried about your perceived status here, the quickest way to improve it is almost certainly to create a user account for yourself. It's free and all you need is an e-mail address (and you can then click on 'Create account' at the top of this page). Anyway, thanks again, and regards. Tlhslobus (talk) 13:13, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: To say that a galaxy "has no detected dark matter" is poor grammar. "Scientists are unable to detect any dark matter in galaxy x" would be an improvement. — Hugh (talk) 20:47, 2 April 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: Bobby FergusonEdit

Article: Bobby Ferguson (footballer, born 1938) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC
Nominator: Harambe Walks (talk • give credit)

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

Nominator's comments: Going out on a limb here. Practically all of this I have sourced from the obituary in the local newspaper ([10]) but for somebody who worked for a medium-sized football team in the 1970s and 1980s that may be as good as we get. Harambe Walks (talk) 23:01, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Support I see no reason not to post. Article seems ready.BabbaQ (talk) 23:33, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Well sourced. Marking ready. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:24, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak support: Not exactly sure about the importance but it's not a reason to oppose. Article is sourced and ready to go; however RD slots are currently filled with very recent entries, so ideally this should wait for another two days. Alex Shih (talk) 06:53, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support good to go. Important enough, managed second tier English football team, far more notable in the world of sports than most college basketball coaches. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:41, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment 14 hours later ......... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:52, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted. SpencerT♦C 21:45, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Peter MunkEdit

Article: Peter Munk (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Global News
Nominator and updater: Floydian (talk • give credit)

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: Founder of Barrick Gold. Article is pretty well sourced as is but there are a few unsourced statements (notably in the Honours section). Floydian τ ¢ 19:27, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Support but only when the entire article is referenced. As of now many sections are almost without references.BabbaQ (talk) 19:35, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I've made some edits to reference the unreferenced sections. Should be good to go. - Floydian τ ¢ 21:00, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Sorry for late reply. I see that the article has been posted. Good work!BabbaQ (talk) 23:28, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

*Oppose until orange tag issues are fixed. Challenger l (talk) 20:53, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Really? You'd hold this back based on a tag added 30 minutes ago because the lede isn't long enough?!? ITN has become a bureaucratic red tape these days. Article is fine. - Floydian τ ¢ 20:58, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 22:56, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support. Glad the issue was an easy fix. Challenger l (talk) 18:27, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] Smith and Warner sacked from international cricketEdit

Posted, and there's no need for debates about cricket popularity. Stephen 23:00, 28 March 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: Steve Smith (cricketer) (talk, history) and David Warner (cricketer) (talk, history)
Blurb: Cricket Australia ban Steve Smith and David Warner for twelve months and Cameron Bancroft for nine months from international cricket amid a ball tampering controversy.
Alternative blurb: ​As a result of the verdict given by the CA, both Steve Smith and David Warner have been banned from playing in the upcoming 2018 Indian Premier League season.
Alternative blurb II: Cricket Australia bans Steve Smith and David Warner for 12 months from all top-flight cricket in the aftermath of a ball tampering incident.
News source(s): (BBC Sport), (CNN), (ESPN Cricinfo)
Nominator: Abishe (talk • give credit)
Updater: Lugnuts (talk • give credit)
Other updaters: Propadog (talk • give credit) and Spike 'em (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: This is one of the breaking news in the aspect of the sport of cricket as two most prominent cricketers have been banned for one year has been the story on the headlines. Abishe (talk) 14:35, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose – It wouldn't be cricket to post this. Sca (talk) 16:37, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support I've boldly tweaked the nomination because it didn't have a highlighted article in the blurb suggestion; looking at possible targets those on the athletes are both high quality articles which have extensive writing on the specific subject of the blurb. Given that we have good articles, and that this is a highly publicized story in the world wide press (even in cricket ignorant America, broadcast news like NPR is giving the story prominence). Quality articles? Check. Currently a major story? Check. --Jayron32 16:47, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment There are actually three cricketers banned. Cameron Bancroft is less high-profile but it still seems odd to omit any mention of him. I think Australian cricket team in South Africa in 2017–18#Ball_tampering may be a better target article - it meets the update requirements.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:02, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
    I would rather highlight and bold the three cricketer articles rather than the article you suggest because that article has major ommissions in its prose; basically there is no prose OUTSIDE of the ball tampering issue, which is a major WP:UNDUE issue; there should be summaries of all of the tests in sufficient detail, and basically its a few tables and three paragraphs on the ball tampering. At least the three cricketer articles are sufficiently detailed. I'd actually rather do that... I have tweaked the blurb to include all three names. --Jayron32 17:11, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
    N.B. Cameron Bancroft (not Cameron Bancroft) has been banned for only 9 months, not 12. 86.170.155.164 (talk) 17:20, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
    So fixed. --Jayron32 17:23, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. I know little of cricket, but this seems to be unusual and a big deal. 331dot (talk) 17:08, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
There have been several previous incidents - see Ball tampering - but this seems to be the biggest in terms of media reaction and severity of punishment.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:17, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support and it has the advantage of being relevant in parts of the world that are often less covered, let alone in a single line (E.g, Europe [UK], South hemisphere (Aus.), Asia (India, Pakistan, Bangladesh) and the Carribean (West Indies). Sorted! —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap shit room 17:19, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Athletes are suspended and/or fined all the time. Not making sports headlines (maybe cricket headlines but where do we draw the line). David_Warner_(cricketer) has a number of CN tags and unreferenced claims. Steve_Smith_(cricketer) as well. Before we gasp "A BILLION people in India watch cricket (I surveyed them all myself) this is BIG NEWS" at the very least get the articles cleaned up. If you need me to go through and spam them with CN tags, please, LMK. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:26, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
    Why not just improve those articles? How often does a Prime Minister like Malcolm Turnbull get involved? 86.170.155.164 (talk) 17:37, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: There is now a separate article for this incident (Australian ball tampering scandal), Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 18:02, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - This is massive. High-profile athletes being suspended for a very long time over what is essentially cheating.--WaltCip (talk) 18:12, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support it would be nice to have some good news stories at ITN and this certainly one of those. Plus it's been mainstream news since it broke and it continues to get worse for the Australians, so we should certainly be posting this.... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:29, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Athletes are suspended all the time for improper activities (cheating, doping, etc.); this is nowhere close to a scope or scale that I would consider front page material (something akin to the Russia doping issue that led to their inability to participate in the Winter Olympics under the Russian flag, that's severe). The fact that those accused admitted to it, have taken the penalties and/or resigned makes this a relatively not-notable event that could possibly fail NEVENT (eg merged to Australian cricket team in South Africa in 2017–18 where there's already a similar section). I mean, we did not (wisely) post Deflategate, despite the fact that involved high-profile players and involved a handful of trials (whereas here, guilt has been established). Yes, its news from underrepresented countries, but let's keep the larger purpose of ITN in mind here. --Masem (t) 18:40, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
There is no way this would fail NEVENT. The amount of coverage generated means it would quickly overwhelm the article on the tour and raise UNDUE concerns, as Jayron32 notes above, so it has rightly been spun off into its own article.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:49, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
A burst of short-term coverage and no longer-tail coverage would fail NEVENT/GNG. That's a core element of WP being NOT#NEWS comes into play, we're looking for news events that have a longer-lasting impact. If this event started a large investigation into cheating in cricket, then perhaps the article is justified, but right now, with all those involved having asserted their guilt and taken the punishment, it seems like the end of the story here. Its still enough to include in a more notable standalone article. --Masem (t) 18:55, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
This isn't a burst, this has been massive news for days and will continue to be so while the fallout is analysed, it'll no doubt have an impact on the way in which the ball is inspected and treated by umpires, and is very much not the end of a story. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:15, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support This is huge - the Australian cricket captain is arguably the most high-profile sportsperson in the country and he's been banned for a year for cheating.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:51, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Big news right now, biographies updated, etc. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 19:48, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per WaltCip. Huge impact on an international sport, I'm even seeing it in my news feeds here in the U.S. Davey2116 (talk) 19:58, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support alt 2 I don't particularly find this very interesting, but it dominates Australian news (even saw one article say the cricket captain is the second most important person in Australia, after the prime minister), and it's not mine to judge what should be interesting to Australians. Banedon (talk) 20:13, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. What even is this sport? Trivia. Sandstein 20:38, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
    What even is this !vote? Absurd. Cricket is far more global than (say) American football, or ice hockey, or college basketball... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:46, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
    I don't particularly care about the nomination but that is patently false, TRM. You might be right about the American-style football bit, since that is primarily played in the US, but ice hockey and basketball? First, "college basketball" is not a sport, but a level to distinguish between professional and amateur. I know you know this, but I thought I'd point that out for others. Basketball and ice hockey are international sports which are played at the Olympic level and cricket is, well, not. It's mostly popular in the UK, the Indian subcontinent and Australasia, but that's about it. — Moe Epsilon 22:37, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
    You forgot about Southern Africa (Zimbabwe and South Africa where coincidentally the cheating happened) and the English-speaking Caribbean (Jamaica, Trinidad & Tobago, etc.). Gizza (t)(c) 22:56, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment clear consensus to post now, so good to go, marking as ready. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:47, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted. I've not bolded the tampering article for now, first because I think "scandal" is a poor choice of title & second because it has no lead and thus is confusing if you have not been following this. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:07, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment both articles have unreferneced paragraphs. I don't know what "On 6 September 2017, while playing against Bangladesh at the Zohur Ahmed Chowdhury Stadium, Chittagong,he became the sixth Australian player to score back-to-back test hundreds in Asia after Allan Border, Bob Simpson, Damien Martyn, Mike Hussey and Michael Clarke." means but it's unreferneced. If you're going to pile on "support OMG big news" could you at least take a cursory glance at the article? This is absurd. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:15, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
    The target has been changed. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:23, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
    Thanks TRM. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:28, 28 March 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] Kim Jong Un visits ChinaEdit

SNOW Close, interesting nomination nonetheless, but the consensus is almost completely against posting this. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 15:47, 28 March 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: China–North Korea relations (talk, history)
Blurb: ​North Korean Leader Kim Jong-un meets with Chinese President Xi Jinping in Beijing.
News source(s): (The New York Times)
Nominator: Colipon (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Momentous visit - probably going to be rivalled in news value only by Trump visiting North Korea. —Colipon, 02:45, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose If the meeting info is only one line on the page I don't think this should be posted. Is "China–NK" relations really the best article to use here? – Nixinova T | E ⟩ 03:23, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment. Not opposed in principle, but the update is a single uninformative sentence. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:26, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Espresso Addict; I am not opposed to this in principle. However, this does not offer the user with any meaningful or substantive information about what the context or significance of this story is; the purpose, outcome, or impact of the meeting are missing. However, if more information is offered than simply stating the meeting is taking place, I may reconsider my !vote based on the new information. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 04:17, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose World leaders meet everyday and it must be covered by media. Not ITN worthy . –Ammarpad (talk) 10:30, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose In the grand scheme of things, this is a routine meeting, even if it is Kim's first venture outside NK. The blurb is extremely uninformative. talk to !dave 11:59, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Ammarpad and per Dave. Also, contrary to nom's claim, we've no way of knowing whether there's anything 'momentous' about this visit. Tlhslobus (talk) 12:55, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Just showing the flag. Main point of interest is his ornate VIP train. Sca (talk) 14:40, 28 March 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.

March 27Edit

Portal:Current events/2018 March 27
Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

[Closed] Fabiano Caruana qualifies for World Chess ChampionshipEdit

The Championship itself is ITN/R. Clear consensus against posting makes this a snow closure. Checkmate. Stormy clouds (talk) 22:44, 27 March 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: Candidates Tournament 2018 (talk, history) and Fabiano Caruana (talk, history)
Blurb: Fabiano Caruana becomes the first Italian person to qualify for the World Chess Championship.
Alternative blurb: Fabiano Caruana becomes the first American to qualify for an undisputed World Chess Championship since 1975.
Alternative blurb II: Fabiano Caruana wins the Candidates Tournament 2018 to qualify for the World Chess Championship.
Nominator: Sagittarian Milky Way (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: (dozens of undisputed chess world championships have been played since the first in 1886, and 2018 will be the 16th since 1972) If posted at all should be now since he's unlikely to win — his opponent's stronger than him (Magnus) and Americans haven't even been runner up since 1907 besides that one time that genius played in 1972 then went crazy (Kamsky lost the FIDE World Chess Championship 1996 to the favorite but that shouldn't count since there were 2 rival championships in the 90s and he missed out on getting into the stronger one by 1 place) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:47, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose a good DYK. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:48, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose I disagree this should be posted now. On the contrary, as the World Chess Championship is WP:ITN/R the nomination should be done once the match has taken place - if the quality is there it will be posted.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:53, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
    • Of course an ITNR event should be posted. Having to also suffix one of the first 2 blurbs to "Magnus Carlsen wins" would probably make that blurb too long so it really would be posted now or never (unless the underdog wins) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:01, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I've added an ALT2, as I don't think either ethnic-themed hook is reasonable. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:54, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
    No, we'll post the winner of the tournament if the article is up to scratch, but otherwise this is just trivia. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:55, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
    Oppose I agree. Probably important enough for Portal:Current events, but not here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:03, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. We can post the winner of the world championship when that happens (it's on ITNR), but merely qualifying for it is far FAR too minor for ITN. Modest Genius talk 19:55, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Multiple (edit conflict) Oppose per TRM. However if she he wins I will happily support posting that subject to article quality. On a side note we don't generally put ethnicity in blurbs. He's American. That's about as far as I'd go. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:56, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
He, not she. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:57, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
It certainly would be notable if a woman had qualified for the World Championship, but we're still waiting for that.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:00, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
He's a citizen of both the US and Italy but moot point as this is snow close. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:39, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Footnotes to chess history. Post championship results. Sca (talk) 19:59, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose qualification is not worthy enough to yield a blurb, wait for the actual results of the championship for that matter. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 21:42, 27 March 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.

March 26Edit

Portal:Current events/2018 March 26
Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

[Closed] RD: Zeke UpshawEdit

Notability is in doubt At least 8 editors have expressed serious doubts that the subject passes the relevant guidelines for establishing encyclopedic notability. AfD anyone? -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:52, 27 March 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: Zeke Upshaw (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The Washington Post The Guardian
Nominator and updater: Bagumba (talk • give credit)
Other updaters: NBA Fan44 (talk • give credit)

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: Professional basketball player collapsed during a game and died two days later. —Bagumba (talk) 18:14, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Looks to be ready for the main page. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:20, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Note I don't really have any knowledge of notability for US sports, but this is another example of a biography that was only created after the subject died. Black Kite (talk) 18:21, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
    • The article cites multiple sources of significant coverage from before his death, most of which have his name in its title.—Bagumba (talk) 18:23, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
      • That's not the point I was making. He appears to have only played college and minor league basketball; all the references - bar possibly one - are pretty routine sports reports and transfer news etc. So the question remains - is he notable? Given our very comprehensive coverage of popular sports, I'm always very wary of suggesting an RD for someone who didn't have an article before their death, and indeed recently most examples of this have been turned down. Black Kite (talk) 18:28, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - Indeed ready for main page.BabbaQ (talk) 18:33, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose RD - Notability was established upon death, not prior to.--WaltCip (talk) 18:38, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I am taking no position on this and may post it based on article quality. However as questions have been raised over notability I have requested a 2nd opinion at WT:SPORTS. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:43, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
He appears to fail WP:NBASKETBALL as he has not "won an award, or led the league in a major statistical category of the NBA G League" - merely appearing in a minor league is not sufficient.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:25, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
I agree that WP:NBASKETBALL is not met. I estimate it would have had a 50-50 chance of surviving at AFD (based on GNG arguments) if it had been created before his recent death. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:31, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose based on the fact that he doesn't meet the notability criteria. Tragic as the death is, that's all his Wikipedia notability amounts to. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:34, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose would have not qualified for an article under either GNG or NSPORTS prior to death. --Masem (t) 19:39, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose as not meriting an article, his tragic death non withstanding. 331dot (talk) 21:04, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose, per above. We should probably edit the RD criteria to state that articles created on death are not automatically entitled to an RD airing (where quality is sufficient); there's a covert "notability is supported by survival in mainspace for a few months" clause in there. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:43, 27 March 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: Sergei MavrodiEdit

Article: Sergei Mavrodi (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): ABC News
Nominator: Brandmeister (talk • give credit)

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

Nominator's comments: Article in decent shape. Post-Soviet folks remember his now ridiculous MMM commercials on TV. Brandmeistertalk 14:21, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Support good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:58, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Article looks fine.–Ammarpad (talk) 07:38, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - ready for posting, as the article is fine. Stormy clouds (talk) 08:23, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 09:40, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] Expulsion of Russian DiplomatsEdit

Articles: Russia-United States relations (talk, history) and Poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal (talk, history)
Blurb: ​President Donald Trump orders the closure of a Russian consulate in Seattle, Washington and the expulsion of 60 Russian officials in retaliation for the attempted murder of Sergei V. Skripal.
Alternative blurb: ​Eighteen countries announce the expulsion of Russian diplomats in response to the poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal.
News source(s): NYT Guardian
Nominator: WaltCip (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: The toughest ever action taken against the Kremlin by the Trump administration to date. WaltCip (talk) 13:12, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, corrected.--WaltCip (talk) 13:19, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose More fallout/continued action over the Skirpal poisoning. We don't need every major action that happens. --Masem (t) 13:30, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
    • Support altblurb on the 18 countries doing it as a joint response. --Masem (t) 16:22, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Another trail of now banal story. Not ITN worthy at all. –Ammarpad (talk) 13:41, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Britain expelled diplomats too, and I don't think that was nominated. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:49, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
    • It was both nominated and posted, but the UK has a lot more skin in the game here than the US that their response makes sense to cover, since the incident happened on their lands. --Masem (t) 13:55, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
      • You beat me to it. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:57, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
        • My mistake. Of course, as indeed this directly involves the UK, that was a worthy update to post. This is oddly delayed (well, we can guess why it was delayed) and doesn't merit posting. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:01, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
    • Changing to support alt blurb. This is a multinational coordinated effort, not "Trump being Trump". That makes it more significant, even if the guy I heard on NPR called it more "symbolic" than a threat leading to war. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:27, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Target article orange tagged, lots of proseline, no meaningful update. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:57, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment As mentioned above, when the same exact thing happened in the UK literally twelve days ago I guess it means more than it does here. This kind of crap is why The Boat Race is on the main page and when it comes down to it, major college-level American tournaments have twice as much opposition. Every time I hear cries of US systemic bias, I laugh a little knowing exactly what goes on here. — Moe Epsilon 14:12, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
    • @Moe Epsilon: I'm usually the one beating that drum the loudest, but the UK reaction is bigger news than this, I think. Save that energy for the NCAA basketball finals next weekend. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:15, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
      • I'm not going to waste my time next week when I'll see literal oppose comments consist of "We don't post the results of The Boat Race on the Main Page, do we? Oh, we do? Fancy that." — Moe Epsilon 14:17, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Target article does not mention the expulsion at all. Last information in the target article is from March 1, 2018 and does not mention the information in the blurb. --Jayron32 14:20, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
    Support altblurb which highlights Poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal which is of sufficient quality, and has been updated as of March 26. --Jayron32 16:32, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment It's not just the U.S. doing this, a whole bunch of NATO countries (and the Ukraine) are expelling Russian diplomats. Why is this proposed blurb focused only on the U.S.? – Muboshgu (talk) 15:42, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
    • Yes, there are now 18 countries (including the US) expelling. This is gross, so I've added altblurb. Brandmeistertalk 16:18, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
      • This I can support. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:27, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak Support for alt blurb only. If passed this will be the third time that this article will be posted on ITN in a relatively short period of time. That would normally cause me to oppose. But this is a huge story that continues to evolve in dramatic ways. I am not sure there is any precedent for this kind of mass expulsion of diplomats from so many countries. Article quality is decent. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:30, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
    • NPR this morning said the last time such a number of diplomats were expelled from the U.S. was 55 Soviets during the Reagan administration (1981-1989 for those who don't recall). – Muboshgu (talk) 16:34, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Interesting. Were there a wave of supporting expulsions from other countries? -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:42, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
They did not say. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:49, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Wait this is barely discussed at the target article, and Russia's reaction hasn't happened yet. It might be better as "Ongoing" rather than a blurb (for the third time this month, as Ad Orientem notes). power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:33, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Ongoing linked to Poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal#Aftermath and international consequences might be good. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 17:47, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Enough focus on the poisoning, plus this retaliation is just symbolic, especially if you do it after UK as a gesture. --QEDK () 16:34, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - I'll put my full support behind the altblurb. The blurb I proposed was just what came up in my news ticker, so I put it up there, assuming that it was notable because it's President Trump doing this.--WaltCip (talk) 17:06, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Not a comment towards WaltCip, but this is something I noticed is that many news stories are making this "Trump" related ("oh, and there's some EU countries doing it too" as an afterthought), when the actual news is that the US is doing this with their NATO partners. Perfect example of media bias to watch for at ITN here. --Masem (t) 17:12, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support altblurb (or ongoing would also work). This is NOT a Trump story. I cannot think of the last time eighteen different countries all expelled diplomats in a coordinated protest. Yes it's follow-up from the Skripal case, but it's generating headlines and that's as big a diplomatic response as you can get without imposing further sanctions. However the article needs to be adjusted to reflect that this was an international move, with the US as just one of the countries involved. I also suggest an additional anchor or section link on 'expulsion' so readers get taken straight to the update. Modest Genius talk 17:25, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Question so where is the update in Poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal? --LaserLegs (talk) 17:34, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
At the end of Poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal#Aftermath and international consequences. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 17:50, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support alternative blurb. This doesn't need to be US-focused. Natureium (talk) 17:47, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Trump blurb, dozens of other "diplomats" were expelled from many other countries too, this isn't about Trump for the love of God. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:52, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
    Oh, and support alt blurb. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:52, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support alt blurb it's an international action. Banedon (talk) 22:04, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support alt blurb - bigger than just Trump, but worthy of ITN. Retitled, and marked ready. Stormy clouds (talk) 22:50, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Note to closing admin - It probably doesn't bear mentioning, but the consensus here is to post the alt blurb and not the main blurb.--WaltCip (talk) 02:06, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment. I'm ambivalent about posting yet another blurb about this event; ongoing seems a better place for it. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:07, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Personally I’m ok with ongoing but the consensus for the alt blurb seems clear. Pawnkingthree (talk) 02:22, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Ongoing - Oppose blurb & alt blurb because the article doesn't tell us which 18 countries expelled how many diplomats individually. The update is insufficient. --39.57.172.141 (talk) 03:24, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb support indefinite ongoing posting instead of arguing over every dimension of the case, which will clearly take long time before it cease appearing on news ticker. –Ammarpad (talk) 07:42, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 09:49, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Should we include a link to Reactions to the poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal? FallingGravity 18:42, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] 2018 Kemerovo fireEdit

Article: 2018 Kemerovo fire (talk, history)
Blurb: ​At least 64 people are confirmed to have died in a fire that tore through a shopping center in the Siberian coal-mining city of Kemerovo.
News source(s): BBC
Nominator: Sherenk1 (talk • give credit)
Updater: Alex of Canada (talk • give credit)
Other updaters: Abductive (talk • give credit)

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Still in stub stage. It is getting updated. Sherenk1 (talk) 03:07, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Support as long as the page is expanded Tragic and extraordinary incident. The article needs a bit more meat to it though. talk to !dave 08:10, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support subject to extension same as above Juxlos (talk) 08:43, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose stub. The maps use flames to pinpoint the location, which ... come on. Adding maps and a wall of reactions from various people does not count as expansion in my book. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:53, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
  • The way the maps are presented is, uhh, new. Juxlos (talk) 14:00, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support subject to extension per above. Corvus tristis (talk) 14:18, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support This certainly deserves to be featured, but it needs to be expanded. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 15:36, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Conditional support. It's a significant fire. 2607:FEA8:1CDF:DF8C:50E5:7067:2619:6BB9 (talk) 18:04, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support good enough now. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:59, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - Prose has doubled in size in the previous 7 hours. - Floydian τ ¢ 20:04, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support once it gets cleaned up, work which I may well contribute to. Three hundred dead, at least? Blocked exits? The fire alarm switched off by security? These things have gotten fires on ITN with far fewer casualties. Daniel Case (talk) 20:16, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Addendum I was taken in by some unsourced info added by a new editor whose Russian-language summary claims that the real death toll is much higher, a rumor that may well be true and has been repeated on comments sections elsewhere but ... we have to stick with 64 for now. Daniel Case (talk) 20:26, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted with edited blurb. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:48, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: Should we mention that 2/3rds of the casualties are children? - Floydian τ ¢ 18:10, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

March 25Edit

Portal:Current events/2018 March 25
Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime
  • A suspected drunk driver loses control while fleeing police in Maputo, Mozambique, strikes a crowd, and kills 21 people, injuring 30 more. (The Nation)

Politics and elections

Science and technology

[Posted] RD: Jules-Aristide Bourdes-OgouliguendeEdit

Article: Jules-Aristide Bourdes-Ogouliguende (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Africa News
Nominator: EternalNomad (talk • give credit)

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

Nominator's comments: Political figure from Gabon; article is, surprisingly, not a stub and well-sourced. EternalNomad (talk) 02:08, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Support good enough. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:06, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - Referenced. Sufficiently good overall.BabbaQ (talk) 06:28, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment. It would be useful to have a reference in the article to his death, as well as the death date. The one linked here gives 26 March, while the article states 25 March. ETA: I have changed the date to match the Africa News source & others online, but worry about time zones. Espresso Addict (talk) 07:13, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 11:13, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Jerry WilliamsEdit

Article: Jerry Williams (singer) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): [11] , [12], [13]
Nominator: BabbaQ (talk • give credit)

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

Nominator's comments: Article is well sourced. --BabbaQ (talk) 13:43, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Question is this a reliable source? The discography section has this as its only basis. --Jayron32 13:46, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
  • It is an official site for charts in Sweden used for basically all Swedish singer articles. It has not been an issue in previous noms. Otherwise I could remove the sections all together if it is an issue.BabbaQ (talk) 13:48, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
  • If it is official, I would have no objections. It looks kinda cheaply made and unprofessional, which is why I asked. Just raised an eyebrow for me; it could be reliable, but being unfamiliar with Swedish music press, I thought I would follow up. --Jayron32 13:52, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Are you OK with them or should I simply remove the sections all together for now. I take any advice.BabbaQ (talk) 13:54, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
  • (e/c) See Wikipedia:Record charts, these kinds of questions are frequent, so this page covers such queries. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:55, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I have removed the sections all together for now. They were filled with red links anyway. I will probably return the sections later on with better sources for each song. The rest of the article is referenced. BabbaQ (talk) 13:58, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
  • This would not be an acceptable solution for quality concerns for RD posting. If the person is a professional musician, I expect to see a list of songs/albums they have been on, and lacking that, this article is incomplete. We can't sweep sourcing issues under the rug like that. --Masem (t) 14:07, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
  • You are probably right. I returned the sections, added a second source. The sources for Discography are now sufficient. BabbaQ (talk) 14:11, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Article is well sourced. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 16:51, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support – not a great article, but good enough. /Julle (talk) 18:22, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 11:11, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

[Closed] Pakistan Super LeagueEdit

No consensus to post. Stephen 11:10, 28 March 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 Pakistan Super League Final (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In cricket, Islamabad United win the Pakistan Super League, defeating Peshawar Zalmi in the final.
News source(s): ESPNcricinfo, Gulf News, Arab News, Reuters, The Indian Express
Nominator: 39.57.244.160 (talk • give credit)
Updater: The Floka (talk • give credit)

Article updated

 39.57.244.160 (talk) 08:36, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak support There's a minimal prose summary in the target article. Would prefer some expansion, but will not hold it up over that issue. Still, more would be nice. --Jayron32 13:07, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose on notability. Sorry but the PSL is not the top domestic cricket tournament, or even the top domestic T20 league - that would be the Indian Premier League, which is on WP:ITNR#Cricket. If we posted this we would have to post the equivalent T20 tournaments in Australia, England and the West Indies, which are of similar prestige, which would make five blurbs a year. I don't think that level of coverage for just one of cricket's three major formats is justified. Let's stick to just the most prominent domestic T20 tournament, which is the IPL. Modest Genius talk 13:18, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
    • I always check Wikipedia article page views for questions about "notability", at least when ITN is concerned... –HTD 13:53, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the interesting link, HTD, tho see my Comment about it below.Tlhslobus (talk) 14:41, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - per Modest Genius - this is not the most prominent cricket league, nor does it have the prestige for an English speaking audience of similar contests in England and Australia. For analogy's sake, we post the Premier League in association football, but not La Liga or the Bundesliga. I find this to be a similar situation, where we should stick to posting only the most prominent event - the IPL. Stormy clouds (talk) 13:49, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - per Modest Genius. Tlhslobus (talk) 14:19, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - Incidentally, it's perhaps unfortunate that we are ignoring this while posting The Boat Race, which has far fewer viewers, at least year-round (thanks for the above stats link, HDT), and which has also been mentioned in support of I-forget-which other nomination in recent days, but if that's a problem, it's a problem with ITNR, to be discussed there rather than here.Tlhslobus (talk) 14:36, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
    • It's not due to viewership, but recognizing that we only consider the top events of a specific sport as ITNR so that we have better diversity of topics. There are a multitude of cricket top-tier events so we've had to limit those, whereas the Boat Race is pretty much the only top-tier rowing-related event outside of the Olympics. --Masem (t) 14:40, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
      • Sure, Oxford v Cambridge is clearly of a much higher standard (and clearly also more diverse) than the non-ITNR World Rowing Championships  . But as already mentioned this discussion belongs at ITNR, not here (I just mentioned it here as a sort of reply to HTD's above-mentioned stats link).Tlhslobus (talk) 14:53, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
      • But thanks anyway, Masem. I'll probably have to see if there's a barnstar for adding to the gaiety of nations through surreal humour that I can award you for this, as well as your Post-posing comment the other day, for which thanks again  .Tlhslobus (talk) 15:25, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
        • Oxford's Law: As a sports-related ITN discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving The Boat Race approaches 1.--WaltCip (talk) 15:29, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
          • The Supreme Cabal hereby indefinitely bans WaltCip for a wickedly POV Oxonian violation of the copyright of Cambridge's Law  . Thanks be to Godwin  . Tlhslobus (talk) 15:37, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
    • I have consistently opposed including the Oxbridge Boat Race on ITNR, but been in the minority every time. I would be happy to support a removal proposal. Regardless, it doesn't really have any relevance to the PSL. Modest Genius talk 18:28, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
    • Far fewer viewers? We don't do ITN articles based on page views, that's what WP:TOP25 is for. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:41, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Moreover, page views, as demonstrated by the Signpost Humour article, are misleading, and some very poor quality articles attract massive amounts of views. ITN enshrines quality as well, and posting on pure popularity would remove this aspect of the criteria. Plus, ITN would just be a list of the newest films released. Stormy clouds (talk) 10:01, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Modest Genius and last year.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:54, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose PSL is still nascent compared to other major cricketing tournaments, simply not important considering the range of affairs. --QEDK () 18:10, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Time to close? per WP:Snow - it's currently 5 to 1 against. (At least closure should stop me trying to move the above discussion on to Gamaliel's wise or blasphemous reference to a 'canoe race', and in a non sports-related ITN discussion too, thereby grossly and shamelessly violating the above-mentioned Oxbridge's Law WaltCip's Law  .) Tlhslobus (talk) 10:20, 28 March 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: André BourbeauEdit

Article: André Bourbeau (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Huffington Post
Nominator: TDKR Chicago 101 (talk • give credit)

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

Nominator's comments: Article is well sourced. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:38, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Support - Short but sufficient. Ready for posting.BabbaQ (talk) 02:00, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak support agreed, it's weak but okay. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:20, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 22:22, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

[Removed] Remove 2018 UK higher education strike from ongoing newsEdit

Article: 2018 UK higher education strike (talk, history)
Ongoing item removal
Nominator: LaserLegs (talk)

Nominator's comments: Adding header. Originally proposed by Mtaylor848 LaserLegs (talk) 13:22, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

This has had little media coverage in the UK; I would imagine most people don't know it is going on. It is certainly not notable to a global audience and looks completely silly next to the other ongoing news articles. I can't see that it has too much notability beyond its newsworthines. Moreover the article is pretty poor and lacks balance and neutrality. Mtaylor848 (talk) 11:14, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose the article seems up to date, the event is still ongoing, and I'm not really seeing that it's "pretty poor" or "lacks balance and nutrality [sic]". Perhaps you could clarify your objections? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:46, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per TRM. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:08, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Still ongoing and continuing to generate significant coverage (it took a matter of seconds to find new articles about it from the Guardian); it has become the largest strike the UK's higher education sector has ever seen. I see no particular reason to remove it, and saying it quote "looks silly" is an IDONTLIKEIT argument. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 22:45, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Lying as it does at the intersection of education and economics (and health care, although this particular strike does not directly relate to that sister issue), it does have significant relevance to a global audience. The details may be UK specific, but the friction point itself is symptomatic of broader issues which are currently sweeping much of the western world. The UK's choices in this will have broad ramifications. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 00:01, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - I'm not seeing anything about this whatsoever on the entirety of the BBC News page. Is there something I'm missing? Does BBC not think this is a big deal?--WaltCip (talk) 10:57, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
    • Keep in mind BBC serves content based on geolocation from your IP. This is usually not a good test of how important something is. --Masem (t) 13:32, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
      • They're actually forbidden from making the domestic page available internationally because of the television license. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:02, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
[citation needed] for that statement! That would be extremely surprising and inconsistent with other BBC output (e.g. radio & TV). Modest Genius talk 13:24, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
        • That's... rather counter-intuitive. Well, I'll take everyone's word for it in terms of its notability.--WaltCip (talk) 18:16, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
          • With a UK IP address I can see no links to it on the front page of BBC News, no obvious coverage or media. I watch BBC News everyday and have seen no mention at all of it. Industrial action these days tends not to get much media coverage; the only time it may is if it creates widespread inconvenience such as tube/train strikes.Mtaylor848 (talk) 19:56, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
  • comment - The article has numerous pictures of strike supporters and a great deal of material relating to that side yet little content and no pictures representing the other side. That to me suggests it is lacking in neutrality. Of course there are articles in the Guardian; this is broadly their coverage however finding articles in newspapers and on the internet does not mean it has significant enough coverage. Has in the past week (if at all) the issue featured prominently in a popular newspaper, on television news, on the BBC News front page; I doubt it, let alone it having international noteworthiness. Industrial disputes do not make big news these days and this one is no different. It being the 'largest strike in UK higher education' doesn't really give it any great weight. Saying it 'looks silly' is not an 'I don't like it argument'; I am just pointing out the absurdity of having a relatively trivial article such as this one next two two articles of major offensives with international coverage. I have a UK IP address; scanning the BBC News website, the Sun, the Mail and the Times I can see no prominent coverage. In fact besides this link it is necessary to search under specific terms to find link to it on the internet. Mtaylor848 (talk) 19:52, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Remove. According to the article and the UCU website strike action finished on 20 March. I know negotiations are continuing, but right now no-one is on strike. Iff further rounds of strikes occur we can reassess, but right now having an article entitled 'XXX strike' in the ongoing section is misleading if no strikes are in fact going on. Modest Genius talk 20:41, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
  • The article says the union has a mandate for further strikes next month so it’s inevitable there will be more. The dispute itself is definitely still ongoing. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:58, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
'Inevitable' is way too strong - the two sides appear to be close to a deal, so that seems more likely than further strikes. Assuming that more will be announced at some unknown time is WP:CRYSTAL. Modest Genius talk 13:23, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Remove per Modest Genius. Banedon (talk) 22:17, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support removal, per Modest Genius. The event is no longer in the UK press that I see, and while the article is still being worked on, editing has been pretty slow over the past few days. Until consensus to remove develops, or the strike restarts, I have changed the wording from "strike" to "dispute" for accuracy. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:57, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Remove that's the reasonable action. It has run its course and is no longer ongoing./–Ammarpad (talk) 07:45, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal Reading the article, it appears that there is still ongoing, active news regarding the strike; there's expected to be more information over the next few days (March 28 is a date mentioned for next major announcement from the negotiators, according to the article text). Given that, and the article is actively being edited, I see no good reason to remove it. --Jayron32 13:10, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Remove per nom and per ModestGenius.Tlhslobus (talk) 14:14, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Remove per nom. "The strikes might continue" is not a valid reason to keep a dormant news item up on the main page, especially with as limited coverage as there is. Collective bargaining is always an ongoing process, no matter what field it occurs in.--WaltCip (talk) 15:17, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Remove I'm unsure why this originally was posted on ongoing, instead of a blurb a month earlier, since the strike had already finished on 20 March. Personally, I don't understand why a labour strike over pension rights in one domestic industry would ordinarily be ITN material (consider if it had happened in America, for example) though I will concede that the staggered approach - 14 days over the course of a month - to the action gave their cause, and the disruption to students, optimum media coverage. Which I suppose is what strikes are meant to do. However, coverage since then has barely registered, as shown by the (non-news) references used to support the proseline added. Piecemeal negotiations about whether a deal can be reached (think Brexit) or whether further strike action is warranted over the next few months isn't what I consider blurbable material or adequate incremental updates for ongoing. Fuebaey (talk) 15:55, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Remove - per WP:CRYSTALBALL and the end of the event. We removed the Austin Bombings as soon as he died, same goes here. - Floydian τ ¢ 18:00, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Remove - per Modest Genius. Jusdafax (talk) 12:22, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Removed. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:45, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

[Closed] QantasEdit

No consensus to post. Stephen 23:33, 25 March 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: History of Qantas (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A Qantas Boeing 787 Dreamliner operates the first ever scheduled non-stop flight between Australia and Europe
News source(s): "Australia-UK: First non-stop flight arrives in London from Perth". BBC News. British Broadcasting Corporation. 25 March 2018. Retrieved 25 March 2018.Munk, David (25 March 2018). "First non-stop scheduled flight from Australia to Britain lands after 17 hours". The Guardian. Retrieved 25 March 2018.
Nominator: Bahnfrend (talk • give credit)
 Bahnfrend (talk) 06:51, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose I don't see how this is very important, considering there have been even longer non-stop flights. --QEDK () 10:08, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Response Maybe, but not between Australia and Europe. Also, The Guardian's article doesn't share your view - it says that "...the first commercial passenger jet journey direct between Australia and Europe ... has been described as a “game-changer” by some in the aviation industry." Bahnfrend (talk) 11:33, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
    Yeah, if I was in the industry I'd say it too. I'm obviously not claiming this isn't unique but it's still the second longest no-stop flight in operation and there's been flights with 15k+ km non-stop before, which leads me to think it isn't an achievement, just that Qantas decided to do it. --QEDK () 12:17, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment where is the update? Significant milestone. Longest_flights#Non-stop_flights --LaserLegs (talk) 13:18, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Lacks broader significance in the Big Scheme (although I'm mildly surprised it hasn't happened before). Sca (talk) 14:30, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Good faith nom but this is basically a back page news and trivia item. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:51, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose it's a unique nomination, but its arbitrary at best. Sorry, but this turns me off. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 17:16, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
It's not arbitrary, when this flight returns early tomorrow (UTC) Europe to Australia will be the 30th and last combination of non-Antarctic continents to be done (and I checked the long ones both ways to ensure wind allows nonstop both ways) This will be a historic moment in aviation. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:43, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Not really “historic”. It’s been done before in longer distances as on of the above users noted. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 21:58, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose more of a DYK but I'm not sure there's a suitable article for that, since most will fail DYK's arcane ruleset... sorry. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:47, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose The first non-stop flight from the European continent to Australia is certainly an interesting milestone, and it would be refreshing to post something other than international turmoil. I'm open to the idea and I applaud you for finding a unique item in good faith, but I don't think this is significant enough to feature. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 22:51, 25 March 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.

March 24Edit

Portal:Current events/2018 March 24
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture
Disasters and accidents
  • The Kofu District Public Prosecutor’s Office in Japan announces nobody will be prosecuted over the collapse of the Sasago Tunnel, which killed nine and injured three. Officials say the collapse would have been difficult to predict. (The Japan Times)
  • Two men are rescued from a capsized dredger off Malaysia after 50 hours in an air pocket in the engine room. The death toll so far is nine, with rescue efforts underway to search for more survivors. (Sky News)

International relations

Law and crime
  • A car is deliberately driven into a group of schoolgirls in Glasgow, Scotland, injuring five. Police launch an attempted murder probe. (BBC)

Politics and elections

[Posted] RD: Arnaud BeltrameEdit

Article: Arnaud Beltrame (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): "Tributes paid for hostage-swap policeman". BBC News. 24 March 2018. Retrieved 24 March 2018.; "France terror attack: Hero policeman married hours before he died". Sky News. 25 March 2018. Retrieved 26 March 2018.; Willsher, Kim (24 March 2018). "Gendarme who swapped place with hostages hailed a hero in France". The Guardian. Retrieved 26 March 2018.
Nominator: Zigzig20s (talk • give credit)

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

Nominator's comments: There is a blurb about the event, but this hero deserves an RD in his own right.Zigzig20s (talk) 05:30, 26 March 2018 (UTC) Zigzig20s (talk) 05:30, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

User:The Rambling Man: And now?Zigzig20s (talk) 10:16, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Fix the bare URLs and we're on. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:17, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
User:The Rambling Man:Done.Zigzig20s (talk) 12:42, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Support my concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:45, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - tragic news. Good to go. Stormy clouds (talk) 13:50, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - Ready for posting.BabbaQ (talk) 14:04, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: Can anyone add an "early life" section and chronological order please?Zigzig20s (talk) 16:19, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Never mind--I did.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:38, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
I've also added more references. More than ready.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:05, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Bill LucasEdit

Article: Bill Lucas (athlete) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Athletics Weekly
Nominator: TDKR Chicago 101 (talk • give credit)

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

Nominator's comments: Article is well sourced. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:09, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] March For Our LivesEdit

Article: March For Our Lives (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Hundreds of thousands of protesters in the US participate in the March For Our Lives protest against gun violence in the United States
News source(s): [14] [15] [16] [17]
Nominator: Nixinova (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: Major event taking place in lots of places around the world. Article reads like a list though. – Nixinova T | E ⟩ 20:27, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment Sources can't seem to agree on the size, one says in a caption "hundreds of thousands" across the globe another of your sources say "tens of thousands" across America, assuming both are credible statements a majority of marchers would be outside of "America", just a thought. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.150.255 (talk) 21:08, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose In the past we have almost always declined protests involving domestic political issues unless they were extraordinarily large, which this really wasn't, or there was some other factor that makes them unique. Protesting against (and for) guns is as normal and American as hot dogs and fireworks on the Fourth of July. There is nothing here that warrants mention on ITN. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:30, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
I believe you are mistaken about the magnitude of this multifaceted campaign. Sca (talk) 00:32, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Typically in the millions. This is simply the latest in a seemingly endless series of protests since the Clown in Chief got elected and it is pretty run of the mill in terms of size, maybe even on the small side. Most of these, with the exception of the Women's March, which did number in the millions, we declined. Almost all of them got a lot of short term news coverage. If are going to start posting these kinds of things, I could easily see a lot of nominations of this sort coming in. Unless of course this is one of those America is special kinda noms. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:48, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
Just going off of Timeline of protests against Donald Trump, I don't see anything as big as this, aside from the Women's March, of course. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:57, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
That article looks like an anti-Trump WP:COATRACK and seems to list almost every gathering no matter how trivial that garnered even a mention in the local news. I suspect it was created in response to this archived RfC that put restrictions on what protests could be listed at Protests against Donald Trump. Even though I may not like it, I can read the score and this is going to get posted. But my oppose stands. [Saluting the flag as the ship goes down.] -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:38, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
This doesn't have much to do with Trump; these kids just want sensible gun laws. – Nixinova T | E ⟩ 22:40, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
PP Support Striking my oppose. I am satisfied at this point that the news coverage warrants posting. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:38, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Major protest in the U.S., with worldwide satellite marches. Very much "in the news", which is allegedly our purpose here. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:38, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support this is a global protest, which has been top of my "local" news since it started several hours ago. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:41, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
    @The Rambling Man: As usual, what's top in "your" local news is worthy of posting. How unsurprising. It's not top in mine but I guess that doesn't matterManish2542 (talk) 15:24, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
    Manish2542 I don't follow you at all, but I don't care either. Go and pester someone who cares what you think. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:42, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
    @The Rambling Man: Truth hurts, I know. At least now it's clear that the sole condition for something to be worthy of featuring on wikipedia's main page is whether or not it is in "your" local news. Nothing else matters. Thanks for clarifying things Manish2542 (talk) 18:23, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
    No, you just don't get it. Nothing hurts here, the sooner you realise this is a website, the better. Go and pester someone else now. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:05, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Globally covered and is a major ongoing protest in the U.S. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:43, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per all of the above. The protest have been the talk of the news for the past few days. Even if the protests yield little effect on gun control, they are still getting widespread coverage. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 21:47, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - Rather unprecedented for something like this. Amazing how it took this school shooting in particular to bring the gun control movement to the forefront.--WaltCip (talk) 21:50, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose the article ... it's got to be a WP:MOS vio with all those sections with one line each. The DC rally needs a real prose update, the rest of them I think could be consolidated into a table, and if attendance numbers are published, added to the table. It's in the news, so as always, I support. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:00, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support – All mainline news sites tell of hundreds of thousands of protestors across the U.S., not only in Washington, D.C., but also in scores of other cities nationwide. (Even in the small, rather remote city where I live thousands showed up, chanted and marched.) In addition, there were supporting demonstrations in Europe. This is different, and it's not going away. Sca (talk) 21:56, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - we posted the Women's March, and I view this to be of similar significance and importance. Dominant media story for days now. Stormy clouds (talk) 22:10, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

@Stormy clouds: Dominant where? You might be quite surprised but the world doesn't limit itself to the US. And calling it a global event in the blurb is a sheer lie.Manish2542 (talk) 15:27, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

There are lots of demonstrations taking place worldwide... What are you talking about? – Nixinova T | E ⟩ 00:28, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - per Stormy clouds, among others. The only thing I'm not sure about is whether this is merely of similar significance to the Women's March, or whether it's of greater significance. Either way I supported then so I should logically also support now.Tlhslobus (talk) 23:40, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per Stormy cloud, Sca, etc. Insane that 20 minute canoe race makes it to ITN but this does not. Gamaliel (talk) 23:44, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment does the article really need the maps? power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:52, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support well over one million have protested nationwide, including 800,000 in Washington. It makes just the Washington march the third largest protest in American history alone, surpassing the Million Man March (which had at most 800,000 people, despite its name). Half a million more people have marched in this than in the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom. To quote the former Vice President, this is a big effing deal. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 23:56, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted I am both involved and opposed, but consensus is clear beyond any reasonable doubt. If any admin objects feel free to revert. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:58, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Post-posing oppose on quality I wouldn't recommend pulling, but I really have to think that an article that is effectively WP:PROSELINE is not our best work. It would have been better to have this tabular, after a brief introduction as well as a summary after the events were over to estimate the population. I do think the activity is ITN material, just that the article, plainly, sucks in quality terms. --Masem (t) 00:46, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Maybe worse, there were 11 CNs (Citations Needed) when I looked shortly after it was posted, and there were still 11 CNs when I looked a few minutes ago, 12 hours after posting. (And I suspect several citations don't properly support the text, tho I haven't really checked). I should probably have supported on principle, but temporarily opposed on quality. Last night I spent 5 to 10 minutes looking for supporting citations for the French planned marches (after first finding nothing re my native Ireland), and could only find one from ABC for something having taken place in Paris, which is not quite the same thing as a citation supporting a plan, and in the end I decided to go to bed, and I'm not sure I want to spend time on it today (per WP:NOTCOMPULSORY and WP:BNO if necessary). Maybe the CNs will get fixed as Americans wake up today, though they weren't fixed by them yesterday evening. Maybe temporary pulling would encourage fixing, but I'm far too cowardly to suggest that   (though perhaps somebody a lot braver than me might). Tlhslobus (talk) 11:18, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
By the way, is the above and/or below Post-posing (instead of Post-posting) a deliberate or merely Freudian slip, but an amusing one, perhaps suggesting that most of us supporters are merely poseurs too busy Virtue signalling to bother with irrelevant details like article quality  ? Guilty as charged, at least in my case  . Tlhslobus (talk) 11:35, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
My error, was not deliberate. --Masem (t) 14:15, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Post-posing support - This has recieved world wide attention. Is the main news on every media service right now whether we like it or not.BabbaQ (talk) 11:26, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Modification I'm not against posting the blurb but why "around the world"? This is mainly an american-centric event and the "planned" rallies that took place outside the US barely mobilised people there. The blurb should be modified to "major rallies in the US".Manish2542 (talk) 15:20, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
That may be a legitimate point but it probably belongs at WP:ERRORS. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:35, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Recent BBC article says: "With events not just in the US but as far afield as London, Paris, Mauritius, Tokyo, Stockholm, Sydney, Geneva and Berlin," [18]. One of the things that is notable about this protest is that it has spread beyond the national boundary. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:26, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
As noted above, there were supporting demonstrations in Europe – Paris, Berlin, Hamburg, London – and elsewhere. "Around the world" does sound a bit hypey and POV, though. Possible replacement: "Hundreds of thousands of protesters participate in March for Our Lives rallies for tighter gun control in the United States, with supporting demonstrations in Europe and elsewhere." Sca (talk) 21:31, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
ERRORS. ERRORS. ERRRORS. And "elsewhere" is hardly encyclopedic, is it?!! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:34, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Having done a little more online research, I agree re "elsewhere" (see change above), but otherwise I don't understand your comment at all. Can't you see that I'm basically agreeing with Manish2542's objection to "around the world" – ??? – "Errors?" – baloney. Sca (talk) 22:39, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

─────────────────────────  • In NYT's pictorial series "Photos From the 'March for Our Lives' Protests Around the World," nearly all are from the U.S. Exceptions include Paris, Berlin, Hamburg and Bogotá, Colombia. Thus in this case too, "around the world" seems an exaggeration, and I tend to agree with Manish2542 on this point. Sca (talk) 22:39, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

I mean, that's protesting a hot war with bombings and boots on the ground. Somewhat of apples to oranges considering that this issue would otherwise be purely domestic.--WaltCip (talk) 18:17, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
The anti-Iraq War protesters in London were 1 million, not 10 million.Tlhslobus (talk) 14:25, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is a very politically charged topic with a lot of pro and anti propaganda surrounding it. I've read numerous dubious claims that that range from a few thousand supporters to millions of supporters showed up (clearly the reality is somewhere in between). What makes this protest different from others around the world such as the ones happening in Catalonia? Also, this is a very US-centric topic, I question its worthiness of international interest to begin with.Spoonlesscorey (talk) 18:25, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
  • P.P. Support - International news, participation by numerous nations (More nations had protests than expelled Russian diplomats), and we're not funded by the NRA. - Floydian τ ¢ 18:52, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Far and away the No. 1 Eng-lang story for several days. Gun control, or the lack thereof, remains a hot topic in the U.S. and Europe. That it's "politically charged" is obvious, and only enhances its significance. Sca (talk) 00:34, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Lys AssiaEdit

Article: Lys Assia (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Blick.ch, Metro
Nominator: PootisHeavy (talk • give credit)

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

Nominator's comments: Relatively short article, but nonetheless well-sourced. --PootisHeavy (talk) 19:09, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Support - Short but sufficient. Ready for posting.BabbaQ (talk) 19:14, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support -No issues. –Ammarpad (talk) 19:37, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted. Black Kite (talk) 20:38, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] The Boat Race 2018Edit

Article: The Boat Race 2018 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The annual Boat Races are held, with Cambridge winning both the men's and women's races.
News source(s): Daily Telegraph
Nominator and updater: The Rambling Man (talk • give credit)

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: Fixed up, basically FA quality article, ITNR as we all know... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:52, 24 March 2018 (UTC) (UTC)

  • Support - The article is in very good shape and the race is very traditional. --SirEdimon (talk) 19:18, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - FA or not, is a varsity between 2 British universities covered almost exclusively by British media really ITN-worthy? Juxlos (talk) 20:02, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
    Not at all "almost exclusively" British media, but we have this every year, and that's why it's ITNR. If you don't like it, and this is also an annual issue, go seek it being removed from ITNR. That you'd deny a sporting event that's witnessed live by a quarter of a million people, has a heritage dating back to 1829, features international athletes and is broadcast and viewed globally, plus with an article that's already good to go, makes me wonder what your "IDONTLIKEIT" vote is worth here. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:19, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
    I strongly suggest reading the ITNR talk page logs. This specific race has been the subject of much discussion, but in the end, it is the highest level recognized competition in rowing in the world with a large enough interest (in the millions). --Masem (t) 20:19, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - Pretty sure we don't have to worry about the quality of the article here (though I spot checked to make sure :) --Masem (t) 20:21, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
    Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:34, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Well-recognised event. talk to !dave 20:24, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Ready to go. Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:30, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted. Black Kite (talk) 20:38, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Massive kudos to TRM for getting this article up to quality standards so quickly.--WaltCip (talk) 20:51, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
    Much appreciated. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:00, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Seconded. That was some top tier editing. Sublime work. Stormy clouds (talk) 21:01, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

March 23Edit

Portal:Current events/2018 March 23
Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

[Posted] Carcassonne and Trèbes attackEdit

Article: Carcassonne and Trèbes attack (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A gunman takes hostages at a supermarket in Trèbes, France, before fatally shooting three people and then being shot dead by police.
Alternative blurb: ​A gunman is killed after killing a self-sacrificing police "hero" and three other victims in a terrorist attack in Trèbes, France.
News source(s): BBC Telegraph NYT Guardian
Nominator: Everymorning (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Unclear if it was a terrorist attack so far, though the gunman reportedly pledged allegiance to ISIS and the prime minister says all signs point to it being a terrorist attackEvery morning (there's a halo...) 18:50, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose - even if it is a terror attack, it is too small to merit posting. Stormy clouds (talk) 18:52, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support as "The Islamic State released a statement calling him a "soldier of the Islamic State", and French president Emmanuel Macron called the attacks an act of Islamist terrorism." means that has been confirmed as terrorism to an extent that authorities find satisfactory, as well as claimed; "too small" is objectively meaningless and doesn't determine notability, while on the other hand, "He swore allegiance to the Islamic State and demanded the release of Salah Abdeslam, an Islamist accused of involvement in the November 2015 Paris attacks" makes this event notable as a type of attack with demands and conditions for hostage release that had never been made before in Europe by the IS. LjL (talk) 19:40, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - Has been in all international and national media today. Article seems ready for posting.BabbaQ (talk) 20:46, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose It's just too small scale for ITN. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:50, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support While this incident has resulted in less fatalities than we usually post, it is prominently in the news. The article's quality is also pretty high. Half of our current blurbs occurred more than a week ago. Mamyles (talk) 21:04, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support it's in the news (that shooting in Afghanistan is not, BTW), article is decent. ISIL will take credit for mild food poisoning, no need to mention it in the blurb. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:24, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Neutral This event has already generated several responses from prominent world leaders, which demonstrates worldwide significance. However, events just as worthy of featuring have been rejected.BrendonTheWizard (talk) 00:37, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support This was the first deadly terrorist attack in Western Europe in several months, and is being covered internationally. EternalNomad (talk) 01:01, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support an unusual terror incident in Europe. Certainly more newsworthy than than the regular school shootings in America. The Rambling Man (talk) 01:08, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
  • An unusual bombing incident in the U.S. gets opposed, and this gets supported. Because the American terrorist is white? General anti-U.S. bias here? I'm genuinely curious. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:32, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
    • Domestic terrorism vs international terrorism, most likely. --Masem (t) 01:38, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
      • That seems to me to make little difference. In these two examples, one is a Christian extremist and the other is a Muslim extremist. One resulted in three dead, the other resulted in four dead (including the perps). I'm still at a loss. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:48, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
        • Personally, I would have supported the inclusion of both based on what you've described. Terrorism is terrorism. The article you were referring to appears to be more ready for featuring on the main page than this one with the amount of fatalities the event caused being nearly identical and the number of injuries caused by the other article being greater, so I've demoted my response to neutral out of a desire for consistent standards. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 03:30, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
    • It's anti-US bias, mostly. The US rarely calls white terrorists "terrorists" which doesn't help. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:03, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Domestic terrorism with little effect where the assalaint had already been killed within shot time, not ITN worth. –Ammarpad (talk) 03:56, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support, but I completely agree with Muboshgu and BrendonTheWizard. We should post this one, but we should also have posted the Austin bombings. There is a clear double standard here that needs to be addressed. Davey2116 (talk) 04:04, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose- small-scale shooting incident, besides the blurb is too long. - 58.27.134.33 (talk) 08:25, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support altblurb or something similar that mentions the police hero. It's this self-sacrificing heroism that seemingly makes the event unusual, exceptionally newsworthy, and ITN-worthy. (Please note that I support posting even if I don't get an altblurb). Tlhslobus (talk) 10:17, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
    • We generally do not call out acts of heroism in blurbs (since what is a "hero" is going to be very subjective). A police officer putting his life before others is part of their job. --Masem (t) 12:40, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I agree that it would be inappropriate to use the term "hero" in an alt-blurb. Yes, the police officer was heroic, but that is not the story here, really. To some, (they are wrong, but they exist), the terrorists are heroic for their actions. Stormy clouds (talk) 12:42, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
  • He's called a hero by the French President (among many others) and by a very large number of Reliable Sources in their headlines and their texts, and it is in quotes in the altblurb. Wikipedia goes by what Reliable Sources say, not by what a few terrorist supporters may think. And his heroism is what makes this story interesting to readers. Omitting it will disimprove the encyclopedia, contrary to WP:IAR and the related 5th Pillar of Wikipedia, WP:5P5, by causing the story to be missed by many readers (unless one thinks that causing readers to miss a story somehow improves Wikipedia), tho many (but fewer) will probably still come anyway because they already know about his heroism and want to read about it.Tlhslobus (talk) 19:25, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose as others mentioned, had this been in the US (or the middle east or africa or the rest of the world really) it won’t receive support. Juxlos (talk) 10:32, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
    • Except it wasn't in those places, which is kind of the point. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:55, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
      • Whether or not it was in those places shouldn't be a factor; terrorism by fair-skinned non-Muslims is still terrorism. The opposition to posting the Austin bombing cited relatively few deaths, which is the same in this situation; the only thing that changed is whether or not it was motivated by Islam. Wikipedia's standards should be objective and not subject to one's POV. While I do believe that the Carcassonne and Trèbes attack is worthy of the ITN section, I can't bring myself to support one being posted and not the other. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 20:55, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
    • Also others said that before there was any mention here of a police hero, so it's at least possible that might have made a difference to their view (because I entirely agree that without the 'hero' angle this would not be ITN-worthy, at least in my view - indeed I wouldn't be involved here without it). Tlhslobus (talk) 11:02, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
  • A reminder: We did post the Austin bombings, they were only posted to ongoing, rather than a blurb when the situation ended. --Masem (t) 12:38, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
    • We did, but we didn't. It got on ongoing with some thinking it was an inappropriate decision based on the opposition that did exist, then when it went up for a blurb it got shot down hard, even though it differs little from this story. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:52, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
    • We really didn't. I agree with Muboshgu; it wasn't accurate or appropriate to place it in the ongoing section, and the only reason why it was placed there was because of the speedy closure (<1 day of discussion is rather quick to deem it infinite) where the opposition cited reasons that seem to be generally overlooked during this discussion. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 20:56, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. The police officer who intervened in the attack has now died. This makes the attack notable for several reasons, with five dead including the perpetrator:
    • This is the deadliest terror incident in France since the attack in Nice.
    • If this had happened in any European country other than France, it would almost certainly be posted.
    • If it had occurred in France pre-2015, it certainly would have been posted.

184.151.37.41 (talk) 14:12, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Support – Per Nomad, TRM, although it looks like consensus may be elusive. Agree that the death of Lt. Col. Arnaud Beltrame heightens reader interest. Sca (talk) 14:45, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
Actually we may be not necessarily be too far off 'consensus' as understood in these parts, as I currently make it 10 to 5 in favour (and 3 to 1 in the last 4 !votes, the ones since the hero cop got mentioned here) and though it's not supposed to be a vote, assessing admins have sometimes been known to deem 2 to 1 a consensus by supermajority, especially if support is moving in the right direction. At any rate that's a question for them to decide, not us. Tlhslobus (talk) 19:02, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted. There appears to be a reasonable consensus. Black Kite (talk) 20:41, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Zell MillerEdit

Article: Zell Miller (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Atlanta Journal Constitution
Nominator: It's Wiki Time (talk • give credit)

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

 It's Wiki Time (talk) 16:25, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Sourcing needs work, but the article is in decent shape. Hopefully it will be good in a few hours. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:29, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Referencing is actually dreadful. I had intended to nominate this when I caught the breaking news of his death but one look at the article stopped me in my tracks. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:35, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
You're right, the "Senate" section is more than I can fix now; if nobody else gets to it I'll try in a few hours. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:44, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
I took a hatchet to the unsourced material in that section. No {{cn}} tags remaining, but somebody else needs to review it before I'd support posting. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:41, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
Much improved but still a few gaps. I have added tags. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:55, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Question: do we think the 2004 RNC bit is WP:UNDUE? I mean, I vividly remember watching him challenge Chris Matthews to a duel on live television, or say he wish he could. But, with the value of 14 years of hindsight, I'm thinking it should be trimmed a bit. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:49, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
    • Probably a matter for the talk page. I think merging into a single section on the 2004 election and reducing it a bit is called for. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:59, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Article overall well sourced and has improved. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:42, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Article is pretty good. Davey2116 (talk) 01:39, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:59, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Well done to everyone who worked on it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:53, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 23:27, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

[Closed] Antigua and Barbuda general election, 2018Edit

Consensus is unlikely, closing. Alex Shih (talk) 06:45, 29 March 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: Antiguan general election, 2018 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Antigua and Barbuda Labour Party led by incumbent Prime Minister Gaston Browne wins the Antigua and Barbuda general election, securing 15 of the 17 seats in the House of Representatives
Alternative blurb: ​The Antigua and Barbuda Labour Party, led by incumbent Prime Minister Gaston Browne (pictured), gains the most seats in the House of Representatives.
Alternative blurb II: ​The Labour Party of Antigua and Barbuda gains the most seats in the House of Representatives.
News source(s): [19], [20], [21]
Nominator: WTKitty (talk • give credit)

Nominated event is listed at WP:ITN/R, meaning that the recurrence of the event should in itself merit a post on WP:ITN, subject to the quality of the article and any update(s) to it.
 WTKitty (talk) 11:36, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Stub article with no global coverage and I'm not confident it's publicized enough. --QEDK () 12:10, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now Agree that the article is too much of a stub to post. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:57, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Article is a stub and, with the due respect, A&B General Elections are not worldwide important.--SirEdimon (talk) 18:56, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
    • Comment - See WP:ITN/R, elections in sovereign states only depend on the quality of the article. WTKitty (talk) 19:56, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now Although I was initially inclined to support it, the article does appear to be very short and would need a lot of work to be featured in the news. I wouldn't say that it's not important enough to be featured, but the article does not provide information more in-depth than what is provided by the blurb summary. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 00:28, 24 March 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.

March 22Edit

Portal:Current events/2018 March 22
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology
  • Human genetics
    • DNA tests confirm Ata, an unusual six-inch-long mummy found in Chile in 2003, to be the remains of a newborn human with genetic mutations. (BBC)

[Posted] RD: Wayne HuizengaEdit

Article: Wayne Huizenga (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): ESPN
Nominator: Muboshgu (talk • give credit)
Updater: Jobsecure (talk • give credit)

Article updated

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

 – Muboshgu (talk) 17:19, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Support - Article is good enough and Huizenga was a high profile businessman. SirEdimon (talk) 18:51, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - Article is in good shape and ready for posting.BabbaQ (talk) 22:28, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - Article well sourced. g2g. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:30, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support anyone working this pages at all at the moment? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:56, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:20, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

[Closed] Trump announces tariffs on ChinaEdit

Clear consensus against posting, so there is not a snowball's chance in hell of this being posted. Stormy clouds (talk) 14:41, 23 March 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: Trump tariffs (talk, history)
Blurb: ​President of the United States Donald Trump signs an executive memorandum announcing his plan to impose tariffs on up to $60 billion USD of goods made in China.
News source(s): CNBC BBC NYT The Independent (many more if you look for them)
Nominator: Everymorning (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: I realize that the sanctions may well not take effect, since Trump just signed a memo basically announcing this intention on his part. But there has still been a HUGE reaction from China, which says they will “take all legal measures to protect our interest”, [22] and US Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer says that "China is likely to retaliate against the tariffs by targeting U.S. agricultural products that are reliant on the Chinese export market." [23] Stocks have also fallen. I think this adds up to a significant enough event to post IMO. Every morning (there's a halo...) 21:14, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment. I am not formally expressing a view on this, but I think until the tariffs actually take effect this will have a tough time being posted. 331dot (talk) 21:20, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose the trickle of tariff threats are barely news enough for Portal:Current events, and Trump tariffs doesn't mention this latest one yet. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:31, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Tariffs are far too common between countries (not just US) nowadays. These feel no different .--Masem (t) 21:38, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support in principle but wait till actually enacted, per previous nomination. I don't agree with Masem's reasoning - if this goes ahead, it's a trade war between the world's two largest economies. Banedon (talk) 21:51, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support in principle per Banedon's reasoning (i.e. wait until actually enacted). Also, is the term "Trump tariffs" one in widespread, actual use outside of WP? I see instances of the use of the words "Trump" and "tariffs" adjacent to each other but not "Trump tariffs" as a standalone term to refer to the proposed tariffs. I might be wrong, though, as I haven't looked that carefully. Chetsford (talk) 22:34, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
    • There's limited discussion on Talk:Trump tariffs regarding the name; American tariffs are normally referred to as being named after a person (Smoot-Hawley tariff), there's no clear common-name, and it is descriptive. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:40, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Makes sense! Thanks for the edification, power~enwiki! Chetsford (talk) 23:45, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Oppose – I suspect there will be many more disruptive edicts by DT, and I doubt this one is really ITN, but we shall see. Sca (talk) 00:16, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose not a Trump ticker and this may be of mild interest to a handful of people, but it's hardly something I'd expect to see in a encyclopedic selection of news articles for the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:00, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I feel like we need a SNOW clause specifically written for Trump-related ITN noms given the disproportionate amount of media coverage he receives by virtue of his notoriety.WaltCip (talk) 10:02, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per TRM. --QEDK () 12:08, 23 March 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.

March 21Edit

Portal:Current events/2018 March 21
Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

[Stale] Turing AwardEdit

Unfortunately this happened before the oldest item currently on the template (24 March), so is stale. Better luck next year. Modest Genius talk 13:28, 27 March 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: John L. Hennessy (talk, history) and David Patterson (computer scientist) (talk, history)
Blurb: John L. Hennessy and David A. Patterson win the Turing Award for their work on a simplified computer architecture.
News source(s): NYT, Wired, Xinhua
Nominator: Fuebaey (talk • give credit)

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: Needs work. One reads like a CV, the other is plagued with proseline. Fuebaey (talk) 17:28, 23 March 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] Kabul suicide bombingEdit

Article: March 2018 Kabul suicide bombing (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A terrorist bombing kills 33 people in Kabul.
Alternative blurb: ​A terrorist bombing in Kabul kills atleast 33 people, injuring more than 65 others.
Alternative blurb II: ​A terrorist bombing kills atleast 33 people in Kabul.
Alternative blurb III: ​A terrorist bombing kills atleast 33 people in Kabul, injuring more than 65 others.
News source(s): BBC News
Nominator: 50.30.144.22 (talk • give credit)
Updater: QEDK (talk • give credit)

Article updated

 50.30.144.22 (talk) 00:27, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose on article quality. It's a stub and will need significant expansion before it could be posted to the main page. Will happily reconsider on improvement. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:42, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Support It's not FA but it is passable. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:44, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Wait 24-48 hours and see how this develops. A terrorist attack in an area of frequent terrorist attacks and war might make news initially but drop off the headlines quick. 331dot (talk) 00:54, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Question if we're not posting a serial bomber in a place where bombings are rare, why post a terrorist bomber in a place where bombings are common? --76.122.98.135 (talk) 02:03, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
  • The same reason we post school shootings if they have high body count. Juxlos (talk) 10:47, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Great, thanks. Could you point me to the minimum deaths criteria? I can't seem to find them. --76.122.98.135 (talk) 11:36, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
  • It’s nowhere, but it’s a general perception. Juxlos (talk) 11:50, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Wait article is a couple paragraphs, not sufficient. Juxlos (talk) 10:47, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support I've expanded it somewhat, though it's still a bit short. It's being reported across the globe, and it's well referenced. Vanamonde (talk) 16:16, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose stub, of which about a third is not actually related specifically to this attack. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:18, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support I think the article is in a decent state now and deserves to get coverage, considering every attack in a third-world country that gets unnoticed (but this one is still well-covered by news sources). --QEDK () 12:05, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Still a stub.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:24, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Weak Support Short but just about enough there now.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:56, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support, article is in good shape and I don't see any other issues with it. -- Tavix (talk) 16:21, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
It's less than 250 words of readable prose. We don't post stubs to the Main Page.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:28, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
It is close enough by my count, so it has my support. -- Tavix (talk) 17:47, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
  • @The Rambling Man, Pawnkingthree, and Ad Orientem: Opinions now? --QEDK () 19:32, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support The article has been expanded and now looks good enough to post. Mamyles (talk) 21:07, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Ready -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:33, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - Looks good to go. -58.27.134.33 (talk) 08:29, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support The article has been greatly improved. –Ammarpad (talk) 09:09, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Nearly 18 hours since this was marked ready; anyone? I've voted here and worked on the article, else I would post this. Vanamonde (talk) 15:08, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted Disclaimer: I am involved but this doesn't look controversial and it's been sitting for way too long. If any admin disagrees feel free to revert. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:16, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] Kuczynski resignsEdit

Article: Pedro Pablo Kuczynski (talk, history)
Blurb: President of Peru Pedro Pablo Kuczynski resigns, amid a scandal over Operation Car Wash
News source(s): BBC, New York Times
Nominator: Cambalachero (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: Sitting head of state resigns. Cambalachero (talk) 21:27, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Support This is a very important political fact, especially in South America.--SirEdimon (talk) 22:03, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Gaining globe coverage and I believe his failed impeachment was covered here at ITN. Resignation is huge especially since he offered to do so to prevent a second impeachment vote. Huge story. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:19, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak Support Article quality is not impressive for a head of state and referencing is weak. That said I do think it is acceptable, if barely. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:22, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose article still claims he is the incumbent, so is he or is he not president? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:39, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
    @The Rambling Man:: Where in the article claims that he is still incumbent (so I can fix it)? He's not president, he's out we're just waiting for his VP to be sworn in. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:43, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
    Why ask me when you know you've fixed it? How bizarre. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:45, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
    @The Rambling Man:: I thought the issue was within the text section. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:52, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support on principle, oppose on quality The article on him should include what role he is believed to have in Operation Car Wash , which is not mentioned at all on the page at this point. But this is clearly an ITN-worthy nom. --Masem (t) 22:47, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment please note that his resignation will need to be accredited by Congress, and that won't happen until tomorrow so this needs to wait until tomorrow evening. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:50, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support post now, update later. Banedon (talk) 23:01, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment. Several sources indicates that the peruvian congress just accept PPK resign. Here:1, 2 and 3--SirEdimon (talk) 23:07, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
support came here to potentally nom and its itnr as head of state change. Tomorrow he will be replaced by VP Martin Vizcarra.Lihaas (talk) 09:52, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
@Muboshgu: The image does not show for me. --Saqib (talk) 14:12, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Coz it has been deleted.  samee  converse  18:53, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

[Closed] Austin bomber blows himself upEdit

It's pretty clear this is going to be argued ad infiniteum. Consensus will never be reached. - Floydian τ ¢ 17:02, 22 March 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: Austin serial bombings (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Austin bombings suspect kills himself in an explosion as authorities close in.
Alternative blurb: ​In the United States, the suspected perpetrator of the Austin serial bombings kills himself in an explosion.
News source(s): New York Times
Nominator: Pawnkingthree (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: As suggested below, proposing a blurb for this. It is still in the news and the suspect blowing himself up will create new interest in the story. Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:48, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Pulled from ongoing and not put in a blurb? Seems irregular to me. Major story that has dominated U.S. news (and been in news across the globe, not that that's necessary for ITN criteria) and has now reached its conclusion. Article is in good shape, and was just on the main page. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:53, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
    Well, not without precedent; this was recently pulled from ongoing after few hours of posting and opposed to be converted to blurb even though most of the blurbs then were older than it –Ammarpad (talk) 17:12, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak weak support I feel this was a domestic violence situation, equivalent to why we don't post shootings in the US. However, I recognize that "targeted bombing by shipped package" is a novel metric that made this significant ww news moreso than other facets. --Masem (t) 17:05, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose IMO, this was never an ITN-level story. Lepricavark (talk) 18:11, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. How many times is this same story going to be discussed? An attack that caused two deaths (plus the attacker) and no wider reaction is not a major enough encyclopaedic event to merit an ITN blurb. If we posted every terrorist (or criminal, if you prefer) attack in the world that killed two people we would have hundreds a year, maybe thousands. See List of terrorist incidents in March 2018 just as an example. Modest Genius talk 18:17, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
    • Those are mostly (or all?) one-off events as opposed to somebody working over the course of weeks, for one thing. Most of those appear to be in war zones while Austin is not in one, for a second. Nobody says we can't be nominating and posting Boko Haram or whatever else. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:45, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support it is an unusual and for that reason it has made headlines and is ITN worthy. 2A02:A451:8B2D:1:ADD7:661C:B5A0:D000 (talk) 18:59, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
support CLEARLY been in the news this week. Further if attacks with barelycasualties and teachers protests in London are notable. This is far above noteworthy-ness. Still, it is not clear that it is 100% over yet either.
btw- clearlylocal sources are going to better (and there are other articles too).Lihaas (talk) 19:15, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Some perspective would be useful here. Only two people (plus the suspect) have died, so the story isn't worthy of a mention on In The News. Just because the mainstream media likes to hype up a story does not mean Wikipedia should mirror that by posting it in the ITN section. Chrisclear (talk) 20:04, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment The blurb does not state the country in which this event took place. Chrisclear (talk) 20:04, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Lepricavark. This does not warrant a blurb. I do think pulling it from ongoing was premature since the case is still very much open and there are a lot of details that are still emerging. But since it was done, it's time to move on. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:09, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak support In principle I agree with Modest Genius; however given that this was posted to ongoing, its conclusion should also be posted as a blurb. Banedon (talk) 20:42, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This is newsworthy, but not newsworthy enough for the main page. This was largely a local event. Natureium (talk) 20:45, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support the event is not frequent, the event is being compared to that of the Unabomber with global coverage -> BBC, Le Monde, The Japan Times, Times of India, Sydney Morning Herald, etc. This event is newsworthy due to its coverage and side not it's not everyday a serial bombing case lasts this long or occurs frequently here in the U.S.. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:06, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Opppose Doesn't appear to be particularly ITN-worthy; if the method had been a gun or a knife it would never have appeared here in the first place. Black Kite (talk) 21:22, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
    • But it wasn't a gun or knife attack. It was homemade bombs. Why compare to other stuff? – Muboshgu (talk) 23:43, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
      • if the method had been a gun or a knife it would never have appeared here in the first place. What kind of argument is this? "If it hadn't been newsworthy, it wouldn't have been newsworthy"? --Calton | Talk 13:32, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose – So he decided to go out with a bang. At this point it seems rather anticlimactic. Sca (talk) 22:31, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support The arguments in favor are a lot stronger than the arguments against. It's a rare event that is still in the news and so warrants a blurb; the story was already judged to be ITN-worthy. I would've also been okay with leaving it as ongoing for a couple of days. Davey2116 (talk) 03:55, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
  • The claim that it was already determined to be ITN-worthy is extremely debatable. I continue to believe that there was no consensus in the original thread, and there is clearly no consensus for posting here. Lepricavark (talk) 04:50, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose the bombings killed 2 and injured some. If this was a school shooting, it would be an overwhelming oppose. Juxlos (talk) 10:45, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. It's not some sort of numbers game, it's about impact: by the mindless bean-counting argument on display, John Lennon's murder wouldn't have counted because, after all, it was only one death. --Calton | Talk 13:32, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
    • How many world-famous icons of popular culture were killed in these attacks? If it's zero, your argument is invalid. The lack of impact is precisely why this shouldn't be on ITN. Modest Genius talk 13:46, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per most of the above users, a local level incident with casualties only reaching the single digits almost never makes the ITN bulletin, while there are some past exceptions, roughly 90% percent of the time attacks like these do not make the cut. Kirliator (talk) 14:13, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose considerable overhype is written all over this nomination (alongside irony), all because of a series of attacks that were relatively minor in size. SamaranEmerald (talk) 14:20, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose, partially because the article at the moment seems to be uncertain about labelling the attacks incidents of terrorism (we all know what they would be called if the bomber weren't an American...) and also because given that we've already posted the bombings themselves to ongoing (and then removed them) I would want to see a lot more coverage for the attackers death to post that as a blurb in and of itself. Vanamonde (talk) 15:58, 22 March 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.

[Pulled] Pull: Austin bombingsEdit

Article: Austin serial bombings (talk, history)
Ongoing item removal
Nominator: Masem (talk)

Nominator's comments: They identified, found, and chased down their culprit, who blew himself up in the chase, effectively ending the situation. The police are still making sure no other packages are out there, but the situation is otherwise completed. --Masem (t) 13:51, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Don't pull entirely. Take it out of "ongoing" and make it a blurb. Something like: "The Austin bombing suspect is no more. He has ceased to be. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:55, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Move to blurb per Muboshgu.--WaltCip (talk) 14:09, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Wait There are a lot of details that are still unreleased. I am fairly sure this will be in the news fro a few more days. Once things have quieted down we can pull it. Opoose blurb. Not important enough for that level of attention. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:28, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
The suspect is dead, the case is closed. Any further details are purely ancillary.--WaltCip (talk) 15:30, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
What if he had accomplices? What if there are other bombs out there that haven't yet been found? – Muboshgu (talk) 16:00, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
And what if the Fed raises interest rates? What if Trump is found to have colluded with Russia? What if the world ended tomorrow? It's not the job of ITN to predict what may or may not have happened, and use said prediction as the basis for notability.--WaltCip (talk) 17:03, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb Even at the peak of the bombing it wouldn't have been posted if it were nominted for blurb and only marginally gained support for this ongoing posting. In addition, I Support removal from ongoing since reasonably it is no longer so with the death of the suspect. .–Ammarpad (talk) 15:29, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
    • We don't just pull something from ITN because it is resolved. By that logic we could pull every blurb currently on there because those stories are resolved. It's still in the news, because the suspect has been dead less than 12 hours. It was a mistake to pull the U.S. federal government shutdown blurb and we should not be making that into standard operating procedure here. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:58, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
      • While I mostly agree with you, the situation is a bit different for ongoing; however, the criteria here is that the article is still receiving regular updates with new information, and it seems likely that that will go on for a bit yet, so I'd weakly oppose removing this at this point. GoldenRing (talk) 16:04, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
    (edit conflict × 2) No, we do pull ongoing items when they're no longer "ongoing". That's common. Removing " blurb" may be less so, but this is not blurb, it is something posted while it is ongoing..and wouldn't hurt if it is removed when it is no longer ongoing. Nonetheless, I can agree with you that it is too soon to be removed now. –Ammarpad (talk) 16:15, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
    Fair point re: pulling a blurb vs. pulling ongoing. Still, it seems to me ongoings often become blurbs when no longer "ongoing" without discussion necessary. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:57, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
  • If it's not notable enough for a blurb then why do we bloody have it up there as ongoing??--WaltCip (talk) 15:29, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
    • Because when it was nominated, editors were trying to compare the significance of this to the Unibomber, which was crystal-balling the event. It was simple domestic racially-motivated terrorism , which, given that this is the US, is not something we would have otherwise posted if we knew the facts beforehand. --Masem (t) 15:37, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Pull. The event is over and an attack with two deaths (plus the attacker) is not significant enough to merit a blurb. I'm puzzled as to how this made it into the ongoing section in the first place, given the amount of opposition it received. Modest Genius talk 16:12, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Pulled, as suggested. It is not ongoing anymore, it can be considered as a blurb, if a consensus is reached. --Tone 16:15, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

March 20Edit

Portal:Current events/2018 March 20
Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and incidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

[Posted] RD: Peter George PetersonEdit

Article: Peter George Peterson (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The New York Times
Nominator: TDKR Chicago 101 (talk • give credit)

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

Nominator's comments: Article has been updated and fixed referencing issues --> --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:30, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Support No issues. Looks good. Pawnkingthree (talk) 01:34, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Article looks fine. –Ammarpad (talk) 15:36, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD. SpencerT♦C 17:36, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Katie BoyleEdit

Article: Katie Boyle (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Nominator: Mjroots (talk • give credit)

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

Nominator's comments: Needs minor attention to referencing. The book section should be easy enough to deal with. Mjroots (talk) 18:34, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Weak oppose a handful of unreferenced claims. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:46, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak support There are unreferenced claims, but not too much. Support Article in overall good shape. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:09, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment There is precisely one unreferenced sentence. It could probably be deleted without detracting from the article, but other than that it's good to go. The Rambling Man, does the article now pass for you? Mjroots (talk) 19:06, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
    Two actually, I referenced the one in the prose, the book is still unreferenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:12, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
    @The Rambling Man: & @Mjroots:: I fixed the sourcing issue by adding an obit source and replaced a dead link. Seeing the sole issue has been addressed. Marking it ready. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:19, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 23:37, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

[Closed] Northern white rhinocerosEdit

Item already listed as a Recent Death. Stormy clouds (talk) 17:22, 20 March 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: Northern white rhinoceros (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Last male Northern white rhinoceros dies in Kenya.
News source(s): BBC
Nominator: W.carter (talk • give credit)
Updater: WikiHannibal (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Sad news that yet another species probably is heading towards extinction if in vitro fertilisation (IVF) techniques aren't successful. cart-Talk 13:47, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
  • The male rhino is already in RD. It's not yet the extinction of the species, as sperm samples were taken and an IVF programme is planned with the surviving females. The chances may be slim, but let's not WP:CRYSTAL. If/when the species goes extinct would be a better time to post this as a blurb. Modest Genius talk 14:05, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose it is a sub-species, not species, that is on the verge of extinction; add that the RD of Sudan is better suited as an entry, we should cover that instead. --Masem (t) 14:09, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per both above. RD works for now. The blurb implies that extinction is inevitable, which, due to IVF, may not be the case. --LukeSurl t c 14:24, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per all of the above. Python Dan (talk) 16:14, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose The RD is sufficient. –Ammarpad (talk) 16:15, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose RD is sufficient. Lepricavark (talk) 16:21, 20 March 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] Abel PrizeEdit

Articles: Robert Langlands (talk, history) and Abel Prize (talk, history)
Blurb: ​American-Canadian mathematician Robert Langlands wins the Abel Prize.
Alternative blurb: ​Mathematician Robert Langlands wins the Abel Prize for his development of the Langlands program.
News source(s): Abelprize.no
Nominator: Ammarpad (talk • give credit)
Updater: Hanche (talk • give credit)

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: Article needs some work. –Ammarpad (talk) 11:26, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Yeah, getting the necessary level of referencing in Robert_Langlands#Research is going to require some serious mathematical understanding. --LukeSurl t c 11:54, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
    I have posted about that on the talk page, hoping to resolve it, but now looking at how it was added. –Ammarpad (talk) 11:58, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
  • We should really mention the Langlands program in the blurb, as that's what he won it for; altblurb added. Unfortunately that article is in an even worse state for referencing, so we're a bit stuck without an expert. The rest of Langlands' article looks OK, it's just the research section that's problematic. Modest Genius talk 12:02, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
    • Even with a bit of basic understanding of modern algebra, I tried reading even the lowest-level summary of the Langlands program and while I understand where its going, nowhere close to understand the levels of detail that are necessary to explain it at a basic level; its not the type of thing I can even see an easy layman's version coming about, outside of being towards a grand unified theory of everything. --Masem (t) 14:33, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Agree with the above on the need for an expert to clean up the articles. I'm in favor of including "Langlands program" in the blurb. Davey2116 (talk) 17:25, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment the research section, which was the only problem, has been improved from its former zero-source state. Courtesy ping @LukeSurl, Modest Genius, Davey2116, and Masem:. –Ammarpad (talk) 00:58, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm going to have to oppose until someone can explain his research section in more layman terms. Not talking about dumbing down to simple.wiki prose here. I don't think it's an unfair request to write in a way a non-expert mathematician (yet average adult, native English reader) can understand. Fuebaey (talk) 18:40, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
    It's cutting edge math research in an area where most of the concepts aren't even introduced to students until postgraduate studies. The idea that most of this is every going to be presentable in layman's terms is pretty unrealistic. WP:ONEDOWN would suggest shooting for something like the level of someone with a BS in Mathematics, but even that could be quite challenging at times. About the best bit of a lay description is already offered by the intro of Langlands program: "In mathematics, the Langlands program is a web of far-reaching and influential conjectures about connections between number theory and geometry." But trying to really explain what they are talking about isn't going to be possible at a lay audience level. Dragons flight (talk) 19:31, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Langlands' article is now in good shape. I still think we should include "Langlands program", to if anything give the reader a sense of how groundbreaking his work is. As a non-expert, I first heard about the Langlands program when the proof of Fermat's Last Theorem was announced. Davey2116 (talk) 04:26, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment This article has been fixed reasonably as the main problem was the too technical research section. Simplifying this pioneering, doctoral-level work beyond that so as to be comprehended by all English speakers is tantamount to Lying to children and means it will never be posted. –Ammarpad (talk) 09:30, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
  • The biography still has swathes of unreferenced text. Stephen 23:24, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
    It is not perfect, and not cited by evry single word, but it pass the point of reasonable article. Can you point out 'the swathes of unreferenced text'?. –Ammarpad (talk) 04:19, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
  • This is much improved. The research section is indeed impenetrable to non-mathematicians, but I doubt there is much that can be done about that. The bigger problem is that there are still entire paragraphs with no references. Either add citations or cut them completely, then I think this could be posted. Modest Genius talk 11:42, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
    I have fixed that and added more content and references. –Ammarpad (talk) 14:42, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted, just squeezed it in as the last item. Stephen 22:33, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

[Closed] Nicolas Sarkozy arrestedEdit

Clear consensus against posting the mere arrest of a former government official. Sca (talk) 14:53, 20 March 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: Nicolas Sarkozy (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Former President of France Nicholas Sarkozy (pictured) is arrested by police and held for questioning regarding allegations the 2007 French presidential election was influenced by Libya.
News source(s): Bloomberg ABC News
Nominator and updater: Chetsford (talk • give credit)

Article updated
Nominator's comments: The arrest of the former head of state of a permanent member of the UN Security Council is of sufficient relative rarity to make it noteworthy. It has been covered widely outside of France. Chetsford (talk) 08:23, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment. I would note that there is a difference between being arrested and charged with a crime and being detained for questioning, this seems to be the latter, at least right now. 331dot (talk) 09:38, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Convicted, yes. Charged, maybe probably not. Arrested, no. -- KTC (talk) 11:12, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - long standing consensus is that we post convictions. Mjroots (talk) 11:37, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
I would note that on rare occasions arrests do get posted, such as with El Chapo in 2014. 331dot (talk) 11:43, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This is not a case like El Chapo where the subject had been wanted for some considerable time. In those cases the arrest is newsworthy rather than, as here, the allegations but BLP considerations rightly mean that we don't post for just allegations. Also I think that being arrested for questioning is less significant in a civil law system such as France than in a common law system like the UK and USA (but having written that I'm now less certain than I Was). Thryduulf (talk) 11:48, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
I do think that the arrest of a former head of state on charges related to their own election to office might merit posting(Sarkozy is being investigated for allegedly accepting illegal campaign contributions) although right now he is just being questioned. 331dot (talk) 11:59, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
@Ritchie333: Is a former President not a public figure and covered by WP:WELLKNOWN?(genuine question) 331dot (talk) 12:20, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Oh yes, good point well made (for those watching at home, here is an important lesson as to why you should read policy instead of just quoting it with what you think it says) - nevertheless, until there is an actual conviction, I think we should err on the side of caution. There's plenty of mud thrown at Trump, but not much has been proven yet in a court of law, for instance. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:22, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
I do agree that posting now is not appropriate(count that as a formal oppose). 331dot (talk) 12:24, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose The only time I'd think we'd post the arrest of a leader is if it was while they still held office. Otherwise, as pointed out above, we'll wait on the conviction itself to post. --Masem (t) 14:11, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per most of the above. If he were still president I would probably support on the basis that sitting presidents being arrested is pretty unusual. But he is not in office. And last I looked he has not actually been charged with anything... yet. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:52, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose this would be more suitable for the future conviction... if it occurs. Kirliator (talk) 14:54, 20 March 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: Ayaz SoomroEdit

Article: Ayaz Soomro (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Dawn
Nominator: 39.48.73.97 (talk • give credit)
Updater: Saqib (talk • give credit)

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: Short but well referenced. Lets see if it just needs one Support before getting posted like the RDs from West or it requires Support from everyone on WP before getting posted because of the usual WP:BIAS39.48.73.97 (talk) 07:08, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment it only needs one support from an admin who judges it meets the quality required to post, regardless of where the individual is from. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:00, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
    • Personally I generally tend to look for comments (not necessarily supports) from at least two people other than the nominator before posting, but that's not a policy requirement. Thryduulf (talk) 11:54, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak support just above stub, but just above is enough. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:01, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - I have expanded it considerably. A national level lawmaker died while in office. --Saqib (talk) 08:23, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Article is sufficient for RD. –Ammarpad (talk) 11:53, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted. Thryduulf (talk) 11:54, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

[Closed] Cambridge AnalyticaEdit

No consensus to post. Consider renominating if there are formal charges/convictions. SpencerT♦C 21:14, 20 March 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: Cambridge Analytica (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The UK's Information Commissioner will seek a warrant to look at the databases used by British firm Cambridge Analytica, a company accused of using personal data of 50 million Facebook members to influence US presidential election in 2016.
News source(s): BBC
Nominator: Sherenk1 (talk • give credit)
Updater: Bahudhara (talk • give credit)
Other updaters: TheFrenchTickler1031 (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Big news, fall in Facebook stock. Sherenk1 (talk) 04:58, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose It's yet another facet of the investgation of the election. --Masem (t) 06:01, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
    • Sure, but, I mean, 50 million users is pretty significant if you ask me. That said, if anything were to be posted, I'd probably use a different (and shorter) blurb to take note of the general incident. Master of Time (talk) 06:38, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose keywords being "will seek a warrant". It's a long way from "will seek a warrant" to "have received a warrant" to "have found something" to "have concluded that Cambridge Analytica has used the personal data of 50 million Facebook members to influence the 2016 US presidential election" to "have enacted ____ as punishment". When we get to the last step, then we can reexamine. Banedon (talk) 06:58, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose I think that, once the warrant is served, this would be very much worthy of revisiting. However, as of now, a person announcing their intention to maybe do something at some point in the undetermined future may be a little too much on the edge. Chetsford (talk) 08:28, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - There's no there there. Not an actual finding of fact of election tampering.--WaltCip (talk) 11:01, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose at least until formal charges are brought. 331dot (talk) 11:03, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - Incidentally, a fall in stock price is meaningless. The market volatility is at its highest that it's been in years. The stock is just as likely to recover once the market-timers stop panic selling and buy back in within a few days.--WaltCip (talk) 11:09, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support dominating the news since this weekend, decent article. --76.122.98.135 (talk) 12:10, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
IP user, we don't generally post allegations or investigations. Formal charges, maybe; convictions, likely. But not every step in the process. 331dot (talk) 12:12, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
I was "CosmicAdventure" (scrambled my password to enforce a wiki break and then lost it ... oops). It's in the news now, the article is decent now, post it now. #twocents anyway. --76.122.98.135 (talk) 12:53, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment This is one of those cases where it will be WP:Crystalball up until the point that it's stale. In two years, FB will have gone the way of Myspace, and this is why. The warrant is not the issue, it's Facebook obscene breach of trust. GCG (talk) 12:28, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Comment - This is angle I was going for. Maybe someone can help write blurb from this viewpoint. Sherenk1 (talk) 12:41, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
We need FB or a gov't doing the "action" in the blurb I think; we can't say "A whistleblower says..." Perhaps "FB acknowledges the unauthorised disclosure of data on 50 MM users to CA...blah, blah" GCG (talk) 12:56, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose no charges have been brought yet. I don't believe we ever post investigations before they yield actual results. Lepricavark (talk) 16:32, 20 March 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.

March 19Edit

Portal:Current events/2018 March 19
Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime
Politics and elections

[Closed] RD: Keith O'BrienEdit

Stale. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:14, 26 March 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: Keith O'Brien (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC The Guardian The Times Vatican News
Nominator: In Memoriam A.H.H. (talk)
Updater: Proxima Centauri (talk • give credit)

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: This person is the last cardinal in Scotland, and there is a developing story about his behaviour around other people. Do the Danse Macabre! (Talk) 20:16, 20 March 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: Sudan (rhinoceros)Edit

It's been posted, the dis-ambig has been added, we're done.--WaltCip (talk) 11:11, 21 March 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: Sudan (rhinoceros) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC
Nominator: Sherenk1 (talk • give credit)
Updater: Ackatsis (talk • give credit)

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

Nominator's comments: The world's last surviving male northern white rhino. Sherenk1 (talk) 07:12, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Comment I just got an edit conflict trying to post this here! Most statements in the article are referenced, but I haven't explored all the cites in detail. Will try to do some more cleaning up tonight. Ackatsis (talk) 07:16, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Support good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:03, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Posting. The article is in a good shape. --Tone 08:07, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
  • That rhino got onto the RD ticker pretty darn quick.--WaltCip (talk) 11:08, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
    What's your point? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:03, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
    It's impossible to get an animal posted to RD without at least one person making a sarky comment.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:25, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
    In this case, the posting is justified. Thankfully, this issue does not come up very frequently. Lepricavark (talk) 16:27, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
    I make a simple observation and people think I'm either being snarky or hiding some subtext. I'm not. I'm just surprised at how fast it got onto the main page, animal or not.--WaltCip (talk) 17:27, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
    Why? It was of decent quality and that's all that's required to post an RD, right? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:45, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
    Exactly; yet somehow we struggle to get the Grammys up there for lack of quality.--WaltCip (talk) 18:11, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
    Well it tells its own story, people are correctly more interested in the destruction of a sub-species and less interested in a navel-gazing exercise in self-indulgent bullshit that is meaningless to anyone bar the recipients who sell a few more albums. It feels like the right way round to me. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:17, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
    Sorry I misread you WaltCip. Now I'm going to try and get Bento the Keyboard Cat up there too...--Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:50, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Maybe it should specify (rhinoceros), because right now on the main page, it looks like the country of Sudan died. Natureium (talk) 18:17, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
    And how, pray tell, does a "country" die? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:18, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
    That's exactly why it looks like a hoax. Natureium (talk) 18:59, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
    It's not a hoax, ITN doesn't do "hoax". The Rambling Man (talk) 19:17, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
    What ITN does doesn't matter when it comes to what it looks like. Natureium (talk) 19:20, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
    It doesn't look like a hoax unless you're incredibly naive, we assume our readers have a level of competence too. Where are all the complaints, or where are all the memes that suggest "Sudan (the country) has died"? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:25, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
    It looks like an error; I wouldn't be surprised if someone who knew nothing about the machinations of WP posted on WP:MP/E about this. — Hugh (talk) 19:44, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
    Someone already did—and they were called an idiot by our friendly editors. Natureium (talk) 19:46, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
    No they weren't, try to stick to facts. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:47, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
    "You would have to be an idiot to think that a country had died." It's right there on the Errors page. — Hugh (talk) 21:20, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
    Are you trying to demonstrate that there are no friendly editors? Natureium (talk) 19:52, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
    No, I'm trying to demonstrate that people stick to facts before making personal attacks or fake accusations. WHat are you "trying to demonstrate"? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:55, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
    We've been in this situation before where the name of an animal matched that of a well-known person, but we did not add the disambiguation since hovering/clicking the link took you to the animal, not the person. This is following that practice. --Masem (t) 18:41, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment This should read Sudan (rhinoceros) or at least Sudan (rhino). Come on. — Hugh (talk) 19:41, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
    Why? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:45, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
    Normally it wouldn't be an issue, but given that the country of Sudan actually split in two a few years back, some readers might very well be confused. Lepricavark (talk) 20:32, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
    Countries don't "die", we need to assume our readers our competent enough to understand that. If some of our users don't get that, well that's another thing altogether, WP:CIR covers that. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:40, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
    I hadn't realised until today how difficult it must be for some editors of Main Page sections such as ITN and FA to envisage how text might read to the uninitiated. Expecting competence should not clash with, for just one policy example, MOS:EGG. — Hugh (talk) 20:44, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
    It would be EGG if there was any such concept of a "country dying". And there isn't. So this is a gross waste of time. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:57, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
    I had to click the link to figure out what "Sudan" meant. It hurts nothing to add (rhinoceros). --76.122.98.135 (talk) 23:33, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
    Agreed. This has to be one of the sillier and more trivially solved arguments I've ever seen on WP. — Hugh (talk) 01:08, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguator added, enough people are genuinely confused about this, and no good argument not to do this in this one case has been presented. Fram (talk) 08:40, 21 March 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 to Ongoing] Austin package explosionsEdit

Article: Austin package explosions (talk, history)
Ongoing item nomination
News source(s): NY Times, Reuters
Nominator: Valoem (talk • give credit)
Updater: Classicwiki (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Ongoing serial bombings Valoem talk contrib 19:28, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment - is this intended as an ongoing nomination? Currently, it is an RD, which is not apt. I would support an ongoing nom. Stormy clouds (talk) 19:51, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Sorry this is my first time nominating, ongoing is fine. Valoem talk contrib 20:11, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support- this is a recent event, should be posted in the news, the event has already passed through, Awestruck1(talk)20:59, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose too small-scale an event to qualify for either ongoing or a blurb. Lepricavark (talk) 22:06, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support for ongoing, it's clearly being reported around the globe and is most certainly unresolved at this point. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:10, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose There are multiple problems with the nomination. (1) No blurb has been suggested. (What is an "Austin package"? In what country is Austin located?) (2) The article does not provide any prose/proof explaining how/why the bombings are connected to each other. (3) Only two people have died, so the story isn't worthy of a mention on In The News. (4) I don't see how this can be an ongoing item, unless the nominator has inside information about similar bombings that are planned for the future. Chrisclear (talk) 03:57, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Global coverage and is ongoing seeing that it is unsolved. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:34, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Comment I don't understand that logic. Suppose this was posted as an ongoing item, does that mean it would remain an ongoing item until the case was solved? Chrisclear (talk) 04:48, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
It would remain an ongoing item while there were significant developments and regular updates.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:30, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Appears to be a domestic situation, not related to international terrorism. --Masem (t) 04:43, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Masem, local issue, the bombings themselves are also unpredictable. SamaranEmerald (talk) 04:47, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:CRYSTAL. We don't know if there are going to be any more explosions.--39.48.73.97 (talk) 07:50, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose too local right now Chetsford (talk) 08:41, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Another explosion has been reported at a nearby FedEx facility. This is becoming a top story in the news and a lot of readers will be looking at Wikipedia's "In the News" section for a link to an article. --Tocino 10:21, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - As per above post. Sherenk1 (talk) 11:46, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Opppse local bombing, many of them happen around the world daily. This didn't rise to the level that can merit Ongoing posting. –Ammarpad (talk) 14:15, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support, this is a well-developed article on a topic that is in the news. The investigation is ongoing, not necessarily that there will be more explosions, so ongoing makes sense and isn't CRYSTAL. -- Tavix (talk) 14:16, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose the interval at which the attacks occur is unpredictable, unless the perpetrator(s) is/are caught, these attacks may continue indefinitely as far as some above users have noted, which is why this nomination is a victim to WP:CRYSTALBALL. Kirliator (talk) 14:49, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Lepricavark. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:55, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support 2/3 dead, 3/4 injured and the person is on the loose. We posted the washington area shootings a couple of years ago. This is similar. Believe we also posted an attack in London with injures and no deaths (or maybe about the same). Although Sunday's was a trip wire appaerently, so maybe change the title.Lihaas (talk) 15:56, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose – not similar in scale to the DC sniper. This could possibly be national news, but not important enough for the main page. Natureium (talk) 16:02, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per most of the above opposers, the attacks are a small-scale issue that is too small to be noteworthy on ITN. Python Dan (talk) 16:07, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - another explosion in the region, this continues to dominate in media, even receiving radio attention in Ireland and appearing on Sky News. Stormy clouds (talk) 16:17, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per Tocino. It's a big story getting updates very consistently over the past week. Davey2116 (talk) 17:17, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Developing story which is getting widespread coverage.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:19, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose this series of events is notably overhyped, while it is getting international coverage, its largely a local-sized series of unfortunate events (pun not intended). 161.6.7.130 (talk) 18:27, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
    As a complete outsider, this has all the hallmarks of another Unabomber, so I'm not sure it's about "unfortunate incidents", more about "traps designed to murder innocent people", but your mileage may vary. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:30, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Ongoing this is getting international coverage. While I do agree with some of the opposition that the media outlets are indeed overhyping this issue, and that it is [at the moment] small/local scale; the fact is this series of attacks has been going on for over 2 weeks now and it has attracted attention similar to the Unabomber as TRM mentioned above, which makes it fit perfectly for Ongoing criteria. The article itself is short, but also straightforward and clean. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 18:44, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support ongoing Yesterday I couldn't decide if it should be a blurb now or wait until the perp is caught (they found the Unabomber, they'll find him/her). Given that yet another package has exploded and people are on edge, ongoing is appropriate. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:37, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted to Ongoing Stephen 22:38, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
  • There was clearly no consensus to post this. Lepricavark (talk) 22:59, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
10 support and 12 Oppose and we still posted. Disclaimer: I supported posting it. Sherenk1 (talk) 05:38, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Opposition to posting a blurb is different from opposition to posting to ongoing. Master of Time (talk) 05:50, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
It is also not a straight vote. 331dot (talk) 08:14, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Pull - My count is 12 Support votes (incl. the nominator) and 12 Oppose votes. There was no blurb MoT, so everyone who voted Oppose actually opposed posting to Ongoing. 39.48.37.7 (talk) 08:59, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Discussions like this are not a straight vote, but a weighing of arguments as well. 331dot (talk) 09:03, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
  • It's no longer ongoing as the suspect has apparently blown themselves up. Pull. WaltCip (talk) 10:20, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Which will create more interest in the story. Seems odd to remove it when our readers will be looking for it. Pawnkingthree (talk) 10:22, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
But the suspect is dead, meaning that the bombings have stopped and that the story is effectively over. No longer ongoing.--WaltCip (talk) 11:02, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

March 18Edit

Portal:Current events/2018 March 18
Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sports

[Closed] First self-driving car fatalityEdit

No consensus. Stephen 23:27, 21 March 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: Autonomous car (talk, history)
Blurb: Elaine Herzberg becomes the first uninvolved pedestrian to be killed by an autonomous car.
News source(s): [24] [25] [26]
Nominator: Banedon (talk • give credit)
Updater: 172.58.35.236 (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Putting this here when the crash happened, but it has continued to generate coverage. "Uninvolved pedestrian" because she wasn't part of the test. Banedon (talk) 08:02, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm pretty sure someone has already been killed in relation to a self-driving vehicle before this happened. How many specific scenarios are we willing to post blurbs for? I can't say I support this one. Master of Time (talk) 08:06, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
  • But those people were inside the car and actively participating in the test. Elaine Herzberg was outside it and effectively uninvolved. Banedon (talk) 08:20, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose I think the fact the victim's article is heading for deletion says it all. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:28, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. While unfortunate, this is being reported as a relatively minor story. I also think long term this will just be a footnote in the history of autonomous cars; few people (unfortunately) will know who this person is. Most people don't know who the first pedestrian killed by a regular car is. 331dot (talk) 08:40, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Cars with drivers kill hundreds more on a daily basis.--WaltCip (talk) 11:03, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose It was more a matter of when there was going to be a self-driving car-related fatality, the industry never claimed perfection. This happened to be it, but it came as no surprise. --Masem (t) 15:05, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. There are huge numbers of people killed by vehicles every day; the fact that this particular vehicle was more automated than previous ones makes it a piece of trivia. I would suggest DYK instead, but the article looks like it fails WP:BLP1E. Modest Genius talk 16:16, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Road deaths are a common occurrence, and it was inevitable that someone would eventually be killed by an autonomous car. Also, the proposed blurb stating that the pedestrian was 'uninvolved' is inaccurate. The town's police chief has said that an initial investigation indicates that the crash was unavoidable, caused by abruptly stepping into the street. Mamyles (talk) 16:54, 21 March 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: David Cooper (immunologist)Edit

Article: David Cooper (immunologist) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Kirby News.com.au
Nominator: Dumelow (talk • give credit)

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: Australian immunologist who diagnosed the first case of HIV in Australia. Article is a little short but is well sourced. I may try to expand it later if I get time Dumelow (talk) 14:17, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Weak support just beyond stub, but sufficient. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:43, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Article is short, but no major problem to prevent RD posting. –Ammarpad (talk)
  • Support - Ready for RD.BabbaQ (talk) 20:37, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak support Article is well sourced, but merely passes stub level. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:10, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. As with other stubs nominated for RD, I believe there should be some coverage of what the subject accomplished in his/her professional life, and this article describes Cooper as an "Australian HIV/AIDS researcher" first. Aside from noting that he diagnosed "the first case of HIV in Australia", there is no description of what he researched within the field of HIV/AIDS (e.g. discoveries, confirmations of other findings, other results). For example, this could include Cooper's research on pre-treatment prophylaxis, development of therapeutic regiments, etc. I'm not saying that information in the article (generally professional appointments) aren't important, but for me the article has inadequate depth to merit RD posting. SpencerT♦C 21:23, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support It is adequate for RD. Pawnkingthree (talk) 01:38, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted. Vanamonde (talk) 04:42, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] Russian presidential election, 2018Edit

Posted, that is about it. The article is being constantly expanded to address the comments of those who wanted more content. As editors noted that it is time to close this, I am closing. --Tone 17:12, 19 March 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 presidential election, 2018 (talk, history)
Blurb: Vladimir Putin is reelected as President of Russia.
Alternative blurb: Vladimir Putin is elected as President of Russia for a fourth term.
Alternative blurb II: Vladimir Putin is elected to fourth term as President of Russia.
News source(s): BBC, Guardian, Reuters, dpa ((in English), Zeit (in German)
Nominator: Sherenk1 (talk • give credit)
Updater: YantarCoast (talk • give credit)
Other updaters: SpanishSnake (talk • give credit)

Article needs updating

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: Added now to assess article quality so as to make it ready to post as soon as election results are announced. Blurb can be specified at that time. Sherenk1 (talk) 11:38, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment. I think it would be OK to write a blurb now as no one thinks anyone other than Putin will win. 331dot (talk) 18:06, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I’ve added an altblurb. —LukeSurl t c 18:33, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Rather than try a WP:IAR oppose based on the fishy nature of the vote, disallowing of Alexei Navalny's candidacy, etc., perhaps we can add something to the blurb about it? [27] – Muboshgu (talk) 18:52, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
  • In the past we have refrained from any editorializing when posting even the most flagrantly bogus "election results." -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:54, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Indeed; we do not make judgements about the validity, fairness, or legitimacy of the election, that's for the reader to decide. 331dot (talk) 18:56, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not saying this to be pointy, but ITNR thinks the election of a head of state is notable, but that is based on the notion that an election is a choice by a populous. There is a threshold of corruption where the preceding cease to be an election in the conventional sense of the word, and what happened in Russia today certainly exceeds that threshold.GCG (talk) 20:04, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
  • No, it's most certainly not based on any such assumption. That's plainly incorrect. We report the facts, and it's up to article writers and third-party sources to provide the context. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:07, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
  • This is ITNR and marking as such. Banedon (talk) 19:40, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose until the results are declared "officially", plus since when has anyone on God's own Earth referred to Putin as "Vladimir V. Putin"? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:45, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
    • I just took the middle initial out. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:58, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
      • Bravo! No wonder I voted for you to become an admin! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:02, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose in addition to needing the "official" results, I want to see something in the article about the alleged voter fraud. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:06, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
  • This is notable because he's the head-of-state of a nuclear power, not because of it being a fair election. If this were Uzbekistan, I'd be inclined to IAR oppose it, but once the results are official and the article is updated it has to be included. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:14, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
    • I've added the "fourth term" to the altblurb, just for the record. Brandmeistertalk 20:19, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per IAR. It's hard for me to believe that this was in any sense a fair election.--WaltCip (talk) 20:33, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support fair or not, an election is an election and a head of state is a head of state. If anything, the ITN would read "Vladimir Putin is still President of Russia, as everyone expected". Juxlos (talk) 20:36, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support it's ITNR, article is in good shape. 2A02:A451:8B2D:1:D447:384A:ABF0:BBE9 (talk) 20:50, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment There is a section Reactions missing, usually we have some domestic and international reactions to the election when we post election articles. --Tone 20:56, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per Juxlos. I think those opposing this because the election wasn't fair clearly have a point. This is a result of a presidential election in a sovereign country, which is listed as a recurring item and, like it or not, it has to be posted once the official results come in and the article is sufficiently updated. The discussion on modifying the blurb to include the rumours on electoral fraud is relevant and should be carried out separately from any vote count.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:58, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment if official results are expected in the next 3-4 hours, I'd like to wait for them. If they won't be available for several days, this is probably ready to go. The lead section needs copy-editing and expansion, the rest is fine. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:02, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
    • RT (a reliable source for the official election results) says 80% of votes are in, and Putin has 76% of the vote. [28]. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:06, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support – Details aside, this is global news. Suggest Alt2 as a more logical word order. Sca (talk) 21:03, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Note: I reworded the Alts, removed Alt1 - "elected to a fourth term" is not global English. Black Kite (talk) 21:07, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Based on decades of newspaper editing, I must strongly disagree with this unilateral deletion of another's proposal. Replaced blurb as Alt2 once again.
  • Fine, put it back. I can assure you that "elected to fourth term" would be up at WP:ERRORS seconds after it was posted, though. Black Kite (talk) 21:39, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
Go fly a kite. Sca (talk) 15:20, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - this is ITN/R, so ethical qualms about the legitimacy of the election are irrelevant for notability grounds. Maybe we have a combined blurb with Xi Jinping - in "democratic" despot news, both Putin and Xi are (shockingly) re-elected. Stormy clouds (talk) 21:16, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
    • Second this. The first option seems the best if combinated with Xi. Also btw, there was no corruption, 80% of complaints were 100% fake, and a couple thousand Ukrainians couldn't vote because of the police. wumbolo ^^^ 21:24, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
      • @Wumbolo: LOL, got a source for that claim? – Muboshgu (talk) 21:46, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
        • @Muboshgu: "State TV channel Rossiya 24 reported earlier there were complaints of violations but many were 'fake'." (Al Jazeera) wumbolo ^^^ 22:02, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
Irrelevant personal comments.
          • OMG are you serious??? Russian state-owned media says there was no fraud, so you accept that? That's like believing there was no Russian collusion in the U.S. election because Trump tweeted "NO COLLUSION". – Muboshgu (talk) 22:04, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
            • "OMG" are you really an admin? Remain calm here, please. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:16, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
              • Yes I'm an admin. And you've been de-sysop'd. So STFU. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:20, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
                • Not for much longer! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:21, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
                  • I'd have to take notes on your behavior to really see how one goes about losing adminship. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:24, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
                    • You're way ahead of where I ever was at your stage. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:33, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment We have posted w/o any editorial comment some of the most corrupt and patently fake elections ever staged. We are likely going to do the same for the reelection of the President of China whose manner of election would probably make Stalin smile. There is no question that this whole thing has been rigged from the word go. And yes that needs to be in the article before I will support it. But not in any blurb on ITN. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:03, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
    • I agree with presenting a short blurb without the fraud, and that the fraud needs to be mentioned in the article. I started a talk page thread there about it. I don't know exactly how to write the fraud section that the article needs to be complete. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:09, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support – Significant news about the reelection of a major world figure in a major country. I would change alt-blurb II to say "his" fourth term, though. Master of Time (talk) 22:11, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
    • @Master of Time: It's missing info about alleged voter fraud though. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:12, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
      • I mean, I never actually considered the Russian elections to be free and fair, but that's not a reason to oppose the mention of it in the ITN section, in my opinion. Master of Time (talk) 22:14, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
        • @Master of Time: I'm not saying the article shouldn't be posted. I agreed with Ad Orientem above in that we should post it, but we should post a complete article, which means not posting it until the allegations of fraud are included. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:19, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment what Ad Orientem said. All of you whinging about "corruption" should look closer to home, and accept that Wikipedia is not here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, merely to report what has actually happened. Where did it all go so wrong for so many of you? Incidentally, refusing to post this until some kind of "fraud" section is added to the article is bullshit, and pure systemic bias, arguably worse. We post per RS, so as and when we have consensus to post based on the results, that's what we do, we don't wait for admins who don't like the result to declare their own posting criteria, that's complete and utter bullshit. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:23, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
    • We post updated articles, that means articles should be relatively complete. Without fraud allegations, this article is missing significant context. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:26, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
      • The allegations seem to be primarily coming from western press at this point, not internally to Russia (contrast to the last US election where it was definitely internal). At this point, external allegation are not needed. If there does come internal allegations raised, that can be added, but it is not necessary for an ITNR posting, and like TRM, I have a great concern a number of editors are seeing the requirement of having them as righting great wrongs. We are not in that business. --Masem (t) 22:28, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
        • @Masem: Golos is internal, and they're reporting alleged violations.[29] – Muboshgu (talk) 22:31, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
          • Once WP:RS are declaring results, this should be posted, we don't need to wait for some "admin" version of the "truth", perhaps these "admins" should step aside and allow others to make judgements here, the kind of judgements we expect from our admins, not those which are personal and against the principles of Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:34, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
          • (ec) Even with that, because WP handles news of allegations carefully, I would only expect initial mention that there might be allegations. It would be irresponsible of us to try to document a full allegations section until Russia's election organization can actually comment on it. Initial statements would fine, but they are not necessary to consider this article complete for ITN posting. --Masem (t) 22:36, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I'd like to remind everybody that, apart from the technical ability to post things on the front page (and the obligation to assess and act according to consensus when doing so), admins don't have any special powers here. People unhappy with the content of the article would be advised to add referenced content, or discuss the flaws of the article on the talk page. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:37, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

  • I've added the infobox image from Putin's article to CMP, just need to wait for KrinkleBot to weave her magic. Black Kite (talk) 23:17, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
    Image switched. Black Kite (talk) 23:37, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
@Piotrus: As to why it is news, you will need to take that up with the news media; here at ITN we do not editorialize or make judgements about the validity, fairness, or legitimacy of elections. That's for readers to decide for themselves. This event is what passes for an election in Russia. That's all we are interested in. 331dot (talk) 11:25, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Pull until the article sufficiently covers the allegations of fraud. We don't editorialize in ITN blurbs, but we also shouldn't post articles that are missing important information. Lepricavark (talk) 14:12, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
    • Right now, there's claims of ballot stuffing and the like, and that's in the article as well as the election committee's response that there was no major incidents they had observed yet, but there's no formal claims or allegations that we as WP can rightfully justify a complete section on and stay within NPOV. There will likely be more in the next several weeks, just as there was with the US election, but for ITN, the article properly covered the key event. --Masem (t) 14:18, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep feel free to embellish the Reactions section which is already quite descriptive. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:14, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I think you need to (a) calm down and (b) retract that, or else I'll have to get you a saucer of milk. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:20, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I thought you saved your vague, empty threats for admins. Lepricavark (talk) 14:24, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
  • No, disruptive and bad-mouthing editors in general. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:25, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I think you meant 'people who disagree with me', but have it your way. Lepricavark (talk) 14:28, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
  • You're not making sense I'm afraid. There's a huge difference between disagreeing with someone and just making stuff up about someone. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:32, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Post-posting comment – How about we add the phrase "yet again" to the current blurb? Very journalesey. Ha. Sca (talk) 15:20, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I think this discussion has probably run its useful course and can be safely closed. Any further objections can be made at ERRORS. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:24, 19 March 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: Li AoEdit

Stale. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:33, 23 March 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: Li Ao (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): [30]
Nominator: Oceangai (talk • give credit)

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

Nominator's comments: Article well written and sourced Oceangai (talk) 14:33, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. There are referencing gaps and several CN tags.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:18, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Contrary to what the nominator says, this is neither well written nor well sourced at the moment. Vanamonde (talk) 04:22, 21 March 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.

March 17Edit

Portal:Current events/2018 March 17
Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

[Closed] RD: Sushil SiddharthEdit

Stale. Older than oldest RD. SpencerT♦C 17:38, 21 March 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: Sushil Siddharth (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Hindustan and Navbharat Times
Nominator and updater: Skr15081997 (talk • give credit)

Article updated

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

 Skr15081997 (talk) 15:02, 21 March 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] Ameenah GuribEdit

Was nominated on the 12th, and not posted because of quality which is still not sufficient. Stephen 22:27, 20 March 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: Ameenah Gurib (talk, history)
Blurb: President of Mauritius Ameenah Gurib resigns amid financial misconduct allegations.
Alternative blurb: President of Mauritius Ameenah Gurib resigns amid credit card scandal.
News source(s): Al Jazeera Bloomberg BBC Times of India NYT 1 NYT 2
Nominator: 39.48.73.97 (talk • give credit)
Updater: Pritish.Seeboo (talk • give credit)

Article updated

 39.48.73.97 (talk) 08:15, 20 March 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: Mike MacDonaldEdit

Article: Mike MacDonald (comedian) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): CBC
Nominator: TDKR Chicago 101 (talk • give credit)

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

Nominator's comments: Article well sourced --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:02, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Support Decent article, good to be posted. –Ammarpad (talk) 18:55, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:49, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. Solid article, sources plentiful and proper. A few red links, but all seem properly sourced. Challenger l (talk) 21:27, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 23:44, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Xi Jinping reappointed president without term limitsEdit

Article: Xi Jinping (talk, history)
Blurb: Xi Jinping (pictured) is re-elected as the President of the People's Republic of China with no term limits by the National People’s Congress.
Alternative blurb: Xi Jinping (pictured) is re-elected as the President of the People's Republic of China.
News source(s): AFP, Reuters, Al Jazeera
Nominator: Starship.paint (talk • give credit)

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

Nominator's comments: Should qualify under WP:ITN/R as an indirect election for head of state. starship.paint ~ KO 03:30, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Previous, related nomination on the removal of term limits on March 11. Current nomination is on the reelection of President on March 17, and has a different target article
  • Name: Chinese presidential term limits removed
  • Date: March 11
  • Alternative blurb: ​The National People's Congress removes term limits for the President of the People's Republic of China (incumbent Xi Jinping pictured)
  • Alternative blurb II: ​The National People's Congress removes term limits for the President of the People's Republic of China, with Xi Jinping as the incumbent president.
  • Alternative blurb III: ​At the 2018 National People's Congress, the Chinese legislature removes term limits for the President of the People's Republic of China (incumbent Xi Jinping pictured)
  • Sources: BBC,CNN, Reuters

Nominator's comments: Significant change in way of governing in one of the most significant countries now. More from The New York Times on why this is a big deal. Feel free to add more blurbs and suggest alternative target articles as the current one is not detailed starship.paint ~ KO 09:27, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Conditional support Widely covered and highly notable, might very well not have more Chinese presidential succession for a while. Article needs significant extensions though. Also blurb feels a bit long. Juxlos (talk) 11:02, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Change to Support focusing on the presidency instead of the meeting per below. Juxlos (talk) 07:41, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose on quality - article tells us nothing more than the blurb and is almost as long. The reason your struggling with the blurb is we can't say what RS are saying per WP:crystalball. The part we can say doesn't feel all that newsworthy. GCG (talk) 11:32, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The PRC is free to use its legal processes to change its laws about how long the President serves whenever it wishes. This will have little effect. 331dot (talk) 12:16, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
I would add that this legislature is essentially a rubber stamp body anyway. If Xi didn't want it, they wouldn't do it. 331dot (talk) 12:20, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
With the exception of Mao Zedong, the term limit seems to be obeyed in general. While the body may not exactly be a proper democratic one this still implies a major event in Chinese politics. If Trump even formally proposes doing this it will be all over the news in a heartbeat. Juxlos (talk) 12:54, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
FYI the US President has no formal role in crafting US Constitutional amendments. He can't push one through Congress (2/3 vote needed) or through the states (3/4 of the states). He can propose whatever he wants but it's unlikely it would happen. I believe he has joked about doing something similar to this Chinese action. 331dot (talk) 19:14, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Notability wise, support. I'm seeing this development in multiple news sources. This was also in the news a few weeks ago when it was effectively passed by the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China, but in terms of the encyclopedia, the official change to the Constitution of the People's Republic of China is what we want to mark. When evaluating this, we can't use the same criteria as that we would evaluating a development in a Western democracy. In China power happens through closed-door meetings and not by elections, and this is one of the most significant occasions. I've suggested a shorter alt-blurb. Article will need some work. --LukeSurl t c 14:24, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose on article quality. It's a stub and will require significant expansion before we can seriously consider posting to the main page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:42, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support on notability as above; I was thinking about nominating this when the news first broke but knew that the response would be 'wait until it actually happens'. The article should be expanded. Davey2116 (talk) 17:06, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
  • President of the People's Republic of China might be a good target, as the news is really about this post rather than the meeting. --LukeSurl t c 19:17, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Agree. Stormy clouds (talk) 19:56, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
There was an uncited section, now fixed. Juxlos (talk) 10:20, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, still opposed. The new target has only a brief mention and offers no more information than what is in the blurb. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:12, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support in principle, oppose on update. A historically significant change to one of the world's most powerful offices. However unless I'm missing something President of the People's Republic of China has just two sentences on the change, that say nothing more about it than the blurb does. I think we need a full paragraph of cited update somewhere before posting. Modest Genius talk 11:38, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
  • The difficulty of using President of the People's Republic of China as the target is that it's not really the place for an extensive commentary on recent events, especially when these events now mean there's an absence of a particular aspect of the position. --LukeSurl t c 12:19, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Fair enough, but that's currently the bold link in the blurb. If there's a better location for an update, that's fine. We do need one somewhere. Modest Genius talk 13:03, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support in principle. If allowing presidency for life in the most populous country and second-largest economy in the world, which directly impacts 1.4 billion people and has large potential to affect international relations, does not merit a blurb, then I'm really wondering what the political news should be concerned with to get included.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:22, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I think there is a lot of support in principle because this is a huge power grab for Xi. However, he is only the third leader of China since the President role became synonymous with the supreme leader, and he is just now entering his second term. The narrative that he is becoming Mao-like or ruling for life is highly speculative. GCG (talk) 13:37, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Nominal or not, it’s still the head of state position, the same way we care about the Queen of the United Kingdom. Juxlos (talk) 15:34, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Reluctant oppose as it's a significant story that is getting coverage, but neither proposed target has been sufficiently updated - the 2018 Congress article is still a stub and there has been a mere two line update to the new target that tells us little more than the blurb.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:33, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment. I didn't get a ping even though I see you tried. Anyway, I don't think the blurb needs to mention term limits or lack thereof, which is a separate issue from who the President is(even if the legislature is just rubber stamping the choice of President). 331dot (talk) 07:26, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Is this really an indirect election to make this ITNR? The election was squaring from those already sitting in the national congress in contrast to, eg, the US's electoral college. Normally Election ITNRs point to an election article, (and the winner if that article is in good shape), but clearly there's nothing close to that here. I am not saying that there is not something to put to ITN here between the combination fo the term limits and this recent "rubber stamping" by the congress, just that I don't think we should consider this ITNR. --Masem (t) 13:44, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
I don't know their system; is the Congress even given more than one candidate to in theory choose from?(even if Xi winning is predetermined) Even if Xi is the only option, could they in theory not choose him? It would still nominally be an election for head of state (again, even if the result is predetermined) 331dot (talk) 13:50, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
  • 331dot - each of the 2,000+ delegates gets a yes/no vote. Xi got all 'Yes'. His Vice President got 1 'No'. starship.paint ~ KO 13:56, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose Several gaps in referencing though the article is not in horrible shape by any means. Once remedied Weak Support on merits. I do think this meets our ITNR criteria although the election is obviously a sham by any normal standards observed in the democratic world. Also I favor the alt blurb. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:15, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Conditional Strong Support - as per above, reference gaps here and there. Once fixed, principle is that this is the head of state of the most populous country in the world. Juxlos (talk) 18:25, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Since China has removed the term limits, this is not a direct election, thus it is not ITNR.--WaltCip (talk) 19:03, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per Juxlos and Ad Orientem. Jusdafax (talk) 19:40, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Obvious oppose ITNR here applies to the election as target article, we don't seem to have one, so this is invalid. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:39, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support in principle. I've already supported the introduction of the rule without it being invoked, so this formal application is additional justification for my previous vote.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:10, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
  • 2018 National People's Congress, the 'election' article, is a stub. Stephen 03:41, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support after the cn-tags are addressed. I think setting Xi as the target-article is fine. Davey2116 (talk) 06:01, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support in principle, but oppose on update. 2018 National People's Congress is barely above a stub and has literally one sentence on Xi's re-election. Xi's own article has one sentence on the removal of term limits and one sentence on the re-election. We have the same problem as before: the update gives no more information than the blurb. If/when there's a substantial update somewhere, with multiple paragraphs of referenced prose, then this can go up, but not before. Modest Genius talk 14:03, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Modest Genius - the target article is a stub.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:31, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support in principle, but 2018 National People's Congress isn't a reasonable target article right now, and 13th National People's Congress is even worse. Could Xi Jinping be the target article? The alt-blurb is significantly better than the initial, longer suggestion. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:36, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Ireland win Six NationsEdit

Article: 2018 Six Nations Championship (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In rugby union, Ireland win a Grand Slam in the Six Nations Championship. (captain Rory Best pictured)
News source(s): RTÉ BBC
Nominator: Stormy clouds (talk • give credit)

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

Nominator's comments: Article needs some referencing, but is in an alright state. Item is ITN/R, and derives additional notability as it is only Ireland's third Grand Slam (and happens to fall on St. Patrick's Day). Stormy clouds (talk) 16:59, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Is just winning the Grand Slam on ITNR? They won the Six Nations a week ago.--Johnsemlak (talk) 03:23, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
This nom is for the Six Nations as a whole. We wait until the tournament is concluded. Pawnkingthree (talk) 11:58, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose until improved. Compare 2016 [32] where the item was nominated in a state similar to the current one but was not posted until there was prose on the actual games themselves. (For some reason, this seems not to have been posted - or even nominated - at all in 2017.) There are also a number of uncited statements. Black Kite (talk) 12:17, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Needs update. Now is the correct time to nominate this, but at present there are only three sentences of prose in the article about the results of the entire tournament. The rest is all build-up, tables and team sheets. This needs a few referenced paragraphs describing the progress of the tournament. 2016_Six_Nations_Championship#Story_of_the_tournament is an excellent example, though it doesn't need to be quite that detailed to be posted. Modest Genius talk 14:07, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

March 16Edit

Portal:Current events/2018 March 16
International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

Sports

[Closed] 2018 UMBC vs. Virginia men's basketball gameEdit

Safe to say this will not be posted. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:55, 19 March 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 UMBC vs. Virginia men's basketball game (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The UMBC Retrievers became the first #16 seed in NCAA Tournament history to defeat a #1 seed with their 74-54 win over the Virginia Cavaliers.
News source(s): [33]
Nominator: UMBC vs Virginia (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: Because its a article about a notable upset and no other college who was a 16th seed ever defeated a top seeded team in NCAA history. UMBC vs Virginia (talk) 03:17, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose One underdog victory over a top seed in a non-final elimination game is not ITN, and even the game itself shouldn't have an article. --Masem (t) 03:21, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose We should post the tournament's conclusion, possibly with a mention of this game. It's the championship game that we're waiting for. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:28, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:32, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Portal:Current events/2018 March 16 is the appropriate page for this type of news story, and it is already included there. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:34, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - It's enough of an uphill battle just getting the championship result posted. It's also meaningless. No one except die-hard fans of UMBC will remember this as a particularly notable sporting achievement, when as stated above, the focus will be on who wins the entire tournament.-WaltCip (talk) 11:07, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. We don't usually post specific games in larger tournaments, only the result of the tournament. 331dot (talk) 11:13, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Just wonder, seems the account is only created to make this nomination. –Ammarpad (talk) 11:43, 19 March 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: Adrian LamoEdit

Article: Adrian Lamo (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC News
Nominator: TDKR Chicago 101 (talk • give credit)

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

Nominator's comments: Article well sourced --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:19, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Support Nice article. No issues. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:56, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Indeed nice article. Ready for posting.BabbaQ (talk) 23:11, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Added support. Ready to go. –Ammarpad (talk) 00:19, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - per above supports. Jusdafax (talk) 03:59, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support good to go, do we need to wait any longer? Anyone out there? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:45, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support everything is well sourced. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:09, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted. Black Kite (talk) 11:29, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Louise SlaughterEdit

Article: Louise Slaughter (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): USA Today
Nominator: It's Wiki Time (talk • give credit)

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

 It's Wiki Time (talk) 16:02, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

  • She's one of my personal favorites, and I may devote some time to getting the article up to speed, but my main point here is that the article is not yet up to speed. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:11, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
    • Support and ready Did the first comment make me too WP:INVOLVED to post this? It's ready now. Great job to everyone for improving this BLP. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:00, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose unreferenced material, tables aren't in chronological order, etc etc, lots of work to do here. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:00, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
What's wrong with the tables? They don't look as nice as the ones at Susan Collins, but reverse-chronological is pretty normal. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:16, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Whether it's "pretty normal" or not, it's not acceptable. Show me an encyclopedia that lists events in reverse order. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:33, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
I've had that same argument on election pages in tables that list polling, and have often found myself in the minority in hating reverse chronology. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:37, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes, it's just unacceptable, so until that's fixed, and all the unreferenced issues, this is a definitive no. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:38, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
I could be wrong about this, but isn't there some coding wizardry you can add to a sortable table so it defaults to showing a certain way round? Black Kite (talk) 19:40, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
There sure is, but the default should be chronological. That needs re-work. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:42, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Fixed it - now in chronological order. One of the very few things that Visual Editor is useful for. Black Kite (talk) 19:51, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Reverse chronology is the standard on many of these pages. Is that being a no-no codified anywhere in MOS? If so, would be nice to fix up some of the tables like Opinion polling in the Canadian federal election, 2015, Opinion polling on the Donald Trump administration, Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election, Opinion polling for the Russian presidential election, 2018. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:56, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biographies#Order_of_events would be the place to include it for biographies. I don't think there's an MOS sub-page relevant for the "Opinion polling" pages, which have problems beyond their ordering. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:58, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Again, how many encyclopedias are publishing reverse-order information? None is the answer. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:14, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
If it's so obvious, it should be easy to find consensus to state that in the site policies. The section of MOS:BIO currently says Within a single section, events should almost always be in chronological order. Exceptions to this rule may be apply to lists of works, such as publications or other media productions, where the most recent may be listed first, as well as for distinctions such as orders, decorations, and medals. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:24, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Again, how many encyclopedias are publishing reverse-order information? None is the answer. I've already challenged this absurd MOS exception. Time we all started acting like we're building a real encyclopedia, not a tabloid. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:29, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Too many gaps in referencing. The whole thing with the tables is not a deal breaker with me, but yea, they look weird. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:45, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
  • The article is down to one {{citation needed}}, which I've started a discussion about on the talk page. The article probably needs two more copy-editing passes before being "good". power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:06, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
    • Support I've resolved the last CN tag, and am happy with the article quality now. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:18, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support not seeing any more issues with this. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 23:13, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - ready for posting. Good work.BabbaQ (talk) 02:21, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. Article has been improved greatly. –Ammarpad (talk) 04:55, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted. Black Kite (talk) 11:29, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

March 15Edit

Portal:Current events/2018 March 15
Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Politics and elections

Sports

[Posted] Blurb: Marielle FrancoEdit

Article: Marielle Franco (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Member of the Rio de Janeiro City Council Marielle Franco and the driver Anderson Pedro Gomes are assassinated in a drive-by shooting in Rio de Janeiro's city center.
Alternative blurb: Brazilian politician and outspoken police critic Marielle Franco is killed along with her driver in a drive-by shooting in Rio de Janeiro.
News source(s): BBC, CNN, Vice News, MintPress News and virtually all major news outlets.
Nominator: RedUser (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: The assassination happened on 15 March, UTC time. RedUser (talk) 02:32, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Support Highly relevant news. 189.40.83.173 (talk) 06:21, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support alt blurb per the fact it's dominating Brazilian news and led to tens of thousands of protesters taking to the streets. Banedon (talk) 06:58, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Strongly relevant. She was a human right defender and city council. Today, after her murder, theres a massive people spreading fake news and lies about her at social networks. This is a important channel to keep the truth alive.
  • Support - led to huge protests. Article is ready for posting.BabbaQ (talk) 15:34, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose only on quality Just looking through the BBC, there are good reason why authorities believe this was a targeted assassination, but the article on her does not go into those. I think that needs to be added to understand this being ITN a bit better. I fully agree the item is ITN-worthy, just not article quality. --Masem (t) 15:46, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
The article was recently expanded to include that information. Also, some other news: Wall Street Journal, St. Louis American, ABC News, New York Times, Blavity and Financial Times. RedUser (talk) 22:29, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
Perfect, all good now for me. Support. --Masem (t) 00:35, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Mateussf (talk) 00:31, 19 March 2018 (UTC) Highly relevant indeed.
  • Support Relevant persona in the current political scenario - has drawn attention by the circumstances of her death: humans right activist and city councillor target of assasination after denouncing transgressions during military security forces intervention in Rio de Janeiro. Has been target of a smear campaign in order to supress public outcry. Freedom of press and in defense of liberty demands this article to feature on Wikipedia frontpage.187.61.197.239 (talk) 00:39, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support I can't add more information but i couldn't endorse more.2804:14C:5786:855C:1118:8A44:A873:3025 (talk) 00:48, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support A human rights activist gunned down at a young age and has tracked global attention. With article in good shape. Marking ready. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:01, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - article is ready, story is clearly worthy. Stormy clouds (talk) 01:03, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Strongly relevant, especially in the situation of a military intervention in Rio de Janeiro and current political events on Brazil. Waltercruz (talk) 01:23, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 02:02, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Carlton GaryEdit

Article: Carlton Gary (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Chicago Tribune
Nominator: Dumelow (talk • give credit)

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: American serial killer executed by lethal injection. Not the most pleasant of topics perhaps but the article is in pretty good shape - Dumelow (talk) 23:02, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Weak support there are two permanently dead refs in there which needs to be addressed before this is posted, otherwise it's in good order. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:54, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
I have replaced the dead links- Dumelow (talk) 10:37, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
  • support - ready for posting.BabbaQ (talk) 11:02, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Article looks fine. –Ammarpad (talk) 11:26, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted. Black Kite (talk) 11:29, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

[Closed] Slovakian Prime Minister resignsEdit

Consensus to wait until new government. Stephen 23:26, 21 March 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: Robert Fico (talk, history) and Peter Pellegrini (talk, history)
Blurb: Slovakian Prime Minister Robert Fico announces his resignation over the murder of a journalist and designates Peter Pellegrini to form a new government.
News source(s): New York Times, BBC, The Guardian, SCMP, Aktuality (local source)
Nominator: Juxlos (talk • give credit)
Updater: BaconBoss Gabo (talk • give credit)
Other updaters: Fuebaey (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: Interestingly, a day after his Slovenian counterpart. Peter Pellegrini is now PM-designate, but his article is a bit on the short side. Fico's article is long and well-referenced, though. Juxlos (talk) 22:29, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. Fico's article has not been adequately updated to discuss the circumstances of the fall of his government. This is even more important than normal given the rather sensational blurb. Pellegrini's article is only a half step over a stub and will require significant expansion before it can be linked on the main page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:46, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support on principle, oppose on quality ITNR transition of a world leader, but as noted above, we really need more about why Fico's resigning. --Masem (t) 00:00, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Masem Ad Orientem it seems like someone got around to updating the article, with a subsection on resignation. Juxlos (talk) 00:40, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Fico's article looks better. The other one is still in need of drastic improvement though. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:47, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support on the merits due to the reason for the resignation (though this is not ITNR as this is head of government not head of state). 331dot (talk) 17:37, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per Masem. Banedon (talk) 21:01, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose looks like a big publicity issue, perhaps we can publish the new leader per ITNR, but this is titivating and nothing more. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:08, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support on circumstances of resignation, but wait till new government is formed. This is Paul (talk) 23:24, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Wait until Government is formed, then run a modified hook like Peter Pellegrini becomes Prime Minister of Slovakia after Robert Fico resigns the post. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:13, 17 March 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: Tom BensonEdit

Stale.--WaltCip (talk) 15:42, 20 March 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: Tom Benson (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Nominator: Lepricavark (talk • give credit)

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: Influential sports owner and businessman dies at the age of 90. Lepricavark (talk) 21:48, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose too much unreferenced material. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:50, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support -needs come cleaning and more references. Should be posted after adding new references Awestruck1 (talk) 22:38,15 March 2018
  • Oppose The 'Saints relocation controversy" section is way too long and is rightly tagged for WP:UNDUE. That needs to be resolved.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:06, 16 March 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) Miami bridge collapseEdit

SNOW Close, tragic but consensus is almost entirely against posting this event. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 23:07, 15 March 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: Florida International University pedestrian bridge collapse (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A new pedestrian bridge in Miami, Florida collapses days after being installed, killing at least six people.
News source(s): Miami Herald, BBC, ABC Australia, New York Times
Nominator: SounderBruce (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: Article needs expansion, but the news story is receiving international coverage. Highly unusual, given that it's a new bridge and using a modern method of construction. SounderBruce 20:13, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Just a small bridge. No long-term impact.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:16, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
"...killing at least six people." That's a long-term impact.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:19, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
  • A new bridge, using a relatively new construction method, will likely have a long-term impact. SounderBruce 20:20, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
  • If it is a new construction method, glitches or problems are to be expected. It doesn't mean this accident will be the death of this method. I don't think we even know if the accident was related to the construction method. 331dot (talk) 20:25, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose trivial accident, if this had occurred anywhere else on planet Earth it would be universally greeted with "meh", so ... "meh". The Rambling Man (talk) 20:30, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose certainly a tragedy, and brand new bridges are not expected to fail, but the death toll is too low for ITN. Lepricavark (talk) 20:35, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak support – making international news; new construction method lends to greater notability than an old decaying bridge collapsing. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:36, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - unquestionably sad, but I don't feel that a sufficient number of people have died for this to merit posting. If it happened elsewhere, it would likely not even have an article - we must avoid bias, even if it means letting nominations like this fall to the wayside. Stormy clouds (talk) 20:43, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose at this time. Tragic, but not generally significant enough based on what we know now. 331dot (talk) 20:45, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose although undoubtedly a tragic event, it is ultimately a minor accident at best, the bridge was also not fully completed according to the article provided. SamaranEmerald (talk) 20:47, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. –Actually strong oppose, if it means anything. Relatively minor incident at unfinished bridge. If it were not in the US, it may not even get article talk less of going to main page. –Ammarpad (talk) 21:44, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Pile on Oppose At the risk of sounding callous; things break and people die. We just can't post every fatal accident that garners some short term, even if sensational, news coverage. Although there is no written rule, in my experience accidents with low death tolls usually don't make it onto ITN. Our motto is not "if it bleeds it leads." It has to bleed a lot. Prayers for those affected... Kyrie eleison. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:00, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Number of fatalities isn’t currently large, but nature of the incident and fact that it was a new structure sways it for me.yorkshiresky (talk) 22:51, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per all above opposers, arbitrary at best, bridges especially new ones tend to have problems within days after they open, take the original Tacoma Narrows Bridge for example, it had problems almost immediately after it opened, and as a result it collapsed several months later. Kirliator (talk) 23:01, 15 March 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.

March 14Edit

Portal:Current events/2018 March 14
Arts and culture

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

[Closed] Toys R UsEdit

This dead horse is getting cold. Brandmeistertalk 15:17, 15 March 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: Toys “R” Us (talk, history)
Blurb: Toys “R” Us says they are closing in the US and UK.
Nominator: 172.56.7.104 (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: Big news. 172.56.7.104 (talk) 00:49, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose: No sources given. Also, this is just a company about to be liquidated. This is not CompanyPedia. 2601:2C0:4700:4A9A:E1AA:FC3B:E64E:EACB (talk) 00:57, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose It is big news here in the States. But companies go broke all the time and we are not talking a mega bankruptcy here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:34, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Just a side effect really of the biggening of the online shopping industry especially by mega-retailers like Amazon. More businesses will be sure to follow suit. WaltCip (talk) 01:39, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose I personally find this to be sad news, but it certainly does not rise to ITN level. Lepricavark (talk) 02:31, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose I'd consider a support if/when they actually closed. A few years ago HMV claimed it was closing, and never did. Aiken D 07:05, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose just another company whose business model didn't move with the times. Already fish and chip paper. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:11, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose routine business action. As I understand it(at least in the US) they are not totally going out of business yet, just closing a bunch of stores. 331dot (talk) 09:50, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose This does not interest the majority of people, even within the US. Natureium (talk) 13:58, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose No international significance, not the kind of thing we usually post on ITN and no reason why this is exceptionally different. AusLondonder (talk) 14:15, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
@AusLondonder: I agree that this does not merit posting, but "international significance" has never been required for any ITN posting; if it were, very little would be posted. 331dot (talk) 14:19, 15 March 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] Slovenian Prime Minister resignsEdit

Consensus was to wait.--WaltCip (talk) 15:42, 20 March 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: Miro Cerar (talk, history)
Blurb: Slovenian Prime Minister Miro Cerar resigns after the supreme court of Slovenia annuls the results of a government referendum.
News source(s): AP
Nominator: Banedon (talk • give credit)
Updater: Juxlos (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: From the source, Slovenia has also had "a wave of strikes and protests by public sector workers", including a strike by teachers that shut down schools on Wednesday. Banedon (talk) 23:44, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Article looks to be in decent shape though I might suggest waiting until we have a successor announced as we usually post the outgoing and incoming at the same time. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:57, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Wait per Masem below. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:36, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Wait articles are fine but we should post it when his successor is sworn in – Nixinova T | E ⟩ 00:14, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Conditional wait not entirely sure. If it’ll take a few months for his successor to be decided then post but if it’s within a week or so then might as well wait. Juxlos (talk) 00:20, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
  • also he’s still formally prime minister if I’m reading this correctly
  • Wait Per Reuters, he will hold the post until the new gov't forms. --Masem (t) 00:28, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Masem. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:54, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Conditional Oppose Sad to say, but the last time I heard about Slovenia was with regards to Melania. This news item may be too myopic?Zigzig20s (talk) 07:58, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Wait for the election (which is ITNR) to post something about this. There doesn't seem to be a big scandal here, he resigned after the Supreme Court annulled the results of a referendum he had championed and ordered a new vote. 331dot (talk) 14:07, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
I agree. Inatan (talk) 18:39, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
You think whether or not there is a big scandal is relevant to whether or not this should be posted on ITN? Banedon (talk) 21:00, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
  • It is better to wait until the election here. He resigned a couple of months before the regular election would take place, and the resignation is being interpreted as a strategical move in view of tensions in the coalition and some other cases, such as the referendum being overturned. Cerar will remain acting PM until the election so there is no major change expected. --Tone 20:27, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Man and I was hoping we can have “Slovakian prime minister resigns” and “Slovenian prime minister resigns” next to each other on ITN. Juxlos (talk) 23:54, 15 March 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] UK Expels 23 Russian DiplomatsEdit

Article: Poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The United Kingdom formally accuses Russia of the attempted murder of Sergei Skripal by a nerve agent and expels 23 diplomats.
Alternative blurb: ​In response to the attempted murder of Sergei Skripal by a nerve agent, the United Kingdom expels 23 Russian diplomats.
News source(s): NYT and virtually all major news outlets.
Nominator: Ad Orientem (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: The original blurb just fell off ITN as the situation is rapidly escalating into a serious international incident/crisis. Russia is threatening unspecified retaliation. I think recent developments justify reposting. If this drags out we might want to consider ongoing. The article is in good shape. Ad Orientem (talk) 14:28, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Wait I'm tempted to say this may be better for ongoing, as each element of the tensions rising here is not going to be ITN itself (we can't post every incremental update), but it is a major breakdown in relationships between the UK and Russia. --Masem (t) 14:31, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Okay, now we have something here. Support.--WaltCip (talk) 14:45, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
My intial reaction after seeing BBC's "to expel" headline was also 'wait,' but evidently they've been given official notice – they just have a week before they have to say "До свидания." – Sca (talk) 16:51, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support A major escalation. I think the expelling of diplomats is blurb-worthy and I would prefer this to merely adding it on Ongoing.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:01, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Ongoing the death blurb just expired off, pop this down into ongoing (now we have a free slot) and let it die off naturally. --173.38.117.77 (talk) 15:33, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support next logical stage but a real degradation in relationships between the two countries. Good job the rest of Europe sits between the UK and Russia...... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:04, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Also, good thing we're in a formal union with those countries so they can back us up. Oh, wait..... Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:35, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support – A big step all right (and May also revoked an invitation to Lavrov). – Sca (talk) 16:42, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support I fin it unusual that this wasnt mentioned already, even before the expulsion of the diplomats. Dahn (talk) 17:01, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
It was. However it just got bumped off the ITN bar with the posting of Stephen Hawking's death. That blurb only addressed the attempted murder, not the most recent and rather dramatic developments. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:10, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support International news with a major case of excrement hitting fan that has not been seen since the Cold War. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:35, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Post to ongoing - You don't need a crystal ball to know that this whole thing is going to be in the news for at least a couple of weeks. - Floydian τ ¢ 18:38, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Wait Russian Ambassador Alexander Vladimirovich Yakovenko is not expelled yet. If he is, then this would mean something huge. For now, I’d hold off. Juxlos (talk) 18:41, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. It seems to still be developing, and currently receiving a large amount of media attention. Natureium (talk) 19:06, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose until the diplomats actually leave (i.e one week from now). This is what we've been doing by precedent. Banedon (talk) 20:33, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
What precedent is that? I don't recall the last time we discussed posting the expulsion of diplomats. 331dot (talk) 20:40, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
No, but we had lots of nominations not posted because it "hasn't happened yet", e.g. your Kim-Trump meeting nomination. Banedon (talk) 20:47, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Well, this has happened. The named diplomats have to leave the country. I'm not sure what happens to them if they don't but I'm guessing it involves arrest. So you actually support this but oppose it for consistency? 331dot (talk) 20:50, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes, this is for consistency. It's not that the diplomats don't leave the country, but rather that the UK can change its mind. Again, this is using previous arguments for not posting XYZ per WP:Crystal and all that. Banedon (talk) 20:52, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. 331dot (talk) 20:55, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. Major escalation in this dispute. 331dot (talk) 20:42, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Major international kerfuffle involving the use of a nerve agent in Europe with long term consequences. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:57, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Is "formally" necessary in the blurb? zzz (talk) 21:38, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment – Still favor posting, but would add this note of caution: Looks like the Russians are getting ready to play (surprise!) tit-for-tat. If they do, that could be added. Sca (talk) 21:44, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Routine. You periodically expel spies to disrupt their network-building efforts. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:47, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Expelling diplomats is not common. The mass expulsion of more than 20 is w/o recent precedent. You would have to go back to the dark days of the cold war to find something like this. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:48, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Note: I would have posted this, but I'm not seeing language in the article to match the blurb. Perhaps something along the lines of "After Russia refuses to cooperate with the investigation of the poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal, the UK expels 23 Russian diplomats as undeclared intelligence officers." This matches the language of news sources, c.f. [34]. Accusing Russia of Murder does not appear in reliable sources as such. This seems to have the support as an article worth the main page, but the blurb needs to be nailed down better. --Jayron32 23:28, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
“Their response has demonstrated complete disdain for the gravity of these events,” May told MPs. She said: “There is no alternative conclusion other than the Russian state was responsible for the attempted murder of Mr Skripal and his daughter.” [35] -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:37, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
If you can make that language more explicit in the article, I will post this. --Jayron32 23:38, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
  Done -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:42, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Added alt blurb as a back-up. Brandmeistertalk 23:47, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Posted The altblurb. I am more comfortable with that language. In specific, the changes to the article do not reflect the sources still. I'd rather the Wikipedia article directly quote May than paraphrase. For material this sensitive, it's important we speak in the voice of our sources, and not in Wikipedia's voice. "Formally accuse" is not language that appears in the sources. --Jayron32 23:56, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Fair enough. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:00, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
I too like the altblurb, but wonder if the phrase "by a nerve agent" will be readily understood. Would "by a nerve-acting poison" be better, perhaps? Sca (talk) 00:07, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Alternatively, would "with a nerve agent" be better? Sca (talk) 00:09, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment. I don't know if we want to amend the blurb or not but Russia has announced it is expelling 23 UK diplomats (and some other actions) in retaliation. 331dot (talk) 09:45, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Jim BowenEdit

Article: Jim Bowen (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC News
Nominator and updater: Ritchie333 (talk • give credit)
Other updaters: Lugnuts (talk • give credit)

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

 Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:10, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Parking this here for now. I suspect people will oppose, because the article is not in a good shape. However, we got Ken Dodd improved to be posted, so I think we might be able to do it again. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:10, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Support Subject to improvements, etc. And a speedboat for anyone who brings it up to scratch. But only if you live in Tamworth. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 13:35, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support subject to improvement S a g a C i t y (talk) 14:34, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Pending those last couple of citations being added.