Open main menu

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

Contents

May 31Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

(Closed) Equal Rights AmendmentEdit

The amendment can't be ratified because the deadline Congress set has long passed. Further, it takes ​34 of all states to ratify an amendment before it is enacted. That means 38 states, not 37, so the symbolism is kind of moot, no? The opposes are piling up like a huge snowdrift anyways. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:03, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Equal Rights Amendment (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Illinois becomes the 37th state to ratify Equal Rights Amendment to the United States Constitution.
StrikerforceTalk 01:29, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose A largely symbolic move with no real tangible effect. EternalNomad (talk) 01:56, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
  • 'I have reopened this with no prejudice to either side - ENOUGH. There needs to be a minimum standard for time open before closing. This particular nomination is total BS. I mean no negativity to you @Stephen: 29 minutes? C'mon! - Floydian τ ¢ 18:20, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
    • Realistically, any long-term editor at ITN can recognize that this story has zero chance of being posted. It was a completely fair close. It is an interesting DYK, but not ITN. --Masem (t) 18:24, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
      • For reference, here is the comment that I left on Stephen's talk page regarding my rationale for nominating this as an ITN - With all due respect, I disagree with your comment on my ITN nomination. While the "deadline" for ratification has long since passed, there is a continued effort to ratify ERA. Congress extended the deadline previously and it is not inconceivable that this Congress, or any subsequent Congress, could choose to do the same, if a 38th state ratifies (which is the threshold for adoption into the U.S. Constitution). A common argument of opponents to ratification is just this, that the "deadline" passed 35 years ago, but the issue is still present and is significant. I would like to request that you reopen the ITN discussion on this matter. StrikerforceTalk 18:32, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per EternalNomad. Lepricavark (talk) 18:33, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:44, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
"Please do not ... add simple "support!" or "oppose!" votes without including your reasons. " --LaserLegs (talk) 18:46, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
OK, oppose because it's a meaningless gesture; the 38th state would be worth some consideration but this one is not. There's not even a news link to examine. I'd have supported the earlier snow close, but there apparently weren't enough oppose votes. Now there hopefully are. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:47, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
The Chicago Tribune article cited for the passage last night in Illinois doesn't qualify as "a news link to examine"? StrikerforceTalk 18:52, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose too many missing refs. Thanks to Floydian for re-opening. I agree, I'd rather a nom drown in opposes than be closed after 30 minutes. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:45, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure I follow what you mean by "too many missing refs". The article has 130 or so citations and the information specifically proposed to be included in this ITN is cited. StrikerforceTalk 18:48, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
      • Ok let me waste 15 minutes to make it obvious. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:52, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
        • There, is it more clear now? That was a just a cursory glance of passages blatantly missing citations. I don't actually care about this AT ALL, so I'll not take the time to see which of these 130 citations are dead links, or don't actually back the three or four sentences which precede them. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:59, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose super-local politics and meaningless to most. Should have remained closed to avoid this unfortunate kind of pile-on which the early close was hoping to bypass... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:55, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

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

(Closed) Brazil nationwide strike (2)Edit

No consensus to post. Stephen 01:06, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Nominator's comments: Renominating the article; this time for "ongoing" since it's been more than a week. Other users and I have been improving it and correcting everything wrong and I believe it deserves to be in the main page. Criticism is welcome but please be specific. Alumnum (talk) 20:21, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose it's still in desperate need of a WP:COPYEDIT and I'm not going to do it for you by tagging the whole article. Here is an example "Another criminal act issue is being investigated by the Public Prosecutor's Office on abusive coercion techniques used by some protesters on some truck drivers to difficult the police work, such as dismantling the blockades by parking their trucks in difficult positions and keeping the fuel trucks out of reach.". That's one of many. I also take issue with the title. A "strike" is a work stoppage, but this is more like violent militias setting up illegal roadblocks. You might consider moving the article to 2018 labor unrest in Brazil or 2018 take over of Brazilian highways or something. Lastly, the article is a WP:PROSELINE mess of anecdotal incidents resulting from this on going criminal activity. Thank you for updating this article, but from a quality standpoint it's just not ready for the main page. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:34, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose for the third (?) time. Just not good enough. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:23, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment According to Reuters it may be ending. The article needs copy-editing, I'll try to do so tomorrow. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:29, 1 June 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.

May 30Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

(Posted) RD: Dan KneenEdit

Article: Dan Kneen (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC Sport, Evening Standard, The Guardian

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 motorcycle racer. Fuebaey (talk) 11:50, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Support Appears to be well referenced.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:16, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Short but looks adequate. –Ammarpad (talk) 21:17, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Good work! Marking ready. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:12, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Several uncited sentences in the Marks Bloom Racing section and the Penz13.com BMW Motorrad Racing section is completely unsourced. Thryduulf (talk) 19:44, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Thryduulf and that so-called fair use image uploaded days after this public figure's death. Completely inappropriate and should be removed. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:48, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
  • @Thryduulf: @The Rambling Man: Please have another look as the article has been substantially updated by Cs-wolves.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:28, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 23:34, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) Ortho and para-water separated for the first timeEdit

As the target article mentions the isomers in question only once and makes no mention at all of this development, I have WP:SNOW closed this nomination without prejudice to reopening it at a later time should these issues be addressed (noting that the opposes are chiefly on these grounds as well). TompaDompa (talk) 22:43, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Spin isomers of hydrogen (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Ortho and para-water separated for the first time
News source(s): BBC

Article needs updating
 Count Iblis (talk) 17:46, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose "Cool" science, but we have both quality issues, a lack of significant update to the article, and that at the core, that this is confirmation of what had been readily speculated about quantum properties of substances. (Eg if it were the discovery that water could have difference spin forms, that might be ITN-ish). --Masem (t) 17:58, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose not of worldwide significance.  Nixinova  T  C  20:03, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
That's what they said about a lot of scientific discoveries at the time. HiLo48 (talk) 23:51, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Most viewers wouldn't even know what any of that means. Ortho and parawater? The article is also not nearly acceptable for ITN inclusion. The article also doesn't even mention this new development at all.  Nixinova  T  C  07:27, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Wow, what a change of argument. I might agree with some of that. HiLo48 (talk) 07:40, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose even if its significance was made clearer in the blurb, the article is nowhere near adequate for main page inclusion. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:10, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
  • With a very technical item such as this, the article is required to have a complete explanation of the phenomenon so the reader can make sense of what this means and its significance. That is absent here. The article only briefly mentions water as a substance with para- and ortho- states, and doesn’t mention this recent separation at all. —LukeSurl t c 07:32, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:46, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

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

(Posted) Turkish currency and debt crisis, 2018Edit

Article: Turkish currency and debt crisis, 2018 (talk, history)
Ongoing item nomination
News source(s): Economist Foreign Policy Washington Post Ahval

Nominator's comments: The Turkish currency and debt crisis is very much in the news and an economic development of major gravity, with international repercussions. The article is of high quality, covers the subject comprehensively and gives consideration and due weight to its many diverse aspects. 2A1ZA (talk) 10:31, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Support I have seen the effects of this describing some of the impact on international stock markets, so this is has a reaching impact. --Masem (t) 15:29, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Decent article. Apt for ongoing. –Ammarpad (talk) 15:34, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment the markets and business press are reacting to Italy, not Turkey. No opinion on this nom, just FYI. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:32, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose based on your claim that The Turkish currency and debt crisis is very much in the news. This ITN/C post is the first I've heard of it here in the U.S. --184.248.229.190 (talk) 21:14, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
weak oppose do not think worthy of ongoing. That said the stock market has been highly volatile, to say the least (uggh, if only I was trading there...).Lihaas (talk) 03:01, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - Updated article. Sherenk1 (talk) 03:55, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Good article, substantial and interesting topic, much in the media in Europe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.204.139.3 (talk) 05:51, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose based in this report from yesterday where it now appears the Ruble has been restored as everyone's favourite "love to hate" currency. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:12, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
The crisis in Turkey by its nature is a debt crisis now (triggered by the currency), and that debt crisis is certainly ongoing. Even the causes did not yet go away, for example deficits in trade respective current account are still exorbitant and climbing, see this news from today. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 12:18, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Even the lira started a new round of depreciation today, after the disastrous report on sharply deteriorating manufacturing conditions was released. See this news from today. Or this. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 18:24, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - Decent article, with broad international ramifications. Turkey is too big to fail so the stock market swings are of interest, but as I see it the ongoing great game stuff makes this blurbable. Jusdafax (talk) 08:30, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support The topic is in the news and is very notable, the article is pretty good. Davey2116 (talk) 03:14, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted. King of ♠ 01:24, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
    • Missed this one that slid in. That's eight consecutive Euro-centric stories posted to ITN. Time to rename it EuroPedia! --LaserLegs (talk) 08:45, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
      • Instead of complaining about it, please make a nomination. I know you are capable of this. These sorts of comments are bordering on WP:POINT. 331dot (talk) 08:55, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

May 29Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sports

(Closed) RD: Arkady BabchenkoEdit

Turns out he's not dead. Modest Genius talk 15:13, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Arkady Babchenko (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The Guardian

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: Russian journalist critical of the government shot dead in Kiev. Article is short but fully referenced. Thryduulf (talk) 00:27, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support good enough for me. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:59, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
    Oppose it appears reports of his death are somewhat premature. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:42, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support No issues. –Ammarpad (talk) 13:22, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Withdraw RD nomination per TRM and the updated news that this was a staged death. Does the story warrant a blurb though? Thryduulf (talk) 14:50, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
    • Unless he's charged and convicted on something, press stunts I don't think are ITN-appropriate. --Masem (t) 15:05, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Reports of his death were greatly exaggerated. – Sca (talk) 15:11, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

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


(Closed) Roseanne canceledEdit

Consensus against posting, closure per WP:SNOW. Stormy clouds (talk) 21:53, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Roseanne (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The American Broadcasting Company cancels the revival of the television sitcom Roseanne after controversial remarks by Roseanne Barr regarding Valerie Jarrett.
News source(s): BBC, CNBC

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Okay, hear me out. Usually celebrity says something dumb, celebrity apologizes, and nothing happens. This time, celebrity said something dumb, and the repercussions were swift and severe: ABC abruptly canceled the celebrity's television series, which had been a ratings juggernaut in its much-ballyhooed return. It's only entertainment news, and I'm not a fan of the show or the actress, but this seems important/interesting enough. --Bongwarrior (talk) 20:33, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose I don't think it's important or interesting enough. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:36, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Epitome of trivia. Far below threshold of significance needed at ITN. –Ammarpad (talk) 20:42, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose DYK-worthy. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:44, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose good faith nomination. This happens not infrequently, more so now with Twitter. 331dot (talk) 20:49, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose if she was assassinated for it, maybe. Probably still not. -A lainsane (Channel 2) 20:51, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
That's just uncalled for. Acerbic or not, we're still talking about a human being here. Please try to remain constructive. 165.225.0.68 (talk) 20:59, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
I think the point is a reasonable one, if Roseanne had been murdered because of this, then the story would certainly be more newsworthy than simply "channel cancels show". The Rambling Man (talk) 21:04, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
It would also be more newsworthy if she'd been given an estate on the moon. Instead, you are choosing to be deliberately unpleasant. Though it'd be even more newsworthy if you weren't, for once. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.225.0.68 (talk) 21:25, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Conditional support Wasn't around nearly as long this time, but the return was hyped up (at least in North America) as the biggest comeback in television history. So if we mentioned the glorious new debut a few months ago, we should mention its inglorious new demise today. If we didn't, this would just seem weird. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:10, May 29, 2018 (UTC)
    We didn't. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:12, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm proud of us. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:15, May 29, 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose The blurb is something I'd expect to see on an entertainment website or social media clickbait. It is notable as a moment of here-today gone-tomorrow celebrity flare-up. It is not notable for a piece of actual news. doktorb wordsdeeds 21:34, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

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

(Closed) Liege shootingEdit

Consensus will not develop to post. Stephen 23:50, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: 2018 Liège shooting (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Four people, including the gunman are killed in a shooting in Liege, Belgium.
News source(s): news.com.au

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Unlike Ontario, this has deaths even if the number is "too little". Not that common in mainland Europe either.
Just occurred a little while ago, so article needs work. Lihaas (talk) 13:24, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose article is not anywhere near ready for main page. It's "in the news", so sure. ITN has a pretty strong "death and destruction" bias. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:45, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
btw- more than doubled the page. Im just gonna add the infobox, someone else then should come through.Lihaas (talk) 13:15, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
I don't know how much "background" can be written about a guy who went crazy during his day parole from prison. Shouting "Allahu Akbar" doesn't automatically make someone a terrorist, and with a name like "Benjamin Herman" I rather doubt he's a Syrian refugee. Infobox or not, there isn't much meat to the article because there isn't much known. Wikipedia does it's best work when quality and informative articles are featured on the main page. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:27, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose This reads as a domestic crime (guy fresh out of prison stabs two officers, takes their gun and kills them, kills another man and takes a woman hostage before he is killed) and unless they do determine it is has terrorism roots, is an unfortunate situation but not significant for ITN. --Masem (t) 13:26, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per MINIMUMDEATHS. I don't think we can post yet another shooting where the only inculpatory factor is "...but this one is in Belgium!" ghost 13:32, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Does not meet WP:MINIMUMDEATHS.--WaltCip (talk) 14:59, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - per GCG and WP:MINIMUMDEATHS. Situation is tragic, but does rise to the significance needed here, even if it occurred in a part of the world where such incidents are less frequent. Stormy clouds (talk) 15:05, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment y'all know that "MINIMUMDEATHS" links to a user space essay which was written by someone who is cataloging the arbitrary thresholds used by contributors here when evaluating the "significance" of a nom right? --LaserLegs (talk) 15:11, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
@LaserLegs: - yep. I for one am aware of that, having read the essay extensively. It is helpful as a guide to exactly what thresholds and precedents have been applied in the past, as most of that logic holds. Based on those precedents, I feel that posting this would be ill-advised. The essay works in the absence of fixed rules, and thanks to Everymorning for compiling it, even if this wasn't their intended use. Stormy clouds (talk) 15:25, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - tragic murders but with no broader implications. Local crime story.Modest Genius talk 18:09, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Also, WP:MINIMUMDEATHS is not something we should be legitimising or following. It's a list of cherry-picked examples and statements which carry no weight whatsoever. It is not part of the ITN criteria. Modest Genius talk 18:09, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
True, but in this specific case I feel that all of the examples listed only serve to highlight the significance of this item, and how it falls below the threshold required for posting. Stormy clouds (talk) 18:29, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
We make decisions on whether or not to post on an extra-criterion basis all the time.--WaltCip (talk) 18:45, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
What's the "required threshold"? You've already acknowledged that the essay is "a list of cherry-picked examples and statements which carry no weight whatsoever. It is not part of the ITN criteria.". So what is the weight carrying ITN criteria? --LaserLegs (talk) 18:46, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
@LaserLegs: - the required threshold is the level of notability and impact which must be reached by an item to, in my view, merit posting as an ITN item, and I personally derive it from a wide variety of variables. It is fully compliant with the ITN criteria, without being an explicit part. There is simply too much news worldwide to contain in a box with a mere five sentences, so we need to choose items based on their significance to our readership. As such, using a threshold of some description is necessary, or else we would descend into a meaningless ticker, or WikiNews. Either we accept that decisions must be made, or we abandon ITN altogether. I choose the former. Stormy clouds (talk) 19:48, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose minor crime. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:48, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. Article now seems to be in good shape, no glaring errors or statements in need of citations. -- Tavix (talk) 20:56, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Per Masem, Genius. Suggest close. Sca (talk) 22:05, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

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

Nipah VirusEdit

Article: Nipah virus infection (talk, history)
Blurb: Nipah virus kills more than a dozen in the Indian state of Kerala.
News source(s): Yahoo News

Article updated

Nominator's comments: It has an article now so nominating again. 30,000 views on Wikipedia. Sherenk1 (talk) 03:47, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose not really seeing this as "in the news", in my jurisdictions at least. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:36, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support It's in my (US-based) Google News feed under the health tab. Update is good, and "The virus is listed alongside Ebola and Zika as one of eight priority diseases the World Health Organization believes could cause a global epidemic." We generally post those two if the outbreak is significant, and I think we're there. ghost 13:48, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
    And I thought the WHO had said this wasn't a major outbreak at this time. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:25, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
  • CommentOppose if this really is an outbreak that's generating enough WP:RS to be featured, then it should be possible to write a standalone article for it similar to 2018 Democratic Republic of the Congo Ebola virus outbreak. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:45, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support CNN and a bunch of other international news organizations are covering it.[1] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:34, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support A lot has changed since previous nomination which I opposed. We now have standalone decent article and pretty sufficient coverage in mainstream media. –Ammarpad (talk) 15:50, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
  • support death toll rises[2][3]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:54, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose for the same reason I opposed the most recent Ebola item. There are far too many diseases around the world that kill huge numbers of people for ITN to start posting every time one outbreak kills a dozen people. It is an unfortunate fact of life that disease kills millions of people each year. This isn't having major impacts that would raise it to ITN levels of significance e.g. no state of emergency has been declared, the WHO haven't got involved, there's no international travel ban etc. Wikipedia has a whole one paragraph of material on this outbreak, buried at the end of a general article on the virus itself. Whilst it's nice to see that the article has been recently expanded, that doesn't justify posting a non-significant event. Modest Genius talk 18:17, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
... but it might make the article suitable for WP:DYK. Modest Genius talk 17:33, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose The flu kills hundreds of times more people every year. HiLo48 (talk) 22:10, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Cornelia FrancesEdit

Stale, unimproved. Stephen 23:49, 5 June 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: Cornelia Frances (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Australian actress. Referencing issues. Sherenk1 (talk) 04:01, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose, with regret. Films/TV sections basically unreferenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:36, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

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

May 28Edit

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

RD: Serge DassaultEdit

Article: Serge Dassault (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC

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

Nominator's comments: Article is borderline. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:02, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose 5 [citation needed] tags, one reference just links to the French wiki with a [user-generated source] tag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nixinova (talkcontribs)

(Posted) RD: Neale CooperEdit

Article: Neale Cooper (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC

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

Nominator's comments: Article is in pretty good condition. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:30, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Support Sufficient for RD. –Ammarpad (talk) 06:10, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak support Okay article.  Nixinova  T  C  04:32, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose article is not too bad but there are a couple of CN tags and the Honours section is unreferenced. Pawnkingthree (talk) 02:38, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
    Pawnkingthree all addressed, now we're good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:14, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted. 331dot (talk) 11:18, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

May 27Edit

Arts and culture

Disasters and accidents
  • More than 200 departures are delayed and about 50 arrivals and departures are cancelled after lightning hit the aircraft fuel system at London Stansted Airport. Violent thunderstorm accompanied by heavy rain overnight caused flooding and property damage; the UK was struck by lightning more than 60,000 times in 24 hours, according to the Met Office. (Sky News) (Sky News2)

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sports

(Posted) RD: Donald H. PetersonEdit

Article: Donald H. Peterson (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Collect Space

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 and updated --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 03:58, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

2018 Giro d'ItaliaEdit

Article: 2018 Giro d'Italia (talk, history)
Blurb: Chris Froome wins the Giro d'Italia.
News source(s): BBC

Nominator's comments: I think the Giro should be in ITNR. Bagoto (talk) 12:35, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose no prose summary, tense is wrong, missing refs, and systemic bias. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:06, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
off topic and moved to talk - thanks 331dot
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
What exactly is the systemic bias issue? 331dot (talk) 13:08, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
ITN posts almost exclusively male sport. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:12, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Is there an equivalent female event to this one? Rightly or wrongly, female-participant sports don't often get the attention of sports with male participants. It isn't our systemic bias, but that of the media and society. This isn't the forum to right that wrong. 331dot (talk) 13:14, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
There is the female equivalent 2018 Giro Rosa but it won't be run until July. So yes, we can't do anything about that bias here. --Masem (t) 13:17, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Womens UEFA died on the vine below, the Giro Rosa will to, with certainty. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:23, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
@331dot: so what you're saying is bias exists in media and society, and suppressing stories at ITN for subjects which we feel are over-represented, is not a valid oppose? --LaserLegs (talk) 13:23, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
I am saying that this is not the forum to increase the visibility of female-participant sports just for the sake of doing so. We reflect what reliable sources report on. You need to take up this issue with the media(especially when the male and female equivalent events are completely separate as they are in this case). Nominations here should stand and fall on their own merits and not be involved in righting a societal wrong. 331dot (talk) 13:28, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
So then we should take our cues from the media, and not try to regulate the stories at ITN based on our perception that the topic is over-represented? --LaserLegs (talk) 13:33, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
I don't need to repeat myself again. I see where you are going with this and that is apples and oranges. Still awaiting your news ticker proposal. I have no other comment. 331dot (talk) 13:38, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
  • @Lugnuts:: Please do not edit my comment. I deliberately did not bold the word "support" as I did not believe the article was ready at the time and my support only referred to notability. --LukeSurl t c 17:53, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support either the race or Froome as being the bold target, with both articles being in good shape. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 17:33, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
    • Both articles still missing too many refs to be MP ready. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:52, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
    • Made some improvements as regards tense and a missing ref. --Bagoto (talk) 22:35, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Citations required, and no indication this is significant enough an event to post. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:54, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose- I agree that this is sufficiently notable to be posted, but the article has no prose on the actual event outside of the lead. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 16:47, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per all the other people saying "where's the prose"? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:01, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

2018 Indian Premier League FinalEdit

Article: 2018 Indian Premier League Final (talk, history)
Blurb: Chennai Super Kings beat Sunrisers Hyderabad by eight wickets in the Indian Premier League final.
Alternative blurb: ​The 2018 Indian Premier League concludes with Chennai Super Kings defeating Sunrisers Hyderabad in the final.
News source(s): BBC

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 not quite ready yet. Additions to be done. Sherenk1 (talk) 05:14, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose Not quite ready is a bit of an understatement. Three lines of text with mutliple empty sections. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 06:59, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose article needs significant expansion. Lepricavark (talk) 13:53, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Four sentences with one reference is woefully inadequate. Tagged as a stub. Modest Genius talk 16:20, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment This could be targeted to 2018 Indian Premier League, which is OK. After all, it's a league competition, not just one playoff game. And it's the Indian Premier League that is ITN/R, not the article about the final. Altblurb added. Black Kite (talk) 22:13, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support with altblurb. We could still link the word final. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 22:18, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
  • We could, but I wouldn't with that article in its current state. Black Kite (talk) 22:21, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose underdeveloped article with a two sentence update. No prose in the body whatsoever, specifically lacks a match summary. Unless someone adds a tournament summary to 2018 Indian Premier League, I don't see that as a viable alternative either. Fuebaey (talk) 23:06, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Dick QuaxEdit

Article: Dick Quax (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): NZ Herald

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: Via mobile so can someone please fix the template thanks.  Nixinova  T  C  01:00, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Support Just seen this on RD and thought it would be here. Article looks in good shape. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 06:58, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - Notable person with decent article. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 00:53, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now, I'm counting eight [citation needed] tags at the moment. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:37, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
    • I have added quite a few references so now there's only 2 [citation needed] tags.  Nixinova  T  C  03:21, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. I've just removed the last cn. — Hugh (talk) 01:33, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Getting stale, pinging, @The Rambling Man: the {{cn}} issue has been addressed.  Nixinova  T  C  00:18, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 00:40, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

May 26Edit

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sports

(Posted) 2018 UEFA Champions League FinalEdit

Article: 2018 UEFA Champions League Final (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In association football, Real Madrid wins their third consecutive UEFA Champions League by defeating Liverpool F.C. in the final.
Alternative blurb: ​In association football, Real Madrid win the UEFA Champions League, defeating Liverpool F.C. in the final.
Alternative blurb II: ​In association football, Real Madrid defeat Liverpool F.C. to win the UEFA Champions League and Lyon defeat Wolfsburg to win the UEFA Women's Champions League.
News source(s): The Guardian, The New York Times, BBC

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: Currently working on a match summary while waiting for sources. SounderBruce 20:39, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Support - tears flowing, but this is ready for ITN. I sincerely dislike Sergio Ramos. Stormy clouds (talk) 20:58, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support but only once a house-style blurb (ENGVAR neutral, no score etc) is proposed. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:17, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I added a second alternative blurb that adds the 2018 UEFA Women's Champions League Final while keeping things concise. SounderBruce 21:29, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Come on this has been ready for 12 hours, any admin doing anything around here these days? The Rambling Man (talk) 06:27, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Posting the first one, feel free to change. --Tone 07:45, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Any reason why the women's result was posted and then pulled? MurielMary (talk) 22:23, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
    • See the nomination for the Women's League result below, which I don't agree with. ITNR says that when men and women's event of the same sport occur simultaneously, they should be bundled, and this was the case (to me, a few days is "simultaneously" when the finals take several months to complete in both events). I can understand the trepidation to post the Women's event by itself, but in combination with the Men's finals, it makes little sense and shows a gender bias that the language in ITNR was meant to avoid. --Masem (t) 22:30, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Alan BeanEdit

Article: Alan Bean (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): NASA

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: Bean was the fourth person to walk on the moon. Kees08 (Talk) 19:18, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Support Article is well-referenced and has decent coverage outside just his astronaut career. SounderBruce 19:49, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment books section unsourced, else it looks fine. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:16, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support books section sourced. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:42, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted. Thryduulf (talk) 21:49, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ted DabneyEdit

Article: Ted Dabney (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Eurogamer

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: Co-founder of Atari. Unfortunately he was less the spotlight compared to Nolan Bushnell so details are not as great as Bushnell's. Masem (t) 17:46, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Weak oppose barely above stub, and "Dabney appeared on the RetroGaming Roundup podcast in October 2010 and told his story in a two-hour interview.[3]" gives the game away, there's clearly a lot more here that could be added. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:33, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
    • I'm trying to find access to this one 2009 magazine that he had a lengthy interview in. As I noted, he was known but overshadowed by Bushnell in terms of fame. --Masem (t) 23:39, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
      • And as I noted, interviews are out there, so the article is inadequate. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:19, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
        • There's the question of actually how much useful information there can be added from these. For example, there's a 29 page transcript of an interview with him from the Computer History Museum in 2012 which I've already included. Of those 29 pages, there's maybe a page of essential biographical information, the rest of interest in detail of Bushnell, the formation of Atari, and the construction and manufacturing of Computer Space and Pong, which can be discussed on those articles. Much of the interview there is anecdotes, not useful for a bio page, particularly when we have separate key pages for those other topics given their importance to the history. The other articles that I've seen that follow the 2009 interview all have essentially the same, so I'm not expecting of finding more useful relevant biography information. And I should point out that I have expanded it well past a stub (more start-class now) with what I have found. --Masem (t) 13:16, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
        • Also to add, we're at the problem now that we have the current bios that are out there from RSes that are basing their research and writing on what I've added since. eg has some word-for-word from what I wrote) so new sources I fear might be slightly flawed. --Masem (t) 13:18, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Support. Looks like a solid start now but I'm concerned at the reliance on a couple of sources, one of which is oral history. Can you add some more sources, even if they just confirm the existing information? Espresso Addict (talk) 14:13, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
    • Some of the details that involve Bushnell, Alcorn, and the launch of Atari can be readily corroborated - but most of anything outside that (pre- and post-Atari) is going to have to be based on what Dabney had said during the oral history interview, since he never got the fame that Bushnell did. I will add a few for the Atari stuff though. --Masem (t) 14:21, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
      • Added some corroborating sources for the Atari-related stuff. --Masem (t) 14:43, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
  • @The Rambling Man: and @Espresso Addict: I have more corroborating sources and the key 2009 interview now in place. I'm sure more can be added but this is well past being a stub and gives a good pictures of his career. --Masem (t) 18:23, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 00:35, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) Repeal of 8th Amendment referendumEdit

Article: Thirty-sixth Amendment of the Constitution Bill 2018 (Ireland) (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In Ireland a referendum votes to repeal the 8th Amendment
Alternative blurb: ​In a landslide result, Ireland votes to repeal the 8th Amendment
Alternative blurb II: ​In Ireland, a referendum votes to repeal the 8th Amendment, allowing for the legalisation of abortion.
Alternative blurb III: ​In Ireland a referendum votes to legalise abortion through repeal of the 8th Amendment
Alternative blurb IV: ​In a landslide referendum result, Ireland votes to allow the legalization of abortion
News source(s): Irish Times BBC The Guardian

Article updated

Nominator's comments: The result will be announced sometime this afternoon (local time) but exit polls indicate an overwhelming yes vote. In unlikely event of a no there's an altblurb. yorkshiresky (talk) 09:32, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Support Alt3, once the official count is made. Constitutional amendment to the opposite of the prev position is a major event. Don't hold this until subsequent act of parliament is passed. That might be worthy of another ITN entry, but the change to the constitution is most important.-gadfium 09:46, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong Support - I inadvertently nominated this item at the same time as Yorkshiresky, so am removing that and leaving my comments here - I anticipate this nomination being contentious. However, the repeal of the Eighth Amendment has been one of the most controversial and divisive matters in Irish politics for decades - imagine if a referendum repealed the 2nd Amendment stateside. The campaign has been long and arduous, and resulted in a very high turnout. Media coverage has been deafening in Ireland, and sizable abroad, with a lot of British and American media discussing it. The referendum was anticipated to be very tight, but exit polls indicate that it will be a landslide victory for the Yes side. Formal results are expected in the next few hours, following the precedent set by the gay marriage referendum, which we posted. Either way, this is massive news in Ireland (will likely be one of the biggest stories of the decade), and as such I feel it warrants a posting on ITN. I would also prefer altblurb 2, out of those offered above. Stormy clouds (talk) 09:44, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
  • When counting is complete and the outcome clear definitely strong support. Very significant change in direction for Ireland and is being widely covered in international news. MurielMary (talk) 10:46, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support alt3 when official. One of the prominent no campaigners has conceded defeat according to the BBC, but as this isn't an election that doesn't mean anything formally. This is very likely to be the biggest news from Ireland this year, and a very notable change for a predominantly Catholic country. Thryduulf (talk) 11:02, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment,. As I understand it, strictly speaking this was not a vote to legalize abortion, but a vote to permit the legalization of abortion. Abortion will still be illegal in Ireland until they actually change the laws. As such I would favor a blurb that mentions both the Amendment and abortion(not one or the other). 331dot (talk) 11:03, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
@331dot: - that is correct. Should/when the referendum passes, the government will have the ability to implement legislation regarding abortion in Irish law, rather than placing it directly in the constitution (as with, say, guns in the States). I agree as such regarding the blurb. Stormy clouds (talk) 14:23, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - Huge story and the article appears comprehensive. Agree with 331dot on the blurb. Jusdafax (talk) 11:07, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - A major social step forward. I too agree with 331dot on the blurb. HiLo48 (talk) 11:21, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong support, for all the reasons already given by others, but preferably for something like altblurb 4, which doesn't mention Repealing the 8th, a concept which is both incomprehensible or meaningless outside Ireland, and also arguably technically incorrect. We are not simply repealing the 8th, we are replacing it with different wording, and the new wording is what matters - without it we'd arguably be back to the 1861 Offences against the Person situation (that already banned abortion before the ban got put into the constitution by the 8th amendment in 1983), or at the very least any abortion legislation could be found to be unconstitutional for any number of imaginative reasons by some future conservative Supreme Court.Tlhslobus (talk) 11:33, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support particularly alt IV, per seismic and Tihslobus. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 11:47, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Clearly notable and important. Would support any blurb that emphasised the historic importance. doktorb wordsdeeds 12:30, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted, with a slight tweak as a referendum doesn't vote, people vote in one. Also we don't usually use "landslide" or similar. Black Kite (talk) 12:45, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
    • Err, too soon? The vote result hasn't been announced. We're going off exit polls at this point, which are not likely wrong, but not proper --Masem (t) 12:46, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support upon confirmation. [portion of comment moved inside hat] -Ad Orientem (talk) 12:47, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
ITN/C is not a forum. Thryduulf (talk) 14:28, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
[This was originally posted as part of the support comment immediately above] The worst calamity to strike Ireland since the Great Famine. The loss of life is likely to be incalculable. -Ad Orientem (talk) 12:47, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
@Ad Orientem: - ehh, what about The Troubles - mainly focused in the North, but there was significant bloodshed in the Republic too. Also this and this weren't great in terms of deaths. Stormy clouds (talk) 13:49, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Over time I think the loss of life in the Troubles will pale by comparison to this. And of course that bloodshed was, at least in theory, criminal. This carnage is going to be protected by the full force of the law. The others too will in time be overtaken in the lives lost. Wars eventually end. For the first time in my life, I am ashamed of my Irish ancestry. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:04, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Ad Orientam, you're a good admin, and a great editor. And then you come out with something like that... —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 14:07, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
@Ad Orientem: - the people have apparently democratically chosen to enshrine that "carnage" into the law, by a hefty margin. The reaction of the media in the States has been scrutinised greatly over here, and routinely condemned. American lobby groups repeatedly used funds to try and interfere in a fair referendum here, and they lost. If the modern values of a secular Ireland are disparate from those of the diaspora, then it may be time for those abroad to reflect on what it means to be "Irish", because it is more than just a party every March. I personally am not too uptight on it, but making comments like "I am ashamed of my Irish ancestry" and invoking the famine after a referendum which has massive support and is considered to be a progressive move forward, like the gay marriage referendum, would not go down well in green sections of the internet. If that is your belief, you are entitled to it, but know that it is not endorsed by the vast majority of your brethren. (I'd also steer clear of r/Ireland). Stormy clouds (talk) 14:18, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Um, Pulled again. I posted it and then went to look at the article, which isn't updated with the result - mainly, it appears, because the result hasn't been announced (or votes even completely counted) yet, even if the outcome is obvious. Will obviously be posted at that time. Black Kite (talk) 12:49, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Why posted it w/o checking? not goodprecedence.Lihaas (talk) 17:14, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
I humbly apologise for making a mistake and then immediately fixing it. Hopefully your Wikipedia experience has not been significantly degraded by the three minutes that said error sat on the main page. Black Kite (talk) 18:05, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Piling on Support presuming the exit polls are correct, and agree altblurb IV is best. --Masem (t) 12:52, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Alt 4 – Reads best. (Referenda do not vote, people do.) Sca (talk) 13:10, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
  • We can probably post at the point where enough constituencies have declared numbers that the result is a mathematical certainty. I assume news orgs will alert when this occurs. --LukeSurl t c 14:51, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment "landslide" doesn't belong in a blurb. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:54, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per Ad Orientem. Lepricavark (talk) 16:00, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
  • @Black Kite: BBC is reporting that the referendum has mathematically succeeded with only three constituencies left to declare. Now we can post. --Masem (t) 16:39, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted -- KTC (talk) 17:20, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: isn't it spelt "legalisation" in Ireland? Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 17:34, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
    • @Anarcho-authoritarian: In the UK both forms are accepted, but s is more common than z. Ireland usually agrees with the UK on spelling matters, but I don't know whether it does in this case (the Irish English article doesn't elucidate). Thryduulf (talk) 17:45, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
@Anarcho-authoritarian: - I am not fully up on the formalities, but we are generally taught to spell with an "s" rather than "Z" in cases like this. Stormy clouds (talk) 18:03, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I didn't even see it. I literally just reverted to what Black Kite had posted. The Irish Time and the Irish Sun both spell the word with a 's'. I'll change it. -- KTC (talk) 18:12, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

(Pulled) Brazil nationwide strikeEdit

Article: 2018 Brazil truck drivers' strike (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Truck drivers in Brazil go on strike nationwide due to rise of diesel prices.
Alternative blurb: ​Brazilian President Michel Temer has lowered the price of diesel in a bid to end a truckers' strike that has crippled the country for almost a week.
News source(s): Bloomberg

 Alumnum (talk) 16:32, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Support sees quite a lot of coverage, dominates local news, even the army got involved. Banedon (talk) 22:20, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Clearly having a big effect inside this country. And the article seems good. I must also note that I have not seen this in the news in my country. That's a reason often used by some here to prevent posting of items they don't like. I am clever enough to be able to tell that this IS still important. HiLo48 (talk) 23:14, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
@HiLo48: One and two form SMH.Lechatjaune (talk) 23:32, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. This is a big country. I'm not in Sydney. HiLo48 (talk) 23:39, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
@Jusdafax: Which specific sentences do you think need improvement? - Alumnum (talk) 17:14, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose minimally "in the news" (digging through various sources to find re-published AP stories doesn't count as "in the news" for me). Of course this will be posted because "domestic issue" only exists as a cudgel to keep US-centric stories off the main page, so please deal with the missing refs. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:04, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose not seeing this headlining anywhere in any news that I read. Maybe mildly interesting, but looks like it's on the way to resolution in any case. Chances are we'd post this and then have to remove it like the nonsense "US government shutdown" we had to debate interminably earlier in the year. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:24, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Looks like an important story, article is adequate. I think we can post it and post necessary updates as the situation changes. Davey2116 (talk) 12:30, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose not actually in the news enough to be posted here. Lepricavark (talk) 12:31, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - In the news. Sherenk1 (talk) 04:02, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:52, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Pulled With apologies, there are serious concerns over the referencing and the prose quality. I think we have consensus on notability, but the article is not good. Feel free to revert me when the article is better. Courcelles (talk) 20:13, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
@Courcelles: Which specific sentences and references do you think need improvement? - Alumnum (talk) 17:14, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
The whole article had a machine translated feel the last time I looked at it. See WP:ERRORS yesterday. Yesterday, the infobox even started "trucker driver's strike", which I'm thankful to see has been changed by now. Courcelles (talk) 18:49, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
I just checked it; thanks. I've fixed most of the poor grammar and wording in the article (and I keep doing it when new information is added or someone else edits it), but there may still be insufficient references for some statements, which we need to spot. Can any of you please review the article again for a second opinion? Since it's still a very impacting event in Brazil, I believe it needs to be readded to the news. - Alumnum (talk) 22:04, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment it's still full of poor grammar, disambiguation links, contractions, etc. Plus shouldn't this be an Ongoing nom since it started more than a week ago? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:08, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment "Tell me what's wrong and I'll fix it" -- nah, I'm not doing your copyedit for you. I spot check things that don't seem right to me, find bad refs, bad translations ... gives me a bad feeling about the whole article. What I'm not going to do is run 100 sources through Google translate and check every one because I do not care about this topic. It's not interesting to me. I'll check a nominated article before offering a !vote, but I won't fix it. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:22, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

May 25Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

(Closed) 2018 Mississauga restaurant bombingEdit

Strong consensus against posting. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:38, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Seconded by nom.Lihaas (talk) 17:15, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: 2018 Mississauga restaurant bombing (talk, history)
Blurb: ​At least 15 people are injured in a bombing in Ontario, Canada.
News source(s): [5] [6]
Nominator's comments: VERY long shot (i myself questioned if it needs an article), but i believe we posted a london attack w/ no deaths. We posted the van attack recently, so it might be construed as not "rare". No urgent update on their website, considering police have shut it for investigations [7].As Nominators are usually considered "supports," consider this as a weak support. I've organized the page a bit, and added something, btw. Lihaas (talk) 12:08, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose stub. "Background" section references van attack that has not in any way been linked to this attack. "Reactions" section typical wall of flags offering no value (though when the US president blames MS-13, or "muslims", or whatever Fox and Fiends tells him to blame, that'll be worth adding for the LOLz). --LaserLegs (talk) 12:12, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Background is b/c of the location periphery (i moved it from "See also")\ within the wider toronto area (maybe a canuck can confirm that).
Reaction is b/c of pertinence w/ trudeau's visit to india and the Khalistan controversy.
My question is would you support it based on the situation (obviously page will expand, it was just a few hours ago).Lihaas (talk) 12:15, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm from southern Ontario, "See also" is fine, fit's the golden horseshoe region. It's in the news today, I generally support stories which are in the news with a quality article. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:19, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Ah, thanks. I just wanted to get a bearing.Lihaas (talk) 12:24, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose at this point. They do not seem to think this is either a terrorist act or a hate crime, and just domestic violence. If that changes, it might be possible to consider it. --Masem (t) 13:53, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Nominate article base on its quality and notability not random comparison with another country. –Ammarpad (talk) 13:57, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Weird but not really significant. Sca (talk) 14:10, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose on article quality (I'm undecided about significance) - the article doesn't do anything to explain the significance, nor the relevance of the sole reaction quoted (this is not a request for more quotes!). Thryduulf (talk) 14:15, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. No reason to see this as anything more than a local crime. I'm puzzled why we even have an article about it. Modest Genius talk 14:19, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
    • Because it's in the news? Because bombings aren't exactly routine in Canada? Because no one knows the true motivation yet? Because this wouldn't be the first act of ethnic violence targeting Indians in Canada? If there is some WP:MINIMUMDEATHS for WP:N please let me know. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:32, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
      • There is WP:NEVENT which means events should have some enduring coverage before we consider them notable. Unfortunately, many editors rush to create articles on breaking news before notability can be assessed. --Masem (t) 14:34, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - as somewhat unusual as it is, due to a lack of deaths I doubt this will have much of a long-term notability. Juxlos (talk) 15:40, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
It was inevitable that link would eventually turn blue.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:24, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
FWIW, I've coded my links so that redirects are green and stubs are orange. User pages are purple. I smell Barney! - Floydian τ ¢ 19:28, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - truthfully, I would have been somewhat on the fence, given the unclear motives, to post this if there were 15 dead, as I initially misread. With no death, it is hard to view this as an interesting triviality, not reaching the bar of significance needed for ITN. Stormy clouds (talk) 20:34, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose not notable enough for ITN. Lepricavark (talk) 03:25, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

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

(Posted) EU's General Data Protection RegulationEdit

Article: General Data Protection Regulation (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The European Union's General Data Protection Regulation goes into effect, imposing strict privacy controls for European citizens worldwide.
News source(s): CNN

Nominator's comments: The GDPR while only covering European users has significant worldwide implications since it can fine non-EU companies for failing to protect EU citizen data. That's while you've likely been getting tons of "we've updated our T&Cs" even if you're not European over the last few days. Masem (t) 00:09, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose too many missing refs, too late in the day to tag them all now. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:22, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support the article is okay and everyone's probably confused and annoyed by the constant WE'VE UPDATED OUR PRIVACY POLICY spam.  Nixinova  T  C  04:28, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support it is important enough, and the sourcing looks good enough. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:31, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support affects a lot of people. Banedon (talk) 05:10, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose the article is littered with unreferenced statements. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:25, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - The entire world will be affected by this change of EU scandal. It's from the uprise of Zuckenburg Facebook scandal. Privacy laws like this will require all data-involving apps especially social medias to update themselves, and especially Facebook will be affected. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 06:24, 25 May 2018 (UTC) Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 06:30, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support article in sufficient state; not fac. Significant impact globally. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 06:37, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - Blurb-worthy, postable. Jusdafax (talk) 07:43, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. Good idea. A event which will have significant long-term implications for data privacy, even to users outside the EU. The article isn't brilliant but it's good enough to post. Modest Genius talk 10:16, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Per TRM. Referencing issues. Sherenk1 (talk) 11:45, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
oppose evenif worldwide, it is just domestic citizens of 27-28 states (same reasoning domestic US decisions were [rightfully] not posted).Lihaas (talk) 12:18, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Inappropriate or misuse of EU citizen data by any company worldwide can incur fines of up to 2M Euros or 4% of the company's annual revenues. It's less about how this affects citizens of those states and more about how it is drastically affecting Internet business operations. --Masem (t) 13:26, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Countries. Not states.--WaltCip (talk) 13:36, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
We rightly posted US Net Neutrality laws and we'll rightly post this once the article is up to scratch. I'm curious to see how the EU is going to enforce it's laws beyond it's borders though. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:47, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
By fining companies who do business within the EU. Those that don't operate in the EU aren't affected, which is why some US companies have started blocking EU users rather than comply with GDPR. The EU isn't trying to enforce laws beyond its borders, just require multinationals that do operate within the EU to abide by its rules. Modest Genius talk 14:16, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
And already the lawsuits have started: $8.8B total from lawsuits against Facebook and Google. --Masem (t) 14:27, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
The internet isn't a store front, EU citizens can visit websites in countries not bound by the GDPR, whose owners do not maintain a business presence in the EU. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:34, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Correct, but if that website wants to store personal data about EU users they need to comply with the GDPR. Quite how easy it is to enforce will be interesting to see; it's certainly got a lot of multinationals worried. Regardless, this is getting into WP:NOTFORUM rather than an assessment of an ITN blurb. Modest Genius talk 14:52, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support This affects a lot of people and companies. Many people have received E-mails already with notifications in relation to this new rule taking effect. Dragnadh (talk) 14:20, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  • There's a fair amount of the article that doesn't have inline refs, but most of this can be assumed to be implicitly supported by the text of the law itself. --LukeSurl t c 16:30, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Notable, and article is adequate. Davey2116 (talk) 22:37, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Posting, the current version does not have referencing issues anymore. --Tone 06:27, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

May 24Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections
Science and technology

(Closed) Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa mergerEdit

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: Thirty-first Amendment to the Constitution of Pakistan (talk, history)
Blurb: ​On May 24th, 2018 in 229-11 vote National Assembly of Pakistan passes the historic bill to announce the merger of Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) with province of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.
News source(s): The Express Tribune, Geo TV, Daily Times, The Guardian
Nominator's comments: I think the article is well written and it is a major part of a country's constitutional change as well as significant on both government and provisional level. Nauriya (talk) 13:43, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Comment I think the FATA-KP merger should be posted to the news section, however, we should wait until the amendment becomes law. It has been approved by the National Assembly and the Senate now, but it needs to be approved by the KP assembly and signed by the president before the merger can actually occur.Avg W (talk) 17:44, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Comment Also - having written the article so far - I consider it to be incomplete. It should include more information about the background leading up to the amendment, the reasons for the merger, political support and opposition, the specific ways in which the constitution is being amended (right now I have just listed the articles that are being amended and appealed without elaboration) and the significance of this change. Avg W (talk) 17:50, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose local politics as far as I can see. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:39, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose, at least now per Avg W. I'm willing to reconsider when the change happens, but the article will need to do a better job of explaining the significance in practical terms at that time. Thryduulf (talk) 11:04, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
support in principle pending issues above.Lihaas (talk) 17:19, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Note: Those who are saying it has yet to be a law, then what about Paris Abortion Bill news already posted when it is also yet to be singed by the president and instilled as a law.Nauriya (talk) 12:23, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
  • @Nauriya: If by "Paris Abortion Bill" you mean the Irish constitutional referendum then you comparing apples and oranges. A country-wide referendum with a massive turnout that reversed the county's position regarding an issue with a long history of bitter controversy (in multiple countries) that is extremely widely covered around the world doesn't compare with a parliamentary vote comprising step 2 of 4 in a process to reorganise the internal administration of a medium-sized (in terms of international influence) country. Thryduulf (talk) 10:10, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
This merger has also come after a long history of "bitter controversy" and it is equally important as it will impact the lives of 5 million people living in a region where they were deprived of many basic rights and this merger is a big deal, and I am sure the concerned country is not of a "medium-sized". Nauriya (talk) 16:44, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
I agree on the significance of the merger, but the key difference is between the results of a country-wide referendum and an act of parliament. The target article is also not at a stage where it can be posted yet. The merger has passed in the KP assembly now, so the president should be signing off on it soon. Avg W (talk) 18:29, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
There are more people living in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas than Ireland though, that is a fair point. Avg W (talk) 18:33, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

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

(Pulled) UEFA Women's Champions LeagueEdit

Article: 2018 UEFA Women's Champions League Final (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In association football, Lyon defeat Wolfsburg to win the UEFA Women's Champions League.
News source(s): BBC

Nominator's comments: Not sure if this is notable enough. Probably the most notable game of the season in women's football though. Perhaps it could be combined with the inevitable blurb for the men's final. Needs some work though i assume. 37.138.235.204 (talk) 06:07, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose (tweaked the blurb per house style) article has no prose summary of the match. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:13, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
I was wondering what the norm was. But to be honest, i was too lazy to go through the archives to find an example. So, thanks for fixing it. 37.138.235.204 (talk) 06:17, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Much as I would like to support a women's football item, few fans of the sport are even aware that there is a female version of the champions league, let alone who won it. Right now this just doesn't attract enough interest to merit yet another football story on top of those listed on WP:ITNR. Maybe if the standard improves and the competition gets more media attention, but that's at least a few years away. Football is a long way behind many other sports on gender balance. I suspect the 2019 FIFA Women's World Cup will be the next postable event in women's football. Modest Genius talk 10:22, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
    The women's world cup actually seems to be ITNR. But anyway, agree that women's football does not attract very much interest or attention. I don't watch it myself either. I was nontheless curious about testing the water about the topic even if it was unlikely to get posted. Honestly, i would even borderline oppose this myself on notability. 37.138.235.204 (talk) 16:37, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
    Of course the irony is that posting this would be very progressive and probably applauded across the globe as an indication that Wikipedia is more encompassing than most think, but sadly it's clearly not going to happen. None of our readers would complain about this, just the establishment here... The Rambling Man (talk) 06:41, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
    And it could even get combined with the men's blurb. Without that possibility i doubt i would have nominated it. But all of that does not matter if the article is not good enough, which i strongly assume it is not. 85.16.163.65 (talk) 10:13, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Modest Genius. At present, the event does not meet the high notability threshold of an ITN item, unfortunately. Stormy clouds (talk) 11:09, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose not notable enough for ITN. Lepricavark (talk) 18:33, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support It could be bundled with the men's Champions League result into a combined blurb. Just added a summary to complete the article. SounderBruce 19:35, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support adequate game summary now, no missing refs that I can see. With people practically frothing at the mouth shrieking "systemic bias" you'd think there'd be more support for curbing one of the worst actual biases at ITN: sport stories are almost exclusively male. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:14, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
    • To a large (but not exclusive) extent systematic bias regarding sports coverage at ITN is consequential to the systematic bias in mainstream news coverage, and at least in Europe Women's football is significantly lower in status and coverage than men's events. I don't watch football (men's or women's) so I can't say whether this is justified in terms of quality or participation or any other metric, but even if it is not ITN is not the place to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. I don't have an opinion whether this does meet the notability threshold for ITN, but we don't post things simply to reduce systematic bias otherwise we'd be posting say African women's netball competitions at the same rate we post US men's baseball. Thryduulf (talk) 10:21, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
      • "To a large (but not exclusive) extent systematic bias regarding sports coverage at ITN is consequential to the systematic bias in mainstream news coverage". Fixed it for you. Thing is, that doesn't stop people from leaping around, shrieking, and spitting venom at US-centric stories righting the great wrongs of America. In this case, we get an easy win: the women's event article is sufficiently updated to feature on the main page. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:38, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. Certainly more notable than snooker or canoe races. Gamaliel (talk) 02:09, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
    Can you back that up somehow, please? I did nominate this article but your statement does not seem likely at all. Objectively and with hard criteria snooker surely is more notable. And canoe races... i suppose that was a disrespectful way of talking about rowing, something rather different? By the way, you seem to edit an awful lot for someone who is retired, does not seem to make sense either. 37.138.77.119 (talk) 18:32, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
    !!!!ROWING KLAXON!!!! I'm pretty sure this football match did not have a live audience of 250,000 and a television audience of tens of millions, but happy to be proven wrong, of course!! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:34, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
    Not quite, it had around 17k viewers in the ground, haha. And TV coverage... yeah there probably was. But nothing like coverage for, for example, the world snooker championship. 37.138.77.119 (talk) 18:42, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
    But yet "so much more notable"? I'd say that Ipswich Town F.C. (second tier, mediocre local English football club) get 17k people to most of their home games. Maybe I'll start nominating each of those (especially if we win one or two of them!!) The Rambling Man (talk) 19:19, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
    Sorry, i actually misremembered and it was 14k attendance. In a ground that holds 16k, a tiny ground and yet still the biggest club game of the season. Does not give any indication that snooker or 'canoe' racing is less notable just looking at that. So Gamaliel, could you provide anything to support your claim that this event was more notable than whole sports like snooker or 'canoe' racing? I am genuinely interested. 37.138.77.119 (talk) 19:37, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
    "especially if we win one or two of them!!"... well, at least we won't have to deal with those nominations then... :P 37.138.77.119 (talk) 22:15, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted, now that a prose summary of the match has been added per TRM. I've added this to the men's blurb, as per the suggestions above, modeling it off the blurb for 2017's Boat Race. (Unfortunately, having two separate leagues and a picture makes this one just a bit more complex.) I don't any particular attachment to this wording, if someone would like to propose an alternative, or a preference on splitting it out into its own blurb. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:45, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Pull. There is no consensus to add this to ITN; even the nominator describes themselves as 'borderline oppose' following the discussion. There's even less support for combining the blurb with the men's event. I don't understand why this was added. Modest Genius talk 10:09, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Eh, seems fine. There's a decent summary in the article. --LukeSurl t c 10:17, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
    • Indeed, but this is not on ITNR so there needs to be consensus that the item is significant enough for ITN, not just that there is a suitable update. No such consensus exists. Modest Genius talk 12:36, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
      • I read a rough consensus above, once a prose summary had been added to TRM's satisfaction. YMMCV. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 13:39, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
        • Nope, not at all. I showed no satisfaction, nor any support. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:36, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I don't mind the blurbs being conflated, but I do mind yet another rogue admin manoeuvre from an admin who has just recently made an error here, and who, in the past, has demonstrated that they should perhaps leave this part of Wikipedia to other, more experienced admins. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:29, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
    • Once again, you've breached your arb restrictions. "The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) is prohibited from posting speculation about the motivations of editors or reflections on their general competence. Straight from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man#Amendments. Now at WP:AE#The Rambling Man. Cheers. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 13:39, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
      • In your opinion. In my opinion I've simply noted that you've made two mistakes involving the main page in a few days. I don't think you should do that. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:40, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
        • The in the news template is edited and re-edited all the time, often by Stephen. I really don't have any concerns over that. I also don't have any concerns with people pulling a blurb, which also happens all the time, if there was consensus to post, which there was. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 13:42, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
          • No, there was no consensus to post at all. Sorry about that. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:44, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
            • Good talk here. Really glad we had it. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 13:54, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
              • And a superb and ongoing demonstration of your continual failure to meet WP:ADMINACCT. Which is something anyone is free to discuss. You have been warned before about playing with the main page, and yet here you are, back again, making edits against consensus. It's got to stop. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:57, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
                It was a line call, with votes roughly split, and a paucity of real 3rd party evidence of newsworthiness (or lack of it) in any of them, so I concur with The Ed 17 that it was not wrong to post it at the time.  — Amakuru (talk) 07:47, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
                • No, sorry, that's not how judging consensus works. The votes to oppose were based in policy and addressed core concerns, the votes to support were just ILIKEIT votes (or worse, POINTed votes), and in any case, even just counting them up there was definitely no consensus. Plus the posting admin made a fake claim about my position being "satisfied" without so much as even asking me. It was a bad post. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:57, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
                  There is no policy when it comes to ITN, that's one of the reasons why conversations here are sometimes mired in donkey manure. If we had measurable criteria to judge a story by, as we do for article notability, then things might be easier, but in the end the decision to post or not post comes down to editor preference, based on what they consider interesting or notable. Also, your initial oppose was apparently based solely on article quality so in that sense what you said was "satisfied".  — Amakuru (talk) 08:06, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
                  No, in no sense was I "satisfied" such that anyone could claim I supported the nomination. And no, policy-based argument trumps personal opinion in every case. So no, there was definitely no consensus here, not even purely numerically. It was a clear mistake to post, as evidenced by the five pull comments below. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:22, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Pull There was absolutely no consensus to post this and it needs to be taken down. At least one of the above supports was demonstrated to be inaccurate. Lepricavark (talk) 19:14, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Pull Agree with Lepricavark and others. No consensus emerged regarding the appropriateness of the subject for ITN. Jip Orlando (talk) 20:15, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Pull No consensus, and I agree with Modest Genius that this competition is just not significant enough (yet).--Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:28, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Pull While i as nominator would have, of course, been happy with seeing this posted, i cannot condone the way it happened. There is no consensus in any way. One support is pure fantasy even, unless they could provide sources to back their claim of course. So as of now should be totally disregarded. I only nominated this because the soon to be men's final would allow a combined blurb, otherwise i would not have nominated and perhaps opposed it. While i realise that is what happened, it was not up to the posting admin to override consensus which i for one completely accept. Especialy a suggestion for a stand alone blurb is highly questionable as even i mentioned that the events notablity in its own right might be not high enough (at least not yet anyway). So, coming from the nominator... please do the right thing. Pull this and follow consensus. 37.138.77.119 (talk) 20:35, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Pull I have no strong opinions on this, but there is clearly no consensus here. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 21:20, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I've pulled it. There wasn't even majority support before posting, and near-unanimous opposition afterward. —Cryptic 21:51, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I support the admin's pull, but forshame to the opposes. It hurt NOTHING to make this a combined blurb, and talk about systemic bias! Male sports at ITN totally over-represented. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:52, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
  • You are not going to win anyone over by attempting to shame people who are acting in good faith. Lepricavark (talk) 02:12, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support and Repost. Including this in the men's event is eminently sensible - this is the equivalent premier event in the women's calendar, albeit not as widely covered. But we're not a news ticker, we go for encyclopedic interest, and I don't think it hurts us to include it in a combined blurb, as we were doing. It's too long ago now to know whether it was on the front pages of online newspapers, but I suspect it was, given that the Guardian covered it in a minute by minute report,[8] and the BBC has the whole match on their website for viewing.[9].  — Amakuru (talk) 07:39, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: John "TotalBiscuit" BainEdit

Article: TotalBiscuit (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Kotaku, BBC

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

Nominator's comments: I know there's an orange tag, I need to wait a bit to let editing on the death news die out to replace primary with better sources. Masem (t) 23:31, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Possibly the second most cynical brit I know ... may he rest in peace. Re: primary sources -- I dunno if you'll be able to clean that up, he basically podcasted his own illness. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:40, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
    • Actually, I've been able to hit all but 2 (outside one longer Reddit post he made but referred to in other sources). There's a handleful more but his illness/struggle with cancer was well reported on, just not the nitty gritty. --Masem (t) 01:02, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
      • Support nice work Masem. Subject passes WP:N and a handful of primary sources about non-controversial items like his illness are ok by me, and WP:PRIMARY would seem to allow this. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:18, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose nearly there, fix final [cn]. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:24, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
    • Fixed up. --Masem (t) 05:32, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. No tags on article. I fixed a CS1 error so there are no more problem hidden categories. wumbolo ^^^ 07:44, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. Well-referenced article. Capitalistroadster (talk) 10:40, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. Came here to post this. Looks fine to me. shoy (reactions) 13:01, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  • support beat me to it.💸Money💸emoji💸💴 14:11, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Posting, using the article name. Ping me if you want it changed. --Tone 14:13, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) Jack Johnson pardonEdit

Consensus will not develop for this to be posted. Stephen 01:06, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Jack Johnson (boxer) (talk, history)
Blurb: Jack Johnson, the first African American world heavyweight boxing champion, is pardoned for his 1913 conviction for violating the Mann Act.
News source(s): ESPN
Nominator's comments: Clearly encyclopedic. bender235 (talk) 18:18, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Other than a quick sentence or two about the action, I'm not finding extensive coverage of this story in news outlets. Even major sports outlets aren't treating it as a "front page" story; it's mostly buried in boxing sections. --Jayron32 18:21, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
It sure isn't the dominating story of the day, but I didn't see the Venezuelan presidential election, or the Palme d'Or film festival filling newspaper front pages either, and yet we have them in our current ITN. --bender235 (talk) 20:17, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose This news is small potatoes. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:09, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Posthumous pardons face an uphill battle at ITN. We did post Alan Turing's in December 2013, but Johnson is no Turing, and a year-and-a-day prison term isn't comparable to chemical castration. Oppose. —Cryptic 20:33, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose, political act by politician. Abductive (reasoning) 21:58, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: More symbolic; not sure if this would be eligible for DYK but this would be more suited there. SpencerT•C 22:08, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Cryptic. Daniel Case (talk) 23:34, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

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

(Closed) Cancellation of North Korea–United States summitEdit

Consensus will not develop for this to be posted. Stephen 01:06, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: 2018 North Korea–United States summit (talk, history)
Blurb: ​United States President Donald Trump cancels a landmark summit with North Korea Chairman Kim Jong-un, citing hostility from North Korea.
News source(s): CNBC

Article needs updating
Nominator's comments: The article is not fully updated with the news yet. And while cancellation of an event may normally not be ITNR, this summit was a groundbreaking one (the first time a US leader was to meet with an NK leader), and this was after all the work SK did to help bring NK around. Masem (t) 14:16, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support in Principle on notability, the article itself is in decent shape, but the update isn’t in the best condition at the moment, largely because it is breaking news. Still this does seem worthy for ITN. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 14:24, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose - We didn't post the announcement of the summit back in March 2018, precisely because we knew something like this was going to happen. No one should be surprised by this. It makes no sense to not post the announcement of the summit but to post the announcement of the cancellation of the summit.--WaltCip (talk) 14:26, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
    • If the summit happened, I am pretty confident we would have posted on its occurrence (as we did with the SK-NK one). With a political event like this, posting at the announcement doesn't make sense because we know that the event would be covered when it happens (or in this case, isn't going to happen). --Masem (t) 14:37, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
      • Of course we would have posted at its occurrence, because it would have been a momentous occasion, because - this is key here - Trump and North Korea respectively have a terrible track record on keeping dates and promises. How many times has Jong-un promised a truce, diplomacy, or de-nuclearization, only to backpedal from it later? The cancellation of the summit, as far as I'm concerned, is status quo for US-NK relations. There's an entire article devoted to promises made and not kept.--WaltCip (talk) 14:48, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak Support it's certainly in the news. Does this mean Trump won't get his peace prize? Also how triggered up do editors have to be for an article to require "change approval"? Wow. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:27, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • The one he had no reasonable hope of getting anyways? If I were a gambling man, I wouldn't stake my money on it. Not that the peace prize really means much of anything in the first place. Kurtis (talk) 00:57, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose no, we shouldn't post this, because it's not something that's actually happened, because we didn't post the announcement of it and frankly, knowing Trump, because it's just as likely that he'll change his mind again anyway. Black Kite (talk) 14:45, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose we just don't post things that don't happen. Inevitable Trumpism. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:00, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose – More grandstanding. If they ever do meet, and agree on something – anything – that would be worth posting. (I expect this cancellation will fade fast from the news.) Sca (talk) 15:29, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose is notable, but in a way this was more or less predictable considering hostilities between the two nations. Kirliator (talk) 15:33, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Events that didn't actually happen are not suitable for ITN. EternalNomad (talk) 16:08, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
    • That's objectively false, but whatever. We posted Scotland voting to remain in the UK for example. I expected this nom to go down in flames, and won't defend it, but let's not use blanket objections like "Events that didn't actually happen are not suitable for ITN". BUT MUH PEACE PRIZE!!! --LaserLegs (talk) 16:17, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
      • Barack Obama pre-emptively got a Peace Prize for peace that he ended up not delivering on. The Nobel committee won't make that mistake again.--WaltCip (talk) 16:19, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
        • For ending the disasterous and illegal Iraq war? Nah, he delivered on that. The commemorative coins! What are we gonna do with all these medallions?? Use 'em for taxis??? --LaserLegs (talk) 16:29, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Amusing as this whole episode is, we always knew that it was unlikely to happen and/or lead to any concrete progress. "Historic event doesn't occur" isn't an ITN blurb. Trump can make himself look ridiculous without our help. Modest Genius talk 16:33, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - the summit is cancelled. No way. Who could have seen this coming? We should not post non-events, and the Scotland example is not apt as they did actually vote, not just say that they would then not get around to it. Stormy clouds (talk) 16:37, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support This is in the news. That's our purpose, right? Calling this a "non-event" isn't really accurate, as this is the culmination of the attempt at a summit. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:34, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose the initial announcement was not posted, so it seems hypocritical to post this as well. Also Trump notes that the summit can happen in the future, per a report on the CE portal. SamaranEmerald (talk) 18:41, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above. Nothing happened. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:35, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose The destruction of the nuclear test site might be more significant [10], even if it's been much less widely reported. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:07, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose This never happened. It was never likely to happen. It was always nothing more than typical Trump bluster. The news is still that there is a lying, racist, bullying, misogynist, discriminatory, incompetent pussy grabber in the White House. Everything else is just political colour and movement. HiLo48 (talk) 22:47, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Bleve that would be dyed-in-the wool. Sca (talk) 00:40, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
In U.S. English, pussy-graber is officially hyphenated. Sca (talk) 00:40, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
      • I am NOT the topic. HiLo48 (talk) 23:14, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Something not happening isn't typically newsworthy. If Trump had actually met Kim, that would be different. He did not. Ergo, status quo ante bellum peace talks. Kurtis (talk) 00:57, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

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

(Posted) MH17 investigationEdit

Article: Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Joint Investigation Team concludes that the Buk missile system used to shoot down Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 originated from the Russian 53rd Anti-Aircraft Rocket Brigade.
Alternative blurb: ​Australia and the Netherlands say they are holding Russia responsible for downing a Malaysia Airlines passenger jet in 2014.
Alternative blurb II: ​Following the Joint Investigation Team's conclusion that Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 was shot down by a Russian Buk missile, Australia and the Netherlands formally hold Russia responsible.
News source(s): Openbaar Ministerie, BBC, Reuters, NPR (on AU/Nlnds' assertiong)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Official confirmation of the unofficial suspicion, even if the criminal investigation is still ongoing. Brandmeistertalk 13:38, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Support It is hard to judge if there is going to be any criminal-type proceedings from this, but official closure on the cause of this crash is appropriate, and the article seems updated and well sourced. --Masem (t) 13:41, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Article quality is sufficient, article is sufficiently updated, item is being covered sufficiently by reliable news sources. --Jayron32 14:23, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Suppport – with the proviso that we avoid language implying that the JIT proved that it was shot down by the Russian BUK. (Presumably, only the Russians know with absolute certainty.) In the article, I changed today's new "confirmed that" to "declared that." There are numerous acceptable uses of "confirmed" farther down in the article. Sca (talk) 15:43, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak support as this is merely confirmation of something that was already overwhelmingly likely, but it's certainly in the news and has implications for international relations. Can we make the blurb more concise? I've not checked all the nuances of the report, but would it correct to say "The Joint Investigation Team reports that Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 was shot down by Russian forces"? Modest Genius talk 16:39, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • No, because the article suggests that the Buk was under the control of rebel Ukranian forces, not Russian ones. Black Kite (talk) 17:28, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Which article suggests that? --bender235 (talk) 20:18, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
OK, what about "The Joint Investigation Team reports that the missile which shot down Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 was provided by Russia"? Modest Genius talk 11:28, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Suppport – this is a major development in this investigation. BabbaQ (talk) 22:30, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Until we have a truly independent investigation, everything that comes from it is just politics. HiLo48 (talk) 22:49, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Russian misinformation has found yet another victim, it seems. (/off-topic) --bender235 (talk) 23:33, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Is that an attack on me, Russia, or both? HiLo48 (talk) 04:48, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
I think the only way you could get a "truly independent" investigation would be for aliens from another planet to investigate it. 331dot (talk) 08:36, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
That would depend on which planet they came from. Vulcan might be OK, as Vulcanians are not very emotional. Sca (talk) 20:48, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
I agree, and I'm glad you see that. Many here don't. HiLo48 (talk) 08:54, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
I see that, but I also see that this is as close to an official conclusion as we are going to get. An investigation involving Russia seems remote(as they would have been involved with this one if they wanted to be) so that shouldn't prevent this from being posted. Readers can see for themselves the nature of this investigation. 331dot (talk) 09:01, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Only if some of us are consistently vigilant about the language used in the article, making sure it always makes it quite clear where statements come from. I'll be watching. HiLo48 (talk) 09:06, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
We can't mention this again until those aliens arrive? I think ALT Blurb is perfectly satisfactory. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:06, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak support per Modest Genius. Banedon (talk) 05:41, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: Dutch and Australian media report today that the Netherlands and Australia officially hold Russia responsible. I currently don't have the opportunity to update the article, but it might add to the relevance. Thayts ••• 09:04, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - As per above comment. Added alt blurb Sherenk1 (talk) 11:52, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - As per above comments and with alt alt2 blurb. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:06, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I've added a 2nd altblurb to tie the developments together. AU/Netherlands are blaming Russia due to the conclusion of the investigation, even if the investigaton didn't say Russia did it. --Masem (t) 14:07, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per above, with a preference for alt2. Thryduulf (talk) 14:09, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per above, with a preference for the 2nd alt blurb as well, to which I've added the words "Russian" and "formally". Thayts ••• 20:12, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
⇒ The phrase "formally hold Russia responsible" is perplexing. What does it mean in practical terms? Are Australia and the Netherlands going to file criminal charges against the Russian Federation or sue it for damages it in their own domestic courts? Rotsa ruck. Russia is a sovereign state. Nor would one expect action from the International Court of Justice, since Russia is one of the (in effect) permanent members. Seems the original blurb is the only one unequivocally correct. Sca (talk) 20:41, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Because they plan to bring Russia to the ICJ. Will the ICJ likely do anything? No, but its a matter of "being on the record" in case they have to justify things like sanctions or other unilaterial actions against Russia. --Masem (t) 22:42, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
I would support when the ICJ makes a similar conclusion. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 07:29, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
It does seem that MH17 may become an ICJ case at some point. If that happens we could consider posting that fact then. Meanwhile, it's high time we either post Alt1 or close the discussion. Sca (talk) 13:17, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per above. Davey2116 (talk) 22:37, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Though if something gets posted, it should be ALT1. While I understand Joint investigation team is not the target article, it is currently a sub-stub that shouldn't be linked on the main page. But even then, HiLo48's concerns are legit. There were no Russian investigators in this "joint" team. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 07:29, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Apart from HiLo48's concern over the investigation, nothing will actually change if Australia and the Netherlands, that is 2 out of 193 UN members, hold Russia responsible for downing the aircraft with no sign of any further implications. Sorry, but this is not going to revive the people who tragically lost their lives in this accident, and no-one on the planet would dare to give a damn that coming to conclusion could change the world. That said, we're not here to advertise the surprisingly outstanding finding that 'Russia downed the aircraft'.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:54, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
    I don't think the aim here was to "revive the people who tragically lost their lives in this accident", so I don't think you need to apologise. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:58, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
    Anyway, I fail to see any major implications and world-changing manifestations coming as a result, except we now know that the finding inclines towards Russia as being guilty for downing the aircraft, which is nothing surprisingly outstanding, though. I'd consider posting this only in case the international reactions result in severe consequences, but it doesn't seem that someone cares about the whole thing too much. Yet, no need for a hurry and let's wait to see how this is going to develop.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:33, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
    If we wait too long it won't be news. I agree there may not be any direct consequences from this for weeks or months. I'd disagree that "it doesn't seem that someone cares about the whole thing too much." I'm sure there are very many people who want to see Russia held to account, although it seems it was military incompetence that was largely to blame for the tragedy. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:18, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
    I consider this news a stepping stone to another resulting news with major impact that would merit inclusion. The consequences of this might be a UN resolution of any sort, economic sanctions, military restrictions, political isolation or whatever else on a global scale. Once any of these happens, we can post a blurb using a clause 'as a result/consequence of' to recall to this news; if nothing happens, then this news would fail the test for producing major impact. There is no time-frame, however, in which anything has to happen, so we can practically keep this on hold indefinitely, and wait for its noteworthiness materialise at any time in future. After three days, we have 2 UN members holding Russia responsible with 190 (excluding Russia) remaining silent and no other sign of potential consequences. But the things might change. Let's wait and see.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:15, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
    It's a bit blunt to say no one cares too much indeed, obviously the Netherlands and Australia do, and think of all the victims' relatives... Apart from that, several other countries and organisations like Germany, the UK, the US, the EU and NATO have reacted to the JIT's report and called for Russia to cooperate in the investigation (as until now they seem not to have cooperated constructively at all). This might not have ended up in the article yet, though. Anyway, I certainly believe this story will have a tail and looking at the current doubt of posting this I agree to perhaps post news about a later development instead. Thayts ••• 16:16, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
    Oh, and all the other countries that form the JIT obviously care much as well, because why else would they be investigating? Thayts ••• 16:22, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
I don't know about the Netherlands, but there is nothing notable at all in Australia blaming Russia. The Prime Minister at the time had been blaming Russia for everything that happened in that part of the world for years before the plane crash. (Australia is good at "fearing" Russia. It has forts around the coastline from the 1800s to keep the Russians out.) He blamed Russia for the crash within hours of it happening, before any evidence at all could have existed. That PM has since been sacked by his own party as an electoral liability, but the same party is still in power. What would be notable would be that government saying anything else but Russia did it. HiLo48 (talk) 22:11, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Important story. Davey2116 (talk) 12:28, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

⇒ Stale. Suggest close. Sca (talk) 12:59, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Marked ready, as there seems to be general consensus and not stale, because it's newer than the oldest current ITN item. Brandmeistertalk 18:35, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Maybe so, but in the world out there a news story, like a fish, is stale after three days. Sca (talk) 21:31, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Five days old. Starting to stink. Sca (talk) 22:11, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted It's newer than the Man Booker Prize, making it eligible. Note that I posted a slightly different version of the original blurb to directly target the "Findings of the Joint Investigation Team" section. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:49, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

May 23Edit

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Indian investigation agency CBI said it had registered a case on Wednesday against 17 entities pertaining to the SSC examination paper leak. The entities named in the First Information Report (FIR) include seven students, nine officials of Sify Technologies Ltd, as well as the head of the Sify content team, Sant Prasad Gupta.(https://www.livemint.com/Politics/ZcbCRbJaBc1ucyndksQnVK/CBI-files-case-against-17-people-on-SSC-paper-leak.html)

Politics and elections

Sports

(Closed) Cyclone MekunuEdit

Stale.  Nixinova  T  C  04:41, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Cyclone Mekunu (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The island chain of Socotra, famed for unique plants and animals found nowhere else on the planet, is coping with the aftermath of a powerful cyclone.
Alternative blurb: Cyclone Mekunu has hit southern Oman killing two people, including a 12-year-old girl, and leaving at least three others injured.
Alternative blurb II: ​Powerful Cyclone Mekunu strikes Oman and Yemen leaving at least 10 dead and 40 missing.
News source(s): BBC
Nominator's comments: Known as the Galapagos of the Indian Ocean is a disaster zone, hence the notability. Article just created. Sherenk1 (talk) 13:21, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not yet in the namespace that I can check to assess its suitability for main page. –Ammarpad (talk) 14:09, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
    Now it has been moved to mainspace and subsumed into another article. My oppose remains. –Ammarpad (talk) 14:01, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support in principle, but Oppose in quality and oppose blurb considering that this “article” is not in the best condition, despite being on about a hurricane; however the real problem is the suggested blurb, which is too long and does not directly state the name of the hurricane. it should be rewritten to match the layout similar to ones posted about previous hurricanes. Kirliator (talk) 15:42, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose no article yet, just a draft. Rather surprised the Tropical Cyclones Wikiproject hasn't gotten on this one yet; maybe someone could enlist them. They're usually on it. --Jayron32 16:07, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Jayron, surprised that, if this is significant, the wikiproject hasn't got a B-class article already up and running. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:20, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - Article has been created. Sherenk1 (talk) 05:29, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I think the event here is significant enough (this isn't a known hurricane zone as far as I'm aware) and the article seems decent, but the blurb is off, to me; the story here is the 40 people missing and five dead in Socotra, not the two dead in Oman. Vanamonde (talk) 05:42, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Marked stale. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:52, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

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

(Posted) RD: Luis Posada CarrilesEdit

Article: Luis Posada Carriles (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Miami Herald

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 could use a little cleanup. I'll try to get to it in a few hours, but nominating in the hope that other folks work on it. Vanamonde (talk) 14:21, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Weak Oppose The refs around Cubana Flight 455 aren't great, and that article is a mess so no WP:BLUELINK. The 2005-whenever had a paragraph that was unsubstantiated. Anyway, tagged my best, overall not a terrible article would be nice to feature. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:47, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak Support I still don't like the way the UN docs are used as primary sources because of negative qualifiers like "she claimed" which are in the article but not the source. It's a minor NPOV thing though not enough to keep from posting. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:33, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Also nice work Rms125a@hotmail.com and Vanamonde93 cleaning it up. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:38, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I've done a good bit of work on this since nominating it; further fleshing out and detail would be useful, but it certainly has more substance than the average RD posting. Vanamonde (talk) 10:43, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Article looks to be in good shape, as far as I can see. --Jayron32 11:37, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support looks okay to me. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:45, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. I've spot checked a few references and found no issues. This looks good to go - marking ready. Thryduulf (talk) 12:12, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD. SpencerT•C 17:55, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Dieter SchnebelEdit

Article: Dieter Schnebel (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): NZZ

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: Died 20 May. German composer, musicologist and theologian who was an influential academic teacher and thinker. - I promised myself not to ever come here again, after Wanda Wiłkomirska, but it's about him, not me and my feelings. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:33, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment the article looks to be pretty comprehensive but the lack of inline citations means I'm unable to quickly check whether there are any unreferenced statements and whether the references do verify what they claim to. Thryduulf (talk) 12:36, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose right now, as it should be subject to a {{inline}} template. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:39, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Do you mean the different referencing style, to have the link to the ref in brackets, giving name and year? That's Jerome's style. It could be changed if you insist. (It was different before.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:25, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
I dont think that we disallow this style of referencing, see Wikipedia:Parenthetical referencing. --Masem (t) 13:31, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
The Rambling Man, what do you think, also considering the below. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:31, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment See Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Parenthetical_referencing and Parenthetical referencing for Wikipedia policy and the usual parameters for Harvard inline citations. The article on Schnebel still has a few claims marked as needing citations but, on the whole, is rather heavily laden with inline citations. All you need do is follow the blue links from the author-date citations to the reflist.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:27, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. — Hugh (talk) 01:11, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. I think that when I first looked that I just wasn't parseing the parentheticals as references. Thryduulf (talk) 12:10, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - seems ready for posting.BabbaQ (talk) 22:30, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - is this being reported in English language sources? 1779Days (talk) 00:06, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 00:54, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) Trial of Nikola GruevskiEdit

Stale  Nixinova  T  C  04:39, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Nikola Gruevski (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Former Prime Minister of Macedonia Nikola Gruevski is sentenced to two years in prison for unlawfully influencing officials in a purchase of a luxury bulletproof car.
News source(s): BBC, The Washington Post, ABC News
Nominator's comments: I remember that we usually do post trials of former prime ministers or heads of state that end up with an imprisonment verdict. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:12, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment/question With criminal trials (of anybody) conviction is normally the point at which we post. Did we do that in this case? If so is there anything particularly noteworthy about the sentence that merits a second posting? Thryduulf (talk) 12:38, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
  • No, we didn't post the conviction at the time it was made. In fact, he was convicted for multiple criminal charges in a relatively short time, and this is the first one that has come to a conclusion. I can't tell much about the severity of the rest nor foresee what might happen as a result, but an imprisonment verdict in the resolution of the first one seems noteworthy.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:04, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment missing refs in the wiretapping section are a no-go. Also the trial needs to be fully fleshed out. "the Prime Minister of Macedonia is the country's leading political figure and de facto chief executive" in case anyone was wondering (I was). --LaserLegs (talk) 13:48, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
  • We do post convictions, especially when resulting in a prison sentence. However, the update is a bit short in the article. --Tone 06:23, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support involves a former head of government which is certainly news-making. Banedon (talk) 05:09, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose, obviously. The target is a BLP which is inadequately referenced. Regardless of the newsworthiness (or otherwise) of this, we can't just promote such stuff to the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:18, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

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

(Closed) RD: Philip RothEdit

Stale. SpencerT•C 19:55, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Philip Roth (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: American author. Referencing issues in awards and novels section. Sherenk1 (talk) 04:26, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support – Okay article, C-class, the {{cn}} tags aren't really that major.  Nixinova  T  C  06:23, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I will hold off supporting this until the list of works is cleared up with references. The awards section seemed to be reasonably well referenced. Capitalistroadster (talk) 07:41, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose three sections are orange tagged as needing more references (one of which I added) and there are few other uncited claims in other sections. Thryduulf (talk) 12:41, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose It's not the {{cn}} tags that are the problem, it's the (rightly) orange tagged sections. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:51, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

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

May 22Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents
  • At least 16 people are killed and 38 wounded in Kandahar, Afghanistan, by the accidental detonation of a container of explosives while security forces were attempting to dispose of it. (Al Jazeera)

International relations

Law and crime

Sports

(Closed) RD: Antonio LupatelliEdit

Stale. SpencerT•C 19:54, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Antonio Lupatelli (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Newsweek

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: aka Tony Wolf, noted Italian writer of children's books (eg Pingu). Unfortunately, the bulk of media reporting this is in Italian, and our article is woefully poor to support it presently. Masem (t) 13:35, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Posted) Man Booker International PrizeEdit

Articles: Man Booker International Prize (talk, history) and Flights (novel) (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Man Booker International Prize is awarded to "Flights" by Olga Tokarczuk.
News source(s): Official Website The Guardian BBC News

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: Reformating nomination from Lucie Person for parsability. Stormy clouds (talk) 22:44, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Support as the Booker article has stayed in good shape over several years. I'd like to see if Flights could be improved to be featured in the blurb (bolded), there's a few reviews I see, I added one as a refidea to the page, but I'm sure there's more. --Masem (t) 01:42, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose as nominated per ITNR, "Unless otherwise noted, the winner of the prize is normally the target article." I can support this if the target is Flights (novel). Banedon (talk) 01:55, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Yep, the bold link needs to be to Flights (novel), which is currently a 5-sentence stub. Needs some expansion before it's postable. Modest Genius talk 09:48, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose on article quality only. It needs a lot of work before it can make the main page. AIRcorn (talk) 21:13, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. The Flights (novel) article has been improved; it's not great but meets our minimum standards. Ready? Modest Genius talk 11:33, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Comment. Thanks for noticing my edits, @Modest Genius:! I, too think that it's ready now, so I've added the 'ready' tag. Hopefully that's not too soon? ⇒ Lucie Person (talk|contribs) 22:27, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Hmm, well this has been tagged "ready" for about 36 hours, any admins here? The Rambling Man (talk) 06:26, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Just saw this. Minor issue; this would push Maduro off the template, leaving us without a picture. I've added a picture to CMP, so perhaps it would be better to hold off until the bot does its thing. Of course, if we're okay with no picture, this can be posted right away. Vanamonde (talk) 09:22, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Aaand posted. Vanamonde (talk) 09:44, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Flights should be italicized, not in quotes. --LukeSurl t c 09:46, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks for posting this! This is my second ITN nomination, first to be successful! Could someone “give me credit”? ⇒ Lucie Person (talk|contribs) 18:18, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) Philip Wilson guiltyEdit

No consensus to post. Stephen
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: Philip Wilson (bishop) (talk, history)
Blurb: ​An Australian court finds Catholic Archbishop Philip Wilson guilty of concealing child sexual abuse in the 1970s.
Alternative blurb: Catholic Archbishop of Adelaide Philip Wilson is found guilty of concealing historical child sexual abuse in the Diocese of Maitland-Newcastle, Australia.
News source(s): BBC
Nominator's comments: The most senior Catholic in the world to be charged and convicted of the offense. Article has some referencing issues. Sherenk1 (talk) 05:20, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Major news on the Catholic Church paedophilia front, which is a big issue globally and in Australia. I have found references for the two claims which had been tagged with "citation needed". HiLo48 (talk) 05:55, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak support I have to read the news articles to understand the scope of why we should post this, as the article on Wilson is not really clear on why this decision was so important (as I read elsewhere, the diocese he was in was considered the epicenter of the Catholic pedophile situation in Australia, and securing a conviction that it was covered up seemed to be a key result for further investigation based on the Guardian's article. Thus, the charge has merit as ITN, but the article should explain this better. --Masem (t) 06:10, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support it's pretty clear from just the blurb what the significance of this is, let's hope it's just the start of rooting out the evil. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:39, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose "failing to report allegations of abuse". That's not significant. Let me know when the actual predators are convicted. Also a few missing refs. --LaserLegs (talk) 09:50, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Not significant? Tell that to the victims. The fact that priests knew they would not be reported made them feel freer to continue their predations. It was the complete system that allowed these crimes to occur. HiLo48 (talk) 10:09, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Right great wrongs and all that HiLo. Story is way down in the headlines. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:31, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Many American events, particularly sporting ones, that make it to ITN, are NEVER in the news outside that country. HiLo48 (talk) 22:24, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Comment The "predator" in this case, Father Jim Fletcher, was convicted of child sexual offences in 2004 and died in prison in 2006. Archbishop Wilson is now convicted of covering up Fletcher's crimes. --dmmaus (talk) 10:56, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - I realize that I may be going into this with an emotionally charged viewpoint, but damnit, WP:IAR.--WaltCip (talk) 10:38, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Added altblurb. I'm leaning towards LaserLegs in rationale, seeing that this occurred prior to when Wilson became archbishop and because the actual perpetrator was convicted in 2004. I'd prefer to see an official government inquiry report into the systematic failings of a national religious entity on this matter, rather than a piecemeal DYKable blurb about what one official did [not do] when he first started out. Fuebaey (talk) 11:11, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Please explain what the fact that the perpetrator has been been convicted has to do with this? HiLo48 (talk) 11:19, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Because without A, there would be no B. I'm making the assumption that the significance of this event lies where Wilson is a high ranking official within an influential organisation. Rather than a random neighbour knowing that the guy next door is abusing other people. The former may reach the bar for posting on ITN but not the latter from my POV. Fuebaey (talk) 11:59, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose for the reasons stated by Masem. Literally thousands of clergy were complicit in these acts. If we can't tell readers in the blurb why this one is special (and we cannot), we need to do so ASAP in the article. ghost 11:31, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Now seeing in RS that "Wilson...faces a maximum two-year jail term." So quality aside, this is really unimportant. ghost 13:16, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
I was on the same side as you when I first read the BBC article, and saw the short term. It's reading a few others that have more indepth to understand why authorities were seeing this as a key step in the ongoing investigation of the situation; his conviction means they can access more records, etc. --Masem (t) 14:00, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - high-ranking official of one of the world's largest organisation is convicted. Big news in the denouement of the Catholic sex abuse scandal, and worthy of posting. Article is fine, but could do with an expansion per Masem. Stormy clouds (talk) 11:35, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Not convinced a "failing to report" situation rises to ITN-grade significance. Sca (talk) 12:51, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Sca. Failure to report a crime is not ITN-level stuff. Lepricavark (talk) 15:54, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Doesn't rise to the level of significance for ITN. Perhaps manageable at DYK. –Ammarpad (talk) 17:18, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I think those claiming this "crime" being not significant enough are missing the point. After all, those individuals would need to vote against Al Capone's conviction on tax evasion. It's the bigger picture which Masem and Stormy Clouds note here, that's significant. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:32, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
    • No we get it perfectly. It is, I think, roughly equivalent to Michael Flynn pleading guilty to lying to the FBI. Insignificant on it's own, but the bigger (yuge) picture .... So I guess you could say in this case that it's local crime, nothing here for a global encyclopedia. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:14, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
      • No, you don't. But I'm not surprised at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:16, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
        • "But I'm not surprised at all." are you commenting on my competence, or on me personally there TRM? --LaserLegs (talk) 19:11, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
          • Neither, I'm commenting on my lack of surprise. You can re-read it if you like. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:49, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose mostly per Sca. The church sex abuse scandals are a big deal. But in the grand scheme of things this is a minor blip. Much bigger news will be coming if Cardinal George Pell is convicted. And then there is the recent news that everyone of Chile's 23 Catholic bishops handed in their resignations to the Pope in response to his demands and the ongoing sex abuse scandals in that country. I tried, and failed, to interest anyone over at WP:Catholicism in this story as a possible ITN candidate. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:44, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
    I think "An Australian court has found a Catholic archbishop guilty of concealing child sexual abuse in the 1970s. Philip Wilson, now archbishop of Adelaide, becomes the most senior Catholic in the world to be charged and convicted of the offence." is sufficient for ITN. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:10, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
This whole topic is a big issue indeed, but again I don't see the Most Rev. Wilson's failure to report "allegations" (per our article) 40 years ago in Australia as top-drawer news. (Perhaps if I were RC I'd have a different opinion?) Sca (talk) 20:38, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
It's the conviction that is news, not the crime alone. Because of the the big role the Catholic Church plays in society, it has been very difficult getting convictions in the past. It has been obvious that good Catholic members of the police force have historically been less than assiduous in pushing these crimes towards court. This item is a sign of a cultural change. HiLo48 (talk) 22:33, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
PS: As of 20:45 Tues., the Wilson story had faded from prime play on major EngLang news sites. Sca (talk) 20:49, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose -- this is no more significant than a hardcore torture proponent being placed in charge of an international intelligence agency with paramilitary options. 165.225.0.96 (talk) 21:24, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Changed to oppose as this event is no longer in the news.--WaltCip (talk) 23:08, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
It is in Australia. And if you think that doesn't matter, many sporting events we post hardly ever make it outside their home country. HiLo48 (talk) 04:25, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
I browsed through the websites of the Sydney Morning Herald, the Canberra Times, the Brisbane Times, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and found nothing. I have to go to the BBC website and go to the Australia page to find that the story is being covered. So while it might have been picked up by the BBC, it doesn't actually seem to be news in Australia.--WaltCip (talk) 10:47, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes it is. HiLo48 (talk) 23:13, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
@HiLo48: that is a really unhelpful comment. WaltCip gave a detailed explanation of why they believe it not to be in the news. If you disagree with that, the very least you should do is provide some evidence to the contrary - it should be easy if this is as significant as you claim. Thryduulf (talk) 23:38, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
I really can't be bothered. The reasons are quite clear. Items don't have to stay in the version of the news foreigners see for weeks on end to be posted here. Many NEVER make it to the news I see. (e.g. US college sport.) You need to come to Australia to see the reality. I am beginning to doubt the knowledge or motives of some of those opposing this. HiLo48 (talk) 23:48, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
I think I see why you had an enforced hiatus from ITN in the past now.--WaltCip (talk) 01:44, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
I am not the topic here. HiLo48 (talk) 22:33, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
@HiLo48: Pleas (re)read WP:OTHERSTUFF, WP:ITN#PURPOSE and WP:ASPERSIONS. While I would like to visit Australia, practical considerations mean that even with unlimited funds (something I do not have access to, alas) it would not be possible to make it before this nomination is stale (it's a fair guess that this applies to most other commenters too) you will have to provide us with evidence (see WP:V) that this is still in the news in Australia. We don't necessarily need items to be international headline news for weeks, but we do need to see evidence of significant coverage somewhere. US college sports are certainly disproportionately nominated here, but not very many actually get posted - and while the ones that do may not make international headlines (they don't tend to here in the UK for instance) they do get significant coverage in the US, and evidence is presented to back up the assertions. Thryduulf (talk) 08:23, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per Masem. Seems like an important chapter in the Catholic sex abuse scandal.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:55, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This doesn't seem to be significant on it's own merits, and while the Catholic sex abuse scandal is a huge topic this conviction doesn't seem to be a major milestone in that. I get the distinct impression that most people involved with the prosecution see it as more of a proof of concept that worked as expected stepping stone on the way to bigger more important things. Thryduulf (talk) 12:49, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
    Heh, ironically I think your latter statement is right which is why it is important. But hey. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:27, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
    • Yes Thryduulf. Rambling Man is right. This IS a major stepping stone. Australia has been going through major agonies over child abuse in the Catholic Church. This is a huge breakthrough. It may be worth noting that someone else ahead in the list of charged Australian Catholics is George Pell, a major figure in world Catholicism. This getting ever nearer the top. It's not just a minor case in unimportant, little Australia. It matters. The world needs to be told. HiLo48 (talk) 21:42, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
      • My point is that even the people involved with the prosecution don't see this as a major step worth massively shouting about. Your comments about "Australia has been going through major agonies", "someone else ahead in the list of charged" and "This getting ever nearer the top" tell exactly that story - this is just one small step in the middle of a much larger story. Just as we don't post every step of a presidential impeachment or every conviction of a drug cartel member, we don't need to (and shouldn't) post every step of this story. Thryduulf (talk) 22:14, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
        • That is simply false. As I read it, in multiple places, the people involved with the prosecution see this precisely as a major step worth shouting about. That's why it was nominated. We Australians aren't just ignorant, dumb ass colonials, thank you very much, and what happens here CAN matter for the whole world. I am finding the tone of some comments here very insulting to a country not normally seen as a major player in world affairs. HiLo48 (talk) 01:25, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
          • And I find "the world needs to be told" to run contrary to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, but hey, that's just one Kiwi's opinion.--WaltCip (talk) 11:03, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
            • @WaltCip and HiLo48: Indeed. It is not ITN's job to tell the world anything. It is to point readers at encyclopaedia articles about significant topics that are already in the news. Per others this isn't really significantly in the news. Thryduulf (talk) 12:34, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
              • Yes it is. HiLo48 (talk) 22:43, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
                • @HiLo48: Yes it is what? If you think it is ITN's job to tell the world things, then you need to re-read WP:ITN#Purpose. If you mean that yes, it is ITN's job to point readers at encyclopaedia articles... then we agree and your response makes little sense. If you mean that yes, it is significantly in the news then you need to please provide some evidence of that - just gainsaying anything the other person says is not helpful. Thryduulf (talk) 23:38, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
                  • What do you mean by "Yes it is what?"? I think the logic of the conversation flow is quite clear. You provided no evidence for your claim. Why do I need to.? HiLo48 (talk) 23:43, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
                    • I made three statements and you could have been referring to any of them. The first and second are backed by WP:ITN#Purpose (the first also by WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS) - both previously noted. The third statement points to the evidence provided by others elsewhere in this discussion even though it's very difficult to prove a negative. If you want to convince others to support your position then you need to present cogent arguments back by evidence. Thryduulf (talk) 08:23, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Unproductive argument re 'racism.' Sca (talk) 12:40, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
          • I really don't understand why you seem to believe it being in Australia/about Australians has any bearing on my opinion of the story whatsoever? I'm assuming good faith that you are not accusing me of racism, but I assure you that my !vote would be the same whatever country this related to. Thryduulf (talk) 11:22, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
            • Racism? Huh? What race do you think Australians are? This is getting silly. HiLo48 (talk) 11:28, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
              • We Australians aren't just ignorant, dumb ass colonials, It's not just a minor case in unimportant, little Australia you seem to be asserting that my views on Australia and/or Australians are coloruing my view of the significance of the story. Thryduulf (talk) 12:05, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
                • I'm sorry, but I find it very difficult to discuss this with someone who leaps to some conclusion about race when I say "Australian". There is no rational connection. HiLo48 (talk) 12:14, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
                  • There are different definitions of racism and racial discrimination. For example, the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination defines "the term "racial discrimination" shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction, or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin that has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life." (my emphasis). ---Sluzzelin talk 12:20, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
                    • By trying to cover so much, that definition destroys the idea of what racism really is. It is simply not discrimination against a nationality, especially such a multicultural one as Australian. HiLo48 (talk) 12:25, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
                      • Whether you agree with that being called "racism" or not, the effect is the same. Thryduulf (talk) 12:30, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per Stormy clouds. Davey2116 (talk) 03:43, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per Stormy clouds, TRM and HiLo48. Jusdafax (talk) 02:03, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose as both inconsequential and no longer making headlines. 165.225.0.68 (talk) 13:02, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
I can handle different opinions. I will be able to accept this not making ITN, if it's based on sensible reasons. But a claim that this is inconsequential is just plain ridiculous. HiLo48 (talk) 23:45, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

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

(Closed) Anti male-guardianship campaignEdit

No consensus to post. Stephen 06:15, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: anti male-guardianship campaign (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Saudi authorities crack down on anti male-guardianship campaign.
News source(s): The Independent, Thomson Reuters, The Atlantic
Nominator's comments: Crackdown on adult women (and male supporters) campaigning for women to not be legal minors in the country with one of the worst women's rights records in the world. Boud (talk) 21:21, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose "crack down" means what? It looks like a minor scuffle, and not of broad interest. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:26, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
    • "Crackdown" is the term chosen by Reuters, and the crackdown is expanding. The #metoo women's rights campaign is an ongoing newsworthy event across US/Europe since a year or so ago. In Saudi Arabia being a rape victim can often lead to being imprisoned. These are some of the broad context for why these arrests, of (mostly) women organising to defend themselves, are attracting a lot of Western mainstream media attention. Boud (talk) 21:43, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
      • I'm just saying it's not encyclopedic nor is it going to be posted ever in this form. Don't "crack down" on the messenger. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:45, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose This appears to have been an ongoing thing since 2011, and this was just one recent event among that. Not really a significant event in the larger scheme. --Masem (t) 21:50, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose At least the way the blurb is written. "Crack down" is too vague, and in this case denotes a handful of arrests which IMO doesn't rise to ITN-level significance. EternalNomad (talk) 00:38, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Crackdowns in Saudi Arabia are like twisters in Kansas or bombings in Yemen - it will take something exceptional to qualify. If the Saudis arrest tens of thousands within the span of a few days,then we can talk about posting a blurb about a crackdown. Kurtis (talk) 01:34, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

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

May 21Edit

Business and economy
  • Economy of Japan
    • Sony agrees to a $2.3 billion deal where they will buy a controlling interest in EMI Music Publishing. The deal will mean that Sony would indirectly own 90% of the music publisher and its two million songs. (BBC)

International relations

Law and crime

(Posted) RD: Dovey Johnson RoundtreeEdit

Article: Dovey Johnson Roundtree (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): NYT

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 civil rights activist. ghost 11:17, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment The paragraph about Michelle Obama in the lede is undue. I think it should be moved to the body of the text.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:31, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  Done; Support. — Hugh (talk) 01:13, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. Article is well fleshed out; can't check some of the book sources, but the citations are filled out. Marking (ready). SpencerT•C 04:37, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 04:53, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Robert IndianaEdit

Article: Robert Indiana (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The New York Times

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) 00:30, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) Nipah virusEdit

No article to assess. Stephen 23:32, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Henipavirus#Outbreaks (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Health officials in the south Indian state of Kerala say nine people have died in confirmed and suspected cases of the deadly Nipah virus.
News source(s): BBC
 Sherenk1 (talk) 08:18, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose that it is a simple one-liner in a wider articles is telling for me, once it becomes significant enough for coverage in its own article, I would reconsider. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:21, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose How is this "in the news"? –Ammarpad (talk) 11:09, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose with the reader call being to Nipah virus, there should be an actual article on the topic first. — xaosflux Talk 13:38, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment. Open to this in principle, but without an article it's hard to assess. I don't know why there isn't even a separate article on the virus. Espresso Addict (talk) 14:12, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per lack of article. Lepricavark (talk) 15:24, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

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

(Closed) 2018 Billboard Music AwardsEdit

Unanimous consensus against posting this item on grounds of notability and quality - closure per WP:SNOW. Stormy clouds (talk) 06:15, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: 2018 Billboard Music Awards (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Billboard Music Awards is hosted in Las Vegas
Alternative blurb: Ed Sheeran wins top artist at the Billboard Music Awards
News source(s): [11]
  • Comment: Looks like it's not part of WP:ITNR#Music? Any special reason that this should be posted? HaEr48 (talk) 05:10, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
    • It's likely not part of ITNR as the Billboard awards are strictly given based on sales/popularity, rather than any critical voting or vetting process. Further, we already have the Grammies as ITNR to cover predominately American music; we don't need a second sub-tier award ITNR. --Masem (t) 05:48, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
      • Except we can't seem to get the Grammies posted, as the relevant article is always in shitty condition.--WaltCip (talk) 11:03, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
        • "Not our problem". We shouldn't post lesser awards that might have better articles just because the more major award page wasn't updated in time at its turn. And FWIW, this current specific article is not of quality to post - there's almost no prose, and just listing out who performed is not the same as covering the ceremony. --Masem (t) 13:09, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose four brief lines of prose in total? Not good enough. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:33, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose I agree with TRM here, the article lacks any real substance, and there is nothing calling out why the "top artist" category is so special (as opposed to say "top song" or "top album". — xaosflux Talk 13:36, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Unlike other award shows, the Billboard awards are based on sales, so the winners are by and large already known beforehand. It's more of a promotional device for the magazine/charts than an actual awards show. Teemu08 (talk) 13:40, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Cogent reasons already given above. –Ammarpad (talk) 14:54, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose on notability. Not significant enough for ITN. Lepricavark (talk) 14:58, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Even if this was a significant event (which I don't think it is) the article is just a bunch of tables.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:17, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

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

May 20Edit

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sports

(Posted) RD: Richard N. GoodwinEdit

Article: Richard N. Goodwin (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): NYT, WaPo, NPR, Boston Globe

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 speechwriter and political advisor dies at 86. Some sourcing issues. Davey2116 (talk) 04:06, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

RD: Bill GoldEdit

Article: Bill Gold (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): New York Times

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: Not a very long article - requires a lot of proper sourcing. Challenger l (talk) 00:36, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose Article could use a full length career section (seeing he has the qualifications for one), a death section as the article abruptly ends by listing all of his credits and the article needs way more sourcing. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:44, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose sourcing (or lack of it) alone is enough to stop this one. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:44, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) Cyclone SagarEdit

Article: Cyclone Sagar (talk, history)
Blurb: Cyclone Sagar makes landfall in Somalia, killing at least 16 people.
Alternative blurb: Cyclone Sagar makes landfall in the Middle East and East Africa, killing at least 16 people.
News source(s): The Weather Channel

Nominator's comments: Strongest cyclone in Somalia's history according to TWC. EternalNomad (talk) 04:19, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Support Article looks okay.  Nixinova  T  C  06:29, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Several referencing issues. Sherenk1 (talk) 06:52, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
    • Support - Issues addressed - Sherenk1 (talk) 04:23, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Addressed some CN tags. A lot of other referencing seems to have been addressed. Note that more recent reporting is putting death toll at 31+, so blurb may need to be double-checked before this gets posted. Kenmelken (talkcontribs) 15:04, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support with updated blurb. Article looks well referenced. Avg W (talk) 19:31, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment needs an admin to deal with the copyvio notice, but consensus to post is clear here. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:17, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - Admin has dealt with the issue. Ready to post. Sherenk1 (talk) 04:12, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Was just about to post this but there is a copyvio tag. Ping me when fixed. --Tone 07:50, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
    Tone that tag is requesting an admin to delete certain versions from the history, only you or one of your fellow admins can action that, not us mere minions. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:55, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
    • Apparently this has been already done two days ago but the red tag remained. Posting now. --Tone 09:07, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) Venezuelan presidential electionsEdit

Article: Venezuelan presidential election, 2018 (talk, history)
Blurb: Nicolás Maduro is reelected as President of Venezuela in a contested election
Alternative blurb: Nicolás Maduro is reelected as President of Venezuela
Alternative blurb II: ​Venezuela's President Nicolás Maduro has won re-election to another six-year term.
Alternative blurb III: ​Incumbent Nicolás Maduro is re-elected President of Venezuela
News source(s): The New York Times The Guardian BBC The Washington Post The Telegraph

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: Per WP:ITNR Jamez42 (talk) 03:12, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment I think the blurb needs to be more clearly worded. It's an WP:EGG as-is. Does "contested election" mean that the fairness and validity are in question? power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:14, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
It does. However I'd be grateful for blurb suggestions since English is not my native language. --Jamez42 (talk) 03:17, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - Provided Alt blurb 2. Sherenk1 (talk) 04:07, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose - See referencing issues. Sherenk1 (talk) 04:53, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Fine article. Added altblurb3.  Nixinova  T  C  06:28, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Would prefer waiting for more international reactions to the results to be added to the wikiarticle. --PFHLai (talk) 09:55, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
@PFHLai: Updated with the "Recognition" section. However I don't think that there will be many more announcements since most of the governments mentioned already declared they would dismiss/accept the results beforehand, like the Lima Group. --Jamez42 (talk) 18:32, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. This is on ITNR (head of state election), so I've adjusted the nom template. The article is detailed and looks well-referenced on a quick look, with prose on the result and reactions. We never cast doubt on the legitimacy of an election in a blurb - that can be left to the article. alt1 or alt2 are fine with me. Modest Genius talk 12:44, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
Actually that reaction section is mostly to the buildup rather than the result. Some additional material would indeed help there. Modest Genius talk 12:45, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
@Modest Genius: Is it possible to add in tge blurb somehow that the election is polemic? Several international bodies have warned against its irregularities and governments have warned that they would not recognize the results.--Jamez42 (talk) 14:55, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
This comes up every time there is a disputed election. Consensus at ITN has consistently been that it's impossible to accurately summarise electoral concerns and stick to a WP:NPOV within the short length of an ITN blurb. The concerns are rightly discussed in the article and prominently stated in its lead, so anyone who clicks the bold link will immediately be aware that not everyone thinks the election was fair. It's not ITN's job to decide which side is correct. Of course consensus can change, but I don't see a good reason to go against it here. Modest Genius talk 15:27, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
The best blurb for any (especially heads of state) election is better and more encyclopedic in the from of "xxx is elected president of yyy". I wish this should be made standard phrasing for these elections. Because there's no election that is 100% absolutely accepted by everybody, even if it is a mock election. Moreover, ITN is not meant to editorialize or tell what is right, which is what essentially bringing weasel words like "disputed", " contested", "unfair", "sham election" and their like will mean. –Ammarpad (talk) 15:36, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
Roger, thanks! --Jamez42 (talk) 16:43, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose It's not horrible, but referencing is weak. Too many unsourced claims. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:02, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
In blurbs 1 & 2, "as" is redundant. Sca (talk) 13:10, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
Is that an ENGVAR difference? To me it sounds like an Americanism if you remove the 'as'. Modest Genius talk 14:02, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
I concur. "as" is just fine. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:14, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
As president is not an office in any country I know of. Cf. Washington Post, Nov. 9, 2016: "Donald Trump, a New York real estate developer and former reality television star, was elected president of the United States on Tuesday, stunning many ...." – Sca (talk) 17:40, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
'As' is a conjuction, not part of the office name, as I'm sure you know. Looks like ENGVAR. cf. BBC one month ago: "expected to be elected as president". Modest Genius talk 18:13, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
Which type of English do they speak in Venezuela? Sca (talk) 19:21, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
Aha, change the goalposts... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:41, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Alt. 3 – Looks OK. Sca (talk) 19:23, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted Alt3. SpencerT•C 23:09, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ernst SieberEdit

Article: Ernst Sieber (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Neue Zürcher Zeitung

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) 01:53, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Billy CannonEdit

Article: Billy Cannon (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): NOLA

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 GA --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 16:44, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

  • support - ready for posting.BabbaQ (talk) 16:49, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Article is in good shape. –Ammarpad (talk) 18:34, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted Good job on the article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:57, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

May 19Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks
  • Russian military intervention in Ukraine
    • Ukraine's Joint Forces Operation says Russian-led militants have mounted 43 attacks on Ukrainian troops in Donbas in the past 24 hours, using artillery systems and 120mm and 82mm mortars 10 times, with no casualties among the Ukrainian servicemen. According to intelligence data, two militants are killed and three others wounded. (UNIAN)

Arts and culture

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sports

(Withdrawn) 2018 FA Cup FinalEdit

Withdrawn. Agree with LukeSurl's line for football notability. --PFHLai (talk) 10:14, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: 2018 FA Cup Final (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In English association football, Chelsea beat Manchester United at Wembley to win the 137th edition of the FA Cup.
News source(s): (BBC Sport)
Nominator's comments: To displace the old news on Manchester City winning the EPL. PFHLai (talk) 08:25, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose not a comment on the quality of the article, but simply that we already post the winners of the league in England, and while this is the oldest association football competition in the world, it's probably still of niche interest. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:29, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
    • Well, Manchester City winning the EPL is no longer the latest big news on English football. It doesn't look right to keep that blurb on ITN. Please update the news on English football. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 08:42, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
      • What are you talking about "please update the news on English football"? Please don't use ITN and the main page in this way. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:42, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose on notability. The FA cup is significantly less important than the Premier League (notably, winning the FA Cup doesn’t even get you a Champions League spot). The line for football notability is above this. —LukeSurl t c 08:48, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

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

(Posted) RD: Bernard LewisEdit

Article: Bernard Lewis (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The Washington Post

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

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

(Posted) 2018 Cannes Film FestivalEdit

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

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

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

  • Comment - Both updated now, though the film article might need a plot section. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 22:54, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose basically no prose (lead material is either not expanded upon or mentioned in the body) and no key/symbol combination for winners (per accessibility requirements), but comprehensive and referenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:54, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support iff we change the bold target to Shoplifters (film). That at least has a short paragraph about the award, with multiple references and a quote from the judges. Modest Genius talk 14:55, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
Yep, just about to suggest having the film as the bold target, instead of the festival. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 17:45, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support noting prose rationale at last year's nom. Academy Awards make the Main Page every year; Cannes doesn't, even though we're not supposed to be only American Wikipedia. Ribbet32 (talk) 20:01, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
    • At the time the 90th Academy Awards was posted the article had several paragraphs of prose about the ceremony. Presently, none of the blurbs in the box are about the US, and three of them are Euro-centric. Stinks more like Europedia than "only American Wikipedia". Come on. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:53, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
    • What in the world are you talking about? Cannes is at WP:ITNR, and it was posted last year. –HTD 00:49, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support I changed the bolding as the blurb is about the film more than the award. L293D ( • ) 00:39, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen

Iraq ElectionsEdit

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

Article updated

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

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

  • Some of the tables need citations, and the results need prose, too. Vanamonde (talk) 13:05, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support all issues look fixed, good to go. 97.46.0.216 (talk) 14:16, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • ”Wins the most seats” would be better in the blurb, as no bloc reached a majority of seats. —LukeSurl t c 14:40, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment The blurb should specify that it's about Iraq. People shouldn't have to click the link to find out which country the blurb is referring to. TompaDompa (talk) 15:11, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - seems ready for posting.BabbaQ (talk) 23:06, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose the prose needs thoroughly checking for statements which are out of date (e.g. "the Civilized Alliance,[38][39] led by Faiq Al Sheikh Ali, which currently has 4 seats") and the "Seat allocation" section is unreferenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:01, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. The article looks sufficient to me. Modest Genius talk 14:58, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
    Including all the out-of-date prose? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:01, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose? (maybe not) the ref for the results is an excel spreadsheet. I can't read Arabic, but it looks like a tab per region or province or something. Anyway, there are more rows in that sheet than rows in the wiki table. The spreadsheet looks like it has a tally of votes per candidate. Even not being able to read the language, it looks like WP:PRIMARY or WP:OR. I could ignore for some things, but not for results. If I'm wrong, go ahead and tell me why happy to change !vote. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:03, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) Royal WeddingEdit

Discussion railroading again... --Masem (t) 13:25, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Wedding of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In the United Kingdom, the Royal Wedding between Prince Harry and Meghan Markle takes place.
News source(s): ABC News, BBC
Nominator's comments: Now before everyone starts blasting this nomination with opposes (which is highly certain), keep in mind that this has been the talk of the world within the past few months. This has been getting massive attention in the last hour by various news sources across the globe. P.S. give me some slack as I have never posted a nomination before. SamaranEmerald (talk) 12:04, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support notable event with loads of press traction Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 12:16, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - huge event of global interest, estimated to be watched by over a billion people worldwide FF2010 12:22, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - World wide coverage. BabbaQ (talk) 12:23, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - I'm no fan of royalty, but this is a highly notable event, and significant for bringing a mixed-race divorcee into the royal family. We missed a trick by not having this on the front page during the ceremony. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:29, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support the BBC commentators say almost 2 billion people watched this live. I think it ought to be noted, since there won't be another Royal Wedding for some time. Plus the number of A-List stars who turned up was impressive. JLJ001 (talk) 12:33, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • The Swedish commentator said the broadcast from the wedding was royaly free, could this mean something for WP-good licence for pics? cart-Talk 12:42, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Huge world-wide interest and we need some joy once in a while at ITN. Get it up there as soon as possible or we look like squares. cart-Talk 12:40, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support ground-breaking royal wedding, global audience of the order of 2 billion, long-lasting, high-impact news. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:46, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - we serve to drive people directly to articles which they will be looking for anyway due to the news. Judging by last year's records, people will absolutely be searching for this item, and the article quality is decent. Stormy clouds (talk) 12:48, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support time to post this. Aiken D 12:54, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted I'm one of the "what's the fuss all about" people, so maybe I'm the right one to post this. Vanamonde (talk) 13:03, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support (ec) The uncertainties have been resolved now and, yesterday, the article got more views than all the other ITN blurb items combined. Andrew D. (talk) 13:05, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

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

  • Request - Could someone please change so Meghan, Duchess of Sussex is the page direct in the blurb at ITN. Right now its Meghan Markle which is a redirect.BabbaQ (talk) 18:33, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I see that we're continuing our dubious tradition of titling articles about British Royalty, but not many others (particularly outside Europe), their official titles. Vanamonde (talk) 05:14, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
  • How else would we name her and the article since it is her official name, she now has no last name but her title. "Meghan (formerly Meghan Merkle)"? cart-Talk 09:55, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Well, we've no problem referring to the emperor of Japan as "Akihito", or the king of Thailand as "Vajiralongkorn", right? We seem to get by without the official title there; I'm sure we could think of something. But really that's not my point: I'm not too bothered by giving people their titles. My point is that we take so much care to get the titles of British royals right (your comment being a case in point) but don't seem to bother with most others. Just as, for instance, knighthoods are an exception to WP:HONORIFIC, but other national honors are not. Vanamonde (talk) 10:22, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
  • We seem to use titles for European royals and not for the rest, so there is some "method in the madness". cart-Talk 11:55, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
  • That doesn't really make it any better. Vanamonde (talk) 12:40, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, it's one of the glaring "unspoken" examples of Euro-centrism on Wikipedia. There's not really much that can be done about it.--WaltCip (talk) 13:14, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Post-posting oppose - I know my opposing of it won't make much of a difference, but Prince Harry is currently sixth in the line of succession to the British throne, so this feels more like a celebrity story (which I have yet to see on List of most watched television broadcasts) than a game changing event. ITN shouldn't be a news ticker. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 19:04, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Since most of that article is unreferenced, it's probably not something to use evidentially in any way. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:04, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose and pull. Absolutely not. Minor royal who is merely 6th in the line of succession to the throne in his country and utterly unlikely to ever become head of state. This belongs in the gossip press in the UK, not on the front page of an international encyclopedia. We should ask ourselves: Would we post the wedding of, say, the guy who is 6th in the line of succession to the throne in Thailand with no prospect of ever succeeding, or the grandchild of Donald Trump (arguably a much, much more influential person than any member of this minor royal's family) merely on account of being the grandchild of Donald Trump? --Tataral (talk) 21:00, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
    Two billion people round the world disagree. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:03, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Two billion people (may have) watched the event. Doesn't mean they agree that it's ITN material. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 21:18, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Pull the other one, it's got bells on!! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:32, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Two billion people around the world are a bunch of twits.--WaltCip (talk) 00:51, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
Why? It was a really nice event, nothing but full of positivity, bridged gaps, shook up the traditions, showed the new generation of progressive Royals, there's nothing to dislike about it. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:04, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
I don't dislike it. I simply find it irrelevant to my life and to my interests.--WaltCip (talk) 13:13, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
Manchester City winning the Premier League is irrelevant to my life and to my interests, but that doesn't mean it should be removed from ITN. Philip Stevens (talk) 14:57, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Long term significance is not clear but when you have billions watching your wedding and you are on the front page of pretty much every newspaper in the world... Anyways, many years to the happy couple. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:23, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

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.

May 18Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

Law and crime

Politics and elections

(Posted) RD: Stephanie AdamsEdit

Article: Stephanie Adams (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC News, Fox News, NYT

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

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

  • Support adequate. Fucking tragic that she took her child with her. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:14, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - Thin but postable. Death section needs expansion. Jusdafax (talk) 09:25, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - just about adequate for posting.BabbaQ (talk) 10:18, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Looks OK. –Ammarpad (talk) 03:32, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Posting – Muboshgu (talk) 17:55, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) Cuba aircraft crashEdit

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

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

  • Oppose - The article badly needs expansion before it can be posted to the main page.--WaltCip (talk) 18:46, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose at this time. Needs expansion. Less relevant right now than the shooting in Texas (which does need to be added to the main page, in my opinion. Rockstonetalk to me! 19:08, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Wait - The event is obviously worthy of being posted, but the article needs to be fully fleshed out first.--Minerman30 19:09, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Not productive. 331dot (talk) 19:47, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Question so far, just in 2018 we posted US-Bangla Airlines Flight 211 (51 dead), Saratov Airlines Flight 703 (71 dead), 2018 Russian Air Force Antonov An-26 crash (39 dead), Iran Aseman Airlines Flight 3704 (66 dead) and 2018 Algerian Air Force Il-76 crash (257 dead). With you people frantically tripping over eachother to write off 9 dead kids in Santa Fe as "routine" and "already falling out of the headlines" could someone please tell me what could possibly make the 6th fatal commercial airline crash of 2018 so "obviously worthy of being posted" that we all know will be out of the headlines in a day anyway. Anyone? --LaserLegs (talk) 19:30, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
    This is an accident? And if not, it's even more notable. The gun crimes in the US are inexcusably self-inflicted. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:33, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
    An "accident" sounds like poor aircraft safety and design and training regulation to me. Obviously inexcusably self-inflicted. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:35, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
    It's a good job we're not really interested in speculation then, particularly from a non-expert. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:41, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
    No TRM, you've helped me see the light. When tragedy strikes, someone is at fault, and it is the societies fault for not taking appropriate steps to prevent that tragedy. So when this latest fatal crash is proven to be either pilot error or mechanical failure, I look forward to you heaping scorn upon the supporters of this nom, pointing out that it is the entire nation of Cuba and Mexico who are at fault here for either not having or not enforcing adequate training and maintenance regulations. Thank you for helping me to see the way TRM! Oh lord, THANK YOU! --LaserLegs (talk) 19:45, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
    Can you please stop this LaserLegs, this is not helpful at all.  Nixinova  T  C  20:03, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose also, not even the deadliest crash this year, not the first incident involving a 737. As routine as a van attack I'm afraid. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:46, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment BBC reporting 100+ deaths. --Masem (t) 19:55, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Over 100 dead—that is an extremely high number.  Nixinova  T  C  20:03, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Wait per Minerman30, we can't post a stub, but once it's a para or two thicker, it's good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:06, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Not yet It's a stub. Once expanded I will reconsider. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:24, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - significan accident with a high death toll. Mjroots (talk) 20:55, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support, the article now appears to be long enough. -- Tavix (talk) 21:05, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment This accident merits inclusion and the vote count so far largely confirms it, so we're going to post it once the article's body gets expanded from its current state of being shorter than the introduction.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:06, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
    • I've been expanding it. There's not much to say yet, no one has postulated why it crashed. --Masem (t) 21:09, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support: Significant air disaster. Clearly notable. Article has been improved. -Kudzu1 (talk) 22:53, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - the recent expansion covers all the information that is known at the moment; the article is brief but well referenced. –FlyingAce✈hello 23:32, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - clearly a tragic event internationally. The page has been updated with essential information. HaEr48 (talk) 23:51, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per above. Davey2116 (talk) 01:19, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted. I've left the death toll at >100 for now per BBC, as the 110 in the article doesn't appear to be referenced yet. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:47, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Post-posting comment - I've modified the wording to "passenger aircraft" as used in the article. It's quite impossible for an airline to crash. ansh666 04:30, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support - But suggest that the blurb gives accurate death toll of 110. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:47, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
    • @Martinevans123: the blurb has been updated since your comment, but WP:ERRORS is the place to request changes to posted blurbs. Thryduulf (talk) 13:15, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
      • That's why I posted there? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:16, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
        • They meant that ERRORS is the place to go to report issues and updates in the headlines.  Nixinova  T  C  19:41, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
          • Yes. And I meant that I reported it there first, and only came back here when I got no response. All fixed now anyway, thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:53, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Pull if we aren't going to post a second major school shooting because there are a lot of minor ones that don't even have their own articles, we certainly shouldn't be posting six airplane crashes in less than six months. Lepricavark (talk) 21:36, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
This started out as irrelevant and went down hill from there. Thryduulf (talk) 00:53, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Sour grapes. These aeroplane crashes kill hundreds, occur for many different reasons around the globe and affect tens of thousands. The parochial slaughter of kids in schools is not in the same category. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:38, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
    You're perfectly comfortable comparing the parochial slaughter of kids in schools to a Kardashian Instagram post, so I don't think you have a point. Lepricavark (talk) 21:40, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
    Duh, the regularity and therefore meaningless-ness of it all. Yes. We don't post bombings in war zones, so we don't post shootings in the US unless they are extreme. Now change the record. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:42, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
    I believe shootings with 10 or more casualties qualify for a post. Obviously you don't, and that's fine. The problem is that you keep insisting that such shootings are regular and mundane and run of the mill etc., despite the clear evidence that they are not. Lepricavark (talk) 21:45, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
    Well it's not just me, obviously, or it would be posted, right? That's how consensus works, right? Sour grapes, exacerbated by the truly sour oppose on the crash in Havana which killed more than 100 people and has caused two days of mourning and knocked the school incident right out of the news. Poor form. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:47, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
    Consensus (or a failure to arrive at one) can be wrong, and on Wikipedia it frequently is. This is one of those cases. Lepricavark (talk) 21:51, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
    In your own opinion. Moving on now, just like the news, just like the gun lobbyists, see you back here in a couple of months time to revisit the same old cracked rotating disk. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:54, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • @Lepricavark: as you've moved your comment outside the collapsed box, I feel compelled to note that "This started out as irrelevant" was a reference to your "pull" !vote not The Rambling Man's very relevant response to that !vote. Thryduulf (talk) 13:11, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I respectfully disagree with your assessment and see no point in arguing my position further. Lepricavark (talk) 14:56, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) Santa Fe school shootingEdit

There's clearly not going to be a strong consensus to post this, and discussion is starting to veer off ITN appropriateness and into random spats. Inappropriate. --Masem (t) 15:08, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Santa Fe High School shooting (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A shooting at a high school near Houston leaves at least ten dead
Alternative blurb: ​In the United States, a school shooting in Santa Fe, Texas, kills at least ten people.
Alternative blurb II: ​A school shooting in Santa Fe, Texas, U.S., kills at least ten people.
News source(s): CNN, NYT, BBC

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

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


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

(Posted) RD: John CarrickEdit

Article: John Carrick (Australian politician) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): AFR, news.com.au, The Australian

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

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

May 17Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Politics and elections

(Closed) RD: Richard PipesEdit

Stale. SpencerT•C 13:00, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Richard Pipes (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The New York Times

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: The most famous critical historian of the Soviet Union after Robert Conquest - an important theme in the 20th Century. Article is well-sourced. --Pudeo (talk) 13:03, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose I disagree; there are far too many unreferenced statements for a BLP. ghost 14:12, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
    I removed[13] two unsourced paragraphs I thought were editorialized and added one source, so hardly too many unreferenced statements anymore. There's just one unreferenced statement about his view of the Russian revolution, which I think is a fairly uncontroversial summary of his book, but could be removed too. --Pudeo (talk) 15:47, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose nearly there but a couple of unreferenced claims, plus a section of Works with no inline verification. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:10, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

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) Gina Haspel confirmedEdit

Consensus will not develop. Stephen 06:07, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Gina Haspel (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In the United States, Gina Haspel is confirmed by the Senate as the first female director of the Central Intelligence Agency.
News source(s): CNN NPR BBC

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

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

(Posted to Ongoing) Congo Ebola OutbreakEdit

Article: 2018 Democratic Republic of the Congo Ebola virus outbreak (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Ebola outbreak in the Democratic Republic of the Congo has spread from the countryside into a city, with atleast 23 people dead.
Alternative blurb: ​An Ebola outbreak in the Democratic Republic of the Congo kills at least 25 people.
News source(s): BBC

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

  • Comment article seems satisfactory, news item is notable, but would it not be better suited to Ongoing, or are we looking to make it a blurb which could then drop into Ongoing once it falls off the bottom if still relevant? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:08, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Reaaaaaally would like to see the proseline removed from this, but I do agree this is an appropriate ITN topic and well sourced. I'm indifferent to ongoing vs blurb, but suggest blurb for now and if we're still seeing major coverage when it drops off, move to a ongoing. --Masem (t) 13:51, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Wait. The article is decent, but is this really a major outbreak yet? Clearly Ebola attracts attention in the media, but I'm not convinced we would post a localised outbreak of (say) anthrax or Legionnaire's disease that killed ~20 people. If this spreads further then it might justify posting, probably to ongoing rather than a blurb, but we don't seem to be there yet. Hopefully it won't happen, but let's wait and see. Modest Genius talk 15:49, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. Has been in the news for days and now spread to an urban area. Afaik, this will be the first use of the ring vaccination strategy, which is going to be newsworthy even if it works and the virus is successfully contained. The article appears acceptable. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:26, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak support This was a top news story today on several major outlets, however the article is a bit on the brief side. Well referenced, at least. Like to see some more meat on the bones here, but it's passable. --Jayron32 18:39, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I changed "Congo" in the blurb to "the Democratic Republic of the Congo" so as to avoid confusion with the Republic of the Congo. People shouldn't have to click the link to find out which country the blurb is referring to. TompaDompa (talk) 20:24, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support as ongoing this will be a continuing story for some time. I've added an alt-blurb, neutral as to whether a blurb is necessary. The death toll numbers will likely continue to change; WaPo says 25 now. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:20, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • WHO (17 May) still states 23 deaths [14]; the press figures are often inaccurate (deaths can go down eg if a suspected case is shown not to be Ebola). I prefer a blurb mentioning the move to Mbandaka, because rural outbreaks occur relatively frequently but cases in urban areas are thankfully rare. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:44, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Note that Ebola has a mean incubation period of between one and two weeks. So, when it spreads into a big city you won't see the number of cases go up very rapidly in the first week, but after a week or so, you can expect to see a large number of new cases. Count Iblis (talk) 03:40, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment, per the BBC, "A [WHO] panel will decide on Friday whether to declare a "public health emergency of international concern", which would trigger a larger response." I suggest if this declaration is made, it's significant enough for Wikipedia to post. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:59, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
    • WaPost says that WHO is not yet declaring this a global health emergency (primarily as there's yet a means of this impacting other countries). --Masem (t) 14:42, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
      • Indeed, even the WHO wants to wait to see if this develops into a major outbreak. Modest Genius talk 15:03, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per Espresso Addict. -- Tavix (talk) 13:38, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per above. I'd prefer ongoing, but I'm not opposed to a blurb. Davey2116 (talk) 01:19, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted to Ongoing Vaccinations are apparently starting tomorrow. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:02, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

May 16Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

(Closed) RD: Gérard JouannestEdit

Stale. SpencerT•C 12:59, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: French pianist and composer of over 250 songs. A bit short but we don't have a length requirement, do we? Zigzig20s (talk) 11:29, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose not comprehensive. Just take a look at the French Wikipedia entry. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:06, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
The French article is vastly unreferenced.Zigzig20s (talk) 13:37, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
So what? I don't think we have a length requirement, do we?Zigzig20s (talk) 13:37, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose: It's a stub article - it may do to merge this article with the article with its French-language counterpart, which is far more filled out (though orange-tagged) than this. Challenger l (talk) 15:09, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

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

(Closed) RD: Miriam GriffinEdit

Stale. SpencerT•C 13:00, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Miriam T. Griffin (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Somerville College, Oxford

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: American historian. Fuebaey (talk) 15:40, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose unless it's because I got up too early, I can't see anywhere in the prose any mention of her death, the manner of it, and any reaction to it. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:09, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment. Not seeing any evidence this death is in the news. Espresso Addict (talk) 10:34, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

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) Anwar Ibrahim pardonedEdit

No consensus and somewhat stale. Stephen 23:28, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Articles: Anwar Ibrahim (talk, history) and Anwar Ibrahim sodomy trials (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Malaysian reformist politician Anwar Ibrahim is freed from prison after a royal pardon by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, Muhammad V of Kelantan.
News source(s): [15] [16] [17]

Both articles updated
Nominator's comments: I'm not sure about this one. He's the de facto leader of the Pakatan Harapan, the coalition that used to be the opposition but won the elections a week ago. We featured his conviction and imprisonment in the past. He's not the prime minister however, although there's apparently an agreement with the current prime minister to pass the reins to him in 1-2 years. The situation in Malaysia appears to be developing rapidly, with the former PM's home being raided by police recently. Ongoing might be more appropriate, although I don't know which article to have there. Banedon (talk) 02:58, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose individual is pardoned, happens all the time. Updates are absolutely trivial in nature and not worthy of main page exposure. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:57, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support major political figure, active at the head of Malaysian politics over the past two decades, is released as shown by the extensive background towards this event in the article(s). We have posted similar situations in the past, such as the pardon Peru's former president six months ago and the release of Ukraine's former prime minister in 2014. Fuebaey (talk) 13:55, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Head of state/government is objectively more notable than the head of a political party. ghost 14:19, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
FWIW, he was once deputy PM, and was prevented to become PM because of these sodomy cases. I dunno if pardons happen "all the time" (LOL), but a deputy prime minister (or equivalent) being pardoned doesn't happen all the time. –HTD 14:23, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
FWIW, ITN posted Queen Elizabeth's royal pardon of Alan Turing in 2013. –HTD 14:29, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
I respect that he's not a bum off the street, but the comparisons are not beneficial to your case. Turing is one of the most influential scientists in modern history, to say nothing of the civil rights aspect. We literally would not be having this conversation without him. ghost 17:27, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per nom, seems notable. The precedent pointed out by HTD helps as well; while Anwar Ibrahim won't leave a global legacy as strong as Turing's, from what I'm reading he's certainly an important figure in Malaysia. Davey2116 (talk) 16:03, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

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: Joseph CampanellaEdit

Article: Joseph Campanella (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Variety

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

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

May 15Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

(Closed) RD: Ray WilsonEdit

Stale. SpencerT•C 12:59, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Ray Wilson (English footballer) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): [18]

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Member of the English squad that won the '66 World Cup. Not quite ready, but pretty close. ghost 16:52, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose I was thinking of nominating this before I saw the article, but I don't think it is that close, sadly. The referencing is way short.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:45, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

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) Crimean bridge openedEdit

No consensus to post, and unlikely to achieve it by leaving this open any longer. –Ammarpad (talk) 13:46, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Crimean Bridge (Crimea) (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Crimean Bridge is opened, becoming the longest bridge in Europe
Alternative blurb: ​The longest bridge in Europe, the Crimean Bridge, is opened, linking Crimea with mainland Russia
Alternative blurb II: ​The Crimean Bridge opens linking Crimea with mainland Russia.
News source(s): [19]

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

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

(Posted) RD: Jlloyd SamuelEdit

Article: Jlloyd Samuel (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC

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

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

(Closed) Pakistan Ireland Test MatchEdit

There seems to be a blizzard around these parts. -A lainsane (Channel 2) 17:28, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

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

Bruce McArthurEdit

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

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

May 14Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

(Closed) RD: Doug FordEdit

Stale. SpencerT•C 12:58, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Member of the World Golf Hall of Fame. Two-time Major champion. Compy90 (talk) 18:11, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Info after bio such as awards and stats are unsourced and for someone with Ford's record and larger lead would be appropriate. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:06, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

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 WolfeEdit

Stale. SpencerT•C 12:58, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Tom Wolfe (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): NYT, WaPo, ABC

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Famed American author dies at 87. Some sourcing issues. Davey2116 (talk) 15:24, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Referencing is actually quite dreadful. Not bothering with CN tags. I'd be at it all day. This one is going to need some work before it can be posted. Orange tagging... -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:27, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

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) U.S. Supreme Court strikes down PASPAEdit

Not happening, and has degenerated. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:51, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The US Supreme Court rules the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act of 1992 unconstitutional, paving the way for legalized sports gambling in the U.S.
News source(s): Irish Times Daily Mail Mainichi

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

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

(Posted) RD: William VanceEdit

Article: William Vance (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): France info

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

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

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

(Posted) RD: Elaine EdwardsEdit

Article: Elaine Edwards (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Nola

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

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

  • Support Good work. Davey2116 (talk) 23:54, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support article seems adequate to post. --LukeSurl t c 09:08, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Why was she appointed to the senate by her husband? No election?Zigzig20s (talk) 09:09, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • @Zigzig20s: The incumbent (Allen J. Ellender) died in office as is mentioned in the article. It varies between states, but often it falls to the Governor to appoint a replacement (either until a special election, or to fill the entire remainder of the term) [21]. In Edwards' case, there was only a few weeks left in Ellender's term before the 1972 General Election so she served until then. --LukeSurl t c 09:17, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
That is strange. I would think the seat would remain vacant until the next election, or there would be a special election.Zigzig20s (talk) 09:19, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
I think this needs to be contextualized a bit more in the article.Zigzig20s (talk) 09:20, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment. There's lots of unreferenced material in the lead that isn't repeated in the body. There's a bit of a confusing hole formed by Edwin Edwards' political career being mentioned in the lead but not repeated in the body. Also out of the blue in the final section her ex-husband is convicted along with their son; this either needs expanding/contextualising or deleting altogether. Espresso Addict (talk) 11:05, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • @Espresso Addict: Issues noted and fixed. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 11:49, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
I've highlighted the comments not yet fixed. The conviction material is clearer but it's now far too much; you could just have the conviction? When were the offences committed (during or after the marriage)? Espresso Addict (talk) 12:15, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • @Espresso Addict: Fixed the underlined issues. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:17, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I've removed the section about Edwin Edwards' criminal convictions, as this is wholly about someone who is not the subject of the article. Tellingly this paragraph doesn't even mention Elaine Edwards and concerns events which occurred after their divorce. --LukeSurl t c 13:29, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - Just about adequate.BabbaQ (talk) 15:43, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 02:07, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) Catalan PresidentEdit

No consensus to post. Fuebaey (talk) 14:37, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

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

(Closed) RD: E. C. George SudarshanEdit

Stale. SpencerT•C 12:58, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Was nominated for the Nobel Prize in Physics on nine occasions; theorized that Tachyons move faster the light, which would prove one of Einstein's theories wrong. NorthernFalcon (talk) 18:46, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
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: Chuck KnoxEdit

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

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

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

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

(Closed) MH 370Edit

SNOW CLOSE good faith nomination but this is not going to be posted.-Ad Orientem (talk) 16:09, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Aviation experts conclude that Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 was deliberately crashed in 2014, by the captain in a murder-suicide.
News source(s): CBS, Independent

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

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

(Posted) May 14 clashesEdit

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

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

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

May 13Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sport

(Closed) RD: Glenn BrancaEdit

Stale. SpencerT•C 17:18, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Glenn Branca (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Article does not seem ready. Nominating only in hope that someone can source what Wikipedia has. SusanLesch (talk) 00:20, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Closed) RD: Margot KidderEdit

Stale. SpencerT•C 17:18, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Margot Kidder (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): NBC News

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

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

Kundal Shahi bridge collapseEdit

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

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

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

(Closed) RD: Steve HoganEdit

Stale. SpencerT•C 17:18, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Steve Hogan (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Denver Post

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

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

(Posted) RD: Donald Gary YoungEdit

Article: Donald Gary Young (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): MLN News Report

Article needs updating

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

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

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

(Posted) English Premier LeagueEdit

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

Article updated

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

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

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

(Posted) 2018 Surabaya churches bombingsEdit

Article: 2018 Surabaya churches bombings (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Suicide bombers attack three churches in Indonesia's second-largest city Surabaya, killing at least 13 people.
News source(s): BBC, DW, Straits Times

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

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

(Posted) RD: Tessa JowellEdit

Article: Tessa Jowell (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC

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

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

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

May 12Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

(Closed) RD: Dennis NilsenEdit

Stale. SpencerT•C 16:05, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Dennis Nilsen (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC

Article needs updating

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.
 The Rambling Man (talk) 20:53, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Article looks solid. Good riddance. EternalNomad (talk) 21:06, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Great swathes of unreferenced text, with many paragraphs lacking a single citation. Stephen 22:38, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Lots of unreferenced text. Black Kite (talk) 22:45, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - When fully referenced.BabbaQ (talk) 00:04, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Until fully referenced. Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:34, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose removing the erroneous Ready tag. There's a lot more refs than before, but the gaps are still massive. ghost 20:30, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

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

(Closed) Iraq electionsEdit

Partial results are not posted. Stephen 23:47, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Iraqi parliamentary election, 2018 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​With more than half of votes counted, a nationalist alliance between Shia Muslim cleric Moqtada Sadr and mostly secular groups is in the lead.
News source(s): BBC

Article needs updating
Nominator's comments: Polls to close in half hour. Results to come in hours, if not then within 48 hours. Will need to write a blurb then. Sherenk1 (talk) 14:32, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment "Sunni region" subsection has one ref, an excel spreadsheet. I can't read it, but it's probably a WP:PRIMARY source that fails OR. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:41, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - Updated blurb. Sherenk1 (talk) 04:57, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

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

(Posted) Eurovision 2018Edit

Article: Eurovision Song Contest 2018 (talk, history)
Blurb: Netta, representing Israel, wins the Eurovision Song Contest 2018 in Lisbon, Portugal, with the song "Toy".
News source(s): [24]

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.

 BabbaQ (talk) 13:44, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Support. It's a really notable event in Europe that is watched by hundreds of millions all over the world. It's too notable not to include, and we've been including this as a blurb since at least last year. --PootisHeavy (talk) 19:56, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
@PootisHeavy: Just FYI, as this is on the recurring events list, notability is not at issue. We only need to discuss the blurb and wait for a quality update. 331dot (talk) 20:45, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
  • It's ITN/R, and it isn't over. Why nominate it before we can't evaluate its update? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:02, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I reopened the closed discussion now it’s over. —LukeSurl t c 23:01, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment still a lot of blank tables and other editing going on. Hopefully it will stabilize in a few hours. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:53, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
    • Support the full tables of what countries awarded points aren't even necessary in my opinion (and should probably be hidden until complete), the rest looks good. The sourcing isn't entirely clear for the "12 points" section, but that's easy to fix. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:22, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Big event, watched by millions, good article.  Nixinova  T  C  03:59, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Clare DrakeEdit

Stale. SpencerT•C 16:05, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Articl