위키백과:뉴스/후보/2018년 9월

Wikipedia:

이 페이지는 보관소로서 그 내용은 현재 형태로 보존되어야 한다.
이 페이지에 대한 모든 코멘트는 위키백과 토크로 향해야 한다.뉴스에서.고마워요.

9월 30일

2018년 9월 30일 (2018-09-30) (일)
재해 및 사고
국제 관계
정치와 선거
스포츠

마케도니아 국민투표

다음의 논의는 종결되었다.수정하지 마십시오.이후 코멘트는 해당 토론 페이지에서 작성해야 한다.이 논의는 더 이상 수정해서는 안 된다.
--Tone 06:17, 2018년 10월 2일 (UTC)[응답]
기사: 마케도니아 국민투표, 2018년 (토크 · 역사 · 태그)
흐림: 마케도니아인들은 국가의 이름 변경을 승인하지만 투표율은 50%를 밑돌고 있다.(우편)
대체 블럽: 마케도니아 이름변경 국민투표는 투표자 과반수의 찬성이 있었음에도 불구하고 낮은 투표율로 인해 실패한다.
뉴스 출처: 애그리게이터: bing
크레딧:

아티클 업데이트 필요
◆인터뷰> 후보로 지명되지 않은 것이 놀랍다.결과에 상관없이 상당히 클 예정이었고, 압도적으로 문턱을 넘었지만 결과적으로 법적 구속력은 없다.나는 우리가 미얀마와 부룬디(또는 말라위, 어떤 것을 잊어버려)에 국기 변화를 올렸다고 믿으며, 그래서 이것은 아마도 더 중요한 것일 것이다.그것은 확실히 뉴스에서 더 많다.
다른 이타블러들도 더 잘 먹힐거야리하스 (대화) 08:52, 2018년 10월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 잠깐만, 아직 의회의 2/3 의결을 받아야 해.이렇게 되면 아마 그때 게시해야 할 것 같다.블랙 카이트 (토크) 09:36, 2018년 10월 1일 리하스 (토크) 10:01, 2018년 10월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 나는 실제 "최종" 결정이 내려질 때까지 기다리는 것이 최선이라고 생각한다.나는 마케도니아가 현재의 이름을 계속 고수한다면 어떤 것도 올릴 수 있는 완벽한 시기를 찾기가 어려울 수 있다는 것을 인정하지만, 나는 이 국민투표는 기술적으로 이 과정의 디딤돌일 뿐이고 더 많은 "최종" 결정 순간이 있을 것이라고 생각한다.~Maplestrip/Mable (대화) 09:48, 2018년 10월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
지금 명칭변경을 향한 논란이 애원하고 있다.
내가 살아 있는 한 마케도니아의 이름과 관련하여 약간의 논란이 있을 것이다.~Maplestrip/Mable (대화) 12:44, 2018년 10월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 코멘트 투표율이 낮다는 것은 투표가 유효하지 않다는 것을 의미하기 때문에 흐릿함은 현실을 설명하지 못한다. (결과에 대한 더 나은 설명을 위해 대안을 보라.중요한 것은 국민투표는 구속력이 없으며 정부는 3분의 2의 찬성을 바라고 이 문제를 의회에 제출하는 결과를 피할 수도 있다는 점이다.조란 자에프 총리가 결과가 나온 직후 이미 언급한 다른 가능성은 조기 총선을 통해 연립여당이 국민투표 결과를 반영해 의회 의원 수를 필요한 문턱 이상으로 늘리는 것이다.앞으로 일이 더 복잡해지고 국민투표 결과가 전체 이슈의 결론에 근접할 수 없을 것이라는 기대감이다.--기릴 시메오노프스키(토크) 12:04, 2018년 10월 1일(UTC)[응답]
  • 반대 - 50%의 투표율 없이는 이야기가 없다.Mjroot (대화) 12:34, 2018년 10월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 반대 - Mjroots에 따르면.엄청나게 낮은 36.91%의 투표율에 절반의 이야기가 있다.하지만 메인 페이지로는 부족하다고 생각한다.마르티네반스123 (대화) 13:22, 2018년 10월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 이쯤에서 반대하라.명칭 변경에 대한 최종 결정이 있으면 그 시점에 게시해야 한다.만약 하지 않기로 최종 결정이 난다면, 그것은 (최종적인 방법에 따라) 게시할 가치가 있을 수도 있지만, 그 중 어느 것이든, 지금은 ITN 포스팅을 할 때가 아니다.Thryduulf (대화) 13:42, 2018년 10월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
  • Response Low 턴아웃 반대는 이것이 최종이 아니라는 것을 의미한다.--Pawnking3 (대화) 17:52, 2018년 10월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 기다려봐. 우리가 뉴스에서 언급하기 전에 문제가 실제로 해결될 때까지 기다려야 해.-수스무핀 06:12, 2018년 10월 2일 (UTC)[응답]
위의 논의는 종결되었다.수정하지 마십시오.이후 코멘트는 해당 토론 페이지에서 작성해야 한다.이 논의는 더 이상 수정해서는 안 된다.

(포스팅) 2018 라이더컵

기사: 2018 라이더컵(토크 · 히스토리 · 태그)
흐림: 골프에서는 유럽이 라이더컵에서 우승한다.(우편)
대체 블럽: 골프에서 라이더컵은 유럽이 미국을 꺾으면서 막을 내린다.
대체 블러브 II: 골프에서 라이더컵은 유럽이 미국을 격파하면서 막을 내린다.[1]
뉴스 출처: BBC 스포츠
크레딧:

기사 업데이트됨
지명된 이벤트는 WP에 열거되어 있다.ITN/R, 따라서 각각의 발생은 게시할 수 있을 만큼 충분히 중요한 것으로 추정된다.논평은 기사와 업데이트의 품질이 WP를 충족하는지 여부에 초점을 맞추어야 한다.중요성이 아니라 ITNCRIT.

명명자의 의견:토너먼트 산문 요약이 필요하다.푸에베이 (대화) 15:05, 2018년 9월 30일 (UTC)[응답]

  • 이것은 나를 놀라게 했고, 아직 경기가 진행 중이지만 유럽은 미국을 완전히 파괴했다.만약 다음 몇 시간 동안 아무것도 하지 않는다면(마지막 경기가 모두 끝나면) 당일 여행을 마치면 몇 가지 업데이트를 해보겠다.ER-O-PE! ER-O-PE! Get in the Hole! 등The Rambling Man (talk) 15:13, 2018년 9월 30일 (UTC)[응답]
  • ENGVAR 문제를 해결하는 Altblurb의 코멘트가 추가되었다.블랙 카이트 (토크) 16:45, 2018년 9월 30일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 놀라운 결과 및 놀라운 업데이트를 지원하십시오.구멍에 들어가!더 램블링맨 (토크) 2018년 9월 30일 (UTC) 19:14 [응답]
  • 지원 완전 업데이트, 준비 완료.블랙 카이트 (토크) 2018년 9월 30일 19:27 (UTC)[응답]
  • 고품질 물품을 지원한다.폰킹3 (대화)20:23, 2018년 9월 30일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 지원 - 준비 완료.폭풍우 구름 (토크) 21:05, 2018년 9월 30일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 참조되지 않은 문구와 함께 비참조 문구에 반대한다.그 외에도, 그것은 기본적으로 읽을 수 있는 산문을 두 배로 하는 표들을 모아놓은 것이다.이게 어떻게 '고품질의 기사'가 되는지 모르겠다. –암마르패드(토크) 21:11, 2018년 9월 30일 (UTC)[응답]
    전혀, 꼬리표도 없고, 모든 문제가 해결되었고, 산문이 모든 라운드를 커버하고, 건배!EU-RO-PE!더 램블링맨 (토크) 21:15, 2018년 9월 30일 (UTC)[응답]
    말도 안 되는 소리 – 산문은 충분히 많다.보통 ITN에서 지명되는 테니스 경기용 테이블 컬렉션을 보지 못했을 것이다.이것은 신선한 변화다.폰킹3 (대화) 21:55, 2018년 9월 30일 (UTC)[응답]
    모욕을 줘서 고마워.–Ammarpad (대화) 08:33, 2018년 10월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 우리는 타블로이드 신문이 아닌 백과사전이기 때문에 첫 번째 알트 블러브를 올렸다.Thryduulf (대화) 21:24, 2018년 9월 30일 (UTC)[응답하라]
    실제로 두 번째 알트블러브는 로봇이 아닌 공동체인 만큼 실제적인 농담이었다.우리 중 몇몇은...The Rambling Man (talk) 21:56, 2018년 9월 30일 (UTC)[응답]
    토요일 AFL 그랜드 파이널(아래 지명) 전에 이것을 게재하는 것은 사악한 제국주의 북반구 전신 바이서스(North Community Biasures)이기 때문에 나의 센서들이 아직 이것을 즉시 철수해야 한다고 외치지 않았다는 것을 감지하지 못한 것에 대해 망연자실하고 있다.ITN 로봇 Tlhslobus (토크) 00:27, 2018년 10월 1일 (UTC)에 회신할 경우, TRM을 지역 사회 구성원에 대한 불필요한 종차별적 비협조행위에 대해 최고책임자(Supreme Cabal) 앞에 인도해야 한다고 소리질렀다.

(폐쇄) 캘리포니아 인터넷 소비자 보호 및 망 중립성 법 2018

다음의 논의는 종결되었다.수정하지 마십시오.이후 코멘트는 해당 토론 페이지에서 작성해야 한다.이 논의는 더 이상 수정해서는 안 된다.
기사: 캘리포니아 인터넷 소비자 보호 및 망 중립성 법 2018 (대화 · 역사 · 태그)
흐림: 캘리포니아는 2018년 캘리포니아 인터넷 소비자 보호 및 망 중립성 법(California Internet Consumer Protection and Net Neutity Act of 2018)으로 망 중립성을 법으로 제정했다.(우편)
뉴스 출처: 기즈모도
크레딧:
매케이(대화) 03:57, 2018년 10월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 강한 반대 1) 국가 수준도 아닌 주 차원 (예) 법무부는 이미 이 법안에 대해 CA를 고소할 것이라고 발표했으며, 3) 정말 중요한 것은 이 사건이 결국 SCOSTUS로 귀결되어 미국의 광대역통신이 망 중립성 싸움에 종지부를 찍기 위해 어떻게 취급되어야 하는지를 결정할 가능성이 높다는 것이다.이것은 너무 작고 시기상조다. --Masem (t) 05:22, 2018년 10월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 반대 여기서 어떤 관점이 필요하다.나는 우리가 세계 어느 다른 나라의 국가를 위한 망 중립성에 관한 국가 기반의 법률에 관한 항목을 게시할 수 있을지 의심스럽다. 그래서 나는 이것이 단지 미국과 관련이 있다고 해서 이것이 왜 달라져야 하는지 모르겠다. Chrisclier (대화) 06:28, 2018년 10월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 반대 – 사실, 나는 우리가 대부분의 나라에 이런 종류의 결정을 게시할 수 있을지 의심스럽다.그것은 나에게 더 큰 미국 망 중립성 이야기의 디딤돌처럼 보이며, 나는 그러한 것들을 너무 많이 게시하는 것을 피하고 싶다.~Maplestrip/Mable (대화) 09:52, 2018년 10월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 반대 - 주목할 것은 그것이 불가피한 스코투스 결정을 이긴다면, 그렇지 않을 것이다. 왜냐하면 그것은 캘리포니아인데다 4명의 보수파 대법관들이 벤치에 있기 때문이다.--WaltCip (대화) 10:51, 2018년 10월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
위의 논의는 종결되었다.수정하지 마십시오.이후 코멘트는 해당 토론 페이지에서 작성해야 한다.이 논의는 더 이상 수정해서는 안 된다.

9월 29일

2018년 9월 29일 (2018-09-29) (토)
재해 및 사고
법과 범죄
정치와 선거

(포스팅) 2018 AFL 그랜드 파이널

Proposed image
기사:2018 AFL 그랜드 파이널(토크 · 히스토리 · 태그)
블러브:호주 규정 축구에서 웨스트 코스트 이글스는 콜링우드를 꺾고 AFL 그랜드 파이널(노먼 스미스 메달리스트)에서 우승했다.루크 슈이가 그린 그림이다.) (우편)
뉴스 출처:ABC, 가디언, SMH
크레딧:

지명된 이벤트는 WP에 열거되어 있다.ITN/R, 따라서 각각의 발생은 게시할 수 있을 만큼 충분히 중요한 것으로 추정된다.논평은 기사와 업데이트의 품질이 WP를 충족하는지 여부에 초점을 맞추어야 한다.중요성이 아니라 ITNCRIT.

명명자의 의견:자원의 절실한 필요.그렇지 않으면 산문이 꽤 많다.푸에베이 (대화) 15:28, 2018년 9월 30일 (UTC)[응답]

예를 들면?HiLo48 (대화) 11:06, 2018년 10월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
훨씬 더 좋다 - 내 생각에 "백그라운드"의 마지막 두 단락과 "미디어 커버리지" 섹션이 소싱되었다(또는 솔직히 삭제되었다면 누가 상관하겠는가)면, 이것은 바로 갈 준비가 되었을 것이다.블랙 카이트 (토크) 11시 19분, 2018년 10월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
나도 동의해.저들이 사라졌어!지금 나를 괴롭히는 것은 인포박스의 방대한 해설자 명단뿐이다.다시 말하지만, 누가 상관하겠어?나는 단지 지난 몇 년간의 기사들을 보았다.그 리스트는 거기에 있었지만, 두 경우 모두 도움이 되지 않았다.어떻게 생각해?삭제하시겠습니까?HiLo48 (대화) 22:08, 2018년 10월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 준비됐어? 어쨌든 그건 내 생각이야.그 기사는 이제 전년도에 비해 훨씬 잘 소싱되었다.그게 왜?HiLo48 (대화) 22:10, 2018년 10월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 이제 지원 문서는 완전히 참조된다.호크예7 (토론) 03:02, 2018년 10월 2일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 위의 에코 호크이를 지지하십시오.이것은 어떤 타당한 이유로 포스팅이 무시되고 있는 것인가?그 기사의 품질에 반대하는 사람이 있은 지 거의 24시간이나 됐는데, AND는 그 문제가 무엇이었는지 설명하지 않았다!
  • 반대 현재 공지로, 긴 경기 요약의 Every 문장은 #15 & 16 (ABC 및 AFL ref)에 공동으로 인용되어 있어, 검증이 확실히 어렵다.이것은 인용문이 맹목적으로 첨가된 붉은 깃발이라는 생각이 든다.나는 몇 개의 진술서를 확인했고 그것이 뒷받침되지 않는다는 것을 발견했다.여기서 다 구문 분석하지는 않겠지만, 예를 들어 ABC 소식통이 여승희의 21일 촬영에 대해 언급하고 있지만 선행행동은 언급하고 있지 않다.귀신 13:37, 2018년 10월 2일 (UTC)[응답하라]
  • 코멘트 나는 각 분기의 요약에 대한 점수 추이표 참조에 대한 고정 URL을 가지고 있다.제니오즈(토크) 15:00, 2018년 10월 2일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 게시됨. 나는 이의 제기가 앞으로 나아가는 것을 막을 만큼 충분하다고 생각하지 않는다. 우리는 그들이 많은 출처를 다룰 때 성냥 요약의 모든 문장에 대해 특정한 출처가 필요하지 않다.블랙 카이트 (토크) 15:12, 2018년 10월 2일 (UTC)[응답]

(폐쇄) RD: 바나바스 시부시소 딜라미니

다음의 논의는 종결되었다.수정하지 마십시오.이후 코멘트는 해당 토론 페이지에서 작성해야 한다.이 논의는 더 이상 수정해서는 안 된다.
기사: 바르나바스 시부시소 딜라미니(토크 · 역사 · 태그)
최근 사망자 지명(우편)
뉴스 출처: 펄스 나이지리아
크레딧:

위키백과 기사와 함께 어떤 사람이나 동물 또는 유기체의 최근 죽음은 항상 게시할 수 있을 만큼 충분히 중요한 것으로 추정된다(이 RFC와 추가 토론 참조).논평은 기사의 질이 WP를 충족하는지 여부에 초점을 맞추어야 한다.ITNRD.
노미네이터의 발언=이달 초 물러난 에스와티니(일명 스와질란드)의 PM.좀 더 확장해야 할지도 모르지만, 거기 있는 건 좋아보여.이터널노마드 (토크) 22:24, 2018년 9월 29일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 설명:기사는 받아들일 만해 보이지만 사망 날짜는 기사 본문에 언급하고 참조할 필요가 있다 - 두멜로우 (대화) 22:45, 2018년 9월 29일 (UTC)[응답]
9월 28일의 사망일을 지지한다는 기사에서 인용한 출처가 보이지 않는다고? - 더멜로 (대화) 20:18, 2018년 9월 30일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 가장 약한 사람들은 서투른 기사를 지지하지만 거의 괜찮다.더 램블링맨 (토크)20:09, 2018년 9월 30일 (UTC)[응답]
    아, 좋은 지적이야, 정말 뉴스에 나온 거야?더 램블링맨 (토크) 20:27, 2018년 9월 30일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 지지 - 거의 괜찮다.하지만 포함시키기에 충분하다.게시 준비 완료.BabbaQ (대화) 08:56, 2018년 10월 2일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 서포트는 괜찮아 보인다.--Pawnking3 (대화) 19:21, 2018년 10월 2일 (UTC)[응답]
위의 논의는 종결되었다.수정하지 마십시오.이후 코멘트는 해당 토론 페이지에서 작성해야 한다.이 논의는 더 이상 수정해서는 안 된다.

(포스팅) RD: 오티스 러쉬

기사: 오티스 러시(토크 · 히스토리 · 태그)
최근 사망자 지명(우편)
뉴스 출처: otisrush.net
크레딧:

기사 업데이트됨
위키백과 기사와 함께 어떤 사람이나 동물 또는 유기체의 최근 죽음은 항상 게시할 수 있을 만큼 충분히 중요한 것으로 추정된다(이 RFC와 추가 토론 참조).논평은 기사의 질이 WP를 충족하는지 여부에 초점을 맞추어야 한다.ITNRD.

명명자의 의견:독특한 기타 스타일을 가진 미국의 블루스 기타리스트와 가수.마르티네반스123 (대화)20:56, 2018년 9월 29일 (UTC)[응답]

  • 약한 반대는 무자비하게 태그가 붙은 것 같지만 디스코그에 인라인 레프가 없는 몇 안 되는 아이템만 눈에 들어왔다.더 램블링맨 (토크)20:58, 2018년 9월 29일 (UTC)[응답]
    약한 지지는 충분히 좋다.더 램블링맨 (토크)20:10, 2018년 9월 30일 (UTC)[응답]
    정확히 무엇이 부족한가?"주요 페이지를 타라!!"를 추가해야 할 것 같아.마르티네반스123 (대화) 20:16, 2018년 9월 30일 (UTC)[응답]
    그것을 추가할 필요는 없다(사실 그렇게 하지 마십시오), 기사가 충분한 품질을 가지고 있는지 관리자가 확인할 때까지 기다리면 된다.Thryduulf (대화) 21:36, 2018년 9월 30일 (UTC)[응답하라]
    고마워. 난 어떤 문제도 원하지 않아.마르티네반스123 (토크) 21:59, 2018년 9월 30일 (UTC)[답글]
    주말에 이런 일을 하는 행정관은 거의 없다.12시간 이상 기다릴 수 있다.증명된 바와 같이.추신: "GET ON THE MINE PAGE"는 특정 골프 서포터들에게 재미있거나 매력적이라고 여겨지는 "GET IN THE HOL"을 외치려는 양키들의 강박관념을 익살스럽게 파헤친 것이다.아이러니컬한 치어리딩 매커니즘으로 사용돼 좋은 기사를 올려 관심을 끌었는데, 그렇게 됐다.난 분명히 관리자들이 이 근처에서 주의를 기울이도록 하는 혁신적인 방법을 옹호한다. 특히 이 특별한 아이템이 어젯밤 자정 무렵에 가기에 좋았기 때문에...!The Rambling Man (talk) 22:08, 2018년 9월 30일 (UTC)[응답]
    가엾은 짐과 그의 아들들, 그들은 모두 내일 매우 슬플 것이다.마르티네반스123 (토크) 22:16, 2018년 9월 30일 (UTC)[답글]
    지금은 망연자실할 수 없을 것 같아, 내일 잊어버려.아마도 수십 년간 최고의 미국 팀일 것이다.벨기에 사람들이 온다!!스웨덴 사람들!!더 램블링맨 (토크) 22:23, 2018년 9월 30일 (UTC)[응답]
    "하하하, 그리고 벨기에 사람들 좀 봐." -- 5월 선거 123 (대화) 22:30 (UTC) 9월 30일 (UTC)[답글]
    @The Rambling Man: 골프를 보지 않는 사람으로서, 그 언급은 나를 완전히 스쳐 지나갔다. (왜 프로 골퍼들에게 골프의 전체 포인트인 것을 확실히 하라고 말하는 것이 필요한가?)Thryduulf (대화) 00:08, 2018년 10월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
    실제로 아이들과 축구(협회)를 보는 것, "SCORE A COLLE!" 등을 보는 것과 같다.아마도 동등한 정신적 능력과 관련이 있을 것이다...더 램블링맨 (토크) 06:28, 2018년 10월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 서포트 기사는 멋진 빛을 발했다.게시하기 좋은 것 같아.Teemu08 (대화) 01:28, 2018년 9월 30일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 지지하다.디스크그래피를 포함한 잘 참조된 기사.자본가 로드스터 (토크) 02:39, 2018년 9월 30일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 지원, 이 기사를 마무리 짓기 위해 몇 가지 좋은 작업이 이루어졌다 - 두멜로 (토크) 21:09, 2018년 9월 30일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 게시. Thryduulf (talk) 21:36, 2018년 9월 30일 (UTC)[응답]

(그림 없이) 진행 중: 브렛 캐버노 대법원장 지명

다음의 논의는 종결되었다.수정하지 마십시오.이후 코멘트는 해당 토론 페이지에서 작성해야 한다.이 논의는 더 이상 수정해서는 안 된다.
기사: 브렛 캐버노 대법원장 지명(토크 · 역사 · 태그)
(우편)
크레딧:
명명자의 의견:이 기사는 이전에도 흐릿하다는 이유로 몇 차례 지명된 적이 있지만, 이야기가 천천히 진행되기 때문에 모두 거절당했다.그러나, 마지막 명목에서는, 진행 중인 직책에 대한 지지의 표시도 있었다.단스키454 (대화) 07:56, 2018년 9월 29일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 그것이 미디어 서커스라는 것에 반대하지만 백과사전의 메인 페이지에는 확실히 "옹구"한 이야기가 아니다.The Rambling Man (talk) 07:58, 2018년 9월 29일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 최근 진행 중인 nom --Danski454 (대화) 08:01, 2018년 9월 29일 (UTC)[응답]을 확인하지 못함
위의 논의는 종결되었다.수정하지 마십시오.이후 코멘트는 해당 토론 페이지에서 작성해야 한다.이 논의는 더 이상 수정해서는 안 된다.

9월 28일

2018년 9월 28일(2018-09-28) (금)
무력 충돌 및 공격
법과 범죄
비즈니스 및 경제
재해 및 사고
정치와와와거거거거
과학기술

(Stale) RD: 밥 제인

기사: 밥 제인(토크 · 역사 · 태그)
최근 사망자 지명(우편)
뉴스 출처: [2]
크레딧:

기사 업데이트됨
위키백과 기사와 함께 어떤 사람이나 동물 또는 유기체의 최근 죽음은 항상 게시할 수 있을 만큼 충분히 중요한 것으로 추정된다(이 RFC와 추가 토론 참조).논평은 기사의 질이 WP를 충족하는지 여부에 초점을 맞추어야 한다.ITNRD.

명명자의 의견:아주 잘 알려진 호주 경주용 자동차 운전사와 저명한 사업가.자동차 경주에는 관심이 없는 호주인들조차 그의 타이어 대리점 국가 네트워크인 밥 제인 T-Marts를 통해 그를 알고 있다.HiLo48 (대화) 03:54, 2018년 9월 29일 (UTC)[응답]

  • 반대. 현재 매우 드물게 언급되고 있다.자본가 로드스터 (토크) 04:07, 2018년 9월 29일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 불행히도, 언급하는 것에 반대한다. 특히 그 길이의 기사에는 언급이 끔찍하다.오렌지색 태그.스펜굴리 (대화) 06:04, 2018년 9월 29일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 우리가 메인 페이지에 특집기사를 싣는 것은 고사하고 BLP를 위한 충분한 반대도 반대한다.더 램블링맨 (토크) 06:40, 2018년 9월 29일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 심각한 참고자료 부족에 반대한다.르프리카바크 (대화) 14:04, 2018년 9월 29일 (UTC)[응답]
  • "tire"라는 지독한 철자를 반대하며, "Australian motorport에 대한 기부"는 결코 일어나지 않을 수 있다.불가침헐크(토크) 19:40, 2018년 9월 30일 (UTC)[응답]
"타이어"의 철자가 잘못 표기된 유일한 장소는 기사 하단의 카테고리 이름이다.HiLo48 (대화) 22:15, 2018년 9월 30일 (UTC)[응답]
그래도 언급이 서툴러서 귀찮게 들리네 (geddit?)!더 램블링맨 (토크) 22:24, 2018년 9월 30일 (UTC)[응답]
그것은 내 철자 검사자가 그 논평에서 반대한다는 형용사야.비록 나는 동의하지만.슬프게도, 비록 내가 이것을 지명했지만, 제인은 거의 모든 호주사람들에게 확실히 알려져 있기 때문에, 나는 언급하는 것을 쫓아갈 적임자가 아니다.내가 지명했을 때보다 지금 더 많은 것이 있다.HiLo48 (대화) 23:42, 2018년 9월 30일 (UTC)[응답]
영국식 영어라도 하이픈이 있어야 한다.긍정적인 측면에서는, 더 많은 비호주인들이 제인에 대한 호주의 인식을 인식하고 있다.만약 이것이 도움이 된다면, 캐나다 타이어의 설립자 알프레드 J. 빌즈와 J. 윌리엄 빌즈의 기사들이 훨씬 더 형편없고 더 깊은 무명에 처해 있다는 것을 알아라.불가침헐크 (토크) 16:34, 2018년 10월 2일 (UTC)[응답]

(포스팅)아시아컵

기사: 2018 아시안컵 결승전(토크 · 히스토리 · 태그)
흐림: 크리켓에서, 인도는 결승전에서 방글라데시를 누르고 7번째 아시안컵 우승을 차지했다.(우편)
대체 블럽: 크리켓에서 인도는 결승전에서 방글라데시를 꺾고 아시안컵 우승을 성공적으로 지켜냈다.
대위적 블러브 II: 크리켓에서는 인도가 결승전에서 방글라데시를 꺾는 것으로 아시안컵이 마무리된다.
뉴스 출처: BC 스포츠
크레딧:

폴록의 (대화) 09:41, 2018년 9월 29일 (UTC)[응답]

  • 코멘트 나는 이번 지명에서 스포츠의 이름을 어딘가에 붙이는 것을 강력히 언급할 것이고, 그리고 어떤 흐림이라도 선택될 것이다.그래, 독자들이 기사를 볼 수 있다는 건 알지만, 왜 그렇게 어렵게 만드는 거지?HiLo48 (대화) 10:15, 2018년 9월 29일 (UTC)[응답]
    아마 그냥 덧붙이기가 더 쉬웠을 거야.더 램블링맨 (토크) 2018년 9월 29일 (UTC) 11시 20분 (응답)
  • 그 글은 상태가 양호하고 산문이 꽤 많다.ITN과 관련하여 크리켓 종목에서 아시안컵에 대해 어떻게 생각하는지 잘 모르십니까? --Tone 11:27, 2018년 9월 29일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 반대는 6개 팀으로 구성된 경기인데, 따라서 국제적인 의미가 없거나 일반 관중들에게 큰 관심을 보이지 않는다.요셉2302 (토크) 11:41, 2018년 9월 29일 (UTC)[응답]
"국제적인 의미도 없고 일반 대중에게 엄청난 관심도 없다"는 것이 현재 게시된 모든 것을 포함하여 ITN에 게시하는 대부분의 이야기를 묘사하는 것으로 보이며, 이 특별한 이야기는 현재 게시된 이야기보다 더 "국제적인 의미"와 "일반 대중에게 흥미"가 있는 것 같다(따라서 이것은 필요 없다).충분한 게시 이유).Tlhslobus (대화) 13:57, 2018년 9월 29일 (UTC)[응답]
아니, 명백히 아시아 아대륙(대중. 17억 5천만 명)의 대부분을 커버하는 대회는 국제적인 의미를 갖지 않는다.블랙 카이트 (토크) 14:08, 2018년 9월 29일 (UTC)[응답]
그리고 식스 네이션스 챔피언십과 럭비 챔피언십도 관심이나 국제적인 의미는 없다. (보트 레이스, 누가 여왕의 브리티시 제도의 대영제국의 작은 지류에 카누를 띄우기 전에...)더 램블링맨 (토크) 2018년 9월 29일 (UTC) 17:02 (응답)
월드컵 10개 팀 중 5개 팀이 토너먼트에 참가했기 때문에 이것은 미니 월드컵과 같았다. 1.39.172.3 (토크) 09:20, 2018년 9월 30일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 내가 위키링크를 추가하고 철자법과 구문에 수정을 가했지만, '인도가 이긴다' 혹은 '인도가 이긴다'라고 말하는 것이 가장 좋은 것인지 아니면 둘 중 하나가 할 것인지 아는 사람이 있는가?Tlhslobus (대화) 13:49, 2018년 9월 29일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 지원(ENGVAR의 경우 alt2가 추가됨).이것은 ITNR은 아니지만, 스포츠 경기에서는 유별나게 대회와 최종 기사 모두 상태가 양호하며, 이는 그 나라들의 뉴스에서 매우 많이 보도되고 있다. (이를 직시해 보자면, 17억 5천만 명의 인구를 보유하고 있다.숫자로 어려움을 겪는 사람들의 경우 미국 인구의 약 5배에 달한다.블랙 카이트 (토크) 14:06, 2018년 9월 29일 (UTC)[응답]
(그리고, 우연하게도, 그것은 또한 영국과 같이 참여하지 않은 나라들에서도 뉴스에 보도되고 있다.)Tlhslobus (대화) 2018년 9월 29일 14:15 (UTC)[응답]
  • 질문2 현재와 같이 아시아컵 대신 2018 아시아컵으로 위키링크를 해야 하는가?Tlhslobus (대화) 2018년 9월 29일 14:10 (UTC)[응답]
  • 블랙 카이트당 지원.Tlhslobus (대화) 2018년 9월 29일 14:12 (UTC)[응답]
  • 서포트 아시아 컵은 크리켓에서 가장 주목할 만한 이벤트 중 하나이다.게다가, 그것은 전세계로부터 언론의 보도를 받고 있다.나는 ITNR에 없다고 해서 우리가 그것의 포스팅을 반대해서는 안 된다고 생각한다.아미르 (대화) 2018년 9월 29일 14:31 (UTC)[응답]
  • 게시물. --Tone 16:40, 2018년 9월 29일 (UTC)[응답]

(폐쇄) (포기) 2018 술라웨시 지진

다음의 논의는 종결되었다.수정하지 마십시오.이후 코멘트는 해당 토론 페이지에서 작성해야 한다.이 논의는 더 이상 수정해서는 안 된다.
기사:2018 술라웨시 지진(토크 · 역사 · 태그)
흐림:인도네시아 술라웨시에서 규모 7.5의 지진이 발생해 최소 48명이 숨지고 350여명이 다쳤다.(우편)
대체 블럽:인도네시아 술라웨시시에서 규모 7.5의 지진이 발생해 팔루에서 쓰나미가 발생해 최소 48명이 숨지고 350여명이 다쳤다.
대위적 블러브 II:인도네시아 술라웨시 지역을 강타한 지진과 쓰나미로 최소 48명이 숨지고 350여 명이 다쳤다.
대위 체블러 III:인도네시아 술라웨시에서 규모 7.5의 쓰나미를 동반한 지진이 잇따라 발생해 최소 48명이 숨지고 350여명이 다쳤다.
뉴스 출처:USA 투데이, BBC
크레딧:
마셈 (t) 13:51, 2018년 9월 28일 (UTC)[응답]
  • (충돌 편집 × 2)지원.우리나라에서도 확실히 뉴스에 나오고 있고, 주요 국제 뉴스 매체들이 이 내용을 취재하기 시작했다.쓰나미 경보도 내려져 있어.— 선행 서명되지 않은 논평(대화 • 기여)
    • 쓰나미 경보에 대한 엇갈린 보도를 본 적이 있는데, 어떤 사람들은 지진이 발생한 곳에서는 발생이 불가능하다고 말한다.자세한 내용이 나올 때까지 이 점에 유의해야 한다. --Masem (t) 14:24, 2018년 9월 28일 (UTC)[응답]
      • 사실, 쓰나미는 BBC(그리고 내가 친구에게서 얻은 비디오는 왓츠앱이었다.—안가(구 안가1061) 14:34, 2018년 9월 28일 (UTC)[응답]
        • 그래, 지금 보고에서 확실히 확인하고 있어.거기에 대해 애트블러브(t) --Masem (t) 14:44, 2018년 9월 28일 (UTC)[응답]
          • 그들이 피해를 입힌 최소한 3개의 주요 지진 > 6.0을 결정했다는 것을 반영하기 위해 두 번째 알트를 추가했다. 따라서 우리는 언제 어디서 이러한 사망/재해가 발생했는지 확인하는 것에 대해 걱정할 필요가 없다.최근 뉴스는 사망자 수가 잠재적으로 더 많은 것 같지만 아직 믿을 만한 숫자를 찾지 못했다. --마샘 (t) 18:13, 2018년 9월 28일 (UTC)[응답]
            • 이와 같은 이벤트의 "신뢰할 수 있는 숫자"는 몇 주 또는 몇 달이 걸릴 수 있다.그것이 큰 재난의 본성이다.HiLo48 (대화) 03:41, 2018년 9월 29일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 잠정적 지원 – Palu에서 확인된 주요 쓰나미; 재난의 초기 단계에는 별로 관심을 기울일 것이 없지만, ITN과 불가피하게 게시될 수 있는 이벤트의 유형은 확실하다.~ 사이클론비스키트 (챗) 14:36, 2018년 9월 28일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 반대 - 아직 조항이 준비되지 않음.셰렌크1 (대화) 15:40, 2018년 9월 28일 (UTC)[응답]
    • 글쎄, 오늘 오후에 지진이 발생했으니까, 지금으로서는, 당신은 그것이 준비될 것이라고 기대할 수 없어, 앞으로의 업데이트와 모든 것을 말이야.—안가(구 안가1061) 17:08, 2018년 9월 28일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 지지. - 큰 홀린 사람들.초창기지만 포스팅이 적절한 것 같다.BabbaQ (토크) 17:18, 2018년 9월 28일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 지원, 국제적으로 널리 보고되고 있는 중대한 지진.기사는 괜찮아 보인다. -- 타빅스 17:36, 2018년 9월 28일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 타빅스당 지원.Thryduulf (대화) 18:07, 2018년 9월 28일 (UTC)[응답하라]
  • 지원 이 정도의 지진이 거의 모든 사람이 거주하는 곳을 강타하는 것은 ITN에 충분히 주목할 만 하다.이터널노마드(토크) 19:23, 2018년 9월 28일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 지원군이 준비가 된 것 같군분명히 눈에 띄었다.Davey2116 (대화) 21:54, 2018년 9월 28일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 주요 뉴스를 지원하십시오.사실이 명확해짐에 따라 기사는 바뀔 것이지만, 그것이 게시하지 않을 이유는 아니다.HiLo48 (대화) 22:28, 2018년 9월 28일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 왜 그것이 뉴스 가치가 있는지에 대해 상세히 말하는 것은 단지 당연한 것을 말하는 것일 뿐이다.브렌던 더 마법사 ✉ 02 02:03, 2018년 9월 29일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 분명한 이유에 대한 지원.또한 사망자 수가 30명[3명]으로 증가하여, 더 늘어날 것으로 예상된다.Juxlos (대화) 03:58, 2018년 9월 29일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 쓰나미가 주목할 만한 가치가 있기 때문에 Blurb 2나 3 중 하나를 지지하십시오.자본가 로드스터 (토크) 04:20, 2018년 9월 29일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 쓰나미 정보 포함에 대한 지원 대부분의 경우 쓰나미는 언급되지 않아야 하며(또는 오히려 전략적으로 강조되지 않아야 함) 일반적으로 규모가 작고 2004년 메가 쓰나미로 일어난 일 때문에 대중이 열광하기 때문에 정밀하게 다루어야 한다고 생각한다(생각하지만, 이 경우에는 쓰나미 드를 포함시키는 것이 적절할 것이다.10피트의 파도를 가지고 있고 집들을 씻어냈기 때문에 꼬리.어떤 흐림이 최선인지 다른 사람이 결정하도록 하겠다.(2 또는 3) -TenorTwelve (대화) 04:38, 2018년 9월 29일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 쓰나미를 언급해야 하는 지원, 즉 지진 자체는 ITN 가치가 없을 수도 있지만, 쓰나미는 재앙적인 쓰나미가 상당히 드물기 때문에 확실히 그렇다. (2004년 복싱 데이와 2011년 일본 이후 금세기 3번째에 불과하다.)글은 이미 올리기 충분할 정도로 상태가 양호하다.나는 알트 블러브 2가 길긴 하지만 더 좋을 것 같아.애드펫 (대화) 04:52, 2018년 9월 29일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 참고: #3를 추가했는데, 쓰나미가 동갈라(또한 거의 코스트에 가까운 섭정)를 강타했고, 48명이 사망한 것으로 확인됐다고 CNN은 전했다.—안가(구 안가1061) 05:04; 편집된 05:20, 2018년 9월 29일(UTC)[응답]
  • 게시 Alt3. --Masem (t) 05:16, 2018년 9월 29일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 게시 후 업데이트:관리자가 사상자 수를 업데이트해 주시겠습니까?BBC와 CNN은 인도네시아 재난관리청으로부터 384명이 사망하고 540명이 부상했다는 정보를 전달했다.—안가(구 안가1061) 08:32, 2018년 9월 29일 (UTC)[응답]
정말 서두를 필요 없어.최종 수치는 몇 주 동안 확실히 알려지지 않을 것이다.HiLo48 (대화) 08:41, 2018년 9월 29일 (UTC)[응답]
@HiLo48:그것은 성급한 것이 아니었고, 물론 수치들이 업데이트되었고, 한 때는 믿을 수 있게 조달되었다.지금도 그렇게 보인다.그러나 @Angga: 이 문제를 제기하기에 더 적절한 장소는 WP:오류.–암마패드(대화)
지금 ABC 뉴스 (호주 뉴스) - "Willem Rampangilei National Disaster Management Agency(BNPB) 책임자는 토요일 늦게 술라웨시에서 기자들에게 팔루에서 발생한 사망자 수가 420명에 달했다고 뉴스 사이트 콤파스...... 인도네시아의 주수프 칼라 부통령은 인도네시아가 수천 명으로 늘어날 수 있다고 경고했다.(http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-09-29/indonesian-tsunami-death-toll-expected-to-rise-dramatically/10321298) 참조)이것은 단순히 그런 사건들이 있는 현실이다.HiLo48 (대화) 22:44, 2018년 9월 29일 (UTC)[응답]
위키피디아의 현실 또한 그렇다.실시간으로 업데이트된다.당신이 받은 새로운 통행료의 예는 이미 당신의 우편물 한 시간 전에 템플릿에 나와 있었다.–Ammarpad (대화) 05:58, 2018년 9월 30일 (UTC)[응답]
위의 논의는 종결되었다.수정하지 마십시오.이후 코멘트는 해당 토론 페이지에서 작성해야 한다.이 논의는 더 이상 수정해서는 안 된다.

브렛 캐버노 위원회 투표와 FBI 수사

다음의 논의는 종결되었다.수정하지 마십시오.이후 코멘트는 해당 토론 페이지에서 작성해야 한다.이 논의는 더 이상 수정해서는 안 된다.
기사:브렛 캐버노 대법원장 지명(토크 · 역사 · 태그)
흐림:브렛 캐버노 지명자의 연방대법원에 인준을 받기 위해 연방수사국(FBI)이 최근 성 비위 의혹에 대한 조사를 앞두고 있다.(우편)
대체 블럽:상원 법사위원회는 브렛 캐버노의 연방대법관 지명을 연방 상원으로 격상시켰는데, 연방수사국(FBI) 조사가 끝날 때까지 이를 고려하지 않을 것이다.
뉴스 출처:CNN, CBS, CNBC
크레딧:
명명자의 의견:이번 지명은 앞서 공천을 받고 반대 결정을 내렸지만, 이후 크게 발전했다(합격위원회, FBI 수사결과 발표) 대니S712(토크) 21:29, 2018년 9월 28일(UTC)[응답]
  • 이전 지명을 근거로 강한 반대.이를 고려할 점(그리고 그것이 게시할 보장이 아니다)은 그가 완전히 확정되거나 지명 철회를 할 때. --Masem (t) 21:30, 2018년 9월 28일 (UTC)[응답]
  • DannyS712 제안서에 따라 제안된 2차 대체 블럽에 대한 지원.세이지캔더 (토크) 21:34, 2018년 9월 28일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 강력한 지원 아래에 언급한 이유 외에도 주요 개발.나는 또한 지속적인 것을 지지할 것이다.Davey2116 (대화) 21:53, 2018년 9월 28일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 이것은 개별적인 사건들이 그들 스스로 눈에 띄지 않는 느리고 발전하는 이야기이기 때문에 흐릿함을 매우 강하게 반대한다.약한 지원 진행중.--WaltCip (대화) 22:16, 2018년 9월 28일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 위와 같이 또는 그가 혐의를 벗거나 유죄 판결을 받을 때까지 반대 / 기다려라.이 단계에서는 이것이 절차상의 작업에 더 가까워 보인다.브랜드마이스터talk 22:21, 2018년 9월 28일 (UTC)[응답]
그 과정은 재판이 아니라 면접이기 때문에 그는 유죄 판결을 받을 수 없을 것이다.필요하면 조사 결과에 따라 그의 지명을 거부할 것이다. 331닷 (대화) 22:25, 2018년 9월 28일 (UTC)[응답하라]
  • 미국 중심주의에 반대하다.닉-D (대화) 22:54, 2018년 9월 28일 (UTC)[응답]
@Nick-D:위의 "제발 하지 말아줘" 절에는 "...이 사건은 오직 한 나라와 관련된 것일 뿐, 또는 한 나라와 관련되지 않기 때문에 어떤 항목에 반대한다"고 적혀 있다.이는 우리가 게시하는 콘텐츠의 높은 비율에 적용되며 비생산적이다."이 점에 비추어 볼 때, 미국의 초점에 근거하여 반대 의견 외에 다른 의견들을 기꺼이 공유하시겠습니까?
공천이 미국 중심이기 때문에 반대하는 것은 단순히 단일 국가라고 해서 반대하는 것과 같지 않다.미국 중심주의가 위키피디아의 체계적 편향의 한 부분이기 때문에 그 단일 국가가 미국 AND이기 때문이다.모든 나라의 편집자들이 이 백과사전에 필요한 세계적 관점으로 자국의 사물을 볼 수 없지만, 단순히 프로젝트의 성격상 어느 나라보다 미국에서 온 편집자들이 더 많다.불행히도 투표수가 중요한 ITN과 같은 환경에서는 항상 이 위험을 인지하고 다른 사람들의 주목을 끌 가치가 있다.HiLo48 (대화) 23:30, 2018년 9월 28일 (UTC)[응답]
위키피디아의 체계적 편견은 에세이일 뿐이지 정책이나 지침이 아니다.그리고 많은 사람들은 ITN이 미국에 대해 시스템적으로 편향되어 있다고 분명히 생각한다(예를 들어, WP:ITNCABAL, 물론 부분적으로나마 우스갯소리지만, 그 다음에는 '진짜 말이 장난으로 많이 나온다'는 것이 잘 알려져 있다.Tlhslobus (대화) 03:25, 2018년 9월 29일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 반대 - 아래 근거는 나에게 남아있다.그가 탈퇴하거나 고발로 인해 거절당하면 게시하고, 그가 확인되면 지명하여 토론한다.폭풍우 구름 (토크) 22:55, 2018년 9월 28일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 반대 어떤 관점은 여기서 유용할 것이다.나는 우리가 세계 어느 나라의 대법관 지명이나 세계 어느 나라의 대법관 지명자에 대한 법 집행 조사에 관한 이야기를 올리지 않을 것이라고 생각한다.나는 왜 이 특별한 지명이 다른 것으로 여겨져야 하는지 모르겠다. 단지 그것이 미국에서 일어나고 있는 일들과 관련이 있기 때문이다.크리스크리어 (토크) 23:42, 2018년 9월 28일 (UTC)[응답]
  • Comment the first blumb는 이 이야기가 관련된 나라에 대해 언급하지 않으며, 따라서 맥락도 부족하다.크리스크리어 (토크) 23:43, 2018년 9월 28일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 반대 – 미해결, 여전히 정치적 분위기에 휩싸여 있다.스카 (대화) 01:51, 2018년 9월 29일 (UTC)[응답]
  • Close please 더 이상 무의미한 시간 소동을 피하기 위해 어떤 무능력한 행정관이 이것을 닫을 수 있을까? 이 때 게시할 합의는 분명히 없고, 어제 같은 토론이 이미 거의 동일한 명목이었던 것에 대해 같은 결론에 도달했다.특별한 발전을 막기 위해 캐버노가 이기거나 지거나 철회할 때까지 그러한 미래의 지명자들은 아마도 스노우 클로징되어야 할 것이다.Tlhslobus (대화) 03:08, 2018년 9월 29일 (UTC)[응답]
위의 논의는 종결되었다.수정하지 마십시오.이후 코멘트는 해당 토론 페이지에서 작성해야 한다.이 논의는 더 이상 수정해서는 안 된다.

(폐쇄) UEFA 유로 2024

다음의 논의는 종결되었다.수정하지 마십시오.이후 코멘트는 해당 토론 페이지에서 작성해야 한다.이 논의는 더 이상 수정해서는 안 된다.
기사:UEFA 유로 2024(토크 · 히스토리 · 태그)
흐림:UEFA 집행위원회는 독일에게 UEFA 유로 2024 컵을 축구에서 개최할 수 있는 상을 수여한다.(우편)
뉴스 출처:BBC, NY 타임즈
크레딧:
명명자의 의견:ITNR 주제로서 2024년에야 다시 등장할 것 같지만 요즘 뉴스에 뜨겁다.호르스트-슐라엠마 (대화) 2018년 9월 28일 (UTC) 14:16 [응답]
  • 코멘트 현재 ITNR인 개최 도시/국가 중 올림픽을 위한 유일한 선택이다.방금 FIFA 주관사 선정에 대한 논의가 있었는데, 추가해야 할 합의점을 얻지 못했다. --Masem (t) 14:24, 2018년 9월 28일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 반대 나는 우리가 이것들 중 하나가 필요하다고 생각한다: a. 선발 과정은 논쟁의 여지가 있거나 다른 방법으로 흥미롭다. b. 선택은 충격적이다(확실히...카타르), c.인프라에 상당한 영향이 있다.유령 15:58, 2018년 9월 28일 (UTC)[응답하라]
  • 반대 유로 개최지 선정은 올림픽과 같은 세계적인 대회 규모에 해당하지 않는다.--번킹 3 (토크) 16:04, 2018년 9월 28일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 반대 - 나는 유로화를 좋아하지만, 우리는 그것이 놀랍거나 논란이 될 때에만 사회자의 발표를 게시해야 한다.특히 앞선 대회의 선택된 개최자들이 충격이었을 때 더욱 그렇다.독일은 ITN의 모호함을 요구하지 않는다.폭풍우 구름 (토크) 16:29, 2018년 9월 28일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 이것은 올림픽이나 월드컵과 같은 규모가 아니다.르프리카바크 (대화) 17:23, 2018년 9월 28일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 이 사이트에서 가장 큰 축구 애노릭 중 하나라고 해도, 나는 이 사건이 세계적인 이벤트인 올림픽과 월드컵을 수상하는 것에 비하면 세계적인 파급력은 아니라고 본다. 이 올림픽은 스캔들과 논란으로 가득 차 있다.8년을 기다려 이벤트 당첨자를 올리자 하람베 워크스(토크) 17:29, 2018년 9월 28일(UTC) 답변이 더 큰 관심사가 될 것이다.
  • 유럽 축구 밖에서 별로 중요하지 않은 것을 반대하며, 거의 틀림없이 그 안에서 그렇게 중요하지 않은 것을 반대한다.Thryduulf (대화) 18:09, 2018년 9월 28일 (UTC)[응답하라]
위의 논의는 종결되었다.수정하지 마십시오.이후 코멘트는 해당 토론 페이지에서 작성해야 한다.이 논의는 더 이상 수정해서는 안 된다.

9월 27일

2018년 9월 27일 (2018-09-27) (목)
비즈니스 및 경제
재해 및 사고
법과 범죄
정치와 선거
스포츠

(Stale) RD: 마티 발린

기사: 마티 발린 (토크 · 역사 · 태그)
최근 사망자 지명(우편)
뉴스 출처: 야후! 뮤직
크레딧:

위키백과 기사와 함께 어떤 사람이나 동물 또는 유기체의 최근 죽음은 항상 게시할 수 있을 만큼 충분히 중요한 것으로 추정된다(이 RFC와 추가 토론 참조).논평은 기사의 질이 WP를 충족하는지 여부에 초점을 맞추어야 한다.ITNRD.

명명자의 의견:제퍼슨 항공의 창립 멤버, 로큰롤 명예의 전당 수상자, 그래미 평생 공로상 수상자 및 주목할 만한 솔로 경력.코트체크 (토크) 01:10, 2018년 9월 29일 (UTC)[응답]

  • 댓글을 달다.그 기사는 음반 목록만 제외하고도 잘 인용되어 있다.자본가 로드스터 (토크) 03:34, 2018년 9월 29일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 바이오와 위에서 언급한 바와 같이, 차트 위치를 포함한 디스코그(discog)의 미참조 주장에 반대한다.더 램블링맨 (토크) 06:50, 2018년 9월 29일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 케케묵은. Thryduulf (대화) 10:51, 2018년 10월 2일 (UTC)[응답하라]

(우편) RD: 카비타 마하얀

기사: 카비타 마하잔(토크 · 역사 · 태그)
최근 사망자 지명(우편)
크레딧:

위키백과 기사와 함께 어떤 사람이나 동물 또는 유기체의 최근 죽음은 항상 게시할 수 있을 만큼 충분히 중요한 것으로 추정된다(이 RFC와 추가 토론 참조).논평은 기사의 질이 WP를 충족하는지 여부에 초점을 맞추어야 한다.ITNRD.

명명자의 의견:인도의 작가참고문헌을 개선했고 출처를 찾을 수 있다면 조금 더 확대해보겠다 - 두멜로우 (토크) 08:04, 2018년 9월 28일 (UTC)[응답]

  • 지원 - 준비 완료 - BabbaQ (대화) 09:32, 2018년 9월 28일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 반대 그녀가 WP를 만나는지 모르겠다.작가든 아니든 간에, 이 짧은 기사는 그것을 증명하지 못한다.만약 그녀가 "비판적인 찬사를 받았다면, 비판적인 논평은 어떨까?귀신 11:51, 2018년 9월 28일 (UTC)[응답하라]
  • 지지하다.나는 기사 귀신이 가지고 있는 어떤 문제도 보이지 않지만, 만약 그들이 진정 그들이 추천 기준을 충족하지 못한다고 생각한다면, 그들은 그 기사를 삭제하도록 지명해야 한다.Thryduulf (talk) 18:11, 2018년 9월 28일 (UTC)[응답하라]
  • 충분한 커버리지와 적절한 기사를 지원한다.더 램블링맨 (토크) 06:52, 2018년 9월 29일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 준비된 것으로 표시됨.트리듀울프 (대화) 21:06, 2018년 9월 29일 (UTC)[응답하라]
  • Stephen 22:26, 2018년 9월 29일 (UTC) 게시[응답]

(우편) RD: 마이클 페이턴

기사: 마이클 페이튼 (토크 · 히스토리 · 태그)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: American football player. I have expanded slightly - Dumelow (talk) 07:35, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • support - just above the threshold for inclusion. ready to go.--BabbaQ (talk) 09:33, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see significant coverage in secondary sources here. The Marshall sources are essentially primary/promotional, and the rest is largely trivial. ghost 12:05, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • However, because he played some professional games, WP:NSPORT (more NGRIDIRON) presumes notability. We really cannot oppose this on that point, but I would agree that this is not a quality article due to the # of primary sources involved. --Masem (t) 13:32, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Right, I accept that the target is notable, but my reading of GNG is that which makes a subject notable must be demonstrated in the article. So I'm a weak oppose on quality of the referencing. ghost 13:56, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • For notability, either the GNG or one of the subject-specific notability guidelines needs to be met for presumed notability. It meets NSPORT. So we allow the standalone, and one would have to challenge that at AFD to say its non-notable. But we expect that standalone can be improved with better sourcing, etc. over time; it's why we allow the standalone to give it the time (as there is no deadline. While people have clearly expanded out the college years here, they all use primary sources, and so to say this is an article that meets ITN quality is something to validly oppose on. --Masem (t) 14:00, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per GCG. That which makes him notable must be demonstrated within the article with proper referencing.--WaltCip (talk) 14:26, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The article is adequate. This is not AfD.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:05, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support not great, but good enough. Lepricavark (talk) 17:25, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I'd really like to see some decent sourcing. At the moment, we've got one lonely paragraph from the NYT. The other NYT sources aren't about him, and everything else is local sports reporting. Black Kite (talk) 18:18, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I found a couple more sources and was able to expand the professional career section - Dumelow (talk) 22:00, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: John Cunliffe (author)

Article: John Cunliffe (author) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Guardian
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: The creator of Postman Pat. Death was on 20 September but only widely announced in the news today - please move if this is in the wrong place. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:43, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - Just above the threshold for inclusion. ready to go.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:19, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted Stephen 01:46, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Manoharsinhji Pradyumansinhji

Article: Manoharsinhji Pradyumansinhji (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Indian politician and cricketer. I have expanded a little and improved the referencing, still working on this one - Dumelow (talk) 19:10, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • support - good to go.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:18, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted Stephen 01:45, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-posting weak support but can't we use a shorter form of his name? That's 28 letters when shorter forms exist, including the one used in his obituary. 1779Days (talk) 04:24, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Kavanaugh nomination

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: It's all over the news, everywhere, and the article is being continually updated. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 16:21, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose Regardless of how this is affecting the nomination process, we do not post mere allegations not proven out in a court of law towards a BLP. --Masem (t) 16:23, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
BLP is designed to protect lower-profile individuals from harm. We are not posting anything that you can miss, unless you are on Mars. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 16:24, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am not saying that we can't talk about the accusations on the nomationation page, but that is 100% not a reason to post at ITN. It would be different if he were on the bench already and was forced to step down if allegations were made. These judicial nomination processes bring out every skeleton in the closet, this is nothing different. --Masem (t) 16:29, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Even if suggested with the blurb without the allegations, I will oppose this based on the same rationale consensus came to when Kennedy announced his retirement (which was nominated but not posted, see [4]). The only point that may make sense to post anything is when a candidate is actually confirmed by the Senate, and even then, by the Kennedy nom above, that's even questionable if we'd post. --Masem (t) 16:48, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Understand your sentiment, but my main motivation for this is that BBC News lit up with a rolling feed, with reports of "People are saying where were you when the Kavanaugh hearing took place", and I thought "that's a bit odd". Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 16:58, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Which is news sensationalism which we strongly avoid across the encyclopedia and especially at ITN. It's basically this generation's Clarence Thomas/Anita Hill situation all over again. A media circus but of little substance. --Masem (t) 17:01, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The "Clarence Thomas/Anita Hill situation" was a huge newsworthy event in 1991 that led to 1992 being called by some the "Year of the Woman". If Wikipedia existed in 1991, it should've been posted then. The "substance" is a lifetime appointment to SCOTUS and the fallout of it (Roe v. Wade). – Muboshgu (talk) 17:57, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I had made the argument at Kennedy's retirement nomination that simply his departure with Trump controlling who gets nominated would impact past cases, like RvW - that didn't change consensus there. We're in the middle of a sensationalist story (the allegations causing the nomination process to rise to the top of the news), but WP is not a news ticker and we try avoid focusing on recentism. (not to mention how US-centric this story is at the moment). --Masem (t) 18:17, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(a) 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. (b) WP:NOTNEWS is a policy about news stories as articles, that this passes. ITN absolutely is a news ticker, that's the whole purpose of it. That's why we post news stories to the main page, subject to article quality and consensus to post (which I'm sure this won't get). – Muboshgu (talk) 18:23, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It has been said many times, ITN is not a news ticker. In that we are not simply repeating what the top stories are in the world. We have very selective control on what gets posted, so it rarely reflects what a news ticker actually points out. Part of that selection is related to NOT#NEWS - we don't jump on every sensationalist story that might be top headlines. --Masem (t) 18:28, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of ITN is to highlight articles of sufficient quality that are in the news, and we fail at that so often because of the personal biases of the people who come here to vote on them. It's a shame. "Sensationalism" is defined (at least by me typing it into Google) as "the use of exciting or shocking stories or language at the expense of accuracy, in order to provoke public interest or excitement." Today's hearing is about searching for truth, so I could not disagree more with that label being used to describe this process. Having someone who may have committed sexual assault on SCOTUS is a huge deal. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:36, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'd clarify that a bit and say that having someone who may have committed sexual assault on SCOTUS and which is documented in multiple, respected, reliable broadsheet news sources is a huge deal. I always thought the "sensationalist" bit meant you don't stick a blurb up based on the front page of The Sun or the National Enquirer. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 18:54, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, a burst of news coverage is sensationalism. It may not be tabloid-type sensationalism, but this is still basically elevating the relative importance of a story because there's little else to report on, the result of our 24/7 news media culture. WP doesn't follow that, we're looking for what comes out in the long-term. And since we have no idea if he will be confirmed or the accusations proven out, this is very much CRYSTAL-balling on importance. --Masem (t) 18:58, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This "burst of news coverage" exists because much of the rest of the world likes to see what they see as the mess Donald Trump repeatedly seems to get himself into in areas where it's obvious he has no skills. This was the reason we in Australia also learnt this week that UN delegates laughed at him. Should we post that too? HiLo48 (talk) 03:20, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Post when Kavanaugh is confirmed or withdraws candidacy. Sca (talk) 16:25, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - per article quality, per world wide attention. But I am also on the verge of thinking that this is a local story or at best national story. So I let others decide.BabbaQ (talk) 16:26, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • We're not supposed to oppose based on it being a "local story or at best national story". That is most of the content we post. It's in the "Please do not's" above. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:55, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Masem, ITN is not for unproven allegations.SamaranEmerald (talk) 16:28, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support ongoing per nom. -- Tavix (talk) 16:37, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've put an alternative blurb which leaves out the "allegations" bit. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:39, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @User:Ritchie333 I suggest you nominate this as an ongoing event rather than as a blurb as the above user mentions, it will be more fitting. SamaranEmerald (talk) 16:42, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:43, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The article appears to be of sufficient quality, but I don't believe the nomination of a Supreme Court judge would be considered globally newsworthy if it came from any nation other than America. Maybe if Kavanaugh was notable for something other than his nomination, but that is not the case. At best, the only globally significant portion of his nomination will be his confirmation or rejection, and even then I'd disagree. Therefore, I oppose. (NorthernFalcon (talk) 17:15, 27 September 2018 (UTC))[reply]
    • No requirement that it be "globally" newsworthy. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:55, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - There's no there there.--WaltCip (talk) 17:25, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm watching the hearing right now. It's there, on my teevee. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:55, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It's in the news in a big way, highly reminiscent of the Clarence Thomas Supreme Court nomination which remains highly significant 27 years later. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:55, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait. I would support if something really spectacular (like Kavanaugh withdrawing his candidacy) occurred. Black Kite (talk) 18:10, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait per Black Kite. We almost never post stuff involving the internal politics of any given country unless it involves a change in head of state or government. However if Kavanaugh were to actually withdraw or be voted down by the Senate I might support a blurb given the remarkable level of global news coverage. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:16, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - this maybe (likely not, given that it is a strictly domestic affair) merits posting if he takes the position. It probably merits posting if the allegations cause him to step down and withdraw, or are cited in a Senate vote which he loses. The existence of allegations is not worth posting on ITN, per Masem, and is shaky in terms of WP:BLP. Awarding this gravitas because of decisions Kavanaugh might make if successfully confirmed by the Senate is clear crystal-balling, as is the converse (Kavanaugh withdrawing doesn't somehow enshrine Roe v. Wade). As such, there is no story on an ITN scale here unless the allegations are cited as a cause of Kavanaugh's failure to take the position. If they merely slow the process, then there is no story - just routine domestic politics. Stormy clouds (talk) 18:37, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This is heavily in the news around the world, just look at media coverage from Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Brazil, Mexico and Australia reporting on everything that happens in that process. This might only be for a job on a court but it stands for so much more that the whole world is watching. Regards SoWhy 18:48, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also Times of India. As a general crude rule of thumb, anything getting headlines in the US, the UK and India (which, unless I'm mistaken - which I probably am - are the three nations that contribute most to the English Wikipedia) is worth considering as "worldwide". Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:57, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This is not an elected position so it's not really "in the news" in the same sense that elections are. Furthermore, even Trump hasn't tweeted anything yet. wumbolo ^^^ 19:07, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Surely "In The News" is anything that a) the news is reporting a lot of b) is in an article being updated a lot and c) the article is in good shape. So if there was blanket coverage of the Macadamia nuts controversy making a comeback, and featured on worldwide news for three days continuously, it would be a suitable nomination. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 19:51, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ritchie333: the news are reporting on the score of sport matches a lot, but we don't post matches before they are finished. wumbolo ^^^ 20:01, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - In the news worldwide, notable, and the article is in good shape. Opposers fail to convince me this should not be a blurb on ITN. Jusdafax (talk) 19:29, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Blurb supporters fail to understand that posting ongoing items as blurbs when there is next to no breakthroughs is not how ITN works. Kirliator (talk) 19:36, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as ongoing . Will be worth posting a story if he is nominated or if the nomination is withdrawn. Until then it is all play by play coverage. However, there may be little chance of obtaining a concensus. Capitalistroadster (talk) 19:54, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – Post only if Kavanaugh is confirmed or withdraws candidacy. These hearings are about the Supreme Court, not about what he did or didn't do in the past. Wikipedia is neither jury nor judge. Sca (talk) 20:09, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Maybe for an approved nomination but not the drama beforehand or if he is not approved. SpencerT•C 20:33, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In spite of my opposition, if his nomination were not approved, that would arguably be more notable, as this nomination was originally thought to be a shoo-in due to a Republican majority in both the House and Senate.--WaltCip (talk) 22:08, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Some perspective would be useful here. I doubt we'd post a story about a court case about a supreme court nominee for any other country in the world, so I don't see why this should be any different. Chrisclear (talk) 22:44, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't see why this line of reasoning is valid. I'm strongly in favor of posting different countries' stories to ITN, but this should not come at the expense of a U.S. story that is clearly getting lots of international coverage. Our primary job here is to bring things that are "in the news" to the front page, and many readers would appreciate a link to this story. Davey2116 (talk) 03:18, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply That's precisely the problem - the story is only getting "lots of international coverage" because it's about a US supreme court nominee. If there was a similar issue with a supreme court nominee in most other countries, there wouldn't be the same international coverage. It's likely (almost certain) that the story would not be supported for an ITN item due to lack of significance. This story shouldn't be considered any more significant simply because of the country involved. Publishing this story in ITN is the type of bias that ITN should be looking to avoid. Chrisclear (talk) 04:13, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose ...for precisely the same reasons as Chrisclear above. HiLo48 (talk) 23:49, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This is non-news blown up by MSM. Mikus (talk) 00:08, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Looking through the revision history, Gorsuch's confirmation was not posted. That was a confirmation. This is a hearing, with the added element of further amplifying allegations. But I probably would support a blurb if it leads to the withdrawal of the nomination. Hrodvarsson (talk) 00:59, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support Lots of international coverage, obviously an ongoing story, and article is in good shape and is regularly updated. Isn't that the point of ITN? Regardless, it looks like this nomination is not going anywhere; hopefully we can all agree that the result of the nomination should definitely be posted. Davey2116 (talk) 03:06, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why? When did we last post a judicial appointment or rejection of a candidate for any other country? HiLo48 (talk) 03:13, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What was the last judicial nomination to demonstrate this much coverage in the source texts?--Jayron32 03:19, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea. I usually tend to ignore what seems a particularly silly part of the American political and legal processes. I just note the final score, i.e. how the balance of the court is at any given time. That's all that really matters in the end, isn't it? HiLo48 (talk) 03:22, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not when the nominee is an alleged sex criminal. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:25, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to ignore unproven allegations too. Let's get real. Every one of these nominations seems to involve the digging of (or inventing) dirt on candidates nominated by political foes. HiLo48 (talk) 03:28, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The news isn't ignoring it. And nobody "dug this up". Women who are assaulted have a lot of reasons not to come forward. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:34, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There are many things the news covers that we don't. And while I would probably agree with you about it, making judgements on guilt, and the motivations or otherwise of alleged victims is certainly not our job here. HiLo48 (talk) 03:44, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose per Masem. Lepricavark (talk) 04:17, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait and post the outcome, whether confirmed or withdrawn. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 07:12, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose this nom The appointment of a US Supreme Court justice is important, more so than some other countries. That's not bias, it's reality. If the media is rabidly covering something irrelevant, that's tabloid. The media rabidly covering something important is not. It's not important enough per se (IMO) to post to ITN. But the circumstances here elevate, and I think we should post a withdrawal/rejection. I'd oppose a confirmation. ghost 11:37, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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.

September 26

September 26, 2018 (2018-09-26) (Wednesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents
Law and crime
Science and technology

(Posted) RD: Ignaz Kirchner

Article: Ignaz Kirchner (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Kurier
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: 30 years Burgtheater, obituaries in major German-speaking papers, - so I translated the article after he died, sorry that it took me a while. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:58, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. Good-looking article. Thryduulf (talk) 21:12, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted as the last slot was reported late. Stephen 22:39, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

September 25

September 25, 2018 (2018-09-25) (Tuesday)
Business and economy
Health and environment
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections

(Posted) RD: Jack McKinney

Article:Jack McKinney (basketball) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s):Japan Times, NYT, Philadelphia Inquirer
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: American basketball coach. Fuebaey (talk) 23:16, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Stale) RD: Helena Almeida

Article: Helena Almeida (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Portuguese artist. I have been through and addressed some referencing issues - Dumelow (talk) 11:17, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak support - the article notes her first exhibition took place in 1967 and lists precisely one under the "Exhibitions" section, the Tate Modern this year, so that section looks wholly incomplete. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:21, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I thought about deleting it out entirely as the full list would likely be too long and not useful, but left it in. I have expanded it slightly - Dumelow (talk) 13:28, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • support - but just on the verge of Weak Support. I think it is ready for posting though.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:27, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Referenced start. Looks good to me.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:38, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Marked as ready based on the above supports - Dumelow (talk) 05:04, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and not ready. The exhibition section is mostly unreferenced and I've also added a citation needed template to the Works section. Thryduulf (talk) 18:15, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I have been through and readded references to the exhibitions. i deleted the sentence fragment without a reference as the section it was associated with was cited to an offline book - Dumelow (talk) 20:53, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. My objections have been resolved. Re-marking as ready. Thryduulf (talk) 21:10, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Marked stale, as the most recent RD is from 27 September. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:02, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Bill Cosby sentencing

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article: Bill Cosby sexual assault cases (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Bill Cosby is sentenced to 3 to 10 years in prison on counts of aggravated indecent assault. (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:
Nominator's comments: The sentence just got announced so the article is not yet up to date with today's news, but no question it is well-sourced. Yes, an appeal is planned, but this still has been a long-term story with a point of conclusion here. Masem (t) 18:20, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral When he was found guilty, I !voted oppose on the grounds that the sentencing is more significant than the verdict, but the response (and consensus) was that most people believed the other way around. The verdict was ultimately posted, and I don't know if ITN would support posting both. Personally, I maintain my belief that the sentence is significant, but I'm ready to be swayed one way or the other. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 19:35, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - Not an unusual sentence, and not particularly notable in its own right. This story is hitting during a busy news cycle.--WaltCip (talk) 19:44, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – Mainly because this is the end (or at least the beginning of the end) of a very long-running, high-profile case – this, in the context of heightened global interest in charges of sexual harassment and/or assault. Likely to be the No. 1 story on most mainstream Eng.-lang. news sites. Sca (talk) 20:20, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support – One of the most powerful men in entertainment is going to prison and the first to be criminally punished in the #MeToo era.--The lorax (talk) 20:50, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support I'm generally not a fan of celebrity true crime stories but this one has been getting global front page news coverage for a long time. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:05, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose already been posted once, no long-term significance. At 3-10 years, the sentence isn't even that long. Banedon (talk) 21:08, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • 10 years was the maximum sentence that could be given for this crime. The sentence is for 10 years, with a minimum of 3. His lawyers argued for house arrest because they think he'll die during any lengthy prison sentence. --Masem (t) 21:15, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • That the maximum sentence isn't that long just means the crime shouldn't have been posted in the first place, though. Banedon (talk) 21:18, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – per fact that the trial has been covered by world media. Cosby is an actor at the top field of his profession and the article is in shape for posting.BabbaQ (talk) 21:11, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on principle because I feel this is a very slippery slope to go down with ITN. Cosby is the first "big name" to be sentenced in the #MeToo era, but I doubt he'll be the last. If we post this one and set a precedent for posting these convictions, I feel that that may take us into WP:TABLOID territory. StrikerforceTalk 21:19, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose already been posted once in April, no long-term significance. It is true that he was a iconic personality who has fallen a long way. But there is lots of other good stuff to put on the front page. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:22, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose I feel the broader story here is significant, but not significant enough for two stories; we've posted the verdict, and so I don't know if I could justify posting this too. Vanamonde (talk) 21:38, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Actually, the most captivating part of the sentencing is that Bail was denied. So he did not just get to go home. He was also characterized as a "sexually violent predator sex offender" by the court. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:42, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose We don't even routinely post presidential inaugurations of major countries because we already post the elections. The result is not out of the ordinary, so it does not deserve to be posted twice. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:18, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Given that we posted the fact that he was convicted, the sentencing does not merit another separate blurb. Stormy clouds (talk) 22:20, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose No need to do this twice. HiLo48 (talk) 23:20, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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.

September 24

September 24, 2018 (2018-09-24) (Monday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
International relations
Law and crime
  • Crime in California
    • Police in California arrest Ramon Escobar, 47, on charges of killing and assaulting homeless people, and are investigating whether he may have attacked a fisherman napping beneath a pier, in the cities of Los Angeles and Santa Monica, California. Authorities believe Escobar may be a serial killer, who is now a person of interest in the disappearance of his aunt and uncle in Houston, Texas.(CBS News)
  • Dellen Millard is convicted of murdering his father Wayne Millard, who owned an aviation company. The death had initially been ruled a suicide. Dellen Millard has already been convicted of two other murders in Canadian court. (BBC) (The Globe and Mail)
Politics and elections
Science and technology

September 23

September 23, 2018 (2018-09-23) (Sunday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
Law and crime
Sports

(Posted) RD: Jane Fortune

Article: Jane Fortune (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: American author and expert on Florence. Have done a bit of work to this to improve referencing - Dumelow (talk) 13:40, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I normally assume publication lists are self-verifying, but in any case I have now added some refs to the publications. Some of them are just chapters or booklets but their existence is proven at least - Dumelow (talk) 20:02, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't make that assumption. Anyone could write a list of completely fictional papers, essays etc with no links and no evidence of their existence beyond their name, it directly fails WP:V. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:23, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - per further updates. BabbaQ (talk) 21:11, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted Stephen 23:08, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) RD: Gary Kurtz

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: Gary Kurtz (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): https://variety.com/2018/film/news/gary-kurtz-dead-dies-star-wars-1202954316/
Credits:

Article needs updating
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Producer of American Graffiti, Star Wars/Empire Strikes Back, and Dark Crystal. While article top is updated, there's no prose on his death. Article also need of much better sourcing throughout including awards. Masem (t) 19:58, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose mostly unreferenced, including a huge awards section, a BLP violation in extremis. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:59, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This article simply does not have enough citations. ―Susmuffin Talk 00:57, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I thought of nominating this when I read of his death, but the article quality is too poor and unlikely to be sufficiently improved before the death becomes stale. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:42, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on quality, support on merit A quick scroll-through of the article shows that there's quite a few paragraphs that could benefit from additional sources. If this is resolved in the next couple of days, please ping me and I'll switch my !vote to support. Brendon the Wizard✉️ ✨ 19:29, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no such thing as "support on merit" for RDs. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:30, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    That is why I led with oppose. It was added to clarify that I'd gladly flip if and when the involved editors improve the article. Unnecessary to point that out, as it should be self explanatory. Brendon the Wizard✉️ ✨ 19:38, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    No, what was unnecessary was to say "support on merit". All RDs are supported "on merit". Read the template. That should be self explanatory. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:41, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I maintain that it really isn't necessary to make this a sub-discussion deviating from the actual discussion. Relax. Brendon the Wizard✉️ ✨ 19:47, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Maintain away, but next time there's no need to "support on merit", it's taken as read. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:48, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -basically per above mentioned reasons.BabbaQ (talk) 21:12, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on quality, support on merit per Brendon the Wizard. Lepricavark (talk) 01:37, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Please note, there is no purpose to supporting "on merit". Per established ITNC policy, every living entity with a name with a quality Wikipedia article who dies gets on the RD feed. All that matters is the "quality" part. The "merit" is "was once alive, has recently died, and has a Wikipedia article". (also note, human is not even required. Just "died and has an article" is all the merit necessary). --Jayron32 02:39, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I am well aware of how we handle RDs. Lepricavark (talk) 11:49, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Then you would know that "on merit" is redundant.--WaltCip (talk) 14:33, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    They're something in the air... The Rambling Man (talk) 14:35, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    No doubt. We don't know what it is, but it gives TRM the irresistible urge to constantly play hall monitor. Lepricavark (talk) 16:32, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Just trying to remind some of you that you're wasting time with such remarks as they are guaranteed to draw comment from multiple editors. So well played! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:58, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe that's known as a self-fulfilling prophecy. Lepricavark (talk) 20:16, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe that's known as a self-fulfilling prophecy. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:17, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Good thinking. Why craft your own comment when mine was so perfect? Lepricavark (talk) 21:24, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    It was convenient as I was spending a lot of my time improving Wikipedia for our readers' benefit, wink wink! The Rambling Man (talk) 11:11, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, in fairness to TRM, the word 'multiple' meant the prophecy was not guaranteed to be self-fulfilling, even if I'm being an unforgiveable pedant by saying so - and I'm also seemingly saying something in defense of TRM, which is presumably seemingly even more unforgiveable (even tho I'm actually pointing out that his above guarantee is distinctly unimpressive) Face-smile.svg.Tlhslobus (talk) 13:48, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to clarify, you are aware of the policy, but posted the comment anyway. Why? Are we just trying to trigger TRM's OCD now? I mean, we all know The Boat Race is irrelevant, but it would be off topic to bring it up in every discussion. ghost 11:55, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a textbook WP:POINT edit. But it's fine because it tells us everything we need to know. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:21, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    You call it POINTiness, I call it pushback against your unwarranted rudeness to another editor in this thread. Lepricavark (talk) 22:22, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    It is disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point, whether you like it or not. And stating an absolute fact is not equivalent to "unwarranted rudeness" so please don't use hyperbolic argument in an attempt to your disruptive behaviour. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:02, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    You complain about the disruption while continuing to prolong the conversation. Take a look in the mirror. Lepricavark (talk) 13:47, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    You should have admitted fault and retracted your pointed edit to start with. The fault resides 100% with you. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:51, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Questions If in future I wanted to say what Brendon the Wizard seems to have been trying to say above, what brief expression(s) might best achieve this in a way that avoids disruption of the kind seen above? And might such an expression usefully be added to our above RD instructions? (Note: Please keep any answers here very brief, as, at least in theory, this isn't really the right forum for this, and any lengthy discussion would presumably have to be moved somewhere else and quite likely would be more hassle than it's worth). Tlhslobus (talk) 13:24, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My own suggestion would be Oppose on quality, but well worth fixing (but far too soon to add it to RD instructions) - but has anybody got any better suggestion(s)?Tlhslobus (talk) 13:24, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My suggestion is this: "Oppose on quality". The Rambling Man (talk) 14:51, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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) Sir Michael Atiyah claims to have proven the Riemann hypothesis

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:Riemann hypothesis (talk · history · tag) and Michael Atiyah (talk · history · tag)
Blurb:Sir Michael Atiyah claims to have proven the Riemann hypothesis (Post)
News source(s):Preprint
Credits:

Second article updated, first needs updating
Count Iblis (talk) 23:26, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Any proposed solution to problems like this is going to be thoroughly reviewed by the math community to verify if it is true or not. On that confirmation, we should post. --Masem (t) 23:41, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I've struck my remarks on crack-pottery; more reliable sources [5] confirm that Sir Atiyah is giving a talk on this topic tomorrow. It's absolutely premature to post anything until after the talk. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:51, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait per Masem. Banedon (talk) 01:04, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose He has not yet delivered the presentation, let alone had the claim accepted by the mathematics community. A claim of this kind on its own should not be posted. Hrodvarsson (talk) 02:29, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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) Maldivian presidential election, 2018

Articles:Maldivian presidential election, 2018 (talk · history · tag) and Ibrahim Mohamed Solih (talk · history · tag)
Blurb:Ibrahim Mohamed Solih is elected president of the Maldives. (Post)
News source(s):BBC
Credits:

One or both nominated events are listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

Nominator's comments: Article about the election is in good shape, but the one about Ibrahim Mohamed Solih still needs work. EternalNomad (talk) 23:04, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support -- Even if its small size was a negative consideration, the result has wider geopolitical ramifications that affect the wider Indo-Pacific region. Also comes relatively unexpected as the election was anticipated to be unfree and unfair, so the result represents a bucking of the "authoritarian turn" that has characterised global politics in the past few years. -- Varavour (talk) 15:06, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose No prose describing the elections themselves, their results, and the effects. Article needs expansion. --Jayron32 15:39, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Change of head of state is in ITNR. While the article covers necessary points, it would be better if it could even still be expanded a bit more.Amir (talk) 14:53, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Though I'd like it if the article was longer, all of the subsections contain only sourced information, so it's certainly not in bad shape. I'm not finding any major WP:MOS concerns. My only recommendation is to expand the conduct section to better describe each event, provide more background information about the candidates and what they focused their campaigns on, and it should be a fine article. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 19:22, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - per ITN/R. article is Ok.BabbaQ (talk) 21:12, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posting. --Tone 10:51, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Charles K. Kao

Article: Charles K. Kao (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): South China Morning Post
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Laureate of the Nobel Prize in Physics, pioneer of fibre optics, an important player in modern communications Leeyc0 (Talk) 10:20, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. Well referenced. Capitalistroadster (talk) 10:39, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Last section (Later Life & Dementia) needs rewrite. Also his death was not even mentioned in the article save in infobox. –Ammarpad (talk) 11:22, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The Honours and awards section has a lot of unsourced listings. Hrodvarsson (talk) 02:34, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Several of the listed awards lack citations. ―Susmuffin Talk 03:20, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - just above the threshold for inclusion in my opinion.BabbaQ (talk) 21:13, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This has been improved. –Ammarpad (talk) 13:17, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted. --Tone 10:46, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

September 22

September 22, 2018 (2018-09-22) (Saturday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Arts and culture
Disasters and accidents
International relations
Science and technology

(Posted) RD: Mike Labinjo

Article: Mike Labinjo (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Canadian grid iron player. I have fixed up a few of the references. The article isn't perfect but probably good enough - Dumelow (talk) 10:57, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support looks good. ghost 15:59, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted Stephen 06:52, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Guangzhou–Shenzhen–Hong Kong Express Rail

Article: Guangzhou–Shenzhen–Hong Kong Express Rail Link Hong Kong section (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: The Hong Kong section of the Guangzhou–Shenzhen–Hong Kong Express Rail Link opens for commercial operation. (Post)
News source(s): (CNN) (New York Times)
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Big story for Hong Kong, some political controversy over this and also a huge infrastructure project, an under-reported aspect of ITN. East Asia is also an under-reported aspect of ITN due to systemic bias. Fairly high quality article, very expansive coverage. Encyclopedic. Colipon+(Talk) 13:55, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment a little context --LaserLegs (talk) 14:45, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Entire sections are unreferenced. But it seems this story is getting much more coverage worldwide than the I95. Still, far from ready by ITN standards. --Tone 14:58, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of course a 2,230 km 350 kph train line capable of 380 (longest high speed line in the world) is more impressive than a 3,100km motorway where you can't exceed ~137 without the police fining you. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:03, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tentative support: I haven't been following these news, and I was pleasantly surprised. This is quite a major development; article quality at the moment is indeed far from ready, let me see if I can have a shot at it. Alex Shih (talk) 19:34, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Massive infrastructural news and a highly noteworthy achievement. Posting is most certainly warranted as this is an underrepresented region on ITN. WaltCip (talk) 22:01, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you could just let me know where the WP:ITN criteria stipulates favoring an "underrepresented region" that'd be great. I'm wondering what region, specifically, and what the criteria for "under-represented" is, given the Philippines land slide currently in the box, and the SE Asian stories recently in the box: a Japanese earthquake, an Indian supreme court ruling, typhoon Mangkhut, the Pakistani president, the Reuters journalists in Myanmar, typhoon Jebi, and a hotel fire in Harbin. Indeed, it would appear this region is perhaps over-represented? Who's to say without criteria, so just let me know what those are please. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:21, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In defense of SE Asian countries, the only time anyone reads about these in ITN is during an 1) election, 2) disaster. That's it, barring unforeseen planets aligning and people here supporting the ASEAN Football Championship later this year. We even have ITNR items for countries such as Ireland (2, in fact!), while Singapore, a country that is more populous than the former, has a big fat zero ITNR items. Howard the Duck (talk) 10:07, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support incredible project Openlydialectic (talk) 22:09, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on refs. Also, this seems to be a rather small section of a larger system that has been open for years. The political element may make it blurb-worthy, but lets not goose the numbers to make this look like a bigger project than it is. ghost 11:36, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment as nom: the main article is actually the "Hong Kong section", not the rail line at large; we've definitely posted ferry disasters and earthquakes with articles of lessor quality. The "Hong Kong section" article, imo, is ready for the main page. In any case this is growing stale so would an admin please post it or close the discussion? Colipon+(Talk) 18:23, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support A large-scale project that went through more than a decade of planning and construction. It helps that it's getting international coverage as well, which demonstrates its significance outside of Hong Kong. As much as I'd like it if the article were longer, it's no stub and no red flags stand out. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 19:46, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - and ready for posting.BabbaQ (talk) 21:13, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • A) The Hong Kong section is very short, and as such should be tip-top. There remain unreferenced statements of fact. B) If the completion of the larger system is the blurbworthy event, its article needs targeted. If we are to target the Hong Kong section, it is inappropriate to support its significance by citing the size of the whole system (which every supporting editor here has done). This is the same thing as the I-95: the larger system has been operable for years, while the recent developments are trivial. ghost 11:14, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The controversy around the Hong Kong section is still recent; that surrounding the section of I-95 in New Jersey is decades' old. Hardly the same. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 21:20, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Edna Molewa

Article: Edna Molewa (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): News 24
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: South African politician; article is comprehensive and mostly well-sourced. EternalNomad (talk) 21:41, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose Some sentences remain unsourced. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 04:24, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Article is well-sourced. 07:10, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Overall, the sourcing is adequate for ITN. Article is well-written. AusLondonder (talk) 10:58, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait until the {{fact}} tags have been addressed. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:09, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Don't see the fact tags; maybe fixed? There is one CN left but it does not seem substantial. ghost 16:07, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted Stephen 06:50, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Interstate 95 completed

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:Interstate 95 (talk · history · tag) and Pennsylvania Turnpike/Interstate 95 Interchange Project (talk · history · tag)
Blurb:With the completion of part of the Pennsylvania Turnpike/Interstate 95 Interchange Project , Interstate 95 is completed after 62 years, the last project to be financed under the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956, which established the Interstate Highway System. (Post)
News source(s):Levittown Now, Federal Highway Administration
Credits:

Both articles updated
Imzadi 1979 → 17:56, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Levittown Now confirms that the ramps opened this earlier this morning. Other sources such as The Philadelphia Inquirer, The Bucks County Courier Times, WPVI-TV and KYW (AM) reported the project completion's significance earlier this week in announcing the scheduled opening. FHWA confirms that this is the last project to be completed under the auspices of the 1956 legislation. Imzadi 1979 → 18:02, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment for those wondering why this is significant, I-95 facilitates 40% of the United States' GDP and serves 110 million people. [6] Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:08, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support this isn't just any highway opening, but arguably the most significant one in the US. --Rschen7754 18:27, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose nice bit of road trivia but not much more. See DYK. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:28, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is the most important motorway in the US and one of the most important in the world, serving (as mentioned before) 110 million people, Canada's most important highway, Harvard, the UN and New York (the only city that rivals London in importance), the capital of the world's most powerful country, 15 states and the so called Capital of Latin America (Miami, 71% Latin Americans, metro population 6 or 7 million). It has the busiest motor bridge in the world, most lanes on a bridge in the world (14 non-shoulder lanes on 2 floors) and approaching New York from the south it reaches 14 lanes and 8 shoulders with quadruple carriageways (and 2 jumbo jet runways hug the 22 lanes for awhile which is pretty cool). Also nearby are Yale, Princeton, Columbia University, 6 of 8 Ivy League unis, site of declaring independence from you (no hard feelings), the capital of the slave country..
At over 3,000 kilometers it's so long it starts where -41°C and 1.8 meters of snow depth and 4.2 meters snow in a year happens and ends in the tropics south of some Bahamas. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:34, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And the law of 1956 was to build 41,000 miles of motorway with minimum 2 lanes in each direction which ended up costing 500 billion today dollars. Even Canada and Australia are mostly 1 lane in each direction when you cross the country cause Interstate highway standards are expensive. (Germany has much better roads but they have 5.5 times higher population density) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:59, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Sagittarian Milky Way: New York is "the only city that rivals London in importance"? The U.S. is the "world's most powerful country"? Are you high? London is "only rivalled by New York"? What about Beijing? Moscow? Berlin? Paris? Given Britain is being absolutely screwed right this minute in negotiations with the EU, the "importance" of London is not apparent right now. You do realise we aren't in the Age of Discovery anymore and the British Empire has been dead for literally decades? When you have to talk such delusional anglocentric bullshit to support your argument you serve only to discredit them. AusLondonder (talk) 06:18, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Believe it or not AusLondonder, back in 1970s, historians like Correlli Barnett wrote books on the decline of Britain. None imagined how much further it still had to go. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:40, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Global city. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 12:37, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I see a lot of interesting trivia there, but nothing that sways me from oppose. Get it to GA or FA and go to the main page some other way. It's not "in the news" because it's not really that newsworthy. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:26, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Britain is declining to barely match the global power of a nation like Italy. Suggesting that if it wasn't for New York City London would be the "unrivalled" capital of the world would make even the staunchest Eurosceptic Little Englander blush. AusLondonder (talk) 10:56, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Confusing prose like "yet its completion is still dependent on a project in Pennsylvania and New Jersey that was finished in September 22, 2018" (is it completed or isn't it?) and lots of unsourced sections. If the most significant source we've got is Levitton Now (as opposed to, say, the New York Times or the Washington Post) then I don't think it indicates worldwide significance. As TRM says, take it to DYK. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 18:35, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Ritchie333: as noted above, Levittown Now is only confirming the actual opening this morning. The other press covered the dedication yesterday with the amorphous "will open tomorrow" style of wording, which as we should know, didn't guarantee that the barricades on the unopened ramps would actually come down as planned. I did find a few sentences that needed updating, and those have been changed. Other coverage came in major media outlets earlier this year in anticipation of today, such as The Atlantic back in January, Bloomberg (linked by The Ed17), [: https://www.fastcompany.com/90221669/interstate-95-is-finally-finished-and-so-is-our-era-of-ambitious-infrastructure-projects Fast Company] ("Interstate 95 is finally finished—and so is our era of ambitious infrastructure projects"), so this isn't not getting major press. More cites coming in the article for the RD sections totally unrelated to what happened today as well. Imzadi 1979 → 19:08, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Surely if it was that big a deal, we'd see Trump gobbing off on Twitter about "Hey, we got I-95 completed, while Hillary and Obama couldn't even get started! SAD!" or something like that.... (or perhaps he does, I don't read his feed for my own sanity) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 00:08, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – On lack of general significance. Sca (talk) 20:23, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'd support this in terms of significance, we've posted other rail line and freeway stories, I-95 is the big dog on the eastern seaboard -- the referencing is not up to scratch for MP feature, however. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:26, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - fairly interesting, but better suited to DYK then ITN in my view. Stormy clouds (talk) 20:50, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – As the last section of the original Interstate Highway System, which has had a profound impact on the United States and influenced similar systems globally, interest can be drawn from beyond the niche of road scholars. (Support comes with the caveat that the referencing in I-95's article is improved) SounderBruce 01:02, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose No demonstration of widespread coverage in non-U.S. sources. As to LaserLegs' WP:OSE remark, we posted the opening of the Wuhan–Guangzhou high-speed railway in December 2009 because it was both a new world record for commercial train service and a landmark in China Railway High-speed history itself, being the first cross-regional HSR line. The only thing "new" with the completion of I-95 is the relevant section in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 01:29, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose excessive coverage of local New Jersey road construction. "Completed" borders on puffery here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:50, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This is a significant infrastructure project but is struggling to attract attention in the United States. Unfortunately not suitable for DYK as it is not a new article or been substantially increased in size. Capitalistroadster (talk) 03:05, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    No, Interstate 95 is ineligible for DYK because it was featured on DYK back in 2013, but you could take Pennsylvania Turnpike/Interstate 95 Interchange Project to GA and then run it on DYK. That's what GA is for. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:40, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Throw Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads a bone. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:40, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose No global significance. Roads serving enormous populations in India and China open practically every day. Barely actually "in the news", even in the U.S. AusLondonder (talk) 10:52, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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: Chas Hodges

Article: Chas Hodges (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC News
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: That's "Chas out of Chas & Dave" for those who aren't sure. Personally I prefer Green Bullfrog on which he plays some fine bass alongside Deep Purple's Ritchie Blackmore and Ian Paice and Procol Harum's Matthew Fisher ..... but to everyone else, it's "rabbit, rabbit, rabbit, rabbit" Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:20, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - got edit conflicted nominating this, but as Ritchie333 has put the work in he deserves the credit anyway. Article has had recent improvement and tags are now gone. Good to go. Mjroots (talk) 15:24, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bibliography section doesn't have source. "Bibliography" typifies quirkiness of English; so due to lack of source we've to even ask, are those books by him or about him? Either way they need source before this see Mainpage. –Ammarpad (talk) 15:44, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's pretty much the results window from typing "Chas Hodges" into Google Books ... but inline citations added nonetheless. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:54, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Iranian military parade attack

Article:2018 Ahvaz military parade attack (talk · history · tag)
Blurb:At least 29 people are killed during an attack at the Iranian military parade. (Post)
News source(s):CNN, al-arabiya
Credits:

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Developing story, needs updating. Brandmeistertalk 12:15, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support in principle – pending article expansion. Unusual for Iran. Possibly an indicator of political unrest. Sca (talk) 13:28, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Article looks developed for now. Sherenk1 (talk) 13:29, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now. Quite not there, it's basically a stub. –Ammarpad (talk) 13:51, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support support, basic info is there, no doubt about notability Openlydialectic (talk) 14:22, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nobody talk of notability. It's still in stubby state. I just removed large copyvio further shrinking it. –Ammarpad (talk) 16:43, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support A significant and developing event. --Mhhossein talk 16:59, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose if nine sentences (including two in the lead) is all we have to say about this event, it's either (a) not ready or (b) not newsworthy or (c) both. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:37, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support it's stubby, WP:RS can't agree on the details right now. The targets and venue are significant, no random act of violence, or arson, or sinking here. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:31, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support Significant but stub. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 04:21, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: firing to civilian, kiling children, reporting by many reliable sources.Saff V. (talk) 06:14, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Per nominator.--Seyyed(t-c) 09:11, 23 September 2018 (UTC) / Pikazilla (talk) 11:16, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: notable event. Substantial work was done on the article, although more eyes (and pens) are welcome. Wakari07 (talk) 14:00, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Still rather thin. Rouhani’s allegation of U.S. responsibility could be added. Sca (talk) 14:42, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's about the same as Khamenei's. Did you see Rudy Giuliani's [7]? Wakari07 (talk) 16:10, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vatican announces deal with China on bishop appointments

Article:Catholic Church in China (talk · history · tag)
Blurb:The Communist Party of China agrees to allow the Vatican to appoint party-approved bishops for China. (Post)
Alternative blurb:The Communist Party of China agrees to allow the Vatican to appoint and veto party-approved bishops for China.
Alternative blurb II:The Holy See approves Catholic bishops appointed by the Communist Party of China
Alternative blurb III:The Vatican approves Catholic bishops appointed by the Communist Party of China
Alternative blurb IV:Catholic bishops appointed by the Communist Party of China are approved by the Vatican
News source(s):Reuters, Associated Press
Credits:

Nominator's comments: The most populous religion in the world has made a landmark deal with the government of the most populous country in the world. Thunderforge (talk) 00:05, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There's currently an error in the nom's comment. When I was a child over half a century ago Catholicism was indeed "the most populous religion in the world", but it got overtaken by Islam a long time ago, so now Christianity is "the most populous religion in the world". Incidentally, Christianity should supposedly "soon" (whatever that means) be overtaken by Islam, and China by India. Tlhslobus (talk) 10:35, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Madhhab Map4 (branches).png
Catholics are outnumbered by Sunnis alone but the Catholic Church amazingly appears to be the world's largest denomination, possibly even if counting "not affiliated with a religion" as a denomination. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:27, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I guess that may depend on who's defining 'denomination' (for instance who decides Sunnis are not a denomination?). As for the unaffiliated, I think anybody can divide them into all sorts of 'denominations' (atheists, agnostics, unaffiliated theists, etc). But I guess none of this is all that relevant to this nom, so I'll try to avoid saying any more on the subject.Tlhslobus (talk) 05:58, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Needs target We can't evaluate the nom without a target. It seems unlikely this event would be important enough for any of the three articles linked. ghost 15:36, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good point - The target seems to be Catholic Church in China, but it's not in the blurbs. Tlhslobus (talk) 06:03, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose would be a great DYK, otherwise it's just parochial religious claptrap. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:28, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's not parochial, China is a very major country and 1.2 billion belong to this church (world's most popular denomination (more populous than all entire religions except Islam and tied with "no religion"), was a major world religion for over 1.7 millennia (the 34% of world history since 313 AD) and dominated Western culture and Western culture west of about Soviets/Romanians/Serbs for 0.7 and 1.15 millennia respectively. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:57, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Some of your facts seem a little dodgy, but I think you're 100% right that it's not parochial.Tlhslobus (talk) 06:12, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on notability per above arguments by nom + Sagittarian Milky Way (they are broadly correct even if they seem wrong in some details). But, as ghost has pointed out, we currently have no proper target article to assess for quality.Tlhslobus (talk) 06:12, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment For accuracy's sake, the blurb should say that they were appointed by the Chinese legislature (of which 861 seats are not the Communist Party of China) Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 19:52, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - on notability as well. Perhaps Vatican State or similar would be the best article.BabbaQ (talk) 21:15, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. As already mentioned, the nom's intended target seems to be Catholic Church in China, but it's not in any of the blurbs. Tlhslobus (talk) 10:41, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Added that as target, but it needs work. ghost 11:45, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, ghost. I've changed the target to the relevant subsection of that article and added the target to all the blurbs. I'm not yet sure which blurb is most accurate, but if yours is, as I suspect, it might be a good idea to move it to the main blurb and drop the former main blurb to altblurb4.Tlhslobus (talk) 01:59, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The original blurbs seem very misleading (and originally had no target) so I've moved them to the back, added your blurb as main blurb, and added altblurb1 as your blurb plus the words 'and veto'. Tlhslobus (talk) 02:12, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on notability and uniqueness (?); China is the first communist country to do so, yes? —Angga (formerly Angga1061) 13:20, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely notable, but I'd be a bit surprised if the new arrangement itself is unique even for today's Communist regimes, let alone for some of the past ones. On the other hand the division of the Chinese Catholic Church into 'patriotic' (party-approved) and 'underground' (party-resisting) Churches may well be unique, and even if not unique (for instance I know nothing about the position of the Catholic Churches in North Korea, Indochina, etc) it may well be uniquely large (and perhaps also uniquely long-lived) for such churches, and thus moves towards ending this state of affairs may well be unique, and are certainly notable.Tlhslobus (talk) 02:27, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on merits. This is huge news in the world of religion. But sadly I must Oppose on article quality which is no where near acceptable for the main page. Referencing is dreadful. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:21, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've now mentioned it needs more work to make ITN on its Talk Page, and at 3 Wikprojects mentioned there (China, Catholicism, and Christianity in China). Perhaps that will bring in a few editors. Tlhslobus (talk) 02:55, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I have added the {{ITN nom}} template. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:47, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. But China–Holy See relations seems to me to be in much better shape, tho I'm not a very good judge of such matters. Perhaps some better judge might have a look at it, to see if it (and the relevant section within it) would make a better target, or at least one easier to bring up to scratch (it's much shorter and seemingly much better referenced).Tlhslobus (talk) 03:50, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(But even if it doesn't make a better target it may at least be a useful source of new references, and I've now mentioned this at Talk).Tlhslobus (talk) 03:55, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

September 21

September 21, 2018 (2018-09-21) (Friday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents
Health and environment
  • The government of Nigeria announces that 61 people have died and 50 others have been hospitalized from a cholera outbreak in Yobe. (Xinhua)
Law and crime
  • A woman goes on a stabbing rampage in Queens, New York City, injuring five, including three infants. All are in stable condition. (CNN)
Politics and elections
Science and technology
Video games

(Posted) RD: Vitaliy Masol

Article: Vitaliy Masol (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Former prime minister of Ukraine. Bit short, I will look to expand - Dumelow (talk) 13:37, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment – Suggest article include date of death. Sca (talk) 13:51, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Article is now sourced, including deathdate. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 18:36, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Article fully sourced. Capitalistroadster (talk) 19:50, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
→ Looks OK for RD. Sca (talk) 20:05, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Death of Trần Đại Quang

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: Trần Đại Quang (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: Vietnamese president Trần Đại Quang dies aged 61. (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: What a huge shocker... EternalNomad (talk) 05:20, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on quality. The death of a sitting head of state while they held office is definitely blurb material, but the article has some unsourced paragraphs and the like. --Masem (t) 05:49, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah.. sitting head of state, definitely. I'll try some cleanup. –Ammarpad (talk) 06:44, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support He is only technically the head of state. Vietnam is a communist country, and all power is concentrated in the hands of Nguyễn Phú Trọng who is the general secretary. Plus, the quality of the article is not all that good. Openlydialectic (talk) 07:38, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Vietnam is ruled by a triumvirate of the GenSec, PM, and President. The balance of power vary based on who's in power, but the GenSec doesn't have "all power". DHN (talk) 08:02, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    >Vietnam is ruled by a triumvirate of the GenSec, PM, and President.[citation needed]Openlydialectic (talk) 12:25, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Source: "Vietnam has no paramount ruler and is officially led by a triumvirate of president, prime minister and Communist Party chief, although experts say the presidency is more ceremonial than the other posts." DHN (talk) 18:18, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. Openlydialectic (talk) 22:35, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    This is certainly a weight against significance, so if his article was a postmortem stub I'd be opposed. As it is now, I think we should post this when quality issues are addressed. ghost 12:00, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Possible blurb material as it will impact the balance of power and there has been a cloud over his health for some time. Some of the honours appear to be unreferenced which is the main concern. Capitalistroadster (talk) 08:11, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Change to oppose on article quality issues.
  • RD only – Marginal notability. Sca (talk) 13:52, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now. Referencing is quite poor. Far too many paragraphs have only a single ref for multiple claims of fact and some have none at all. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:12, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • RD only the very first paragraph of this article contains the statement that someone else was actually the de facto leader of Vietnam, so I don't think we should post this just because he was technically the head of state. Lepricavark (talk) 15:30, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    That is pure speculation. The fact of the matter is he was the sitting head of state. While the role is ceremonial much like the role in parliamentary systems, he is actually probably more powerful than the president in those countries, since "Vietnam is led by a triumvirate of president, prime minister and Communist Party chief". DHN (talk) 18:18, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    It sounds like he was the ceremonial head of state while the power actually rested elsewhere. So no, I am not changing my mind. Lepricavark (talk) 18:28, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Would the same then hold true for the queen of England for example? She is a ceremonial head of state and has little to no power, perhaps even less power than this office affords. No blurb for her either on death or would that be different for some reason? 85.16.229.157 (talk) 19:24, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Obviously that would be different, for the blindingly obvious reason that QE2 is the head of state of sixteen countries, not to mention the former head of state of sixteen more, the longest-reigning British monarch (which goes back over 1,100 years), is one of the most recognised people in the world ... but you know all that. It's a ridiculous comparison. Black Kite (talk) 20:11, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • RD only - And ready for posting.BabbaQ (talk) 20:07, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose. Not well enough sourced, a lot of it is just bullet points ... peacock writing ("He is very well known for his hard work, dedication, composure and calm qualities"), general grammar and writing issues, but more importantly I picked a random sentence (" Welcoming Israeli Ambassador Nadav Eshcar, President Quang expressed his delight over the sound development of co-operative ties between the two countries, as demonstrated by President Reuven Ruvi Rivlin’s State visit to Vietnam in March") only to find that it's a straight copy from this news article. Elsewhere, "Tran Dai Quang made the statement at a meeting with a delegation of 87 outstanding HCMCYU members who won the Ly Tu Trong Award 2018 in Hanoi" is a straight copy from here but actually makes no sense whatsoever because the previous sentence in the news article hasn't been included (the question is "What statement?"). There is also copying and/or close paraphrasing from here, here, etc. etc. Copyvios on the main page - ain't happening. Black Kite (talk) 20:14, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose based on quality. The "Education" and "Political career" sections are bad but fairly easily fixable. "Minister of Public Security" and "Presidency" are a list of press-clippings; someone familiar with Vietnamese politics will need to edit those down. The whole thing has an ESL tone to it as well. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:25, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I have blanked the article as a copyright violation, which the vast majority of it is. Black Kite (talk) 20:33, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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) International relations

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: Brexit negotiations (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Prime Minister Theresa May says negotiations are "at an impasse" following yesterday's European Union leaders' meeting in Salzburg. (Post)
News source(s): ITV
Credits:
The Vintage Feminist (talk) 13:47, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose target article is not even in blurb, target article does not mention this information. --Jayron32 13:50, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose Nothing yet to affect the progress of Brexit. --Masem (t) 13:55, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Oppose per Jayron and also unclear significance. Does this mean Brexit is off? A "Hard Brexit"? Just a negotiating tactic? – Muboshgu (talk) 13:55, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – More Brexit blather. Sca (talk) 13:57, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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.

September 20

September 20, 2018 (2018-09-20) (Thursday)
Arts and culture
Disasters and accidents
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Science and technology
Sports

(Closed) RD: K-Run's Park Me In First

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: K-Run's Park Me In First (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Fox Baltimore
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Fuebaey (talk) 14:52, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The date of death is not referenced and is not mentioned in the text of the article. Otherwise it looks good to me - Dumelow (talk) 14:59, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the dog actually dead? There seems to be no source in the article that supports that claim. Also a procedural question - the dog is referred to, thoughout the article, by it's alternative name "Uno". Would this be a better name to use for the RD item? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:12, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is from the Associated Press and is the first reference in the article - looks reliable. The death does need to be added to the main body of the article though, not just the infobox.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:23, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah yes, I see it now, thanks. Is there any policy on having to use full names at RD, for dogs or for people? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:26, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • At first I couldn't find the actual date of death mentioned in that Fox article but see it is buried away in one of the photo captions - Dumelow (talk) 15:37, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Martinevans123: I don't recall seeing a show dog at ITN/C before - we've had racehorses and the occasional mayor of a small town, but if this were posted we might go with the shorter name for space reasons - I don't think there'a any rule against piping it.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:44, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. That Fox News article mentions his full name, but calls him Uno. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:46, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe that reader recognition and brevity are the interests at hand in picking the name. It would seem Uno is not an option here, but I don't think we can lop off the kennel either. Absent a better solution, I suggest ignoring the nom until it goes stale. ghost 15:52, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • That seems unnecessary. I'm sure an admin could figure something out.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:57, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was just being facetious. And an admin did! "Uno (dog)" is a perfect solution. ghost 16:13, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wonder could you explain why Uno is "not an option here"? As far as recognition is concerned, I'd suggest that, for most readers, both would be equally unrecognizable. One just takes up a lot more space. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:02, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was thinking the dog's common name would not be known to the general public. If that is not true, Uno would certainly be fine. ghost 16:09, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Notwithstanding the odd title the article appears to be adequately referenced and I can't see a reason for not supporting.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:57, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Article is of sufficient depth and is well referenced. Death is reported in reliable sources. --Jayron32 15:59, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, but I thought the article update requirement meant they should be used to support a clear prose statement somewhere in the article? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:05, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is unclear about the prose statement "Uno died, at the age of 13, of cancer on September 20, 2018." It has been in the article since 15:29, September 24, 2018. --Jayron32 16:27, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would suggest nothing. I must have missed that addition, which was made about an hour before you posted. Thanks User:Fuebaey, for adding it. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:12, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggesting Uno (dog). Would go with the full name on April 1 because of the name but not on a regular day. If I see some support for this suggestion, ready to post. --Tone 16:01, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would be fine with that suggestion.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:04, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support this is good to go but suggest unless the page is moved because it's agreed Uno is the common name, we should stick with the article title. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:13, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moving the article to the common name seems reasonable. I'll wait with posting until we decide what to do. --Tone 16:52, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't care either way (I oppose animal RDs generally), but this is getting real close to stale, if that matters at all. ghost 17:29, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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) MV Nyerere sinking

Article:MV Nyerere sinking (talk · history · tag)
Blurb:A boat capsizes on Lake Victoria killing more than one hundred. (Post)
News source(s):BBC News, NBC News, Reuters
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Could do with expansion. Fuebaey (talk) 13:34, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • 'Oppose...' for now. Stub. Sca (talk) 13:58, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I see the article is getting expanded, looks sufficient to me now, though more work is always welcome. --Tone 14:27, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, the article is no longer a stub and the article looks to be in good-enough condition. -- Tavix (talk) 15:35, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
→ Text is up to 270 words, which still seems minimal for an incident that caused at least 136 deaths and possibly many more. – Sca (talk) 15:41, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support It's been expanded and is now minimally sufficient for posting. Likewise referencing is adequate. Hopefully work will continue. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:23, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support – Ditto. Notable disaster. Sca (talk) 20:08, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - And seems ready for posting.BabbaQ (talk) 20:09, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - after some copy-editing, expansion and additional referencing, this seems ready to go. Significance goes without saying. Stormy clouds (talk) 23:33, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:55, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It is customary to include some information about the location of an event in blurbs. May I suggest something like "Tanzanian ferry MV Nyerere capsizes..."? It makes more sense to me than "a boat". Isa (talk) 05:52, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I did change "boat" to "ferry" when I posted, but adding the location is a great idea that Stephen has done. Thanks all! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:44, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Inge Feltrinelli

Article: Inge Feltrinelli (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Der Tagesspiegel
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: The Italian photographer. I have made sure every paragraph is sourced and tracked down as many ISBNs for the bibliography, but some ISBNs are still missing. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 23:43, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. Referenced article. 01:52, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Not that good, but not that bad either. –Ammarpad (talk) 09:57, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak support - not great. But adequate.BabbaQ (talk) 20:11, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support Good on reference, but could use expansion. Good though. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 02:48, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:00, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Naga City, Cebu landslide

Article: 2018 Naga, Cebu landslide (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: A landslide cause by days of heavy rainfall in Naga, Cebu in the Philippines, killing at least 29 and more than 50 others are missing. (Post)
Alternative blurb: A massive landslide triggered by several days of heavy rainfall in Naga, Cebu in the Philippines, kills at least 29 and more than 50 others are missing
News source(s): ion/212472-death-toll-naga-cebu-landslide-september-21-2018 (Rappler) (Philippine Daily Inquirer)
Credits:

Nominator's comments: This one is a little bit of big news, at least 30 deaths. BSrap (talk) 12:06, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak support Barely above a stub, but still on the right side of the line IMHO, well referenced. --Jayron32 13:28, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This one is fine. There really isn't a whole lot to say about the event itself, but it is still a significant story due to the deaths. No glaring omissions or other major problems with the article. -- Tavix (talk) 15:49, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - per above. Ready for posting.BabbaQ (talk) 20:12, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This looks okay. –Ammarpad (talk) 17:44, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:04, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

September 19

September 19, 2018 (2018-09-19) (Wednesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents
  • Hurricane Florence
    • The death toll rises to 37 after two mental health patients died when the police van in which they were being transported got caught in floodwaters. (BBC)
  • Storm Ali
    • Two people are killed by Storm Ali as it brings winds of up to 160 kilometres per hour (99 mph) in Ireland. (BBC)
Law and crime
Science and technology

(Posted) RD: Marilyn Lloyd

Article:Marilyn Lloyd (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s):Chattanooga Times Free Press, Washington Post
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: American politician. Fuebaey (talk) 18:59, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Bunny Carr

Article: Bunny Carr (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Irish TV presenter. I am working to expand it, but it is in reasonable condition - Dumelow (talk) 14:17, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I added everything I could find in the obituaries. Hopefully it is now up to scratch - Dumelow (talk) 18:07, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - indeed, ready for posting.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:25, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Good sources, redlinks removed, and this article should be ready for RD. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 23:43, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have marked this one as ready based on the above - Dumelow (talk) 12:52, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted. --Jayron32 13:21, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) RD: Geta Brătescu

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: Geta Brătescu (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Apollo
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: The Romanian artist. Article is well-sourced but sections 2, 3, and 4 might have to be dealt with. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 01:00, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Why even nomimate articles that are not ready. People will simply oppose.BabbaQ (talk) 06:52, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not yet opposing, but I've to disagree, it isn't "well sourced." –Ammarpad (talk) 08:05, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose How is this article "well-sourced?" The "Writings" section has no sources. ―Susmuffin Talk 13:00, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose referencing is very much substandard; most of the biography section has no clear sources, the writing section has none at all, etc. --Jayron32 16:13, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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: Jon Burge

Article: Jon Burge (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Chicago Tribune
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Article has Good Article status and is overall well sourced --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:49, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Whilst a good article there are a couple of points (and a whole paragraph) that need citing and there is an "as of June 2008" that could use updating. I have tagged the relevant passages - Dumelow (talk) 21:06, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Good work TDKR Chicago 101. There is one paragraph left uncited, the first one of the "Culture of violence" section. Otherwise I would support - Dumelow (talk) 22:16, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Dumelow:: Fixed--TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:22, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I had logged off for the day. Just to confirm my post-posting support on this one - Dumelow (talk) 06:52, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Could the lead be shortened/restructured? 8 paragraphs (fair enough some of them are very short) is excessive. Hrodvarsson (talk) 22:46, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I re-added a bit of detail that you removed, but the number of paragraphs is now 4, thanks. I don't think there are other issues, so I support. Hrodvarsson (talk) 23:23, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Dave Barrett (journalist)

Article: Dave Barrett (journalist) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Variety
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Award winning journalist that was the host of the evening edition of the CBS World News Roundup. Article will need expanding. StrikerforceTalk 20:16, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • As I said, the article will need expanding. I was very surprised not to find one about him. I just don't have the time today to do more than I already have. StrikerforceTalk 20:21, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, was I supposed to not comment here until you were personally ready? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:22, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wasn't implying that. I was just putting it out there that the article will be longer soon enough and that you may want to reconsider your !vote at that time. StrikerforceTalk 20:25, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed, I often reconsider my position, and I have this page watchlisted and contribute regularly. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:26, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – Stub. – Sca (talk) 21:17, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose Stub but I acknowledge nominator's need to expand. Also there are three sections with only one sentence each. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 23:20, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Stub. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:21, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have expanded the article. Based on the criteria for such, I believe that it meets "C" class and have assessed it as such. Happy to hear suggestions for improvement. Pinging @The Rambling Man:, @Sca:, @FoxyGrampa75:, and @TDKR Chicago 101: for additional consideration. StrikerforceTalk 17:43, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Referencing work has now been done. Well done Strikerforce. Capitalistroadster (talk) 22:56, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - per improvements. Ready for posting.BabbaQ (talk) 23:25, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted. --Jayron32 13:24, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Arthur Mitchell (dancer)

Article: Arthur Mitchell (dancer) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): New York Times
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: The African-American dancer. Two tags in the "Career at New York City Ballet" section but should be otherwise good. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 18:40, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose more than just the tags to take care of. Not good enough for a BLP. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:43, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Article needs ref work. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:22, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This article does not have enough inline citations. ―Susmuffin Talk 12:56, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I used the obituary more. Please mark where you think a citation is needed. It would be a shame not to mention such a person. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:31, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I added citations to the awards. If we can't source the honorary doctors, we could skip them for now. Out for the day. The more I read about him, the more I think he deserves a blurb, - countering bias. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:23, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support RD for its current quality. I would currently oppose a blurb, in part because of the article's quality. Regardless of its quality, I do not know if this guy's significance warrants a blurb, though his death is indeed in international news and definitely makes an interesting headline (per point 3 and 4 of the ITN purpose). ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 14:34, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Looks ok.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:45, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - ready for posting now.BabbaQ (talk) 23:26, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted --Jayron32 13:25, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) RD: Denis Norden

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: Denis Norden (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC News
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: English comedy writer. Fix refimprove tag. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 04:02, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Article needs ref work. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:08, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose with regret. Poor article. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:20, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per above. I wanted to nominate this last night but the referencing was too far below acceptable standards. I posted a tag on it which I see others have added to. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:32, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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 China–United States trade war

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 China–United States trade war (talk · history · tag)
Blurb:China and the United States impose tariffs on a combined $260 billion worth of each others' goods amidst an ongoing trade war (Post)
News source(s):[9][10] etc
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: With the US having threatened further tariffs if China retaliates (which they just did), this looks like it could be ongoing for a while. Banedon (talk) 01:02, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, this is a very slow moving, long-term story not even suited for ongoing because we have no idea when it will be resolved and is not the type of story that has daily happened. Further, The $260B appears to be the sum of the US's tariffs over three different points this year, not one mass sum, and that doesn't include anything China may have imposed. --Masem (t) 01:33, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The $260B in this suggestion refers to the $200B US tariffs and the $60B Chinese retaliation from the past 2 days. Coincidentally this does match the total US tariffs this year. Murchison-Eye (talk) 01:48, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose we can’t post every single action and retaliation of the trade war onto ITN. SamaranEmerald (talk) 02:11, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Absolutely true, but we should consider the worthiness of singular events within a larger ongoing event. We've posted a great many items to ITN about the Syrian Civil War, for example. 260B is a big number, I've no idea if it's significant in this context. ghost 13:17, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support decent article, story is certainly "in the news", the trade war involves the worlds two largest economies, impact felt on both sides, and unlike a bi-lateral trade agreement, this is a tit-for-tat application of tariffs imposed (on the U.S. side at least) with dubious legality. Bolsonaro was stabbed two weeks ago, I think it's ok for that blurb to roll off. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:43, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose as Masem mentions above, this is a slow story about heated rhetoric, effects are notable and will definitely lead to long-term consequences in the long run, but ultimately this is more-or-less a repeat of similar announcements and counter-attacks made by the two world powers in the previous months. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 18:34, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose this is small potatoes and we really don't need to cover each and every minuscule change that Trump implements at ITN. Honestly. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:44, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Niche story for economists to argue over and speculate. No impact on general readers, not ITN worthy.. –Ammarpad (talk) 19:52, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well general readers in the USA (by far the largest share of en-wiki readers) actually are impacted, by 10%, on goods imported from China. The Chinese are impacted too, since ... --LaserLegs (talk) 21:33, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, prices just went up 10% today, of course they did!! And you have no idea how this impacts the Chinese. So I'd stop this speculative line. It's getting to be mildly embarrassing. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:36, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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.

September 18

September 18, 2018 (2018-09-18) (Tuesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections

(Closed) RD: Robert Venturi

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: Robert Venturi (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The New York Times The Architects Newspaper
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Influential architect Xwejnusgozo (talk) 11:06, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, with regret. Definitely influential, but the article isn't in good enough shape for the main page. It would be tricky to not only fill in citations for the body of the article, but also to cite all of the structures that he built. Teemu08 (talk) 14:35, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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: David DiChiera

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: David DiChiera (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Detroit Free Press
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: The opera manager. Article needs a few more sources but looks good. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 14:56, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - several sections completely unsourced. Ping me if it will be improved.BabbaQ (talk) 16:55, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose not good enough for a BLP. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:21, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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: Marceline Loridan-Ivens

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: Marceline Loridan-Ivens (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): France 24
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: The French writer. Could use expansion from the French article. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 04:02, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Stub. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:08, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose one sentence? The Rambling Man (talk) 06:09, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This article only has two sentences of content. ―Susmuffin Talk 07:26, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This was previously closed per WP:SNOW but has been reopened because it has been de-stubbed by expanding from the French article. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 14:57, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Nothing special but reaches the minimum level for inclusion. Ready to go.BabbaQ (talk) 16:53, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Good work expanding this FoxyGrampa75. I think it needs just a little more to get it over the line. It is missing references for two passages in the biography section and there are no references for the filmography or awards sections. The grammar could do a check over too: "who emigrated to France since 1919"; " Edgar Morin casted her in the film Chronique d'un été"; "She assisted her in her work and co-directed some of his films". There is also no mention of her death in the article aside from the date in brackets at the top - Dumelow (talk) 17:27, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose A lot of issues. Multiple unreferenced sections and unsourced statements in referenced ones. Reference to unreliable French Wikipedia everywhere and incomplete references like "Voir, Klarsfeld, 2012.". I commend whoever destubbed it, but it's not yet ready. –Ammarpad (talk) 20:13, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have added some improvements to the article -- [11]. is there anything else to take care of, and do I have to delink the redlinks? FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 23:13, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Filmography and Awards need referencing, especially where there is no article. Red links are not a problem. Stephen 02:06, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find more info about the incomplete reference I said. I hope it was not just copied directly from French Wikipedia. –Ammarpad (talk) 08:14, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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: Steve Adlard

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 Adlard (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): JS Online
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: English footballer. Currently a stub. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 04:02, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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: Jean Piat

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: Jean Piat (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Le Figaro
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: French actor. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 04:02, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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: Norifumi Yamamoto

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: Norifumi Yamamoto (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): https://www.bbc.com/sport/mixed-martial-arts/45561100
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Mixed Martial Artist that was at one point considered among the best pound-for-pound in the world, and a huge star in Japan in his prime. Might need expansion to convey his cultural impact? Ginfners (talk) 17:20, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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.

September 17

September 17, 2018 (2018-09-17) (Monday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Arts and culture
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Science and technology

(Posted) RD: Celia Barquin Arozamena

Article: Celia Barquín Arozamena (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Guardian
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Just created so still has a stub tag - will need expansion. Subjects meets WP:NGOLF. Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:55, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support article is fully referenced. While it is a new article, the SNG is clearly met, and there is significant coverage. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:22, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - good to go.BabbaQ (talk) 18:18, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Looks fine. Marking as ready. Mamyles (talk) 20:18, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posting. --Tone 22:11, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) 70th Primetime Emmy Awards

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: 70th Primetime Emmy Awards (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: In television, "The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel" wins Best Comedy and "Game of Thrones" wins Best Drama at the 70th Primetime Emmy Awards. (Post)
News source(s): THR
Credits:

Article updated
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Nominator's comments: More likely can be written about the ceremonies (I did not watch, but thre's usually an "in memorandum" sequence, and those types of details, and just checking news headlines there was a marriage proposal by one of the winners. That should be summarized like we do with sporting events) Masem (t) 05:01, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment no prose, no good. Expect a wall of "Oppose - No prose" below from people piling on. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:26, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Have a look at last year's article, which contains a nice summary in the intro. Aiming for something like that :) --Tone 12:46, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - The Emmy's, Grammy's, and their ilk are fast approaching irrelevancy.--WaltCip (talk) 13:34, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    If they're, then propose removing them at the right venue. In the meantime, this is ITN/R and we've to accept that. –Ammarpad (talk) 13:40, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I will, as I have done the same time each year for the past three years for these navel-gazing award shows. Each year they have received substandard updates and failed to be posted. This combined with their steadily declining viewership simply asserts to me their lack of relevance.--WaltCip (talk) 01:59, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    If attempts to get it removed from ITNR have failed three years in a row, that would seem to show that there is even less excuse for raising non-quality objections to this ITNR item here.Tlhslobus (talk) 03:05, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per LaserLegs. Article quality is substandard. There is zero prose synopsis of the ceremony, the nominations, the awards, analysis, etc. It's just a bunch of tables with no context. --Jayron32 13:59, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose 674 bytes of character prose. Not even close. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:08, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – Per Jayron. (And I agree with Walt: Entertainment fluff.) Sca (talk) 14:25, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the article is virtually just skin and bones in terms of content: just a standard introductory paragraph and a table of the awards and winners. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 18:38, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WaltCip. Just not that important anymore. Lepricavark (talk) 01:09, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Both your !vote and WaltCip's should presumably be ignored as opposing an ITNR item on grounds other than quality.Tlhslobus (talk) 03:05, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But you aren't exactly ignoring our !votes, are you? Since you haven't provided any evidence for your claim, I would have to take a look at ITNR to see whether it disallows such opposes. And frankly, I don't care if it does. My !vote stands. Lepricavark (talk) 11:53, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is ITNR and as such should not be opposed on the merits. If you feel it should not be ITNR, please propose its removal at the ITNR talk page. 331dot (talk) 23:56, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken a look at WP:ITN/R. The box at the very top of the page labels it a guideline, not a policy, and explicitly allows for "occasional exceptions." That quoted phrase is wikilinked to WP:IAR. My !vote is valid. Lepricavark (talk) 01:07, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument to not post is that the awards as a whole are not that important anymore. While there may be validity in that, that is not discussing this specific instance, but instead the class as a whole. That argument goes to ITNR. --Masem (t) 01:09, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In case my initial post was not sufficiently clear, I will state for the record that I do not consider the 2018 Emmys to be significant enough to merit a blurb. Lepricavark (talk) 01:18, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Lepricavark. Although it would actually be up to the posting admin to decide (if the article ever achieves posting quality, which would rather surprise me), my own guess is that your !vote at least arguably became valid as soon as you mentioned WP:IAR. This seems to have possibly important implications for both ITNR and ITNRD, and (although strictly speaking this isn't a truly new situation) it might perhaps be worth starting a discussion about such implications (perhaps at the ITNC Talk page, and perhaps pinging everybody involved in this nom). I may or may not try to start such a discussion myself, but definitely not just yet, but perhaps some other editor(s) might wish to start one anyway without waiting for me.Tlhslobus (talk) 01:58, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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: Enzo Calzaghe

Article: Enzo Calzaghe (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: British boxing trainer. Article is pretty poor at the moment but I will look to see if I get get it up to the mark in the next few hours - Dumelow (talk) 15:15, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I expanded it a little and improved the referencing. It's not perfect but I think it meets the standard now - Dumelow (talk) 22:36, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • The problem I have with this isn't the sourcing, it's that the "Boxing" section, which let's face it is what he's notable for, is so small. There's no prose on the majority of fighters who he coached to fame. Black Kite (talk) 22:44, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted Stephen 01:23, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

September 16

September 16, 2018 (2018-09-16) (Sunday)
Health and environment
  • The Sunspot Solar Observatory in New Mexico is set to reopen on Monday after being closed due to "an on-going law enforcement investigation of criminal activity that occurred at Sacramento Peak" in which "a suspect in the investigation potentially posed a threat to the safety of local staff and residents". (CNET)
  • A man and a woman are taken ill after a medical incident in Salisbury, United Kingdom. Police seal off a restaurant as a precautionary measure. According to The Guardian, tensions are high due to recent Novichok poisonings. According to the BBC, "there's no suggestion that this is connected". According to Sky News, at least one of the individuals who fell ill is a Russian. (The Guardian) (BBC) (Sky News)
  • Two people die and 700 others seek medical attention, including three people in critical condition at the Defqon.1 Festival in Sydney, Australia, for drug-related issues. Premier of New South Wales Gladys Berejiklian says that the event is dangerous and will never take place again, effectively banning the music festival. (BBC)
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Science and technology
Sports

(Posted) RD: Tommy Best

Article: Tommy Best (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Hereford Times
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Former professional footballer. Article is short but adequate and decently referenced. Ad Orientem (talk) 03:20, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak oppose Three cn tags. I tried to nominate the article, but couldn't find sources to cite it. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 03:33, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
All three cn tags you added are sourced to the ref at the end of the paragraph? Kosack (talk) 06:13, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The reference may not be well positioned but it indeed verifies the content tagged with cn. Good to go. –Ammarpad (talk) 06:23, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - per Ammarpad.BabbaQ (talk) 18:19, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Looks good. Marking as ready. Mamyles (talk) 20:20, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted. Meets minimum standards. SpencerT•C 00:37, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Vontae Davis halftime retirement

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: Vontae Davis (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Football player Vontae Davis announces his retirement during halftime of a Buffalo Bills game. (Post)
Alternative blurb: American football player Vontae Davis announces his retirement during halftime of a Buffalo Bills game.
News source(s): ESPN
Credits:
Nominator's comments: Highly unusual to see a professional athlete decide to end their career by retiring during the middle of a game in which their team is currently competing. StrikerforceTalk 21:26, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose unusual isn't sufficient to include an article here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:29, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • We tend to not post sport retirements, unusual or not. Eventually, for super-high-profile athletes, one could argue. But probably not in this case. --Tone 21:30, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Thanks for the nomination, but this does not have the widespread top-level news coverage needed. 331dot (talk) 21:32, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just putting it out there for consideration. I won't be offended if it snow closes. :) StrikerforceTalk 21:36, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I totally support occasional nominations that are interesting ;) Though this one will probably be closed soon. --Tone 21:38, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Certainly unusual, but sadly someone who 95% of the world's population have never heard of isn't going to make ITN for this. Shame really, because the article is really good and far better than most of the stuff that ends up getting linked to the Main Page. Which makes me think - it can't be far off a GA, and it'd make a good DYK hook ... Black Kite (talk) 22:41, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose article is pretty good, few missing refs in his background. ESPN screamed about this for an hour while I was getting my oil changed today. Oppose because Davis seems to be a reasonable but not outstanding player (I'm happy to be corrected) and wasn't really a household name before this event. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:17, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose this is definitely not significant enough for ITN. Lepricavark (talk) 01:08, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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: James B. Thayer

Article: James B. Thayer (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: American WWII silver star recipient, brigadier-general and father of KISS guitarist Tommy Thayer. Article seems to be in good nick - Dumelow (talk) 23:19, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Only the KISS website/social media seems to be mentioning this as of yet, but the article is up to scratch. Hrodvarsson (talk) 23:57, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose until we have a report of his death from an reliable source other than the Kiss website. Article is well-referenced so is good to go once we have a reliable source. Capitalistroadster (talk) 01:24, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I added a ref to Tommy Thayer's twitter announcing the death. I don't like to rely on social media too much but I think it is appropriate here - Dumelow (talk) 18:53, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see The Oregonian has just covered it so I have added that ref also - Dumelow (talk) 18:55, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted. I edit-conflicted with Dumelow adding the exact same Oregonian reference. Black Kite (talk) 18:57, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Kevin Beattie

Article: Kevin Beattie (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Not good enough yet (stub) but hoping to change that soonest. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:24, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Eliud Kipchoge marathon world record

Proposed image
Article: Eliud Kipchoge (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: At the 2018 Berlin Marathon, Eliud Kipchoge of Kenya sets a new marathon world record at 2:01:39. (Post)
Alternative blurb: At the 2018 Berlin Marathon, in Germany, Eliud Kipchoge of Kenya sets a new marathon world record at 2:01:39.
News source(s): IAAF
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Marathon world record is one of those rare sport records that we post on ITN, together with 100m dash and perhaps some records in athletics that haven't been broken for ages. The last time the record was broken was in 2013 which we posted, and so was in 2011. The articles needs some updates first, though. Tone 09:49, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

see: c:Category:Berlin-Marathon 2018 --C.Suthorn (talk) 11:03, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - Significant record.BabbaQ (talk) 11:21, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait - The result is still subject to ratification. Once the press release is posted we can update the chart and table and then post. Mkwia (talk) 12:37, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quite a feat, taking 1 minute and 18 seconds off the previous world record set four years ago by Dennis Kimetto. The IAFF have published this, with the time. But that still says "*Subject to the usual ratification procedure". Martinevans123 (talk) 13:32, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Once ratified you've got my full support for posting. The ratification annoncement will appear here. Mkwia (talk) 13:34, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment added alt-blurb, not everyone knows where "Berlin" is. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:26, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it's pretty standard at ITN to leave off the country for major cities, and Berlin definitely qualifies IMO. The country is available if one clicks the link as well. SpencerT•C 16:55, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • The Kentucky Derby has run for over 140 years, but we still had to include the country then included it a different way and it still ended up at errors. We should be consistent, and include the country every time -- gotta fight that bias after all. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:08, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • There are certain places that most people are generally aware of and their location. London, New York, Paris, Tokyo, Cairo, etc. I think Berlin is well known enough. People aren't going to think it is Berlin, New Hampshire. Kentucky is not as well known as Berlin, I think. 331dot (talk) 18:49, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • Here in Georgia (U.S. state) I thought the marathon was in Colquitt County until I clicked the link. No matter how absurd, we should always include the country, because, you know, bias. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:46, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support alt-blurb for consistency. Lepricavark (talk) 17:17, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support following ratification. Bob talk 18:41, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support first blurb. Alt-blurb is unnecessarily superfluous. –Ammarpad (talk) 20:31, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support first blurb. The location being in Germany seems unnecessary, Berlin is listed because it was the actual race ran. Nice4What (talk) 20:37, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted. No way that photo's heading for the main page, though! Black Kite (talk) 20:51, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the blurb which doesn't spell out that the Berlin Marathon is in Germany. The claim that it's necessary to do that to fight "bias" is ridiculous and was rightly ignored. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:47, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Does anyone else think the current blurb is too brief? I prefered the original blurb. Mkwia (talk) 09:44, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Retirement of Delta II rocket

Articles:ICESat-2 (talk · history · tag) and Delta II (talk · history · tag)
Blurb:ICESat-2 is launched, the last mission to use the Delta II rocket. (Post)
News source(s):[12]
Credits:

Article updated
One or both nominated events are listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

Nominator's comments: ICESat-2 was the last launch of a Delta II. Of the rockets still flying, only Russia's Proton has more flights. At over 150 launches, it is the most launches by a non-Soviet rocket. 71.197.186.255 (talk) 20:01, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't know the refs are ok esp since it's not a BLP, I don't know if spacelaunchreport.com is a WP:RS or not, it leans on that source heavily. One ref early in the launch history section is to a 2 page PDF of unknown origin -- tidak bagus. I'm not a rocket scientist, but there is nothing egregious in the article. Really, I don't know, it's a weak support or oppose I guess. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:44, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose, comparing to the last flight of a Space shuttle, the retirement of Delta II model does not feel like an end to an era. Currently, Delta IV is being used from the same family and there are a series of rockets with comparable performance. On the other hand, what about highlighting the satellite and mentioning the rocket in the blurb? --Tone 08:01, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question: Are you arguing that ITN/R does not apply here, perhaps because Delta II is somehow not 'any type of rocket' within the meaning of ITN/R's "The first and last launches of any type of rocket"? If so I think you need to say so explicitly and explain why ITN/R somehow doesn't mean what it appears to mean, because otherwise your oppose should be ignored as opposition to an ITN/R item on grounds other than article quality. Tlhslobus (talk) 20:36, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah, ITNR has it? Did not remember that. Will not argue against that, though one could debate whether "Delta" or "Delta II" count as a type. As said, I'd prefer also focusing on the satellite which is interesting on its own. --Tone 20:42, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks, Tone, I suspect the "any" in "any type" is there to try to spare us such debates. I think the satellite may be better unbolded, especially if that's somehow needed to prevent any quality issues there delaying the posting of an ITNR item, tho both articles seem in decent shape to me (but then I'm no expert on ITN's quality requirements). Tlhslobus (talk) 21:07, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Meanwhile could you please either strike out your above 'weak oppose', or else replace it with an oppose on quality grounds? Tlhslobus (talk) 21:12, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support: This is ITNR so only quality issues should delay it, and both articles look in decent shape to me. But my support is weak because I'm well aware that I'm no expert on our quality requirements (which also tends to mean that my quality inspections are usually less thorough than they would be if I were claiming expertise). So I guess I'm saying something like 'seems OK to me but don't post without an OK from others' and also asking for others to please say what, if anything, needs fixing (apart from the questions Laserlegs has asked above, which I don't feel competent to try to answer, but others might).Tlhslobus (talk) 21:07, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted No strong objections, articles are good, and retirement is ITNR. Stephen 01:59, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Stephen. Tlhslobus (talk) 02:52, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

September 15

September 15, 2018 (2018-09-15) (Saturday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
Law and crime
Science and technology

(Posted) Hurricane Florence

Proposed image
Article:Hurricane Florence (talk · history · tag)
Blurb:Hurricane Florence (pictured) kills at least 11 people and causes widespread inland flooding in the Carolinas, prompting mass evacuations. (Post)
Alternative blurb:Hurricane Florence (pictured) kills at least 11 people and causes widespread inland flooding in the Carolinas, prompting mass evacuations in the east coast of the United States.
Alternative blurb II:Hurricane Florence (pictured) kills at least 11 people and causes widespread inland flooding in the Carolinas, prompting mass evacuations in the United States.
Alternative blurb III:Hurricane Florence (pictured) causes widespread inland flooding in the Carolinas, prompting mass evacuations in the east coast of the United States.
Alternative blurb IV:Hurricane Florence (pictured) makes landfall in North Carolina, United States, killing at least 11 people.
News source(s):USAToday, BBC, WGHP
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Catastrophic inland flood event is beginning to unfold as record-breaking rains swell rivers. Large-scale evacuations have begun, specifically along the Cape Fear River (which is expected to rise by 40ft over the next two days) and Little River. Forecasts anticipate this to be among the worst flood disasters in North Carolina history. Wholly separate event from Typhoon Mangkhut so blurbs should not be combined if/when Mangkhut's article is ready. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 19:50, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - Plenty of media coverage, making it ITN-worthy, and the article quality is good. Jusdafax (talk) 20:02, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support easy. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:06, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the two above votes are self-explanatory for my support. SamaranEmerald (talk) 20:31, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not disagreeing on this being a blurb, but I see no reason not to combine this and Mangkhut. We routinely do this for other topics in the same specific topic area with both aspects are appropriate ITN (the last few times have been for auto races that happen the same weekend). Yes, two different storms, but equally deadly and destructive, so there's no reason not to have both in a blurb. --Masem (t) 21:15, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Two Atlantic hurricanes? Sure. Two pacific typhoons? Maybe. Two storms on opposite sides of the world? No thanks. We don't combine elections, next spring we'll have five different European soccer blurbs in a short period of time. We can spare two blurbs for these two different storms on different sides of the world if consensus emerges that they should be posted. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:04, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strongly agreed with LaserLegs. The fact that they are the same type of event doesn't mean that we should post them as a single news story. We wouldn't merge the general election of one country into the general election of another country, and we shouldn't merge an Atlantic hurricane hitting the Carolinas into a Pacific typhoon hitting the Philippines. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 22:18, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support better than many disaster articles, what's there is fine, but WP:RS is talking about catastrophic flooding and the article hasn't been updated. Also should it be "Impact" or "Impacts"? --LaserLegs (talk) 22:06, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Very large storm that struck high-populated areas as a strong hurricane, and it's stalling in the area (which is why Harvey was so devastating) whilst hugging the coast (which helped Irma stay alive during its final landfall). No, we shouldn't merge this with Typhoon Mangkhut. Yes, we should quickly post Florence (and post Mangkhut separately). Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 22:08, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – Notable event, extreme rainfall impact. Master of Time (talk) 22:12, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Problem already solved by altblurbs. Propose a new altblurb if this is insufficient. Enough bickering. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 00:07, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The blurb doesn't state the country in which "the Carolinas" can be found. Chrisclear (talk) 22:19, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply That blurb is sufficient. "the Carolinas" is a hyperlink which clearly shows the map of the United States. Saying "East Coast of the United States" is less informative. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 22:25, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply To say that a blurb without a country is insufficient. Readers should not have to click on a link to find out the location of the country where the event took place. If there was a hurricane that hit the Sapphire Coast, I doubt it would be deemed acceptable to state Sapphire Coast with a wikilink but fail to include the country. Notwithstanding your pejorative language below ("lose their mind"), I'm glad you've suggested alternatives that state the country. Chrisclear (talk) 23:34, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Saying "East Coast of the United States" is less informative." Ridiculous. Only an American could have written that. HiLo48 (talk) 23:10, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Such a statement is objectively correct; it's not disputable that "the East Coast of the United States" is less specific than "the Carolinas" by definition. It's equally valid to say that "New South Wales" is more informative than "the East Coast of Australia." Nevertheless, I've proposed altblurbs that solve this problem. Brendon the Wizard✉️ ✨ 23:15, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"it's not disputable that "the East Coast of the United States" is less specific than "the Carolinas" by definition." Until yesterday, I had never seen nor heard the term The Carolinas. My spellchecker disapproves of it. Again, only an American could write what you are writing. I don't mind the fact that Americans see (and spell) things differently from the rest of the English speaking world. What bothers me is when they assume that everyone else sees things the same way as them. No, "the Carolinas" is quite unclear to many people. "East coast of the US" is 100% clear to the whole world. HiLo48 (talk) 23:22, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Have you heard of the US states of North Carolina and South Carolina? They are sometimes known as the Carolinas. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:29, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes? By non-Americans? HiLo48 (talk) 23:40, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
HiLo, even if I agreed to the premise of your argument (which I don't; I truly have no problem with someone saying "in Tasmania" or "in Ontario" or "in Donetsk" or "in Catalonia" or "in Nizhny Novgorod" etc), there's a reason why we'd use "the Carolinas" (hyperlink) and not "the Carolinas" (not a hyperlink, assumes the reader already knows where that is). Nothing about that proposed blurb assumes that everyone sees the world through an American lens. Brendon the Wizard✉️ ✨ 23:39, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it does. That's why you need a hyperlink. Nobody should be forced to click on a link, and many won't. Again, I submit the term is never (well, hardly ever - can't know for sure) used outside the US. We should not use it. Why won't Americans accept advice from non-Americans about the language? HiLo48 (talk) 23:43, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The East Coast of the US (not east coast) is a very unspecific area. At one end it's so tropical they haven't seen 40°F in recorded history (54,000 nights) and at the other it's seen -41°F or -52°F and they get meters of snow every year. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:36, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We generally have no qualms with accepting advice from most non-Americans. It's those with a clear anti-American bias that we tend to ignore. Lepricavark (talk) 23:55, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please discuss what I have written, rather than me. HiLo48 (talk) 00:01, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But we have to discuss you, HiLo, because you insist on making you and your painfully obvious anti-American bias a central point of every discussion that involves contentious items like this. When are you going to give it up? WaltCip (talk) 00:05, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No. You have an anti-American bias and it is becoming a serious problem. Lepricavark (talk) 00:03, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"East Coast of the U.S." is too broad. It ranges from Maine to Florida, most of which is not affected by this storm. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:32, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The issue is not with the term "the Carolinas" per se, it's just that this level of detail should be secondary to stating the country in which the event took place. Chrisclear (talk) 23:38, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, but "East Coast of the U.S." is so broad as to be inaccurate. There's probably a way to say "the Carolinas" and "U.S." without referencing the entire East Coast of the U.S. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:44, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree; for that reason I've kept "the Carolinas" in every altblurb. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 23:39, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Haters will lose their minds at errors, and we do tend to include the country in a disaster blurb -- but I have no idea how to add it without it being clunky. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:04, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're probably right that people would lose their mind at errors; I've attempted to write two altblurbs that should satisfy this concern. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 23:15, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as stand alone blurb. It is notable and there has been a fairly slow turnover of articles meaning we can afford to have stand alone articles on both if quality warrants it. Capitalistroadster (talk) 22:28, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - with two comments. 1. Please don't count dead bodies. Just assess the storm. 2. Everyone posting here should quickly also get over to the Typhoon Mangkhut nomination and work on that, to redress Wikipedia's systemic bias. HiLo48 (talk) 23:13, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added another altblurb that excludes mention of death toll (which honestly is how it should be with a hurricane listing, the death toll can change very drastically, both rapidly and over an extended period of time). Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 23:24, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • We routinely post the death toll from natural disasters, in fact, the current typhoon in the box was posted with the death toll, I don't like it, but we shouldn't just stop doing it for this one select item. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:18, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Understandable, worst case scenario is we go to errors to update the death toll if new numbers come out while it's still on the FP. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 00:28, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support obviously. Lepricavark (talk) 23:55, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment alt-blurb 2 is "best", the east coast of the United States is a massive region, evacuations are limited to the Carolinas, but it still feels clunky. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:15, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Mass evacuations happened before the storm hit. There is no need to mention those in the blurbs, and particularly in light of the Typhoon nominate. (This is in part why having these two storms combined into one blurb eliminates bias between the two events; if we are going to have these separate, we can't focus undue weight in one that's not in the other). And hurricanes/typhoons by nature bring widespread destruction. It is the size of that impact that makes it an ITN rather than just another storm, so eliminating the death count at this point makes no sense. --Masem (t) 00:19, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Before or after the storm hit, the evacuations were certainly the result of the hurricane, the blurb is accurate. No bias here, two stories, in the news, if there are quality updates to both, both go up. That's it. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:30, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am 100% sure both stories will go up once the quality is there. That's not the issue, it is the blurbs here. I'm pretty sur there were evacuations for the Philippennes too for the Typhoon but that's not a fact in the blurb, its the the death count. These two stories will be appearing at the same time, they should have the same equivalent "facts" to avoid bias. --Masem (t) 00:44, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment I agree with most of Masem's comments above - that blurbs for Florence and Mangkhut should contain similar information. The current proposed blurbs for Florence seem incredibly long when compared to the proposed blurbs for Mangkhut. The reasons for this seems to be that (1) As noted by Masem, the blurbs for Florence contain references to "prompting mass evacuations", whereas the blurbs for Mangkhut do not (2) the blurbs for Florence contain references to "widespread inland flooding", but the blurbs for Mangkhut do not (3) The blurbs for Florence mention both "the Carolinas" and "Eastern United States", but the blurb for Mangkhut only mentions either northern Philippines or Luzon. In order to reduce the length of the Florence blurb, it would be useful to consider the following: (1) removing the references to "prompting mass evacuations" and/or (2) removing references to "widespread inland flooding" and/or (3) not stating "Eastern United States" and/or (4) if The Carolinas, United States is considered too clumsy, state North Carolina, United States. I added an altblurb4. Chrisclear (talk) 01:49, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Since Brendon the Wizard insists on hiding the part of the thread where people criticised his opinions, I need to say it again here. "The Carolinas" is a term not well known outside the USA. (My spell checker disapproves too.) This is a global encyclopaedia. We should avoid the term. HiLo48 (talk) 03:26, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I closed it because you insisted on perpetuating an argument over a non-issue. The problem was solved basically as soon as it started, but you turned it into a wall of text and even tried un-closing it. Saying "North Carolina" is inaccurate because it's causing significant damage to both North and South Carolina. Stop inventing ways to make every last discussion about perceived American biases. Brendon the Wizard✉️ ✨ 14:37, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Reply At the time of writing, the Hurricane Florence article states that "Florence made landfall in Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina". Although there has been hurricane-related damage in South Carolina, this state appears to be more than 50 miles away from where the hurricane made landfall, the specific word used in the blurb. Chrisclear (talk) 15:35, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, though I personally prefer that the blurb mentions both because the real impacts of Florence are certainly not limited to North Carolina, as several of the confirmed deaths thus far are in South Carolina, so I think the blurb should reflect this as it's a significant part of what makes the story newsworthy. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 15:47, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Very large amount of news coverage, and sadly quite a lot of deaths. Article looks to be in good shape. Hrodvarsson (talk) 00:22, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I purposefully have left altblurb IV open, but if it too is exhausted, I would not mind someone overwriting one of the others in favor of a fifth one. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 00:28, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support altblurb IV as it's shortest and most similar to Mangkhut. If necessary it could be further shortened by changing United States to USA.Tlhslobus (talk) 04:42, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: My above support for altblurb IV is partly on the basis that it's most similar to Mongkhut, but that should NOT be misunderstood as support for postponing posting Florence until Mongkhut is ready. No doubt that would show systemic bias, but as WP:BIAS itself says, such systemic bias is probably unavoidable in the real world. (Incidentally, if it were up to me, which it very sensibly isn't, I quite likely wouldn't post either event as neither seems particularly exceptional, but that's clearly irrelevant here, due WP:CONSENSUS).Tlhslobus (talk) 05:48, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, if we post one without posting the other (and this is likely assuming Florence is nearly ready), that's a huge bias problem. Both storms are in the news, and while I know the amount of press covering Florence relative to Mongkhut is significantly different, our project has zero excuse to have one article in great shape sufficient for ITN and the other in crappy shape - that's clearly Western bias at play here. This is a very unusual situation in terms of the simultaneous nature of two similar disasters in separate parts of the world, and it does put a lot into light of how misbalanced the updates have been. (This is why I'd still encourage a combined blurb so that both are posted with apparently equal weight to avoid any systematic bias that WP is in the right position to overcome.) --Masem (t) 05:59, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree that it's a bias of sorts, and all bias necessarily has some problematic aspects. But on balance I don't think it's a huge problem, or even a problem at all (in the sense that I think the upsides likely equal or outweigh the downsides). I think the real 'huge problem' is the notion that English Wikipedia, unlike any of the other Wikipedias, can and should be 'unbiased' in the sense of giving equal coverage to the non-English-speaking world, a notion which is arguably itself massively biased against the English-speaking world. In this regard, despite still agreeing with much of it, I increasingly see WP:BIAS as a thoroughly POV and often harmful essay which is rightly NOT part of our policies or guidelines, despite often being treated as such (including by me, among others). However this is the wrong forum for discussing WP:BIAS, even if ITNC in general, and noms such as this one in particular, are seemingly among the forums most harmed by the bad parts of WP:BIAS. Hence my post-posting support below.Tlhslobus (talk) 16:07, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • There are likely topic areas that what happens in non-Western/non-English speaking parts of the world compared to those that do have less importance may be imbalanced (like politics). But human life loss in natural distances is the same everywhere in the world. The lack of a quality update on the typhoon article compared to the volumes written for something here shows a systematic bias we should be trying to overcome. --Masem (t) 16:12, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • It may be systemic bias, but it's not obvious why this is something we should be trying to overcome. With a huge and unnatural effort we have once again managed to give the false impression on the front page that we are something which we can't ever be in practice anywhere except on the front page. This probably alienates many of our English-speaking and Western readers, while making non-English-speaking and non-Western people see this, arguably correctly (and arguably dangerously, whether correct or not), as yet another example of hypocritical and deceitful Anglos and/or Westerners dishonestly practicing 'cultural imperialism' at their expense through creating and exploiting a false and misleading impression of benevolent impartiality and universality, etc. However this argument probably ultimately belongs elsewhere, so I hopefully won't be drawn into saying any more about it here.Tlhslobus (talk) 18:30, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posting now, hopefully the other storm article catches up with the quality quickly. --Tone 08:02, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Tone.Tlhslobus (talk) 16:07, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • PP comment – Rather than "killing at least 11 people," which seems subliminally anthropomorphic and rather too immediate, how about "causing at least 11 deaths" – ?? – Sca (talk) 14:12, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-Posting Support despite the 'bias', for reasons already explained above.Tlhslobus (talk) 16:07, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That alleged 'Bias' has now disappeared following the posting of Mongkhut. But those determined to see bias can presumably still point to Florence being pictured despite the much higher Mongkhut death toll. And in this case they would seem to be right (or at the very least to have a far stronger case than before), as adding the Mongkhut picture is easy (whereas bringing the Mongkhut article up to scratch was hard). There is also a separate 'cosmetic' problem associated with this, as the Florence picture currently seems to be illustrating Mongkhut. Tlhslobus (talk) 17:33, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Tlhslobus: Image has been replaced with one for Mangkhut. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 17:51, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Cyclonebiskit. Tlhslobus (talk) 17:53, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Typhoon Mangkhut (2018)

Article: Typhoon Mangkhut (2018) (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: At least thirty people have died after a massive storm brought destruction to the northern Philippines. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Typhoon Mangkhut impacts the Philippines, Taiwan, and China, resulting in at least 67 fatalities.
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Still some referencing issues. Sherenk1 (talk) 13:00, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wait. This is ongoing as of writing my comment. Just wait for the reports of how many deaths. I will oppose if the deaths are lower than 10. BSrap (talk) 13:45, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait and Oppose current blurb as currently written (it's also not in the present tense). Would support something closer to Typhoon Mangkhut kills at least n people / leaves n people without power / causes x dollars of damage / causes x amount of flooding after striking the northern Philippines 184.153.25.119 (talk) 14:45, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Maybe combine this with Hurricane Florence, or add both to ongoing. LugnutsFire Walk with Me 15:26, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is actually not a bad idea: we have 14 from this storm and at least 7 from Florence, which for storms of this size are scrapping "MINIMUMDEATHS", but a combined blurb would be reasonable, something like "Typhoon Mangkhut kills at least 14 in the northern Philippines, while at least 7 are killed from Hurricane Florence in the eastern United States." --Masem (t) 15:37, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"MINIMUMDEATHS" was never a policy to begin with and the redirect to that userspace essay was deleted for causing more harm than good and being overall misleading and unhelpful, but personally I'd either add both to ongoing or post the two separately. If I'm not mistaken, the landfalls of 2017 hurricanes were posted swimmingly, rather than waiting until after they've been affecting land for many days to post, or proposing posting them to ongoing instead. I support doing what we did in 2017: consider the landfalls of these extremely destructive storms to be news stories. I support posting both of them as individual ITN stories, and Mangkhut has already killed many people; it's a very large, extremely powerful storm, and it has already objectively caused widespread devastation. Nothing too soon about that.
As for Hurricane Florence, by virtue of the facts that Florence was near major at landfall, that it's a massive storm by size which allows for widespread devastation from flooding, storm surge, and winds, and that high pressure systems north of the storm are forcing it to stall for many days (like Harvey did) and hug the coast (like Irma did) I strongly disagree with the arguments that it's too soon to know if Florence's landfall is newsworthy. Everything about its landfall is newsworthy. I'm considering unclosing the other nomination; I think that the way it was proposed was botched, but the news story itself is quite obviously important. It was in good faith that it was closed, but the statement "we tend to wait until the damage has been reported" could not be further from the truth because damage reports don't happen until long after hurricane season has ended entirely, and at WP:TC we tend not to present preliminary damage reports as fact (noting that they're preliminary) because they're often neither official nor fully accurate.
Lastly, I also oppose the wording of the current blurb. I don't disagree that it is a "massive" storm, it certainly is, but for obvious reasons the blurb should be more informative and straightforward. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 18:06, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment it's storm season, we posted one in Japan that killed 14, Florence is up to 11, Mangkhut has killed 14. I oppose combining the blurbs, there is nothing related between an Atlantic hurricane and a Pacific typhoon except that they're large rotating storms. I also think we should stop focusing on death toll alone, it's an absurdity which has limited bearing on the overall impact of the storm - advanced warning and high building standards in the US and Japan mitigate death toll but do not lessen the significance. So, we can either post both, because they're in the news, or stop being the "death and destruction box" and post neither. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:16, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on quality – Needs work/expansion in all sections. However, notability is sufficient: Category 5 landfalls are exceptionally destructive events. Communications with the effected areas is next to zero so news will be slow to come. Offered an altblurb ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 19:22, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on quality notably on referencing. If this is cleaned up, then I will support. Capitalistroadster (talk) 22:32, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on merit, temporary oppose on quality per my previous comment on this nomination. Notability is certainly not in question, but the article isn't ready just yet. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 22:50, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support If this isn't posted, it will be the best demonstration yet of Wikipedia's systemic bias. HiLo48 (talk) 23:14, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – If no one else gets to it in a few hours, I'll give expanding the article a whirl. Info to get this up to par is easily accessible through Talk:2018 Pacific typhoon season and the NDRRMC. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 23:26, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Article needs a bit of work. Take this as a support if/when the article is expanded. Hrodvarsson (talk) 00:24, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Only to note this storm is still going, threatening landfall on China/Hong Kong now. (also updating death toll per [13]) --Masem (t) 04:03, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Death toll updated to 30. ~ KN2731 {t · c} 07:27, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I just posted the Florence blurb. Ideally, we would have both storms on ITN but the quality of this article is currently below the Main page standards. Looking forward to posting as soon as this improves. --Tone 08:07, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"...the quality of this article is currently below the Main page standards." That's our systemic bias for you. HiLo48 (talk) 08:14, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am not posting an article with 3 orange tags and empty subsections, bias or not. I would be happy to expand the article but this is really not my expert area. --Tone 08:28, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I have to admit being surprised that this is not ITN on the English Wikipedia. Do people in the Philippines not also speak English? Putting it on ITN may also help to improve quality. Rhombus (talk) 08:53, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - ITN ready. And is covered by all world media.BabbaQ (talk) 11:38, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on article quality. The article has three orange tags. It is clearly not ready for the main page, repetitive cries of 'systemic bias' notwithstanding. Lepricavark (talk) 12:29, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and post now per WP:IAR. IMHO the credibility of Wikipedia is harmed more by seeming to favour Western stories than by a few maintenance tags in the article. Ordinarily I 100% support quality improvement prior to posting, but I think the downsides of waiting outweigh the benefits right now. Just my opinion, of course. — Amakuru (talk) 13:27, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the article is no where near MP ready, with the Meteorological history section mostly unreferenced. In terms of being comprehensive (an actual requirement of ITN, as opposed to screaming about bias as is happening above) it's slim on details for the preparations and impact section. The storm is still active and we put the brakes on posting Florence until it had petered out and the impact reported. Lastly, posting this doesn't bring back the dead, doesn't dissipate the storm more quickly, doesn't cause plane loads of supplies to descend on south east asia, there is absolutely no reason, none at all, zero reason to rush this to the main page. Fix the article and it'll go up, the story is "in the news". --LaserLegs (talk) 13:41, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • FWIW, damage from Florence is only to get worse (the system stalling inland bringing more rain which means more floods). We should post disasters articles once we know the disaster is significant and the article is at quality, even if we know the worst is still around the corner. --Masem (t) 15:10, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Marked as ready – I've expanded the met hist to get enough for ITN standards and there are sufficient references and info in the preps/impact section to warrant posting. Not posting myself since I'm involved in the article's expansion and want input from others, however. Suggest using the altblurb ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 16:39, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Excellent, posting now. --Tone 16:42, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-post Support. I expanded it a bit and also think it's ready. OhanaUnitedTalk page 17:13, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-posting comment: Wouldn't it be better to post it below Florence, as the Florence picture now seems to be illustrating Mangkhut? Or alternatively to use a picture of Mangkhut that is in the Mongkhut article? As this is a 'cosmetic' problem (and perhaps also a 'perceived bias' one due to Florence being pictured despite Mongkhut's much higher death toll), but not technically an error, I'm not sure whether to mention it at WP:ERRORS as well as here, tho other editors should please feel free to do so if they wish. Tlhslobus (talk) 17:21, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Prepping Mangkhut's image for protection so it can be posted. Will replace Florence's image once it's ready ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 17:44, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-posting late comment: It would seem to be better to replace the somewhat unnatural (and euphemistic) word 'fatalities' by the more natural and widely understood word 'deaths', perhaps especially in a blurb about an event that mainly affects non-English speakers. (Similarly to what has already been mentioned above for a different matter, this is not technically an error, so I'm not currently planning to mention it at WP:ERRORS as well as here, tho other editors should please feel free to do so if they wish). Tlhslobus (talk) 03:54, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've now also said this at WP:ERRORS, as it seems to have gone unnoticed here.Tlhslobus (talk) 19:48, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

September 14

September 14, 2018 (2018-09-14) (Friday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Arts and culture
Disasters and accidents
International relations
Law and crime

September 13

September 13, 2018 (2018-09-13) (Thursday)
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
Law and crime
Politics and elections

(Closed) Hurricane Florence

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: Hurricane Florence (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Hurricane Florence makes landfall in (insert location). (Post)
News source(s): http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/09/14/hurricane-florences-path-track-storm-here.html
Credits:
Nominator's comments: Hurricane that has potential to cause widespread damage in the USA. 1779Days (talk) 05:58, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait, obviously - Does one get kudos for posting a weather forecast? HiLo48 (talk) 06:28, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Far too premature even if it makes landfall, if all it does it dump a lot of rain and cause some flooding (as hurricanes tend to do) but no deaths, we shouldn't post this. --Masem (t) 06:31, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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) Massachusetts gas explosions

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: Massachusetts gas explosions (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Gas explosions in Massachusetts lead to evacuations as more than 30 fires erupt. (Post)
News source(s): CNN Guardian (UK)
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Brand new article, unusual condition that is getting national coverage. — xaosfluxTalk 00:44, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support read the article a few minutes ago, it's light on details but so are WP:RS. This is certainly a rare event. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:13, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to Xaosflux; the sources line in the template is not a yes or no question; typically the nominator links some news stories to demonstrate the nominated event is in the news. Just FYI only. 331dot (talk) 01:17, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks I'm not normally on the nominating side of these! — xaosflux Talk 01:47, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose While this is certainly an unusual situation, there have been no death reported, and this doesn't seem to be anything like a planned event (read: terrorist attack). Unfortunate, but not going to have lasting impact from what we can tell (eg arguably will fail NEVENT in the near future). --Masem (t) 01:58, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Earthquakes, fires, floods, night club fires, plane crashes, so so much of what we post could easily fall under that criteria. I'm not saying you're wrong. --LaserLegs (talk) 09:00, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose per Masem, unusual but no lasting impact, will likely fall out of coverage once Hurricane Florence makes landfall tomorrow or so. SamaranEmerald (talk) 02:11, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, the event has garnered enough media attention. The article looks good, I don't see any glaring problems from my read. -- Tavix (talk) 02:18, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose largely due to the article being a stub at the moment and the poor timing of this disaster, which like the above user notes, will likely be shrouded by the incoming hurricane within the next few hours. I also agree with both oppose votes above that the impact will be minimal and short-term at best. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 02:30, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It's attaining significant coverage, and the article is pretty good and sufficiently long to cover the subject. Davey2116 (talk) 03:44, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - US centrism will no doubt get this posted, but that's even worse this time round because of the comments that it will be overshadowed by some storm, also about to hit the USA. You Americans are only making yourselves look worse. Do look at what's happening to the the other 95% of the world's population sometimes. This is simply not a major event globally. HiLo48 (talk) 03:54, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
HiLo48, There are certainly valid reasons to oppose this(and I do as well), but "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." If you want to fight the very real systemic bias, please make some nominations. As noted, there are currently 0 US related blurbs. 331dot (talk) 09:46, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
HiLo48, Continuing to rail about US centrism is irritating to the point of being disruptive. You were warned about doing this on ITN a few years ago. Stop it.--WaltCip (talk) 11:17, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose localized event that suffers from widespread news coverage in the wake of a soon to be worse disaster. I wouldn't be surprised if this article is nominated for a speedy deletion in the near future. Kirliator (talk) 04:10, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose because we must put a stop to the US centrism that has resulted in there currently being 0 US-related blurbs. Actually, I'm opposing because this just isn't a big enough story for ITN. It's the kind of story that almost never gets posted, but is nevertheless seized upon as proof of some very serious problem. Lepricavark (talk) 04:11, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Ra Ra All-American comments are the problem. HiLo48 (talk) 04:17, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, so you were talking about a different thread. Gotcha. Lepricavark (talk) 04:20, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - story lacks the necessary significance for an ITN posting. Stormy clouds (talk) 08:10, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose trivial event, with no encyclopedic value or any long-lasting impact. DYK is a possibility. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:34, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - would make a decent DYK though ... Black Kite (talk) 09:05, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. No long lasting impact. 331dot (talk) 09:46, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if it has "no lasting impact" or "no encyclopedic value" or "fails NEVENT" then consider taking it over WP:AFD since that's the place to have content removed from Wikipedia, not here. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:30, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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.

September 12

September 12, 2018 (2018-09-12) (Wednesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
Law and crime
  • A man plows his car into a crowd of people at a busy square in Hengyang, Hunan, China, before exiting his vehicle and stabbing bystanders. Eleven people are killed and 44 others are injured. The attacker was detained and identified by police as a convicted drug dealer and thief, who said that "he wanted to take revenge on society". (South China Morning Post)
  • Five people are killed in a string of shootings in Bakersfield, California, before the gunman fatally shoots himself. (Reuters)
Politics and elections
Sports

(Posted) RD: Henry Kalis

Article: Henry Kalis (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Minnesota state legislature representative. I have expanded the article a bit - Dumelow (talk) 06:00, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Looks good to go. Hrodvarsson (talk) 00:33, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Good to go.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:45, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have marked this ready based on the above supports - Dumelow (talk) 19:03, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted Stephen 01:42, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Antonio Saca sentencing

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 Saca (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Former Salvadorian president Antonio Saca is sentenced to 10 years in prison on embezzlement and money laundering charges. (Post)
News source(s): Reuters
Credits:
Nominator's comments: Sentencing of a former head of state. EternalNomad (talk) 01:44, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose target article lacks consistent information about the conviction other than a single sentence. This is however noteworthy, and iff expanded, I will reconsider my vote. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 02:35, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on quality, lack of update. Topic does meet appropriateness for ITN posting otherwise. --Masem (t) 02:58, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Solely on article quality which is well below what we should be expecting from an article about a former head of state. This goes beyond the usual referencing issues, which do exist. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:53, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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: Rachid Taha

Article: Rachid Taha (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Algerian singer. Not my area of expertise but at a quick glance the article looks OK - Dumelow (talk) 21:48, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak support minus the two CN tags, the article is pretty good. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:59, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have now reffed those two passages - Dumelow (talk) 22:22, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Good work! --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:01, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Shen Chun-shan

Article: Shen Chun-shan (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Focus Taiwan News Channel
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Article updated and well sourced --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:48, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market

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: Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single_Market (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: The European Parliament has voted in favor of the Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market, removing the "mere conduit" exemption from copyright infringement (Post)
News source(s): https://www.theverge.com/2018/9/12/17849868/eu-internet-copyright-reform-article-11-13-approved
Credits:

Article needs updating
Nominator's comments: Nominated due to the significant change this could bring to the internet at large, as well as the significant media attention it was reciveing prior to the vote. Topic has been covered by numerous reputable papers. and effects any ewbsite that links to news articles on mass. Fremanofkol (talk) 14:06, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I was in the middle of actually nominating this when I read that there still is a final vote to be held in January. This is not yet passed. Definitely suggest waiting until Jan. --Masem (t) 14:08, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Masem.--WaltCip (talk) 14:25, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose suggest this is closed. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:57, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose because the article is still garbage and is not comprehensive at all as stipulated by WP:ITN. It's just a list of objections by special interests to specific sections, and tells me precisely fuck all about the actual law. I'll oppose it again in January if it's still in it's current state. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:47, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    HOORAH. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:48, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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.

September 11

September 11, 2018 (2018-09-11) (Tuesday)
Disasters and accidents

(NDTV) Braview Academy Highschool in Whitefield, Dundee (Scotland) burns down after a major fire occurred as dozens of fire fighters finally put it out fortunately no one was injured

Health and environment
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Science and technology

(Posted) RD: Don Newman (basketball)

Article: Don Newman (basketball) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Article a bit thin but potentially acceptable. I formatted a few references, but don't have time to review it thoroughly - Dumelow (talk) 22:00, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Record section remains unsourced and one cn tag. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:19, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have added refs for these sections - Dumelow (talk) 08:39, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Fenella Fielding

Article: Fenella Fielding (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: British actress, appeared in two "Carry On" films. May need some minor referencing issues addressing. Mjroots (talk) 07:16, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak oppose per nom, there are just a couple of claims that need referencing. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:49, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I have added several references. I think this is ready for posting.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:46, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted. Black Kite (talk) 13:47, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) RD: Ramin Panahi

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:Ramin Panahi (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s):Rudaw, VOANEWS, Amnesty International
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: I haven't made any changes but founded the article and nominated to the RD. ئارام بکر (talk) 13:36, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose principally a stub. But what's there is okay, hence the weak. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:41, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose Somewhat concerning that there is little to nothing about this person's life, only the circumstances of their death. Looks like a borderline WP:BLP1E.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:46, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose - for now. if improvements are made today then I can change my vote.BabbaQ (talk) 13:35, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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: Kulsoom Nawaz

Article:Kulsoom Nawaz (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s):DAWN, BBC
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Saqib (talk) 11:32, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Support The article looks fine, but lede section needs expansion. Amir (talk) 13:03, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support nothing to write home about, but satis. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:44, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • support - Seems ready for posting.BabbaQ (talk) 17:25, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted Stephen 00:11, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

September 10

September 10, 2018 (2018-09-10) (Monday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Science and technology

(Posted) RD: Co Westerik

Article:Co Westerik (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s):NRC Handelsblad, NOS
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: I've made some changes but the article needs work. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 18:43, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment – Article is rather stubby at 250 words. Perhaps it could be expanded with (translated) material from the Dutch article? Sca (talk) 20:52, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The basically completely unreferenced article? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:00, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support. Article is well referenced but Dutch article is sparsely referenced (2 references). The length is a bit short. Capitalistroadster (talk) 02:17, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support - Short indeed but just right at the edge of inclusion at RD. BabbaQ (talk) 06:47, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted Stephen 00:09, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

September 9

September 9, 2018 (2018-09-09) (Sunday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and economy
  • Weinstein effect
    • Les Moonves resigns as CEO of CBS Corporation amid reports of sexual misconduct allegations and an ongoing investigation into his behavior. CBS donates $20 million to groups supporting the Me Too movement and states that this money may be deducted from Moonves' severance package depending on the investigation's results. (CNN)
Disasters and accidents
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Sports

Swedish general election, 2018

Article:Swedish general election, 2018 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb:In Sweden, the general election results in a hung parliament, with the Red-Green alliance, led by incumbent Prime Minister Stefan Löfven, retaining a plurality of seats. (Post)
Alternative blurb:The Swedish Social Democratic Party, led by incumbent Prime Minister Stefan Löfven, retains the most seats in the Riksdag.
Alternative blurb II:The Swedish Social Democratic Party's share of the vote in the Swedish general election declines by 8.4 percent from 2014, while the right-wing populist Sweden Democrats' share more than doubles.
Alternative blurb III:The Swedish Social Democratic Party, led by incumbent Prime Minister Stefan Löfven, loses support but retains the most seats in the Riksdag.
News source(s):BBC, NPR, AP, Reuters, Guardian
Credits:

Article needs updating
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

Nominator's comments: Hopefully I've phrased this blurb correctly. The election article has serious sourcing issues, and the Red-Green article should be updated. Davey2116 (talk) 06:00, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Some details: The composition of the Riksdag is final, but who forms the government is very much unclear. There are three main factions: the left (the "Red-Greens"), with 40.7% of the popular vote and 144 seats; the center-right (the "Alliance"), with 40.3% and 143; and the far-right (the Sweden Democrats), with 17.6% and 62. Both 'mainstream' factions are claiming victory, while neither is willing to enter into coalition with the Sweden Democrats. Davey2116 (talk) 06:00, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The composition is not quite final; the results are still preliminary. TompaDompa (talk) 07:05, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The preliminary vote count is complete and the article is updated with numbers (the mandatory recount will take another week). Narayanese (talk) 14:06, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added altblurb. PR systems often result in no outright majority (no party has won a majority in 50 years and never in this incarnation of parliament) and coalition building. Hung parliament is written for FPTP Westminster systems, which is not applicable here. Red-Greens (Sweden) needs eight years' worth of updates or at least for it to not have been dead for that length of time.
Like most Western election articles, there is prose on the background to the election and a bunch of tables. Unfortunately, there is a severe lack of inline citations to support the majority of it. There also is no prose update on the results in the article. It is unfair to ask the reader to infer, that the two main blocs are deadlocked and that a populist party are potential kingmakers or that alliances might split to form a working majority/minority government or that there might be a new election, from an infobox/table - especially if they are unfamiliar with the electoral system. On a minor note, the lead is quite thin. Fuebaey (talk) 14:58, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Since we appear to be !vote counting, please note that I Oppose posting this at this time for the above reasons. Fuebaey (talk) 15:50, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Per historical result. Article seems ready for posting.BabbaQ (talk) 15:35, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support alt2 – with most significant results. Sca (talk) 15:44, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This is not at all ready. There are plenty of unsourced paragraphs. I'm pretty sure it's against MOS to bold the links of the political parties, but I don't remember where it would say that. No prose describing results (remember to write for a global audience, Americans don't have a parliamentary system) and an empty "Reactions" section. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:05, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Muboshgu. Missing text on results and reactions, many citations needed. Article needs major work before it is main page worthy. Fix that, and consider this a support. --Jayron32 19:04, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on merit, oppose on quality - feel free to ping me if/when quality concerns are met, and I will gladly flip to a support !vote. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 19:43, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose alt2 Does not at all match the result from the Swedish election authority (which the article of course copies from, e.g. in the infobox). Narayanese (talk) 20:27, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Fix the article, then post, but don't use a blurb with the word plurality in it. It's a word never used in my English speaking country, so will only confuse my countryfolk. "The most" is a perfectly good alternative. HiLo48 (talk) 22:00, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Plurality is used in U.S. English, but only in reporting on parliamentary elections elsewhere. Sca (talk) 00:24, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Plurality" is technically the correct word, because it indicates winning the most of something without reaching a majority. But if you're using "hung parliament" in the sentence anyway, that's a given so you could just say "wins the most seats". Black Kite (talk) 22:28, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not Alt2, because it appears to be false. The SD's share of the vote went from 12.9% to 17.6%, and their seats from 42 to 63. Neither of those things is "more than doubles". Black Kite (talk) 22:25, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawn – Alt2 withdrawn. Could support Alt3. Sca (talk) 00:24, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Do we even know what the Red-Green Alliance really is? Our article on it says it has two member parties and one supporting non-member. If you omit the non-member then it is not the largest alliance, contrary to what our proposed blurb states. And my understanding is that both alliances are claiming victory, perhaps precisely because it depends on whether one includes the non-member or not. And claims in our article that Red-Green is the largest alliance are not currently backed by citations from reliable sources (and even if they were it might be hard to know whether these particular sources were being given undue weight or not). (Also the alliances, if you include the non-member's 28 seats, are very close, but I don't know enough to know whether they are so close that the compulsory recount might change the result.) So it might be better to go for altblurb1, perhaps modifying it to indicate that the party has lost support (this is its worst result in over 100 years, since 1911).Tlhslobus (talk) 04:28, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • In light of my above comment, I've now added altblurb3 for the reasons indicated above, and also because I don't see why the Prime Minister should be highlighted.Tlhslobus (talk) 04:52, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose because (among other reasons) the article's lead seemingly needs to explain the results far better than it currently does, especially in terms of the currently unmentioned Alliances, before we can post (tho I'd prefer to leave that explanation to somebody who understands Swedish politics a lot better than I do). Tlhslobus (talk) 04:52, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've wikilinked hung parliament and plurality in the main blurb, as a lot of readers won't know what they mean.Tlhslobus (talk) 05:04, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personally I think we should wait until the final results are in, which will happen on Wednesday at the earliest. Official source in Swedish. Since it is so close, only then will we know for sure which bloc is bigger. I also want to say that Tlhslobus gets it exactly right when they say that "both alliances are claiming victory, perhaps precisely because it depends on whether one includes the non-member or not." My personal opinion is that it's fair to include the non-member, as that's what all three parties seem to be talking about at the moment, and they have been an active member before. Nonetheless, it's a very complicated situation, and any value judgements have a risk of not being very neutral. The one thing that we can be sure of right now, is that the Social Democrats remain the largest party, and for the moment Löfven remains the prime minister. He may be voted out in a few weeks when parliament convenes, but he's not resigning before then (which would be the norm for an obvious loss, which this isn't, hence the disagreement). 83.233.111.29 (talk) 09:55, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
→ According to the Guardian, official results give the center-left bloc one more seat in the Riksdag than the center-right block. Sweden consequently faces "weeks, if not months, of talks to form a new government." Time to close? – Sca (talk) 21:43, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Frank Andersson

Article: Frank Andersson (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Aftonbladet
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

--BabbaQ (talk) 17:59, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose Sorry, but I don't think that he's notable enough for ITN. --Pine✉ 18:05, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Pine: This isnt a ITN nom. If he is notable enough for inclusion he is notable enough for RD. It is an RD nom, not an ITN nom.BabbaQ (talk) 18:08, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • As you were writing I had second thoughts. I'm striking my oppose because it looks like the consensus on this page for the notability threshold for recent deaths is lower than I would have thought. Personally I would prefer a higher bar, but I don't want to start that discussion at this time. --Pine✉ 18:10, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @BabbaQ: Can you clarify the clause "were a mechanical heart was operated in"? First off, is it supposed to be "where" instead of "were"? And what is that about a mechanical heart exactly? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:11, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Looks good to me now. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:19, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I was trying to nominate this, don't know what took my attention away. –Ammarpad (talk) 18:38, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Article seems to be in good shape with no referencing issues. Capitalistroadster (talk) 22:07, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted Stephen 23:15, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2018 US Open (tennis)

Proposed image
Article:2018 US Open (tennis) (talk · history · tag)
Blurb:In tennis, Naomi Osaka (pictured) wins the women's tournament and Novak Djokovic wins the men's tournament at the US Open. (Post)
Alternative blurb:In tennis, Novak Djokovic wins the men's tournament and Naomi Osaka wins the women's tournament at the US Open.
News source(s):CNN
Credits:

Article needs updating
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

Nominator's comments: Lots of controversy surrounding Serena Williams loss at event, citing sexism Irkediambed (talk) 12:12, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Opposecurrently - the tournament hasn't finished (hence no blurb is available yet), and - there's little prose apart from the small section on the women's final (which mainly concentrates on Wiliams). What other prose there is, is largely unsourced. Will need to be sourced and updated for the men's final. Black Kite (talk) 12:45, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Tournament just concluded 184.153.25.119 (talk) 01:25, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am going to note the quality of the update need to be very carefully done - there's a big mess around Senera Williams' loss and her rant towards the ultimate winner in Woman's Singles that is creating a social media stir. (see [14]). --Masem (t) 23:21, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added alt blurb 184.153.25.119 (talk) 01:25, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added blurb --- Coffeeandcrumbs 04:45, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose both blurbs. Osaka article has eight [citation needed] tags, and the US Open article has no prose about the men's final and only some prose on the controversy in the women's final. Neither adequate for posting. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:41, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have fixed the Osaka article. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 01:40, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support first blurb - Major tennis event, especially notable this year for Williams' loss. Nice4What (talk) 09:03, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Whatever get posted, no mention should be made of Williams' temper tantrums. This should be about the positive sides of the story, not the negative. Mjroots (talk) 12:13, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose As is so often the case with sports nominations, not enough prose. (The only "notable story" is the women's final?)--Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:55, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose In addition to Pawkingthree's comment on the lack of prose, there are also no sources in the "Tournament" and "Broadcast" sections. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:11, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The prime story from the women's final was Serena Williams' outburst, and I feel very strongly that that should be included in the blurb.--WaltCip (talk) 17:04, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    No, having the first Japanese women's champ is newsworthy, Williams throwing out her toys should be consigned to the trash. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:15, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether you like it or not, Williams' reaction and the media response to it has been the newsworthy part of this event in almost every news outlet, not who the champion is.--WaltCip (talk) 17:53, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, if you're a tabloid. This is an encyclopedia and the most encyclopedic thing to happen in the final was the first Japanese winner. Williams can go back and pick up her toys in her own time. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:55, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Unreferenced sections and undue emphasis on Serena Williams dummy spit. Osaka's win is the noteworthy element of the womens singles final as the first Japanese woman to win a grand slam and only the second Asian woman (if memory serves) will be much more notable in the long term. Capitalistroadster (talk) 18:45, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support first blurb - I don't get the obsession with having lots of meaningless words added to sports articles. The results are the news. (Apart from someone's tantrum, and that won't pass the ten year test.) HiLo48 (talk) 22:06, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It isn't getting posted in the state it's in. The lede hasn't been updated, the two prose paragraphs about the tournament itself are completely unsourced (hence the massive great tag at the top which disqualifies it straight away), and there's no prose about the men's singles final, let alone anything else. Black Kite (talk) 22:13, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The ten year test clearly violates WP:CRYSTAL, and, somewhat unusually, in this case the results clearly aren't the news - if we want the news we need a new altblurb: Celeb throws tantrum Face-smile.svg but, perhaps unfortunately, that'd be WP:SNOW, per the ITN Cabal Face-smile.svg Tlhslobus (talk) 05:41, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, having read and thought a bit more about it, including the sexism and the allegedly racist cartoon rows it has generated, I now suspect 'celeb throws tantrum' may have been a bit too flippant of me. And, although it's arguably WP:CRYSTAL (but arguably also relevant to judging what's 'encyclopedic' about this, which is arguably relevant to our assessment of article quality), I also suspect that this row is far more likely to be remembered in 10 years' time than the 'first Japanese winner' aspect (I think John McEnroe's outburst are better remembered now than many of those who beat him, and that's without any sexism and racism aspects to those rows, unlike the current story). I'd also be interested to hear when both male and female Grand Slam finalists were last penalized a whole game (especially so close to the decisive phase of the match), and to see that mentioned in our article if there are any reliable sources mentioning it (if only because it seems relevant to our readers' understanding of the 'sexism' row).Tlhslobus (talk) 21:30, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The BLP for Naomi Osaka is ready I think. So too is Novak Djokovic which has over 400 RS. Do we have to bold the 2018 US Open? --- Coffeeandcrumbs 01:40, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support first blurb The winner bios are updated and ready to post even if the tournament page can't be in bold. I have significantly improved the references in Naomi Osaka's page.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 01:40, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not seeing a single reference in Osaka's article after "Significant finals." Stephen 05:10, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose due to lack of references throughout. Titoxd(?!?) 21:56, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – Per Pawnkingthree. (Williams spat has been relentlessly hyped in the last three days and shouldn't be in any blurb.) Sca (talk) 13:49, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This should probably be closed. The article is no better at all than it was 4 days ago, and if there was any particular reason to post it a la the Williams debacle, that is no longer in the news either. Black Kite (talk) 13:52, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Spat aside, the event is still ITNR and could be posted if improved. What value is created in closing? ghost 11:16, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Stale. Sgt close. – Sca (talk) 14:33, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Admins: consensus doesn't seem to have developed and the topic is getting stale. Suggest close. 184.153.25.119 (talk) 14:48, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) RD: Gennadi Gagulia

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: Gennadi Gagulia (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): RT
Credits:

Article needs updating
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Standing PM of Abkhazia at the time of his death. Openlydialectic (talk) 10:50, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - at least four paragraphs are completely unsourced. MurielMary (talk) 11:08, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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.

September 8

September 8, 2018 (2018-09-08) (Saturday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
Health and environment
Law and crime

(Posted) RD: Lorraine H. Morton

Article: Lorraine H. Morton (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): https://chicago.suntimes.com/news/evanston-mayor-lorraine-morton/
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Fully sourced to secondary sources MurielMary (talk) 19:09, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) World Trade Center–Cortlandt (IRT Broadway–Seventh Avenue Line)

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: World Trade Center–Cortlandt (IRT Broadway–Seventh Avenue Line) (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: The WTC–Cortlandt (IRT Broadway–Seventh Avenue Line) subway station opens for the first time since being destroyed in the September 11 attacks in 2001. (Post)
News source(s): [15]
Credits:

Article updated
Philroc(c) 18:56, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The (re-)opening of a train station does not feel significant to me unless it is one with very high significance beyond the local area. This news does not pass that bar. Sorry. --Pine✉ 19:04, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • To expand on my comment: the association with the September 11 attacks, and the length of time that the station was closed, also do not make this news significant enough for ITN, in my opinion. --Pine✉ 19:07, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose As collateral damage from 9/11, this is not really as significant as to be compared to something like the new WTC being opened for the first time (which was the target of the attack). --Masem (t) 19:09, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for reasons similar to that of Pine and Masem. It's just a train station. Chrisclear (talk) 20:13, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. As the person who's mentioned as the "updater" of this article, I don't think it meets the ITN notability criteria. The ITN page is for things that have global relevance, or have great national significance. The Cortlandt Street reopening is basically local news, whereas something like One World Trade Center (which was in ITN four years ago) is nationally significant. epicgenius (talk) 20:26, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I would note that this is the last train station closed by 9/11, at about 20 meters from the Twin Towers ([16]) the station and first few yards of track out the south end was by far the closest rail infrastructure to the footprints of the Twin Towers (besides the ultradeep PATH (only leaves the state of New Jersey for 1 stop, not New York subway) which was never rebuilt, they just built a tunnel bypassing the damaged area and put the station there) and the station was crushed by falling debris from the towers. Here they dug out the debris (6+ floors to bedrock, 16 acres), built a tunnel where the old one was which was tens of feet in the air for many years, rebuilt the underground shopping mall, park and stuff to bring the hole back to ground level and sometime during this the station was built where it was in the Old World Trade Center. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:59, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – Historical footnote. Sca (talk) 21:08, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, but seems like ideal DYK material? Black Kite (talk) 21:24, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Black Kite: Unfortunately, it doesn't qualify for any of the DYK criteria. It's being nominated for Good Article status right now, though, and once it passes GA it could be nominated for DYK. epicgenius (talk) 21:57, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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: Abu Hassan Omar

Article: Abu Hassan Omar (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): New Straits Times
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Malaysian politician. –Ammarpad (talk) 12:58, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose too many unreferenced claims. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:39, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm unsure as to what "too many unreferenced claims" refers to (in my book, that's several lengthy paragraphs of prose - here it was two sentences) but they have since been resolved - my thanks to Stephen for specifically tagging. The more pressing issue was the atrocious grammar, which I'm surprised no one picked up on. Tried to clear it up a bit. Appreciate it if someone can go over it again and catch stuff I may have missed. Fuebaey (talk) 16:13, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I just went over it, it still looks okay to me. Thanks for the fixes. –Ammarpad (talk) 17:59, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted Stephen 22:53, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Chelsi Smith

Article: Chelsi Smith (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): ABC13
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: American singer/beauty queen. Article well sourced. –Ammarpad (talk) 07:06, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support has been tidied up and is ready for main page. MurielMary (talk) 09:12, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - And ready for posting.BabbaQ (talk) 11:22, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posting. --Tone 18:48, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Alibaba Co Founder Jack Ma to retire

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 Ma (talk · history · tag)
Blurb:Jack Ma announced he will retire from Alibaba on September 10 2018 and pursue educational charity work. (Post)
News source(s):The Economic Times ,Los Angeles Times
Credits:
  • Oppose We don't post retirements. --Masem (t) 04:06, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was a retirement, and that was highly contested ITNC. At least with Ferguson, there was some accolades to suggest how important the retirement was. Here, it is a wealthy CEO leaving his business. Not in the same ballpark. --Masem (t) 07:22, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ferguson was the manager of a successful group of imported sports stars who kicked a ball about. Exact same pitch, actually. 1000% exactly the same. Five years on, and no one has forgiven the Ferguson posting. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:40, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Axtually I’m afraid that demonstrates how much you don’t know about Ferguson and his legacy. But that in itself serves a purpose I guess. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:57, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I don't see how this rises to the level of a blurb. Lepricavark (talk) 04:07, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support one of the largest people in tech and business worlds Openlydialectic (talk) 04:16, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – while the above is true, this particular story is of very narrow interest. Important people retire or shift the focus of their work constantly. – Juliancolton Talk 04:20, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Fail to see why this should be mentioned on ITN. –Ammarpad (talk) 04:48, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose DYK at best. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:21, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Alibaba is one of the world's biggest companies: from Alibaba Group article, "Its online sales and profits surpassed all US retailers (including Walmart, Amazon and eBay) combined since 2015." And the company is only 19 years old. Not posting this seems rather guilty of systemic bias. Banedon (talk) 12:33, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. He is not leaving the public eye, just changing focus. 331dot (talk) 12:39, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Nowhere near ITN-worthy. Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:06, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose WP:MILL. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 13:09, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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.

September 7

September 7, 2018 (2018-09-07) (Friday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections

(Closed) Hery Rajaonarimampianina

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.
Proposed image
Article:Hery Rajaonarimampianina (talk · history · tag)
Blurb:President of Madagascar Hery Rajaonarimampianina (pictured) resigns from office due to year-end presidential election contestations. (Post)
Credits:
ArionEstar (talk) 01:36, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. If this article is correct, the incumbant president must resign if they want to rerun for President. In other words, this is business as usual. --Masem (t) 01:41, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: He resigned so as to contest again; nothing more routine than this. When he gets reelected, that will be the real news. –Ammarpad (talk) 05:58, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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: Samuel Bodman

Article: Samuel Bodman (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Hill
Credits:

Article needs updating
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Article updated and well sourced --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:37, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. Article well-referenced. Capitalistroadster (talk) 06:49, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Doesn't seem to be any consensus in the article as to the date of death? Citation needed tag on death date. Should be resolved before posting to main page. MurielMary (talk) 09:45, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @MurielMary:: Since there is no reliable source citing the exact date of death, the article simply has September 2018 as the death date with info of former President Bush announcing his death on September 7. Issues fixed. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 15:02, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Mac Miller

Article: Mac Miller (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): TMZ US Weekly
Credits:

Article needs updating
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Rapper. Multiple reliable sources are reporting the story, but all are citing TMZ as the source. This would normally make me a bit uncomfortable, but their track record on this sort of thing is pretty solid. StrikerforceTalk 20:56, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support seems legitimate enough, no major article problems but could be tidied a bit (do all his albums need their own section)? Kingsif (talk) 21:11, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support article seems good enough, reliably confirmed by NBC News citing law enforcement: [18] EternalNomad (talk) 21:55, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Article is alright. Hrodvarsson (talk) 22:57, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Decent article and adequately sourced. A couple minor issues...I added a single CN and I note that the list of studio albums and tours are unreferenced, but I don't see those as controversial claims. Not enough to hold up posting. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:06, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support. Some work needed on discography referencing and one citation needed. Capitalistroadster (talk) 03:09, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, looks good to me. --AmaryllisGardener talk 05:31, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose One CN tag and discography needs referencing. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 07:36, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support looks fine. feminist (talk) 11:19, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Everything is ok except for discography and tours references. Blue links are not sufficient as references. --Tone 11:59, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I cited the albums, but can't find sources for the tours. May be the article can do without that. 17:32, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support I cited the tours. Only had to type the names into Google. That was it. Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 18:03, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Marked ready. –Ammarpad (talk) 18:35, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Ready for posting I agree.BabbaQ (talk) 20:12, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted per clear consensus. The handful of issues raised have been fixed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:31, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Brazil presidential frontrunner stabbed, is in serious condition

Proposed image
Article:Jair Bolsonaro (talk · history · tag)
Blurb:Jair Bolsonaro (pictured), the frontrunner in the upcoming Brazilian presidential election, is stabbed during a campaign rally and is in serious condition (Post)
Alternative blurb:Brazilian presidential candidate Jair Bolsonaro (pictured) is stabbed during a campaign rally.
News source(s):[19]
Credits:

Comment. The ref doesn't say critical. It say serious. Moriori (talk) 00:27, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Oppose Only a candidate, not actually the president and he did not actually die. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:53, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still, Brazil is a large (210 million, 5h largest country in the world) and stable (compared to most others) country so that an attempt on the frontrunner is a notable event even if he didn't die. Think about whether we would have made an ITN note if Trump had been stabbed and in serious condition during his electoral campaign. Openlydialectic (talk) 01:47, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Doesn't reach the level of significance needed for ITN material. –Ammarpad (talk) 03:08, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Openlydialectic's response to AO. Banedon (talk) 03:21, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Good analogy from Openlydialectic. An attempted assassination on a large political figure fits the bill for "in the news", whether they die or not. Spengouli (talk) 04:26, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Not everyday a presidential candidate of a major country let alone the front-runner (most likely to be president) is stabbed and is in critical condition. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 06:15, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support For reasons similar to those expressed by Openlydialectic, Banedon, Spengouli and TDKR Chicago 101. If a similar incident happened to Trump or Clinton in 2016 this would very likely be posted, so it should follow that this story about Bolsonaro should be posted as well. Chrisclear (talk) 06:46, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I have to agree with the Support-assessment. Seems ready for posting.BabbaQ (talk) 07:02, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I agree with the other supporters. This is a major incident in the forecoming of the presidential election.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:26, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Target article is OK and significant event in Brazilian politics.Capitalistroadster (talk) 07:32, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posting. --Tone 08:12, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question is there a citation for "the frontrunner"? Almost all opinion polls have PSL in 2nd place and losing the runoff. Smurrayinchester
(Perhaps with the complications about Lula, it's not technically untrue, but it's confusing) Smurrayinchester 13:31, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I take issue with this as well. I think frontrunner is fine to use when there's a clear dominance in the polls, but it feels a bit loaded applied here. I mean Hillary Clinton was the clear frontrunner in the last US presidential election but it would still not feel neutral or necessary to have referred to her as such in a lede. Owen (talk) 15:33, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

September 6

September 6, 2018 (2018-09-06) (Thursday)
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Science and technology

(Posted) Jocelyn Bell Burnell awarded the Special Breakthrough Prize in Fundamental Physics

Proposed image
Article: Jocelyn Bell Burnell (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Jocelyn Bell Burnell, who discovered the first radio pulsars in 1967 but was omitted from the related 1974 Nobel Prize in Physics, receives the Special Breakthrough Prize in Fundamental Physics. (Post)
News source(s): WPost
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Significant news in science. Pine✉ 06:37, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support It's always time for a good science story. And we have a lady to write about as well. It's all good. HiLo48 (talk) 06:50, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Science stories are always good. However, some context is missing in the award article - there are many winners of 2018 and Bell Burnell is listed separately as special award. Is this because she got award for other work than the others? Is there a special category? If so, why is she in the same table? The article should answer that. --Tone 08:49, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've added an explanation to JBB's article. I'd rather leave it to someone else to fix the FPP article, as I prefer to focus on improving her article. (Disclosure: I know Jocelyn personally, but not closely. More detail on the article talk page.) --NSH001 (talk) 15:36, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The award is not listed at ITNR, plus the rationale, "to help women, ethnic minority, and refugee students become physics researchers" is not remarkable.Brandmeistertalk 15:52, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • As a note, awards don't have to be listed at ITNR to be posted, just that it's "automatic-ness" is not assured. --Masem (t) 15:56, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Duh? That is not a "rationale" (???) - it's what she decided to do with the money, nothing to do with what the award is about. I suspect that the committee who decided on the award did so, in part, as belated recognition that her work fully deserved a Nobel prize, for which she was passed over in 1974. --NSH001 (talk) 16:20, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed. @Brandmeister: please review your statement, which appears to have been made hastily and in error. --Pine✉ 16:51, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, the main article confirms it was for the discovery of pulsars. I'm neutral on this at the moment. Brandmeistertalk 19:10, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose a very nice accomplishment, but not significant enough for ITN. Lepricavark (talk) 16:57, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the rationales provided below by Masem and GreatCaesarsGhost are well-stated. It's unfortunate that this was posted. Lepricavark (talk) 04:47, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Reviewing the article, the "Criticism" section in it covers my concerns that asks if this is a noteworthy prize. It's rather young (less than a decade) by a non-notable organization, and thus of questionable repute (on the other hand, we know the Nobels for example, they have a reputation). Also the article on the awards seems overly self-promotionary; the claim that it is the most lucrative prize in academia is highly questionable and something I dont see directly from the BBC source - it may be the largest sum of prize money given, but I am pretty confident most researchers would want to be known for winning a Nobel over this. I am sure there are a lot of people that were known to be in the running for Nobels and didn't get selected, but that's how life works. --Masem (t) 17:08, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Masem: I can understand the concern here (much more than I understand the two Oppose !votes above) because if a random billionaire created a new science prize with a large monetary award, I'm not sure that I would consider the first such award given to be notable either. However, given the non-trivial coverage that the Breakthrough Prize in Fundamental Physics has received over the years (admittedly much less than the coverage of the Nobel prizes), I think that on balance the award has crossed the ITN notability threshold, especially in this case where Bell Burnell's work was so significant for physics and there was noteworthy criticism that she was not included in the awarding of the Nobel. --Pine✉ 17:21, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be helpful to be clear about what Muboshgu points out below, there's more coverage of this for Burnell's prize due to the Nobel snub, so as long as that's reasonable covered somewhere I would concur on posting of this. I don't know if there's a way to make the blurb focus on that, it probably depends on what is written regarding the Nobel situation to start. --Masem (t) 18:19, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Masem: that sounds reasonable. I edited the wording of the blurb. What do you think? --Pine✉ 18:44, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It's not an ITNR award but I do think we should post this one because I saw a lot of news coverage of JBB and the Nobel situation in the reporting of this award, so her honor here is sufficiently significant from that standpoint. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:26, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Muboshgu. Banedon (talk) 21:49, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Issue now fixed by Pine, so I've withdrawn my Temporary Oppose)Temporary Oppose on quality grounds until her article Wikilinks to an as yet unwritten section explaining the Special Prizes (after which I'm currently neutral). Info on this can be found in Breakthrough's News article (but per WP:NOTCOMPULSORY and WP:BNO I'm currently rather reluctant to try to do this myself due to an unhappy recent ITN-Physics experience).Tlhslobus (talk) 06:05, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support Notable story receiving lots of coverage, as well as being one of the most prominent (and the most lucrative) awards in physics. Davey2116 (talk) 06:11, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Fred Hoyle kicked up a fuss over her not getting the Nobel (and this has sometimes being suggested as one of several reasons why he himself didn't get a Nobel). However she herself has said that she doesn't think she should have got it, and has had more fun as a result of not getting it (thanks to all the consolation prizes she has been given instead). As such our blurb's current assertion that she was 'excluded' from the Nobel sounds rather POV - can anybody think of more NPOV wording? Tlhslobus (talk) 06:20, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • "omitted" would be better than "excluded". There were plenty of other scientists besides Hoyle who shared that opinion, not to mention others (scientists or not) who saw it as an example of systemic bias against women. I've known Jocelyn since about 1980 (but as a Quaker, not as a scientist), and not very closely since her family moved away. The subject of the Nobel or her career has never come up in our personal encounters, but I can confirm that it would be wholly out of character for her to be angry or upset at the Nobel decision. Since I know her personally, I am recusing myself from expressing a "suppport" or "oppose". --NSH001 (talk) 07:12, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This is getting widespread coverage, yes; but as a human interest story, and we don't post those here. The nom is attempting to "run an end around" of ITN criteria by tying to a recent award, but that award itself is not significant enough to post here (have we ever even nominated one?). I sympathize with the intent, but this doesn't belong here. ghost 15:32, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • GreatCaesarsGhost: this is no more a human interest story than the Nobel prize awards are human interest stories. I think that the accusation that "The nom is attempting to "run an end around" of ITN criteria by tying to a recent award" assumes bad faith. And the consideration of whether the "award itself is not significant enough to post here" is something that should be discussed on the basis of the current merits and context, not on whether something has never been done before; if we didn't do things that we'd never done before, then (among other things) Wikipedia would never have been started. Please reconsider your position. --Pine✉ 18:47, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm assuming bad faith, but you attack every editor that would deign to express an opinion different than your own? I have heard the story of this scientist no less than 12 times this week. Every one, without fail, spends 5 seconds on the substantive merits of her accomplishments, 5 seconds on this ig-Nobel award, and five minutes on the poor hard-working woman snubbed by the boys club. I get it, it's a juicy story. But it's sap, and it has no place here. ghost 21:51, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Bolded article is high quality, story is being covered sufficiently by major news sources. Checks all the boxes. --Jayron32 18:53, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:50, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-posting comment My first impression after seeing this posted was a mild surprise. When I skimmed through the article, I was still unsure why this was ITN-worthy. And then it hit me - she's a woman! English doesn't indicate a person's gender at first glance, and I couldn't see it from the front picture, but when I realized it, it all came together! My prejudiced mind immediately jumped to the conclusion that all the feminists on Twitter must be celebrating it precisely because she's female! And lo and behold, my prejudiced assumption was correct. The "underrepresented minorities in physics" talk, etc., yeah. But that's just my comment - I had no clue about the incident beforehand.--Adûnâi (talk) 13:00, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some advice, next time you post something this stupid, use a sockpuppet account so you won't embarrass yourself. Gamaliel (talk) 17:11, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CIVIL please. Adûnâi posted his frank reaction to the item. There is no need to attack him for it. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 19:58, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. The community makes an assumption that this is more relevant because it relates to a woman being shunned, yet an commentator who doesn't experience such things is curious as to why this is even considered notable. No need to claim the post is "stupid" or motivate people to sock. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:02, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) RD: Diane Leather

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: Diane Leather (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): https://www.runnersworld.co.uk/a-pioneer-of-womens-running-and-the-first-female-to-run-a-sub-five-minute-mile-diane-leather-has-died
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Fully sourced to secondary sources MurielMary (talk) 09:37, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This is just short and perfect for a woman who lived a notable but quiet life. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 01:53, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article had a gap from 1960 to her death, which I have addressed. Unfortunately, I think this is stale now. Hrodvarsson (talk) 23:25, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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: Liz Fraser

Article: Liz Fraser (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Hollywood Reporter
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: British actress. Article looks fine and nicely sourced except for one "citation needed" tag. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 00:20, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - film and television appearances are also mentioned in the blue-linked articles for those films/TV series and are also sourced in the body of the article, so all sourcing seems covered. MurielMary (talk) 09:42, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - looks fine to me. I almost had a seizure when I saw that link to begin with - I immediately thought of Elizabeth Fraser, who is universally called Liz as well. Black Kite (talk) 13:34, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support As the most bestest Liz Frazer in he World :) *small sigh* —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 13:38, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted. Black Kite (talk) 21:39, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Richard DeVos

Article: Richard DeVos (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NBA
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Billionaire, owner of Orlando Magic –Ammarpad (talk) 08:00, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Problems noted above appear to be addressed. --Jayron32 11:07, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - per improvements made.BabbaQ (talk) 13:01, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted. --Tone 13:44, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Alan Oakman

Article: Alan Oakman (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: English cricketer, I have tidied up the article a little. Seems OK, if a little on the short side - Dumelow (talk) 07:18, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support per nom. I tidied a bit more and linked some jargon for our non-cricketing readers. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:17, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Looks OK. –Ammarpad (talk) 10:02, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Ready for posting.BabbaQ (talk) 13:01, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted. --Tone 13:44, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Burt Reynolds

Article: Burt Reynolds (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Hollywood Reporter
Credits:

Article needs updating
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

StrikerforceTalk 19:00, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose with regret. Sad passing but poor article. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:06, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I'm only seeing one {{cn}} tag. The info should be readily sourceable and this one minor blemish should not be a barrier to posting. Mjroots (talk) 19:16, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Unfortunately the Citation needed is for the Accolades section which is largely unreferenced. If that is referenced, I would change to support. Capitalistroadster (talk) 19:48, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Capitalistroadster: I have added sources where I could find them and removed the entries I didn't find any WP:RELIABLE sources for. TompaDompa (talk) 21:05, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I'm just off on a 24-hr bootlegging run, but this should be up to shape when I get back. 10-4. LugnutsFire Walk with Me 19:48, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I think sufficient efforts have been made to improve the article since this morning before his death. †dismas† (talk) 19:57, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - improved. ready for posting.BabbaQ (talk) 22:56, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Now appears to be fully referenced. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:08, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted to RD — Amakuru (talk) 23:11, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Decriminalization of homosexuality in India

Articles:Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (talk · history · tag) and Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code (talk · history · tag)
Blurb:In a historic verdict, India's Supreme Court ruled that gay sex is no longer a criminal offence in the country. (Post)
Alternative blurb:The Supreme Court of India decriminalises sexual acts between consenting adults in private, including homosexual acts.
Alternative blurb II:The Supreme Court of India strikes down portions of the colonial-era Section 377, thereby decriminalizing consensual gay sex.
Alternative blurb III:The Supreme Court of India strikes down portions of the colonial-era Section 377, decriminalizing gay and other consensual sex acts.
Alternative blurb IV:In a landmark judgement, the Supreme Court of India strikes down portions of the colonial-era Section 377, making all consensual sexual acts legal.
News source(s):BBC
Credits:

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Overturns a 2013 judgement that upheld a colonial-era law in the world's second highest population. Sherenk1 (talk) 06:55, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strongest possible support This ruling is perhaps the most important LGBT rights ruling in the entire history of the world as it decriminalizes homosexuality for 18% of the world's LGBT population in the second largest country on earth population-wise. It repeals a colonial-era law imposed by the British and sets in motion greater equality in India for rulings to come. This will almost certainly set international precedent for more countries to decriminalize homosexuality.
  • Notes: I added three more blurbs to emphasize the decolonization aspect of this and many advocates across India and beyond are emphasizing this, too. Potentially we could link to LGBT rights in India, Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code and/or the one on the ruling as it is already linked. The articles aren't ready yet. I changed the heading from "Recognition of same-sex unions in India" to "Decriminalization of homosexuality in India" as I don't think this involves relationship recognition, though I could be wrong. Note: This is my first time tinkering with a blurb for ITNR, so there may be procedures or customs that I am not fully aware of, but I really wanted to contribute on this one as it is important to mention that it was a colonial-era law imposed by the British. Thanks, -TenorTwelve (talk) 07:23, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, especially the alternate blurb Major human rights development affecting the world's largest democracy and second-most populous nation. We posted same-sex marriage being legalised via a court ruling in the U.S. so should be fairly uncontroversial to post this. Especially relevant for the English Wikipedia given our high readership in India. Support mentioning the fact the law dates from Victorian colonial times. AusLondonder (talk) 07:30, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with second blurb IV which also sounds better, once the articles have been updated. As pointed out above, this is in line with other such ITN items. Regards SoWhy 07:45, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • So are we bolding the Section 377 article or the case article? I am missing somewhat a more substantial update in either. This should be addressed first. --Tone 08:00, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd bold the case article, that was the decision that is in the news. I also added more to the case article, I hope it's enough, I really have no knowledge of the subject. Regards SoWhy 09:20, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added ALT2 blurb. starship.paint ~ KO 09:51, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question what's the intended bold article? It's in the news today, when you decide what article to feature I'll do my small part to check refs and grammar. 18% of the worlds LGBT population, or total population (is there a difference in dispersal?) - either way we really need to stop using Indias massive population as an excuse to post stories. --LaserLegs (talk) 09:58, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support alternative blurb Certainly in the news today, support bolding Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India since the court's final decision is the reason this is in the news. Article quality also seems to be fine. Oppose ALT2 blurb, given that Section 377 criminalizes all sexual acts "against the order of nature", not just gay sex. 2.51.21.106 (talk) 10:26, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now, I tagged the "Trial" section for OR because it mostly relies on supreme court docs which don't support the claims (like "cold storage"). Needs to be fixed. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:43, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for the minute because of the cleanup tags; will revisit if the article is cleaned up. As for the relevance to India, I think it's because it's some way behind the Western world in decriminalising homosexuality. It is a leading item on BBC News right now, so I think it does have global relevance. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:15, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Questions 1)Was the government activity pursuing enforcement of this law prior to the ruling? and 2) Does the persecution of the population stop with this ruling? This may make me appear naive, but it seems from the media[20] that much law and order in India is of the "extrajudicial" kind, and I don't imagine there are there are too many that feel it's safe yet to come out. We should not post the 158th country to legalize homosexuality on the basis of it being a big country unless there are concrete impacts to that population. ghost 11:51, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Persecution isn't something that is stopped by a singular event, but this ruling is major. You can argue the same for literally any country - it's not like the US or Australian govts were actively hunting homosexuals before. Juxlos (talk) 11:54, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • You seem to be suggesting this India's Lawrence v. Texas; in that case I'm an Oppose. In that case, enforcement had substantially subsided by the time of the ruling and it was largely (not entirely) symbolically. It was not posted, but then in predated ITN. In citing US and Australia, I think you're conflating this with gay marriage, the legalization of which impacted 100% of the LGBT community in the US. Obergefell himself was legally married, but was impacted by a regional prohibition on gay marriage. ghost 12:21, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The ruling isn’t simply symbolic, the Indian Supreme Court also made discrimination against homosexuals in any field illegal.[21] Extrajudicial policing, if any, would be considered a criminal act. 2.51.21.106 (talk) 12:48, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support once fixed. This absolutely needs to be in ITN - hell, Australia with 2% the population was posted - but I agree, article needs a bit more cleanup. Juxlos (talk) 11:54, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Both the BBC and NYtimes have a statement regarding what the Court said that is not reflected in the article: "The court has now ruled discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is a fundamental violation of rights." (BBC); "The court said that gay people were now entitled to all constitutional protections under Indian law and that any discrimination based on sexuality would be illegal." (NYTimes). This to me is much more significant overall than just overturning 377, if it means that if the court's decision mandates the country to no longer discriminates on sexual orientation - a more impressive step in gay rights than just decriminalizing gay sex. However I have no idea if that is the actual official part of the Court's decision, or part of the language leading up to the formal declaration of what the decision is (having read enough US SCOTUS cases, there's room for lots of this rhetoric of what should be the case, but outside of the Court's pervue to actually mandate). There's definitely something ITN-worthy regardless, but I want to make sure the more important factor is the one being present if this truly is the case. --Masem (t) 12:07, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The entire text of the judgement, present here, does mention this. 2.51.21.106 (talk) 12:51, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • A scan of the conclusions sections (where the actual, actionable elements appear to be) show no concrete statement by the court that legally requires India to not discriminate on sexual orientation (but like with other case law decisions, will make challenging perceived discriminatoin easier since the Court said it should not happen). --Masem (t) 13:37, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support The news is getting massive media coverage all across the world and the judgment is also historic. Of the blurbs mentioned above, I'd support alternative blurb to be posted, but still I'd say that if strikes down could be replaced with some more meaningful word, than it'd be great.Amir (talk) 13:32, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This is quite important, just introducing gay rights or changing wording as most cases are, but to actively abolish homophobic laws as unconstitutional and against human rights. Kingsif (talk) 13:33, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support(edit conflict × 2) I prefer my proposed altblurb IV (strongest bias possible) but I strongly support adding this to the ITN given it's international importance. --QEDK (後 ☕ 桜) 13:34, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Just for the record, overturning Section 377 also decriminalises all relations that were once perceived to be “against the order of nature”. It is a decision that impacts all LGBTs in India. That would make the blurb, which mentions only “gay sex”, technically incorrect. 2.51.21.106 (talk) 13:48, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I am aware, but the purview was that Section 377 was used to victimize homosexuals, I've also added another, more comprehensive blurb. --QEDK (後 ☕ 桜) 14:42, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, but with minor concerns over the amount of uncited material in Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code. I don't feel that it's enough to hold up the posting of the story, but it could be improved. StrikerforceTalk 14:11, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – It's been my understanding that there's no difference in terms of weight between a "strong" support or oppose vote and just a plain vote. This, although I believe "weak" votes usually have been counted as half-votes. (Yes, I realize that the number of votes doesn't necessarily determine consensus.) Has there been a change regarding "strong" votes? Sca (talk) 15:00, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Supreme court did not strke down the whole of Section 377. It only struck down parts about homsexual acts. Section 377 also criminalises many other acts perceived to be "against the order of nature" like having sex with children and animals. These acts remain illegal. --ASF23 (talk) 15:28, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I believe all the current blurbs vioilate NPOV with terms like Landmark and Strikes down. They sugest that this was a good thing which could be debated. We should be stating the facts alone i reccomend instead that the blurb read something along the lines of "The Supreme Court of India Changes Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, making all consensual sexual acts legal."Fremanofkol (talk) 15:49, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • How exactly do "landmark" and "strike down" suggest this is a "good thing"? (which, IMHO it is and those who think otherwise are being homophobic) Landmark is used to denote an important decision, whether it is "good" or "bad" isn't the concern. Strike down simply denotes that these parts were removed. In no way does it violate NPOV. Also, w.r.t. to ASF23 concerns, how does this blurb sound: "In a landmark judgement, the Supreme Court of India strikes down parts of the colonial-era Section 377 which criminalize same-sex unions." How does that sound? 2.51.21.106 (talk) 16:04, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Parts would be wrong. Section 377 is still a part of the IPC, the difference being all consensual sexual acts between adults is not under its purview. --QEDK (後 ☕ 桜) 16:09, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Landmark implies a win or a chanige in the correct direction. That is not for us to decide. It also shows bias towards the Cause in question. You wouldn't for example have a Landmark Defeat but you would have a Landmark Victory. It seems as though strikes down is a legal term i wasnt aware of so would retract that part but landmark should go. I also question the usefullness of mentioning the colonial erai question its relivence to the event. Fremanofkol (talk) 09:25, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How about “in a historic judgement”? History can be good or bad depending on the context, and this sentence can be sourced to the BBC article. Mentioning colonial-era would convey that the Article in question wasn’t written by the makers of the Indian Consitution (who wanted to create a democracy with equal rights for everyone), but by the British power, which had set similar laws in all their colonies. Certainly relevant to the event since it isn’t an overturn of a decision taken in independent India.
We are not the writers of History so we dont decide what is and is not historic. And Indias colonial past is not part of the current event. We dont typically post the history to an event in the title so why do it for this. Why do we need to add additional qualifiers, isnt it enough to simply state the factthat they have decriminalised homsexual acts in provate .Fremanofkol (talk) 11:50, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'd give you 'landmark', but 'strike down' is just the ordinary English phrase used when a court annuls a statute for conflict with a constitution or other basic law. Other languages use similar metaphors; in French they're cassé, literally 'broken'. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 03:47, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it possible to put three articles in a blurb? I'm still new to this.-TenorTwelve (talk) 16:17, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Three articles can be linked in a blurb, but only one can be bolded,:the article whose topic is the reason the subject is in the news. 2.51.21.106 (talk) 16:23, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in principle per everybody above, but oppose the 4 alt blurbs per my comment below.Tlhslobus (talk) 16:10, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Support in principle per everybody above, but oppose the 4 alt blurbs, as, unlike the blurb, they all currently say Section 377 has been struck down, when, as already pointed out by ASF23, it seemingly remains in force except for consensual adult gay sex (it still bans bestiality, pedophile sex, etc). For instance I'm not clear whether heterosexual anal sex is still banned or not (the equality logic seems to make it unbanned, but the wording seems to refer only to gays and lesbians thus seemingly leaving it banned) - perhaps that could be clarified in our article? Tlhslobus (talk) 16:06, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Proposal for a rewording of the alternate blurb Perhaps to reconcile the legalization of consensual heterosexual sex with homosexuality we could say The Supreme Court of India strikes down the colonial-era Section 377, thereby decriminalizing homosexuality and all consensual sexual acts. Though I am wondering if the word "all" is applicable as I found text that said "two people;"[1] whereas more than two can be consensual. (Note: I am not inviting a debate nor offering my views on sex with more than two people)-TenorTwelve (talk) 16:11, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here's my altblurb that the template can't support: "The Supreme Court of India strikes down portions of the colonial-era Section 377, decriminalizing gay and other consensual sex acts." Parts of 377 still are in place (no non-consensus sex; age above 18; no beastiality, etc.) The key one is about the nature of gay sex, but as I read articles on this, prior to today, this also could have been used for things like unusual heterosexual acts (fellatio, for example). The court's decision (linked above) clearly says as long as its adults, consensual, and behind closed doors, that can't be persecuted. --Masem (t) 16:14, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Our lead currently says "in so far as it criminalises consensual sexual conduct between adults of the same sex". Either "of the same sex" must be removed or your proposed blurb is wrong (and even if correct it should seemingly say consensual adult sex acts).Tlhslobus (talk) 16:25, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And I suspect, perhaps mistakenly, that they have not unbanned complex matters such as all degrees of consensual adult sado-masochism, etc, as would seem to be implied by the proposed new blurb.Tlhslobus (talk) 16:35, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Item 1 of the conclusion of the judgment seems to support the proposed blurb, and thus also to require a correction to the lead of our article, and perhaps other parts of it as well (tho the judgment is a primary source, so it might help to have secondary sources also saying this - for instance in relation to 'consensual' sado-masochism, there might be questions over competence to consent, and/or whether consent was genuine, and/or whether it was a sexual act, etc):
21. CONCLUSION
i. In view of the aforesaid findings, it is declared that insofar as Section 377 criminalises consensual sexual acts of adults (i.e. persons above the age of 18 years who are competent to consent) in private, is violative of Articles 14, 15, 19, and 21 of the Constitution. It is, however, clarified that such consent must be free consent, which is completely voluntary in nature, and devoid of any duress or coercion. Tlhslobus (talk) 17:07, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: proposed new simple and straightforward blurb: The Supreme Court of Indiadecriminaliseshomosexuality.-Nizil (talk) 16:54, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's technically not true. While the ruling's language does talk about gay rights, the actual actionable conclusion only decriminalizing gay sex and some other types of consensual sex acts that occurs behind closed doors. --Masem (t) 17:02, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • (Edit conflict) How about something along the lines of "India's Supreme Court decriminalises consensual sexual acts between adult homosexuals, when performed confidentially"? That's what I got by simply paraphrasing the court's verdict. If considered, the blurb may require grammar polishing for encyclopedic reading. 2.51.21.106 (talk) 17:25, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • The ruling is actually 'between consenting adults in private' but in practice our blurb also needs to mention gays, so maybe 'between consenting adults in private, thus also decriminalizing homosexual acts'; but some may still also want a link to section 377.Tlhslobus (talk) 17:39, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also 'homosexuality' was not a criminal offence ((male?) homosexual acts were, but that's not the same thing).Tlhslobus (talk) 17:13, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The latest in the endless stream of nominations on the same theme. This particular culture war is over and has been for a long time. The only way this would have been ITN worthy is if the ruling had gone the other way. Will consider supporting if/when gay sex/marriage is legalized in Saudi Arabia. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:22, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • India’s top court had upheld the decision to keep same sex-sexual relations criminal in 2013, so there was no way to know if this would be the final decision taken with most politicians opposing the decision and the ruling party remaining silent over the issue. It can be called, in a way, unexpected. This culture war might be over in most Western countries, but a majority of the countries throughout the world still haven’t recognised/legalised same sex relations and that says something for itself. Legalisation of LGBT relationships in different countries throughout the world would certainly be considered noteworthy for a blurb at present (and India, being a member of the Commonwealth, would influence other such decisions within the realm for those countries which haven’t decriminalized it yet), even if that country isn’t Saudi Arabia. 2.51.21.106 (talk) 19:29, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Ad Orientem.--WaltCip (talk) 19:47, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Ad Orientem. Lepricavark (talk) 20:03, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Ad Orientem. Sca (talk) 22:04, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I think Ad Orientem's argument is very biased. There are many countries in the world where homosexuality is illegal. Besides if we believe that "the only way this would have been ITN worthy is if the ruling had gone the other way", we would post e.g. this on ITN. Banedon (talk) 22:08, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are many countries in the world where homosexuality is illegal ...and many others where it is legal; in some cases for a generation. What possible rationale could we have for posting one in the middle? Methinks it is because this is an Anglophone country, and that reeks of editor-bias. ghost 23:49, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree. India is as Anglophone as much as Vegemite is edible food. --QEDK (後 ☕ 桜) 03:39, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It sure is. 125 MM English speakers (2nd only to the US), or 12% of the population. 92% of WP pageviews from India are in English. [22]. Your semantic distractions aside, the point is that editors are prone to bias in favor of their home countries, and India is the home of a large portion of our editors, a great many of whom only come around these parts to support Indian stories. ghost 14:48, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • You cannot count the absolute numbers, or you'd have to conclude that countries like Liechtenstein are no-language countries. As you can see from the linked article, Hindi is the dominant language in India, spoken by 53.60% of the population. English is at 12.18%. To call India an anglophone country is intellectually dishonest. Banedon (talk) 01:35, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Banedon. Openlydialectic (talk) 22:44, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - per Banedon. Clearly a subject unique and historic. Article seems ready for posting.BabbaQ (talk) 23:09, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - LGBT rights are not so advanced in Asia compared to Americas/Europe/Australiasia. India’s gigantic population only increases the effects of this ruling. starship.paint ~ KO 02:03, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just curious but why is this taking so long to post? --QEDK (後 ☕ 桜) 03:11, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Chill. There is no rush.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 04:01, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, preferring Alt. Blurb II. This is front page international news in many different countries. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 03:51, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This is a significant decision. Let us not forget that the Muslim world is not the only culture averse to LGBT rights and India has a significant Muslim population.--- Coffee

@Coffee The only reason India is evolving is specifically because it is Hindu majority. At least give us some credit. Manish2542 (talk) 22:07, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose The articles connected to this news blurb STILL do not do justice to this "landmark decision" and should be worded better. Also, there is so much confusion in the articles and here related to what the judgment actually says (or so it seems to me), arising from the aspect of trying to phrase the judgement into a few words. I just wanted to post the 5 verdicts copy pasting them from the actual Supreme Court judgement, (taken from the Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India source Verdict Link) -
We hold and declare that:
(i) Section 377 of the Penal Code, in so far as it criminalises consensual sexual conduct between adults of the same sex, is unconstitutional;
(ii) Members of the LGBT community are entitled, as all other citizens, to the full range of constitutional rights including the liberties protected by the Constitution;
(iii) The choice of whom to partner, the ability to find fulfilment in sexual intimacies and the right not to be subjected to discriminatory behaviour are intrinsic to the constitutional protection of sexual orientation;
(iv) Members of the LGBT community are entitled to the benefit of an equal citizenship, without discrimination, and to the equal protection of law; and
(v) The decision in Koushal stands overruled
Yes, this is a big landmark decision, (not just because of India's huge population lol) but I will still have to oppose the ITN.DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 04:15, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Things in the article Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code like the way the heading is worded "Eminent Personalities Case" (???) or phrases such as "In a surprising move" and "The court seemed sympathetic" seem vauge and need to be rephrased. (Yes i could do it but that isn't the point here). DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 04:15, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • We still haven’t found a way (or a blurb) to link to Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code and say exactly what the court order said, without sounding wordy. Either way, even if its linked, it isn’t the article that is being bolded and concerns over its quality should not be delaying the posting of the main article. As for Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (the bolded article), I have paraphrased all five points the Supreme Court mentioned in the conclusion. Hope this makes you reconsider your oppose. 2.51.21.106 (talk) 07:07, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Articles are more sorted now. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 15:54, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support per Banedon. Very notable news story (second-most-populous country in the world), and the articles are pretty good. Davey2116 (talk) 08:36, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Given that the event has enough support for posting, but all our listed blurbs are technically incorrect and have little support, pasting a blurb proposed by Tlhslobus above: The Supreme Court of India decriminalises sexual acts between consenting adults in private, including homosexual acts. This blurb seems to be correct, and I support it for posting. 2.51.21.106 (talk) 10:51, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would support with this Blurb but none of those listed in descrption it is accurate and doesnt vilate NPOVFremanofkol (talk) 11:50, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb The decriminalization of consensual homosexual act is of great importance, for it can have great implications in India and also in other parts of the world. Eventhough the law was rarely prosecuted with over 200 cases and the no. of people actually convicted of these 200 cases is further negligible, the fact that the LGBTQ+ community is given a voice even in a socially conservative society matters. This verdict can also have ripple effect and lead to decriminalization in other countries. Hence it is of my opinion that this verdict of the Hon'ble Supreme court deserves a blurb. I feel that the alternative blurb as given above i.e. " The Supreme Court of India decriminalises sexual acts between consenting adults in private, including homosexual acts " would be appropriate as it is accurate. Adithya Pergade (talk) 14:01, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Support alt blurb per banedon and others, once article is ready (which I believe it nearly is). We posted about Obergefell v Hodges despite it affecting vastly less people and similar to less news coverage, so why not post about this? It's definitely "in the news", it's a monumental decision which will affect millions (if not billions) of people - the only arguments I see against not posting the article in principle revolve around personal political beliefs about whether or not LGBT rights reporting is still relevant. If it's in the news and meets our criteria, it's relevant. Those types of arguments have no place here. FlipandFlopped ツ 14:06, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support alt blurb The New alt Blurb fixes all issues with posting this. Fremanofkol (talk) 14:27, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted. Since there was some discussion about how to formulate the landmark term, I'll just omit it. Feel free to change. --Tone 15:51, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Maybe the word "adult" should be put into the ITN. (I know it is unsaid, but still.) "The Supreme Court of India strikes down portions of the colonial-era Section 377, making all consensual sexual acts between adults legal." (I hope posting a comment now after its been posted on the main page is ok) DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 16:17, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment same as previous comment on "making all consensual sexual acts legal" - source says: "The ruling effectively allows gay sex among consenting adults in private." - that's not at all the same as what's posted. I think we should avoid feeding false hope to the zoophiles and the animals themselves. Wakari07 (talk) 17:40, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • The original ruling’s conclusion (linked above) mentions “consensual sexual conduct between adults of the same sex", so gay sex might be wrong. Or is the term a misnomer (given that gay was at one point of time used to refer to woman too), also including sex between females? 2.51.21.106 (talk) 18:20, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support @Tone I'm just concerned about the phrasing, it isn't correct. "The Supreme Court of India strikes down portions of the colonial-era Section 377, making all private consensual sexual of adults acts legal." should be replaced by "The Supreme Court of India strikes down portions of the colonial-era Section 377, making all private consensual sexual acts between adults legal." Manish2542 (talk) 22:14, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Post-posting rewording request Thank you folks for posting the article. I think it is important to mention that it legalized homosexuality in it, so I propose the wording be

"The Supreme Court of India [[Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India strikes down portions of the colonial-era Section 377, making all private consensual sexual acts between adults legal, including homosexuality. I think this is important because ultimately this made the news because homosexuality was legalized. I suggest the link LGBT rights in India attached to the word homosexuality. In case folks are wondering, LGBT rights in India is ready to post with it. -TenorTwelve (talk) 23:14, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support this rewording request by TenorTwelve. The key focus of the reporting is homosexual sex and it should be reflected. An alternative, though, is using ... between adults legal, including such homosexual acts. starship.paint ~ KO 00:49, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the word homosexuality is okay, but I think we should avoid the words "homosexual acts" and "homosexual" as the word "homosexual" is going out of use and "homosexual acts" reduces LGBT people to a sex act. -TenorTwelve (talk) 02:14, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the contrary, it is "homosexual acts" which is OK, since it is correct, while "homosexuality" is unacceptable, being incorrect (homosexuality was not illegal and thus has not been legalized, it's homosexual acts that were illegal and are now legal) and also it is the suggested wording "making all private consensual sexual acts between adults legal, including homosexuality" that would reduce homosexuality (and thus arguably also lesbian, gay and bisexual people) to a sex act (homosexuality is an orientation, not an act). So I support Starship.paint's suggested word change, if necessary omitting any mention of section 377 if that is needed to make more space for homosexual acts, especially as no specific portion of section 377 has been struck down (see discussion below, and also altblurb1 above) Tlhslobus (talk) 04:10, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The court did not strike down ANY PORTION of Section 377. It just said that homosexual sex is not unnatural, and therefore Section 377 cannot be applied to criminalize homosexual sex. --106.208.38.214 (talk) 02:39, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no mention of homosexual sex, nor of it being natural or unnatural, in the judgment's conclusion, which merely says that anything in section 377 that bans consensual adult sex acts in private violates 4 Articles of India's Constitution. But you seem to be right that it doesn't strike down any specific portion of Section 377, and omitting Section 377 from our blurb (as in, for example, altblurb1 above) would thus probably make it more accurate and shorter (thus leaving more room to explicitly mention homosexual acts).
21. CONCLUSION
i. In view of the aforesaid findings, it is declared that insofar as Section 377 criminalises consensual sexual acts of adults (i.e. persons above the age of 18 years who are competent to consent) in private, is violative of Articles 14, 15, 19, and 21 of the Constitution. It is, however, clarified that such consent must be free consent, which is completely voluntary in nature, and devoid of any duress or coercion. Tlhslobus (talk) 04:10, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Of course in theory the item should arguably be temporarily pulled on quality grounds, because of many inaccuracies in our bolded article's lead and in its main text, mostly along the lines of what has been discussed here regarding various blurbs. The main reason I'm not calling for it to be pulled is that I'm not currently planning to try to fix it myself (per WP:NOTCOMPULSORY and WP:BNO), but I'm mentioning the matter here in case others want to try to fix it.Tlhslobus (talk) 04:53, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It should be noted that when we talk about legal judgements in the media or in a twitter post, we simplify things so that it can fit into the headlines. The media and everyone uses the words "strike down" (which doesn't have to mean "remove" etc here), "homosexuality", etc because in essence that is what the judgement translates to. Even if the judgement does not use those words, the headlines have. There will be a certain amount of loss in meaning, but we have to remember that this is just a headline, and not the judgement itself. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 05:45, 8 September 2018 (UTC) DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 05:51, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
6,000 words. Sca (talk) 13:51, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) 2018 Iburi earthquake

Article: 2018 Iburi earthquake (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: The Iburi earthquake is the largest to have impacted Japan so far this year. The earthquake disrupted electrical service throughout Hokkaido, leaving 5.3 million residents without power. Reports state that at least nine people died as a result. (Post)
Alternative blurb: An earthquake in the Iburi Subprefecture of Japan results in at least nine deaths.
News source(s): BBC
Credits:
  • Support altblurb. Article is short, but sufficiently detailed given what is currently known, well referenced, and the topic is currently being covered by news sources. Checks all the boxes. --Jayron32 11:54, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support alt. They are saying part of this quake's damage was amplified by rainfall from Jebi that weakened the soil in some areas that led to deaths, and while I could see a blurb combining Jebi and this, that would be rather awkward. --Masem (t) 12:14, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The article looks good and with more details coming, it's ok to be posted. –Ammarpad (talk) 12:36, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posting. --Tone 14:24, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

September 5

September 5, 2018 (2018-09-05) (Wednesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Science and technology

(Posted) RD: Erik Hauri

Article: Erik Hauri (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Carnegie Science
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Count Iblis (talk) 21:41, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support I have updated the article. It could do with more work but is probably fine for RD. Hrodvarsson (talk) 00:17, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted Stephen 23:59, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Russian involvement in Salisbury poisonings

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:Poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal (talk · history · tag)
Blurb:The United Kingdom names and charges two Russian intelligence agents with multiple crimes, including the attempted murder of Sergei Skripal, Yulia Skripal, and detective Nick Bailey. (Post)
Alternative blurb:The British government names and provides evidence on two Russian intelligence agents, charging them in absentia with multiple crimes, including the attempted murder of Sergei Skripal, Yulia Skripal, and detective Nick Bailey.
Alternative blurb II:The British Minister of Security, Ben Wallace, asserts that Russian President Vladimir Putin is ultimately responsible for the Poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal and 2018 Amesbury poisonings, in which British citizens were harmed and one died.
News source(s):BBCThe Daily TelegraphAPBBC
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Unlikely they'll be brought to justice, but they have at least had formal charges placed on them. Kingsif (talk) 18:11, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Article is high quality, update is sufficiently detailed and well referenced, story is currently in the news. Checks all of the boxes. --Jayron32 18:21, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support [redacted], but change the "grievous crimes" to something more encyclopaedic. Openlydialectic (talk) 19:36, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I'm pretty sure if Russian agents were charged with assassination attempts on the soil of most countries outside the former Soviet Union (e.g. the US), it would be the biggest news story of the year. So, because this is the UK, it's not, but it's still very highly notable and easily sufficient for ITN. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:47, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought ITN wasn't a news ticker and that we don't necessarily follow the biggest headlines. I also thought you already knew that. Or am I missing something? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 09:04, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment it's in the news today, but we've featured this when they were poisoned, we featured again when the diplomatic row took place. We have a long established (but I think incorrect) precedent of waiting for convictions in court; and I doubt Putin is going to hand these people over to stand trial. I honestly don't care that much, but people have screamed "systemic bias" over less. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:58, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Be very careful with the word "charged", which has a specific legal meaning and which, as far as I can see, the UK government and all UK media are studiously avoiding in favour of "named as suspects", which is not the same thing at all; the official statement says this forensic investigation has now produced sufficient evidence for the independent Director of Public Prosecutions to bring charges but doesn't actually specify whether charges have been brought. As we're accusing named individuals of murder in Wikipedia's voice, it's important the sourcing on this one be absolutely watertight. ‑ Iridescent 20:02, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree. Suspects are usually arrested or in custody before being charged. But the press seems to think otherwise. The England and Wales section at Indictment is hardly very clear. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:09, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although Assistant Commissioner Neil Basu, in his statement does say: "As you have heard, today’s charges relate to the first incident involving the Skripals and Nick Bailey. We continue to liaise with the Crown Prosecution Service regarding the poisoning of Dawn and Charlie." Martinevans123 (talk) 07:42, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose We don't post charges/arrests, and generally wait until convictions. Add Iridescent's point above that they have only been named, not actually charged. If this was more a direction assertion like if the UK were directly pointing to Putin saying he gave the orders directly, that might be different as a diplomatic row, but this is not that level yet. --Masem (t) 20:26, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As a "fun" note, Theresa May did say that it was very likely the order came from high up the chain of command in the Russian State. All but naming Putin, because she has a brain. Kingsif (talk) 22:55, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, she said: "So this was not a rogue operation. It was almost certainly also approved outside the GRU at a senior level of the Russian state." But not "at the most senior level". Martinevans123 (talk) 07:54, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Is it a BLPCRIME vio? They may not be WP:WELLKNOWN but the incident certainly is, and the authorities in the UK aren't exactly known for making false accusations. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:56, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"...the authorities in the UK aren't exactly known for making false accusations" These are politicians, not authorities. HiLo48 (talk) 22:16, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The prospect of any conviction seems somewhat remote? But I'm not sure if this is a factor that weighs more on either side of the discussion here. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:03, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – Per Masem, although coverage says Petrov and Boshirov have been charged in absentia. Evidence presented by UK officials looks damning, but Wiki is neither jury nor judge. Sca (talk) 21:33, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The UK likely will never get the chance to even take these men into custody, let alone put them on trial and convict them, as Russia does not extradite its citizens(and certainly not its spies). (asking no one in particular) Is there no way to write a blurb to highlight this and not run afoul of BLP? 331dot (talk) 22:22, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Though sources do say they have been charged (obviously practically impossible to formally arraign them), I have added an alt blurb that should give clarification that these people are not arrested or anything. Kingsif (talk) 22:31, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - this is indeed major news and should be included. Seems ready for posting.BabbaQ (talk) 23:07, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Pure anti-Russian propaganda, from one of the usual suspects, designed to feed the Russia haters in the west. For an example, see "F*ck Putin" above. These are allegations, not even charges. Not proof of anything. All part of the international propaganda war. And a lot of people have been sucked right in. We must not play this game. HiLo48 (talk) 23:14, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The most neutral news agency we have is the BBC, which played video footage of the charged men during the time of the offence. From your previous issues with Wikipedia administration and what you perceive as "POV pushing", you'll disagree, but it's quite clear to most people that there is no reason to not believe the UK government. Not to mention "I think it's propaganda" isn't a good reason to oppose (no judgement). Kingsif (talk) 23:35, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's the actions of a right wing government we're seeing here. Nothing Theresa May does can prova anything about the guilt of people. HiLo48 (talk) 22:14, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Personal squabbling.
  • I am genuinely not sure if you are just delusional or a russian bot. Either way, I've warned you for this comment and spreading russian propaganda on wikipedia further will likely result in a quick and permanent ban. Take care. Openlydialectic (talk) 23:48, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow. I now see attempts to silence someone with a contrasting view. Not a good look guys. Are you really all happy with F*ck Putin"? I suppose it's offence on the accepted side, so must be OK. (And they say Wikipedia isn't censored. Hah.) HiLo48 (talk) 23:53, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • My intention was not "to silence someone with a contrasting view". However, a personal opinion on a news article, especially when proven false, is not something that is accepted as a reason (either for support or oppose). Hope that clears it up. I know you strive for neutrality, as do I, but calling one government placing charges on people "anti-Russian propaganda" is a stretch at least. Kingsif (talk) 23:59, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is par for the course for HiLo. He made a controversial comment that explicitly assumed others were acting in bad faith. When challenged, he tried to portray himself as a victim by claiming that others are trying to silence him. Classic battleground behavior. Don't worry, nobody else believes you were trying to silence him. Lepricavark (talk) 01:36, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • So striking out my comment and being threatened with being blocked was not a form of silencing? OK. I'll try hard to understand that. It's revealing how making a comment that challenges the right wing, western world official view leads to a lot of people wanting to talk about me, rather than what I wrote. It's just like blaming evil foreigners for all one's local problems, I guess. HiLo48 (talk) 06:33, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Striking out is used when votes for support/oppose have faulty reasoning, so that they aren't counted. Nothing more, nothing less. Kingsif (talk) 11:13, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
On that basis, an awful lot of content here would be routinely struck out. HiLo48 (talk) 22:11, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Masem. Also it's already been posted before, and I don't consider this significant enough for multiple postings. Banedon (talk) 00:08, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a few people have said they oppose per Masem, I'd like to discuss the three reasons Masem gives: 1. "we generally don't post unless convicted". It's obvious that the actual chance of conviction happening is very unlikely, so that should be weighted, not to mention this could well be notable enough to be one of the exceptions. 2. "they've only been named, not charged". They have been charged. 3. "if this was more a direction assertion like if the UK were directly pointing to Putin saying he gave the orders directly, that might be different". As my comment said above, the UK are pointing at Putin, but in a way that won't get them poisoned tomorrow. (Please respond with discussion) Kingsif (talk) 00:17, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If they have been charged, that should be in any blurb, e.g. "... charged with attempted murder"? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:14, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was only opposing per Masem's first point: if the conviction doesn't happen then we shouldn't post. For example we have news such as Navalny says he will sue Putin, which everyone would agree is very unlikely to succeed, which doesn't mean it's postable. Being charged is irrelevant; it's being convicted that matters, see e.g. this, we didn't post it either. Banedon (talk) 00:33, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do consider the issue here, that with the two named individuals having disappeared meaning there's likely never going to be any arrest or trial and thus no conviction. So the question is, will this have any impact, and so far the answer seems to be no - I'm not seeing massive politic unrest yet. Also, their ties with the current Russian gov't remain iffy, so we have yet to have the evidence they were acting on orders or alone. Basically, this a huge point of speculation and not a hard milestone we can use for ITN. --Masem (t) 00:42, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have a good point about not knowing the kind of impact this will have, because it did just happened (which is why it's in the news at the moment). Also, Theresa May said that they can trace the chain of command, so it's not completely speculation. Six months of investigations and being the UK infers there wouldn't be charges unless they were at least 99.9% sure of everything. Kingsif (talk) 00:46, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • If they can trace the chain of command, then likely if they cannot capture these two, I can see a potential of UK formally asserting that Russia ordered the assassination attempt (if that's where it proves out). At which point, that might be news. But even with that, consider the overall picture here: no one actually died, and we're talking about what appears to be a targetted poisoning of a double agent by supposedly a Russian agency. It's rather an icky situation if that's all true, but it's not a major political scandal that I can see (but that could be proven wrong), so even closure on the matter may not be necessary. --Masem (t) 00:57, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obviously a good point about being contentious, but you’re forgetting that a British citizen did die. And, now updated, the British are now directly blaming Putin, which has also been reported by the BBC. Kingsif (talk) 11:15, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    But again, this is not new. They blamed Russia all along, hence the expelling of the diplomats. There is no denying this is a story of today making a few headlines in the papers, but we're not a news ticker. This story will have many twists and turns, but until something of lasting significance occurs, e.g. a conviction, we don't need to keep on re-posting. — Amakuru (talk) 13:33, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then it’s a good thing we’re not posting rolling updates, like the Kremlin telling the UK to "go to hell". If we take this separately to all the past updates, would the U.K. mounting such accusations be worthy of feature on ITN? I’m inclined to say that it would. Kingsif (talk) 14:38, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose We've already posted the poisoning in the past and these developments don't warrant an additional posting in my view. Regarding the contentious comments above, on very controversial issues such as these we must be extra careful not to violate WP:NPOV or be seen to push an ideological agenda. WP:BLPCRIME may also come in here - remember "A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction". Aside from all that, blurb is obviously not encyclopedic. AusLondonder (talk) 01:10, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Masem. — Amakuru (talk) 07:02, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This is huge news. Misapplying the standard that we don't post until convictions in this case is a willful misunderstanding. Thue (talk) 09:27, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • You make a good point: the news is less about people being charged itself, which is quite minor, and more about who by, who for, and the crime and international relations instead. So, saying we don’t post people being charged until convicted is a misapplication because the news to be posted is that the British are making claims with huge international significance. Also note that the people were never named in any blurb. Kingsif (talk) 11:13, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      The British government have been saying all along that they suspect Russian involvement. They expelled a whole load of diplomats immediately after the incident. This indictment doesn't really add anything new to the international relations angle. It's also far from clear that it will have any lasting consequences. People were indicted in connection with the Litvinienko poisoning but nothing became of that. I just see this as one more step in a slow - burn news story that we've already posted. — Amakuru (talk) 13:21, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reopening with new blurb. Kingsif (talk) 11:08, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support now reliable sources have named Putin as being involved with it. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 11:21, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would be extremely careful about using the information in the second BBC article, as that is far less an official statement and one made in a press interview. Further the full statement made here is not saying that Putin gave the order, but that Putin needs to take responsibility that someone in his gov't, which Wallace claims Putin has full control of, issued the order. That's not saying Putin directly ordered it. --Masem (t) 11:36, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which ones? And are they explicitly blaming Putin for it, or are they quoting non-senior British officials who are? Because there's a huge difference between these two, which most Wikipedians seem to overlook most of the time. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 11:36, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]


To clarify, yes, the blurb shouldn't say "responsible", but the BBC have certainly pointed the finger at Putin and said "guilt by association, m'lud". Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:38, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have added the word "ultimately", which is the term Wallace used in the full statement, to clarify this. Kingsif (talk) 11:49, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The BBC claiming it is not the same thing as the government formally stating it. Let's avoid the hyperbole here. --Masem (t) 11:53, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You're suggesting that the BBC just claims that Ben Wallace said this (live on BBC Radio 4's Today programme)? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:34, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm saying, to what Ritchie suggests , that because the BBC has pointed blame, then we should accept that. The BBC isn't the organization here that can made any credibly claim on the guilt. --Masem (t) 19:28, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, ok. I'm not sure the BBC have pointed anything. Whether or not Wallace speaks for the government is another question. Conveniently, of course, should there be unexpected consequences to May's careful announcement, the Minister of State for Security and Economic Crime could be expendable. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:30, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose just because we didn't say RUSSIA DID IT! last time doesn't mean it wasn't clear at that time. We do not post every advance of a slide toward some obvious conclusion. ghost 11:56, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • My "we" was in reference to WP, not HM government. Why would you think I speak for them? ghost 17:43, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I'm sure we can word the blurb to avoid any BLP issues.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:36, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per TRM. Lepricavark (talk) 15:42, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose Not too familiar with British legal codes, but precedent is to post sentencing. Willing to change my oppose if what's going on here is the equivalent to that. We previously posted the poisoning itself, and then later the expulsion of diplomats. SpencerT•C 03:23, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Masem. Hrodvarsson (talk) 03:44, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Even putting aside the fact that precedence is to post sentencing, the story by itself has no legs. U.K. has accused Russia of having a role in the poisoning. Russia has denied it. With no independent judiciary to do any sort of fact-finding, it's doubtful that anything will ever come of this.--WaltCip (talk) 12:57, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a very reasonable argument. Although I think the Metropolitan Police would argue that they had amassed quite a lot of facts, not least the timed series of CCTV images of the two suspects, which has been made public. Russia's presentation of any "contradictory facts" has, so far, been somewhat lacking. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:45, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
→ Votes running against posting. Getting stale. Sca (talk) 15:14, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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: Bhagwatikumar Sharma

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:Bhagwatikumar Sharma (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s):BS, DeshGujarat
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Sharma has received some top literary awards of India including Sahitya Akademi Award and Ranjitram Suvarna Chandrak. Article may need some copyediting for grammar. Nizil (talk) 13:01, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Article is in terrible shape; the "Works" section for instance can certainly be reduced to notable ones only. Alex Shih (talk) 09:29, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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: Rachael Bland

Article: Rachael Bland (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC News
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Inspirational woman and radio presenter. Was alive less time than I have been, which makes me rather sad. What more can one say? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:35, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Very short, but it's ok otherwise. –Ammarpad (talk) 11:24, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've destubbed it this morning, and with obituaries coming out today, it should be expanded more. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 11:26, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see. It even looks better now. –Ammarpad (talk) 14:39, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Ready to be posted. Short but just long enough for inclusion.BabbaQ (talk) 14:21, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – Stubby. Sca (talk) 14:25, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's over 1,5002,700 characters - not a stub. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 14:44, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
→ The text itself is 435 words. Sca (talk) 15:10, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's 529 last time I looked. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 15:21, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You must be counting footnotes and other things on the page. Sca (talk) 15:28, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
.... or just expanding the article ;-) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:29, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Article says almost nothing meaningful other than "she had a job and she died". It would need to be fleshed out with some more substantial details before being useful for the main page. --Jayron32 14:41, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Have another look :-) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:07, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Typhoon Jebi (2018)

Article: Typhoon Jebi (2018) (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Typhoon Jebi has left a trail of destruction across the west of Japan, killing at least 9 people. (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Worst storm to hit Japan in 25 years. Sherenk1 (talk) 05:04, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - article could be expanded but what is there is well referenced and sufficient to post. Mjroots (talk) 05:25, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Agree with Mjroots. Deadly and destructive event. Jusdafax (talk) 06:52, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support without the tabloid phrasing, and with updated fatality count. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:20, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posting, with a more standard blurb. --Tone 07:29, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pull – I don't have the time to expand and fix this myself, but the article is severely lacking in content. The meteorological history is missing everything between August 28 and September 4, and after the Japanese landfalls; there is no section on preparations, and the impact has only 4 sources (3 of which are for peripheral impacts in Taiwan). Will take substantial work to get this to a respectable point. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 04:58, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    But it adequately covers the details surrounding the news story itself, right? The Rambling Man (talk) 05:57, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I was going to comment this way too: ultimately the article should contain all those details and knowing efforts that editors like Cyclonbiskit do for weather articles, that's great, but for ITN, it needs the sources to confirm fundamental details (initial death tolls , etc.) but not much else. We don't expect GA/FA quality articles for ITN, particularly when the article is new due to the event, just enough content and sourcing to show as a good example of an article-in-development. --Masem (t) 06:02, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess I hold weather articles to a higher standard given how long I've been involved with them. If it meets ITN requirements there's not much else to say :P ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 06:42, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Opinion: It is very absurd that the news says Typhoon Jebi attacked Taiwan... As you can see from the picture in the article itself, the typhoon's route does not coincide with Taiwan in any way...--こいちぼん (talk) 14:22, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

September 4

September 4, 2018 (2018-09-04) (Tuesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Arts and culture
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Science and technology
  • A Microsoft Azure datacenter in Texas goes down due to a cooling system failure. Outages in cloud services were reported worldwide (Zdnet)

(Closed) RD: Bill Daily

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article: Bill Daily (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): CNN
Credits:

Article needs updating
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Actor, died on the 4th but death was only announced recently. –Nonstopmaximum (talk) 05:42, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as stale. Aiken D 08:50, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If it was not reported until now, it isn't considered stale. 331dot (talk) 10:52, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK, it didn't click at first that the 4th was still within the last week. Time flies.... Moving to the 4th. 331dot (talk) 10:54, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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) Danish FA

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: Denmark national football team (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Owing to a dispute with the players, the Danish football team names an entirely uncapped squad consisting of third and fourth tier players, in addition to futsal players, for their opening UEFA Nations League game. (Post)
News source(s): BBC The Guardian Irish Times
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Let me preface this by saying that this nomination is a longshot with multiple caveats. The blurb I have proposed is likely unworkable due to its unwieldy nature. There will be opposition to posting another football story. This, depending on how the story develops, may be more suited to DYK a ways down the road. However, it is absolutely in the news, and the target article has been thoroughly updated. So consider this a call for opinion, and feel free to snow close if consensus deems this of minimal importance. - So why is this in the news? Because, at present, Denmark, the eighth best team in the world according to FIFA World Rankings will put out a team of completely unknown players, including those from a disparate code, in a competitive game. Hence, it is heavily in the news in relation to the back page, and while not the most significant thing ever, is of some importance. But again, it is a longshot that even I might not fully back, so close without prejudice if needs be. Stormy clouds (talk) 20:28, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question the article is huge, can you link to the relevant section to make it easier to readers to find? --LaserLegs (talk) 20:36, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@LaserLegs: - sorry. I wrote this section today, which incorporates the nominated material. The blurb also concerns the squad, which is here. - Stormy clouds (talk) 20:42, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:33, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose Using Googles "region and language setting" feature, I did see this story in ZA and IE region, but not near the top (no mention in the US). The article itself is iffy, with several paragraphs missing refs, and I don't think the update itself covers the background in the players dispute to be comprehensive. That said, the story is interesting (I had no idea futsal was a thing) and a major FIFA national team having to cobble this squad together at the last minute for their first matches of a new tournament is unusual. I think this is DYK material, which IIRC has amended it's criteria to include "recently updated" articles. DYK is apparently a bog though. Thanks for the good faith nom, even if it never makes the main page, I learned something today (which is one reason I stalk ITN/C). --LaserLegs (talk) 23:33, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest oppose Internal Danish footie matter of far less importance than many of the items that don't receive consensus to post here. DYK is the place this belongs. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:51, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Muboshgu: - is it eligible for DYK? The article is not new, having begun in 2004. Stormy clouds (talk) 21:04, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment it's receiving wide coverage, certainly across Europe, and potentially strongly impacts on a UEFA tournament, not really an "internal" matter. But I don't think it rises to the level of encyclopedic value I'd imagine to see in a synopsis of the year's news events. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:04, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – Almost any squabble involving Fussball draws wide coverage in Europe, but this is certainly not significant in the global scheme of things. (Neither was Özil). – Sca (talk) 21:31, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - way overblown. It's just a dispute with players. Posting this would be akin to posting a strike by (less than) 100 workers. Banedon (talk) 23:13, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • We posted an NBA or NHL strike a few years back --LaserLegs (talk) 23:16, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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 Kolkata bridge collapse

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 Kolkata bridge collapse (talk · history · tag)
Blurb:A bridge collapses in a south Kolkata neighborhood, killing one and injuring more than 25 others. (Post)
News source(s):ReutersAl Jazeera (other refs in article as well)
Credits:
Nominator's comments: I'm actively working on it as more of the situation develops. There had been another of these few years back and this seems to be one of a pattern of collapses in the city. QEDK (後 ☕ 桜) 20:05, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment a little context --LaserLegs (talk) 20:16, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - with only one death, and this not being a unique occurrence in the city, I don't see much lasting impact, unfortunately. Stormy clouds (talk) 20:28, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – Ditto. Snow close? Sca (talk) 21:33, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - nothing new (the third bridge collapse in recent memory) and a single death.∯WBGconverse 08:08, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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: Marijan Beneš

Article: Marijan Beneš (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Serbian boxer, article in reasonable shape. Some bare urls in the refs, I will look to sort them out - Dumelow (talk) 15:55, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • All fine here, ready to post when I see some more support. --Tone 16:09, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Article quality is sufficient. --Jayron32 16:42, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The text is reasonably well-referenced. However, the boxing record section is unreferenced. There is a link to the home page of a boxing records website but not to a page containing his record and it would be unsuitable to have a link to the main page given its state of referencing. Capitalistroadster (talk) 19:36, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Had a second look, the link was apparently broken. It works now. --Tone 19:44, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - article is good to go. BabbaQ (talk) 21:34, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changed my position to support now that referencing issues for record have been fixed. Capitalistroadster (talk) 06:12, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Marked ready. –Ammarpad (talk) 23:16, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted Stephen 02:30, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Pakistani Presidential elections

Proposed image
Article: Pakistani presidential election, 2018 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Arif Alvi (pictured) has been elected as 13th President of Pakistan. (Post)
Credits:

The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

Nominator's comments: Change of Head of State is ITNR. Moreover the aritcle also looks good. Amir (talk) 12:49, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose The President of Pakistan is a ceremonial de jure figurehead who represents the "unity of the Republic." We passed on Khan being made PM because the election results were posted instead (and Khan mentioned then). We seem utterly unwilling to correct this obvious defect in the wording at ITN/R, but I see no reason to post the election of a "ceremonial figurehead" when the national election was just featured. $0.02. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:42, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I find it interesting that you usually argue that almost every nomination here should be posted because it is in the news, but not this one. 331dot (talk) 11:06, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I find your observations of me as an individual to be irrelevant, and ask that in the future you'd focus on the discussion and specific points I've made. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:27, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't commenting on you as an individual, you are free to comment on what you wish (largely) however you wish. I was mostly curious as to why you don't think this should be posted when you think almost everything else should be posted, but you are free to ignore my observations. 331dot (talk) 13:49, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose We've covered the PM who appears to be the key figure of power in the country, and while the President here is a technical head of state, its not really of any power compared to other heads of state. --Masem (t) 13:48, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing to Support per comment to Vanamode93 below. --Masem (t) 06:21, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've repeatedly made the same argument, but I'm shocked to see these two respectable editors oppose an ITNR on notability grounds at ITNC. What gives? ghost 16:11, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I don't think the Pakistani President is what we'd consider "head of state" under ITNR, since most of that power is in the hands of the PM and the presidency is mostly ceremonial. (Eg if Pakistan hypothetically decides to go to war, it will be Khan leading that decision, not Alvi) INTR does allow these positions to be considered on a case-by-case basis but I argue that we've just covered the PM election effectively, so there's no need to cover this one. --Masem (t) 16:17, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think there's ambiguity at all in the ITNR, which is why I support fixing it. And I don't think we get to "consider" what is a head of state. It's not an opinion. Being a figurehead doesn't make one any less a head of state. ASIDE - It would be nice to see all the IARs go over and fix ITNR. How about only general elections get ITNR, and everything else is ad hoc (ITNC)? ghost 11:30, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, President of Germany is also elected by the parliament and it's the chancellor that has the most power but we posted the latest election in 2017 nevertheless. This article has sourcing issues, though. --Tone 16:19, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • We shouldn't have though - compounding errors doesn't correct them. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:27, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:IAR. One needs to be careful to avoid obfuscating who the true head-of-state is. The President is not the PM.--WaltCip (talk) 16:33, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per above. No need to post a figurehead. Lepricavark (talk) 17:08, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Lepricavark Queen Elizabeth II is a figurehead (of several countries). 331dot (talk) 11:02, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's fairly obvious that Queen Elizabeth II is far more influential than this gentlemen. Lepricavark (talk) 14:16, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This nomination is about the election, not what the winner will or will not do- just as the succession of a new British monarch is about the event itself. 331dot (talk) 14:32, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If the Pakistani president is less influential than the British monarch, it stands to reason that the Pakistani election is less important than the British coronation. Lepricavark (talk) 14:50, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose essentially agree with WaltCip's comment –Ammarpad (talk) 23:14, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Previously Imran Khan blurb was not approved and now this. Pakistan is not a small country to be ignored like this. All British smallest elected/selected members gets INTR and when it comes to this, it becomes ceremonial. Then why Geremany blurb was posted? Nauriya (Let's talk) 08:154, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
    Khan's win was posted [23]. Stephen 06:14, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per the nominator and the reasons noted just above. Pakistan is the 5th-most populous country. Son of Kolachi (talk) 10:43, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post per ITNR when ready. (I won't, obviously.) I don't see how it benefits the project to IAR in this situation. We shouldn't be afraid to have potential readers easily find this subject if they are looking for it or if they might be interested in it and come across it. Head of state is not about the level of power, but the fact that they represent their nation to the world and their citizens. It's been pointed out that we posted the similar German presidential election and it just seems to be systemic bias to not do so here. It is has been pointed out that there is an existing discussion on changing the ITNR listing(which has been attempted and failed many times, but nevertheless) which should be contributed to if change in the ITNR listing is desired. 331dot (talk) 10:48, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • We shouldn't be afraid to have potential readers easily find this subject if they are looking for it or if they might be interested in it and come across it. A strange choice of words. I don't think fear is a factor in this discussion. Lepricavark (talk) 14:16, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - As per nom and 331dot Sherenk1 (talk) 10:59, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose President doesn't have an actual impact. This is not a world news. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.228.14.181 (talk) 10:13, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Figureheads come and figureheads go. I personally am against posting such on ITN ever (be it Germany or Pakistan, and especially the miniscule stuff on ITNR that no one really cares about). People need to stop taking things personally around here (small country and such, there's a lot of small countries which are better AND worse off than Pakistan, so I don't know what you're trying to prove). --QEDK (後 ☕ 桜) 11:04, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@QEDK: You are free to to visit the ITNR talk page and suggest for removal any item that you feel "no one really cares about", as well as to participate in the discussion to change the head of state ITNR listing. Elizabeth II is a figurehead but we all know her passing will be posted. 331dot (talk) 11:09, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Might as time comes, but no exact timeframe yet. But as for an idea on my position, read LaserLegs' reply above. --QEDK (後 ☕ 桜) 11:16, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Of course we'll post her passing, the question is, will we post 50+ blurbs, one for every single state in which Charles will become "Head of State" or will we use common sense and not clutter the box with the meaningless appointments of silly figureheads? Hard to say. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:24, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't difficult at all to say that Charles becomes head of state of most Commonwealth countries, but that is for another time. 331dot (talk) 11:34, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Another time"? You're the one who brought the future passing of Elizabeth II into this thread. It's a simple question: when she passes, should we post 50+ blurbs, 1 each for every nation in which her successor is now head of state? --LaserLegs (talk) 11:43, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I answered your question; if you wish to debate a blurb for an event which is likely some time off, you know where to find me. 331dot (talk) 12:10, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, you deflected, twice, after bringing "an event which is likely some time off" into this thread in the first place. That's ok, we all know that no, ITN won't blindly follow the letter of ITN/R and post 50+ blurbs for the change of heads of state of every commonwealth country; we'll use common sense, just like we should do now and not post the election of a meaningless figurehead. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:27, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't think I had to spell it out for you, but the blurb I was trying to suggest was "Upon the death of Elizabeth II, Charles III becomes head of state of several Commonwealth countries". See, it's not hard at all. 331dot (talk) 13:41, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hrmmm, reading through WP:ITNR I see heads of state for countries, but not the commonwealth as a whole. You're saying you'd WP:IAR in this case (which you introduced) and do what makes sense, instead of following the letter of WP:ITNR precisely and posting 50 blurbs, one for each country? --LaserLegs (talk) 15:55, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't make sense and is not beneficial to readers to ignore the choosing of the head of state of a highly populated country(sixth most, I think). IAR needs to benefit the project, and I don't feel it does here. It doesn't make sense to post (as you say) "50 blurbs" when one will do. That is not IAR, that is combining 50 separate blurbs that all would qualify on their own. I have no further comment on this line of discussion. 331dot (talk) 16:25, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re:Germany yes we posted Germany, maybe we shouldn't have? It's not fake bias to post one, come to your senses, and not do it again. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:26, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It's not like there are many other presidential elections going on right now. Pakistan only has elections every five years, both the general election (for the prime minister) and the presidential one. I don't see what harm posting this blurb can cause; as far as coverage in international sources is concerned, it is satisfying that criteria. Mar4d (talk) 12:25, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on significance, which I shouldn't have to, because this is ITN/R. I had a bunch of folks jump on me when I opposed posting the Super Bowl a while back; and here we have a nationwide election for the head of state in the world's sixth most populous country, and we're IAR opposing this on significance? @Masem and LaserLegs: seriously? ITN/R isn't ambiguous; the way it's written explicitly covers both real (typically elected) heads of state, and the figurehead types (typically not elected). Khan's election was posted as the result of a general election. This is a different ITN/R criterion. Vanamonde (talk) 13:32, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • It should be noted that an ITNC that meets ITNR that is otherwise fine on article quality can still be discussed for posting or not if that one single ITNR event is actually not that significant or surprising - an IAR exception to ITNR. The point of having ITNR is to avoid having to rehash why a general class of events should be posted aka the Boat Race issue (where the appropriate of the Boat Race in general is nearly always questioned when it is nominated by TRM). In this case, we accept that we'd normally post head of state elections, but there can be exceptions which is what the ITNC should focus on. My oppose more specifically on this one ITNC is that we just posted on the general election that put the person with the most power into office. That said, I just reviewed 2013 and we posted both (well the general election for the national assembly, not when the PM was selected) and the President both which had the same relative timing about a month apart, so I am going to change my !vote here. I still think we should be a bit more aware of the timing of these elections so it doesn't appear to be extraneous/repeated posting, or agree on the talk page that head of state and head of government should both be posted regardless of country and allow these close postings to occur. --Masem (t) 06:21, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Per 331dot and Vanamonde. This is unambigously ITN/R and we ahould not be having significance discussion here.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:40, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • SUPPORT pneding an update + as per ITNR.Lihaas (talk) 16:52, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted. There's a weak consensus for posting here; when in doubt, follow the rules, as IAR should only be invoked when doing so clearly benefits the encyclopedia. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:59, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pull In the midst of a dumb debate about ITNR, I don't know that anyone said this was actually ready. The "Schedule" section in particular is without citation. ghost 23:45, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's actually the only section I can see that is not fully cited; I hardly think it's worth pulling the article over that.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:14, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) RD: Jalaluddin Haqqani

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: Jalaluddin Haqqani (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: The founder of the Haqqani militant network. Some referencing issues. Sherenk1 (talk) 06:04, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support looks mostly okay, although not sure about the fair use image rationale, just because someone's a terrorist, it doesn't mean a free image couldn't be available. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:27, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: note that they date of death is unknown - the Taliban only announced it on 3 September. I'd like to see a reference for the last two sentences in the Death section. There are reports in the BBC and Guardian that might help - Dumelow (talk) 11:31, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • support - Looks good enough for RD posting. BabbaQ (talk) 00:05, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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.

September 3

September 3, 2018 (2018-09-03) (Monday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Arts and culture
Disasters and accidents
Law and crime
  • Arrests of Wa Lone and Kyaw Soe Oo
    • Two Reuters journalists jailed in Myanmar are sentenced to seven years in prison for violating the Official Secrets Act, prompting international condemnation. The pair was investigating reports of mass graves at the village of Inn Din when they were arrested in Yangon for attempting to obtain classified documents, which they contend were used as bait to entrap them. (The Guardian)

(Posted) RD: Claire Wineland

Article: Claire Wineland (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): CNN
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Article well sourced --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:02, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Jacqueline Pearce

Article: Jacqueline Pearce (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [24]
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: British actress. Articles looks fine, though not too fine. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 19:04, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Gordon Phillips (footballer)

Article: Gordon Phillips (footballer) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Brentford FC footballer. Possibly a little work to do to the article, I will try to take a look at it - Dumelow (talk) 16:19, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Removed) 2018 Kerala floods

Article: 2018 Kerala floods (talk · history · tag)
Ongoing item removal (Post)

Nominator's comments: Posted as a blurb more than two weeks ago before being moved to ongoing. The event itself (the flood and rescue) has ended and efforts are now focused on what typically occurs after a disaster. The last substantial addition to the article was a PR exercise about fishermen reported 5 days ago. Prior to that reactions from various organisations were last added on the 23 August. Neither of which currently meets the purpose of blurb or ongoing. Fuebaey (talk) 14:19, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Removed. --Tone 14:24, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Sentencing of two Reuters journalists

Article:Inn_Din_massacre#Arrest_of_Reuters_journalists (talk · history · tag)
Blurb:A court in Myanmar sentences two Reuters journalists to seven years in prison for violating the state secrets act while investigating violence against the Rohingya minority. (Post)
News source(s):BBC, AP, Guardian
Credits:

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Sentenced now. Sherenk1 (talk) 07:15, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support – in principle as a significant press freedom and human rights case – but do we want a separate article? Sca (talk) 15:18, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not so sure about this one. Yes, the sentencing of two Reuters journalists for investigating a mass grave is an ominous sign of Myanmar sliding back into the bad old days of direct military rule, but I've not heard about their specific case until just now. Therefore, I'm not entirely convinced that this sentencing is significant enough by itself to merit a blurb on the main page. Kurtis(talk) 22:29, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've heard quite a bit of it, though. In fact, they were supposed to be sentenced about 10 days ago but the judge was ill. Kingsif (talk) 23:48, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I saw reasonable coverage of this before the sentencing example, so the sentencing itself should be postable. Banedon (talk) 23:49, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm neutral on posting, but shouldn't the suggested blurb have a few more wikilinks, perhaps for Myanmar, Reuters, and Rohingya? Tlhslobus (talk) 01:40, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extremely Weak Support Part of me really wants to put this on the main page in the form of a flashing neon sign. But once I beat down the RGW impulses I am compelled to ask, why is this act of petty tyranny more significant than any of the other crimes against a free press that occur daily all over the world? Reporters are jailed or murdered with such regularity that this is hardly a standout event. Yeah, I'm supporting. But in all honesty it's my RGW impulses rising up again. Ask me in an hour and I may change my vote. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:16, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is a high-profile case in terms of newsworthiness. Coverage I saw Monday cited evidence that Wa Lone and Kyaw Soe Oo were framed by Myanmar police with planted documents. And the horrible Rohingya saga is of great significance from a human rights perspective – particularly given Aung San Suu Kyi's previous squeaky-clean reputation. Sca (talk) 15:45, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still neutral, but this has little or nothing to do with WP:RGW, which is entirely about not putting stuff into Wikipedia which is not supported by reliable sources, and nobody is trying to do that here. (Any other interpretation of RGW would seemingly make little sense, if only because everything in Wikipedia is supposedly there as part of an attempt to reduce ignorance and could thus be challenged on the basis that it is an attempt to right the great wrong of keeping people in ignorance (as has arguably sometimes successfully happened here in the past.)) Tlhslobus (talk) 12:15, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, in part because of what Ad Orientem said above. If we had a good-looking separate article for this situation, I would have likely voted support, however. Honestly, a flashing neon sign would be perfect... ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:19, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
See my above comment re WP:RGW being irrelevant here.Tlhslobus (talk) 12:15, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I opposed in part because this seems like a not particularly uncommon incident (though it is true that this one likely got more news attention than they usually do). The Right Great Wrongs guideline didn't affect my !vote at all. I simply thought about the purpose of ITN as listed on WP:ITN and think that this section does not emphasize Wikipedia as a dynamic resource (because it is only a section). ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:57, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The phrase "while investigating" implies causation without proving it. There are ways to say they were set up in a neutral voice: perhaps "UN human rights chief calls for release of..." ghost 11:15, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm inclined to support because it was "in the news" (though I agree with Ad Orientem above). The "prelude" and "massacre" section both have a single (reliable) source, and both sections are thin on details -- not something that ought be featured on the MP. Whats there seems ok. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:48, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Getting stale. Suggest close. – Sca (talk) 14:23, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such thing as "getting stale" - there is stale and not stale. All but one article currently posted is older. The only reason to close earlier is if the discussion is acrimonious AND going nowhere. ghost 14:50, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Is that so? At a pub last week I had a sandwich on foccacia bread that was dry and getting stale, although it didn't taste spoiled.
In journalism a story that is more than three days old – or even two days old – is getting stale. (This, per Ben Franklin, also is true of fish and visitors.) – Sca (talk) 15:32, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • support - I have to support this. It is an ok article about a subject featured in media world wide and is ready for posting. BabbaQ (talk) 15:03, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Like Kurtis, I haven't heard of this particular story until now. Journalists who are being killed while covering wars and drug-related violence, which happens all too often, don't usually get posted here. Let alone journalists who are sentenced to jail terms. The latter is even more common and occurs in many different parts of the world. I would've supported if the journalists themselves were notable or if their jailing sparked a diplomatic escalation between governments. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 17:01, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted. There is just about a consensus to post this, especially given the lack of stories in recent weeks. Black Kite (talk) 17:08, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-posting support - the update is suitable, and the story is of significance in the news. Stormy clouds (talk) 17:30, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

September 2

September 2, 2018 (2018-09-02) (Sunday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents
International relations
Politics and elections

(Posted) RD: Conway Savage

Article: Conway Savage (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The New Daily
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Article well sourced --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 06:27, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral Page needs better formatting, but the content and references are all there. Kingsif (talk) 23:47, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted Stephen 01:06, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) National Museum of Brazil fire

Proposed image
Article: National Museum of Brazil fire (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: A major fire destroys the National Museum of Brazil, one of the largest and oldest museums in the Americas. (Post)
News source(s): Reuters BBC UOL (in Portuguese)
Credits:

Nominator's comments: The article needs work, but it is (was) the most important museum in Brazil. José Luiz talk 02:43, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • support©Geni (talk) 03:20, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - The now-redirected target article is a bit thin, but reasonably well-referenced. The prose appears to be a bit awkward in a few spots. The notability of the fire event is high, from what I’m reading. Jusdafax (talk) 03:28, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support conditional on the article about the fire being the one bold linked in the blurb and not the museum which has some gaps in referencing and has not been adequately updated. This is a cultural catastrophe of epic proportions. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:41, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done. José Luiz talk 03:55, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the event article is fully sourced and as complete as possible for a recent event. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:41, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted Stephen 04:50, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request Please add a image and help to improve the articles. @Stephen: Keep the original burb to give appropriate certification of notoriety to the context. ArionEstar (talk) 05:10, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • The posted blurb is correct. Blurbs are for stating what happened, not defining the things they happened to. We have an encyclopedia around here somewhere to do that. —Cryptic 05:55, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • When disasters happen we try to have some quantification to say why its important (most often the death toll). Here it would be some type of monetary value but the article claims it is "invaluable". Only in consideration towards this it might be helpful to point to the "200-year old museum" (as NYTimes, BBC, and several other news sources all put that number in their headline), it gives an impression how significant this was (given that no one otherwise appeared hurt). --Masem (t) 06:06, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • That this was the National Museum of a country is surely significant enough? Stephen 06:50, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • @Stephen: Could you at least specify the city where the museum is located (“A fire destroys the National Museum of Brazil, in Rio de Janeiro”)? ArionEstar (talk) 10:20, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
            • Added, I noticed that too. --Tone 12:19, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • "National Museum" doesn't necessary convey the size or importance of the collection; not all "national museums" are of equal value. But this is only a minor suggestion, nothing to argue too deeply about. --Masem (t) 14:22, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: It's clearly been significantly damaged, but has it been 'destroyed'? Maybe reword that? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 13:19, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think it was completely destroyed. See some pictures of aftermath here. José Luiz talk 14:04, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It does seem completely destroyed, also Question: could it be mentioned that the firefighters were tasked with rescuing artefacts before/during putting the fire out (especially because it was deemed uncontrollable)? It's seems like an interesting fact, or should that be put on DYK? (12) Kingsif (talk) 15:52, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If an article has been on the main page in ITN, it is no longer eligible for DYK per WP:DYKRULES #1d. Regards SoWhy 07:36, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) 2018 All-Ireland Football Final

Article: 2018 All-Ireland Senior Football Championship Final (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: In Gaelic football, Dublin win the All-Ireland Senior Football Championship, defeating Tyrone in the final. (Post)
News source(s): RTÉ Irish Times BBC
Credits:

Article updated
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

Nominator's comments: ITN/R, but the article needs work, including a prose update, and sourcing. The article is now updated with a prose description of the game, and enhanced sourcing. Stormy clouds (talk) 21:44, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: - I have done my best to write one. Is that passable? Stormy clouds (talk) 22:55, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Seems okay to me, though the Tyrone All-Ireland Semi-Final is missing a "Report" link and the detail on scorers as the other games have. Hrodvarsson (talk) 02:15, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Hrodvarsson: - issues outlined have been rectified. Stormy clouds (talk) 10:36, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Ian Lariba

Article: Ian Lariba (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Filipina Olympic table tennis player. Article is fully sourced, could perhaps use a little expansion but is probably sufficient for a career cut short by her death at 23 - Dumelow (talk) 19:44, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) 2018 Asian Games closing

Articles:2018 Asian Games (talk · history · tag) and 2018 Asian Games closing ceremony (talk · history · tag)
Blurb:The 2018 Asian Games in Jakarta and Palembang, Indonesia, close, with China leading the medal tally. (Post)
Alternative blurb:The 2018 Asian Games close, with China leading the medal tally.
Credits:

First article updated, second needs updating

Nominator's comments: The closing ceremony article is very stub-y, so it definitely needs much work. Angga1061 (talk) 16:57, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak support this (I think) is the third time this event has been nominated here. My reservation in this instance comes from the lack of "in the news" I'm seeing. The article seems okay, and I'm certain there are hundreds of millions of Wikipedia readers who are aware of and interested in this, but ... it's just not ITN. But still, support weakly. And bonus points to the nominator for perseverance. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:05, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Fully agree that this is not the type of thing for ongoing, but as we do have for ITNR the opening of the Commonwealth games, I see no reason not to post a similarly Olympic-stylized multi-national event elsewhere as a one-time blurb (not ongoing). --Masem (t) 17:33, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment 2018 Asian Games closing ceremony should not be linked in the blurb in its current state. It was originally entirely unsourced, and though I've added one reference now, it is still not ready to be on the main page. Bennv3771 (talk) 17:35, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If we go in line with the Olympics, we never post the medal tally in the blurb. So I don't think we should here either. --Tone 19:01, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Is that right? My memory fails. I'm sure I've seen blurbs for multi-sport contests where we note who topped the medal table, not the tally, just who topped out. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:08, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, maybe if the target article is the closing ceremony we don't focus on the "winning" country, but if we're not mentioning that because the article is too lame, I don't think I see too much harm in noting the top of the leaderboard. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:12, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the world's largest sporting event save for the olympics. Openlydialectic (talk) 19:27, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't see anything special about the 2018 Asian Games as opposed to other Asian Games, so it's either notable enough for ITN/R or there is no reason why this particular one should be posted. I'm not opposed to this posting, just saying that if you support this posting you should probably propose to add it to ITN/R. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:41, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted Stephen 00:26, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

September 1

September 1, 2018 (2018-09-01) (Saturday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Arts and culture
Disasters and accidents
International relations
  1. ^ https://www.reuters.com/article/us-india-lgbt/activists-hope-indias-top-court-will-throw-out-ban-on-homosexuality-idUSKCN1LM0HY