Jump to content

Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/July 2018

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

July 31

[edit]
July 31, 2018 (2018-07-31) (Tuesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sports

(Posted) RD: Tony Bullimore

[edit]
Article: Tony Bullimore (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.

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

July 30

[edit]
July 30, 2018 (2018-07-30) (Monday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

(Posted) RD: Ron Dellums

[edit]
Article: Ron Dellums (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NY 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: Political titan. Article needs some more sourcing, which I can work on tonight. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:37, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted to Ongoing) Carr fire

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

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

  • Support in the news all weekend, article is pretty good, especially for a recent disaster. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:28, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The BBC notes that "Wildfires are a common occurrence in California during the state's long, hot, dry summers." That said, I would submit this may be better suited for Ongoing, as this is not the only active wildfire in California right now. 331dot (talk) 12:31, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Typhoons flood in the wet season, summer heat scorches. The number of evacuations of the Carr makes it unusual. Still if you have a candidate for ongoing, let me know. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:44, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – It's a big, fierce fire that has affected thousands of residents, but – despite the tragic death Sunday of a firefighter – the number of victims isn't large on a global scale. Sca (talk) 14:52, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Because early warning, fire fighting, and infrastructure systems in the United States are more developed? WP:MINIMUMDEATHS is a red link once again. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:15, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's a natural (or semi-natural, depending on cause) disaster for the area affected, but as yet poses no wider significance. (I say this as someone who has a close relative, a USFS employee, currently deployed on a 27 sq. mi. / 71 sq. km. wildfire in Idaho. You won't see any mention of this fire on major news sites, as such fires aren't unusual this time of year – and there have been no casualties.) Sca (talk) 21:53, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose Unless this grows larger, I'm w/ Sca on this - while this wasn't a natural wildfire, (a vehicle started it) its spread has followed the typical wildfire pattern and timing. That said, it is still growing, they are only about 20% contained, I would not rule out any posting if the death toll increases, but as they've been issuing a huge swath of evacuations, I doubt the number will grow much more. --Masem (t) 15:03, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, significant wildfire that continues to be in the news. -- Tavix (talk) 18:01, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose we keep getting told how California is like the 9th biggest economy on the planet, so an evacuation of a handful of residents doesn't seem notable during a season where fires are commonplace. Sure, it's inconvenient, but then so was 64 days without rain for my grass. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:28, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Fifteen thousand is rather more than a handful. Sca (talk) 22:01, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Have you seen my hands? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:46, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, but I've seen a lot of your handiwork. Sca (talk) 14:26, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, the 100+ FLs, the nearly 200 GAs, the couple of dozen FAs, two FTs etc? Why, thank you for noticing! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:13, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
On second thoughts, hatting is arguably a commendable way to advertise the bits that people like me would never bother to read except for the hat. Except that advertising tends to disimprove it by removing the element of surprise. Tlhslobus (talk) 04:20, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Rancorous chatter
  • WP:CIVIL please. Why are you attempting to antagonize a fellow editor? Do you think you are going to win an argument? Richard-of-Earth (talk) 18:05, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't stress it Richard. This is how LaserLegs plays. It never works, but it's just how he plays. Sometimes it ends up at WP:AN. We like to play with each other a little, but it rarely turns out in LaserLegs' favo(u)r. Once again he's failed to note the multiple arsons, the mass death, the irregularity, unlike Cali which is rife with kind of regular inconvenience. I think we should consider a "wildfire ticker" alongside that long-awaited "school massacre ticker" perhaps? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:12, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Well I drew attention to the record heat, and the literally 1000's of structures destroyed so far, and though there are no WP:MINIMUMDEATHS for notability this fire has killed 6. I wouldn't be supporting a brush fire in the middle of nowhere, but 1200+ buildings isn't an "inconvenience" I'm afraid. As for your proposed ticker, we could create a "dead kids ticker" and combine it with the children who are executed in cold blood by the despotic NHS and inhumane courts who write death warrants by ordering the end of care. I think that could work! --LaserLegs (talk) 20:11, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, none of that's going to work, nor is this going to be posted. A mild inconvenience that happens every year and nothing more. Wake me up when the next US "disaster" occurs. But not too soon, I need a couple of hours' rest. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:14, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I could, but we may be speedy posting a poor quality article about a tropical storm impacting a tropical country, or an earth quake on a volcanic island in one of the most earthquake prone parts of the world. Oh well. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:21, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment California has wildfires on a regular basis. They threaten to destroy significant towns once or twice a year, at least recently (the Tubbs Fire last October, the Thomas Fire last December, a smaller one earlier this month). If a significant part of Redding is destroyed, this is notable. As something that has caused evacuations but only minor (500 houses being minor in comparison to 50000) property destruction, I don't think it quite reaches the notability threshold. If it gets worse, it will. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:38, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
It's due to our magnetic personalities. Sca (talk) 21:03, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. It's the magnetism for a few individuals who keep trumpeting the same non-guideline. If you spend any time around here at all, you'd see that. It's not interesting, it's depressing. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:06, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Wildfires in California are a fairly regular occurrence.--WaltCip (talk) 11:03, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I think the WP:MINIMUMDEATHS debate here and elsewhere points to a logical re-calibration on these types of events. ITNC is meant to judge coverage, article quality, and significance. While any disasters (natural or man-made) can draw coverage, those with greater than normal fatalities can draw greater than normal coverage. Body counts can be a useful counter-argument to those who dismiss widespread coverage as sensationalism, but it should not apply to discussion of significance. Further, because significance is so subjective, we should be lenient on significance when quality and coverage are both high. ghost 11:36, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note Updated values in blurb due to most recent estimates. --Jayron32 13:48, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment-2 – Now, with more than 800 homes torched, thousands more threatened, 3,600 firefighters deployed, and the fire only 27 percent contained, this is beginning to look like ongoing material. Sca (talk) 14:26, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wildfires in California.--WaltCip (talk) 16:20, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
irrelevant towards consensus building. --Jayron32 19:10, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
There must be a joke somewhere involving the Oregon Ducks, Long Island Ducks, Duquesne Dukes (pronounced Dookane Dooks), duck boats (DUKW brand wheeled boats) and maybe ducks. Last week Furnace Creek, Death Valley, California (non-aboriginal population: 6) reached 127F four days in a row. It only needed 129.25 for America to get another blurb. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:36, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Only a matter of time before the Arrowhead Pond, home of the Anaheim Ducks melts to become an actual, real pond, and it still won't be laughingly enough for ITN. Another sinking duck boat won't cut it anymore since there'd be like one sinking per month, just like there is an average of 1 European election per month that would surely be posted... Howard the Duck (talk) 19:08, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Alrighty. That's enough. Carry on. --Jayron32 19:10, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

National Register of Citizens of India

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

Article needs updating

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

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

July 29

[edit]
July 29, 2018 (2018-07-29) (Sunday)
Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sports

(Posted) RD: Chrysa Spiliotis

[edit]
Article: Chrysa Spiliotis (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): https://vaaju.com/greeceeng/fire-in-the-eye-chrysa-spiliotis-is-dead/
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: Most sources in Greek and translation tools lack finesse however think it meets quality standard for MP. Have listed this nomination on the date her body was identified. MurielMary (talk) 10:17, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Closed) RD: Oliver Dragojević

[edit]
Stale, unimproved. Stephen 03:29, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article: Oliver Dragojević (talk · history · 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: A famous singer from Croatia. The article needs some work with the references. Tone 10:04, 31 July 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: Brian Christopher

[edit]
Stale, unimproved. Stephen 03:28, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article: Brian Christopher (talk · history · 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: Notable wrestling figure passed away today. StrikerforceMobile (talk) 22:31, 29 July 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) 2018 Tour de France

[edit]
Proposed image
Article: 2018 Tour de France (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In cycling, Geraint Thomas wins the Tour de France. (Post)
News source(s): The Guardian
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: May want to mention in blurb that this is a first win by a Welshman. yorkshiresky (talk) 17:40, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because we are corrupt and evil. (What a strange question?) It's actually because he won the biggest bike race in the world. HiLo48 (talk) 06:13, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Tomasz Stańko

[edit]
Proposed image
Article: Tomasz Stańko (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: Polish trumpeter, composer and improviser strongly associated with free jazz and the avant-garde. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:53, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As always, it would be a pleasure. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 20:24, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Discogs is not RS. Even I can edit Discogs.com, and I have before.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 21:19, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So looks like 8 sources are now still needed. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:30, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good to go. We can can crowd source formatting the refs per MOS. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 14:30, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Have now added the remaining three sources. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:09, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ad Orientem: Thanks. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 18:36, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Malian presidential election, 2018

[edit]
Good faith nom but far too early. This can be re-opened once we have election results and a decent article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:14, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article: Malian presidential election, 2018 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ [insert candidate] is elected as the new president of Mali. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ [insert candidate] wins the Malian presidential election.
News source(s): "Insecurity Shadows Mali's President. It May Also Help Him Get Reelected". The New York Times. July 27, 2018. Retrieved July 27, 2018.; "24 candidates get go ahead in Mali election". News 24. Retrieved July 27, 2018.
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: Referenced stub in need of a major expansion before Sunday. For example, there are 17 confirmed candidates and possibly 13 more. We should list them all. Zigzig20s (talk) 22:41, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[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.

July 28

[edit]
July 28, 2018 (2018-07-28) (Saturday)
Arts and culture

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

Politics and elections

(Posted) 2018 Lombok earthquake

[edit]
Article: 2018 Lombok earthquake (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ A 6.4 magnitude earthquake struck Lombok, Indonesia, killing at least 16 people. (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

Article updated

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

  • Support Breaking News: The number has just risen to 15. I'm from Indonesia BTW, so I saw it on TV but up to this moment I haven't been able to find any international sources stating it.–Angga1061 12:10, 29 July 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Angga1061 (talk • contribs) I think this has yet to be verified, but still, it is a pretty high death toll. (P.S. I moved it to July 28, because it happened on that date at UTC although it happened on July 29 at local time.) –Angga1061 16:49, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
More—updated—international coverage:
–Angga1061 06:00, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) North American Heat Wave

[edit]
No consensus. Stephen 23:00, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article: 2018 North American heat wave (talk · history · tag)
Ongoing item nomination (Post)
News source(s): CBC
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: I realize there happen to be several other weather-related ITN items at the moment. Nevertheless, I think that this event is newsworthy even so. OtterAM (talk) 18:16, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 Working 2018 extreme weather events --- Coffeeandcrumbs 01:33, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind, way beyond my skills.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 02:10, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Japanese record is 106, the New England and New York City records are 107, the 5 cities of Bowash record is 108, the New York State record is 109, the New Jersey and near New York City record is 110, the Pennsylvanian record is 111, the Bowash and Northeast states record is 112, the Atlantic states record is 113, the US forest biome record is 120, the US city over 3 million record is 122, the Mexican record is 126, the Old World record is 129 and the New World record is 129 maybe 130 at Furnace Creek, Death Valley, USA. The ground at Furnace Creek has also reached 201F which is 31 degrees above steak well done. Of course effects like hotter places having way fewer people without air conditioning evens things out and UK heat waves can still kill people. And being close to the sea in every direction probably makes record UK heatwaves more humid. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:31, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Very little of that still very poor article tells me that folks there are seeing anything more than a few hot days. I would change my view if there were well-sourced comparisons with long term, official records, and if it only included temperatures recorded by proper scientific methods, i.e. not by sitting a thermometer on a road in the sun. HiLo48 (talk) 01:37, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
After two days of 101 F (38 C) heat, my AC conked out Tues. night. But I guess that doesn't qualify for ITN? Sca (talk) 01:59, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[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) Archbishop Theodore McCarrick Resigns from the College of Cardinals

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

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

Nice job on the article cleanup and referencing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:34, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea and done. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:05, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Few other missing refs and a dead link - don't have time to read/check the rest now, maybe later. Probably a waste of time anyway... --LaserLegs (talk) 21:14, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'm done tagging, not terrible, but needs work. I'm concerned that a lot of his history is from primary sources (web archive copies of his bio from the Archdiocese of Washington and Archdiocese of Newark) - none of the content is alarming, but it'd be nice to not rely on WP:PRIMARY sources for this. Regarding "significance" I'm not sure how this is any different from Harvey Weinstein - McCarrick hasn't been convicted or even charged - which makes this stink of WP:RGW. Story was headline news today, which is all I care about if the refs are fixed. #twocents. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:40, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
These reference issues are all fixed. Neutralitytalk 14:51, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support now GTG nice work.

July 27

[edit]
July 27, 2018 (2018-07-27) (Friday)
Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Science and technology

(Posted) Longest lunar eclipse of the 21st century

[edit]
Article: July 2018 lunar eclipse (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The longest total lunar eclipse in the 21st century occurs. (Post)
News source(s): The Guardian Business Insider The Telegraph
Credits:

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

  • Comment I added sources and a blurb. TompaDompa (talk) 10:08, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Insufficient citations. I'd only support this if it gets up prior. "There's a lunar eclipse tonight" is not terribly exciting. "There was a lunar eclipse last night" is utterly banal. ghost 12:06, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: lunar eclipses are fairly frequent, see List of 21st-century lunar eclipses. According to that article, this one will be 104 minutes, whereas several others this century will be 102 minutes and there was one in 2000 that was 108 minutes. So while the blurb is technically correct, it's a tiny difference and rests on knowing the exact definition of 21st century. Does that really make it more notable than other lunar eclipses or merit being the main focus of the blurb? If this does get posted, I don't think any ITN blurb should ever go up until the event happens, but this one could go up as soon as the eclipse begins (IIRC we've done that before with eclipses). Modest Genius talk 13:04, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The longest of the 4203 total lunar eclipses from 3000 BC to 3000 AD is 106.6 minutes, 104 is not that far from the maximum possible. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:00, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Then it looks like the 108 minute entry on List of 21st-century lunar eclipses is incorrect. Modest Genius talk 16:17, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Some predictions, especially taken from books before fast computers, might still be using a spherical Earth even though other(s) try to figure out the exact density altitude that on average causes the sharpest dropoff in brightness (somewhere around the troposphere-stratosphere border I think, troposphere has a lot of clouds and can make even the Sun dim enough to look at remember) and account for the equatorial bulge of this altitude (which is more bulged than sea level). The place I got 106.6 minutes says 2000 was 106.4 minutes. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:42, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify: I'm not opposed to posting this if lunar eclipses are considered to be notable enough every time they occur (though in which case they should be added to ITNR). I've not been through the archives to see how we treated earlier ones. Right now this is all rather moot anyway, because the article is woefully under-developed, under-referenced and mostly just repeats material from lunar eclipse. Modest Genius talk 13:49, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For the record: We posted the total lunar eclipses of December 2010 (first to coincide with a December solstice since 1638), April 2014 (nothing special to make it more notable than a "regular" total lunar eclipse as far as I can tell), and January 2018 (first "super blue blood moon" in 35 years). The September 2015 and April 2015 ones weren't nominated, whereas the April 2015, December 2011, and June 2011 ones were nominated but not posted. That's a complete rundown of the total lunar eclipses of the past 10 years. TompaDompa (talk) 13:54, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Mostly based on Modest Genius; a 104 min vs a 102 min in an otherwise frequent event is not all that great. Also, while I know the motion of the moon/earth/sun are generally fixed and calculated so that we have reasonably strong assurance that this is the longest one of the next 80 years, I think it is brushing up on CRYSTAL to make this claim. (It's not that this won't be 104 min, but that if some asteroid hits the moon and shifts its orbit a bit, things could change). --Masem (t) 13:30, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support before the eclipse happens. "You'll be able to witness this cool astronomical event" is a lot more notable than "You missed seeing this cool event. Too bad we didn't tell you about it earlier, lol." Databased (talk) 13:41, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support if it can be reworded per asteroids and aliens, i.e. "likely". Just kidding about the aliens.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 20:06, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't the the Moon's orbit has ever been affected by an impact event enough for man to notice. If man was around billions of years ago sure but the oldest Moon position records are only a few thousand years old. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:27, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
With scientists doing things like this, can we really be sure the moon's orbit will not change for the next 82! years. It likely won't change.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 22:11, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anybody doubts that the moon's orbit will change in the next 4.75 × 10122 years. TompaDompa (talk) 22:48, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Touché! Nice one. In the end, I am in the support camp. I feel no need to fight over symantics.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 23:15, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't recommend it ether. Sca (talk) 21:43, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Virgo cluster of clusters of groups of galaxies bias! Only 0.0000005% of stories should be from that supercluster of galaxies. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:37, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Once per 1,113 years on average (1.428 years per total lunar eclipse, 1 out of 780 UTC days is an opposition of Mars) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:49, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Here your go.[1].--- Coffeeandcrumbs 22:52, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And you gave me a link to an Earth-based search engine. Such geocentricism! wumbolo ^^^ 23:08, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Non-intersupercluster search engines make Glaaargxkhxtht'x mad. Virgo Supercluster chauvinism. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:16, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I love this thread. We should create WP:GEOCENTRICISM as a redirect to here. Admin watching, it is well past the time you should have posted IM!HO. I think it is not too late.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 23:23, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Almost every item in the box is for things which have already happened. I'm not sure why this would be different. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:06, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
⇒ Because it had zero practical affect on anyone. Sca (talk) 14:58, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We've already used up all the longest eclipses of the century (solar, lunar, annular). I'll nominate the 22nd century's longest (2141, 2168, 2186) further in advance. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:20, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 • Dang, I was hoping we could say goodnight to this old moon story. Sca (talk) 15:04, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Disney acquires Fox

[edit]
Article: Proposed acquisition of 21st Century Fox by Disney (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ 21st Century Fox shareholders approve the $71.3 billion acquisition by The Walt Disney Company. (Post)
News source(s): Variety
Credits:

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

  • Users at the talk page seem to disagree about the acquisition being completed. Dat GuyTalkContribs 22:13, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are a couple more hurdles in terms of foreign gov'ts but most sources consider this deal to be done and over with, given the Justice Dep'ts earlier signoff. Those gov't could block the deal, but that rarely makes the news as much as events like this here - hence the wording of the blurb (which I did just change to reflect it being an acquisition rather than a merger_) --Masem (t) 00:13, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) RD: Chiyo Miyako

[edit]
Stale and at AfD. Stephen 23:44, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article: Chiyo Miyako (talk · history · 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: Oldest living person at death. Died the 22nd, but wasn't made public until today. 2nd oldest Japanese person in history, and 8th overall. Spengouli (talk) 15:12, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And being the last verified 19th century person (in the womb). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:50, 28 July 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) Pakistani general election, 2018 / Pakistani general election, 2018 violence

[edit]
Proposed image
Articles: Pakistani general election, 2018 (talk · history · tag) and Pakistani general election, 2018 violence (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Imran Khan's (pictured) Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf wins a plurality in the Pakistani general election. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Imran Khan's (pictured) Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf wins a plurality in the Pakistani general election that was marred by violence.
News source(s): Al jazeeraEvening Standard, AP. BBC
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: Opening again. Polls to close in 10 mins. Results in 12 hours. Sherenk1 (talk) 12:49, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • So nominate it in >12 hours, after the article has been updated with the results. There's nothing to discuss until then! Modest Genius talk 16:17, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment To repeat a comment from another editor from a ITN discussion about a previous election, "All we are doing is getting a jump on discussing the quality of the article and the eventual wording of the blurb. This is a useful exercise in that it can facilitate getting what is an obvious ITNR item up in a timely manner". Chrisclear (talk) 00:39, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have added a second article about all the violence for combined alt. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 01:31, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support as plurality is official. Sources:[2][3] --- Coffeeandcrumbs 06:30, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Some other possibly relevant sources from Google:
Tlhslobus (talk) 18:20, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have started Pakistani general election, 2018#International.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 19:06, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I think I'll now check the other sources above to see if anything more is needed, and whether or not any of it is important enough to need a mention in the lead. I expect to accept that it's ready to go in between half an hour and two hours from now.Tlhslobus (talk) 19:18, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a bit more from the above sources, and I'm now withdrawing my objection and restoring the Ready tag.Tlhslobus (talk) 19:58, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Few days after the election, casted ballots belonging to" --LaserLegs (talk) 23:28, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed Ready (which I had simply restored after temporarily removing it until an objection of mine got fixed), as it's preventing your objections getting fixed - these presumably also explain why it wasn't getting posted.Tlhslobus (talk) 00:15, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@LaserLegs: I copyedited the entire paragraph.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 01:05, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
After reading the above, I then had another look at that paragraph and made another 10 changes or so in 3 edits. About half of these seemed definitely necessary, at least to me, and about half desirable and possibly necessary (except perhaps for an s changed to z which may just be a question of spellchecker settings). I then made one 'correction' and 3 wikilinks in the lead, and I then had a look at Laserlegs' original objection of 19:39, 26 July 2018, and found that it was still 'unfixed'. And I then decided to give up, partly because I wasn't sure how to 'fix' it, and partly because I wasn't sure whether it should be 'fixed' at all, as it might well be wholly or partly 'correct' under 'Pakistani English' and my 'fix' might then just be 'Western cultural imperialism' or whatever. For instance 'General Elections' (which is also the opening expression of the lead) seems wrong to me, but it may well be correct in Pakistan (and it might be wrong of me to replace it with 'A general election and 4 provincial elections'). And the same may apply to 'fixes' to the rest of the article, including some of the 'fixes' that I've already made. I'm also unclear who such 'fixes' are meant to satisfy: maybe it's Laserlegs, or maybe it's admins who haven't posted and haven't said why they haven't posted (quite likely for very sensible reasons in both cases). And any non-western editor likely has an equally difficult set of problems of their own. And I don't pretend to know what should be done about any of this.Tlhslobus (talk) 04:52, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I pointed out a few grammar issues, but it's not the same as BLP vios or bad refs. Item is ITN/R and the article is ok, even with the ESL ENGVAR issues. IMO just post it. Its much better than it was. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:37, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) RD: Vladimir Voinovich

[edit]
Stale. Stephen 22:53, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article: Vladimir Voinovich (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Source at RFERL, More exact source at Lenta.ru (in Russian)
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: Important literary figure and dissident. Yakikaki (talk) 08:00, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you edit the article like this? It was perfectly referenced in Voinovich's memoirs published at his personal site. You just removed all the sentences that don't contain reference links. This is not how Wikipedia articles are written, not every single sentense have to contain a reference link at the end. Then you merged other sentences into huge paragraphs for no reason, making them hard to read. And his filmography is perfectly referenced at the IMDb site in /*External links*/AveTory (talk) 11:18, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@AveTory: Falsely accusing someone of vandalism is grounds for a block. Please strike that word. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 12:02, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't take it that way, I made major changes to the article so I can understand the emotional outburst. It happens to all wikipedians every now and then. I do however maintain that the article was improved by my edits, and should now be able to pass front page exposure. Yakikaki (talk) 12:21, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[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.

July 26

[edit]
July 26, 2018 (2018-07-26) (Thursday)
Business and economy
  • Facebook stocks drop 20% (US$118 billion), setting a record as the biggest single stock market loss in one day, and marking the first time that a stock lost over $100 billion in one day. (CNBC)
  • Disney announces plans to eliminate all plastic straws and plastic stirrers from their parks by mid-2019. (NOLA)

International relations

Law and crime

Science and technology

(Closed) Gravitational redshift

[edit]
No consensus and stale. Stephen 23:17, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

[edit]
No consensus to post. Stephen 00:31, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Followup I think the article fails WP:VICTIM. Maybe some of this can be merged into another article, but IMO this individual is not independently notable beyond the circumstances of his death. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:31, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A detailed analysis of source material
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
BBC News Yes Yes Major international news organization Yes The source discusses the subject directly and in detail ✔ Yes
Deutsche Welle Yes Yes Major international news organization Yes The source discusses the subject directly and in detail ✔ Yes
The Times (London) Yes Yes The source is a major newspaper Yes The source discusses the subject directly and in detail ✔ Yes
New York Times Yes Yes The source is a major newspaper Yes The article discusses the subject directly and in detail ✔ Yes
Al Jazeera (English) Yes Yes Major international news organization Yes The article discusses the subject directly and in detail ✔ Yes
Voice of America Yes Yes Major international news organization Yes The article discusses the subject directly and in detail ✔ Yes
Le Monde Yes Yes The source is a major newspaper Yes The article discusses the subject directly and in detail ✔ Yes
CNN Yes Yes Major international news organization Yes The article discusses the subject directly and in detail ✔ Yes
France24 Yes Yes Major international news organization Yes The article discusses the subject directly and in detail ✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
Thank you for that. I have collapsed it to make discussion easier.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 23:43, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'd have done that had I known how! I would note the article is ready and incorporates the latest developments surrounding his death. --Varavour (talk) 02:54, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

July 25

[edit]
July 25, 2018 (2018-07-25) (Wednesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

(Posted) RD: Ellie Soutter

[edit]
Article: Ellie Soutter (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): https://www.news.com.au/sport/sports-life/snowboard-star-ellie-soutter-dies-on-18th-birthday/news-story/4951ca2a12a52e1cf7fad686c5af1818
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 referenced MurielMary (talk) 21:32, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

(Posted) RD: Judith Appelbaum

[edit]
Article: Judith Appelbaum (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Publisher's Weekly Book Industry Study Group
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 referenced MurielMary (talk) 11:09, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) 2018 As-Suwayda attacks

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

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

It's questionable to call this terrorism. Around half of those killed were belligerents. If high civilian casualties were the standard for "terrorism" we'd be posting many attacks by Assad (and drone strikes by the US). One might also consider statehood of the attackers, but I think ISIL operations in Syria meet the standard of state actions. ghost 13:32, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've updated the nubmer of deaths to 302 (including the 56 terrorists) Openlydialectic (talk) 11:05, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) 2018 Quetta suicide bombing

[edit]
Posted within the election item. Stephen 00:30, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article: 2018 Quetta suicide bombing (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ A suicide attack kills at least 31 people and injures dozens others in Quetta, Pakistan. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ A suicide attack at a polling station, kills at least 31 people and injures dozens others in Quetta, Pakistan.
News source(s): Telegraph The Australian
Credits:

Article updated
 122.8.100.126 (talk) 20:47, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, a combined blurb with the Pakistani general election, 2018 results maybe considered. Something like, "Pakistani general election results in ____ party winning a majority despite election day violence that killed at least 31 people in a suicide attack." A bit long but still worth a thought. 122.8.100.126 (talk) 21:08, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. We are most certainly about to post the results of election. This is at least the fourth bombing this election cycle. We also have Pakistani general election, 2018 violence which details several other violent incidents including a section for this one. The best option is to wait for election results and post along the lines of:
"... wins a majority/plurality in the Pakistani general election that was marred by violence.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 21:04, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
See Pakistani general election, 2018 / Pakistani general election, 2018 violence --- Coffeeandcrumbs 01:31, 26 July 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: Corinne Gallant

[edit]
Article: Corinne Gallant (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [4] [5]
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: Professor emeritus and Acadian feminist who received the Order of Canada. Recently deceased, as announced by the Universite de Moncton, where she was professor emeritus. I will be updating as more information becomes available. Acebulf (talk) 20:23, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: György Szepesi

[edit]
Article: György Szepesi (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Hungary Today
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 is well sourced --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:03, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Japan heat wave

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

Article updated

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

Good idea. There have been a string of such extreme events this summer. Just this month, we have articles for Hurricane Beryl, heat waves in United Kingdom and Ireland, and in North America, as well as Tropical Storm Son-Tinh and 2018 Attica wildfires. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 21:28, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Sub-surface lake discovered on Mars

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

Article updated

 Masem (t) 16:38, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support This is definitely a major discovery.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:29, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the type of science articles that get picked up by news outlets aren't usually published in Science. Even if the "liquid water" is just perchlorate brine, it is still just 1.5 km deep. Even Lake Vostok deeper than that. Nergaal (talk) 17:54, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's 1.5km under the surface, that's not the depth of the water itself. But it is at least more than 1m deep for it to be detected via the radar instruments per the paper/reports. --Masem (t) 18:02, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - The discovery of a lake of Martian water, however you define “lake,” is big news. Jusdafax (talk) 21:19, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment first, the update relies almost entirely on a single source. Second, I found a number of statements missing refs and whole paragraphs with a single ref - not usually a good sign. I'm not going to !vote because I don't have time to read this monstrous article, but before rushing to post this "very important news" we should take care to check that the article is coherent and well sourced (quantity of sources != well sourced). --LaserLegs (talk) 21:35, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Any scientific discovery is likely only to going to have one strong source to support the update: the peer-reviewed paper (the Science article, in this case). For ITN, we just want to make sure that more mainstream sources cover it, which they certainly are; it just doesn't require us to use those mainstream sources in the article itself. --Masem (t) 21:40, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Sergio Marchionne

[edit]
Article: Sergio Marchionne (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: Fully referenced Sherenk1 (talk) 10:00, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

July 24

[edit]
July 24, 2018 (2018-07-24) (Tuesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Science and technology

(Posted) RD: Mary Ellis

[edit]
Article: Mary Ellis (pilot) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jul/26/mary-ellis-the-last-female-second-world-war-pilot-dies-aged-101
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 referenced MurielMary (talk) 12:00, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Pakistani general election

[edit]
Closing as there is nothing to discuss until the election is over. 331dot (talk) 13:40, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article: Pakistani general election, 2018 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Pakistan Muslim League (N)/Pakistan Peoples Party/Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf wins a majority/plurality in the Pakistani general election. (Post)
News source(s): Al jazeera
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: Please feel free to update anything I missed. 45.116.232.30 (talk) 13:14, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The results of general elections in all states on List of sovereign states are WP:ITNR. I changed it. TompaDompa (talk) 13:19, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Premature. The elections don't happen until the 25th, and results won't be available until at least the 26th. Events should not be nominated before they have happened, particularly ITNR events where the notability is not in doubt. We need to assess the quality of the update and the suitability of the blurb, neither of which can be done until the results are in. I suggest closing this and starting a new nomination once we have an actual result. Modest Genius talk 13:33, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[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) 2018 Attica wildfires

[edit]
Article: 2018 Attica wildfires (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ At least 76 people are killed and over 100 injured in wildfires in the Greek tourist resort Mati. (Post)
Credits:

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

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

July 23

[edit]
July 23, 2018 (2018-07-23) (Monday)
Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

(Posted) Major dam burst in Laos

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

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

  • Support – ...in principle, pending expansion of article. Widespread coverage on prime news sites of a significant disaster. (Details may not emerge soon.) Sca (talk) 14:34, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Used to work in Laos and this is all over the news; one of my students from Attapeu is missing. Although a lot of the news from the country is from non-reliable sources on Facebook, I'll see if there's anything I can find and translate to add to the article. SpencerT•C 17:48, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: nice work on the article. I cannot believe we are missing articles on three rivers. That is a shame!--- Coffeeandcrumbs
The sheer number of redlinks in that article makes WP:BIAS so blatant. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 18:44, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redlinks are not necessarily a bad thing. In fact, I would argue they are a good thing as they expose deficiencies in the encyclopedia. But we can do away with the companies. Then maybe editors will feel encouraged to create articles on the rivers. Already done.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 21:55, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Paul Madeley

[edit]
Article: Paul Madeley (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC Guardian Reuters
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: England and Leeds United footballer, 724 appearances for one club. Article updated and decently sourced now, I think Black Kite (talk) 22:37, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) White Helmets / 2018 Southern Syria offensive

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

Article updated

 OtterAM (talk) 21:23, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

More than 400 White Helmets are rescued after being trapped by the approaching Syrian offensive near the neighboring Golan Heights.
I predict giving Israel undue credit for doing what any decent neighbor should do will cause much indignation and controversy on the Main Page. I like that it was Israel that did it and I congratulate them but we need NPOV. I cannot help but imagine the reaction of a Palestinian reading this blurb, especially since the recent amendment to Basic Law. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 02:05, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think alt 1 as you wrote it is fine. However, just for the record, Israel's participation was more than just opening its border, because the rescue involved a complex IDF operation. Several other countries were also involved in the planning and/or providing new homes for the evacuated people, including the the UK, the US, Canada, and Jordan. OtterAM (talk) 15:14, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I also have to disagree a little with some assumptions from your last sentence that reads "I cannot help but imagine..." The NPOV of an encyclopedia Wikipedia should be based on fact, not on hypothetical reactions of people to the text. OtterAM (talk) 15:19, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This does not seem minor.
Really? I would have to disagree.[6][7][8][9][10][11][12]--- Coffeeandcrumbs 07:14, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
They're all US/UK sources however, bar the one by Al Jazeera, which doesn't focus on the evacuation even though it's mentioned. Can you find widespread coverage in non-Western sources? I'm not opposed to a blurb on the territorial changes in the Syrian Civil War, only to this particular evacuation. Banedon (talk) 09:34, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There was a second link from Al-Jazeera about the bigger evacuation (thousands of Syrians, not getting attention).[13]. Why not do both the evacuations and the border offensive in one blurb? Their are plenty of sources for both and one is the cause of the other. Here are more for the White Helmets. Brazil:[14][15], Indonesia: [16], Czech Republic, Český rozhlas:[17], Lebanon, Al Mayadeen:[18], Turkey, Hürriyet: [19].
I can find more for the Syrian Offensive, if anyone like a demonstration of that being a major story as well.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 12:09, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Switch to Support alt 2 per Modest Genius. Banedon (talk) 23:10, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support featuring 2018 Southern Syria offensive, rather than explicitly the White Helmets or Israel. This appears to be a major change to the strategic situation in the ongoing civil war. Following this offensive the Syrian Opposition is restricted to a few northern areas, and Isis is down to its last few isolated pockets. The story is much bigger than the evacuation of a few hundred aid workers. Even better, the article on the offensive is of high quality and ready to post. I've added an altblurb2. Modest Genius talk 12:33, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would remove "In the Syrian Civil War,". It is not necessary. I would hate to think our readers are that uninformed.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 12:59, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose main, support alt 2 - As above.Sherenk1 (talk) 10:04, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support alt 2 Notability is borderline (we don't post ever campaign of an ongoing war) but article quality more than makes up for any question of significance. ghost 11:46, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I came by to post this, but now find myself removing the ready tag. The target article has changed half-way through, the earlier assessments of quality are now out of date, and we have people expressing support and opposition for two very different blurbs. Meanwhile, the blurb which has the broadest support (ALT2) is actually stale; the offensive began long before our oldest story, and it isn't finished; so what are we posting, and for what date? Marking "needs attention" so these questions may be addressed. Vanamonde (talk) 12:04, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My intention with altblurb2 was to mark the government occupation of the last opposition-held territory in the south, hence the wording, which was completed on 22 July (if I've understood the article correctly). The Isis part is still ongoing. Modest Genius talk 12:11, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Roh Hoe-chan

[edit]
Article: Roh Hoe-chan (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Korea Herald
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 updated and well sourced --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 06:16, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Toronto mass shooting

[edit]
There's a consensus against posting, though I wouldn't characterise it as a blizzard just yet. However, the wave of !votes urging us to wait for further data, along with the arguments of opposers in relation to significance, merit a temporary closure until we see how this develops. If significant new information arises, re-open by all means. Stormy clouds (talk) 21:14, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article: 2018 Toronto shooting (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ At least three people are dead and twelve others injured after a mass shooting in Toronto, Canada. (Post)
News source(s): CBC News, CNN, NBC News, BBC
Credits:

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

July 22

[edit]
July 22, 2018 (2018-07-22) (Sunday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Law and crime

Sports

(Closed) RD: Elmarie Wendel

[edit]
Stale. Stephen 06:55, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article: Elmarie Wendel (talk · history · 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: Sourcing is poor. TompaDompa (talk) 12:59, 23 July 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) 2018 Open Championship

[edit]
Proposed image
Article: 2018 Open Championship (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In golf, Francesco Molinari (pictured) wins the Open Championship at Carnoustie. (Post)
News source(s): Golf Digest ESPN
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.

 Compy90 talk 09:50 22 July 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Tony Sparano

[edit]
Stale. Stephen 06:53, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article: Tony Sparano (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NYT, ESPN
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 football coach dies at age 56. Several paragraphs lack sources. Davey2116 (talk) 20:02, 22 July 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.

July 21

[edit]
July 21, 2018 (2018-07-21) (Saturday)
Business and Economy

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sports

(Posted) RD: Jonathan Gold

[edit]
Article: Jonathan Gold (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): LA Times, 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: Influential food critic in LA who won the Pulitzer Prize. Nominating in good faith. A number of gaps in sourcing throughout the article. --PootisHeavy (talk) 02:29, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Posted) Tropical Storm Son-Tinh

[edit]
Proposed image
Article: Tropical Storm Son-Tinh (2018) (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Tropical Storm Son-Tinh leaves 20 21 32 dead and another 1617 people missing in Vietnam (Post)
News source(s): ReutersCNN[21]
Credits:

Article updated

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

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

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

July 20

[edit]
July 20, 2018 (2018-07-20) (Friday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

Politics and elections

(Posted) Ride the Ducks boat sinks

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

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

Struck oppose. See my comment below. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:36, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A more concise version based on the WP:NCEVENTS "when, where, what" convention would be 2018 Missouri capsizing, but I'm not sure that's an improvement. TompaDompa (talk) 18:37, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Amphibious "duck boat", the current wording, is fine. Most U.S.-Eng. readers will know what it means, others will know it's an accepted term and can follow (two) links to learn about it. Sca (talk) 14:17, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

July 19

[edit]
July 19, 2018 (2018-07-19) (Thursday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

(Closed) Akainacephalus johnsoni

[edit]
Stale. Stephen 02:39, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article: Akainacephalus (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ A new species of armored dinosaur, Akainacephalus johnsoni, is discovered in Utah. (Post)
News source(s): Peerj, Science Daily, CNET
Credits:

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

[edit]
Article: Shinobu Hashimoto (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: Japanese screenwriter. TompaDompa (talk) 23:33, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agreed on both points. I made an attempt at this after wading through a lot of Google Translate. Is that enough or were you hoping for more prose? I think there is now enough to post.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 19:39, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Rayo de Jalisco Sr.

[edit]
Article: Rayo de Jalisco Sr. (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): ESPN (in Spanish)
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.

  MPJ-DK  02:15, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Posted) RD: Adrian Cronauer

[edit]
Article: Adrian Cronauer (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Roanoake Times, Newsweek, All Access
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: Adrian Cronauer was a prominent entertainment figure during the Vietnam War and was the subject of Good Morning Vietnam StrikerforceTalk 14:52, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Denis Ten

[edit]
Article: Denis Ten (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Kazinform, 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: Denis Ten won a bronze medal in men's singles figure skating at the 2014 Winter Olympics, and is a two-time World medallist. JuneGloom07 Talk 14:28, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Israel nation-state of Jewish people

[edit]
No consensus to post, and article was not sufficiently improved. Stephen 23:17, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

July 18

[edit]
July 18, 2018 (2018-07-18) (Wednesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Arts and culture
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
  • European migrant crisis
    • A migrant boat capsizes off the northern coast of Cyprus, killing at least 19 people, while 25 are reported missing, and the Turkish coast guard rescues 103. (AP)
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Science and technology
Sports

(Closed) Russian cruiser Dmitrii Donskoi wreck discovery

[edit]
Good faith nom but consensus is against posting at this time. In the (unlikely) event that the ship does turn out to be packed with bullion we can open a new discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:32, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article: Russian cruiser Dmitrii Donskoi (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ A joint-team of South Korean, British, and Canadian explorers discover the wreck of Russian cruiser Dmitrii Donskoi off the coast of Ulleungdo island, over a century after its scuttle during the Russo-Japanese War. (Post)
News source(s): BBC; The Daily Telegraph; The New York Post
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Major discovery of a Russian warship, believed to carry $133 billion in gold. 203.78.118.34 (talk) 13:12, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[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.

July 17

[edit]
July 17, 2018 (2018-07-17) (Tuesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

International relations

Politics and elections

Science and technology

(Closed) New moons of Jupiter

[edit]
No consensus to post, but recommend renomination when peer-reviewed publication is released. See further comments at the bottom of the nom. SpencerT•C 01:33, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

July 16

[edit]
July 16, 2018 (2018-07-16) (Monday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

(Closed) Trump-Putin Summit

[edit]
No consensus to post and the discussion is not developing well. --Tone 18:20, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article: 2018 Russia–United States summit (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ United States President Donald Trump and Russian dictator Vladimir Putin hold a summit in Finland. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ !-- An alternative blurb. Leave blank if not needed -->
News source(s): The Washington Post, New York Times, TIME Magazine, CNN
Credits:
Nominator's comments: High-stakes meeting between two controversial leaders. Definitely in the news. 38.122.127.226 (talk) 15:53, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[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.

July 15

[edit]
July 15, 2018 (2018-07-15) (Sunday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

Sports

World Series of Poker

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

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

ITN is not restricted to sport, so whether or not poker counts as one is irrelevant. Modest Genius talk 10:55, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, it's more about the significance of the news, rather than a debate over whether poker (or chess or darts or snooker) is a "sport". The Rambling Man (talk) 21:25, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Ray Emery

[edit]
Article: Ray Emery (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Sporting 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: Featured Article Teemu08 (talk) 19:26, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wimbledon

[edit]
Article: 2018 Wimbledon Championships (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In tennis, the 2018 Wimbledon Championships conclude with Angelique Kerber winning the women's singles and Novak Djokovic winning the men's singles. (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: This is on ITNR. The article 2018 Wimbledon Championships has more prose, but I used the same articles as last year's nom. power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:46, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) 2018 FIFA World Cup

[edit]
Articles: 2018 FIFA World Cup (talk · history · tag) and 2018 FIFA World Cup Final (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In association football, the FIFA World Cup concludes with France defeating Croatia in the final. (Post)
Credits:

Both articles need updating
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: The ongoing item should be removed when this is posted. Davey2116 (talk) 03:08, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment we just call it the Final, not the "final match". The Rambling Man (talk) 06:53, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment since this is likely the next blurb getting up, please prepare some picture to update the Thailand cave, since it will be replaced. This should have happened yesterday already but I instead removed another item that took place on the same day, in order to keep an image. --Tone 08:58, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: it's also the finals of Wimbledon today, so the NSU story will probably go as well if the Wimbledon article is in decent shape. Black Kite (talk) 09:06, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's likely that a freely-licensed photo of the winning team or a scene from the match will be uploaded within a few hours of the final, thanks to the OTRS from Soccer.RU. Until one is ready, the winning team's captain should be featured. SounderBruce 14:23, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"The six goals were as many as the previous four finals combined. They were the most in a final since England beat Germany, 4-2, in extra time in 1966 and the most in regulation since Brazil’s 5-2 triumph over Sweden in 1958." ( Source )
The match also notably didn't go into overtime as most finals do. Nice4What (talk) 18:36, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
All true. However, this is still super-arbitrary. If we insisted on breaking the rule of not including the result in the blurb, the explanation would have to be provided there as well - for which we have no room. My humble opinion ;) --Tone 18:39, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Where can this rule about excluding results be found at? And it's not "super-arbitrary", it is notable a 4-2 number is recognizable by even a non-fan of the sport to be a great score. Nice4What (talk) 18:41, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The blurb could easily be changed to "In association football, the FIFA World Cup concludes with France defeating Croatia 4-2 in the highest-scoring final since 1966." Many sources are reporting on this. Nice4What (talk) 18:43, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
When have we ever posted a score in a blurb about a sports championship? Why should we start now? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:44, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
May be the case where the result (not the score) is a world record. We did this for marathons and 100m a couple of times. Also, "since 1966" is again totally arbitrary. First time since 2002 that it ended in regular time? --Tone 18:47, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but there's no record here. These are bits of trivia that are not significant enough to belong in one of our blurbs. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:51, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the score of the biggest sporting event in the world, only held every 4 years, was trivia. I didn't think it was a major issue at all, to be honest. But, if that's "how we do things", then ... whatever. Black Kite (talk) 19:06, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, we never post scores. Plus, if we ever did, we'd use the manual of style with en-dashes and not hyphens. *shudder* The Rambling Man (talk) 19:21, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This no-score rule scores big on the counter-intuitive scale. Oh well, it's only ITN. Sca (talk) 20:16, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Including a linked mention of VAR would be far more relevant, especially as it directly led to one of the goals. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:22, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, let's wait 'til it's Word War III, when we can say we won 3-2 over them. Sca (talk) 23:41, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the score is the least significant "factoid" about a game. Right? Gimmie a break. Sca (talk) 01:54, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it's a bit irrelevant because the whole squad is in every match-day team (i.e. you can bring any of the other 12 players on as a substitute), but if anyone wants to change it I'm not particularly bothered. Black Kite (talk) 12:33, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Article does not mention the dodgy referring nor the riots in paris...meanwhile Zagreb was the greatest place on earth! (I have pices)Lihaas (talk) 01:38, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

July 14

[edit]
July 14, 2018 (2018-07-14) (Saturday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

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

Sports

(Posted) RD: Theo-Ben Gurirab

[edit]
Article: Theo-Ben Gurirab (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Namibian
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 is updated and well-sourced. EternalNomad (talk) 17:03, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

July 13

[edit]
July 13, 2018 (2018-07-13) (Friday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

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

Politics and elections

(Posted) Bombings in Pakistan

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

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

Looks good – thanks. Sca (talk) 13:45, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed everything else but we still have a discrepancy. The lead and infobox say 4 people died in Bannu, the section on the attack says 5. Are we counting the perpetrator.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 07:15, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@The Rambling Man: and @Coffeeandcrumbs: fixed all issues.Amirk94391 (talk) 07:46, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

July 12

[edit]
July 12, 2018 (2018-07-12) (Thursday)
Disasters and accidents

International relations

Science and technology

RD: J.H. Mensah

[edit]
Article: Joseph Henry Mensah (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [31]
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: Ghanaian finance minister and minority leader. ghost 16:00, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Roger Perry

[edit]
Article: Roger Perry (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: Referencing needs to be improved. TompaDompa (talk) 13:12, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

July 11

[edit]
July 11, 2018 (2018-07-11) (Wednesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents
International relations

Law and crime

Sports

RD: Tom Neil

[edit]
Article: Tom Neil (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: Second World War flying ace The Rambling Man (talk) 05:55, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

History buffs may wonder how his 14 kills rank among WWII RAF aces. Sca (talk) 20:39, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Shangchen

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

Article updated

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

(Closed) RD: Terry Todd

[edit]
Stale. Stephen 01:46, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Article updated

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

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

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

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

(Closed) Onging: 2018 Japan floods

[edit]
No consensus to move to ongoing. Stephen 01:44, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

July 10

[edit]
July 10, 2018 (2018-07-10) (Tuesday)
Arts and culture

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sports

RD: Clive King

[edit]
Article: Clive King (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-44823636 https://www.theguardian.com/books/2018/jul/13/stig-of-the-dump-author-clive-king-dies-aged-94
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 author Aiken D 15:31, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Ready) RD: Haroon Bilour

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

(Posted) Peshawar bombing

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

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

(Posted) RD: Tin Ka Ping

[edit]
Article: Tin Ka Ping (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): SCMP, The Standard
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: One of the most famous Hong Kong philanthropists, funded hundreds of schools, dozens of hospitals, and thousands of libraries. Zanhe (talk) 06:46, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Kavanaugh nomination

[edit]
SNOW CLOSE Good faith nom, but there is no chance that this will be posted. ITN does not post domestic political news including changes in cabinet positions or the judiciary. Consensus on this is long established and very strong. Additionally as noted by power~enwiki, this is only a nomination. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:16, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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
Articles: Brett Kavanaugh (talk · history · tag) and Supreme Court of the United States (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ President Donald Trump has nominated Judge Brett Kavanaugh to fill justice Anthony Kennedy's seat in the Supreme Court of the United States. (Post)
News source(s): BBCNew York TimesNBC
Credits:
Nominator's comments: Important United States news. Henry TALK 04:04, 10 July 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: Lord Carrington

[edit]
Article: Peter Carington, 6th Baron Carrington (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Times (paywall)
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 UK Defence and Foreign Secretary. yorkshiresky (talk) 11:34, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

July 9

[edit]
July 9, 2018 (2018-07-09) (Monday)
Disasters and accidents
International relations

Law and crime
Politics and elections

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

(Posted) RD: Hans Günter Winkler

[edit]
Article: Hans Günter Winkler (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Associated Press and others
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 had no ref this morning, but now has several. We don't know exactly if he died 8 June or 9 June, because it happened over night. The German Hall of Fame has 8 June. I am not a sports person, checking of equestrian terms wanted. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:22, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

RD: Tab Hunter

[edit]
Article: Tab Hunter (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): People
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 a few CN tags that need cleared. StrikerforceTalk 14:40, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Eritrea–Ethiopia war

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

Article needs updating

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

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

July 8

[edit]
July 8, 2018 (2018-07-08) (Sunday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

(Posted) RD: Piratita Morgan

[edit]
Article: Piratita Morgan (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Medio Tiempo sports website
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: Newly created article. I have been meaning to write this for years, that'll teach me to procrastinate  MPJ-DK  04:03, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Çorlu train derailment

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

Article updated

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

Consensus? Sca (talk) 20:25, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Alan Gilzean

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

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

@Govvy:: Support Good work indeed! --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:52, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good 2 goBabbaQ (talk) 19:09, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Robert D. Ray

[edit]
Article: Robert D. Ray (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Politico
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 fixed up in sourcing --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 02:53, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

[edit]
This story has reached its conclusion, and no further discussion is needed..--WaltCip (talk) 13:51, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

[edit]
Article: 2018 Japan floods (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Flooding and landslides in western Japan kill at least 81 people and leave 92 others missing. (Post)
News source(s): BBC, AP
Credits:

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

July 7

[edit]
July 7, 2018 (2018-07-07) (Saturday)
Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

(Closed) RD: Steve Ditko

[edit]
Stale. Stephen 01:32, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article: Steve Ditko (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): SFGate
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: Marvel Comics artist. Spiderman and Doctor Strange co-creator. Spengouli (talk) 01:14, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support generally. I think the book list needs to be significantly trimmed or sourced, but that's the only quality issue I see - the rest is well sourced. Please note that while they found his body on June 29th, and that the reports state he may have died a few days before, only today did the news break of his death, so this is the right date nor is this stale. --Masem (t) 01:53, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Article is well-sourced. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:56, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support but I am concerned by the overuse of quotes from sources. I will wait till it rolls off RD to tag.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 02:21, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose After a second deeper look, I am also concerned by the referencing, many of which are primary when secondary sources are abundant. That along with the sea of quotations in lieu of summary in our own words leads me to recind my support. This is not ready for MP.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 06:33, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
He would be credited in the work itself. As a primary source its valid for who worked on it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:03, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Given that he is only credited in certain issues, and not an entire series, that's the same type of situation as an actor's guest spots on TV series rather than a lead, and for us, the blue link is not sufficient for that. (And as comics tend to lack ISBN, we can't use that approach either). And as there are a large number of non-blue linked books, we need WP:V to even verify they existed. --Masem (t) 13:12, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - per above supports. Jusdafax (talk) 08:53, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - It needs more citations as the entire summary has only a single reference which is to a book most of us can't easily verify, but he's a notable figure. Uses x (talk) 14:56, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: There are a pair of unreferenced sentences, but they are a minor part of a section about his obscure works. The rest of the article is fine, and it's not a good reason to keep the article from the main page. The sentences may be easily commented out or removed to the talk page during that time, if needed be. Cambalachero (talk) 15:13, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment His awards and works lack sufficient reliably sourced references. I'm concerned about the overwhelming support here for such a clearly lacking article. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:36, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Main text of article is reasonably well sourced but awards and works are not. I think this is another case where article would be better off if it did not have an unreferenced list but focussed on the main works. However, this is not policy. Capitalistroadster (talk) 02:44, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[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.

July 6

[edit]
July 6, 2018 (2018-07-06) (Friday)
Arts and culture

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

Law and crime

Politics and elections

(Posted) RD: Kimishige Ishizaka

[edit]
Article: Kimishige Ishizaka (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Asahi 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: Japanese scientist, discoverer of Immunoglobulin E. Zanhe (talk) 19:54, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need for a "fight". I have added many sources. We should be able to post this soon.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 22:36, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support I have fixed the sourcing in the entire article. This is ready to go.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 23:19, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Coffeeandcrumbs: Thanks for adding extra sources. I've added you as an updater. -Zanhe (talk) 23:48, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Pulled) Nawaz Sharif sentencing

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

Article updated

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

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

(Posted) China–United States trade war

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

Article needs updating

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

  • Oppose small potatoes for these guys, a bunch of posturing, and no doubt not the end in another tedious chapter of Trump's first fiefdom. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:52, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I disagree with TRM. I happen to think that this story is notable, as it has the potential to have major long-term impacts on global economies, and indeed, we're already seeing the repercussions of it with businesses scaling back their operations or moving them elsewhere. It also involves the world's biggest importer and the world's biggest exporter in a spat, as well as the U.S. straining trade relations between its key allies. This isn't just Trump being Trump (well, it is, but it's still economically major).--WaltCip (talk) 13:25, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose because of the Timeline-based structure and Weak oppose per lack of detail of the page. But Support on news worthiness and strength of source material. Posting should be contigent only on the article being fleshed out.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 14:15, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support either blurb or ongoing.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 03:24, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't be opposed to an ongoing announcement either.--WaltCip (talk) 16:25, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ongoing post as blurb first, then move to ongoing. Banedon (talk) 09:29, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're misunderstanding the stock market. The stock market can go up in the short term even during a recession. Banedon (talk) 22:02, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The DJIA and even the S&P500 us a poor indicator of the effects of these tariffs, as the effects will take a long time to materialize in the form of lower corporate earnings and poor jobs numbers. This is ongoing the same way BREXIT or the Mueller investigation are onging: long periods of silence punctuated by occasional bursts of news coverage. It's actually the perfect use case for blurbs. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:55, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Up a bit again Tuesday. Sca (talk) 21:45, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Using short-term fluctuations in the stock market as an overall indicator for economic cycles is about as reliable as betting hot numbers at roulette tables.--WaltCip (talk) 19:58, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) RD: Shoko Asahara

[edit]
Stale. Stephen 01:36, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article: Shoko Asahara (talk · history · 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: Japanese cult leader responsible for nerve gas attack on the Tokyo subway in the 1990's has been hanged. This is just breaking news. Updating in progress. Referencing needs work. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:42, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[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.

July 5

[edit]
July 5, 2018 (2018-07-05) (Thursday)
Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Politics and elections

(Posted) 2018 Phuket boat capsizing

[edit]
Article: 2018 Phuket boat capsizing (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ 41 tourists are killed and 15 missing after their boat capsizes in a storm off Phuket, Thailand. (Post)
News source(s): Reuters NYT, BBC, CNN
Credits:

Article updated

 Zanhe (talk) 22:21, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Ongoing: 2018 Eastern Canada heat wave

[edit]
No consensus to post. Stephen 00:25, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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 Eastern Canada heat wave (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ A heat wave kills at least 33 people in Eastern Canada. (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:
Nominator's comments: Article is still stub-ish, but it is unusual for deadly heat waves to strike so far north, especially of this magnitude. EternalNomad (talk) 01:25, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now because the article is too thin. There is enough WP:RS to expand it. Big news here at the moment. --LaserLegs (talk) 03:47, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose ...until someone translates that Canadian invention, the humidex value, into something that can be be easily compared with weather conditions elsewhere in the world. (Even my spellchecker objects to it.) Oh, and remove the degree symbol from it. That's just wrong. HiLo48 (talk) 04:03, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Humidex is bluelinked and is a common term in Canada, where there have been 33 fatalities and which is the focus of this article. There is no reason to "convert" it. If that's your only objection, go ahead and convert your Oppose to Support, if you have any further questions, let me know. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:44, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support it seems to be a major story where I live, on the opposite side of the country. It is by far the worst heat wave in Canada in many years. Edit: Changed to strong support, the death toll is now above 50. Alex of Canada (talk) 04:15, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment While the deaths are only in Canada (two possible heat-related deaths in the US), it is a heat wave across the Eastern North Amercian, not just Canada. [40] Article needs to reflect that. --Masem (t) 04:17, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How close have major Canadian cities gotten to their record high highs and lows? Was 2011 very bad in East Canada too? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 08:44, 6 July 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) Scott Pruitt resignation

[edit]
SNOW close. Lepricavark (talk) 00:46, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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: Scott Pruitt (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ EPA administrator Scott Pruitt resigns amid multiple controversies surrounding him and the EPA. (Post)
News source(s): Washington Post, CBS News, CNN
Credits:
Nominator's comments: Probably will start snowing very quickly due to this being another Trump-related headline, but Mr. Pruitt has been “in the news” on and off for several months now. Additionally, some of what he is accused of doing would be a criminal offense if convicted. 2600:8807:5500:2C40:E86B:654C:74BF:AE41 (talk) 22:26, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment At the risk of provoking "systemic bias" replies, I'd like to point out that the reason this is a newsworthy resignation because Pruitt's sort of blatant corruption is very extraordinary in Western democracies. Likewise, if this happened in another country where flagrant corruption is rare, I'd want it posted too. Davey2116 (talk) 00:25, 6 July 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: Ed Schultz

[edit]
Article: Ed Schultz (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): CBS, CNN, Independent
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 radio show host and political commentator dies at 64. Davey2116 (talk) 19:18, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]
No consensus to post the rejection of a draft directive which will be represented in a few months. Stephen 00:23, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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 strikes down a controversial draft of a new Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market that would have had wide-ranging impact on the Internet. (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:
Nominator's comments: A few notes: First, this doesn't mean that the Directive is dead; it goes back for its committee to review and rework to be reheard by the full MEP in September; but this does mean that the two specific Articles, 11 and 13, are likely not going to be the same when it gets to that point. We might be posting more on this piece in September but this was a key vote that was driven by a lot of worldwide public concern. That's the second note is that many EU WP sites were blacked out, and en.wiki in EU countries had WMF-placed banners about this vote and encouraging them to contact their gov'ts to reject it. It would be reasonable to show that followup alongside this. Masem (t) 14:00, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Wikipedians are especially interested in this (I heard Jimmy Wales speaking about it on the radio this morning). We were supposed to get a banner in the UK but I never saw one. An update in ITN would help clarify where we are with this. Andrew D. (talk) 14:06, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article has a handful of cite-neededs, but otherwise seems in reasonable shape. (Much better than the last time I looked, anyway.) On the other hand, this is essentially a non-event: rubber wasn't stamped, sky didn't fall, and it's not even final yet. I don't see why we shouldn't wait until September. Convince me. —Cryptic 14:08, 5 July 2018 (UTC) Also, the blurb's misleading. —Cryptic 14:21, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • How is it misleading? --Masem (t) 14:22, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's literally true, but it's entirely too easy to skim past the word "draft" or not realize its significance and think the directive itself was struck down, full stop. —Cryptic 14:27, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Respectfully, those objections would apply to any sentence ever uttered. If you skip over words or don't know their meaning, you're understanding of that sentence will be impacted. As it stands, the Directive itself (which is a proposal) WAS struck down; there is no implication there won't be future rewrites considered. ghost 15:54, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support significance I really hope we don't get the "we don't post something not happening" votes. This story has been an inescapable daily onslaught for months (and I'm in the US). There are a few CNs that I do think should hold up posting. ghost 14:08, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – I haven't seen a ton of coverage, but the article looks good, and given Wiki's involvement in the issue it makes sense to post this – if mainly as an educational tool regarding a complex topic. Sca (talk) 14:13, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - The publicity surrounding this is massive, where as pointed out above, even Jimmy Wales and multiple Wikis have weighed in.--WaltCip (talk) 14:15, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - The article may appear in good shape but scratch a little past the surface and what you find is an over-reliance on primary sources and OR. I hate to deny us a chance at navel-gazing but this is not ready for MP.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 14:23, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Definitely encyclopedic.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:04, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose ITN doesn't usually post when something doesn't happen (except when it's in the EU), the article is okish, but telling me about how it relates to some German legislation doesn't really tell me what it is. Reading the article I didn't feel like I knew much about the issue, just a list of objections. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:11, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Very notable, I've seen tons of coverage on this. Article is in good shape. Davey2116 (talk) 16:39, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose we don’t post things that didn’t happen, even if navel gazing appeals to some. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:00, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

This wouldn't affect only Wikipedia. And the vote against it did happen. Sca (talk) 17:36, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There was a vote on a draft which might have changed the status quo. The vote on the draft resulted in no change to the status quo. Therefore, as far as this is concerned, it's a null story. A lot of people seem to have overlooked these basic facts. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:23, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Article is actually spotty and EU regulations have limited impact here in Canada. Oh well. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:19, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I refer you to the Brussels effect.--WaltCip (talk) 13:38, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
— 39.57.219.247 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

⇒ ATTN: Looks like 10.5 to 6 in favor. Sca (talk) 15:17, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Luckily it's not a !vote count because the article is still not very good and is still missing refs. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:49, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per TRM as this is just maintaining the status quo and could simply be re-drafted. Teemu08 (talk) 15:24, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Article is on a notable subject and is clearly well-sourced. Jusdafax (talk) 09:02, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this is likely to be posted, but the update reads "On 5 July 2018, the EU Copyright Directive currently has been pushed back to 10 September 2018." -- which isn't the same as "strikes down" so either the article is wrong or the blurb is. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:16, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    It's the blurb and the misinformation that goes with it. This is simply a draft that has been dismissed, not the overall package. Once again, this is something that hasn't happened. And we'll all be back here in a few months time. This is not the time to post. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:11, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Getting stale, especially so for a bureaucratic topic. Sca (talk) 14:12, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In particular for one where so much misinterpretation has taken place. The Rambling Man (talk)
  • Oppose The proposal is still going back to the committee for revision. It hasn't been "struck down," just rejected pending revision. Posting this would be akin to posting a story about a committee in the US Congress failing to report a controversial bill to the floor for a vote. The newsworthy event would be the passage of the revised version, not this. Gluons12 ☢|☕ 21:36, 9 July 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) Move Tham Luang cave rescue to ongoing

[edit]
Story is over, item will roll off normally. Stephen 01:37, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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: Tham Luang cave rescue (talk · history · tag)
Ongoing item nomination (Post)
Credits:
Nominator's comments: (I don't know what template to use for this). I suggest to move "Thailand boys soccer team found alive/rescued" to Ongoing. There's updates to this event every day or even every hour. It may take days, weeks, or even months. --Gerrit CUTEDH 13:28, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support at next posting of news item. I would hate to have only four items on the list. ITN keeps shrinking.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 13:33, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose barring a significant change in their situation. They found the team, they have been able to get them food and supplies and medical care, but they are stuck there barring either waiting out the monsoon season to let the cave system drain out, or finding the safest path through the flooded tunnels. In other words, while I am sure there are updates, this isn't a "fast moving story" at this point. I fully support that, assuming it will be a week or more, posting when they are safely rescued, but I don't think this is appropriate for ongoing. --Masem (t) 13:45, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to also be a danger that heavy rain could flood the location of the boys. 331dot (talk) 13:53, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, that's why if the situation takes a dire turn, that could be a different post (but not ongoing). There's a lot of hypotheticals going on here, but they don't seem to have a major time push here in the sense that they know the team is alive and well, being fed and hydrated, and now just playing a waiting game with a bit of urgency but not a great one (compare that to the trapped ... Chilian? miners a few years back, who were completely blocked off from any rescue until they drilled that hole to them). --Masem (t) 14:03, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm wavering a bit here as I read this morning that there is a practical issue of how much air they have in the non-flooded parts, so there is a race against time here. But I'm pretty convinced that we are going to post the result of the rescue (successful or not), so I'm still not seeing this as ongoing yet. --Masem (t) 19:43, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it's still getting sustained coverage and article updates after days, weeks, or even months, such that it would otherwise keep getting placed on T:ITN as a new item instead of falling off, then that's the time to even begin considering ongoing. It's been there all of two days and a couple hours, and is still on top. —Cryptic 13:51, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait – How long the rescue operation may go on remains to be seen. For now it still seems newsy enough for ITN. Sca (talk) 13:56, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait There doesn't seem to be enough incremental developments of any significance to warrant Ongoing. I could see Ongoing if an active effort to start bringing the boys out is underway, but this will likely be posted at its conclusion. 331dot (talk) 13:59, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Feel free to change (even bump) current blurb if rescue happens soon, or post new if it happens later. Per Masem, the pace and importance of daily changes doesn't fit the ongoing model. ghost 14:02, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Why on earth would we preemptively move a blurb to ongoing, rather than assessing it as it's about to roll off, per the instructions? Stephen 22:50, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I see no difference between this and any other article posted to ITN. One could argue that this article is more worthy to stay as a blurb since it is still an active event, whereas the one-time event of Saudi Arabia lifting its ban on women driving is old news now. Abductive (reasoning) 19:01, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – Changing my vote to Ongoing due to reports [41] indicating rescue attempt likely to be delayed for some time. Sca (talk) 14:01, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Stephen. After it's rolled off I'll support moving it to Ongoing (if it's still seeing coverage then). Banedon (talk) 19:53, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Now they seem to be talking sooner rather than later. Confusing situation. Sca (talk) 20:37, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. In fact, regardless of degree of success, I'd suggest. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:40, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

⇒ As of 14:00, BBC and Guardian say six rescued, while AP says at least four. Sca (talk) 14:00, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So I guess AP is a bit behind, but not wrong. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:06, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Traditionally, AP was known for the reliability of its information. I'd guess the addition of two more rescued boys may not have been officially confirmed yet. Sca (talk) 14:17, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It seems the official figure is four, e.g. now BBC. The article has seen corrected to reflect this. Seems AP wasn't behind anything. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:29, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The article needs a tense update and there are sections speculating rescue options that are now moot. IMO close this and open a new nom to amend and bump when the operation is complete - with more rains coming this will conclude one way or the other soon. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:03, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agree re new nom. At 15:30 AP quotes Thai official as saying the operation to rescue all could last two to four days. Sca (talk) 15:34, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For what its worth, I have bumped the current blurb at ITN, so that it should just be a matter of rewording that when the rescue operation is complete. --Masem (t) 15:40, 8 July 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: Claude Lanzmann

[edit]
Stale. Stephen 01:35, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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: Claude Lanzmann (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: His Shoah is probably the most famous documentary about the Holocaust, was also publisher of Les Temps modernes. Article seems to be small for his importance but well-sourced. --Clibenfoart (talk) 21:11, 7 July 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.

July 4

[edit]
July 4, 2018 (2018-07-04) (Wednesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents
  • Survivors trapped overnight on a stricken ferry are rescued off the Indonesian island of Sulawesi after the ferry began sinking the day before. Out of the 139 passengers aboard, 31 have been confirmed dead, while three remain missing. (AP via ABC News)

Health and environment

Law and crime

Politics and elections

(Closed) RD: Sutanto Djuhar

[edit]
Stale. Stephen 00:17, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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: Sutanto Djuhar (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Phoenix 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: Billionaire co-founder of Indonesia's largest company, last surviving member of the "Gang of Four" of the Suharto era. Death reported on July 4. Zanhe (talk) 00:22, 6 July 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) Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Contest

[edit]
SNOW close. SpencerT•C 18:00, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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: Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Contest (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ At the Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Contest, American Joey Chestnut wins for the eleventh time, eating a record 74 hot dogs. (Post)
News source(s): ESPN ABC News
Credits:
Nominator's comments: I do not think this has ever been nominated for ITN before, so I figured I would nominate it since it is always in the news when it happens (especially in recent years since Joey Chestnut has been winning and setting records). Andise1 (talk) 05:06, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nice try, but DYK is thataway! Stephen 05:11, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose where's the encyclopedic value? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:32, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose – Awesome nomination, and a very interesting contest. However, I don't believe that this contest has as much international mainstream interest as The Boat Race or Japanese baseball. Moreover, there isn't actually much prose in this article about the 2018 event. Generally, I would prefer to feature an article on the specific event on the main page, rather than an article about the 50-year old series of contests. Lastly, there are some uncited paragraphs, including a [citation needed] in the Controversies section. I'd be happy to support this nomination had there been a high-quality, well-sourced article on the 2018 event specifically, exemplifying Wikipedia as a great source of information on a variety of interesting topics. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 07:54, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the competition article has no prose update, and Chestnusts has too many missing refs. Personally I see NO difference between a record number of "world cup goals" and a record number of eaten hotdogs. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:15, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as per Maplestrip, we should really be looking at an independent article for the specific (2018) event, rather than one for the tournament as a whole. Overall, I'm moderately OK with featuring what appears to be the premiere event in competitive eating - WP:ITN/R contains a lot of provisions for various "minority sports" getting occasional posts, though 1 post a year seems like a bit much for such a minority sport. However if we can't generate an article per event anyway the question is moot. --LukeSurl t c 10:53, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on quality, and I'd like to see more widespread coverage. But this does seem to be one of the premier events in competitive eating. 331dot (talk) 12:56, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – This old chestnut is not news. Snow close. Sca (talk) 13:01, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Not every notable competitive event needs ITN coverage. We generally judge on audience size and "influence" on the world at large. This has neither. --Masem (t) 13:22, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This doesn't quite cut the mustard. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 15:05, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You just relish saying things like that, don't you? Sca (talk) 17:38, 5 July 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) Charlie Rowley and Dawn Sturgess hospitalized after being exposed to Novichok

[edit]
No consensus to post. Stephen

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

Articles: 2018 Amesbury poisonings (talk · history · tag) and Poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Two people in Amesbury, UK, are hospitalised in critical condition after being exposed to a Novichok nerve agent. (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:
 Count Iblis (talk) 21:44, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well that's just plain pointy bollocks yet again. No doubt if a nerve agent was found to have poisoned not just one set of notable individuals but more subsequently in Boise, Idaho (for instance) we'd have all hell break loose here to attempt to post it. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:16, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait - Not opposed, but the article is developing and the blurb so far links to neither article. If news reveals that the Russian government is behind it, refer to it as an allegation, but as HiLo said we should wait until we're sure about that. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 01:41, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The proposed blurb must be changed to use UK English spelling, and say "hospitalised", not "hospitalized". The victims are British nationals. The article linked to says "hospitalised". HiLo48 (talk) 01:57, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
British people are admitted to hospital. "Hospitalized" is an Americanism. Britmax (talk) 10:49, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Most British people use "ise". Our article uses "ise". HiLo48 (talk) 10:20, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As this is a UK story, British spelling is preferred. Sca (talk) 14:12, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose it's now becoming common place to be drugged by nerve agents in the UK, these two non-notable individuals will hopefully recover (as the previous more notable pair did) and we will get the usual denials from Russia, the usual obfuscated crap from the laboratories and the usual sabre-rattling from BoJo et al. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:34, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, there's one. Blaming the evil Russians. Was waiting for that. HiLo48 (talk) 07:42, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, so Novichok's just lying round the streets of the UK?? Please. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:53, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Dunno. Do you know? HiLo48 (talk) 10:20, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I do. It's not. Unless it's being to used to try to kill Russian "spies". Curious, that. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:38, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't aware these two victims were Russian spies. HiLo48 (talk) 10:42, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The link is because Amesbury is only eight miles from Salisbury, but nothing is known yet. And three confirmed (including the policeman) and two possible in a population of fifty million-odd is not common. Britmax (talk) 10:58, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No-one said they were spies. I think you've lost the thread of the conversation. This has been confirmed as Novichok and is being investigated as the remnants of the nerve agent sample that was used to attack the spies earlier this year. Now Russia have said it's "been staged by the British government out of spite over the "fabulous" World Cup hosted by Russia.", it's pretty clear to most of us what's going on. Utterly pathetic doesn't quite cover that claim.— Preceding unsigned comment added by The Rambling Man (talk • contribs) 11:13, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly a personal squabble
Drop it. Your POV speculation is tiresome. HiLo48 (talk) 11:14, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. I find it incredibly insightful. So next time you pop by with some drive by small text just think to yourself before posting "I should drop it" first. Deal? Feel free to collapse all this up to and including your own "insightful" interjection. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:18, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Do read my Yes, wait comment right near the top of this thread, where I anticipated anti-Russian feelings. As a kid growing up I was taught to hate the Russians because they were evil communists. Now they're obviously not, but many seem to insist on still having someone to hate. Just discuss the topic rationally please, without hatred. HiLo48 (talk) 11:34, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Where do you get "hatred" from? You cannot possibly predict my personal feelings on this matter. I don't "hate" Russia. Frankly, I find the whole thing mildly amusing, a throwback to the dark past you alluded to. And not much more. So take your unfounded claims as to my own thoughts and keep them to yourself next time. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:43, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait - The notability of this story is predicated on a crystal ball assumption of a link between these two victims and the Skripal poisoning. I, for one, would rather wait for more details to surface.--WaltCip (talk) 11:17, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Is it? I would say the notability of the story is the confirmed ingestion of Russian nerve agents on British soil (again). The link may explain how that's happened, but the notability of the event is standalone. As noted before, we don't tend to have Russian nerve agents lying around over here. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:19, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly a personal squabble
More anti-Russian stuff. Take it somewhere else. HiLo48 (talk) 11:47, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what you're talking about. Are you saying that we do have Russian nerve agents just lying around in the UK? I'm confused. I was never taught to hate unlike you, so perhaps I'm missing something. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:51, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It will be obvious to any reader who is doing the blaming here. I'm awaiting evidence. That's how things work here. HiLo48 (talk) 11:53, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Waiting for evidence that Novichok was used? Or that Novichok is a Russian nerve agent? Or that these individuals are spies? I'm not following you at all here. The facts are plain, the hook is completely correct. Once again, a Russian nerve agent has been ingested on UK soil. Fact. Keep waiting for your evidence though, if that helps. But you still need to stop with the false accusations, that will not get you far at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:57, 5 July 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: Harry M. Miller

[edit]
Stale. Stephen 22:53, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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: Harry M. Miller (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [43], [44], [45]
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: New Zealand born Australian promoter, publicist and media agent. Very well known to a couple of generations of Australians, including for serving time for fraud. HiLo48 (talk) 02:52, 5 July 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.

July 3

[edit]
July 3, 2018 (2018-07-03) (Tuesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

Sport

(Posted) RD: Wang Jian (businessman)

[edit]
Article: Wang Jian (businessman) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NYT, BBC, SCMP
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: Chinese billionaire. Accidental death is reported worldwide. Zanhe (talk) 23:12, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Richard Swift

[edit]
Article: Richard Swift (singer-songwriter) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [46]
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 is not quite there but not too far off. Masem (t) 18:36, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support I believe I have fixed the sourcing. Someone uninvolved co-sign so we can post this. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 07:55, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It took six hours of work. Not to be vain but I would appreciate the poster give me credit.--- Coffeeandcrumbs

July 2

[edit]
July 2, 2018 (2018-07-02) (Monday)
Arts and culture

Disasters and accidents
Law and crime

Politics and elections
Sports

(Closed) Ongoing: Wimbledon

[edit]
No consensus to post, as pointed out, the World Cup and the Olympics are the only two sport events that make it to Ongoing, due to outstanding popularity. --Tone 10:11, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wimbledon Championships (talk · history · tag)
Ongoing item nomination (Post)
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Just like the FIFA World Cup this is an ongoing event Torqueing (talk) 23:23, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - ongoing is not intended for sporting events, or else it could conceiveably be constantly filled by them. There are but two exceptions to this rule - the Olympics and the World Cup - and these are exempted due to their sheer popularity (look at the last few versions of the Top 25 Report for evidence). Wimbledon is not in the same pantheon, and as such I feel it is ill-suited to ongoing. Let us post the winner at the end (which is ITN/R). Stormy clouds (talk) 23:34, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is why the World Cup is listed at ongoing. Stormy clouds (talk) 07:48, 3 July 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) Thailand boys soccer team found alive/rescued

[edit]
Article: 2018 Tham Luang cave rescue (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Twelve members of a boys soccer team and their coach trapped for over a week in the Tham Luang Nang Non cave in Thailand are found (rescued depending on press time) alive. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ All thirteen members of a boys Thai soccer team trapped in a flooded cave are found alive/rescued.
Alternative blurb II: ​ Twelve boys and one man trapped in Tham Luang Nang Non cave in Chiang Rai, Thailand are found alive after ten days missing, with rescue operations ongoing.
Alternative blurb III: ​ At least four of 12 boys are rescued from Thailand’s Tham Luang Nang Non cave after two weeks of being trapped there, while rescue operations continue.
News source(s): NPR CNN
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Gathering coverage in international media. Hopefully a good news item we can put atop ITN. CoatCheck (talk) 16:54, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reply I don't think it's necessary to choose to post one without also posting the other. We can post this and the Capital Gazette shooting, but the merits of that story are to be discussed at their own discussion. The ITN page has moved slowly lately, with some stories that broke in mid-June still on the front page. This story will likely only make it to the main page when they're rescued rather than just being found, so I wouldn't worry about it drowning out devastating stories such the attack on journalists. (I say this in a broader sense regarding debates about whether or not to post shootings or other breaking news stories, acknowledging that the story you're referring to was not posted) Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 01:58, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support maybe it doesn't past the ten-year test, but we post other things that don't, e.g. people won't be talking about Neymar's record transfer once it's broken (which it almost inevitably will be). This is being covered in many venues, which suffices for me. Banedon (talk) 01:36, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - It has appeared in the news (BBC World News [top news]) every day. Sherenk1 (talk) 03:58, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Has been in the news regularly in New Zealand and is the main international news today. Could take four months to get them out so no point waiting. Much rarer than the above mentioned shooting and quite interesting (there is talk of training the kids how to dive to get them out). Nice to post a story with a happyish result too. AIRcorn (talk) 05:17, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply So, a random incident without casualties involving South-East Asia is "much rarer" than the first attack on journalists in the US since 1992? This is the best case of bias on Wikipedia I've seen in a while. And the irony is that just a day ago the In the news category listed the capsizing of a boat in an Indonesian lake...--Adûnâi (talk) 23:16, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A shooting? In the USA? Is that news? What made that shooting newsworthy to me was that it followed "encouragement" to do just that by some right-wing commentators and politicians, and I actually supported its nomination for that reason. I supported this one too, because it IS in the news, all over the world. HiLo48 (talk) 00:53, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Complaining about the consensus on another item doesn't help to establish or disestablish consensus for posting this item. Nonetheless, List of journalists killed in the United States shows that your 1992 claim is completely incorrect (Alison Parker being the most recent murder of a journalist stateside), and the claim regarding regularity was not that journalists are killed in mass shootings in the US with frequency - it was that mass shootings are frequent in America (statistically correct). The only way in which you can find bias using the criteria you have laid out is if you ignore multiple incidents, be incredibly specific with a US-centric item, and grossly generalise the other item. (Indonesia was in the news, so Thailand can't be?) Stormy clouds (talk) 23:23, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, and there are 2.6 times as many lives at stake/in jeopardy in relation to this item, which has also attracted far more global media attention. I see no bias here, just consensus of many editors. Stormy clouds (talk) 23:27, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Rédoine Faïd escapes

[edit]
Clear consensus against posting on grounds of notability - closure due to the blizzard. Stormy clouds (talk) 23:20, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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: Rédoine Faïd (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ French criminal Rédoine Faïd escapes from prison (Post)
News source(s): [47] [48]
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: I don't remember ever seeing anything similar to this posted on ITN, but nominating it anyway to see what people think. Banedon (talk) 02:31, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that we did post the escape: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates/July_2015#.5APosted.5BEl_Chapo_escapes_prison_again. SpencerT•C 10:39, 2 July 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) LeBron James

[edit]

While I personally believe that this nomination is worthy of being listed, it is very clear that this has reached SNOW status in opposition. Thus, I am closing on those grounds. StrikerforceTalk 15:47, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Articles: LeBron James (talk · history · tag) and Los Angeles Lakers (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ LeBron James signs for the LA Lakers on a 4 year, $154 million contract. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ NBA star LeBron James agrees to a $154 million free agent contract with the LA Lakers, leaving his hometown Cleveland Cavaliers for the second time in seven years.
News source(s): [49]
Credits:

Article needs updating
Nominator's comments: Tags to be resolved. Preliminary results to be released by the end of 1st July. Lelcatz39 (talk) 05:24, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's a bit like 33 year old Maradona changing clubs but not quite as important cause the sport is basketball. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:29, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Narutolovehinata5: Why is this deal no Neymar? Banedon (talk) 04:41, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What I mean to say was, as internation of a star as LeBron is, his deal is not even near Neymar's deal with PSG or any of a number of other association football deals. That and generally we don't post player transfers on ITN in the first place. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 04:56, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Narutolovehinata5: yes but why is this deal "not even near Neymar's deal"? It's clearly not because of size since USD154 million is pretty close to EUR222 million (more than 50%). Are you saying that basketball is less significant than association football? If so, why is it less significant? Banedon (talk) 05:25, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely. As a basketball fan myself, its worldwide popularity is still nowhere near football's. And even if it was, this kind of news is not WP:ITN worthy anyway. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 08:10, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Have any athletes been known to make this much a year? (whether inflation-adjusted or not). Premier League/La Liga/Bundsliga/Serie A/Ligue 1 salaries aren't public knowledge right? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 06:04, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
From what I can tell, salaries in foreign leagues are also foreign knowledge, if those "top-payed athletes in the world" lists are anything to go by. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 08:10, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Neymar's wages are reportedly about EUR37m, or $43m pa. Black Kite (talk) 09:37, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. He had been suggesting he was going to leave especially if Cleveland did not win the NBA Finals. This isn't that shocking. 331dot (talk) 07:56, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support - James is one of the most significant players of his generation, and his move is big news. On these grounds, I could maybe see it being posted - if Messi left Barca on a Bosman transfer, I would support posting. However, using financial metrics, and the relative popularity of basketball, diminishes this greatly. Basketball is not as significant to our readers as football, and football has bigger deals. If we post on financial grounds, bear in mind that the precedent set would open the door not only for Neymar, but for Kylian Mbappé and Philippe Coutinho too. When it comes to wages, Stephen Curry is apparently on more, along with many football players. However, on sporting significance alone, weak support. Stormy clouds (talk) 08:19, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose would be a great DYK, but certainly of no long-standing encyclopedic value at all, a record which is bound to be beaten in the short term, and posting this just gives a free pass to the next time there's an incremental increase. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:30, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per LaserLegs. We posted Neymar, so to be consistent we should post this. One possible counter-argument I can see would be that basketball is not comparable to soccer, but I don't see that holding water. From [50], basketball is the world's second most popular sport, as well as the fastest-growing. The contract is also worth more than 50% of Neymar's. Another possible counter-argument is that while Neymar's was a record, there's no indication that this is one. However $154 million over four years is $38.5 million a year, which is comfortably ahead of Stephen Curry, so even if it's not reported as a record I see no reason it is not a record either. Make no mistake, I don't think Neymar should have been posted, but since we posted that we should post this too to be consistent. Banedon (talk) 09:04, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That totalsportek.com article is rubbish. It says cricket has the second highest number of fans, but declares Basketball, with fewer fans, to be more popular. That's real Humpty Dumpty use of language. HiLo48 (talk) 09:56, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Curry is up to $40 million a year now. Stormy clouds (talk) 09:37, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Bear in mind that EUR222m was only the transfer fee for Neymar. The total deal with wages is worth around EUR450m, so this contract is around 1/3 of that. Black Kite (talk) 09:37, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If NBA is a non-international league then so is Neymar's league. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:12, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Are you serious? You can't be serious.--WaltCip (talk) 14:22, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
List of foreign NBA players. NBA has had stars who immigrated from countries like Nigeria (Hakeem the Dream), China (Yao), Argentina, Germany, Spain and others I can't think of cause I don't follow basketball. Ligue 1 has players from different countries too. The French league has teams from France and I think 1 from Monaco, NBA has teams from USA and 1 (used to be 2) from Canada. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:35, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if you want to affirm this is a "Global Encyclopedia" then fine, if you wan't to stamp your fists insist we're not "USAPEDIA" then whatever, but if you're going to pretend to care about what our actual readers care about, you're going to have to open your eyes. fully 40% of the visitors to the English Wikipedia are from the USA and if there is one thing I'm certain few people in America care about it's Neymar getting paid millions to fake injuries for corrupt refs, or four blokes being banned from cricket for some reason or other. If this is a "Global Encyclopedia", that globe INCLUDES the United States. Deal with it. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:09, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That 40% of our readers are from the USA does not mean we get to post trivial stories that the remaining 60% find to be utterly meaningless.--WaltCip (talk) 10:58, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But we do post trivial stories that the 40% find to be utterly meaningless? Come on Walt, your "America sucks" is showing. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:05, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure where you got that idea from.--WaltCip (talk) 12:08, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of the examples you quote (Neymar and the cricket cheating scandal) were trivial, because they were in the news - and by that I mean the news pages, not just the sports pages - all over the world. Black Kite (talk) 12:13, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Messis goal record? Ferguson retiring? Honestly, most of the sports records we post (Neymar excepted) NEVER leave the sports pages. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:23, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt if I'd vote to post those that didn't (unless ITN/R of course), unless they were especially notable. Black Kite (talk) 12:36, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Although I am a big NBA fan myself, basketball-related ITN items should be limited to championships of leagues listed on ITN/R. While free agent changes have large interest and can lead to long-term change within a league itself, unless the process itself leads to a new article, it fails to meet the notability bar. SpencerT•C 10:38, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Neymar was a serious one-off, IMO. Quite apart from the fact that the deal ended up around $450m including wages and add-ons, the reason it was posted is that not only was it a record, but it was such a ludicrous destruction of the previous record (and, including the fee, the biggest sporting contract ever) that it ended up being reported in non-sports sources all over the world. Hence, in the news. Meanwhile, apart from the lower value, this doesn't even appear to be a record. This says that two players called Harden and Curry have previously been awarded bigger contracts (though, of course, I'm no expert here). Black Kite (talk) 10:50, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow oppose Agree completely that Neymar was about scale and we should not use that as precedent to post more transfers, which are only going to get larger. Separately, let's just acknowledge here that editors at ITNC lean more international than our population at large. Along with producing a global product, part of the mission is to provide what the readers want. If our readers are overwhelmingly American, there should be some deference to the subjects that interest them. If, hypothetically, Cricket had interest from 50% of persons global and 15% of our readers, while gridiron has interest from 10% of persons globally but 30% of our readers, the right thing to do is post both. ghost 11:25, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Not nearly significant enough for ITN. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:10, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose One thing I don't see mentioned: he can't formally sign with the Lakers until July 6, which is why the article hasn't even been updated yet. Zagalejo^^^ 12:57, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – Pro $port$ factoid. Sca (talk) 13:30, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The blurb provides little context about what this story is about. Who is "LeBron James"? What is the "Los Angeles Lakers" ? Chrisclear (talk) 13:55, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Factoid: The Lakers started out in Minneapolis, "City of Lakes" – in the days when professional bkb players were paid quite modest salaries. – Sca (talk) 15:32, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Chris: FYI, Minneapolis is in Minnesota. Minnesota is the the United States. The U.S. is in North America, which is in the Western Hemisphere of Planet Earth. Sca (talk) 15:43, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Sca: I'll ignore the facetious parts of your comments, and instead point out that despite providing that geographic information, you still did not address my two simple questions about "LeBron James" and the "Los Angeles Lakers". Readers of ITN shouldn't have to click on article links to find out who this person is what the "Los Angeles Lakers" is. Chrisclear (talk) 00:46, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Chrisclear: - blurbs require brevity. The majority of people who read this blurb would be easily able to discern what it is about, and the rest could utilise the links provided to find out, within a matter of seconds, if they wished. The main page is not in a vacuum, so there is no need for meticulous explanation, particularly in relation to globally famous individuals. Stormy clouds (talk) 13:58, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe it's so certain that "majority of people who read this blurb would be easily able to discern what it is about". While I agree that blurbs require brevity, but it shouldn't be too much trouble to add "In {name of sport for which 'LeBron james' is famous)" to the blurb to provide context to all readers. "Lebron James" might be a famous individual to people who follow his particular sport, or are from the USA (I assume that's the country in which Los Angeles is located?), but to everyone else he is a nobody. Chrisclear (talk) 14:23, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment for those complaining about the dollar amount vs Neymar, there are NBA salary caps, something the corrupt FIFA has yet to implement. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:05, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I don't buy into the argument stated above that "60% of our readers find this utterly useless". Basketball is a global game, particularly since the NBA's roster of foreign-born players has significantly expanded over the last decade or so. Lebron James is one, if not the, biggest star in the NBA right now. For the second time in his career, he has made a decision to leave his hometown team (grew up in Akron, remember, just outside of Cleveland) in free agency. While it's not The Decision of 2011, this is very much a newsworthy story. IF we are going to list the winner of golf's U.S. Open on the Main Page (which, by the way, we are now two weeks beyond the end of that tournament and we still have it listed... very much makes us look silly, IMO), we should not ignore a story such as this from the NBA. If you'd like to make the argument that the NBA is only of U.S. interest, as a U.S. league, could you not make the same argument for the PGA Tour? After all, professional golf also has the European Tour and, if I recall, an Asian Tour - for neither of which, by the way, have I ever seen an ITN displayed. (Side note worth considering - As @Zagalejo: points out above, the contract can not be signed, officially, for four days. It's not inconceivable that James could change his mind and NOT leave Cleveland... unlikely, yes, but not impossible.) StrikerforceTalk 14:41, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • The comparable fact to the winner of the PGA Tour is who won the NBA Finals, which was posted. In team sports, things like trades and the like are not significant ITN because they happen all the time. --Masem (t) 14:50, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh, I would respectfully disagree with that. While one of the four "major" tournaments per year on the PGA Tour schedule, I wouldn't equate the winner of the U.S. Open with the NBA Finals. Not even close. (edit) As to the latter part of your statement, it's not very often that a player of this caliber makes such a move. James is a bonafide superstar, one of the best players on the planet right now. If this were, say, @Masem: signing with the Utah Jazz, okay, I'd agree with your "this happens all the time" contention. The subject being who he is makes this newsworthy. StrikerforceTalk 15:03, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - we aren't going to ITN each NBA player trade. L293D (☎ • ✎) 15:28, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Absolutely no way we should be posting a basketball transfer that isn’t even a record. Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:34, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

July 1

[edit]
July 1, 2018 (2018-07-01) (Sunday)
Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime
Politics and elections

Sports

Health and environment

(Posted) RD: Shirley Huffman

[edit]
Article: Shirley Huffman (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Oregon Live
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 well sourced and updated --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:22, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Peter Firmin

[edit]
Article: Peter Firmin (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: Clangers, Bagpuss etc. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:46, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Just for the record, I now support posting. Even if already posted, I think that is important to note.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 22:59, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I might be missing something but there seems to be no discussion in the body of the (unreferenced) statement in the lead that "Between them they created a number of popular children's TV programmes, The Saga of Noggin the Nog, Ivor the Engine, Clangers, Bagpuss and Pogles' Wood." The Smallfilms article has much more detail that could be used but is generally poorly sourced. In just one example, the 2014 revival of the Clangers with Firmin & Postgate's son. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:09, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, you answered your own question. There's other detail that could be added, and indeed, some of it exists a mere article away, that could be copied over with suitable attribution (be my guest). But it's late, I'm done, and if no-one else can be bothered, that's life. Note, this is still good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:24, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Mexican general election, 2018

[edit]
Proposed image
Articles: Mexican general election, 2018 (talk · history · tag) and Andrés Manuel López Obrador (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Andrés Manuel López Obrador is elected as President of Mexico. (Post)
News source(s): BBC
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: Tags to be resolved. Preliminary results to be released by the end of 1st July. Sherenk1 (talk) 05:24, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates/July_2018&oldid=1166568965"