Jump to content

Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 232: Line 232:
:::It is close enough by my count, so it has my support. --[[User:Tavix| <span style="color:#000080; font-family:georgia">'''T'''avix</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Tavix|<span style="color:#000080; font-family:georgia">talk</span>]])</sup> 17:47, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
:::It is close enough by my count, so it has my support. --[[User:Tavix| <span style="color:#000080; font-family:georgia">'''T'''avix</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Tavix|<span style="color:#000080; font-family:georgia">talk</span>]])</sup> 17:47, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
* {{re|The Rambling Man|Pawnkingthree|Ad Orientem}} Opinions now? --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif">[[User:QEDK|<span style="color:#b7e">QEDK</span>]] ([[User talk:QEDK|<span style="color:#fac">後</span>]] ☕ [[Special:Contributions/QEDK|<span style="color:#fac">桜</span>]])</span> 19:32, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
* {{re|The Rambling Man|Pawnkingthree|Ad Orientem}} Opinions now? --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif">[[User:QEDK|<span style="color:#b7e">QEDK</span>]] ([[User talk:QEDK|<span style="color:#fac">後</span>]] ☕ [[Special:Contributions/QEDK|<span style="color:#fac">桜</span>]])</span> 19:32, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
*'''Support''' The article has been expanded and now looks good enough to post. [[User:Mamyles|Mamyles]] ([[User talk:Mamyles|talk]]) 21:07, 23 March 2018 (UTC)


==== [Posted] Kuczynski resigns ====
==== [Posted] Kuczynski resigns ====

Revision as of 21:07, 23 March 2018

This page provides a place to discuss new items for inclusion on In the news (ITN), a protected template on the Main Page (see past items in the ITN archives). Do not report errors in ITN items that are already on the Main Page here— discuss those at the relevant section of WP:ERRORS.

This candidates page is integrated with the daily pages of Portal:Current events. A light green header appears under each daily section - it includes transcluded Portal:Current events items for that day. You can discuss ITN candidates under the header.

Iga Świątek and Carlos Alcaraz
Iga Świątek and Carlos Alcaraz

Glossary

  • Blurbs are one-sentence summaries of the news story.
    • Altblurbs, labelled alt1, alt2, etc., are alternative suggestions to cover the same story.
    • A target article, bolded in text, is the focus of the story. Each blurb must have at least one such article, but you may also link non-target articles.
  • Articles in the Ongoing line describe events getting continuous coverage.
  • The Recent deaths (RD) line includes any living thing whose death was recently announced. Consensus may decide to create a blurb for a recent death.

All articles linked in the ITN template must pass our standards of review. They should be up-to-date, demonstrate relevance via good sourcing and have at least an acceptable quality.

Nomination steps

  • Make sure the item you want to nominate has an article that meets our minimum requirements and contains reliable coverage of a current event you want to create a blurb about. We will not post about events described in an article that fails our quality standards.
  • Find the correct section below for the date of the event (not the date nominated). Do not add sections for new dates manually - a bot does that for us each day at midnight (UTC).
  • Create a level 4 header with the article name (==== Your article here ====). Add (RD) or (Ongoing) if appropriate.
Then paste the {{ITN candidate}} template with its parameters and fill them in. The news source should be reliable, support your nomination and be in the article. Write your blurb in simple present tense. Below the template, briefly explain why we should post that event. After that, save your edit. Your nomination is ready!
  • You may add {{ITN note}} to the target article's talk page to let editors know about your nomination.

The better your article's quality, the better it covers the event and the wider its perceived significance (see WP:ITNSIGNIF for details), the better your chances of getting the blurb posted.

Purge this page to update the cache

Headers

  • When the article is ready, updated and there is consensus to post, you can mark the item as (Ready). Remove that wording if you feel the article fails any of these necessary criteria.
  • Admins should always separately verify whether these criteria are met before posting blurbs marked (Ready). For more guidance, check WP:ITN/A.
    • If satisfied, change the header to (Posted).
    • Where there is no consensus, or the article's quality remains poor, change the header to (Closed) or (Not posted).
    • Sometimes, editors ask to retract an already-posted nomination because of a fundamental error or because consensus changed. If you feel the community supports this, remove the item and mark the item as (Pulled).

Voicing an opinion on an item

Format your comment to contain "support" or "oppose", and include a rationale for your choice. In particular, address the notability of the event, the quality of the article, and whether it has been updated.

Please do...

  1. Pick an older item to review near the bottom of this page, before the eligibility runs out and the item scrolls off the page and gets abandoned in the archive, unused and forgotten.
  2. Review an item even if it has already been reviewed by another user. You may be the first to spot a problem, or the first to confirm that an identified problem was fixed. Piling on the list of "support!" votes will help administrators see what is ready to be posted on the Main Page.
  3. Tell about problems in articles if you see them. Be bold and fix them yourself if you know how, or tell others if it's not possible.

Please do not...

  1. Add simple "support!" or "oppose!" votes without including your reasons. Similarly, curt replies such as "who?", "meh", or "duh!" are not helpful. A vote without reasoning means little for us, please elaborate yourself.
  2. Oppose an item just because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. We post a lot of such content, so these comments are generally unproductive.
  3. Accuse other editors of supporting, opposing or nominating due to a personal bias (such as ethnocentrism). We at ITN do not handle conflicts of interest.
  4. Comment on a story without first reading the relevant article(s).
  5. Oppose a recurring item here because you disagree with the recurring items criteria. Discuss them here.
  6. Use ITN as a forum for your own political or personal beliefs. Such comments are irrelevant to the outcome and are potentially disruptive.

Suggesting updates

There are two places where you can request corrections to posted items:

  • Anything that does not change the intent of the blurb (spelling, grammar, markup issues, updating death tolls etc.) should be discussed at WP:Errors.
  • Discuss major changes in the blurb's intent or very complex updates as part of the current ITNC nomination.

Suggestions

March 23

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections
Science and technology

Trèbes hostage crisis

Article: Trèbes hostage crisis (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ A gunman takes hostages at a supermarket in Trèbes, France, before fatally shooting three people and then being shot dead by police. (Post)
News source(s): BBC Telegraph NYT Guardian
Credits:

Article updated

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

  • Oppose - even if it is a terror attack, it is too small to merit posting. Stormy clouds (talk) 18:52, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as "The Islamic State released a statement calling him a "soldier of the Islamic State", and French president Emmanuel Macron called the attacks an act of Islamist terrorism." means that has been confirmed as terrorism to an extent that authorities find satisfactory, as well as claimed; "too small" is objectively meaningless and doesn't determine notability, while on the other hand, "He swore allegiance to the Islamic State and demanded the release of Salah Abdeslam, an Islamist accused of involvement in the November 2015 Paris attacks" makes this event notable as a type of attack with demands and conditions for hostage release that had never been made before in Europe by the IS. LjL (talk) 19:40, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Has been in all international and national media today. Article seems ready for posting.BabbaQ (talk) 20:46, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It's just too small scale for ITN. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:50, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support While this incident has resulted in less fatalities than we usually post, it is prominently in the news. The article's quality is also pretty high. Half of our current blurbs occurred more than a week ago. Mamyles (talk) 21:04, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Zell Miller

Article: Zell Miller (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Atlanta Journal Constitution
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.

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

  • Sourcing needs work, but the article is in decent shape. Hopefully it will be good in a few hours. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:29, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Referencing is actually dreadful. I had intended to nominate this when I caught the breaking news of his death but one look at the article stopped me in my tracks. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:35, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, the "Senate" section is more than I can fix now; if nobody else gets to it I'll try in a few hours. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:44, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: do we think the 2004 RNC bit is WP:UNDUE? I mean, I vividly remember watching him challenge Chris Matthews to a duel on live television, or say he wish he could. But, with the value of 14 years of hindsight, I'm thinking it should be trimmed a bit. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:49, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Probably a matter for the talk page. I think merging into a single section on the 2004 election and reducing it a bit is called for. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:59, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Antigua and Barbuda general election, 2018

Proposed image
Article: Antiguan general election, 2018 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The Antigua and Barbuda Labour Party led by incumbent Prime Minister Gaston Browne wins the Antigua and Barbuda general election, securing 15 of the 17 seats in the House of Representatives (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ The Antigua and Barbuda Labour Party, led by incumbent Prime Minister Gaston Browne (pictured), gains the most seats in the House of Representatives.
Alternative blurb II: ​ The Labour Party of Antigua and Barbuda gains the most seats in the House of Representatives.
News source(s): [1], [2], [3]
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.

 WTKitty (talk) 11:36, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose Stub article with no global coverage and I'm not confident it's publicized enough. --QEDK () 12:10, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now Agree that the article is too much of a stub to post. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:57, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Article is a stub and, with the due respect, A&B General Elections are not worldwide important.--SirEdimon (talk) 18:56, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

March 22

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

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

RD: Wayne Huizenga

Article: Wayne Huizenga (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): 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.

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

Support - Article is good enough and Huizenga was a high profile businessman. SirEdimon (talk) 18:51, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Trump announces tariffs on China

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


Article: Trump tariffs (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ President of the United States Donald Trump signs an executive memorandum announcing his plan to impose tariffs on up to $60 billion USD of goods made in China. (Post)
News source(s): CNBC BBC NYT The Independent (many more if you look for them)
Credits:
Nominator's comments: I realize that the sanctions may well not take effect, since Trump just signed a memo basically announcing this intention on his part. But there has still been a HUGE reaction from China, which says they will “take all legal measures to protect our interest”, [4] and US Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer says that "China is likely to retaliate against the tariffs by targeting U.S. agricultural products that are reliant on the Chinese export market." [5] Stocks have also fallen. I think this adds up to a significant enough event to post IMO. Every morning (there's a halo...) 21:14, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I am not formally expressing a view on this, but I think until the tariffs actually take effect this will have a tough time being posted. 331dot (talk) 21:20, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the trickle of tariff threats are barely news enough for Portal:Current events, and Trump tariffs doesn't mention this latest one yet. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:31, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Tariffs are far too common between countries (not just US) nowadays. These feel no different .--Masem (t) 21:38, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in principle but wait till actually enacted, per previous nomination. I don't agree with Masem's reasoning - if this goes ahead, it's a trade war between the world's two largest economies. Banedon (talk) 21:51, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in principle per Banedon's reasoning (i.e. wait until actually enacted). Also, is the term "Trump tariffs" one in widespread, actual use outside of WP? I see instances of the use of the words "Trump" and "tariffs" adjacent to each other but not "Trump tariffs" as a standalone term to refer to the proposed tariffs. I might be wrong, though, as I haven't looked that carefully. Chetsford (talk) 22:34, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense! Thanks for the edification, power~enwiki! Chetsford (talk) 23:45, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Oppose – I suspect there will be many more disruptive edicts by DT, and I doubt this one is really ITN, but we shall see. Sca (talk) 00:16, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose not a Trump ticker and this may be of mild interest to a handful of people, but it's hardly something I'd expect to see in a encyclopedic selection of news articles for the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:00, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I feel like we need a SNOW clause specifically written for Trump-related ITN noms given the disproportionate amount of media coverage he receives by virtue of his notoriety.WaltCip (talk) 10:02, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Per TRM. --QEDK () 12:08, 23 March 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.

March 21

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

Turing Award

Articles: John L. Hennessy (talk · history · tag) and David Patterson (computer scientist) (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: John L. Hennessy and David A. Patterson win the Turing Award for their work on a simplified computer architecture. (Post)
News source(s): NYT, Wired, Xinhua
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: Needs work. One reads like a CV, the other is plagued with proseline. Fuebaey (talk) 17:28, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kabul suicide bombing

Article: March 2018 Kabul suicide bombing (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ A terrorist bombing kills 33 people in Kabul. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ A terrorist bombing in Kabul kills atleast 33 people, injuring more than 65 others.
Alternative blurb II: ​ A terrorist bombing kills atleast 33 people in Kabul.
Alternative blurb III: ​ A terrorist bombing kills atleast 33 people in Kabul, injuring more than 65 others.
News source(s): BBC News
Credits:

Article updated

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

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

[Posted] Kuczynski resigns

Proposed image
Article: Pedro Pablo Kuczynski (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: President of Peru Pedro Pablo Kuczynski resigns, amid a scandal over Operation Car Wash (Post)
News source(s): BBC, New York Times
Credits:

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

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

[Closed] Austin bomber blows himself up

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


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

[Pulled] Pull: Austin bombings

Article: Austin serial bombings (talk · history · tag)
Ongoing item removal (Post)

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

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

March 20

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and incidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

[Posted] RD: Peter George Peterson

Article: Peter George Peterson (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The New York Times
Credits:

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

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

[Posted] RD: Katie Boyle

Article: Katie Boyle (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: Needs minor attention to referencing. The book section should be easy enough to deal with. Mjroots (talk) 18:34, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

[Closed] Northern white rhinoceros

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


Article: Northern white rhinoceros (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Last male Northern white rhinoceros dies in Kenya. (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

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

Abel Prize

Articles: Robert Langlands (talk · history · tag) and Abel Prize (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ American-Canadian mathematician Robert Langlands wins the Abel Prize. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Mathematician Robert Langlands wins the Abel Prize for his development of the Langlands program.
News source(s): Abelprize.no
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Article needs some work. –Ammarpad (talk) 11:26, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yeah, getting the necessary level of referencing in Robert_Langlands#Research is going to require some serious mathematical understanding. --LukeSurl t c 11:54, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I have posted about that on the talk page, hoping to resolve it, but now looking at how it was added. –Ammarpad (talk) 11:58, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • We should really mention the Langlands program in the blurb, as that's what he won it for; altblurb added. Unfortunately that article is in an even worse state for referencing, so we're a bit stuck without an expert. The rest of Langlands' article looks OK, it's just the research section that's problematic. Modest Genius talk 12:02, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Even with a bit of basic understanding of modern algebra, I tried reading even the lowest-level summary of the Langlands program and while I understand where its going, nowhere close to understand the levels of detail that are necessary to explain it at a basic level; its not the type of thing I can even see an easy layman's version coming about, outside of being towards a grand unified theory of everything. --Masem (t) 14:33, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with the above on the need for an expert to clean up the articles. I'm in favor of including "Langlands program" in the blurb. Davey2116 (talk) 17:25, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the research section, which was the only problem, has been improved from its former zero-source state. Courtesy ping @LukeSurl, Modest Genius, Davey2116, and Masem:. –Ammarpad (talk) 00:58, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going to have to oppose until someone can explain his research section in more layman terms. Not talking about dumbing down to simple.wiki prose here. I don't think it's an unfair request to write in a way a non-expert mathematician (yet average adult, native English reader) can understand. Fuebaey (talk) 18:40, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    It's cutting edge math research in an area where most of the concepts aren't even introduced to students until postgraduate studies. The idea that most of this is every going to be presentable in layman's terms is pretty unrealistic. WP:ONEDOWN would suggest shooting for something like the level of someone with a BS in Mathematics, but even that could be quite challenging at times. About the best bit of a lay description is already offered by the intro of Langlands program: "In mathematics, the Langlands program is a web of far-reaching and influential conjectures about connections between number theory and geometry." But trying to really explain what they are talking about isn't going to be possible at a lay audience level. Dragons flight (talk) 19:31, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Nicolas Sarkozy arrested

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


Proposed image
Article: Nicolas Sarkozy (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Former President of France Nicholas Sarkozy (pictured) is arrested by police and held for questioning regarding allegations the 2007 French presidential election was influenced by Libya. (Post)
News source(s): Bloomberg ABC News
Credits:

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

Article: Ayaz Soomro (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Dawn
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: Short but well referenced. Lets see if it just needs one Support before getting posted like the RDs from West or it requires Support from everyone on WP before getting posted because of the usual WP:BIAS39.48.73.97 (talk) 07:08, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

[Closed] Cambridge Analytica

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


Article: Cambridge Analytica (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The UK's Information Commissioner will seek a warrant to look at the databases used by British firm Cambridge Analytica, a company accused of using personal data of 50 million Facebook members to influence US presidential election in 2016. (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

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

March 19

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

Politics and elections

RD: Keith O'Brien

Proposed image
Article: Keith O'Brien (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC The Guardian The Times Vatican News
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: This person is the last cardinal in Scotland, and there is a developing story about his behaviour around other people. Do the Danse Macabre! (Talk) 20:16, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] RD: Sudan (rhinoceros)

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


Article: Sudan (rhinoceros) (talk · history · 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: The world's last surviving male northern white rhino. Sherenk1 (talk) 07:12, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Disambiguator added, enough people are genuinely confused about this, and no good argument not to do this in this one case has been presented. Fram (talk) 08:40, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[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 to Ongoing] Austin package explosions

Article: Austin package explosions (talk · history · tag)
Ongoing item nomination (Post)
News source(s): NY Times, Reuters
Credits:

Article updated

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

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

March 18

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sports

[Closed] First self-driving car fatality

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


Article: Autonomous car (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Elaine Herzberg becomes the first uninvolved pedestrian to be killed by an autonomous car. (Post)
News source(s): [6] [7] [8]
Credits:

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

Article: David Cooper (immunologist) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Kirby

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

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

[Posted] Russian presidential election, 2018

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


Article: Russian presidential election, 2018 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Vladimir Putin is reelected as President of Russia. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Vladimir Putin is elected as President of Russia for a fourth term.
Alternative blurb II: Vladimir Putin is elected to fourth term as President of Russia.
News source(s): BBC, Guardian, Reuters, dpa ((in English), Zeit (in German)
Credits:

Article needs updating
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Nominator's comments: Added now to assess article quality so as to make it ready to post as soon as election results are announced. Blurb can be specified at that time. Sherenk1 (talk) 11:38, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I think it would be OK to write a blurb now as no one thinks anyone other than Putin will win. 331dot (talk) 18:06, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I’ve added an altblurb. —LukeSurl t c 18:33, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rather than try a WP:IAR oppose based on the fishy nature of the vote, disallowing of Alexei Navalny's candidacy, etc., perhaps we can add something to the blurb about it? [9] – Muboshgu (talk) 18:52, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the past we have refrained from any editorializing when posting even the most flagrantly bogus "election results." -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:54, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed; we do not make judgements about the validity, fairness, or legitimacy of the election, that's for the reader to decide. 331dot (talk) 18:56, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Not saying this to be pointy, but ITNR thinks the election of a head of state is notable, but that is based on the notion that an election is a choice by a populous. There is a threshold of corruption where the preceding cease to be an election in the conventional sense of the word, and what happened in Russia today certainly exceeds that threshold.GCG (talk) 20:04, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it's most certainly not based on any such assumption. That's plainly incorrect. We report the facts, and it's up to article writers and third-party sources to provide the context. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:07, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is ITNR and marking as such. Banedon (talk) 19:40, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose until the results are declared "officially", plus since when has anyone on God's own Earth referred to Putin as "Vladimir V. Putin"? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:45, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose in addition to needing the "official" results, I want to see something in the article about the alleged voter fraud. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:06, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is notable because he's the head-of-state of a nuclear power, not because of it being a fair election. If this were Uzbekistan, I'd be inclined to IAR oppose it, but once the results are official and the article is updated it has to be included. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:14, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've added the "fourth term" to the altblurb, just for the record. Brandmeistertalk 20:19, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per IAR. It's hard for me to believe that this was in any sense a fair election.--WaltCip (talk) 20:33, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support fair or not, an election is an election and a head of state is a head of state. If anything, the ITN would read "Vladimir Putin is still President of Russia, as everyone expected". Juxlos (talk) 20:36, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support it's ITNR, article is in good shape. 2A02:A451:8B2D:1:D447:384A:ABF0:BBE9 (talk) 20:50, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is a section Reactions missing, usually we have some domestic and international reactions to the election when we post election articles. --Tone 20:56, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Juxlos. I think those opposing this because the election wasn't fair clearly have a point. This is a result of a presidential election in a sovereign country, which is listed as a recurring item and, like it or not, it has to be posted once the official results come in and the article is sufficiently updated. The discussion on modifying the blurb to include the rumours on electoral fraud is relevant and should be carried out separately from any vote count.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:58, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if official results are expected in the next 3-4 hours, I'd like to wait for them. If they won't be available for several days, this is probably ready to go. The lead section needs copy-editing and expansion, the rest is fine. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:02, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • RT (a reliable source for the official election results) says 80% of votes are in, and Putin has 76% of the vote. [10]. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:06, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – Details aside, this is global news. Suggest Alt2 as a more logical word order. Sca (talk) 21:03, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I reworded the Alts, removed Alt1 - "elected to a fourth term" is not global English. Black Kite (talk) 21:07, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Based on decades of newspaper editing, I must strongly disagree with this unilateral deletion of another's proposal. Replaced blurb as Alt2 once again.
  • Fine, put it back. I can assure you that "elected to fourth term" would be up at WP:ERRORS seconds after it was posted, though. Black Kite (talk) 21:39, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Go fly a kite. Sca (talk) 15:20, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - this is ITN/R, so ethical qualms about the legitimacy of the election are irrelevant for notability grounds. Maybe we have a combined blurb with Xi Jinping - in "democratic" despot news, both Putin and Xi are (shockingly) re-elected. Stormy clouds (talk) 21:16, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Second this. The first option seems the best if combinated with Xi. Also btw, there was no corruption, 80% of complaints were 100% fake, and a couple thousand Ukrainians couldn't vote because of the police. wumbolo ^^^ 21:24, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Irrelevant personal comments.
          • OMG are you serious??? Russian state-owned media says there was no fraud, so you accept that? That's like believing there was no Russian collusion in the U.S. election because Trump tweeted "NO COLLUSION". – Muboshgu (talk) 22:04, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
            • "OMG" are you really an admin? Remain calm here, please. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:16, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
              • Yes I'm an admin. And you've been de-sysop'd. So STFU. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:20, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
                • Not for much longer! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:21, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I'd have to take notes on your behavior to really see how one goes about losing adminship. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:24, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We have posted w/o any editorial comment some of the most corrupt and patently fake elections ever staged. We are likely going to do the same for the reelection of the President of China whose manner of election would probably make Stalin smile. There is no question that this whole thing has been rigged from the word go. And yes that needs to be in the article before I will support it. But not in any blurb on ITN. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:03, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with presenting a short blurb without the fraud, and that the fraud needs to be mentioned in the article. I started a talk page thread there about it. I don't know exactly how to write the fraud section that the article needs to be complete. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:09, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – Significant news about the reelection of a major world figure in a major country. I would change alt-blurb II to say "his" fourth term, though. Master of Time (talk) 22:11, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Master of Time: It's missing info about alleged voter fraud though. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:12, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I mean, I never actually considered the Russian elections to be free and fair, but that's not a reason to oppose the mention of it in the ITN section, in my opinion. Master of Time (talk) 22:14, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Master of Time: I'm not saying the article shouldn't be posted. I agreed with Ad Orientem above in that we should post it, but we should post a complete article, which means not posting it until the allegations of fraud are included. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:19, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment what Ad Orientem said. All of you whinging about "corruption" should look closer to home, and accept that Wikipedia is not here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, merely to report what has actually happened. Where did it all go so wrong for so many of you? Incidentally, refusing to post this until some kind of "fraud" section is added to the article is bullshit, and pure systemic bias, arguably worse. We post per RS, so as and when we have consensus to post based on the results, that's what we do, we don't wait for admins who don't like the result to declare their own posting criteria, that's complete and utter bullshit. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:23, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • We post updated articles, that means articles should be relatively complete. Without fraud allegations, this article is missing significant context. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:26, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • The allegations seem to be primarily coming from western press at this point, not internally to Russia (contrast to the last US election where it was definitely internal). At this point, external allegation are not needed. If there does come internal allegations raised, that can be added, but it is not necessary for an ITNR posting, and like TRM, I have a great concern a number of editors are seeing the requirement of having them as righting great wrongs. We are not in that business. --Masem (t) 22:28, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Masem: Golos is internal, and they're reporting alleged violations.[11] – Muboshgu (talk) 22:31, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • Once WP:RS are declaring results, this should be posted, we don't need to wait for some "admin" version of the "truth", perhaps these "admins" should step aside and allow others to make judgements here, the kind of judgements we expect from our admins, not those which are personal and against the principles of Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:34, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • (ec) Even with that, because WP handles news of allegations carefully, I would only expect initial mention that there might be allegations. It would be irresponsible of us to try to document a full allegations section until Russia's election organization can actually comment on it. Initial statements would fine, but they are not necessary to consider this article complete for ITN posting. --Masem (t) 22:36, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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


Article: Li Ao (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [12]
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 written and sourced Oceangai (talk) 14:33, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now. There are referencing gaps and several CN tags.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:18, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Contrary to what the nominator says, this is neither well written nor well sourced at the moment. Vanamonde (talk) 04:22, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[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.

March 17

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

[Closed] RD: Sushil Siddharth

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


Article: Sushil Siddharth (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Hindustan and Navbharat 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.
 Skr15081997 (talk) 15:02, 21 March 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] Ameenah Gurib

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


Article: Ameenah Gurib (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: President of Mauritius Ameenah Gurib resigns amid financial misconduct allegations. (Post)
Alternative blurb: President of Mauritius Ameenah Gurib resigns amid credit card scandal.
News source(s): Al Jazeera Bloomberg BBC Times of India NYT 1 NYT 2
Credits:

Article updated
 39.48.73.97 (talk) 08:15, 20 March 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: Mike MacDonald

Article: Mike MacDonald (comedian) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): CBC
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 --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:02, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Xi Jinping reappointed president without term limits

Proposed image
Article: Xi Jinping (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Xi Jinping (pictured) is re-elected as the President of the People's Republic of China with no term limits by the National People’s Congress. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Xi Jinping (pictured) is re-elected as the President of the People's Republic of China.
News source(s): AFP, Reuters, Al Jazeera
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: Should qualify under WP:ITN/R as an indirect election for head of state. starship.paint ~ KO 03:30, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Ireland win Six Nations

Proposed image
Article: 2018 Six Nations Championship (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In rugby union, Ireland win a Grand Slam in the Six Nations Championship. (captain Rory Best pictured) (Post)
News source(s): RTÉ BBC
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: Article needs some referencing, but is in an alright state. Item is ITN/R, and derives additional notability as it is only Ireland's third Grand Slam (and happens to fall on St. Patrick's Day). Stormy clouds (talk) 16:59, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

March 16

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

Sports

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

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


Article: 2018 UMBC vs. Virginia men's basketball game (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The UMBC Retrievers became the first #16 seed in NCAA Tournament history to defeat a #1 seed with their 74-54 win over the Virginia Cavaliers. (Post)
News source(s): [15]
Credits:
Nominator's comments: Because its a article about a notable upset and no other college who was a 16th seed ever defeated a top seeded team in NCAA history. UMBC vs Virginia (talk) 03:17, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose One underdog victory over a top seed in a non-final elimination game is not ITN, and even the game itself shouldn't have an article. --Masem (t) 03:21, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose We should post the tournament's conclusion, possibly with a mention of this game. It's the championship game that we're waiting for. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:28, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:32, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Portal:Current events/2018 March 16 is the appropriate page for this type of news story, and it is already included there. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:34, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - It's enough of an uphill battle just getting the championship result posted. It's also meaningless. No one except die-hard fans of UMBC will remember this as a particularly notable sporting achievement, when as stated above, the focus will be on who wins the entire tournament.-WaltCip (talk) 11:07, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. We don't usually post specific games in larger tournaments, only the result of the tournament. 331dot (talk) 11:13, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just wonder, seems the account is only created to make this nomination. –Ammarpad (talk) 11:43, 19 March 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: Adrian Lamo

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

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

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

[Posted] RD: Louise Slaughter

Article: Louise Slaughter (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): USA Today
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.

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

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

References

Nominators often include links to external websites and other references in discussions on this page. It is usually best to provide such links using the inline URL syntax [http://example.com] rather than using <ref></ref> tags, because that keeps all the relevant information in the same place as the nomination without having to jump to this section, and facilitates the archiving process.

For the times when <ref></ref> tags are being used, here are their contents: