Jump to content

Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
m →‎Project Amad: Change RD flag to 'no'
→‎Project Amad: Correct nominator name
Line 27: Line 27:
| updated = <!-- (yes/no); Leave blank if you aren't sure -->
| updated = <!-- (yes/no); Leave blank if you aren't sure -->
| updated2 = <!-- (yes/no); only if there's a second article and article2 is filled in! Leave blank if unsure -->
| updated2 = <!-- (yes/no); only if there's a second article and article2 is filled in! Leave blank if unsure -->
| nominator = Jamez42 <!-- Do NOT change this -->
| nominator = FlowerRoad <!-- Do NOT change this -->
| updater = <!-- Should be filled with the username of the person who has contributed the most to updates. -->
| updater = <!-- Should be filled with the username of the person who has contributed the most to updates. -->
| updater2 = <!-- if more than one updater -->
| updater2 = <!-- if more than one updater -->
| updater3 = <!-- if more than two updaters -->
| updater3 = <!-- if more than two updaters -->
| ITNR = no <!-- 'No' by default. Only put in 'yes' if the event is listed at WP:ITNR -->
| ITNR = no <!-- 'No' by default. Only put in 'yes' if the event is listed at WP:ITNR -->
| nom cmt = Extremely important in the context of it likely triggering the United States to pull out of the Iran agreement. Other reactions are certain as well, although it is currently unknown.
| nom cmt =
| sign = Extremely important in the context of it likely triggering the United States to pull out of the Iran agreement. Other reactions are certain as well, although it is currently unknown. [[User:FlowerRoad|FlowerRoad]] ([[User talk:FlowerRoad|talk]]) 19:05, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
| sign = [[User:FlowerRoad|FlowerRoad]] ([[User talk:FlowerRoad|talk]]) 19:05, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
}}
}}



Revision as of 19:11, 30 April 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

April 30

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
Health and environment
International relations
Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

Project Amad

Article: Project Amad (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu accuses Iran of covertly continuing its nuclear program. (Post)
News source(s): The IndependentBBC News CNBC
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Extremely important in the context of it likely triggering the United States to pull out of the Iran agreement. Other reactions are certain as well, although it is currently unknown. FlowerRoad (talk) 19:05, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Luis García Meza

Article: Luis García Meza (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): CTV NewsLa RazónDeutsche Welle
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: Bolivian dictator and military, although it possibly needs clean up before posting. Jamez42 (talk) 15:44, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose pending that needed work. Orange tagged for six years. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:43, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Avengers: Infinity War box office record

Article: Avengers: Infinity War (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Avengers: Infinity War sets a global box office record for its opening weekend. (Post)
News source(s): CNBC
Credits:

Nominator's comments: A pretty notable achievement in terms of sheer hard cash ($630m global). Also, this is the article millions of people will be coming to Wikipedia to read, and this blurb would put a link on the front page for them. LukeSurl t c 08:53, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I haven't actually read the article here, 'cos, y'know, spoilers :P --LukeSurl t c 08:55, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Past similar discussions(such as for Star Wars:The Force Awakens) have suggested that a movie would merit posting only if it breaks the all time earnings record, not just for an opening weekend. 331dot (talk) 08:56, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think that's a very useful way of doing things. This film is in the news (and the public consciousness) now, but will be far less so if/when it reaches ~$2bn takings. The opening weekend is an industry standard way of assessing a film's initial impact which is widely reported in the news, and we have a nice, quotable record which we can make into a blurb with a decent supporting article. --LukeSurl t c 09:02, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion for TFA is here. Some comments from there: ""Biggest of all time" yes, if it reaches that, but opening weekend sales are more a piece of marketing than anything else"; "An event like this is a trivial figure in the grander scheme of the world, like being a presidential frontrunner or having a big lead in the middle of the sports season. If it becomes the highest grossing film of all time, definite support"; "Oppose as media generated uber hype, no surprises, and trivia. Please consider making this a DYK."; "Frequently broken record and hardly a surprise for the franchise" and so on. 331dot (talk) 09:23, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - As per above. Sherenk1 (talk) 10:04, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per above and the other reasons given for the TFA discussion back in December '15.--WaltCip (talk) 10:58, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Whats the deal on refs for a plot summary? The article is pretty good, but I dunno how you cite a plot summary other than "go watch it". --LaserLegs (talk) 11:54, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • IIRC, plot summaries do not require referencing for just that reason. Just referencing a critic's plot summary should handle any exceptions or excuses. - Floydian τ ¢ 13:01, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, its generally assumed that the work itself is fine for implicit sorting of a plot summary as long as no interpretation or analysis is included. --Masem (t) 13:22, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – On lack of significance. Sca (talk) 13:50, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose These types of records meaning little more than verifying the inexorable economic principle of price inflation. Every year, things cost more money, so more money is made on movies. It doesn't necessarily mean more people saw it, or more people bought tickets, just that this year's tickets cost more than last year's tickets. --Jayron32 14:12, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It also broke the record if inflation or attendance is considered. Ticket price inflation across many countries is hard to work out and sources may avoid it but the opening weekend record is increasing much faster than inflation, except when the record is broken by a small amount. This was by a lot: List of highest-grossing openings for films#Opening weekend record holders worldwide. Records for total gross is another matter where inflation is crucial. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:43, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Because that's not in the article and where there are inflation-adjusted numbers, they show TFA at first place. Regards SoWhy 15:04, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
TFA probably keeps the domestic (US + Canada) record adjusted for inflation. The nomination is for the global opening. Infinity War is certain to get the record there, but sources rarely talk about adjusted international numbers. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:33, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose. Although this is a lot more significant than your typical commercial jargon ("Number 1 Movie in America! Wow!"), this record gets broken pretty frequently. Looking at the link in the blurb it's happened 4 times now in just under three years (Jurassic World -> Force Awakens -> Fate and Furious -> Infinity War). It may well get broken again in under a year when the next Jurassic World, Star Wars, or Avengers movie is released, though I admit that's WP:CRYSTAL. ZettaComposer (talk) 14:53, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I don't see how we can have ~60 sporting events every year but this is not notable because it happens too frequently. I know it's apples to oranges, but that's kind of the point: the standard for what's remarkable in sport (one of the two teams that could have won the Boat Frenzy did!!!) is so much lower than other disciplines because it's easier to articulate. ghost 15:05, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - given just how much it broke the record by - $100 million (a 20% increase on the previous holder), without opening in China or Russia - and that it secured the record domestically as well, it makes sense to recognise this achievement. The article is also decent, and there is no denying, per the nomination, that many people are coming to the website seeking this article as a result of its record-breaking exploits. Posting it would thereby fulfill the primary purpose of ITN. I understand the rationale against posting, but I think that the arguments above overwhelm this. Stormy clouds (talk) 15:11, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - considering the frequency of other items at ITN, I don't think that a record being broken thrice in a four year time span is too excessive, and agree that holding posting for later records, when readership is vastly diminished, would not be a great idea. I also don't think that the largest opening ever in one of the largest fields of entertainment is trivial or irrelevant, I don't think that the fact that this was somewhat expected diminishes it, nor do I think that it is solely media driven hype, as was thrown at TFA when it was nominated. Stormy clouds (talk) 15:17, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, not significant. Kaldari (talk) 15:24, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose I recognize why this is news, and why this specific record breaking is not just incremental compared to past. But, it is only a matter of time that the next big blockbuster will come along and break this record. Additionally, this is an area where we a bit too much Western bias. Yes, Hollywood >> Bollywood in terms of money, but this is really focusing too much on one specific nation's industry, even though it serves a worldwide audience. I'd like to try to see if we can better balance that with other nation's film industries as appropriate, and to that end, that should focus on things like the nation's indsutry awards (BAFTAs for one), rather than box office take which is just going to be large period because Hollywood has the money to make that happen. --Masem (t) 15:32, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We posted the record sale of some painting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates/November_2017#.5B_Posted.5D_Sale_of_Salvator_mundi in record time without any concern that the record may again be broken. Opposes based on that rationale are basically art snobbery. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:12, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose trivia, suitable for DYK. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:28, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Come back if it beats the all-time record (or better yet the inflation-adjusted record), not just the raw opening weekend number. That metric is promoted by film studios merely to get more people to see the film; it's not of historical importance. Modest Genius talk 16:35, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose There are lots of different records for films, which are broken often. If it becomes the highest-grossing film of all time (currently held by Avatar), I would support posting that. Reach Out to the Truth 16:41, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Post when the movie breaks the all-time record, not the weekend record. (NorthernFalcon (talk) 17:15, 30 April 2018 (UTC))[reply]

India says all villages have electricity

Article: Electricity sector in India#Rural electrification (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ All villages in India now have access to electricity, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has announced. (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Being touted as "great achievement for Asia's third largest economy". Sherenk1 (talk) 08:22, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Even the BBC article suggests that this may not be true, as there are reports that some villages have not been given access to electricity, plus the definition of electrification (10% of all of its homes and public buildings being connected to the grid) is extremely loose.--WaltCip (talk) 11:00, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I've not had time to go and tag them all, but there are numerous unreferenced claims in the target article. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:13, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Based on how electrical grids work, just having connections to some to remote villages is huge. Connecting other buildings is minor compared to getting power to the village. - Floydian τ ¢ 12:59, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Insignificant government pronouncement. Even the BBC is doubting it ans they cannot independently confirm so. But it may be suitable for DYK nomination. –Ammarpad (talk) 18:01, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

April 29

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime
  • In Newport, Wales McCauley Cox drove his car into a crowd outside a nightclub and intentionally hit and injured 4 people before he fled the scene. He claimed he was trying to stop a fight but was found guilty and sentenced for causing grievous bodily harm with intent, causing serious injury through dangerous driving and causing actual bodily harm. Teens Benjamin Thomas and Callum Banton pleaded guilty to affray for their part in starting the brawl which preceded the attack. (South Wales Argus)
  • A bomb explodes outside the Arun III Hydroelectric Power Plant in Tumlingtar, Nepal. No group claimed credit for the attack. The plant was codeveloped with India and is due to be inaugurated by Prime Minister Narendra Modi within weeks. (The New Indian Express)
  • The Central Criminal Court in Baghdad, Iraq, sentences nineteen Russian women, six Azerbaijani women, and four Tajikistani women to life in prison for membership to ISIL. (The Sunday Times)
  • The Israel Defense Forces detain one of two Lebanese shepherds who they say crossed the United Nations-patrolled border between the two nations. Lebanon calls the detention an "abduction". The IDF says the female shepherd, detained in the disputed Shebaa region, was quickly repatriated. (The Jerusalem Post)
  • A police operation in nine commercial premises of the district of La Victoria, in Lima, Peru, managed to seize two tons of pharmaceutical and natural products with an expired shelf life, without sanitary registration, and allegedly falsified. The police officers in charge of this raid on informed that now they will continue to find the whereabouts of all the people involved in the commercialization of this merchandise. (Perú 21)

Politics and elections

Sports
  • Brazil surfer Rodrigo Koxa breaks the record for the largest wave ever surfed. The wave occurred off the coast of Nazaré, Portugal and measured 24.4 meters (80 feet). (BBC)

T-Mobile to Acquire Sprint

Articles: T-Mobile (talk · history · tag) and Sprint Corporation (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: T-Mobile announces plans to acquire Sprint for $26 billion. (Post)
News source(s): WSJ, NYTimes
Credits:

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Has been rumored over last few days, but now confirmed to be a full stock buyout. This leaves US with three major cellular providers. Past business deals of this size are generally considered notable for ITN posting when the deal (agreed by both sides) is announced even if we know there's going to be federal trade oversight on the deal (They tried to merge before and it fell through at fed regulation level, but the situation for why they are merging has changed since). I note I don't think either article is up to shape or updated at this point. Masem (t) 00:54, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose 1) One line update in both articles isn't enough; 2) Orange tags in both; 3) Wait and reassess once the deal is confirmed. The fact that this particular merger was tried and failed before tells me it could fail again. Isa (talk) 02:35, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree with your first two points, but the third is incorrect: Several years ago AT&T (#1 carrier) attempted to purchase T-Mobile (#4). This time it's T-Mo absorbing Sprint. --LaserLegs (talk) 09:10, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@LaserLegs: The New York Times source says "Sprint and T-Mobile have tried unsuccessfully to merge before. They were effectively blocked four years ago by regulators in the Obama administration who worried that shrinking the market for wireless providers would give consumers fewer choices and lead to higher prices." Isa (talk) 09:30, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We'll I'll be damned, thanks!

La Liga

Article: 2017–18 La Liga (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In Spanish football, Barcelona win La Liga (Post)
News source(s): BBC Sport
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: I had pre-prepared a prose summary for this article so it is reasonably detailed and updated. I might consider holding this until the end of the season because Barcelona are four games away from the first ever unbeaten season in La Liga. Harambe Walks (talk) 21:22, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose missing refs in the shirt sponsors, managerial changes, most of the infobox, and "autonomous community" (I don't know or care what that is but if you're gonna drop it in, source it). Also it's yet another domestic soccer league. It's hard to write prose updates for these points based seasons .. you can't cram a game-by-game in the summary section but FFS it's just a wall of tables and a one liner about FC Barcelona sealing the title. For the worlds most popular sport, these articles are boring AF. Unrelated, I need to get a coin made with "Real Madrid" on one side and "FC Barcelona" on the other so I could predict the La Liga champion with 50/50 accuracy. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:09, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • "FFS it's just a wall of tables and a one liner about FC Barcelona sealing the title" - that's odd because on my screen there's a five-paragraph summary section. Harambe Walks (talk) 23:30, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Harambe, I'm sorry, I genuinely didn't mean to disparage your efforts. All I'm saying is in a season with 340 matches there had to be more than five paragraphs worth of notability. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:34, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sounds good, that way we'll never be posting another MLB title ever again. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:44, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • Don't bring MLB into this. 2017 Major League Baseball season seems to be a better article than 2017–18 La Liga. 2017 World Series is now GA thanks to yours truly. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:56, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
            • I assume it adequately summarised all 33 million games played that season then. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:57, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
              • I agree with you that not every single game requires summarization. I am not sure exactly how much summary is needed for a "football" season; as this is out of my area of expertise, I'm not offering a support or oppose to this. How would I know if those five paragraphs are enough or not enough? – Muboshgu (talk) 16:59, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
                • Just noting how nonsensical it is. We have season articles for each club too, their quality varies, but honestly, not even Britannica would expect a summary of the 340 games (I made it 380 by the way). The Rambling Man (talk) 17:08, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This will undoubtedly be posted now because "OMG soccer", go ahead and nominate it again if FC Barcelona goes undefeated -- Soccer records are ITN/R anyway and it further cements La Liga as an utter joke of a competitive soccer league. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:11, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I know WP:NOTFORUM but there's academic study that suggests that competitiveness does not make a league less attractive and it may in fact be a lack of balance that fuels interest [1] Harambe Walks (talk) 23:34, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is also 2017–18_FC_Barcelona_season, which has plenty of prose, unfortunately it's a pretty textbook example of proseline. --LukeSurl t c 10:10, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose, regional-interest story. Kaldari (talk) 15:26, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Kaldari: - La Liga is watched world-wide by a massive audience. To call it a regional-interest story is preposterous, and simply false. Moreover, opposing on these grounds makes no sense, or else we would not post half of the items currently on ITN/R. Stormy clouds (talk) 15:34, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have no doubt it is watched world-wide, however, at least where I'm at, it's not on Google News Sports page and not mentioned in sports news coverage. Perhaps as a European, your view is a bit different than mine. As to the proliferation of regional sports news on ITN, I think we could stand to cut back on it quite a bit. For example, most of the world doesn't even know what snooker is (believe it or not), but we always cover it at ITN as well as pretty much every U.S.-based championship of any sport. Kaldari (talk) 15:43, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait. There are two ongoing discussions at WT:ITNR on this exact topic. I won't repeat what has already been said there, but in summary I think La Liga should be one of the leagues we post once the season is completely over, not when one team gains an unassailable lead. Come back in a few weeks. Modest Genius talk 16:39, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Soccer is not like other sports--the trophy is awarded and celebrations are held as soon as one team gains an unbeatable lead. Barcelona is hosting the championship parade today, not at the end of the season. (NorthernFalcon (talk) 17:14, 30 April 2018 (UTC))[reply]
Comment Should also note that La Liga is considered the number one ranked soccer league in the Europe by UEFA, which implies that it's also the number one ranked domestic soccer league in the world. The Premier League may be number one in dollars, but La Liga is number one in terms of how competitive their teams are. (NorthernFalcon (talk) 17:18, 30 April 2018 (UTC))[reply]
  • Weak support Article is a bit heavy on the tables, and light on the prose, but I won't hold it up for that. Congrats to Barça --Jayron32 18:03, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Michael Martin

Proposed image
Article: Michael Martin, Baron Martin of Springburn (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: former Speaker of the House of CommonsDrchriswilliams (talk) 14:56, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - The title of nobility is not necessary to be posted as part of the RD.--WaltCip (talk) 15:29, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose two maintenance tags (a little overkill that) but several unreferenced claims. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:48, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

April 28

Armed conflicts and attacks
Arts and culture
Disasters and accidents
  • A communal toilet collapses in Bhandup, Mumbai, India. Several people are trapped and require rescue, with two dying en route to hospital. (First Post)
International relations
Law and crime

RD: Larry Harvey

Article: Larry Harvey (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NYT, CNN
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Burning Man co-founder dies at age 70. Some sourcing issues. Davey2116 (talk) 15:22, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose too much unreferenced at this point. And a little stubby... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:49, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose based on article quality; I declined to nominate this because it seemed too far from acceptable. The only sourced content about him is that he founded Burning Man, and that he died. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:56, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - similarly to Power~enwiki, I thought about nominating this, and then looked at the article. Woeful referencing, and quite short. Stormy clouds (talk) 18:57, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Attention Needed) RD: Karl Toft

Article: Karl Toft (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Ottawa Citizen
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) 02:00, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support typically good nomination. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:50, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Still some uncited material; for an article of this contentious nature everything must be covered by reliable sources with inline citations, especially as no doubt many of the other subjects involved are alive. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:08, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: James H. Cone

Article: James H. Cone (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NPR
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.

 – Muboshgu (talk) 21:52, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Queried one statement with {{cn}} tag, but overall the article is in good shape and sufficient for RD. –Ammarpad (talk) 03:53, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:51, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted. 331dot (talk) 20:15, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Philip H. Hoff

Article: Philip H. Hoff (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 updated and well sourced --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:15, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Alfie Evans

Article: Alfie Evans case (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: Alfie Evans was a seriously ill 1-year old child whose treatment, and eventual withdrawal of life support, was the subject of the Alfie Evans case. This has been an ongoing story in the UK for the past few weeks and had international dimensions as well. There is an argument here for a blurb, but for me simply listing "Alfie Evans" under recent deaths sufficiently informs a reader of the main page who is familiar with the name about this final, tragic, development. This is technically a case where the article is regarding a case rather than specifically being a biography, but I see no utility in that obstructing an RD item. LukeSurl t c 07:59, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support subject to the unreferenced section being addressed. Otherwise - good to go. Mjroots (talk) 09:06, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I concur, now has my full support. Mjroots (talk) 10:20, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - we posted Charlie Gard under similar circumstances. I see this one as a support also.Stormy clouds (talk) 09:46, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - sourcing much improved by User:Stormy clouds. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:34, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted. Thryduulf (talk) 11:29, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • FWIW, I was thinking of nominating this myself after seeing it appear in WaPost and WSJ. Only making note this was not an isolated story only to the UK (likely in part of the Pope's/Vatican's involvement) --Masem (t) 14:54, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thanks for posting. This really ought to be a blurb, not because he was "very important" or whatever but because this story has been in and out of the news for a year, and the legal battle (also the title of the article) is the story here, not the individual. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:48, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb - If the standard we're using for a blurb is that the individual should be a transformative world leader or someone whose death makes news for a significant length of time, I don't believe this subject passes the Thatcher-Mandela standard.--WaltCip (talk) 16:34, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Putting this as a blurb would be epitome of excessiveness and belittling to the death like this that we blurbed few weeks ago. By that standard we should just copy whatever is on the BBC front page and paste on the ITN template everyday. –Ammarpad (talk)
    • You're opposed to the "In the news" section featuring stories which are "in the news"? How odd. Hawking was an obit, the saga of the end of his life was not the central story of his life. Come on. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:18, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

April 27

Armed conflicts and attacks
Arts and culture
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Science and technology
Sports

(Posted) RD: Álvaro Arzú

Article: Álvaro Arzú (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 a lot more references; I'll work on that shortly. Technical question – should names of political parties be translated? –FlyingAce✈hello 21:03, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment – I have fully referenced the article (except for one award), added some more information about his presidential term, and copyedited most of it. I would appreciate it if someone with better English skills could go over it, in case I missed something (there are a couple of paragraphs that could use a rewrite, but it's bedtime here). –FlyingAce✈hello 05:06, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose yes, good work, a couple of outstanding issues and it's there. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:53, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added the missing reference, tweaked some of the wording and added more information about his work as mayor. I believe we are set now, but if anything else needs work, let me know. –FlyingAce✈hello 20:56, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Still one subjective sentence without ref, the rest is good, nice work. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:09, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    D'oh! I thought I had removed it earlier as I could not find a ref for it. –FlyingAce✈hello 21:28, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted. Thanks, FlyingAce for the referencing work. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:02, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neonicotinoid pesticides

Article: Neonicotinoid (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The European Union announces a complete ban on the outdoor use of several neonicotinoid pesticides associated with honey-bee colony collapse. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ The European Union announces a complete ban on the outdoor use of neonicotinoids, the world's mostly widely used pesticides, to reduce honey-bee colony collapse.
News source(s): Reuters, Guardian
Credits:

Nominator's comments: A technically important article (neonicotinoids are the world's most widely used pesticides) and one that's gathering a lot of public interest (people are interested in saving bees) Smurrayinchester 14:27, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak oppose Interesting, and important. However, 1) No evidence this is actually in the news (which is a shame but oh well) and 2) Article has missing refs and dead links. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:05, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There are news sources quoted above, and I can add a few more: BBC, Daily Mail (which doesn't usually like environmental stories), Independent, Bloomberg. Smurrayinchester 15:13, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(have just run User:InternetArchiveBot to fix the dead links) Smurrayinchester 15:16, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To me, a few WP:RS covering a thing is not the same as that thing being "In the news". --LaserLegs (talk) 15:25, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
LaserLegs, Smurrayinchester linked there to a host of different news outlets covering the story, I don't understand your objection. --LukeSurl t c 15:43, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
International coverage of SFOs scooter menace: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. Just because some WP:RS has covered a thing, does not mean that thing is "in the news". It's 2018, online publications spewing out rehashed wire stories about something in an effort to rise in search engine rankings and get more eyes on ads is not the same as featuring something. Come on. My benchmark is to use the aggregators Google and Bing. Widely reported stories trend on those. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:06, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The European Union is not a "online publication spewing out rehashed wire stories." When it bans something it is binding on 28 member states and gets widely reported, as is the case here.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:11, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Literally everything the EU bans or approves affects 28 countries, not impressed. I look for news coverage, simple as that. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:35, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
LaserLegs, you and I appear to have very different definitions of the word "in". --LukeSurl t c 16:15, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Seems so. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:35, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Let's use Google News as an example. There I get ~20 headlines each in "domestic" "international" "science" "health" etc. I can set my location to pretty much anywhere in the world, and while there is some overlap, the feed is effectively local. I just browsed through over 300 distinct headlines in a failed attempt to find this story. If I can't find it without typing "neonicotinoid" in a search box, it is not "in the news." ghost 16:57, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose for now. The article is in pretty good shape overall, however the update is far too minimal. There's basically one line of text in body of the target article (repeated in the lead) describing the ban. If this could be expanded to provide some more context, that would fix the problem.--Jayron32 16:50, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in principle, but agree with Jayron that the article needs a slightly more meaty update. i'm confused by why other editors are not finding this is in the news; it is still on the science & environment index page of BBC, for example. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:57, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support pending update per Expresso Addict. Jusdafax (talk) 00:34, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've provided what should be sufficient expansion, but I'm a little concerned about the rest of the article, which has a few CN tags and several instances of large sections being sourced to a single reference. Vanamonde (talk) 13:23, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) 2018 inter-Korean summit

Article: 2018 inter-Korean summit (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The 2018 inter-Korean summit begins at the Peace House in Panmunjom, South Korea (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ At the 2018 inter-Korean summit at the Peace House in Panmunjom, the leaders of North and South Korea agree to formally end the Korean War later this year.
News source(s): [7]
Credits:

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Nominating this for Piotrus on the talk page Banedon (talk) 04:46, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. The handshake between the leaders of the two Koreas symbolizes one of the biggest breakthrough in world's peace process of 2018 from the remaining of World War II. Chongkian (talk) 07:55, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait. For the article to get built up a bit. Also some articles mention that the results of first day talks would be announced in a few hours. Juxlos (talk) 08:26, 27 April 2018 (UTC) They just agreed to end the Korean War so Strong Support. Juxlos (talk) 09:38, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is definitely notable and in the news merely by its occurrence. I think we should wait till the summit ends, and hopefully the article will have more content then. There might be an outcome from the summit worth highlighting in the blurb. --LukeSurl t c 08:47, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Unlike a lot of similar summits, the mere occurrence of this one is highly notable. I don't think we need to wait for the end to post it. 331dot (talk) 08:52, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It may be better to say that the main result of the summit has been an agreement to formally end the Korean War. Count Iblis (talk) 09:24, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'd agree with Count Iblis, and have added an alt blurb. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:54, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Should the denuclearization be mentioned as well? Juxlos (talk) 10:14, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does this declaration technically count as the elusive peace treaty to end the Korean War? It's a technicality, but so is the extended "state of war" that is often discussed. --LukeSurl t c 10:36, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • From what I can tell it doesn't. I'd prefer to go for the denuclearisation angle in the blurb, as this is more what news orgs are picking up on. --LukeSurl t c 10:38, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted and waiting for image protection before changing photo. -- Fuzheado | Talk 10:57, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article doesn’t mention the end of the Korean War? Stephen 11:12, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, we should go for a simple blurb and extend it after the article is expanded. --LukeSurl t c 11:20, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Shouldn't the blurb link to the ongoing Korean conflict, not the Korean War which ended in the 1950s? I think the current blurb will confuse readers. GWA88 (talk) 11:38, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But it never formally ended - that's the point.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:16, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ironically, neither did WWII in Europe. Sca (talk) 15:24, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Similar to how the Empire of Japan and the Soviet Union never formally declared peace after the declaration of war in WWII, the Korean War never formally ended and has technically been active for the last 68 years. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ 17:44, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Technically, or legally, there never was a peace treaty between the German Reich or its successor state(s) and its enemies, although one was alluded to at Potsdam. (However, the 1990 "Two Plus Four" treaty on German Reunification is considered by many observers to have formally ended the state of war.) – Sca (talk) 01:10, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

April 26

Armed conflicts and attacks
Arts and culture
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Sports

(Posted) Bill Cosby found guilty of sexual assault

Articles: Bill Cosby (talk · history · tag) and Bill Cosby sexual assault allegations (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ American comedian Bill Cosby is found guilty of aggravated indecent assault following a retrial of sexual assault allegations. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ American comedian Bill Cosby is found guilty of sexual assult in a retrial of a case that was closed as a mistrial in 2017.
News source(s): [8][9]
Credits:

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Breaking news, so article (and by extension, second article) will need updating. I imagine this will happen rather quickly. Some unsourced content, but should be easy to fix. Floydian τ ¢ 18:00, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support This is a major social news story. Natureium (talk) 18:06, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, but article quality issues... This is easily a ITN story, but we need clarity on the blurb. Cosby's article is nearly there but there's a few tagged areas and the -ography sections lack references. If we are talking the allegations articles, there's far too much proseline in that, even though it seems reasonably sourced. It's more quality less than sourcing here. --Masem (t) 18:13, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Significant story, but similar reservations as per above on surrounding quality. Doesn't look too hard to fix, though.--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 18:15, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose for now; both potential targets have some cleanup issues, the Cosby article has some sourcing issues (esp. in Honors and Filmography/Discography sections) and the allegations article is a bit bloated, though that one is less of an issue for me. I really wouldn't object to the allegations article being the bold highlight, but it'd be nice to tighten up both of them before they hit the main page. --Jayron32 18:19, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak Support Though I hesitate to support stories about individual crimes with few exceptions for things such as terrorism, we recently posted to ITN a high-profile conviction for murder demonstrating that such stories are ITN worthy as long as they show significant interest which this one clearly does. As others have mentioned, I would recommend making any changes to the article deemed necessary. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ 18:23, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose I didn't read the whole thing because I don't care, but referencing is an issue. I also worry when I see a full paragraph with a single ref. Bill Cosby sexual assault allegations is a zoo. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:44, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Don’t now if I’m going against the status quo or not but this story has been in the news off and on ever since it first broke several years ago, and it’s constantly blasted on the news whenever a major development like this happens. It’s not “just an individual crime” when it’s multiple charges of the same crime by at least 50 different alleged victims. 66.31.81.200 (talk) 19:08, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • To clarify, I typically don't call for posting criminal activity in general with exceptions for extreme cases such as terrorism (both international and domestic) and mass killings or shootings. However, I do recognize that this is story is demonstrably notable and highly publicized, meaning I have no real reason to oppose it, which is why I did support it (except the article really does need better sourcing to pass BLP concerns, in all cases this should be fixed before we post stories) Brendon the Wizard ✉️ 19:29, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose - notable story, worthy of a blurb, but my lord the referencing issues are bad. BLP people - this cannot go up until it is impeccable sourced - there is no room for unsourced material in such a contentious BLP. Stormy clouds (talk) 19:22, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawing weak support, changing !vote to oppose I just realized we should probably wait until the sentencing to post... Brendon the Wizard ✉️ 19:51, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the conviction is bigger news than the sentencing. There's an appeal process, though, right? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:05, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, we (at ITN) weigh the conviction more than the sentence, barring an unusual sentence. We also generally ignore appeals in cases like this (and I believe I've read they're already planning to appeal this). --Masem (t) 20:14, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - This is a major story. Historic verdict.BabbaQ (talk) 20:19, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support pending article improvement? Masem above cleared away my only reservations based on the notability of the event. Cosby's bio has 13 {{cn}} tags as of now, though. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:20, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • And I'm going to add a few more. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:22, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose solely on article quality. Referencing needs work before this can be posted. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:23, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support the target should be Bill Cosby sexual assault allegations which has a couple of yellow tags but more than 350 references, and is pretty comprehensive. I'd say debold Cosby, bold the allegations article and we're good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:32, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support: Per Masem and TRM. Main focus should be on the article discussing his assault and allegations. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:42, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Lots of people are talking about it. Bluecrab2 (talk) 18:06, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Suggested alt blurb with the sex assault article being the highlight, and also mentioning last year's mistrial for perspective and reference. 66.31.81.200 (talk) 23:56, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Prefer tarring and feathering to de-bolding, but that will have to do I guess. Article still has {{cn}} tags and could warrant a few more. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:08, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on notability, but Cosby's article needs better sourcing. The other target article, about the allegations, is pretty good. Davey2116 (talk) 01:08, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with the bolding as per the alt-blurb. The article Bill Cosby has citation issues, however these do not relate to the news story so IMO it is not essential to have these sorted before posting if this is not a bold article. --LukeSurl t c 10:44, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support alt blurb.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:18, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per what TRM said, above. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 14:22, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment seems to me that there's a clear consensus for the alt blurb, so good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:13, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted alt-blurb. Dragons flight (talk) 15:35, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

April 25

Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime
Politics and elections

Science and technology

Sports

(Posted) RD: Hans-Reinhard Koch

Article: Hans-Reinhard Koch (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Abschied vom ersten Weihbischof: Hans-Reinhard Koch stirbt nach schwerem Sturz
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.

 Iselilja (talk) 22:50, 26 April 2018 (UTC) [reply]

  • Weak Oppose I'm not sure if all of the relatively few sources are WP:RS. Also I am not sure how "in the news" this is. I am open to correction if the sources are in fact reliable and there are more than a couple of short obituaries in local news outlets. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:13, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It looks fine to me.Zigzig20s (talk) 11:11, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Article good enough for posting. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:11, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:31, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Murder of Kim Wall

Article: Murder of Kim Wall (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Danish entrepreneur Peter Madsen is sentenced to life imprisonment for the Murder of Kim Wall (Post)
News source(s): [10], see article for more
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: No lasting impact, but since developments in this case has made the news at various points + we're short blurbs, nominating this to see what ITN thinks. Banedon (talk) 23:48, 25 April 2018 (UTC) [reply]

  • Support Subject is in the news, article is up to snuff. --Jayron32 23:51, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This seems an unusual case due to its circumstances. Article seems OK. 331dot (talk) 23:58, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support In the news, decent article. Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:05, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Very big case in the news. With a bit of improvement article could reach B-class. LinguistunEinsuno 00:11, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – As long as we don't call him an "inventor," as most of the big news sites do. Basic submarine-technology was invented a century-plus ago. The only thing Wall invented was a cockamamy tale about his voyage, if one may use the term, with Ms. Wall. Sca (talk) 00:42, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:55, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-posting oppose. Since when did ITN post tabloid stories about a single murder? This is local crime news with no major encyclopaedic impact. Modest Genius talk 14:41, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • We have generally posted the conviction of people considered "high profile" on criminal charges, eg Oscar Pistorius back [Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/September 2014 here]. --Masem (t) 14:46, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • A murder on board a personal submarine is also highly unusual. 331dot (talk) 14:54, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-posting oppose I agree with Modest Genius. A single murder has been to extremely noteworthy in order to reach ITN, and I don't believe Madsen is as (in)famous as Pistorius. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong about that. I agree that a murder on a personal submarine is rare, but rarity is not a sufficient reason to post this, in my opinion. Lepricavark (talk) 15:08, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-posting support this has been in the news on and off for months, and was headline-breaking news where I reside and there's literally no connection between this news story and where I am, so it's clearly big news, and something our readers would be interested in. The conviction is in, we posted Pistorius, and rightly so, and this is simply a parallel to that. Notable person kills notable person and then denies it. Seems obviously an ITN item to me. Plus article is okay too. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:13, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • One minor clarification: we don't have a standalone article on Wall, so I don't think she really qualifies as a notable person. Lepricavark (talk) 15:27, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to Wikipedia, perhaps, but then we don't have a standalone article on Myra Hindley but there's no doubt she was notable. Thanks though. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:30, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Were it not for the murder, I highly doubt either Madsen or Wall would have an article. Same with Hindley and her crimes for that matter. Modest Genius talk 16:32, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure. But that's water under the bridge really, although making that claim about Hindley indicates to me that you have a very different interpretation to news and crime from me, so it's probably best to can the conversation right now. P.S. the Madsen article was created in 2011, so I'm unclear about your "were it not for the murder" comment. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:41, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Madsen article was barely there at the time of the murder. Neither of these people are remarkable in any sense. Rich guy kills journalist, chops her up - it's salacious. A sensational story doesn't become encyclopedic because the MSM picks it up. ghost 16:48, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • That it was "barely" here is irrelevant. Featured for some time all over reliable sources, of interest to our readers, and of suitable quality. Works for me. Now I suggest you all go and do something more useful than simply argue the toss with me, after all it won't make any difference now. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:08, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-posting support – It's a seamy story all right, but it's long been featured intermittently on mainline news sites (including NYT), and not only English-language [11] ones. The sordid circumstances, and not least the underwater aspect, inevitably generate high reader interest. Sca (talk) 17:51, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Madeeha Gauhar

Article: Madeeha Gauhar (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Pakistan 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.

Nominator's comments: Short article, but reasonably well referenced. Minor copy-edits may be required however. Stormy clouds (talk) 15:08, 25 April 2018 (UTC) [reply]

(Closed) Arrest made in the Golden State Killer case

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: Golden State Killer (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ After three decades, police arrest a person they suspect to be the Golden State Killer. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Police arrested 72-year-old Joseph James DeAngelo as the suspected Golden State Killer, alleged to have committed 50 rapes and 12 murders.
News source(s): [12] [13]
Credits:
Nominator's comments: Major news in a cold case with international attention. Gap between crimes and arrest is unusual and noteworthy. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:06, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I can see the interest in a cold case suddenly have been solved, but they have only arrested and charged him. The person will have a trial. Per BLP and per past ITN approaches, we post these if the trial determines sentences him. --Masem (t) 18:08, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose it's actually in the news (ZOMG!) but the referencing, while not bad, has some gaps. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:10, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Masem. Yeah, at minimum the person's name shouldn't be in the blurb per BLP; and when he is convicted seems a better time to post it (and it should be news then too) Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:15, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose convict him and maybe we can think about a DYK. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:16, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Masem is right on the money. --LukeSurl t c 18:16, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, if it's too soon, I can retract my ITN nomination. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:26, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - WP:BLP reigns supreme.--WaltCip (talk) 18:54, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This person was not a known fugitive like El Chapo, who had also escaped from prison, or even someone famous like a head of state. They only suspect this person is the killer. WP:BLP is controlling. 331dot (talk) 19:16, 25 April 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.

Ongoing: 2018 Gaza border protests

Article: 2018 Gaza border protests (talk · history · tag)
Ongoing item nomination (Post)
News source(s): [14] [15] [16]
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Ongoing protest campaign continuing to receive deep coverage in reliable sources. Recent removal treated a largely weekly protest with major mobilizations on Fridays as "stale" b/c of diminished Monday-Wednesday coverage. Carwil (talk) 18:52, 25 April 2018 (UTC) [reply]

  • Support It has been getting quality updates on daily basis, since the removal from the ITN. --Mhhossein talk 04:21, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It should also be noted that there will be more developments, tomorrow. --Mhhossein talk 05:03, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe hold the nomination until Saturday, then? Support, but prefer a standalone blurb. I'm wary of using ongoing for too long (surely an editor committed enough could update Syrian Civil War every day with new RS). But I think the five executions (Hey, they know where every bullet landed) this week warrant mention. ghost 11:49, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It's been out of the news for a few weeks and the article hasn't been significantly updated with new developments for a while. There have been a few edits, but it looks mostly like cleanup of the organization. Most of the things going on now are minor and restricted to local news. And, lets try not to anticipate events before they happen. OtterAM (talk) 00:30, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Recent edits, which include substantial new information, are visible here: [17].--Carwil (talk) 04:21, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Updated to reflect 27 April events. [18]--Carwil (talk) 17:05, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
10,000 people is not a high number. Stephen 22:45, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Stepen: Maybe "10,000 people is not a high number," but "it was the first breach of the security fence in five consecutive weeks of Palestinian protests," and Israeli army spokesman called it an "audacious" and "severe" attack.(LATimes)--Mhhossein talk 18:21, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait. I think the recent events need to be going on for more than 1 day (referring to the April 27 update; there's nothing since Apr 20 before then), so if there's something for 2 or more days, I would consider supporting. SpencerT•C 00:58, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This is not ongoing anymore.There are low profile clashes but I don't think its enough to include it.--Shrike (talk) 09:16, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

April 24

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Science and technology


(Posted) RD: Rick Dickinson

Article: Rick Dickinson (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Guardian
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Designer of the ZX SpectrumPawnkingthree (talk) 14:57, 27 April 2018 (UTC) [reply]

(Posted) RD: Haddon Donald

Article: Haddon Donald (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Dominion 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: Expanded and updated the article. Well sourced. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:13, 24 April 2018 (UTC) [reply]

  • Support - per nom. Ready for posting.BabbaQ (talk) 23:18, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as the article is in good shape. I'd action this soon as we have Anzac Day in New Zealand (and Australia) and given that he was the highest-ranked WWII veteran, this will go through the news media quite quickly. Schwede66 23:40, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted Stephen 01:06, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Sachio Kinugasa

Article: Sachio Kinugasa (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Kyodo 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: Wish I could do better expanding this article, but I don't understand Japanese. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:49, 24 April 2018 (UTC) [reply]

  • support - perhaps the Awards and accolades section needs some extra source but other than that it is ready for posting.BabbaQ (talk) 22:07, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Though not that great article for his prominence, this is sufficient and adequately referenced. This 1987 NYT piece shows he has been a star for a long time.–Ammarpad (talk) 05:21, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support good enough. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:03, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted. Vanamonde (talk) 15:53, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted to Ongoing) Nicaraguan protests

Article: 2018 Nicaraguan protests (talk · history · tag)
Ongoing item nomination (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Protests break out in Nicaragua, resulting in at least 26 deaths
Alternative blurb II: ​ Protests break out in Nicaragua after a social security reform, resulting in at least 26 deaths
Alternative blurb III: ​ Protests break out in Nicaragua, demanding the resignation of president Daniel Ortega, resulting in at least 26 deaths
News source(s): Al JazeeraABC NewsReuters
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Has been ongoing for a week now and 26 deaths have been reported Jamez42 (talk) 15:53, 24 April 2018 (UTC) [reply]

  • Support blurb Has been in the news and events have been escalating. I think posting a blurb would be fitting, which then goes down to ongoing if events continue and the article stays updated. SpencerT•C 17:08, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support ongoing The article is showing updates basically daily for a week, that seems to be ongoing, especially since no one has produced a blurb which would be more detailed than "There are protests in Nicaragua". Seems like a perfect target for ongoing. Would consider a blurb if it were properly worded, but one has not yet been produced. --Jayron32 17:27, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support ongoing as nominated. This has started almost a week ago and the news has been virtually the same everyday since then and even today no major difference from the previous days. It may be renominated for blurb when it culminated in some serious changes or political moves–Ammarpad (talk) 17:34, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would suggest renominating if the protests end and/or if, for example, Ortega resigns as president. For now, the social security reforms were pulled back due to the protests. --Jamez42 (talk) 18:02, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support ongoing - per above mentioned reasons.BabbaQ (talk) 22:07, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support ongoing and would consider a blurb if there was one to consider. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:09, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support ongoing - The article is decent, the situation evolving. Jusdafax (talk) 23:03, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • As there seems to be consensus for Ongoing, I have posted it there. Discussion of a blurb can continue. 331dot (talk) 23:11, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'll suggest some blurbs for the time being, but I recommend reconsidering it since English is not my mother tongue. I should also note that the Nicaraguan Red Cross estimate is of 9 deaths and that Ortega cancelled the social reforms, but protesters now ask for his resignation.--Jamez42 (talk) 00:55, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Great Mosque of al-Nuri (Mosul)

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: Great Mosque of al-Nuri (Mosul) (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The United Arab Emirates is to give $50m (£36m) to help rebuild a landmark mosque in the Iraqi city of Mosul blown up by Islamic State militants. (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Positive news from the city and country. Article has slight referencing issues and there has been a minor update on the pledge. Sherenk1 (talk) 10:51, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
opposenothing notable about political posturing. Good faith, nonetheless.Lihaas (talk) 11:31, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Good news, but small change in terms of reconstruction funding. Also, the update is shorter than the blurb. Modest Genius talk 12:01, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Significant gesture, insignificant story. –Ammarpad (talk) 12:48, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as per Modest Genius - there's currently only a sentence on this action in the article, and that's probably the correct level of detail for this at the current time. In terms of international aid, $50m isn't that much, and promises of aid don't always result in actual action. I think the re-opening of the mosque after reconstruction is complete would be a reasonable ITNC nomination. --LukeSurl t c 13:16, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose does not rise to ITN level. Lepricavark (talk) 13:34, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as TOOSOON. Once the Mosque is finished I might support a blurb. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:37, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional support the update to the pledge of rebuiling is too short and should be placed into it own tab on the page. Must be updated and added to be posted. --Awestruck1 (talk) 20:44 24 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Good faith, but the pledging of money alone isn't highly significant. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ 14:33, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Posted) 2018 Hajjah Governorate airstrike

Article: 2018 Hajjah Governorate airstrike (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In Hajjah Governorate, Yemen, an airstrike at a wedding kills as many as 50 civilians. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ An airstrike hits a wedding in Hajjah Governorate, Yemen, killing at least 33 people.
News source(s): RT CNN
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Mass airstrike on civilans, namely women and children. Article is still a stub; please feel free to help update the article to make it suitable enough for ITN (I will try to update the article as much as I can though). Andise1 (talk) 06:41, 24 April 2018 (UTC) [reply]

  • Weak Support Article is less than an hour old, needs more added to it, wait a bit.  Nixinova T  C   06:48, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please do feel free to help in expanding the article. Andise1 (talk) 06:52, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • When quoting casualty ranges, blurbs should be in the form "at least <minimum estimate>" rather than "as many as <maximum estimate>" (see alt blurb). I think this is notable, though the article will need some more expansion before it is ready. I'm also cautious about leaning too much on the RT reporting, as this is not a particularly reliable/neutral source. --LukeSurl t c 10:50, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@LukeSurl: I expanded the article as best I could, feel free to take a look. Andise1 (talk) 05:03, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Andise1: Is there any source for The planes repeatedly flew over the area where the strike was being conducted, thus preventing medical personnel from being able to help the victims other than RT? It's a very accusatory statement, and RT is allied with the opposite side of this conflict to the Saudis. --LukeSurl t c 08:53, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, the Press TV source effectively Iranian state media, which I would not trust to be neutral on this. --LukeSurl t c 10:44, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
weak support per above.Lihaas (talk) 11:31, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support once article is ready. Very significant event. Lepricavark (talk) 13:47, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose It's been labeled as a "start" but it's too close to a stub for me. Needs some meat on those bones. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:11, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ad Orientem: I expanded the article as best I could, feel free to take a look. Andise1 (talk) 05:03, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Civilian deaths for this conflict far outpace belligerents. Back of the envelope says about 10/day. Unfortunate and tragic, but not news. ghost 14:44, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Meaningful text in the article describing the actual event is basically no longer than the blurb would be; other than the blurb text there are two quotes. Nothing else meaningful is in the article, so it is too short to provide any real useful information to the reader. If someone were to greatly expand the article, I would re-read it and reconsider. --Jayron32 17:30, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Weak support It's better than it was; it would be nice to see more here, but I won't hold it up with an oppose vote. It's tolerable for the main page. --Jayron32 14:27, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Jayron32: I expanded the article a bit (as much as I could), feel free to take a look. I will continue to update it as more information is released. Andise1 (talk) 04:52, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added three {{Unreliable source?}} tags to some strong statements that are currently sourced only to RT and Press TV. Given that these organisations are effectively state broadcasters of Saudi opponents in this conflict they cannot be the sole source in what amount to accusations of war crimes. --LukeSurl t c 10:55, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
LukeSurl: I tried to address some of your concerns. --Mhhossein talk 14:09, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support this significant event. I edited the article and added more sources. The article does not seem to be a stub now. --Mhhossein talk 13:43, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Nice job on the expansion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:04, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Expanded and more sources added. –Ammarpad (talk) 14:23, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I think it's ready to go now. I've edited a bit to qualify some statements ("X said Y happened", rather than "Y happened") where necessary and avoid leaning anything too strong on questionable sources. In particular, I've changed "targeted" to "hit", so as to not necessarily imply intention. Going forward, we should be aware that in international politics and war, both sides can produce professional news copy which suits their purposes, and we need to be careful about accepting these verbatim. --LukeSurl t c 15:22, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted a modified blurb combining what I find best of the two proposed blurbs. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:49, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-posting support The expansion of content and sources cleared up any concerns regarding sourcing & a tragic event with several dozen casualties is inherently significant, especially one this careless and hostile. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ 19:55, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Stale) RD: Saleh Ali al-Sammad

Article: Saleh Ali al-Sammad (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb:  Houthi-recognized President Saleh Ali al-Sammad is killed in a Saudi Arabian airstrike. (Post)
News source(s): [19], [20]
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.

 Panam2014 (talk) 00:42, 24 April 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Support RD, oppose blurb — Well referenced, but not notable enough for a blurb.  Nixinova T  C   06:49, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Undecided Might merit a blurb. Changes of heads of state are usually blurb worthy. However, his office is largely unrecognized, but on the other side the circumstance is highly unusually (death by airstrike), which usually increases the blurbworthiness. HaEr48 (talk) 07:32, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Stub. Sherenk1 (talk) 10:52, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Too short to warrant posting at this time. Also opposed to a blurb - not a Thatcher or Mandela.--WaltCip (talk) 12:09, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose both blurb and RD. Subject not prominent enough for blurb, article not ready for RD. –Ammarpad (talk) 14:47, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

April 23

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

Sports

[Closed] Penis and scrotum transplant

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


Articles: Human penis (talk · history · tag) and Scrotum (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Doctors at Johns Hopkins University successfully complete the first transplant of a penis and scrotum on a United States veteran. (Post)
News source(s): Time New York Times BBC
Credits:
Nominator's comments: A world's first that is in the news...hopefully not too grotesque for ITN. Andise1 (talk) 22:40, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose DYK is the way ahead here. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:46, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on article quality. Neither has been updated adequately and the human penis article is very poorly referenced. I am Neutral on the merits of the nomination. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:53, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know of a more suitable article than penis (or scrotum)? Those were just the two that first came to my mind, but open to others if more suitable ones exist. Andise1 (talk) 22:57, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry to say that this is well outside of my field of knowledge. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:32, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support with different target article (Penis transplantation). However the human penis article also has this section which makes it seem like this transplant is an incremental advance. Open to changing my mind, but will need some indication of why this is so different from previously-performed penis transplants. Banedon (talk) 23:05, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I just don't think this is at the level of importance we expect from ITN. — 🦊 23:09, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
support If the first heart transplant was notable (and WP was not there then) then this is. Although might have to watch the wording. "Male secual organ"/"urinary gland", I do not know.Lihaas (talk) 03:38, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's a stretch. Most people would probably agree that heart transplants are far more important. Lepricavark (talk) 04:44, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Most people are stupid. The heart is just a pump; that's why it was the first organ to be transplanted. People only think its special because of the mythical association as the seat of emotion, which is WP:FRINGE. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:45, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
...what? Killiondude (talk) 05:53, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral / mixed It's interesting and certainly notable, but DYK does seem more fitting. I'm willing to switch to either support or oppose based on other editors' comments. I agree with Banedon that there should be indication of what makes transplant in particular unique compared to past transplants. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 03:56, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose not only is this more DYK material, this is also very inappropriate in terms of decency. SamaranEmerald (talk) 04:21, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but that's ridiculous. Show me the policy that applies. HiLo48 (talk) 04:31, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think the one you're looking for is WP:NOTCENSORED. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:45, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per all of the above, this is the kind of nomination that will garner controversy should it be posted...it’s just plain out obscene. Kirliator (talk) 04:26, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but that's ridiculous. Show me the policy that applies. HiLo48 (talk) 04:31, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose this is better suited for DYK. I also sympathize with concerns that this is obscene and potentially stale as well. Lepricavark (talk) 04:44, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Technically, this was completed in March, they're likely only reporting it now to make sure the man was recovering. This might be stale for that reason. --Masem (t) 04:48, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Do we not post things when the news reports about them? This is technically "in the news" now, whereas in March it was not. Andise1 (talk) 05:17, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Because several editors have opposed this on the basis on obscenity, I just checked WP:Obscenity. There is absolutely nothing there that would allow this news item to be ruled obscene. Those objections would appear to fall under WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and therefore count for nothing. HiLo48 (talk) 05:25, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Significant medical advance, probably in an area many thought unlikely. HiLo48 (talk) 05:27, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Lepricavark, better suited for DYK, not ITN. In addition, this nomination is starting to become the source of bias from both sides of the issue (e.g. one side claiming it is obscene, and the other claiming it isn’t and that the the former is posting just because they don’t like it. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 05:35, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The simple point is that there is absolutely no basis for any claims of obscenity. Do please read what's behind that link. HiLo48 (talk) 07:09, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This has the prospect of improving the quality of life of many people. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:46, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Hopefully an admin (or two) will help pull this off. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:48, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose both articles have many unreferenced paragraphs. WP:UNCENSORED doesn't mean that "containing obscenity" adds merit to the article somehow. HaEr48 (talk) 08:04, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try once more. What in this item is obscene according to Wikipedia policy? I have asked this of several people who have already suggested it. None has responded. It looks an awful lot like "I don't like it" to me. HiLo48 (talk) 08:57, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I seriously doubt that there is any encyclopedic benefit that can be gained by putting this front and center on the main page. I also don't appreciate Hilo's bludgeoning of voters. That puts me off even more. WaltCip (talk) 09:51, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And do you really think the Wikipedia community should appreciate a bunch of conservatives trying to control what gets published in direct contravention of policy? I am the one defending Wikipedia policy here. The conservatives are ignoring and confronting it. HiLo48 (talk) 10:53, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If the reasons aren't backed up in policy, then the posting admin that oversees this nom will take that into account. You do not need to harangue, harass, bully, bludgeon, etc. every single oppose vote that even hints the slightest discomfort with this blurb. Doing so only imperils your own position. Of course, none of this is notwithstanding the fact that this may not even be news, per Modest Genius. In which case, DYK is an ideal forum to bring this up at, not ITN.--WaltCip (talk) 11:07, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see the utility on going for a double-bold blurb for this. In which article is the reader going to find info on the transplant? Currently the answer is neither. Human_penis#Surgical_replacement makes no mention of this 2018 transplant and says the first successful transplant was 2005. I find no mention of transplants in the Scrotum article. Oppose unless there is a meaningful addition to article space regarding this event. --LukeSurl t c 09:53, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. There's nothing obscene about this, but the sources indicate that it is an incremental advance over previous transplants. The BBC are crediting the breakthrough as having happened in 2016. Also, for scientific stories we wait for the publication of a paper in a peer-reviewed journal; it's unclear to me whether that standard applies to medicine as well (for a new drug we should certainly wait for a published clinical trial). DYK might be suitable if penis transplant has been suitably expanded. Modest Genius talk 10:43, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support with different target article (Penis transplantation). -- The Anome (talk) 11:04, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - a novel breakthrough, but novel breakthroughs like this are better suited for DYK. ZettaComposer (talk) 11:52, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Posted) 2018 Toronto van incident

Article: 2018 Toronto van incident (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ At least nine people are killed in a vehicular attack in Toronto, Ontario. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ At least nine people are killed when a van drives into pedestrians in an apparent vehicular attack in Toronto, Ontario.
Alternative blurb II: ​ A vehicle ramming attack in Toronto, Ontario kills at least 9 people and injures dozens of others
News source(s): CBC BBC Globe Guardian
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Deaths - yes. But ... minimum deaths? Dunno... LaserLegs (talk) 20:35, 23 April 2018 (UTC) [reply]

  • Support BBC now reporting 9 killed. Very rare (and tragic) event for Canada. EternalNomad (talk) 20:54, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support ah, so not just Europe then. Unstoppable tragedy strikes North America and horribly so. Support because it's notable that it's in Canada, it's notable that it has a reasonably high casualty count, the article is already good enough to post, it's in the news globally, this is ready already. Blurb sucks, but otherwise post now. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:56, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Support although I'm not certain we should call it a "vehicular attack". The BBC news are currently reporting the local police as calling it an "apparent attack" so I've proposed an alt-blurb but that could do with being more succint. Thryduulf (talk) 20:59, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Very proud how the article turned out to be. Not sure if I can support since I created the article and is the updater. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:01, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I debate waiting for you to nom it as your own work, but decided to move ahead. Hope you don't mind. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:05, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @LaserLegs:: I wasn't sure I'd be INT worthy as I though there were no fatalities, but I am certainly very glad you nominated it while the article is being updated! Good work. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:20, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support. This is undoubtedly either a terrorist attack or a lone wolf copycat of a terrorist attack. Suggested second alt blurb. Also CNN is reporting “at least 9 dead” and “at least 16 injured”, so I’ve added those stats to my blurb. 66.31.81.200 (talk) 21:15, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - solid article, clear notability. Stormy clouds (talk) 21:51, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted wtih modification of blurb2 ("16" is not "dozens"). --Masem (t) 21:54, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • No longer "at least" Dust has settled and casualties are counted. Can someone correct the blurb in certain terms? InedibleHulk (talk) 00:13, April 24, 2018 (UTC)
    • Updated to 10 and 15. --Masem (t) 00:21, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. That ten was a nine when I asked, but simply updating is the way to go. Saying "at least" kind of implies (at least some) of the injured are expected to die, rather than might. Not the most positive (or neutral) thinking. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:32, April 24, 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Per above; unusual event, I don't think this has happened outside of Europe before; added alt-blurb 3.  Nixinova  T  C  03:31, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Out of curiosity, where on earth are you getting I don't think this has happened outside of Europe before from? Indiscriminate ramming attacks are fairly routine in Israel, and there were three high-profile ramming attacks in North America last year alone (Charlottesville, Edmonton and NYC). ‑ Iridescent 2 08:50, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – Significant and prominently featured in Englang media (and also, quite frankly, because it's not in the U.S.)Sca (talk) 16:13, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps it's futile, but as a Canadian citizen living in the USA I can't decide what's more pathetic and insulting here: the flippant disregard for stories about tragedies in the USA or that this (not terrorist) attack in Canada is "ITN worthy" "because it's not in the U.S.)" --LaserLegs (talk) 17:09, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) WASP-104b

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: WASP-104b (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: WASP-104b, a Hot Jupiter exoplanet discovered in 2014, has been labeled as the “darkest planet” ever found and darker than charcoal, with about 99% of light observed. (Post)
News source(s): (New Scientist) (Inquisitr) (I4U)
Credits:
  • I'd prefer seeing this as dyk, if it gets expanded first. --Tone 16:50, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - better as a DYK. Stormy clouds (talk) 16:58, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per above.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:00, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per above, good faith nom, but this is better off in DYK, not ITN. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 17:20, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moral support - Factually interesting, but better off in DYK.--WaltCip (talk) 17:25, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for ITNC - definitely a DYK candidate. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:41, 23 April 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: Dave Nelson

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

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

Nominator's comments: Article updated and well sourced --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 16:31, 23 April 2018 (UTC) [reply]

(Posted) Resignation of Armenian PM

Proposed image
Article: Serzh Sargsyan (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Serzh Sargsyan resigns as Prime Minister of Armenia, following large-scale protests. (Post)
News source(s): GuardianBBC
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Supersedes the protests nomination below; article needs some work with cites. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:19, 23 April 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Additionally, 2018 Armenian protests needs updating to reference the protests' successful outcome. FWIW I think this should be a "two bold article" blurb.--LukeSurl t c 15:10, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in principle, oppose on quality. Not only is there that orange tag, that proseline in the "early career" section is a problem. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:51, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support this resignation will have a lasting effect on the socio-political dynamic in the country. The resignation came after lots of protests which are in itself notable. Étienne Dolet (talk) 17:23, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That';s CRYSTALBALL. iT IS more the ongoing-ness of this.Lihaas (talk) 11:38, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support but please see the Armenian Protests discussion below instead; the protests that led to this should absolutely be mentioned in the blurb + the protests article is more ready for ITN. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 17:30, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Very notable news from a corner of the world that almost never appears in the In The News box.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 20:26, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose it's maintenance tagged for the love of anything that's good. We can't post it, regardless of its notability worthiness in this state. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:59, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Very notable news--Panam2014 (talk) 01:06, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What exactly do we need to do to fix that maintenance tag? I have no idea how to attack that at the moment.(NorthernFalcon (talk) 01:33, 24 April 2018 (UTC))[reply]
  • Comment What maintenance tag? I checked all three articles in the blurb and I haven't come across one. Is everyone talking about the expand suggestion tag? Is that even a maintenance tag? Étienne Dolet (talk) 02:42, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "What maintenance tag?" is right. This article has a tag saying that someone who speaks Armenian (!!) should help translate and migrate content from the Armenian page to the English. Instead of posting this we're posting the names of professional athletes, one of whom set a record times at the London Marathon and the other (whose photo is now on the home page) hasn't even had their Wikipedia page updated with information about the London event. This article is ready to be posted.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 09:06, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is still a maintenance tag in the "Presidency (2008–2018)" section. 331dot (talk) 09:23, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in principle, but there's still an orange-level tag in one section. I lack the expertise to know if it still applies or has already been dealt with. Modest Genius talk 10:46, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Seems highly newsworthy to me. -- The Anome (talk) 11:06, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've removed the orange tag from Serzh_Sargsyan#Presidency_(2008–2018), as it was too non-specific to determine if its issues had been solved. --LukeSurl t c 11:47, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Yes, has been ITN. Sherenk1 (talk) 11:55, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I added my support below to the closure/merger with this one.Lihaas (talk) 12:12, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
BrendonTheWizard WP:ERRORS is generally better for anything currently on the main page Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:47, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I wasn't sure whether or not this constituted an error but I'll post it there. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ 14:49, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Third child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge

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: Third child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The Duchess of Cambridge gives birth to a son the fifth in line to the British throne (Post)
News source(s): Sky News
Credits:
Nominator's comments: This is going to be going round the world like wildfire when the states wakes up to this news, this is going to to be in the news all round the world and has already begun. WTKitty (talk) 12:09, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Provisional Support - once there is an article and it is properly suitable and referenced for the main page.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:19, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
See Third child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge. Very much a stub as of time of writing this.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:24, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to neutral, as we didn't post one for Charlotte. Yet another example of how ITN is IMHO dysfunctional because it serves as a vassal for editor prejudice and original research rather than reader convenience and the posting of things that are actually *in the news*. But hey ho, there's nothing I can do about that I guess...  — Amakuru (talk) 12:46, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Amakuru What "prejudice" is involved here? No prejudice was involved in forming my opinion. ITN is not a news ticker and has never been based solely on what is in the news(if it were, we would post Donald Trump's tweets almost daily); we use factors like editorial judgement and article quality to evaluate what merits posting. As I stated, we did not post Charlotte because her birth is of little consequence as she is not directly in line for the throne, once George has kids she will be bumped down. The same goes for this child. 331dot (talk) 12:53, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot: you say it's down to editorial judgement, yet the judgement of those who !vote here seems to differ from the judgement of all the most of the major news outlets of the world, including the serious outlets not just tabloids. I get that WP:OR and WP:SYNTH don't apply to main page content selection, but we should still be presenting the world as it is, not how we think it should be, and it should still be reader-focused. Perhaps you and I have a different view of what ITN should be about, but I think one of its main purposes, especially given its prominent position on the main page, should be to navigate editors to the articles they want to see at the moment. Kate Middleton's article has seen a big spike in views in the past couple of days, because readers want to read it, and "she is not directly in line for the throne" is not a reason why we shouldn't provide a link to the article for people.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:36, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Readers want to read about Kim Kardashian's hairstyle, should that be a permanent link in the ITN box? We need to reflect what readers are interested in, but this is also an encyclopedia, and what readers are interested in also needs to be viewed through that lens. ITN is not a news ticker or tabloid. What you think is important for readers is not necessarily what I think is important for readers, or what other editors think, and so on. Hence the need for discussion and consensus. "She/he is not in line for the throne" is absolutely a reason not to post this, as if it was not a royal birth, it would not be in the news at all. It has no consequence to who the head of state of the UK/other nations is(which is why George was posted). If consensus turns and decides this merits posting, I would post it despite my personal views, but I don't expect that to happen. 331dot (talk) 14:01, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. We posted George because he is directly in line for the throne, we didn't post Charlotte because she isn't, the same should go for this son. Once George has children, his new brother will be bumped down the line. 331dot (talk) 12:36, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per 331dot. Mjroots (talk) 12:39, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Children are born all the time. What 331dot said. talk to !dave 12:40, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose. George was maybe justified (just about) as he will probably become king some day. Other more minor royal births are not. It would be huge systemic bias if we posted this sort of story about the British royal family but not those of other countries. Just being in the news is not sufficient for ITN; we are not a tabloid newspaper. Modest Genius talk 12:51, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Along the lines of Extra, Extra: Woman Has Baby; Bear Defecates In Woods. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 12:58, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Per Modest Genius; the number of "ifs" for this child to become king are too many to count. --Masem (t) 13:27, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - by the logic above how did the winner of a horse race get to be in the news then? It is still just a horse race and hundreds take place each day. What is being missed here is this is not What is notable but what is in the news. Articles are for what is notable. ITN is well for what is in the news that is connected to articles. This event will have more coverage than it deseerves, but it will get massive amounts of coverage. How this does not meet the ITN standards is beyond me. All I see from the opposers is I don't like this being given news coverage so lets not include it. That is not hwo ITN works AFAIK. WTKitty (talk) 13:28, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also since when did the need to sit ones arse on the British throne become criteria for what is and is not in the news? I assume from the comments here the Wedding of Prince Harry is an automatic no because his arse isn't going to be sat on the throne of England because he is behind this boy. These decisions must be consistent or they are simply arbitrary. WTKitty (talk) 13:33, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In this particular horse race, the horse you want us to promote on the main page came in third. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:43, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is nothing to do with this nomination it is distraction, there is zero criteria ere regarding ITN it is all just simple opinion and Like/dislike of nominations. WTKitty (talk) 13:50, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We judge significance of news, not just number of articles written about a subject. Otherwise ITN would be all Kardashian all the time. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:54, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I'm a monarchist and this doesn't belong on the main page. While I am very happy for the couple, the birth of princes that have no realistic chance of succeeding to the throne is just not that important. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:43, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Add We don't really have a lot of precedent for this sort of thing as monarchies have gone out of style in much of the world and the British Royal Family is typically the only one that gets a lot of global press. But FWIW my feeling is that the birth or death of heirs apparent, that is to say those who in the normal course of events are expected to succeed to a throne, probably should get a blurb. Others who are not expected to succeed usually will not merit any notice here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:55, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose A baby is born into a rich family. What number in line is he for the throne? The throne that has barely any power? This is insignificant and an example of systemic bias. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:51, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's in the news, I'd like to support, but the article is too short --LaserLegs (talk) 13:53, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • How much content can there be for a newborn infant? – Muboshgu (talk) 13:55, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – Per 331. – Sca (talk) 13:53, 23 April 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.

(Stale) RD: Bob Dorough

Article: Bob Dorough (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): MSN, The Wrap
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: Accomplished jazz musician. Prolific composer and singer of many Schoolhouse Rock! episodes. CoatCheck (talk) 15:42, 24 April 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: