Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates: Difference between revisions
→RD Tommy Best: OCD |
|||
Line 30: | Line 30: | ||
{{cob}} |
{{cob}} |
||
---- |
---- |
||
==== RD: Celia Barquin Arozamena==== |
==== (Ready) RD: Celia Barquin Arozamena==== |
||
{{ITN candidate |
{{ITN candidate |
||
| article = Celia Barquín Arozamena |
| article = Celia Barquín Arozamena |
||
Line 55: | Line 55: | ||
* '''Support''' article is fully referenced. While it is a new article, the SNG is clearly met, and there is significant coverage. [[User:power~enwiki|power~enwiki]] ([[User talk:Power~enwiki|<span style="color:#FA0;font-family:courier">π</span>]], [[Special:Contributions/Power~enwiki|<span style="font-family:courier">ν</span>]]) 16:22, 18 September 2018 (UTC) |
* '''Support''' article is fully referenced. While it is a new article, the SNG is clearly met, and there is significant coverage. [[User:power~enwiki|power~enwiki]] ([[User talk:Power~enwiki|<span style="color:#FA0;font-family:courier">π</span>]], [[Special:Contributions/Power~enwiki|<span style="font-family:courier">ν</span>]]) 16:22, 18 September 2018 (UTC) |
||
* '''Support''' - good to go.[[User:BabbaQ|BabbaQ]] ([[User talk:BabbaQ|talk]]) 18:18, 18 September 2018 (UTC) |
* '''Support''' - good to go.[[User:BabbaQ|BabbaQ]] ([[User talk:BabbaQ|talk]]) 18:18, 18 September 2018 (UTC) |
||
* '''Support''' Looks fine. Marking as ready. [[User:Mamyles|Mamyles]] ([[User talk:Mamyles|talk]]) 20:18, 18 September 2018 (UTC) |
|||
==== 70th Primetime Emmy Awards ==== |
==== 70th Primetime Emmy Awards ==== |
Revision as of 20:18, 18 September 2018
Welcome to In The News. Please read the guidelines. Admin instructions are here. |
In the news toolbox |
---|
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.
view — page history — related changes — edit |
Glossary
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
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.
Headers
Voicing an opinion on an itemFormat 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...
Please do not...
Suggesting updatesThere are two places where you can request corrections to posted items:
|
Suggestions
September 18
September 18, 2018
(Tuesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
|
RD: Norifumi Yamamoto
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): https://www.bbc.com/sport/mixed-martial-arts/45561100
Credits:
- Nominated by Ginfners (talk · give credit)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Mixed Martial Artist that was at one point considered among the best pound-for-pound in the world, and a huge star in Japan in his prime. Might need expansion to convey his cultural impact? Ginfners (talk) 17:20, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose - for now. Several sections without sources.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:17, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
September 17
September 17, 2018
(Monday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Arts and culture
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Science and technology
|
(Ready) RD: Celia Barquin Arozamena
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Guardian
Credits:
- Nominated by Pawnkingthree (talk · give credit)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Just created so still has a stub tag - will need expansion. Subjects meets WP:NGOLF. Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:55, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
- Support article is fully referenced. While it is a new article, the SNG is clearly met, and there is significant coverage. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:22, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
- Support - good to go.BabbaQ (talk) 18:18, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
- Support Looks fine. Marking as ready. Mamyles (talk) 20:18, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
70th Primetime Emmy Awards
Blurb: In television, "The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel" wins Best Comedy and "Game of Thrones" wins Best Drama at the 70th Primetime Emmy Awards. (Post)
News source(s): THR
Credits:
- Nominated by Masem (talk · give credit)
Article updated
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Nominator's comments: More likely can be written about the ceremonies (I did not watch, but thre's usually an "in memorandum" sequence, and those types of details, and just checking news headlines there was a marriage proposal by one of the winners. That should be summarized like we do with sporting events) Masem (t) 05:01, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
- Comment no prose, no good. Expect a wall of "Oppose - No prose" below from people piling on. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:26, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
- Comment Have a look at last year's article, which contains a nice summary in the intro. Aiming for something like that :) --Tone 12:46, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose - The Emmy's, Grammy's, and their ilk are fast approaching irrelevancy.--WaltCip (talk) 13:34, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
- If they're, then propose removing them at the right venue. In the meantime, this is ITN/R and we've to accept that. –Ammarpad (talk) 13:40, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose per LaserLegs. Article quality is substandard. There is zero prose synopsis of the ceremony, the nominations, the awards, analysis, etc. It's just a bunch of tables with no context. --Jayron32 13:59, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose 674 bytes of character prose. Not even close. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:08, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose – Per Jayron. (And I agree with Walt: Entertainment fluff.) Sca (talk) 14:25, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Enzo Calzaghe
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
Credits:
- Nominated by Dumelow (talk · give credit)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: British boxing trainer. Article is pretty poor at the moment but I will look to see if I get get it up to the mark in the next few hours - Dumelow (talk) 15:15, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
I expanded it a little and improved the referencing. It's not perfect but I think it meets the standard now - Dumelow (talk) 22:36, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
- The problem I have with this isn't the sourcing, it's that the "Boxing" section, which let's face it is what he's notable for, is so small. There's no prose on the majority of fighters who he coached to fame. Black Kite (talk) 22:44, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
- Posted Stephen 01:23, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
September 16
September 16, 2018
(Sunday)
Health and environment
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Science and technology
Sports
|
RD: Tommy Best
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Hereford Times
Credits:
- Nominated by Ad Orientem (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Former professional footballer. Article is short but adequate and decently referenced. Ad Orientem (talk) 03:20, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
- Weak oppose Three cn tags. I tried to nominate the article, but couldn't find sources to cite it. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 03:33, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
- All three cn tags you added are sourced to the ref at the end of the paragraph? Kosack (talk) 06:13, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
- Support The reference may not be well positioned but it indeed verifies the content tagged with cn. Good to go. –Ammarpad (talk) 06:23, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
- Support - per Ammarpad.BabbaQ (talk) 18:19, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
(Closed) Vontae Davis halftime retirement
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Blurb: Football player Vontae Davis announces his retirement during halftime of a Buffalo Bills game. (Post)
Alternative blurb: American football player Vontae Davis announces his retirement during halftime of a Buffalo Bills game.
News source(s): ESPN
Credits:
- Nominated by Strikerforce (talk · give credit)
- Oppose unusual isn't sufficient to include an article here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:29, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
- We tend to not post sport retirements, unusual or not. Eventually, for super-high-profile athletes, one could argue. But probably not in this case. --Tone 21:30, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose. Thanks for the nomination, but this does not have the widespread top-level news coverage needed. 331dot (talk) 21:32, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
- Comment Just putting it out there for consideration. I won't be offended if it snow closes. :) StrikerforceTalk 21:36, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
- I totally support occasional nominations that are interesting ;) Though this one will probably be closed soon. --Tone 21:38, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Certainly unusual, but sadly someone who 95% of the world's population have never heard of isn't going to make ITN for this. Shame really, because the article is really good and far better than most of the stuff that ends up getting linked to the Main Page. Which makes me think - it can't be far off a GA, and it'd make a good DYK hook ... Black Kite (talk) 22:41, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose article is pretty good, few missing refs in his background. ESPN screamed about this for an hour while I was getting my oil changed today. Oppose because Davis seems to be a reasonable but not outstanding player (I'm happy to be corrected) and wasn't really a household name before this event. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:17, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose this is definitely not significant enough for ITN. Lepricavark (talk) 01:08, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: James B. Thayer
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
Credits:
- Nominated by Dumelow (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: American WWII silver star recipient, brigadier-general and father of KISS guitarist Tommy Thayer. Article seems to be in good nick - Dumelow (talk) 23:19, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
- Support Only the KISS website/social media seems to be mentioning this as of yet, but the article is up to scratch. Hrodvarsson (talk) 23:57, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose until we have a report of his death from an reliable source other than the Kiss website. Article is well-referenced so is good to go once we have a reliable source. Capitalistroadster (talk) 01:24, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
- Comment: I added a ref to Tommy Thayer's twitter announcing the death. I don't like to rely on social media too much but I think it is appropriate here - Dumelow (talk) 18:53, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
- I see The Oregonian has just covered it so I have added that ref also - Dumelow (talk) 18:55, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
- Posted. I edit-conflicted with Dumelow adding the exact same Oregonian reference. Black Kite (talk) 18:57, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Kevin Beattie
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:
- Nominated by The Rambling Man (talk · give credit)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Not good enough yet (stub) but hoping to change that soonest. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:24, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
- Comment okay, I'm not done, but it's good enough for government work. Please review suitability for inclusion. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:59, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
- Support. Well-referenced article. Capitalistroadster (talk) 20:28, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
- Posted. Black Kite (talk) 20:49, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
(Posted) Eliud Kipchoge marathon world record
Blurb: At the 2018 Berlin Marathon, Eliud Kipchoge of Kenya sets a new marathon world record at 2:01:39. (Post)
Alternative blurb: At the 2018 Berlin Marathon, in Germany, Eliud Kipchoge of Kenya sets a new marathon world record at 2:01:39.
News source(s): IAAF
Credits:
- Nominated by Tone (talk · give credit)
Nominator's comments: Marathon world record is one of those rare sport records that we post on ITN, together with 100m dash and perhaps some records in athletics that haven't been broken for ages. The last time the record was broken was in 2013 which we posted, and so was in 2011. The articles needs some updates first, though. Tone 09:49, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
see: c:Category:Berlin-Marathon 2018 --C.Suthorn (talk) 11:03, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
- Support - Significant record.BabbaQ (talk) 11:21, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
- Wait - The result is still subject to ratification. Once the press release is posted we can update the chart and table and then post. Mkwia (talk) 12:37, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
- Quite a feat, taking 1 minute and 18 seconds off the previous world record set four years ago by Dennis Kimetto. The IAFF have published this, with the time. But that still says "*Subject to the usual ratification procedure". Martinevans123 (talk) 13:32, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
- Once ratified you've got my full support for posting. The ratification annoncement will appear here. Mkwia (talk) 13:34, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
- Comment added alt-blurb, not everyone knows where "Berlin" is. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:26, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
- I think it's pretty standard at ITN to leave off the country for major cities, and Berlin definitely qualifies IMO. The country is available if one clicks the link as well. SpencerT•C 16:55, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
- The Kentucky Derby has run for over 140 years, but we still had to include the country then included it a different way and it still ended up at errors. We should be consistent, and include the country every time -- gotta fight that bias after all. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:08, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
- There are certain places that most people are generally aware of and their location. London, New York, Paris, Tokyo, Cairo, etc. I think Berlin is well known enough. People aren't going to think it is Berlin, New Hampshire. Kentucky is not as well known as Berlin, I think. 331dot (talk) 18:49, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
- Here in Georgia (U.S. state) I thought the marathon was in Colquitt County until I clicked the link. No matter how absurd, we should always include the country, because, you know, bias. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:46, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
- The Berlin with 551 people? Or the one that started all the world wars? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:00, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
- Here in Georgia (U.S. state) I thought the marathon was in Colquitt County until I clicked the link. No matter how absurd, we should always include the country, because, you know, bias. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:46, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
- There are certain places that most people are generally aware of and their location. London, New York, Paris, Tokyo, Cairo, etc. I think Berlin is well known enough. People aren't going to think it is Berlin, New Hampshire. Kentucky is not as well known as Berlin, I think. 331dot (talk) 18:49, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
- The Kentucky Derby has run for over 140 years, but we still had to include the country then included it a different way and it still ended up at errors. We should be consistent, and include the country every time -- gotta fight that bias after all. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:08, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
- I think it's pretty standard at ITN to leave off the country for major cities, and Berlin definitely qualifies IMO. The country is available if one clicks the link as well. SpencerT•C 16:55, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
- Support alt-blurb for consistency. Lepricavark (talk) 17:17, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
- Support following ratification. Bob talk 18:41, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
- Support first blurb. Alt-blurb is unnecessarily superfluous. –Ammarpad (talk) 20:31, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
- Support first blurb. The location being in Germany seems unnecessary, Berlin is listed because it was the actual race ran. Nice4What (talk) 20:37, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
- Posted. No way that photo's heading for the main page, though! Black Kite (talk) 20:51, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
- Support the blurb which doesn't spell out that the Berlin Marathon is in Germany. The claim that it's necessary to do that to fight "bias" is ridiculous and was rightly ignored. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:47, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
- Comment Does anyone else think the current blurb is too brief? I prefered the original blurb. Mkwia (talk) 09:44, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Retirement of Delta II rocket
Blurb: ICESat-2 is launched, the last mission to use the Delta II rocket. (Post)
News source(s): [1]
Credits:
- Nominated by 71.197.186.255 (talk · give credit)
Article updated
One or both nominated events are listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Nominator's comments: ICESat-2 was the last launch of a Delta II. Of the rockets still flying, only Russia's Proton has more flights. At over 150 launches, it is the most launches by a non-Soviet rocket. 71.197.186.255 (talk) 20:01, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
- I don't know the refs are ok esp since it's not a BLP, I don't know if spacelaunchreport.com is a WP:RS or not, it leans on that source heavily. One ref early in the launch history section is to a 2 page PDF of unknown origin -- tidak bagus. I'm not a rocket scientist, but there is nothing egregious in the article. Really, I don't know, it's a weak support or oppose I guess. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:44, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Weak oppose, comparing to the last flight of a Space shuttle, the retirement of Delta II model does not feel like an end to an era. Currently, Delta IV is being used from the same family and there are a series of rockets with comparable performance. On the other hand, what about highlighting the satellite and mentioning the rocket in the blurb? --Tone 08:01, 17 September 2018 (UTC)- Question: Are you arguing that ITN/R does not apply here, perhaps because Delta II is somehow not 'any type of rocket' within the meaning of ITN/R's "The first and last launches of any type of rocket"? If so I think you need to say so explicitly and explain why ITN/R somehow doesn't mean what it appears to mean, because otherwise your oppose should be ignored as opposition to an ITN/R item on grounds other than article quality. Tlhslobus (talk) 20:36, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
- Ah, ITNR has it? Did not remember that. Will not argue against that, though one could debate whether "Delta" or "Delta II" count as a type. As said, I'd prefer also focusing on the satellite which is interesting on its own. --Tone 20:42, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks, Tone, I suspect the "any" in "any type" is there to try to spare us such debates. I think the satellite may be better unbolded, especially if that's somehow needed to prevent any quality issues there delaying the posting of an ITNR item, tho both articles seem in decent shape to me (but then I'm no expert on ITN's quality requirements). Tlhslobus (talk) 21:07, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
- Meanwhile could you please either strike out your above 'weak oppose', or else replace it with an oppose on quality grounds? Tlhslobus (talk) 21:12, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
- Ah, ITNR has it? Did not remember that. Will not argue against that, though one could debate whether "Delta" or "Delta II" count as a type. As said, I'd prefer also focusing on the satellite which is interesting on its own. --Tone 20:42, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
- Question: Are you arguing that ITN/R does not apply here, perhaps because Delta II is somehow not 'any type of rocket' within the meaning of ITN/R's "The first and last launches of any type of rocket"? If so I think you need to say so explicitly and explain why ITN/R somehow doesn't mean what it appears to mean, because otherwise your oppose should be ignored as opposition to an ITN/R item on grounds other than article quality. Tlhslobus (talk) 20:36, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
- Weak support: This is ITNR so only quality issues should delay it, and both articles look in decent shape to me. But my support is weak because I'm well aware that I'm no expert on our quality requirements (which also tends to mean that my quality inspections are usually less thorough than they would be if I were claiming expertise). So I guess I'm saying something like 'seems OK to me but don't post without an OK from others' and also asking for others to please say what, if anything, needs fixing (apart from the questions Laserlegs has asked above, which I don't feel competent to try to answer, but others might).Tlhslobus (talk) 21:07, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
September 15
September 15, 2018
(Saturday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
Law and crime
Science and technology
|
(Posted) Hurricane Florence
Blurb: Hurricane Florence (pictured) kills at least 11 people and causes widespread inland flooding in the Carolinas, prompting mass evacuations. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Hurricane Florence (pictured) kills at least 11 people and causes widespread inland flooding in the Carolinas, prompting mass evacuations in the east coast of the United States.
Alternative blurb II: Hurricane Florence (pictured) kills at least 11 people and causes widespread inland flooding in the Carolinas, prompting mass evacuations in the United States.
Alternative blurb III: Hurricane Florence (pictured) causes widespread inland flooding in the Carolinas, prompting mass evacuations in the east coast of the United States.
Alternative blurb IV: Hurricane Florence (pictured) makes landfall in North Carolina, United States, killing at least 11 people.
News source(s): USAToday, BBC, WGHP
Credits:
- Nominated by Cyclonebiskit (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Nominator's comments: Catastrophic inland flood event is beginning to unfold as record-breaking rains swell rivers. Large-scale evacuations have begun, specifically along the Cape Fear River (which is expected to rise by 40ft over the next two days) and Little River. Forecasts anticipate this to be among the worst flood disasters in North Carolina history. Wholly separate event from Typhoon Mangkhut so blurbs should not be combined if/when Mangkhut's article is ready. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 19:50, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
- Support - Plenty of media coverage, making it ITN-worthy, and the article quality is good. Jusdafax (talk) 20:02, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
- Support easy. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:06, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
- Support the two above votes are self-explanatory for my support. SamaranEmerald (talk) 20:31, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
- Comment I'm not disagreeing on this being a blurb, but I see no reason not to combine this and Mangkhut. We routinely do this for other topics in the same specific topic area with both aspects are appropriate ITN (the last few times have been for auto races that happen the same weekend). Yes, two different storms, but equally deadly and destructive, so there's no reason not to have both in a blurb. --Masem (t) 21:15, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
- Two Atlantic hurricanes? Sure. Two pacific typhoons? Maybe. Two storms on opposite sides of the world? No thanks. We don't combine elections, next spring we'll have five different European soccer blurbs in a short period of time. We can spare two blurbs for these two different storms on different sides of the world if consensus emerges that they should be posted. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:04, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
- Strongly agreed with LaserLegs. The fact that they are the same type of event doesn't mean that we should post them as a single news story. We wouldn't merge the general election of one country into the general election of another country, and we shouldn't merge an Atlantic hurricane hitting the Carolinas into a Pacific typhoon hitting the Philippines. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 22:18, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
- Weak Support better than many disaster articles, what's there is fine, but WP:RS is talking about catastrophic flooding and the article hasn't been updated. Also should it be "Impact" or "Impacts"? --LaserLegs (talk) 22:06, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
- Support Very large storm that struck high-populated areas as a strong hurricane, and it's stalling in the area (which is why Harvey was so devastating) whilst hugging the coast (which helped Irma stay alive during its final landfall). No, we shouldn't merge this with Typhoon Mangkhut. Yes, we should quickly post Florence (and post Mangkhut separately). Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 22:08, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
- Support – Notable event, extreme rainfall impact. Master of Time (talk) 22:12, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Problem already solved by altblurbs. Propose a new altblurb if this is insufficient. Enough bickering. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 00:07, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
|
---|
|
- Support as stand alone blurb. It is notable and there has been a fairly slow turnover of articles meaning we can afford to have stand alone articles on both if quality warrants it. Capitalistroadster (talk) 22:28, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
- Support - with two comments. 1. Please don't count dead bodies. Just assess the storm. 2. Everyone posting here should quickly also get over to the Typhoon Mangkhut nomination and work on that, to redress Wikipedia's systemic bias. HiLo48 (talk) 23:13, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
- Added another altblurb that excludes mention of death toll (which honestly is how it should be with a hurricane listing, the death toll can change very drastically, both rapidly and over an extended period of time). Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 23:24, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
- We routinely post the death toll from natural disasters, in fact, the current typhoon in the box was posted with the death toll, I don't like it, but we shouldn't just stop doing it for this one select item. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:18, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
- Understandable, worst case scenario is we go to errors to update the death toll if new numbers come out while it's still on the FP. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 00:28, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
- Support obviously. Lepricavark (talk) 23:55, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
- Comment alt-blurb 2 is "best", the east coast of the United States is a massive region, evacuations are limited to the Carolinas, but it still feels clunky. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:15, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
- Comment Mass evacuations happened before the storm hit. There is no need to mention those in the blurbs, and particularly in light of the Typhoon nominate. (This is in part why having these two storms combined into one blurb eliminates bias between the two events; if we are going to have these separate, we can't focus undue weight in one that's not in the other). And hurricanes/typhoons by nature bring widespread destruction. It is the size of that impact that makes it an ITN rather than just another storm, so eliminating the death count at this point makes no sense. --Masem (t) 00:19, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
- Before or after the storm hit, the evacuations were certainly the result of the hurricane, the blurb is accurate. No bias here, two stories, in the news, if there are quality updates to both, both go up. That's it. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:30, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
- I am 100% sure both stories will go up once the quality is there. That's not the issue, it is the blurbs here. I'm pretty sur there were evacuations for the Philippennes too for the Typhoon but that's not a fact in the blurb, its the the death count. These two stories will be appearing at the same time, they should have the same equivalent "facts" to avoid bias. --Masem (t) 00:44, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
- Comment I agree with most of Masem's comments above - that blurbs for Florence and Mangkhut should contain similar information. The current proposed blurbs for Florence seem incredibly long when compared to the proposed blurbs for Mangkhut. The reasons for this seems to be that (1) As noted by Masem, the blurbs for Florence contain references to "prompting mass evacuations", whereas the blurbs for Mangkhut do not (2) the blurbs for Florence contain references to "widespread inland flooding", but the blurbs for Mangkhut do not (3) The blurbs for Florence mention both "the Carolinas" and "Eastern United States", but the blurb for Mangkhut only mentions either northern Philippines or Luzon. In order to reduce the length of the Florence blurb, it would be useful to consider the following: (1) removing the references to "prompting mass evacuations" and/or (2) removing references to "widespread inland flooding" and/or (3) not stating "Eastern United States" and/or (4) if The Carolinas, United States is considered too clumsy, state North Carolina, United States. I added an altblurb4. Chrisclear (talk) 01:49, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
- I am 100% sure both stories will go up once the quality is there. That's not the issue, it is the blurbs here. I'm pretty sur there were evacuations for the Philippennes too for the Typhoon but that's not a fact in the blurb, its the the death count. These two stories will be appearing at the same time, they should have the same equivalent "facts" to avoid bias. --Masem (t) 00:44, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
- Before or after the storm hit, the evacuations were certainly the result of the hurricane, the blurb is accurate. No bias here, two stories, in the news, if there are quality updates to both, both go up. That's it. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:30, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
- Since Brendon the Wizard insists on hiding the part of the thread where people criticised his opinions, I need to say it again here. "The Carolinas" is a term not well known outside the USA. (My spell checker disapproves too.) This is a global encyclopaedia. We should avoid the term. HiLo48 (talk) 03:26, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
- I closed it because you insisted on perpetuating an argument over a non-issue. The problem was solved basically as soon as it started, but you turned it into a wall of text and even tried un-closing it. Saying "North Carolina" is inaccurate because it's causing significant damage to both North and South Carolina. Stop inventing ways to make every last discussion about perceived American biases. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 14:37, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
- Reply At the time of writing, the Hurricane Florence article states that "Florence made landfall in Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina". Although there has been hurricane-related damage in South Carolina, this state appears to be more than 50 miles away from where the hurricane made landfall, the specific word used in the blurb. Chrisclear (talk) 15:35, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
- Fair enough, though I personally prefer that the blurb mentions both because the real impacts of Florence are certainly not limited to North Carolina, as several of the confirmed deaths thus far are in South Carolina, so I think the blurb should reflect this as it's a significant part of what makes the story newsworthy. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 15:47, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
- Reply At the time of writing, the Hurricane Florence article states that "Florence made landfall in Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina". Although there has been hurricane-related damage in South Carolina, this state appears to be more than 50 miles away from where the hurricane made landfall, the specific word used in the blurb. Chrisclear (talk) 15:35, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
- I closed it because you insisted on perpetuating an argument over a non-issue. The problem was solved basically as soon as it started, but you turned it into a wall of text and even tried un-closing it. Saying "North Carolina" is inaccurate because it's causing significant damage to both North and South Carolina. Stop inventing ways to make every last discussion about perceived American biases. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 14:37, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
- Since Brendon the Wizard insists on hiding the part of the thread where people criticised his opinions, I need to say it again here. "The Carolinas" is a term not well known outside the USA. (My spell checker disapproves too.) This is a global encyclopaedia. We should avoid the term. HiLo48 (talk) 03:26, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
- Support Very large amount of news coverage, and sadly quite a lot of deaths. Article looks to be in good shape. Hrodvarsson (talk) 00:22, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
- Comment I purposefully have left altblurb IV open, but if it too is exhausted, I would not mind someone overwriting one of the others in favor of a fifth one. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 00:28, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
- Support altblurb IV as it's shortest and most similar to Mangkhut. If necessary it could be further shortened by changing United States to USA.Tlhslobus (talk) 04:42, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
- Comment: My above support for altblurb IV is partly on the basis that it's most similar to Mongkhut, but that should NOT be misunderstood as support for postponing posting Florence until Mongkhut is ready. No doubt that would show systemic bias, but as WP:BIAS itself says, such systemic bias is probably unavoidable in the real world. (Incidentally, if it were up to me, which it very sensibly isn't, I quite likely wouldn't post either event as neither seems particularly exceptional, but that's clearly irrelevant here, due WP:CONSENSUS).Tlhslobus (talk) 05:48, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
- Actually, if we post one without posting the other (and this is likely assuming Florence is nearly ready), that's a huge bias problem. Both storms are in the news, and while I know the amount of press covering Florence relative to Mongkhut is significantly different, our project has zero excuse to have one article in great shape sufficient for ITN and the other in crappy shape - that's clearly Western bias at play here. This is a very unusual situation in terms of the simultaneous nature of two similar disasters in separate parts of the world, and it does put a lot into light of how misbalanced the updates have been. (This is why I'd still encourage a combined blurb so that both are posted with apparently equal weight to avoid any systematic bias that WP is in the right position to overcome.) --Masem (t) 05:59, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
- I agree that it's a bias of sorts, and all bias necessarily has some problematic aspects. But on balance I don't think it's a huge problem, or even a problem at all (in the sense that I think the upsides likely equal or outweigh the downsides). I think the real 'huge problem' is the notion that English Wikipedia, unlike any of the other Wikipedias, can and should be 'unbiased' in the sense of giving equal coverage to the non-English-speaking world, a notion which is arguably itself massively biased against the English-speaking world. In this regard, despite still agreeing with much of it, I increasingly see WP:BIAS as a thoroughly POV and often harmful essay which is rightly NOT part of our policies or guidelines, despite often being treated as such (including by me, among others). However this is the wrong forum for discussing WP:BIAS, even if ITNC in general, and noms such as this one in particular, are seemingly among the forums most harmed by the bad parts of WP:BIAS. Hence my post-posting support below.Tlhslobus (talk) 16:07, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
- There are likely topic areas that what happens in non-Western/non-English speaking parts of the world compared to those that do have less importance may be imbalanced (like politics). But human life loss in natural distances is the same everywhere in the world. The lack of a quality update on the typhoon article compared to the volumes written for something here shows a systematic bias we should be trying to overcome. --Masem (t) 16:12, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
- It may be systemic bias, but it's not obvious why this is something we should be trying to overcome. With a huge and unnatural effort we have once again managed to give the false impression on the front page that we are something which we can't ever be in practice anywhere except on the front page. This probably alienates many of our English-speaking and Western readers, while making non-English-speaking and non-Western people see this, arguably correctly (and arguably dangerously, whether correct or not), as yet another example of hypocritical and deceitful Anglos and/or Westerners dishonestly practicing 'cultural imperialism' at their expense through creating and exploiting a false and misleading impression of benevolent impartiality and universality, etc. However this argument probably ultimately belongs elsewhere, so I hopefully won't be drawn into saying any more about it here.Tlhslobus (talk) 18:30, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
- There are likely topic areas that what happens in non-Western/non-English speaking parts of the world compared to those that do have less importance may be imbalanced (like politics). But human life loss in natural distances is the same everywhere in the world. The lack of a quality update on the typhoon article compared to the volumes written for something here shows a systematic bias we should be trying to overcome. --Masem (t) 16:12, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
- I agree that it's a bias of sorts, and all bias necessarily has some problematic aspects. But on balance I don't think it's a huge problem, or even a problem at all (in the sense that I think the upsides likely equal or outweigh the downsides). I think the real 'huge problem' is the notion that English Wikipedia, unlike any of the other Wikipedias, can and should be 'unbiased' in the sense of giving equal coverage to the non-English-speaking world, a notion which is arguably itself massively biased against the English-speaking world. In this regard, despite still agreeing with much of it, I increasingly see WP:BIAS as a thoroughly POV and often harmful essay which is rightly NOT part of our policies or guidelines, despite often being treated as such (including by me, among others). However this is the wrong forum for discussing WP:BIAS, even if ITNC in general, and noms such as this one in particular, are seemingly among the forums most harmed by the bad parts of WP:BIAS. Hence my post-posting support below.Tlhslobus (talk) 16:07, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
- Actually, if we post one without posting the other (and this is likely assuming Florence is nearly ready), that's a huge bias problem. Both storms are in the news, and while I know the amount of press covering Florence relative to Mongkhut is significantly different, our project has zero excuse to have one article in great shape sufficient for ITN and the other in crappy shape - that's clearly Western bias at play here. This is a very unusual situation in terms of the simultaneous nature of two similar disasters in separate parts of the world, and it does put a lot into light of how misbalanced the updates have been. (This is why I'd still encourage a combined blurb so that both are posted with apparently equal weight to avoid any systematic bias that WP is in the right position to overcome.) --Masem (t) 05:59, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
- Posting now, hopefully the other storm article catches up with the quality quickly. --Tone 08:02, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks, Tone.Tlhslobus (talk) 16:07, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
- PP comment – Rather than "killing at least 11 people," which seems subliminally anthropomorphic and rather too immediate, how about "causing at least 11 deaths" – ?? – Sca (talk) 14:12, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
- Indeed, the blurb in the item directly beneath this one says "At least thirty people have died after..." Is it only the Southern States that feel the hand of the Almighty? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:40, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
- Post-Posting Support despite the 'bias', for reasons already explained above.Tlhslobus (talk) 16:07, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
- That alleged 'Bias' has now disappeared following the posting of Mongkhut. But those determined to see bias can presumably still point to Florence being pictured despite the much higher Mongkhut death toll. And in this case they would seem to be right (or at the very least to have a far stronger case than before), as adding the Mongkhut picture is easy (whereas bringing the Mongkhut article up to scratch was hard). There is also a separate 'cosmetic' problem associated with this, as the Florence picture currently seems to be illustrating Mongkhut. Tlhslobus (talk) 17:33, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
- @Tlhslobus: Image has been replaced with one for Mangkhut. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 17:51, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks, Cyclonebiskit. Tlhslobus (talk) 17:53, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
- @Tlhslobus: Image has been replaced with one for Mangkhut. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 17:51, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
(Posted) Typhoon Mangkhut (2018)
Blurb: At least thirty people have died after a massive storm brought destruction to the northern Philippines. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Typhoon Mangkhut impacts the Philippines, Taiwan, and China, resulting in at least 67 fatalities.
News source(s): BBC
Credits:
- Nominated by Sherenk1 (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Gen-Hon (talk · give credit) and LightandDark2000 (talk · give credit)
Article needs updating
Nominator's comments: Still some referencing issues. Sherenk1 (talk) 13:00, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
- Wait. This is ongoing as of writing my comment. Just wait for the reports of how many deaths. I will oppose if the deaths are lower than 10. BSrap (talk) 13:45, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
- Wait and Oppose current blurb as currently written (it's also not in the present tense). Would support something closer to Typhoon Mangkhut kills at least n people / leaves n people without power / causes x dollars of damage / causes x amount of flooding after striking the northern Philippines 184.153.25.119 (talk) 14:45, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
- Comment Maybe combine this with Hurricane Florence, or add both to ongoing. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 15:26, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
- This is actually not a bad idea: we have 14 from this storm and at least 7 from Florence, which for storms of this size are scrapping "MINIMUMDEATHS", but a combined blurb would be reasonable, something like "Typhoon Mangkhut kills at least 14 in the northern Philippines, while at least 7 are killed from Hurricane Florence in the eastern United States." --Masem (t) 15:37, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
- "MINIMUMDEATHS" was never a policy to begin with and the redirect to that userspace essay was deleted for causing more harm than good and being overall misleading and unhelpful, but personally I'd either add both to ongoing or post the two separately. If I'm not mistaken, the landfalls of 2017 hurricanes were posted swimmingly, rather than waiting until after they've been affecting land for many days to post, or proposing posting them to ongoing instead. I support doing what we did in 2017: consider the landfalls of these extremely destructive storms to be news stories. I support posting both of them as individual ITN stories, and Mangkhut has already killed many people; it's a very large, extremely powerful storm, and it has already objectively caused widespread devastation. Nothing too soon about that.
- As for Hurricane Florence, by virtue of the facts that Florence was near major at landfall, that it's a massive storm by size which allows for widespread devastation from flooding, storm surge, and winds, and that high pressure systems north of the storm are forcing it to stall for many days (like Harvey did) and hug the coast (like Irma did) I strongly disagree with the arguments that it's too soon to know if Florence's landfall is newsworthy. Everything about its landfall is newsworthy. I'm considering unclosing the other nomination; I think that the way it was proposed was botched, but the news story itself is quite obviously important. It was in good faith that it was closed, but the statement "we tend to wait until the damage has been reported" could not be further from the truth because damage reports don't happen until long after hurricane season has ended entirely, and at WP:TC we tend not to present preliminary damage reports as fact (noting that they're preliminary) because they're often neither official nor fully accurate.
- Lastly, I also oppose the wording of the current blurb. I don't disagree that it is a "massive" storm, it certainly is, but for obvious reasons the blurb should be more informative and straightforward. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 18:06, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
- Comment it's storm season, we posted one in Japan that killed 14, Florence is up to 11, Mangkhut has killed 14. I oppose combining the blurbs, there is nothing related between an Atlantic hurricane and a Pacific typhoon except that they're large rotating storms. I also think we should stop focusing on death toll alone, it's an absurdity which has limited bearing on the overall impact of the storm - advanced warning and high building standards in the US and Japan mitigate death toll but do not lessen the significance. So, we can either post both, because they're in the news, or stop being the "death and destruction box" and post neither. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:16, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose on quality – Needs work/expansion in all sections. However, notability is sufficient: Category 5 landfalls are exceptionally destructive events. Communications with the effected areas is next to zero so news will be slow to come. Offered an altblurb ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 19:22, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose on quality notably on referencing. If this is cleaned up, then I will support. Capitalistroadster (talk) 22:32, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
- Support on merit, temporary oppose on quality per my previous comment on this nomination. Notability is certainly not in question, but the article isn't ready just yet. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 22:50, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
- Support If this isn't posted, it will be the best demonstration yet of Wikipedia's systemic bias. HiLo48 (talk) 23:14, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
- Comment – If no one else gets to it in a few hours, I'll give expanding the article a whirl. Info to get this up to par is easily accessible through Talk:2018 Pacific typhoon season and the NDRRMC. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 23:26, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
- Comment Article needs a bit of work. Take this as a support if/when the article is expanded. Hrodvarsson (talk) 00:24, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
- Comment Only to note this storm is still going, threatening landfall on China/Hong Kong now. (also updating death toll per [2]) --Masem (t) 04:03, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
- Comment Death toll updated to 30. ~ KN2731 {t · c} 07:27, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
- Comment I just posted the Florence blurb. Ideally, we would have both storms on ITN but the quality of this article is currently below the Main page standards. Looking forward to posting as soon as this improves. --Tone 08:07, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
- "...the quality of this article is currently below the Main page standards." That's our systemic bias for you. HiLo48 (talk) 08:14, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
- I am not posting an article with 3 orange tags and empty subsections, bias or not. I would be happy to expand the article but this is really not my expert area. --Tone 08:28, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
- "...the quality of this article is currently below the Main page standards." That's our systemic bias for you. HiLo48 (talk) 08:14, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
- Support I have to admit being surprised that this is not ITN on the English Wikipedia. Do people in the Philippines not also speak English? Putting it on ITN may also help to improve quality. Rhombus (talk) 08:53, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
- Support - ITN ready. And is covered by all world media.BabbaQ (talk) 11:38, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose on article quality. The article has three orange tags. It is clearly not ready for the main page, repetitive cries of 'systemic bias' notwithstanding. Lepricavark (talk) 12:29, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
- Support and post now per WP:IAR. IMHO the credibility of Wikipedia is harmed more by seeming to favour Western stories than by a few maintenance tags in the article. Ordinarily I 100% support quality improvement prior to posting, but I think the downsides of waiting outweigh the benefits right now. Just my opinion, of course. — Amakuru (talk) 13:27, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose the article is no where near MP ready, with the Meteorological history section mostly unreferenced. In terms of being comprehensive (an actual requirement of ITN, as opposed to screaming about bias as is happening above) it's slim on details for the preparations and impact section. The storm is still active and we put the brakes on posting Florence until it had petered out and the impact reported. Lastly, posting this doesn't bring back the dead, doesn't dissipate the storm more quickly, doesn't cause plane loads of supplies to descend on south east asia, there is absolutely no reason, none at all, zero reason to rush this to the main page. Fix the article and it'll go up, the story is "in the news". --LaserLegs (talk) 13:41, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
- FWIW, damage from Florence is only to get worse (the system stalling inland bringing more rain which means more floods). We should post disasters articles once we know the disaster is significant and the article is at quality, even if we know the worst is still around the corner. --Masem (t) 15:10, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
- Marked as ready – I've expanded the met hist to get enough for ITN standards and there are sufficient references and info in the preps/impact section to warrant posting. Not posting myself since I'm involved in the article's expansion and want input from others, however. Suggest using the altblurb ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 16:39, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
- Excellent, posting now. --Tone 16:42, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
- Post-post Support. I expanded it a bit and also think it's ready. OhanaUnitedTalk page 17:13, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
- Post-posting comment: Wouldn't it be better to post it below Florence, as the Florence picture now seems to be illustrating Mangkhut? Or alternatively to use a picture of Mangkhut that is in the Mongkhut article? As this is a 'cosmetic' problem (and perhaps also a 'perceived bias' one due to Florence being pictured despite Mongkhut's much higher death toll), but not technically an error, I'm not sure whether to mention it at WP:ERRORS as well as here, tho other editors should please feel free to do so if they wish. Tlhslobus (talk) 17:21, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
- Prepping Mangkhut's image for protection so it can be posted. Will replace Florence's image once it's ready ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 17:44, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks.Tlhslobus (talk) 17:55, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
- Prepping Mangkhut's image for protection so it can be posted. Will replace Florence's image once it's ready ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 17:44, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
September 14
September 14, 2018
(Friday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Arts and culture
Disasters and accidents
International relations
Law and crime
|
September 13
September 13, 2018
(Thursday)
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
Law and crime
Politics and elections
|
(Closed) Hurricane Florence
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Blurb: Hurricane Florence makes landfall in (insert location). (Post)
News source(s): http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/09/14/hurricane-florences-path-track-storm-here.html
Credits:
- Nominated by 1779Days (talk · give credit)
- Wait, obviously - Does one get kudos for posting a weather forecast? HiLo48 (talk) 06:28, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
- Far too premature even if it makes landfall, if all it does it dump a lot of rain and cause some flooding (as hurricanes tend to do) but no deaths, we shouldn't post this. --Masem (t) 06:31, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
(Closed) Massachusetts gas explosions
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Blurb: Gas explosions in Massachusetts lead to evacuations as more than 30 fires erupt. (Post)
News source(s): CNN Guardian (UK)
Credits:
- Nominated by Xaosflux (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Anna Frodesiak (talk · give credit)
Article updated
- Weak Support read the article a few minutes ago, it's light on details but so are WP:RS. This is certainly a rare event. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:13, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
- Comment to Xaosflux; the sources line in the template is not a yes or no question; typically the nominator links some news stories to demonstrate the nominated event is in the news. Just FYI only. 331dot (talk) 01:17, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks I'm not normally on the nominating side of these! — xaosflux Talk 01:47, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
- Weak oppose While this is certainly an unusual situation, there have been no death reported, and this doesn't seem to be anything like a planned event (read: terrorist attack). Unfortunate, but not going to have lasting impact from what we can tell (eg arguably will fail NEVENT in the near future). --Masem (t) 01:58, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
- Earthquakes, fires, floods, night club fires, plane crashes, so so much of what we post could easily fall under that criteria. I'm not saying you're wrong. --LaserLegs (talk) 09:00, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose per Masem, unusual but no lasting impact, will likely fall out of coverage once Hurricane Florence makes landfall
tomorrow or so.SamaranEmerald (talk) 02:11, 14 September 2018 (UTC) - Support, the event has garnered enough media attention. The article looks good, I don't see any glaring problems from my read. -- Tavix (talk) 02:18, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose largely due to the article being a stub at the moment and the poor timing of this disaster, which like the above user notes, will likely be shrouded by the incoming hurricane within the next few hours. I also agree with both oppose votes above that the impact will be minimal and short-term at best. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 02:30, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
- Support It's attaining significant coverage, and the article is pretty good and sufficiently long to cover the subject. Davey2116 (talk) 03:44, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose - US centrism will no doubt get this posted, but that's even worse this time round because of the comments that it will be overshadowed by some storm, also about to hit the USA. You Americans are only making yourselves look worse. Do look at what's happening to the the other 95% of the world's population sometimes. This is simply not a major event globally. HiLo48 (talk) 03:54, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
- HiLo48, There are certainly valid reasons to oppose this(and I do as well), but "Please do not oppose an item because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive." If you want to fight the very real systemic bias, please make some nominations. As noted, there are currently 0 US related blurbs. 331dot (talk) 09:46, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
- HiLo48, Continuing to rail about US centrism is irritating to the point of being disruptive. You were warned about doing this on ITN a few years ago. Stop it.--WaltCip (talk) 11:17, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose localized event that suffers from widespread news coverage in the wake of a soon to be worse disaster. I wouldn't be surprised if this article is nominated for a speedy deletion in the near future. Kirliator (talk) 04:10, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose because we must put a stop to the US centrism that has resulted in there currently being 0 US-related blurbs. Actually, I'm opposing because this just isn't a big enough story for ITN. It's the kind of story that almost never gets posted, but is nevertheless seized upon as proof of some very serious problem. Lepricavark (talk) 04:11, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
- The Ra Ra All-American comments are the problem. HiLo48 (talk) 04:17, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
- Ah, so you were talking about a different thread. Gotcha. Lepricavark (talk) 04:20, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
- The Ra Ra All-American comments are the problem. HiLo48 (talk) 04:17, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose - story lacks the necessary significance for an ITN posting. Stormy clouds (talk) 08:10, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose trivial event, with no encyclopedic value or any long-lasting impact. DYK is a possibility. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:34, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose - would make a decent DYK though ... Black Kite (talk) 09:05, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose. No long lasting impact. 331dot (talk) 09:46, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
- Comment if it has "no lasting impact" or "no encyclopedic value" or "fails NEVENT" then consider taking it over WP:AFD since that's the place to have content removed from Wikipedia, not here. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:30, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
September 12
September 12, 2018
(Wednesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Sports
|
(Posted) RD: Henry Kalis
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
Credits:
- Nominated by Dumelow (talk · give credit)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Minnesota state legislature representative. I have expanded the article a bit - Dumelow (talk) 06:00, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
- Support Looks good to go. Hrodvarsson (talk) 00:33, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
- Support - Good to go.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:45, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
- Comment: I have marked this ready based on the above supports - Dumelow (talk) 19:03, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
- Posted Stephen 01:42, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Antonio Saca sentencing
Blurb: Former Salvadorian president Antonio Saca is sentenced to 10 years in prison on embezzlement and money laundering charges. (Post)
News source(s): Reuters
Credits:
- Nominated by EternalNomad (talk · give credit)
Nominator's comments: Sentencing of a former head of state. EternalNomad (talk) 01:44, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose target article lacks consistent information about the conviction other than a single sentence. This is however noteworthy, and iff expanded, I will reconsider my vote. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 02:35, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose on quality, lack of update. Topic does meet appropriateness for ITN posting otherwise. --Masem (t) 02:58, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Solely on article quality which is well below what we should be expecting from an article about a former head of state. This goes beyond the usual referencing issues, which do exist. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:53, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Rachid Taha
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
Credits:
- Nominated by Dumelow (talk · give credit)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Algerian singer. Not my area of expertise but at a quick glance the article looks OK - Dumelow (talk) 21:48, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
- Weak support minus the two CN tags, the article is pretty good. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:59, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
- Comment: I have now reffed those two passages - Dumelow (talk) 22:22, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
- Good work! --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:01, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Shen Chun-shan
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Focus Taiwan News Channel
Credits:
- Nominated by TDKR Chicago 101 (talk · give credit)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Article updated and well sourced --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:48, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
- Support good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:14, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
- Support - ready to be posted, no referencing issues. Stormy clouds (talk) 22:01, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
- Posted Stephen 22:50, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
(Closed) Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Blurb: The European Parliament has voted in favor of the Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market, removing the "mere conduit" exemption from copyright infringement (Post)
News source(s): https://www.theverge.com/2018/9/12/17849868/eu-internet-copyright-reform-article-11-13-approved
Credits:
- Nominated by Fremanofkol (talk · give credit)
Article needs updating
- Oppose I was in the middle of actually nominating this when I read that there still is a final vote to be held in January. This is not yet passed. Definitely suggest waiting until Jan. --Masem (t) 14:08, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose per Masem.--WaltCip (talk) 14:25, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose suggest this is closed. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:57, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose because the article is still garbage and is not comprehensive at all as stipulated by WP:ITN. It's just a list of objections by special interests to specific sections, and tells me precisely fuck all about the actual law. I'll oppose it again in January if it's still in it's current state. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:47, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
September 11
September 11, 2018
(Tuesday)
Disasters and accidents
(NDTV) Braview Academy Highschool in Whitefield, Dundee (Scotland) burns down after a major fire occurred as dozens of fire fighters finally put it out fortunately no one was injured Health and environment
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Science and technology
|
(Posted) RD: Don Newman (basketball)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
Credits:
- Nominated by Dumelow (talk · give credit)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Article a bit thin but potentially acceptable. I formatted a few references, but don't have time to review it thoroughly - Dumelow (talk) 22:00, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Comment Record section remains unsourced and one cn tag. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:19, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks. I have added refs for these sections - Dumelow (talk) 08:39, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Fenella Fielding
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:
- Nominated by Mjroots (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Humbledaisy (talk · give credit)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: British actress, appeared in two "Carry On" films. May need some minor referencing issues addressing. Mjroots (talk) 07:16, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
- Weak oppose per nom, there are just a couple of claims that need referencing. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:49, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
- Support - I have added several references. I think this is ready for posting.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:46, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
- Posted. Black Kite (talk) 13:47, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
(Closed) RD: Ramin Panahi
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Rudaw, VOANEWS, Amnesty International
Credits:
- Nominated by ئارام بکر (talk · give credit)
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.
- Weak oppose principally a stub. But what's there is okay, hence the weak. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:41, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
- Weak oppose Somewhat concerning that there is little to nothing about this person's life, only the circumstances of their death. Looks like a borderline WP:BLP1E.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:46, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
- Weak oppose - for now. if improvements are made today then I can change my vote.BabbaQ (talk) 13:35, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Kulsoom Nawaz
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): DAWN, BBC
Credits:
- Nominated by Saqib (talk · give credit)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Saqib (talk) 11:32, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
- Weak Support The article looks fine, but lede section needs expansion. Amir (talk) 13:03, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
- Weak support nothing to write home about, but satis. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:44, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
- support - Seems ready for posting.BabbaQ (talk) 17:25, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
- Posted Stephen 00:11, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
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: