Jump to content

Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:In the news

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mamyles (talk | contribs) at 16:55, 21 March 2018 (→‎First self-driving car fatality: Oppose). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Click here to nominate an item for In the news. In the news toolbox
Shortcut

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.

Paul Kagame in November 2023
Paul Kagame

view — page history — related changes — edit

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...

Shortcut
  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...

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

Suggesting updates

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

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

Suggestions

March 21

March 21, 2018 (2018-03-21) (Wednesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

Austin bomber blows himself up

Article: Austin serial bombings (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The Austin bombings suspect kills himself in an explosion as authorities close in. (Post)
News source(s): New York Times
Credits:

Nominator's comments: As suggested below, proposing a blurb for this. It is still in the news and the suspect blowing himself up will create new interest in the story. Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:48, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Pulled from ongoing and not put in a blurb? Seems irregular to me. Major story that has dominated U.S. news (and been in news across the globe, not that that's necessary for ITN criteria) and has now reached its conclusion. Article is in good shape, and was just on the main page. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:53, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[Pulled] Pull: Austin bombings

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

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

The suspect is dead, the case is closed. Any further details are purely ancillary.--WaltCip (talk) 15:30, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What if he had accomplices? What if there are other bombs out there that haven't yet been found? – Muboshgu (talk) 16:00, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb Even at the peak of the bombing it wouldn't have been posted if it were nominted for blurb and only marginally gained support for this ongoing posting. In addition, I Support removal from ongoing since reasonably it is no longer so with the death of the suspect. .–Ammarpad (talk) 15:29, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • We don't just pull something from ITN because it is resolved. By that logic we could pull every blurb currently on there because those stories are resolved. It's still in the news, because the suspect has been dead less than 12 hours. It was a mistake to pull the U.S. federal government shutdown blurb and we should not be making that into standard operating procedure here. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:58, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • While I mostly agree with you, the situation is a bit different for ongoing; however, the criteria here is that the article is still receiving regular updates with new information, and it seems likely that that will go on for a bit yet, so I'd weakly oppose removing this at this point. GoldenRing (talk) 16:04, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict × 2) No, we do pull ongoing items when they're no longer "ongoing". That's common. Removing " blurb" may be less so, but this is not blurb, it is something posted while it is ongoing..and wouldn't hurt if it is removed when it is no longer ongoing. Nonetheless, I can agree with you that it is too soon to be removed now. –Ammarpad (talk) 16:15, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it's not notable enough for a blurb then why do we bloody have it up there as ongoing??--WaltCip (talk) 15:29, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because when it was nominated, editors were trying to compare the significance of this to the Unibomber, which was crystal-balling the event. It was simple domestic racially-motivated terrorism , which, given that this is the US, is not something we would have otherwise posted if we knew the facts beforehand. --Masem (t) 15:37, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pull. The event is over and an attack with two deaths (plus the attacker) is not significant enough to merit a blurb. I'm puzzled as to how this made it into the ongoing section in the first place, given the amount of opposition it received. Modest Genius talk 16:12, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pulled, as suggested. It is not ongoing anymore, it can be considered as a blurb, if a consensus is reached. --Tone 16:15, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

March 20

March 20, 2018 (2018-03-20) (Tuesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and incidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

[Ready] RD: Peter George Peterson

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

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

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

RD: Katie Boyle

Article: Katie Boyle (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
Credits:

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

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

[Closed] Northern white rhinoceros

Item already listed as a Recent Death. Stormy clouds (talk) 17:22, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Sad news that yet another species probably is heading towards extinction if in vitro fertilisation (IVF) techniques aren't successful. cart-Talk 13:47, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Abel Prize

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

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

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

[Closed] Nicolas Sarkozy arrested

Clear consensus against posting the mere arrest of a former government official. Sca (talk) 14:53, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

[Posted] RD: Ayaz Soomro

Article: Ayaz Soomro (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Dawn
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Short but well referenced. Lets see if it just needs one Support before getting posted like the RDs from West or it requires Support from everyone on WP before getting posted because of the usual WP:BIAS. 39.48.73.97 (talk) 07:08, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Cambridge Analytica

No consensus to post. Consider renominating if there are formal charges/convictions. SpencerT♦C 21:14, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

March 19

March 19, 2018 (2018-03-19) (Monday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

Politics and elections

RD: Keith O'Brien

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

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

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

[Posted] RD: Sudan (rhinoceros)

It's been posted, the dis-ambig has been added, we're done.--WaltCip (talk) 11:11, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: The world's last surviving male northern white rhino. Sherenk1 (talk) 07:12, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

[Posted to Ongoing] Austin package explosions

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

Article updated

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

Sorry this is my first time nominating, ongoing is fine. Valoem talk contrib 20:11, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't understand that logic. Suppose this was posted as an ongoing item, does that mean it would remain an ongoing item until the case was solved? Chrisclear (talk) 04:48, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It would remain an ongoing item while there were significant developments and regular updates.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:30, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
10 support and 12 Oppose and we still posted. Disclaimer: I supported posting it. Sherenk1 (talk) 05:38, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Opposition to posting a blurb is different from opposition to posting to ongoing. Master of Time (talk) 05:50, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is also not a straight vote. 331dot (talk) 08:14, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Pull - My count is 12 Support votes (incl. the nominator) and 12 Oppose votes. There was no blurb MoT, so everyone who voted Oppose actually opposed posting to Ongoing. 39.48.37.7 (talk) 08:59, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Discussions like this are not a straight vote, but a weighing of arguments as well. 331dot (talk) 09:03, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Which will create more interest in the story. Seems odd to remove it when our readers will be looking for it. Pawnkingthree (talk) 10:22, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But the suspect is dead, meaning that the bombings have stopped and that the story is effectively over. No longer ongoing.--WaltCip (talk) 11:02, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

March 18

March 18, 2018 (2018-03-18) (Sunday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sports

First self-driving car fatality

Article: Autonomous car (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Elaine Herzberg becomes the first uninvolved pedestrian to be killed by an autonomous car. (Post)
News source(s): [1] [2] [3]
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Putting this here when the crash happened, but it has continued to generate coverage. "Uninvolved pedestrian" because she wasn't part of the test. Banedon (talk) 08:02, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

[Posted] RD: David Cooper (immunologist)

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

News.com.au
Credits:

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

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

[Posted] Russian presidential election, 2018

Posted, that is about it. The article is being constantly expanded to address the comments of those who wanted more content. As editors noted that it is time to close this, I am closing. --Tone 17:12, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Article needs updating
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Nominator's comments: Added now to assess article quality so as to make it ready to post as soon as election results are announced. Blurb can be specified at that time. Sherenk1 (talk) 11:38, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Not saying this to be pointy, but ITNR thinks the election of a head of state is notable, but that is based on the notion that an election is a choice by a populous. There is a threshold of corruption where the preceding cease to be an election in the conventional sense of the word, and what happened in Russia today certainly exceeds that threshold.GCG (talk) 20:04, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Based on decades of newspaper editing, I must strongly disagree with this unilateral deletion of another's proposal. Replaced blurb as Alt2 once again.
Go fly a kite. Sca (talk) 15:20, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Irrelevant personal comments.
  • Comment We have posted w/o any editorial comment some of the most corrupt and patently fake elections ever staged. We are likely going to do the same for the reelection of the President of China whose manner of election would probably make Stalin smile. There is no question that this whole thing has been rigged from the word go. And yes that needs to be in the article before I will support it. But not in any blurb on ITN. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:03, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with presenting a short blurb without the fraud, and that the fraud needs to be mentioned in the article. I started a talk page thread there about it. I don't know exactly how to write the fraud section that the article needs to be complete. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:09, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – Significant news about the reelection of a major world figure in a major country. I would change alt-blurb II to say "his" fourth term, though. Master of Time (talk) 22:11, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment what Ad Orientem said. All of you whinging about "corruption" should look closer to home, and accept that Wikipedia is not here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, merely to report what has actually happened. Where did it all go so wrong for so many of you? Incidentally, refusing to post this until some kind of "fraud" section is added to the article is bullshit, and pure systemic bias, arguably worse. We post per RS, so as and when we have consensus to post based on the results, that's what we do, we don't wait for admins who don't like the result to declare their own posting criteria, that's complete and utter bullshit. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:23, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • We post updated articles, that means articles should be relatively complete. Without fraud allegations, this article is missing significant context. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:26, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • The allegations seem to be primarily coming from western press at this point, not internally to Russia (contrast to the last US election where it was definitely internal). At this point, external allegation are not needed. If there does come internal allegations raised, that can be added, but it is not necessary for an ITNR posting, and like TRM, I have a great concern a number of editors are seeing the requirement of having them as righting great wrongs. We are not in that business. --Masem (t) 22:28, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Masem: Golos is internal, and they're reporting alleged violations.[6] – Muboshgu (talk) 22:31, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • Once WP:RS are declaring results, this should be posted, we don't need to wait for some "admin" version of the "truth", perhaps these "admins" should step aside and allow others to make judgements here, the kind of judgements we expect from our admins, not those which are personal and against the principles of Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:34, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • (ec) Even with that, because WP handles news of allegations carefully, I would only expect initial mention that there might be allegations. It would be irresponsible of us to try to document a full allegations section until Russia's election organization can actually comment on it. Initial statements would fine, but they are not necessary to consider this article complete for ITN posting. --Masem (t) 22:36, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

@Piotrus: As to why it is news, you will need to take that up with the news media; here at ITN we do not editorialize or make judgements about the validity, fairness, or legitimacy of elections. That's for readers to decide for themselves. This event is what passes for an election in Russia. That's all we are interested in. 331dot (talk) 11:25, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pull until the article sufficiently covers the allegations of fraud. We don't editorialize in ITN blurbs, but we also shouldn't post articles that are missing important information. Lepricavark (talk) 14:12, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Right now, there's claims of ballot stuffing and the like, and that's in the article as well as the election committee's response that there was no major incidents they had observed yet, but there's no formal claims or allegations that we as WP can rightfully justify a complete section on and stay within NPOV. There will likely be more in the next several weeks, just as there was with the US election, but for ITN, the article properly covered the key event. --Masem (t) 14:18, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep feel free to embellish the Reactions section which is already quite descriptive. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:14, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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.

RD: Li Ao

Article: Li Ao (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [7]
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Article well written and sourced Oceangai (talk) 14:33, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

March 17

March 17, 2018 (2018-03-17) (Saturday)
Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

RD: Sushil Siddharth

Article: Sushil Siddharth (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Hindustan and Navbharat Times
Credits:

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

 Skr15081997 (talk) 15:02, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Ameenah Gurib

Was nominated on the 12th, and not posted because of quality which is still not sufficient. Stephen 22:27, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Article updated
 39.48.73.97 (talk) 08:15, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Posted] RD: Mike MacDonald

Article: Mike MacDonald (comedian) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): CBC
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Article well sourced --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:02, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Xi Jinping reappointed president without term limits

Proposed image
Article: Xi Jinping (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Xi Jinping (pictured) is re-elected as the President of the People's Republic of China with no term limits by the National People’s Congress. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Xi Jinping (pictured) is re-elected as the President of the People's Republic of China.
News source(s): AFP, Reuters, Al Jazeera
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Should qualify under WP:ITN/R as an indirect election for head of state. starship.paint ~ KO 03:30, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

  • Conditional support Widely covered and highly notable, might very well not have more Chinese presidential succession for a while. Article needs significant extensions though. Also blurb feels a bit long. Juxlos (talk) 11:02, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Change to Support focusing on the presidency instead of the meeting per below. Juxlos (talk) 07:41, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on quality - article tells us nothing more than the blurb and is almost as long. The reason your struggling with the blurb is we can't say what RS are saying per WP:crystalball. The part we can say doesn't feel all that newsworthy. GCG (talk) 11:32, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The PRC is free to use its legal processes to change its laws about how long the President serves whenever it wishes. This will have little effect. 331dot (talk) 12:16, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would add that this legislature is essentially a rubber stamp body anyway. If Xi didn't want it, they wouldn't do it. 331dot (talk) 12:20, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
With the exception of Mao Zedong, the term limit seems to be obeyed in general. While the body may not exactly be a proper democratic one this still implies a major event in Chinese politics. If Trump even formally proposes doing this it will be all over the news in a heartbeat. Juxlos (talk) 12:54, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
FYI the US President has no formal role in crafting US Constitutional amendments. He can't push one through Congress (2/3 vote needed) or through the states (3/4 of the states). He can propose whatever he wants but it's unlikely it would happen. I believe he has joked about doing something similar to this Chinese action. 331dot (talk) 19:14, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Stormy clouds (talk) 19:56, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There was an uncited section, now fixed. Juxlos (talk) 10:20, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, still opposed. The new target has only a brief mention and offers no more information than what is in the blurb. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:12, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, but that's currently the bold link in the blurb. If there's a better location for an update, that's fine. We do need one somewhere. Modest Genius talk 13:03, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in principle. If allowing presidency for life in the most populous country and second-largest economy in the world, which directly impacts 1.4 billion people and has large potential to affect international relations, does not merit a blurb, then I'm really wondering what the political news should be concerned with to get included.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:22, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think there is a lot of support in principle because this is a huge power grab for Xi. However, he is only the third leader of China since the President role became synonymous with the supreme leader, and he is just now entering his second term. The narrative that he is becoming Mao-like or ruling for life is highly speculative. GCG (talk) 13:37, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominal or not, it’s still the head of state position, the same way we care about the Queen of the United Kingdom. Juxlos (talk) 15:34, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant oppose as it's a significant story that is getting coverage, but neither proposed target has been sufficiently updated - the 2018 Congress article is still a stub and there has been a mere two line update to the new target that tells us little more than the blurb.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:33, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I didn't get a ping even though I see you tried. Anyway, I don't think the blurb needs to mention term limits or lack thereof, which is a separate issue from who the President is(even if the legislature is just rubber stamping the choice of President). 331dot (talk) 07:26, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is this really an indirect election to make this ITNR? The election was squaring from those already sitting in the national congress in contrast to, eg, the US's electoral college. Normally Election ITNRs point to an election article, (and the winner if that article is in good shape), but clearly there's nothing close to that here. I am not saying that there is not something to put to ITN here between the combination fo the term limits and this recent "rubber stamping" by the congress, just that I don't think we should consider this ITNR. --Masem (t) 13:44, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know their system; is the Congress even given more than one candidate to in theory choose from?(even if Xi winning is predetermined) Even if Xi is the only option, could they in theory not choose him? It would still nominally be an election for head of state (again, even if the result is predetermined) 331dot (talk) 13:50, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ireland win Six Nations

Proposed image
Article: 2018 Six Nations Championship (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In rugby union, Ireland win a Grand Slam in the Six Nations Championship. (captain Rory Best pictured) (Post)
News source(s): RTÉ BBC
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Article needs some referencing, but is in an alright state. Item is ITN/R, and derives additional notability as it is only Ireland's third Grand Slam (and happens to fall on St. Patrick's Day). Stormy clouds (talk) 16:59, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is just winning the Grand Slam on ITNR? They won the Six Nations a week ago.--Johnsemlak (talk) 03:23, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This nom is for the Six Nations as a whole. We wait until the tournament is concluded. Pawnkingthree (talk) 11:58, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose until improved. Compare 2016 [9] where the item was nominated in a state similar to the current one but was not posted until there was prose on the actual games themselves. (For some reason, this seems not to have been posted - or even nominated - at all in 2017.) There are also a number of uncited statements. Black Kite (talk) 12:17, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Needs update. Now is the correct time to nominate this, but at present there are only three sentences of prose in the article about the results of the entire tournament. The rest is all build-up, tables and team sheets. This needs a few referenced paragraphs describing the progress of the tournament. 2016_Six_Nations_Championship#Story_of_the_tournament is an excellent example, though it doesn't need to be quite that detailed to be posted. Modest Genius talk 14:07, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

March 16

March 16, 2018 (2018-03-16) (Friday)
International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

Sports

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

Safe to say this will not be posted. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:55, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article: 2018 UMBC vs. Virginia men's basketball game (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The UMBC Retrievers became the first #16 seed in NCAA Tournament history to defeat a #1 seed with their 74-54 win over the Virginia Cavaliers. (Post)
News source(s): [10]
Credits:
Nominator's comments: Because its a article about a notable upset and no other college who was a 16th seed ever defeated a top seeded team in NCAA history. UMBC vs Virginia (talk) 03:17, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Portal:Current events/2018 March 16 is the appropriate page for this type of news story, and it is already included there. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:34, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Posted] RD: Adrian Lamo

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

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

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

[Posted] RD: Louise Slaughter

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

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

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

What's wrong with the tables? They don't look as nice as the ones at Susan Collins, but reverse-chronological is pretty normal. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:16, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Whether it's "pretty normal" or not, it's not acceptable. Show me an encyclopedia that lists events in reverse order. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:33, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've had that same argument on election pages in tables that list polling, and have often found myself in the minority in hating reverse chronology. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:37, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's just unacceptable, so until that's fixed, and all the unreferenced issues, this is a definitive no. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:38, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I could be wrong about this, but isn't there some coding wizardry you can add to a sortable table so it defaults to showing a certain way round? Black Kite (talk) 19:40, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There sure is, but the default should be chronological. That needs re-work. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:42, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed it - now in chronological order. One of the very few things that Visual Editor is useful for. Black Kite (talk) 19:51, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse chronology is the standard on many of these pages. Is that being a no-no codified anywhere in MOS? If so, would be nice to fix up some of the tables like Opinion polling in the Canadian federal election, 2015, Opinion polling on the Donald Trump administration, Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election, Opinion polling for the Russian presidential election, 2018. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:56, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biographies#Order_of_events would be the place to include it for biographies. I don't think there's an MOS sub-page relevant for the "Opinion polling" pages, which have problems beyond their ordering. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:58, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Again, how many encyclopedias are publishing reverse-order information? None is the answer. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:14, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If it's so obvious, it should be easy to find consensus to state that in the site policies. The section of MOS:BIO currently says Within a single section, events should almost always be in chronological order. Exceptions to this rule may be apply to lists of works, such as publications or other media productions, where the most recent may be listed first, as well as for distinctions such as orders, decorations, and medals. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:24, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Again, how many encyclopedias are publishing reverse-order information? None is the answer. I've already challenged this absurd MOS exception. Time we all started acting like we're building a real encyclopedia, not a tabloid. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:29, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

March 15

March 15, 2018 (2018-03-15) (Thursday)
Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Politics and elections

Sports

[Posted] Blurb: Marielle Franco

Proposed image
Article: Marielle Franco (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The Member of the Rio de Janeiro City Council Marielle Franco and the driver Anderson Pedro Gomes are assassinated in a drive-by shooting in Rio de Janeiro's city center. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Brazilian politician and outspoken police critic Marielle Franco is killed along with her driver in a drive-by shooting in Rio de Janeiro.
News source(s): BBC, CNN, Vice News, MintPress News and virtually all major news outlets.
Credits:

Nominator's comments: The assassination happened on 15 March, UTC time. RedUser (talk) 02:32, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Highly relevant news. 189.40.83.173 (talk) 06:21, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support alt blurb per the fact it's dominating Brazilian news and led to tens of thousands of protesters taking to the streets. Banedon (talk) 06:58, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Strongly relevant. She was a human right defender and city council. Today, after her murder, theres a massive people spreading fake news and lies about her at social networks. This is a important channel to keep the truth alive.
  • Support - led to huge protests. Article is ready for posting.BabbaQ (talk) 15:34, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose only on quality Just looking through the BBC, there are good reason why authorities believe this was a targeted assassination, but the article on her does not go into those. I think that needs to be added to understand this being ITN a bit better. I fully agree the item is ITN-worthy, just not article quality. --Masem (t) 15:46, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The article was recently expanded to include that information. Also, some other news: Wall Street Journal, St. Louis American, ABC News, New York Times, Blavity and Financial Times. RedUser (talk) 22:29, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect, all good now for me. Support. --Masem (t) 00:35, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] RD: Carlton Gary

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

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

Nominator's comments: American serial killer executed by lethal injection. Not the most pleasant of topics perhaps but the article is in pretty good shape - Dumelow (talk) 23:02, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have replaced the dead links- Dumelow (talk) 10:37, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Slovakian Prime Minister resigns

Articles: Robert Fico (talk · history · tag) and Peter Pellegrini (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Slovakian Prime Minister Robert Fico announces his resignation over the murder of a journalist and designates Peter Pellegrini to form a new government. (Post)
News source(s): New York Times, BBC, The Guardian, SCMP, Aktuality (local source)
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Interestingly, a day after his Slovenian counterpart. Peter Pellegrini is now PM-designate, but his article is a bit on the short side. Fico's article is long and well-referenced, though. Juxlos (talk) 22:29, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose for now. Fico's article has not been adequately updated to discuss the circumstances of the fall of his government. This is even more important than normal given the rather sensational blurb. Pellegrini's article is only a half step over a stub and will require significant expansion before it can be linked on the main page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:46, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on principle, oppose on quality ITNR transition of a world leader, but as noted above, we really need more about why Fico's resigning. --Masem (t) 00:00, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fico's article looks better. The other one is still in need of drastic improvement though. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:47, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] RD: Tom Benson

Stale.--WaltCip (talk) 15:42, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article: Tom Benson (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Influential sports owner and businessman dies at the age of 90. Lepricavark (talk) 21:48, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Closed] Miami bridge collapse

SNOW Close, tragic but consensus is almost entirely against posting this event. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 23:07, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article: Florida International University pedestrian bridge collapse (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ A new pedestrian bridge in Miami, Florida collapses days after being installed, killing at least six people. (Post)
News source(s): Miami Herald, BBC, ABC Australia, New York Times
Credits:
Nominator's comments: Article needs expansion, but the news story is receiving international coverage. Highly unusual, given that it's a new bridge and using a modern method of construction. SounderBruce 20:13, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"...killing at least six people." That's a long-term impact.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:19, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it is a new construction method, glitches or problems are to be expected. It doesn't mean this accident will be the death of this method. I don't think we even know if the accident was related to the construction method. 331dot (talk) 20:25, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose trivial accident, if this had occurred anywhere else on planet Earth it would be universally greeted with "meh", so ... "meh". The Rambling Man (talk) 20:30, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose certainly a tragedy, and brand new bridges are not expected to fail, but the death toll is too low for ITN. Lepricavark (talk) 20:35, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support – making international news; new construction method lends to greater notability than an old decaying bridge collapsing. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:36, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - unquestionably sad, but I don't feel that a sufficient number of people have died for this to merit posting. If it happened elsewhere, it would likely not even have an article - we must avoid bias, even if it means letting nominations like this fall to the wayside. Stormy clouds (talk) 20:43, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose at this time. Tragic, but not generally significant enough based on what we know now. 331dot (talk) 20:45, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose although undoubtedly a tragic event, it is ultimately a minor accident at best, the bridge was also not fully completed according to the article provided. SamaranEmerald (talk) 20:47, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. –Actually strong oppose, if it means anything. Relatively minor incident at unfinished bridge. If it were not in the US, it may not even get article talk less of going to main page. –Ammarpad (talk) 21:44, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pile on Oppose At the risk of sounding callous; things break and people die. We just can't post every fatal accident that garners some short term, even if sensational, news coverage. Although there is no written rule, in my experience accidents with low death tolls usually don't make it onto ITN. Our motto is not "if it bleeds it leads." It has to bleed a lot. Prayers for those affected... Kyrie eleison. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:00, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Number of fatalities isn’t currently large, but nature of the incident and fact that it was a new structure sways it for me.yorkshiresky (talk) 22:51, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per all above opposers, arbitrary at best, bridges especially new ones tend to have problems within days after they open, take the original Tacoma Narrows Bridge for example, it had problems almost immediately after it opened, and as a result it collapsed several months later. Kirliator (talk) 23:01, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

March 14

March 14, 2018 (2018-03-14) (Wednesday)
Arts and culture

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

[Closed] Toys R Us

This dead horse is getting cold. Brandmeistertalk 15:17, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article: Toys “R” Us (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Toys “R” Us says they are closing in the US and UK. (Post)
Credits:
Nominator's comments: Big news. 172.56.7.104 (talk) 00:49, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@AusLondonder: I agree that this does not merit posting, but "international significance" has never been required for any ITN posting; if it were, very little would be posted. 331dot (talk) 14:19, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Closed] Slovenian Prime Minister resigns

Consensus was to wait.--WaltCip (talk) 15:42, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article: Miro Cerar (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Slovenian Prime Minister Miro Cerar resigns after the supreme court of Slovenia annuls the results of a government referendum. (Post)
News source(s): AP
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: From the source, Slovenia has also had "a wave of strikes and protests by public sector workers", including a strike by teachers that shut down schools on Wednesday. Banedon (talk) 23:44, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wait per Masem below. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:36, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • also he’s still formally prime minister if I’m reading this correctly
I agree. Inatan (talk) 18:39, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You think whether or not there is a big scandal is relevant to whether or not this should be posted on ITN? Banedon (talk) 21:00, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is better to wait until the election here. He resigned a couple of months before the regular election would take place, and the resignation is being interpreted as a strategical move in view of tensions in the coalition and some other cases, such as the referendum being overturned. Cerar will remain acting PM until the election so there is no major change expected. --Tone 20:27, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Posted] UK Expels 23 Russian Diplomats

Article: Poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The United Kingdom formally accuses Russia of the attempted murder of Sergei Skripal by a nerve agent and expels 23 diplomats. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ In response to the attempted murder of Sergei Skripal by a nerve agent, the United Kingdom expels 23 Russian diplomats.
News source(s): NYT and virtually all major news outlets.
Credits:

Nominator's comments: The original blurb just fell off ITN as the situation is rapidly escalating into a serious international incident/crisis. Russia is threatening unspecified retaliation. I think recent developments justify reposting. If this drags out we might want to consider ongoing. The article is in good shape. Ad Orientem (talk) 14:28, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My intial reaction after seeing BBC's "to expel" headline was also 'wait,' but evidently they've been given official notice – they just have a week before they have to say "До свидания." – Sca (talk) 16:51, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also, good thing we're in a formal union with those countries so they can back us up. Oh, wait..... Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:35, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It was. However it just got bumped off the ITN bar with the posting of Stephen Hawking's death. That blurb only addressed the attempted murder, not the most recent and rather dramatic developments. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:10, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What precedent is that? I don't recall the last time we discussed posting the expulsion of diplomats. 331dot (talk) 20:40, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, but we had lots of nominations not posted because it "hasn't happened yet", e.g. your Kim-Trump meeting nomination. Banedon (talk) 20:47, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this has happened. The named diplomats have to leave the country. I'm not sure what happens to them if they don't but I'm guessing it involves arrest. So you actually support this but oppose it for consistency? 331dot (talk) 20:50, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is for consistency. It's not that the diplomats don't leave the country, but rather that the UK can change its mind. Again, this is using previous arguments for not posting XYZ per WP:Crystal and all that. Banedon (talk) 20:52, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reply. 331dot (talk) 20:55, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Expelling diplomats is not common. The mass expulsion of more than 20 is w/o recent precedent. You would have to go back to the dark days of the cold war to find something like this. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:48, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I would have posted this, but I'm not seeing language in the article to match the blurb. Perhaps something along the lines of "After Russia refuses to cooperate with the investigation of the poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal, the UK expels 23 Russian diplomats as undeclared intelligence officers." This matches the language of news sources, c.f. [11]. Accusing Russia of Murder does not appear in reliable sources as such. This seems to have the support as an article worth the main page, but the blurb needs to be nailed down better. --Jayron32 23:28, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
“Their response has demonstrated complete disdain for the gravity of these events,” May told MPs. She said: “There is no alternative conclusion other than the Russian state was responsible for the attempted murder of Mr Skripal and his daughter.” [12] -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:37, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you can make that language more explicit in the article, I will post this. --Jayron32 23:38, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 Done -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:42, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Added alt blurb as a back-up. Brandmeistertalk 23:47, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Posted The altblurb. I am more comfortable with that language. In specific, the changes to the article do not reflect the sources still. I'd rather the Wikipedia article directly quote May than paraphrase. For material this sensitive, it's important we speak in the voice of our sources, and not in Wikipedia's voice. "Formally accuse" is not language that appears in the sources. --Jayron32 23:56, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:00, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I too like the altblurb, but wonder if the phrase "by a nerve agent" will be readily understood. Would "by a nerve-acting poison" be better, perhaps? Sca (talk) 00:07, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Alternatively, would "with a nerve agent" be better? Sca (talk) 00:09, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] RD: Jim Bowen

Article: Jim Bowen (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.

 Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:10, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Parking this here for now. I suspect people will oppose, because the article is not in a good shape. However, we got Ken Dodd improved to be posted, so I think we might be able to do it again. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:10, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Super, smashing, great Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:50, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted blurb] Stephen Hawking

Enough of the pile on. That's plenty of PPS. If anyone want to discuss whether we should wait a minimum amount of time before posting, then you're welcome to WT:ITN. -- KTC (talk) 12:50, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article: Stephen Hawking (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ British physicist and cosmologist Stephen Hawking dies at the age of 76. (Post)
News source(s): The Guardian
Credits:
Nominator's comments: Article is in good quality, but does need a bit of spotchecking. SounderBruce 03:47, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post Post Support - As per everyone else. It’s almost impossible to find a media that doesn’t show this as a headline or at least first page news. Juxlos (talk) 11:46, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Post-posting support. But it seems this was 17 minutes from nomination to posting. Is this a record for ITN? And for ITN article quality assessment? And for articles where the nominator writes 'Article is in good quality, but does need a bit of spotchecking.', where nobody else commented on article quality except the poster, and where the infobox was not (and still is not) even flagged as updated? Was such haste necessary or advisable? Or does it set a worrying precedent? I understand, perhaps mistakenly, that it was concerns about haste like this after the death of a revered figure that lead the Catholic Church to invent the post of Devil's Advocate, so might ITN benefit from something similar? (Please don't bother answering any of these questions here, as I'm only asking them to provoke thinking on the matter, and this is probably the wrong place to discuss them further, and anyway I'm not really interested in discussing them myself as this comment is hopefully just a one-off breach of my decision to try to stay away from ITN). Tlhslobus (talk) 11:47, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The article is a former FA; even thought it was delisted in 2014, I know people have kept a close eye on it so I wouldn't have believed it any worse than B-class at any time - I suspect other people knew / felt the same and hence insta-supported. PS: I await Donald Trump's reaction to Hawking's death with interest. Just sayin'. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:49, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's a shame though that an article about such an important person is not a FA or at least a GA.... Regards SoWhy 12:04, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Donald has just tweeted that he is bigly saddened to learn that Wikipedia has posted the death of a character who once appeared in The Simpsons, but unsurprized as he always knew Wikipedia was Fake News. Tlhslobus (talk) 11:59, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Figures.... Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:01, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Almost. That's a parody account. Although it says something that in this day and age one can easily believe that the US President could have said something like this. Regards SoWhy 12:10, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The fastest posting to ITN was Hilary Putnam's RD, back in March 2016. That took only 11 minutes. In that particular case, the article was featured, and the new RD criteria were in place, so it did not take long for a consensus to develop.--WaltCip (talk) 12:00, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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:

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates&oldid=831657816"