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 13:50, 11 April 2018 (→‎2018 Algerian Air Force crash: Oppose on length). 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.

Iga Świątek and Carlos Alcaraz
Iga Świątek and Carlos Alcaraz

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

April 11

April 11, 2018 (2018-04-11) (Wednesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents
Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

2018 Algerian Air Force crash

Article: 2018 Algerian Air Force crash (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ At least 257 people are killed as a military plane crashes in Algeria. (Post)
Credits:

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Atleast 100 feared dead. Story developing. Sherenk1 (talk) 09:47, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wait until we get some details to put in a blurb. We usually have a higher bar for casualties in military related crashes, but if the initial reports are accurate, this may meet it. 331dot (talk) 10:06, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now. Article has no useful information beyond the date and time when the crash happened. Less than a stub. When the article has expanded to a reasonable state, it can be reassessed. --Jayron32 10:43, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment updated blurb to reflect the recent update to at least 247 deaths. This is a serious incident. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:27, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support once the article gets a bit more meat on it. This is a major crash. Brycehughes (talk) 11:34, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support We should wait, but this should definitely get on the main page after more info is available. This is the first 200 fatality- plane crash in 3 years, I believe. 💵Money💵emoji💵Talk 12:36, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Article expanded; blurb updated with latest stats. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:41, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - article bashed into something resembling a shape. Bit sketchy on details but we can only work with what is published. Mjroots (talk) 12:54, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support although we don't usually post military aircraft crashes this one involved family members, and the number of casualties is horrifying. EternalNomad (talk) 13:35, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Though we generally don't post military crashes, this had family members aboard; even if that wasn't the case, a 200+ casualty crash of any type is significant. --Masem (t) 13:45, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This article does not meet the minimum length defined in ITN guidelines of "three complete, referenced and well-formed paragraphs". Mamyles (talk) 13:50, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

April 10

April 10, 2018 (2018-04-10) (Tuesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Arts and culture
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
International relations
Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

[Closed] Facebook–Cambridge Analytica data scandal

Good faith nom but consensus is against posting. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:55, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Articles: Facebook–Cambridge Analytica data scandal (talk · history · tag) and Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerburg provides testimony to the U.S. Congress amid a data scandal (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerburg provides testimony to the U.S. Congress amid a data scandal and alleged Russian electoral interference
News source(s): Washington Post, New York Times
Credits:
Nominator's comments: Since Facebook is the largest social media site with 2.2 billion monthly users, this testimony has received international attention and is a big development to the data scandal. 155.225.2.100 (talk) 22:26, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It's just testimony, though. There's no legislation likely to come out of the U.S. Congress, and as far as I'm aware nothing major came out of this hearing. The "data scandal" article is also pretty rough. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:30, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This is literally all over the news (it hits the perfect combo of high tech celebrity, social media, and politics), but it's just testimony. From what I've read, there's nothing that seals the deal on the Russian interference (if it did or did not happen), and no other major revelations came out of this. It's a lot of noise that has very little end results at this point. --Masem (t) 22:32, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. As Masem wrote, this is celebrity drama with zero long-term significance yet. Facebook had similar controversies before and nothing illegal had been done in those controversies so they died down. Speaking of Russian interference, there are far more notable events that happened but were not promoted at ITN. wumbolo ^^^ 22:58, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose There is nothing remarkable about this yet. Maybe there will be later, but we can reconsider if it comes to that. Natureium (talk) 23:13, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Orange tagged article. It's dominating the news, and would be a welcome break from our usual fare of cricket scandals and soccer scores. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:59, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - A remarkable nothingburger of a non-story.--WaltCip (talk) 01:07, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

April 9

April 9, 2018 (2018-04-09) (Monday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

Sports

[Posted] RD: Felix Chen

Article: Felix Chen (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): United Daily 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 updated and well sourced --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 02:51, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Very short. There's a quotation in the lead 'he resigned in 2003 under "extremely controversial circumstances."' which isn't cited there or elsewhere. In view of the BLP concerns I'd like to see more referencing on this issue. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:55, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Espresso Addict:: Article has been expanded with info of his firing and controversy along with lead expansion. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 05:48, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, the article is still far from the quality I'd be prepared to support. Espresso Addict (talk) 13:05, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Russia threatens nuclear attack against Western targets over possible intervention in Syria

SNOW CLOSE: Grossly inaccurate blurb that as another editor intimated, bears no relationship to reality, and is unsupported by sources. As the situation currently stands there is not the slightest chance of this being posted. Trout delivered. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:32, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Articles: 2018 Douma chemical attack (talk · history · tag) and World War III (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Russia threatens nuclear attack against Western targets over possible intervention in Syria (Post)
News source(s): Reuters
Credits:
Nominator's comments: General Valery Gerasimov, chief of the general staff of the Russian armed forces, publicly warned last month that Russia would strike back against the US if Washington targeted government-controlled territory in Syria. Count Iblis (talk) 22:28, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Bloviators gonna bloviate. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:39, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose based purely on "last month". If they repeat the warning now, I will likely support. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:49, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Complete non-starter. The proposed blurb bears no relation to any content in either article mentioned, and the Douma attack is already being discussed in a separate nomination below. This should be closed. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:01, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose too soon. If the threat keeps up and draws more media attention, then we can consider this. Analogously, the Cuban Missile Crisis would've been worth posting if ITN existed back then, and we should not wait until one side fired missiles; however that episode also stayed in mainstream news for a long time. Banedon (talk) 23:08, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There’s a vague mention of “grave repercussions” – that hardly equates to “threatens nuclear attack against Western targets.” Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:23, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, hence this nomination is too soon. Banedon (talk) 23:28, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Posted] 2018 Masters Tournament

Article: 2018 Masters Tournament (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In golf, Patrick Reed wins the Masters Tournament. (Post)
News source(s): [1][2]
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.

 – Compy90 (talk) 09:30, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak support The lead is a bit light on text, per WP:LEAD, however there is a prose summary of each round, which is well referenced. Meets minimum standards. --Jayron32 13:40, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -The article is overall sufficient and referenced. –Ammarpad (talk) 17:05, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - ITN/R. We are good to go with this one. Stormy clouds (talk) 17:10, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posting. --Tone 19:54, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Senator Tammy Duckworth

SNOW CLOSE: Good faith nom, but there is no chance this will be posted. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:22, 9 April 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: Tammy Duckworth (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Tammy Duckworth is the first United States Senator to give birth while in office. (Post)
News source(s): [3]
Credits:
 llywrch (talk) 20:08, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose see DYK. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:09, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - well for her, and congratulations, but this is not a story of lasting international significance, and is not worthy of ITN in my view. Stormy clouds (talk) 20:13, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Two men oppose the nom, so it's a snow close. Good for them, & congratulations. -- llywrch (talk) 21:59, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

April 8

April 8, 2018 (2018-04-08) (Sunday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sport

[Posted] RD: Michael Goolaerts

Article: Michael Goolaerts (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): De Telegraaf (in Dutch)
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Referencing needs improvement, couple of paras are unreferenced. Mjroots (talk) 09:27, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support I ref'd everything in the body of the article needing a source. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:48, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -Looks OK. –Ammarpad (talk) 12:08, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • SupportIt was in a sorry state before, but now looks like it can be added. Good work! -- BobTheIP editing as 88.111.223.24 (talk) 13:21, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posting. --Tone 13:34, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Hungarian parliamentary election, 2018

Article: Hungarian parliamentary election, 2018 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Parliamentary elections in Hungary are being held. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ In the 2018 Hungarian parliamentary election, Fidesz, led by Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, wins its third consecutive supermajority in the Hungarian National Assembly.
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Ongoing parliamentary elections in Hungary. In the preceding weeks there was a grassroots campaign to get people to vote for the candidate most likely to defeat Fidesz in the given constituency; though it is not likely that Fidesz will lose the election, it will probably show that more and more people are fed up with it. – Alensha talk 17:56, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment will election results come in in the next few days? If so, wait until the result, which will certainly be worthy. -- BobTheIP editing as 2.28.13.227 (talk) 18:12, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This is ITNR, but we only post the results, not the mere occurrence of the election. 331dot (talk) 19:12, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The results will probably come in within hours (the election was supposed to end at 7 pm, but some people have been standing in line for hours and are still waiting to get in, due to the usual bureaucratic SNAFU our election office is well known for...) – Alensha talk 20:20, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – AP cites preliminary returns to say Orban "easily won a third consecutive term." Sca (talk) 22:32, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There's really no point in us all going round on this until someone updates the article. Then we need a sourced paragraph on reactions, which is what sinks most of these ITN-R election articles. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:38, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: I added an alternative blurb, since we now know the results and the article has been updated. This is definitely newsworthy enough to add. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:46, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Getting old fast. Sca (talk) 00:17, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's why we need to add it fast. --1990'sguy (talk) 00:18, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the target article isn't perfect, but it's good enough. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:20, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Article looks good, and this is a newsworthy election. Raymond3023 (talk) 03:30, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'd like to see some mention of the electoral conduct; for example The Guardian is quoting the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe criticising the electoral conduct.[1] Espresso Addict (talk) 03:27, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted a modified blurb, substituting "a coalition" for "Fidesz". The article makes it clear that it was an alliance of Fidesz and the KDNP which won the election, and I am not comfortable highlighting only one of those parties, even if it is the major partner in the coalition. If folks wish to change this, further discussion is welcome, here or at WP:ERRORS. Vanamonde (talk) 06:01, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Douma chemical attack

Article: 2018 Douma chemical attack (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ A suspected chemical weapons attack in Douma, Syria kills at least 70 people. (Post)
Credits:

Nominator's comments: BBC, CBS and CNN are all covering this. Obviously a stub since it’s a breaking developing headline, but going to be in the news especially if the death toll rises above the alrighty high 70. 71.184.132.103 (talk) 15:23, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wait - there's fairly little detail about the attack itself (where exactly, with what, when, etc.) and this might have to wait. Once fixed Strong support - even by Syrian Civil War standards this is highly abnormal. Juxlos (talk) 16:41, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as it stands. This is never going to fly folks, every genuine reliable source is adding "alleged" or "purported" or "apparent" as a caveat to the event itself. What might swing it is simply that at least 70 people were killed (although I heard on the radio [BBC] that this was a very low estimate) in this attack. It's indisputably in the news, and indisputably a significant act, we just need to get the blurb right without wandering into POV or speculation. Article is sufficient in any case. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:05, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in principle. "Alleged" or "apparent" or even "suspected" can easily be added to the blurb. Can we be less precise about the number of deaths? BBC is hedging on 70 vs 48 by calling it "dozens". Espresso Addict (talk) 21:36, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Well that's where you're plain wrong. If we add "alleged" or "apparent" or "suspected", no-one will support this nomination. That's very much how ITN works. With all the experience I have here, I should know...... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:39, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just because absurd decisions have been made in the past... I'd support with that sort of wording if the article can be got into posting quality. We make ITN a laughing stock when we apparently ignore important encyclopedic news in favour of posting sports/election results & transport accidents. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:50, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not really about "absurd" decisions, it's really about the uncertainty and then the liability. We don't tend to post "it may be this" kind of stories, and we certainly wouldn't post this as a de facto "chemical attack", so all we have now to get this onto the main page is an single attack which has killed dozens in Syria. And that's considered "plus ca change". The Rambling Man (talk) 21:53, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think User:The Rambling Man continues to make excellent arguments. I would argue that the evidence is overwhelming that "A chemical weapons attack in Douma, Syria kills at least 70 people." is unquestionably true. However, there may also be good reasons not to post this particular blurb. For example, a pacifist may want to avoid drawing attention to an event that may lead the United States into world war 3. Brian Everlasting (talk) 23:37, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think the president of that country might have noticed already. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:53, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose minus "background" and "reactions" it's a stub. Personally I'm tired of the phrase "anti government activists" in the Syrian civil war articles. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:45, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support: Al Jazeera did not used the "alleged" tone when discussing the incident and some other more recent articles have followed suit, though older stories are still more popular in searches. As further news breaks, some wording may change. United Nations emergency meeting is to be held regarding the situation.----ZiaLater (talk) 00:24, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in principle It's not a stub. The article has 2500 characters of prose, which is a start class. It'll be expanded and it's minimally long enough now. The "background" section does and should count to the total, since obviously the background matters to why a chemical attack would happen here. The "reactions" are bulleted so they don't count to the character count. Obviously that POV tag needs to be dealt with first. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:41, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as this is part of a larger event that is already listed as ongoing. or rather, we could just remove the other if we choose to post this. GCG (talk) 11:45, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on quality. If you take out the BG and the reactions section, there's hardly anything about the actual "event" (attack or whatever it will be considered). I agree the BG section is needed, but it should not dominate, and reaction sections like the one here are highly discouraged, it should not be a quotefarm but actual reactions, such as medical or military aid being offered, etc. As such, it is far too stubby to post. --Masem (t) 14:00, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support this is seeing more than enough coverage to warrant posting, especially given the threats of escalation. Banedon (talk) 23:13, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
With UN resolutions being discussed and a veto being used, I think this is at a point where it should be posted quickly. Banedon (talk) 23:43, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – As the facts remain contested, along with the death toll, this might be better posted under 'ungoing' IMO. Sca (talk) 00:22, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in principle Donald Trump announced he would skip the eighth Summit of the Americas to oversee the United States response to the attack, so I also support the possibility of posting as 'ongoing'. If it helps with NPOV, I suggest using the White Helmets' estimate and changing the blurb to at least 43 people. --Jamez42 (talk) 14:49, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Masem. It is a significant event, but the article is not good enough. --Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:01, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per The Rambling Man and Masem. --Mhhossein talk 18:31, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Muboshgu and Banedon. Jusdafax (talk) 00:27, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Though the article is weak, this is the news story of the week 155.225.2.100 (talk) 02:11, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - In the news for the past couple of days. Sherenk1 (talk) 04:48, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - per political significance. Article is in good enough shape for posting.BabbaQ (talk) 07:32, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

April 7

April 7, 2018 (2018-04-07) (Saturday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections
  • Brenna Spencer, a female supporter of Donald Trump, goes viral after carrying a handgun in her pants while taking a photo. (Yahoo! News)

Sport

[Posted] Bundesliga

Article: 2017–18 Bundesliga (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In association football, Bayern Munich win the Bundesliga. (Post)
News source(s): Guardian
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Having looked in the archive, there seems to be a consensus that the Bundesliga is notable enough to post, but that as with most season articles it usually ends up as a field of statistics. I added a reasonably long prose summary of the season in advance. Harambe Walks (talk) 23:30, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose What archive are you looking at? It was nominated, but not posted last year. I think that was the only time it was even nominated. It has been mentioned in a few football nomination threads, but mostly dismissively – Muboshgu (talk) 02:55, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • To be clear, I am opposing because this is a lower tiered league than the Premier League, soccer is already sufficiently represented at ITN/R, such as with the Champions League, as mentioned by GCG, and the article isn't that great. It's one short section of prose followed by a ton of tables. One specific issue is "clean sheets". The term is used once, in a section header, and never defined. Not everyone knows what one of those is. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:23, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's not "lower tiered league"; it's the top league in Germany just as the EPL is the top league in England. It may not have as high a profile or as many TV viewers worldwide, but that's a different thing. And it should be fairly trivial to wikilink Shutout#Association football somewhere.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:57, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • American football and baseball have no such terms, everything from safety to RBI is clearly obvious. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:04, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • Whenever I write about RBIs, I link to run batted in to provide the necessary context to our readers. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:08, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
            • Indeed, so you actually already know that this "specific reason" is really nothing to even be noted here, and something that the addition of, what, 14 extra bytes would solve in a jiffy? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:24, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
              • It is a bit ironic to see someone who argued for the inclusion of the NCAA football national champion on grounds like cultural significance dismiss this so easily. This is a top tier domestic league. Bayern is among the best club teams on earth(really hate to say that, cannot stand them lol), unlike the NCAA national champion which is worlds apart from the top of the game. The german league is among the strongest in europe, probably world wide, as well. It is culturally significant, it is domestic top tier, has high attendance, the winner of the league is among the best teams on earth and the quality of the league is easily in the top 5 world wide i would say, probably top 3 even. So if you oppose this Muboshgu, will you oppose next years college football final as well? 91.248.254.186 (talk) 21:43, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Article appears to be reasonably well referenced and the Bundesliga is a significant competition. It has the highest average attendance of any league in the world and UEFA rates it as the second best in Europe based on Champions League performance. Capitalistroadster (talk) 05:39, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Domestic football is a big deal. The point at which a league is sufficiently notable for ITN posting is arbitrary, but for me La Liga, the English Premiership and the Bundesliga (in that order) are the three that are above that line. 2017–18_Bundesliga#Summary appears to be adequate prose in the article. --LukeSurl t c 14:31, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose My concern isn't that this is a domestic league; it's that the Champions League, which is the premier event for these clubs, is ITNR already. GCG (talk) 15:47, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I'm just seeing "I don't like it", the Bundesliga is probably in the top three football leagues in the world, and football has a global audience of billions, so this will be of interest to a vast number of our readers across the continents of our planet. Probably more so than college basketball I would guess....... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:16, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question is this the "top of the sport"? I thought the UEFA Champions League was that -- if that's the case, this is a simple qualifier. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:59, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Why does it need to be "top of the sport" to feature as a normal ITN? Is "top of the sport" a new ITN criterion I've missed?? I've never heard anything so preposterous in my highly experienced life. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:03, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The Champions League is, despite its name, actually a knock-out competition, not directly comparable to individual countries' leagues.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:06, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    So the "top tier" of European football is the UEFA? Or are those just demonstration games? Im honestly trying to understand -- because I don't know. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:13, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Teams compete in domestic leagues, such as the Premier League in England, or the Bundesliga in Germany. These events are organised on a domestic scale, not by UEFA. Then, based on how well they performed in the preceding season, teams enter the UEFA Champions League, where they play against other European clubs initially in a league, and subsequently (i.e. now) in knockout football. However, clubs spend the vast majority of their time playing in the domestic league - 38 games as opposed to about a dozen in the Champions League, so they should not be ignored. Winning the domestic league is a big deal, however, suffice it to say, and warrants attention at ITN. Stormy clouds (talk) 17:24, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So there are 55 member countries in the UEFA .. subject to article quality are all of their championships a big deal suitable for posting to ITN? --LaserLegs (talk) 17:52, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously not. It is our job to determine which ones do, and I would not consider the answer to be "one of them". Stormy clouds (talk) 18:07, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - prominent European league, of significant interest to our readership. Stormy clouds (talk) 17:24, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose With association football being as big as it is, we purposes have whats at ITNR to limit how many stories in this area that would come up at ITNR. As there are more significant tourneys in that region that include Germany, we should focus on that, rather than the nationals. --Masem (t) 17:31, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    This is one of the stranger arguments I've seen here. We don't limit our number of American gun crime stories, the consensus to post or otherwise makes that self-limiting. We don't have ITNR to limit stories, we have it to accept stories which have been endlessly debated. That we post the Premier League knocks this other "significant tourneys" debate into the long grass. According to that, we'd only ever post the winner of the Champions League, which we don't. And since football truly global and watched by literally billions, I think we're all able to accept that a few extra stories about it here will do Wikipedia no harm at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:57, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    False. Stories about gun violence in America are routinely opposed as being routine. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:47, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    What? "the consensus to post or otherwise makes that self-limiting." completely 100% true. How odd. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:07, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree. Nothing odd about it. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:24, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) There is a difference between what we can plan and what we can't. We're not going to cap, say, hurricane disasters if there's 10 that strike and made deadly landfall, but we're still discrimating towards hurricanes with minimal damage or impact and certainly not posting every hurricane that forms. But when we have events we can plan on, one of the considerations at ITNR is how many stories in that topic area are generated per year. We try to avoid over-saturation where we can in any one specific topic area, and in a case where we have a tiered sport like these European leagues, we have to make a concerted effort of drawing a line to avoid excessive coverage of incremental elements. And while I do see the ITNR suggests only adding three specific national events in addition to the Premiere League on the bases those four have assured slots, I still think it becomes a bias issue if we're not including the other 30-some national results, but at the same time ITN can't handle those 30-some blurbs. --Masem (t) 19:49, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Who said 30-some? I think the absolute most ever proposed was three or four? Wild extrapolation doesn't help anything. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:07, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with The Rambling Man. It's not bias to only choose the leagues which are ranked the highest, and have other visible advantages over the others (attendance, TV audience, global column inches, commercial investments). I don't think any Welshman, Irishman, Gibraltarian, Andorran, Sammarinese, Luxembourger etc would legitimately question Wikipedia neutrality if their national league was excluded. Harambe Walks (talk) 20:38, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - please see ITN/R proposal, so that we can solve the significance argument now and put the perennial debate to bed for a while. Thanks, Stormy clouds (talk) 17:50, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Soccer is the most important thing in the world. The article has a well referenced wall of tables, a brief prose summary which is also sourced. Open wide for some soccer! --LaserLegs (talk) 20:36, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Masem's arguments on WT:ITNR. Banedon (talk) 23:06, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted Stephen 02:38, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Lula imprisoned

Imprisonment is a normal progression from sentencing, which was posted. Stephen 02:19, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Proposed image
Articles: Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (talk · history · tag) and Operation Car Wash (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Former President of Brazil, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, convicted of corruption charges, begins serving a twelve-year prison sentence. (Post)
News source(s): NYT, CNN, BBC
Credits:

First article updated, second needs updating
 Davey2116 (talk) 00:39, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Former head of state of Brazil. Jusdafax (talk) 00:47, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose solely on article quality. Referencing is quite poor on the BLP and has gaps on the other article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:58, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose We already posted when he was convicted (last July). While the circumstances here are a bit odd - he missed a court date to turn himself in and spend two days hiding before he turned himself in - we don't usually cover when sentences of established convinctions start. --Masem (t) 01:14, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: As said, we have already covered this when he was sentenced. The sentence turning into actual prison is just a trivial consequence; Lula was not detained back then because the lawyers were delaying it with their tricks. This may had been newsworthy if the PT insisted to "resist" the arrest and the whole thing turned into an open conflict for some days, or something like that (and then justifying a specific article), but that was not the case. He resisted the arrest for just some hours, and then gave up without major incidents. Cambalachero (talk) 04:05, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: Has been previously included ITN.----ZiaLater (talk) 23:47, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Closed] RD: Yaser Murtaja

Article is at AfD. If it survives the deletion process this nom can be re-opened. --Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:22, 8 April 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: Yaser Murtaja (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: Only had a cursory glance at the article but it seems to be in good shape. 88.111.218.152 (talk) 20:28, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment did he die yesterday or today? The article's not clear. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:32, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Respond This article says Friday. Could you add that? (IPs aren't allowed to directly edit articles on this topic.) Thanks. -- BobTheIP editing as 88.111.218.152 (talk) 21:35, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It's unclear to me from the article whether or not this journalist was notable prior to his death. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:17, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Most of the article is about his death. Aiken D 23:20, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Another RD where the article was only created after the subject's death. Whilst his death was certainly part of a notable event, it doesn't appear that he was notable himself beforehand. Every source in the article is dated today. I suspect if this was to be AfD'd, it would not survive via WP:BLP1E. Black Kite (talk) 23:24, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Closed] 2018 Münster vehicle ramming

No consensus. Stephen 07:03, 8 April 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 Münster vehicle ramming (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ A driver rams a van into a crowd in Münster, Germany, killing two people and injuring at least 20. (Post)
News source(s): LATimes, NYTimes, BBC
Credits:
Nominator's comments: Developing story, article is stub but details certainly expected in short term. Masem (t) 17:33, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Doesn't appear to be a terrorist attack, probably doesn't rise to the importance of an ITN item. Black Kite (talk) 19:40, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose No indication this is terrorism – appears to be an individual with mental health problems. Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:53, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose stub. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:33, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose doesn't seem to be terror-related; casualties are (thankfully) very low. EternalNomad (talk) 23:56, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Posted] Humboldt Broncos bus crash

Article: Humboldt Broncos bus crash (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ A crash involving a bus carrying a junior ice hockey team has killed at least 14 people and critically injured three others in Saskatchewan, Canada. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ A crash involving a bus carrying the Humboldt Broncos junior ice hockey team kills at least 15 people in Saskatchewan, Canada.
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: 14 people (I believe all teenagers) died. Sherenk1 (talk) 14:09, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose I have serious doubts about the notability of this topic. While it is undoubtedly getting a lot of immediate attention, I suspect that this is not going to pass SUSTAINED and I'm not seeing the long term significance of this, admittedly tragic event. Once again we have people rushing to create articles about whatever is in the news w/o consideration for whether the subject is likely to meet our guidelines. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:24, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have opened a discussion on the article's talk page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:32, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I am withdrawing my oppose. After spending some time looking at traffic safety (and death) statistics for developed countries I now believe that the number of fatalities in this case is so far outside the norm as to establish notability. That said I do think we should have a discussion about setting some kind of rough guidelines about disaster related nominations. But that is a separate issue. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:29, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Top of my news feed this morning. It's in the news. So was a prison fire in Venezuela, a mall fire in Russia, a shooting in France, a suicide bombing in Afghanistan, a package bomber in the USA (very briefly, as we know, the USA sucks), a plane crash in Nepal, a fire in Azerbaijan, and a terrorist attack in Burkina Faso. A bridge collapse in Miami was not posted. That's just for March. Yes WP:OSE but in the absence of WP:MINIMUMDEATHS Opposes should explain what (other than happening in Canada) makes this tragedy any different from the endless parade of utterly irrelevant barely above stub disaster stories pushed to ITN on a weekly basis. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:36, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
With the likely exception of the terrorist bombing, I think I can see arguments for the long term significance of most of the events you cited. This looks like a really awful traffic accident to me. But that's pretty much all I'm seeing right now. Maybe some new highway safety regulations will emerge from this, but at the moment I'm not seeing that as likely. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:42, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Long term significance of a prison fire in Venezuela? Really? Five years from now that article will be within 50 words of what it is today. I think these disaster stories are totally over-represented at ITN, but rather than editorialize, I rely simply on them being "in the news". Wanna stop it? (I DO!) start an RFC. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:46, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A bad fire in a prison almost always has long term significance. Even if there is no call for safety reform, which given the current political situation in the workers paradise that is Venezuela, does seem unlikely; it has already become part of the broader story about that country's slide into far left authoritarian dictatorship. I have no real doubts about its notability. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:57, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support given that this is the kind of stuff that gets usually posted (+ various sports events), this one should be posted, too. In the meantime, we keep ignoring the really important developments (Saudi-Arabia, Ethiopia etc. etc.). Daily Mail, not an encyclopedia. 2A02:A451:8B2D:1:B40E:B531:60CB:8185 (talk) 15:12, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cpmment I have no real opinion on posting this or not, but as a general note regarding notability or otherwise I recommend examining the public domain highways accident reports over many decades from the US National Transportation Safety Board. The bottom line being when you get a very large mass casualty vehicle accident in a developed nation you can usually expect lasting significance because there tend to be regulatory proposals and the like come out of them, many of which go on to become actual laws. Not that it's guaranteed to be the case by any means but it's worth having at the back of one's mind. -- BobTheIP editing as 88.111.218.152 (talk) 17:27, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I fail to see the long-term impact. Who cares?Zigzig20s (talk) 17:37, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is the worst sports-related disaster in Canada's history. Argument with no basis is also sociopathically disrespectful. Shocking! 2600:387:5:805:0:0:0:A4 (talk) 21:30, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Large death toll for a vehicular accident; comparable to the 2018 Hong Kong bus accident, which we posted without question. Notability is boosted by the fact that it involved a notable sports team. EternalNomad (talk) 18:41, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per EternalNomad. Article quality is sufficient. Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:51, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support although I admit I am slightly biased as I'm one of the editors working on the article. The article is currently sufficient and will be expanded once more information is released (the victims names are slowly being released, for example, but they won't be added until confirmed by a better source than Twitter). With regards to the argument about this event's notability, I don't believe it has merit. This event meets the WP:GNG and will almost certainly have longstanding repercussions for the community, province, team and hockey league. Perhaps not world-changing effects, but effects nevertheless. It is also well in-line with other minor events that have received articles and been posted to ITN. --PlasmaTwa2 19:28, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Article is in good shape and is certainly in the news. GrossesWasser (talk) 21:22, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support the juxtaposition of a large road traffic accident in somewhere like Canada, combined with the drastic loss of a large proportion of a single sporting team, makes this notable enough for me. The article is sufficient, the blurb, however, is not. It needs to link in bold text the target article, and the most recent update is that 15 people have sadly died. Other than that, it's good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:37, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I see consensus for this but there needs to be a reference for the updated death toll. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:10, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Espresso Addict:  Done I added one. --BobTheIP editing as 88.111.218.152 (talk) 23:20, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think Black Kite and I tried to post it at the same time. :) 331dot (talk) 23:27, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Me too! Espresso Addict (talk) 01:12, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted to Ongoing] Ongoing: 2018 Gaza border protests

Article: 2018 Gaza border protests (talk · history · tag)
Ongoing item nomination (Post)
Credits:

Nominator's comments: I suggest this article be added to the ongoing section. -- BobTheIP editing as 88.111.218.152 (talk) 11:43, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - Being updated all along. Sherenk1 (talk) 12:05, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - It's receiving edits every some minutes. --Mhhossein talk 13:54, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose already posted as a blurb when this was truly in the news. Now little is happening, by the standards of this region of the world. 2A02:A451:8B2D:1:B40E:B531:60CB:8185 (talk) 14:16, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. No opinion on ongoing worthiness, but the wording needs considerable care. The blurb had ongoing arguments at Errors almost its entire tenure. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:41, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Still showing up in Current events; good article.  Nixinova  T  C  06:09, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since the only oppose is by somebody with some rather sarcastic things to say about current events/ITN, I'm marking as ready. -- BobTheIP editing as 2.28.13.227 (talk) 17:09, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support — Active story that is developing daily.--Carwil (talk) 20:24, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted Stephen 23:21, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

April 6

April 6, 2018 (2018-04-06) (Friday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and cultures

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

RD: Daniel Akaka

Article: Daniel Akaka (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NBC 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: Needs more sourcing, I know – Muboshgu (talk) 20:27, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment there are a lot of problems right now, and unfortunately I won't be able to do any work to fix it. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:39, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Should be better now, but not good enough yet. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:25, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm troubled by the fact that the detail of his wife's name (Millie Akaka in the legend, Mary Chong in the infobox) is unclear and his marriage isn't mentioned in the text. Not itself necessarily a huge problem but I think it's indicative of a patchy article with big gaps in coverage. Many achievements mentioned in obits are not in the article, giving undue weight to the Time article assessment. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:36, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] RD:Cecil Taylor

Article: Cecil Taylor (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Guardian
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: Key figure in free jazz and avant garde music. Article looks in good shape. yorkshiresky (talk) 16:42, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Agree, do not seem to be any sourcing issues. Discography is at a separate article. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:51, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Former S. Korean President sentenced to 24 years for corruption

Article: Park Geun-hye (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Former South Korean President Park Geun-hye is sentenced to 24 years in prison for corruption. (Post)
News source(s): NY Times etc.
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Former head of state in a major developed country gets a prison sentence rivaling what many get for murder. This does not happen every day. Referencing needs work. Ad Orientem (talk) 13:43, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support A news on sentencing a former head of state to 24 years in prison for corruption is a big deal that merits inclusion and it even deserves an update in a separate (sub)section of the article.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:08, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on principle, oppose on quality - Noted that there was a nomination for her arrest which was not posted (appropriately), this is the right point to post. However, I feel the article's organization (why she was on trial comes before anything that discusses her impeachment and why she was arrested) and the major block of text of CNs require improvement here before posting. --Masem (t) 14:15, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • per Masem, in principle yes, but not of sufficient quality to support yet. Only the lede appears to have been updated so far, not the appropriate section of the article itself.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:19, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose has been maintenance-tagged since late-2016. Not good enough for a BLP, let alone for one being targeted on the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:25, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on quality – 25 {{cn}} tags!  Nixinova  T  C  19:33, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah it needs work. FTR I added most of those CN tags. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:01, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

April 5

April 5, 2018 (2018-04-05) (Thursday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sports

[Posted] RD: Frederick D. Reese

Article: Frederick D. Reese (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Selma Times-Journal
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: Civil rights icon. Article updated and well sourced --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:40, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] RD: Isao Takahata

Article: Isao Takahata (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Yahoo! JP (not translated) The Nerdist
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: Co-founder of Studio Ghibli. Unfortunately article is chock-full of cn's which have been there for a while. Hoping that a good obit from the west will be picked up for this. Masem (t) 23:50, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose article is a disaster. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:54, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Incredibly saddening, but not going to be featured at the current state. I'll see if I can work on it. Alex Shih (talk) 08:03, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Oppose. It is in a terrible state, orange tags on every section aside from the lead itself for over two years. It's going to need just about a complete re-write to even begin to approach front page standards. It's a depressing sight. Challenger l (talk) 11:58, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. What a truly horrific article.--WaltCip (talk) 13:23, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update I have rewritten and sourced the prose at least to a respectable degree (nothing close to Miyazaki's but enough to pass quality). I'm going to try to source the TV/Film sections now, but I did want to highlight the biggest problems have been fixed. --Masem (t) 20:51, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • And now except for a few early non-notable flms, have those all sourced. --Masem (t) 21:25, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any comments on the revised version? Espresso Addict (talk) 00:06, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Article has been well fixed up and the article is overall well sourced for posting. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 03:20, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted. Thanks, Masem. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:51, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support article has been cleaned up to an acceptable standard.  Nixinova  T  C  07:50, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Masem and others, you've done great work here! Challenger l (talk) 12:01, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Eric Bristow

Article: Eric Bristow (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Irish Independent
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: Best darts player in history before Phil Taylor. Legend. Two legends in three days. RIP. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:02, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. It's going to need a fair amount of sourcing work. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:20, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This is like trying to hit 101 or more with 6 darts. Hardly anything is sourced, and it seems a whole "Early life" section (ie: where was he born, where did he grow up, how did he get into darts) is missing. Still, if anyone does it, they can have a speedboat. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:33, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. It's a challenge, and a terrible one to consider that Bristow, before Taylor, was simply unparalleled. And yet his article is a junkyard. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:35, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I started trying to source the first sentence in the body (winning the 1980 Championship against Bobby George) and got bogged down really quickly. If I can't plug in sources like I'm felling trees on this one, it's not going to happen unless everyone pitches in. At the moment, people seem to be fiddling around the wording (and in some instances adding even more unsourced content!), that's great, but for a BLP (which technically this is of course), it's the referencing that's the priority. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:37, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have a pre-dawn start, but perhaps I can join back in on my own nom (cue cheers from the maniacal peanut tossers) tomorrow. Buenos noches. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:45, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose at the moment due to poor referencing. Will support if article cleaned up.Capitalistroadster (talk) 22:21, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Terrible article. Normally I don't mind pitching in with referencing, but what are we to do with stuff like " Bristow had not only supreme talent for one so young but an imposing personality and uncontained self belief."? Needs a major re-write.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:58, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[Removed] Remove Ongoing: Turkish military operation in Afrin

Article: Turkish military operation in Afrin (talk · history · tag)
Ongoing item removal (Post)

Nominator's comments: While there have been government statements and the arrest of protesters in Istanbul, the last action of the operation itself noted in the article was March 21. Apologies if I'm missing something. GCG (talk) 15:28, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

April 4

April 4, 2018 (2018-04-04) (Wednesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime
Politics and elections

Science and technology

RD: Johnny Valiant

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

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

Nominator's comments: Former WWE wrestler, manager and television star. Sherenk1 (talk) 10:24, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Meh Sourcing isn't so good and there are POV problems. But as a guy who likes to inform people about wrestling history and was pinged here, I feel compelled to say go for it. Nothing jumps out as blatantly false (though I'm no Johnny V expert). InedibleHulk (talk) 10:41, April 5, 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose The career section needs a lot more referencing work.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:32, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] RD: Ray Wilkins

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

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

Nominator's comments: RIP Butch. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:17, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose for now a fine gent but this article is not in a state to be posted. The removal of unsourced content (a huge problem for players who played before the Internet age) has reduced this entry into bare bones, his whole career after Chelsea (which included Manchester United, Milan and PSG) is one sentence. 84 international caps are described in one sentence and I've only just doubled the international section by adding his World Cup red card. Harambe Walks (talk) 16:50, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changing to Support based on sufficient sourcing for a post Harambe Walks (talk) 20:33, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support What is there seems sufficient and well-sourced. Aiken D 19:44, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Article well sourced. G2g. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:00, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - and we are ready to go. Stormy clouds (talk) 21:04, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment good work from Harambe Walks, Martinevans123, EchetusXe, GiantSnowman and John on this. It's been a while since one of these RDs got to me, but this one really did. Thanks again. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:10, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Espresso Addict, time to post please. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:25, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:47, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Ongoing: 2018 Commonwealth Games

Not happening, and we've now posted the opening of the games, so this is probably best off closed. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:58, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Articles: 2018 Commonwealth Games (talk · history · tag) and Chronological summary of the 2018 Commonwealth Games (talk · history · tag)
Ongoing item nomination (Post)
Credits:
Nominator's comments: One of the major sporting events of the year. CWG was posted to Ongoing in 2014. 61.2.7.73 (talk) 14:06, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment target article has some referencing issues, and isn't suitable for ongoing because it's not getting regular updates. If there is a medals article or something then nominate that. Or if you want, nom the opening for a blurb. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:28, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's not getting regular updates because all that's happened so far is the opening ceremony. That was last night. It's 8:20 am on the first day of competition right now. Not many medals awarded so far. Please give it time. HiLo48 (talk) 22:22, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

:* Agreed. There will obviously be continuous updates so it's a no-brainer for ongoing but no obejctions to posting it as a blurb first. Black Kite (talk) 22:57, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. The ongoing target of Chronological summary of the 2018 Commonwealth Games is orange-level tagged for lack of references. ETA: Don't we usually bold opening ceremony for blurbs? 2018 Commonwealth Games opening ceremony is barely a stub. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:21, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as I did four years ago. [2] Except for the Olympics I don't feel sports events are what Ongoing was intended for, especially regional/otherwise limited entry criteria ones like this. When did we take out this event from ITNR? I would be more comfortable posting a blurb. 331dot (talk) 07:55, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per 331dot.--WaltCip (talk) 11:41, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I concur with 331dot that the Olympics (and probably the World Cup) are more suited for Ongoing. This event does not rise to that level. Lepricavark (talk) 16:30, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Posted] 2018 Commonwealth Games

Article: 2018 Commonwealth Games (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The Commonwealth Games opens in Gold Coast, Australia. (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: The above ongoing nomination appears to be fatally flawed by going for ongoing when a blurb would be better, and pointing to two low-quality articles rather than the "top-level" 2018 Commonwealth Games article. This top-level article is the primary thing readers will be interested in (rather than the opening ceremony) and links to the cascade of sub-articles on the different events to meet the readers' specific interests. It appears to be adequate with no referencing or other tags. Please note there is discussion above regarding a blurb, all positive. LukeSurl t c 13:21, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Blurb is definitely better than ongoing in this case. However, the article does not appear updated, nothing about the opening ceremony, for example (I know there is a separate article, but even that one is very short). --Tone 13:46, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've copied across the information and links from the sub-articles, this should be sufficient - we don't want to make the main article too long. Black Kite (talk) 14:22, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Yes, better than an ongoing, now I've thought about it a while. Biggest multi-sport event outside the Olympics. Black Kite (talk) 13:47, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Black Kite. Article looks sufficiently updated now.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:38, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:44, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted, with the top-level article; neither the chronological summary nor the opening ceremony is of sufficient quality yet. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:54, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

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

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

  1. ^ Kindred, Dave (April 8, 2018). "Masters 2018: Patrick Reed, an imperfect man, is etched in history as Masters champion". Golf Digest. Retrieved April 9, 2018.
  2. ^ O'Connor, Ian (April 8, 2018). "Patrick Reed doesn't care what you think -- he's the Masters champion". ESPN.com. Retrieved April 9, 2018.
  3. ^ Tammy Duckworth gives birth to girl: First senator to have baby while in office
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates&oldid=835905092"