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 20:18, 18 September 2018 (→‎(Ready) RD: Celia Barquin Arozamena). 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

September 18

September 18, 2018 (2018-09-18) (Tuesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

RD: Norifumi Yamamoto

Article: Norifumi Yamamoto (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): https://www.bbc.com/sport/mixed-martial-arts/45561100
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: Mixed Martial Artist that was at one point considered among the best pound-for-pound in the world, and a huge star in Japan in his prime. Might need expansion to convey his cultural impact? Ginfners (talk) 17:20, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - for now. Several sections without sources.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:17, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

September 17

September 17, 2018 (2018-09-17) (Monday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

(Ready) RD: Celia Barquin Arozamena

Article: Celia Barquín Arozamena (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Guardian
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Just created so still has a stub tag - will need expansion. Subjects meets WP:NGOLF. Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:55, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support article is fully referenced. While it is a new article, the SNG is clearly met, and there is significant coverage. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:22, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - good to go.BabbaQ (talk) 18:18, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Looks fine. Marking as ready. Mamyles (talk) 20:18, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

70th Primetime Emmy Awards

Article: 70th Primetime Emmy Awards (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In television, "The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel" wins Best Comedy and "Game of Thrones" wins Best Drama at the 70th Primetime Emmy Awards. (Post)
News source(s): THR
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: More likely can be written about the ceremonies (I did not watch, but thre's usually an "in memorandum" sequence, and those types of details, and just checking news headlines there was a marriage proposal by one of the winners. That should be summarized like we do with sporting events) Masem (t) 05:01, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment no prose, no good. Expect a wall of "Oppose - No prose" below from people piling on. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:26, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Have a look at last year's article, which contains a nice summary in the intro. Aiming for something like that :) --Tone 12:46, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - The Emmy's, Grammy's, and their ilk are fast approaching irrelevancy.--WaltCip (talk) 13:34, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    If they're, then propose removing them at the right venue. In the meantime, this is ITN/R and we've to accept that. –Ammarpad (talk) 13:40, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per LaserLegs. Article quality is substandard. There is zero prose synopsis of the ceremony, the nominations, the awards, analysis, etc. It's just a bunch of tables with no context. --Jayron32 13:59, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose 674 bytes of character prose. Not even close. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:08, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – Per Jayron. (And I agree with Walt: Entertainment fluff.) Sca (talk) 14:25, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Enzo Calzaghe

Article: Enzo Calzaghe (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: British boxing trainer. Article is pretty poor at the moment but I will look to see if I get get it up to the mark in the next few hours - Dumelow (talk) 15:15, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I expanded it a little and improved the referencing. It's not perfect but I think it meets the standard now - Dumelow (talk) 22:36, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • The problem I have with this isn't the sourcing, it's that the "Boxing" section, which let's face it is what he's notable for, is so small. There's no prose on the majority of fighters who he coached to fame. Black Kite (talk) 22:44, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted Stephen 01:23, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

September 16

September 16, 2018 (2018-09-16) (Sunday)
Health and environment
  • The Sunspot Solar Observatory in New Mexico is set to reopen on Monday after being closed due to "an on-going law enforcement investigation of criminal activity that occurred at Sacramento Peak" in which "a suspect in the investigation potentially posed a threat to the safety of local staff and residents". (CNET)
  • A man and a woman are taken ill after a medical incident in Salisbury, United Kingdom. Police seal off a restaurant as a precautionary measure. According to The Guardian, tensions are high due to recent Novichok poisonings. According to the BBC, "there's no suggestion that this is connected". According to Sky News, at least one of the individuals who fell ill is a Russian. (The Guardian) (BBC) (Sky News)
  • Two people die and 700 others seek medical attention, including three people in critical condition at the Defqon.1 Festival in Sydney, Australia, for drug-related issues. Premier of New South Wales Gladys Berejiklian says that the event is dangerous and will never take place again, effectively banning the music festival. (BBC)

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

Sports

RD: Tommy Best

Article: Tommy Best (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Hereford 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.

Nominator's comments: Former professional footballer. Article is short but adequate and decently referenced. Ad Orientem (talk) 03:20, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak oppose Three cn tags. I tried to nominate the article, but couldn't find sources to cite it. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 03:33, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
All three cn tags you added are sourced to the ref at the end of the paragraph? Kosack (talk) 06:13, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The reference may not be well positioned but it indeed verifies the content tagged with cn. Good to go. –Ammarpad (talk) 06:23, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - per Ammarpad.BabbaQ (talk) 18:19, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Vontae Davis halftime retirement

Consensus will not develop to post this. Stephen 01:26, 18 September 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: Vontae Davis (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Football player Vontae Davis announces his retirement during halftime of a Buffalo Bills game. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ American football player Vontae Davis announces his retirement during halftime of a Buffalo Bills game.
News source(s): ESPN
Credits:
Nominator's comments: Highly unusual to see a professional athlete decide to end their career by retiring during the middle of a game in which their team is currently competing. StrikerforceTalk 21:26, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose unusual isn't sufficient to include an article here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:29, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • We tend to not post sport retirements, unusual or not. Eventually, for super-high-profile athletes, one could argue. But probably not in this case. --Tone 21:30, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Thanks for the nomination, but this does not have the widespread top-level news coverage needed. 331dot (talk) 21:32, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just putting it out there for consideration. I won't be offended if it snow closes. :) StrikerforceTalk 21:36, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I totally support occasional nominations that are interesting ;) Though this one will probably be closed soon. --Tone 21:38, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Certainly unusual, but sadly someone who 95% of the world's population have never heard of isn't going to make ITN for this. Shame really, because the article is really good and far better than most of the stuff that ends up getting linked to the Main Page. Which makes me think - it can't be far off a GA, and it'd make a good DYK hook ... Black Kite (talk) 22:41, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose article is pretty good, few missing refs in his background. ESPN screamed about this for an hour while I was getting my oil changed today. Oppose because Davis seems to be a reasonable but not outstanding player (I'm happy to be corrected) and wasn't really a household name before this event. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:17, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose this is definitely not significant enough for ITN. Lepricavark (talk) 01:08, 18 September 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: James B. Thayer

Article: James B. Thayer (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: American WWII silver star recipient, brigadier-general and father of KISS guitarist Tommy Thayer. Article seems to be in good nick - Dumelow (talk) 23:19, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Only the KISS website/social media seems to be mentioning this as of yet, but the article is up to scratch. Hrodvarsson (talk) 23:57, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose until we have a report of his death from an reliable source other than the Kiss website. Article is well-referenced so is good to go once we have a reliable source. Capitalistroadster (talk) 01:24, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I added a ref to Tommy Thayer's twitter announcing the death. I don't like to rely on social media too much but I think it is appropriate here - Dumelow (talk) 18:53, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see The Oregonian has just covered it so I have added that ref also - Dumelow (talk) 18:55, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted. I edit-conflicted with Dumelow adding the exact same Oregonian reference. Black Kite (talk) 18:57, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Kevin Beattie

Article: Kevin Beattie (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: Not good enough yet (stub) but hoping to change that soonest. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:24, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Eliud Kipchoge marathon world record

Proposed image
Article: Eliud Kipchoge (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ At the 2018 Berlin Marathon, Eliud Kipchoge of Kenya sets a new marathon world record at 2:01:39. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ At the 2018 Berlin Marathon, in Germany, Eliud Kipchoge of Kenya sets a new marathon world record at 2:01:39.
News source(s): IAAF
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Marathon world record is one of those rare sport records that we post on ITN, together with 100m dash and perhaps some records in athletics that haven't been broken for ages. The last time the record was broken was in 2013 which we posted, and so was in 2011. The articles needs some updates first, though. Tone 09:49, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

see: c:Category:Berlin-Marathon 2018 --C.Suthorn (talk) 11:03, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - Significant record.BabbaQ (talk) 11:21, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait - The result is still subject to ratification. Once the press release is posted we can update the chart and table and then post. Mkwia (talk) 12:37, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quite a feat, taking 1 minute and 18 seconds off the previous world record set four years ago by Dennis Kimetto. The IAFF have published this, with the time. But that still says "*Subject to the usual ratification procedure". Martinevans123 (talk) 13:32, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Once ratified you've got my full support for posting. The ratification annoncement will appear here. Mkwia (talk) 13:34, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment added alt-blurb, not everyone knows where "Berlin" is. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:26, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it's pretty standard at ITN to leave off the country for major cities, and Berlin definitely qualifies IMO. The country is available if one clicks the link as well. SpencerT•C 16:55, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • The Kentucky Derby has run for over 140 years, but we still had to include the country then included it a different way and it still ended up at errors. We should be consistent, and include the country every time -- gotta fight that bias after all. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:08, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • There are certain places that most people are generally aware of and their location. London, New York, Paris, Tokyo, Cairo, etc. I think Berlin is well known enough. People aren't going to think it is Berlin, New Hampshire. Kentucky is not as well known as Berlin, I think. 331dot (talk) 18:49, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • Here in Georgia (U.S. state) I thought the marathon was in Colquitt County until I clicked the link. No matter how absurd, we should always include the country, because, you know, bias. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:46, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support alt-blurb for consistency. Lepricavark (talk) 17:17, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support following ratification. Bob talk 18:41, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support first blurb. Alt-blurb is unnecessarily superfluous. –Ammarpad (talk) 20:31, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support first blurb. The location being in Germany seems unnecessary, Berlin is listed because it was the actual race ran. Nice4What (talk) 20:37, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted. No way that photo's heading for the main page, though! Black Kite (talk) 20:51, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the blurb which doesn't spell out that the Berlin Marathon is in Germany. The claim that it's necessary to do that to fight "bias" is ridiculous and was rightly ignored. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:47, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Does anyone else think the current blurb is too brief? I prefered the original blurb. Mkwia (talk) 09:44, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retirement of Delta II rocket

Articles: ICESat-2 (talk · history · tag) and Delta II (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ ICESat-2 is launched, the last mission to use the Delta II rocket. (Post)
News source(s): [1]
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: ICESat-2 was the last launch of a Delta II. Of the rockets still flying, only Russia's Proton has more flights. At over 150 launches, it is the most launches by a non-Soviet rocket. 71.197.186.255 (talk) 20:01, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't know the refs are ok esp since it's not a BLP, I don't know if spacelaunchreport.com is a WP:RS or not, it leans on that source heavily. One ref early in the launch history section is to a 2 page PDF of unknown origin -- tidak bagus. I'm not a rocket scientist, but there is nothing egregious in the article. Really, I don't know, it's a weak support or oppose I guess. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:44, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose, comparing to the last flight of a Space shuttle, the retirement of Delta II model does not feel like an end to an era. Currently, Delta IV is being used from the same family and there are a series of rockets with comparable performance. On the other hand, what about highlighting the satellite and mentioning the rocket in the blurb? --Tone 08:01, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question: Are you arguing that ITN/R does not apply here, perhaps because Delta II is somehow not 'any type of rocket' within the meaning of ITN/R's "The first and last launches of any type of rocket"? If so I think you need to say so explicitly and explain why ITN/R somehow doesn't mean what it appears to mean, because otherwise your oppose should be ignored as opposition to an ITN/R item on grounds other than article quality. Tlhslobus (talk) 20:36, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah, ITNR has it? Did not remember that. Will not argue against that, though one could debate whether "Delta" or "Delta II" count as a type. As said, I'd prefer also focusing on the satellite which is interesting on its own. --Tone 20:42, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks, Tone, I suspect the "any" in "any type" is there to try to spare us such debates. I think the satellite may be better unbolded, especially if that's somehow needed to prevent any quality issues there delaying the posting of an ITNR item, tho both articles seem in decent shape to me (but then I'm no expert on ITN's quality requirements). Tlhslobus (talk) 21:07, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Meanwhile could you please either strike out your above 'weak oppose', or else replace it with an oppose on quality grounds? Tlhslobus (talk) 21:12, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support: This is ITNR so only quality issues should delay it, and both articles look in decent shape to me. But my support is weak because I'm well aware that I'm no expert on our quality requirements (which also tends to mean that my quality inspections are usually less thorough than they would be if I were claiming expertise). So I guess I'm saying something like 'seems OK to me but don't post without an OK from others' and also asking for others to please say what, if anything, needs fixing (apart from the questions Laserlegs has asked above, which I don't feel competent to try to answer, but others might).Tlhslobus (talk) 21:07, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

September 15

September 15, 2018 (2018-09-15) (Saturday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

Science and technology

(Posted) Hurricane Florence

Proposed image
Article: Hurricane Florence (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Hurricane Florence (pictured) kills at least 11 people and causes widespread inland flooding in the Carolinas, prompting mass evacuations. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Hurricane Florence (pictured) kills at least 11 people and causes widespread inland flooding in the Carolinas, prompting mass evacuations in the east coast of the United States.
Alternative blurb II: ​ Hurricane Florence (pictured) kills at least 11 people and causes widespread inland flooding in the Carolinas, prompting mass evacuations in the United States.
Alternative blurb III: ​ Hurricane Florence (pictured) causes widespread inland flooding in the Carolinas, prompting mass evacuations in the east coast of the United States.
Alternative blurb IV: ​ Hurricane Florence (pictured) makes landfall in North Carolina, United States, killing at least 11 people.
News source(s): USAToday, BBC, WGHP
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Catastrophic inland flood event is beginning to unfold as record-breaking rains swell rivers. Large-scale evacuations have begun, specifically along the Cape Fear River (which is expected to rise by 40ft over the next two days) and Little River. Forecasts anticipate this to be among the worst flood disasters in North Carolina history. Wholly separate event from Typhoon Mangkhut so blurbs should not be combined if/when Mangkhut's article is ready. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 19:50, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - Plenty of media coverage, making it ITN-worthy, and the article quality is good. Jusdafax (talk) 20:02, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support easy. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:06, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the two above votes are self-explanatory for my support. SamaranEmerald (talk) 20:31, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not disagreeing on this being a blurb, but I see no reason not to combine this and Mangkhut. We routinely do this for other topics in the same specific topic area with both aspects are appropriate ITN (the last few times have been for auto races that happen the same weekend). Yes, two different storms, but equally deadly and destructive, so there's no reason not to have both in a blurb. --Masem (t) 21:15, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Two Atlantic hurricanes? Sure. Two pacific typhoons? Maybe. Two storms on opposite sides of the world? No thanks. We don't combine elections, next spring we'll have five different European soccer blurbs in a short period of time. We can spare two blurbs for these two different storms on different sides of the world if consensus emerges that they should be posted. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:04, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strongly agreed with LaserLegs. The fact that they are the same type of event doesn't mean that we should post them as a single news story. We wouldn't merge the general election of one country into the general election of another country, and we shouldn't merge an Atlantic hurricane hitting the Carolinas into a Pacific typhoon hitting the Philippines. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 22:18, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support better than many disaster articles, what's there is fine, but WP:RS is talking about catastrophic flooding and the article hasn't been updated. Also should it be "Impact" or "Impacts"? --LaserLegs (talk) 22:06, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Very large storm that struck high-populated areas as a strong hurricane, and it's stalling in the area (which is why Harvey was so devastating) whilst hugging the coast (which helped Irma stay alive during its final landfall). No, we shouldn't merge this with Typhoon Mangkhut. Yes, we should quickly post Florence (and post Mangkhut separately). Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 22:08, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – Notable event, extreme rainfall impact. Master of Time (talk) 22:12, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Problem already solved by altblurbs. Propose a new altblurb if this is insufficient. Enough bickering. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 00:07, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The blurb doesn't state the country in which "the Carolinas" can be found. Chrisclear (talk) 22:19, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply That blurb is sufficient. "the Carolinas" is a hyperlink which clearly shows the map of the United States. Saying "East Coast of the United States" is less informative. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 22:25, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply To say that a blurb without a country is insufficient. Readers should not have to click on a link to find out the location of the country where the event took place. If there was a hurricane that hit the Sapphire Coast, I doubt it would be deemed acceptable to state Sapphire Coast with a wikilink but fail to include the country. Notwithstanding your pejorative language below ("lose their mind"), I'm glad you've suggested alternatives that state the country. Chrisclear (talk) 23:34, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Saying "East Coast of the United States" is less informative." Ridiculous. Only an American could have written that. HiLo48 (talk) 23:10, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Such a statement is objectively correct; it's not disputable that "the East Coast of the United States" is less specific than "the Carolinas" by definition. It's equally valid to say that "New South Wales" is more informative than "the East Coast of Australia." Nevertheless, I've proposed altblurbs that solve this problem. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 23:15, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"it's not disputable that "the East Coast of the United States" is less specific than "the Carolinas" by definition." Until yesterday, I had never seen nor heard the term The Carolinas. My spellchecker disapproves of it. Again, only an American could write what you are writing. I don't mind the fact that Americans see (and spell) things differently from the rest of the English speaking world. What bothers me is when they assume that everyone else sees things the same way as them. No, "the Carolinas" is quite unclear to many people. "East coast of the US" is 100% clear to the whole world. HiLo48 (talk) 23:22, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Have you heard of the US states of North Carolina and South Carolina? They are sometimes known as the Carolinas. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:29, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes? By non-Americans? HiLo48 (talk) 23:40, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
HiLo, even if I agreed to the premise of your argument (which I don't; I truly have no problem with someone saying "in Tasmania" or "in Ontario" or "in Donetsk" or "in Catalonia" or "in Nizhny Novgorod" etc), there's a reason why we'd use "the Carolinas" (hyperlink) and not "the Carolinas" (not a hyperlink, assumes the reader already knows where that is). Nothing about that proposed blurb assumes that everyone sees the world through an American lens. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 23:39, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it does. That's why you need a hyperlink. Nobody should be forced to click on a link, and many won't. Again, I submit the term is never (well, hardly ever - can't know for sure) used outside the US. We should not use it. Why won't Americans accept advice from non-Americans about the language? HiLo48 (talk) 23:43, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The East Coast of the US (not east coast) is a very unspecific area. At one end it's so tropical they haven't seen 40°F in recorded history (54,000 nights) and at the other it's seen -41°F or -52°F and they get meters of snow every year. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:36, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We generally have no qualms with accepting advice from most non-Americans. It's those with a clear anti-American bias that we tend to ignore. Lepricavark (talk) 23:55, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please discuss what I have written, rather than me. HiLo48 (talk) 00:01, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But we have to discuss you, HiLo, because you insist on making you and your painfully obvious anti-American bias a central point of every discussion that involves contentious items like this. When are you going to give it up? WaltCip (talk) 00:05, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No. You have an anti-American bias and it is becoming a serious problem. Lepricavark (talk) 00:03, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"East Coast of the U.S." is too broad. It ranges from Maine to Florida, most of which is not affected by this storm. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:32, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The issue is not with the term "the Carolinas" per se, it's just that this level of detail should be secondary to stating the country in which the event took place. Chrisclear (talk) 23:38, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, but "East Coast of the U.S." is so broad as to be inaccurate. There's probably a way to say "the Carolinas" and "U.S." without referencing the entire East Coast of the U.S. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:44, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree; for that reason I've kept "the Carolinas" in every altblurb. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 23:39, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Haters will lose their minds at errors, and we do tend to include the country in a disaster blurb -- but I have no idea how to add it without it being clunky. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:04, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're probably right that people would lose their mind at errors; I've attempted to write two altblurbs that should satisfy this concern. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 23:15, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as stand alone blurb. It is notable and there has been a fairly slow turnover of articles meaning we can afford to have stand alone articles on both if quality warrants it. Capitalistroadster (talk) 22:28, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - with two comments. 1. Please don't count dead bodies. Just assess the storm. 2. Everyone posting here should quickly also get over to the Typhoon Mangkhut nomination and work on that, to redress Wikipedia's systemic bias. HiLo48 (talk) 23:13, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added another altblurb that excludes mention of death toll (which honestly is how it should be with a hurricane listing, the death toll can change very drastically, both rapidly and over an extended period of time). Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 23:24, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • We routinely post the death toll from natural disasters, in fact, the current typhoon in the box was posted with the death toll, I don't like it, but we shouldn't just stop doing it for this one select item. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:18, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Understandable, worst case scenario is we go to errors to update the death toll if new numbers come out while it's still on the FP. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 00:28, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support obviously. Lepricavark (talk) 23:55, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment alt-blurb 2 is "best", the east coast of the United States is a massive region, evacuations are limited to the Carolinas, but it still feels clunky. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:15, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Mass evacuations happened before the storm hit. There is no need to mention those in the blurbs, and particularly in light of the Typhoon nominate. (This is in part why having these two storms combined into one blurb eliminates bias between the two events; if we are going to have these separate, we can't focus undue weight in one that's not in the other). And hurricanes/typhoons by nature bring widespread destruction. It is the size of that impact that makes it an ITN rather than just another storm, so eliminating the death count at this point makes no sense. --Masem (t) 00:19, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Before or after the storm hit, the evacuations were certainly the result of the hurricane, the blurb is accurate. No bias here, two stories, in the news, if there are quality updates to both, both go up. That's it. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:30, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am 100% sure both stories will go up once the quality is there. That's not the issue, it is the blurbs here. I'm pretty sur there were evacuations for the Philippennes too for the Typhoon but that's not a fact in the blurb, its the the death count. These two stories will be appearing at the same time, they should have the same equivalent "facts" to avoid bias. --Masem (t) 00:44, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment I agree with most of Masem's comments above - that blurbs for Florence and Mangkhut should contain similar information. The current proposed blurbs for Florence seem incredibly long when compared to the proposed blurbs for Mangkhut. The reasons for this seems to be that (1) As noted by Masem, the blurbs for Florence contain references to "prompting mass evacuations", whereas the blurbs for Mangkhut do not (2) the blurbs for Florence contain references to "widespread inland flooding", but the blurbs for Mangkhut do not (3) The blurbs for Florence mention both "the Carolinas" and "Eastern United States", but the blurb for Mangkhut only mentions either northern Philippines or Luzon. In order to reduce the length of the Florence blurb, it would be useful to consider the following: (1) removing the references to "prompting mass evacuations" and/or (2) removing references to "widespread inland flooding" and/or (3) not stating "Eastern United States" and/or (4) if The Carolinas, United States is considered too clumsy, state North Carolina, United States. I added an altblurb4. Chrisclear (talk) 01:49, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Since Brendon the Wizard insists on hiding the part of the thread where people criticised his opinions, I need to say it again here. "The Carolinas" is a term not well known outside the USA. (My spell checker disapproves too.) This is a global encyclopaedia. We should avoid the term. HiLo48 (talk) 03:26, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I closed it because you insisted on perpetuating an argument over a non-issue. The problem was solved basically as soon as it started, but you turned it into a wall of text and even tried un-closing it. Saying "North Carolina" is inaccurate because it's causing significant damage to both North and South Carolina. Stop inventing ways to make every last discussion about perceived American biases. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 14:37, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Reply At the time of writing, the Hurricane Florence article states that "Florence made landfall in Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina". Although there has been hurricane-related damage in South Carolina, this state appears to be more than 50 miles away from where the hurricane made landfall, the specific word used in the blurb. Chrisclear (talk) 15:35, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, though I personally prefer that the blurb mentions both because the real impacts of Florence are certainly not limited to North Carolina, as several of the confirmed deaths thus far are in South Carolina, so I think the blurb should reflect this as it's a significant part of what makes the story newsworthy. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 15:47, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Very large amount of news coverage, and sadly quite a lot of deaths. Article looks to be in good shape. Hrodvarsson (talk) 00:22, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I purposefully have left altblurb IV open, but if it too is exhausted, I would not mind someone overwriting one of the others in favor of a fifth one. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 00:28, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support altblurb IV as it's shortest and most similar to Mangkhut. If necessary it could be further shortened by changing United States to USA.Tlhslobus (talk) 04:42, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: My above support for altblurb IV is partly on the basis that it's most similar to Mongkhut, but that should NOT be misunderstood as support for postponing posting Florence until Mongkhut is ready. No doubt that would show systemic bias, but as WP:BIAS itself says, such systemic bias is probably unavoidable in the real world. (Incidentally, if it were up to me, which it very sensibly isn't, I quite likely wouldn't post either event as neither seems particularly exceptional, but that's clearly irrelevant here, due WP:CONSENSUS).Tlhslobus (talk) 05:48, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, if we post one without posting the other (and this is likely assuming Florence is nearly ready), that's a huge bias problem. Both storms are in the news, and while I know the amount of press covering Florence relative to Mongkhut is significantly different, our project has zero excuse to have one article in great shape sufficient for ITN and the other in crappy shape - that's clearly Western bias at play here. This is a very unusual situation in terms of the simultaneous nature of two similar disasters in separate parts of the world, and it does put a lot into light of how misbalanced the updates have been. (This is why I'd still encourage a combined blurb so that both are posted with apparently equal weight to avoid any systematic bias that WP is in the right position to overcome.) --Masem (t) 05:59, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree that it's a bias of sorts, and all bias necessarily has some problematic aspects. But on balance I don't think it's a huge problem, or even a problem at all (in the sense that I think the upsides likely equal or outweigh the downsides). I think the real 'huge problem' is the notion that English Wikipedia, unlike any of the other Wikipedias, can and should be 'unbiased' in the sense of giving equal coverage to the non-English-speaking world, a notion which is arguably itself massively biased against the English-speaking world. In this regard, despite still agreeing with much of it, I increasingly see WP:BIAS as a thoroughly POV and often harmful essay which is rightly NOT part of our policies or guidelines, despite often being treated as such (including by me, among others). However this is the wrong forum for discussing WP:BIAS, even if ITNC in general, and noms such as this one in particular, are seemingly among the forums most harmed by the bad parts of WP:BIAS. Hence my post-posting support below.Tlhslobus (talk) 16:07, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • There are likely topic areas that what happens in non-Western/non-English speaking parts of the world compared to those that do have less importance may be imbalanced (like politics). But human life loss in natural distances is the same everywhere in the world. The lack of a quality update on the typhoon article compared to the volumes written for something here shows a systematic bias we should be trying to overcome. --Masem (t) 16:12, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • It may be systemic bias, but it's not obvious why this is something we should be trying to overcome. With a huge and unnatural effort we have once again managed to give the false impression on the front page that we are something which we can't ever be in practice anywhere except on the front page. This probably alienates many of our English-speaking and Western readers, while making non-English-speaking and non-Western people see this, arguably correctly (and arguably dangerously, whether correct or not), as yet another example of hypocritical and deceitful Anglos and/or Westerners dishonestly practicing 'cultural imperialism' at their expense through creating and exploiting a false and misleading impression of benevolent impartiality and universality, etc. However this argument probably ultimately belongs elsewhere, so I hopefully won't be drawn into saying any more about it here.Tlhslobus (talk) 18:30, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posting now, hopefully the other storm article catches up with the quality quickly. --Tone 08:02, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Tone.Tlhslobus (talk) 16:07, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • PP comment – Rather than "killing at least 11 people," which seems subliminally anthropomorphic and rather too immediate, how about "causing at least 11 deaths" – ?? – Sca (talk) 14:12, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-Posting Support despite the 'bias', for reasons already explained above.Tlhslobus (talk) 16:07, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That alleged 'Bias' has now disappeared following the posting of Mongkhut. But those determined to see bias can presumably still point to Florence being pictured despite the much higher Mongkhut death toll. And in this case they would seem to be right (or at the very least to have a far stronger case than before), as adding the Mongkhut picture is easy (whereas bringing the Mongkhut article up to scratch was hard). There is also a separate 'cosmetic' problem associated with this, as the Florence picture currently seems to be illustrating Mongkhut. Tlhslobus (talk) 17:33, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Tlhslobus: Image has been replaced with one for Mangkhut. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 17:51, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Cyclonebiskit. Tlhslobus (talk) 17:53, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Typhoon Mangkhut (2018)

Article: Typhoon Mangkhut (2018) (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ At least thirty people have died after a massive storm brought destruction to the northern Philippines. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Typhoon Mangkhut impacts the Philippines, Taiwan, and China, resulting in at least 67 fatalities.
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Still some referencing issues. Sherenk1 (talk) 13:00, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wait. This is ongoing as of writing my comment. Just wait for the reports of how many deaths. I will oppose if the deaths are lower than 10. BSrap (talk) 13:45, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait and Oppose current blurb as currently written (it's also not in the present tense). Would support something closer to Typhoon Mangkhut kills at least n people / leaves n people without power / causes x dollars of damage / causes x amount of flooding after striking the northern Philippines 184.153.25.119 (talk) 14:45, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Maybe combine this with Hurricane Florence, or add both to ongoing. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 15:26, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is actually not a bad idea: we have 14 from this storm and at least 7 from Florence, which for storms of this size are scrapping "MINIMUMDEATHS", but a combined blurb would be reasonable, something like "Typhoon Mangkhut kills at least 14 in the northern Philippines, while at least 7 are killed from Hurricane Florence in the eastern United States." --Masem (t) 15:37, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"MINIMUMDEATHS" was never a policy to begin with and the redirect to that userspace essay was deleted for causing more harm than good and being overall misleading and unhelpful, but personally I'd either add both to ongoing or post the two separately. If I'm not mistaken, the landfalls of 2017 hurricanes were posted swimmingly, rather than waiting until after they've been affecting land for many days to post, or proposing posting them to ongoing instead. I support doing what we did in 2017: consider the landfalls of these extremely destructive storms to be news stories. I support posting both of them as individual ITN stories, and Mangkhut has already killed many people; it's a very large, extremely powerful storm, and it has already objectively caused widespread devastation. Nothing too soon about that.
As for Hurricane Florence, by virtue of the facts that Florence was near major at landfall, that it's a massive storm by size which allows for widespread devastation from flooding, storm surge, and winds, and that high pressure systems north of the storm are forcing it to stall for many days (like Harvey did) and hug the coast (like Irma did) I strongly disagree with the arguments that it's too soon to know if Florence's landfall is newsworthy. Everything about its landfall is newsworthy. I'm considering unclosing the other nomination; I think that the way it was proposed was botched, but the news story itself is quite obviously important. It was in good faith that it was closed, but the statement "we tend to wait until the damage has been reported" could not be further from the truth because damage reports don't happen until long after hurricane season has ended entirely, and at WP:TC we tend not to present preliminary damage reports as fact (noting that they're preliminary) because they're often neither official nor fully accurate.
Lastly, I also oppose the wording of the current blurb. I don't disagree that it is a "massive" storm, it certainly is, but for obvious reasons the blurb should be more informative and straightforward. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 18:06, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment it's storm season, we posted one in Japan that killed 14, Florence is up to 11, Mangkhut has killed 14. I oppose combining the blurbs, there is nothing related between an Atlantic hurricane and a Pacific typhoon except that they're large rotating storms. I also think we should stop focusing on death toll alone, it's an absurdity which has limited bearing on the overall impact of the storm - advanced warning and high building standards in the US and Japan mitigate death toll but do not lessen the significance. So, we can either post both, because they're in the news, or stop being the "death and destruction box" and post neither. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:16, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on quality – Needs work/expansion in all sections. However, notability is sufficient: Category 5 landfalls are exceptionally destructive events. Communications with the effected areas is next to zero so news will be slow to come. Offered an altblurb ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 19:22, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on quality notably on referencing. If this is cleaned up, then I will support. Capitalistroadster (talk) 22:32, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on merit, temporary oppose on quality per my previous comment on this nomination. Notability is certainly not in question, but the article isn't ready just yet. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 22:50, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support If this isn't posted, it will be the best demonstration yet of Wikipedia's systemic bias. HiLo48 (talk) 23:14, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – If no one else gets to it in a few hours, I'll give expanding the article a whirl. Info to get this up to par is easily accessible through Talk:2018 Pacific typhoon season and the NDRRMC. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 23:26, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Article needs a bit of work. Take this as a support if/when the article is expanded. Hrodvarsson (talk) 00:24, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Only to note this storm is still going, threatening landfall on China/Hong Kong now. (also updating death toll per [2]) --Masem (t) 04:03, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Death toll updated to 30. ~ KN2731 {t · c} 07:27, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I just posted the Florence blurb. Ideally, we would have both storms on ITN but the quality of this article is currently below the Main page standards. Looking forward to posting as soon as this improves. --Tone 08:07, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"...the quality of this article is currently below the Main page standards." That's our systemic bias for you. HiLo48 (talk) 08:14, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am not posting an article with 3 orange tags and empty subsections, bias or not. I would be happy to expand the article but this is really not my expert area. --Tone 08:28, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I have to admit being surprised that this is not ITN on the English Wikipedia. Do people in the Philippines not also speak English? Putting it on ITN may also help to improve quality. Rhombus (talk) 08:53, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - ITN ready. And is covered by all world media.BabbaQ (talk) 11:38, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on article quality. The article has three orange tags. It is clearly not ready for the main page, repetitive cries of 'systemic bias' notwithstanding. Lepricavark (talk) 12:29, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and post now per WP:IAR. IMHO the credibility of Wikipedia is harmed more by seeming to favour Western stories than by a few maintenance tags in the article. Ordinarily I 100% support quality improvement prior to posting, but I think the downsides of waiting outweigh the benefits right now. Just my opinion, of course.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:27, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the article is no where near MP ready, with the Meteorological history section mostly unreferenced. In terms of being comprehensive (an actual requirement of ITN, as opposed to screaming about bias as is happening above) it's slim on details for the preparations and impact section. The storm is still active and we put the brakes on posting Florence until it had petered out and the impact reported. Lastly, posting this doesn't bring back the dead, doesn't dissipate the storm more quickly, doesn't cause plane loads of supplies to descend on south east asia, there is absolutely no reason, none at all, zero reason to rush this to the main page. Fix the article and it'll go up, the story is "in the news". --LaserLegs (talk) 13:41, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • FWIW, damage from Florence is only to get worse (the system stalling inland bringing more rain which means more floods). We should post disasters articles once we know the disaster is significant and the article is at quality, even if we know the worst is still around the corner. --Masem (t) 15:10, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Marked as ready – I've expanded the met hist to get enough for ITN standards and there are sufficient references and info in the preps/impact section to warrant posting. Not posting myself since I'm involved in the article's expansion and want input from others, however. Suggest using the altblurb ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 16:39, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Excellent, posting now. --Tone 16:42, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-post Support. I expanded it a bit and also think it's ready. OhanaUnitedTalk page 17:13, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-posting comment: Wouldn't it be better to post it below Florence, as the Florence picture now seems to be illustrating Mangkhut? Or alternatively to use a picture of Mangkhut that is in the Mongkhut article? As this is a 'cosmetic' problem (and perhaps also a 'perceived bias' one due to Florence being pictured despite Mongkhut's much higher death toll), but not technically an error, I'm not sure whether to mention it at WP:ERRORS as well as here, tho other editors should please feel free to do so if they wish. Tlhslobus (talk) 17:21, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Prepping Mangkhut's image for protection so it can be posted. Will replace Florence's image once it's ready ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 17:44, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

September 14

September 14, 2018 (2018-09-14) (Friday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

September 13

September 13, 2018 (2018-09-13) (Thursday)
Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

Politics and elections

(Closed) Hurricane Florence

Closing for now, even though the storm has made landfall we tend to wait until it's finished and the damage reported. Re-nom in a day or two. --LaserLegs (talk) 08:57, 14 September 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: Hurricane Florence (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Hurricane Florence makes landfall in (insert location). (Post)
News source(s): http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/09/14/hurricane-florences-path-track-storm-here.html
Credits:
Nominator's comments: Hurricane that has potential to cause widespread damage in the USA. 1779Days (talk) 05:58, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait, obviously - Does one get kudos for posting a weather forecast? HiLo48 (talk) 06:28, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Far too premature even if it makes landfall, if all it does it dump a lot of rain and cause some flooding (as hurricanes tend to do) but no deaths, we shouldn't post this. --Masem (t) 06:31, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[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) Massachusetts gas explosions

Yes I commented, but consensus is clearly against posting and the discussion is devolving into the usual claims of "US-centrism". --LaserLegs (talk) 11:32, 14 September 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: Massachusetts gas explosions (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Gas explosions in Massachusetts lead to evacuations as more than 30 fires erupt. (Post)
News source(s): CNN Guardian (UK)
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Brand new article, unusual condition that is getting national coverage. — xaosflux Talk 00:44, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support read the article a few minutes ago, it's light on details but so are WP:RS. This is certainly a rare event. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:13, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to Xaosflux; the sources line in the template is not a yes or no question; typically the nominator links some news stories to demonstrate the nominated event is in the news. Just FYI only. 331dot (talk) 01:17, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks I'm not normally on the nominating side of these! — xaosflux Talk 01:47, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose While this is certainly an unusual situation, there have been no death reported, and this doesn't seem to be anything like a planned event (read: terrorist attack). Unfortunate, but not going to have lasting impact from what we can tell (eg arguably will fail NEVENT in the near future). --Masem (t) 01:58, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Earthquakes, fires, floods, night club fires, plane crashes, so so much of what we post could easily fall under that criteria. I'm not saying you're wrong. --LaserLegs (talk) 09:00, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose per Masem, unusual but no lasting impact, will likely fall out of coverage once Hurricane Florence makes landfall tomorrow or so. SamaranEmerald (talk) 02:11, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, the event has garnered enough media attention. The article looks good, I don't see any glaring problems from my read. -- Tavix (talk) 02:18, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose largely due to the article being a stub at the moment and the poor timing of this disaster, which like the above user notes, will likely be shrouded by the incoming hurricane within the next few hours. I also agree with both oppose votes above that the impact will be minimal and short-term at best. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 02:30, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It's attaining significant coverage, and the article is pretty good and sufficiently long to cover the subject. Davey2116 (talk) 03:44, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - US centrism will no doubt get this posted, but that's even worse this time round because of the comments that it will be overshadowed by some storm, also about to hit the USA. You Americans are only making yourselves look worse. Do look at what's happening to the the other 95% of the world's population sometimes. This is simply not a major event globally. HiLo48 (talk) 03:54, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
HiLo48, There are certainly valid reasons to oppose this(and I do as well), but "Please do not oppose an item because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive." If you want to fight the very real systemic bias, please make some nominations. As noted, there are currently 0 US related blurbs. 331dot (talk) 09:46, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
HiLo48, Continuing to rail about US centrism is irritating to the point of being disruptive. You were warned about doing this on ITN a few years ago. Stop it.--WaltCip (talk) 11:17, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose localized event that suffers from widespread news coverage in the wake of a soon to be worse disaster. I wouldn't be surprised if this article is nominated for a speedy deletion in the near future. Kirliator (talk) 04:10, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose because we must put a stop to the US centrism that has resulted in there currently being 0 US-related blurbs. Actually, I'm opposing because this just isn't a big enough story for ITN. It's the kind of story that almost never gets posted, but is nevertheless seized upon as proof of some very serious problem. Lepricavark (talk) 04:11, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Ra Ra All-American comments are the problem. HiLo48 (talk) 04:17, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, so you were talking about a different thread. Gotcha. Lepricavark (talk) 04:20, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - story lacks the necessary significance for an ITN posting. Stormy clouds (talk) 08:10, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose trivial event, with no encyclopedic value or any long-lasting impact. DYK is a possibility. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:34, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - would make a decent DYK though ... Black Kite (talk) 09:05, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. No long lasting impact. 331dot (talk) 09:46, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if it has "no lasting impact" or "no encyclopedic value" or "fails NEVENT" then consider taking it over WP:AFD since that's the place to have content removed from Wikipedia, not here. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:30, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[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.

September 12

September 12, 2018 (2018-09-12) (Wednesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime
  • A man plows his car into a crowd of people at a busy square in Hengyang, Hunan, China, before exiting his vehicle and stabbing bystanders. Eleven people are killed and 44 others are injured. The attacker was detained and identified by police as a convicted drug dealer and thief, who said that "he wanted to take revenge on society". (South China Morning Post)
  • Five people are killed in a string of shootings in Bakersfield, California, before the gunman fatally shoots himself. (Reuters)

Politics and elections

Sports

(Posted) RD: Henry Kalis

Article: Henry Kalis (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: Minnesota state legislature representative. I have expanded the article a bit - Dumelow (talk) 06:00, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Looks good to go. Hrodvarsson (talk) 00:33, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Good to go.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:45, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have marked this ready based on the above supports - Dumelow (talk) 19:03, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted Stephen 01:42, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Antonio Saca sentencing

Article: Antonio Saca (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Former Salvadorian president Antonio Saca is sentenced to 10 years in prison on embezzlement and money laundering charges. (Post)
News source(s): Reuters
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Sentencing of a former head of state. EternalNomad (talk) 01:44, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Oppose target article lacks consistent information about the conviction other than a single sentence. This is however noteworthy, and iff expanded, I will reconsider my vote. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 02:35, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on quality, lack of update. Topic does meet appropriateness for ITN posting otherwise. --Masem (t) 02:58, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Solely on article quality which is well below what we should be expecting from an article about a former head of state. This goes beyond the usual referencing issues, which do exist. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:53, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Rachid Taha

Article: Rachid Taha (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: Algerian singer. Not my area of expertise but at a quick glance the article looks OK - Dumelow (talk) 21:48, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak support minus the two CN tags, the article is pretty good. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:59, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have now reffed those two passages - Dumelow (talk) 22:22, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Good work! --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:01, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Shen Chun-shan

Article: Shen Chun-shan (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Focus Taiwan News Channel
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) 18:48, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market

Firm consensus against posting. See you again next January, article quality depending. Stormy clouds (talk) 16:22, 12 September 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: Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single_Market (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The European Parliament has voted in favor of the Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market, removing the "mere conduit" exemption from copyright infringement (Post)
News source(s): https://www.theverge.com/2018/9/12/17849868/eu-internet-copyright-reform-article-11-13-approved
Credits:

Article needs updating
Nominator's comments: Nominated due to the significant change this could bring to the internet at large, as well as the significant media attention it was reciveing prior to the vote. Topic has been covered by numerous reputable papers. and effects any ewbsite that links to news articles on mass. Fremanofkol (talk) 14:06, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I was in the middle of actually nominating this when I read that there still is a final vote to be held in January. This is not yet passed. Definitely suggest waiting until Jan. --Masem (t) 14:08, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Masem.--WaltCip (talk) 14:25, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose suggest this is closed. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:57, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose because the article is still garbage and is not comprehensive at all as stipulated by WP:ITN. It's just a list of objections by special interests to specific sections, and tells me precisely fuck all about the actual law. I'll oppose it again in January if it's still in it's current state. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:47, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    HOORAH. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:48, 12 September 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.

September 11

September 11, 2018 (2018-09-11) (Tuesday)
Disasters and accidents

(NDTV) Braview Academy Highschool in Whitefield, Dundee (Scotland) burns down after a major fire occurred as dozens of fire fighters finally put it out fortunately no one was injured

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

(Posted) RD: Don Newman (basketball)

Article: Don Newman (basketball) (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: Article a bit thin but potentially acceptable. I formatted a few references, but don't have time to review it thoroughly - Dumelow (talk) 22:00, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Record section remains unsourced and one cn tag. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:19, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have added refs for these sections - Dumelow (talk) 08:39, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Fenella Fielding

Article: Fenella Fielding (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: British actress, appeared in two "Carry On" films. May need some minor referencing issues addressing. Mjroots (talk) 07:16, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak oppose per nom, there are just a couple of claims that need referencing. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:49, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I have added several references. I think this is ready for posting.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:46, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted. Black Kite (talk) 13:47, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) RD: Ramin Panahi

Stale. Stephen 22:53, 13 September 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: Ramin Panahi (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Rudaw, VOANEWS, Amnesty International
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: I haven't made any changes but founded the article and nominated to the RD. ئارام بکر (talk) 13:36, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose principally a stub. But what's there is okay, hence the weak. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:41, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose Somewhat concerning that there is little to nothing about this person's life, only the circumstances of their death. Looks like a borderline WP:BLP1E.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:46, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose - for now. if improvements are made today then I can change my vote.BabbaQ (talk) 13:35, 13 September 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: Kulsoom Nawaz

Article: Kulsoom Nawaz (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): DAWN, 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.

 Saqib (talk) 11:32, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Support The article looks fine, but lede section needs expansion. Amir (talk) 13:03, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support nothing to write home about, but satis. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:44, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • support - Seems ready for posting.BabbaQ (talk) 17:25, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted Stephen 00:11, 12 September 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:

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates&oldid=860171857"