Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates: Difference between revisions
Gerda Arendt (talk | contribs) →RD: Wanda Wiłkomirska: add another updater - what's missing? |
|||
Line 667: | Line 667: | ||
| updater = Gerda Arendt<!-- Should be filled with the username of the person who has contributed the most to updates. --> |
| updater = Gerda Arendt<!-- Should be filled with the username of the person who has contributed the most to updates. --> |
||
| updater2 = Innisfree987 |
| updater2 = Innisfree987 |
||
| updater3 = |
| updater3 = Poeticbent |
||
| ITNR = no <!-- 'No' by default. Only put in 'yes' if the event is listed at WP:ITNR --> |
| ITNR = no <!-- 'No' by default. Only put in 'yes' if the event is listed at WP:ITNR --> |
||
| nom cmt = Violinist who played in 5 continents. Sadly, all 2008 sources were dead this morning, but some found. |
| nom cmt = Violinist who played in 5 continents. Sadly, all 2008 sources were dead this morning, but some found. |
Revision as of 23:06, 5 May 2018
Welcome to In The News. Please read the guidelines. Admin instructions are here. |
In the news toolbox |
---|
This page provides a place to discuss new items for inclusion on In the news (ITN), a protected template on the Main Page (see past items in the ITN archives). Do not report errors in ITN items that are already on the Main Page here— discuss those at the relevant section of WP:ERRORS.
This candidates page is integrated with the daily pages of Portal:Current events. A light green header appears under each daily section – it includes transcluded Portal:Current events items for that day. You can discuss ITN candidates under the header.
view — page history — related changes — edit |
Glossary
All articles linked in the ITN template must pass our standards of review. They should be up-to-date, demonstrate relevance via good sourcing and have at least an acceptable quality. Nomination steps
The better your article's quality, the better it covers the event and the wider its perceived significance (see WP:ITNSIGNIF for details), the better your chances of getting the blurb posted.
Headers
Voicing an opinion on an itemFormat your comment to contain "support" or "oppose", and include a rationale for your choice. In particular, address the notability of the event, the quality of the article, and whether it has been updated. Please do...
Please do not...
Suggesting updatesThere are two places where you can request corrections to posted items:
|
Suggestions
May 5
May 5, 2018
(Saturday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Science and technology
Sports
|
[Ready] Launch of InSight/MarCO
Blurb: The InSight spacecraft (pictured) and its companion MarCO cubesats are successfully launched towards the planet Mars. (Post)
Alternative blurb: The InSight spacecraft (pictured) is successfully launched towards Mars, alongside its companion MarCO cubesats.
News source(s): The New York Times, BBC News, The Guardian
Credits:
- Nominated by PhilipTerryGraham (talk · give credit)
– PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 12:51, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
- This is pretty much ready to post - I'll just wait until I see some more support. --Tone 14:57, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
- Support - Article is good. Sherenk1 (talk) 15:08, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
- Support - Need this one. Ultimograph5 (talk) 15:15, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
- Comment - I added an image to the nomination, as I realise the ITN section will need one once the item on the Inter-Korean summit is bumped by this incoming item. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 17:40, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
- Comment. This will also get posted when it arrives at its destination, per ITNR. 331dot (talk) 19:07, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
- Support good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:28, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
- Support - good 2 go.BabbaQ (talk) 22:22, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
Russian protests
Blurb: 5 May started protests in Russian. (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:
- Nominated by UkrainianCossack (talk · give credit)
UkrainianCossack (talk) 10:07, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
- Comment this would be more fitting for an ongoing nomination, not a separate blurb. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 12:09, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose - I am not seeing any updates on the article. Am I wrong? Sherenk1 (talk) 12:44, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
- Support on principle, oppose on quality - I'm already hearing a lot about this story from outlets and peers, so I'm fully convinced that it's an important news story, but the article is far from ready. There were very few additions for the 5th May protests and unfortunately I had to roll them back because there were no sources and the sentences added used wording that isn't compatible with MoS. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 20:10, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose not sure how the blurb is commensurate with the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:29, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose nothing about 5 May in the article minus the infobox. Feels like a POV push especially with the poor translation for the blurb. Juxlos (talk) 21:50, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Apparently this started last year. So nothing new?Zigzig20s (talk) 21:59, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
(Closed) North Korean time zone change
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Blurb: After the inter-Korean summit, North Korea changes its time zone to match that of South Korea. (Post)
Alternative blurb: After the inter-Korean summit, North Korea changes its time zone from UTC+08:30 to UTC+09:00, matching that of South Korea.
News source(s): BBC
Credits:
- Nominated by EternalNomad (talk · give credit)
- Oppose Not seeing this in the news, probably more of a DYK item. --LaserLegs (talk)
- Oppose per LaserLegs, I’m only seeing this as a ploy to improving relationships between the two Koreas. SamaranEmerald (talk) 01:04, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
- Support - Because it actually went through. Sherenk1 (talk) 01:40, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose minor, barely notable piece of news that does not warrant an ITN post. This is basically saying we post “Daylight Savings Time begins/ends in the United States”, albeit half the time change. Kirliator (talk) 02:03, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose good faith nom. Interesting trivia. But it's still trivia. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:24, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose I disagree with the comparison to American Daylight Savings time, which is far more routine. Still, this is too trivial to merit posting at ANI. Lepricavark (talk) 03:07, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose -We cannot litter main page with every segment of their chat. We posted the grand part, that's the meeting itself. That's enough. May be DYK?. –Ammarpad (talk) 04:06, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
- Comment Three years back I have nominated article about recently established Pyongyang time. It was not approved. --Jenda H. (talk) 09:45, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
- Support - I actually disagree with peoples assessment above. I think this is just the kind of news that should appear on ITN. It is part of history that Korea changes back time in an effort to soften relations. Article seems decent enough for posting.BabbaQ (talk) 10:06, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Kinda getting a 'cool story bro' feeling from this. A bit of harmless trivia. talk to !dave 11:36, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
May 4
May 4, 2018
(Friday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Arts and culture
Disasters and accidents
International relations
Law and crime
Science and technology
Sports
|
Albert Pujols' 3000th career hit
Blurb: Albert Pujols becomes the 32nd Major League Baseball player to record 3,000 hits (Post)
News source(s): CBS NewsSI.com Yahoo! Sports
Credits:
- Nominated by Purplebackpack89 (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Drdrepepper (talk · give credit) and Purplebackpack89 (talk · give credit)
Nominator's comments: Significant baseball accomplishment and Pujols is a GA. pbp 13:47, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose "32nd player" basically says this might be a career achievement, but not a significant milestone for the sport. --Masem (t) 14:38, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose I'm as big a baseball fan as they come (just check my promoted content) and while it's great he reached that milestone, it's not a significant enough sports story for us to post. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:40, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose -Muboshgu and Masem have said everything. –Ammarpad (talk) 17:54, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose. Pujols is one of the greatest to ever play the game, but this isn't even a record being broken. It's very impressive, but he's not even the first active player to hit 3000, and he certainly won't be the last to do it. Nohomersryan (talk) 18:55, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
- Out of curiosity, does anyone have any examples of sport records/milestones that were posted to ITN? Nohomersryan (talk) 18:56, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
- Can't see any at the moment, but pretty confident we have posted some key world record-breaking (sub 4-minute mile, for example) figures, but not all of them. --Masem (t) 19:09, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
- Out of curiosity, does anyone have any examples of sport records/milestones that were posted to ITN? Nohomersryan (talk) 18:56, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose DYK. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:29, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
Nigeria mosque bombing
Blurb: A Boko Haram bombing at a mosque kills 86 people in Nigeria. (Post)
News source(s): [1]
Credits:
- Nominated by 108.214.192.62 (talk · give credit)
Nominator's comments: The bombing happened a few days ago, massive fatalities even for a country like Nigeria. 108.214.192.62 (talk) 04:51, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose as still a stub, otherwise the nomination is right, tremendous loss of life. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:51, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose - but only until someone expands and improve the article.BabbaQ (talk) 10:07, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
- Support in Principle, Oppose in Quality large-scale attack, but the article is in desperate need of an expansion. Will change to full support once necessary changes are made. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 12:15, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Doina Cornea
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Washington Post
Credits:
- Nominated by TDKR Chicago 101 (talk · give credit)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Article updated and well sourced --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:09, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
- Support Solid article. Well sourced. No issues. Memorie veșnică! -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:26, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
- Support per above, nice job TDKR. Kirliator (talk) 02:05, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
- Marked as Ready -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:22, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
- Posted. Vanamonde (talk) 04:24, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
(Ready) Kīlauea eruption
Blurb: The eruption of volcano Kīlauea in Hawaii forces the evacuation of thousands people. (Post)
Alternative blurb: The eruption of volcano Kīlauea in Hawaii forces the evacuation of nearly two thousand people.
Alternative blurb II: The eruption of volcano Kīlauea, followed by an earthquake, in Hawaii forces the evacuation of nearly two thousand people.
News source(s): CNN, Guardian
Credits:
- Nominated by Brandmeister (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Nominator's comments: The article is GA. Update could be expanded further. Brandmeistertalk 10:15, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose. Kilauea erupts frequently; almost continually in fact. A new vent that requires evacuations is rare, but so far no-one has been hurt and very little damage has been done. I'll be willing to reconsider if things get much worse, but right now this is missing the 'disaster' part of a natural disaster. Modest Genius talk 10:48, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
- Support - 10,000 people being evacuated is a significant number. Article in good shape. Mjroots (talk) 12:24, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
- Where does it say 10,000? I read 1,500. Abductive (reasoning) 17:07, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
- @Abductive: - BBC TV news said 10k just before I posted. Mjroots (talk) 04:55, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
- Where does it say 10,000? I read 1,500. Abductive (reasoning) 17:07, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
- Support - Indeed, large evacuation. BabbaQ (talk) 12:31, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
- Support - This eruption is getting featured heavily in the news and the Wikipedia article is a well-written one that will be nice to highlight. OtterAM (talk) 14:43, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
- Support - widely reported major eruption. Good opportunity to feature a GA. -Zanhe (talk) 18:22, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
- Support - It’s 1,800 evacuated, not 10k. I have updated the article noting the destroyed houses, closed geothermal power station, and no-fly zone. I’ve also added a sub-header for navigation, and added an altblurb. Jusdafax (talk) 19:54, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose per Modest Genius. It's affecting a trivial number of people and as yet has caused next-to-no damage. It's inconvenient, but 1,500 people can be evacuated from a large hotel because of a fire alarm. Nothing significant to see here, nothing that will live long in the memory, nothing that a real encyclopedia would note beyond a single bullet point in the list of eruptions of volcanoes for this year, certainly not main page material, despite the good quality article (and weak update). The Rambling Man (talk) 20:19, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
- Support While I agree with Modest Genius that Kilauea has been erupting continuously since 1983, article is in excellent shape, and coverage is widespread across the media. Python Dan (talk) 23:18, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
- Comment There appears to have been a related earthquake. As more information comes out, I think an updated blurb may be needed soon. SounderBruce 23:39, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
- Support - As per above. Sherenk1 (talk) 01:39, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
- Support - major news item, earthquake has added to notability. Not sure what the delay is here. It's not often we get a WP:GA to post. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:04, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
- Support Making the headlines with the related quake. Article is GA class. –Ammarpad (talk) 09:33, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
- Marked as Ready looks like the consensus is highly in favor of posting this. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 12:12, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
- Added altblurb mentioning earthquake. Please change or remove however you like. GreyGreenWhy (talk) 19:09, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
- Comment ANY ADMINS THERE? I oppose this, but the consensus is clear, and has been for about 12 hours. Why isn't this being posted? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:31, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
(Posted) Nobel Prize in Literature 2018 postponed
Blurb: Following sexual assault allegations concerning the organisation, the Swedish Academy postpones the 2018 award of the Nobel Prize in Literature for a year. (Post)
Alternative blurb: The 2018 Nobel Prize in Literature is postponed until 2019
Alternative blurb II: Following sexual assault allegations concerning the Swedish Academy, the 2018 Nobel Prize in Literature is postponed until 2019
Alternative blurb III: The Swedish Academy postpones the 2018 Nobel Prize in Literature after several members of the Academy leaves in protest.
Alternative blurb IV: Following numerous resignations, the Swedish Academy postpones the 2018 Nobel Prize in Literature until 2019
News source(s): BBC
Credits:
- Nominated by LukeSurl (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Nominator's comments: This seems an important events surrounding an item that would have been ITNR. Nobel_Prize_in_Literature#Controversies_about_Swedish_Academy_board_members has a decent write-up of these events. LukeSurl t c 09:22, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
- Support Ha, you beat me to this nom by a whisker. :) Significant enough and it is in the news now even if the prize wasn't due until November. Not sure if this should be posted now or then when people will be looking for it. Suggested more concise blurb, the first sounds too much like a juicy tabloid headline to me. cart-Talk 09:42, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
- Support - per historic decision by a significant institution. I suggest using the org blurb.BabbaQ (talk) 09:44, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
- BabbaQ, I was edit conflicted while I was trying to add that the original blurb is also sort of incorrect since it is the Nobel Comity that ultimately awards the prize, the Academy is just one part of that comity, and the comity has postponed the prize because of the trouble in the Academy. cart-Talk 09:50, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
- Ok, I see your point.BabbaQ (talk) 09:59, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
- New blurb suggested. cart-Talk 10:01, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
- Support on the merits. Very unusual to not give out this award. 331dot (talk) 09:44, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
- Support. Who would have thought that the MeToo revolution would affected the Nobel Literature prize? Count Iblis (talk) 09:56, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
- Support I was wondering what brought Nobel Prize in Lit. to ITN at this time and thought it must be something unusual. And yes, it is.... –Ammarpad (talk) 10:16, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
- I have made a third more neutral Blurb suggestion.BabbaQ (talk) 10:31, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
- Support Excellent suggestion. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap shit room 10:51, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
- Weak support. The prize itself is ITNR, and this is effectively the negative of that. On the other hand we're essentially saying 'something won't happen as planned'. On balance I think it's worth a blurb, but only just. I've added yet another blurb suggestion (alt4), as none of the existing ones are particularly satisfactory. The reasons for the controversy seem sufficiently complicated that we shouldn't try to summarise them in the blurb. Modest Genius talk 10:56, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
- "Complicated" is an understatement, the whole thing is called Paradise Hotel here in Sweden. A short neutral blurb is best since there are numerous things leading up to this postponing; we can't single out one of them. cart-Talk 11:14, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
- A problem with "resignations" in the blurb is "Technically, members are appointed for life to the Swedish Academy and cannot resign, although they can refuse to take part". -- KTC (talk) 12:15, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
- Not any more. As a result of this debacle, the Swedish King has altered the rules. See section: Nobel_Prize_in_Literature#Controversies_about_Swedish_Academy_board_members. cart-Talk 12:34, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
- Have those that "resigned" prior to the rules change resigned formally since the rules change, or are they still technically refuse to take part so the seat couldn't be filled? -- KTC (talk) 12:48, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
- Article is now tweaked for better reading, thanks for pointing it out. The new rule is only two days old and everything is still a mess. One member has formally handed in her resignation, the rest haven't got around to it yet, no seats are held with the intention of hindering new members. No seats have been re-filled. This current uncertainty and mess is why I think the blurb should be short and neutral as in the first altblurb. cart-Talk 12:55, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
- As W.carter - being in Sweden and able to read Swedish - almost certainly has a better understanding of this complex scenario than the rest of us, I think it is prudent to defer to them on which blurb(s) are adequate here. --LukeSurl t c 13:03, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
- Support Apparently the first time the prize has ever been withheld due to a scandal (the only previous occasions were due to war time or a lack of suitable candidates.) My preference would be altblurb 2.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:44, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
- As a Swede I think blurb 3 or 4 is the most appropriate as the postponing has more reasons for happening than the sexual harassment scandal. BabbaQ (talk) 13:09, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
- You are right that the resignation and inactive members due to the crisis is the legal reason the Academy can't work at the moment. The sexual harassment scandal was one of the things that triggered the crisis, but so was the suspicion of financial crime now under investigation by the Swedish Economic Crime Authority as well as long-held bad blood between members, active and inactive. But of course it is the sex scandal that the media picks up on. cart-Talk 13:20, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
- Support blurbs 3/4, but oppose on quality There are a few quality and BLP concerns of the update to this. Notably, per BBC that the accused member had denied the charges but this is not included. The update should focus less on what the accusations are, only that they were given and that board members wanted to leave in protest, something the King granted on May 2. Nothing about the accusations have been proven so we have to be very careful there. --Masem (t) 13:27, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
- Articles updated with that the accused denies charges. Btw, he is not a member of the academy, he is just married to one. cart-Talk 14:19, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
- Posted alt 1. -- KTC (talk) 13:30, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
- I think it is the wrong blurb that has been posted. The issue is wider than that particular issue and blurb 3 and 4 would have been more appropriate. Anyway its good it got posted.BabbaQ (talk) 14:06, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
- If one of those blurbs were chosen, we must first figure out if we are talking about real resignations or simply leaving while still formally being members until their resignations have been handed in. How many chair are now leagally empty? Since not even the Academy is clear about this, how can we be. cart-Talk 14:23, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
- For ITN's purpose, it doesn't matter how many chairs are empty or are pending, just that as a whole of the remaining voting members, they voted to postpone their selection until next year. --Masem (t) 14:34, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
- No, they don't have a quorum now and so have no power to decide a prize currently. They are stuck until they change the rules. Andrew D. (talk) 14:44, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose I saw the item on the main page just now. The blurb didn't explain matter well and so I clicked through. The article doesn't explain the matter well either – there's nothing at all in the lead about this. Reading other sites to understand what's happening, the issue is that the committee doesn't have a quorum because many members are boycotting it and some have been doing so since 1989! The organisation is clearly a shambles and, while there's talk of what they are going to do to sort it out, they haven't actually done it yet and so we shouldn't be predicting that it will all be done by 2019. Per WP:CRYSTAL, more work is needed to present this uncertainty more clearly. Andrew D. (talk) 14:44, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
- Reliable sources are saying two laureates will be announced in 2019.[2] It's true that the matter is not mentioned in the lead, but modifying the blurb so it goes straight to Nobel_Prize_in_Literature#Controversies_about_Swedish_Academy_board_members would solve this.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:11, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
- Now in lead and section is fixed with info about the quorum. I think the most reliable source is the press release from the Academy itself. cart-Talk 15:38, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
(Closed) Ex-VW CEO indicted
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Blurb: Ex-Volkswagen CEO Martin Winterkorn is indicted on fraud and conspiracy charges in the USA over the Volkswagen emissions scandal (Post)
Alternative blurb: Former CEO Martin Winterkorn is indicted in the USA over the Volkswagen emissions scandal
News source(s): New York TimesReutersBBC
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by Jusdafax (talk · give credit)
Article updated
- Oppose, longstanding consensus at ITN is only to post convictions. Please withdraw your nomination or waste everybody's time watching it get inevitably closed. Abductive (reasoning) 02:03, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
- I maintain the Winterkorn indictment is of such an unusual nature per the references that it precludes your “consensus” which many here, including me, have never signed off on. Jusdafax (talk) 02:47, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
- I think what you are saying is that you believe an IAR exception to our customary approach is justified. I will think about it. This is unusual in the extreme. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:54, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks Ad Orientem, that’s a more diplomatic statement which I endorse. I can’t recall a similar criminal charge being filed against a top-rank corporate CEO before. Another notability factor is the statement by the U.S. Attorney General which I have added to the target article. I am continuing to expand both articles. Jusdafax (talk) 03:00, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
- I think what you are saying is that you believe an IAR exception to our customary approach is justified. I will think about it. This is unusual in the extreme. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:54, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
- I maintain the Winterkorn indictment is of such an unusual nature per the references that it precludes your “consensus” which many here, including me, have never signed off on. Jusdafax (talk) 02:47, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose We don't usually post indictments outside of world leaders due to potential BLP issues, because we don't presume guilty before they are proved innocent. --Masem (t) 03:22, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
- I don’t agree that this is a BLP issue. It’s sourced information and news around the world. Per Ad Orientem, this is not your usual criminal indictment. There are also major economic considerations for Volkswagen itself. Jusdafax (talk) 03:26, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
- I should clarify that in his article or in the Dieselgate article, this is not a BLP issue. But to put it in a high priority space like ITN, that's a bit different. Front page should be more careful as to these types of charges which have yet to result in convictions. Additionally, he's the ex-CEO, and thus has little effect on the company proper. --Masem (t) 04:11, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
- Volkswagen has already admitted guilt in the case, and Winterkorn has resigned over it. The referenced articles state that the indictment is likely to have financial and legal effects, and calls into question the corporate culture that led to the emissions cheating. The charges are filed at the highest legal system of the U.S. Government. It’s on front pages all over the world. We are re-reporting a high-profile, high-level, unique indictment that has among other things substantial financial considerations. Your concerns do you credit, but I strongly disagree with them. This is important, groundbreaking news. In my view it can’t be compared to, say, a murder case or pedestrian scandal. The ITN precedent is the 2015 FIFA corruption case which of is similar criminal magnitude in the sporting world. And yes, the FIFA indictments were ITN blurbs. Jusdafax (talk) 04:34, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
- I should clarify that in his article or in the Dieselgate article, this is not a BLP issue. But to put it in a high priority space like ITN, that's a bit different. Front page should be more careful as to these types of charges which have yet to result in convictions. Additionally, he's the ex-CEO, and thus has little effect on the company proper. --Masem (t) 04:11, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
- I don’t agree that this is a BLP issue. It’s sourced information and news around the world. Per Ad Orientem, this is not your usual criminal indictment. There are also major economic considerations for Volkswagen itself. Jusdafax (talk) 03:26, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose –Probably may support when he is actually convicted and more update on the conviction exist in the article. Mere indiction of former CEO doesn't rise to level of significance required at ITN. Comparing this with FIFA case does shows exactly why this shouldn't be on ITN too. FIFA is the world's preeminent body of the World most popular sports. You can't even compare notability of convoluted FIFA case with this scant news of retired business executive being indicted. –Ammarpad (talk) 07:14, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
- There’s a difference between retirement and being forced to leave due to exposure. Yeah, over ten million illegal vehicles and an 8 billion dollar settlement for starters as a result of this CEO’s actions, which he has taken responsibility for. But in your world, charges of breathtaking corporate corruption is “scant” news... depends on what you believe is important, eh? Jusdafax (talk) 08:28, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
- Weak oppose. I might(emphasis on might) support this if he was currently the CEO, but he is not. He is currently just a private citizen for which BLP applies. 331dot (talk) 09:48, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
- Wait for a verdict. A conviction might be suitable for ITN, a mere indictment is not. Modest Genius talk 10:58, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose – Per Masem, 331. – Sca (talk) 15:59, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Stormy Daniels next. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:16, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
- That’s the kind of snark that lost you your adminship. Jusdafax (talk) 19:27, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
- Yawn, change the record. As a regular and one with considerable experience, you should know by now that we simply don't post "accusations". This is sadly a complete waste of time. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:31, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
- Yawn yourself. Take your further quibbles to the Talk page. Jusdafax (talk) 19:57, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
- There are no quibbles. You're the one that started badgering me and gravedancing. Check the mirror. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:15, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
- Yawn yourself. Take your further quibbles to the Talk page. Jusdafax (talk) 19:57, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
- Yawn, change the record. As a regular and one with considerable experience, you should know by now that we simply don't post "accusations". This is sadly a complete waste of time. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:31, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
- That’s the kind of snark that lost you your adminship. Jusdafax (talk) 19:27, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
May 3
May 3, 2018
(Thursday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Arts and culture
Disasters and accidents
International relations
Law and crime
Science and technology
|
RD: Afonso Dhlakama
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Reuters
Credits:
- Nominated by EternalNomad (talk · give credit)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Long-time leader of the Mozambican rebel group RENAMO. EternalNomad (talk) 22:00, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
- Support - Article is sourced and ready for RD.BabbaQ (talk) 22:43, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
- Not yet Still too many gaps in referencing. ghost 12:22, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose For a controversial BLP - allegations of war crimes and the like - there are too many unsourced statements. Also no details of his death in the article.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:55, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
(Posted) India dust storm
Blurb: At least 110 people have died and scores more injured in fierce dust storms that hit the northern Indian states of Uttar Pradesh and Rajasthan. (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:
- Nominated by Sherenk1 (talk · give credit)
Article needs updating
Nominator's comments: Article has just been created so lots of improvement needed. As per BBC article: "Dust storms are common in this part of India during summer but loss of life on this scale is unusual." Sherenk1 (talk) 10:58, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
- The article is as of this writing one sentence and is a long way from even being evaluated, to say nothing of being posted. 331dot (talk) 11:09, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose The blurb is longer than the article... need I say more? Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 11:15, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
- Comment I have worked to expand the article enough to re-open this. The death toll is continuing to rise and there's fears more deaths are coming from additional storms. --Masem (t) 15:16, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
- Support --UkrainianCossack (talk) 16:25, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
- Support Highly unusual death toll and still rising. The news is also at the top of every major news outlet one can think of. It is epitome of In the News. Someone savvy with images can help to upload one for visual illustration –Ammarpad (talk) 17:42, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
- Comment – It is highly unusual, but the article as of 20:00 remains too thin for Main Page promotion. Sca (talk) 19:59, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
- Support Substantial weather event. Article will fill out. Brycehughes (talk) 20:21, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
- Support - weather event, substantial. article is ok.BabbaQ (talk) 22:42, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
- Support per BabbaQ and Ammarpad. Banedon (talk) 23:06, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
- Weak support I suppose if we have to draw a line somewhere, this one is over it, but only by a Planck Length or so. Seriously, if this is a major event worth noting, why has no one bothered to write anything about it? It'd be nice to see people so eager to show the world this article if they actually wrote some text to show off. This really should be expanded! --Jayron32 00:34, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
- Combination of Non-western event in a not-quite-first-world country, that included loss of power/communications. There probably is more to write but it's not going to come fast. --Masem (t) 01:53, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
- Posted – Muboshgu (talk) 01:27, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
- Post-posting comment – For an event that killed 120 (AP), the current 280 words of non-background text seems quite skimpy. Sca (talk) 13:00, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
- I agree that this article is about as skimpy as can be and yet be good enough to make the main page. I am hoping it is further expanded today and in the days to come. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:28, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
May 2
May 2, 2018
(Wednesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Science and technology
|
WASP-107b
Blurb: Helium has been detected for the first time in the atmosphere of an exoplanet by scientists observing WASP-107b. (Post)
News source(s): (Space) (Nature)
Credits:
- Nominated by LovelyGirl7 (talk · give credit)
Nominator's comments: First time a exoplanet was discovered with Helium LovelyGirl7 talk 18:51, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
- Comment in what way is this significant and interesting to our readers? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:17, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
- Support An important discovery. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:02, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose there are already planets that have helium in their atmosphere (e.g. the Gas Giants), besides, the story is no longer being reported anymore on news outlets. Python Dan (talk) 23:15, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
- Comment Alternatively, this would be an excellent item for DYK. OtterAM (talk) 23:58, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Bill Torrey
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Associated Press
Credits:
- Nominated by Muboshgu (talk · give credit)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
– Muboshgu (talk) 19:58, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
- Support –Article is in good shape. –Ammarpad (talk) 23:45, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
- Support - Good to go up. Jusdafax (talk) 01:56, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
- Support Nice work, Muboshgu. ghost 12:26, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
- Posted -- KTC (talk) 13:27, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Dick Edell
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [3]
Credits:
- Nominated by LukeSurl (talk · give credit)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: American lacrosse coach. Article appears fully referenced. LukeSurl t c 14:07, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
- Almost fully referenced. I added one tag. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:54, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
- Addressed. --LukeSurl t c 17:07, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
- Great. Support. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:26, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
- Support Looks OK. –Ammarpad (talk) 23:41, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
- Support fully referenced now. -Zanhe (talk) 00:18, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
- Support - Agree with above supporters. Jusdafax (talk) 01:58, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
- Posted. 331dot (talk) 09:55, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
RD: Tony Cucchiara
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [4] (it)
Credits:
- Nominated by LukeSurl (talk · give credit)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Italian folk singer. Short but referenced biography. LukeSurl t c 14:03, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Discography isn't sourced, and the article is a stub. It needs some expansion. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:18, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
(Closed) David Goodall is on his way to Switzerland to end his life
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Blurb: David Goodall is on his way to Switzerland to end his life (Post)
News source(s): CBS
Credits:
- Nominated by Count Iblis (talk · give credit)
- Support RD when the time comes. I am not scientific, but reading the article, I do not get the impression he was a revolutionary figure in the field who deserves a blurb. Harambe Walks (talk) 23:35, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
- He is not a revolutionary figure. You're thinking of Jane Goodall. Abductive (reasoning) 02:05, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
- Support RD when the time comes. BabbaQ (talk) 23:38, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose blurb Nothing really unusual for a very old person to die by euthanasia in a nation where it is legalized. Also doesn't appear to be globally top of his field. EternalNomad (talk) 00:59, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
- Support RD when he's dead, article is of sufficient quality, if short. --Jayron32 01:01, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
- Support RD This is rather macabre but let’s wait until he’s successful in his bid to end his life and then post as a RD. Pawnkingthree (talk) 01:06, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
- Wait - premature nomination. He's still alive, and we have no idea when he will end his life. -Zanhe (talk) 06:26, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
- Support RD - the article is ready for RD when the time comes. Stormy clouds (talk) 06:38, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Wang Danfeng
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Global Times
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by Zanhe (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Iconic Chinese film actress. Zanhe (talk) 20:07, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
- Support Referenced and looks comprehensive.Zigzig20s (talk) 02:57, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
- Support Yeah, it looks good. –Ammarpad (talk) 04:22, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
- Posted. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:10, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
(Closed) Gibson bankruptcy
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Blurb: Musical instrument manufacturer Gibson files for bankruptcy as it closes down its consumer electronics division. (Post)
News source(s): CNN Money, Bloomburg, NPR, The Beeb
Credits:
- Nominated by Jayron32 (talk · give credit)
- Oppose As noted here and in the articles, this was largely expected (in contrast, the Toys R Us failing was more a surprise). And this isn't the end of Gibson, just turning their focus back to guitar making. --Masem (t) 16:25, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose too small. If Gibson is only a leader in guitar manufacturing, that's too specialist an area. The article also indicates the company is relatively small, e.g. $135 million in liquidity payments is not that much money. Compare Toys R Us (per Masem), which dealt with a much larger field and had revenue in the billions. Banedon (talk) 21:48, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
Basque group ETA
Blurb: Basque separatist group ETA is dissolved. (Post)
News source(s): Reuters
Credits:
- Nominated by W.carter (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Nominator's comments: 50-year campaign for an independent state is at an end. cart-Talk 14:31, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
- Support on principle, oppose on quality The article is woefully undersourced. There's a lot of red links, but that's probably not as much of a problem as the lack of sorucing throughout. But the event is one of note that could be ITN if the article was good. --Masem (t) 14:35, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose; target article seems to quit reporting activity (outside of a few quick notes in the lead) on the dissolution process. Basically, the article body stops having relevent information about the group in about 2016, so ALL of the context for their dissolution, which has been going on for about 1.5 years now, is absent from the text of the article. There needs to be a LOT more information on the past two years to provide enough context for the blurb to make sense. This is entirely separate from the sourcing issues noted above, which is also a no-go condition for me as well.--Jayron32 14:37, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose ETA announced a permanent end to armed struggle way back in 2011, and I'm not sure that formally declaring themselves dissolved is really that significant.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:48, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
- Support on principle, oppose on quality Interesting story, but the article needs a lot of work. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 20:43, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
- Support End of an era for Spain and Basque history itself. GWA88 (talk) 00:53, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
- Support on principle, oppose on quality per BrendonTheWizard. -Zanhe (talk) 06:30, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
- Support For Spaniards, testimonies of terror, it is a very important day. It is the demonstration that democracy has won against those who for half a century have brutally attacked us. 853 families have just seen the surrender of the murderers of their relatives. End of an era. Alsoriano97 (talk) 13:01, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
- You may well be right about that, but what about the quality of the article? It has a one-line update. Where is the detail, the reactions? There are several "citation needed" tags too.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:07, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
(Closed) Chhota Rajan conviction
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Blurb: One of India's most notorious gangsters, Chhota Rajan, has been convicted of ordering the 2011 killing of a crime reporter in Mumbai. (Post)
Alternative blurb: In India, Chhota Rajan is convicted of ordering the 2011 killing of Jyotirmoy Dey in Mumbai..
News source(s): BBC
Credits:
- Nominated by Sherenk1 (talk · give credit)
Article updated
- Suggesting alt blurb, linking to the victim and removing "notorious". 331dot (talk) 09:37, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Target article has one line noting the conviction, and no other mention of the murder. Dey might be a better target, but it needs an update. ghost 11:48, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Normally I'd support something like that, citing IAR/BIAS or the ilk; but bearing in mind that's a BLP (cf. BLPCRIME), most of the article should be expunged. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 11:53, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose coverage seems scant. I put in "India" into Google and got results about gender bias in India, air pollution in India, the Taj Mahal changing colour, and England taking over #1 ranking in cricket from India. Putting in "Rajan" yields more relevant results, but there's still completely unrelated stuff like business movement on the front page. Banedon (talk) 12:21, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
- Won't that be for each news we post. Everyone is not always interested in everything we post. I do see this in BBC.com world and also as top news in BCC India. I expect someone from South America wouldnt be interested in this news. But Users from India would certainly be along with Indian expats living in other parts of the world. Sherenk1 (talk) 12:40, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
- Well yes but that's why I'm using specific search terms ("India" and "Rajan"). This kind of result indicates it's not dominating news even in India. Looking at the website of The Hindu, some of the current headlines are "Supreme Court wants trials in child sexual abuse cases to be fast-tracked", "JD(U) leader Uday Narayan Chaudhary quits party", and "Aadhaar biometric data is 100% secure, asserts India’s cybersecurity chief Gulshan Rai", all unrelated to the case. Banedon (talk) 21:54, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
- Won't that be for each news we post. Everyone is not always interested in everything we post. I do see this in BBC.com world and also as top news in BCC India. I expect someone from South America wouldnt be interested in this news. But Users from India would certainly be along with Indian expats living in other parts of the world. Sherenk1 (talk) 12:40, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Article is spotty and inconsistent, hard to follow any narrative, reads like a collection of random crimes. Also same problems as noted above. --Jayron32 15:19, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose "Random collection of crimes" aptly describes this article. –Ammarpad (talk) 04:57, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose--I came across nothing but scant coverage across the Indian print-dailies.Not significant enough, to deserve a mention at main-page.On a side-note, it's my first foray into ITN and if my arguments are on the wrong lines, I expect that some of the regulars over here will correct it.Best,~ Winged BladesGodric 16:04, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
May 1
May 1, 2018
(Tuesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Arts and culture
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Sports
|
RD: Wanda Wiłkomirska
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Telegraph
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by Gerda Arendt (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Innisfree987 (talk · give credit) and Poeticbent (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Violinist who played in 5 continents. Sadly, all 2008 sources were dead this morning, but some found. Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:49, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
- Support. It looks comprehensive and referenced--I added one CN tag however.Zigzig20s (talk) 03:01, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
- Support - when the one CN tag is taken care of. -Zanhe (talk) 06:25, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
- I dropped that one sentence about festivals which where known long ago, - the artists mentioned are linked just above. I also tried to link the who' who of concert halls and orchestras, and the pieces and accompanists. Composers not yet, - too many ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:49, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
- Support refs are fine. ghost 12:38, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
- Support Looks good to me.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:22, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Universo 2000
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [5][6]
Credits:
- Nominated by GreatCaesarsGhost (talk · give credit)
- Updated by MPJ-DK (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
- Apoyo Es un buen artículo. Bien por Muertes Recientes. --Jayron32 01:05, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
- Support It looks referenced, and it highlights an interesting aspect of Mexican culture.Zigzig20s (talk) 03:04, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
- Support referenced and comprehensive. -Zanhe (talk) 06:24, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
- Posted. 331dot (talk) 14:46, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
(Needs attention) Building fire and collapse in São Paulo
Blurb: A 24-floor historic building in São Paulo catches fire and collapses, killing at least one person (Post)
Mike Peel (talk) 16:18, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose - at just one death, this is a clear oppose at present, one which is only exacerbated by the current state of the article. Stormy clouds (talk) 16:41, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose article quality is poor, can't decide if the main subject is the building itself or the fire, has jaring changes in points-of-view, barely above a stub. --Jayron32 16:47, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
- Just to note that I'm still working on the article; it should look better than before now. I'm new to ITN, and didn't realise that high quality was a key metric here. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:12, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
- Support article is no more "barely above stub" than any other disaster story we post, there are no "minimum deaths" criteria such objections can be safely ignored, and most importantly, the story is actually in the news. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:36, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
- There are no minimum death criteria, but that does not mean that logic should not apply. If we posted every fire where one person died, we would be inundated with such items daily. The article, while not atrocious, is not at the quality required for main page, and the story is only "in the news", as far as I can see, if you go looking. Stormy clouds (talk) 18:21, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
- We can post things if no one dies Indeed, we often do. When we invent arbitrary metrics, it encourages us to exclude quality articles from consideration that would otherwise be appropriate for linking from the main page given their quality. THAT being said, this one is not up to snuff, but otherwise our primary concern (as with all other sections of the main page) should be to direct people to quality articles. The phrase, often quoted, that "ITN is not a news ticker" primarily means that ITN is concerned mostly with quality, and not with other arbitrary metrics. --Jayron32 18:25, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
- No, I get that. I just think that the often bandied about "significance" argument comes into force when one person dies in an event that is fairly routine - fires are common, and a fire with no fatalities would have scant little chance of getting posted. It is not about creating arbitrary metrics, it is about common sense, and my opposition is also rooted in the article quality, as stated above. Stormy clouds (talk) 18:31, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
- Fires in 24 story "historic" office buildings which subsequently collapse are common? --LaserLegs (talk) 19:09, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose the building was so "historic" that the article didn't exist until it collapsed. This is the equivalent of a BLP1E. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:18, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
- @The Rambling Man: This is Brazil - there are plenty of historic buildings that we don't have articles for here, e.g. I also started Evangelical Lutheran Church of São Paulo today. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:37, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose. I agree with TRM. Reading the article I am not understanding what was particularly historic about this 1960's skyscraper that was filled with registered squatters(I didn't realize one could "register" as a squatter). 331dot (talk) 19:44, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
- The city of Sao Palo put it on their list of historic buildings ... in 1992. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:48, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
- Yes... by an organisation that's so notable that it doesn't have an article. BLP1E anyone? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:50, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
- @The Rambling Man: pt:Conselho Municipal de Preservação do Patrimônio Histórico, Cultural e Ambiental da Cidade de São Paulo ... want to help translate it? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:03, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
- I'd love to try, but my Portuguese ends at "Jose Mourinho". Interestingly though, the Portuguese Wikipedia article about the destroyed building was created .... today. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:05, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
- If they decide after 30 some odd years that the building is historic, that's up to them, but I'm still not understanding the historic value here. Is this historic nationally? We aren't talking the Cristo Redentor in Rio. 331dot (talk) 20:08, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
- I'd love to try, but my Portuguese ends at "Jose Mourinho". Interestingly though, the Portuguese Wikipedia article about the destroyed building was created .... today. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:05, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
- @The Rambling Man: pt:Conselho Municipal de Preservação do Patrimônio Histórico, Cultural e Ambiental da Cidade de São Paulo ... want to help translate it? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:03, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
- Yes... by an organisation that's so notable that it doesn't have an article. BLP1E anyone? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:50, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
- The city of Sao Palo put it on their list of historic buildings ... in 1992. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:48, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose good faith nom. Fires in "historic" buildings likely occur on a near daily basis somewhere in the world. I am not seeing anything that makes this event stand out. I further doubt the long term significance of the event and I concur that WP:1E might be an issue here. AfD?-Ad Orientem (talk) 20:56, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
- Support - it's highly uncommon for a historic high-rise building to collapse in a massive fire (last occurrence I can recall was on 9/11). I find some editors' snarky attitude troubling. I highly doubt they're more qualified than the City of Sao Paolo to determine whether a building is historic or not, and they're too ignorant to realize that the vast majority of notable topics outside the English-speaking world do not have articles. -Zanhe (talk) 22:10, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
- A problem I have is trying to define the building "historic". Old, yes, but not historic, and the fact that the building was being occupied by squatters suggests it had little historic value. --Masem (t) 00:23, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
- @Masem: It was listed as historic by the city of São Paulo (CONPRESP). Squatters don't avoid buildings with historic value... Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 08:41, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
- I think the point with the squatters is not that they reside there illegally but the fact that they don't seem to be kept out of this supposed historic structure. (which again begs the perhaps not relevant question as to how people can register to illegally reside in a building) 331dot (talk) 08:43, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
- 'registered' came from the metro news article, but I'm not sure if that terminology is accurate, so I've removed that word from the article. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 09:49, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
- I think the point with the squatters is not that they reside there illegally but the fact that they don't seem to be kept out of this supposed historic structure. (which again begs the perhaps not relevant question as to how people can register to illegally reside in a building) 331dot (talk) 08:43, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
- @Masem: It was listed as historic by the city of São Paulo (CONPRESP). Squatters don't avoid buildings with historic value... Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 08:41, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
- A problem I have is trying to define the building "historic". Old, yes, but not historic, and the fact that the building was being occupied by squatters suggests it had little historic value. --Masem (t) 00:23, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Not significant to the level of ITN. Had we have functioning notability criteria for buildings, that article may well be deleted as WP:BUILD1E. So it is not surprising 80% of the references are because of the fire.
In addition, as a matter of fact, using 'historic' to describe mere 50-year old squatter's quarters is not the best use of this important adjective.Fifty years to building is the same as few months in human ages. Buildings suppose to last centuries, be avenue for something important and still stand before we call them historic. Last, but not the least, the proper title of this article should be Edifício Wilton Paes de Almeida building collapse or something like that. –Ammarpad (talk) 09:05, 2 May 2018 (UTC)- Striking part of my comment per new information that it was listed as "historic" by the Sao Paulo city government. Remaining comment remain valid. –Ammarpad (talk) 09:34, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
- I think there's more of a story to tell here about the history of the building, which is why I prefer the current title rather than focusing exclusively on the collapse, but the news media is suffering from recentism here. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 09:49, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
- Striking part of my comment per new information that it was listed as "historic" by the Sao Paulo city government. Remaining comment remain valid. –Ammarpad (talk) 09:34, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
- Forget all the details and superlatives for a moment: how often is a 20+ story building destroyed unintentionally? Honestly don't know, but it seems unusual. ghost 11:59, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
- Support by precedent. Compare Grenfell Tower fire. That building didn't have an article until it caught fire either, and we posted it anyway. Banedon (talk) 12:13, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
- That's quite a bit different. That led to 23 deaths and an ongoing investigation into building regulations and fire safety.--WaltCip (talk) 12:28, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
- @Banedon:, @WaltCip:- 71 people died in Grenfell, not just 23 (that was the number of flats in which people died). This means that there were literally seventy-one times as many deaths in that incident as this one, hence the precedent is not particularly applicable in my view. Stormy clouds (talk) 16:19, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
- As of this morning, there are 49 people missing. They'll start looking through the debris soon (after it's cooled). ref, will expand the article later today. Mike Peel (talk) 18:46, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
- If/when they confirm 50 deaths, or in the environs of that number, I will support. At just one confirmed death, I feel it is lacking in significance. Stormy clouds (talk) 22:16, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
- I suspect that if that happens (and I hope it doesn't!) this will have become stale news. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:38, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
- If/when they confirm 50 deaths, or in the environs of that number, I will support. At just one confirmed death, I feel it is lacking in significance. Stormy clouds (talk) 22:16, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
- As of this morning, there are 49 people missing. They'll start looking through the debris soon (after it's cooled). ref, will expand the article later today. Mike Peel (talk) 18:46, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
- Are we imposing a minimum deaths requirement now? If so that's fine, but we should be consistent. Banedon (talk) 21:56, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
- No, we're not "imposing a minimum deaths requirement". I don't see an RFC mandating a change to the ITN rules. What an odd thing to assert. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:22, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
- @Banedon:, @WaltCip:- 71 people died in Grenfell, not just 23 (that was the number of flats in which people died). This means that there were literally seventy-one times as many deaths in that incident as this one, hence the precedent is not particularly applicable in my view. Stormy clouds (talk) 16:19, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
- That's quite a bit different. That led to 23 deaths and an ongoing investigation into building regulations and fire safety.--WaltCip (talk) 12:28, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose – On lack of significance. Quite a stunning video was shown on news sites, but with only one death reported its impact is negligible. Sca (talk) 13:21, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose just not a big enough deal. Lepricavark (talk) 14:12, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
- It's sounding like this is actually a big deal. It now has two articles on ptwp - see pt:Edifício Wilton Paes de Almeida and pt:Incêndio em edifício do Largo do Paissandu. It was a squatter-occupied federally-owned historical building in the centre of the city, and there are currently 49 missing occupants. It's started an inspection of a lot of other buildings in São Paulo. Most of the coverage (apart from the 'stunning video') is in Portuguese, but Google Translate works quite well, and that shouldn't be held again this. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 23:40, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
- Comment – Isn't gonna make it. Sca (talk) 01:39, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
- Leave it open. Authorities are saying that 40+ people are unaccounted for. That fire in the UK was posted, if this gets snow closed "who cares" it just further re-enforces the euro-centric bias at ITN. --LaserLegs (talk) 09:12, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
- I would be open to supporting this if the missing people are established to have died, but such a blurb should leave out the alleged "historical" nature of the building. 331dot (talk) 09:18, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
- The local authorities in São Paulo aren't allowed to designate a building as "historic"? On the learned contributors at ITN/C are allowed to do that? --LaserLegs (talk) 13:27, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
- If Brazil has the equivalent of the National Register of Historic Places and this building is on it, I would happily reconsider. A local government can make whatever designations they want for whatever reason. I could convince my city council to declare my home "historic" if I wanted to. This 1960's building was so historic that registered squatters were residing in it. 331dot (talk) 13:39, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
- I think that's IPHAN, National Institute of Historic and Artistic Heritage. That has a short list, and this building's not on it. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 14:44, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
- If Brazil has the equivalent of the National Register of Historic Places and this building is on it, I would happily reconsider. A local government can make whatever designations they want for whatever reason. I could convince my city council to declare my home "historic" if I wanted to. This 1960's building was so historic that registered squatters were residing in it. 331dot (talk) 13:39, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
- The local authorities in São Paulo aren't allowed to designate a building as "historic"? On the learned contributors at ITN/C are allowed to do that? --LaserLegs (talk) 13:27, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
- I would be open to supporting this if the missing people are established to have died, but such a blurb should leave out the alleged "historical" nature of the building. 331dot (talk) 09:18, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
- Leave it open. Authorities are saying that 40+ people are unaccounted for. That fire in the UK was posted, if this gets snow closed "who cares" it just further re-enforces the euro-centric bias at ITN. --LaserLegs (talk) 09:12, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
- Support. For social significance, not for death count. It is noteworthy that a downtown skyscraper could be populated by squatters, and we see the huge danger of irregular housing. Please ignore objections about insufficient death count. This is a very newsworthy event receiving global coverage. Jehochman Talk 14:04, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
- I believe squatters are not uncommon in Brazil's cities. ITN is not a forum to publicize or right great wrongs. 331dot (talk) 14:07, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
- This is speculation, but if the missing 40 were squatters in the building, presumably they're now street people (or are squatting somewhere else), I guess. Sca (talk) 20:06, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
- I believe squatters are not uncommon in Brazil's cities. ITN is not a forum to publicize or right great wrongs. 331dot (talk) 14:07, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
- Update: one body found today, 6 currently missing. Ref. I suspect this is now too stale, so I'm happy for this discussion to be closed if needed. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:39, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Dominican Republic recognizes China
Blurb: The Dominican Republic becomes the 176th state to recognize China, whereas she cuts ties with Taiwan. (Post)
Alternative blurb: The Dominican Republic cuts diplomatic ties with Taiwan and formally establishes relations with China.
News source(s): [7] [8]
Credits:
- Nominated by Nika de Hitch (talk · give credit)
Nika de Hitch (talk) 17:51, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Target article is marginally above a stub. Would need significant expansion to approach some level of comprehensiveness on the subject. --Jayron32 14:01, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
- Note: The above comment was made when the original nomination was for a completely different article. The OP later changed the article they were targeting in their blurb, and deleted my comment, for reasons unknown to me. --Jayron32 01:12, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
- Weak oppose. 176th doesn't seem that big a deal to me. 331dot (talk) 19:46, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
- Support in principle. I believe China–Dominican Republic relations would be a better target article (although it needs better referencing). The blurb also needs improvement. The significance of the news is not the number 176, but that Dominican Republic is one of the few countries that switched diplomatic recognition from Taiwan to China in the last decade, and until now one of the largest countries that still recognized Taiwan. -Zanhe (talk) 22:28, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
- Support in principle.BabbaQ (talk) 23:30, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Symbolic at best, shown by the lack of a substantial article prose update. An economically beneficial diplomatic move for a nation with a population half the size of Beijing. In the international scheme of things, hitching up with [PR] China was a big deal in the 1970-80s. Doing it now is like being one of the last few liberal Western countries to recognise gay marriage. The better angle here is ROC (Taiwan) losing another diplomatic partner, although I'm not sure what else can be added to the one line update that isn't already in the blurb. Fuebaey (talk) 01:03, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose. I agree with Fuebaey. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:49, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Many, many have done so before. And this is at best symbolic change of ally in anticipation of economic and security benefits. This type of announcement can only rise to the level of ITN iff the country pronouncing the recognition is such notable political/economic player in world politics. –Ammarpad (talk) 09:17, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose per 331dot. #176 just doesn't seem that important. Lepricavark (talk) 14:13, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose - "country joins overwhelming consensus" is not much of an ITN item. Stormy clouds (talk) 16:16, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose per Stormy Clouds and lack of substantial effects on international relations. Modest Genius talk 11:00, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
April 30
April 30, 2018
(Monday)
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: John Treacher
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
Credits:
- Nominated by BubbleEngineer (talk · give credit)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
BubbleEngineer (talk) 22:50, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
- Comment This is already stale; the oldest RD entry on ITN is May 1.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:04, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
- The obituary only appeared yesterday? BubbleEngineer (talk) 19:12, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
RD: Jhoon Goo Rhee
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
Credits:
- Nominated by Jayron32 (talk · give credit)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Article is short, probably could use a little expansion. Jayron32 10:45, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
- Weak Support - Just above the threshold for RD inclusion. BabbaQ (talk) 00:03, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
- Support Well referenced short article is better, than huge mis-referenced articles that most of our bios are. –Ammarpad (talk) 09:21, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
- Weak oppose Per nom I would like to see a little more expansion. There's a CN tag too.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:50, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Jan Cameron
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Sydney Morning Herald
Credits:
- Nominated by Stormy clouds (talk · give credit)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Short but well referenced article Stormy clouds (talk) 06:51, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
- Support Good enough.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:28, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
- Support. Brief but solid. Referencing looks good. Challenger l (talk) 19:21, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
- Comment. There's a reference needed for opinion in her swimming career. I'd also prefer a live link for ref 10 to cover the quotations after her resignation, though as the full citation is given it's not essential. The bio section could do with breaking up and reorganising; I've put in some subheads but more is needed; I'll try to get to it later. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:10, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
- Support short but sufficient.BabbaQ (talk) 23:31, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
- Support Well-referenced career from medallist Tokyo 1964 through to coach at last month's Comm Games JennyOz (talk) 16:16, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
- Posted. Black Kite (talk) 17:33, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
(Closed) Project Amad
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Blurb: Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu accuses Iran of covertly continuing its nuclear program. (Post)
News source(s): The IndependentBBC News CNBC
Credits:
- Nominated by FlowerRoad (talk · give credit)
- Oppose Beyond the stub nature of the article, which does not include the other side of the argument for balance, this piece suggests that Netanyahu is talking about programs from the past, not the present. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:34, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose posting accusations. It's no secret that Netanyahu is not a fan of Iran. If Trump ends the Iran deal, that may merit posting. 331dot (talk) 19:53, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose full stop. There's no difference between Netanyahu and Trump here, nothing. This is a new version of sabre-rattling, just because North Korea has gone cold. Time to find a new enemy to justify everything else. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:46, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose I don’t think an accusation rises to the level of ITN significance. Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:53, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
- Comment I took it to AFD, a random accusation from the Israeli PM doesn't need a standalone article. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:47, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
- Comment Did we post this at the time? Count Iblis (talk) 22:48, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
- Only if we posted this. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:58, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
- My AFD is doomed. Ironically North Korea gets peace, meanwhile Iran gets the "
IraqIran has weapons of mass destruction" treatment. Oh well. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:41, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
- My AFD is doomed. Ironically North Korea gets peace, meanwhile Iran gets the "
- Friendly advise @LaserLegs: Do not take any article about "current event" to AfD except when you are 110% sure it is not notabe. –Ammarpad (talk) 09:15, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
- Only if we posted this. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:58, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose - Diplomatic pissing in the wind.--WaltCip (talk) 16:29, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
RD: Luis García Meza
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): CTV NewsLa RazónDeutsche Welle
Credits:
- Nominated by Jamez42 (talk · give credit)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Bolivian dictator and military, although it possibly needs clean up before posting. Jamez42 (talk) 15:44, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose pending that needed work. Orange tagged for six years. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:43, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Referencing is way short. Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:55, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose because non-trivial work is needed in getting this ready. And there are few people that can do that due to apparent scarcity of English sources. –Ammarpad (talk) 09:22, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose - I have too, most of the article can not be considered acceptable for inclusion right now.BabbaQ (talk) 00:03, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
[Closed] Avengers: Infinity War box office record
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Blurb: Avengers: Infinity War sets a global box office record for its opening weekend. (Post)
News source(s): CNBC
Credits:
- Nominated by LukeSurl (talk · give credit)
- Comment: I haven't actually read the article here, 'cos, y'know, spoilers :P --LukeSurl t c 08:55, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
- Comment. Past similar discussions(such as for Star Wars:The Force Awakens) have suggested that a movie would merit posting only if it breaks the all time earnings record, not just for an opening weekend. 331dot (talk) 08:56, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
- I don't think that's a very useful way of doing things. This film is in the news (and the public consciousness) now, but will be far less so if/when it reaches ~$2bn takings. The opening weekend is an industry standard way of assessing a film's initial impact which is widely reported in the news, and we have a nice, quotable record which we can make into a blurb with a decent supporting article. --LukeSurl t c 09:02, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
- The discussion for TFA is here. Some comments from there: ""Biggest of all time" yes, if it reaches that, but opening weekend sales are more a piece of marketing than anything else"; "An event like this is a trivial figure in the grander scheme of the world, like being a presidential frontrunner or having a big lead in the middle of the sports season. If it becomes the highest grossing film of all time, definite support"; "Oppose as media generated uber hype, no surprises, and trivia. Please consider making this a DYK."; "Frequently broken record and hardly a surprise for the franchise" and so on. 331dot (talk) 09:23, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
- I don't think that's a very useful way of doing things. This film is in the news (and the public consciousness) now, but will be far less so if/when it reaches ~$2bn takings. The opening weekend is an industry standard way of assessing a film's initial impact which is widely reported in the news, and we have a nice, quotable record which we can make into a blurb with a decent supporting article. --LukeSurl t c 09:02, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose - As per above. Sherenk1 (talk) 10:04, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose per above and the other reasons given for the TFA discussion back in December '15.--WaltCip (talk) 10:58, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
- Question Whats the deal on refs for a plot summary? The article is pretty good, but I dunno how you cite a plot summary other than "go watch it". --LaserLegs (talk) 11:54, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
- IIRC, plot summaries do not require referencing for just that reason. Just referencing a critic's plot summary should handle any exceptions or excuses. - Floydian τ ¢ 13:01, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, its generally assumed that the work itself is fine for implicit sorting of a plot summary as long as no interpretation or analysis is included. --Masem (t) 13:22, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose – On lack of significance. Sca (talk) 13:50, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose These types of records meaning little more than verifying the inexorable economic principle of price inflation. Every year, things cost more money, so more money is made on movies. It doesn't necessarily mean more people saw it, or more people bought tickets, just that this year's tickets cost more than last year's tickets. --Jayron32 14:12, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
- It also broke the record if inflation or attendance is considered. Ticket price inflation across many countries is hard to work out and sources may avoid it but the opening weekend record is increasing much faster than inflation, except when the record is broken by a small amount. This was by a lot: List of highest-grossing openings for films#Opening weekend record holders worldwide. Records for total gross is another matter where inflation is crucial. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:43, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
- Really? Because that's not in the article and where there are inflation-adjusted numbers, they show TFA at first place. Regards SoWhy 15:04, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
- TFA probably keeps the domestic (US + Canada) record adjusted for inflation. The nomination is for the global opening. Infinity War is certain to get the record there, but sources rarely talk about adjusted international numbers. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:33, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
- Really? Because that's not in the article and where there are inflation-adjusted numbers, they show TFA at first place. Regards SoWhy 15:04, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
- It also broke the record if inflation or attendance is considered. Ticket price inflation across many countries is hard to work out and sources may avoid it but the opening weekend record is increasing much faster than inflation, except when the record is broken by a small amount. This was by a lot: List of highest-grossing openings for films#Opening weekend record holders worldwide. Records for total gross is another matter where inflation is crucial. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:43, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose. Although this is a lot more significant than your typical commercial jargon ("Number 1 Movie in America! Wow!"), this record gets broken pretty frequently. Looking at the link in the blurb it's happened 4 times now in just under three years (Jurassic World -> Force Awakens -> Fate and Furious -> Infinity War). It may well get broken again in under a year when the next Jurassic World, Star Wars, or Avengers movie is released, though I admit that's WP:CRYSTAL. ZettaComposer (talk) 14:53, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
- Support I don't see how we can have ~60 sporting events every year but this is not notable because it happens too frequently. I know it's apples to oranges, but that's kind of the point: the standard for what's remarkable in sport (one of the two teams that could have won the Boat Frenzy did!!!) is so much lower than other disciplines because it's easier to articulate. ghost 15:05, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
- Support - given just how much it broke the record by - $100 million (a 20% increase on the previous holder), without opening in China or Russia - and that it secured the record domestically as well, it makes sense to recognise this achievement. The article is also decent, and there is no denying, per the nomination, that many people are coming to the website seeking this article as a result of its record-breaking exploits. Posting it would thereby fulfill the primary purpose of ITN. I understand the rationale against posting, but I think that the arguments above overwhelm this. Stormy clouds (talk) 15:11, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
- Comment - considering the frequency of other items at ITN, I don't think that a record being broken thrice in a four year time span is too excessive, and agree that holding posting for later records, when readership is vastly diminished, would not be a great idea. I also don't think that the largest opening ever in one of the largest fields of entertainment is trivial or irrelevant, I don't think that the fact that this was somewhat expected diminishes it, nor do I think that it is solely media driven hype, as was thrown at TFA when it was nominated. Stormy clouds (talk) 15:17, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose, not significant. Kaldari (talk) 15:24, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
- Weak oppose I recognize why this is news, and why this specific record breaking is not just incremental compared to past. But, it is only a matter of time that the next big blockbuster will come along and break this record. Additionally, this is an area where we a bit too much Western bias. Yes, Hollywood >> Bollywood in terms of money, but this is really focusing too much on one specific nation's industry, even though it serves a worldwide audience. I'd like to try to see if we can better balance that with other nation's film industries as appropriate, and to that end, that should focus on things like the nation's indsutry awards (BAFTAs for one), rather than box office take which is just going to be large period because Hollywood has the money to make that happen. --Masem (t) 15:32, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
- Comment We posted the record sale of some painting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates/November_2017#.5B_Posted.5D_Sale_of_Salvator_mundi in record time without any concern that the record may again be broken. Opposes based on that rationale are basically art snobbery. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:12, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose trivia, suitable for DYK. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:28, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose. Come back if it beats the all-time record (or better yet the inflation-adjusted record), not just the raw opening weekend number. That metric is promoted by film studios merely to get more people to see the film; it's not of historical importance. Modest Genius talk 16:35, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose There are lots of different records for films, which are broken often. If it becomes the highest-grossing film of all time (currently held by Avatar), I would support posting that. Reach Out to the Truth 16:41, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Post when the movie breaks the all-time record, not the weekend record. (NorthernFalcon (talk) 17:15, 30 April 2018 (UTC))
- Conditional Support Once the movie is released in China and Russia and a box office total is collected, then it should be posted (Awestruck1 (talk) 20:42 30 April 2018 (UTC)
India says all villages have electricity
Blurb: All villages in India now have access to electricity, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has announced. (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:
- Nominated by Sherenk1 (talk · give credit)
Nominator's comments: Being touted as "great achievement for Asia's third largest economy". Sherenk1 (talk) 08:22, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
- Comment - Even the BBC article suggests that this may not be true, as there are reports that some villages have not been given access to electricity, plus the definition of electrification (10% of all of its homes and public buildings being connected to the grid) is extremely loose.--WaltCip (talk) 11:00, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
- Comment - I've not had time to go and tag them all, but there are numerous unreferenced claims in the target article. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:13, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
- Based on how electrical grids work, just having connections to some to remote villages is huge. Connecting other buildings is minor compared to getting power to the village. - Floydian τ ¢ 12:59, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Insignificant government pronouncement. Even the BBC is doubting it ans they cannot independently confirm so. But it may be suitable for DYK nomination. –Ammarpad (talk) 18:01, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose based on the unlikeliness of this being correct. Natureium (talk) 15:26, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose on the grounds that this is a dubious claim. Lepricavark (talk) 14:16, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
April 29
April 29, 2018
(Sunday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Sports
|
(Posted) RD: Aaron Traywick
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): ACSH
Credits:
- Nominated by Count Iblis (talk · give credit)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Count Iblis (talk) 09:13, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Stub containing virtually no biographical detail.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:06, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose. There's just no article here. No biography, only a couple of sentences of information at all. Challenger l (talk) 17:22, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose per above users +possible notability issue. Newly created WP:BLP1E. And since he is dead, then we have Permanent stub. –Ammarpad (talk) 18:37, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
- Comment – Permastub remark is inaccurate (article is 16k+ bytes and growing). Subject's death occurred under highly unusual circumstances, which spurred on the recent article creation—but by no means is subject notability limited to one event. Traywick was a highly-vocal and prominent activist, featured in substantive independent coverage from sources including Vice, BBC News, MIT Technology Review, Popular Mechanics, The Atlantic, Gizmodo, The Verge, Futurism, IFLScience, BioEdge, Reddit, among others, including several live-streamed podcasts and documentaries. His self-experimentation with DIY gene editing in efforts to make widely accessible and inexpensive treatments available to the public for incurable conditions—bypassing any and all safeguards and regulations—elicited a stern warning in direct response from the FDA, completely shifting the tone of the field. Interviews from contemporaries just weeks prior to his death include such choice statements as: “Roberts told the livestream audience that they wanted to "eliminate" Traywick from the biohacking community before he 'hurts people.'” Without being conspiratorial, further press coverage is likely, and there's already no shortage of material from which to draw upon to create a well-balanced and well-referenced article. Traywick was the primary subject of a soon-to-be released feature film, latest working title: Transhuman: Biohackers and Immortalists, directed by Ford Fischer. ー「宜しく 」 クロノ カム 19:25, 2 May 2018 (UTC), 07:33, 4 May 2018 (UTC) 06:00, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
- Support as outlined in previous comment. The article continues to grow; with five days remaining in the evaluation period there's time to resolve length concerns. ー「宜しく 」 クロノ カム 08:13, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
- Posting. Long enough now. --Tone 08:38, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
T-Mobile to Acquire Sprint
Blurb: T-Mobile US announces plans to acquire Sprint for $26 billion. (Post)
News source(s): WSJ, NYTimes
Credits:
- Nominated by Masem (talk · give credit)
Article needs updating
Nominator's comments: Has been rumored over last few days, but now confirmed to be a full stock buyout. This leaves US with three major cellular providers. Past business deals of this size are generally considered notable for ITN posting when the deal (agreed by both sides) is announced even if we know there's going to be federal trade oversight on the deal (They tried to merge before and it fell through at fed regulation level, but the situation for why they are merging has changed since). I note I don't think either article is up to shape or updated at this point. Masem (t) 00:54, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose 1) One line update in both articles isn't enough; 2) Orange tags in
boththe Sprint article, lots of unreferenced content in T-Mobile; 3) Wait and reassess once the deal is confirmed. The fact that this particular merger was tried and failed before tells me it could fail again. Isa (talk) 02:35, 30 April 2018 (UTC)- Agree with your first two points, but the third is incorrect: Several years ago AT&T (#1 carrier) attempted to purchase T-Mobile (#4). This time it's T-Mo absorbing Sprint. --LaserLegs (talk) 09:10, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
- @LaserLegs: The New York Times source says "Sprint and T-Mobile have tried unsuccessfully to merge before. They were effectively blocked four years ago by regulators in the Obama administration who worried that shrinking the market for wireless providers would give consumers fewer choices and lead to higher prices." Isa (talk) 09:30, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
- We'll I'll be damned, thanks!
- @LaserLegs: The New York Times source says "Sprint and T-Mobile have tried unsuccessfully to merge before. They were effectively blocked four years ago by regulators in the Obama administration who worried that shrinking the market for wireless providers would give consumers fewer choices and lead to higher prices." Isa (talk) 09:30, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose - Will support when the deal actually goes through. Sherenk1 (talk) 10:05, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose per above.--WaltCip (talk) 11:01, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
- Comment articles aren't ready, but for a lot of good reasons we've tended to post these on announcement. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:50, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose standard non-news "announces plans". Next business item, please, but make it a real one. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:56, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
- Comment As noted above by Laserlegs, agreements to mergers and acquisitions are usually posted upon announcement and not completion.
- Comment The company involved is T-Mobile US and not T-Mobile. The correct article is T-Mobile US and not T-Mobile.
- Comment The WSJ article provided is behind a paywall. Chrisclear (talk) 06:57, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
- Chrisclear Being behind a paywall is not an issue, see WP:PAYWALL. 331dot (talk) 09:54, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
- While it may be true that mergers and acquisitions are posted upon announcement, this is not the first time that T-Mobile has attempted to merge with Sprint. It was rejected in the past by regulators. In this case, it truly will be newsworthy if this merger is approved, as it would be a reversal of prior regulatory policy from only a few years ago.--WaltCip (talk) 12:41, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
- WaltCip I don't believe that is an accurate portrayal of what happened. T-Mobile US and Sprint Corporation discussed a possible merger, but I believe this is the first time they have agreed to specific terms. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-08-05/sprint-said-to-end-t-mobile-talks-plans-to-name-new-ceo Chrisclear (talk) 16:04, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
(Posted) La Liga
Blurb: In Spanish football, Barcelona win La Liga (Post)
News source(s): BBC Sport
Credits:
- Nominated by Harambe Walks (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Nominator's comments: I had pre-prepared a prose summary for this article so it is reasonably detailed and updated. I might consider holding this until the end of the season because Barcelona are four games away from the first ever unbeaten season in La Liga. Harambe Walks (talk) 21:22, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose missing refs in the shirt sponsors, managerial changes, most of the infobox, and "autonomous community" (I don't know or care what that is but if you're gonna drop it in, source it). Also it's yet another domestic soccer league. It's hard to write prose updates for these points based seasons .. you can't cram a game-by-game in the summary section but FFS it's just a wall of tables and a one liner about FC Barcelona sealing the title. For the worlds most popular sport, these articles are boring AF. Unrelated, I need to get a coin made with "Real Madrid" on one side and "FC Barcelona" on the other so I could predict the La Liga champion with 50/50 accuracy. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:09, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
- "FFS it's just a wall of tables and a one liner about FC Barcelona sealing the title" - that's odd because on my screen there's a five-paragraph summary section. Harambe Walks (talk) 23:30, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
- Harambe, I'm sorry, I genuinely didn't mean to disparage your efforts. All I'm saying is in a season with 340 matches there had to be more than five paragraphs worth of notability. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:34, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
- Sounds good, that way we'll never be posting another MLB title ever again. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:44, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
- Don't bring MLB into this. 2017 Major League Baseball season seems to be a better article than 2017–18 La Liga. 2017 World Series is now GA thanks to yours truly. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:56, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
- I assume it adequately summarised all 33 million games played that season then. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:57, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
- I agree with you that not every single game requires summarization. I am not sure exactly how much summary is needed for a "football" season; as this is out of my area of expertise, I'm not offering a support or oppose to this. How would I know if those five paragraphs are enough or not enough? – Muboshgu (talk) 16:59, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
- Just noting how nonsensical it is. We have season articles for each club too, their quality varies, but honestly, not even Britannica would expect a summary of the 340 games (I made it 380 by the way). The Rambling Man (talk) 17:08, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
- I was just confirming that I did in fact write "you can't cram a game-by-game in the summary section" -- which I did. Not sure what compelled you to bring up "MLB" -- especially since we posted the championship tournament [9] and not the boring wall of tables season summary. Oh well. Thanks for participating TRM! --LaserLegs (talk) 21:20, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
- I honestly don't care. The best news was that the story was posted, which was all that was required. Cheers now! The Rambling Man (talk) 10:17, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
- I was just confirming that I did in fact write "you can't cram a game-by-game in the summary section" -- which I did. Not sure what compelled you to bring up "MLB" -- especially since we posted the championship tournament [9] and not the boring wall of tables season summary. Oh well. Thanks for participating TRM! --LaserLegs (talk) 21:20, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
- Just noting how nonsensical it is. We have season articles for each club too, their quality varies, but honestly, not even Britannica would expect a summary of the 340 games (I made it 380 by the way). The Rambling Man (talk) 17:08, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
- I agree with you that not every single game requires summarization. I am not sure exactly how much summary is needed for a "football" season; as this is out of my area of expertise, I'm not offering a support or oppose to this. How would I know if those five paragraphs are enough or not enough? – Muboshgu (talk) 16:59, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
- I assume it adequately summarised all 33 million games played that season then. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:57, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
- Don't bring MLB into this. 2017 Major League Baseball season seems to be a better article than 2017–18 La Liga. 2017 World Series is now GA thanks to yours truly. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:56, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
- Sounds good, that way we'll never be posting another MLB title ever again. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:44, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
- Harambe, I'm sorry, I genuinely didn't mean to disparage your efforts. All I'm saying is in a season with 340 matches there had to be more than five paragraphs worth of notability. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:34, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
- "FFS it's just a wall of tables and a one liner about FC Barcelona sealing the title" - that's odd because on my screen there's a five-paragraph summary section. Harambe Walks (talk) 23:30, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
- Comment This will undoubtedly be posted now because "OMG soccer", go ahead and nominate it again if FC Barcelona goes undefeated -- Soccer records are ITN/R anyway and it further cements La Liga as an utter joke of a competitive soccer league. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:11, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
- I know WP:NOTFORUM but there's academic study that suggests that competitiveness does not make a league less attractive and it may in fact be a lack of balance that fuels interest [10] Harambe Walks (talk) 23:34, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
- There is also 2017–18_FC_Barcelona_season, which has plenty of prose, unfortunately it's a pretty textbook example of proseline. --LukeSurl t c 10:10, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose, regional-interest story. Kaldari (talk) 15:26, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Kaldari: - La Liga is watched world-wide by a massive audience. To call it a
regional-interest story
is preposterous, and simply false. Moreover, opposing on these grounds makes no sense, or else we would not post half of the items currently on ITN/R. Stormy clouds (talk) 15:34, 30 April 2018 (UTC)- I have no doubt it is watched world-wide, however, at least where I'm at, it's not on Google News Sports page and not mentioned in sports news coverage. Perhaps as a European, your view is a bit different than mine. As to the proliferation of regional sports news on ITN, I think we could stand to cut back on it quite a bit. For example, most of the world doesn't even know what snooker is (believe it or not), but we always cover it at ITN as well as pretty much every U.S.-based championship of any sport. Kaldari (talk) 15:43, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Kaldari: - La Liga is watched world-wide by a massive audience. To call it a
- Wait. There are two ongoing discussions at WT:ITNR on this exact topic. I won't repeat what has already been said there, but in summary I think La Liga should be one of the leagues we post once the season is completely over, not when one team gains an unassailable lead. Come back in a few weeks. Modest Genius talk 16:39, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
- Also WP:ITNR explicitly states that posting should be at the conclusion of the competition, not now. Modest Genius talk 10:28, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
- Support. Soccer is not like other sports--the trophy is awarded and celebrations are held as soon as one team gains an unbeatable lead. Barcelona is hosting the championship parade today, not at the end of the season. (NorthernFalcon (talk) 17:14, 30 April 2018 (UTC))
- Comment Should also note that La Liga is considered the number one ranked soccer league in the Europe by UEFA, which implies that it's also the number one ranked domestic soccer league in the world. The Premier League may be number one in dollars, but La Liga is number one in terms of how competitive their teams are. (NorthernFalcon (talk) 17:18, 30 April 2018 (UTC))
- @NorthernFalcon: Not always. Manchester City haven't been awarded the Premier League trophy yet. That will be done at their last home game of the season.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:41, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
- @Pawnkingthree: That last bit is actually not true--Manchester City will receive the trophy at their second-last home game of the season, against Huddersfield on May 6. It appears in this case that the club chose that date, which indicates that the club has the right to schedule their trophy presentation whenever they want, once they have an insurmountable lead. (NorthernFalcon (talk) 16:24, 1 May 2018 (UTC))
- Weak support Article is a bit heavy on the tables, and light on the prose, but I won't hold it up for that. Congrats to Barça --Jayron32 18:03, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
- Support and support posting now, when it's in the news. At the end of the season, it will not be "in the news". Job done. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:41, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
- This is so "ITN worthy" that you're cool with posting the article where none of the managers in the staffing table are referenced? This must be critically important to the readers of Wikipedia! --LaserLegs (talk) 21:22, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
- I think WP:BLUE comes into that. The majority of the article is sourced, and in modern football most managers are new to the season, so they are sourced in the managerial changes box. If anyone has a serious doubt that Zinedine Zidane is the manager of Real Madrid or that Diego Simeone is the manager of Atlético Madrid I welcome them to put a cn tag and I can get round to that. Harambe Walks (talk) 21:39, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
- I'm applying the same standards which are used for a list of works for a deceased artist: in those cases WP:BLUE has not been applied, and the the article held to an exacting standard of referencing. Maybe it's because of BLP? But then, that'd apply to managers too... --LaserLegs (talk) 21:49, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
- I think WP:BLUE comes into that. The majority of the article is sourced, and in modern football most managers are new to the season, so they are sourced in the managerial changes box. If anyone has a serious doubt that Zinedine Zidane is the manager of Real Madrid or that Diego Simeone is the manager of Atlético Madrid I welcome them to put a cn tag and I can get round to that. Harambe Walks (talk) 21:39, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
- This is so "ITN worthy" that you're cool with posting the article where none of the managers in the staffing table are referenced? This must be critically important to the readers of Wikipedia! --LaserLegs (talk) 21:22, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
- Posted Neither oppose is convincing, indeed one of them is the definition of something that should not be used as an oppose. Black Kite (talk) 22:47, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
- Comment: Surely this should read "Barcelona wins"? I'd also argue the blurb should explain what "La Liga" is, e.g.: "…Barcelona wins the La Liga football championship." — Hugh (talk) 23:28, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
- For general knowledge, British English uses a plural subject for teams/organizations. [They] win. Killiondude (talk) 23:42, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
- There is a way of writing these blurbs that avoids the ENG/US verb agreement, but I can't remember what it is ... Black Kite (talk) 07:07, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
- Our standard phrasing is 'Competition X concludes with Y
as the championsdefeating Z in the final'. Which of course only works if we follow WP:ITNR and post at the correct time - when the competition ends. Modest Genius talk 10:28, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
- Still wouldn't solve the ENG/US issue - Americans would say, "the champion."--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:37, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
- Oops, my mistake. Corrected to the standard wording for sports items, but that doesn't fit a league with no final. Open to suggestions. Modest Genius talk 14:03, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
- Our standard phrasing is 'Competition X concludes with Y
- Post-posting support This is all over the news in my corner of the world, and I'm not even in Europe... –FlyingAce✈hello 00:00, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
- Post-posting comment - Curious why this was posted now given that La Liga doesn't finish until 20th May when Manchester City winning the English Premier League was nixed partly as consensus was to post it at season's conclusion. yorkshiresky (talk) 10:32, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
- Yorkshiresky while I'm not privy to that particular discussion, the summary of the season on the Premier League season article is not very well written or well sourced. For example, the last (unsourced paragraph) mentions an "Albion", which me having seen the game know was West Brom, but both them and Brighton are already named in the section (and are both better known by their town than as Albion). Harambe Walks (talk) 13:34, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose What is the long-term impact of this? Someone kicked a ball better than others did? Mike Peel (talk) 01:05, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Michael Martin
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC News
Credits:
- Nominated by Drchriswilliams (talk · give credit)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: former Speaker of the House of Commons. Drchriswilliams (talk) 14:56, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
- Comment - The title of nobility is not necessary to be posted as part of the RD.--WaltCip (talk) 15:29, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose two maintenance tags (a little overkill that) but several unreferenced claims. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:48, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
- @The Rambling Man: I have added various sources. I think current content is now all referenced appropriately. Drchriswilliams (talk) 09:49, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
- Support Some good work done to improve it. yorkshiresky (talk) 11:28, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
- Support. Referencing looks adequate to me. Modest Genius talk 12:20, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
- Posted. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:05, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
April 28
April 28, 2018
(Saturday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Arts and culture
Disasters and accidents
International relations
Law and crime
|
RD: Larry Harvey
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NYT, CNN
Credits:
- Nominated by Davey2116 (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Burning Man co-founder dies at age 70. Some sourcing issues. Davey2116 (talk) 15:22, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose too much unreferenced at this point. And a little stubby... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:49, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose based on article quality; I declined to nominate this because it seemed too far from acceptable. The only sourced content about him is that he founded Burning Man, and that he died. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:56, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose - similarly to Power~enwiki, I thought about nominating this, and then looked at the article. Woeful referencing, and quite short. Stormy clouds (talk) 18:57, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
RD: Karl Toft
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Ottawa Citizen
Credits:
- Nominated by TDKR Chicago 101 (talk · give credit)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Article well sourced. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 02:00, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
- Support typically good nomination. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:50, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
- Comment. Still some uncited material; for an article of this contentious nature everything must be covered by reliable sources with inline citations, especially as no doubt many of the other subjects involved are alive. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:08, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
- Nothing is marked as need citation, unless it's all been resolved. If not, could you clarify in the article? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:42, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
- Large chunks of the article are still cited to articles in a local newspaper, The Daily Gleaner. I personally have no idea how reliable this is, but I would not consider the equivalent UK newspaper reliable for such matters. Perhaps someone knowledgeable about Canadian press could weigh in. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:53, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose I share the concern of Espresso Addict to a great extant. Just because every sentence is marked with citation superscript that doesn't mean everything is right. This article is biased and heavily unduly slanted towards opinion of one paper/journalist. That paper is used almost 10 times as standard reference and reference-called 16 more times, that is over 85% of all the references. For an article that host such odd negative biography multiple high-quality sources" are required. And that Daily Gleaner is not even notable, for us to asses how reliable it is (notwithstanding it has that next-to-nothing stub) and all the stories were written by one journalist; more cause for concern. I am not sympathetic to this subject or how he lived, but sympathetic about what Wikipedia should present. –Ammarpad (talk) 09:09, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: James H. Cone
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NPR
Credits:
- Nominated by Muboshgu (talk · give credit)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
– Muboshgu (talk) 21:52, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
- Support Queried one statement with {{cn}} tag, but overall the article is in good shape and sufficient for RD. –Ammarpad (talk) 03:53, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
- Support good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:51, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
- Posted. 331dot (talk) 20:15, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Philip H. Hoff
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The New York Times
Credits:
- Nominated by TDKR Chicago 101 (talk · give credit)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Article updated and well sourced --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:15, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
- Support Looks good to go. –Ammarpad (talk) 04:02, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
- Support. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MAINEiac4434 (talk • contribs)
- Support good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:52, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
- Posted. 331dot (talk) 20:16, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Alfie Evans
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:
- Nominated by LukeSurl (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Stormy clouds (talk · give credit)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Alfie Evans was a seriously ill 1-year old child whose treatment, and eventual withdrawal of life support, was the subject of the Alfie Evans case. This has been an ongoing story in the UK for the past few weeks and had international dimensions as well. There is an argument here for a blurb, but for me simply listing "Alfie Evans" under recent deaths sufficiently informs a reader of the main page who is familiar with the name about this final, tragic, development. This is technically a case where the article is regarding a case rather than specifically being a biography, but I see no utility in that obstructing an RD item. LukeSurl t c 07:59, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
- Support
subject to the unreferenced section being addressed. Otherwise- good to go. Mjroots (talk) 09:06, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Mjroots: - I have referenced that section thoroughly, so the issue has been removed. Stormy clouds (talk) 10:06, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
- I concur, now has my full support. Mjroots (talk) 10:20, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
- Support - we posted Charlie Gard under similar circumstances. I see this one as a support also.Stormy clouds (talk) 09:46, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
- Support - sourcing much improved by User:Stormy clouds. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:34, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
- Posted. Thryduulf (talk) 11:29, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
- FWIW, I was thinking of nominating this myself after seeing it appear in WaPost and WSJ. Only making note this was not an isolated story only to the UK (likely in part of the Pope's/Vatican's involvement) --Masem (t) 14:54, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
- Comment Thanks for posting. This really ought to be a blurb, not because he was "very important" or whatever but because this story has been in and out of the news for a year, and the legal battle (also the title of the article) is the story here, not the individual. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:48, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose blurb - If the standard we're using for a blurb is that the individual should be a transformative world leader or someone whose death makes news for a significant length of time, I don't believe this subject passes the Thatcher-Mandela standard.--WaltCip (talk) 16:34, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
- Putting this as a blurb would be epitome of excessiveness and belittling to the death like this that we blurbed few weeks ago. By that standard we should just copy whatever is on the BBC front page and paste on the ITN template everyday. –Ammarpad (talk)
- You're opposed to the "In the news" section featuring stories which are "in the news"? How odd. Hawking was an obit, the saga of the end of his life was not the central story of his life. Come on. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:18, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
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: