Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This page provides a forum for editors to suggest items for inclusion in Template:In the news (ITN), a protected Main Page template, as well as the forum for discussion of candidates. This is not the page to report errors in the ITN section on the Main Page—please go to the appropriate section at WP:ERRORS.

This candidates page is integrated with the daily pages of Portal:Current events. Under each daily section header below is the transcluded Portal:Current events items for that day (with a light green header). Each day's portal page is followed by a subsection for suggestions and discussion.

Contents

Eliud Kipchoge in 2015
Eliud Kipchoge

How to nominate an item[edit]

In order to suggest a candidate:

  • Update an article to be linked to from the blurb to include the recent developments, or find an article that has already been updated.
  • Find the correct section below for the date of the event (not the date nominated) in UTC.
    • Do not add sections for new dates. These are automatically generated (at midnight UTC) by a bot; creating them manually breaks this process. Remember, we use UTC dates.
  • Nominate the blurb for ITN inclusion under the "Suggestions" subheading for the date, emboldening the link in the blurb to the updated article. Use a level 4 header (====) when doing so.
    • Preferably use the template {{ITN candidate}} to nominate the article related to the event in the news. Make sure that you include a reference from a verifiable, reliable secondary source. Press releases are not acceptable. The suggested blurb should be written in simple present tense.
    • Adding an explanation why the event should be posted greatly increases the odds of posting.
  • Please consider alerting editors to the nomination by adding the template {{ITN note}} to the corresponding article's talk page.

Purge this page to update the cache

There are criteria which guide the decision on whether or not to put a particular item on In the news, based largely on the extensiveness of the updated content and the perceived significance of the recent developments. These are listed at WP:ITN.

Submissions that do not follow the guidelines at Wikipedia:In the news will not be placed onto the live template.

Headers[edit]

  • Items that have been posted or pulled from the main page are generally marked with (Posted) or (Pulled) in the item's subject so it is clear they are no longer active.
  • Items can also be marked as (Ready) when the article is both updated and there seems to be a consensus to post. The posting admin, however, should always judge the update and the consensus to post themselves. If you find an entry that you don't feel is ready to post is marked (Ready), you should remove the mark in the header.

Voicing an opinion on an item[edit]

  • Format your comment to contain "support" or "oppose", and include a rationale for your choice. In particular, address the notability of the event, the quality of the article, and whether it has been updated.
  • Some jargon: RD refers to "recent deaths", a subsection of the news box which lists only the names of the recent notable deceased. Blurb refers to the full sentences that occupy most of the news box. Most eligible deaths will be listed in the recent deaths section of the ITN template. However, some deaths may be given a full listing if there is sufficient consensus to do so.
  • The blurb of a promoted ITN item may be modified to complement the existing items on the main page.

Please do not...[edit]

  • ... add simple "support!" or "oppose!" votes without including your reasons. Similarly, curt replies such as "who?", "meh", or "duh!" are usually not helpful. Instead, explain the reasons why you think the item meets or does not meet the ITN inclusion criteria so a consensus can be reached.
  • ... oppose an item because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive.
  • ... accuse other editors of supporting, opposing or nominating due to a personal bias (such as ethnocentrism). Conflicts of interest are not handled at ITN.
  • ... comment on a story without first reading the relevant article(s).
  • ... oppose a WP:ITN/R item here because you disagree with current WP:ITN/R criteria (these can be discussed at the relevant Talk Page)

Can I help you ? I know about this project. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.41.217.209 (talk) 16:10, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Suggestions[edit]

September 22[edit]

Portal:Current events/2018 September 22
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Disasters and accidents

Science and technology

RD: Chas Hodges[edit]

Article: Chas Hodges (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC News
Nominator and updater: Ritchie333 (talk • give credit)
Other updaters: Michig (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: That's "Chas out of Chas & Dave" for those who aren't sure. Personally I prefer Green Bullfrog on which he plays some fine bass alongside Deep Purple's Ritchie Blackmore and Ian Paice and Procol Harum's Matthew Fisher ..... but to everyone else, it's "rabbit, rabbit, rabbit, rabbit" Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:20, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

  • Support - got edit conflicted nominating this, but as Ritchie333 has put the work in he deserves the credit anyway. Article has had recent improvement and tags are now gone. Good to go. Mjroots (talk) 15:24, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Bibliography section doesn't have source. "Bibliography" typifies quirkiness of English; so due to lack of source we've to even ask, are those books by him or about him? Either way they need source before this see Mainpage. –Ammarpad (talk) 15:44, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
It's pretty much the results window from typing "Chas Hodges" into Google Books ... but inline citations added nonetheless. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:54, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. This is OK. –Ammarpad (talk) 16:00, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Iranian military parade attack[edit]

Article: 2018 Ahvaz military parade attack (talk, history)
Blurb: ​At least 29 people are killed during an attack at the Iranian military parade.
News source(s): CNN, al-arabiya
Nominator: Brandmeister (talk • give credit)

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Developing story, needs updating. Brandmeistertalk 12:15, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

  • Support in principle – pending article expansion. Unusual for Iran. Possibly an indicator of political unrest. Sca (talk) 13:28, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - Article looks developed for now. Sherenk1 (talk) 13:29, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. Quite not there, it's basically a stub. –Ammarpad (talk) 13:51, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support support, basic info is there, no doubt about notability Openlydialectic (talk) 14:22, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Nobody talk of notability. It's still in stubby state. I just removed large copyvio further shrinking it. –Ammarpad (talk) 16:43, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support A significant and developing event. --Mhhossein talk 16:59, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

September 21[edit]

Portal:Current events/2018 September 21
Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment
  • The government of Nigeria announces that 61 people have died and 50 others have been hospitalized from a cholera outbreak in Yobe. (Xinhua)

Law and crime
  • A woman goes on a stabbing rampage in Queens, New York City, injuring five, including three infants. All are in stable condition. (CNN)

Politics and elections

Science and technology

(Ready) RD: Vitaliy Masol[edit]

Article: Vitaliy Masol (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Nominator: Dumelow (talk • give credit)

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Former prime minister of Ukraine. Bit short, I will look to expand - Dumelow (talk) 13:37, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment – Suggest article include date of death. Sca (talk) 13:51, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - Article is now sourced, including deathdate. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 18:36, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. Article fully sourced. Capitalistroadster (talk) 19:50, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
→ Looks OK for RD. Sca (talk) 20:05, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
  • support - And ready for posting.BabbaQ (talk) 20:08, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support I added a source that states he died specifically on 21 September, which seemed to be absent in the other sources. Marking as ready. Hrodvarsson (talk) 00:46, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Good work! --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 02:47, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) Death of Trần Đại Quang[edit]

Page blanked as a copyright violation. No content to consider.--WaltCip (talk) 14:17, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Trần Đại Quang (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: Vietnamese president Trần Đại Quang dies aged 61.
News source(s): BBC
Nominator: EternalNomad (talk • give credit)

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: What a huge shocker... EternalNomad (talk) 05:20, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose on quality. The death of a sitting head of state while they held office is definitely blurb material, but the article has some unsourced paragraphs and the like. --Masem (t) 05:49, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Yeah.. sitting head of state, definitely. I'll try some cleanup. –Ammarpad (talk) 06:44, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak Support He is only technically the head of state. Vietnam is a communist country, and all power is concentrated in the hands of Nguyễn Phú Trọng who is the general secretary. Plus, the quality of the article is not all that good. Openlydialectic (talk) 07:38, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
    Vietnam is ruled by a triumvirate of the GenSec, PM, and President. The balance of power vary based on who's in power, but the GenSec doesn't have "all power". DHN (talk) 08:02, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
    >Vietnam is ruled by a triumvirate of the GenSec, PM, and President.[citation needed] Openlydialectic (talk) 12:25, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
    Source: "Vietnam has no paramount ruler and is officially led by a triumvirate of president, prime minister and Communist Party chief, although experts say the presidency is more ceremonial than the other posts." DHN (talk) 18:18, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
    Thank you. Openlydialectic (talk) 22:35, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
    This is certainly a weight against significance, so if his article was a postmortem stub I'd be opposed. As it is now, I think we should post this when quality issues are addressed. ghost 12:00, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. Possible blurb material as it will impact the balance of power and there has been a cloud over his health for some time. Some of the honours appear to be unreferenced which is the main concern. Capitalistroadster (talk) 08:11, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
    • Change to oppose on article quality issues.
  • RD only – Marginal notability. Sca (talk) 13:52, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. Referencing is quite poor. Far too many paragraphs have only a single ref for multiple claims of fact and some have none at all. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:12, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
  • RD only the very first paragraph of this article contains the statement that someone else was actually the de facto leader of Vietnam, so I don't think we should post this just because he was technically the head of state. Lepricavark (talk) 15:30, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
    That is pure speculation. The fact of the matter is he was the sitting head of state. While the role is ceremonial much like the role in parliamentary systems, he is actually probably more powerful than the president in those countries, since "Vietnam is led by a triumvirate of president, prime minister and Communist Party chief". DHN (talk) 18:18, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
    It sounds like he was the ceremonial head of state while the power actually rested elsewhere. So no, I am not changing my mind. Lepricavark (talk) 18:28, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
    Would the same then hold true for the queen of England for example? She is a ceremonial head of state and has little to no power, perhaps even less power than this office affords. No blurb for her either on death or would that be different for some reason? 85.16.229.157 (talk) 19:24, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
    Obviously that would be different, for the blindingly obvious reason that QE2 is the head of state of sixteen countries, not to mention the former head of state of sixteen more, the longest-reigning British monarch (which goes back over 1,100 years), is one of the most recognised people in the world ... but you know all that. It's a ridiculous comparison. Black Kite (talk) 20:11, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
  • RD only - And ready for posting.BabbaQ (talk) 20:07, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose. Not well enough sourced, a lot of it is just bullet points ... peacock writing ("He is very well known for his hard work, dedication, composure and calm qualities"), general grammar and writing issues, but more importantly I picked a random sentence (" Welcoming Israeli Ambassador Nadav Eshcar, President Quang expressed his delight over the sound development of co-operative ties between the two countries, as demonstrated by President Reuven Ruvi Rivlin’s State visit to Vietnam in March") only to find that it's a straight copy from this news article. Elsewhere, "Tran Dai Quang made the statement at a meeting with a delegation of 87 outstanding HCMCYU members who won the Ly Tu Trong Award 2018 in Hanoi" is a straight copy from here but actually makes no sense whatsoever because the previous sentence in the news article hasn't been included (the question is "What statement?"). There is also copying and/or close paraphrasing from here, here, etc. etc. Copyvios on the main page - ain't happening. Black Kite (talk) 20:14, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose based on quality. The "Education" and "Political career" sections are bad but fairly easily fixable. "Minister of Public Security" and "Presidency" are a list of press-clippings; someone familiar with Vietnamese politics will need to edit those down. The whole thing has an ESL tone to it as well. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:25, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Note I have blanked the article as a copyright violation, which the vast majority of it is. Black Kite (talk) 20:33, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

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

(Closed) International relations[edit]

WP:SNOW --Tone 14:25, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Brexit negotiations (talk, history)
Blurb: Prime Minister Theresa May says negotiations are "at an impasse" following yesterday's European Union leaders' meeting in Salzburg.
News source(s): ITV
Nominator: The Vintage Feminist (talk • give credit)

 The Vintage Feminist (talk) 13:47, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose target article is not even in blurb, target article does not mention this information. --Jayron32 13:50, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose Nothing yet to affect the progress of Brexit. --Masem (t) 13:55, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Oppose per Jayron and also unclear significance. Does this mean Brexit is off? A "Hard Brexit"? Just a negotiating tactic? – Muboshgu (talk) 13:55, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose – More Brexit blather. Sca (talk) 13:57, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

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

September 20[edit]

Portal:Current events/2018 September 20
Arts and culture

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

Sports

(Posted) MV Nyerere sinking[edit]

Article: MV Nyerere sinking (talk, history)
Blurb: A boat capsizes on Lake Victoria killing more than one hundred.
News source(s): BBC News, NBC News, Reuters
Nominator: Fuebaey (talk • give credit)
Updater: Stormy clouds (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Could do with expansion. Fuebaey (talk) 13:34, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

  • 'Oppose...' for now. Stub. Sca (talk) 13:58, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I see the article is getting expanded, looks sufficient to me now, though more work is always welcome. --Tone 14:27, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support, the article is no longer a stub and the article looks to be in good-enough condition. -- Tavix (talk) 15:35, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
→ Text is up to 270 words, which still seems minimal for an incident that caused at least 136 deaths and possibly many more. – Sca (talk) 15:41, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak Support It's been expanded and is now minimally sufficient for posting. Likewise referencing is adequate. Hopefully work will continue. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:23, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak Support – Ditto. Notable disaster. Sca (talk) 20:08, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - And seems ready for posting.BabbaQ (talk) 20:09, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - after some copy-editing, expansion and additional referencing, this seems ready to go. Significance goes without saying. Stormy clouds (talk) 23:33, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:55, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment It is customary to include some information about the location of an event in blurbs. May I suggest something like "Tanzanian ferry MV Nyerere capsizes..."? It makes more sense to me than "a boat". Isa (talk) 05:52, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
    • I did change "boat" to "ferry" when I posted, but adding the location is a great idea that Stephen has done. Thanks all! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:44, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

(Ready) RD: Inge Feltrinelli[edit]

Article: Inge Feltrinelli (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Der Tagesspiegel
Nominator and updater: FoxyGrampa75 (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: The Italian photographer. I have made sure every paragraph is sourced and tracked down as many ISBNs for the bibliography, but some ISBNs are still missing. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 23:43, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

  • Support. Referenced article. 01:52, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Not that good, but not that bad either. –Ammarpad (talk) 09:57, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
  • weak support - not great. But adequate.BabbaQ (talk) 20:11, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak support Good on reference, but could use expansion. Good though. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 02:48, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Naga City, Cebu landslide[edit]

Article: 2018 Naga, Cebu landslide (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A landslide cause by days of heavy rainfall in Naga, Cebu in the Philippines, killing at least 29 and more than 50 others are missing.
Alternative blurb: ​A massive landslide triggered by several days of heavy rainfall in Naga, Cebu in the Philippines, kills at least 29 and more than 50 others are missing
News source(s): (Rappler) (Philippine Daily Inquirer)
Nominator: BSrap (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: This one is a little bit of big news, at least 30 deaths. BSrap (talk) 12:06, 21 September 2018 (UTC)


  • Weak support Barely above a stub, but still on the right side of the line IMHO, well referenced. --Jayron32 13:28, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. This one is fine. There really isn't a whole lot to say about the event itself, but it is still a significant story due to the deaths. No glaring omissions or other major problems with the article. -- Tavix (talk) 15:49, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - per above. Ready for posting.BabbaQ (talk) 20:12, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

September 19[edit]

Portal:Current events/2018 September 19
Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents
  • Hurricane Florence
    • The death toll rises to 37 after two mental health patients died when the police van in which they were being transported got caught in floodwaters. (BBC)
  • Storm Ali
    • Two people are killed by Storm Ali as it brings winds of up to 160 kilometres per hour (99 mph) in Ireland. (BBC)

Law and crime
Science and technology

(Ready) RD: Marilyn Lloyd[edit]

Article: Marilyn Lloyd (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Chattanooga Times Free Press, Washington Post
Nominator: Fuebaey (talk • give credit)

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: American politician. Fuebaey (talk) 18:59, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

  • Support Seems to be nicely referenced. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 19:18, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
  • support referenced.BabbaQ (talk) 20:13, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Good enough for posting. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 02:49, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Bunny Carr[edit]

Article: Bunny Carr (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Nominator: Dumelow (talk • give credit)

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Irish TV presenter. I am working to expand it, but it is in reasonable condition - Dumelow (talk) 14:17, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

I added everything I could find in the obituaries. Hopefully it is now up to scratch - Dumelow (talk) 18:07, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - indeed, ready for posting.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:25, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - Good sources, redlinks removed, and this article should be ready for RD. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 23:43, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I have marked this one as ready based on the above - Dumelow (talk) 12:52, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted. --Jayron32 13:21, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

(Closed/Withdrawn) RD: Geta Brătescu[edit]

Older than earliest RD at signature time. (WP:NAC) FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 18:35, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Geta Brătescu (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Apollo
Nominator: FoxyGrampa75 (talk • give credit)

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: The Romanian artist. Article is well-sourced but sections 2, 3, and 4 might have to be dealt with. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 01:00, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Why even nomimate articles that are not ready. People will simply oppose.BabbaQ (talk) 06:52, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Not yet opposing, but I've to disagree, it isn't "well sourced." –Ammarpad (talk) 08:05, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose How is this article "well-sourced?" The "Writings" section has no sources. ―Susmuffin Talk 13:00, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose referencing is very much substandard; most of the biography section has no clear sources, the writing section has none at all, etc. --Jayron32 16:13, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

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

(Posted) RD: Jon Burge[edit]

Article: Jon Burge (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Chicago Tribune
Nominator: TDKR Chicago 101 (talk • give credit)

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Article has Good Article status and is overall well sourced --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:49, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment: Whilst a good article there are a couple of points (and a whole paragraph) that need citing and there is an "as of June 2008" that could use updating. I have tagged the relevant passages - Dumelow (talk) 21:06, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Good work TDKR Chicago 101. There is one paragraph left uncited, the first one of the "Culture of violence" section. Otherwise I would support - Dumelow (talk) 22:16, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
@Dumelow:: Fixed--TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:22, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, I had logged off for the day. Just to confirm my post-posting support on this one - Dumelow (talk) 06:52, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Could the lead be shortened/restructured? 8 paragraphs (fair enough some of them are very short) is excessive. Hrodvarsson (talk) 22:46, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I re-added a bit of detail that you removed, but the number of paragraphs is now 4, thanks. I don't think there are other issues, so I support. Hrodvarsson (talk) 23:23, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 23:32, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Dave Barrett (journalist)[edit]

Article: Dave Barrett (journalist) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Variety
Nominator: Strikerforce (talk • give credit)

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Award winning journalist that was the host of the evening edition of the CBS World News Roundup. Article will need expanding. StrikerforceTalk 20:16, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

  • As I said, the article will need expanding. I was very surprised not to find one about him. I just don't have the time today to do more than I already have. StrikerforceTalk 20:21, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Sorry, was I supposed to not comment here until you were personally ready? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:22, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I wasn't implying that. I was just putting it out there that the article will be longer soon enough and that you may want to reconsider your !vote at that time. StrikerforceTalk 20:25, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Indeed, I often reconsider my position, and I have this page watchlisted and contribute regularly. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:26, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Stub. – Sca (talk) 21:17, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose Stub but I acknowledge nominator's need to expand. Also there are three sections with only one sentence each. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 23:20, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Stub. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:21, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I have expanded the article. Based on the criteria for such, I believe that it meets "C" class and have assessed it as such. Happy to hear suggestions for improvement. Pinging @The Rambling Man:, @Sca:, @FoxyGrampa75:, and @TDKR Chicago 101: for additional consideration. StrikerforceTalk 17:43, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. Referencing work has now been done. Well done Strikerforce. Capitalistroadster (talk) 22:56, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - per improvements. Ready for posting.BabbaQ (talk) 23:25, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted. --Jayron32 13:24, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Arthur Mitchell (dancer)[edit]

Article: Arthur Mitchell (dancer) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): New York Times
Nominator: FoxyGrampa75 (talk • give credit)

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: The African-American dancer. Two tags in the "Career at New York City Ballet" section but should be otherwise good. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 18:40, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose more than just the tags to take care of. Not good enough for a BLP. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:43, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Article needs ref work. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:22, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose This article does not have enough inline citations. ―Susmuffin Talk 12:56, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I used the obituary more. Please mark where you think a citation is needed. It would be a shame not to mention such a person. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:31, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
I added citations to the awards. If we can't source the honorary doctors, we could skip them for now. Out for the day. The more I read about him, the more I think he deserves a blurb, - countering bias. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:23, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support RD for its current quality. I would currently oppose a blurb, in part because of the article's quality. Regardless of its quality, I do not know if this guy's significance warrants a blurb, though his death is indeed in international news and definitely makes an interesting headline (per point 3 and 4 of the ITN purpose). ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 14:34, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Looks ok.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:45, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - ready for posting now.BabbaQ (talk) 23:26, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted --Jayron32 13:25, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

(Withdrawn) RD: Denis Norden[edit]

Withdrawn by nominator. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 10:42, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Denis Norden (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC News
Nominator: FoxyGrampa75 (talk • give credit)

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: English comedy writer. Fix refimprove tag. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 04:02, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Article needs ref work. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:08, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose with regret. Poor article. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:20, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above. I wanted to nominate this last night but the referencing was too far below acceptable standards. I posted a tag on it which I see others have added to. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:32, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

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

(Closed) 2018 China–United States trade war[edit]

I don't foresee consensus being obtained for posting this. 331dot (talk) 21:44, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: 2018 China–United States trade war (talk, history)
Blurb: ​China and the United States impose tariffs on a combined $260 billion worth of each others' goods amidst an ongoing trade war
News source(s): [1][2] etc
Nominator: Banedon (talk • give credit)
Updater: Murchison-Eye (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: With the US having threatened further tariffs if China retaliates (which they just did), this looks like it could be ongoing for a while. Banedon (talk) 01:02, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose, this is a very slow moving, long-term story not even suited for ongoing because we have no idea when it will be resolved and is not the type of story that has daily happened. Further, The $260B appears to be the sum of the US's tariffs over three different points this year, not one mass sum, and that doesn't include anything China may have imposed. --Masem (t) 01:33, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
The $260B in this suggestion refers to the $200B US tariffs and the $60B Chinese retaliation from the past 2 days. Coincidentally this does match the total US tariffs this year. Murchison-Eye (talk) 01:48, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose we can’t post every single action and retaliation of the trade war onto ITN. SamaranEmerald (talk) 02:11, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
    Absolutely true, but we should consider the worthiness of singular events within a larger ongoing event. We've posted a great many items to ITN about the Syrian Civil War, for example. 260B is a big number, I've no idea if it's significant in this context. ghost 13:17, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support decent article, story is certainly "in the news", the trade war involves the worlds two largest economies, impact felt on both sides, and unlike a bi-lateral trade agreement, this is a tit-for-tat application of tariffs imposed (on the U.S. side at least) with dubious legality. Bolsonaro was stabbed two weeks ago, I think it's ok for that blurb to roll off. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:43, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose as Masem mentions above, this is a slow story about heated rhetoric, effects are notable and will definitely lead to long-term consequences in the long run, but ultimately this is more-or-less a repeat of similar announcements and counter-attacks made by the two world powers in the previous months. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 18:34, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose this is small potatoes and we really don't need to cover each and every minuscule change that Trump implements at ITN. Honestly. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:44, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Niche story for economists to argue over and speculate. No impact on general readers, not ITN worthy.. –Ammarpad (talk) 19:52, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Well general readers in the USA (by far the largest share of en-wiki readers) actually are impacted, by 10%, on goods imported from China. The Chinese are impacted too, since ... --LaserLegs (talk) 21:33, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Sure, prices just went up 10% today, of course they did!! And you have no idea how this impacts the Chinese. So I'd stop this speculative line. It's getting to be mildly embarrassing. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:36, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

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

September 18[edit]

Portal:Current events/2018 September 18
Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

(Closed) RD: Robert Venturi[edit]

Older than earliest RD at signature time. (WP:NAC) FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 18:35, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Robert Venturi (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The New York Times The Architects Newspaper
Nominator: Xwejnusgozo (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Influential architect Xwejnusgozo (talk) 11:06, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose, with regret. Definitely influential, but the article isn't in good enough shape for the main page. It would be tricky to not only fill in citations for the body of the article, but also to cite all of the structures that he built. Teemu08 (talk) 14:35, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

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

(Withdrawn) RD: David DiChiera[edit]

Withdrawn by nominator. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 10:42, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: David DiChiera (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Detroit Free Press
Nominator: FoxyGrampa75 (talk • give credit)

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: The opera manager. Article needs a few more sources but looks good. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 14:56, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - several sections completely unsourced. Ping me if it will be improved.BabbaQ (talk) 16:55, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose not good enough for a BLP. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:21, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

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

(Withdrawn) RD: Marceline Loridan-Ivens[edit]

Withdrawn by nominator. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 10:42, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Marceline Loridan-Ivens (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): France 24
Nominator: FoxyGrampa75 (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: The French writer. Could use expansion from the French article. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 04:02, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Stub. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:08, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose one sentence? The Rambling Man (talk) 06:09, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose This article only has two sentences of content. ―Susmuffin Talk 07:26, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment This was previously closed per WP:SNOW but has been reopened because it has been de-stubbed by expanding from the French article. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 14:57, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep - Nothing special but reaches the minimum level for inclusion. Ready to go.BabbaQ (talk) 16:53, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: Good work expanding this FoxyGrampa75. I think it needs just a little more to get it over the line. It is missing references for two passages in the biography section and there are no references for the filmography or awards sections. The grammar could do a check over too: "who emigrated to France since 1919"; " Edgar Morin casted her in the film Chronique d'un été"; "She assisted her in her work and co-directed some of his films". There is also no mention of her death in the article aside from the date in brackets at the top - Dumelow (talk) 17:27, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose A lot of issues. Multiple unreferenced sections and unsourced statements in referenced ones. Reference to unreliable French Wikipedia everywhere and incomplete references like "Voir, Klarsfeld, 2012.". I commend whoever destubbed it, but it's not yet ready. –Ammarpad (talk) 20:13, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I have added some improvements to the article -- [3]. is there anything else to take care of, and do I have to delink the redlinks? FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 23:13, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Filmography and Awards need referencing, especially where there is no article. Red links are not a problem. Stephen 02:06, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
I can't find more info about the incomplete reference I said. I hope it was not just copied directly from French Wikipedia. –Ammarpad (talk) 08:14, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

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

(Withdrawn) RD: Steve Adlard[edit]

Withdrawn by nominator. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 10:42, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Steve Adlard (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): JS Online
Nominator: FoxyGrampa75 (talk • give credit)

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: English footballer. Currently a stub. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 04:02, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Yes it is a stub, but not as bad as Marceline Loridan-Ivens, nonetheless needs expanding. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:09, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose stub. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:10, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose This article barely established the importance of its subject; it is far too short to be placed on the Main Page. ―Susmuffin Talk 07:24, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Stub. Sca (talk) 13:33, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

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

(Withdrawn) RD: Jean Piat[edit]

Withdrawn by nominator. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 10:42, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Jean Piat (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Le Figaro
Nominator: FoxyGrampa75 (talk • give credit)

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: French actor. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 04:02, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Article has no sources not even a reference section. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:11, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose BLP violation hell. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:10, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose This article has no sources whatsoever. ―Susmuffin Talk 07:19, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Text = 100-word stub. Sca (talk) 13:36, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

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

(Closed) RD: Norifumi Yamamoto[edit]

Older than earliest RD at signature time. (WP:NAC) FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 18:35, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Norifumi Yamamoto (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): https://www.bbc.com/sport/mixed-martial-arts/45561100
Nominator: Ginfners (talk • give credit)

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Mixed Martial Artist that was at one point considered among the best pound-for-pound in the world, and a huge star in Japan in his prime. Might need expansion to convey his cultural impact? Ginfners (talk) 17:20, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - for now. Several sections without sources.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:17, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Article needs reference work. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:10, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose needs refs. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:11, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose There are several sections that lack references. ―Susmuffin Talk 07:16, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

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

September 17[edit]

Portal:Current events/2018 September 17
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

(Posted) RD: Celia Barquin Arozamena[edit]

Article: Celia Barquín Arozamena (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The Guardian
Nominator: Pawnkingthree (talk • give credit)

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

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

  • Support article is fully referenced. While it is a new article, the SNG is clearly met, and there is significant coverage. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:22, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - good to go.BabbaQ (talk) 18:18, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Looks fine. Marking as ready. Mamyles (talk) 20:18, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Posting. --Tone 22:11, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

(Closed/withdrawn) 70th Primetime Emmy Awards[edit]

Withdrawing/closing. Clearly not getting support and no work has been done on the article. However, I will initiate an ITNR discussion on this. --Masem (t) 02:27, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Article updated

Nominated event is listed at WP:ITN/R, meaning that the recurrence of the event should in itself merit a post on WP:ITN, subject to the quality of the article and any update(s) to it.

Nominator's comments: More likely can be written about the ceremonies (I did not watch, but thre's usually an "in memorandum" sequence, and those types of details, and just checking news headlines there was a marriage proposal by one of the winners. That should be summarized like we do with sporting events) Masem (t) 05:01, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment no prose, no good. Expect a wall of "Oppose - No prose" below from people piling on. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:26, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Have a look at last year's article, which contains a nice summary in the intro. Aiming for something like that :) --Tone 12:46, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The Emmy's, Grammy's, and their ilk are fast approaching irrelevancy.--WaltCip (talk) 13:34, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
    If they're, then propose removing them at the right venue. In the meantime, this is ITN/R and we've to accept that. –Ammarpad (talk) 13:40, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
    I will, as I have done the same time each year for the past three years for these navel-gazing award shows. Each year they have received substandard updates and failed to be posted. This combined with their steadily declining viewership simply asserts to me their lack of relevance.--WaltCip (talk) 01:59, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
    If attempts to get it removed from ITNR have failed three years in a row, that would seem to show that there is even less excuse for raising non-quality objections to this ITNR item here.Tlhslobus (talk) 03:05, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per LaserLegs. Article quality is substandard. There is zero prose synopsis of the ceremony, the nominations, the awards, analysis, etc. It's just a bunch of tables with no context. --Jayron32 13:59, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose 674 bytes of character prose. Not even close. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:08, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Per Jayron. (And I agree with Walt: Entertainment fluff.) Sca (talk) 14:25, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose the article is virtually just skin and bones in terms of content: just a standard introductory paragraph and a table of the awards and winners. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 18:38, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WaltCip. Just not that important anymore. Lepricavark (talk) 01:09, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Both your !vote and WaltCip's should presumably be ignored as opposing an ITNR item on grounds other than quality.Tlhslobus (talk) 03:05, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
But you aren't exactly ignoring our !votes, are you? Since you haven't provided any evidence for your claim, I would have to take a look at ITNR to see whether it disallows such opposes. And frankly, I don't care if it does. My !vote stands. Lepricavark (talk) 11:53, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
This is ITNR and as such should not be opposed on the merits. If you feel it should not be ITNR, please propose its removal at the ITNR talk page. 331dot (talk) 23:56, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
I've taken a look at WP:ITN/R. The box at the very top of the page labels it a guideline, not a policy, and explicitly allows for "occasional exceptions." That quoted phrase is wikilinked to WP:IAR. My !vote is valid. Lepricavark (talk) 01:07, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Your argument to not post is that the awards as a whole are not that important anymore. While there may be validity in that, that is not discussing this specific instance, but instead the class as a whole. That argument goes to ITNR. --Masem (t) 01:09, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
In case my initial post was not sufficiently clear, I will state for the record that I do not consider the 2018 Emmys to be significant enough to merit a blurb. Lepricavark (talk) 01:18, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, Lepricavark. Although it would actually be up to the posting admin to decide (if the article ever achieves posting quality, which would rather surprise me), my own guess is that your !vote at least arguably became valid as soon as you mentioned WP:IAR. This seems to have possibly important implications for both ITNR and ITNRD, and (although strictly speaking this isn't a truly new situation) it might perhaps be worth starting a discussion about such implications (perhaps at the ITNC Talk page, and perhaps pinging everybody involved in this nom). I may or may not try to start such a discussion myself, but definitely not just yet, but perhaps some other editor(s) might wish to start one anyway without waiting for me.Tlhslobus (talk) 01:58, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose given the lack of article prose. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 23:53, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - Following up on Lepricavark's justification, TV ratings for 2018 Emmy's are the lowest on record. An 11% drop from 2017.--WaltCip (talk) 18:25, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

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

(Posted) RD: Enzo Calzaghe[edit]

Article: Enzo Calzaghe (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Nominator: Dumelow (talk • give credit)

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

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

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

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

September 16[edit]

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

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

Sports

(Posted) RD: Tommy Best[edit]

Article: Tommy Best (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Hereford Times
Nominator: Ad Orientem (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

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

  • Weak oppose Three cn tags. I tried to nominate the article, but couldn't find sources to cite it. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 03:33, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
All three cn tags you added are sourced to the ref at the end of the paragraph? Kosack (talk) 06:13, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support The reference may not be well positioned but it indeed verifies the content tagged with cn. Good to go. –Ammarpad (talk) 06:23, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - per Ammarpad.BabbaQ (talk) 18:19, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Looks good. Marking as ready. Mamyles (talk) 20:20, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted. Meets minimum standards. SpencerT•C 00:37, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) Vontae Davis halftime retirement[edit]

Consensus will not develop to post this. Stephen 01:26, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Vontae Davis (talk, history)
Blurb: Football player Vontae Davis announces his retirement during halftime of a Buffalo Bills game.
Alternative blurb: American football player Vontae Davis announces his retirement during halftime of a Buffalo Bills game.
News source(s): ESPN
Nominator: Strikerforce (talk • give credit)

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

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

(Posted) RD: James B. Thayer[edit]

Article: James B. Thayer (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Nominator: Dumelow (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: American WWII silver star recipient, brigadier-general and father of KISS guitarist Tommy Thayer. Article seems to be in good nick - Dumelow (talk) 23:19, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

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

(Posted) RD: Kevin Beattie[edit]

Article: Kevin Beattie (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC
Nominator: The Rambling Man (talk • give credit)

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Not good enough yet (stub) but hoping to change that soonest. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:24, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) Eliud Kipchoge marathon world record[edit]

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

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

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

  • Support - Significant record.BabbaQ (talk) 11:21, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Wait - The result is still subject to ratification. Once the press release is posted we can update the chart and table and then post. Mkwia (talk) 12:37, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Quite a feat, taking 1 minute and 18 seconds off the previous world record set four years ago by Dennis Kimetto. The IAFF have published this, with the time. But that still says "*Subject to the usual ratification procedure". Martinevans123 (talk) 13:32, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Once ratified you've got my full support for posting. The ratification annoncement will appear here. Mkwia (talk) 13:34, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment added alt-blurb, not everyone knows where "Berlin" is. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:26, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
    • I think it's pretty standard at ITN to leave off the country for major cities, and Berlin definitely qualifies IMO. The country is available if one clicks the link as well. SpencerT•C 16:55, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
      • The Kentucky Derby has run for over 140 years, but we still had to include the country then included it a different way and it still ended up at errors. We should be consistent, and include the country every time -- gotta fight that bias after all. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:08, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
        • There are certain places that most people are generally aware of and their location. London, New York, Paris, Tokyo, Cairo, etc. I think Berlin is well known enough. People aren't going to think it is Berlin, New Hampshire. Kentucky is not as well known as Berlin, I think. 331dot (talk) 18:49, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
          • Here in Georgia (U.S. state) I thought the marathon was in Colquitt County until I clicked the link. No matter how absurd, we should always include the country, because, you know, bias. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:46, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
            • The Berlin with 551 people? Or the one that started all the world wars? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:00, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support alt-blurb for consistency. Lepricavark (talk) 17:17, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support following ratification. Bob talk 18:41, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support first blurb. Alt-blurb is unnecessarily superfluous. –Ammarpad (talk) 20:31, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support first blurb. The location being in Germany seems unnecessary, Berlin is listed because it was the actual race ran. Nice4What (talk) 20:37, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted. No way that photo's heading for the main page, though! Black Kite (talk) 20:51, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support the blurb which doesn't spell out that the Berlin Marathon is in Germany. The claim that it's necessary to do that to fight "bias" is ridiculous and was rightly ignored. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:47, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Does anyone else think the current blurb is too brief? I prefered the original blurb. Mkwia (talk) 09:44, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) Retirement of Delta II rocket[edit]

Articles: ICESat-2 (talk, history) and Delta II (talk, history)
Blurb: ICESat-2 is launched, the last mission to use the Delta II rocket.
News source(s): [4]
Nominator: 71.197.186.255 (talk • give credit)

Article updated

One or both nominated events are listed at WP:ITN/R, meaning that the recurrence of the event should in itself merit a post on WP:ITN, subject to the quality of the article and any update(s) to it.

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

  • I don't know the refs are ok esp since it's not a BLP, I don't know if spacelaunchreport.com is a WP:RS or not, it leans on that source heavily. One ref early in the launch history section is to a 2 page PDF of unknown origin -- tidak bagus. I'm not a rocket scientist, but there is nothing egregious in the article. Really, I don't know, it's a weak support or oppose I guess. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:44, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose, comparing to the last flight of a Space shuttle, the retirement of Delta II model does not feel like an end to an era. Currently, Delta IV is being used from the same family and there are a series of rockets with comparable performance. On the other hand, what about highlighting the satellite and mentioning the rocket in the blurb? --Tone 08:01, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
    • Question: Are you arguing that ITN/R does not apply here, perhaps because Delta II is somehow not 'any type of rocket' within the meaning of ITN/R's "The first and last launches of any type of rocket"? If so I think you need to say so explicitly and explain why ITN/R somehow doesn't mean what it appears to mean, because otherwise your oppose should be ignored as opposition to an ITN/R item on grounds other than article quality. Tlhslobus (talk) 20:36, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
      • Ah, ITNR has it? Did not remember that. Will not argue against that, though one could debate whether "Delta" or "Delta II" count as a type. As said, I'd prefer also focusing on the satellite which is interesting on its own. --Tone 20:42, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
        • Thanks, Tone, I suspect the "any" in "any type" is there to try to spare us such debates. I think the satellite may be better unbolded, especially if that's somehow needed to prevent any quality issues there delaying the posting of an ITNR item, tho both articles seem in decent shape to me (but then I'm no expert on ITN's quality requirements). Tlhslobus (talk) 21:07, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
        • Meanwhile could you please either strike out your above 'weak oppose', or else replace it with an oppose on quality grounds? Tlhslobus (talk) 21:12, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak support: This is ITNR so only quality issues should delay it, and both articles look in decent shape to me. But my support is weak because I'm well aware that I'm no expert on our quality requirements (which also tends to mean that my quality inspections are usually less thorough than they would be if I were claiming expertise). So I guess I'm saying something like 'seems OK to me but don't post without an OK from others' and also asking for others to please say what, if anything, needs fixing (apart from the questions Laserlegs has asked above, which I don't feel competent to try to answer, but others might).Tlhslobus (talk) 21:07, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted No strong objections, articles are good, and retirement is ITNR. Stephen 01:59, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, Stephen. Tlhslobus (talk) 02:52, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

September 15[edit]

Portal:Current events/2018 September 15
Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

Science and technology

(Posted) Hurricane Florence[edit]

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

Article updated

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

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

(Posted) Typhoon Mangkhut (2018)[edit]

Article: Typhoon Mangkhut (2018) (talk, history)
Blurb: ​At least thirty people have died after a massive storm brought destruction to the northern Philippines.
Alternative blurb: Typhoon Mangkhut impacts the Philippines, Taiwan, and China, resulting in at least 67 fatalities.
News source(s): BBC
Nominator: Sherenk1 (talk • give credit)
Updater: Gen-Hon (talk • give credit)
Other updaters: LightandDark2000 (talk • give credit)

Article needs updating

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

  • Wait. This is ongoing as of writing my comment. Just wait for the reports of how many deaths. I will oppose if the deaths are lower than 10. BSrap (talk) 13:45, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Wait and Oppose current blurb as currently written (it's also not in the present tense). Would support something closer to Typhoon Mangkhut kills at least n people / leaves n people without power / causes x dollars of damage / causes x amount of flooding after striking the northern Philippines 184.153.25.119 (talk) 14:45, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Maybe combine this with Hurricane Florence, or add both to ongoing. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 15:26, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
    • This is actually not a bad idea: we have 14 from this storm and at least 7 from Florence, which for storms of this size are scrapping "MINIMUMDEATHS", but a combined blurb would be reasonable, something like "Typhoon Mangkhut kills at least 14 in the northern Philippines, while at least 7 are killed from Hurricane Florence in the eastern United States." --Masem (t) 15:37, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
"MINIMUMDEATHS" was never a policy to begin with and the redirect to that userspace essay was deleted for causing more harm than good and being overall misleading and unhelpful, but personally I'd either add both to ongoing or post the two separately. If I'm not mistaken, the landfalls of 2017 hurricanes were posted swimmingly, rather than waiting until after they've been affecting land for many days to post, or proposing posting them to ongoing instead. I support doing what we did in 2017: consider the landfalls of these extremely destructive storms to be news stories. I support posting both of them as individual ITN stories, and Mangkhut has already killed many people; it's a very large, extremely powerful storm, and it has already objectively caused widespread devastation. Nothing too soon about that.
As for Hurricane Florence, by virtue of the facts that Florence was near major at landfall, that it's a massive storm by size which allows for widespread devastation from flooding, storm surge, and winds, and that high pressure systems north of the storm are forcing it to stall for many days (like Harvey did) and hug the coast (like Irma did) I strongly disagree with the arguments that it's too soon to know if Florence's landfall is newsworthy. Everything about its landfall is newsworthy. I'm considering unclosing the other nomination; I think that the way it was proposed was botched, but the news story itself is quite obviously important. It was in good faith that it was closed, but the statement "we tend to wait until the damage has been reported" could not be further from the truth because damage reports don't happen until long after hurricane season has ended entirely, and at WP:TC we tend not to present preliminary damage reports as fact (noting that they're preliminary) because they're often neither official nor fully accurate.
Lastly, I also oppose the wording of the current blurb. I don't disagree that it is a "massive" storm, it certainly is, but for obvious reasons the blurb should be more informative and straightforward. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ 18:06, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment it's storm season, we posted one in Japan that killed 14, Florence is up to 11, Mangkhut has killed 14. I oppose combining the blurbs, there is nothing related between an Atlantic hurricane and a Pacific typhoon except that they're large rotating storms. I also think we should stop focusing on death toll alone, it's an absurdity which has limited bearing on the overall impact of the storm - advanced warning and high building standards in the US and Japan mitigate death toll but do not lessen the significance. So, we can either post both, because they're in the news, or stop being the "death and destruction box" and post neither. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:16, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose on quality – Needs work/expansion in all sections. However, notability is sufficient: Category 5 landfalls are exceptionally destructive events. Communications with the effected areas is next to zero so news will be slow to come. Offered an altblurb ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 19:22, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose on quality notably on referencing. If this is cleaned up, then I will support. Capitalistroadster (talk) 22:32, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support on merit, temporary oppose on quality per my previous comment on this nomination. Notability is certainly not in question, but the article isn't ready just yet. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ 22:50, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support If this isn't posted, it will be the best demonstration yet of Wikipedia's systemic bias. HiLo48 (talk) 23:14, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment – If no one else gets to it in a few hours, I'll give expanding the article a whirl. Info to get this up to par is easily accessible through Talk:2018 Pacific typhoon season and the NDRRMC. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 23:26, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Article needs a bit of work. Take this as a support if/when the article is expanded. Hrodvarsson (talk) 00:24, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Only to note this storm is still going, threatening landfall on China/Hong Kong now. (also updating death toll per [5]) --Masem (t) 04:03, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Death toll updated to 30. ~ KN2731 {t · c} 07:27, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I just posted the Florence blurb. Ideally, we would have both storms on ITN but the quality of this article is currently below the Main page standards. Looking forward to posting as soon as this improves. --Tone 08:07, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
"...the quality of this article is currently below the Main page standards." That's our systemic bias for you. HiLo48 (talk) 08:14, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
I am not posting an article with 3 orange tags and empty subsections, bias or not. I would be happy to expand the article but this is really not my expert area. --Tone 08:28, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support I have to admit being surprised that this is not ITN on the English Wikipedia. Do people in the Philippines not also speak English? Putting it on ITN may also help to improve quality. Rhombus (talk) 08:53, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - ITN ready. And is covered by all world media.BabbaQ (talk) 11:38, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose on article quality. The article has three orange tags. It is clearly not ready for the main page, repetitive cries of 'systemic bias' notwithstanding. Lepricavark (talk) 12:29, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support and post now per WP:IAR. IMHO the credibility of Wikipedia is harmed more by seeming to favour Western stories than by a few maintenance tags in the article. Ordinarily I 100% support quality improvement prior to posting, but I think the downsides of waiting outweigh the benefits right now. Just my opinion, of course.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:27, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose the article is no where near MP ready, with the Meteorological history section mostly unreferenced. In terms of being comprehensive (an actual requirement of ITN, as opposed to screaming about bias as is happening above) it's slim on details for the preparations and impact section. The storm is still active and we put the brakes on posting Florence until it had petered out and the impact reported. Lastly, posting this doesn't bring back the dead, doesn't dissipate the storm more quickly, doesn't cause plane loads of supplies to descend on south east asia, there is absolutely no reason, none at all, zero reason to rush this to the main page. Fix the article and it'll go up, the story is "in the news". --LaserLegs (talk) 13:41, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
    • FWIW, damage from Florence is only to get worse (the system stalling inland bringing more rain which means more floods). We should post disasters articles once we know the disaster is significant and the article is at quality, even if we know the worst is still around the corner. --Masem (t) 15:10, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Marked as ready – I've expanded the met hist to get enough for ITN standards and there are sufficient references and info in the preps/impact section to warrant posting. Not posting myself since I'm involved in the article's expansion and want input from others, however. Suggest using the altblurb ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 16:39, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
    • Excellent, posting now. --Tone 16:42, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Post-post Support. I expanded it a bit and also think it's ready. OhanaUnitedTalk page 17:13, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Post-posting comment: Wouldn't it be better to post it below Florence, as the Florence picture now seems to be illustrating Mangkhut? Or alternatively to use a picture of Mangkhut that is in the Mongkhut article? As this is a 'cosmetic' problem (and perhaps also a 'perceived bias' one due to Florence being pictured despite Mongkhut's much higher death toll), but not technically an error, I'm not sure whether to mention it at WP:ERRORS as well as here, tho other editors should please feel free to do so if they wish. Tlhslobus (talk) 17:21, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
    • Prepping Mangkhut's image for protection so it can be posted. Will replace Florence's image once it's ready ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 17:44, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Post-posting late comment: It would seem to be better to replace the somewhat unnatural (and euphemistic) word 'fatalities' by the more natural and widely understood word 'deaths', perhaps especially in a blurb about an event that mainly affects non-English speakers. (Similarly to what has already been mentioned above for a different matter, this is not technically an error, so I'm not currently planning to mention it at WP:ERRORS as well as here, tho other editors should please feel free to do so if they wish). Tlhslobus (talk) 03:54, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
I've now also said this at WP:ERRORS, as it seems to have gone unnoticed here.Tlhslobus (talk) 19:48, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

References[edit]

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: