Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates

This page provides a forum for ors 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.

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle in 2017
Prince Harry and Meghan Markle

How to nominate an item[]

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 ors 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[]

  • 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pulled from the main page are generally marked with (Posted) or (Pulled) in the item's subject so it is clear they are no longer active.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[]

  • 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...[]

  • ... 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 ors 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)


Suggestions[]

May 22[]

Portal:Current events/2018 May 22

May 21[]

Portal:Current events/2018 May 21
International relations

RD: Robert Indiana[]

Article: Robert Indiana (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The New York Times
Nominator: TDKR Chicago 101 (talk • give cr)

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 well sourced --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:30, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Nipah virus[]

Article: Henipavirus#Outbreaks (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Health officials in the south Indian state of Kerala say nine people have died in confirmed and suspected cases of the deadly Nipah virus.
News source(s): BBC
Nominator: Sherenk1 (talk • give cr)

 Sherenk1 (talk) 08:18, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

2018 Billboard Music Awards[]

Article: 2018 Billboard Music Awards (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Billboard Music Awards is hosted in Las Vegas
Alternative blurb: Ed Sheeran wins top artist at the Billboard Music Awards
News source(s): [1]
Nominator: Lucie Person (talk • give cr)

May 20[]

Portal:Current events/2018 May 20
Disasters and accidents
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Sports

RD: Richard N. Goodwin[]

Article: Richard N. Goodwin (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): NYT, WaPo, NPR, Boston Globe
Nominator: Davey2116 (talk • give cr)

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 speechwriter and political advisor dies at 86. Some sourcing issues. Davey2116 (talk) 04:06, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

RD: Bill Gold[]

Article: Bill Gold (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): New York Times
Nominator: Challenger l (talk • give cr)

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 a very long article - requires a lot of proper sourcing. Challenger l (talk) 00:36, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Cyclone Sagar[]

Article: Cyclone Sagar (talk, history)
Blurb: Cyclone Sagar makes landfall in Somalia, killing at least 16 people.
Alternative blurb: Cyclone Sagar makes landfall in the Middle East and East Africa, killing at least 16 people.
News source(s): The Weather Channel
Nominator: EternalNomad (talk • give cr)

Nominator's comments: Strongest cyclone in Somalia's history according to TWC. EternalNomad (talk) 04:19, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) Venezuelan presidential elections[]

Article: Venezuelan presidential election, 2018 (talk, history)
Blurb: Nicolás Maduro is reelected as President of Venezuela in a contested election
Alternative blurb: Nicolás Maduro is reelected as President of Venezuela
Alternative blurb II: ​Venezuela's President Nicolás Maduro has won re-election to another six-year term.
Alternative blurb III: ​Incumbent Nicolás Maduro is re-elected President of Venezuela
News source(s): The New York Times The Guardian BBC The Washington Post The Telegraph
Nominator and updater: Jamez42 (talk • give cr)

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: Per WP:ITNR Jamez42 (talk) 03:12, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

It does. However I'd be grateful for blurb suggestions since English is not my native language. --Jamez42 (talk) 03:17, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
@PFHLai: Updated with the "Recognition" section. However I don't think that there will be many more announcements since most of the governments mentioned already declared they would dismiss/accept the results beforehand, like the Lima Group. --Jamez42 (talk) 18:32, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
Actually that reaction section is mostly to the buildup rather than the result. Some additional material would indeed help there. Modest Genius talk 12:45, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
@Modest Genius: Is it possible to add in tge blurb somehow that the election is polemic? Several international bodies have warned against its irregularities and governments have warned that they would not recognize the results.--Jamez42 (talk) 14:55, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
This comes up every time there is a disputed election. Consensus at ITN has consistently been that it's impossible to accurately summarise electoral concerns and stick to a WP:NPOV within the short length of an ITN blurb. The concerns are rightly discussed in the article and prominently stated in its lead, so anyone who clicks the bold link will immediately be aware that not everyone thinks the election was fair. It's not ITN's job to decide which side is correct. Of course consensus can change, but I don't see a good reason to go against it here. Modest Genius talk 15:27, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
The best blurb for any (especially heads of state) election is better and more encyclopedic in the from of "xxx is elected president of yyy". I wish this should be made standard phrasing for these elections. Because there's no election that is 100% absolutely accepted by everybody, even if it is a mock election. Moreover, ITN is not meant to orialize or tell what is right, which is what essentially bringing weasel words like "disputed", " contested", "unfair", "sham election" and their like will mean. –Ammarpad (talk) 15:36, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
Roger, thanks! --Jamez42 (talk) 16:43, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
In blurbs 1 & 2, "as" is redundant. Sca (talk) 13:10, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
Is that an ENGVAR difference? To me it sounds like an Americanism if you remove the 'as'. Modest Genius talk 14:02, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
I concur. "as" is just fine. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:14, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
As president is not an office in any country I know of. Cf. Washington Post, Nov. 9, 2016: "Donald Trump, a New York real estate developer and former reality television star, was elected president of the United States on Tuesday, stunning many ...." – Sca (talk) 17:40, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
'As' is a conjuction, not part of the office name, as I'm sure you know. Looks like ENGVAR. cf. BBC one month ago: "expected to be elected as president". Modest Genius talk 18:13, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
Which type of English do they speak in Venezuela? Sca (talk) 19:21, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
Aha, change the goalposts... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:41, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ernst Sieber[]

Article: Ernst Sieber (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Neue Zürcher Zeitung
Nominator: TDKR Chicago 101 (talk • give cr)

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 well sourced --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:53, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Billy Cannon[]

Article: Billy Cannon (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): NOLA
Nominator: TDKR Chicago 101 (talk • give cr)

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 is GA --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 16:44, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

May 19[]

Portal:Current events/2018 May 19
Armed conflicts and attacks
  • Russian military intervention in Ukraine
    • Ukraine's Joint Forces Operation says Russian-led militants have mounted 43 attacks on Ukrainian troops in Donbas in the past 24 hours, using artillery systems and 120mm and 82mm mortars 10 times, with no casualties among the Ukrainian servicemen. According to intelligence data, two militants are killed and three others wounded. (UNIAN)
Arts and culture
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Sports

(Withdrawn) 2018 FA Cup Final[]

Withdrawn. Agree with LukeSurl's line for football notability. --PFHLai (talk) 10:14, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further s should be made to this discussion.

Article: 2018 FA Cup Final (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In English association football, Chelsea beat Manchester United at Wembley to win the 137th ion of the FA Cup.
News source(s): (BBC Sport)
Nominator: PFHLai (talk • give cr)
Updater: Harambe Walks (talk • give cr)

Nominator's comments: To displace the old news on Manchester City winning the EPL. PFHLai (talk) 08:25, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose not a comment on the quality of the article, but simply that we already post the winners of the league in England, and while this is the oldest association football competition in the world, it's probably still of niche interest. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:29, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
    • Well, Manchester City winning the EPL is no longer the latest big news on English football. It doesn't look right to keep that blurb on ITN. Please update the news on English football. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 08:42, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
      • What are you talking about "please update the news on English football"? Please don't use ITN and the main page in this way. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:42, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose on notability. The FA cup is significantly less important than the Premier League (notably, winning the FA Cup doesn’t even get you a Champions League spot). The line for football notability is above this. —LukeSurl t c 08:48, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

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

(Posted) RD: Bernard Lewis[]

Article: Bernard Lewis (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The Washington Post
Nominator: TDKR Chicago 101 (talk • give cr)

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 sufficiently well sourced for overall article length --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 05:37, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) 2018 Cannes Film Festival[]

Article: 2018 Cannes Film Festival (talk, history)
Blurb: Shoplifters wins the Palme d'Or at the 2018 Cannes Film Festival.
News source(s): France 24
Nominator: Fitzcarmalan (talk • give cr)

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: Both articles require some serious updating/expansion. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 22:34, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Yep, just about to suggest having the film as the bold target, instead of the festival. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 17:45, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Iraq Elections[]

Article: Iraqi parliamentary election, 2018 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​An alliance headed by a former Shia militia chief Muqtada al-Sadr wins the Iraqi parliamentary elections.
News source(s): BBC
Nominator: Sherenk1 (talk • give cr)
Updater: Ahmedo Semsurî (talk • give cr)

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: Results are out. Sherenk1 (talk) 12:30, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) Royal Wedding[]

Discussion railroading again... --Masem (t) 13:25, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further s should be made to this discussion.

Article: Wedding of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In the United Kingdom, the Royal Wedding between Prince Harry and Meghan Markle takes place.
News source(s): ABC News, BBC
Nominator: SamaranEmerald (talk • give cr)

Nominator's comments: Now before everyone starts blasting this nomination with opposes (which is highly certain), keep in mind that this has been the talk of the world within the past few months. This has been getting massive attention in the last hour by various news sources across the globe. P.S. give me some slack as I have never posted a nomination before. SamaranEmerald (talk) 12:04, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support notable event with loads of press traction Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 12:16, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - huge event of global interest, estimated to be watched by over a billion people worldwide FF2010 12:22, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - World wide coverage. BabbaQ (talk) 12:23, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - I'm no fan of royalty, but this is a highly notable event, and significant for bringing a mixed-race divorcee into the royal family. We missed a trick by not having this on the front page during the ceremony. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's s 12:29, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support the BBC commentators say almost 2 billion people watched this live. I think it ought to be noted, since there won't be another Royal Wedding for some time. Plus the number of A-List stars who turned up was impressive. JLJ001 (talk) 12:33, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - This is in the news and historic. Perhaps we could add the tax bill for UK "commoners" too? (e.g. "takes place at a cost of...")Zigzig20s (talk) 12:36, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment if someone can find an image, I would be pleased if you add it, thank you. SamaranEmerald (talk) 12:39, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • The Swedish commentator said the broadcast from the wedding was royaly free, could this mean something for WP-good licence for pics? cart-Talk 12:42, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Huge world-wide interest and we need some joy once in a while at ITN. Get it up there as soon as possible or we look like squares. cart-Talk 12:40, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support ground-breaking royal wedding, global audience of the order of 2 billion, long-lasting, high-impact news. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:46, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - we serve to drive people directly to articles which they will be looking for anyway due to the news. Judging by last year's records, people will absolutely be searching for this item, and the article quality is decent. Stormy clouds (talk) 12:48, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support time to post this. Aiken D 12:54, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted I'm one of the "what's the fuss all about" people, so maybe I'm the right one to post this. Vanamonde (talk) 13:03, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support (ec) The uncertainties have been resolved now and, yesterday, the article got more views than all the other ITN blurb items combined. Andrew D. (talk) 13:05, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Support with two billion people around the world watching the event on live television, it’s safe to say this is a big deal. 97.46.0.216 (talk) 14:18, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Request - Could someone please change so Meghan, Duchess of Sussex is the page direct in the blurb at ITN. Right now its Meghan Markle which is a redirect.BabbaQ (talk) 18:33, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I see that we're continuing our dubious tradition of titling articles about British Royalty, but not many others (particularly outside Europe), their official titles. Vanamonde (talk) 05:14, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
  • How else would we name her and the article since it is her official name, she now has no last name but her title. "Meghan (formerly Meghan Merkle)"? cart-Talk 09:55, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Well, we've no problem referring to the emperor of Japan as "Akihito", or the king of Thailand as "Vajiralongkorn", right? We seem to get by without the official title there; I'm sure we could think of something. But really that's not my point: I'm not too bothered by giving people their titles. My point is that we take so much care to get the titles of British royals right (your comment being a case in point) but don't seem to bother with most others. Just as, for instance, knighthoods are an exception to WP:HONORIFIC, but other national honors are not. Vanamonde (talk) 10:22, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
  • We seem to use titles for European royals and not for the rest, so there is some "method in the madness". cart-Talk 11:55, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
  • That doesn't really make it any better. Vanamonde (talk) 12:40, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, it's one of the glaring "unspoken" examples of Euro-centrism on Wikipedia. There's not really much that can be done about it.--WaltCip (talk) 13:14, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Post-posting oppose - I know my opposing of it won't make much of a difference, but Prince Harry is currently sixth in the line of succession to the British throne, so this feels more like a celebrity story (which I have yet to see on List of most watched television broadcasts) than a game changing event. ITN shouldn't be a news ticker. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 19:04, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Since most of that article is unreferenced, it's probably not something to use evidentially in any way. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:04, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose and pull. Absolutely not. Minor royal who is merely 6th in the line of succession to the throne in his country and utterly unlikely to ever become head of state. This belongs in the gossip press in the UK, not on the front page of an international encyclopedia. We should ask ourselves: Would we post the wedding of, say, the guy who is 6th in the line of succession to the throne in Thailand with no prospect of ever succeeding, or the grandchild of Donald Trump (arguably a much, much more influential person than any member of this minor royal's family) merely on account of being the grandchild of Donald Trump? --Tataral (talk) 21:00, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
    Two billion people round the world disagree. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:03, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Two billion people (may have) watched the event. Doesn't mean they agree that it's ITN material. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 21:18, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Pull the other one, it's got bells on!! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:32, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Two billion people around the world are a bunch of twits.--WaltCip (talk) 00:51, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
Why? It was a really nice event, nothing but full of positivity, bridged gaps, shook up the traditions, showed the new generation of progressive Royals, there's nothing to dislike about it. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:04, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
I don't dislike it. I simply find it irrelevant to my life and to my interests.--WaltCip (talk) 13:13, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
Manchester City winning the Premier League is irrelevant to my life and to my interests, but that doesn't mean it should be removed from ITN. Philip Stevens (talk) 14:57, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Long term significance is not clear but when you have billions watching your wedding and you are on the front page of pretty much every newspaper in the world... Anyways, many years to the happy couple. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:23, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

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

May 18[]

Portal:Current events/2018 May 18
Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
Health and environment
Law and crime
Politics and elections

(Posted) RD: Stephanie Adams[]

Article: Stephanie Adams (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC News, Fox News, NYT
Nominator: Fuebaey (talk • give cr)

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 model. Fuebaey (talk) 02:10, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) Cuba aircraft crash[]

Article: Cubana de Aviación Flight 972 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​More than 100 people are killed when a passenger airline crashes shortly after takeoff from Havana, Cuba.
News source(s): BBC, CNN
Nominator: Masem (talk • give cr)

Nominator's comments: There's no yet official word of number of deaths/survivors, but initial statement suggests only a few people may have survived this. Masem (t) 18:29, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Not productive. 331dot (talk) 19:47, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Question so far, just in 2018 we posted US-Bangla Airlines Flight 211 (51 dead), Saratov Airlines Flight 703 (71 dead), 2018 Russian Air Force Antonov An-26 crash (39 dead), Iran Aseman Airlines Flight 3704 (66 dead) and 2018 Algerian Air Force Il-76 crash (257 dead). With you people frantically tripping over eachother to write off 9 dead kids in Santa Fe as "routine" and "already falling out of the headlines" could someone please tell me what could possibly make the 6th fatal commercial airline crash of 2018 so "obviously worthy of being posted" that we all know will be out of the headlines in a day anyway. Anyone? --LaserLegs (talk) 19:30, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
    This is an accident? And if not, it's even more notable. The gun crimes in the US are inexcusably self-inflicted. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:33, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
    An "accident" sounds like poor aircraft safety and design and training regulation to me. Obviously inexcusably self-inflicted. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:35, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
    It's a good job we're not really interested in speculation then, particularly from a non-expert. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:41, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
    No TRM, you've helped me see the light. When tragedy strikes, someone is at fault, and it is the societies fault for not taking appropriate steps to prevent that tragedy. So when this latest fatal crash is proven to be either pilot error or mechanical failure, I look forward to you heaping scorn upon the supporters of this nom, pointing out that it is the entire nation of Cuba and Mexico who are at fault here for either not having or not enforcing adequate training and maintenance regulations. Thank you for helping me to see the way TRM! Oh lord, THANK YOU! --LaserLegs (talk) 19:45, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
    Can you please stop this LaserLegs, this is not helpful at all.  Nixinova  T  C  20:03, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
This started out as irrelevant and went down hill from there. Thryduulf (talk) 00:53, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Sour grapes. These aeroplane crashes kill hundreds, occur for many different reasons around the globe and affect tens of thousands. The parochial slaughter of kids in schools is not in the same category. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:38, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
    You're perfectly comfortable comparing the parochial slaughter of kids in schools to a Kardashian Instagram post, so I don't think you have a point. Lepricavark (talk) 21:40, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
    Duh, the regularity and therefore meaningless-ness of it all. Yes. We don't post bombings in war zones, so we don't post shootings in the US unless they are extreme. Now change the record. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:42, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
    I believe shootings with 10 or more casualties qualify for a post. Obviously you don't, and that's fine. The problem is that you keep insisting that such shootings are regular and mundane and run of the mill etc., despite the clear evidence that they are not. Lepricavark (talk) 21:45, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
    Well it's not just me, obviously, or it would be posted, right? That's how consensus works, right? Sour grapes, exacerbated by the truly sour oppose on the crash in Havana which killed more than 100 people and has caused two days of mourning and knocked the school incident right out of the news. Poor form. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:47, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
    Consensus (or a failure to arrive at one) can be wrong, and on Wikipedia it frequently is. This is one of those cases. Lepricavark (talk) 21:51, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
    In your own opinion. Moving on now, just like the news, just like the gun lobbyists, see you back here in a couple of months time to revisit the same old cracked rotating disk. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:54, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • @Lepricavark: as you've moved your comment outside the collapsed box, I feel compelled to note that "This started out as irrelevant" was a reference to your "pull" !vote not The Rambling Man's very relevant response to that !vote. Thryduulf (talk) 13:11, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I respectfully disagree with your assessment and see no point in arguing my position further. Lepricavark (talk) 14:56, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) Santa Fe school shooting[]

There's clearly not going to be a strong consensus to post this, and discussion is starting to veer off ITN appropriateness and into random spats. Inappropriate. --Masem (t) 15:08, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further s should be made to this discussion.

Article: Santa Fe High School shooting (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A shooting at a high school near Houston leaves at least ten dead
Alternative blurb: ​In the United States, a school shooting in Santa Fe, Texas, kills at least ten people.
Alternative blurb II: ​A school shooting in Santa Fe, Texas, U.S., kills at least ten people.
News source(s): CNN, NYT, BBC
Nominator: 107.19.188.168 (talk • give cr)

Article needs updating

 107.19.188.168 (talk) 16:02, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Umm.. it’s not “business as usual”. We can’t just sweep this under the rug and say “another day, another shooting”. Eight people were brutally murdered for no reason! #NeverAgain 107.19.188.168 (talk) 16:07, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia and ITN are not for righting great wrongs. 331dot (talk) 19:35, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes, 107.xx, it is "business as usual" in America these days. I wish it were not so, but school shootings are now a fairly regular occurrence in the United States. Kurtis (talk) 19:52, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
No it's not. See below, where Brandmeister points out that this is a once in every three year occurrence, so not "fairly regular". – Muboshgu (talk) 23:54, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support in principle There's no WP:MINIMUMDEATHS; this is in the news, not only all over the U.S. but it's also the lead story on the BBC, etc. However, the article is a stub at the moment. Davey2116 (talk) 16:10, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Good work. Full support from me. Davey2116 (talk) 20:51, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • ( conflict) Weak Oppose I hate citing WP:BODYCOUNT, but mass shootings are just so common in the US that I can't see posting them unless there is something that sets them apart from all of the others. That usually comes down to an unusually high death toll, which this comes close to, hence the "weak," or terrorism. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:15, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
    • Support It now appears the death toll has broken double digits. That's enough for me. Mass shootings may be fairly common but this level of casualties is still, thank God, not. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:49, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Sadly, it is just another day another school shooting in the USA. It is appalling that this is the case, and something does need to be done but ITN is not the venue for that. Thryduulf (talk) 16:19, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose.( conflict) Yet another mass shooting in a country where such things are (sadly) common. I'll be willing to reassess if unexpected details emerge, but right now I'm not seeing anything that makes this one so exceptional that it merits an ITN blurb (c.f. Mass_shootings_in_the_United_States#Deadliest_mass_shootings). We're not here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Nor is merely being in the news sufficient; we must consider the long-term encyclopaedic importance of the event. Modest Genius talk 16:23, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose yet another school shooting in the US, I am not surprised, the death toll is notably low and these are starting to become commonplace as one user above notes. Despite common belief, It will likely have no long-term impact, similar to most of the other shootings in recent years. SamaranEmerald (talk) 16:32, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Let's just accept it's become a part of the ingrained culture nowadays like taking out the garbage or going to the supermarket.--WaltCip (talk) 16:36, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. This is in the news and the article is in good shape, the reports of explosives could be classified as "unexpected details". -- Tavix (talk) 19:00, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support school shootings may not be rare, but most of them don't result in this many deaths. Lepricavark (talk) 19:18, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Ten should meet your WP:MINIMUMDEATHS for a mass shooting. Article is short, but okay, and will be expanded. This shooting is in the news, which is allegedly our purpose. Certain disparaging remarks made in opposition should be disregarded by uninvolved admins. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:23, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
    I don't see any disparaging remarks. They are all opinion based in very real fact. This has already started dropping down the news following the Cuba crash. This is completely unremarkable and will have no long-term impact, and has happened many times before and will happen many times again, probably this year. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:25, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
    Of course you wouldn't see "business as usual" regarding a school shooting to be in any way disparaging, or a comment comparing a school shooting to "taking out the garbage or going to the supermarket." You were pretty sure the Parkland shooting would have no lasting impact as well, as I recall. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:30, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
    Clearly it has not made any difference whatsoever. Or do you think there would have been even more mass shootings? I'm unclear. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:31, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
    If you Google "Parkland shooting", you'll see the ongoing coverage. I wasn't suggesting that would be the last straw that would ban guns. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:33, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
    Yeah, thanks for the advice, not required. Nothing significant has changed. We (or at least some of you) said Sandy Hook would be the last time. Tsk. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:35, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
    The process continues with another notable development, and you don't want to post it because bad things have happened before and you don't expect anything good to happen in the future. Shame that's not a reason to oppose posting a story that's in the news. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:00, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
    No it isn't, but opposition based on the fact this is routine, just like Kim Kardashian's latest Instagram photo, is a reason to oppose it. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:08, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
    So now we're comparing a school shooting where 10 people died to a Kardashian posting on Instagram. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:07, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
    Yes, both are regular, mundane, inexcusable and unending. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:38, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
    Baloney. School shootings in general make be regular and mundane, but not shootings where 10 people died. This has been clearly and repeatedly explained to the point that you are now in IDHT territory. Lepricavark (talk) 15:03, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - A number of deaths. Large coverage beyond the "usual school shooting" in the US.BabbaQ (talk) 19:28, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose according to CNN their have been 22 shootings within the 20 weeks in 2018, which roughly one per week. This is becomingthe norm in America these days, but I’m with the opposition because we should not post every single notable shooting in the US, otherwise the topic will be attributable to US-centric views. Kirliator (talk) 19:29, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • How many of those shootings have been nominated here? Lepricavark (talk) 19:41, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - A large number of deaths, and likely to hae a long term impact on politics, at least in Texas --Rockstonetalk to me! 19:30, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Regular events should not be promoted to ITN unless there is something particularly unusual and newsworthy about them. This appears, unless further facts emerge, to be a run-of-the-mill US school shooting. Black Kite (talk) 19:31, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Most school shootings don't result in 10 deaths. Or any at all. This is a notable event. --Rockstonetalk to me! 19:47, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment can we please just close this before I have to read any more "Oppose - more dead kids in America" comments that disregard the fact that this item is actually "in the news"? We know it won't be posted. Please just close it and be done. Please. Please. I can't stand to read another smug comment about "gun control in the USA". Just shut it down already. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:34, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
No one compels you to read any post here- and I'm still waiting for your formal proposal to make "in the news" the only criterion for posting. 331dot (talk) 19:40, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
From Wikipedia:In_the_news#Purpose "To help readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news." so you just let me know where it says that "significant deaths" are required, or that a story pass the "would we post it from Uganda" test, or "we don't post subnational elections" or whatever other made up fake requirements you arbitrarily hold nominations to and we'll be all set. I'll continue to look and see if the item is "In the news" per the purpose of ITN. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:38, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
I don't have any requirements, fake or otherwise- just consensus, as with almost all Wikipedia decisions. I don't see why ITN should be different than the rest of Wikipedia. There's a lot more to ITN guidelines than that one line. Still waiting for your news ticker proposal, or your proposal to eliminate all criteria other than "in the news", or even for your nomination of the latest Kim Kardashian story. 331dot (talk) 22:11, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Lots of people dead. This is sadly getting normal in the USA, but this is a lot of deaths.  Nixinova  T  C  19:38, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment for context, see List of school shootings in the United States (the only nation with its own dedicated article) where the sheer size of even the tables from the start of the 21st century indicates that this is just a really regular event. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:42, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • The vast majority of those shootings resulted in no more than two deaths. This nomination is for a shooting that resulted in 10 deaths. Lepricavark (talk) 19:45, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • My opposition is not on the number killed (which is startlingly small compared with events in other war zones), it is on the alarming regularity with which this kind of event happens. It is, literally, business as usual. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:49, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • School shootings are alarmingly frequent, but that does not mean we should avoid posting the worst of them. Lepricavark (talk) 19:57, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • This isn't the worst. This is far from the worst. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:08, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • It is among the worst. While there are many school shootings, most have no more than two deaths. This one had 10 deaths, so the "business as usual" argument is bogus. Lepricavark (talk) 22:40, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Black Kite, US school shootings that are no different from previous ones put there notability at a dangerously controversial position on ITN, this no different from Stoneman Douglas, this is no different from Sandy Hook, this is no different from Virginia Tech except for the notably lower death toll. I agree with Muboshgu that somewhere in the double digits should be the standard for the unofficial WP:MINIMUMDEATHS, but I wouldn’t call this a “large” shooting. This is the kind of nomination where bias emerge from most often. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 19:44, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak support. The cynical response of "business as usual" is accurate. But, double digits might be enough to warrant posting. That would reduce us to only two or three American school shootings in ITN a year. Resolute 19:57, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Agree with Muboshgu that 10 deaths at minimum should be the standard for WP:MINIMUMDEATHS, as death tolls less than that generally are not warrantable to ITN unless there is a significant individual is killed as a result.Python Dan (talk) 20:05, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak support per Resolute, 2 or 3 school shootings a year on ITN is not too many. zzz (talk) 20:12, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
    I think everyone around the world should read that comment, and reflect on its significance. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:14, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support School shootings in the US may be increasingly frequent but they do not all get this level of attention. Ten deaths is a significant loss of life. Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:20, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose I have to agree with others that school shootings in the USA are too common to be posted here regularly. It is getting some coverage so will keep the oppose weak. However the coverage in my neck of the woods, which usually loves this sort of news, is lower than expected so I lean on the oppose side of the debate. AIRcorn (talk) 20:49, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose I agree with Aircorn that Shootings in the United States is becoming too common in today’s world, however this is getting notable coverage in various media outlets, but this is the only reason why my oppose is weak. Python Dan (talk) 20:55, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per others. Another day, another shooting in the United States – it's the same old story.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:59, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support I'm not an American, but two-digit death tolls from school shootings are high enough to post, article in reasonable shape.Brandmeistertalk 21:21, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Routine in the US. Nothing is every done about them. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:23, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Although major mass shootings in the U.S. like this are common, it's still an extremely terrible event and to not include it in the main news section would be potentially offensive - it would imply that 10 people being shot and killed in a school isn't serious or truly newsworthy. PlanetDeadwing (talk) 21:29, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support The is a school mass shooting in the double digits. TheHoax (talk) 21:30, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • oppose school shootings in the USA are becoming too common and mundane for ITN, it’s time standards be set for disasters like this. Also most of the supporters are simply putting canned explanations which isn’t very convincing. 24.100.167.151 (talk) 21:41, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is just another plain old US school shooting, and nothing is special about it. Maybe there could be an additional panel on the main page for such events? ie, one for "news", one for "recent deaths" and then one for US school shootings. Chrisclear (talk) 21:56, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Saying "this is too common" is merely a knee-jerk reaction without context. Per List of school shootings in the United States, in this year there were only two two-digit death tolls so far. Before that, a 2-digit death toll was in 2015, three years ago. And before that a 2-digit death toll happened in 2012, also a three-year gap. Judge for yourself. Brandmeistertalk 22:00, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
@Brandmeister, they are talking about the frequency of shootings overall, not “double digit” shootings, read this [2]. Python Dan (talk) 22:08, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Frequency is another matter, that's why we posted Stoneman Douglas High School shooting based on death toll alone. Transport accidents are common too, but 2018 Kazakhstan bus fire was posted. Now we're abandoning this long-standing criterion, essentially saying "we don't want the reality anymore, it's too dull". Brandmeistertalk 22:39, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. The frequency of relatively minor incidents should not cause us to ignore the major incidents. I hope whoever makes the decision on this nomination can see the silliness of the "business as usual" argument. Lepricavark (talk) 22:47, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • @Brandmeister: One can reasonably argue for or against listing this. But don't dismiss the opposers like that. I mean, come on, it's only May and there have "only" been two double digit mass murders US schools? In other words, there have been 20 school shootings in the United States in the first 5 months of 2018, 10% of which have a death toll in the double digits. But people who think it's "too common" are being unreasonable and reactionary? What sort of metric would have to be satisfied for you to think that this has become too common? Swarm 22:48, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, the year hasn't ended, but let's compare apples to apples, not oranges. In the historical perspective, per the above list, there were a total of six double-digit death tolls in 18 years (including this shooting). Six in eighteen years, since the 2000s, meaning about once every 3 years. That's hardly common or frequent. Brandmeistertalk 23:05, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • "Double digit" is an arbitrarily-selected limit, but convenient for advocates of this ITN candidate because the death toll happens to be 10. HaEr48 (talk) 00:12, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • No, it's a precedent per Stoneman Douglas High School, Sandy Hook and likely other previous shootings posted. Brandmeistertalk 09:52, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak Support Just over three months since the last one, I guess this barely makes the cut. Juxlos (talk) 22:42, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support: Ten civilians being shot dead in broad daylight in a country that, despite its outrageously high rate of gun-related deaths, is not in fact a warzone is still notable. The "22 school shootings" figure elides the scale of a shooting like Santa Fe or Parkland in which many people (children, at that) die, as opposed to one or two. -Kudzu1 (talk) 22:51, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Sadly, a US school shooting of this magnitude is no longer an event of international significance :( HaEr48 (talk) 23:46, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
    • Who said it has to be of international significance? From above: "Please do not ... oppose an item because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive." – Muboshgu (talk) 23:50, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
      • I agree an event does not have to be related to a single country—but in my view the impact should be. For example, a head of state election is a single-country affair but has international impact. Major terrorist attacks normally elicit international responses. But this kind of event is no longer significant outside the US. If you see the linked BBC article, it just reports the event as-is (as if just a local news from USA) without any in-depth analysis. HaEr48 (talk) 23:56, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Routine for a country with poor health care and laughable gun control. Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:18, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Close? I am thinking it might be time for an uninvolved admin to close this as no consensus. This discussion has gotten a lot of participation and I see no realistic likelihood of overcoming the sharp divide. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:16, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support As much as I hate to say it is business as usual, once a death toll for a school shooting like this has broken the double digits, it is news worth having on the front page. Plus, it's been a while since the last one. If it had only been, like, a few weeks or something, then I'd reconsider. -Beowul116 (talk) 02:35, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - Wikipedia doesn't split European and American mass murders. Yes, the situation is far too common, but no one has given an actual reason it shouldn't be included.AJackSpear (talk) 02:42, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • "far too common" is an actual reason it shouldn't be included. HaEr48 (talk) 02:56, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Made the news in Australia. We are discussing "In The News". HiLo48 (talk) 03:15, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Australia? You mean where this sort of thing doesn't happen? At all? I thought you were one of the big pushers against systemic bias.--WaltCip (talk) 03:28, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oh my goodness. Do I need to spell it out for you? The support for this story is predicated on systemic bias.--WaltCip (talk) 03:55, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Do start spelling. HiLo48 (talk) 04:06, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • It made worldwide news. At this point, I'm not arguing on whether it is newsworthy or not, or whether it's happened far too often, I'm saying if this has made news all across the world, which it has, if the whole world has woken up, turned on their TV, and saw "Santa Fe High School shooting leaves 10 dead", it should be on ITN. -Beowul116 (talk) 03:45, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Comment on content, not on the contributor. See WP:No personal attacks. TompaDompa (talk) 09:09, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I should remind everyone that HiLo48 attacked several users on this page last month when a controversial nomination regarding a penis transplant was nominated, he attacked several users who opposed it, namely those that called it inappropriate and obscene. Python Dan (talk) 03:50, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
I am not the topic here. HiLo48 (talk) 03:52, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
No, you shouldn't remind us of that because it's not relevant to this discussion. Lepricavark (talk) 05:10, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm neutral on this at the moment, but I find it quite interesting that school shootings in the US attract far more support along the lines of "this is dreadful! It must be posted!" than bombings in Iraq and Afghanistan with far larger casualty totals. Vanamonde (talk) 05:54, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Indeed. What baffles the mind here is those who think that "two or three US school shootings per year isn't too much". This is a single classification of crime (mass shooting) occurring at a single type of location (education facility) in a single country (the US). The style of crime happens at least on a weekly basis. And all because of the negligence of those who allow/enable such events to take place due to archaic and irrelevant gun laws and incorrect interpretations of amendments to constitutions. And, of course, political funding. Schools in the US are war zones, and as such we should dismiss these nominations as so often those bombings in Iraq and Afghanistan are dismissed. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:21, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • That seems a reasonable rule of thumb. As with air crashes, there should be some flexibility. But thst's notability. A higher bar is required for ITN. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:53, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment ironically, someone above noted today's Royal Wedding. Now I suspect this may get nominated and snow-closed, but goodness me, it will be viewed by hundreds of millions of people around the world, will be remembered for years to come and has a real impact in the history of the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth. Meanwhile, this standard gun crime will be nearly instantly forgotten outside Texas and the anti-gun lobby (it's already third in the list of main news items). Perspective is required here. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:34, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
    • Both made it into history and will be remembered in its own right. But comparing a wedding with a shooting is apples and oranges again. Brandmeistertalk 07:53, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
    • The wedding won't really have "a real impact in the history of the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth". Harry is only 5th in line to the throne. Never likely to be king. This couple will fade into standard obscurity for minor royalty in a couple of years. The school shooting is part of a a much more major issue. HiLo48 (talk) 07:57, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
      The school shooting will be just another statistic next month. Harry will be headlines for years to come. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:44, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
      Many more people in AmuricA will be talking about the Royal Wedding than this specific shooting, and for years to come! The Rambling Man (talk) 12:37, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:ROUTINE. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap shit room 09:09, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - Worldwide news, article OK, opposes seem rote. Jusdafax (talk) 09:30, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • There are a consensus for posting now.BabbaQ (talk) 10:20, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • No, I don't think there is. We're at 20 supports versus 17 opposes, and I'm not seeing a good reason to discount any of the comments at the moment. Given this level of opposition, I'd like to see a significantly higher proportion of support; and even so, whoever posts this is going to face criticism, I'm afraid. Vanamonde (talk) 10:27, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Would need at least 2 to 1 for a consensus I think. Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:12, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Conditional Oppose this nomination has drawn a significant amount of criticism and controversy amongst a number of users within the past several hours. Their have been multiple cases of users attacking other users because one voted for support or oppose for various canned summaries (we.g. “common event in USA” by opposition and “large, notable attack” by the supporters). If this trend continues for the next few hours or even days, their will be no chance this nomination will be posted with a clear consensus. I choose to oppose not because of the story itself, but because of the fighting users have caused as a result of this nomination. 174.231.128.143 (talk) 11:24, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I think the fact that this story has already started to disappear off front pages (the Parkland one didn't) is very telling. Black Kite (talk) 12:34, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I decided to let this one sit for a while before casting a !vote, to gauge the impact. Aside from the usual "thoughts and prayers", there has been no tangible observable impact, beyond the ten fatalities. While a significant number, this is below the threshold for what I would consider to be important enough to post at ITN. We regularly discount items from countries on the grounds that they are war-zones, even with more than 10 fatalities. It is time to confront the reality that this is a frequent occurrence stateside, and we must account for this appropriately. It has only been three months since the Parkland shooting, and there will undoubtedly be another major shooting before the year is out (it doesn't take a crystal ball to guess that). Most of those in support are in support because they are shifting goalposts - picking an arbitrary number of deaths as being enough, and claiming that the fact that the mass shooting was in a school makes it different. There is simply not enough lasting impact to justify posting this item from a country where such events are now routine. I would suggest closing this nomination soon, as consensus will not develop. Stormy clouds (talk) 13:15, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - Fact is, this is in the news and in public interest, politicians have responded to it, and it'll be kicked off the page once the news dies down anyway. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 13:44, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Oppose this is already becoming yesterday’s news, as many of the major news outlets are now concentrated on the Royal Wedding now, leaving this event fading from memory. 97.46.0.216 (talk) 14:13, 19 May 2018 (UTC)


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

(Posted) RD: John Carrick[]

Article: John Carrick (Australian politician) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): AFR, news.com.au, The Australian
Nominator: Fuebaey (talk • give cr)
Updater: Ivar the Boneful (talk • give cr)

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: Australian politician. Fuebaey (talk) 14:20, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

May 17[]

Portal:Current events/2018 May 17
Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents
Politics and elections

(Closed) RD: Richard Pipes[]

Stale. SpencerT•C 13:00, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further s should be made to this discussion.

Article: Richard Pipes (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The New York Times
Nominator: Pudeo (talk • give cr)

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 most famous critical historian of the Soviet Union after Robert Conquest - an important theme in the 20th Century. Article is well-sourced. --Pudeo (talk) 13:03, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose I disagree; there are far too many unreferenced statements for a BLP. ghost 14:12, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
    I removed[3] two unsourced paragraphs I thought were orialized and added one source, so hardly too many unreferenced statements anymore. There's just one unreferenced statement about his view of the Russian revolution, which I think is a fairly uncontroversial summary of his book, but could be removed too. --Pudeo (talk) 15:47, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose nearly there but a couple of unreferenced claims, plus a section of Works with no inline verification. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:10, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

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

(Closed) Gina Haspel confirmed[]

Consensus will not develop. Stephen 06:07, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further s should be made to this discussion.

Article: Gina Haspel (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In the United States, Gina Haspel is confirmed by the Senate as the first female director of the Central Intelligence Agency.
News source(s): CNN NPR BBC
Nominator: Everymorning (talk • give cr)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: To me, the fact that this is an important position in the United States federal government (if not internationally) + first woman to be CIA director + significant controversy regarding her past supervision of torture at black sites = significant enough to post on ITN. Every morning (there's a halo...) 21:25, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
  • We need to ask ourselves if we would post this if it was the Russian GRU, MI6, or any other nation's intelligence agency. 331dot (talk) 21:50, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
    • Probably yes. The impeachment of the Philippine chief justice I think proves that nicely don't you? --LaserLegs (talk) 23:32, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
      • Not at all. The CIA director does not lead a branch of the US government; technically she works for the President. 331dot (talk) 23:37, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
        • Point is, not only would we consider the appointment or dismissal of a non-head of state government official, we in fact have posted such event. Frankly the statement "would we post this from some non-America country" has gotten rather tired. It's either in the news, or it isn't. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:19, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
          • My point is that the CIA director does not lead a branch of government, as a chief justice does. Apple's and oranges. Now, if we have posted a change in the head of MI6, please tell me. 331dot (talk) 00:27, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
            • More like gala apples to red delicious, but whatever. Section is "in the news" not "in the what I think should be news". Oh well. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:41, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
              • It's not what I think, but what the community thinks, which is how most decisions are made on Wikipedia, using orial judgement as any publication does. I await your formal proposal to make ITN a news ticker, or Wikinews is thataway...... 331dot (talk) 01:04, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
                • Wikinews is a project for posting original research I'm not sure what it has to do with the ITN section of Wikipedia which posts articles attributed to reliable sources which are actually "In the news". Thanks for nothing though. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:11, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose good faith nom per 331dot. Its 88 degrees here but I see snow in the forecast. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:15, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Given that most of Trump's choices for these positions have been controversial, we have to look past that to see what else makes this notable, and given other women have been placed in key executive branch positions, I don't see as a significant groundbreaking achievement. (Maybe if we were talking Secr. of Defense, but even then that's a stretch). --Masem (t) 22:17, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:SYSTEMICBIAS. Similar positions requiring confirmation in other countries wouldn't be nominated. Not significant enough an event, like the Philippine chief justice impeachment, to justify. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:58, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
    • Right? We'd never post the dismissal of a supreme court justice from another country! --LaserLegs (talk) 00:23, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose not because of the inaccurate screams of "bias" but because it's barely in the news. The nomination of one of Bush's chief torturers just as Bolton is pushing us out of the Iran deal (also not posted) was the news here. There would always be some sort of senate procedure or other to get her confirmed, no story there. Weak because the article is decent, especially the section about her nomination. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:23, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per 331dot. There're many ministers in every country, so the appointment of a single one has a very high bar to clear. Banedon (talk) 02:59, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose local politics, welcome to the 20th century. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:55, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

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

(Posted to Ongoing) Congo Ebola Outbreak[]

Article: 2018 Democratic Republic of the Congo Ebola virus outbreak (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Ebola outbreak in the Democratic Republic of the Congo has spread from the countryside into a city, with atleast 23 people dead.
Alternative blurb: ​An Ebola outbreak in the Democratic Republic of the Congo kills at least 25 people.
News source(s): BBC
Nominator: Sherenk1 (talk • give cr)
Updater: The Anome (talk • give cr)
Other updaters: Ozzie10aaaa (talk • give cr) and Geraldshields11 (talk • give cr)

Nominator's comments: 23 people have died. Sherenk1 (talk) 06:29, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

  • WHO (17 May) still states 23 deaths [4]; the press figures are often inaccurate (deaths can go down eg if a suspected case is shown not to be Ebola). I prefer a blurb mentioning the move to Mbandaka, because rural outbreaks occur relatively frequently but cases in urban areas are thankfully rare. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:44, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Note that Ebola has a mean incubation period of between one and two weeks. So, when it spreads into a big city you won't see the number of cases go up very rapidly in the first week, but after a week or so, you can expect to see a large number of new cases. Count Iblis (talk) 03:40, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

May 16[]

Portal:Current events/2018 May 16
Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections

(Closed) RD: Gérard Jouannest[]

Stale. SpencerT•C 12:59, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further s should be made to this discussion.

Article: Gérard Jouannest (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Lesprit, Bruno (17 May 2018). "Gérard Jouannest, pianiste et mélodiste de Jacques Brel et de Juliette Gréco, est mort". Le Monde. Retrieved 19 May 2018. 
Nominator: Zigzig20s (talk • give cr)

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 pianist and composer of over 250 songs. A bit short but we don't have a length requirement, do we? Zigzig20s (talk) 11:29, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose not comprehensive. Just take a look at the French Wikipedia entry. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:06, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
The French article is vastly unreferenced.Zigzig20s (talk) 13:37, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
So what? I don't think we have a length requirement, do we?Zigzig20s (talk) 13:37, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose: It's a stub article - it may do to merge this article with the article with its French-language counterpart, which is far more filled out (though orange-tagged) than this. Challenger l (talk) 15:09, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

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

(Closed) RD: Miriam Griffin[]

Stale. SpencerT•C 13:00, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further s should be made to this discussion.

Article: Miriam T. Griffin (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Somerville College, Oxford
Nominator: Fuebaey (talk • give cr)
Updater: DonPantalone (talk • give cr)
Other updaters: Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk • give cr)

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 historian. Fuebaey (talk) 15:40, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose unless it's because I got up too early, I can't see anywhere in the prose any mention of her death, the manner of it, and any reaction to it. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:09, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment. Not seeing any evidence this death is in the news. Espresso Addict (talk) 10:34, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

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

Anwar Ibrahim pardoned[]

Articles: Anwar Ibrahim (talk, history) and Anwar Ibrahim sodomy trials (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Malaysian reformist politician Anwar Ibrahim is freed from prison after a royal pardon by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, Muhammad V of Kelantan.
News source(s): [5] [6] [7]
Nominator: Banedon (talk • give cr)
Updater: 211.25.227.162 (talk • give cr)
Other updaters: 3rdDivision (talk • give cr)

Both articles updated

Nominator's comments: I'm not sure about this one. He's the de facto leader of the Pakatan Harapan, the coalition that used to be the opposition but won the elections a week ago. We featured his conviction and imprisonment in the past. He's not the prime minister however, although there's apparently an agreement with the current prime minister to pass the reins to him in 1-2 years. The situation in Malaysia appears to be developing rapidly, with the former PM's home being raided by police recently. Ongoing might be more appropriate, although I don't know which article to have there. Banedon (talk) 02:58, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

FWIW, he was once deputy PM, and was prevented to become PM because of these sodomy cases. I dunno if pardons happen "all the time" (LOL), but a deputy prime minister (or equivalent) being pardoned doesn't happen all the time. –HTD 14:23, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
FWIW, ITN posted Queen Elizabeth's royal pardon of Alan Turing in 2013. –HTD 14:29, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
I respect that he's not a bum off the street, but the comparisons are not beneficial to your case. Turing is one of the most influential scientists in modern history, to say nothing of the civil rights aspect. We literally would not be having this conversation without him. ghost 17:27, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Joseph Campanella[]

Article: Joseph Campanella (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Variety
Nominator: TDKR Chicago 101 (talk • give cr)

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 been updated and well sourced --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 02:22, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

May 15[]

Portal:Current events/2018 May 15
Armed conflicts and attacks
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections

(Closed) RD: Ray Wilson[]

Stale. SpencerT•C 12:59, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further s should be made to this discussion.

Article: Ray Wilson (English footballer) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): [8]
Nominator: GreatCaesarsGhost (talk • give cr)

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: Member of the English squad that won the '66 World Cup. Not quite ready, but pretty close. ghost 16:52, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose I was thinking of nominating this before I saw the article, but I don't think it is that close, sadly. The referencing is way short.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:45, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

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

(Closed) Crimean bridge opened[]

No consensus to post, and unlikely to achieve it by leaving this open any longer. –Ammarpad (talk) 13:46, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further s should be made to this discussion.

Article: Crimean Bridge (Crimea) (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Crimean Bridge is opened, becoming the longest bridge in Europe
Alternative blurb: ​The longest bridge in Europe, the Crimean Bridge, is opened, linking Crimea with mainland Russia
Alternative blurb II: ​The Crimean Bridge opens linking Crimea with mainland Russia.
News source(s): [9]
Nominator: Banedon (talk • give cr)
Updater: 99.229.32.103 (talk • give cr)
Other updaters: Rwxrwxrwx (talk • give cr)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: We've posted other bridges opening before [Posted_Third_Bosphorus_bridge] [Posted_World's_longest_cross-sea_bridge_opens]. Banedon (talk) 22:31, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support There's some odd random Russian in the article (copied from the Russian WP?) but easily fixed, sourcing looks good. --Masem (t) 22:35, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. Aside from the structure itself, there is a geopolitical element in that the bridge ties Crimea closer to Russia. 331dot (talk) 22:40, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Not only is the bridge notable itself, but this is also a highly symbolic move given the recent events in Crimea. EternalNomad (talk) 00:41, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per above. Davey2116 (talk) 00:47, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support considering the fact that the majority of the events that get posted to ITN are disasters, sports, and politics, this would be a change for once. Python Dan (talk) 01:25, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment – Article lacks comparison with the longest bridges in the world, dozens of which are longer. Sca (talk) 01:41, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
    • Disagree, this is "in Europe", which is a large enough geographic area to be considerable. --Masem (t) 01:57, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
⇒ Maybe, but in that case it should contain a comparison with the previous longest-in-Europe bridge, the Øresund Bridge, which spans 7,845 m – 25,738 ft. – 7.85 km – 4.87 mi. (And it would be still more complete to mention that the claimed longest bridge in the world, the Danyang–Kunshan Grand Bridge in China, officially measures 164 km = 102 mi.)Sca (talk) 15:49, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment It's built on the Ukrainian territory however. IT should be noted in the blurb.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.67.223.186 (talk)
  • Comment. Support on notability; independent of the greatest length, this is clearly a politically important development. However there are multiple citation tags and other tags which suggest some of the article might not be unbiased. Espresso Addict (talk) 06:14, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose based purely on the lack of quality in the article. Several personal opinions appear to be in there, hardly encyclopedic. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:41, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
    • Thanks for tagging, you beat me to it. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:47, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I've added an altblurb that addresses the geopolitics of the situation, while hopefully being sufficiently ambiguous about Crimea's status. --LukeSurl t c 08:14, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support in principle. There are a bunch of tags in the article that need addressing first, but this is an important bit of infrastructure. We can surely come up with a blurb phrasing that doesn't repeat 'Crimea' and 'bridge'. Modest Genius talk 10:44, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Too many gaps/tags for the main page. Further, I don't think the votes above indicate that we would post the 39th longest bridge absent geopolitical concerns just because it's in Europe. We should consider a blurb that doesn't mention length. ghost 14:25, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
How about one that doesn't mention countries either? Sca (talk) 15:51, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Correction, 126th longest in the world; something like 7th longest in Europe? Thanks for the correction, Floydian.ghost 18:59, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - "Longest bridge in Europe" is based on a false interpretation of "bridge". The actual overhead span of the structures is about 5.3km, the rest is a causeway. - Floydian τ ¢ 16:43, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
We would need a source for that number, because even the direct length between the beginning of the bridge in Crimea and it's contact with the island in the middle gives a larger number is longer, so you're blatantly lying. Not to mention that, you know, ordered by their lengths over water and excluding causeways, it will be one of the longest bridges in the world — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.67.223.186 (talk) 21:49, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
I don't always accuse 15-year veteran ors of lying without clicking on the article myself. But when I do, I do it as an unsigned IP. ghost 00:17, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
I literally gave you a link to a screenshot from Google Maps where I measure the length of the direct path between the start of the sea portion of the bridge in Crimea and the point where the bridge enters the island at the center of the strait, and that length, which measures less than a half of the bridge already turns out to be longer than what he claims is the entire length of the bridge and instead of countering that you reply with description of that or's tenure on wikipedia? Damn, you'd think long-tenure ors on Wikipedia would have seen a diagram like https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Graham%27s_Hierarchy_of_Disagreement.svg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.67.223.186 (talk) 05:46, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
You linked to a straight line measurement that in no way reflects the location of the actual bridge. ghost 11:35, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose – In that case, oppose because it appears to actually be shorter than the Øresund Bridge between Sweden and Denmark, mentioned above. Sca (talk) 20:09, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
No it's not. Just by measuring the distance between the point of the start of the sea portion of the bridge in Crimea and it's end on the island in the center, and the point of the start of the second sea portion of the bridge on that island and it's end on the Taman peninsular that bridge is already longer than the entire Oresund bridge. And obviously the bridge doesn't follow the straight shortest path between those points. I am not that fluent in English, sorry, but see this picture: https://imgur.com/a/Koj5QDC. You can go to google maps and just measure directly too. Stop trusting over ors without waiting for them to provide at least some form of argumentation first. As for the length of the bridge, Wikipedia sadly lacks a list of all bridges by their length over water, but I am pretty sure that by that length, if you exclude causeways like the New Orleans causeway, this bridge would be in the top 5 longest bridges in the world. You can just go to the list of longest bridges and count all bridges that go over significantly large bodies of water. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.67.223.186 (talk) 07:17, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
A causeway is a road sitting on an embankment. A bridge is suspended over something with air in between. This is not quantum mechanics. The NO Causeway is, despite the name, actually a bridge. The Crimean "Bridge" is a path composed of (north to south) a causeway of 1.25 km, a bridge of 4.25 km, an island road of 6.75 km, a bridge of 1.16 km, and a causeway of 3.7 km. ghost 11:35, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
I don't normally add to a closed discussion, but my measurements were done using Google Earth path measurements of the two over-water structures. The NO Causeway is technically a bridge, as a causeway has land embankments. My measurements were likely incorrect/generalized, but my point remains. - Floydian τ ¢ 14:27, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Regardless of the dispute about length, the article is not suitable for the Main Page at this time, with a number of unsourced statements and poor English. It's also now the subject of an RM. Black Kite (talk) 22:13, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support The bridge is definitively one of the largest bridges built over water in the world, and even more importantly the political implications of it's construction were huge. Those claiming the article is PoV should cite examples of such PoV ing, because I don't see any that I can claim are PoV without doubt. The blurb should be the 2nd one, since it mentions the political implications. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.67.223.186 (talk) 07:19, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment article is a propaganda piece, lots of flowery predictions about the economic boon it'll bring to Crimea, zero mention at all of the impact to the wetlands and fishing settlement on the island. It also has a strange ESL feel to it. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:07, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
I am sure your assessment is neutral, non-PoV, and not at all determined by your views on the Russian-Ukrainian conflict. By the way, as faf as I can see those "claims" are actually well-sourced predictions, whereas your claims are not soured at all. Maybe we should stick to the facts and not calling whatever opinion you personally dislike to be "propagandist"?
I'll repeat, because apparently I wasn't clear on the talk page. If you see a problematic sentence in the article - go on and cite that sentence on the talk page, provide an explanation why you think that sentence is problematic and then we can discuss and improve it together. So far all opposition just dumbs down to namecalling, because people have apparently very strong political opinions on the conflict and that results in them trying to push the artile of the ITN because "muh russia" and "muh trump puppet". Jesus christ, when did Wiki devolve into something as bad as this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.67.223.186 (talk) 11:34, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Who mentioned "Trump" besides you? --LaserLegs (talk) 12:07, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - And article is indeed ready for posting.BabbaQ (talk) 11:31, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
    • Nah, there are still numerous unreferenced claims. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:07, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose partly because of the POV concerns, partly on account of the bludgeoning that seems to be going on.--WaltCip (talk) 12:48, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
In addition to the technical-data objections variously detailed above, the project lacks significance in the big scheme of things. Suggest close. – Sca (talk) 13:36, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

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

(Posted) RD: Jlloyd Samuel[]

Article: Jlloyd Samuel (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC
Nominator: Harambe Walks (talk • give cr)

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: Anglo-Trinidadian footballer, died suddenly at just 37 this morning. I went through the article and scythed away the unsourced content, although this might have made it too underdetailed to post. Harambe Walks (talk) 20:49, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) Pakistan Ireland Test Match[]

There seems to be a blizzard around these parts. -A lainsane (Channel 2) 17:28, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further s should be made to this discussion.

Articles: Pakistani cricket team in Ireland in 2018 (talk, history) and Ireland cricket team (talk, history)
Blurb: Ireland becomes the 11th team to play Test cricket, losing by 5 wickets.
Nominator: Sagittarian Milky Way (talk • give cr)

 Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:28, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose The article is in OK shape, but a lot of the phrasing is awkward, such as the use of tour and series; generally a tour involves multiple stops, and a series involves multiple events. This was one match played at one location. The article needs some love to rewrite it into actual, natural English, and should not use incorrect terminology, especially for such simple concepts. --Jayron32 15:33, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
[[Category:Canadian cricket tours of Ireland]] and its article say the same thing. Perhaps that is normal cricket terminology, I don't know. And Tests are usually in series, perhaps the name stuck for single games of Test. I've heard it complained that cricketers play too much (Test/ODI/T20/state/county/city club) and categories like that for the other 10 teams show tours booked years in advance so it looks like perhaps the scheduler only had tone to squeeze in 1 Test before one of the tours of the nearest country (England). The games probably can't be too close together after all, the Test before this had a dude pitch 294 times in 4 days and run before each pitch and a slow knuckleball-type pitcher pitched 486 times. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:52, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
I just checked the first four sources in the article, and none of them call this a "tour" or a "series" though the article uses that terminology. They all call it a "match". My point is you should fix that because it is wrong. --Jayron32 16:54, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
I have changed the two articles mentioned in the thread. The word series is hardwired into the infobox. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:12, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose: We already posted Ireland (and Afghanistan) being promoted to Test status. --LukeSurl t c 15:34, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose As LukeSurl says, the promotion was posted in 2017. This would be akin to posting a conviction and a sentencing for a criminal case. We only post once. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:38, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • ( conflict) Oppose. It's good to see the matches happening, but we did indeed post the story already when they were promoted to Test status. No need to double dip. Modest Genius talk 15:39, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose as we already ran this in 2017 when they got the status. As an aside in case it does get posted, in UK/Irish English, it should be "Ireland become" not "Ireland becomes". Joseph2302 (talk) 17:15, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose could make a useful DYK? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:43, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Are yu familiar with DYK. I t cannot make it there as it is not knew nor a big enough recent update. I know its not ITN=worthy as the 11th test nation (as you rightly said about the X number of same-sex legalizations) but that would be a better rationale.Lihaas (talk) 10:52, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
I think it's you that's unfamiliar with DYK. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:22, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose – On lack of significance. Sca (talk) 15:57, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

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

Bruce McArthur[]

Article: Bruce McArthur (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The largest forensic investigation of the Toronto Police Service continues in the probe of alleged serial killer Bruce McArthur, beginning a search of 100 properties.
Alternative blurb: ​The Toronto serial murder investigation of landscaper Bruce McArthur continues, beginning a search of 100 gardens by cadaver dogs.
News source(s): National Post
Nominator and updater: Reidgreg (talk • give cr)

Nominator's comments: Article had a recent 7,000-word update though what happened this week was a minor part of an ongoing investigation. The investigation received more media coverage in January and February; searches were held off until the frozen ground thawed but now with 100 properties connected to the landscaper being searched by cadaver dogs there could be significant movement in the case. It may also see more coverage with the Toronto Pride festival in June. (Using the ongoing parameter hid the blurb, however.) Article is under a move discussion due to BLP concerns; it may be better to hold this a little while until that is settled and the lead adjusted. Reidgreg (talk) 15:31, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

References[]

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

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