Welcome to In The News. Please read the guidelines. Admin instructions are here.

In the news toolbox
Error reports (WP:ERRORS) Nominations (WP:ITN/C) Image protection (WP:CMP) Discussion (WT:ITN) Admin guide (WP:ITN/A) General criteria (WP:ITN) Death criteria (WP:ITN/DC) Recurring items (WP:ITNR) Awards · Sports · Discussion Current events portal (P:CE) Archives (2008–11)
v t e

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.

Maithripala Sirisena The International Committee for Weights and Measures redefines the units kilogram, ampere, kelvin and mole. Amidst a constitutional crisis, the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka suspends the attempt by President Maithripala Sirisena (pictured) to dissolve parliament. American comic book creator Stan Lee dies at the age of 95. An outbreak of Ebola in the Democratic Republic of the Congo has killed more than 200 people since August. Ongoing: 2018 California wildfires Recent deaths: Caroline Rose Hunt David Pearson Herbert London Ron Johnson Nominate an article view - page history - related changes -

Suggestions[]

November 16[]

Khmer Rouge leaders guilty of genocide[]

Nominator's comments: Significant news as the tribunal has been on-going for 20 years and these are the only people alive who faced a charge for the Cambodian genocide. Genocide convictions are historical. Pudeo (talk) 12:19, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

• Comment trying to check refs in BLP articles is tough when the refs are print books and no page number is in the citation. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support in principle. An important (though long-delayed) conviction of a major genocide. Could we get a link to Cambodian genocide into the blurb somewhere? I've not had time to assess the updates or article quality. Modest Genius ^talk 12:51, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Ongoing: Sri Lankan constitutional crisis[]

Nominator's comments: Per WP:ERRORS and the multiple updates that the current blurb has received, it seems clear that this will be an indefinitely ongoing event. WaltCip (talk) 11:45, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

• Comment this is already the top story at ITN. This will, once it finally gets to the bottom, be reassessed at the time and added to Ongoing automatically should the admin doing the update decide to do so. Do we need this nomination as well as all that? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:53, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

  My concern is that, if any future updates to this story occur, the blurb will be bumped to the top again as well as updated. We have never allowed that sort of treatment for any other ongoing event. In any case, the ITN photo has been the same person (on and off) for a while now (with Stan Lee to briefly interrupt), and I'm a little leery about having another Lugo on the main page. WaltCip (talk) 13:28, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

  So part of your concern is that you're tired of seeing the picture?? There're scripts that can hide it for you. –Ammarpad (talk) 13:55, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

  I think we have bumped items whose blurbs have changed notably during running. But we don't have to. And as this moves down the page, it'll gravitate into Ongoing. Why wouldn't we apply this same logic to the forest fires? That hit the news again today, "California wildfires: Number of missing leaps to 631" which significantly changes the landscape on that story. So should we re-work the hook, bump it up, or put it in Ongoing until the fires are handled? It looks no different to the Sri Lanka situation. And you could argue the same about the Ebola story..... The Rambling Man (talk) 14:02, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support removing the blurb and dropping this into ongoing now. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:02, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

  Why on earth would we do that? It's easy to change the blurb should anything major happen. It doesn't mean the blurb needs bumping back to the top. Just let it run its course. As far as I know, we've never demoted an article to Ongoing from blurb like that. If you do this, then you should do the same with the fires in Americuh too. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:05, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

• Wait until the blurb rotates off; if the situation is still fluid at that point, and the article receiving frequent updates, then it can move to ongoing. If there's a genuine need to replace the blurb with a different one (rather than tweaking the originally-posted one) then start a new nomination here. Modest Genius ^talk 12:54, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. Leave the blurb to naturally reach the bottom and be obscured, then if the issue is still in the news, nominate for Ongoing, that's how we do it normally and no convincing reason to do otherwise. –Ammarpad (talk) 13:39, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

  Renomination for ongoing is not necessary for all cases; Khashoggi was shifted down without a renom for example. (per WP:ITN: Older stories which are scheduled to roll off the bottom of the list may be added to ongoing at admins' discretion, provided that the linked article is receiving continuous updates with new information on a regular basis.) Spencer^T•C 15:16, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

  I can agree renomination is not necessary but my main point still stands. We don't pull blurb just to convert it to Ongoing, we let it to reach the bottom, unless it's found not worthy of posting in the first place. Also Khashoggi's case was first posted to Ongoing then changed to Blurb after significant turn of events and a new nomination. So there's quite difference here. –Ammarpad (talk) 16:31, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) Proposed redefinition of SI base units[]

Nominator's comments: A fundamental change to how units are defined in physics; so quite big science news which is at least partly understandable at the popular level, so I think it is appropriate for ITN. Article looks to be in very good shape, though will need an update if the changes are confirmed. Of course we should not post until it is confirmed (16-Nov-2018), but it seems very likely to, so we might as well be ready. Adpete (talk) 00:10, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

• Wait It hasn't happened yet, it's only expected to happen later today. Wait until it has happened for sure. TheMrP (talk) 00:33, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support pending vote outcome Article is in good shape outside the result of the vote (and presumably if voted for, it will be moved to "Redefinition of SI base units"). Interesting fundamental science news we don't get to post much about. --Masem (t) 00:36, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support per Masem. Banedon (talk) 00:44, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support pending vote outcome and R.I.P. to Le Grand K. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:17, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Clearly we need to adjust RDs so we can nominate non-living objects for it. --Masem (t) 01:22, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
    • Support RD per Masem. --DannyS712 (talk) 01:56, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
• Question I grew up in a metric country, I still find this Good Article to be somewhat inaccessible. Reading it, the definition of a second and a meter are essentially unchanged but the definition of a Kilogram "the current definition defines the kilogram as being the mass of the international prototype kilogram, which is an artefact and not a constant of nature, whereas the new definition relates it to the equivalent mass of the energy of a photon given its frequency, via the Planck constant. " What the hell does that mean? The Planck constant? an "international prototype kilogram"? WTF? If this is adopted, is a kilogram of potatoes going to be larger or smaller than it is now or so negligible that it doesn't matter to anyone who isn't trying to measure the mass of a single molecule? --LaserLegs (talk) 01:50, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

The kilogram is currently defined as the mass of a standard block of metal. See [1] fourth paragraph. Planck's constant is a fundamental constant of nature, and it's related to the energy of a photon by the relation E = hf (E = energy, f = frequency, h is the Planck's constant). If this is adopted, you're not going to notice any differences. The changes are too small to be measurable without highly sophisticated apparatus. Banedon (talk) 02:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

The BBC article has a good summary: right now, the only way to confirm the kg is to go to Paris to check against that weight (the Le Grand K). By switching the system to the Planck constant - which can be measured by anyone with a specific type of electromagnetic balance - then all other factors can be used to derive the kg. --Masem (t) 02:57, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks to you both for your explanation. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:20, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support per above. Davey2116 (talk) 02:02, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
• Strong support. A historic moment in the history of measurement. wumbolo ^^^ 06:22, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support after proposal is accepted and article moved for the reasons mentioned above. Regards SoWhy 08:57, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support upon actual change, not just proposal. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:19, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support @SoWhy and The Rambling Man: and others: the vote today is a formality; although a necessary part of the process, there is no realistic chance that it will be rejected. Waiting for the completion is like waiting for a U.S. president-elect to take the formal oath at the inauguration, or waiting for Meghan Markle to say "I do". It's perfectly fine to have the event on the main page before that moment. (P.S. the webcast is live!) 209.209.238.189 (talk) 10:11, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Formality or not, it has not yet happened, so let's just wait for the change to actually happen. And btw, we did wait for Markle to say "I do" Regards SoWhy 10:26, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
• The vote is being called right now... as expected, it has passed. (Unanimous except Kazakhstan, which is absent.) Draft Resolution A redefining the SI units of mass (kg), temperature (K), electrical current (A), and quantity of matter (mole) has passed. 209.209.238.149 (talk) 12:18, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

  Then there appears to be sufficient consensus to post. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:25, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support, but I've added an altblurb which I think is clearer. Should the article be renamed to remove 'proposed' now the motions have passed? Modest Genius ^talk 12:39, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
• Posted Alt blurb for economy of writing. --Jayron32 12:55, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • A reminder: the article needed to be updated, it was not outside of changing a bit of the lede. I have added the necessary text and an updated source in the prose so no need to pull, but please make sure to check that when we pre-approve pending the necessary update, the update is actually there and sourced. (A few cn's have been added since but that's post-posting, and they're not significant glaring problems). --Masem (t) 14:39, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
• A sudden thought: wasn't the vote by the General Conference on Weights and Measures, not just the International Committee for Weights and Measures? Modest Genius ^talk 12:57, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

  I think that the committee is the body, and the conference is the meeting of said body; the committee voted at the conference. That's how I read the opening paragraph of the bolded article. The committee met at the conference, and voted on the proposal. --Jayron32 13:14, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

  I read that differently, as the committee proposed a resolution at the conference, which was voted on by all delegates (a lot more people than just the committee). I might be wrong though. Modest Genius ^talk 13:24, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

• Does this mean I need to get all my gold bars reweighed and stamped with their newly defined weights? -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:53, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

  Just send them through to me, I can get all that arranged for you, no problem. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:02, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

  No, because within the significant digits of your measuring devices, it doesn't vary enough to change the measurements. My understanding is that this removes the need to update these definitions because they were formerly tied to the mass of the Kilogram#International prototype kilogram, which being an actual, physical object (that is, an actual chunk of metal kept in a room in Paris), the definitions floated based on the variations in the mass of that chunk of metal. While that chunk of metal was quite stable, nothing is infinitely stable, and since it's mass would drift slightly over time, it would require re-definitions of the units (and of a bunch of constants based on those units). The new definition pegs the unit meaning to that of the constants, and obviates the need to compare to a single chunk of metal in Paris. --Jayron32 14:55, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

• Change "the units" to "the SI base units". These are not run-of-the-mill units, they have a history. wumbolo ^^^ 14:53, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

November 15[]

RD: William Goldman[]

Nominator's comments: Oscar-winning screenwriter, article needs some work, but not beyond saving... The Rambling Man (talk) 15:43, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) Brexit resignations[]

RD: Roy Clark[]

Nominator's comments: Country music hall of fame member. Strikerforce^Talk 17:36, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support - . Proprietor of the Empty Arms Hotel and also launched Branson, MO concept. May you pleasures be many, your troubles be few. CoatCheck (talk) 17:55, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose for now. Article needs significant work to referencing in numerous main text sections, filmography, TV shows, awards etc. - Dumelow (talk) 17:56, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose with regret per Dumelow. Gloom- Despair- And Agony On Me, Deep Dark Depression- Excessive Misery, If it weren't for bad luck, I'd have no luck at all, Gloom- Despair- And Agony On Me... -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:28, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose needs refs. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:40, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose This article needs to have more inline citations. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 02:16, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

November 14[]

Swedish general election[]

Articles: 2018 Swedish government formation (talk, history) and Swedish general election, 2018 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​After two months of negotiations, Swedish Prime Minister candidate Ulf Kristersson loses confidence vote.
Alternative blurb: ​After two months of negotiations, Swedish Prime Minister candidate Ulf Kristersson loses a vote of confidence, forcing an election.
News source(s): https://www.thelocal.se/20181114/swedish-parliament-rejects-centre-right-pm-candidate-ulf-kristersson
Nominator: Specter Koen (talk • give cr)

Nominator's comments: This vote is significant, as it marks the first time in modern Swedish history that a PM candidate failed a confidence vote, as well as continuing a deeply divided and historically lengthy government formation process. Specter Koen (talk) 10:24, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

• Wait – For the culmination of the issue, presumably with formation of a new government. Sca (talk) 15:39, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Seemed like he never had a chance, which makes this more or less expected. I'd support the successful formation of government (given the totality of circumstance, including that we did not post the elections). ghost 18:26, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. Unless I'm missing something, this just prolongs the existing situation i.e. it's a failed proposal. Maybe there would be a blurb here if/when a government is actually formed, but this is just more political manoeuvring. Modest Genius ^talk 19:28, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Looking at the archives I see we didn't post the election results in September due to the inconclusive result, and per Modest Genius I think we should continue to wait until the negotiations conclude.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:28, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose it's Sweden, it's politics is irrelevant Openlydialectic (talk) 22:42, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

  Do you mean "its politics"? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:48, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Not irrelevant to the Swedes, at any rate. Sca (talk) 02:25, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: I have added an alt blurb that works in the general election link. pbp 03:00, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

November 13[]

RD: Lucho Gatica[]

Nominator's comments: Chilean bolero singer. My previous nomination got stale because of lack of references, but I still think it is worth nominating again. Jamez42 (talk) 00:06, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: Needs serious work to referencing before it can be considered. There is only one inline citation in the whole article. There is no reference even for his death - Dumelow (talk) 00:13, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose and potentially listed under the wrong date if the article is to be believed. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:06, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. Needs references first, before considering to assess quality. –Ammarpad (talk) 14:30, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Caroline Rose Hunt[]

Nominator's comments: Article is updated and overall well sourced --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 05:24, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support - Indeed. Ready.BabbaQ (talk) 07:57, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support: Looks good enough. The main sources were dead links but I ran the internet archive bot over it which has remedied that - Dumelow (talk) 00:12, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support Good to go. Pawnkingthree (talk) 02:35, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support satis. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:05, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
• Comment this has been marked ready for about 16 hours now. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:41, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
• Posted Stephen 22:46, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

November 12[]

(Posted) RD: Herbert London[]

Nominator's comments: Article is updated and overall well sourced --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:39, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: Article looks good, there are two bare refs in the list which I assume can quickly be fixed. I note one source for his death says he "died on Saturday" (ie 10 November) but the article (and second source) states he died on 11 November? Would like to see that fixed or the ambiguity noted in the article before posting - Dumelow (talk) 00:21, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

• @Dumelow: Fixed. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 03:44, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Support: One the assumption that the two bare urls in the references will be fixed before posting - Dumelow (talk) 08:37, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support Article looks well referenced. Pawnkingthree (talk) 02:34, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
• Comment this has been marked for attention for about 16 hours now. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:41, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
• Posted Stephen 22:44, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) Kyrsten Sinema elected to the US Senate[]

(Posted) RD: David Pearson[]

Nominator's comments: GA. Nohomersryan (talk) 00:59, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

• The entire update appears to be "On November 12th, 2018, David Pearson passed away from an illness." No source, incorrect "th" in the date, and a WP:EUPHEMISM for death. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:53, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • It's been updated now, although the cause of death hasn't been confirmed yet. Nohomersryan (talk) 02:12, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support: It has GA status and the above issue seems to have been resolved. --PootisHeavy (talk) 20:30, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support per GA, but wait for better update (currently it reads "Pearson died on November 12, 2018 in Spartanburg, South Carolina. The news was announced by Wood Brothers Racing; no other details were available.") --DannyS712 (talk) 23:02, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support Article good to go. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:04, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
• Posted Stephen 05:53, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) Bali Nine member Renae Lawrence to be released[]

(Posted): Death of Stan Lee[]

Closed, it's posted, we all know it won't be pulled, Take errors to errors, no reason to leave this open as a battleground. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:02, 12 November 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: Stan Lee (talk, history)
Blurb: ​American comic-book creator Stan Lee dies at the age of 95.
News source(s): TMZ, THR, Variety
Nominator: Power~enwiki (talk • give cr)
Article updated

Nominator's comments: Looks fully referenced; likely to be a flood of updates over the next hour. We may need to wait for independent confirmation. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:50, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

• Comment now then, loathe as I am to bring this up, this guy is almost certainly blurbable ("transformative figure"). The Rambling Man (talk) 18:52, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
• Adding corroborating source beyond TMZ. --Masem (t) 18:58, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support RD and Support blurb Article is in good shape (well-sourced). As TRM said, this is a rare entertainment figure that is known worldwide and is blurb-worthy. --Masem (t) 19:00, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Blurb added, image sent for protection cascade tagging assuming we end up with blurb. --Masem (t) 19:08, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Image is now properly protected should blurb be posted. --Masem (t) 19:25, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support blurb and RD. He certainly was a transformative figure in his field and article is well-referenced. Capitalistroadster (talk) 19:07, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support blurb Very significant and saddening. Article is in good shape. Spengouli (talk) 19:09, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support blurb as long as the Bibliography section is referenced, some things in there need inline cites. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:13, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • There is an overarching link (Currently ref 84 as I Read it) to the Grand Comics Database that is being used to cover those all. I think that's okay? --Masem (t) 19:16, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
    • That's okay then. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:19, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support blurb Transformative in his field. I hope he filmed a ton more cameos for Phase 4. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:13, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support both article is in good shape, important person Abequinn14 (talk) 19:15, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Abequinn14 If it is determined this should be a blurb, that's where it will go, not in both places. 331dot (talk) 19:17, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm just saying if the blurb fails to get support (which doesn't seem to be the case right now) I support a RD. Abequinn14 (talk) 19:20, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support blurb with image I don't think I read a single comic book since I was like 12, so I can say I am unbiased in this regard. And I understand that his influence on the culture of both XXth and XXIst centuries was enormous. Definitively deserves a blurb per importance. Openlydialectic (talk) 19:16, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
• Comment - Seriously, what are you waiting, Avengers 9? --159.153.60.78 (talk) 19:18, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support blurb Much-loved personality. Article in unusually good shape. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:22, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
• Strong oppose blurb no where near the level of notability that should be reserved for blurbs. RD is perfectly fine. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:26, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

  Heh, transformative figure in comic books, legendary arch-father of the biggest film franchises in history. Blurb is no doubt at all. Nice try though. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:28, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

  • So many fields, so many transformative figures, so perfectly suited for RD. Don't worry TRM, I'm outnumbered, this will be a blurb ... and for the next two weeks every half assed article that's important to someone will get the "We posted Stan Lee so we have to post this" treatment. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:40, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

    • No, I really don't think so. I'm not American, I'm not a comic book (or comic movie) fan, but I think this passes the test. I'm afraid that now no-one will listen to you. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:42, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support blurb per Capitalistroadster. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 19:31, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support blurb with image. There is a clear consensus. A somewhat longer blurb might be used—I would recommend mentioning a couple of the characters he created, though I'd hate to get bogged down in a debate over which particular ones to use. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:37, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Could mention "and chairman emeritus of Marvel Comics", avoids the question of which characters to include but more where he fell in the world. --Masem (t) 19:40, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
    • Nope, Stan Lee is Stan Lee. No embellishment required. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:50, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
• Ping @331dot: you around to handle this? Consensus is clear, and the article looks fine. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:41, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
• Posted Stephen 19:43, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
• Comment Image please. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:47, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

  Bang. Admin magic. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:47, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

• Less than an hour to blurb someone? I don't think even Stephen Hawking was posted this fast. WaltCip (talk) 19:54, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

  Because most Americans have never heard of Hawking. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:57, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

  • • Or maybe because we Americans take better care of our biographies than you Brits? – Muboshgu (talk) 19:59, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
      • No, it was more about consensus than quality. And Hawking is luminary, Lee is contemporary, as you know. Apples and pears. But good attempt at the old USA USA USA bullshit! Next up we'll be giving Wikipedia ors guns to ensure American articles are up to scratch! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:02, 12 November 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.

RD: Ananth Kumar[]

Nominator's comments: Indian Union Minister Ananth Kumar died.- Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:43, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

• The first half of the article is ok. The second half is... wow. Some of the most genuinely awful proseline I've seen in recent memory. "2. Over 44 cr hot, tasty and nutritious meals have been served to children till end of AY 2018. (May 2018)" indeed. —Cryptic 02:52, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose There are unsourced statements even in the first half of the article. The second half is ... yeah, well. Black Kite (talk) 02:57, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose The front page is not the place for poorly-written articles that do not have enough inline citations. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 04:00, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose while clearly improved from when the preceding comments were made, the article still needs copying by a native English speaker as it's not suitable for main page at this time. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:02, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
• Weak Support The article has improved, although it can get better. Breakfastisready (talk) 12:20, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

November 11[]

RD: Douglas Rain[]

Nominator's comments: Voiced Hal in 2001: A Space Odyssey. Too many referencing issues. Hopefully will be resolved soon. Sherenk1 (talk) 11:20, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose poorly referenced stub. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:01, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

November 10[]

(Posted) RD: Ron Johnson (running back)[]

Nominator's comments: American football player. Article generally very good. A couple of short uncited passages and a bare url. I am away from my computer for a couple of days but hopefully somebody can remedy these minor issues - Dumelow (talk) 00:38, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support A couple of very minor sentences that need citing (sorry, I know nowt about Rugby League in armour), but this is generally a good article. I fixed the bare URL. Black Kite (talk) 01:28, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support I like the sound of his name. And I learned something about Michigan rushing records. I'm still not sure I know what rushing is, but I've cited the part about him doing it better in one game than any Wolverine ever has. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:08, November 12, 2018 (UTC)
• Support - Overall decent shape article. Ready.BabbaQ (talk) 08:30, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:01, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
• Posted to RD. Spencer^T•C 16:13, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

November 9[]

Day X plot[]

 Chetsford (talk) 01:32, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) Second Congo ebola outbreak[]

Nominator's comments: While the outbreak is still going on and wont be resolved for a while, the fact that it is now confirmed as the largest outbreak in this country appears to be newsworthy. While western sources are getting the story now, this stat was made on this date, so posting here. Masem (t) 15:18, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

• Comment surely if this is as serious as it seems, it should be an "ongoing" item? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:21, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • It's a story that gets updated, but not necessarily on a daily basis. I do see the article seems to be kept up to date, so it could be ongoing, but I see no issue with a blurb either and maybe downgrade to ongoing once it falls off? --Masem (t) 17:57, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
    • Sure, so support as there's a real risk this could become a huge issue, and is an order of magnitude more significant than the forest fires. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:41, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support "No other epidemic in the world has been as complex as the one we are currently experiencing." Granted Oly Ilunga Kalenga may be engaging in a bit of hyperbole, but it's still a major crisis deserving of posting. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:32, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support as long as the blurb is changed to make grammatical sense. Should be e.g. More than 200 people suffer from a second outbreak of ebola in Democratic Republic of the Congo in 2018, making it the largest such outbreak in the country's history. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:44, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • fixed -200 + deaths (350+ cases though tracked) --Masem (t) 20:48, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
• Posted Stephen 01:54, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
• Comment I think the blurb should mention that 200 deaths happened over a period of time (since August). The current blurb gives the impression that 200 people died yesterday. --ASF23 (talk) 02:19, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Added that date. --Masem (t) 19:40, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
• Comment @Masem: Perhaps this is best suited for the Ongoing section? The outbreak isn't finished, and the new blurb sounds weird. Openlydialectic (talk) 09:32, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment maybe move to ongoing once it bumps off the bottom of the news - if it is not under control at that time (which unfortunately sounds likely). EdwardLane (talk) 16:35, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) Melbourne stabbing[]

(Posted) RD: Roger Hoy[]

Nominator's comments: English footballer. Another article that might be a little short but seems well sourced - Dumelow (talk) 20:34, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support - Long enough. Sourced. Ready.BabbaQ (talk) 14:39, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support just about satis. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:20, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
• Posted Stephen 21:51, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Richard Paul Conaboy[]

Nominator's comments: American judge. Short but well sourced - Dumelow (talk) 09:14, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

• Weakest oppose this is borderline stub for me, for someone with 40+ years in law, some of it at a relatively high level, the bio is lacking. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:38, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough. I found a little more to add but not much. I'll keep an eye open for any new info in the obits - Dumelow (talk) 20:00, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Weakest support just about enough I guess, and what's there is fine. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:21, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

• Posted Stephen 21:48, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) 2018 Sri Lankan constitutional crisis[]

Article: 2018 Sri Lankan constitutional crisis (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In the ongoing constitutional crisis in Sri Lanka, President Maithripala Sirisena dissolves parliament and calls for elections in violation of the country’s Nineteenth Amendment which he co-sponsored.
Alternative blurb: ​Sri Lankan President Maithripala Sirisena dissolves parliament and calls a snap elections in violation of the Nineteenth Amendment to the Constitution in the ongoing constitutional crisis.
Alternative blurb II: ​Due to a lack of numbers in an upcoming vote, President Maithripala Sirisena dissolves parliament and calls a snap election in the ongoing constitutional crisis in Sri Lanka.
Alternative blurb III: ​Sri Lankan President Maithripala Sirisena dissolves parliament and calls for early elections.
News source(s): BBC, New York Times, Aljazeera, Colombo Telegraph, The Guardian
Nominator: Blackknight12 (talk • give cr)

Nominator's comments: The results and effects of 2018 Sri Lankan constitutional crisis will have significant domestic and regional geopolitical consequences. President Sirisena has set a new precedent in boldly violating the constitution which has and will further escalate the crisis. Blackknight12 (talk) 20:55, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose on article quality; also none of the blurbs seem neutrally phrased. I might support on notability once this is cleaned up. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:28, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
• Comment the blurb really needs to mention Sri Lanka in there somewhere. Of the ones suggested so far, the first altblurb is the least bad. Thryduulf (talk) 22:26, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Done.--Blackknight12 (talk) 13:56, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support - Looks good to me. Sherenk1 (talk) 11:30, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support- huge news, and goes to show the pro-american bias on Wikipedia. Results of a legislative elections in a presidential republic get published immediately, while the announcement of a coup in an asian country is basically ignored. Shame. Openlydialectic (talk) 12:41, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  • It is not that this isn't important, but we also look to article quality, and this one has a neutrality tag at the very top, which we cannot post with that still there. --Masem (t) 14:07, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Excuse me? It was just pointed out in multiple comments that the U.S. mid-term elections were considered general elections via ITN/R and were not the only instance of such elections being posted to ITN. I'm having a hard time not believing at this point that you're just fishing for a reaction.--WaltCip (talk) 14:33, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
    • @WaltCip:, stop with this demagogy. You know full well that the results we had posted before were from countries that were pairlamentary democracies (e.g. Germany, United Kingdom) and where aforementioned legislative elections therefore determined who was going to become "the real" head of state, they determined who was going to be in the executive branch. The United States is not a legislative elections, so comparing the recent US case with postng elections from the UK or Germany is misleading, and I refuse to believe you don't understand that. You do, you are just not interested in anything but furthering your biases. Openlydialectic (talk) 18:53, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • @Openlydialectic: I already know posting this article on the main page is not important to you at all, because you haven't yet fixed the article so it could be posted. You're just here to stir up trouble, and aren't really concerned that Wikipedia properly covers Asian topics. And I know this because if that was a concern of yours, you'd have actually done something useful about it, and cleaned up this article so we could post it. If you had already fixed the article, it would have already been in the main page. --Jayron32 14:50, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Openlydialectic notwithstanding the education provided to you above by admin Jayron, I honestly don't think you seem to understand how this process works. The article is tagged with a POV banner, that needs resolving before it can posted to the main page, that's an actual rule. Secondly, you claim "Results of a legislative elections in a presidential republic get published immediately" yet a cursory glance reveals it wasn't posted "immediately", but 15.5 hours after nomination. Thirdly you don't appear to have noticed that it was an WP:ITNR which meant that all assessments were purely based on quality, and nothing to do with perceived significance. If you need any assistance understanding the ITN process in either this, or any other such case, don't hesitate to give me a shout. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:10, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia has become too tiresome for me to it, at least for now, which is why I haven't fixed it. However I will say that seeing how all 3 of you were triggered by my assertion of existance of pro-american bias on wikipedia, it just goes to show that this assessment was indeed correct and is also largerly unfixable seeing how even a mention of such bias triggers a large chunk of wikipedia's or base Openlydialectic (talk) 15:25, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, four of us responded (not three), and I think mostly it was just to correct all the various errors in your assertions. Great response though. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:00, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

TRM accused of pro-American bias - is this a first? Tlhslobus (talk) 02:12, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Well indeed, it sums up the absurdity of the initial accusation quite nicely. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:43, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

• This situation is significant enough for the main page and should be posted when the article quality concerns are addressed. Lepricavark (talk) 15:07, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
• Comment sadly it looks like a bit of a drive-by tagging, the tagger stating "too many problems to list currently" which isn't helpful. The tag ought to be removed until the problems are concisely identified, otherwise this is a stalemate situation. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:10, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
• Comment, first I'd like to "thank" those ors kvetching about the process (and accusing me of drive-by tagging) without doing a damn thing about the very obvious issues. Clearly none of the blurbs are acceptable, yet none of the people claiming "bias" have improved them. Second, is "dissolving parliament" by one of the two rival camps really the news-worthy event here, or should this be "ongoing"? Third, the NPOV issues should be pretty obvious, the sourcing on "Rajapaksa presidency" isn't good enough to support "increasingly authoritarian", the timeline section is a list of news stories with no particular concern for importance, "Bribing with cabinet positions" doesn't reflect that section's content, and the "Reactions" section is lousy even as far as those lousy sections go. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:12, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

And neither 2018 Sri Lankan constitutional crisis nor Nineteenth Amendment to the Constitution of Sri Lanka makes clear which of the many odd actions in the past 2 weeks violate that amendment, as is asserted in the first two blurbs. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:14, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Rightly or wrongly, what you did was drive-by tagging as you had enough time to tag and start a section but yet failed to list a single actionable item. Some of those interested in posting this may have benefitted from a clear description of the problems. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:21, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

If I had the time yesterday to list every issue with the article, I would have fixed it myself. If they can't read the article, why should I trust them to write it? power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:35, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

It's not really about you, your standards, what or who you trust, it's about informing the ing population where you thought POV issues existed. Of course, doing what you did was precisely what I said, stalemate. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:30, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Power~enwiki thanks for improving the article, but I have to agree, I think it would have better had you made a clear list to all the problems when tagging the article. I knew there were many problems with the article, but I have been out-resourced this whole time, nor could I keep up with the fast pace of the changing events. But had there been a list I could have focused on fixing those issues when I got back. Having said that, its looks like the article has gone through some changes thanks to User:Power~enwiki, User:LaserLegs and User:Openlydialectic. Are there anymore issues you would like to address?--Blackknight12 (talk) 03:16, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

The article could use about 6 hours of skilled copy-ing; the timeline sections are disjointed at best. Openlydialectic's comment about how there aren't many sources from Sri Lanka is also accurate; unfortunately I'm not sure anyone here can read Sinhala or Tamil. Finally, this still seems like an "ongoing" event rather than the (disputed) dismissal of parliament being notable on its own. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:18, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Ill do some more ing today when I have the time. But just on Openlydialectic comment, the The Daily Mirror is referenced at least 19 times. However Ill make sure to include more variety of Sri Lankan sources too. Hopefully we can get this out today.--Blackknight12 (talk) 03:39, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

• Question can someone help me with the "Recent events" section, it looks like it was copied almost word for word from it's only source: a BBC article. I don't know if I should tag it for copyvio or if it paraphrases enough or if more refs could save it or what. Feedback welcome. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:39, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Same with the alleged assassination attempt. The article says "Sirisena began firing the heads of state institutions not in his purview and replacing them with those loyal to him." and the NYT article it refs says "Mr. Sirisena began firing the heads of state institutions not in his purview and stacking them with loyalists.". Is this a concern? --LaserLegs (talk) 18:42, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't think it's bad enough to require revdel, but it should be fixed (and should I just assume that everything that's unsourced and awkwardly written is in that BBC or NYT article?) power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:44, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

I was surprised that the ref supported that remark, honestly. You'll have to check them all. I'll get out of your way, have some yard work to do. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:47, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose The article about this crisis has two noted problems about it. That is a lot, especially for an article that we are considering posting to the home page. Furthermore, I do not know how relevant this crisis is to begin with. According to Parliament of Sri Lanka: "The President of Sri Lanka has the power to summon, suspend, prorogue, or terminate a legislative session and to dissolve the Parliament. President can dissolve Parliament only after the lapse of 4 1/2 years or if 2/3 majority of Members of Parliament requests him." While I am no expert on Sri Lankan politics, that other article makes things like this seem quite routine. Alternate Side Parking (talk) 23:54, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

User:Alternate Side Parking This parliament has only been in session since September 2015, thats only just over 3 years.--Blackknight12 (talk) 02:40, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support seems obvious, massive event. Banedon (talk) 03:14, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support A good work by Blackknight12 and massive event .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:24, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose I have a few problems with the article. There are two timelines, they need to be merged, and turned into coherent paragraphs. There is a "recent events" section in the "background" section which makes no sense. Still a number of CN tags and it needs a copy for grammar. More importantly though I'm not really seeing widespread coverage of this (before you stomp on my throat, that was enough to kill the Indian nuclear sub story in a few short hours) and even though I've read the article a few times, I still don't understand the problem here: an unpopular former president was made prime minister? Why? So what? --LaserLegs (talk) 11:31, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

I've done some more ing and cleaned up the article. FYI the problem here is not that an unpopular former president was made prime minister, but they way in which he was appointed, the blatant disregard for the law and the multiple violations of the constitution, among other things. I'm not sure where you are from, but this is definitely headline news in the country and the whole region. The crisis has been and currently is widely reported on internationally.--Blackknight12 (talk) 17:17, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

What does the appointment of the house leader have to do with bribery allegations? The economy section is puff. "landslide victory" is puff. Why did Sirisena replace his PM? Has he made any statements to that effect? And so what, the position is largely ceremonial. Oh well, this is certainly going to get posted, and it's better than it was, but it's very rough. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:06, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

• Comment I agree that Blackknight12 has gotten the article to sufficient quality to post. I'm not sure I can support any of the blurbs; Ongoing may be a better fit. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:51, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support on notability per Banedon, Pharaoh of the Wizards, etc. It's important for Sri Lanka, for the future of democracy in the region generally, and for the long-standing and ongoing Sino-Indian and Indo-Pakistani power struggles in geopolitics (with India and (China+Pakistan) seemingly supporting opposite sides in the dispute). I leave article quality, blurb-wording, and 'blurb vs ongoing' to be judged by others. Tlhslobus (talk) 18:54, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support + alt blurb III - added alt blurb III which is shorter, to the point & makes no mention of the 19th Amendendment that has basically kept it from getting posted. 39.57.138.205 (talk) 06:13, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Well that and the article doesn't explain WHY it happened, or what the impact is, just that it did happen and the opposition lost their minds over it. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:55, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose – One can't see the forest for the trees in this prolix 4,000-word article. If it belongs anywhere, it belongs in Ongoing. – Sca (talk) 14:21, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support altblurb3, which is simple and avoids POV issues. A significant threshold in an ongoing political crisis. The article may not be perfect but it's decent enough. Modest Genius ^talk 15:17, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support altblurb3 - This should have been posted to the main page two weeks ago when the prime minister was replaced but unfortunately the two nominations were bodged, the nominators didn't even bother to update Portal:Current events. Events have since become even more serious.--Obi2canibe (talk) 23:27, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
• Posted Stephen 00:28, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
• I am just making a note here that, as identified in ERRORS, the SC of Sri Lanka has issued orders blocking this action. I have updated the ITN template and bumped it up a bit due to this significant change. --Masem (t) 15:31, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Imelda Marcos sentenced[]

Nominator's comments: Article claims to be a GA but it has dozens of CN tags. Note she is (at least, just before today) a sitting politician. Also, this is a case that has been ongoing for 27 years Masem (t) 15:11, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

• Comment - I would suggest an alternative blurb that concentrates on her conviction, but not the sentencing. STSC (talk) 15:00, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support - Based on the historical factor and Imeldas status. Some work needs to be done I guess, but it could be fixed before nightfall.BabbaQ (talk) 15:54, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose quality is comprehensively below what is required. Will she/can she/has she appealed? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:58, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, she's stated she will appeal (she's losing her current seat in the Ph. Congress, she's fighting to keep it). --Masem (t) 15:59, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose article is heavily orange-tagged, lots of referencing issues, not ready for prime time yet. --Jayron32 16:21, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support Should be a shoe-in for the frontpage... Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:22, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - No fewer than 13 orange tags! This is not a GA, it is Start class. Mjroots (talk) 17:28, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Yah, I have no idea how it got to GA or descended off that. --Masem (t) 17:31, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
  • FWIW, the quality at GA and when it was put up for FAC wasn't bad at all [8]. It's what happened in the last two years that have "ruined" the article. --Masem (t) 19:43, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support on significance, Oppose on article quality. This has to be a contender for the worst "GA" article on the project. Thryduulf (talk) 19:35, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
• Strongest possible wait until final confirmation of conviction, which probably won't happen anytime soon. This conviction doesn't change anything. Howard the Duck (talk) 20:56, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  • As I understand the charges, at minimum she will spend X years of jail time per each charge (I think it was 7) - there's no way around that. As she's 80, that basically means she's going to likely die in jail from natural causes. The actual conviction here means little. --Masem (t) 22:06, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
    • She won't be actually sent to jail until after the appeals process ends. As you said that she's old, she might never be sent to jail, nor her conviction be finalized. Howard the Duck (talk) 22:08, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
      • We don't usually wait on appeals. Nearly ever conviction/sentencing is appealed, and only if that decision is flipped would we repost. --Masem (t) 06:49, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
        • Can anyone else confirm this? I like to see previous case law on this one, considering that nothing changes on Marcos' standing despite conviction, as she's still a free woman, and can still run for elective positions. Unless Marcos doesn't appeal, her conviction means nothing. Howard the Duck (talk) 09:17, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
          • I remember Joseph Estrada's case was posted upon sentencing, because he was president, and that he didn't appeal. Howard the Duck (talk) 09:52, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
      • She was found guilty, that's the main point. STSC (talk) 07:08, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
        • Meh. More people want to see her in jail. Which I guess is the main point of finding someone guilty. Howard the Duck (talk) 09:17, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

I mean the main point in the news, whether she will serve the prison term is another matter, but the conviction would automatically disqualify her from holding public office. STSC (talk) 09:49, 11 November 2018 (UTC)STSC (talk) 09:38, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

No it doesn't. A final confirmation of conviction is needed to perpetually disqualify someone from public office. If Marcos is appealing, it's not final. (Now if Marcos is pardoned, that's another matter.) Howard the Duck (talk) 09:52, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

She may apply for bail and still stand for elections pending appeal. STSC (talk) 10:20, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Exactly. It doesn't disqualify her from public office. This changes nothing. She's still a free (wo)man, can still run for office, and won't go to jail. Howard the Duck (talk) 10:23, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

It's still a victory. This news is very newsworthy in ITN. STSC (talk) 10:38, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

If there's a hollow victory, this is it. They can't even make her pay up what she stole at this point. ITN posts entries when there's a clear change of status (elections notwithstanding) on something/someone. This changes nothing. Wait until the appeals ends, then we'll talk. Howard the Duck (talk) 10:57, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

ITN posts current events, we don't just wait till something traumatic has happened. STSC (talk) 12:45, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Actually ITN does as per WP:MINIMUMDEATHS. That's why ITN posts terrorist attacks, but not when authorities foil such attacks (except for that one time when the targets are especially noteworthy). Howard the Duck (talk) 13:54, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

So it's a hard fast policy as documented by one user's essay that you've used an WP:EASTEREGG to suggest is actually policy ( circumventing the consensus at WP:RfD) . Except for that time when it wasn't a few weeks ago. Got it. ghost 14:27, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Nowhere did I say it's "hard fast policy". Howard the Duck (talk) 14:34, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support - The conviction of corruption itself (at long last) is significant news about a notable former First Lady of a poor country. Must post now. STSC (talk) 21:00, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

  Must not. The quality is insufficient. Feel free to help fix it up if you feel that strongly about it being on the main page though. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:18, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

I think the ex-GA article's quality is quite acceptable as it stands. Every article is work-in-progress. Would you like to improve the article? STSC (talk) 07:19, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Well sadly you're wrong, it's nowhere near acceptable. And no, I'm not interested in this article in the slightest, but thanks for the invitation. You're supporting it, you improve it. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:44, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

I won't vote for you in ArbCom in the future then. STSC (talk) 09:05, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Honestly, that's the worst news I've had all day, and I've been awake for literally an hour. Sorry you wouldn't want your Arbs to tell you cold hard facts, the truth, rather they'd obfuscate and conceal? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:56, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Whatever, we were right to reject you in last ArbCom election. STSC (talk) 10:44, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, and no doubt you felt the bunch you elected were ideal too. What has that got to do with anything here? I'll tell you: absolutely nothing. Stop wasting time. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:45, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose Article is simply not up to scratch. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:16, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support agree with STSC. Banedon (talk) 11:08, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

  You agree that we should post items directly in contravention of ITN guidelines? I see. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:47, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose per the quality of the article, not the newsworthiness of the event. Nihlus 11:57, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
• Comment - "Articles are held to a minimum standard of quality. Articles should be a minimally comprehensive overview of the subject, not omitting any major items." The ex-GA article has far more than just this minimum quality required by WP:ITN. STSC (talk) 12:28, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

  As required by WP:ITN: Articles that are subject to serious issues, as indicated by 'orange'- or 'red'-level tags at either the article level or within any section, may not be accepted for an emboldened link. This article has several such "serious" issues. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:46, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

It was targeted by a massive tag-bombing recently from someone like you who can't be bothered to improve it. STSC (talk) 14:42, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

If you disagree with the tags, remove them all. If not, then no problem. You don't have to be "bothered to improve" something when pointing out there's something wrong with it. That's not how it works. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:46, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose I would like to, but unfortunately, the article needs to be fix. BSrap (talk) 14:57, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose A tagged article does not belong in In the news. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 04:11, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Gosh, I thought this one would be a shoe-in. – Sca (talk) 14:29, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support This is big news especially in light of the presidency direction there.Lihaas (talk) 07:49, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
• Comment - Please note all the orange tags in the article have been dealt with now. STSC (talk) 17:35, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

  Just the sixty [page needed] and [citation needed] tags to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:56, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

The article has met the minimum quality requirement without any serious issue. STSC (talk) 19:15, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Of the tags, all I see are "page needed" and "incomplete short citation". Both are issues but those are GA/FA-level completness stuff. WP:V has been just met. For purposes of exping this, I would remove all those, but leave a link to the current version on the talk page to identify the problem citations so they can be fixed. It's definitely not a lack of sourcing at this point, just formatting of those, which we do not expect perfection at ITN. --Masem (t) 19:39, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

We've never posted an article at ITN with so many inline tags, you know that. This is not about expectation of perfection, that's a red herring, this is about not promoting work which is frankly embarrassing to the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:56, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Inline tags after an article has been nominated at ITN should be dealt with, but we're talking about an excessive number of inline tags that attempt to target quality issues we normally would not care about at ITN. Things are sourced, but book sources are lacking a more specific page reference, for example. That's a long-term issue, but not something ppl should be excessively tagging. I know the article was filled with CNs at the time I nominated, but those have been addressed. --Masem (t) 06:10, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

We're not going to post an article with so many inline tags. Their existence is justified. The sooner we all accept that, the better. Besides all that, there's no consensus at all to post this story in any case. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:17, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

I extremely doubt that if someone filled in a whole bunch of CNs with a single reference to a book but did not include page or chapter numbers with that ref, that we would not consider that acceptable for ITN. We are critical of CN tags which were a problem with the article before, but "page number" tags are not a critical failure for ITN. As I've said, at the present time, while at some point those page number issues should be fixed to be more precise, WP:V is otherwise met, and at this point for purposes of posting in a timely manner (which this is soon to run out), clearing out the page numbering warnings is completely acceptable. If they were CNs, absolutely agree that those cannot be removed and not addressed, but we simply do not have that stickler on the quality of the cite format for ITN. (And I'd argue that consensus is there to post once the main tags were dealt with, which they have been, leaving only the "page number" ones). --Masem (t) 07:49, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

No, it's not going to happen, and you know it. We have never posted anything like this, and we shouldn't start now. And there's no consensus to post, at all. She hasn't even been arrested. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:27, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

"We"? You don't speak for us. The objections here were mainly based on seeing the orange tags but those tags have been cleared. The other minor maintenance tags had been indiscriminately applied and they can be dealt with anytime. STSC (talk) 16:48, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I am speaking as a member of the community who are aware of our norms (i.e. we never post such tagged material) and as a member of the community who can also read consensus (i.e. there's no consensus to post this). It's also a non-event as she hasn't even been arrested. And you are absolutely incorrect if you believe tags to be have added "indiscriminately". The Rambling Man (talk) 18:44, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

The rambling man's policy of "we never post such tagged material" does not apply. Only the ITN guidelines apply here. STSC (talk) 22:00, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Actually, I said we have never posted such tagged material, so we should not start doing so, particularly in such a marginal case and particularly when there's no consensus to do so and particularly when the story is a damp squib. When she gets finally arrested and perhaps sent to prison, then you might have a story, so plenty of time to get the article up to scratch in the meantime. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:18, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

"ITN serves to direct readers to articles that have been substantially updated to reflect recent or current events of wide interest." You don't just wait and see what may happen next. STSC (talk) 18:44, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) Camp Fire[]

Articles: Camp Fire (2018) (talk, history) and Woolsey Fire (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Camp Fire destroys the town of Paradise, California.
Alternative blurb: ​Four concurrent wildfires in California, including the Camp Fire, destroy over 190,000 acres and kill at least 25 people.
Alternative blurb II: ​Four concurrent wildfires in California, including the Camp Fire, and Woolsey Fire (pictured), destroy over 190,000 acres and kill at least 25 people.
News source(s): New York Times, AP, San Jose Mercury News, Guardian, L.A. Times, BBC
Nominator: NorthernFalcon (talk • give cr)

Nominator's comments: Getting slightly ahead of this one, but this fire appears to be similar to the 2016 Fort McMurray wildfire, which was posted here when it happened. I suspect this article will change rapidly over the next twelve hours. NorthernFalcon (talk) 08:15, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

• Comment I've not evaluated the story yet, but if it is posted it needs a much better blurb than that - it needs to say "camp fire" is a specific wildfire and not the usual meaning of "camp fire". It also needs some indication of significance - population? Evacuations? Deaths/injuries? Thryduulf (talk) 11:42, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Population 26,551. Also amazingly this is a place that averages 8 centimeters and 5 days of rain in October and twice or more that in November (think Merranean climate, like Italy), and even in the East when it can get 40C and no rain for 5-15 days and pine trees are full of turpentine this kind of thing usually doesn't happen. It takes 3 months of drought for maximum flammability. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 13:24, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose at this point on article quality, it's barely above a stub. Thryduulf (talk) 11:44, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose stub. Not really seeing how it could be much more than this, other than through immense fluffing. This probably needs to go into the Paradise article really. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:36, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Really? A fire starts sunrise, town of 27,000 ordered to evacuate hours later and some are still trapped (nearly every household has cars and officials err on the safe side especially since they must've been in an extreme national weather service red flag fire warning or something and all parts of the state are no stranger to deaths from extreme spread speed), burns everything burnable, grows to 81 square kilometers by evening and it'll be a stub forever without immense fluff? Their typical Nov 9 weather is similar to London except almost triple the rain, this is climatologically unusual. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:41, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, but nothing which couldn't be summed up in a few sentences in the Paradise article. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:47, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

( conflict)

• Wait – Agree it's a stub at this point, but this looks like it could be fairly major. AP quotes fire official saying "a couple of thousand" structures destroyed, entire town "of 27,000" ordered to evacuate. San Jose paper says "the fire claimed multiple lives." SF Chronicle says "more than 30,000 people fled for their lives." Developing. Sca (talk) 13:59, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
• Wait Developing too quickly to speedy decline. — Moe Epsilon 14:06, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

• Comment I know the news on this is the rapid destruction of Paradise due to unpredictable winds, but there's two other fires in CA going, wit the Woolsey fire also having being seen as a similar threat. While wildfires in CA are not uncommon, these two (Camp and Woosley) are extremely close to major towns and thus more threatening than those more well in the wilderness. I agree with waiting just a bit but it might be appropriate to consider a merged blurb here. --Masem (t) 15:27, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
• Weak Support the article is short, but that's true for nearly all our disaster porn. Not every day a town of this size is burned to the ground. Expect more details to emerge as residents are allowed to re-enter the area. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:55, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Global warming makes places near deserts like Cali drier by extending the dry season and growing the desert. The climate zones move poleward. The nearest weather station to fire had only 5 millimeters precipitation since April 7th — 3 mm in May and 2 on Oct 2. On ignition day it went from 4°C no wind to 22°C 40kph in 6 hours and dew point actually dropped from -12°C to -18 giving a humidity of 6% which is a third of the driest place on Earth's average. And this was about 20km upwind of and downhill from the town. No wonder it spread fast. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:04, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
• Wait. 5 dead now, incidentally. Black Kite (talk) 19:54, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Is it safe for body counters to search the town yet? Do they use "death specialists" like coroner for this or people who might be busy now like police? Hopefully there's enough oxygen to let it burn past you breathing a bag of air underwater or in a concrete building or something but I don't know how common that is. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:48, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

• Update – As of 22:000, six RSs say five dead (NYT: "at least" five) in Paradise-Chico (pop. 90,000) area, with 150,000+ evacuated, including SoCal residents in the path of the Woolsey Fire near Malibu, NW of L.A. (Sources updated above.) – Sca (talk) 22:17, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
• Comment I was wondering about a combined blurb or even ongoing for the various wildfires but there hasn't been a significant update to the prose at 2018 California wildfires since the summer. Thryduulf (talk) 22:30, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
• Comment Adding an altblurb that talks about all three concurrent fires. While the Camp Fire has the largest attention, the other two are just as dangerous due to the problematic winds. --Masem (t) 22:33, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes the other two burned over the last major barrier (US road 101) and are threatening to burn the homes of ~100,000 people including Malibu. Wow. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:13, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support. The Camp Fire is now the most destructive wildfire in California history. The city of Chico, California, pop. 90,000, is on the edge. By comparison, the Fort MacMurray wildfire of two years ago, which we posted, caused an evacuation of 80,000 people with no direct deaths. 173.32.99.138 (talk) 05:02, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support buying it now, just surprised Trump has said it would have been better contained if the population of Paradise had been more fully armed.  The Rambling Man (talk) 12:26, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

I heard he was blaming the media for the fires. Sca (talk) 15:58, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

It's the migrant caravan, that's why democrats want open borders. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:28, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

• Weak support. The article could use some improvements. wumbolo ^^^ 13:10, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support (Alt) – As of 14:00, "at least" nine dead, more expected in Paradise area; 200,000 told to evacuate in SoCal. (Sources updated above.) – Sca (talk) 14:18, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support Camp Fire only, as the general California wildfire article is not in good enough shape. Teemu08 (talk) 14:42, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Whats wrong with the general wildfires page? Everything is sourced, it even surprisingly goes into the reasons for the fires this year. Further, to not post the other major fires going on is putting too much emphasis on the Camp Fire. All three (now four?) fires are wrecking havoc and multiple blazes make fighting just one more difficult. --Masem (t) 15:48, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support this situation is clearly notable enough for the main page. Lepricavark (talk) 15:09, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support (with note that I'm in the affected area) – added a picture along the PCH looking toward Malibu from the Woolsey Fire. So many homes lost here and in Northern California; the Camp Fire is the most destructive in Cali history, definitely ITN-worthy. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:05, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support per Cyclonebiskit. -- Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:09, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
• First, let me blow the Camp Fire ash out of my nose, then I will support pbp 03:22, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
• As a note to the posting admin, I've put the picture into the bot queue to get the right protections. Hasn't taken yet. --Masem (t) 06:59, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
• Posting ALT 2. Holding off on the photo for now. – Muboshgu (talk) 07:43, 11 November 2018 (UTC) Image swapped. – Muboshgu (talk) 07:47, 11 November 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: