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.

France national football team In association football, the FIFA World Cup concludes with France (team pictured) defeating Croatia in the final. At least 154 people are killed and more than 220 others are injured in multiple bombings in Mastung and Bannu, Pakistan. Scientists announce the discovery of stone tools dating to 2.1 million years ago in Shangchen, China, the oldest evidence of hominins outside Africa. In Germany, the National Socialist Underground trial ends after more than five years with the sentencing of the main defendant, Beate Zschäpe, to life in prison. Twelve boys and a man trapped in Thailand's Tham Luang Nang Non cave are rescued. Recent deaths: Ray Emery Theo-Ben Gurirab Tin Ka Ping Lord Carrington Other recent events Nominate an article view - page history - related changes -

Suggestions[]

July 18[]

July 17[]

New moons of Jupiter[]

 174.116.222.58 (talk) 22:44, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose There were some discoveries of new moons last year, and the implication that there are many more to be found still. We're also talking moons with sizes on a few kilometers, not massive bodies. Interesting, but it is not a major astronomy discovery. --Masem (t) 23:07, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
• Strong support. I wanted to nominate this myself. Increase of 10 moons from 69 to 79 is very significant in astronomy. I wonder if NASA will ever discover more moons orbiting Uranus? 107.77.205.138 (talk) 01:50, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support - It's not everyday that you discover new moons, especially such interesting ones that mostly have retrograde orbits and two or more of which are on potential collision courses. They will almost certainly be the subject of intense astronomical scrutiny in the months and years to come. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 02:53, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support Sounds interesting to me. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:11, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
• I'm unsure how well the target article has been updated (or not). Abductive (reasoning) 03:18, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support. Many articles have been updated to reflect the new information, including this one. Also ten moons, not twelve. Twelve accidentally double-counts S/2016 J 1 and S/2017 J 1. Dreigorich (talk) 03:29, 18 July 2018 (UTC) As for my rationale (forgot earlier) how often is it what you get ten new moons reported in one day? Especially for the same planet? Especially one that is going the wrong way in a large crowd of moons? This is huge. Of course, there are likely still a few more moons to be found, so this may not be the last of it. Recent discoveries have only been one or two at a time, so ten is highly unusual. The last time something like this happened if I remember correctly was in 2004 2006, I stand corrected around Saturn when nine moons were reported. Dreigorich (talk) 03:37, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  • As I read the sources, its not that within one day of observation they found 10-12 moons. It's an accumulation of data over the last year, and published today to report all findings. --Masem (t) 03:42, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
    • Riiiiight. I forgot. facepalm Dreigorich (talk) 03:45, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support 10 is a significant amount.  Nixinova  T  C  04:47, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support the blurb and the bolded article which is much improved since the announcement, largely thanks to the work of Exoplanetaryscience (several crs added for major updaters). Oppose the picture which does not represent any of the discovered moons. I see no place for it in the blurb. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 05:40, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support but would like a better blurb pointer to material on the new moons. Jusdafax (talk) 06:29, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I have linked to Moons of Jupiter#Discovery which I have copyed. @Jusdafax: would that work?--- Coffeeandcrumbs 07:53, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! Jusdafax (talk) 08:03, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

• Support - interesting and well written article.BabbaQ (talk) 07:42, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support - clearly significant astronomy news. 10 meets the WP:MINIMUMMOONS criteria for me. Stormy clouds (talk) 08:31, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Hahahahahahaha -- thanks Stormy clouds --LaserLegs (talk) 11:29, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support a good interesting story with a decent article section behind it. I've added a bit about S/2016 J 2. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 08:34, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
• Comment Is there a way we could mention Scott S. Sheppard? By my count, he has led various teams that have discovered over 56 of these moons. There are other members that go in and out of these teams but he has consistently been the lead author on almost all of these recent discoveries of the last decade and a half.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 09:21, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Alternative proposed.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 09:27, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't think it's a good idea (or precedent) to pick out individual scientists from a team. Modest Genius ^talk 10:09, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

• Support This is an interesting discovery and a good ITN material.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:46, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support It's not everyday that 10(!) natural satellites have been discovered. In fact, has this ever happened in the history of mankind? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 09:51, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes: the eleven satellites of Jupiter S/2001 J 1 through S/2001 J 11 (now Jupiter XXVIII through XXXVIII) were all announced on 15 May 2002. Double sharp (talk) 14:08, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
• Question: have these discoveries been published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal? That has been our standard for science items, but I can't find a paper, just press releases and newspaper reports. Modest Genius ^talk 10:09, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

According to the Guardian, "Sheppard, whose report appears in the International Astronomical Union Minor Planet Electronic Circular." There is no pretty prose but it is confirmed and published by the International Astronomical Union. See data publishing. Are you saying it is not peer reviewed until some old-school publisher extracts its pound of flesh? --- Coffeeandcrumbs 11:07, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I apologise for the tone of my response. Time for me to get some sleep. Good morning to you all.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 11:21, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes I found the MPECs, but they're just lists of ephemeris coordinates and orbital elements. MPEC is not a journal, and as far as I am aware it isn't peer-reviewed either. Modest Genius ^talk 11:55, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but the MPECs are exactly the standard channel where newly discovered minor planets and natural satellites are announced, after the IAU Minor Planet Centre calculates their orbital solutions based on the team's reported observations; there is not that much else to say about most of the new moons except for the oddly placed prograde one (S/2016 J 2). Given that the paper detailing the team's 2000 and 2001 discoveries was published only in 2003 (10.1038/nature01584), it seems safe to say that if a paper does come out, it won't be news anymore by the time it does. Double sharp (talk) 14:18, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Sure, but if these are a sufficiently important discovery to interest ITN they surely merit a full description in a paper. 'Oumuamua was written up, peer-reviewed and published a month after its discovery, and that is when we posted it on ITN. I am uncomfortable posting science news which has not been through formal peer review. Tbh I don't think the scientists should have issued press releases for unreviewed work either. Modest Genius ^talk 14:32, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

As Double sharp said, the paper for Jupiter's 2000 and 2001 moons was only released in 2003. That means that we could expect a paper about the 2016-2018 moons in 2020-2021 or so. It won't be news anymore by then. We shouldn't count on a paper being immediately released for these new moons yet. Dreigorich (talk) 14:36, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

In past ITN science stories, what usually happens is that Nature or Science or a otherwise high-ranking journal publishes the key paper and then has a news release themselves to go to the media about the paper, which is how those stories get in the news. The fact that these astronomers decided to go to the press before getting a peer-review paper published breaks that cycle, and it's not really appropriate for us at ITN post without the peer-review having been done. --Masem (t) 14:42, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose alt blurb, horrible idea to single out member of team for ITN praise. I shouldn't have to even say this. Abductive (reasoning) 12:32, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

July 16[]

(Closed) Trump-Putin Summit[]

July 15[]

World Series of Poker[]

Nominator's comments: Top tier event in poker. Andise1 (talk) 04:50, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - Playing cards is not a sport. WaltCip (talk) 10:47, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

ITN is not restricted to sport, so whether or not poker counts as one is irrelevant. Modest Genius ^talk 10:55, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

• I'm not opposed to this on notability grounds, but much of the prose currently talks about the event in the future tense. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 11:02, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
• I agree that this meets significance threshold. Final Table needs more prose; the final hand at least would be required, IMO. There are also some citations needed. ghost 11:56, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ray Emery[]

Nominator's comments: Featured Article Teemu08 (talk) 19:26, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

• Comment It may have been listed as a featured article about ten years ago, but it doesn't appear to be featured quality at present. Ray_Emery#Personal_life is a mess. Also, the article isn't updated to reflect his death other than a death date put at the top. How did he die so young? The article doesn't say. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:29, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Yea, this should definitely be FAR-bound, but everything is at least cited. Death info has been added, not that there are very many details. Teemu08 (talk) 19:36, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
    • Not everything. I added some {{cn}} tags. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:53, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
    • I'm glad this got worked on. Support. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:23, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support - article may not be FA quality, but good enough for RD. -Zanhe (talk) 01:13, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support Complete coverage and referencing of subject. Spencer^T•C 01:18, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support. No cn's currently in article although it has been worked on since his death. There is a group citation for his stats which may potentially be a problem. Capitalistroadster (talk) 02:27, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support Marking as ready. I made some significant improvements to dead links and other refs.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 03:18, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support - Good 2 go.BabbaQ (talk) 11:15, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support I'm unclear why this has been sitting here for a day or so without being posted. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:17, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
• Posted. Courcelles (talk) 21:18, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Wimbledon[]

Nominator's comments: This is on ITNR. The article 2018 Wimbledon Championships has more prose, but I used the same articles as last year's nom. power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:46, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose Both proposed articles are stubs with all prose in the lead followed by table cruft. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:37, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
• Conditional strong support - subject to some expansion to the target articles - though this was slightly before the World Cup finals, true? Juxlos (talk) 17:11, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, it ended before the World Cup final. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:25, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose currently both articles are completely sub-standard regarding prose. I think this happened last year as well. Black Kite (talk) 17:28, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
• Comment as nom I fully agree that the prose isn't good enough yet. I'll try to improve it around 0200GMT if they're still in this state. There may be an option for different articles in bold, as well. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:32, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Do all the tennis articles on Singles events at majors ignore standard rules for how to write a lead section, and then have no content besides scores in the article body? 2018 French Open – Men's Singles is the same way, as are all the Wimbledon articles going back multiple years. Unless we make 2018 Wimbledon Championships the updated article (and that needs work as well), I don't see how this can possibly get fixed. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:11, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I've removed the links to 2018 Wimbledon Championships – Men's Singles and 2018 Wimbledon Championships – Women's Singles entirely; I don't think they are salvageable. 2018 Wimbledon Championships isn't awful now and I'll keep working on cleaning that up. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:42, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I give up. My addition of the winners to the lead section was reverted by 333-blue. The article is not of sufficient quality, and I doubt that will change. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:51, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
    • @Power~enwiki:: sorry about that, I was meant to revert to the original tables. – 333-blue at 23:24, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support Every tennis article I've seen on Wikipedia has lacked prose when the tournament ended, yet I still find those articles to be very informative. The people who write them have found a way to convey a lot of useful information through tables. While I do think the article should have more prose, I would support posting it anyway, since it nevertheless contains the information I would want to know about the tournament. Calathan (talk) 20:36, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support per Calathan. As I've written before: in articles of this kind, prose is overrated. What I really care about is 1) who won and 2) what the score was, and both are in the article. Banedon (talk) 02:08, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Baloney. When I see an article packed with tables like this, I scroll to the end to look for prose. This one fails to deliver. Also, the tables that I checked don't meet MOS:ACCESS requirements. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:01, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
    • If you're looking for prose on how one-sided the final was, the reasons for the one-sidedness, how this was Djokovic's first championship in ____ time, etc, you're looking at the wrong venue. There are much better venues to read about those than an encyclopedia, which by construction can't even be written in an engaging manner. Banedon (talk) 04:39, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
      • Actually, that's precisely what an encyclopedia does (see Britannica[1]). What you are describing is called an almanac. ghost 13:42, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
        • That's the equivalent of the Wimbledon article proper, which is not the same as the 2018 Wimbledon article. Banedon (talk) 22:01, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
      • If I was expected to beef up the prose to get 2017 World Series, 2018 NBA Finals, and 2018 Stanley Cup Finals posted here (go ahead and look in the archives for those discussions), then why should Wimbledon be posted without prose describing the final match? The Wimbledon article should have prose mentioning all those things that I don't know about as someone who didn't follow the tournament. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:46, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
        • You shouldn't have been expected to beef up the prose of those articles. Or are you saying I should have commented on those nominations to support them without prose summaries? Banedon (talk) 22:01, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Virtually all the prose that is there (and there isn't much) was written before the tournament began. Where is the summary of what actually happened?--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:54, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
• Strong oppose junk factoid article, no encyclopedic content beyond tables and stats, not something we would ever feature on the main page, shocking that some people think we do. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:08, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support: tournament articles are like that, this seems at least good. – 333-blue at 11:06, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
• Not ready. The bolded article is in terrible shape. There's no prose whatsoever on the tournament, and even the data tables are overwhelmingly related to the pre-tournament seeding rather than the competition itself. The supporting men's and women's singles articles have just one sentence each on the finals, and a handful on the rest of the tournament, so are no better targets. This is woefully short of being postable. For such a high-profile event I'm amazed we have such poor articles. Modest Genius ^talk 13:54, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) 2018 FIFA World Cup[]

Nominator's comments: The ongoing item should be removed when this is posted. Davey2116 (talk) 03:08, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

• Comment we just call it the Final, not the "final match". The Rambling Man (talk) 06:53, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
• Comment since this is likely the next blurb getting up, please prepare some picture to update the Thailand cave, since it will be replaced. This should have happened yesterday already but I instead removed another item that took place on the same day, in order to keep an image. --Tone 08:58, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

• Note: it's also the finals of Wimbledon today, so the NSU story will probably go as well if the Wimbledon article is in decent shape. Black Kite (talk) 09:06, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
• It's likely that a freely-licensed photo of the winning team or a scene from the match will be uploaded within a few hours of the final, thanks to the OTRS from Soccer.RU. Until one is ready, the winning team's captain should be featured. SounderBruce 14:23, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

• Or possibly the scorer of a winning goal, if available. We have free images of most of the players, but some are not great (i.e. Lloris, the French captain). Black Kite (talk) 14:27, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

• On second thought, the Man of the Match should be featured. Griezmann seems to be an early contender, having been involved in all three goals so far. SounderBruce 16:23, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

• Support Griezmann photo for entry. Mikael Häggström (talk) 17:22, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support Griezmann as photo until free image of the winning team surfaces. He is the official MOTM. Nice4What (talk) 17:46, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

• Strong support. Perhaps we could add the final score, 4-2?Zigzig20s (talk) 16:54, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
• Strong support - nothing left to say Juxlos (talk) 16:57, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
• support - Definitely for ITN.BabbaQ (talk) 16:58, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support per above. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 17:02, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
• Strong Support - Speedy add Nice4What (talk) 17:08, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
• Posted Quality appears sufficient pretty quickly. The main article can use some more sourcing here and there but nothing worth holding this up for. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:09, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
• Note I've added the image of Luca Modric (which was taken at the current tournament) to the Commons protection queue, as he won Best Player of the Tournament. This would seem to be a good stopgap until we get a free image of France actually winning the trophy. Black Kite (talk) 17:42, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  • This entry is about the winning team, not the best player of the tournament. I think it would be misleading/confusing to have Modric's picture since Croatia lost. Nice4What (talk) 17:48, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
    • No, the entry is about the whole tournament. Also, we're only talking about a temporary image until we get a good free one (in which case, it'd be nice to show Modric if only for a few hours). If Griezmann is MOTM then use him instead. Black Kite (talk) 18:00, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
      • OK, he is. Adding image until we have something better. Black Kite (talk) 18:02, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
        • Wow... Also, as stated above, let's keep the Griezmann photo until the group image is released. Nice4What (talk) 18:10, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
          • Except that he wasn't the captain? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:26, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
            • If Griezmann is MOTM then use him instead. Nice4What (talk) 23:39, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
• Suggestion - How about adding the score to the blurb? Thanks. Jusdafax (talk) 18:08, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - Add 4-2 score, notable since it is one of the most amount of scores in a final. Nice4What (talk) 18:10, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
    • Done. Black Kite (talk) 18:21, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
      • Removed the result. We never post results. Strangely enough, 4-2 is the most common result in WC finals ;) --Tone 18:34, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
      • @Tone:, you removed the 4-2 score without participating in discussion. From the Washington Post on its notability:

"The six goals were as many as the previous four finals combined. They were the most in a final since England beat Germany, 4-2, in extra time in 1966 and the most in regulation since Brazil’s 5-2 triumph over Sweden in 1958." ( Source )

The match also notably didn't go into overtime as most finals do. Nice4What (talk) 18:36, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

All true. However, this is still super-arbitrary. If we insisted on breaking the rule of not including the result in the blurb, the explanation would have to be provided there as well - for which we have no room. My humble opinion ;) --Tone 18:39, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Where can this rule about excluding results be found at? And it's not "super-arbitrary", it is notable a 4-2 number is recognizable by even a non-fan of the sport to be a great score. Nice4What (talk) 18:41, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

The blurb could easily be changed to "In association football, the FIFA World Cup concludes with France defeating Croatia 4-2 in the highest-scoring final since 1966." Many sources are reporting on this. Nice4What (talk) 18:43, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

When have we ever posted a score in a blurb about a sports championship? Why should we start now? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:44, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

May be the case where the result (not the score) is a world record. We did this for marathons and 100m a couple of times. Also, "since 1966" is again totally arbitrary. First time since 2002 that it ended in regular time? --Tone 18:47, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps, but there's no record here. These are bits of trivia that are not significant enough to belong in one of our blurbs. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:51, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't think the score of the biggest sporting event in the world, only held every 4 years, was trivia. I didn't think it was a major issue at all, to be honest. But, if that's "how we do things", then ... whatever. Black Kite (talk) 19:06, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

No, we never post scores. Plus, if we ever did, we'd use the manual of style with en-dashes and not hyphens. *shudder* The Rambling Man (talk) 19:21, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

This no-score rule scores big on the counter-intuitive scale. Oh well, it's only ITN. Sca (talk) 20:16, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Including a linked mention of VAR would be far more relevant, especially as it directly led to one of the goals. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:22, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

• Comment - We have never included the score for any sporting event on ITN. Let's not start now just because it's the World Cup.--WaltCip (talk) 22:40, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

No, let's wait 'til it's Word War III, when we can say we won 3-2 over them. Sca (talk) 23:41, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

• • As @Black Kite: mentioned before, the World Cup is the biggest sporting event in the world that's only held every 4 years. If there were a sporting event to have the score posted, it would be this one. I still believe that the 4–2 score should be attatched. Nice4What (talk) 23:45, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
• Comment The score was posted in 2014, was still there when combined with Klauses record hotdogs, and later removed by Tone, re-added by Jayron32, re-removed by Fox, was not included when the hotdogs were removed. It looks like that's how it stayed: "The FIFA World Cup concludes with Germany (captain Philipp Lahm pictured) defeating Argentina in the final.". Personally, I don't care how popular soccer is, the scores look tacky in the blurb and unless we're going to do it for every sport, we're best off doing it for none. I was thinking to close this, but I commented instead. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:26, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Arguably, a 1-0 score in the World Cup final is significantly, implying a very difficult match. A score of 4-2 is not as impressive as a metric. I would argue that if any other finals event ended with a very unusual score or some significant record. --Masem (t) 00:44, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
    • The thing is, there will always be some factoid that seems significant in a "world cup". Most goals scored in total WC appearances, most shots on goal, most goals scored as penalty kicks from blatant dives in the first half, most head butts to the chest, whatever. There will never be a world cup where someone doesn't find some factoid and prop up as "extra important because OMG soccer". Like Tone pointed out, 4-2 is actually the most common result. Instead of pretending soccer is special and having this argument every four years, lets just be happy that it sat in ongoing for six weeks and now it's posted in a blurb within minutes. Isn't that good enough? --LaserLegs (talk) 00:51, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the score is the least significant "factoid" about a game. Right? Gimmie a break. Sca (talk) 01:54, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: An image of the French team hoisting the trophy has been uploaded from the Kremlin website. Would look good on the main page, though some players are cropped out. SounderBruce 05:04, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

• Support new photo @Muboshgu, Masem, Stephen, Black Kite, and Tone: Please post this glorious photo. "(French team pictured)" would perhaps work.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 10:47, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support new photo - Assuming the photo is free to post, I strongly suggest replacing the current image. It’s of the best sports photos I have ever seen. Jusdafax (talk) 10:54, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

• Just waiting for the bot to protect it. Black Kite (talk) 10:56, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

• And 'tis done. Black Kite (talk) 11:02, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

• Is it correct to say "(team pictured)" when "France" means the team (not the country), and the squad is pictured? wumbolo ^^^ 11:28, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

• I think it's a bit irrelevant because the whole squad is in every match-day team (i.e. you can bring any of the other 12 players on as a substitute), but if anyone wants to change it I'm not particularly bothered. Black Kite (talk) 12:33, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Article does not mention the dodgy referring nor the riots in paris...meanwhile Zagreb was the greatest place on earth! (I have pices)Lihaas (talk) 01:38, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

• Support: the top soccer cup deserves a place in the news. – 333-blue at 11:08, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

July 14[]

(Posted) RD: Theo-Ben Gurirab[]

Nominator's comments: Article is updated and well-sourced. EternalNomad (talk) 17:03, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

• Support article is fully sourced. -Zanhe (talk) 23:52, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:54, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support - referenced fully. good 2 go.BabbaQ (talk) 14:03, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
• Posted. Spencer^T•C 01:19, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

July 13[]

(Posted) Bombings in Pakistan[]

Nominator's comments: Huge nums of deaths. Bigger attack than Peshawar's one which was also posted. Amirk94391 (talk) 16:42, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

• Support - There is no official minimum deaths rule on ITN, but logic follows that if we post the disaster in the same area with fewer deaths, we post the subsequent larger one also.--WaltCip (talk) 17:28, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support in principle – But article looks quite thin. Sca (talk) 20:35, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
  • @Sca: the article is now updated and it'll be expanded even more.Amirk94391 (talk) 03:38, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Looks good – thanks. Sca (talk) 13:45, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

• Support with the expectation of expansion. It is adequate (though only barely) for now. The attacks are horrific even by the bloody standard of that part of the world and are certainly ITN worthy. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:48, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support on notability. Massive death toll. Lepricavark (talk) 21:51, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support Article is not very informative in its present state but the event is notable due to the huge number of casualties. Hrodvarsson (talk) 22:46, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support It is one of third recent attacks on a Political party before General Elections of Pakistan, 2018 and death toll is massive. Nauriya, Let's talk - 06:07, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support - As per comments above. Sherenk1 (talk) 04:34, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
• Comment article needs aligning (lead with infobox figures), the blurb here needs fixing for dab link, the dab links in the article and the raw URLs need to be addressed, but otherwise it seems ok. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:56, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Fixed everything else but we still have a discrepancy. The lead and infobox say 4 people died in Bannu, the section on the attack says 5. Are we counting the perpetrator.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 07:15, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: and @Coffeeandcrumbs: fixed all issues.Amirk94391 (talk) 07:46, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

• Support - Notable bombing, article postable. Suggest moving forward. Jusdafax (talk) 07:51, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support - Very notable bombing. Ready for posting.BabbaQ (talk) 08:27, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
• Posting. --Tone 09:29, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

July 12[]

RD: J.H. Mensah[]

Nominator's comments: Ghanaian finance minister and minority leader. ghost 16:00, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

RD: Roger Perry[]

Nominator's comments: Referencing needs to be improved. TompaDompa (talk) 13:12, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose inadequately referenced still, and IMDB isn't an RS as far as I know. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:55, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

July 11[]

RD: Tom Neil[]

Nominator's comments: Second World War flying ace The Rambling Man (talk) 05:55, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - far too much unreferenced text. Mjroots (talk) 08:50, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support - just enough references but just barely to include it. Article in good overall shapeBabbaQ (talk) 09:33, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Three out of four paras in the Military career section are unreferenced. Mjroots (talk) 13:55, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose I think BabbaQ is looking at a different article. 159.53.110.140 (talk) 11:19, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
• Comment it's not ideal by any means but I'll hopefully get a chance later to fix it all up. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:36, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

History buffs may wonder how his 14 kills rank among WWII RAF aces. Sca (talk) 20:39, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

• Comment - I've linked him from List of World War II aces from the United Kingdom though it says he had 16 victories. This says 15 in Battle of Britain, 16 total WWll. JennyOz (talk) 07:24, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support RD – So he's about in the middle score-wise. Thanks. Sca (talk) 13:49, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) Shangchen[]

Nominator's comments: Major discovery published in Nature. Reported everywhere. Zanhe (talk) 01:14, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

• Support Article in good shape. Of particular note is a quote from the BBC entry on this: We are now moving beyond a Eurocentric view of human evolution in Eurasia: the Asian record for human evolution is proving to be as complex and fascinating as in Europe and Africa -- Prof. Robin Dennell. CaradhrasAiguo (talk) 06:00, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support - Interesting, article in good shape.BabbaQ (talk) 09:31, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support Article is good, and the story is very notable. Davey2116 (talk) 22:24, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support, marking ready. Added an Alt clarifying exactly what was discovered (stone tools). Spencer^T•C 22:27, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support, expected, but still a notable discovery Openlydialectic (talk) 23:09, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
• Posted. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:51, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Terry Todd[]

(Posted) NSU trial ends in Munich after 5 years[]

Nominator's comments: First major neo-nazi related trial in recent history with worldwide coverage over five years. See also National Socialist Underground and National Socialist Underground murders for more details. Regards SoWhy 09:00, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

• Beate Zschäpe has an article. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:07, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Added and updated. Thanks! Regards SoWhy 10:11, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support – A landmark, controversial and long-running, high-profile case. Zschäpe, who mostly refused to testify, claimed not to have been a member of the NSU. (Blurb corrected to Eng. usage with "sentencing to" rather than "conviction to.") – Sca (talk) 13:59, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support The article meets ITN criteria and the news is getting media coverage worldwide.Amirk94391 (talk) 14:21, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Certainly headline news here in Germany but it does not rise to the level of ITN in my opinion. There is some controversy surrounding the role of the Verfassungsschutz, which is the main source of the interest in the case i believe, but that has little to do with the conviction. As a side note, there will be an appeal from what i have seen so this may not be over. 31.150.101.31 (talk) 14:29, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Appeal or not, the sentencing is significant – particularly given the context of ongoing ethnic tensions involving, among others, neo-Nazis and right-wingers. Quite widespread coverage on mainline English-language sites and in other languages as well. Sca (talk) 14:42, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

( conflict) Why does it not rise to the level of ITN in your opinion if it has been in the news worldwide (e.g. Italy, France, Israel), something I'm pretty certain I can say from experience is not how German trials are usually reported on? The fact that an appeal was announced does not change the ITN part: Either it is unsuccessful (likely), then we won't hear from it this way again or it is successful, in which case ITN-worthiness can exist again. As a side note, the appeal was always clearly coming. Regards SoWhy 14:46, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

It certainly was reported on more than other court cases. But this case also gets that media and political attention because of the role of the Verfassungsschutz, like destroying data, perhaps ignoring crimes and so. We just don't know and probably won't find out. That is what really interested many people, from personal experience anyway. The convictions itself are an end to criminal proceedings, more or less anyway, but unresolved questions remain. And i just don't see this domestic court case important enough to be posted. Were other cases of similar nature posted by the way? If so, then i could very well be swayed. And i just noted that there will be an appeal, not that i was opposing because of it. 31.150.101.31 (talk) 15:06, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, i guess if so many people do find this important enough, then so be it. I just set the bar too high it seems. I have struck my oppose anyway. 31.150.101.31 (talk) 16:20, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

• Comment most of the refs are German, which take longer to check, and should be checked because of the risk of a BLP vio in these articles. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:43, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm concerned about these "inter alia" list of charges - either list the charges in their entirety or don't list any. "Cherry picking" the "wost / most important" is deceptive. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:03, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose The main source of the "list of charges" in the lead is a PDF [3] which doesn't have (that I can make out) a publication name or author -- which likely fails WP:RS, that's not even consider if that wordpress site has the authority to reproduce it. Deutshelobby.com "German Lobby - Yes to the German empire"? Ok, that link fails WP:RS. I don't have time to check the rest of this, but at the very least, this can't go up where the charges against the accused are attributed to the "German Lobby". --LaserLegs (talk) 16:10, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, there is no way a far right blog can be a reliable source for anything. That has to be sorted. 31.150.101.31 (talk) 16:52, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I have looked for replacements. Links are on the talk, but i rather not break anything so if someone could do the change in the article that issue should be sorted. 31.150.101.31 (talk) 17:17, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I replaced the ref with newspaper articles and the official press release detailing the charges. I don't think "inter alia" is problematic, at least not for the lede. Regards SoWhy 07:41, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

• Support Very significant news. The articles look good, though as LaserLegs points out, the German sources should be checked. Davey2116 (talk) 15:48, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support I'm seeing many unique articles (i.e. non-wire) from diverse international sources, which is an important consideration for significance. ghost 16:10, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support Important and noted decision. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:15, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:58, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support - story has clear significance, support upon removal of dubious German-language sources. Stormy clouds (talk) 10:23, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Which dubious sources? Looking through the reference list they all look like reputable newspapers and the like bar one to a tabloid, which only supports a very minor fact about the proceedings. 85.16.166.77 (talk) 12:12, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

It's not just having WP:RS but confirming that the source supports the content -- I've seen far too often a "well sourced" article where the refs don't back the claims. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:40, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

They probably meant the PDF mentioned above by LaserLegs which was since removed as a ref. Regards SoWhy 12:14, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

I was indeed referring to issues raised by LaserLegs. If addressed to the satisfaction of other ors, consider my !vote a full support. Stormy clouds (talk) 17:40, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

• Support per Lugnuts —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 10:32, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

⇒ Looks like consensus. Marked ready. Sca (talk) 13:25, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

"Although a Parliamentary Committee of Inquiry into the NSU is said to confirm that German authorities were not involved and did not cover up the NSU killings" is a deadlink ref, and "doubts remained" has no citiation. And seriously, the only mention of a "cover up" is in that lead, not in the rest of the trial article or in the NSU main article. The whole thing needs a copy and a ref check. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:49, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

@LaserLegs: None of that is relevant to the trial article, so I removed the whole paragraph. Regards SoWhy 14:41, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Not ready. More fact tags, more dead links. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:27, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

@LaserLegs:  Done. Regards SoWhy 18:03, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

More dead links -- you should try to see if you can find new sources for content instead of removing it, that bit about complaints to the court about process that I tagged previously had value, it'd be nice if it could be kept. Since you're a native speaker, it'd be faster for you to check these than I. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:23, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

I removed it because I couldn't verify it. It's not in the de-wiki version about the trial either. As for dead links, they can easily be replaced, although per WP:DEADLINK that should not matter. I replaced them anyway. Stupid German law requires public broadcasting corporations to remove content after a certain amount of time. According to W3C's validator, all other links should work. Regards SoWhy 18:38, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ It seems quite counter-productive to obstruct posting of a timely and widely reported item which has drawn a clear consensus on account of a few dead links. Sca (talk) 20:00, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

WP:BLP? Nevermind, I guess I was wasting my time actually checking refs. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:30, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

• Comment I guess ref checking is "counter-productive" and "obstruction", and it certainly feels like a waste of my time now, but the statement "Schulze ... also provided useful information for the process and has acted as a very important witness." (is ESL for one thing) and is not supported by the source which only mentions his juvenile sentence and his "showing remorse in court". I've not checked the whole article, but almost every statement I looked at had some issue with WP:RS or WP:V yet here it is, marked "ready" again ... --LaserLegs (talk) 22:12, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

And the BBC ref doesn't state Gerlach was "convicted for aiding a terror organization" it says "Holger Gerlach received three years for giving his birth certificate and other ID to Uwe Mundlos". Oh well. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:17, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

I went through every source in the lead and 'proceedings' section and everything is in the sources, bar one minor detail i noted on the talk, and i would certainly say the sources are reliable. Which sources don't support the article as written other than the one you noted? Which sources have issues with reliability or verifiability? If you could point them out, i could perhaps improve it. 85.16.166.77 (talk) 23:11, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

I put a link supporting Gerlach being convicted for aiding a terror organization on the talk. If anyone could make the change, that should be solved as well. 85.16.166.77 (talk) 23:31, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

• Posted. I've removed that odd sentence that needed a citation at the end of the article that was pointed out by LaserLegs. Black Kite (talk) 22:32, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) Onging: 2018 Japan floods[]

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: