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.

Eliud Kipchoge A ferry capsizes on Lake Victoria, killing at least 136. Kenyan Eliud Kipchoge (pictured) runs the Berlin Marathon in world record time. NASA's ICESat-2 satellite is launched, the last mission to use the Delta II rocket. Typhoon Mangkhut impacts the Philippines, Taiwan, Hong Kong and China, resulting in more than 90 fatalities. Hurricane Florence impacts the East Coast of the United States, causing at least 30 deaths. Recent deaths: Arthur Mitchell Dave Barrett Bunny Carr Jon Burge Other recent events Nominate an article view - page history - related changes -

Suggestions[]

September 22[]

September 21[]

(Ready) RD: Vitaliy Masol[]

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

• Comment – Suggest article include date of death. Sca (talk) 13:51, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support - Article is now sourced, including deathdate. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 18:36, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support. Article fully sourced. Capitalistroadster (talk) 19:50, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

→ Looks OK for RD. Sca (talk) 20:05, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

• support - And ready for posting.BabbaQ (talk) 20:08, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support I added a source that states he died specifically on 21 September, which seemed to be absent in the other sources. Marking as ready. Hrodvarsson (talk) 00:46, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Death of Trần Đại Quang[]

Nominator's comments: What a huge shocker... EternalNomad (talk) 05:20, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose on quality. The death of a sitting head of state while they held office is definitely blurb material, but the article has some unsourced paragraphs and the like. --Masem (t) 05:49, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
• Yeah.. sitting head of state, definitely. I'll try some cleanup. –Ammarpad (talk) 06:44, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
• Weak Support He is only technically the head of state. Vietnam is a communist country, and all power is concentrated in the hands of Nguyễn Phú Trọng who is the general secretary. Plus, the quality of the article is not all that good. Openlydialectic (talk) 07:38, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

  Vietnam is ruled by a triumvirate of the GenSec, PM, and President. The balance of power vary based on who's in power, but the GenSec doesn't have "all power". DHN (talk) 08:02, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

  >Vietnam is ruled by a triumvirate of the GenSec, PM, and President.^{[citation needed]} Openlydialectic (talk) 12:25, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

  Source: "Vietnam has no paramount ruler and is officially led by a triumvirate of president, prime minister and Communist Party chief, although experts say the presidency is more ceremonial than the other posts." DHN (talk) 18:18, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

  Thank you. Openlydialectic (talk) 22:35, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

  This is certainly a weight against significance, so if his article was a postmortem stub I'd be opposed. As it is now, I think we should post this when quality issues are addressed. ghost 12:00, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

• Support. Possible blurb material as it will impact the balance of power and there has been a cloud over his health for some time. Some of the honours appear to be unreferenced which is the main concern. Capitalistroadster (talk) 08:11, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Change to oppose on article quality issues.
• RD only – Marginal notability. Sca (talk) 13:52, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose for now. Referencing is quite poor. Far too many paragraphs have only a single ref for multiple claims of fact and some have none at all. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:12, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
• RD only the very first paragraph of this article contains the statement that someone else was actually the de facto leader of Vietnam, so I don't think we should post this just because he was technically the head of state. Lepricavark (talk) 15:30, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

  That is pure speculation. The fact of the matter is he was the sitting head of state. While the role is ceremonial much like the role in parliamentary systems, he is actually probably more powerful than the president in those countries, since "Vietnam is led by a triumvirate of president, prime minister and Communist Party chief". DHN (talk) 18:18, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

  It sounds like he was the ceremonial head of state while the power actually rested elsewhere. So no, I am not changing my mind. Lepricavark (talk) 18:28, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

  Would the same then hold true for the queen of England for example? She is a ceremonial head of state and has little to no power, perhaps even less power than this office affords. No blurb for her either on death or would that be different for some reason? 85.16.229.157 (talk) 19:24, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

  Obviously that would be different, for the blindingly obvious reason that QE2 is the head of state of sixteen countries, not to mention the former head of state of sixteen more, the longest-reigning British monarch (which goes back over 1,100 years), is one of the most recognised people in the world ... but you know all that. It's a ridiculous comparison. Black Kite (talk) 20:11, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

• RD only - And ready for posting.BabbaQ (talk) 20:07, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose. Not well enough sourced, a lot of it is just bullet points ... peacock writing ("He is very well known for his hard work, dedication, composure and calm qualities"), general grammar and writing issues, but more importantly I picked a random sentence (" Welcoming Israeli Ambassador Nadav Eshcar, President Quang expressed his delight over the sound development of co-operative ties between the two countries, as demonstrated by President Reuven Ruvi Rivlin’s State visit to Vietnam in March") only to find that it's a straight copy from this news article. Elsewhere, "Tran Dai Quang made the statement at a meeting with a delegation of 87 outstanding HCMCYU members who won the Ly Tu Trong Award 2018 in Hanoi" is a straight copy from here but actually makes no sense whatsoever because the previous sentence in the news article hasn't been included (the question is "What statement?"). There is also copying and/or close paraphrasing from here, here, etc. etc. Copyvios on the main page - ain't happening. Black Kite (talk) 20:14, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose based on quality. The "Education" and "Political career" sections are bad but fairly easily fixable. "Minister of Public Security" and "Presidency" are a list of press-clippings; someone familiar with Vietnamese politics will need to those down. The whole thing has an ESL tone to it as well. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:25, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
• Note I have blanked the article as a copyright violation, which the vast majority of it is. Black Kite (talk) 20:33, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) International relations[]

September 20[]

(Posted) MV Nyerere sinking[]

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

• 'Oppose...' for now. Stub. Sca (talk) 13:58, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
• Comment I see the article is getting expanded, looks sufficient to me now, though more work is always welcome. --Tone 14:27, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support, the article is no longer a stub and the article looks to be in good-enough condition. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:35, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

→ Text is up to 270 words, which still seems minimal for an incident that caused at least 136 deaths and possibly many more. – Sca (talk) 15:41, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

• Weak Support It's been expanded and is now minimally sufficient for posting. Likewise referencing is adequate. Hopefully work will continue. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:23, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
• Weak Support – Ditto. Notable disaster. Sca (talk) 20:08, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support - And seems ready for posting.BabbaQ (talk) 20:09, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support - after some copy-ing, expansion and additional referencing, this seems ready to go. Significance goes without saying. Stormy clouds (talk) 23:33, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
• Posted Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 01:55, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

RD: Inge Feltrinelli[]

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

• Support. Referenced article. 01:52, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support Not that good, but not that bad either. –Ammarpad (talk) 09:57, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
• weak support - not great. But adequate.BabbaQ (talk) 20:11, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Naga City, Cebu landslide[]

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

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

September 19[]

RD: Marilyn Lloyd[]

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

• Support Seems to be nicely referenced. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 19:18, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
• support referenced.BabbaQ (talk) 20:13, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Bunny Carr[]

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

I added everything I could find in the obituaries. Hopefully it is now up to scratch - Dumelow (talk) 18:07, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

• Support - indeed, ready for posting.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:25, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support - Good sources, redlinks removed, and this article should be ready for RD. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 23:43, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
• I have marked this one as ready based on the above - Dumelow (talk) 12:52, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
• Posted. --Jayron32 13:21, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

RD: Geta Brătescu[]

Nominator's comments: The Romanian artist. Article is well-sourced but sections 2, 3, and 4 might have to be dealt with. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 01:00, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

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

(Posted) RD: Jon Burge[]

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

• Comment: Whilst a good article there are a couple of points (and a whole paragraph) that need citing and there is an "as of June 2008" that could use updating. I have tagged the relevant passages - Dumelow (talk) 21:06, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

• @Dumelow:: Fixed up the issues. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:58, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Good work TDKR Chicago 101. There is one paragraph left uncited, the first one of the "Culture of violence" section. Otherwise I would support - Dumelow (talk) 22:16, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

@Dumelow:: Fixed--TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:22, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I had logged off for the day. Just to confirm my post-posting support on this one - Dumelow (talk) 06:52, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Could the lead be shortened/restructured? 8 paragraphs (fair enough some of them are very short) is excessive. Hrodvarsson (talk) 22:46, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

• @Hrodvarsson:: Done to the best of my ability. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:57, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

• I re-added a bit of detail that you removed, but the number of paragraphs is now 4, thanks. I don't think there are other issues, so I support. Hrodvarsson (talk) 23:23, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

• Posted Stephen 23:32, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

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

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

• Oppose uncategorised stub. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:20, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

• As I said, the article will need expanding. I was very surprised not to find one about him. I just don't have the time today to do more than I already have. Strikerforce^Talk 20:21, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

• Sorry, was I supposed to not comment here until you were personally ready? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:22, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

• I wasn't implying that. I was just putting it out there that the article will be longer soon enough and that you may want to reconsider your !vote at that time. Strikerforce^Talk 20:25, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

• Indeed, I often reconsider my position, and I have this page watchlisted and contribute regularly. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:26, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose – Stub. – Sca (talk) 21:17, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
• Weak oppose Stub but I acknowledge nominator's need to expand. Also there are three sections with only one sentence each. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 23:20, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Stub. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:21, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
• Comment I have expanded the article. Based on the criteria for such, I believe that it meets "C" class and have assessed it as such. Happy to hear suggestions for improvement. Pinging @The Rambling Man:, @Sca:, @FoxyGrampa75:, and @TDKR Chicago 101: for additional consideration. Strikerforce^Talk 17:43, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support. Referencing work has now been done. Well done Strikerforce. Capitalistroadster (talk) 22:56, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support - per improvements. Ready for posting.BabbaQ (talk) 23:25, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
• Posted. --Jayron32 13:24, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

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

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

• Oppose more than just the tags to take care of. Not good enough for a BLP. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:43, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Article needs ref work. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:22, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose This article does not have enough inline citations. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 12:56, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
• Comment I used the obituary more. Please mark where you think a citation is needed. It would be a shame not to mention such a person. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:31, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

I added citations to the awards. If we can't source the honorary doctors, we could skip them for now. Out for the day. The more I read about him, the more I think he deserves a blurb, - countering bias. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:23, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

• Support RD for its current quality. I would currently oppose a blurb, in part because of the article's quality. Regardless of its quality, I do not know if this guy's significance warrants a blurb, though his death is indeed in international news and definitely makes an interesting headline (per point 3 and 4 of the ITN purpose). ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 14:34, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support Looks ok.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:45, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support - ready for posting now.BabbaQ (talk) 23:26, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
• Posted --Jayron32 13:25, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

(Withdrawn) RD: Denis Norden[]

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

September 18[]

(Closed) RD: Robert Venturi[]

(Withdrawn) RD: David DiChiera[]

(Withdrawn) RD: Marceline Loridan-Ivens[]

(Withdrawn) RD: Steve Adlard[]

(Withdrawn) RD: Jean Piat[]

(Closed) RD: Norifumi Yamamoto[]

September 17[]

(Posted) RD: Celia Barquin Arozamena[]

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

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

70th Primetime Emmy Awards[]

Nominator's comments: More likely can be written about the ceremonies (I did not watch, but thre's usually an "in memorandum" sequence, and those types of details, and just checking news headlines there was a marriage proposal by one of the winners. That should be summarized like we do with sporting events) Masem (t) 05:01, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

• Comment no prose, no good. Expect a wall of "Oppose - No prose" below from people piling on. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:26, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
• Comment Have a look at last year's article, which contains a nice summary in the intro. Aiming for something like that :) --Tone 12:46, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - The Emmy's, Grammy's, and their ilk are fast approaching irrelevancy.--WaltCip (talk) 13:34, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

  If they're, then propose removing them at the right venue. In the meantime, this is ITN/R and we've to accept that. –Ammarpad (talk) 13:40, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

  I will, as I have done the same time each year for the past three years for these navel-gazing award shows. Each year they have received substandard updates and failed to be posted. This combined with their steadily declining viewership simply asserts to me their lack of relevance.--WaltCip (talk) 01:59, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

  If attempts to get it removed from ITNR have failed three years in a row, that would seem to show that there is even less excuse for raising non-quality objections to this ITNR item here.Tlhslobus (talk) 03:05, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose per LaserLegs. Article quality is substandard. There is zero prose synopsis of the ceremony, the nominations, the awards, analysis, etc. It's just a bunch of tables with no context. --Jayron32 13:59, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose 674 bytes of character prose. Not even close. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:08, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose – Per Jayron. (And I agree with Walt: Entertainment fluff.) Sca (talk) 14:25, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose the article is virtually just skin and bones in terms of content: just a standard introductory paragraph and a table of the awards and winners. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 18:38, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per WaltCip. Just not that important anymore. Lepricavark (talk) 01:09, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Both your !vote and WaltCip's should presumably be ignored as opposing an ITNR item on grounds other than quality.Tlhslobus (talk) 03:05, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

But you aren't exactly ignoring our !votes, are you? Since you haven't provided any evidence for your claim, I would have to take a look at ITNR to see whether it disallows such opposes. And frankly, I don't care if it does. My !vote stands. Lepricavark (talk) 11:53, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

This is ITNR and as such should not be opposed on the merits. If you feel it should not be ITNR, please propose its removal at the ITNR talk page. 331dot (talk) 23:56, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

I've taken a look at WP:ITN/R. The box at the very top of the page labels it a guideline, not a policy, and explicitly allows for "occasional exceptions." That quoted phrase is wikilinked to WP:IAR. My !vote is valid. Lepricavark (talk) 01:07, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Your argument to not post is that the awards as a whole are not that important anymore. While there may be validity in that, that is not discussing this specific instance, but instead the class as a whole. That argument goes to ITNR. --Masem (t) 01:09, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

In case my initial post was not sufficiently clear, I will state for the record that I do not consider the 2018 Emmys to be significant enough to merit a blurb. Lepricavark (talk) 01:18, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Lepricavark. Although it would actually be up to the posting admin to decide (if the article ever achieves posting quality, which would rather surprise me), my own guess is that your !vote at least arguably became valid as soon as you mentioned WP:IAR. This seems to have possibly important implications for both ITNR and ITNRD, and (although strictly speaking this isn't a truly new situation) it might perhaps be worth starting a discussion about such implications (perhaps at the ITNC Talk page, and perhaps pinging everybody involved in this nom). I may or may not try to start such a discussion myself, but definitely not just yet, but perhaps some other or(s) might wish to start one anyway without waiting for me.Tlhslobus (talk) 01:58, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose given the lack of article prose. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 23:53, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
• Comment - Following up on Lepricavark's justification, TV ratings for 2018 Emmy's are the lowest on record. An 11% drop from 2017.--WaltCip (talk) 18:25, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Enzo Calzaghe[]

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

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

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

September 16[]

(Posted) RD: Tommy Best[]

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

• Weak oppose Three cn tags. I tried to nominate the article, but couldn't find sources to cite it. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 03:33, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

All three cn tags you added are sourced to the ref at the end of the paragraph? Kosack (talk) 06:13, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

• Support The reference may not be well positioned but it indeed verifies the content tagged with cn. Good to go. –Ammarpad (talk) 06:23, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support - per Ammarpad.BabbaQ (talk) 18:19, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support Looks good. Marking as ready. Mamyles (talk) 20:20, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
• Posted. Meets minimum standards. Spencer^T•C 00:37, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) Vontae Davis halftime retirement[]

(Posted) RD: James B. Thayer[]

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

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

I see The Oregonian has just covered it so I have added that ref also - Dumelow (talk) 18:55, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

• Posted. I -conflicted with Dumelow adding the exact same Oregonian reference. Black Kite (talk) 18:57, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Kevin Beattie[]

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

• Comment okay, I'm not done, but it's good enough for government work. Please review suitability for inclusion. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:59, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support. Well-referenced article. Capitalistroadster (talk) 20:28, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
• Posted. Black Kite (talk) 20:49, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) Eliud Kipchoge marathon world record[]

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

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

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

• Support - Significant record.BabbaQ (talk) 11:21, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
• Wait - The result is still subject to ratification. Once the press release is posted we can update the chart and table and then post. Mkwia (talk) 12:37, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

• Quite a feat, taking 1 minute and 18 seconds off the previous world record set four years ago by Dennis Kimetto. The IAFF have published this, with the time. But that still says "*Subject to the usual ratification procedure". Martinevans123 (talk) 13:32, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

• Once ratified you've got my full support for posting. The ratification annoncement will appear here. Mkwia (talk) 13:34, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

• Comment added alt-blurb, not everyone knows where "Berlin" is. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:26, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I think it's pretty standard at ITN to leave off the country for major cities, and Berlin definitely qualifies IMO. The country is available if one clicks the link as well. Spencer^T•C 16:55, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
    • The Kentucky Derby has run for over 140 years, but we still had to include the country then included it a different way and it still ended up at errors. We should be consistent, and include the country every time -- gotta fight that bias after all. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:08, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
      • There are certain places that most people are generally aware of and their location. London, New York, Paris, Tokyo, Cairo, etc. I think Berlin is well known enough. People aren't going to think it is Berlin, New Hampshire. Kentucky is not as well known as Berlin, I think. 331dot (talk) 18:49, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
        • Here in Georgia (U.S. state) I thought the marathon was in Colquitt County until I clicked the link. No matter how absurd, we should always include the country, because, you know, bias. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:46, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
          • The Berlin with 551 people? Or the one that started all the world wars? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:00, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support alt-blurb for consistency. Lepricavark (talk) 17:17, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support following ratification. Bob talk 18:41, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support first blurb. Alt-blurb is unnecessarily superfluous. –Ammarpad (talk) 20:31, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support first blurb. The location being in Germany seems unnecessary, Berlin is listed because it was the actual race ran. Nice4What (talk) 20:37, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
• Posted. No way that photo's heading for the main page, though! Black Kite (talk) 20:51, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support the blurb which doesn't spell out that the Berlin Marathon is in Germany. The claim that it's necessary to do that to fight "bias" is ridiculous and was rightly ignored. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:47, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
• Comment Does anyone else think the current blurb is too brief? I prefered the original blurb. Mkwia (talk) 09:44, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) Retirement of Delta II rocket[]

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

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

Thanks, Stephen. Tlhslobus (talk) 02:52, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

September 15[]

(Posted) Hurricane Florence[]

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

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

• Support - Plenty of media coverage, making it ITN-worthy, and the article quality is good. Jusdafax (talk) 20:02, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support easy. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:06, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support the two above votes are self-explanatory for my support. SamaranEmerald (talk) 20:31, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
• Comment I'm not disagreeing on this being a blurb, but I see no reason not to combine this and Mangkhut. We routinely do this for other topics in the same specific topic area with both aspects are appropriate ITN (the last few times have been for auto races that happen the same weekend). Yes, two different storms, but equally deadly and destructive, so there's no reason not to have both in a blurb. --Masem (t) 21:15, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Two Atlantic hurricanes? Sure. Two pacific typhoons? Maybe. Two storms on opposite sides of the world? No thanks. We don't combine elections, next spring we'll have five different European soccer blurbs in a short period of time. We can spare two blurbs for these two different storms on different sides of the world if consensus emerges that they should be posted. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:04, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Strongly agreed with LaserLegs. The fact that they are the same type of event doesn't mean that we should post them as a single news story. We wouldn't merge the general election of one country into the general election of another country, and we shouldn't merge an Atlantic hurricane hitting the Carolinas into a Pacific typhoon hitting the Philippines. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 22:18, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
• Weak Support better than many disaster articles, what's there is fine, but WP:RS is talking about catastrophic flooding and the article hasn't been updated. Also should it be "Impact" or "Impacts"? --LaserLegs (talk) 22:06, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support Very large storm that struck high-populated areas as a strong hurricane, and it's stalling in the area (which is why Harvey was so devastating) whilst hugging the coast (which helped Irma stay alive during its final landfall). No, we shouldn't merge this with Typhoon Mangkhut. Yes, we should quickly post Florence (and post Mangkhut separately). Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 22:08, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support – Notable event, extreme rainfall impact. Master of Time (talk) 22:12, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

• Support as stand alone blurb. It is notable and there has been a fairly slow turnover of articles meaning we can afford to have stand alone articles on both if quality warrants it. Capitalistroadster (talk) 22:28, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support - with two comments. 1. Please don't count dead bodies. Just assess the storm. 2. Everyone posting here should quickly also get over to the Typhoon Mangkhut nomination and work on that, to redress Wikipedia's systemic bias. HiLo48 (talk) 23:13, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

• Added another altblurb that excludes mention of death toll (which honestly is how it should be with a hurricane listing, the death toll can change very drastically, both rapidly and over an extended period of time). Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 23:24, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

• We routinely post the death toll from natural disasters, in fact, the current typhoon in the box was posted with the death toll, I don't like it, but we shouldn't just stop doing it for this one select item. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:18, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

• Understandable, worst case scenario is we go to errors to update the death toll if new numbers come out while it's still on the FP. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 00:28, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

• Support obviously. Lepricavark (talk) 23:55, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
• Comment alt-blurb 2 is "best", the east coast of the United States is a massive region, evacuations are limited to the Carolinas, but it still feels clunky. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:15, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
• Comment Mass evacuations happened before the storm hit. There is no need to mention those in the blurbs, and particularly in light of the Typhoon nominate. (This is in part why having these two storms combined into one blurb eliminates bias between the two events; if we are going to have these separate, we can't focus undue weight in one that's not in the other). And hurricanes/typhoons by nature bring widespread destruction. It is the size of that impact that makes it an ITN rather than just another storm, so eliminating the death count at this point makes no sense. --Masem (t) 00:19, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Before or after the storm hit, the evacuations were certainly the result of the hurricane, the blurb is accurate. No bias here, two stories, in the news, if there are quality updates to both, both go up. That's it. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:30, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
    • I am 100% sure both stories will go up once the quality is there. That's not the issue, it is the blurbs here. I'm pretty sur there were evacuations for the Philippennes too for the Typhoon but that's not a fact in the blurb, its the the death count. These two stories will be appearing at the same time, they should have the same equivalent "facts" to avoid bias. --Masem (t) 00:44, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
      • Comment I agree with most of Masem's comments above - that blurbs for Florence and Mangkhut should contain similar information. The current proposed blurbs for Florence seem incredibly long when compared to the proposed blurbs for Mangkhut. The reasons for this seems to be that (1) As noted by Masem, the blurbs for Florence contain references to "prompting mass evacuations", whereas the blurbs for Mangkhut do not (2) the blurbs for Florence contain references to "widespread inland flooding", but the blurbs for Mangkhut do not (3) The blurbs for Florence mention both "the Carolinas" and "Eastern United States", but the blurb for Mangkhut only mentions either northern Philippines or Luzon. In order to reduce the length of the Florence blurb, it would be useful to consider the following: (1) removing the references to "prompting mass evacuations" and/or (2) removing references to "widespread inland flooding" and/or (3) not stating "Eastern United States" and/or (4) if The Carolinas, United States is considered too clumsy, state North Carolina, United States. I added an altblurb4. Chrisclear (talk) 01:49, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Since Brendon the Wizard insists on hiding the part of the thread where people criticised his opinions, I need to say it again here. "The Carolinas" is a term not well known outside the USA. (My spell checker disapproves too.) This is a global encyclopaedia. We should avoid the term. HiLo48 (talk) 03:26, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

I closed it because you insisted on perpetuating an argument over a non-issue. The problem was solved basically as soon as it started, but you turned it into a wall of text and even tried un-closing it. Saying "North Carolina" is inaccurate because it's causing significant damage to both North and South Carolina. Stop inventing ways to make every last discussion about perceived American biases. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 14:37, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Reply At the time of writing, the Hurricane Florence article states that "Florence made landfall in Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina". Although there has been hurricane-related damage in South Carolina, this state appears to be more than 50 miles away from where the hurricane made landfall, the specific word used in the blurb. Chrisclear (talk) 15:35, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough, though I personally prefer that the blurb mentions both because the real impacts of Florence are certainly not limited to North Carolina, as several of the confirmed deaths thus far are in South Carolina, so I think the blurb should reflect this as it's a significant part of what makes the story newsworthy. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 15:47, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

• Support Very large amount of news coverage, and sadly quite a lot of deaths. Article looks to be in good shape. Hrodvarsson (talk) 00:22, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
• Comment I purposefully have left altblurb IV open, but if it too is exhausted, I would not mind someone overwriting one of the others in favor of a fifth one. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 00:28, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support altblurb IV as it's shortest and most similar to Mangkhut. If necessary it could be further shortened by changing United States to USA.Tlhslobus (talk) 04:42, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
• Comment: My above support for altblurb IV is partly on the basis that it's most similar to Mongkhut, but that should NOT be misunderstood as support for postponing posting Florence until Mongkhut is ready. No doubt that would show systemic bias, but as WP:BIAS itself says, such systemic bias is probably unavoidable in the real world. (Incidentally, if it were up to me, which it very sensibly isn't, I quite likely wouldn't post either event as neither seems particularly exceptional, but that's clearly irrelevant here, due WP:CONSENSUS).Tlhslobus (talk) 05:48, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Actually, if we post one without posting the other (and this is likely assuming Florence is nearly ready), that's a huge bias problem. Both storms are in the news, and while I know the amount of press covering Florence relative to Mongkhut is significantly different, our project has zero excuse to have one article in great shape sufficient for ITN and the other in crappy shape - that's clearly Western bias at play here. This is a very unusual situation in terms of the simultaneous nature of two similar disasters in separate parts of the world, and it does put a lot into light of how misbalanced the updates have been. (This is why I'd still encourage a combined blurb so that both are posted with apparently equal weight to avoid any systematic bias that WP is in the right position to overcome.) --Masem (t) 05:59, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
    • I agree that it's a bias of sorts, and all bias necessarily has some problematic aspects. But on balance I don't think it's a huge problem, or even a problem at all (in the sense that I think the upsides likely equal or outweigh the downsides). I think the real 'huge problem' is the notion that English Wikipedia, unlike any of the other Wikipedias, can and should be 'unbiased' in the sense of giving equal coverage to the non-English-speaking world, a notion which is arguably itself massively biased against the English-speaking world. In this regard, despite still agreeing with much of it, I increasingly see WP:BIAS as a thoroughly POV and often harmful essay which is rightly NOT part of our policies or guidelines, despite often being treated as such (including by me, among others). However this is the wrong forum for discussing WP:BIAS, even if ITNC in general, and noms such as this one in particular, are seemingly among the forums most harmed by the bad parts of WP:BIAS. Hence my post-posting support below.Tlhslobus (talk) 16:07, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
      • There are likely topic areas that what happens in non-Western/non-English speaking parts of the world compared to those that do have less importance may be imbalanced (like politics). But human life loss in natural distances is the same everywhere in the world. The lack of a quality update on the typhoon article compared to the volumes written for something here shows a systematic bias we should be trying to overcome. --Masem (t) 16:12, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
        • It may be systemic bias, but it's not obvious why this is something we should be trying to overcome. With a huge and unnatural effort we have once again managed to give the false impression on the front page that we are something which we can't ever be in practice anywhere except on the front page. This probably alienates many of our English-speaking and Western readers, while making non-English-speaking and non-Western people see this, arguably correctly (and arguably dangerously, whether correct or not), as yet another example of hypocritical and deceitful Anglos and/or Westerners dishonestly practicing 'cultural imperialism' at their expense through creating and exploiting a false and misleading impression of benevolent impartiality and universality, etc. However this argument probably ultimately belongs elsewhere, so I hopefully won't be drawn into saying any more about it here.Tlhslobus (talk) 18:30, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
• Posting now, hopefully the other storm article catches up with the quality quickly. --Tone 08:02, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Tone.Tlhslobus (talk) 16:07, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

• PP comment – Rather than "killing at least 11 people," which seems subliminally anthropomorphic and rather too immediate, how about "causing at least 11 deaths" – ?? – Sca (talk) 14:12, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

• Indeed, the blurb in the item directly beneath this one says "​At least thirty people have died after..." Is it only the Southern States that feel the hand of the Almighty? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:40, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

• Post-Posting Support despite the 'bias', for reasons already explained above.Tlhslobus (talk) 16:07, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

That alleged 'Bias' has now disappeared following the posting of Mongkhut. But those determined to see bias can presumably still point to Florence being pictured despite the much higher Mongkhut death toll. And in this case they would seem to be right (or at the very least to have a far stronger case than before), as adding the Mongkhut picture is easy (whereas bringing the Mongkhut article up to scratch was hard). There is also a separate 'cosmetic' problem associated with this, as the Florence picture currently seems to be illustrating Mongkhut. Tlhslobus (talk) 17:33, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

@Tlhslobus: Image has been replaced with one for Mangkhut. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 17:51, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Cyclonebiskit. Tlhslobus (talk) 17:53, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) Typhoon Mangkhut (2018)[]

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

• Wait. This is ongoing as of writing my comment. Just wait for the reports of how many deaths. I will oppose if the deaths are lower than 10. BSrap (talk) 13:45, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
• Wait and Oppose current blurb as currently written (it's also not in the present tense). Would support something closer to Typhoon Mangkhut kills at least n people / leaves n people without power / causes x dollars of damage / causes x amount of flooding after striking the northern Philippines 184.153.25.119 (talk) 14:45, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
• Comment Maybe combine this with Hurricane Florence, or add both to ongoing. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:26, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  • This is actually not a bad idea: we have 14 from this storm and at least 7 from Florence, which for storms of this size are scrapping "MINIMUMDEATHS", but a combined blurb would be reasonable, something like "Typhoon Mangkhut kills at least 14 in the northern Philippines, while at least 7 are killed from Hurricane Florence in the eastern United States." --Masem (t) 15:37, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

"MINIMUMDEATHS" was never a policy to begin with and the redirect to that userspace essay was deleted for causing more harm than good and being overall misleading and unhelpful, but personally I'd either add both to ongoing or post the two separately. If I'm not mistaken, the landfalls of 2017 hurricanes were posted swimmingly, rather than waiting until after they've been affecting land for many days to post, or proposing posting them to ongoing instead. I support doing what we did in 2017: consider the landfalls of these extremely destructive storms to be news stories. I support posting both of them as individual ITN stories, and Mangkhut has already killed many people; it's a very large, extremely powerful storm, and it has already objectively caused widespread devastation. Nothing too soon about that.

As for Hurricane Florence, by virtue of the facts that Florence was near major at landfall, that it's a massive storm by size which allows for widespread devastation from flooding, storm surge, and winds, and that high pressure systems north of the storm are forcing it to stall for many days (like Harvey did) and hug the coast (like Irma did) I strongly disagree with the arguments that it's too soon to know if Florence's landfall is newsworthy. Everything about its landfall is newsworthy. I'm considering unclosing the other nomination; I think that the way it was proposed was botched, but the news story itself is quite obviously important. It was in good faith that it was closed, but the statement "we tend to wait until the damage has been reported" could not be further from the truth because damage reports don't happen until long after hurricane season has ended entirely, and at WP:TC we tend not to present preliminary damage reports as fact (noting that they're preliminary) because they're often neither official nor fully accurate.

Lastly, I also oppose the wording of the current blurb. I don't disagree that it is a "massive" storm, it certainly is, but for obvious reasons the blurb should be more informative and straightforward. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 18:06, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

• Comment it's storm season, we posted one in Japan that killed 14, Florence is up to 11, Mangkhut has killed 14. I oppose combining the blurbs, there is nothing related between an Atlantic hurricane and a Pacific typhoon except that they're large rotating storms. I also think we should stop focusing on death toll alone, it's an absurdity which has limited bearing on the overall impact of the storm - advanced warning and high building standards in the US and Japan mitigate death toll but do not lessen the significance. So, we can either post both, because they're in the news, or stop being the "death and destruction box" and post neither. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:16, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose on quality – Needs work/expansion in all sections. However, notability is sufficient: Category 5 landfalls are exceptionally destructive events. Communications with the effected areas is next to zero so news will be slow to come. Offered an altblurb ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 19:22, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose on quality notably on referencing. If this is cleaned up, then I will support. Capitalistroadster (talk) 22:32, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support on merit, temporary oppose on quality per my previous comment on this nomination. Notability is certainly not in question, but the article isn't ready just yet. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 22:50, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support If this isn't posted, it will be the best demonstration yet of Wikipedia's systemic bias. HiLo48 (talk) 23:14, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
• Comment – If no one else gets to it in a few hours, I'll give expanding the article a whirl. Info to get this up to par is easily accessible through Talk:2018 Pacific typhoon season and the NDRRMC. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 23:26, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
• Comment Article needs a bit of work. Take this as a support if/when the article is expanded. Hrodvarsson (talk) 00:24, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
• Comment Only to note this storm is still going, threatening landfall on China/Hong Kong now. (also updating death toll per [5]) --Masem (t) 04:03, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
• Comment Death toll updated to 30. ~ KN2731 {t · c} 07:27, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
• Comment I just posted the Florence blurb. Ideally, we would have both storms on ITN but the quality of this article is currently below the Main page standards. Looking forward to posting as soon as this improves. --Tone 08:07, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

"...the quality of this article is currently below the Main page standards." That's our systemic bias for you. HiLo48 (talk) 08:14, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

I am not posting an article with 3 orange tags and empty subsections, bias or not. I would be happy to expand the article but this is really not my expert area. --Tone 08:28, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

• Support I have to admit being surprised that this is not ITN on the English Wikipedia. Do people in the Philippines not also speak English? Putting it on ITN may also help to improve quality. Rhombus (talk) 08:53, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support - ITN ready. And is covered by all world media.BabbaQ (talk) 11:38, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose on article quality. The article has three orange tags. It is clearly not ready for the main page, repetitive cries of 'systemic bias' notwithstanding. Lepricavark (talk) 12:29, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support and post now per WP:IAR. IMHO the credibility of Wikipedia is harmed more by seeming to favour Western stories than by a few maintenance tags in the article. Ordinarily I 100% support quality improvement prior to posting, but I think the downsides of waiting outweigh the benefits right now. Just my opinion, of course.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:27, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose the article is no where near MP ready, with the Meteorological history section mostly unreferenced. In terms of being comprehensive (an actual requirement of ITN, as opposed to screaming about bias as is happening above) it's slim on details for the preparations and impact section. The storm is still active and we put the brakes on posting Florence until it had petered out and the impact reported. Lastly, posting this doesn't bring back the dead, doesn't dissipate the storm more quickly, doesn't cause plane loads of supplies to descend on south east asia, there is absolutely no reason, none at all, zero reason to rush this to the main page. Fix the article and it'll go up, the story is "in the news". --LaserLegs (talk) 13:41, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  • FWIW, damage from Florence is only to get worse (the system stalling inland bringing more rain which means more floods). We should post disasters articles once we know the disaster is significant and the article is at quality, even if we know the worst is still around the corner. --Masem (t) 15:10, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
• Marked as ready – I've expanded the met hist to get enough for ITN standards and there are sufficient references and info in the preps/impact section to warrant posting. Not posting myself since I'm involved in the article's expansion and want input from others, however. Suggest using the altblurb ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 16:39, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Excellent, posting now. --Tone 16:42, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
• Post-post Support. I expanded it a bit and also think it's ready. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 17:13, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
• Post-posting comment: Wouldn't it be better to post it below Florence, as the Florence picture now seems to be illustrating Mangkhut? Or alternatively to use a picture of Mangkhut that is in the Mongkhut article? As this is a 'cosmetic' problem (and perhaps also a 'perceived bias' one due to Florence being pictured despite Mongkhut's much higher death toll), but not technically an error, I'm not sure whether to mention it at WP:ERRORS as well as here, tho other ors should please feel free to do so if they wish. Tlhslobus (talk) 17:21, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Prepping Mangkhut's image for protection so it can be posted. Will replace Florence's image once it's ready ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 17:44, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
    • Thanks.Tlhslobus (talk) 17:55, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
• Post-posting late comment: It would seem to be better to replace the somewhat unnatural (and euphemistic) word 'fatalities' by the more natural and widely understood word 'deaths', perhaps especially in a blurb about an event that mainly affects non-English speakers. (Similarly to what has already been mentioned above for a different matter, this is not technically an error, so I'm not currently planning to mention it at WP:ERRORS as well as here, tho other ors should please feel free to do so if they wish). Tlhslobus (talk) 03:54, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

I've now also said this at WP:ERRORS, as it seems to have gone unnoticed here.Tlhslobus (talk) 19:48, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

References[]

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: