Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates

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

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

France national football team
France national football team

How to nominate an item[]

In order to suggest a candidate:

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

Purge this page to update the cache

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

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

Headers[]

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pulled from the main page are generally marked with (Posted) or (Pulled) in the item's subject so it is clear they are no longer active.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

Voicing an opinion on an item[]

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

Please do not...[]

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


Suggestions[]

July 18[]

Portal:Current events/2018 July 18
International relations

Law and crime

July 17[]

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

Business and economy

International relations

Politics and elections

Science and technology

New moons of Jupiter[]

Articles: Moons of Jupiter (talk, history) and Jupiter (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Astronomers discover 10-12 new moons around Jupiter.
Alternative blurb: ​A team of astronomers led by Scott S. Sheppard discover 10 new moons around Jupiter.
News source(s): CBC News, The Guardian, TIME, Reuters, USA Today, The Wall Street Journal, LA Times
Nominator: 174.116.222.58 (talk • give cr)
Updater: Exoplanetaryscience (talk • give cr)
Other updaters: Dreigorich (talk • give cr) and Vimalkalyan (talk • give cr)

First article updated, second needs updating

 174.116.222.58 (talk) 22:44, 17 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)
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)
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)

July 16[]

Portal:Current events/2018 July 16
Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Science and technology

(Closed) Trump-Putin Summit[]

No consensus to post and the discussion is not developing well. --Tone 18:20, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further s should be made to this discussion.

Article: 2018 Russia–United States summit (talk, history)
Blurb: United States President Donald Trump and Russian dictator Vladimir Putin hold a summit in Finland.
Alternative blurb: ​!-- An alternative blurb. Leave blank if not needed -->
News source(s): The Washington Post, New York Times, TIME Magazine, CNN
Nominator: 38.122.127.226 (talk • give cr)

Nominator's comments: High-stakes meeting between two controversial leaders. Definitely in the news. 38.122.127.226 (talk) 15:53, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose barring any major outcome of the talks. In contrast to Trump meeting with Kim Jung-un a few months ago, Trump's met with Putin at past G20-type events, so this is just a formal summit between these two. I don't see it groundbreaking at this point. --Masem (t) 16:04, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Wait - no outcome of the summit thus far beyond some soundbites that the media will latch upon. Certainly in the news, but let's await the conclusion of the summit (and the enhancement of the article) before deciding to post or not. Stormy clouds (talk) 16:13, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Wait but currently leaning oppose. Nothing of significance has come out of this so far. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:47, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Trump said exactly what we expected him to say, and did exactly what we expected him to do. Ditto with Putin. The overall newsworthiness of this is nil. Francisco Franco is still dead.--WaltCip (talk) 17:29, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose – per Walt. Daniel Case (talk) 17:32, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support two "world leaders" meet, but I think using "dictator" is not very neutral. Stryn (talk) 17:37, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose this is the type of "Trump + X" story that we should avoid posting. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:46, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose World leaders meet on a regular basis. The term "dictator" is POV. Putin is the president of the Russian federation. We are neither Trumpedia nor Russophopedia.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:47, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

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

July 15[]

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

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Politics and elections

Science and technology

Sports

World Series of Poker[]

Article: 2018 World Series of Poker (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In poker, the 2018 World Series of Poker conclude with John Cynn winning the main event.
Alternative blurb: ​In poker, the 2018 World Series of Poker concludes with John Cynn winning the main event over Tony Miles.
News source(s): ABC News/Associated Press Los Angeles Times Edmonton Journal ESPN
Nominator: Andise1 (talk • give cr)

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

(Posted) RD: Ray Emery[]

Article: Ray Emery (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Sporting News
Nominator: Teemu08 (talk • give cr)

Article updated

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

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

Wimbledon[]

Article: 2018 Wimbledon Championships (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In tennis, the 2018 Wimbledon Championships conclude with Angelique Kerber winning the women's singles and Novak Djokovic winning the men's singles.
Nominator: Power~enwiki (talk • give cr)

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

Nominator's comments: 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)

(Posted) 2018 FIFA World Cup[]

Articles: 2018 FIFA World Cup (talk, history) and 2018 FIFA World Cup Final (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In association football, the FIFA World Cup concludes with France defeating Croatia in the final.
Nominator: Davey2116 (talk • give cr)

Both articles need updating

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

Nominator's comments: The ongoing item should be removed when this is posted. Davey2116 (talk) 03:08, 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)
"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)
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)
Yes, the score is the least significant "factoid" about a game. Right? Gimmie a break. Sca (talk) 01:54, 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)
  • 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)

July 14[]

Portal:Current events/2018 July 14
Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Science and technology
  • In data collected by NASA's Juno spacecraft, an INAF team discovers suggestions of a new volcano close to the south pole of Jupiter's moon Io. (Tribune)

Sports

(Posted) RD: Theo-Ben Gurirab[]

Article: Theo-Ben Gurirab (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The Namibian
Nominator: EternalNomad (talk • give cr)

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

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

July 13[]

Portal:Current events/2018 July 13
Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents
  • An explosion at a chemical plant near Cairo, Egypt, injures 12 people. (BBC)
  • An explosion at a chemical plant in Sichuan, China, kills 19 people and injures 12 others. (BBC)

Politics and elections

(Posted) Bombings in Pakistan[]

Article: 13 July 2018 Pakistan bombings (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In Pakistan, at least 136 people are killed and more than 335 others are injured in multiple bombings in Mastung and Bannu.
News source(s): Geo News, The Express Tribune, The News International
Nominator: Amirk94391 (talk • give cr)
Updater: Jibran1998 (talk • give cr)
Other updaters: Amirk94391 (talk • give cr)

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)

Looks good – thanks. Sca (talk) 13:45, 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)

July 12[]

Portal:Current events/2018 July 12
Disasters and accidents

International relations

Science and technology

RD: J.H. Mensah[]

Article: Joseph Henry Mensah (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): [2]
Nominator: GreatCaesarsGhost (talk • give cr)

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

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

RD: Roger Perry[]

Article: Roger Perry (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Variety
Nominator: TompaDompa (talk • give cr)

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

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

July 11[]

Portal:Current events/2018 July 11
Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents
International relations

Law and crime

Sports

RD: Tom Neil[]

Article: Tom Neil (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC
Nominator: The Rambling Man (talk • give cr)

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

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

(Posted) Shangchen[]

Article: Shangchen (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Scientists discover the oldest evidence of hominins outside Africa in Shangchen, China, dating to 2.1 million years ago.
Alternative blurb: ​Scientists discover stone tools dating to 2.1 million years ago in Shangchen, China, the oldest evidence of hominins outside Africa.
News source(s): Nautre, Science, BBC, NYT
Nominator and updater: Zanhe (talk • give cr)

Article updated

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

(Closed) RD: Terry Todd[]

Stale. Stephen 01:46, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further s should be made to this discussion.

Article: Terry Todd (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): My Statesman
Nominator: TDKR Chicago 101 (talk • give cr)

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: Article has been updated and well sourced --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 03:46, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Note Wikipedia took notice of his death on this day, despite his death being announced on the 9th. Perhaps, if needed, this nom. should be moved to the 9th to avoid it going stale or briefly being placed last on ITN.--TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 03:55, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Revision history shows that Wikipedia took notice on the 8th, same as the reliable sources. This belongs on the 7th, so it is unfortunately stale. ghost 11:43, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

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

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

Article: National Socialist Underground trial (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In Munich, the National Socialist Underground trial ends after more than five years with the conviction sentencing of the main defendant Beate Zschäpe to life in prison.
News source(s): SZ.de BBC, AP, Guardian, CNN
Nominator and updater: SoWhy (talk • give cr)

Article updated

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
⇒ 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)
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)

(Closed) Onging: 2018 Japan floods[]

No consensus to move to ongoing. Stephen 01:44, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further s should be made to this discussion.

Article: 2018 Japan floods (talk, history)
Blurb: No blurb specified
News source(s): [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]
Nominator: Nixinova (talk • give cr)

Nominator's comments: Almost 200 dead; big event. Will be bumped off soon.  Nixinova  T  C  08:01, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Wait until the blurb rolls off the MP, then reassess. The most recent updates are from 9 July so it may not be suitable for ongoing then. --Tone 08:35, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose All natural disasters leave a period of clean-up and "Day 2 stories," but the flooding itself is over. "The rain has relented but the country is still struggling to deal with the extensive damage left in its wake."(BBC[10]) ghost 12:51, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

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

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: