Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This page provides a forum for editors 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.

Contents

People's Vote march, London 20 October
People's Vote march

How to nominate an item[edit]

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 editors 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[edit]

  • 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[edit]

  • 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...[edit]

  • ... 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 editors 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[edit]

October 22[edit]

Portal:Current events/2018 October 22
Disasters and accidents
Politics and elections

October 21[edit]

Portal:Current events/2018 October 21
Disasters and accidents
International relations
Law and crime

(Posted) RD: Ilie Balaci[edit]

Article: Ilie Balaci (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Nominator: Dumelow (talk • give credit)

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: Romanian footballer and manager. I have been through and added some missing references, just looking for one for his career stats as a manager - Dumelow (talk) 13:12, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Idris Legbo Kutigi[edit]

Article: Idris Legbo Kutigi (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Nominator: Dumelow (talk • give credit)

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: Former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria. Article might still be a little short but I am expanding it - Dumelow (talk) 12:48, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment – Pretty stubby for Main Page material. Sca (talk) 12:57, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose nearly not a stub. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:16, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
    • Hi TRM, Sca. I have added some more material that I think might push it over the line. Would you mind taking a fresh look? Cheers - Dumelow (talk) 16:09, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
      • Support good expansion, I made a few tweaks (including removing the "Living people" category and including the "2018 deaths" category"). It's good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:24, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support short but decent. Vanamonde (talk) 21:32, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted. Black Kite (talk) 01:40, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) Taiwan train derailment[edit]

Article: 2018 Yilan train derailment (talk, history)
Blurb: ​At least 18 people have been killed and 137 more injured after a passenger train derailed in Yilan County in Taiwan
News source(s): BBC
Nominator: Sherenk1 (talk • give credit)
Updater: Szqecs (talk • give credit)
Other updaters: Joseph2302 (talk • give credit) and PotentPotables (talk • give credit)

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Still a stub. Sherenk1 (talk) 12:47, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose stub. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:15, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
    Support once the blurb has been corrected for target location and death count. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:32, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - That there is another rail accident currently on ITN should have no bearing whatsoever on this getting posted. Sometimes these things happen in twos or threes. Let's stick to whether or not this is "in the news" (it is), and whether or not the article is up to scratch (it isn't at this point in time). Mjroots (talk) 14:38, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - Article has been bashed into something resembling a shape now. Mjroots (talk) 15:12, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
    It's barely above 1,000 characters still. That wouldn't even be allowed at DYK, and their standards are below-basement.... (p.s. who mentioned any issues because of another rail incident being up there??) The Rambling Man (talk) 15:22, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
    The article is still being worked on, and will expand. Nobody mentioned any issues of another rail accident. As it was likely that someone would object on those ground, I thought I'd get my 2p worth in first. Mjroots (talk) 15:56, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
    Sure, your support made me look again, but it still wasn't ready, so that was a bit of a waste of time frankly. We shouldn't be supporting stubs for main page inclusion, no matter what our involvement or interest is. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:25, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support article is growing all the time, almost 2k now. And covers all the main details as currently known. The derailment is also clearly notable enough for ITN. And similar size to Hennenman–Kroonstad train crash when it was accepted here. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:43, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support article has been expanded and will probably continue to be as new information becomes available. Certainly a notable disaster. -Zanhe (talk) 19:28, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Article looks pretty good, and a train accident, nevermind the death toll, is usually pretty rare and newsworthy -QuantumFury (talk) 20:40, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:43, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted a modified blurb. Vanamonde (talk) 21:19, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Joachim Rønneberg[edit]

Article: Joachim Rønneberg (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Nominator: Dumelow (talk • give credit)

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: Norwegian WWII army veteran. Article is of good length and sourcing appears adequate - Dumelow (talk) 12:32, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

October 20[edit]

Portal:Current events/2018 October 20
Disasters and accidents
  • Four U.S. tourists are killed in Costa Rica after a rafting accident on a swollen river. (BBC)

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sports

BepiColombo launch[edit]

Article: BepiColombo (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The European and Japanese Space Agencies launch BepiColombo, a set of two probes that will perform fly-bys of Mercury and Venus
News source(s): New Atlas, NYTimes
Nominator: Floydian (talk • give credit)

Article updated

 Floydian τ ¢ 14:12, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

I know arrivals of probes are ITNR, but I wasn't sure on the precedent for launches of probes. It's the last in a series of missions. - Floydian τ ¢ 14:12, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Support, the article is in a good shape and it will take 7 years until it gets to Mercury. Now is a good time to post. --Tone 14:15, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Article is fine, and agree that as the next major event is 7 years from now, we can post that news again then. --Masem (t) 14:31, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support notability/quality, but blurb does not seem to capture the substance of the mission. Even "...probes that will study Mercury" would be better. ghost 15:00, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

RD: Zheng Xiaosong[edit]

Article: Zheng Xiaosong (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC, SCMP
Nominator and updater: Zanhe (talk • give credit)

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: Top official in Macau, died after falling from a building, possible suicide. Zanhe (talk) 01:17, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Support: Quality seems adequate to me (tho we might ideally want one or more second opinions, especially as I've done some work on it myself).Tlhslobus (talk) 06:48, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: Incidentally, since the nom mentions a possible suicide, I'll briefly mention here that the BBC and the Independent are skeptical about such alleged suicides, tho this seems irrelevant unless we were considering a blurb, (for which I see no current justification, unless and until there is perhaps RS evidence that he is an exceptionally or uniquely high-ranking 'suicide', or perhaps some seemingly as yet unreported international dimension perhaps due to Macao being a former colony of EU member state Portugal, or perhaps some as yet unreported link to the arrested Chinese former Interpol chief which we posted recently, etc).Tlhslobus (talk) 07:00, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Walter Kwok[edit]

Article: Walter Kwok (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): SCMP
Nominator and updater: Zanhe (talk • give credit)

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: Hong Kong billionaire. Zanhe (talk) 00:55, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Support good enough. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:46, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support I took out a couple of sentences in the lead which weren't substantiated in the main body, otherwise looks OK- Dumelow (talk) 21:59, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - ready for postingBabbaQ (talk) 22:03, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 00:06, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty[edit]

Clear consensus against posting at this time (and this has been open nearly 24 hours). This could change if and when the withdrawal actually occurs. Vanamonde (talk) 20:34, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (talk, history)
Blurb: Donald Trump announces the United States will unilaterally withdraw from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces arms control treaty, citing alleged violations by Russia.
Alternative blurb: Donald Trump announces his intention to unilaterally withdraw the United States from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces arms control treaty, citing alleged violations by Russia.
News source(s): CNN
Nominator: Openlydialectic (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: Arguably one of the two key pillars of modern arms control (the other being New START) that still prevent the world from sliding into a new nuclear arms race, so it's a huge deal. Also, all over the news. Openlydialectic (talk) 21:39, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Posted) People's Vote[edit]

that's enough. Discussions have devolved to standard nationalistic sniping. Discussions over wording of the blurb are ongoing at WP:ERRORS. --Jayron32 16:00, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposed image
Article: People's Vote (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Over half a million people from across the UK attend a People's Vote march in London (pictured) protesting against Brexit.
News source(s): BBC News, NBC, Times of India, New York Times, Al Jazeera
Nominator: Ritchie333 (talk • give credit)
Nominator's comments: Big event in the UK, supported by sources across the globe. I have to admit I'm not optimistic about this getting through, but if you don't ask, you don't get Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:09, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support significant turn-out, but per the nom, pretty much guaranteed to fail in these parts. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:24, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - Significant new turn in the Brexit saga.BabbaQ (talk) 20:25, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support, the biggest demonstration about Brexit so far. Current organisers estimate 700,000 (compared with "over 1,000" at the "May Means May" gathering in Harrogate). Martinevans123 (talk) 20:28, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support easily, since we generally have posted national protests that exceed 100,000 ppl. Would like to see more about the planning of this one, as gathering 700,000 on a seemingly arbitrary day is not something happens spontaneously. --Masem (t) 20:31, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support notable, even has its own dedicated navbox footer, also based on vast size --DannyS712 (talk) 21:30, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Significant march with a very high turnout. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:43, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per the above. - SchroCat (talk) 23:47, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Posting. Someone update the image, please, the current one is about to roll off. --Tone 06:31, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Done. The local image is protected, there isn't a Commons version ATM. Black Kite (talk) 11:09, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • So much for the belly-aching about the fears of not getting this item posted. Is this the equivalent of a WP:SNOW posting?--WaltCip (talk) 14:03, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
    • Nominated 20:09, last vote in 23:47, posted in 06:31. Almost 4 hours worth of votes. Winter is coming. By comparison, the Women's March was indeed posted, but in much contentious discussion. Howard the Duck (talk) 14:06, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
      • Yup, Women's March was far from unanimous, and as you know, there's no minimum time here, but I note that it was very generously allowed to stay "ready" for six hours to allow those on the other side of the world to posture, absolutely none of whom did, let alone oppose. Everything is fine. And yes, winter is coming for some of us, so WRAP UP warm! The Rambling Man (talk) 14:21, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support per above. Not sure why this nom was framed in a way that suggests that American users have a monopoly on the ITN process, when that's obviously not true. I hadn't heard of this event before seeing this nom, but I judged it on the news sources listed (and more that I found after looking it up) and the quality of the article. I wish U.S. stories with the same level of coverage would get the same fair treatment. Davey2116 (talk) 18:01, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
    Not sure why this nom was framed in a way that suggests that American users have a monopoly on the ITN process heh! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:36, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
    The nominator said nothing about Americans. Nominators can have all sorts of reasons for pessimism. If I'd been the nom I'd probably have been more worried about opposition from Brexiteers than from Americans (or other non-Britons - incidentally, I'm Irish, not British, and not American either despite recently being implicitly accused of exemplifying ITN's alleged Pro-American bias Face-smile.svg). And as it turns out my worries would also have been unfounded, but that's not really the point. Tlhslobus (talk) 04:55, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
    Your worries may be founded after all, as there seems to be some late-breaking opposition to this posting over at WP:ERRORS, mostly over the authenticity of the numbers of those attending.--WaltCip (talk) 15:57, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

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

(Stale) RD: Wim Kok[edit]

Article: Wim Kok (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): NOS, RTL Nieuws
Nominator: Blafzak (talk • give credit)

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: Prime Minister of the Netherlands between 1994 and 2002, well respected throughout the Western world. He was PM during the legalization of same-sex marriage (first country in the world to do so). --> --Blafzak did say 19:16, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose several completely unreferenced paragraphs. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:25, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose This article does not have enough inline citations. ―Susmuffin Talk 22:34, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose still in poor shape, I'm afraid. Vanamonde (talk) 21:09, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Stale. Black Kite (talk) 01:42, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) Death of Jamal Khashoggi[edit]

Proposed image
Article: Death of Jamal Khashoggi (talk, history)
Blurb: Jamal Khashoggi (pictured) is killed inside the Saudi Arabian consulate in Istanbul.
Alternative blurb: Saudi Arabia announces that Jamal Khashoggi was killed inside the Saudi Arabian consulate in Istanbul, and detains 18 suspects in the death.
Alternative blurb II: Saudi Arabia admits that Jamal Khashoggi was killed inside the Saudi Arabian consulate in Istanbul on October 2, and detains 18 suspects in the death.
News source(s): [4]
Nominator: Wumbolo (talk • give credit)
Updater: Javert2113 (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: Extremely significant death. After all, it has its own article now. Some have speculated that it will end up in sanctions, or even another proxy war. Ongoing item will have to be removed. wumbolo ^^^ 11:52, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Since this has already been suspected since he entered the consulate and never left, I propose an alternate blurb. 331dot (talk) 12:01, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support, Alternate blurb would be better, but looks a bit long. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:05, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support altblurb2 Huge news Openlydialectic (talk) 12:39, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Wait – Obviously the No. 1 story today, but the Saudis' explanation of a "fistfight" seems somewhat implausible. Perhaps wait until the Turks tell all? – Sca (talk) 13:26, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
    Saudi Arabia is not a living person, so there's no need to censor yourself; this explanation is clearly bullshit. wumbolo ^^^ 13:44, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
But the 18 persons who have been arrested are living persons? As far as we know, none of them has yet been charged with any criminal act? Bone-saw or no bone-saw. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:08, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
The blurb doesn't allege that they are the perpetrators, just that they were detained and charged for it. Notice that they aren't named (even though Wikipedia has articles about some of them, with photos). wumbolo ^^^ 15:13, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
They've been formally charged? With what? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:32, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
It seems that they haven't actually been charged with anything. I'm not familiar with Saudi Arabian laws. According to the U.S. embassy, Suspects may be detained without charges or legal counsel, and with limited access to a consular officer, for months during the investigative stage of criminal cases. wumbolo ^^^ 17:01, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment already listed in Ongoing. power~enwiki (π, ν) 13:28, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
Of course it can. Just ask Franco. – Sca (talk) 14:11, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  • The story would be removed from ongoing, added as a blurb (which I btw support), and if it still meets ongoing status when it gets pushed off as a blurb, perhaps readded there. No one is calling for duplication. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 13:51, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
→ It seems highly likely that more info will be forthcoming, so IMO it's still premature for ITN. Sca (talk) 14:14, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
The next step is a legal conviction, which will take months, and will certainly not gain consensus to be posted. wumbolo ^^^ 15:14, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
No, the next step would be the release of detailed evidence by Turkey, which would certainly be ITN material. Sca (talk) 16:10, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
No, that would be a WP:BLPCRIME violation. wumbolo ^^^ 17:01, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support (though I'd want to see the article's name stablized before posting), with the pulling of the ongoing for this. Having Saudi Arabia admit its wrongdoing is basically a point of closure on this. I am sure there will be additional repercussions but the issues around this situation was the denial the Saudis insisted on creating international tension. --Masem (t) 16:20, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)Support: Story has major geopolitical implications. Support ALT1 blurb and removal from ongoing Daniel Case (talk) 16:22, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Question: Do we really 'know' (whatever 'know' 'really' means) that he's dead? As Altblurb1 (our seemingly currently most objective blurb on offer) seemingly implies, all we have is a Saudi statement which most people describe as 'incredible', 'bullshit', etc, while simultaneousy accepting it as 'proof' that he's dead. How can we be sure that saying he's dead (and killed unintentionally) isn't simply less inconvenient for the Saudis than a hypothetical scenario in which for instance he's actually still alive and still being interrogated and tortured? Tlhslobus (talk) 16:26, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
The scenario you're describing is just so unlikely under the circumstances that, if what you were describing was the case, it would be newsworthy in its own right - like a reveal that Elvis Presley is still alive somewhere.--WaltCip (talk) 16:52, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
In this case I doubt they'll find much in the trash cans? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:07, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your replies, which have helped me make up my mind. This case is not remotely comparable to Elvis, for whom we have a mountain of RS confirmation that he is dead. For Khashoggi, if this were an RD proposal, I would at least half expect a few opposes on the basis that the 'reliably sourced confirmation' part of Criterion 2 ('Updated, including reliably sourced confirmation of their death.') had not clearly been met. All we seem to have here is a new 'unreliable' claim that he is dead, to add to the old 'unreliable' claims that he is dead that we have had (and ignored as inadequate) for at least 2 weeks. The alleged unlikelihood of my proposed alternative scenario, besides actually being a great deal less unlikely than Elvis being alive, is not particularly relevant since nobody is suggesting posting it (it's merely there to explain to unquestioning believers in the Saudi claim one possible way that the claim might be untrue, quite possibly among several such ways, as well as to elicit further info to help me make up my mind how I should vote, which it has successfully done, as the responses have now helped convince me to oppose). Tlhslobus (talk) 03:12, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support altblurb1, pull from ongoing as per above.--WaltCip (talk) 16:52, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
Bits continue to appear – this is still a developing story, i.e. still ongoing. Sca (talk) 17:45, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
PS: No doubt this observation will draw fire from someone, but FWIW, as of 17:45 non-English European Wikis continue to omit the Khashoggi story from their ITNs. – Sca (talk) 17:45, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
If we are going to post a blurb, then the ongoing is not appropirate. if the blurb rolls off the list and the story is still developing significant, then re-adding may be appropriate. --Masem (t) 17:59, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support moving from ongoing to blurb and remove the "detains 18" nonsense. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:32, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose and keep in Ongoing. This happened ages ago, so it would already be superseded before it was even posted. Keeping it in "ongoing" is the best approach here as it's a slow-burn story rather than anything particularly having happened in the past 24 hours.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:43, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  • It "happened ages ago" only because the Saudi government wouldn't admit it. That makes it somehow less significant?? I am dumbfounded by that argument. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:28, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
    It's not insignificant, but it happened two weeks ago so is no longer a recent story. We have three stories dating from the 17th or later, which supersede Khashoggi's death because they happened later. We can't remove those stories to post this one. That's the rules of ITN. The only recent development is the admission of the Saudis that he's dead, but that's just a small piece of a long slow burn story. Which is exactly why it's in Ongoing, covering every development over a period of weeks.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:55, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
    It's definitely newsworthy and I think pushing it out to a blurb will finally see it drop out nicely. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:57, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Announcing that he was killed (without additional explanations in the blurb) would seem accurate without POV, and then it can return to Ongoing as it slides off the template. This is a significant development that I think would be the only posting related to his death relating to his case. Other updates would stay in upgoing, barring additional major diplomatic fallout. SpencerT•C 21:26, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose, and Keep in Ongoing at least for the time being (and Strongly Oppose any blurb that states he is dead, as distinct from merely reporting the Saudi claim that he is dead). We already have him quite satisfactorily at Ongoing. All we seem to have here is a new 'unreliable' claim that he is dead, to add to the old 'unreliable' claims that he is dead that we have had (and ignored as inadequate) for at least 2 weeks, along with some evidence (see replies to my question above) that at least some editors here seem to think that any skepticism about the Saudi claim that he is dead is on a par with believing that Elvis is alive (ironically almost everybody also seems to think that every other part of the same Saudi claim is 'bullshit', 'incredible', etc). Of course, probably like most people, I think that he is very probably dead (tho I can't be certain of this, and I've already offered in my above Question one (arguably very unlikely but) possible scenario for how it might not be true). But ITN is not the place to post 'Most people probably think Khashoggi very probably is dead'. Tlhslobus (talk) 03:12, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Meanwhile I've only just noticed that the wording of Ongoing has changed from 'Disappearance' to 'Killing', tho I'm not yet sure when this happened. I'd 100% agree with 'Reported killing' or with 'Killing' in quotes, but the place to complain about that would normally be WP:ERRORS, and, per WP:NOTCOMPULSORY, I'm not yet sure I want to bother to do that, given the difficulty and likely wasted effort of trying to argue there that the current wording is a clear error. However in practice this now temporarily forces me to conditionally change my !vote to supporting altblurb 1, if that is what's needed in practice to get the current (at least in my view) unsatisfactory wording out of Ongoing, and the assessing admin should please interpret my !vote in that light. Tlhslobus (talk) 17:51, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • All blurbs state the truth, that the Saudis have stated he was killed. That is fact. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:48, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
    The original blurb does not say that. And ALT blurb II seems to assume the death is a fact. For some reason, folks seem reluctant to believe the claims made by the Saudis? Even if they were happy to accept the claims previously made by anonymous sources. I guess Tlhslobus might be satisfied by the video and audio promised by the Turkish government. I'm surprised he doesn't !vote "Wait". It's still very much "in the news", of course, whether or not the death itself can be seen as "a fact". Martinevans123 (talk) 08:48, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
    Thanks, Martin. I agree that Alt blurb I states the facts (whether these deserve to replace Ongoing with a blurb is a separate question). TRM's claim that the main blurb (and probably also alt blurb 2) is also 'fact' would be liable to lead to screams about WP:OR and/or WP:UNDUE/WP:NPOV if it were used in an article, so it would seem very unwise to use either at ITN, probably at least as long as there are still a significant number of WP:RS that are still exercising caution. I've now added the words 'at least for the time being' after my !vote as (possibly useful) clarification in light of your suggestion that I should have !voted 'wait' - but it's unclear precisely what we should be waiting for. We're hardly going to be posting a blurb saying 'A consensus of ITN editors agrees the number of Reliable Sources still exercising caution about reporting Khashoggi's death as a fact, while still not yet zero, has fallen to a level so insignificant that the consensus is that it no longer requires to be reported as a significant strand of RS opinion per our NPOV and UNDUE rules' Face-smile.svg. Meanwhile we still have it in Ongoing.Tlhslobus (talk) 17:11, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
I was thinking more along the lines of a blurb saying "Video and audio evidence, published by the Turkish government, shows that Jamal Khashoggi was murdered...." etc. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:44, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Meanwhile I've only just noticed that the wording of Ongoing has changed from 'Disappearance' to 'Killing', tho I'm not yet sure when this happened. I'd 100% agree with 'Reported killing' or with 'Killing' in quotes, but the place to complain about that would normally be WP:ERRORS, and, per WP:NOTCOMPULSORY, I'm not yet sure I want to bother to do that, given the difficulty and likely wasted effort of trying to argue there that the current wording is a clear error.Tlhslobus (talk) 17:26, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
    I didn't even read the main blurb, mea culpa, but the others report the truth. I would advocate that the ongoing be changed to "death of .." per the initial report here, especially in the face of the news from the Kingdom. However it happened, it's pretty clear he's dead, per RS. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:34, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
    It's pretty widely reported that he is dead. I'm not sure anyone has seen anything that would remotely pass as "proof" of this in a court of law. But then an actual body is not always required. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:40, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
    Yep, just look at this where there's no question over him being "dead". The Rambling Man (talk) 17:50, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support: Switching from my earlier Oppose, as a google for "Reported death of Jamal Khashoggi" (in quotes) for the past 24 hours gives just 2 items, while removing 'Reported ' from the same search gives at least 10 pages of items. This seemingly means that there is no longer a sufficient minority of RS exercising caution about whether his death is a fact to require that caution to be reported as a significant strand of RS opinion per our NPOV rules. Any of the blurbs will do, tho the altblurbs are more informative, and either altblurb is about equally acceptable to me.Tlhslobus (talk) 18:26, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • My thanks to Martinevans123 and The Rambling Man for their helpful comments.Tlhslobus (talk) 18:26, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • On further reflection, per comments above by TRM and others, I'd also prefer to see references to the alleged detentions either reworded in the altblurbs to something like "and says that it has detained ..." or removed from them altogether.Tlhslobus (talk) 19:38, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment. They changed the story: [5] wumbolo ^^^ 08:42, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
    Ah, so no gentlemanly fisticuffs after all. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:52, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Hmmm. Wrestling moves such as chokeholds presumably date back at least to classical antiquity in the ancient Olympics, but it may perhaps be a bit too soon for jokey public pseudo-discussions about the social class (or alleged lack thereof) of the alleged killers to be deemed to be in publicly acceptable taste, so maybe I'd better not say any more on the subject. Tlhslobus (talk) 18:51, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
As best I can tell, the original stories just said "fight", probably because the official statement just said "fight". Someone added the "fist" later, presumably to not confuse readers who think a fight is talking loudly, tweeting often or having cancer. But who would do such a thing? InedibleHulk (talk) 19:32, October 21, 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the useful links, InedibleHulk. Surprisingly poor English for an official Saudi statement on such a seemingly key topic (says I, in a clause that lacks a verb, followed by an ungrammatical combo of 3rd person verb and 1st person pronoun Face-smile.svg), tho ultimately that seems irrelevant to us here. But I note that none of our proposed blurbs mention fights or fists or chokeholds, so this whole discussion is perhaps seemingly veering a bit too much towards WP:NOTFORUM (with perhaps me among the worst offenders Face-smile.svg). Tlhslobus (talk) 20:06, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose But move to recent deaths Abote2 (talk) 10:54, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Inconclusive follow-up stories continue Sunday — AP, AP, BBC, Guardian, Reuters keep in Ongoing. Sca (talk) 13:10, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
The instructions for this page ask "Please do not... add simple "support!" or "oppose!" votes without including your reasons.Tlhslobus (talk) 19:16, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong support As noted above, a death should not be left in ongoing. This has attained far too much coverage and is too unusual to be relegated to RD. If it turns out that Khashoggi is still alive somehow, that would be an even bigger story and we'd post that. Any of the blurbs are fine for me. Davey2116 (talk) 17:54, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Question How many times are we going to keep moving this nomination up the ITNC date queue? This nomination is, or should be, stale. Yes, you can also call this an oppose on those grounds. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:48, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
    I think that's the point, this is the end game, so moving it to blurb now means it will gravitate off. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:53, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support I'm pretty sure a death qualifies as something significant that should be separate from ongoing, and this is pretty "In the news", as well as factoring in the political consequences QuantumFury (talk) 20:45, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted, with a bare-bones blurb (removed the bit about detainees). There is consensus, albeit a weak consensus, for this item. First, this nomination is about the announcement of his death by Saudi Arabia; arguing that this is an old story is, therefore, a weak argument in my assessment. There is not consensus on adding the number detained, but that does not affect the rest of the blurb. Also removed from ongoing, obviously. Further discussion about the wording of the blurb is welcome. Vanamonde (talk) 20:49, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, Vanamonde. Actually the consensus doesn't seem particularly weak to me - I currently make it 11-4 (or 12-4 counting the nom, and it's seemingly even stronger if we discount votes without a supporting reason). That's quite a bit above the 2 to 1 we normally deem a consensus. Your wording also seems fine to me, and in line with the facts and with the previous discussion, so Post-Posting Support on wording. Tlhslobus (talk) 21:06, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Indeed, if this isn't a clear consensus, I'm not sure what is. Perhaps there's something else we're not seeing. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:08, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
@Tlhslobus: since you asked; the 11th support was added as I was writing my closing rationale, which I did not bother to amend, since it did not affect the eventual outcome. Also, while the quantum of support does matter, !votes without supporting rationales are usually not very helpful, especially when the nomination itself did not address the question of why this should be posted now (which is a slightly different question from whether it should be posted at all, as it already had been). Vanamonde (talk) 21:27, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
There was a clear consensus, rather than a "weak" consensus, whichever you look at it. It's a shame that this specific admin has been making up its own narrative. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:30, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

On, the other hand, AP today quotes Erdoğan as saying Turkey will reveal full details of its investigation on Tuesday, Oct. 23. — Wait. – Sca (talk) 21:18, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

About time you started using conventional markup, your odd symbology makes it too difficult to respond. But in this instance, no. We don't hold our news to wait for his lord almighty Erdogan to reveal jack shit. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:28, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Your tone is disparaging, but not new. – WP:CIV
Direct, yes, disparaging, no. We simply aren't going to "wait" for the ever-sparkling Erdogan's "big reveal". That's not how it works. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:56, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Jack Shit – very insightful.
Well indeed. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:56, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
I'll use whatever symbology seems to me to be most effective, Jack. Sca (talk) 01:40, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
No, best if you use conventional markup, like the rest of us. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:56, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Incidentally, Sca's earlier 'wait' !vote was already counted above among the 4 against (just in case somebody was mistakenly counting this latest 'wait' as a new !vote against). Tlhslobus (talk) 04:15, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

October 19[edit]

Portal:Current events/2018 October 19
Arts and culture

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Science and technology

(Closed) October 2018 migrant caravan[edit]

No consensus to post. Stephen 03:43, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Central American migrant caravans (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Thousands of Central American migrants gather on the Mexican-Guatemalan border during the second 2018 Central American caravan.
News source(s): The Guardian
Nominator: Vami_IV (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: There are not hundreds of migrants, there are 3000 and counting, waiting to get into Mexico. ♠Vami_IV†♠ 02:56, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose this would have to be Ongoing; I don't see the importance or the article quality to justify that at this time. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:26, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - for now. Article qualityBabbaQ (talk) 09:14, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  • It should be nominated for ongoing since this is not one-off event but the article needs more content even for that. –Ammarpad (talk) 09:29, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not sure of the ITN significance here. Article quality and length is also not main-page worthy in my view. AusLondonder (talk) 09:42, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support interesting phenomenon, all over the news. Openlydialectic (talk) 10:36, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose certainly not all over the news, and by the look of the article, almost a footnote in this ongoing silliness perpetuated by bonkers governance. Add it to the list. Perhaps we should have a "Top Trumps" list on the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:37, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

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

(Stale) RD: Tom Delahunty[edit]

Unfortuantely this was nominated too late and is already stale.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:44, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Tom Delahunty (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): [6]
Nominator and updater: Joseph2302 (talk • give credit)

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: Died 14 October, article is up-to-date, albeit quite short. We've published similarly sized articles to RD in the past Joseph2302 (talk) 19:35, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose this is stale; the oldest RD on the current main page is from the 16th. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:37, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

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

(Closed) Not exercising is worse than smoking[edit]

Winter is coming. Brandmeistertalk 15:15, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Exercise (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Not exercising is worse than smoking
News source(s): CNN
Nominator: Count Iblis (talk • give credit)

Article needs updating

 Truly shocking result, e.g.: "Comparing those with a sedentary lifestyle to the top exercise performers, he said, the risk associated with death is "500% higher."" and ""People who do not perform very well on a treadmill test," Jaber said, "have almost double the risk of people with kidney failure on dialysis."" Count Iblis (talk) 19:22, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose everybody already knew that not exercising was bad for you. I don't believe CNN is not a reliable source for this type of coverage; they will reliably over-promote minor results of this type. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:26, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
    • CNN is reporting the publication of a report in JAMA (this one, I beleive which I believe would fall within WP:MEDRS. We do expect any scientific or medical advance story to have some mainstream coverage to show the journal topic is "in the news", but obviously we're using the journal article for the accuracy, not the mainstream media. --Masem (t) 19:46, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is not groundbreaking, and also for something like this, we should probably be using medical standard reliable sources, which CNN definitely isn't. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:37, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not ITN material. And there has been no update to the target article so there is nothing to link to in the blurb.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:41, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Just not a major revelation. Non-exercise and smoking are both bad, just their relative "badness" was not objectively determined before. It would have been much more shocking if exercising was considered worse than smoking, for example. --Masem (t) 19:46, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak Support on merits. However I am not sure the target article has been adequately updated for this blurb. Otherwise I would note that the target article is in very good shape. As someone who does not get even remotely adequate exercise, and who also enjoys cigars... this was a bit disturbing. I should probably do something. Maybe update my will. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:06, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
Of course you could also simply ignore it, on the basis that worrying about it may cause you health-damaging stress, which might be a lot better for the finances of the so-called 'health' industry than for your health. Face-smile.svg Tlhslobus (talk) 05:32, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Apart from all the other objections above, this seems like the usual quasi-POV scare story based on undiscussed questionable stats supporting an established orthodoxy that inevitably also supports plenty of vested interests (many of them part of a 'health' industry that makes more money out of us when more of us are sick, but still expects us to unquestionably accept its advice about how to avoid getting sick). And so far it's just a single study that has not yet been criticized (or at least not in this CNN article), let alone replicated. But we are told: "Researchers retrospectively studied 122,007 patients who underwent exercise treadmill testing at Cleveland Clinic between January 1, 1991 and December 31, 2014 to measure all-cause mortality relating to the benefits of exercise and fitness. Those with the lowest exercise rate accounted for 12% of the participants." I've highlighted the word 'patients', which shows that all the people in the study were already sick in some way, and thus not representative of the population at large, even tho nobody (or at least nobody in this CNN article) points this out to CNN's readers. Common sense should tell you that the sicker you are the less well you will usually be able to perform on a treadmill; and, at least according to I-forget-which recent BBC programme, this wouldn't be the first time that public health has been harmed by propagandists blaming ill-health on lack of exercise instead of the other way round. And of course I have no way of knowing how many other possible flaws are not being pointed out to us. Notice also the POV CNN headline ("study reveals" instead of "study reports" or "study claims"). And all this also ignores how beneficial this kind of distracting scare story is directly to institutions like the tobacco and sugar industries (and thus also indirectly to the so-called 'health' industry thru ensuring it gets paid by more people suffering from smoking-related and sugar-related illnesses, etc). And so on. It's not part of ITN or Wikipedia's purpose to facilitate maximizing the profitability of such dubious scare stories. Tlhslobus (talk) 05:24, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Classic trivia. Better suited for DYK. –Ammarpad (talk) 05:49, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure that it would be such a good idea for us to publicize it thru DYK either (tho this is the wrong forum for such a discussion).Tlhslobus (talk) 05:54, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
Don't - you'll enjoy your ciggies a lot better if you stay away from the jogging, and it will also save you from all the free radical damage that exercise (allegedly) causes to your body.Face-smile.svg Tlhslobus (talk) 09:24, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Interesting. Does this mean we can have a cheeky cigarette here and there as long as we get some exercise? AusLondonder (talk) 10:30, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

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

(Posted) 2018 Amritsar train accident[edit]

Article: 2018 Amritsar train accident (talk, history)
Blurb: A train runs into a crowd celebrating the Dusshera festival in Amritsar, India, killing more than 50 people and injuring 200.
News source(s): BBC
Nominator: Zanhe (talk • give credit)
Updater: Leaky.Solar (talk • give credit)
Other updaters: Moscow Mule (talk • give credit)

Article updated

 Zanhe (talk) 19:04, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Support one of, if not the, worst rail accident in the world this year. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:18, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support, just give the news sources a few more hours to narrow down facts and figures. No question this is ITN. --Masem (t) 19:41, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - definitely for ITN.BabbaQ (talk) 19:47, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Question can someone tell me how a car accident which kills 20 (the worst in nearly a decade) in a country with relatively good safety and a comprehensive article gets sent to AFD and eventually closed at ITN, but a train accident in a country where transportation safety is sub-par, the article is sub par, and the accident isn't even the worst in India in the last two years get sped to the main page? WP:MINIMUMDEATHS? --LaserLegs (talk) 20:04, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
    • I haven't looked at the article for this yet, so no comment on that aspect, but the only thing comparable between this and the New York state car crash is that they both involve people dying as a result of a mode of transport. Cars crash all the time, frequently killing people while doing so. Trains do not hit crowds of people with any regularity - in fact I can only find three incidents in the past 10 years, all with significantly lower death tolls: 2008, India (16 killed); [7] 2010, Spain (12 killed); [8] 2013, India (28 killed). [9] I'm also not seeing why you think this is being "sped" to the main page? Thryduulf (talk) 20:24, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
    • To me, accidents involving mass transport, which generally are public or corporate-run, are going to garner a lot of more long-term attention as there will be detailed reviews to try to determine the cause and how that can be remedied to prevent future accidents in such forms. Accidents involving private, non-mass-transport vehicles are not going to have the same rigor and follow through in terms of investigation and resolution. --Masem (t) 20:29, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
    • In my opinion the answer is that the car crash should have been posted as well, but that's been and gone now. This one is clearly notable, though. Black Kite (talk) 20:31, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
      • +1 The hasty AfD nom for the Schoharie accident, as well as a still-unresolved (shouldn't be, but no one's closed the discussion yet) move request, probably did more to kill that article's chance of making ITN than any discussion here. I'm still working on the article for DYK, though. Daniel Case (talk) 22:12, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
        • @LaserLegs: Do you realise that you're being incredibly petty and not supporting your cause at all? We posted Hurricane Michael (which killed people across Central America) only after it arrived in Florida, with a blurb which pretty much left Central America as a second thought. Your claims of anti-American bias are paranoid Trump-style bullshit with zero basis in fact. AusLondonder (talk) 09:38, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Article appears to be adequate and I expect will be updated. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:14, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Per Ad Orientem. Black Kite (talk) 20:31, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support very clearly notable. This is quite possibly the worst train crash of the 21st century in terms of fatalities to non-passengers. The article is in adequate shape considering the sources presently available. Thryduulf (talk) 20:41, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Daniel Case (talk) 22:09, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong Support Jesus Christ... Openlydialectic (talk) 22:23, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per Ad Orientem. Lepricavark (talk) 03:36, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support no issues currently visible on the page, definitely ITN worth and significant. --DannyS712 (talk) 03:42, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - Looks good. Sherenk1 (talk) 04:21, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment unanimous support and ready to go (has been for quite some time). The Rambling Man (talk) 06:35, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted. I know I was one of the supporters above, but there are many supporters, no opposers and it's been marked ready for about 12 hours already. Thryduulf (talk) 10:11, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

October 18[edit]

Portal:Current events/2018 October 18
Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents
  • Severe flooding in Texas kills at least two people and damages dozens of houses. Weather forecasters predict that more rain will come and possibly flood hundreds more houses. (CBS News)

Science and technology

(Posted) RD: Åke Ortmark[edit]

Article: Åke Ortmark (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): [10]
Nominator and updater: BabbaQ (talk • give credit)

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.

 BabbaQ (talk) 22:56, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Weak support article is very weak but what's there is ref'd, so it's passable (barely). The Rambling Man (talk) 06:36, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Quiet short, but looks good. –Ammarpad (talk) 08:00, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support short, but not a stub. And well sourced. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:30, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted. Thryduulf (talk) 10:14, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

(Stale) RD: Ayub Bachchu[edit]

Article: Ayub Bachchu (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The Daily Star, Times of India, Dhaka Tribune
Nominator: Nafsadh (talk • give credit)

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: One of the most prominent rock stars of Bangladesh, though C class article --nafSadh did say 18:57, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose mainly unreferenced and poorly written. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:07, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose mainly per TRM. Article needs some copy-editing and better referencing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:17, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Works section needs sourcing, copy-editing needed, short information on career and overall poorly written. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:15, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose This article is poorly written and should have more inline citations. ―Susmuffin Talk 05:26, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Stale. Black Kite (talk) 01:43, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: N. D. Tiwari[edit]

Article: N. D. Tiwari (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Times of India
Nominator: TDKR Chicago 101 (talk • give credit)

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 well sourced --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 15:14, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose rather oddly, amongst a predominantly well-referenced article, there sits a whole section without citation. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:15, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
  • @The Rambling Man:: Odd, I swear I referenced that section. Just added sources so article should be ready. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:04, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
    Support all fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:51, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. Better referenced now, but sensationalist language in the controversies section that needs fixing ("He disgraced himself and the office of Governor by involving in a sex scandal..."). This is still covered by BLP. Also contains some bad grammar. Vanamonde (talk) 20:29, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 22:55, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

(Stale) RD: Dick Slater[edit]

Article: Dick Slater (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): People[11]
Nominator: GreatCaesarsGhost (talk • give credit)

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.

 ghost 12:40, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Weak support mostly very well referenced and okay presentation, a few uncited claims, but only a few. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:16, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment generally well-referenced, but relies on wrestling websites for the material on the stabbing and shooting in "Personal Life". Two of the three links therein are also dead. Vanamonde (talk) 20:28, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Stale. Black Kite (talk) 01:44, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) Assassination of Abdul Raziq Achakzai[edit]

No consensus to post an assassination at that level. Stephen 22:54, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Articles: Abdul Raziq Achakzai (talk, history) and Zalmai Wesa (talk, history)
Blurb: Kandahar police chief Abdul Raziq Achakzai is killed in a Taliban attack.
Alternative blurb: Kandahar police chief Abdul Raziq Achakzai and governor Zalmai Wesa are killed in a Taliban attack.
News source(s): NY Times
Nominator: EternalNomad (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: Conflicting reports whether the latter was killed or injured, but in either case this is a major attack on notable officials. EternalNomad (talk) 21:18, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
  • RD only I don't see where this exceeds BAU for the ongoing conflict. If the attack itself was significant, or the target particularly well known or high-ranking (federal Minister, leader of parliament), a case could be made. ghost 11:16, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose local police chief doesn't rise to the level we usually expect for a death blurb, even in this particular manner. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:21, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Well, this may qualify as the first honest day's work the Taliban have done, but as far as officialdom goes, I don't see Raziq as being sufficiently notable to qualify; although the article's not in bad shape, considering it's such a recent event. ——SerialNumber54129 11:26, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose these articles specifically, would support an article on the attack itself if it were of sufficient quality. --Jayron32 12:55, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose but fine for RD. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:31, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Zalmai Wesa is too short for RD: Abdul Raziq Achakzai is okay for length but is dominated by negative material. It could still be okay, but it needs more scrutiny; there has been insufficient discussion of article quality above. Vanamonde (talk) 20:23, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
    Not at all. We normally discuss significance first, and then quality second. Keep up. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:24, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

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

(Closed) US Leaves Postal Union[edit]

No consensus to post this; it may be posted when and if it actually occurs. 331dot (talk) 19:47, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Universal Postal Union (talk, history)
Blurb: ​US withdraws from the Universal Postal Union
Alternative blurb: ​The United States announces its intention to withdraw from the Universal Postal Union
News source(s): [12]

Nominator's comments: Seems like an interesting note, the US leaves a treaty union after well over 100 years due to concerns that they are subsidizing cheaper imports from "developing" countries.
Oppose Blurb is misleading. Trump has proposed a renegotiation of terms, after which the U.S. may pull out. This will begin a one-year withdrawal process, as set forth in the UPU Constitution. During this period, the Department of State will seek to negotiate bilateral and multilateral agreements that resolve the problems discussed in the Presidential Memorandum. If negotiations are successful, the Administration is prepared to rescind the notice of withdrawal and remain in the UPU. It's a notification of an intent to maybe pull out after January 1, 2020. --Jayron32 15:52, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm not too sure. This is similar to Brexit. The US announced it's leaving. It's possible that they rescind that if they get good terms, but the fact is that they started the one year mandated process to leave. Sir Joseph (talk) 17:05, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Jayron.--WaltCip (talk) 16:37, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose just not true. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:44, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per all of the above and we can safely close this. –Ammarpad (talk) 17:19, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Wait What is certainly 100% factual and true is that the United States is filing notice that it will withdraw from the UPU, but I suggest waiting until it actually happens. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:22, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Wait per LaserLegs and Jayron --DannyS712 (talk) 17:28, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Wait. If/when the US leaves it might be worth posting. Starting the leaving process is just the first step. Modest Genius talk 17:32, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Per previous. Suggest close. Sca (talk) 17:36, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

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

(Posted) RD: Lisbeth Palme[edit]

Article: Lisbeth Palme (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): (TT via Aftonbladet)
Nominator: Bruzaholm (talk • give credit)
Updater: BabbaQ (talk • give credit)

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: Psycologist, former chairman of the Swedish UNICEF committee, and widow of late Swedish Prime Minsister Olof Palme, survived the 1986 Assassination of Olof Palme. --Bruzaholm (talk) 11:56, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

  •  Comment: No doubt notable enough, but the article is short and in rather bad shape. It needs to be fixed before posted. --cart-Talk 12:24, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose take out the tangentially related shooting info (which is unsourced) and you have a stub. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:49, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per TRM. The article lacks depth in covering enough of her life story. --Jayron32 16:07, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
    Weak support following expansion shown below. Just a question, why the italics in her name in the lead paragraph? That seems non-standard formatting for Wikipedia. --Jayron32 14:24, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is a stub-class article that has a section that lacks inline citations. ―Susmuffin Talk 04:53, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - after improvements and expansion. Ready for posting.BabbaQ (talk) 14:20, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - Article in good shape for posting. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 15:18, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Looks better now. Now the focus of the article is on her, as it should be. cart-Talk 15:44, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted --Jayron32 18:03, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

(Stale) RD: Ara Güler[edit]

Article: Ara Güler (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Spiegel Sabah
Nominator: ----Yerevantsi (talk • give credit)

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: Renowned photographer ----Երևանցի talk 14:40, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose too much unreferenced material. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:48, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support he appears quite notable. I've fixed up the reference issues. Étienne Dolet (talk) 16:31, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Article still needs work on referencing. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 15:20, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose The article's "philosophy of photography" section needs more inline citations. ―Susmuffin Talk 20:41, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

October 17[edit]

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

Arts and culture

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

(Posted) RD: Geoff Scott[edit]

Article: Geoff Scott (footballer) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Nominator: Dumelow (talk • give credit)

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: English footballer (Stoke and Leicester), article is short but appears adequate - Dumelow (talk) 07:32, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) 2018 Kerch Polytechnic attack[edit]

Article: 2018 Kerch Polytechnic attack (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A terrorist attack in Kerch, Russia kills at least 19 people and injures at least 47 others.
Alternative blurb: ​A terrorist attack in Kerch, Crimea kills at least 19 people and injures at least 47 others.
Alternative blurb II: ​An attack on a Polytechnic in Kerch, Crimea kills at least 19 people and injures at least 47 others.
Alternative blurb III: ​A school shooting in a Polytechnic in Kerch, Crimea kills at least 19 people and injures at least 47 others.
News source(s): TASS, UNIAN, AP , BBC, dpa
Nominator: Openlydialectic (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: Many deaths. The region has been recently on the news and multiple scholars suggest a hot war there can start any day now, some might even suggest this here is a provocation to get a casus belli for a full-scale war Openlydialectic (talk) 11:14, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm ambivalent about the nomination, but if it does get posted the blurb should say 'Kirch, Crimea' without specifying that it is in either Russia or Ukraine. The Russian annexation has not been internationally recognised and Crimea is still claimed by Ukraine. Modest Genius talk 13:49, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Also Crimea is much more informative for the reader. I've added 2 altblurbs.Tlhslobus (talk) 14:03, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support on notability, using altblurb 2 until it becomes clearer whether this is political terrorism, or just a US-style non-political mass shooting by a suicidal person, of the kind that we frequently hear from elsewhere, especially from the USA (I leave others to judge target article quality). Tlhslobus (talk) 14:03, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
    Please consider striking "US-style" in the interest of CIV. ghost 14:08, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Or, failing that, consider making it "U.S.-style" in conformance with U.S.-English usage. Sca (talk) 15:19, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
LOL, Sca, you wicked U.S. cultural imperialist.Face-smile.svg Tlhslobus (talk) 16:20, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, I think it should be fairly obvious to most editors that I was not intending to be uncivil in any way, but the fact remains that at least most non-Americans (and I suspect most Americans too, incidentally) tend to hear such stories coming mainly from America, so it seemed (and still seems) a short and relevant way to make more understandable what I was trying to say in a somewhat delicate area (what is and is not described as terrorism is often a political and civility minefield, quite possibly also in this case). I have now struck the allegedly-offending phrase as requested, and have instead said roughly the same thing at much greater length (along with this even longer explanation), and consequently with slightly more accuracy (and thus perhaps also slightly more 'sensitivity'/'civility'). But I hope I am not unwisely setting an unfortunate precedent in which fear of getting accused of possible incivility by those concerned for the sensitivities of the possibly hyper-sensitive (but not unduly concerned about the effect of such accusations on editors at the receiving end, and the consequent damage to things like ITN and Wikipedia's ability to retain productive editors) ends up greatly increasing the difficulty of saying perfectly reasonable things here, as well as further damaging ITN and Wikipedia's ability to retain editors, contrary to the aims of WP:WER. Tlhslobus (talk) 16:11, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
If I thought you intended to be uncivil, I would never have asked you to strike it (if a certain other editor had said it, I wouldn't have wasted my breath). Stereotypes come from a grain of truth, but they're still hurtful. As this shows, nasty stuff happens everywhere. The U.S. can do bad all by itself; citing us in an event elsewhere seems like piling on. ghost 18:41, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
OK, let's just forget about it.Tlhslobus (talk) 19:29, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm also striking 'especially from the USA', as it no longer matters whether people understand what I'm talking about or not. Tlhslobus (talk) 19:47, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment – "Terrorist" may be mistaken. AP and BBC quote Russian officials as saying the attack was perpetrated by an 18-year-old student, one Vladislav Roslyakov, acting alone. Sca (talk) 15:16, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
PS: "A polytechnic" won't be understood by many Eng.-lang. readers. Suggest "a technical school" or "a vocational school." Sca (talk) 15:42, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Well, some of us older UK editors remember polytechnics, before they were all turned into universities overnight.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:23, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
In Canada, any child old enough to watch television is officially refreshed on the École Polytechnique massacre at least once a year. Some might not wonder what those words mean the first time, or even the second. But eventually, we all speak the same language. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:59, October 18, 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Alt-2 - certainly in the news, but it's better to err on the side of caution and simply label it as an attack, as the motivation is not fully clear at this time. - Floydian τ ¢ 15:41, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Since we have two mainstream RSs quoting officials, perhaps we could make it "An attack by a student...." Sca (talk) 15:45, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - notable evet, this is not an often thing in Russia. 46.70.144.68 (talk) 15:43, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Now dpa quotes investigators saying "an attack at a college in Crimea is no longer being treated as a terrorist incident" but rather as a lone-shooter rampage. Sca (talk) 15:51, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted I omitted "terrorist" from the blurb, and made a few other tweaks for clarity. --Jayron32 16:32, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) Canada marijuana legalization[edit]

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

Article: Legality of cannabis (talk, history)
Blurb: Canada becomes the second nation to legalize the sale of recreational marijuana.
News source(s): BBC News, CBC News
Nominator: NorthernFalcon (talk • give credit)

 NorthernFalcon (talk) 06:55, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Posted back in June when the legislation was passed. -Masem (t) 07:38, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Withdraw My bad. Personally posting it now would've made more sense in my opinion, but what's done is done. NorthernFalcon (talk) 07:41, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

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

October 16[edit]

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

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Politics and elections

(Posted) RD: Berthold Leibinger[edit]

Article: Berthold Leibinger (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): photonics.com
Nominator and updater: Gerda Arendt (talk • give credit)

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: An inventive engineer who made a small company big, wrote a dissertation at age 84, was a patron of many things, received many awards, including the tolerance prize from the Jewish Museum in Berlin. - I found the article with one ref, that for his death, and 3 maintenance tags. I did what I could. Many details and awards could be added, some from the German WP, some from the many obituaries (I picked one in English), if someone has the time. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:45, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Support - article is well referenced. -Zanhe (talk) 03:34, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:25, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 02:51, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ismail Amat[edit]

Article: Ismail Amat (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): China Daily, CGTN
Nominator and updater: Zanhe (talk • give credit)

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: One of the highest ranking Muslim and Uyghur politicians in China. Article is full sourced. Zanhe (talk) 06:57, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Support - Indeed. Ready to go.BabbaQ (talk) 07:43, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support, no question. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:59, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support this one looks like it's been ready for about 30 hours. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:24, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted. Black Kite (talk) 11:26, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ian Kiernan[edit]

Article: Ian Kiernan (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): ABC News
Nominator: TDKR Chicago 101 (talk • give credit)

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

Nominator's comments: Article well sourced --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:35, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Weak support Meets minimum standards, but there's about the same amount of content regarding his sailing career (3 sentences) as his DUI (2 sentences): would like to see more about his career sailing. SpencerT•C 23:56, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. Well-referenced but needs more work. Capitalistroadster (talk) 01:05, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - Ready for RD, so post. But needs more work overall to not risk AfD nom in future.--BabbaQ (talk) 07:44, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 22:23, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Walter Dee Huddleston[edit]

Article: Walter Dee Huddleston (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): San Francisco Chronicle
Nominator: TDKR Chicago 101 (talk • give credit)

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

Nominator's comments: Article well sourced --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:55, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Support Looks ready. Davey2116 (talk) 01:16, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Short but very well sourced. No visible issues. --DannyS712 (talk) 02:06, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 04:23, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) India guru Rampal sentenced[edit]

No consensus to post. Stephen 22:52, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Rampal (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Indian guru Rampal and 14 others have been sentenced to life in prison for murdering five women and an 18-month-old baby in 2014.
Alternative blurb: ​Indian guru Rampal and 14 others have been sentenced to life in prison for the murder of five women and an 18-month infant in 2014.
News source(s): BBC, The Hindu
Nominator: Sherenk1 (talk • give credit)
Updater: DBigXray (talk • give credit)
Other updaters: Elton-Rodrigues (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: May have referencing issues. Sherenk1 (talk) 10:43, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support I have added blurb 2. The article is fully referenced with in-line references from RS. This is a big news. --DBigXray 11:03, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. All I'm seeing is a local murder case with no major impacts. Modest Genius talk 12:12, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. We post convictions, not sentencing. That said, would this be like a Catholic Bishop being convicted of murder? 331dot (talk) 12:16, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
I didn't think the gurus were that organized, this may be more like David Karesh. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:18, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Conviction was 10/11, FWIW, but we can post whenever we damn well please. The right time may vary by the nature of the case and the local judicial system, and there's no need to let precedent prevent us from improving WP. For my part, I think the initial arrest (and rioting) might have been blurbable. I'm sorta meh here, but I won't oppose. ghost 17:50, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • We posted the Larry Nassar sentencing; I'm sure there are other examples.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:56, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Generally ITN has required at least a conviction. That doesn't preclude posting at later stages if that's when it's in the news. Modest Genius talk 18:13, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
We posted nearly every update in the Oscar Pistorius saga. The time to post is when the item is "in the news". --LaserLegs (talk) 18:21, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • (Reply/Comment): Not really like a Catholic Bishop, as he's his own boss. And not exactly like David Koresh, due far fewer killings but far more followers. BBC says India has tens of thousands of gurus, and this one has tens of thousands of followers, which suggests he's slightly more popular than the average guru, but not particularly special. The BBC adds he'd be unknown to most Indians were it not for the murder charge. To me at least, it looks a bit like an Indian version of the OJ Simpson celeb murder trial, except that OJ was an A-lister before the murders, whereas this guy was a Z-lister, but one with some followers prepared to do a bit of fighting in his defence. I'm not sure whether any of this gives it encyclopedic value or not, so when in doubt stay neutral, which is what I'm currently planning to do. Tlhslobus (talk) 19:39, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Feedback withdrawn
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Oppose not seeing this "in the news", the article needs refs and a copyedit. It's interesting, he was convicted of murder for deaths that occurred during clashes between followers and his police -- but the article has no details on that incident. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:24, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
    A little context. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:53, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
    The worlds leading search engine returns relevant content about a specified search term? TRM I'm shocked, I had no idea that was a thing. Thank you so much! --LaserLegs (talk) 18:13, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
No need to be a smart arse - you said "not seeing this in the news", turns out it is. AusLondonder (talk) 18:23, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
I look to the aggregators bing and google news to see if it pops up in the feed (I browse in-private so there is no bias to my previous activity). I didn't see this conviction. Then I read the article, it says he was convicted of murder and provides no details of the murder. An oppose double-whammy for me. --LaserLegs (talk)
Over-trumped your pointy bollocks. Shame, get over it. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:28, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
@LaserLegs: Again, obviously you didn't look very far as numerous articles, such as this one from the BBC, give details of the conviction. AusLondonder (talk) 18:30, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
The answer, LaserLegs, is that you listen when people tell you it is in the news, and especially you LOOK at their sources. Merely because you aren't looking in the news sources covering this, like the two noted in the template, doesn't mean it is. The world is a big place. Sometimes people who aren't you know different things. Your own lack of knowledge is not justification for making decisions. Your own refusal to accept knowledge people are directing you to is also not hopeful for your ability to contribute. If you want people to take your opinion into consideration, you need to make it clear you are basing it on knowledge and not deliberate, willful ignorance. So long as you continue to make it clear that you intend to vote based on your own refusal to look at sources people are showing you, that vote will be given zero weight in the final assessment. I am only telling you this because you appear to want your opinion to count. It will not if you keep down this path. --Jayron32 18:33, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Tlhslobus is correct. He came in the news only because his followers started firing at the police who had come to his ashram to arrest him (it took police a few days to enter his ashram). Before this event, most Indians didn't know about him. --ASF23 (talk) 20:46, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

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

October 15[edit]

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

Arts and culture

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

(Posted) European floods & Hurricane Leslie[edit]

Proposed image
Articles: 2018 European floods (talk, history) and Hurricane Leslie (2018) (talk, history)
Blurb: Hurricane Leslie makes landfall in Portugal as a extratropical cyclone with 110 km/h winds, amid a series of floods responsible for more than 30 deaths in Western Europe.
Alternative blurb: Hurricane Leslie makes landfall in Portugal as a extratropical cyclone with 110 km/h winds, causing 15 deaths and injuring almost 30 more.
Alternative blurb II: Hurricane Leslie makes rare landfall in Portugal, it also brings flash flooding to southern France causing at least 13 deaths.
News source(s): (AFP)(AFP)(The Standard)(BBC)
Both articles updated

Nominator's comments: This event is significant for a number of reasons. First, Leslie is the first hurricane to make landfall in Portugal as an extratropical storm so close to hurricane strength. Second, the floods which have killed 13 in France and 12 in Mallorca (Spain) are significant in their own right. More details on the flash floods in France and Hurricane Leslie are available from Dr. Jeff Masters' meteorological blog. 2607:FEA8:1DE0:7B4:681D:8AA9:61D6:7201 (talk) 19:15, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Tentative Support on importance; the article could use some cleanup/expansion before posting. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:39, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Updated article, but concerned that there are three weather patterns causing floods that just happened to occur at similar times, rather than a coherent period of flooding. Kingsif (talk) 01:12, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Hurricane Leslie, but Oppose European floods. I agree with nom that the Hurricane Leslie article is significant. It is also well referenced, detailed, and even contains relevant images. The European floods article, on the other hand, has a few problems: potential original research, a third (3/9) of the references aren't in English, and is merely a list of floods that may not even be related (see the talk page). Accordingly, I would support the current blurb IF the link to the European floods page was not bolded (and thus not a main article) but just linked to. (I didn't make an alt-blurb given how minor this change is). --DannyS712 (talk) 03:11, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment There are not any European floods! There are some unrelated local events, but nothing on continental scale. (We pray for rain in Central Europe!) That beeing said. Article about Hurricane Leslie is in good shape and describe very unusual (once per 100 years) and sadly also deadly metorogical event. So I support only its nomination. --Jenda H. (talk) 14:52, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
@Jenda H.: I have created altblurb one that reflect my comment above, and I believe that it also reflects your comment here. What do you think? --DannyS712 (talk) 15:33, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
This is better. But majority of casualties in France was due to record flooding. So it is not just about wind as blurb suggest. --Jenda H. (talk) 17:20, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support with altblurb per Jenda H. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:29, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted Hurricane only. --Jayron32 18:11, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) Sears files for bankruptcy[edit]

With significant opposition based on both quality and importance, this is not going to be posted. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:19, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Sears Holdings (talk, history)
Blurb: ​US retailer Sears Holdings files for insolvency
Alternative blurb: ​US retailer Sears Holdings files for Chapter 11 bankruptcy
News source(s): Dallas News, CNN, NYT
Nominator: Banedon (talk • give credit)
Updater: Specter Koen (talk • give credit)
Other updaters: DannyS712 (talk • give credit)

Both articles updated

Nominator's comments: It's an iconic company, been around more than 100 years. Banedon (talk) 02:28, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support: Its used to be a huge company and force in american retail, so its collapse is significant --DannyS712 (talk) 03:46, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose solely on article quality. Referencing is dreadful. This is going to need some work before it can be posted on the main page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:00, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose this is not yet the end of Sears, only a mechanism to allow debt restructuring from which it will emerge. Not the first or last brick and mortar store that failed to adapt digitally. Stephen 04:34, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support pending article improvements -- 2607:FEA8:A2DF:F1B2:AD67:243C:4AAB:7508 (talk) 04:43, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support in principal, oppose due quality. As to timing, It's hard to see another more significant moment emerging later. There's might be some zombification for a year or so, but the company is dead now. Not the first or the last to go this way, but the most significant. Sears was the most important retailer in America for generations. ghost 11:25, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose article is in a dreadful state. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:27, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose on the merits. Sears (and Kmart, which has the same owner, too) has been in a slow death for several years now. This is just the latest step. If they go out of business totally, maybe. 331dot (talk) 11:28, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Article quality is too poor for the main page (and rather embarrassing given the likely influx of pageviews now). Also, particularly in the U.S., bankruptcy appears to be a way to restructure you business and escape debt liabilities. It does not mean the business will close. AusLondonder (talk) 17:48, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above. Bankruptcy does not mean closure.--WaltCip (talk) 18:48, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose for the time being. If/when the company goes Chapter 7, then it would be the right time. I also agree with everyone above in stating that the article needs major improvements. Since I started editing the article (which was fairly recently), I've spent my time mostly just keeping it up-to-date. Hopefully while the proceedings are tied up in court I'll have the chance to actually start restructuring it. Specter Koen (talk) 19:07, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose on notability, per Stephen above. Tlhslobus (talk) 19:47, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

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

(Posted) RD: Paul Allen[edit]

Article: Paul Allen (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): KING5 Seattle, CNBC
Nominator: Power~enwiki (talk • give credit)

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: Looks good at a quick glance; heavy editing right now. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:09, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Support: Power beat me to it by a few minutes. Article is well-sourced and has no issues aside of the died template. pbp 22:14, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose a few CN tags (added by me) but none of the statements are outrageous. Allen touched so many lives who'll never know his name. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:21, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
    • I can't handle the volume of edit conflicts; if they're still there in an hour I can fix them. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:24, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
weak support blurb Pretty darn big as the co-founder of the once largest company in the worldLihaas (talk) 22:41, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support RD. He co-founded Microsoft and gave away his money wisely. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:49, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Reasons? ITNC is not a vote.Lihaas (talk) 22:51, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
No reasons needed for an RD listing. Stephen 23:29, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support: Influential businessman and philanthropist, technology pioneer, article looks good (only problems I see, that may get fixed soon given the huge flood of edits, are: citations needed, and 2 small sections that may need to be rewritten) --DannyS712 (talk) 23:05, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak support. Has citations needed tag with two citations needed (by my quick reckoning) and an apparently problematic Honors and Awards section ( it is referenced though) Other than that, referencing is good. Capitalistroadster (talk) 23:25, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support I have addressed the cn tags. The awards and recognition section could do with some work but it does not seem to be a showstopper. Hrodvarsson (talk) 23:59, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
    • Tags about his cancer need fixing. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:22, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Just casually checked the article and added some more (citation tags). Sorry. Openlydialectic (talk) 00:24, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • There is no need to apologize. I have addressed those tags also. Problems are much easier to fix when they are tagged. Looking further through the article there may be other hidden citation problems, but nothing immediately stands out. Hrodvarsson (talk) 01:54, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 03:00, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

(Stale) ROC–Constantinople Patriarchate[edit]

This nomination is now stale. Apologies to the many editors who helped work on the article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:59, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Articles: Russian Orthodox Church (talk, history) and Moscow–Constantinople schism (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Russian Orthodox Church severs full communion with the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople over the latter's endorsement of Ukrainian Church's request for autocephaly.
Alternative blurb: ​The Russian Orthodox Church severs communion with the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople in a dispute over canonical jurisdiction and the future status of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church.
Alternative blurb II: ​The Russian Orthodox Church severs communion with the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople in a dispute over canonical jurisdiction and the future status of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church.
Alternative blurb III: ​The Russian Orthodox Church severs communion with the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople in a dispute over canonical jurisdiction and the future status of the Ukrainian Orthodox Churches.
News source(s): RFERL
Nominator: Brandmeister (talk • give credit)

Both articles updated

Nominator's comments: Although the related nomination was problematic, this stage of the conflict looks definitive enough. The ROC article has been updated. Brandmeistertalk 19:58, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment We need a standalone article on this, IMHO. Openlydialectic (talk) 20:41, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I guess the blurb means to say "severs"? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:19, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment if there were a stand-alone article, I might support ongoing; if this is going to continue until the two sides are fully separated there will be multiple further events. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:12, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
    • With no other ideas on how to name this, perhaps Schism of 2018 is a sufficiently descriptive interim name for a stand-alone article? power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:23, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
    • Maybe the articles will be of sufficient quality by the time the Tomos of Autocephaly officially is issued in November (or, if the planned announcement is scrapped). I think it's unlikely to happen before this announcement goes stale. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:40, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support I saw enough coverage on this, including leading up to the actual event, to support. Banedon (talk) 22:40, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
support was gonna nominate it too. This'd be like WP existing during the west-east schism,but just east-east schism. Eastern Christianity schism? Would be wary of uppercase S in schism just yet.Lihaas (talk) 22:43, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
    • There have certainly been other Eastern schisms, though; the Bulgarian schism would likely count. I've created this as Schism of 2018; please feel free to move (but don't move-war). power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:04, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
      • I'm done with that article for the night. Hopefully enough of an outline that others can contribute to it. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:57, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
        • I have added some links to sources on the talk page and, for the first time in all my years here, I have put out an off wiki appeal for help with this. We just don't have enough editors who are familiar with Orthodox Christianity and the complexities of this particular situation. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:12, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Should it not be Muscovite schism since that's where the breakage came from? Never mind the background.Lihaas (talk) 06:43, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Maybe this Russian wikipedia article can give some guidance on how to form this new article: Предоставление автокефалии православной церкви на Украине — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:440:8500:4E9A:48CC:15A8:7D70:6178 (talk) 09:26, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose solely on article quality. Support on the merits. (I have added an alt blurb.) I am saddened to admit this, but none of the relevant Orthodox Church related articles are even remotely close to acceptable condition for promotion on the main page. :-( -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:18, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose the blurb does not explain the impact or implications to non-Catholics. A 150m person organisations sheds ~5m members. So what? Stephen 04:36, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • The blurb cannot be expected to explain the details to the non-Orthodox (incidentally this is NOT about Catholics as usually understood in the West, where the term tends to be understood as meaning Roman Catholics). The article (or at least the section related to the split if we don't go for a stand-alone article) should try to make that understandable. Also it's not about "150 million loses 5 million", but more like "300 million seems to be splitting into two or more sides (pro and anti-Moscow/Putin sides, and perhaps some neutrals too), tho the precise numbers on each side are still unclear, but pro and anti sides each have far more than just 5 million".Tlhslobus (talk) 05:46, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • And Vladimir Putin doesn't seem to think it's trivial (for details, see my reply/comment to Laserlegs below). Tlhslobus (talk) 04:00, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support on notability. It should also be useful for our readers to get an article that corrects some misinformation out there, such as that the EP has already recognised an independent Ukrainian Church (when the EP has merely decided to do so in future, presumably when the two independent Ukrainian churches have been merged). But I'll leave it to others to decide when adequate article quality has been reached.Tlhslobus (talk) 05:34, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment This article, altho written from an anti-Russian perspective, and probably suffering from a lot of wishful thinking as regards the future, seems to offer a reasonably clear explanation of what has actually happened so far, and may be a useful citation in relevant articles.Tlhslobus (talk) 07:22, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support alt blurb (if can get an article thats good) Currently, there is no tomos of autocephaly. There are three major churches in Ukraine. One is under Moscow, and is in communion with the rest of the churches, and they do not want autocephaly. There is also two schismatic churches, which is not in communion with any other church. They desire autocephaly, and desire to be recognized as a canonical church after creating a schism. The EP has decided to open communion with one of these schismatic churches, while the rest of the other Orthodox Churches still consider them schismatic and are not in communion with them. Further, the EP has stated they desire to grant this newly formed "church" a tomos of autocephaly "later". According to the Church in Russia and Church in Ukraine (non schismatic) what the EP has done is uncanonical. Other churches, such as Serbia, has denounced it as well, but has not taken any official action as of yet. Some churches, such as Antioch has called that a council should be called to discuss the issue.2601:440:8500:4E9A:48CC:15A8:7D70:6178 (talk) 09:13, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support on notability, once the bolded article is in adequate shape. An interesting and unusual news story, probably with significant future ramifications. Either the original blurb or the alt blurb seem OK to me although the original blurb looks a bit better. Nsk92 (talk) 10:35, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Question could someone explain this in laymans terms? It's my (poor?) understanding that there are 14 "jurisdictions" in the Eastern Orthodox Church (EOC), the one in Constantinople recognized Ukrainian (church) independence from Moscow, and as a result the ROC unfriended them. So the other 12 are still just doing their thing right? This isn't a fracturing of the EOC, or even the ROC unilaterally removing itself, it's just two partner churches bickering? --LaserLegs (talk) 12:17, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes, its two local churches bickering. But they are bickering over hugely consequential issues. And the two churches are the most important in the broader Orthodox Church. The Russian Church is by far the largest with a little over 1/3 of all the world's Orthodox Christian belonging to it. And the Ecumenical Patriarchate holds the canonical first place of honor within the Church. So yeah, this is a very serious situation within Eastern Christianity. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:12, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Reply/Comment: It's also 'bickering' seemingly with potential geostrategic consequences for the war in Ukraine and the wider conflict between Russia and the West that involves the world's two nuclear superpowers. "Telling of the Orthodox Church’s role in Russian geopolitics, on 12 October Russian President Vladimir Putin convened an extraordinary meeting of the National Security and Defense Council, where the “situation of the Russian Orthodox Church in Ukraine” was discussed." Who are we to decide that we are better judges than Putin as to what is and is not important in geopolitics? Tlhslobus (talk) 03:56, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't know enough about Orthodox theology to !vote yet, especially given there seem to be some factual disputes over what has/hasn't happened yet. This blurb is at least a lot more intelligible and significant-sounding than the previous nomination. Modest Genius talk 12:20, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Per Stephen. Larger significance not readily apparent Sca (talk) 13:26, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Incomprehensible blurb, lacks significance.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:18, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support This is a rare and unusual event, the Russian Orthodox Church is perhaps the most important force in Orthodox Christianity. Article on schism has been created which should form part of the blurb. AusLondonder (talk) 17:56, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Very notable and interesting story, and I'm indeed seeing this in the news. However, the ROC article is not fully sourced. Davey2116 (talk) 01:18, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Notability is sound and Schism of 2018 is passable as a target article. Teemu08 (talk) 01:32, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I have added a second alt blurb, identical to the first alt blurb but with schism of 2018 as the bolded link. Hrodvarsson (talk) 01:42, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
My problem with the first blurb and by extension the newest alt blurb is that there are three churches in Ukraine each claiming to be the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. And the one that is recognized by every canonical Orthodox Church except for the Ecumenical Patriarchate, has made no such request for independence. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:10, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Comment: In the light of your point, I've added altblurb 3, which is altblurb2 with Church replaced by Churches (tho I'm not sure this is entirely necessary). (Incidentally, the Euromaidan Press article already mentioned above by me says that 10 of the 90 bishops of the (pro-Moscow) UOC MP had also signed the appeal to Constantinople for autocephaly, which suggests there will also be some kind of split in the UOC MP, tho I'm not sure how significant that is.) Tlhslobus (talk) 02:55, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Comment I am not really sure that source is particularly trustworthy. Openlydialectic (talk) 10:59, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
You're right that it probably isn't trustworthy on some points (as incidentally is also true with all other so-called Reliable Sources, as the likes of Noam Chomsky and others have been documenting for decades, even if Chomsky and his kind aren't always particularly trustworthy either), but I'm pretty sure it's trustworthy on that particular point, since despite being anti-Moscow it admits that it's only 10 out of 90 UOC MP bishops who are pro-Ukrainian autocephaly (the conclusion that there's likely to be a split is mine, not its own). Tlhslobus (talk) 13:11, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment+Question re quality: Including Ad Orientem (who was opposed on quality but supporting on significance), I currently make it 10-3 support on significance (11-3 if we include the nom), which is normally a comfortable consensus, with at least one editor deeming the target passable on quality over 12 hours ago. I'd like to mark it Ready, but I don't normally trust myself as a judge on quality. Might some editor such as Ad Orientem now please have a look at quality, and let us know whether they now deem it ready to post, or indicate what more seems required.Tlhslobus (talk) 13:45, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Schism of 2018 looks of suitable a standard to me, with sufficient length (except the lead) and good referencing. However I can still barely understand a word of it, as it's full of unexplained jargon and seems to expect a knowledge of Orthodox churches that most of our readers don't have. Could we get a bit more context for general readers, before directing thousands of people there from the home page? Modest Genius talk 13:56, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, Modest Genius. Tlhslobus (talk) 14:09, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
I added some definitions and clarifications that I think will help in the understanding of the topic. Teemu08 (talk) 15:23, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Either Alt blurb II or III. The new target needs a little expansion, especially regards reaction from the rest of the Orthodox world, but I think it is adequate. Marking this as Ready for posting. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:42, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
The lead of the target article is inadequate as does not explain the subject to a general reader. I do not think this is ready to link to the main page.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:01, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Stephen and others. The concerns raised have not been addressed, so I'm not sure why this is marked as "Ready". The blurb is essentially meaningless for someone not familiar with the situation, and not a good fit for an ITN story.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:53, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong Support on merit, but weak oppose due to article quality. Article is pretty close, but it's not quite there yet, as there's one completely unreferenced paragraph. When all paragraphs are appropriately sourced, please assume that my vote is a strong support. (NorthernFalcon (talk) 02:07, 20 October 2018 (UTC))
  • Ready Marking as ready, as the various quality issues raised above now seem to have been addressed as far as reasonably practicable.Tlhslobus (talk) 09:17, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Removing Ready - Somebody added an orange flag some time after I had marked this as 'Ready' (which actually seems somewhat amusing and/or ironic (at least to me, if not necessarily to anybody else), for reasons which I've mentioned on the article's Talk page). Tlhslobus (talk) 15:11, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
Comment: I am the "somebody" mentioned by Tlhslobus. His edits of today have alleviated my initial reservations. We should proceed. Adelsheim (talk) 16:39, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I think this specific announcement is stale. We could consider ongoing, or the new article Moscow–Constantinople schism will hopefully be ready for the next announcement (probably the Tomos issuance in November, and possibly mutual excommunications afterwards). power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:57, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
Not really stale - a number of its citations are news items dated 20th October.Tlhslobus (talk) 06:45, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Ready: Marking as ready after Tlhslobus's 20 oct. contributions which have alleviated my neutrality concerns. Adelsheim (talk) 16:39, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, Adelsheim. Incidentally, when flagging as Ready it's best to add (Ready) to the Section Name of the nomination too, to get it noticed, which I've now done. Regards, Tlhslobus (talk) 17:38, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

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

(Closed) Royal Baby - first child of Meghan, Duchess of Sussex[edit]

closed per WP:SNOW. --Jayron32 11:06, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Meghan, Duchess of Sussex (talk, history)
Blurb: HRH Meghan, the Duchess of Sussex is pregnant with her first child. The child, due in the spring, will become seventh in line to the throne, after his father.
News source(s): https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-45861683
Nominator: Kingsif (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: It’s a royal baby announcement, that’s it. Kingsif (talk) 10:45, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose – I don't believe we do announcements of pregnancies, do we? The actual birth would certainly be much more newsworthy. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 10:47, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose not even sure the birth of the 7th in line is relevant. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:49, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Wait for delivery and suggest close. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:56, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
p.s. did I say "the next week or so"? Apologies. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:13, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) Óscar Romero[edit]

Strong consensus against posting, also stale. Vanamonde (talk) 20:17, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Óscar Romero (talk, history)
Blurb: Óscar Romero, the Roman Catholic Archbishop of San Salvador assassinated while celebrating Mass in 1980, is canonized by Pope Francis.
Alternative blurb: Óscar Romero, the Roman Catholic Archbishop of San Salvador assassinated while celebrating Mass in 1980, is one of 7 people canonized by Pope Francis.
Alternative blurb II: Óscar Romero, the Roman Catholic Archbishop of San Salvador assassinated while celebrating Mass in 1980, and Pope Paul VI, are two of 7 people canonized by Pope Francis.
News source(s): https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-45853434
Nominator: Moscow Mule (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Big deal in Central America; article seems exhaustive and reasonably well referenced. Moscow Mule (talk) 04:49, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose canonisation is a routing occurrence (~50 in the last 5 years), nothing extraordinary here. Stephen 05:43, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Stephen. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:33, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Support Canonization maybe routine, but this was a major part of the civil war. Notable by the fact that it was Romero.Not to mention indicative of the direction the Church is mioving.Lihaas (talk) 11:49, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
"Was", not "is". We don't deal in yesterday's news. Oppose.--WaltCip (talk) 13:39, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes, by the "direction the Church IS moving". WE do post todays news.Lihaas (talk) 22:54, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Where is it referenced that this is canonisation is a movement in a new direction? Stephen 23:06, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose – A footnote to R.C. church history. Sca (talk) 13:45, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per Lihaas. This is not just a routine canonisation, it represents a paradigm shift. It's a story of notable worldwide general interest which ITN promotes.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:49, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per Lihass and Amakuru. In the news and the article looks good to me.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:41, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose The Church canonises people regularly. I am not seeing a paradigm shift either, he was your average conservative cleric from a conservative country in South America who though more progressive priests and denounced liberation theology, but when the rightist repression brought his country to the brink of a civil war he - stressing that those exist on both sides - denounced people who kill thousands of innocents, he was killed by right-wing militias.
    Tell me please, how is this important? I am open to voting for an ITN nom when they canonise someone like Câmara, but in this case? It's not even funny. Also, the article itself is just amasingly POV, apparently it was cleansed of all critical assessments of Romero a while ago, now that it doesn't even mention his early fights in the late 60-s with the majority of the clergy that was more progressive, his participation in conservative organisations and his enduring support for the government that only ended by the mid 70-s when the civil war already began... God Dammit, what happened to Wikipedia? Why is literally everything so POV here... Openlydialectic (talk) 14:56, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the very useful info, Openlydialectic. A short answer to your question would be that I suspect that everything is POV because knowledge is power, and organization and determination beat disorganized amateurism, so once Wikipedia became important its rules and practices quickly became made mainly by ideologies and other vested interests for ideologies and other vested interests, much like almost everything else in this world. But unfortunately my suspicions are inherently unprovable, and in any case this is the wrong forum for discussing this topic.Tlhslobus (talk) 06:49, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now purely on article quality. There are enough gaps in referencing to preclude posting until they are fixed. Also I have to agree with Openlydialectic's complaint that the article appears to be extremely lopsided in its presentation of the subject who was, and remains a highly controversial figure. If/when these are corrected I will Support on significance. Whether or not one agrees with his far left theology (I don't), Romero was one of the most significant figures of the post Vatican II Catholic Church and is a giant in the social and political history of Latin America. Also Pope Paul VI who oversaw most of the reforms of Vatican II, some of them controversial, was canonized at the same ceremony. I have not had a chance to look at his article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:53, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm a bit surprised that you say that you disagree with 'his far-left theology', Ad Orientem, given that Openlydialectic seems to have been saying that he was actually anything but far left, but that his conservatism has been suppressed by POV-pushers. Could either or both of you clarify this, please? Tlhslobus (talk) 06:54, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Canonization requires first the literal "intercession of the Blessed after his death." Needless to say, the intercession of the dead into the world of the living is not verifiable (at best). ghost 17:00, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
So its supporters claim, but that seems irrelevant - the fact that he has been canonized is easily verifiable, even if the claimed reasons for this are not. Being Pope requires believing in a God whose existence is unverifiable, but that doesn't mean we should therefore refrain from posting the election of a new Pope (and much the same can probably be said for many other actually or allegedly unverifiable things claimed in connection with many subjects that have articles in Wikipedia). Tlhslobus (talk) 07:07, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support from the source this looks like a long-running historical issue that still leaves undercurrents and is still important in El Salvador (e.g. from the 60k audience listening to the pope). Banedon (talk) 22:47, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - canonisation is near routine at this stage, and not worthy of posting at ITN. Stormy clouds (talk) 23:00, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
True of canonisations in general, but not necessarily true of this particular one.Tlhslobus (talk) 07:18, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Yet another saint in a religion which has thousands of them. I'm struggling to think of any situation in which we should post canonisations. Modest Genius talk 12:17, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
A little imagination can easily come up with examples which would at least deserve serious consideration - if they were to canonize a non-Catholic (e.g Martin Luther King or Gandhi or Mandela), or some extremely controversial figure (for instance some quasi-genocidal crusade-preacher), and so on. And I'm still trying to decide whether Romero qualifies or not (tho my initial feeling was no, and it hasn't really changed yet, despite being underwhelmed by some of the NO arguments). Tlhslobus (talk) 07:18, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: added 2 possible altblurbs. These are arguably more accurate, even if they arguably also weaken the case for posting. Tlhslobus (talk) 07:25, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - Posting seems appropriate here.BabbaQ (talk) 07:47, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

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

References[edit]

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: