Jump to content

Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:In the news

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 184.151.37.41 (talk) at 14:12, 24 March 2018 (→Carcassonne and Trèbes attack). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Click here to nominate an item for In the news. In the news toolbox
Shortcut

This page provides a place to discuss new items for inclusion on In the news (ITN), a protected template on the Main Page (see past items in the ITN archives). Do not report errors in ITN items that are already on the Main Page here— discuss those at the relevant section of WP:ERRORS.

This candidates page is integrated with the daily pages of Portal:Current events. A light green header appears under each daily section – it includes transcluded Portal:Current events items for that day. You can discuss ITN candidates under the header.

Aftermath of the Magdeburg car attack
Aftermath of the Magdeburg car attack

view — page history — related changes — edit

Glossary

  • Blurbs are one-sentence summaries of the news story.
    • Altblurbs, labelled alt1, alt2, etc., are alternative suggestions to cover the same story.
    • A target article, bolded in text, is the focus of the story. Each blurb must have at least one such article, but you may also link non-target articles.
  • Articles in the Ongoing line describe events getting continuous coverage.
  • The Recent deaths (RD) line includes any living thing whose death was recently announced. Consensus may decide to create a blurb for a recent death.

All articles linked in the ITN template must pass our standards of review. They should be up-to-date, demonstrate relevance via good sourcing and have at least an acceptable quality.

Nomination steps

  • Make sure the item you want to nominate has an article that meets our minimum requirements and contains reliable coverage of a current event you want to create a blurb about. We will not post about events described in an article that fails our quality standards.
  • Find the correct section below for the date of the event (not the date nominated). Do not add sections for new dates manually – a bot does that for us each day at midnight (UTC).
  • Create a level 4 header with the article name (==== Your article here ====). Add (RD) or (Ongoing) if appropriate.
Then paste the {{ITN candidate}} template with its parameters and fill them in. The news source should be reliable, support your nomination and be in the article. Write your blurb in simple present tense. Below the template, briefly explain why we should post that event. After that, save your edit. Your nomination is ready!
  • You may add {{ITN note}} to the target article's talk page to let editors know about your nomination.

The better your article's quality, the better it covers the event and the wider its perceived significance (see WP:ITNSIGNIF for details), the better your chances of getting the blurb posted.

Purge this page to update the cache

Headers

  • When the article is ready, updated and there is consensus to post, you can mark the item as (Ready). Remove that wording if you feel the article fails any of these necessary criteria.
  • Admins should always separately verify whether these criteria are met before posting blurbs marked (Ready). For more guidance, check WP:ITN/A.
    • If satisfied, change the header to (Posted).
    • Where there is no consensus, or the article's quality remains poor, change the header to (Closed) or (Not posted).
    • Sometimes, editors ask to retract an already-posted nomination because of a fundamental error or because consensus changed. If you feel the community supports this, remove the item and mark the item as (Pulled).

Voicing an opinion on an item

Format your comment to contain "support" or "oppose", and include a rationale for your choice. In particular, address the notability of the event, the quality of the article, and whether it has been updated.

Please do...

Shortcut
  1. Pick an older item to review near the bottom of this page, before the eligibility runs out and the item scrolls off the page and gets abandoned in the archive, unused and forgotten.
  2. Review an item even if it has already been reviewed by another user. You may be the first to spot a problem, or the first to confirm that an identified problem was fixed. Piling on the list of "support!" votes will help administrators see what is ready to be posted on the Main Page.
  3. Tell about problems in articles if you see them. Be bold and fix them yourself if you know how, or tell others if it's not possible.

Please do not...

Shortcut
  1. Add simple "support!" or "oppose!" votes without including your reasons. Similarly, curt replies such as "who?", "meh", or "duh!" are not helpful. A vote without reasoning means little for us, please elaborate yourself.
  2. Oppose an item just because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. We post a lot of such content, so these comments are generally unproductive.
  3. Accuse other editors of supporting, opposing or nominating due to a personal bias (such as ethnocentrism). We at ITN do not handle conflicts of interest.
  4. Comment on a story without first reading the relevant article(s).
  5. Oppose a recurring item here because you disagree with the recurring items criteria. Discuss them here.
  6. Use ITN as a forum for your own political or personal beliefs. Such comments are irrelevant to the outcome and are potentially disruptive.

Suggesting updates

There are two places where you can request corrections to posted items:

  • Anything that does not change the intent of the blurb (spelling, grammar, markup issues, updating death tolls etc.) should be discussed at WP:Errors.
  • Discuss major changes in the blurb's intent or very complex updates as part of the current ITNC nomination.

Suggestions

March 24

March 24, 2018 (2018-03-24) (Saturday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture
Disasters and accidents
  • The Kofu District Public Prosecutor’s Office in Japan announces nobody will be prosecuted over the collapse of the Sasago Tunnel, which killed nine and injured three. Officials say the collapse would have been difficult to predict. (The Japan Times)
  • Two men are rescued from a capsized dredger off Malaysia after 50 hours in an air pocket in the engine room. The death toll so far is nine, with rescue efforts underway to search for more survivors. (Sky News)

International relations

Law and crime
  • A car is deliberately driven into a group of schoolgirls in Glasgow, Scotland, injuring five. Police launch an attempted murder probe. (BBC)

Politics and elections

March 23

March 23, 2018 (2018-03-23) (Friday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections
Science and technology

Carcassonne and Trèbes attack

Article: Carcassonne and Trèbes attack (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ A gunman takes hostages at a supermarket in Trèbes, France, before fatally shooting three people and then being shot dead by police. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ A gunman is killed after killing a self-sacrificing police "hero" and three other victims in a terrorist attack in Trèbes, France.
News source(s): BBC Telegraph NYT Guardian
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Unclear if it was a terrorist attack so far, though the gunman reportedly pledged allegiance to ISIS and the prime minister says all signs point to it being a terrorist attack. Every morning (there's a halo...) 18:50, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - even if it is a terror attack, it is too small to merit posting. Stormy clouds (talk) 18:52, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as "The Islamic State released a statement calling him a "soldier of the Islamic State", and French president Emmanuel Macron called the attacks an act of Islamist terrorism." means that has been confirmed as terrorism to an extent that authorities find satisfactory, as well as claimed; "too small" is objectively meaningless and doesn't determine notability, while on the other hand, "He swore allegiance to the Islamic State and demanded the release of Salah Abdeslam, an Islamist accused of involvement in the November 2015 Paris attacks" makes this event notable as a type of attack with demands and conditions for hostage release that had never been made before in Europe by the IS. LjL (talk) 19:40, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Has been in all international and national media today. Article seems ready for posting.BabbaQ (talk) 20:46, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It's just too small scale for ITN. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:50, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support While this incident has resulted in less fatalities than we usually post, it is prominently in the news. The article's quality is also pretty high. Half of our current blurbs occurred more than a week ago. Mamyles (talk) 21:04, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support it's in the news (that shooting in Afghanistan is not, BTW), article is decent. ISIL will take credit for mild food poisoning, no need to mention it in the blurb. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:24, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral This event has already generated several responses from prominent world leaders, which demonstrates worldwide significance. However, events just as worthy of featuring have been rejected.BrendonTheWizard (talk) 00:37, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This was the first deadly terrorist attack in Western Europe in several months, and is being covered internationally. EternalNomad (talk) 01:01, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support an unusual terror incident in Europe. Certainly more newsworthy than than the regular school shootings in America. The Rambling Man (talk) 01:08, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • An unusual bombing incident in the U.S. gets opposed, and this gets supported. Because the American terrorist is white? General anti-U.S. bias here? I'm genuinely curious. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:32, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Domestic terrorism vs international terrorism, most likely. --Masem (t) 01:38, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • That seems to me to make little difference. In these two examples, one is a Christian extremist and the other is a Muslim extremist. One resulted in three dead, the other resulted in four dead (including the perps). I'm still at a loss. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:48, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Personally, I would have supported the inclusion of both based on what you've described. Terrorism is terrorism. The article you were referring to appears to be more ready for featuring on the main page than this one with the amount of fatalities the event caused being nearly identical and the number of injuries caused by the other article being greater, so I've demoted my response to neutral out of a desire for consistent standards. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 03:30, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's anti-US bias, mostly. The US rarely calls white terrorists "terrorists" which doesn't help. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:03, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Domestic terrorism with little effect where the assalaint had already been killed within shot time, not ITN worth. –Ammarpad (talk) 03:56, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, but I completely agree with Muboshgu and BrendonTheWizard. We should post this one, but we should also have posted the Austin bombings. There is a clear double standard here that needs to be addressed. Davey2116 (talk) 04:04, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose- small-scale shooting incident, besides the blurb is too long. - 58.27.134.33 (talk) 08:25, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support altblurb or something similar that mentions the police hero. It's this self-sacrificing heroism that seemingly makes the event unusual, exceptionally newsworthy, and ITN-worthy.Tlhslobus (talk) 10:17, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • We generally do not call out acts of heroism in blurbs (since what is a "hero" is going to be very subjective). A police officer putting his life before others is part of their job. --Masem (t) 12:40, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that it would be inappropriate to use the term "hero" in an alt-blurb. Yes, the police officer was heroic, but that is not the story here, really. To some, (they are wrong, but they exist), the terrorists are heroic for their actions. Stormy clouds (talk) 12:42, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as others mentioned, had this been in the US (or the middle east or africa or the rest of the world really) it won’t receive support. Juxlos (talk) 10:32, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Except it wasn't in those places, which is kind of the point. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:55, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also others said that before there was any mention here of a police hero, so it's at least possible that might have made a difference to their view (because I entirely agree that without the 'hero' angle this would not be ITN-worthy, at least in my view - indeed I wouldn't be involved here without it). Tlhslobus (talk) 11:02, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • A reminder: We did post the Austin bombings, they were only posted to ongoing, rather than a blurb when the situation ended. --Masem (t) 12:38, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The police officer who intervened in the attack has now died. This makes the attack notable for several reasons, with five dead including the perpetrator:
    • This is the deadliest terror incident in France since the attack in Nice.
    • If this had happened in any European country other than France, it would almost certainly be posted.
    • If it had occurred in France pre-2015, it certainly would have been posted.

184.151.37.41 (talk) 14:12, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Zell Miller

Article: Zell Miller (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Atlanta Journal Constitution
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

 It's Wiki Time (talk) 16:25, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, the "Senate" section is more than I can fix now; if nobody else gets to it I'll try in a few hours. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:44, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I took a hatchet to the unsourced material in that section. No {{cn}} tags remaining, but somebody else needs to review it before I'd support posting. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:41, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Much improved but still a few gaps. I have added tags. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:55, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: do we think the 2004 RNC bit is WP:UNDUE? I mean, I vividly remember watching him challenge Chris Matthews to a duel on live television, or say he wish he could. But, with the value of 14 years of hindsight, I'm thinking it should be trimmed a bit. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:49, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Antigua and Barbuda general election, 2018

Proposed image
Article: Antiguan general election, 2018 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The Antigua and Barbuda Labour Party led by incumbent Prime Minister Gaston Browne wins the Antigua and Barbuda general election, securing 15 of the 17 seats in the House of Representatives (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ The Antigua and Barbuda Labour Party, led by incumbent Prime Minister Gaston Browne (pictured), gains the most seats in the House of Representatives.
Alternative blurb II: ​ The Labour Party of Antigua and Barbuda gains the most seats in the House of Representatives.
News source(s): [1], [2], [3]
Credits:

The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

 WTKitty (talk) 11:36, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

March 22

March 22, 2018 (2018-03-22) (Thursday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology
  • Human genetics
    • DNA tests confirm Ata, an unusual six-inch-long mummy found in Chile in 2003, to be the remains of a newborn human with genetic mutations. (BBC)

[Ready] RD: Wayne Huizenga

Article: Wayne Huizenga (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): ESPN
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

 – Muboshgu (talk) 17:19, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Trump announces tariffs on China

Clear consensus against posting, so there is not a snowball's chance in hell of this being posted. Stormy clouds (talk) 14:41, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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: Trump tariffs (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ President of the United States Donald Trump signs an executive memorandum announcing his plan to impose tariffs on up to $60 billion USD of goods made in China. (Post)
News source(s): CNBC BBC NYT The Independent (many more if you look for them)
Credits:
Nominator's comments: I realize that the sanctions may well not take effect, since Trump just signed a memo basically announcing this intention on his part. But there has still been a HUGE reaction from China, which says they will “take all legal measures to protect our interest”, [4] and US Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer says that "China is likely to retaliate against the tariffs by targeting U.S. agricultural products that are reliant on the Chinese export market." [5] Stocks have also fallen. I think this adds up to a significant enough event to post IMO. Every morning (there's a halo...) 21:14, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense! Thanks for the edification, power~enwiki! Chetsford (talk) 23:45, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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.

March 21

March 21, 2018 (2018-03-21) (Wednesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

Turing Award

Articles: John L. Hennessy (talk · history · tag) and David Patterson (computer scientist) (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ John L. Hennessy and David A. Patterson win the Turing Award for their work on a simplified computer architecture. (Post)
News source(s): NYT, Wired, Xinhua
Credits:

One or both nominated events are listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

Nominator's comments: Needs work. One reads like a CV, the other is plagued with proseline. Fuebaey (talk) 17:28, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[Ready] Kabul suicide bombing

Article: March 2018 Kabul suicide bombing (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ A terrorist bombing kills 33 people in Kabul. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ A terrorist bombing in Kabul kills atleast 33 people, injuring more than 65 others.
Alternative blurb II: ​ A terrorist bombing kills atleast 33 people in Kabul.
Alternative blurb III: ​ A terrorist bombing kills atleast 33 people in Kabul, injuring more than 65 others.
News source(s): BBC News
Credits:

Article updated

 50.30.144.22 (talk) 00:27, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support It's not FA but it is passable. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:44, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Short but just about enough there now.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:56, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's less than 250 words of readable prose. We don't post stubs to the Main Page.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:28, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is close enough by my count, so it has my support. -- Tavix (talk) 17:47, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Kuczynski resigns

Proposed image
Article: Pedro Pablo Kuczynski (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ President of Peru Pedro Pablo Kuczynski resigns, amid a scandal over Operation Car Wash (Post)
News source(s): BBC, New York Times
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Sitting head of state resigns. Cambalachero (talk) 21:27, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

support came here to potentally nom and its itnr as head of state change. Tomorrow he will be replaced by VP Martin Vizcarra.Lihaas (talk) 09:52, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Austin bomber blows himself up

It's pretty clear this is going to be argued ad infiniteum. Consensus will never be reached. - Floydian τ ¢ 17:02, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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: Austin serial bombings (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The Austin bombings suspect kills himself in an explosion as authorities close in. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ In the United States, the suspected perpetrator of the Austin serial bombings kills himself in an explosion.
News source(s): New York Times
Credits:
Nominator's comments: As suggested below, proposing a blurb for this. It is still in the news and the suspect blowing himself up will create new interest in the story. Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:48, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Pulled from ongoing and not put in a blurb? Seems irregular to me. Major story that has dominated U.S. news (and been in news across the globe, not that that's necessary for ITN criteria) and has now reached its conclusion. Article is in good shape, and was just on the main page. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:53, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, not without precedent; this was recently pulled from ongoing after few hours of posting and opposed to be converted to blurb even though most of the blurbs then were older than it –Ammarpad (talk) 17:12, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak weak support I feel this was a domestic violence situation, equivalent to why we don't post shootings in the US. However, I recognize that "targeted bombing by shipped package" is a novel metric that made this significant ww news moreso than other facets. --Masem (t) 17:05, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose IMO, this was never an ITN-level story. Lepricavark (talk) 18:11, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. How many times is this same story going to be discussed? An attack that caused two deaths (plus the attacker) and no wider reaction is not a major enough encyclopaedic event to merit an ITN blurb. If we posted every terrorist (or criminal, if you prefer) attack in the world that killed two people we would have hundreds a year, maybe thousands. See List of terrorist incidents in March 2018 just as an example. Modest Genius talk 18:17, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Those are mostly (or all?) one-off events as opposed to somebody working over the course of weeks, for one thing. Most of those appear to be in war zones while Austin is not in one, for a second. Nobody says we can't be nominating and posting Boko Haram or whatever else. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:45, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support it is an unusual and for that reason it has made headlines and is ITN worthy. 2A02:A451:8B2D:1:ADD7:661C:B5A0:D000 (talk) 18:59, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
support CLEARLY been in the news this week. Further if attacks with barelycasualties and teachers protests in London are notable. This is far above noteworthy-ness. Still, it is not clear that it is 100% over yet either.
btw- clearlylocal sources are going to better (and there are other articles too).Lihaas (talk) 19:15, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The claim that it was already determined to be ITN-worthy is extremely debatable. I continue to believe that there was no consensus in the original thread, and there is clearly no consensus for posting here. Lepricavark (talk) 04:50, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the bombings killed 2 and injured some. If this was a school shooting, it would be an overwhelming oppose. Juxlos (talk) 10:45, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. It's not some sort of numbers game, it's about impact: by the mindless bean-counting argument on display, John Lennon's murder wouldn't have counted because, after all, it was only one death. --Calton | Talk 13:32, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per most of the above users, a local level incident with casualties only reaching the single digits almost never makes the ITN bulletin, while there are some past exceptions, roughly 90% percent of the time attacks like these do not make the cut. Kirliator (talk) 14:13, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose considerable overhype is written all over this nomination (alongside irony), all because of a series of attacks that were relatively minor in size. SamaranEmerald (talk) 14:20, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose, partially because the article at the moment seems to be uncertain about labelling the attacks incidents of terrorism (we all know what they would be called if the bomber weren't an American...) and also because given that we've already posted the bombings themselves to ongoing (and then removed them) I would want to see a lot more coverage for the attackers death to post that as a blurb in and of itself. Vanamonde (talk) 15:58, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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.

[Pulled] Pull: Austin bombings

Article: Austin serial bombings (talk · history · tag)
Ongoing item removal (Post)

Nominator's comments: They identified, found, and chased down their culprit, who blew himself up in the chase, effectively ending the situation. The police are still making sure no other packages are out there, but the situation is otherwise completed. --Masem (t) 13:51, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The suspect is dead, the case is closed. Any further details are purely ancillary.--WaltCip (talk) 15:30, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What if he had accomplices? What if there are other bombs out there that haven't yet been found? – Muboshgu (talk) 16:00, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And what if the Fed raises interest rates? What if Trump is found to have colluded with Russia? What if the world ended tomorrow? It's not the job of ITN to predict what may or may not have happened, and use said prediction as the basis for notability.--WaltCip (talk) 17:03, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb Even at the peak of the bombing it wouldn't have been posted if it were nominted for blurb and only marginally gained support for this ongoing posting. In addition, I Support removal from ongoing since reasonably it is no longer so with the death of the suspect. .–Ammarpad (talk) 15:29, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • We don't just pull something from ITN because it is resolved. By that logic we could pull every blurb currently on there because those stories are resolved. It's still in the news, because the suspect has been dead less than 12 hours. It was a mistake to pull the U.S. federal government shutdown blurb and we should not be making that into standard operating procedure here. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:58, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • While I mostly agree with you, the situation is a bit different for ongoing; however, the criteria here is that the article is still receiving regular updates with new information, and it seems likely that that will go on for a bit yet, so I'd weakly oppose removing this at this point. GoldenRing (talk) 16:04, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict × 2) No, we do pull ongoing items when they're no longer "ongoing". That's common. Removing " blurb" may be less so, but this is not blurb, it is something posted while it is ongoing..and wouldn't hurt if it is removed when it is no longer ongoing. Nonetheless, I can agree with you that it is too soon to be removed now. –Ammarpad (talk) 16:15, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair point re: pulling a blurb vs. pulling ongoing. Still, it seems to me ongoings often become blurbs when no longer "ongoing" without discussion necessary. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:57, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it's not notable enough for a blurb then why do we bloody have it up there as ongoing??--WaltCip (talk) 15:29, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because when it was nominated, editors were trying to compare the significance of this to the Unibomber, which was crystal-balling the event. It was simple domestic racially-motivated terrorism , which, given that this is the US, is not something we would have otherwise posted if we knew the facts beforehand. --Masem (t) 15:37, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pull. The event is over and an attack with two deaths (plus the attacker) is not significant enough to merit a blurb. I'm puzzled as to how this made it into the ongoing section in the first place, given the amount of opposition it received. Modest Genius talk 16:12, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pulled, as suggested. It is not ongoing anymore, it can be considered as a blurb, if a consensus is reached. --Tone 16:15, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

March 20

March 20, 2018 (2018-03-20) (Tuesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and incidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

[Posted] RD: Peter George Peterson

Article: Peter George Peterson (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The New York Times
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Article has been updated and fixed referencing issues --> --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:30, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] RD: Katie Boyle

Article: Katie Boyle (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Needs minor attention to referencing. The book section should be easy enough to deal with. Mjroots (talk) 18:34, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Northern white rhinoceros

Item already listed as a Recent Death. Stormy clouds (talk) 17:22, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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: Northern white rhinoceros (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Last male Northern white rhinoceros dies in Kenya. (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Sad news that yet another species probably is heading towards extinction if in vitro fertilisation (IVF) techniques aren't successful. cart-Talk 13:47, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Abel Prize

Articles: Robert Langlands (talk · history · tag) and Abel Prize (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ American-Canadian mathematician Robert Langlands wins the Abel Prize. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Mathematician Robert Langlands wins the Abel Prize for his development of the Langlands program.
News source(s): Abelprize.no
Credits:

One or both nominated events are listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

Nominator's comments: Article needs some work. –Ammarpad (talk) 11:26, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yeah, getting the necessary level of referencing in Robert_Langlands#Research is going to require some serious mathematical understanding. --LukeSurl t c 11:54, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I have posted about that on the talk page, hoping to resolve it, but now looking at how it was added. –Ammarpad (talk) 11:58, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • We should really mention the Langlands program in the blurb, as that's what he won it for; altblurb added. Unfortunately that article is in an even worse state for referencing, so we're a bit stuck without an expert. The rest of Langlands' article looks OK, it's just the research section that's problematic. Modest Genius talk 12:02, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Even with a bit of basic understanding of modern algebra, I tried reading even the lowest-level summary of the Langlands program and while I understand where its going, nowhere close to understand the levels of detail that are necessary to explain it at a basic level; its not the type of thing I can even see an easy layman's version coming about, outside of being towards a grand unified theory of everything. --Masem (t) 14:33, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with the above on the need for an expert to clean up the articles. I'm in favor of including "Langlands program" in the blurb. Davey2116 (talk) 17:25, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the research section, which was the only problem, has been improved from its former zero-source state. Courtesy ping @LukeSurl, Modest Genius, Davey2116, and Masem:. –Ammarpad (talk) 00:58, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going to have to oppose until someone can explain his research section in more layman terms. Not talking about dumbing down to simple.wiki prose here. I don't think it's an unfair request to write in a way a non-expert mathematician (yet average adult, native English reader) can understand. Fuebaey (talk) 18:40, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    It's cutting edge math research in an area where most of the concepts aren't even introduced to students until postgraduate studies. The idea that most of this is every going to be presentable in layman's terms is pretty unrealistic. WP:ONEDOWN would suggest shooting for something like the level of someone with a BS in Mathematics, but even that could be quite challenging at times. About the best bit of a lay description is already offered by the intro of Langlands program: "In mathematics, the Langlands program is a web of far-reaching and influential conjectures about connections between number theory and geometry." But trying to really explain what they are talking about isn't going to be possible at a lay audience level. Dragons flight (talk) 19:31, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Langlands' article is now in good shape. I still think we should include "Langlands program", to if anything give the reader a sense of how groundbreaking his work is. As a non-expert, I first heard about the Langlands program when the proof of Fermat's Last Theorem was announced. Davey2116 (talk) 04:26, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Nicolas Sarkozy arrested

Clear consensus against posting the mere arrest of a former government official. Sca (talk) 14:53, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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: Nicolas Sarkozy (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Former President of France Nicholas Sarkozy (pictured) is arrested by police and held for questioning regarding allegations the 2007 French presidential election was influenced by Libya. (Post)
News source(s): Bloomberg ABC News
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: The arrest of the former head of state of a permanent member of the UN Security Council is of sufficient relative rarity to make it noteworthy. It has been covered widely outside of France. Chetsford (talk) 08:23, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would note that on rare occasions arrests do get posted, such as with El Chapo in 2014. 331dot (talk) 11:43, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This is not a case like El Chapo where the subject had been wanted for some considerable time. In those cases the arrest is newsworthy rather than, as here, the allegations but BLP considerations rightly mean that we don't post for just allegations. Also I think that being arrested for questioning is less significant in a civil law system such as France than in a common law system like the UK and USA (but having written that I'm now less certain than I Was). Thryduulf (talk) 11:48, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I do think that the arrest of a former head of state on charges related to their own election to office might merit posting(Sarkozy is being investigated for allegedly accepting illegal campaign contributions) although right now he is just being questioned. 331dot (talk) 11:59, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ritchie333: Is a former President not a public figure and covered by WP:WELLKNOWN?(genuine question) 331dot (talk) 12:20, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes, good point well made (for those watching at home, here is an important lesson as to why you should read policy instead of just quoting it with what you think it says) - nevertheless, until there is an actual conviction, I think we should err on the side of caution. There's plenty of mud thrown at Trump, but not much has been proven yet in a court of law, for instance. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:22, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree that posting now is not appropriate(count that as a formal oppose). 331dot (talk) 12:24, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The only time I'd think we'd post the arrest of a leader is if it was while they still held office. Otherwise, as pointed out above, we'll wait on the conviction itself to post. --Masem (t) 14:11, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per most of the above. If he were still president I would probably support on the basis that sitting presidents being arrested is pretty unusual. But he is not in office. And last I looked he has not actually been charged with anything... yet. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:52, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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: Ayaz Soomro

Article: Ayaz Soomro (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Dawn
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Short but well referenced. Lets see if it just needs one Support before getting posted like the RDs from West or it requires Support from everyone on WP before getting posted because of the usual WP:BIAS. 39.48.73.97 (talk) 07:08, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Cambridge Analytica

No consensus to post. Consider renominating if there are formal charges/convictions. SpencerT♦C 21:14, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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: Cambridge Analytica (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The UK's Information Commissioner will seek a warrant to look at the databases used by British firm Cambridge Analytica, a company accused of using personal data of 50 million Facebook members to influence US presidential election in 2016. (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Big news, fall in Facebook stock. Sherenk1 (talk) 04:58, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It's yet another facet of the investgation of the election. --Masem (t) 06:01, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sure, but, I mean, 50 million users is pretty significant if you ask me. That said, if anything were to be posted, I'd probably use a different (and shorter) blurb to take note of the general incident. Master of Time (talk) 06:38, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose keywords being "will seek a warrant". It's a long way from "will seek a warrant" to "have received a warrant" to "have found something" to "have concluded that Cambridge Analytica has used the personal data of 50 million Facebook members to influence the 2016 US presidential election" to "have enacted ____ as punishment". When we get to the last step, then we can reexamine. Banedon (talk) 06:58, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I think that, once the warrant is served, this would be very much worthy of revisiting. However, as of now, a person announcing their intention to maybe do something at some point in the undetermined future may be a little too much on the edge. Chetsford (talk) 08:28, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - There's no there there. Not an actual finding of fact of election tampering.--WaltCip (talk) 11:01, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose at least until formal charges are brought. 331dot (talk) 11:03, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Incidentally, a fall in stock price is meaningless. The market volatility is at its highest that it's been in years. The stock is just as likely to recover once the market-timers stop panic selling and buy back in within a few days.--WaltCip (talk) 11:09, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support dominating the news since this weekend, decent article. --76.122.98.135 (talk) 12:10, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
IP user, we don't generally post allegations or investigations. Formal charges, maybe; convictions, likely. But not every step in the process. 331dot (talk) 12:12, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I was "CosmicAdventure" (scrambled my password to enforce a wiki break and then lost it ... oops). It's in the news now, the article is decent now, post it now. #twocents anyway. --76.122.98.135 (talk) 12:53, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is one of those cases where it will be WP:Crystalball up until the point that it's stale. In two years, FB will have gone the way of Myspace, and this is why. The warrant is not the issue, it's Facebook obscene breach of trust. GCG (talk) 12:28, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This is angle I was going for. Maybe someone can help write blurb from this viewpoint. Sherenk1 (talk) 12:41, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We need FB or a gov't doing the "action" in the blurb I think; we can't say "A whistleblower says..." Perhaps "FB acknowledges the unauthorised disclosure of data on 50 MM users to CA...blah, blah" GCG (talk) 12:56, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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.

March 19

March 19, 2018 (2018-03-19) (Monday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

Politics and elections

RD: Keith O'Brien

Proposed image
Article: Keith O'Brien (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC The Guardian The Times Vatican News
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: This person is the last cardinal in Scotland, and there is a developing story about his behaviour around other people. Do the Danse Macabre! (Talk) 20:16, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] RD: Sudan (rhinoceros)

It's been posted, the dis-ambig has been added, we're done.--WaltCip (talk) 11:11, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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: Sudan (rhinoceros) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: The world's last surviving male northern white rhino. Sherenk1 (talk) 07:12, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I just got an edit conflict trying to post this here! Most statements in the article are referenced, but I haven't explored all the cites in detail. Will try to do some more cleaning up tonight. Ackatsis (talk) 07:16, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguator added, enough people are genuinely confused about this, and no good argument not to do this in this one case has been presented. Fram (talk) 08:40, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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 to Ongoing] Austin package explosions

Article: Austin package explosions (talk · history · tag)
Ongoing item nomination (Post)
News source(s): NY Times, Reuters
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Ongoing serial bombings Valoem talk contrib 19:28, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry this is my first time nominating, ongoing is fine. Valoem talk contrib 20:11, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't understand that logic. Suppose this was posted as an ongoing item, does that mean it would remain an ongoing item until the case was solved? Chrisclear (talk) 04:48, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It would remain an ongoing item while there were significant developments and regular updates.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:30, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
10 support and 12 Oppose and we still posted. Disclaimer: I supported posting it. Sherenk1 (talk) 05:38, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Opposition to posting a blurb is different from opposition to posting to ongoing. Master of Time (talk) 05:50, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is also not a straight vote. 331dot (talk) 08:14, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Pull - My count is 12 Support votes (incl. the nominator) and 12 Oppose votes. There was no blurb MoT, so everyone who voted Oppose actually opposed posting to Ongoing. 39.48.37.7 (talk) 08:59, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Discussions like this are not a straight vote, but a weighing of arguments as well. 331dot (talk) 09:03, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Which will create more interest in the story. Seems odd to remove it when our readers will be looking for it. Pawnkingthree (talk) 10:22, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But the suspect is dead, meaning that the bombings have stopped and that the story is effectively over. No longer ongoing.--WaltCip (talk) 11:02, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

March 18

March 18, 2018 (2018-03-18) (Sunday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sports

[Closed] First self-driving car fatality

No consensus. Stephen 23:27, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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: Autonomous car (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Elaine Herzberg becomes the first uninvolved pedestrian to be killed by an autonomous car. (Post)
News source(s): [6] [7] [8]
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Putting this here when the crash happened, but it has continued to generate coverage. "Uninvolved pedestrian" because she wasn't part of the test. Banedon (talk) 08:02, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm pretty sure someone has already been killed in relation to a self-driving vehicle before this happened. How many specific scenarios are we willing to post blurbs for? I can't say I support this one. Master of Time (talk) 08:06, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I think the fact the victim's article is heading for deletion says it all. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:28, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. While unfortunate, this is being reported as a relatively minor story. I also think long term this will just be a footnote in the history of autonomous cars; few people (unfortunately) will know who this person is. Most people don't know who the first pedestrian killed by a regular car is. 331dot (talk) 08:40, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Cars with drivers kill hundreds more on a daily basis.--WaltCip (talk) 11:03, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It was more a matter of when there was going to be a self-driving car-related fatality, the industry never claimed perfection. This happened to be it, but it came as no surprise. --Masem (t) 15:05, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. There are huge numbers of people killed by vehicles every day; the fact that this particular vehicle was more automated than previous ones makes it a piece of trivia. I would suggest DYK instead, but the article looks like it fails WP:BLP1E. Modest Genius talk 16:16, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Road deaths are a common occurrence, and it was inevitable that someone would eventually be killed by an autonomous car. Also, the proposed blurb stating that the pedestrian was 'uninvolved' is inaccurate. The town's police chief has said that an initial investigation indicates that the crash was unavoidable, caused by abruptly stepping into the street. Mamyles (talk) 16:54, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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: David Cooper (immunologist)

Article: David Cooper (immunologist) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Kirby

News.com.au
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Australian immunologist who diagnosed the first case of HIV in Australia. Article is a little short but is well sourced. I may try to expand it later if I get time Dumelow (talk) 14:17, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Russian presidential election, 2018

Posted, that is about it. The article is being constantly expanded to address the comments of those who wanted more content. As editors noted that it is time to close this, I am closing. --Tone 17:12, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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: Russian presidential election, 2018 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Vladimir Putin is reelected as President of Russia. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Vladimir Putin is elected as President of Russia for a fourth term.
Alternative blurb II: ​ Vladimir Putin is elected to fourth term as President of Russia.
News source(s): BBC, Guardian, Reuters, dpa ((in English), Zeit (in German)
Credits:

Article needs updating
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Nominator's comments: Added now to assess article quality so as to make it ready to post as soon as election results are announced. Blurb can be specified at that time. Sherenk1 (talk) 11:38, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Not saying this to be pointy, but ITNR thinks the election of a head of state is notable, but that is based on the notion that an election is a choice by a populous. There is a threshold of corruption where the preceding cease to be an election in the conventional sense of the word, and what happened in Russia today certainly exceeds that threshold.GCG (talk) 20:04, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Based on decades of newspaper editing, I must strongly disagree with this unilateral deletion of another's proposal. Replaced blurb as Alt2 once again.
Go fly a kite. Sca (talk) 15:20, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Irrelevant personal comments.
  • Comment We have posted w/o any editorial comment some of the most corrupt and patently fake elections ever staged. We are likely going to do the same for the reelection of the President of China whose manner of election would probably make Stalin smile. There is no question that this whole thing has been rigged from the word go. And yes that needs to be in the article before I will support it. But not in any blurb on ITN. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:03, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with presenting a short blurb without the fraud, and that the fraud needs to be mentioned in the article. I started a talk page thread there about it. I don't know exactly how to write the fraud section that the article needs to be complete. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:09, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – Significant news about the reelection of a major world figure in a major country. I would change alt-blurb II to say "his" fourth term, though. Master of Time (talk) 22:11, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment what Ad Orientem said. All of you whinging about "corruption" should look closer to home, and accept that Wikipedia is not here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, merely to report what has actually happened. Where did it all go so wrong for so many of you? Incidentally, refusing to post this until some kind of "fraud" section is added to the article is bullshit, and pure systemic bias, arguably worse. We post per RS, so as and when we have consensus to post based on the results, that's what we do, we don't wait for admins who don't like the result to declare their own posting criteria, that's complete and utter bullshit. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:23, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • We post updated articles, that means articles should be relatively complete. Without fraud allegations, this article is missing significant context. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:26, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • The allegations seem to be primarily coming from western press at this point, not internally to Russia (contrast to the last US election where it was definitely internal). At this point, external allegation are not needed. If there does come internal allegations raised, that can be added, but it is not necessary for an ITNR posting, and like TRM, I have a great concern a number of editors are seeing the requirement of having them as righting great wrongs. We are not in that business. --Masem (t) 22:28, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Masem: Golos is internal, and they're reporting alleged violations.[11] – Muboshgu (talk) 22:31, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • Once WP:RS are declaring results, this should be posted, we don't need to wait for some "admin" version of the "truth", perhaps these "admins" should step aside and allow others to make judgements here, the kind of judgements we expect from our admins, not those which are personal and against the principles of Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:34, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • (ec) Even with that, because WP handles news of allegations carefully, I would only expect initial mention that there might be allegations. It would be irresponsible of us to try to document a full allegations section until Russia's election organization can actually comment on it. Initial statements would fine, but they are not necessary to consider this article complete for ITN posting. --Masem (t) 22:36, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to remind everybody that, apart from the technical ability to post things on the front page (and the obligation to assess and act according to consensus when doing so), admins don't have any special powers here. People unhappy with the content of the article would be advised to add referenced content, or discuss the flaws of the article on the talk page. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:37, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: As to why it is news, you will need to take that up with the news media; here at ITN we do not editorialize or make judgements about the validity, fairness, or legitimacy of elections. That's for readers to decide for themselves. This event is what passes for an election in Russia. That's all we are interested in. 331dot (talk) 11:25, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pull until the article sufficiently covers the allegations of fraud. We don't editorialize in ITN blurbs, but we also shouldn't post articles that are missing important information. Lepricavark (talk) 14:12, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Right now, there's claims of ballot stuffing and the like, and that's in the article as well as the election committee's response that there was no major incidents they had observed yet, but there's no formal claims or allegations that we as WP can rightfully justify a complete section on and stay within NPOV. There will likely be more in the next several weeks, just as there was with the US election, but for ITN, the article properly covered the key event. --Masem (t) 14:18, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep feel free to embellish the Reactions section which is already quite descriptive. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:14, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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] RD: Li Ao

Stale. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:33, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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: Li Ao (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [12]
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Article well written and sourced Oceangai (talk) 14:33, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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.

March 17

March 17, 2018 (2018-03-17) (Saturday)
Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

[Closed] RD: Sushil Siddharth

Stale. Older than oldest RD. SpencerT♦C 17:38, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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: Sushil Siddharth (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Hindustan and Navbharat Times
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
 Skr15081997 (talk) 15:02, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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] Ameenah Gurib

Was nominated on the 12th, and not posted because of quality which is still not sufficient. Stephen 22:27, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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: Ameenah Gurib (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ President of Mauritius Ameenah Gurib resigns amid financial misconduct allegations. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ President of Mauritius Ameenah Gurib resigns amid credit card scandal.
News source(s): Al Jazeera Bloomberg BBC Times of India NYT 1 NYT 2
Credits:

Article updated
 39.48.73.97 (talk) 08:15, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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: Mike MacDonald

Article: Mike MacDonald (comedian) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): CBC
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Article well sourced --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:02, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Xi Jinping reappointed president without term limits

Proposed image
Article: Xi Jinping (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Xi Jinping (pictured) is re-elected as the President of the People's Republic of China with no term limits by the National People’s Congress. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Xi Jinping (pictured) is re-elected as the President of the People's Republic of China.
News source(s): AFP, Reuters, Al Jazeera
Credits:

The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

Nominator's comments: Should qualify under WP:ITN/R as an indirect election for head of state. starship.paint ~ KO 03:30, 18 March 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Previous, related nomination on the removal of term limits on March 11. Current nomination is on the reelection of President on March 17, and has a different target article
  • Name: Chinese presidential term limits removed
  • Date: March 11
  • Alternative blurb: ​The National People's Congress removes term limits for the President of the People's Republic of China (incumbent Xi Jinping pictured)
  • Alternative blurb II: ​The National People's Congress removes term limits for the President of the People's Republic of China, with Xi Jinping as the incumbent president.
  • Alternative blurb III: ​At the 2018 National People's Congress, the Chinese legislature removes term limits for the President of the People's Republic of China (incumbent Xi Jinping pictured)
  • Sources: BBC,CNN, Reuters

Nominator's comments: Significant change in way of governing in one of the most significant countries now. More from The New York Times on why this is a big deal. Feel free to add more blurbs and suggest alternative target articles as the current one is not detailed starship.paint ~ KO 09:27, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Conditional support Widely covered and highly notable, might very well not have more Chinese presidential succession for a while. Article needs significant extensions though. Also blurb feels a bit long. Juxlos (talk) 11:02, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Change to Support focusing on the presidency instead of the meeting per below. Juxlos (talk) 07:41, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on quality - article tells us nothing more than the blurb and is almost as long. The reason your struggling with the blurb is we can't say what RS are saying per WP:crystalball. The part we can say doesn't feel all that newsworthy. GCG (talk) 11:32, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The PRC is free to use its legal processes to change its laws about how long the President serves whenever it wishes. This will have little effect. 331dot (talk) 12:16, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would add that this legislature is essentially a rubber stamp body anyway. If Xi didn't want it, they wouldn't do it. 331dot (talk) 12:20, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
With the exception of Mao Zedong, the term limit seems to be obeyed in general. While the body may not exactly be a proper democratic one this still implies a major event in Chinese politics. If Trump even formally proposes doing this it will be all over the news in a heartbeat. Juxlos (talk) 12:54, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
FYI the US President has no formal role in crafting US Constitutional amendments. He can't push one through Congress (2/3 vote needed) or through the states (3/4 of the states). He can propose whatever he wants but it's unlikely it would happen. I believe he has joked about doing something similar to this Chinese action. 331dot (talk) 19:14, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Stormy clouds (talk) 19:56, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There was an uncited section, now fixed. Juxlos (talk) 10:20, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, still opposed. The new target has only a brief mention and offers no more information than what is in the blurb. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:12, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, but that's currently the bold link in the blurb. If there's a better location for an update, that's fine. We do need one somewhere. Modest Genius talk 13:03, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in principle. If allowing presidency for life in the most populous country and second-largest economy in the world, which directly impacts 1.4 billion people and has large potential to affect international relations, does not merit a blurb, then I'm really wondering what the political news should be concerned with to get included.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:22, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think there is a lot of support in principle because this is a huge power grab for Xi. However, he is only the third leader of China since the President role became synonymous with the supreme leader, and he is just now entering his second term. The narrative that he is becoming Mao-like or ruling for life is highly speculative. GCG (talk) 13:37, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominal or not, it’s still the head of state position, the same way we care about the Queen of the United Kingdom. Juxlos (talk) 15:34, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant oppose as it's a significant story that is getting coverage, but neither proposed target has been sufficiently updated - the 2018 Congress article is still a stub and there has been a mere two line update to the new target that tells us little more than the blurb.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:33, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I didn't get a ping even though I see you tried. Anyway, I don't think the blurb needs to mention term limits or lack thereof, which is a separate issue from who the President is(even if the legislature is just rubber stamping the choice of President). 331dot (talk) 07:26, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is this really an indirect election to make this ITNR? The election was squaring from those already sitting in the national congress in contrast to, eg, the US's electoral college. Normally Election ITNRs point to an election article, (and the winner if that article is in good shape), but clearly there's nothing close to that here. I am not saying that there is not something to put to ITN here between the combination fo the term limits and this recent "rubber stamping" by the congress, just that I don't think we should consider this ITNR. --Masem (t) 13:44, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know their system; is the Congress even given more than one candidate to in theory choose from?(even if Xi winning is predetermined) Even if Xi is the only option, could they in theory not choose him? It would still nominally be an election for head of state (again, even if the result is predetermined) 331dot (talk) 13:50, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ireland win Six Nations

Proposed image
Article: 2018 Six Nations Championship (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In rugby union, Ireland win a Grand Slam in the Six Nations Championship. (captain Rory Best pictured) (Post)
News source(s): RTÉ BBC
Credits:

The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

Nominator's comments: Article needs some referencing, but is in an alright state. Item is ITN/R, and derives additional notability as it is only Ireland's third Grand Slam (and happens to fall on St. Patrick's Day). Stormy clouds (talk) 16:59, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is just winning the Grand Slam on ITNR? They won the Six Nations a week ago.--Johnsemlak (talk) 03:23, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This nom is for the Six Nations as a whole. We wait until the tournament is concluded. Pawnkingthree (talk) 11:58, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose until improved. Compare 2016 [14] where the item was nominated in a state similar to the current one but was not posted until there was prose on the actual games themselves. (For some reason, this seems not to have been posted - or even nominated - at all in 2017.) There are also a number of uncited statements. Black Kite (talk) 12:17, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Needs update. Now is the correct time to nominate this, but at present there are only three sentences of prose in the article about the results of the entire tournament. The rest is all build-up, tables and team sheets. This needs a few referenced paragraphs describing the progress of the tournament. 2016_Six_Nations_Championship#Story_of_the_tournament is an excellent example, though it doesn't need to be quite that detailed to be posted. Modest Genius talk 14:07, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

Nominators often include links to external websites and other references in discussions on this page. It is usually best to provide such links using the inline URL syntax [http://example.com] rather than using <ref></ref> tags, because that keeps all the relevant information in the same place as the nomination without having to jump to this section, and facilitates the archiving process.

For the times when <ref></ref> tags are being used, here are their contents:

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates&oldid=832208563"