Open main menu

Wikipedia β

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.

The ATR 72–200 operated as Iran Aseman Airlines Flight 3704 pictured in 2006
The ATR 72–200 operated as Iran Aseman Airlines Flight 3704

How to nominate an itemEdit

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.

HeadersEdit

  • 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 header.

Voicing an opinion on an itemEdit

  • 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)

.

SuggestionsEdit

February 19Edit

Portal:Current events/2018 February 19

February 18Edit

Portal:Current events/2018 February 18
Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents
Law and crime
Sports

71st British Academy Film AwardsEdit

Article: 71st British Academy Film Awards (talk, history)
Blurb: Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri wins five awards, including Best Film, at the 71st British Academy Film Awards.
News source(s): Screendaily
Nominator: JuneGloom07 (talk • give credit)

Article needs updating

Nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, meaning that the recurrence of the event is generally considered important enough to post on WP:ITN subject to the quality of the article and the update to it.

 JuneGloom07 Talk 21:25, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose no prose, just a three-line lead and tables, tables, tables. Take a look at last year's article... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:30, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose apart from what the user above said, do we even post these awards in the ITN? Oscars I can understand, but the british academy awards are in the same league as, say, the Golden globes, or the festival de Cannes. So if we give this pass on importance, we should the also post the globes and the cannes, and then maybe the berlin festival and the chinese one who's name I forgot and then we turn IMDb into the IMDB news page. Karl.i.biased (talk) 23:00, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
    If you don't like it being ITNR, nominate it for removal. Until then, it's ITNR, precisely to avoid the kind of comment you've just made. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:01, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose only due to lack of update. A 2-3 paragraph bit about the ceremonies themselves is all that is needed. --Masem (t) 23:10, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - not updated.BabbaQ (talk) 23:47, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] Iran Aseman Airlines Flight 3704Edit

Article: Iran Aseman Airlines Flight 3704 (talk, history)
Blurb: Iran Aseman Airlines Flight 3704 (aircraft pictured) crashes in the Zagros Mountains killing all 66 people on board.
Alternative blurb: Iran Aseman Airlines Flight 3704 crashes in the Zagros Mountains, with 65 people on board
News source(s): BBC
Nominator: The Rambling Man (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: Early reports, article obviously needs updates as does blurb when they decide no-one survived. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:57, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Just made the wording more standard and straightforward, as in the Saratov Airlines crash. Brandmeistertalk 09:56, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. Some small expansion now done, but probably better posted sooner rather than later. What's there is well sourced. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:22, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Article seems just long enough and presumably will expand as more info comes in. Juxlos (talk) 11:42, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - major airliner crash with high loss of life. Mjroots (talk) 11:46, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - Per above.BabbaQ (talk) 11:49, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support -The article is fine and adequately referenceed. The scale of the loss and coverage is also very high. Worth posting anytime soon –Ammarpad (talk) 12:09, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Posting. Feel free to add the photo. --Tone 13:42, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Past technicalities. Brandmeistertalk 22:58, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Note: number of passengers later corrected to 59, total on board 65. Will post at Errors. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:32, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Has now been corrected. I've pasted in the new blurb as ALT above. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:27, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Just be careful when deleting references which are used multiple times. I fixed two orphaned references that you removed when the numbers changed. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:44, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure whether it's better to be half right or half wrong. One of those has since been binned. So we're left with two that contradict the content. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:45, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Just because the numbers didn't add up, the other details were used throughout the article. Please don't summarily delete named references without checking the mess you leave afterwards. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:59, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for making it look tidy. I'd be reluctant to deliberately re-add links with incorrect information for something that's on the main page. Those sources are still wrong. I thought you might have had an opinion on the new blurb. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:05, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Nothing to do with it looking neat, it's to do with replacing references you summarily deleted. The sources may be out of date, but that's commonplace with ITN items. The references were used for other verification, so please don't do that again without fixing the issues you leave. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:09, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
They're still wrong. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:19, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Then feel free to fix them, but don't just delete them when they're used to reference other items in the article. Thanks again! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:34, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Feel free also, as nominator. Although the original blurb we had now seems less than ideal for some reason. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:06, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
I don't follow you. The published blurb is fine, the news sources naturally differ on their numbers because of the situation, the original blurb has been superseded. Do you have something to add that benefits our readers here? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:12, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Please don't follow me. I just make a mess, it seems. But at the article talk page you tell us the original blurb was "bullshit"? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:15, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
You did make a mess. And don't do it again. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:17, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
And good luck with future nominating blurbs. "Thanks again". Martinevans123 (talk) 22:27, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
I don't need luck, and please don't make any more of those kinds of edits. You made a mess. I fixed it. If you need help with how to use named references, feel free to drop me a line. Thanks again. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:30, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I have a number of lines in mind already. Thanks for just letting go with this so quickly, after giving just a subtle hint of wrongdoing. Would anyone care to hat this? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:35, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Comment this line of "conversation" is going nowhere, could an uninvolved editor close down the nomination please, the referencing issues have been temporarily resolved. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:34, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

February 17Edit

Portal:Current events/2018 February 17
Disasters and accidents
Law and crime
Politics and elections

Sheep human embryoEdit

Article: Sheep (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Scientists in Scotland successfully grow the first sheep embryo containing the cells of humans.
News source(s): The Guardian The Telegraph
Nominator: Andise1 (talk • give credit)

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Not sure what the best target article(s) should be so I just linked Sheep for now. Feel free to suggest better articles that you know of. Andise1 (talk) 00:36, 19 February 2018 (UTC) (UTC)

  • No comment yet on appropriatenes, but perhaps Xenotransplantation as the target? --Masem (t) 00:42, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Also to comment, this is research announced at a professional meeting, but does not appear to be yet published (a paper seems to be pending though). --Masem (t) 00:43, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

[Posted: Ongoing] 2018 Winter OlympicsEdit

Nominator's comments: I'm a bit surprised that this hasn't been added to ongoing as the Winter Olympics are underway and medals in several events have already been awarded. It's also a bit troublesome to navigate through the chronological summary without a direct link from the main page. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:02, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

  • With the current blurb on the opening ceremony, there's no need for ongoing, and I'm pretty sure its established once that falls off the ongoing is automatic. --Masem (t) 13:06, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
    • However, we always link to the main event page, not to the timeline. --Masem (t) 13:07, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
      • We have always linked to the chronological summary (please see for the 2016 Summer Olympics and 2014 Winter Olympics as an example) regardless of the blurb reporting about the opening ceremony (please see also for the 2016 Summer Olympics and 2014 Winter Olympics as another example).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:35, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
        • Nevermind, then. The only thing I would be concerned with is the collasped tables for summary of results - I would expect some visible prose on the list. (I see the 2016 one is the only other one with this collapsed format, and its not really helpful, to me. ) --Masem (t) 16:37, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - do not feel that simultaneous listings at ongoing and as a blurb are required. Stormy clouds (talk) 21:50, 10 February 2018 (UTC) - NB: This nomination was previously closed by me, but has been reopened per the wishes of the nominator.
  • Comment If the blurb reporting about the opening ceremony is the problem, then we could pull it in order to move the story to ongoing. The opening ceremony is not the main news for a such event any more.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:42, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Support pull and move to ongoing. This is the logical decision in my view. Stormy clouds (talk) 15:35, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose doing anything until this naturally rolls off the bottom of the list, and at that point we can shift it to ongoing. --Jayron32 15:26, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
  • In my opinion, the suggested list of results (chronological summary) fails as an encyclopedic article and, as a stub, shouldn't be listed on the front page. Until proper prose sections are added, I believe 2018 Winter Olympics would be a more appropriate article to list on the front page. ~Mable (chat) 10:57, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
    • The posting of the chronological summary page became an WP:IAR consensus because the original practice was to post them on ITN directly.[1] Zzyzx11 (talk) 09:05, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support, even if we need to apply a little WP:IAR to the normal rules for ITN. It is definitely "in the news", it is well-updated and referenced, and it condenses all the most information related to the broader topic that is in the news into one convenient yet informative article. I don't really see the need to pull the opening ceremony if this were posted to ongoing, but I would support it if that were necessary for some reason, as this is the part that is currently "in the news" and the article that would be much more difficult to find than (rather than the opening ceremony one). Canadian Paul 15:11, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Note - I hope I'm not out of turn doing this, but as the opening cermony blurb is now the last item on the ticker, I figured this should be brought back up to the top for current discussion rather than remaining below, only to be seen by the oddly-timed watchlist entry with this section header. - Floydian τ ¢ 09:11, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support We've posted the summary page as ongoing for previous Olympics. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 13:37, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted as ongiong, as the blurb just rolled out of the ITN box. --Tone 20:59, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

February 16Edit

Portal:Current events/2018 February 16
Armed conflict and attacks
Disasters and accidents
Law and crime
Politics and elections

2018 Oaxaca earthquakeEdit

Article: 2018 Oaxaca earthquake (talk, history)
Blurb: An earthquake strikes Oaxaca, Mexico, and a helicopter carrying government officials surveying the damage crashes and kills 14 people.
News source(s): BBC
Nominator: Zanhe (talk • give credit)
Updater: Matthiasb (talk • give credit)
Other updaters: Raymie (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: This is an unusual disaster: the strong earthquake did not kill anybody, but the helicopter crash killed 14. Zanhe (talk) 08:14, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Support The evente is notable and the article is pretty good. Davey2116 (talk) 08:22, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Article in good shape, even though "summary section" can benefit from improvement to have more direct reference. The blurb is also too wordy, and needs tweaking or alternative. –Ammarpad (talk) 12:17, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. When an incompetent government helicopter crash's death toll of 15 exceeds the entire earthquake's death toll of 0, that should tell you that it should not be posted. Abductive (reasoning) 13:05, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  • This is not valid reason for opposing ITN candidate. See "Please do not" advise above. –Ammarpad (talk) 16:42, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Ok, how's this; add the item in no longer in the news to my oppose. And please, poiny out which of the "Please do not"s where my oppose went wrong... Abductive (reasoning) 19:05, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - This earthquake incident is notable, article is not good shape.18:06, 18 February 2018 (UTC)BabbaQ (talk)
  • Oppose - the earthquake killed nobody, and is therefore not particularly notable and of minimal lasting impact. The helicopter crash is tangential, and would struggle to pass on notability as it was a plane crash involving government personnel, and had a low death toll compared to the other posted aviation incidents currently at ITN. Therefore, I oppose both items (they should really be considered separately) owing to a lack of lasting impact. Stormy clouds (talk) 19:25, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

RD: Leo CahillEdit

Article: Leo Cahill (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Globe & Mail
Nominator and updater: Floydian (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: Former CFL coach / General Manager. Not a long article by any means, but I have expanded it slightly and sourced everything. Floydian τ ¢ 09:16, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Support –Stub but well sourced, good for RD. –Ammarpad (talk) 13:18, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose A well-sourced stub is still a stub. Challenger l (talk) 19:02, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose stub. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:56, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Lassie Lou AhernEdit

Article: Lassie Lou Ahern (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The Hollywood Reporter
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 updated and well sourced --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 06:27, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Support Adequately sourced. –Ammarpad (talk) 13:26, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak support brief but adequate. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:01, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: There are only 2 sentences describing her life between 1932 and 2018. Although she may not have actively been starring in movies, the article does not have sufficient biographical coverage in my opinion. SpencerT♦C 22:16, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 01:47, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

KP Sharma Oli appointed Nepal's new prime ministerEdit

Article: Khadga Prasad Oli (talk, history)
Blurb: Khadga Prasad Oli sworn in as 41st prime minister of Nepal.
News source(s): (AZ), (THT), (NYT), (HT)
Nominator: Biplab Anand (talk • give credit)

 Biplab Anand (Talk) 06:55, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Conditional support: Head of government of a country but the article can use some references. Juxlos (talk) 09:20, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. Article needs a bunch of references; the Marxist Insurgency section, several paragraphs under the multi-party democracy section, and the entire electoral history section needs refs. --Jayron32 13:47, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment The swearing-ins of heads of government are not normally posted, it's heads of state who are in the limelight. In this case, the Nepalese king president is the head of state. Brandmeistertalk 16:29, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
    That's irrelevent. The swearing-ins of heads of government are not on ITNR. Which is meaningless in any discussion not involving ITNR. There are hundreds of items we post that are not covered by ITNR, we discuss them on their merits, and make the decision to post them without regard for anything except is the article quality good enough and is this a topic which is in the news. --Jayron32 17:43, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
    I don't recall seeing various swearing-ins of PMs on ITN. Nearly all countries have their own PMs who come and go and I don't see why this one is particularly special. Obviously, if we post every one of them, the main page would be overwhelmed. Brandmeistertalk 18:03, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
    If Theresa May or Justin Trudeau was replaced, this would be an unanimous Support. They don't change that often. Juxlos (talk) 21:20, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  • @Brandmeister: Nepal's monarchy was abolished 10 years ago. They have a president now but the Prime Minister is the real leader. -Zanhe (talk) 21:22, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Conditional support per Juxlos. -Zanhe (talk) 21:25, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose needs better referencing. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:32, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

February 15Edit

Portal:Current events/2018 February 15
Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and economy
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Science and technology

Ethiopia PM Hailemariam Desalegn resignationEdit

Article: Hailemariam Desalegn (talk, history)
Blurb: Hailemariam Desalegn resigns as Ethiopia's prime minister and chairman of EPRDF.
News source(s): (BBC), (DW), (VoA), (Fox news), (The Guardian)
Nominator: Jenda H. (talk • give credit)

 Jenda H. (talk) 14:45, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment Article needs a much better update to establish context for the resignation. --Masem (t) 14:48, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose too much unreferenced material in the target BLP. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:58, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per above, support once referencing issues are addressed. - Floydian τ ¢ 18:58, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Conditional support on quality notability is undeniable but the quality of the article is very poor. Will support if unreferenced material is referenced and the article is improved in general. Karl.i.biased (talk) 04:58, 16 February 2018 (UTC)


February 14Edit

Portal:Current events/2018 February 14
Armed conflicts and attacks
  • Syrian Civil War
    • Russian aircraft carry out airstrikes in in Ma'arrat Hurma village in Syria's northwestern Idlib province, killing seven civilians and injuring 10 others, mostly women and children. (TRT World)
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Sports

[Posted] Florida school shootingEdit

Reclosing- Consensus is clear and there is no chance that this is going to be pulled. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:49, 15 February 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: Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Seventeen people are killed in a shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Florida
News source(s): ABC, New Zealand Herald,
Nominator: Cyclonebiskit (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: Safe to say this goes above "regular mass shooting" in the United States and is worth posting. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 23:19, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Significant death toll and article is ok - it will improve as more information becomes available. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:25, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Even by US standards, 16 deaths in a school shooting is a big deal. Article is short but I expect it to be rapidly expanded when new information becomes available. -Zanhe (talk) 23:27, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak Support My default position on these is that they're generally non-notable (they run at around one every two weeks this decade), but this is the worst one for 50 years bar Virginia Tech and Sandy Hook, so I have to give it a weak support. Black Kite (talk) 23:29, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Sheriff just confirmed 17 victims, 12 inside the school. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 23:30, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose There's a mass shooting in the US every week. Already been 18 school shootings this year. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:32, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
17 people aren't killed every week at school in the US. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 23:36, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Big death toll. Article is ok and will be expanded and updated when more information is released. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:45, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. A horrific and senseless tragedy. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 23:43, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak Support - even though these are a frequent occurrence (which is a solid rationale for opposing such incidents elsewhere in the world), the death toll is large enough to make this event somewhat notable, and the article is of decent quality. Stormy clouds (talk) 23:45, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Mass shooting? Ah, it's Thursday again already? Not notable due to frequency. 86.28.195.109 (talk) 23:49, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. Worst school shooting since Newtown, worst shooting at a post-primary institution since Virginia Tech, and worst high school shooting since Columbine, surpassing the former in death toll. 184.151.37.216 (talk) 23:54, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - Could have been just another school shooting in the trigger happy US. But this one has a significant number of deaths. Plenty of media coverage above the usual level already at an early stage. Perp survived. Article is quite short but referenced and in good shape overall. BabbaQ (talk) 23:57, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Very sad news. Casualties approaching Sandy Hook. EternalNomad (talk) 00:33, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Large death toll, article is in good shape. Davey2116 (talk) 00:48, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Administrator note: Posted to ITN. — xaosflux Talk 01:00, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support – Yet another shocker. Sca (talk) 01:23, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose 27 dead in Benghazi bombing last month, not even an article, let alone a nomination . If you tell me "Well it's because Libya is a warzone" well guess what? The US is a warzone in regards to school shootings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.58.100.2 (talk) 02:17, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
    Actually, the reason it wasn't posted is because you didn't create the article, and because you didn't nominate it. You can't expect anyone at Wikipedia to do any work you aren't willing to do yourself. --Jayron32 02:29, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
    Jayron don't tell us main page quality articles on bombing in Pakistan or Afghanistan don't get nominated at ITNC. 39.57.176.239 (talk) 04:47, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Pull - Shooting incident in a place where it is frequent. I don't see why this is notable than everyday shooting incidents in US. Why does this gets posted and a bombing in Pakistan let alone one in Afghanistan or Syria is regarded as usual incident in a conflict zone? All of us bleed red. May be WP:BIAS is at play here. 39.57.176.239 (talk) 04:47, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I see systemic bias is alive and well on Wikipedia. Incidentally, pull as this is an utterly routine occurrence in the US nowadays. --WaltCip (talk) 05:03, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
  • @WaltCip: Yes school shootings are frequent but what is not frequent is a school shooting with this high of a death count. Look at School shootings in the United States and death count is usually 1-2. Not 17 and this shooting is nearly tied with Sandy Hook. It is a huge misconception of high death toll school shootings in the U.S.--TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 05:09, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
    • I do what I can to be aware of systemic bias in my nominations. I'd like to think I have that down pat with weather-related nominations, but in this case I weighed this against the multitude of previous shootings in the US and a death toll of 17 at a high school, even just a school in general, sticks out as unusual. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 07:11, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support – The death toll is significant. Mz7 (talk) 06:51, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support. School shootings are not normal. School shootings with double digit death tolls are rare. By death toll, this is the 8th largest school shooting in the history of the world. Dragons flight (talk) 07:07, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
    Actually, school shootings seem to be very normal. From the BBC "Since 2013, there have been 291 reported school shootings in America, which averages out to about one per week." The death toll is higher than most of course but to say school shootings are not normal seems to be quite incorrect. 91.49.64.157 (talk) 09:01, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Of course, it won't be pulled now, but this really is routine now – we should be avoiding such postings just as we avoid routine bombings in warzones. A few more than normal were killed? Same shit, different day. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:23, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support Headlines in American news, top three news stories on BBC at present, but don't let that stop the cries of systemic bias, once consensus isn't in the usual favor. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 09:39, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
    Don't worry, the rest of us have perspective: "The school shooting in Parkland, Florida today marks the 29th mass shooting in the US in 2018. There have only been 45 days in 2018." Marvellous. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:05, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Procedural note: regardless of your opinion on this item, it definitely shouldn't have been posted after less than two hours of discussion, especially by an admin who was WP:INVOLVED in writing the article. The admin instructions say that if there is opposition to an item 'consider letting the nomination run for more time, especially if the nomination is less than 24 hours old'. Pinging Xaosflux (talk · contribs) for an explanation. Modest Genius talk 12:15, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict) This was closed while I was typing my comment. I disagree with the closure anyway, as discussion is continuing and there are reasonable calls for the item being pulled. Modest Genius talk 12:15, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
      • If people want to keep this open, fine, but I don't think this discussion will be constructive, as the "reasonable calls" being made are arguments which were already made. 331dot (talk) 12:19, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
    • Hi @Modest Genius: The only edit I made prior to posting this was in checking references present because of this nomination, adding a source. The tally at the time was 11-2 in favor, the article didn't have any red flags, and it was being heavily covered in the media. After posting I started working on the page more just as any editor can. Was it "too soon"? - The majority of the responses above don't seem to think so, but support can always change - go ahead and pull if it there is support to do so. — xaosflux Talk 12:39, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
      • @Xaosflux: my apologies, I missed that those edits were shortly after you posted it to ITN. I still think there was too little time for discussion, even if the outcome was OK. Modest Genius talk 14:41, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support 4 of the 6 current stories posted feature routine events of larger than usual scale. No reasonable editor would ignore the scale of an event in considering ITNC. A few drive-by snipes from IPs are not "reasonable calls" vs. the overwhelming support. GCG (talk) 12:34, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per Dragons flight, who made the following observation: By death toll, this is the 8th largest school shooting in the history of the world. This is not routine. Lepricavark (talk) 13:24, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
    Per our dedicated article on shootings in schools in the US (the rest of the world is covered in a single article): "There were 11 school shootings in the first 23 days of 2018.[45]" This is routine. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:51, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
    How many of those had 17 dead? 331dot (talk) 13:52, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
    None I expect. But this is just a glitch on the ever-increasing diagonal line of deaths so far this year from mass shootings isn't it? "There were 11 school shootings in the first 23 days of 2018." - I think there have been 11 school shootings in the history of Europe... The Rambling Man (talk) 13:56, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
    Of those, only 2 actually have articles, and as best I known, this is the only one that has been nominated this year. We're well aware shootings in US schools are far too frequent, but most of the 11 in 2008 seem to be inter-personal issues where the shooter and victims had a past history; it is when we have a case of a person gone on a bent that is randomly shooting anyone that makes the situation very different, why this story grabbed international attention. We're able to make that distinction here at ITN so that we're not including every single event. --Masem (t) 14:30, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
    Nonsense. The votes were simply for the numbers. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:41, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Post-posting comment – This event is notable not because it's entirely unusual, but because it happened in a civilized ([citation needed] ?) country – one where the "well regulated militia" is always on duty. – Sca (talk) 14:39, 15 February 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] Resignation of Jacob ZumaEdit

Article: Jacob Zuma (talk, history)
Blurb: ​South African president Jacob Zuma resigns amid corruption claims.
Alternative blurb: ​South African president Jacob Zuma resigns amid corruption claims and is succeeded by Cyril Ramaphosa.
Alternative blurb II: Cyril Ramaphosa becomes president of South Africa after Jacob Zuma resigns amid corruption claims.
News source(s): BBC
Nominator: EternalNomad (talk • give credit)

Nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, meaning that the recurrence of the event is generally considered important enough to post on WP:ITN subject to the quality of the article and the update to it.

Nominator's comments: Perhaps we can create an article about his resignation. EternalNomad (talk) 21:20, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

  • 'Bout time. Citations needed in "Early life and political career". – Muboshgu (talk) 21:29, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support pretty obviously notable news. Aside from citations mentioned above article looks good enough. Resignation of Jacob Zuma might have to wait a bit though. Juxlos (talk) 21:34, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - the resignation of a leader is not ITNR as far as I can tell. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:49, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
    • The succession of a head of state is in ITNR. Perhaps the blurb should include mention of his interim replacement. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:57, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
      • I've always been confused when situations like this come up; is it ITNR when the head of state leaves, or when the new one comes in(if the change is not immediate)? Further, in this case, the successor is "Acting" President, and not actually President. Does that make a difference? 331dot (talk) 22:04, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Add that I've always interpreted the head of state changing listing to simply mean "a change in head of state". 331dot (talk) 22:04, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
No confusion required, this blurb isn't about "succession", it's about "resignation". We should all be able to see that. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:08, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Resignation includes succession, though yes the resignation is more important than the succession. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:53, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support alternative blurb per nom. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 22:15, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support – "The President of the Republic of South Africa is the head of state and head of government." It leads many of the main Eng.-lang. news sites. (Support either blurb) – Sca (talk) 23:06, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Either blurbs, article looks decent and really in the news. –Ammarpad (talk) 23:15, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support - this is really big news and should be posted. Unfortunately the article has numerous unreferenced paragraphs. This BLP needs better sourcing before posting. -Zanhe (talk) 23:24, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Head of state resigning due to corruption allegations, especially from an influential nation. Article is roughly ok enough. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:47, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support the original blurb, as I feel that the significance of Zuma's resignation is the story here, rather than his interim replacement as an ITN/R proposal. Thus, we should WP:IAR and post the resignation. However, the article needs work. Stormy clouds (talk) 23:48, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support either blurb, this is notable regardless of nitpicking of whether this falls under ITN/R. However, there are still a few cn tags that need to be addressed. Davey2116 (talk) 03:35, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. Article is close, but a BLP like this needs scrupulous referencing, and there's just too much in terms of missing references to post on the main page. --Jayron32 03:39, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support this is effectively ITNR, since it inevitably triggers an ITNR event. Banedon (talk) 05:47, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose on quality (support on importance); needs some more references I reckon - under-cited in some areas. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:12, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose BLP containing more than 20 [citation needed] tags? Seriously? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:29, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support alternative blurb. I believe his successor is officially elected by parliament today, so this should go up after that happens. This is Paul (talk) 12:25, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. – Illegitimate Barrister (talkcontribs), 12:55, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Article quality is not there yet - way too many citation tags for a BLP.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:31, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Referencing needs work. (Yes, this is ITNR.) -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:33, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose It's ITNR on principle, but man, I cannot make heads or tails of the article. It needs a massive rework and organization to flow better. --Masem (t) 14:40, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
⇒ Looks to be 2:1 in favor. Needs attn. Sca (talk) 15:14, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
No, not one single of those voting support have addressed the fact that the article has no fewer than 20 [citation needed] tags which, for a BLP, means it doesn't get posted. Full stop. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:17, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
  • The ITNR argument is moot; this seems to have support on notability. Which article is the quality issue with? We could omit Zuma under the ITNR, or only list Zuma's resignation for now if the issue is with Ramaphosa. GCG (talk) 15:48, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
    If you looked, you'd see that both articles are unsuitable for inclusion as both contain dozens of unreferenced claims which is not acceptable in a BLP let alone one which is to be featured on the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:54, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
    I was asking which article the opposition was referring to when it consistently used the singular "article," but your meaningful contribution to civil discourse is appreciated as always. GCG (talk) 20:33, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
    There are only two choices of article, both of which are unsuitable. That surely isn't too hard to see, particularly when they're both plastered with [citation needed] or bright orange maintenance tags? I appreciate your snark too. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:35, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Practically, we need both the Jacob Zuma and Cyril Ramaphosa articles to be adequate quality for this item. While it looks like the former has had a lot of good work done to it over the last day, the latter still has orange-tagged sections. --LukeSurl t c 17:28, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I have added a shorter and less clunky altblurb 2 that mentions Ramaphosa first, as a new head of state is ITNR. μηδείς (talk) 17:34, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Purely on citation grounds. Once issues of reference are solved, this is ready for posting and most of the previous oppose votes will be resolved. - Floydian τ ¢ 18:56, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Nice one, ​Cyril. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 20:01, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support.--WaltCip (talk) 20:41, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per above. obviously a notable event Karl.i.biased (talk) 04:58, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Administrator note There is obviously consensus here that this story is significant enough to post. It is equally obvious that there is no target article in good enough shape at the moment, and no admin is likely to post this. So if you would like to see this posted, I'd suggest working on Jacob Zuma and/or Cyril Ramaphosa. Vanamonde (talk) 12:25, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
    I have added citations for all but one of the "citation needed" tags from Jacob Zuma. Zaian (talk) 19:31, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  • At a quick glance, the article appears referenced now, and even the sole CN tag I see has a reference to it. Can someone second-check, please? Then, ready to post. This is the proper way to go, improve the article -> guaranteed ITN, pretty much ;) --Tone 19:38, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
    Indeed. Good work Zaian. I'd post it if was still an admin. Just make sure the blurb only bolds Zuma. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:08, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Posting. --Tone 20:55, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

RD/blurb: Morgan TsvangiraiEdit

Article: Morgan Tsvangirai (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: Zimbabwean opposition activist and former prime minister Morgan Tsvangirai dies aged 65.
News source(s): The Guardian
Nominator: EternalNomad (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: He was internationally renowned for his opposition to the recently deposed Robert MugabeEternalNomad (talk) 19:32, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose article is both tagged and not updated. I imagine a blurb would be impossible too. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:36, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support as an addition to recent deaths, and pending improvements. This is Paul (talk) 20:12, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
    Which means to say nothing really, RD will post this as soon as it's up to scratch, we only worry about quality, so supporting "pending improvements" is a waste of time. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:19, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - serious quality issues. Regarding the blurb, I would oppose on notability grounds even if the article was impeccable. Stormy clouds (talk) 20:23, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb. He was not a world transforming figure and it was known that he was ill. His opposition to Mugabe had limited effect. 331dot (talk) 21:00, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb no matter what. Oppose RD for now because the quality is not good. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:08, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Blurb - I still don't like the new 'proposed blurb' I think "Long time Zimbabwean Opposition leader, Morgan Tsvangirai has died aged 65 following a battle with colon cancer" Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 07:21, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - @Stormy clouds: - If you think Morgan Tsvangirai is not notable enough, then you need to do your research, not only has he been the Prime Minister of Zimbabwe, but he is also a notable figure within the African Union and had relations in many other countries. While the quality of the article is not great, discussions about his notability are not suitable in this particular case anyways per RD. Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 07:33, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Stormy clouds is opposing a blurb, not RD on basis of notability. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:41, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
I oppose a blurb in any circumstance, as the notability is not there. I oppose an RD listing at present as, while assessing article quality in the course of my "research", I found it to be inadequate for listing at the main page. Thus, my vote echoes many above, andnis not seeking a suspension of the rules of RD - if quality improves, post as an RD. Thanks to @Galobtter: for the clarification which you offered to User:ChieftanTartarus on my behalf. Stormy clouds (talk) 10:19, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm sorry but neither of you are making any sense to me, you're opposing the blurb on the case of notability? That just doesn't make sense in my opinion, that's still opposing something on the basis of notability whether its targeted at the RD or not. I don't understand what you're getting at here. Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 10:34, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
@ChieftanTartarus: - I do not feel that Tsvangirai is a significant enough figure, as he lacks the notability to merit such a blurb. There is an informal Mandela-Thatcher-Bowie axis which is used to gauge whether or not the figure was transformative enough to deserve a blurb, and there is no way that this nomination surpasses this level of notability. Moreover, as 331dot alludes to, it was known that he was ill, so this is not a surprise and was expected to happen, meaning that there is minimal notability in this case. Thus, for a blurb, I agree with 331dot and Muboshgu that Tsvangirai does not merit a blurb, and will only receive an RD listing once the article has improved. Notability is not an issue for RD, but it absolutely is for a blurb. Stormy clouds (talk) 10:56, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
@Stormy clouds: I understand your point now, and I tend to agree with you that a blurb is not really suitable as we knew that he was ill for a long time, we were also told at the start of the month that he was critically ill so it isn't a surprise that he has passed. Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 12:32, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support in Principle He was significant enough that I heard about him while learning about the country while preparing to study abroad in Zimbabwe. I would support this. I'll let other folks decide on the blurb; if the article is ready, etc. TenorTwelve (talk) 14:30, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
  • RD only – Limited significance in the Big Scheme. And the man had been seriously ill. Sca (talk) 15:16, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Blurb a magnitude of order below his peer Mandela's importance in the wider scheme. μηδείς (talk) 17:38, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support for RD. The current list of recent deaths is a good example of the widely anticipated failure of the 2016 RD proposal. The deaths of Tsvangirai and Lubbers, both reported at news broadcastings around the world, are missing because of the endemic Wikipedia fallacy of preferring style over substance. Moreover, if one's concerned about the quality of the article, a mention on the front page will get a lot of editors interested in improving it. Afasmit (talk) 20:20, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
    How is it fallacy? It's a choice that was approved by consensus. It's working exactly as intended. You might not like it (I don't either) but it was never intended to list the biggest names. GCG (talk) 20:38, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
    Once again, this would never have been listed prior to the 2016 RFC. The article quality is substandard, and for a BLP we take extra care. Attempting to blame the non-posting on the RD revolution is a waste of time. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:50, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

RD: Ruud LubbersEdit

Article: Ruud Lubbers (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): NL Times
Nominator: Mjroots (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: Longest serving Dutch premier. Mjroots (talk) 17:20, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose more uncited than cited, the lead is somewhat too long for the length of the article, also very annoying unrelated images of his face, but that can reasonably easily be fixed. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:26, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Nowhere near ready. Still in present tense, no details of death, large gaps in referencing.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:34, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose too many odd images, too much unreferenced, and most importantly, too much emphasis on the sexual harassment complaint. Almost 1/3 of the decent prose relates to that. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:05, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
    • Comment well, when Harvey Weinstein kicks the bucket, I assume he'll get an RD specifically because of his sexual harassment claims. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 20:19, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Anyone who is notable gets an RD if their article is up to scratch.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 20:23, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
MAINEiac4434 I have no idea what you're talking about. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:50, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
You said "most importantly, too much emphasis on the sexual harassment complaint" as if that was a reason not to RD. I disagree with that notion entirely. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 22:24, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
He's saying it's WP:UNDUE weight. That's a policy problem with the article. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:03, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. The current list of recent deaths is a good example of the widely anticipated failure of the 2016 RD proposal. The deaths of Tsvangirai and Lubbers, both reported at news broadcastings around the world, are missing because of the endemic Wikipedia fallacy of preferring style over substance. Moreover, if one's concerned about the quality of the article, a mention on the front page will get a lot of editors interested in improving it. Afasmit (talk) 20:20, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
    Nonsense. Even before we had that RD proposal, we would still not accept badly written articles onto the main page. Particularly BLPs. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:26, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
    P.S. "the widely anticipated failure" good one! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:32, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. The article is mediocre, but this is a man who was Prime Minister of a world power for 12 years. If the article isn't good enough, efforts should be made to make it better because this is likely among the top 5 most notable people to die this month. 1779Days (talk) 04:45, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  • We look forward to you making the effort. Stephen 05:10, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

[Closed] Draft:United flight 1175Edit

Let it be moved to mainsapce first. It seems it can make itAmmarpad (talk) 12:48, 14 February 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: Draft:United flight 1175 ([[Talk:Draft:United flight 1175|talk]], history)
Blurb: ​Engine Cover Blows Off on Draft:United flight 1175
News source(s): New York Times
Nominator: AyaanLamar (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: Currently stubbish, but maybe someone more knowledgeable will pick this up. AyaanLamar (talk) 12:41, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose and SNOW close. The plane landed safely with no casualties; there is no issue. The NY Times piece also note that such incidents are not uncommon. I suspect the draft will not be accepted. 331dot (talk) 12:43, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
  • SNOW GCG (talk) 12:44, 14 February 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.

February 13Edit

Portal:Current events/2018 February 13
Disasters and accidents
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Science and technology
  • Supersonic transport
    • A new plane that would fly from London to New York City in three hours has just received crucial funding. The aircraft, officially named Quiet Supersonic Transport (QueSST) and dubbed the "Son of Concorde", was proposed by NASA and has just been given the go-ahead by US officials. QueSST could make its maiden voyage in 2021 if all goes according to plan. If so, it will halve the current travel time between London and New York City. (Metro)

[Posted] RD: Dobri DobrevEdit

Article: Dobri Dobrev (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): "Bulgarian beggar, dubbed a 'living saint', dies aged 103". New Strait Times. 14 February 2018. Retrieved 15 February 2018. 
Nominator: Zigzig20s (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.

 Zigzig20s (talk) 14:54, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

  • @Zigzig20s: Kinda short, but I guess good enough. Need to cite about his father in WWI, and I don't like the "legacy" section at all. It's just a quote, with an internal link instead of a reference. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:00, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment. His life was unusual enough where I think if someone fixes the 2 unreferenced sentences and perhaps adds a paragraph more, I would support it. He was rather well-known both in Bulgaria and outside of it. Inatan (talk) 16:52, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
    • @Inatan:, for future reference, see the bottom line in the template above, which says that "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". The unusual nature of his life makes the article interesting despite its size, but isn't a factor in whether or not we should post it. Only the quality issues you and I have mentioned. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:03, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Ah, thank you. Inatan (talk) 17:05, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose - Damn that beard! Still a few significant cn tags that I've added. Strike my oppose once those are resolved. =- Floydian τ ¢ 18:54, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Fixed any sourcing issues. Should be g2g. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:26, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support also somewhat well known in religious circles outside of Bulgaria75.73.150.255 (talk) 01:56, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 05:11, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

RD: Prince Henrik of DenmarkEdit

Article: Henrik, Prince Consort of Denmark (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Kongehuset (Danish royal house)
Nominator: Grngu (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.

 Grngu (talk) 03:53, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Does this rise to the level of a blurb? Lepricavark (talk) 04:23, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
    • No; he was old, and he was not part of the governing body (hence the "consort" part of his title). RD is sufficient here. --Masem (t) 04:34, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose too many sentences without references, and still a few updates needed to cover the fact he was and no longer is... The Rambling Man (talk) 07:50, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. The man himself was quite notable. I went through the article, and about half of what looked at first like uncited claims are just unconventionally supported. The rest of the article is well-cited enough, with the glaring exception of the lead. Fix that, and the article is ready. Inatan (talk) 12:09, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Um, "unconventionally supported?" Can you flesh out that thought a bit? GCG (talk) 12:47, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
The way I'm reading it, some of the lists of honors are sourced by one reference preceding the list rather that per-title. That's fine. But there remain other more critical sourcing issues like the children/grandchildren and various CNs tags about. --Masem (t) 14:41, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
It does not look like anyone will take the time to fix the issues soon. Inatan (talk) 16:48, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Marty AllenEdit

Article: Marty Allen (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The New York Times
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 updated and well sourced --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:20, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

February 12Edit

Portal:Current events/2018 February 12
Armed conflicts and attacks
Arts and culture
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections

[Posted] RD: Fethia MzaliEdit

Article: Fethia Mzali (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): "Décès de la militante, ancienne présidente de l'UNFT et ancienne ministre de la Famille, Fethia Mzali". Huffington Post Maghreb. 12 February 2018. Retrieved 15 February 2018. ; M'barek, Asma (12 February 2018). "Décès de Fethia Mzali". Radio Express. Retrieved 15 February 2018. ; "FETHIA MZALI, PREMIÈRE FEMME MINISTRE DE L'HISTOIRE TUNISIENNE EST DÉCÉDÉE". Beur FM. 14 February 2018. Retrieved 15 February 2018. 
Nominator: Zigzig20s (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.

 Zigzig20s (talk) 14:45, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] MalacidinsEdit

Article: Malacidin (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Scientists discover a new class of antibiotics, the malacidins.
Alternative blurb: ​The malacidins, a new class of antibiotics, are discovered.
Alternative blurb II: ​The malacidins, a new class of antibacterial chemicals, are discovered.
News source(s): BBC, Nature Microbiology, The Independent
Nominator: Brandmeister (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: Currently stubbish, but maybe someone more knowledgeable will pick this up. Brandmeistertalk 14:55, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Support, in principle. The discovery of a new antibiotic is undoubtedly important (even if we don't yet know if it can be used safely in humans), but the article still needs expansion before it would be ready for posting. Dragons flight (talk) 16:24, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
    This now has my full support. The article has been expanded adequately. The concerns about WP:MEDRS are overzealous in my opinion, since this microbiology discovery is still years away from human testing, let alone being used as a treatment. Because MEDRS requires literature reviews and other secondary peer-reviewed studies, adhering to that standard would essentially prevent any new discovery from appearing in ITN, and I don't consider that outcome to be reasonable when the discovery is still far removed from any practical medical application. All the information has been sourced, and I would recommend posting in spite of the citation tags asking for secondary medical sources, since such literature reviews simply won't yet exist for ITN worthy discoveries. Dragons flight (talk) 10:36, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support I've added a section on their discovery which I believe helps to "dumb down" (at least, to the level that BBC was writing at which still was pretty high) the article to understand how these were found and their importance. --Masem (t) 16:30, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support – major advancements in the medical field aren't terribly common and this seems worth posting. Amount of content in the article is borderline, but seems like just enough to me (>1,500 characters prose). ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 16:35, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
    • Rescinding my support due to concerns outlined by opposing comments. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:47, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - an interesting discovery which may turn out to be very important and a decent enough article. I've put down an alt-blurb because I dislike "Scientists discover" as a term. --LukeSurl t c 16:40, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Seeing a lot about this, article seems adequate. Vanamonde (talk) 16:54, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The article is very preliminary, and all of this is based on one research paper. Natureium (talk) 17:47, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
    • This is generally the point where any scientific discovery is posted at ITN - a peer-reviewed research paper that is also covered in mainstream publications. The fact that it's a Nature-published paper means that the peers do not likely believe the researchers are wrong that this is a new family of antibotics. --Masem (t) 17:56, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - adequate article even if short. Interesting discovery.BabbaQ (talk) 17:57, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I have no adequately educated opinion on this one, but consensus is clear. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:59, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - exciting new discovery. Article is short but adequate. -Zanhe (talk) 19:20, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - Someone opened up discussion of this at WT:MED, where they are raising concerns about MEDRS issues. I personally don't think that's the case (Nature is on MEDRS), but may want to see their input here before posting. --Masem (t) 19:27, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
    My personal opinion is that this is mostly a microbiology topic rather than a medicine one at this point. Right now there isn't a treatment available, or even a widely available compound that could be abused in untested treatments. Obviously, if things go well, the hope is to make a new treatment out of this, but treating this topic as medical information at this very preliminary stage feels like a bit of a stretch. Dragons flight (talk) 20:39, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I wholly agree with Dragons flight here and have removed the tags. This currently is an article about microbiology, not a medicine (and will remain so for at several years at the least). Nature Microbiology is pretty much as good as it gets here. —LukeSurl t c 21:31, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
  • They were readded, but based on this discussion, it's clear that applying MEDRS at this stage is premature. I re-removed them. --Masem (t) 13:50, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - an exciting discovery, happens rarely, has great implications. Banedon (talk) 20:00, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Article is currently tagged with possible issue of unreliable medical sources, talk at WT:MED about possible WP:NOTNEWS as well as needing genuine attestation by independent sources, this is not ready for mainpage actually. –Ammarpad (talk) 20:37, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
  • oppose blurb and alt blurb 1 -- the "excitement" here is exactly because we need new classes of chemistry for antibiotic drugs. It is kind of interesting from the standpoint of how some bacteria try to kill other kinds, but nobody really cares about that. The excitement is about the medical potential and the scariness of the "post antibiotic apocalypse" (actual phrase from the Independent article). And part of why MEDRS matters is keeping out all kinds of preliminary hype, be that from pharma or medical device shillers, or snake oil salespeople, or this kind of hype. Wikipeida's mission is to present articles that summarize accepted knowledge, not to be vehicle for hype. Jytdog (talk) 21:00, 13 February 2018 (UTC) (redact Jytdog (talk) 17:47, 15 February 2018 (UTC))
  • support alt blurb 2 in the spirit of trying to reach consensus. Jytdog (talk) 17:47, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
    • Mainstream coverage of science can go to hyperbole, no question the Independent here is opining that phrase. But we know we can avoid that here and stick to the relevant facts. From a scientific standpoint, it is a new class of antibiotics. It is comparable to discovering a new chemical element. Whether they end up in any practical application, that's only speculation, though understanding that it could fight drug-resistant bacteria is necessary to understand why the researchers ended up getting to this point. As long as we do not try to present this as snake oil either at the article or ITN, it is outside of the medical area at this point. Another way to view this is that this is at the basic research level; where MEDRS would be critical is when that research moved into the applied field. --Masem (t) 21:20, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
      • i could not disagree more. And while it remains true that the only reason anybody cares is because medicine, there are even more fundamental layers of risk here. The paper might not replicate at all. Even if it does, there is no way to know that any of these could be drugs (they might be toxic as hell for the liver for example). And even if they look interesting from a medical perspective, the chemistry might be impossible scale up (technically or economically). If the hook were way more microbiology driven (new class of chemicals that bacteria used to kill each other - who knows what it might be useful for) it would be OK with me. Not this. This is hype. (in case you are not catching it, the hook calls this "a new class of antibiotics". An antibioitic is a kind of drug. This will not be a new drug class until there actual drugs in it. We are at least ten years away from there being drugs based on this (if ever)
      • News organizations jerk the public around with this kind of bullshit hype to make money. What is our excuse?
      • it is actually really harmful. People see headlines like this, and they look around and wonder why we haven't cured cancer (or antibiotic resistance, or whatever) yet.
      • everybody here should follow healthnewsreview.org. they are great. Jytdog (talk) 21:33, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
        • "Antibiotics" does not always mean "drug"; [2] "Originally, an antibiotic was a substance produced by one microorganism that selectively inhibits the growth of another." which is exactly this. That's how I read the research report; they are not speaking of it as a drug, only that it has potential for one if they can succeed in proving out its function and safety/non-toxicity to humans. --Masem (t) 21:45, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
          • you are arguing finely parsed rare shades of meaning, about a front page thing - you know as well as i do that every news organization that covered this, and the nominator, and pretty much every reader, thinks 'drug to kill bacteria" when they glance and read 'antibiotic". You are generally not a bullshitter. Don't start now. :) Jytdog (talk) 22:57, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
            • I'm not trying to BS here, I'm just recognizing that we have a terminology problem. I agree "antibiotics = drug" is the most common usage if we're looking at this from medicine/pharma, but "antibiotic = substance from a micro-organism that hampers other cells" is a valid term when talking from a biological aspect, and unfortunately lacking a different proper term (That I can find) to better distinguish it from the "drug" related definition. If we can apply more context in the blurb, that would help, but I don't know a simple way to do that yet. --Masem (t) 23:23, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per Masem. Davey2116 (talk) 23:16, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak Support - while I feel that some of the !votes are somewhat too enthusiastic, possibly ignoring the policy laid down at WP:CRYSTAL, there is no denying that this story is in the news, and that article quality is sufficient to merit posting at this juncture. Stormy clouds (talk) 23:23, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Ammarpad. Those tags have re-appeared so clearly the medical sourcing issue needs to be resolved before posting. Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:13, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
  • All the statements in Malacidin#Potential_applications are accurate summaries of statements from the Nature Microbiology paper and are sourced as such. This isn't a "classic" unsourced statements problem. This issue here is that at least one determined editor considers these to be medical statements, for which WP:MEDRS mandates that primary sources (which this is) are not acceptable. I don't think this is a medical article - there is no medicine that will be developed from this for years (if ever). I'm with Masem here, "antibiotic" does not necessarily equal "drug". This is a microbiology article. Perhaps we can rephrase the blurb and parts of the article to make this clearer, but I do think the tagging is over-zealous. --LukeSurl t c 09:59, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. An interesting discovery in a field we rarely feature. The article itself does not appear to be making medical claims, just microbiological ones, so the arguments above based on WP:MEDRS do not convince me. Publication in a peer-reviewed journal is the standard we apply to scientific discoveries, which has been met. Over-zealous tagging should be removed, not prevent us featuring this on ITN. Modest Genius talk 13:22, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
    I'll also add that we posted the discovery of teixobactin in 2015, without any MEDRS concerns. Modest Genius talk 19:01, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
that is a great example of WP:Other stuff exists. That article needs a bunch of work. Jytdog (talk) 20:29, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Not really, this isn't an AfD discussion. My point is it shows we have previously seen the discovery of new antibiotic classes as important enough for ITN. If you think teixobactin needs improvement then feel free to work on it; it was good enough to post on ITN. Modest Genius talk 12:19, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
The spirit of "other stuff exists" is "don't point at the incorrect thing that happened somewhere else at some other time to justify the incorrect thing you want to do here and now" Jytdog (talk) 17:44, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support There is no suggestion in the blurb that this is a drug. As science news, this is as notable as the stuff we usually post. GCG (talk) 13:44, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Unrelated to this nomination, I've started a discussion at WT:MEDRS about delineating microbiological discovered from biomedcial coverage (eg when MEDRS does and doesn't apply). --Masem (t) 16:47, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. An important scientific development. I don't see any tags in the article now, so it seems to me that it is ready to go. Nsk92 (talk) 17:24, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
  • You have no evidence that it is an important scientific development, except your slavish belief in the hype. Abductive (reasoning) 17:36, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose, just because the tags have been removed doesn't mean the the MEDRS problem was solved. There is still only one primary source and a bunch of hyping lay media "sources" doesn't fix that. Abductive (reasoning) 17:34, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
  • comment - I have gone through and removed medicalish claims (what we know now, is that these chemicals kill bacteria; we don't know that they can treat infections in people). I also added, per one of refs, that we won't know for many years if there will be a drug based on these. i also removed "antibiotic" from the first sentence and replaced that with "chemicals made by bacteria" with an underlying WP to secondary metabolites, which is what these are. Jytdog (talk) 20:01, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. MedRS plainly doesn't apply as long as ITN & the article are completely clear that this is not a class of clinically active drugs. The problem is that 'antibiotic' has two meanings, 'clinical antibiotic' & 'chemical with antimicrobial activity', but most people will read it to mean the first. I have proposed an alternate wording that might help. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:33, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
the alt 2 blurb is fine with me. MEDRS doesn't apply anymore because all the health claims have been removed from the article. MEDRS applies to content, anywhere, like RS. Many comments about MEDRS in this discussion have been incorrect or handwavy and therefore useless and indeed harmful with respect to trying to reach consensus. Jytdog (talk) 18:09, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Ok, looks ready, since the concerns have been resolved. Brandmeistertalk 12:53, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted alt2. The article seems to be up to snuff now, and Alt2 seems to have allayed concerns other blurbs had. --Jayron32 13:04, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] Cyclone GitaEdit

Article: Cyclone Gita (talk, history)
Blurb: Cyclone Gita (satellite image pictured) becomes the strongest storm on record to strike Tonga and causes extensive damage.
Alternative blurb: Cyclone Gita (satellite image pictured) strikes Tonga, the strongest to hit the nation in over 60 years, and causes extensive damage.
News source(s): New Zealand Herald, USAToday, BBC
Nominator: Cyclonebiskit (talk • give credit)
Updater: Jason Rees (talk • give credit)
Other updaters: Cyclonebiskit (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: Significant impact in a region (South Pacific islands) that rarely gets ITN attention. High-end Category 4 (Aus scale) impact in Tonga makes it the strongest on record (60+ years) for that nation. Damage reports are only just starting to come out, but it appears to have caused widespread damage. I think the record strength for Tonga should be enough for ITN but I'll leave that to you all. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 10:23, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Support - weather phenomena are common enough at ITN, but the large scale of the storm means that this is notable. Normally, the low fatality count would deter me, but I will defer here to the wisdom of our resident meteorologist, as his judgement on storms is rarely awry. Stormy clouds (talk) 10:37, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Especially now. Stormy clouds (talk) 10:39, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Wait until the dust settles. Currently only 1 unofficial death and one category short of strongest on the scale of 5. Brandmeistertalk 11:01, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
While it fell short of being a Category 5 on the Aus scale, it was only just short by 5 knots which ain’t significant since systems are regularly adjusted by 5-10 kts in either direction during post storm analysis.Jason Rees (talk) 11:19, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose right now. Windy, inconvenient, damaging, but very limited in impact so far. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:26, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
    • The Rambling Man I wouldn't really say limited impact: nationwide curfew, estimated 40% of homes damaged/destroyed in capital city, "whole areas [flattened]". ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 11:47, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
      • Not to belabor the point, but generally "impact" for a storm in context to ITN usually refers to number of fatalities, rather than general land area affected.--WaltCip (talk) 12:01, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
        • WaltCip I try to keep my cyclone nominations contextual to the areas affected. In regards to Tonga, multiple fatalities are not common from these storms so impact is the better metric. Best I can tell, the last fatal cyclone in Tonga was Cyclone Ian in 2014 and the last one to cause multiple fatalities was Cyclone Kina back in 1993. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 12:15, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
            • I'll concede to Weak support - while the impact seems localised, it seems pretty devastating, so switching my position. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:01, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Per TRM, Walt. Plus, the article is not written in encyclopedic style. The first sentence says "is currently," and the article even includes a section headed "Current storm information." ITN, and Wiki, are not news portals. Sca (talk) 14:38, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
    • Sca: The "current storm information" has been around since tropical cyclone articles began populating Wiki in 2004. It has never been an issue with ITN/C nor Wiki as a whole to my knowledge. It's an easy-update that gets phased out once the system is no longer a tropical cyclone. I reworded the opening to avoid the non-encyclopedic style there, however. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 14:51, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
⇒ The fact that it's been done does not make it ipso facto correct. IMO, current and currently should not be used in encyclopedia articles, as the reference could become outdated at any time. For similar reasons, past-tense verbs should be used, as most articles will outlive the present-tense status of breaking news. Sca (talk) 15:37, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
I would bet my house on this being updated in a timely manner once it's in the past. Due to a cadre of dedicated editors, the English Wikipedia has fantastic articles on tropical cyclones. Articles should strive to be accurate as possible, and this includes using the present tense when appropriate. We don't write all BLPs in the past tense because at some point in the future that person will die. The article in question here is headed with {{current weather event}} which expressly tells readers that information is subject to change. --LukeSurl t c 15:55, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Are we a news-aggregation site or an encyclopedia? Other eds have been telling me for years that Wiki is not a 'news ticker' (to use the British phrase). Sca (talk) 16:03, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support A random bus crash or snooker tournament gets in ITN. Certainly a country's largest storm on record and the destruction of its parliament is worthy of note. Gamaliel (talk) 14:53, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support destructive storm, towards the low end of the disasters we typically post here in terms of the human cost. However the article is very good, and, if Cyclonebiskit & WikiProject Tropical cyclones track record is anything to go by, it will probably be literally good or better in short order. There seems to be very little to lose by posting this, and we have the opportunity to keep ITN fresh with a top quality article. --LukeSurl t c 16:03, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Storms of this intensity for this area of the world are rare, and it is fortunate that the death toll is so low (if not even nil). But the damage is extensive and the arpeggio nature of Tonga and other island countries hit make restoration going to be difficult. --Masem (t) 18:00, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - in the news everywhere for destroying Tonga's parliament building. Article is well written. -Zanhe (talk) 19:24, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support a big deal for the country. Banedon (talk) 20:03, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Article looks detailed and well referenced. –Ammarpad (talk) 20:51, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted. SpencerT♦C 00:25, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Luo HaocaiEdit

Article: Luo Haocai (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Zaobao
Nominator: TDKR Chicago 101 (talk • give credit)
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: Article updated and well sourced --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:00, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Support - as updater. -Zanhe (talk) 04:17, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak support it's brief but what's there is referenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:10, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak Support - Quite short but fully referenced. I think RD posting is to be accepted here.BabbaQ (talk) 09:02, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - article is very short, but it is sourced to its fullest extent. Good work @Zanhe:. Ready to go now. Stormy clouds (talk) 09:08, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Posting. --Tone 10:24, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

[Closed] David Grossman wins the 2018 Israel Prize for LiteratureEdit

WP:SNOW. Good faith nomination, but this result is quickly clear. --Jayron32 17:41, 12 February 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: David Grossman (talk, history) and Israel Prize (talk, history)
Blurb: David Grossman wins the 2018 Israel Prize for Literature
News source(s): Zur, Yarden (February 12, 2018). "Author David Grossman Wins the 2018 Israel Prize for Literature". Haaretz. Retrieved February 12, 2018. ; Grave-Lazi, Lidar (February 12, 2018). "ISRAEL PRIZE IN LITERATURE TO BE AWARDED TO DAVID GROSSMAN". The Jerusalem Post. Retrieved February 12, 2018. ;
Nominator: Zigzig20s (talk • give credit)

 Zigzig20s (talk) 16:20, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment This isn't my area of expertise, but I can't seem to remember us posting any national honors before; every state has a few, after all. Vanamonde (talk) 16:24, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Barring exceptional circumstances, awards of national recognition like this, National Medal of Technology and Innovation, etc. should not be featured in ITN due to the potential to flood the noms with several similar awards. --Masem (t) 16:24, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. There are 200+ countries in the world, most of which are considerably more significant than Israel, and almost all of which have multiple awards of this nature. I could probably keep ITN full for an entire year just with the winners of equivalent awards in various fields in the US and UK, all of which are likely to be of considerably more interest to English Wikipedia's readers. If anything, we should probably be reducing the number of awards we cover (how many readers actually care about the Hugo Award for Best Novel), not adding more. ‑ Iridescent 16:33, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose national prize, and literature is just one field. List of Israel Prize recipients shows 257 total winners since 2000, 14 yearly on average. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:41, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Minor award. Unknown author. The blurb's probably created by a family member or the author himself. Should SNOWclose this. Naj'entus (talk) 17:08, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
  • That seems unlikely. Your theory would make sense if the nominator was a single-purpose account, but in the fact the nom has made nearly 150K edits over a span of more than 11 years. Lepricavark (talk) 17:32, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per everything said above. So many prizes are given out each year, and this doesn't rise close to the level of ITN. Lepricavark (talk) 17:32, 12 February 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.

ReferencesEdit

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: