Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 Inter-Continental Hotel in Kabul in 2006
The Inter-Continental Hotel in Kabul

How to nominate an item[edit]

In order to suggest a candidate:

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

Purge this page to update the cache

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

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

Headers[edit]

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pulled from the main page are generally marked with [Posted] or [Pulled] in the item's subject so it is clear they are no longer active.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

Voicing an opinion on an item[edit]

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

Please do not...[edit]

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

.

Suggestions[edit]

January 24[edit]

Portal:Current events/2018 January 24
Sport

January 23[edit]

Portal:Current events/2018 January 23
Armed conflicts and attacks
Arts and culture
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Science and technology

RD: Simon Shelton[edit]

Article: Simon Shelton (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC
Nominator: Stormy clouds (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: Repurposing of below nomination, this time with the target at an actual person who has recently died. Stormy clouds (talk) 18:45, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Currently oppose on article quality; it is too stubby for useful information. If expanded to a reasonable size and depth of coverage of his life and work, with proper sourcing, that would be fine. --Jayron32 18:47, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

RD: Nicanor Parra[edit]

Article: Nicanor Parra (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Nominator: Joseph2302 (talk • give credit)
Updater: DanielGSouza (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: Notable and death confirmed by BBC Joseph2302 (talk) 16:49, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose primarily due to sourcing, secondarily due to length and depth. If we ignore the list of works, the actual prose is basically stub-level. Even with the list of works, it is mostly unreferenced, and the tiny amount of actual writing on his life is also substandard with regards to sourcing. It would need to be expanded with more prose and fully referenced to be main page ready. --Jayron32 18:50, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Hugh Masekela[edit]

Article: Hugh Masekela (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC
Nominator: LukeSurl (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: South African musician. Several paragraphs unreferenced. Article would need need a lot of referencing work before posting. LukeSurl t c 16:02, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Support Many obituaries, now published worldwide, should make sourcing a lot easier. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:22, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Sourcing seems to be good enough.--TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:56, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support strongly, per Martinevans123. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 00:18, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Needs referencing for the discography, then good to go. Stephen 01:21, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 02:15, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Naomi Parker[edit]

Stale, as she died on the 20th. Stephen 01:17, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposed image
Articles: Naomi Parker (talk, history) and We Can Do It! (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: Naomi Parker Fraley, who inspired the famous We Can Do It! poster, has died.
News source(s): BBC, NYT
Nominator: Andrew Davidson (talk • give credit)
Updater: Mervat Salman (talk • give credit)
Other updaters: Emk9 (talk • give credit)

Both articles 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: The subject's article needs work but the article about the poster is FA quality. The item gets good coverage by the BBC and NYT and so merits attention. Andrew D. (talk) 14:07, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I think it is very unlikely this death will be posted as a blurb, so the quality/content of We Can Do It! is not pertinent here. --LukeSurl t c 14:11, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment. I agree with LukeSurl that the article on the poster isn't at issue because this probably won't be posted as a blurb as this person does not meet the criteria listed at WP:ITNRD(not a world transforming figure, her death is not the story but the poster). Her article, as indicated by the nominator, does need work as only the date of death has been added to it. 331dot (talk) 14:20, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment There is nothing about this person's life that could not adequately be summarized in the We Can Do It! article. She should just be a redirect to there.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:22, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
So should this be posted as a link to the article on the poster, but pipe it with her name? 331dot (talk) 14:25, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose stub bio just created today, and most, if not all of which can be covered in the "We Can Do It!" article. That FA even states Doyle's notion that the photograph inspired the poster cannot be proved or disproved, so first Doyle and then Parker cannot be confirmed as the model for "We Can Do It!" so even the proposed blurb is false if the article is to be believed. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:26, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now based on article quality; article is a stub. Will reassess if and when the article is expanded. --Jayron32 14:30, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose the RD of the bio article per WP:BLP1E (eg she should be merged into the We Can Do It article), but on that principle, willing to Support an RD for her using the poster article (eg piped link) as a exceptional case for RD. The poster article is in good shape for such posting. --Masem (t) 14:30, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
    • Oppose Same argument as Masem, except given the circumstantial connection (the photo may be Fraley, but the photo was never confirmed as the source, it may well have been a composite), I thinks this falls short of the exceptional case he advocates. GCG (talk) 16:10, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Though this nomination originally pointed to Naomi Parker Fraley, an alternate, more developed article has been created at Naomi Parker (her maiden name). I have redirected Naomi Parker Fraley to this article. Commentators who viewed the stub may wish to re-assess after reading this other article. --LukeSurl t c 14:34, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
    • It still falls under BLP1E issues - yes, her life beyond the photo for the poster has been documented, but that's non-notable facets relative to her role w.r.t. the poster. --Masem (t) 14:39, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
      • And it still fails the Parker cannot be confirmed as the model for "We Can Do It!" original point that she might not even have been the model in question. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:46, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
        • In this case, it seems that the RSes acknowledge she may not be 100% confirmed as the one, but they're treating her as if she is. That's not our fault if they end up being wrong. --Masem (t) 15:08, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
          • It is our fault if our featured article is incorrect in some way. Or it is our fault if we make an erroneous claim as the current blurb seems to make. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:47, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
            • As long as our article states that "she is believed to be the inspiration for the posters by scholars", or something to that line, we are being 100% truthful; we don't claim she is but that sources believe she is. --Masem (t) 16:11, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
              • Perhaps if RD passes muster, but, for the third or fourth time, the proposed blurb is false. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:05, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
  • The Naomi Parker article exists, and, after a little work, is adequate to post (the NYT obituary is a very good source). The RD procedures are clear. Unless someone intends to take this to AfD, we should post now. --LukeSurl t c 15:12, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
    • Really? With three sources? When I nominated Tyler Hilinski last week, people had similar concerns about notability and it wasn't posted. And nobody has bothered to nominate it for deletion. How about some consistency here? I say oppose. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:19, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
  • From the template: "any individual human … with a standalone Wikipedia article (Naomi Parker) whose recent death is in the news (obituary in the NYT) is presumed to be important enough to post." I don't know what happened with Hilinski, I wasn't involved with that nomination. But here we have an article on a recently deceased person with no tags or flagged sourcing issues (there are only three sources, but the NYT obituary is very extensive and could support a start-class article by itself). If you don't think this person is notable, nominate the article for deletion. Otherwise this is a RD item. --LukeSurl t c 15:31, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
    • The article did not exist until today, so the normal RD requirement is not satisfied (RD presumes that a standalone article already existed). We get to consider that in this evaluation. --Masem (t) 15:26, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
      • Can you point me to where that information has been written down, so can learn more about it? I have, until now, never seen such a stipulation. --Jayron32 16:04, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
        • Generally, that's going to extend from WP:BLP1E - if the person is only notable for one event (including if that is their death), then we shouldn't have a standalone article. The way I read the RFC on the RD aspect, is that we assume that the existing standalone prior to death justifies the notability for posting to avoid the BLP1E aspect around death, but that's not a hard-coded result of the RFC. However, I am going to start a discussion at the WT:ITN page about RDs on newly created articles to assure there's consensus for that. --Masem (t) 16:09, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
  • For what it's worth, this death is reported by many news agencies. --LukeSurl t c 15:41, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Didn't we use to have a rule that the article had to exist prior to the death to qualify for RD? What happened to that? Anyway this person seems to fail WP:BLP1E and their sole claim to fame is based on dubious supposition, so the biography article may not survive very long anyway. I also oppose using the poster article as an alternative target, as that defeats the point in highlighting a recent death. Modest Genius talk 17:02, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support as RD The article is well sourced but I think RD is better suited. @The Rambling Man:, @Jayron32:, @GreatCaesarsGhost:, @Modest Genius:: I'd hate to see this nom become obsolete due to a long-shot blurb nom, wouldn't a RD be good. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:30, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

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

[Posted] RD: Sys NS[edit]

Article: Sys NS (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Kompas, CNN Indonesia
Nominator: Crisco 1492 (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.

  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 08:39, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Support Article looks OK. –Ammarpad (talk) 08:45, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 22:01, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

[Closed] Alaska earthquake[edit]

Thankfully limited in its effects. Stephen 21:58, 23 January 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: 2018 Alaska earthquake (talk, history)
Blurb: A 7.9 magnitude earthquake occurs in the Gulf of Alaska.
News source(s): BBC
Nominator: Beeblebrox (talk • give credit)

 The Rambling Man (talk) 11:24, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
  • It’s very late at night here and I am crashing from an adrenaline high after fleeing my house lest it be destroyed by a tsunami, so excuse me for not doing all the paperwork, but we just had a massive earthquake here in southcentral Alaska, enough that it is being reported in US national news and BBC world service. Also it was scary as hell. that is all. Beeblebrox (talk) 11:18, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
    Tentative paperwork done, no blurb yet as no assessment of impact has been made. Good luck, stay safe. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:24, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
  • 7.9 earthquakes should qualify automatically as a topic; unless there's a quality issue, there's no way that this should not be featured. It's the lead story in my local newspaper here in Virginia, even though we're 4000 miles away, and its lead stories are almost always on local or state events. Nyttend (talk) 13:21, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I added a blurb; the magnitude is certainly significant however it doesn't seem to have actually done anything other than a tsunami warning.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:29, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Was apparently not "violent earthquake" and I believe the magnitude of the earthquake doesn't always mean it is significant, because it depends on location and depth.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:33, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak support for now. News coverage is evident and obvious, but the article itself is a bit light as yet, perhaps because we still don't have good information. Would like to see article expanded with more information on damage and effects. But its bare minimum to go up for me on a quality level. --Jayron32 13:50, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Wait for more details. So far it doesn't seem to have caused any damage or deaths, just a lot of alarm, which wouldn't be ITN-worthy. However it may well have impacts that haven't been reported yet. We won't be able to assess significance until more information becomes available. Modest Genius talk 14:10, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose we should only consider earthquakes (and other such natural disasters) based on their actual impact and right now, I'm not seeing anything besides an evacuation of some frightened people. Naturally if things change, we can re-visit. Having said that, they're not giving any further advisories, so I consider the matter effectively closed. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:17, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose 8.0 Mag quakes are nothing to sneeze at, so there's a good reason to post, but its also the case that I'm not seeing any reports of significant damage, the tsunami warning is lifted, etc. "Non"-disasters or those with few or no casualties tend to not be ITN material. --Masem (t) 14:33, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Doesn't appear to have actually caused any deaths/damage. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:57, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now, as it looks like tsunami warnings were lifted, and no casualties were recorded. Alex Shih (talk) 15:08, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Tsunami warning has been cancelled and it appears there are no significant injuries or damage.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:41, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - powerful earthquake, but no serious damage, means that this is an oppose from me. Stormy clouds (talk) 16:34, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I have to admit this is seeming like a non-event for those who didn’t actually experience it. It’s not something I’ll forget anytime soon, my house shaking for what felt like at least a minute and then having to take my pets and my wife and just leave home, not knowing if I’d ever see it again, but luckily no significant tsunami waves occured, and I’ve not heard of any serious damage or deaths. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:38, 23 January 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.

January 22[edit]

Portal:Current events/2018 January 22
Armed conflict and attacks
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Sport

Preston Shannon[edit]

Article: Preston Shannon (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Nominator: GreatCaesarsGhost (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.

 GCG (talk) 03:30, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

[Posted RD: Blurb?] Ursula Le Guin[edit]

Article: Ursula K. Le Guin (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: American author Ursula K. Le Guin, best known for her works of speculative fiction, dies at the age of 88.
News source(s): New York Times
Nominator: Jheald (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.

 Jheald (talk) 22:37, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Support Andrew D. (talk) 22:49, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I've tagged a few places that need citations, but it's close. --Masem (t) 23:42, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Unequivocal; article is in fine shape. Radagast (talk) 00:05, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support article is good, and she was a literary giant. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 00:19, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Article good enough for posting. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:43, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted with much sadness. I remember reading some of her books back when I was... Oh never mind. I was never that young. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:58, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I think we should at least consider a blurb in this case. NYT calls her "immensely popular"; Harold Bloom has a lot of praise, and included one of her works in The Western Canon (a list which, according to him, significantly influenced western culture); The Left Hand of Darkness is among the most-studied works of literature around; she's received the "Medal for Distinguished Contribution to American Letters"; she had six Nebula Awards (including four for best novel, more than anyone else) and five Hugo Awards. Not as much impact as Mandela or Bowie, but more than Carrie Fisher. I'm a fan of her work, but I think I would support even otherwise. Vanamonde (talk) 04:41, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
    • Unfortunately, the death is not causing any major waves as we have seen for what we'd expect for the blurb. We knew she was elderly, so the death wasn't really surprising (Whereas Fisher's death was very surprising though I don't agree that that should have been a blurb either). --Masem (t) 04:55, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
      • Well, it's not leading to candlelight vigils in the street, but her obituary is on the homepage of both NYT and the BBC as I write this. Vanamonde (talk) 05:41, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Connie Sawyer[edit]

Article: Connie Sawyer (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): People
Nominator: MurielMary (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.

 MurielMary (talk) 09:28, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Nom seems to have been overlooked in the discussions over the dog, the earthquake and an animated character. MurielMary (talk) 18:55, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Weak oppose for now. Still some referencing gaps in the filmography section. If those were fixed, I'd be fine with posting this. --Jayron32 18:58, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Filmography fully cited now. MurielMary (talk) 19:42, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Looks good to go.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:57, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted as the referencing issues have been fixed. Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 21:03, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

RD: Lucca (dog)[edit]

Article: Lucca (dog) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: Lucca first United States Marine Corps dog to win the British Dickin Medal.
News source(s): "LuccaK458". January 21, 2018. Retrieved January 22, 2018 – via FaceBook. It’s with a heavy heart that I tell you that Lucca passed away yesterday. Juan was able fly in to spend some quality time with her in her last few days and we were both at her side as she took her last breath.  "War-wounded military dog awarded charity medal". BBC News. 5 April 2016. Retrieved 6 April 2016.  "Lucca the heroic three-legged war dog wins medal" (Video). The Guardian. April 5, 2016. Retrieved January 21, 2018.  Wakefield, Jessica (April 5, 2016). "Adorable military dog, Lucca, who lost leg in combat gets medal for bravery" (Video). Irish Independent. Retrieved January 22, 2018.  "PDSA Dickin Medal for Lucca". PDSA. Retrieved May 10, 2017. Phan, Hieu Tran (April 11, 2016). "How Marine dog Lucca made history". San Diego Union Tribune. Retrieved January 21, 2018.  "U.S. Marine Corps Honors Dog for Wartime Bravery" (Video). CBS. 5 April 2016. Retrieved January 21, 2018.  Carpenter, Rhonda (21 October 2014). "Book Review – Top Dog: The Story of Marine Hero Lucca". Defense Media Network. Retrieved 12 April 2016. 
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.

 7&6=thirteen () 17:59, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Support for RD. Article is of sufficient quality. --Jayron32 18:11, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
    Oppose for now pending the sourcing concerns noted below by Masem. A valid, reliable, independent, third party source for the death is crucial here. I made a good faith effort using Google and Google News and found bubkis myself. Consider this opposition null if the sourcing is fixed, and my former support vote reinstated when that happens. --Jayron32 19:14, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support RD Can't imagine supporting a blurb for the death of a non-human. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:14, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • The template was very malformed when originally posted (I did some fixing). I'm not sure the poster intends to make a blurb submission, or whether this is simply what would normally be in the nomination comment. Regardless, RD is clear here and the article seems OK to post as such. --LukeSurl t c 18:26, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Not trying to be a jerk here, but the only source for the death is from Facebook (the other links are older, establishing notability). We generally expect death news to come from the news, not deaths that are just reported. However, I'm not aware of any previous case where we have a person/living thing that was notable before death, but their only death news came from a personal website/social media. --Masem (t) 19:09, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
    • Yeah great catch. I'll strike my support until we can get verification. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:17, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
    • Very good spot Masem. Kudos! --LukeSurl t c 20:41, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
      • Let me stress again I'm not trying to be a jerk here: I don't know since with the new RD if it is critical that the death be "in the news" when it is clear the notability of the being was established beforehand. I open up the question if this approach breaks RD/ITN or not (And absolutely nothing against this because it is a dog rather than a person; that past RFC already fixed that in place). --Masem (t) 20:45, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
        • I suggested we change the template from "whose recent death is in the news" to "whose recent death is reliably sourced." WP:ITNRD uses "reliably sourced," and I think "in the news" adds some ambiguity about the level of reporting required. GCG (talk) 21:44, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
        • I agree with GCG's proposal. However, in this specific case it's worth considering if Facebook counts as a reliable source in this matter. As per Wikipedia:External_links/Perennial_websites#Facebook,_MySpace, FB can be a reliable source "sometimes". Specifically "the official page of a subject may be used as a self-published, primary source, but only if it can be authenticated as belonging to the subject." Regarding authentication, this page is not "verified" for Lucca (presumably as FB would not authorise a non-human). More generally, by definition even a human individual cannot write a primary source reporting their death. --LukeSurl t c 22:39, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I spent much time looking for any news source on his death. And I only posted it when I found the Facebook page, which well antedates the death and reports the death in convincing detail. I quoted it. Given the pictures, the videos, and the text, this is certainly Lucca's facebook page. It has sufficient earmarks of reliability that it could be used. I only became aware of the death become another wikipedia editor put it into our article, and then I added sources and went on a quest. Finding a newspaper or mainstream media on the death of this remarkable dog may be a vain search. But if you choose not to run it, it is your and Wikipedia's loss. 7&6=thirteen () 22:59, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

  • A little bizarre that there's no coverage at all of the dog's death (I couldn't find any either). Would support upon that being presented. Black Kite (talk) 23:51, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support I think the FB post passes muster under WP:SELFPUB. GCG (talk) 02:33, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is obviously not "in the news" and it's not our job to make it so. Andrew D. (talk) 08:01, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - seems RD ready. BabbaQ (talk) 09:00, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Unless there's independent, reliable source that confirmed the death. Main page worthy article shouldn't rely on generally unreliable source.–Ammarpad (talk) 09:03, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose as no evidence has yet been presented that this death is in the news. 331dot (talk) 09:04, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
    This sort of proves my point about the ambiguity of "in the news" vs. "reliable sources." No knock intended to 331. GCG (talk) 12:56, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
    Understood; no offense was taken. 331dot (talk) 13:00, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - can't find any online source stating the dog has died. MurielMary (talk) 11:03, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Notability needs to be established by reliable third-party sourcing.--WaltCip (talk) 13:14, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. If no third party sources have bothered to report the death, that brings into question the notability of the animal at all, let alone the propriety of us announcing it on the MP. A Facebook post is not a reliable third-party source. Frankly the idea of automatically posting an RD for every animal with an article is looking increasingly ridiculous. Modest Genius talk 13:21, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose There has to be at least some news coverage to qualify for RD and there has been zero.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:54, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Facebook is not a reliable source for his death. The article contradicts itself currently by having a death date in the infobox, but the article implies he's alive. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:31, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose/Wait. Death reports like this sometimes take a couple days to appear based on a number of factors (location, when/if the family talks to the media, the state of the news cycle, etc.). For now I oppose due to the lack of sourcing, but reliable sourcing may appear and change things. ZettaComposer (talk) 17:47, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

[Closed] Ongoing: US Government Shutdown[edit]

Shutdown has ended, rendering this nomination moot. Stormy clouds (talk) 21:56, 22 January 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: United States federal government shutdown of 2018 (talk, history)
Ongoing item nomination
News source(s): NYT BBC
Nominator: Stormy clouds (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: This is a formalised proposal that we remove the blurb for the government shutdown, and move it to ongoing. This suggestion is purely because of the nature of the nomination. The shutdown, as it persists, will drag on, as too will its impacts. Ongoing is currently vacated, so there is no opportunity cost in placing in there. The article has and will continue inevitably to receive updates, fulfilling the criteria for an ongoing placement. There is a consensus, however contentious, for this item to be listed at ITN. However, I feel that it is better suited to an ongoing listing at the moment given its nature, and am hence creating this nom, per Vanamonde's suggestion in posting its predecessor as a blurb, to gauge interest in moving the item to ongoing now. Stormy clouds (talk) 15:30, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Procedural note I'm neutral on this, but if I were to be the closing admin here, I would see a "support" to mean "remove blurb, move to ongoing" and an "oppose" to mean "keep blurb". If we want to remove this altogether, that will have to be discussed separately (or, per IAR, could be decided here but only if folks are explicit about it). Vanamonde (talk) 15:39, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Apologies for not phrasing correctly. As nominator, this would be my reading of events too - support for removal of blurb and transition to ongoing, oppose for maintenance of blurb as is. Stormy clouds (talk) 15:42, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Falling slightly between Vanamonde's two options, I would suggest pushing this to ongoing iff the shutdown is still in effect when the blurb "falls off" the bottom of the template. --LukeSurl t c 15:57, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Wait until the blurb is going to fall off the list. (eg about 2-3 days). We know that Congress is going to be trying to do something, as I write, we're in an hour before a next major vote, and if the shutdown is rendered null, then making this as ongoing is unnecessary. Additionally, whether ongoing is necessary depends what actually happens. If there is clearly attempts to resolve and it's all about negotations and the like with the implications the shutdown will be resolved soon, then ongoing seems unnecessary. If both sides walk away and let the shutdown linger, that's ongoing-worthy. But I can't make that distinction now, so this ongoing suggestion is too soon. --Masem (t) 16:02, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
    • And as I'm watching, CNN reports that the Dems say they have reached a deal and Senate is voting now to pass the bill, rendering all this moot. --Masem (t) 17:38, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
      • And now CNN reports the vote has cleared the Senate. Obviously, let's make sure it gets signed and passed before closing this down. --Masem (t) 17:54, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Isn't the blurb misleading? I thought the shutdown was due to the Democratic refusal to build the wall in exchange for DACA?Zigzig20s (talk) 17:31, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
That may have been the reason for the funding bill not passing, but the shutdown is the direct result of the bill not passing. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:35, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
The blurb is not misleading, and putting it on Democrats is a POV violation of oversimplification as there were Republicans voting against it as well. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:41, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now It appears to be a moot point. The government appears to be on its way to reopening. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:41, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Appears moot. Apparently expect to end in a few hours. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:44, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose/Wait. If this were to fall off the bottom while the shutdown was still happening, then it would be fine to move to an ongoing link. Otherwise, since it just went up a few hours ago, there's no need to move it of its own accord. It's on the main page, and I am unconcerned about whether the link appears as a blurb or ongoing. The blurb is sufficient unless and until it becomes a long-term shutdown. --Jayron32 18:13, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose seems to have been resolved fairly quickly. Would have supported if this would have lasted (significantly) longer. 2A02:A451:8B2D:1:C4F2:CB11:31EE:3D44 (talk) 20:00, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Once a deal is made, which is more likely than not, we can just fix the blurb to past tense. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 20:55, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
We never put blurbs in ITN in the past tense. When the deal is made, the story is no longer of significance and will, I would imagine, be removed. Stormy clouds (talk) 21:35, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
I would hope not. The story simply becomes "The U.S. government reopens after a three day shutdown." – Muboshgu (talk) 21:39, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I strictly oppose adding things that are no longer happening to the ongoing section. I'll also note, that such an oppose does not mean in any way that I support any other blurb's existence. This poll is for adding the nominated article to the ongoing section, that is all. Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 21:44, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose clearly, per the BBC "The shutdown is over, but the immigration and budget battles rage on. Both sides will try to claim victory, with varying degrees of success." i.e. a political farce played out in public for a couple of days with next-to-no impact, certainly no long-term effects, and definitely not "ongoing" in any sense. It was always clear this was going to be resolved in next to no time, and while I respect the admin who posted the ITNC story, it's a shame it didn't wait another few hours when it was confirmed to be a non-story. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:53, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

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

[Posted] RD: Jimmy Armfield[edit]

Article: Jimmy Armfield (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The Guardian, BBC
Nominator: GreatCaesarsGhost (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.

 GCG (talk) 12:37, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Support I've updated the article with a cause of death and the referencing looks ok.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:43, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Looks good to go. –Ammarpad (talk) 17:05, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. Article looks well-sourced. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:39, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted. Black Kite (talk) 18:47, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

January 21[edit]

Portal:Current events/2018 January 21
Armed conflicts and attacks
International relations
Politics and elections
Science and technology
Sport

[Posted] Electron (rocket)[edit]

Article: Electron (rocket) (talk, history)
Blurb: Rocket Lab's Electron becomes the first rocket to reach orbit using an electric pump-fed engine
News source(s): Washington Post Financial Times
Nominator: Modest Genius (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: For reasons I never understood, the first launch of a new rocket family is ITNR. Technically this was the first successful launch and we didn't cover the earlier failure, so I think it still qualifies. The Electron is very much towards the 'small and cheap' end of the market, but does have a significant technical advance in its 3D-printed electric-pumped engines. The article is rather lightweight at present, but there are plenty of sources covering the launch which could be used for expansion. Modest Genius talk 12:16, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Is the "first rocket to reach orbit using an electric pump-fed engine" fact in the FT article? If so, could this be added to the lead of the article? This article is paywalled for me. --LukeSurl t c 12:39, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
    • Unfortunately I've now hit the metered paywall so can't access the article I was reading a few minutes ago! I'll have a hunt for a better source. Modest Genius talk 12:51, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
      • Found one; this fact is now in the lead and cited to Popular Science. Modest Genius talk 12:57, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. Nice to have some science in the ITN box. Article is slim but meets minimum standards, and its worth appreciating that a lot of info is contained succinctly in the infobox. --LukeSurl t c 13:52, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. The article on the rocket is good enough (for a science article) to be featured here. The supporting article on electric pump fed engines is good enough as a supporting article. Within the world of technology, the accomplishment is notable enough. Inatan (talk) 14:12, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - per above supporters. Jusdafax (talk) 18:37, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 23:43, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose copied from Wikipedia talk:In the news. Why is the rocket article featured? The innovation is small, not large, where the electical reference is just to the pump that pushes fuel into the engine. So its an improved pump, not an electrical or otherwise non-fuel-consuming engine. So why the hyped product? -Inowen (talk) 01:23, 24 January 2018 (UTC). Continued: It has the earmarks of British propaganda, as the company and even the name of the Rocket are British self-honorific. -Inowen.
  • I've made the formal quixotic suggestion that we remove Space Exploration from ITN/R. I support this story, believe such stories belong on ITN, and trust that the consensus will overwhelming support legit scientific progress. But ITN/R is meant to be a black/white process: there should be no debate about if an item "fits" an ITNR, and the Space category is ripe for generating debate. Please do pop in offer your opinion. GCG (talk) 02:45, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: John Coleman[edit]

Article: John Coleman (meteorologist) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The Washington Post
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 is well sourced and updated. Died on the 20th but coverage began on the 21st. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 05:32, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

January 20[edit]

Portal:Current events/2018 January 20
Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
International relations
Politics and elections

[Posted] 2018 Inter-Continental Hotel Kabul attack[edit]

Articles: 2018 Inter-Continental Hotel Kabul attack (talk, history) and Hotel Inter-Continental Kabul (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Three gunmen attack a hotel in Kabul and kill eighteen people, including four Afghans and 14 foreigners.
News source(s): The Guardian
Nominator: Shhhhwwww!! (talk • give credit)
Updater: SamHolt6 (talk • give credit)

 Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 23:46, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose. Terrorist attack in an area of frequent terrorist attacks and war. 331dot (talk) 23:53, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
I still oppose posting casualties in a war zone. 331dot (talk) 16:43, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
How about we stop posting sport results from countries with lots of sporting events? -Zanhe (talk) 03:40, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - attacks in the region are so prevalent that this is not even the first one in the hotel. Also, there is no standalone article, such an article would fail an AfD, and the update amounts to a single line with barely any information. Stormy clouds (talk) 23:59, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Also oppose this resurgence of the nomination. Does not pass the threshold of notability required for posting in my view, given that Kabul is an active war zone. Stormy clouds (talk) 19:13, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
That source says the death toll could rise to 43. It currently stands at the horrible, but far less significant, total of 18. Stormy clouds (talk) 16:36, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Subject is in the news, and the article has been updated. There is no death toll minimum for ITN. Davey2116 (talk) 18:10, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
No one is claiming that there is. However, an attack in an active warzone will not be particularly newsworthy unless there are significant fatalities, purely by virtue of the fact that people die frequently in attacks in a warzone. Stormy clouds (talk) 18:16, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Newsflash — people die in wars. – NixinovaT|C⟩ 18:59, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - high-profile attack with deaths involving many nationalities. Worldwide news coverage. ITN should feature the attack article, not the hotel. -Zanhe (talk) 19:10, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment okay, it's an attack in a "war zone", but it's a focused attack on a hotel where non-combatants would be staying. Apparently up to 18 have been killed. It's all over the news, the article is now "okay", so it's getting to the point where it's more difficult to argue against posting it. The "war zone" opposers will have to wake up when the next mass shooting happens in the US with just 10 deaths, say. We should summarily ignore all mass shootings in the US from now on until they raise the bar to record-breaking levels, or are in some way novel. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:04, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
As one of those opposers, I can confirm that the frequency of mass shootings stateside has earned many opposes from me in the past, and will continue to do so in the future. Stormy clouds (talk) 22:27, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Yeah same with above. Mass-shootings in country with extremely poor gun control and health care, not news. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:48, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
I don't get the logic behind the argument that terrorist attacks in unstable countries are "not news", while we regularly post all kinds of sporting events from countries that are crazy about sports. Which is more unexpected and has more real life consequences? -Zanhe (talk) 03:37, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Although the confirmed death toll is not record-breaking for Afghanistan (but substantial and rising nevertheless), this was targeted based on nationality, which is far less common than the typical, indiscriminate attacks. EternalNomad (talk) 03:33, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - per Eternal Nomad. Attack on international facility specifically to kill non-Afghans. Jusdafax (talk) 07:14, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support High profile attack, many nationalities, article is good enough.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:11, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Topic is being covered by news sources, and article is of sufficient quality. Ticks every box for me. --Jayron32 18:15, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support'. The article on the event is well-written and shows that it ss a notable event that has been in the news. -- Tavix (talk) 19:36, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per Pawnkingthree. An attack on a major hotel with (presumably) tight security does not happen very often, not even in Afghanistan. 2A02:A451:8B2D:1:C4F2:CB11:31EE:3D44 (talk) 19:59, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 22:35, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Jim Rodford[edit]

Article: Jim Rodford (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC
Nominator: The Rambling Man (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.

 The Rambling Man (talk) 22:29, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Support - When the article has been fully referenced. BabbaQ (talk) 22:41, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
That's not how RD works. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 01:19, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Who? Oh, no, The Kinks. Nominators really should mention why the subject is notable. There is indeed a comment field. μηδείς (talk) 01:17, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
There is no need to mention why the subject is notable as this is irrelevant to the nomination. As per the note on every nom, the only point to be discussed is quality of the article (length, prose, copyediting, referencing etc). MurielMary (talk) 01:24, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Indeed, since reviewers need to be looking at quality only, they will quickly determine who this individual is because they'll be reading the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:24, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - article is mostly well referenced. The one unsourced sentence can be removed without much impact on completeness. (now fixed) -Zanhe (talk) 19:12, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Article is well referenced overall. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:14, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support indeed, good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:09, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted. --Jayron32 18:16, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Paul Bocuse[edit]

Article: Paul Bocuse (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC
Nominator: The Rambling Man (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.

 The Rambling Man (talk) 22:28, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Support - When the article has been fully referenced.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:42, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Article has orange tag with reason: needs more sources. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:52, 21 January 2018 (UTC) Support Issues has been fixed. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:15, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Unaddressed cn tag and totally unreferenced section full of puffery. –Ammarpad (talk) 18:06, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - article is now well referenced. -Zanhe (talk) 04:46, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support looks okay to me. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:11, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 22:13, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] Afrin Offensive[edit]

Article: Operation Olive Branch (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Turkish war planes have launched air strikes on Kurdish positions in northern Syria, in a move likely to cause tensions with the US.
Alternative blurb: Turkey begins military offense against US-backed Kurdish forces in Syria.
News source(s): BBC, NYT
Nominator: Sherenk1 (talk • give credit)
Updater: Beshogur (talk • give credit)
Other updaters: Mingus79 (talk • give credit) and EkoGraf (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Either we use as blurb or ongoing. Sherenk1 (talk) 16:48, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Weak Oppose Likely to? Renominate when something actually comes of this. – NixinovaT|C⟩ 17:14, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Very Strong Support, change blurb to (as an example): Turkish military has launched military invasion against Syrian Democratic Forces in northern Syria, which opens a new front in the Syrian Civil War. This is probably the biggest development in the Syrian Civil War since 2015 Russian intervention, and will affect the middle-eastern politics for decades. I mean, just so that you understand, Turkey just officially started war against the SDF, which is not only the biggest faction in the syrian civil war after Assad, but SDF was also the world's main ally in the fight against ISIS. Niqabu (talk) 17:31, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Niqabu's proposal. If not that, I'm fine with alternate blurb laid out by the OP. Étienne Dolet (talk) 21:18, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support on news sites I read and the current target, while average quality, suffices for now. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:19, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. I have been following the situation for some time now, and while it is not the first time the Republic of Turkey has bombed them, it would certainly be the first time a full-blown military operation has taken place during this war (see this map), so I would certainly support it, but I would wait to post it until we are absolutely sure about the situation (this could take several days). Inatan (talk) 21:30, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Tentative support That military action has been taken is appropriate for ITN, but my concern is making sure how this is being taken (Yes, it is arguably an "act of war" but doesn't mean it is necessarily "war"). Obviously it's part of the overall Syrian civil war, but just would be good to have a clear understanding how the world is taking it. (eg the comments by Niqabu above are a bit over-the-top based on how I'm reading news articlea bout it). --Masem (t) 21:40, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
    Masem, the blurb states "Turkey begins military offense against US-backed Kurdish forces in Syria.", which part of that is problematic? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:42, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
    Not so much the blurb but the article. It does seem to be sufficiently neutral at the present, but the implications are not 100% clear. --Masem (t) 21:45, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
    Well we're not here to debate the "implications" of the action, just to note that something newsworthy has occurred and to decide if our article covers it sufficiently. That seems apparent. We should stop dithering and post. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:55, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Support Article looks fine (do link the current title), and it tops the news headlines. I'd prefer a blurb without US mention, since I thought the Afrin part of SDF didn't have much US military support. Narayanese (talk) 22:02, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Posted -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:04, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: There's no reason to mention the US in the blurb, given that it doesn't really back Afrin's YPG and there are no coalition forces there. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 08:33, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I agree that "US-backed" should be dropped from the blurb. This is a little too much analysis for an ITN blurb --LukeSurl t c 11:21, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
  • On the contrary, I think the fact that Turkish troops are attacking a "US-backed" force is an important component of this story and certainly one which will create more interest and be more informative to the readership. Gatoclass (talk) 11:40, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I concur with Gatoclass. This is by far the most important part here, and its not analysis or specultion. Both the US and SDF officially confirm that US backs and arms SDF. And supports their operations with plains and special forces. And trains SDF. And has military bases on the SDF occupied territory. Niqabu (talk) 12:14, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Post posting support to keep the blurb as is per above. 174.92.70.237 (talk) 14:39, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Please make the link go directly to Turkish military intervention in Afrin to avoid ending up on a wp:redirect page. Mikael Häggström (talk) 06:13, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I noted this at WP:ERRORS. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:10, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

[Pulled] 2018 United States federal budget[edit]

Previous close linked here.

Articles: United States federal government shutdown of 2018 (talk, history) and 2018 United States federal budget (talk, history)
Blurb: The United States federal government shuts down after the United States Senate fails to pass a budget bill.
Alternative blurb: The United States federal government shuts down after the United States Senate fails to pass a budget bill.
Alternative blurb II: ​The United States federal government shuts down after the Senate fails to pass a temporary funding bill.
News source(s): The New York Times
Nominator: Shhhhwwww!! (talk • give credit)

 Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 03:47, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Premature They could strike a deal at the literal 11th hour. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:57, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
    They have an hour. Lol. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 04:00, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
    Literally, yes. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:02, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I did see we posted the last shutdown in 2013 [1]. That said, there was a separate article for that shutdown, and I see no reason not to expect the same here. Yes, it doesn't make sense to create it until the shutdown is confirmed, but I fully expect that before I could support this. --Masem (t) 04:02, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support when it happens an hour from now, obviously. Davey2116 (talk) 04:07, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Note: I have tweaked the blurb per Muboshgu and Masem. Davey2116 (talk) 04:09, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Abomination May shut down? This is an internal fiscal legislative matter that would never be published for any other country. It is also crystal balling, and treats "politics" (i.e., there are enough votes to pass a budget, except for the US "fillibuster") as if they were real things, and not power manoeuvres among non-productive (save for hot air) parasites living at public expense. Bring back the House of Hanover! μηδείς (talk) 04:13, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Condensing. Let's move on. 331dot (talk) 12:08, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • What a classy comment... Were you not the person who recently was up in arms about "using defamatory language against BLP's because doing so is all the rage in certain circles?" I would say calling people parasites fits well into that category... And in what world is this a personal attack that allows you to remove my comment?!? Calling me a single purpose account in your edit summary... ever heard of a variable IP? If anything that was a personal attack... And my comment was removed a second time by Medeis... And the comment was removed a third time... How is this a personal attack as claimed by Medeis? 91.49.81.181 (talk) 11:48, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support When the shut-down occurs; may shut down is obviously not enough, but actually shutting down is. Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:16, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • It's past midnight in DC. They will have shut down now. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 05:03, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose - Despite the fear mongering, this only affects things such as national parks, museums, etc. Anything of importance to conducting life continues to operate as usual. This affects nobody outside of America, and very few within America. - Floydian τ ¢ 06:16, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
    • That is true over the weekend, but if the shutdown lasts into Monday it will be highly disruptive. Last time 800,000 employees were furloughed. Antony–22 (talkcontribs) 06:42, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
      • But if I may quote that article: "non-essential" - Floydian τ ¢ 06:46, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Not just national parks (which actually Trump wishes to continue) are effected. Moody's Analytics estimated that a shutdown of three to four weeks would cost the economy about $55 billion. Lost wages of Federal employees will amount to about $1 billion a week.[179] Goldman Sachs estimated that a three-week shutdown would reduce the gross domestic product of the United States by 0.9%.[180] According to the Los Angeles Times, a two-week shutdown would reduce GDP growth in the fourth quarter by 0.3 to 0.4 percentage points. By comparison, the GDP has grown by less than 2% in 2013.[181] Many programs are affected. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:04, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment. The two blurbs as provided were incorrect, since the bill that failed was a continuing resolution and not a budget resolution. I struck these and have provided a corrected version. Antony–22 (talkcontribs) 06:41, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - In the news, worldwide. Article improvement and expansion at acceptable levels, with competent Wikipedians at work. Jusdafax (talk) 07:17, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - major news, shutdown has begun. Article is decent. -Zanhe (talk) 08:32, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support this dominates American news and is widely reported elsewhere as well. Banedon (talk) 10:10, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Don't see the point of posting pointless political maneuvering of a country which in the end will not result in any extraordinary problems or changes in status quo.75.73.150.255 (talk) 10:20, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment. I'm aware that we posted the last shutdown in 2013, but I wonder if we should be discussing posting this to Ongoing or only posting the end of the shutdown(depending on how long it goes). The longer it goes, the more damage it will do(being the weekend relatively little of the federal government will be open until Monday). 331dot (talk) 10:43, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Ongoing seems reasonable as the article should be updated as the shutdown goes on; the end may also be more reasonable as only then will we know exactly how newsworthy it becomes. Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:46, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose The term "government shutdown" is hyperbolic. In reality, as discussed above, only some government services deemed non-essential are affected. The government itself and other essential services do not shut down, as the term implies. So if this were to be posted (and I don't think it should be), a better blurb would be "Some non-essential United States federal government services shut down after the Senate fails to pass a temporary funding bill" Chrisclear (talk) 10:47, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
That is the term both reliable sources and the government itself uses(the White House is trying to term it the "Schumer Shutdown"). 331dot (talk) 10:50, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
My issue with the nomination is not with the term "government shutdown" per se, but rather the importance of this news item. That is, only some government services deemed non-essential are affected. Regarding the blurb, the phrase "Some non-essential United States federal government services shut down" is more accurate, and helps explains things better to non-Americans who are unfamiliar with the concept of US government "shutdowns" which do not involve the government shutting down, as the term implies. Readers shouldn't have to click on a link to find out that the government doesn't actually shut down during a "shutdown". Chrisclear (talk) 11:04, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Some sources use the term "partial government shutdown"; perhaps we could use that here. "Non-essential" doesn't quite capture it, since the nuance is that the workers that are retained are the ones essential to preserving life and property, not the ones essential to actually having a functioning government. Antony–22 (talkcontribs) 20:00, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Does ITN even post news anymore? This project is bollocks and its existence could be done away with. It seems like for five or six blurbs at a time, it is consistently a week behind. Anything that is ever legitimately in the news is never on the front page of Wikipedia, and obscure crap like a guy winning a darts contest stays on for ten days at a time. Fifth most popular website on the internet and you guys posture for content on the Main Page worse than the U.S. congress for a bill when all you have to do is just look at headlines. That being said it meets the merits of being on the front page it being, you know, news. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 11:02, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
@Moe Epsilon: ITN is not meant to be a news ticker or otherwise updated constantly, but is intended as a way to highlight quality articles about subjects that are in the news that people might be looking for. It also motivates the improvement of articles. ITN does not parrot the press but bases consensus on the merits of the event and quality of the article. If you wish to find or participate in generating current, breaking news, WikiNews is available. No one forces you to come to ITNC if you disagree with what we are about. If you feel ITN should be a news ticker or post subquality articles, you are free to propose that. 331dot (talk) 11:08, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
The point is, WP:NOTNEWS has been a staple of Wikipedia since inception for creating content and establishing what Wikipedia is and isn't. Despite this, some of the most discussed, heavily debated-about stuff on Wikipedia is what we should feature as 'news' for the Main Page. I don't want, nor should we be a roving ticker of news or try to be WikiNews. Nor, if you're going to attempt news, should we be producing piss-poor news that is actually not news. We already highlight quality articles with featured articles. If the point is attracting editors to newly-created or developing articles, then it doesn't do it's job because we never feature them in time for it being in the news (not to mention, they are usually protected from new editors editing them anyways). What is the point? All I see is endless debate about things a limited number of people care about being presented as 'news' when articles that are actually going to have an audience get attention regardless of whether we consider it newsworthy. We might as well replace "In the News" with "Ten Most Visited Articles Today" and there's your news. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 11:46, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
You are free to propose that though I think it's been tried and failed many times. Even merely renaming ITN to better reflect that it is not meant to have breaking, current news has been proposed and failed. "Actually going to have an audience" is relative and would preclude the possibility of users learning something about a new subject that they might not have been aware of. However, further debate about the meaning of ITN should take place on the talk page if you are interested in attempting to change what we are about. 331dot (talk) 11:52, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
@Moe Epsilon: Everyone knows ITN is broken. Unfortunately there's no consensus on what to change it to, with the result we're stuck with the status quo. Banedon (talk) 11:49, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
I agree changes could be made but not that it's "broken", but everyone has their own opinion. 331dot (talk) 11:52, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Which I guess perfectly summarizes the U.S. government shutdown as well, I guess. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 11:53, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. Technically domestic, but big enough to have major repercussions. United States federal government shutdown of 2018 appears slim but adequate. Suggest posting as a normal blurb, then consider ongoing if its still occurring when it drops to the bottom of the box. --LukeSurl t c 12:26, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Floydian amd ChrisClear. This doesn't even affect the majority of people in the USA, let alone anywhere else. Political posturing is not for ITN. Black Kite (talk) 15:00, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
    • This is my concern - this is a combination of the norm of partisan politics ("We won't pass the budget unless you also pass this") combined with the bitter resentment the press has against the current state of the Congress. I'm not dead certain on opposing this, but this is the type of news bias where we should remember that we are not a newspaper in general. Yes, there is a shutdown, but we should wait to see what the effects actually are until deeming it significant. --Masem (t) 16:01, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - We would consider something like he US defaulting on its debt/interest paybacks to the Federal Reserve and other bond holders to actually be significant. The shutdown of a few federal services in one nation for what, according to historical context, will only last up to a couple weeks, does not even compare and should not be considered to be worldwide important. If the shutdown lasts for more than a few weeks, and stories begin to arise of actual impacts from this, then I would reconsider this decision. Otherwise, it's letting our platform be used as free media for congressional members who are trying to make this seem like a big deal. Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 16:44, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support and possibly add to Ongoing. Major event that will have lasting repercussions in America. (Note: I'm not American so no COI)NixinovaT|C⟩ 17:12, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
@Nixinova: It is not a COI for an American to comment on this discussion, nor to edit the article itself. Maybe if Donald Trump, Mitch McConnell, or Chuck Schumer themselves were editing, it would be a COI, but not Americans in general. It would be a systemic bias issue, but that still wouldn't prevent people from commenting here. 331dot (talk) 17:15, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Wait until Monday. If the shutdown ends before the weekend is up, the effects will have been fairly trivial. If 800k workers are furloughed on Monday, it will become a very significant disruption. Antony–22 (talkcontribs) 20:04, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support blurb Ongoing may be a good idea if this continues on past the weekend. It's major news with major coverage and a postable article. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:24, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose this seems to be a thing in the US, it happened not that long ago, and although it's marginally disruptive to a few Americans at the time, it doesn't seem to have any long term impact (hence why we're doing it all again five years later), other than scoring political points on a government that appears to have little or no control over itself and its country. It's a good example of how not to run a first-world country I suppose, but that alone shouldn't be sufficient reason to post. If it's all still clagged up in March, let's talk again. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:21, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
    • Just like gun massacres, just because they happen in the U.S. more often than they should doesn't mean we should stop posting them when they happen. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:15, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
      • Yes, it does. It means precisely that, because it's less newsworthy if it happens more frequently. It adjusts the baseline of newsworthiness. And it's not the only point. This just happens from time to time and it's inconvenient, but until anyone can provide a reason as to why this has any long term effect other than a bunch of internal politics, it's simply not interesting. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:28, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
        • That's exactly where this project fails. People seem to think 'news' is 'what is interesting' and it isn't. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 14:07, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
          • TRM is correct here. These occasional "shutdowns" are window dressing. No one loses any wages or benefits, since all furloughed workers, etc., eventually get paid even though they stayed home. The only newsworthy event of the 2013 shutdown was that some people were fined for "trespass" when they used publicly accessible areas of national parks such as running trails. μηδείς (talk) 18:19, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
            • How many billions of dollars did the U.S. government lose because of the last shutdown? $24 billion. And "it reduced projected fourth-quarter GDP growth from 3 percent to 2.4 percent." That's the benchmark, and it's pretty newsworthy and significant. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:22, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
              • I know that sounds like a lot of dollar, but what is it in relation to national debt? Last time I looked it was $5.4 trillion, so a few billion is really a drop in the ocean. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:54, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
                • You are completely missing the point about how a government shutdown hurts the economy, and a G8 economy to boot. You just don't like it and should not engage in ITN nominations like this one, instead of breaking out these senseless comments of yours. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:03, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
                  • And you are completely involved now, so stop forum shopping to get your POV posted. Your personal attacks are noted ("senseless comments" etc) and for a new admin, I'd suggest you just slow down a little and remember why I voted for you. The impact is objectively and literally inconsequential. Don't assault me, especially with your admin hat. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:14, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
                    • I'm not acting as an admin in this discussion. Your comments are senseless; I didn't say you are senseless. The impact of a shutdown may be inconsequential for you but it's a big deal over here. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:16, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
                      • There you go. My comments are not "senseless" and I'll ask you retract your multiple accusations. In what sense are they "senseless"? You are making personal attack after personal attack on me. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:18, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support ongoing, oppose blurb - this is the ideal item for filling the void at ongoing, though the effects are not profound enough yet for a blurb. Stormy clouds (talk) 23:58, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support The shutdown might have a limited impact, but it is noteworthy compared to other news this time around. --Horus (talk) 04:40, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
    Why is it more noteworthy than the last time this bureaucratic action happened? I'd like to know why. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:56, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
    Maybe try considering ITN criteria. Nobody said it's more noteworthy than the 2013 shutdown, and there is no rule here saying it has to be. It's at least equally noteworthy, and we posted that one. Your comments here make no sense. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:05, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
    Hang on, my comments here "make no sense"? What are you talking about? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:11, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
    Your question is completely irrelevant to the nomination discussion at play. You asking that question makes no sense. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:14, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
    What, my question that asks you what you're talking about? Did I really vote for you to be an admin? Are you really taking this course of communication? Wow! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:16, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
    The question I replied to. "Why is it more noteworthy than the last time this bureaucratic action happened?" That question doesn't help this discussion. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:19, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
    When you retract and redact your accusations of my comments being "senseless" we can continue to communicate. In the meantime, Arbcom record for quickest desysop awaits. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:23, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
    @The Rambling Man: I would say it has the same noteworthiness with 2013 shutdown. And since it was in ITN last time, I don't see any problem why it can't this time. This is not hard to figure out. --Horus (talk) 05:24, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Another oversized business going bust. Optimist on the run (talk) 10:41, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
    No it isn't. It's an artificial freeze on government business. No-one has gone bust, unless you accept the US national debt of 5 trillion dollars. This is just a symptom of that. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:56, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Marking needs attention In hindsight that's probably the better way to get an uninvolved admin to assess this. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:19, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
    It's apparent that this nomination isn't the only thing that needs attention. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:22, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. Completely newsworthy; passes ITN criteria. Enterprisey (talk!) 22:48, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
    No, that's meaningless. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:49, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
    Please clarify what you mean. I think the vote is meaningful after reviewing the guide at the top of this page. Enterprisey (talk!) 23:02, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
    Please clarify what you mean by "passes ITN criteria". The Rambling Man (talk) 23:07, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
    Sure. The ITN criteria are twofold: that the "updated content" must be high-quality, and that the topic is "significant enough". Furthermore, the criteria tell us that "qualities in one area can make up for deficiencies in another". Therefore, if a topic is significant enough, the quality of the article is of decreased importance.
    This topic is clearly significant; the criteria tell us that an event must be "being covered, in an in-depth mannner, by news sources". This event is receiving substantial coverage in multiple news sources, such as the Times, the Journal, and the Post. So, it passes the criteria. Enterprisey (talk!) 01:19, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Question Was this posted last time it happened? What's changed? (... apart from that big orange thing, of course.) Martinevans123 (talk) 22:58, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
    It was posted. For what has changed, not much considering the most vocal voices in 2013 are still here being vocal. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 23:43, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
    Ah yes, thanks for reminding me. Who on earth would nominate something like that, eh? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:42, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Story is very clearly in the news, article is in fine shape with good updates. The argument against posting is that it happens frequently, but then this is the third occurrence in the past quarter century. GCG (talk) 00:41, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - A current event of wide interest that is being reported on worldwide. Article is in good shape and receiving regular updates. ZettaComposer (talk) 12:58, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support – It's time we posted this, although blurb should be qualified with "partially" before "shuts down." As BBC notes, "essential services that protect 'life or human property' will continue, including national security, postal services, air traffic control, some medical services, disaster assistance, prisons, taxation and electricity generation." Sca (talk) 14:24, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
PS: Marked (again?) for attention. Sca (talk)
  • I'm still neutral, if not leaning against this, because the idea of a government shutdown is pretty much unique to the US [2], something that comes up year after year but most of the time avoided due to short-term spending bills (last year, those were signed in early Dec so that they didn't push the deadline), and the fact this is a story that is biased by it being a petty partisan squabble, overblown by politicians and the media alike. It's a manufactured situation for all purposes, and not the type of story ITN normally puts into play. But it does have potentially to be more impactful if this continues past this week, for example, so it might be better to wait until its resolve. --Masem (t) 14:41, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
For reference, at this point the news that a deal was likely broke and discussion re-opened
  • Carillion going under is no longer on the front page of any news website either, while the shutdown being over still is. Start there. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 19:52, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • It will be over, that's clear. And this news item is exactly as predicted, all bluster, not impactful in any tangible way, just political posturing, and not very good posturing at that. Carillion going under will effect thousands of people for months and years to come. This political joke is already yesterday's news. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:07, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • For something so life changing as "effecting thousands" for "years to come", the BBC and other British websites have zero coverage on the front page of their websites. Meanwhile, the shutdown is still mentioned in comparison. So which is old news? Regards, — Moe Epsilon 20:30, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • We're just moving on with Carillion, it's happened, just like this hyped up political silliness has happened and will now end with no long-term impact at all. Unlike Carillion. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:31, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Is that how that works over there? "Thousands of lives are devastated, nothing can be done, let's not talk about it." Regards, — Moe Epsilon 20:34, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Well I guess so, although I don't know what "devasted" means. There's nothing much that can be done, our country isn't run via Twitter and threats, so I'm not sure what you'd expect us to do any differently. And for what it's worth, it's still all over our news, just not headlines. That's how news is supposed to work. (Clue in the name). The Rambling Man (talk) 20:38, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Ah thanks for that, I've been awake too long. You're right, that is how it's supposed to work, which is exactly why the shutdown is news. Have a nice day. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 20:41, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Suggest that we amend to "…partially shuts down for three days…" once the temporary deal passes, but without bumping the item. Having the blurb up in its present form will remain technically correct, but could give the impression that the shutdown is still extant to readers, and it's worth adding three words to avoid being misleading. --LukeSurl t c 20:46, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I have undone WaltCip's extension of the archive box with this edit. This story has markedly changed with the (impending) deal, and both TRM and I have proposed different reactions to this. It's questionable where these discussions should occur (here, the "ongoing" nomination above, WT:ITN, or WP:ERRORS) and I'd be happy to move my comment if mine is in the wrong place. However there are reasonable arguments for both pulling and amending the blurb and it is unnecessary to close off such discussions because they are written underneath a colored box. --LukeSurl t c 20:59, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
    • I think that, if the government does indeed reopen, it's best for an admin to simply update the blurb to say that, along the lines of "the government shut down for three days and reopened". – Muboshgu (talk) 21:11, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
      • In other words, it wasn't really that newsworthy after all. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:19, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
        • As evidenced by all the news coverage? – Muboshgu (talk) 21:24, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
          • Yes, as evidenced by most of Trump's hype. Your previous personal attacks have been noted, as an admin you should know better. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:31, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
            • Bickering with you is pointless and counterproductive. My mistake yesterday was forgetting that. I won't reply here again, so you can get the last word as you always insist upon receiving. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:41, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Pull - This was clearly a non-impact story of political posturing, just as I and several others predicted. Also, these discussions last for up to 7 days when there isn't clear consensus. @Vanamonde93: should have known better than to close this before an actually non-controversial consensus or non-consensus was reached. I'm not pulling the blurb myself. But, this discussion is not over, nor should it be archived. So it no longer is. If more editors come by and ask for it to stay, then by all means let's close this thread at that point. But closing this only 2 days into such a controversial discussion is just not acceptable. Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 21:38, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Pull a complete political joke. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:43, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • You literally made the same !vote three hours ago. We know. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 21:45, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • The discussion has since been re-opened in an attempt to restore some kind of sanity to this over-hyped classic Trump nonsense carnival. Feel free to strike the previous pull request which was made when this was inadvertently posted and the discussion soon after closed. If it makes you feel better. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:48, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Pull The shutdown has now ended reportedly, as the deal was reached: [3], [4]. Brandmeistertalk 21:51, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Pull - per Brandmesiter, as the shutdown has ended. Stormy clouds (talk) 21:54, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
There is no consensus whatsoever for "The US government reopens" to be listed as a blurb, and the current blurb is not inaccurate. Something has got to give here. Stormy clouds (talk) 21:58, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Pull, this non-event is now wrapping up. Abductive (reasoning) 22:10, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep This was posted based on 2:1 consensus. No one thought it would last forever, so the ending of it does not change that consensus. I strongly urge any admin to not pull this without some original supporters flipping. GCG (talk) 22:15, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
    • Vote counting is expressly forbidden. Abductive (reasoning) 22:26, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
    • No, that's not a suitable reason to keep something which is actually no longer true anywhere near the main page. Nor is vote counting considered a reasonable approach. Nor should we have to wait for "original supporters" to "flip" anything. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:36, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) PullAP still says "End to government shutdown in sight." If it's truly over, I agree that it should be pulled. Sca (talk) 22:17, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Getting closer. AP: "Senate Dems relent, vote to end shutdown; House to follow." (Ditto NYT, Wash. Post.)Sca (talk) 22:51, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Pull, the House has passed it, I'd do so myself but I !voted on the original nomination. Black Kite (talk) 23:25, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep why should this be pulled now that the impasse has resolved itself? That's like saying that if Turkey ceases its offensive we would pull the blurb, if someone decides to buy up Carillion's debt we would pull the blurb, etc. More likely we'd just modify those blurbs, which should also be the default here. Banedon (talk) 23:41, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oh silly Banedon, that's how double standards are supposed to work. It's almost as if it didn't happen to them. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 23:44, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Looks like it's been pulled ... fair point, what I was going to say is that this is something that can be cancelled ... the examples you gave above still leave issues behind. Black Kite (talk) 23:47, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Pulled, short-lived effects of domestic political wrangling were practically over before they started. Stephen 23:46, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
    • Oh, they're not over. There's a good chance we're going to be in another shutdown in a few weeks. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:46, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Yup, it'll be back to haunt (taunt?) us in early Feb. Sca (talk) 01:45, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep bad pull. The story happened, it was in the news, as much as a bus fire, the attack in Afghanistan or some bloke throwing darts. There was no technical reason to pull. This amounts to WP:IDONTLIKEIT in the extreme. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 02:00, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Re-post, was wrongly pulled per CosmicAdventure. I don't know what's wrong with saying, "The U.S. federal government entered a partial shutdown for three days after the Senate fails to pass a funding bill on time". The subject is still very much in the news, much more so than some of the other blurbs that are still standing. Erasing the blurb is the wrong way to go about this. Davey2116 (talk) 02:23, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Here's the link to the pageview stats for the pages currently boldlinked on ITN, and for the government shutdown page. Davey2116 (talk) 02:31, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Not helping. GoldenRing (talk) 12:35, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • It seems clear that ITN is just a popularity contest but the votes are only taken from a handful of self-appointed censors, contrary to WP:NPOV. The readership stats show that this activity is futile as our readers continue to read the topic in large numbers, regardless. Note that the top read yesterday was UFC 220 which got more readers than all of the ITN topics put together. That's in the news but doesn't even get a mention here. This is not quality. Andrew D. (talk) 12:28, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
  • "self-appointed censors" careful... The Rambling Man (talk) 12:31, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I strongly object to that terminology. I am not a censor. I am a contributor here that discusses nominations. Every contributor to every page on Wikipedia is "self appointed" but you use it as a pejorative. If you don't like the results of the discussions, then you should participate here more. 331dot (talk) 12:32, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
  • There was consensus to post this, we should have consensus to pull. Stephen's stated rationale for pulling is a unilateral opinion. There's no tragedy in leaving this off the MP, but procedurally this is a rotten egg. GCG (talk) 12:53, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Repost - Stephen's decision to pull amounts to a supervote. There's absolutely nothing in ITN policy or procedure that says we pull an event from the ticker after it has ended. No wonder people think ITN is a joke.--WaltCip (talk) 13:01, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

[Closed] 2018 Blind Cricket World Cup[edit]

Commendable work, and a suitable prospect at DYK, but this nomination is not going to receive adequate support for posting. Hence, WP:SNOW. Stormy clouds (talk) 01:25, 21 January 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: 2018 Blind Cricket World Cup (talk, history)
Blurb: India defeated Pakistan by 2 wickets to secure their 2nd Blind Cricket World Cup title.
Alternative blurb: India defeated Pakistan by 2 wickets to secure their 2nd Blind Cricket World Cup title.
Alternative blurb II: India defeated Pakistan by 2 wickets to secure their 2nd Blind Cricket World Cup title.
News source(s): News18
Nominator: Abishe (talk • give credit)

 Abishe (talk) 14:42, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment. Typically sports related articles need a prose description of the final match, the article currently just lists results. I would also like to see wider coverage of this, even in just India where cricket is big. I do see the Indian PM commented on this, so.... 331dot (talk) 16:10, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment A Google Images search on "blind cricket world cup final" brings up large numbers of shots of players in front of completely empty bleachers and stands, even for major matches like Pakistan–India. Is this actually a significant sport in which readers would potentially be interested, or something hyper-niche? Certainly, clicking the "match report" external links on 2018 Blind Cricket World Cupeven for major matches like the semi-finals—seems to bring up mainly "and there was a Blind Cricket match played" micro-articles. ‑ Iridescent 18:05, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Iridescent makes a very good point, these matches do not seem well attended(if attended at all) in person, let alone getting sufficient coverage in the news. I understand the desire to promote sports with disabled athletes, but ITN is not for generating interest in any event. It must already have interest. I would note the upcoming Winter Paralympics will be posted when they open. 331dot (talk) 18:09, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose with regret Abishe, top marks for bringing this kind of event to ITN but as mentioned above, it's not really scratching a mark on the news items our readers would expect to see. I know it's scant consolation, but I would definitely consider making this into a DYK, and I'll help you, or if not, we can work on it to get it to GA. Please let me know. Best wishes. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:16, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Per TRM. I've tided up the article so it reads well now, could make a decent DYK and if there are sources out there, a GA. Black Kite (talk) 01:20, 21 January 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.

January 19[edit]

Portal:Current events/2018 January 19
Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Science and technology

[Closed] RD: Dorothy Malone[edit]

Stale. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:47, 23 January 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: Dorothy Malone (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The Guardian, New York Times
Nominator: A lad insane (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: From Peyton Place. Filmography is almost entirely unreferenced. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 18:19, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - added some refs to the filmography. Much of what's unref'd in the body could be dup'ed to the filmography as the body basically IS a filmography. I think it's good enough. GCG (talk) 00:32, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose, but Preposition. The article is still unsourced as some statements are unsourced. What if, we create a separate page for her filmography and then use the same sources to fix her career section. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:11, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

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

[Posted] RD: Fredo Santana[edit]

Article: Fredo Santana (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Billboard, Variety
Nominator: PootisHeavy (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: Notable rapper who died young and has created songs with a variety of well-known people. Despite being a relatively short article, it is also well-sourced. --PootisHeavy (talk) 22:00, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Allison Shearmur[edit]

Article: Allison Shearmur (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Variety
Nominator: MurielMary (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.

 MurielMary (talk) 20:30, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Support no concerns. GCG (talk) 00:32, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Great work especially for being in great state for being a new article. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:13, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
I tried. — Wyliepedia 07:33, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

[Closed] Agni-V[edit]

No consensus for a successful test firing. Stephen
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: Agni-V (talk, history)
Blurb: ​India successfully test-fires its Agni-V intercontinental ballistic missle
News source(s): [5] [6] [7]
Nominator: Banedon (talk • give credit)
Updater: 103.248.93.171 (talk • give credit)
Other updaters: 75.102.128.35 (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Up to ITN whether or not to mention that this ICBM is nuclear-capable. Banedon (talk) 10:06, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • It's the fifth test occurred so far so doesn't seem that significant. When Agni V becomes operational seems more of an event - The Agni V is expected to undergo a final test later in 2018 before being made operational. Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:10, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support, but I'd also be okay with posting this when Agni-V is made operational, per Galobtter. Davey2116 (talk) 10:36, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose As above, I do not see the fifth test (which isn't even the first successful test) to be particularly significant. My personal, somewhat arbitrary, standard is to see if a particular news item is appearing in news sources outside the source country: and I am not seeing much of this. Vanamonde (talk) 14:15, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

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

[Closed] [Ongoing] Cape Town drought[edit]

Closing for now given consensus against. Re-open when the water does actually run out, as this seems to be the point of contention for most who oppose (myself included). Stormy clouds (talk) 15:32, 19 January 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: 2015-present Cape Town drought (talk, history)
Blurb: No blurb specified
News source(s): Time, ABC
Nominator: Notecardforfree (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: The Mayor of Cape Town recently announced that the City will run out of water by late April. I updated the article, and I think everything is referenced. Notecardforfree (talk) 08:06, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - Indeed ongoing and escalating apparently. Article seems ready for posting.BabbaQ (talk) 08:42, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose unless there's something to indicate that there's any particular significance. While it may be the first time this has happened in Cape Town, water supplies to major cities running low is a fairly routine occurrence; the 2014–17 Brazilian drought and the 2011–17 California drought are probably the ones that will be most familiar to readers, while readers in Australia and the south of England will be wearily familiar with the phrase "hosepipe ban". Besides, this kind of thing generally takes years to resolve as people change their water-use habits, desalination plants and diversionary aqueducts are built, and people wait for the aquifers to refresh. ‑ Iridescent 08:55, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose ongoing as the odds of incremental updates seem remote; I might support posting the actual shutoff of municipal water services (when/if it happens) as that seems very unusual to me. 331dot (talk) 09:40, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support It is unprecedented for a city of 4 million to be within less than 3 months of having to switch off municipal water. I'm not sure what restrictions were in place in Brazil or California, but this is well beyond a hosepipe ban - that has been in place for ages, with a wide range of severe restrictions and residents restricted to 50 litres of water per day. This has been featured in many international news sources including Newsweek, CNN, Forbes, Al Jazeera, BBC, Daily Mail UK, Time Magazine. Zaian (talk) 09:56, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak Support it's clearly notable, but I am not sure about when to post this. Now? Or in April? Or sometime in between? 2A02:A451:8B2D:1:B98F:4F80:7AF7:9426 (talk) 10:50, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose making a claim that may or may not come true in three months time is clearly not something that warrants posting now. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:53, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose now. ITN is not for speculation - if it happens and/or when some drastic action related to it is taken then that will be the point at which it is suitable for posting here. Thryduulf (talk) 14:00, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose If they do have to announce a drought I would reconsider, but this is primarily a statement to get citizens and businesses into action to help avoid it, and not an actual event. --Masem (t) 14:36, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Thryduulf and Masem.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:38, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I just want to let everyone know that I am still working on this article. It needs a bit of updating with regards to its political impact and I would like to add a graph as well. I am also planning to get an aerial photograph of one of the largest dams to better illustrate this article. As a resident of Cape Town I can say that this issue is still evolving so I would hold off on publishing it for now. I would wait until the taps run dry (day zero) which should be in April some time. If the taps don't run dry at all then I would be very happy.--Discott (talk) 15:11, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

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

[Closed] New Zealand prime minister announces she's pregnant[edit]

Boldly closing this early per SNOW instead to wait for flurry of pile on. I am afraid, this kind of gossip will likely never get to the main page in the offing–Ammarpad (talk) 02:22, 19 January 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: Jacinda Ardern (talk, history)
Blurb: ​New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern announces she is pregnant, with the baby due in June.
News source(s): [8]
Nominator: Banedon (talk • give credit)
Updater: Paora (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Nominating this for Schwede66 on the talk page. Banedon (talk) 00:15, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. World leaders have been pregnant before. 331dot (talk) 01:51, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose This might have been ITN worthy a couple of centuries ago if we were discussing a queen and possible heir. But this is the 21st century and ITN is not a society page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:57, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Wikipedia is not a tabloid magazine. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 02:13, 19 January 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.

January 18[edit]

Portal:Current events/2018 January 18
Business and economy
  • The Emirates airline announces an order for up to 36 Airbus A380s. Emirates is already the aircraft's largest operator, with a fleet of over 100. (BBC)
Disasters and accidents
International relations
Law and crime
Science and technology

[Posted] RD: Nancy Richler[edit]

Article: Nancy Richler (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): http://www.cbc.ca/books/nancy-richler-author-of-the-imposter-bride-dead-at-60-1.4493933
Nominator: MurielMary (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.

 MurielMary (talk) 09:44, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Support - Ready for RD.BabbaQ (talk) 09:50, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Please tag them. As I read it, every sentence (occasionally two sentences) has a reference, and it has already been established here at ITN that it's unnecessary for every single sentence to have a citation. MurielMary (talk) 09:56, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
I have changed my !vote rationale. I took a closer look.BabbaQ (talk) 14:52, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Fixed. Should now to ready to go. MurielMary (talk) 18:18, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Stansfield Turner[edit]

Article: Stansfield Turner (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Washington Post
Nominator: Ammarpad (talk • give credit)

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

Nominator's comments: Former CIA director, article fairly in good state –Ammarpad (talk) 02:47, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] 2018 Aktobe bus fire[edit]

Article: 2018 Kazakhstan bus fire (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A bus fire in Aktobe Region, Kazakhstan kills 52 people.
News source(s): Reuters, BBC.
Nominator: LukeSurl (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Disasters of similar magnitude have been posted before, and the story has been picked up by various news organisations. As far as I can tell, no article on this existed, so I've created a stub here. I hope posting here might attract some editors to bring it to a reasonable standard. LukeSurl t c 12:44, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose as stub, and I'm struggling to imagine how much more can be reasonably added in the short term. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:50, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose barring the ability to expand this out. This is not an area of the world with great media coverage, so as TRM says, to expand more beyond what's there is unlikely. But I would agree if this can get to a decent size and quality, the incident is of ITN-appropriateness. --Masem (t) 14:07, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
    • It's quite possible to expand with Russian-language sources, for example, as I see a decent coverage there. So pending expansion this is supportable due to sheer death number, comparable with other accidents and attacks we post. Brandmeistertalk 14:18, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
    • While the article has been updated, I have concern about the use of a non-free image for the article. It's not that it is gruesome (there are likely the bodies still aboard but the are not visible) but it's just from this photo a bus on fire. We normally use free images of the vehicle type in question in such accident articles; barring that, no non-free should be used if the scene is as "normal" for the type of incident. -Masem (t) 15:09, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
      • I tend to agree. I'm not sure what encyclopedic value this alleged fair use adds, after all there are plenty of images of that type of bus and it doesn't take a great deal of imagination (if one hasn't actually seen a bus fire) to imagine what a bus on fire looks like. If it was a really unusual demise (e.g. it was sliced in half by a helicopter rotor blade) then I could see how it would be fair use and add EV, as it stands it's just a bus on fire. If fair use is extended to this, then we'll be scraping Bestgore.com for multiple "fair use" images of multiple tragedies. I don't think that's the right way ahead, so this image shouldn't be in the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:49, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
        • I was surprised when it was added (the infobox is the only major part of the article that I'm not responsible for), though I'm not super-familiar with fair use's boundaries. I've replaced this image with a map, though I won't personally be formally disputing the fair use of the image. If the editor who added the image decides to restore it, I'm not going to revert it back. --LukeSurl t c 17:22, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
          • As ITN rarely has to worry about non-free content in the nominated articles (at least, as an issue to contest), we still should be aware this is part of a quality of the article, as NFC is a core content tenet like BLP. We don't want to encourage frivolous use of non-free media. The image would currently fail WP:NFCC#1 (nothing unusual about this accident that a picture of the same type of bus that could be obtained freely could illustrate) and WP:NFCC#8 in that there's nothing documented special about the visual image of the bus on fire. If it image is added back, then this article is not to the quality of ITN. --Masem (t) 17:45, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
            • I uploaded it under fair use just to be safe bc its a huge piece of news, but I'm pretty sure it's public domain since its from the Kazakhstan government and the extent of use on major commercial newspaper websites, some even without attribution (under the PD-Kazakhstan-exempt tag).--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 17:52, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
              • Well sure, if you can prove PD then no worries. Until then, it's not justifiably fair use. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:53, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
                • Created a File talk page here. Can someone who knows more about copyright help? I thought it would meet the official document (as it is part of the investigation) parameter and the news parameter, so wan't sure which one it was and din't want to leave uncategorized. I think its better to be too careful than not enough.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 18:08, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment – There are fairly complete stories on BBC and Reuters, and other RS stories may be expected due to death toll. Concur with Brandmeister re significance. However, suggest article be renamed 2018 Kazakhstan bus fire. Sca (talk) 17:12, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
  • The AFP have a bit more info. Would add myself but am likely to be offline for the rest of the day. —LukeSurl t c 18:03, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I found a computer and added it in. Practically, the article has everything that's currently in the English-language sources. --LukeSurl t c 19:29, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Indeed, and practically, it's still a stub. That's what I mean. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:45, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
  • There was a more expansive piece from RFERL this morning, and I've used this to expand out the article. I think this expands beyond stub-class and posting should be considered now. --LukeSurl t c 08:49, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support notable and ready to go. 2A02:A451:8B2D:1:B98F:4F80:7AF7:9426 (talk) 12:41, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak support – The article is pretty thin all right, but due to number of casualties.... (Repeat suggested name change to 2018 Kazakhstan bus fire.) Sca (talk) 15:55, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - notability is clear, and the article, while short, is as long as possible. Stormy clouds (talk) 17:26, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support-High number of casualties. If it were a crash of this magnitude in a country like France or US, it would by headlines for weeks.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 17:52, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Article has been expanded. Davey2116 (talk) 18:27, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose.Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 19:10, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Care to explain why? -Zanhe (talk) 19:30, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support high death toll. Article has been expanded. -Zanhe (talk) 19:29, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak support from my original oppose. Really good work on the article, creators and editors have listened to the community, it's still a dead end as far as I can tell, nothing fundamental will actually change as a result of this incident, but I acknowledge it's a big death toll and a tragic outcome for a simple bus journey, and was definitely headline news, albeit fleetingly, on even the BBC. Good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:33, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 23:11, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Kashinath (actor)[edit]

Stale (and even if it were not, still largely unsourced). Black Kite (talk) 18:54, 22 January 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: Kashinath (actor) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): IB TIMES, The News Minute
Nominator: Ammarpad (talk • give credit)

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

Nominator's comments: Article is being updated, some ancient tags were already attended to –Ammarpad (talk) 11:25, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose the prose is mostly unreferenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:19, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose I'm not even going to look at the article when his photo is a screencap and clearly a copyright infringement. - Floydian τ ¢ 19:33, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
    Well, just tag it, remove it from the article, and then look at the article again! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:46, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Lol, so I wonder how you know photo exists, when you can't even look at the article. That aside, now the photo is removed. –Ammarpad (talk) 01:57, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Well in that case I'll oppose on sourcing. - Floydian τ ¢ 06:12, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

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

[Posted] RD: Peter Wyngarde[edit]

Article: Peter Wyngarde (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The Guardian
Nominator: MaxDextros (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.

  • Support Our article details the confusion of sources about the subject's birth date. As this seems to be well done, it's good to get this out there to help in explaining the matter to the world. We know from the case of Jimmy Wales that such dates can be difficult to agree and so it's good to have another detailed example. Andrew D. (talk) 13:44, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment. In my view, the whole section on "Birth and family background" fails WP:SYNTH. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:14, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
    • Reading that, all the accounts of his life prior to where it can be documented (1946) reads really funny, and I agree feels like synthesis from WP here. I see what sources do talk about this period all state he gave different accounts, so it might be better to reduce that part to less conjecturing. --Masem (t) 15:22, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose not sufficiently referenced, and undue weight placed on the birth and family section. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:17, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support looks well referenced and in good shape. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:29, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose I still see some CN tags, and the "undue weight" issue needs to be resolved before posting.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:33, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Note: the "Birth and family background" has been trimmed. Presumably "undue weight" can be resolved by consensus at the Talk page. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:50, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
No more CN tags. Please make your case at Talk:Peter Wyngarde is you still think there is WP:UNDUE for the "Birth and family background" section. Otherwise this could be posted. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:12, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
WP:UNDUE now dealt with. Previous opposers may wish to re-evaluate. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:29, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment still the tags (I placed) around the appearances which aren't verifiable within the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:35, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

January 17[edit]

Portal:Current events/2018 January 17
Armed conflicts and attacks
Arts and culture
Disasters and accidents
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections

References[edit]

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

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