Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates

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

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

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

The Club House at Shinnecock Hills Golf Club
Shinnecock Hills Golf Club

How to nominate an item

In order to suggest a candidate:

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

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pulled from the main page are generally marked with (Posted) or (Pulled) in the item's subject so it is clear they are no longer active.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

Voicing an opinion on an item

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

Please do not...

  • ... add simple "support!" or "oppose!" votes without including your reasons. Similarly, curt replies such as "who?", "meh", or "duh!" are usually not helpful. Instead, explain the reasons why you think the item meets or does not meet the ITN inclusion criteria so a consensus can be reached.
  • ... oppose an item because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive.
  • ... accuse other 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

June 23

Portal:Current events/2018 June 23
Armed conflicts and attacks
Politics and elections

June 22

Portal:Current events/2018 June 22
Disasters and accidents
International relations
Law and crime
Sports

RD: Vinnie Paul

Article: Vinnie Paul (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC
Nominator: Sherenk1 (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: Co-founder and drummer of the metal band Pantera. Referencing issues. Sherenk1 (talk) 13:57, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

RD: Dick Leitsch

Article: Dick Leitsch (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): NYT, WaPo
Nominator: Davey2116 (talk • give credit)
Updater: Innisfree987 (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: American gay rights activist dies at 83. Sourcing issues. Davey2116 (talk) 05:46, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment Citations needed.Zigzig20s (talk) 06:48, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Cited now.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:06, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Article looks fine. -Zanhe (talk) 22:54, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

June 21

Portal:Current events/2018 June 21
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Sports

RD: Yan Jizhou

Article: Yan Jizhou (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The Paper, China Writers Association
Nominator and updater: Zanhe (talk • give credit)

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: Chinese director, recipient of Lifetime Achievement Award. Zanhe (talk) 06:18, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Support on good faith. I obviously cannot double-check the sources, but the article looks well-cited and comprehensive.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:12, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

RD: John Mack

Article: John Mack (civic leader) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Lloyd, Jonathan (June 22, 2018). "Los Angeles Civic Leader, 'Civil Rights Warrior' John Mack Dies at 81". NBC Los Angeles. Retrieved June 22, 2018. ; Zahniser, David; Kohli, Sonali (June 22, 2018). "Civic leader John Mack, a prominent voice on Los Angeles police reform, dies at 81". The Los Angeles Times. Retrieved June 22, 2018. ; Fine, Howard (June 22, 2018). "Civic Leader and South LA Booster John Mack, 81". Los Angeles Business Journal. Retrieved June 22, 2018. 
Nominator: Zigzig20s (talk • give credit)

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

Nominator's comments: Civil Rights leader in Flint, Michigan and Los Angeles, California. Zigzig20s (talk) 22:21, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jamsheed Marker

Article: Jamsheed Marker (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Gulf News
Nominator: Sherenk1 (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: Pakistani diplomat Sherenk1 (talk) 02:09, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Support Damn you beat me to it! Article well sourced, updated and no glaring issues. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 06:19, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support yep; fine. 159.53.174.140 (talk) 12:02, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Adequate for RD.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:00, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Marked as ready. –Ammarpad (talk) 14:13, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted --Masem (t) 04:33, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

RD: Charles Krauthammer

Article: Charles Krauthammer (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): NY Times and etc.
Nominator: Ad Orientem (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: An iconic news columnist and Pulitzer Prize winner. Article is not in bad shape but referencing has some gaps. Ad Orientem (talk) 23:20, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Iconic? Sca (talk) 01:42, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support blurb: According to RS, yes, one could say iconic. From the article:"Financial Times named Krauthammer the most influential commentator in America" and "The New York Times columnist David Brooks said Krauthammer was "the most important conservative columnist." I'm sure more laudatory assessments will be published as the sheer magnitude of his loss is put into perspective. – Lionel(talk) 03:43, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
In the last decade or so, iconic has become the most over-used and misused term in the English language. Suddenly, everything and everyone thought to be in some way notable is "iconic." (For example, where I live we have an "iconic" tuber.) Sca (talk) 13:28, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support mentioning the passing of the leading conservative political commentator in the U.S. media. A distinguished intellectual. Not a hack: said that ultimately Trump's liabilities outweighed Hillary's.--Brian Dell (talk) 03:48, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb - Although an undisputed leader in the field he represented, that in and of itself does not meet the significance threshold that is expected for a full blurb posting. Iconic is definitely a stretch, particularly when compared to the likes of Thatcher and Mandela.--WaltCip (talk) 11:04, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support RD Nowhere near blurb levels. Never even heard of this guy (was picturing the long dead Charles Kuralt), and I'm a life-long red-state resident. Even George Will would be a hard sell for a blurb. ghost 11:24, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose RD Several citation tags need fixing. Should go without saying that he's not blurb-worthy.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:42, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support RD article doesn't look bad, but this is not notable enough to be blurb worthy. Tillerh11 (talk) 13:01, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose I counted 12 valid citation needed tags apart from completely unreferenced paragraphs. Some references doesn't work also. For instance, the second reference on which heavy claim of syndication relies doesn't work and it is used 4 more times after that. It needs a lot of work to even be presentable as RD. . –Ammarpad (talk) 14:12, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) PM of NZ gives birth

No consensus to post. --Tone 20:41, 21 June 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: ​Jacinda Ardern, Prime Minister of New Zealand, gives birth, becoming the second world leader to do so while in office.
News source(s): The Guardian; Radio NZ; BBC; Irish Times; Express Tribune' DW
Nominator: MurielMary (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: Not sure how to word the blurb, but unusual event that is in the news worldwide. Benazir Bhutto had a baby while in office but other than her, Ardern is the only other world leader in this situation. MurielMary (talk) 08:43, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  • ‘’’Oppose’’’ This would make great DYK material, but isn’t really worthy of a blurb. 1779Days (talk) 09:10, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose for the same reasons we didn’t post her pregnancy. —LukeSurl t c 09:20, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Aside from the above reasons, second is much less notable than first. 331dot (talk) 09:26, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak Support top news story today, article is decent, the update is a bit thin but I don't know what else you can say. "Second", sure, first one was nearly 30 years ago so .... We also posted at least one royal baby. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:57, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
We posted a royal baby because that royal baby will eventually be head of state of the UK and other countries. Unless this baby will inherit the PM's office from their mom, this is apples and oranges.331dot (talk) 12:45, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
The chief executive of the UK is the Prime Minister, the "head of state" in their case is a powerless figurehead. Apples and oranges right? --LaserLegs (talk) 13:13, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
I've made the point I want to make, which had nothing to do with the powers of the respective positions, and don't wish to debate it further. Thanks for your reply. 331dot (talk) 13:16, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
You actually, demonstrably made a point regarding "the powers of the respective positions" when you suggested notability only if "this baby will inherit the PM's office from their mom". You drew a parallel between the completely meaningless head of state of the commonwealth (of which NZ is a member) and the actual chief executive of New Zealand who actually held down that full time job while pregnant. All I did was point out the inaccuracy of the connection you very clearly made. Thanks for participating! --LaserLegs (talk) 17:09, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. We wouldn't post if a male PM fathered a child. Women giving birth is perfectly normal; the only reason this isn't more common is that few rise to head of government whilst still of child-bearing age. Good for her, but this isn't of major encyclopaedic significance. Modest Genius talk 12:05, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose – On lack of significance. Sca (talk) 13:12, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - I fear that WP's and/or ITN's gender bias is showing clearly here. "Lack of significance" to whom? To women, both young women and older women, it's extremely significant to have a world leader giving birth as it is so rare and transforms how we see motherhood and working women. It means that we have a high profile example of a woman giving birth while in a position of power - when many women are expected to resign when they have a child e.g. in Japan and other Asian countries in particular. Also "woman giving birth is perfectly normal" yes but a woman in a position of world power is not all normal. You've already stated why - few women of childbearing age get to such a position. It's also perfectly normal for a top golfer to win a golfing tournament but we post sports achievements all the time without discussion. MurielMary (talk) 17:27, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
The birth of this child has no practical impact on the millions of English-language readers worldwide, male and female, who review ITN each day. This fact has absolutely nothing to do with gender. Sca (talk) 19:45, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose News/historical trivia. Long term significance pretty much zero. [Many years to the happy couple and their daughter.] -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:05, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose It's not often we get a NZ-related article here but it's still not that important – if she was the first, maybe, but she wasn't. This is like the only news story here, and it's also quite high up worldwide, but it just doesn't have that much significance in a global point of view.  Nixinova  T  C  20:09, 21 June 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.

June 20

Portal:Current events/2018 June 20
Disasters and accidents
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Science and technology

(New) RD:Mushtaq Ahmad Yusufi

Article: Mushtaq Ahmad Yusufi (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): [1]
Nominator: 122.8.25.233 (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.

 122.8.25.233 (talk) 20:35, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

(Posted & Closed) Marijuana legalization in Canada

Clear consensus to post, no problems with the articles. If you have a case for a pull, then re-open, if you find an issue with the article, take it to errors. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:42, 23 June 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: Cannabis in Canada (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Senate of Canada approves a bill that will legalize marijuana nationwide, making it the second country to do so.
Alternative blurb: Canada becomes the first G7 country to legalize marijuana nationwide.
Alternative blurb II: Canada becomes the second country to legalize the recreational use of marijuana nationwide.
News source(s): BBC, AP
Nominator: Bongwarrior (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: Only the second country to do this on a national level after Uruguay in 2013, which we posted. The bill has passed, but it won't go into effect until October. --Bongwarrior (talk) 05:55, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Should be "it", not "them" in the blurb. HiLo48 (talk) 05:58, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Probably a big deal for cannabis folks, but being the second is trivia. Similar were the gay marriage legalization nominations. Brandmeistertalk 06:28, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support but the article needs some work. Mkwia (talk) 10:27, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose not really "in the news" and not really important. Has WP:UNDUE(? is that the right policy for this) coverage of "Stock market volatility" and not nearly enough coverage of the "Steps to legalization". A sad day for my home and native land. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:01, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
It's faded from news sites because it's a two-day-old story. There was ample coverage earlier. Sca (talk) 15:12, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Not only featured in both radio and TV BBC National News but also prompted a suggestion for UK legalization by former Conservative Party leader William Hague. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:11, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support The gay marriage noms were like "the tenth country in Europe." There's certainly a point where each successive domino is worth less than the prior, but not #2. Even controlling for bias, Canada doing something is a considerable step up in significance from Uruguay. @LL: not the brightest days for your adopted land either! ghost 12:12, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
    • Except that in the case of gay marriage, individuals were being denied equal rights, in the case of marijuana individuals are being denied their habit forming depressant of choice. (re:adopted land, sometimes I wish it were just a bad dream) --LaserLegs (talk) 12:16, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. Significant compared to Uruguay. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:15, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
That reads like something dangerously close to "Canada is more important than Uruguay because they speak English/Are close to the USA/Are (mostly) caucasian/ etc...." I'm sure your reason is better than that. What is it really? HiLo48 (talk) 23:33, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
I would make the same argument as Martinevans123 based on population (37M vs 3.5M), GDP (10th vs 74th), and monthly Wikipedia page views (439M vs 14M) Mkwia (talk) 11:00, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
HiLo48, apologies for any unintended Anglophone/US proximate bias. I did not make the exact comparisons that Mkwia has above, but that's exactly what I had in mind. (I assumed marijuana sales weren't a significant part of Uruguayan GDP). Martinevans123 (talk) 13:41, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
  • * Support – in principle for altburb. I had thought it had long been legal in the Netherlands, but apparently it's only getolereerd (tolerated) there. But article takes too long to tell the news, and needs work on verb tenses. – Sca (talk) 13:21, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Legality of cannabis by country doesn't seem updated, but it also suggests many more countries have legalized it.. or are we talking only recreational use (which then it is only Spain before?) Assuming that the "second country" is true, and to which degree is clarified, I support this, but believe that any further similar legalization in other countries will likely not be ITN. --Masem (t) 14:04, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Agree (re further legalization & ITN). Sca (talk) 15:03, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Legality of cannabis by country looks accurately updated to me. Do you have a specific problem with it? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:31, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
The map specifically was what I was looking at. I did see Canada was updated on the table, but I was trying to look at the map to see/validate the "second country" aspect. --Masem (t) 16:57, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Well it seems that's not what the map is intending to show? There also seems to be a discrepancy with South Africa. But it's not liked in any of the suggested blurbs. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:37, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
I guess my concern was - if we were talking the Nth country (N > 2 or 3 ) to legalize, that seems like a non-starter for ITN. The map was the first thing that caught my eye. But I fully agree that when you limit it to "2nd country to legalize recreational use", then we have ITN reasonability. (Same argument involved gay rights, we don't want to post the "Nth" country when N is not small). --Masem (t) 18:57, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per LaserLegs. Lepricavark (talk) 14:24, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment – Another aspect of Canadian legalization is that it might engender U.S. pot-head tourism to Canada, although crossing the border isn't as simple as it used to be. Just a thought. Sca (talk) 19:56, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Good point. But it's a long way from Washington State to Vermont. Sca (talk) 20:48, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
True, but it grows like a weed in Vermont. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:36, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Of course. It is a weed. Sca (talk) 01:45, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support I think being the second country to legalize marijuana is still notable. See this page. From now, if legalization occurs in countries where marijuana is illegal but de-criminalized (such as central Europe, most of Central and South America, Iberia, Russia, Iran, etc.), then it's really just a formality. But I think the next few major countries where illegality is enforced (say, the U.S., the U.K., and France) would be notable enough for ITN. Davey2116 (talk) 00:21, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
    • Why? What's special about legalizing a habit forming depressant? --LaserLegs (talk) 00:27, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
      • It is a controversial issue, it indicates a societal shift in ideals, and it brings upon a major economy all the benefits and burdens associated with drug legalisation. Mkwia (talk) 06:48, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - Article is in passable condition. Supporters make a good case, as I see it. Let’s post it. Jusdafax (talk) 00:31, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - Significant as the first major country to legalize marijuana (no offence to Uruguay). Article is comprehensive. -Zanhe (talk) 05:06, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support alt2. Whilst I'm not keen to open the floodgates for every legalisation, this is a big enough deal to post. The article is a bit WP:UNDUE on the financial market reaction, but I don't think that should preclude posting. Modest Genius talk 10:38, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support alt2 per Modest Genius.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:49, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Alt2 would be okay, along with Alt1. But story's getting old! Sca (talk) 13:34, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Agree a certain degree of urgency is needed on this for it to still be fresh when posted! Mkwia (talk) 14:37, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Nothing worse than stale cannabis.--WaltCip (talk) 17:00, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
You mean putrid pot? Sca (talk) 20:23, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
It stinks, affects your memory, cognition, and motor skills when it's fresh too.--LaserLegs (talk) 20:34, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Why are we whispering? Nixinova (talk) 21:15, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
We don't wanna get caught. Sca (talk) 01:23, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Because we've been drinking heavily to stay healthy... Much better than weed. 2600:1014:B12E:E2F6:2195:3EBB:5C8C:ED64 (talk—Preceding undated comment added 22:06, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
It's true, I take Jameson for anxiety and depression and I can't get my socialized medical system to pretend it's "medicine" and pay for my drug habit. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:02, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Maybe they would accept a bill for Teacher's – after all, it's educational! Sca (talk) 01:27, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Despite !voting, I've been BOLD and posted ALT2 given sufficient support above. Will revert if anyone has an issue with that. --Masem (t) 01:29, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Oppose - as discussed on the nomination for Ardern having a baby while in office (first time in 30 years) anything "second" is less notable than the first. This argument was used to oppose the nomination of her event, so why can this event (also a "second") be posted? I oppose on the grounds that being the second country to do this is less notable than the first. Same logic has to apply here. MurielMary (talk) 02:00, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Only one of the users opposed because second "is less notable than first", the consensus opposed posting because of the significance of the pregnancy. --Jamez42 (talk) 04:29, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
I commented on that. Not in an explicit Oppose vote. Didn't think that was needed. I thought logic applied here, rather than counting votes. Hmmmm again. HiLo48 (talk) 07:54, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
To correct the above, three users (including myself) opposed this before posting, not one. Brandmeistertalk 12:53, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support. Certainly highly notable in its own right, and will have a significant impact in the U.S., socially, economically and politically. Nsk92 (talk) 11:37, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Oh dear. I am frequently accused of being anti-American here because I draw attention to US-centrism, but that comment is a blatant example. This is a global encyclopaedia. (See my spelling.) Why is a hypothetical impact on the US of any significance at all? And how about responding to those who have said that being second makes this less important? HiLo48 (talk) 11:46, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Nothing wrong with pointing out international impact of an event outside of the country where it occurred, which is the case here. Nsk92 (talk) 12:40, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Welcome to one of my primary gripes about ITN, HiLo, that being the lack of logic and consistency caused by subjectivity and the lack of firm guidelines on significance. WaltCip (talk) 13:05, 23 June 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.

Ongoing: Trump administration family separation policy

Article: Trump administration family separation policy (talk, history)
Ongoing item nomination
News source(s): CNN, NPR
Nominator: Davey2116 (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: I know it's a bit late for this nom, but this is a giant story that is getting huge coverage, as there are substantial updates almost daily. The article is in really good shape. Davey2116 (talk) 16:56, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

  • We've found ourselves in a place where ITN, for over the past year, has been bombarded with Trump-related noms to the point where virtually all of them are rejected (rightly so) as just being media-generated Trump-hysteria. As a result of this, though, the few Trump-related stories which are actually notable tend to get caught up in the wave of rejections. This is not one of them. The media hysteria and outrage behind this story is absolutely ridiculous in its magnitude. Oppose.--WaltCip (talk) 17:21, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Ironic that this has been nominated for Ongoing just as Trump has said he'll sign an executive order to end the policy (although of course it hasn't actually happened yet). I agree the article is in good shape and has generated huge coverage, but am neutral on whether Ongoing is appropriate here.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:29, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
That executive order is illegal on its face. Unless the courts flip in the next 24 to 48 hours, I doubt anything substantive is going to come of this.--WaltCip (talk) 17:54, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Wait to see what happens with this order Trump is supposedly going to sign. I'll believe it when the ink is dry on his signature. If he does sign one and that wraps it up, ongoing is probably not appropriate. It may (emphasis on may) merit a blurb, as this is turning into a big deal. The UN Human Rights Council(the one the US pulled out of) has commented on this matter, and by the matter's own nature it involves more than just the US. 331dot (talk) 17:38, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose for ongoing, but not necessary opposed to a single blurb depending on what happens. This is media hype at its finest, with the addition of "won't something think of the children?" thrown in that we try to have to look past for ITN. (Note: I absolutely do not agree with these policies, but I'm speaking to this neutral on the matter for importance for ITN posting). --Masem (t) 17:42, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Nothing but respect for you, but "Won't anyone think of the children?" refers to misplaced hysteria, a la Tipper Gore. Here we have legitimate lack of concern for child welfare. Still, I oppose this on bias grounds. It's noteworthy to Americans because it's happening here. We know full well that children elsewhere have it worse, but it offends our sensibilities to think ourselves complicit. ghost 18:22, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Seems pretty noteworthy to the people fleeing Mexico and Central America, too. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:39, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
There's very legit concern of children being separated from parents which is why the overall immigration approach is coming under attack, but the media is focusing to appeal to the heartstrings of split families rather than the big picture. It's part of the general trend that the media uses unbashedly to sway its readership. My caution is only to be aware of this media angle in judging significance. --Masem (t) 18:41, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
The media does oversensationalize, but the issue of toxic stress is very much part of the "big picture" here. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:47, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose a government has a policy that a load of people don't like? I'm not sure how that's even really newsworthy once you cut through the hype, the hysteria, the faked audio tracks etc. While it's horrific, I imagine even the caged children have access to food, water, shelter etc... which is more than can be said for millions and millions of children elsewhere in the world. Needs the application of perspective. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:45, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
    • "faked audio tracks" citation needed. The perspective I think is that Syrian refugees aren't being forcibly separated from their parents in Germany or Spain or wherever and deported back to separate places in their country of origin. Plus it's "in the news". --LaserLegs (talk) 22:17, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
      • Plus, TRM's clearly limited imagination shouldn't be a factor in considering what's important, what's inconsequential, or what's even real. After all, to use his own tactics, "Millions of children living in destitute regions have to go without basic provisions" itself it less newsworthy than a first world nation kenneling five-year-olds as a matter of national policy. 165.225.0.76 (talk) 20:40, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose I've gone back and forth on this. It's a big deal, and could be a big enough deal for us to post (it is dominating the news, after all) but I'm getting the sense a blurb would be better and could still be a WP:RGW thing anyway. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:49, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
    • Changing to weak support. Top news in the U.S. for days now, major international implications, etc., etc. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:13, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WaltCip. Lepricavark (talk) 18:54, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose – This user views the policy as despicable and a contravention of human rights, but for ITN the topic is too porous, changeable, multifaceted, etc. to list, even in ongoing. Sca (talk) 21:36, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose There's a point at which government fuckwittery crosses the line into being genuinely evil, but if that was the case we'd have had an Ongoing for the UK Governement's treatment of the disabled for the last eight years, not to mention a dozen random dictatorships around the world. Black Kite (talk) 21:44, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per all of the above. We've been dealing with this in Australia for many years now. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:57, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I mean, of course this was going to be "Oppose - domestic issue, not like EU regulations that are posted at all", but the this was making headlines around the world. Nom it for a blurb and I'll support. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:15, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Not for ongoing, but as an event. It is global news. We have images of crying kids and kids in cages on Australian TV. It's what trump campaigned on, and now it has come to pass. HiLo48 (talk) 22:23, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Australian TV is not immune from suffering the contagious hysteria of American media. WaltCip (talk) 22:36, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
It may well be that the Australian media is the cause of it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:07, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
What? HiLo48 (talk) 00:10, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Everything is media hysteria: golf tournaments, fires in night clubs, military interventions, soccer tournaments, two despotic leaders meeting for a photo-op, no matter what, everything is a self-generated bother. This section is "In the news" ... you'll have to come to terms with that. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:51, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes. I get the impression that a lot of posts here are really saying "Sure, it's it the news, but it shouldn't be, and it's not fair, and it's fake news, and...." This isn't a mature discussion. Oh, and Australian news is nowhere near as frantic as the American media. (Well, we did invent Rupert Murdoch, but on average....) HiLo48 (talk) 00:12, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak Support for some kind of blurb. I am loathe to encourage the ongoing hysteria that surrounds the one man circus that is Donald Trump, but this really is big news. This particular firestorm has been front page news globally for a while and with his just announced climb down I think we may be at the right moment to put it up on ITN. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:27, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WaltClip. This seems to fall under the regional politics category as well, and poor timing given recent development with the executive order. Gluons12 | 00:01, 21 June 2018 (UTC).
Regional politics maybe, but with extensive global news coverage. See the name of this article. HiLo48 (talk) 00:12, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Just saw, again in headline news in Australia, that Trump has backed down on this. So, it's still major world news. That's what logically goes in ITN. Maybe we need a new item, but I'm not sure what to call it. Maybe "Trump yet again attracts negative attention to the US from all over the world"? OK, that probably won't fly, but it's hard to think of anything positive to write. "Trump finally sees the light"? I guess not. Suggestions? HiLo48 (talk) 01:40, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Maybe we should just throw "Donald Trump" up there on the ongoing ticker and be done with it. Nary a day has gone by when this orange buffoon hasn't been in the news. WaltCip (talk) 02:01, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Isn't it done now? The Donald reversed his terrible policy. So this isn't ongoing.  Nixinova  T  C  05:06, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
What's ongoing is the fact that Trump policies put images of kids in cages, and kids crying, all over the world. People don't forget that sort of stuff. But your point has some validity. This should be a one-off item. HiLo48 (talk) 05:13, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Even if people decide the ship has sailed for ongoing event (I don't think it has yet) a blurb on the executive order would definitely be appropriate. Avg W (talk) 19:55, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. Even today, it is not sure that the issue will be removed. Still waiting for actual development facts. wrt WaltCip (#1): all of them [Trump ITN candidates] are rejected (rightly so) as just being media-generated Trump-hysteria ... [this one is too]. How did you conclude this one is "media-generated", and "hysteria"? Isn't it factually happening, affecting actual people etc. etc.? And, isn't the very title In the news exactly that: media-generated issues? Wikipedia missed this one. -DePiep (talk) 12:03, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
As an avid reader of news media, I know it when I see it. When editorialists and professional journalists start throwing up comparisons to the Nazis and Auschwitz, absent any actual crimes against humanity, there is hysteria. Even so, as pointed out, the locus of the media attention has been on the sights and sounds of "crying children in cages", which while certainly outrage-inducing, misses the big picture for undocumented immigration that has been going on for nearly decades now, merely focusing instead on what is most likely to catch reader attention. In any case, with the executive order signed and apparently in-force, the underlying story is stale, and it's time to move on.--WaltCip (talk) 12:08, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
"start throwing up comparisions" -- what if such a comparision is to the point? Your political opinion re a news story is not relevant. You have yet to prove that the newsfacts in this were created by journalists. Also, that the effect of a news story is emotional outbursts (I have not seen any 'hysteria' btw), is not disqualifying the topic. All in all it occurs to me that you let your care for picturing Trump blind you for the relevance. of a story. - DePiep (talk) 12:54, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Completely ridiculous reasoning. "Absent any actual crimes against humanity" is your inserted interpretation of what is going on, and the Trump administration's treatment of immigrant families is a distinct departure from previous administrations. There is no reason why historical comparisons can be made in the media and that is definitely not a component of ITN criteria. The executive order is not the end of the story, as what will happen to the separated families hasn't been determined yet and the Zero Tolerance policy is still in place. The issue is continuing to receive coverage and the responses from Congress or the courts system are ongoing. Avg W (talk) 19:52, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment – Still up in the air with much political hand-wringing on display. Developing. Sca (talk) 13:27, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - This is in the news and a highly relevent issue. I was left wondering why I am able to follow a link to golfing results from the front page but nothing related to this. Calling it 'hysteria' is unsubstantiated and rejecting it on the basis of only being related to America is wrong (its an issue pertaining to an international border, it's an international issue). Even if it were only relevant in America, that isn't a legitimate reason to reject it as per the ITN criteria. Avg W (talk) 19:00, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Ongoing coverage in Latin America. --Jamez42 (talk) 22:20, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose: too fluid to post. One day Trump's hands are tied nothing he can do. Today he signs an executive order. Tomorrow Congress passes something.– Lionel(talk) 03:48, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
    • Heh. This sounds like "Oppose as this is in the news." Howard the Duck (talk) 19:26, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose--lacks encyclopedic context and too soon. We need more (encyclopedic) context to avoid being a newspaper. Central American migrant caravan, which is not even wikilinked to this article, needs a lot of work. I suggest we also use this RS from the Council on Foreign Relations. It is not just a US-centric problem; it is a Western Hemisphere problem. They are fleeing violence in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras, and safe zones could be built in Mexico for example. The article needs to reflect the wider context. I don't see anything about Mexican policy/leadership on this issue. Ergo, it is too early to post this.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:02, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
    • This is an article about the Trump administration's policy of separating children from their parents. The Central American migrant caravan and Mexico's domestic policies are not relevant. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:12, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Of course it is. We need to contextualize it, otherwise we are a newspaper, not an encyclopedia. Anyway, the president has suspended it, so the headlines have already changed. Encyclopediae are about trendlines.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:27, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
This article does not have to cover everything involved in the migration of people from Central America to the U.S. The headlines have indeed changed, to detail how the reunifications can happen, how many of them appear to be "lost", how the administration now wants to detain children with parents indefinitely even though the Flores agreement limits detaining children for 20 days. There's plenty to cover, and ongoing is a good way to do it. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:37, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) Articles 11 and 13

Consensus against posting this at this point. A new nomination can be opened when the results are in. TompaDompa (talk) 15:25, 20 June 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: Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The delegates of the European Union are voting June 20 to 21 regarding whether or not to accept articles 11 and 13.
News source(s): Wired, BoingBoing, The Register, Sky News, BBC News
Nominator: David A (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: I have read that these new laws threaten to illegalise the fair use of news links, quotations, images, and news clips all across Europe for everybody who are unable to pay the financial fees. As such, this seems to be a threat, not just for everybody who want to have fun on the Internet, but for freedom of speech and Wikipedia itself, given the vast number of reference links and that it is funded by donations. --> David A (talk) 06:20, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose we don't post speculation. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:33, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  • The time to post this is when and if it passes and the sky really does fall. —Cryptic 06:51, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Wait and please condense that sentence. Remove "possibly" and "x fear y" and that last bit is completely unnecessary.  Nixinova  T  C  08:27, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
    • Okay. I have modified the sentence, but it is just a draft suggestion. I would prefer if somebody more competent writes it instead. David A (talk) 08:41, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose on quality, reading the article tells me nothing about what the directive actually is, just a few bits of proseline about the terrible effects should it be implemented. It also has a very negative slant to it. Compare to General Data Protection Regulation or Net neutrality in the United States which are actually decent articles. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:32, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose posting that a vote is taking place. If it passes, then maybe. 331dot (talk) 10:32, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Wait let's post the results if ITN-worthy, not speculation. Mkwia (talk) 10:59, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Absolute support on the significance assuming this passes, but ditto what LaserLegs said. ghost 12:52, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  • The new laws have been approved by the EU representatives: The Guardian, BBC News David A (talk) 14:02, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose because of this line from the new BBC: "It will now go to the wider European Parliament to vote on in July.". This is not final. Wait for July. --Masem (t) 14:06, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
    • To add, assuming it passes in July, this is definitely ITN, so editors should have no reason to not get those articles up to ITN-quality before that point too. --Masem (t) 14:07, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: the blurb gives no indication of what the story is, and doesn't even contain the nominated article! The article itself is a mess and after reading it I'm still no closer to understanding why this would be news, or how it leads to the concerns mentioned the nomination. We don't post items to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS or because they might impact Wikimedia. It seems the event hasn't happened yet, so this nomination is premature. Even if the directive passes, I don't know whether we would post it when approved or when it enters into force (as we did with GDPR). Modest Genius talk 15:23, 20 June 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.

June 19

Portal:Current events/2018 June 19
Disasters and accidents
International relations
Law and crime

RD: Big Van Vader

Article: Big Van Vader (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Nominator: Richard-of-Earth (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: American professional wrestler and professional football player. Died the 18th. Been a lot of updates to the article. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 05:23, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose Saw this before, checked the article, and it's incredibly far away from minimum sourcing to be postable. --Masem (t) 05:48, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Masem. This one is going to need some work. After taking a look I did not even bother with CN tags, it would take all night. I have added an orange ref improve tag at the top. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:55, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Koko (gorilla)

Article: Koko (gorilla) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): NPR
Nominator: Shoy (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: Maybe the world's most famous gorilla. Article looks to be in good shape. shoy (reactions) 12:50, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment Needs a copy edit – much of it is still in the present tense.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:54, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Working on it. Should be better now. shoy (reactions) 13:16, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support The tense has been fixed, and the article is adequately referenced. –FlyingAce✈hello 15:32, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support, needs minor fixes In the book section, if there's no direct reference or a blue-linked standalone article, we should at minimum have an ISBN number to verify the book exists (ideally the same for each line , even referenced or blue-links). This should be easy through Amazon or Google books. --Masem (t) 15:41, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
    • I've done this sourcing. I think it's all ready to go, and I'd be bold and post it, but I'll wait a few more hours for additional feedback. --Masem (t) 16:56, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:31, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Aren't there meant to be only 4 RDs in the list? Because the oldest one hasn't been removed so there's now 5 RDs.  Nixinova  T  C  00:53, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
    • Is now fixed.  Nixinova  T  C  03:25, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

June 18

Portal:Current events/2018 June 18
Armed conflicts and attacks
Arts and culture
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Sports

(Posted) RD: Barry McDaniel

Article: Barry McDaniel (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): operawire.com and many more official, but in German
Nominator and updater: Gerda Arendt (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: A US baritone who worked 37 years at the Deutsche Oper Berlin, also Metropolitan Opera and international festivals. The article was detailed but practically without references, - I did what I could. His death wasn't reported until yesterday. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:47, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Support Referencing looks fine to me. Nice job.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:56, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Nice work, fully referenced and updated. -Zanhe (talk) 23:56, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted --Masem (t) 04:32, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) KM Sinar Bangun

Article: Sinking of MV Sinar Bangun (talk, history)
Blurb: ​At least 192 people are feared dead as an overloaded tourist ferry capsizes in Lake Toba, Indonesia
News source(s): BBC, CNN
Nominator: Juxlos (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: Article currently a stub, but should be expanded within the next few hours. Apparently there's an article on the sinking which is probably better written anyway Juxlos (talk) 09:44, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment - Dominating headlines here in Indonesia. I'd support if the article were up to snuff.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:17, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support on the merits, but I'd wonder if the article could be a bit more substantive. 331dot (talk) 13:19, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Apparently there's an article on the sinking, which is better written by all means. Maybe it'll work better. @331dot and Crisco 1492: Juxlos (talk) 15:48, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - major disaster with high casualty. Article is well developed. -Zanhe (talk) 22:40, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Article is in fine shape and subject is notable enough. Teemu08 (talk) 00:55, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - The sinking article is well developed enough now.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 08:41, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support major death toll, well written article on the sinking. Tillerh11 (talk) 12:49, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted – Muboshgu (talk) 18:57, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jimmy Wopo

Article: Jimmy Wopo (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): CNN
Nominator: EternalNomad (talk • give credit)

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

Nominator's comments: Second rapper that was murdered on the same day... EternalNomad (talk) 02:46, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Support Wow, another one? Article is well referenced; good to go.  Nixinova  T  C  04:16, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak support article is very lightweight but what's there is ok. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:35, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 23:35, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) Osaka earthquake

No consensus to post a relatively minor quake. Stephen 03:22, 20 June 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 Osaka earthquake (talk, history)
Blurb: ​At least four people are killed and over 350 are injuried in an earthquake near Osaka, Japan.
News source(s): CNN, BBC
Nominator: Masem (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Article is of sufficient quality for posting. The only issue is the low-ish death count, though I think the 350+ injured is a significant factor. It was only a 5.5 but still threatening. Masem (t) 02:15, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose it's June and this doesn't even make it into the top 40 strongest earthquakes of the year so far. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:25, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: This earthquake was fairly inconsequential (I am in the proximity), but I think what is worth noting is that this was the first time Osaka Prefecture received lower 6 on the Japanese seismic intensity scale since 1923 when they began to keep records; taking Great Hanshin earthquake into consideration, that was fairly surprising. Alex Shih (talk) 06:44, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose because this event has not received major global coverage. It has articles about it on sites like CNN but those sources have not done major coverage. Also, a relatively low death toll. Tillerh11 (talk) 12:33, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Per TRM, Tillerh. Absent from major news sites. Sca (talk) 13:06, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per TRM. I am not opposed to posting major earthquakes, but this one does not seem to qualify. Lepricavark (talk) 15:10, 19 June 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 to RD and closed) RD: XXXTentacion

Posted as RD, no consensus for blurb. Stephen 03:23, 20 June 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: XXXTentacion (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Pitchfork (BBC)
Nominator: Nohomersryan (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: Might as well get the ball rolling on this one. Doesn't look in awful shape, but I'm no expert Nohomersryan (talk) 22:11, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Wow. Article is good, but wow.  Nixinova  T  C  22:41, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - and ready for posting.BabbaQ (talk) 22:43, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - shocking news. Article is well referenced. -Zanhe (talk) 23:21, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support, article looks good to go. Wasn't a fan in any way but rip. --AmaryllisGardener talk 00:29, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted surprised to see this was in good shape to start. I do personally not suggest it but as this was a murder, there is a possible blurb here, but I think the obscurity here will limit that. Discussion can continue if there's enough consensus towards that. --Masem (t) 02:19, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support for a blurb Highly unusual. I am not familiar with this person's work but from what I can gather rappers this high profile haven't been shot since the 1990-s (correct me if I am wrong), so I support a standalone blurb based on that. Article seems to be in okay shape too. Openlydialectic (talk) 09:03, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb - Even without the Mandela-Thatcher standard that we so sporadically apply here on an irregular basis for blurbs, this particular death does not quite rise to the level of being a headline in its own right. --WaltCip (talk) 10:02, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  • How a 20 year old who had the #1 album in the country 3 months ago can be murdered in broad daylight and it not be a bigger story is remarkable. This should be a blurb, but the lack of MSM interest makes that a hard sell. ghost 12:39, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb It’s sad and shocking that he lost his life, but this was apparently an ordinary crime that was unrelated he was notable for. Although he was undoubtedly a popular figure I don’t think he rises to David Bowie/Carrie Fisher level of notability, so a blurb isn’t really appropriate here. EternalNomad (talk) 15:16, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Support blurb The transformative figure criterion has not (and will not) be advocated by anyone here. There is a completely separate criterion that the "unexpected death of prominent figures by murder" is a valid reason for a blurb. Further, "if the person's death itself is newsworthy for either the manner of death or the newsworthy reaction to it, it may merit a blurb." There should be no debate that the manner of death is newsworthy or that an artist with a very recent #1 record (still #24) is prominent. The only reason not to post is the word "may" gives us some leniency. ghost 16:15, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb per WaltCip and EternalNomad. Lepricavark (talk) 15:29, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb Are we really considering a blurb for this? Rappers get shot all the time, and this guy isn't Biggie or Pac. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:28, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb come on, let's be serious. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:46, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb So I get this straight....Glen Campbell, for all his decades of recordings and achievements, didn't even make RD, but someone thinks this guy needs a blurb? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.90.162.241 (talk) 02:48, 20 June 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: Zhao Nanqi

Article: Zhao Nanqi (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Xinhua, The Paper
Nominator and updater: Zanhe (talk • give credit)

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: Korean-born Chinese general. Zanhe (talk) 18:09, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Good faith support I can't really verify most of the content, but I trust the nominator and the article is in good nick. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:26, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Looks fine. (References do not need to be in English as TRM indicates).--Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:22, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - Looks decent enough.BabbaQ (talk) 21:44, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 03:24, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Elizabeth Brackett

Article: Elizabeth Brackett (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Chicago Tribune
Nominator: TDKR Chicago 101 (talk • give credit)

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

Nominator's comments: Article updated and well sourced --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:26, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Support - Fully referenced. Ready for posting.BabbaQ (talk) 07:23, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support this is good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:26, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted. Thryduulf (talk) 09:46, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) 2018 U.S. Open

Article: 2018 U.S. Open (golf) (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In golf, Brooks Koepka wins the U.S. Open for the second consecutive year
News source(s): [1][2]
Nominator: Compy90 (talk • give credit)

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

 – Compy90 (talk) 11:10, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Support decent article, decent prose coverage, a shame we have no photo of the winner (surely someone took his picture over these past two US Opens???) The Rambling Man (talk) 06:32, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
    • Plenty of pictures, but none with the right free license for us to use. :/ --Masem (t) 13:55, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per TRM. Thryduulf (talk) 09:48, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per TRM. Lepricavark (talk) 14:58, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Yeah, decent article. Ammarpad (talk) 15:34, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 01:59, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Colombian presidential election, 2018

Article: Colombian presidential election, 2018 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Conservative political newcomer Ivan Duque has been elected president of Colombia.
Alternative blurb: Ivan Duque is elected as President of Colombia.
News source(s): BBC
Nominator: Sherenk1 (talk • give credit)
Updater: Jamez42 (talk • give credit)

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: Yellow tags. Sherenk1 (talk) 02:08, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose Almost no prose, just tables. SounderBruce 02:40, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose article is barely a stub. Also, blurb is heavy on the commentary and would need to be rewritten sticking just to the details.--Jayron32 03:40, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose tagged stub. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:33, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Per WP:ITN/R. Translated "Legislation", "Retired candidates" and "Second round" sections, as well as adding an alternative blurb. --Jamez42 (talk) 02:32, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
I forgot to remove the article's yellow tag after expanding it. The only current tag is "Expand Spanish". I hope there's further discussion before this becomes stale.--Jamez42 (talk) 04:37, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

June 17

Portal:Current events/2018 June 17
Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents
  • 2018 Osaka earthquake
    • A magnitude 5.5 earthquake strikes Osaka, Japan, at 7:58 a.m. local time on 18 June (22:58 UTC). At least five people have been killed and several are transported to hospitals with injuries. Electrical services are disrupted citywide, affecting 170,000 buildings. (NHK)
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Sports

24 Hours of Le Mans

Article: 2018 24 Hours of Le Mans (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In motorsport, the 24 Hours of Le Mans is won by Fernando Alonso, Sébastien Buemi & Kazuki Nakajima, driving a Toyota Gazoo Racing hybrid car
News source(s): BBC
Nominator: Modest Genius (talk • give credit)

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: The article is generally OK but still needs a proper prose summary of the race. Unfortunately I won't have time to add one today, but am nominating in the hope that others can help out. Modest Genius talk 13:17, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose as noted in the nom, race overview is missing, plus accessibility issues with the tables (e.g. no row/col scopes, use of bold in contravention of MOS:BOLD etc) which in a highly technical article such as this should be remedied. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:29, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
    • Prose summary added. The other presentational items would be nice to have, but aren't part of the ITN criteria. Modest Genius talk 13:04, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Is it correct to say this team “won” Le Mans when there were three separate classes of vehicles competing? —LukeSurl t c 23:01, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
    • Yes. They were the overall winners; others merely won their classes. Media reports and our articles all describe them as winning the race. Modest Genius talk 12:02, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I have added several paragraphs of prose race summary to 2018_24_Hours_of_Le_Mans#Race. Modest Genius talk 13:02, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Article has been expanded and is now of sufficient quality.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:14, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - expanded article, quality ok.BabbaQ (talk) 21:42, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Two unreferenced sections. Stephen 04:48, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) Northern Macedonia

Closing per WP:SNOW. The previous discussion suggested waiting until it was official. The nominator describes this as "things are finally moving", and no other editors support posting. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:04, 17 June 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: Macedonia naming dispute (talk, history)
Blurb: No blurb specified
Nominator: Tone (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: This has been nominated five days ago but today the agreement has been signed by the PM and there have been significant developments on both sides, such as Tsipras surviving the vote of confidence. The referendum will take place some time in future and full implementation on both sides is pending, but given the circumstances, I believe the time to post this is now. Tone 09:24, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose The signing of this agreement does not mean that the country must change its name, which may only happen after the agreement is ratified in both countries, a referendum held in Macedonia results in favour of the name change, and the Macedonian parliament votes on constitutional changes as stipulated in the agreement. That said, posting this now would be premature given the uncertain circumstances, and the earliest time to do it would be when the results from the announced referendum come in.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:06, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
    • This is why I did not propose a detailed blurb with the name change. What is currently a story is that things are finally moving toward some kind of agreement, after 27 years of disputes. It will take at least months before any formal change takes place, so we can post it then as well. --Tone 12:55, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
      • I don't agree with you because it's not certain that a formal change of the name will take place. In case it fails to happen, this agreement would have zero importance. The agreement just sets out a proposal and paves the way for the people to decide, but it doesn't say that the country must change the name in near future.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:15, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Interesting and noteworthy story, but still several hurdles to go through once approved. Would be worth posting after the referendum when the change is certain to happen. BubbleEngineer (talk) 11:11, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Wait for the referendums. 331dot (talk) 11:48, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Wait If this was, say, signage of an agreement that ended 20-some years of bloodshed or other violent actions between the countries, I'd agree that the agreement that would put an end to that while waiting for a referendum for the name change would possibly be ITN. This has just been legal and political battles, and thus there's clearly no rush on this. When the name is changed (and that seems to be when our article's name will be changed, too), then we can feature that ITN. --Masem (t) 13:01, 17 June 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.

June 16

Portal:Current events/2018 June 16
Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents
  • 2018 lower Puna eruption
    • The Hawaii County Civil Defense Agency states that the eruption of lower Puna has destroyed 467 homes in total. (Upi)
  • At least 17 people are killed in a stampede at a nightclub in Caracas, Venezuela. The stampede was reportedly triggered when a tear-gas canister was set off during a brawl. Seven people have been arrested. (BBC)
Politics and elections
Science and technology
  • A missing Indonesian woman's body is found inside a python, being one of only two fully documented cases of a human being consumed by a snake. (The Hindu)
Sports

(Posted) RD: Syd Nomis

Article: Syd Nomis (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): [2]
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.

Nominator's comments: Needs a few more refs, but not too far away. ghost 00:39, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Weak support per nom. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:40, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Found a reference for the cap table, which was the most glaring issue. ghost 13:48, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Article is OK for RD. –Ammarpad (talk) 15:41, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Good to go.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:07, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - ready for posting.BabbaQ (talk) 21:42, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 04:43, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) Caracas nightclub stampede

Article: El Paraíso stampede (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Seventeen people die in Caracas, Venezuela, following a stampede after a tear gas canister is detonated in a crowded nightclub.
News source(s): Independent CNN Al Jazeera
Nominator: Jamez42 (talk • give credit)
Updater: ZiaLater (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: Significant coverage, both nationwide and abroad, and unusual circumstances. It also appears to be the first human stampede this year. I'd be open to know if an alternative blurb should mention the people wounded or that most of the persons involved were students or underage. Jamez42 (talk) 09:28, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose not seeing this "in the news" anywhere. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:37, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - ITN and article sufficiently developed Sherenk1 (talk) 13:42, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment replaced blurb - original was not grammatical and had a spelling mistake. Does appear to be ITN - BBC story here... Black Kite (talk) 13:50, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
    • Was that on some BBC front page, or did you search for it? I can find highschool basketball games reported by WP:RS if I search for it. This is well on it's way to being yet another local disaster story posted purely on WP:MINIMUMDEATHS. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:55, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
      • Not sure about its ITN notability myself, which is why I didn't say "support", it is however on the front page of BBCs World News section. Black Kite (talk) 13:58, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Not there at 16:00, though. Sca (talk) 16:01, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
No, you're right - I suspect it's been kicked out by the Mexico World Cup result and the minor (for the USA) shooting in New Jersey. Black Kite (talk) 17:31, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak support I'm satisfied that this is getting non-local coverage ITN and the article is good enough all things considered. My only concern is the background graph has a lot of different claims and only the one Spanish citation at the end (no hablo Español). Would prefer more inline citations, but if someone here can vet the claims against the source, I'm in. ghost 16:22, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
@GreatCaesarsGhost: Hi! I was meaning to take a look at the section, but it seems ZiaLater was one step ahead of me and expanded it (thanks!), so I added more references regarding the incidentes in 2018. Cheers! --Jamez42 (talk) 21:42, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support this is a high enough death toll for an unusual event from a country that probably doesn't appear on ITN very often. Lepricavark (talk) 18:57, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Article seems in good shape, and as long as other world reporting agencies are covering it (even if not front page), that's a bar met. --Masem (t) 19:34, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak support nowhere near the major news headlines I've seen over the past day or so, but digging into Google finds global coverage. Article is satis. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:00, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - significant death toll. Article is in good shape. -Zanhe (talk) 23:55, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support receiving global coverage therefore news worthy, and the article looks fine. Tillerh11 (talk) 00:04, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 00:06, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
    • Well, at least it's settled. The minimum deaths for posting is 9. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:48, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Er, there were 17 deaths here, not 9. Lepricavark (talk) 20:47, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • No, the minimum deaths for posting is zero. The standard is "has good enough article, covered sufficiently in news sources, consensus that both of those are met". There is no arbitrary number of anything.--Jayron32 03:43, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Jayron is correct. We post on significance and quality of article, not how many deaths there were. Obviously an event resulting in a high number of deaths is more likely to be ITN, but there isn't - and indeed can't be - a hard and fast rule. Black Kite (talk) 08:34, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Honestly guys, this kind of pointy bollocks is not worth dignifying with a response. Just let the user believe what the user writes, as we all know it has no impact here at ITNC. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:37, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • And yet you still dignified it with your own pointy bollocks. Just admit that American deaths are only worth around 0.666 non-American deaths and stop pretending otherwise. Unless it's a shooting death, in which case the Americans who died deserved to be shot. It's your standard position everywhere else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.225.0.109 (talk) 15:14, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Every editor here has their blind spots; it's why we do things by consensus. But when the consensus goes against you, lick your wounds and go home. ghost 15:47, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • IP, I don't think you get it. I supported the posting and recommended that the usual pointy bollocks be ignored. That's all. But hey, thanks for stopping by. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:53, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • The number of confirmed deaths increased to 21, update is needed. --Jamez42 (talk) 02:53, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
I think you forgot your smiley? We EngWP editors being known for strong Venezuelan contingent :) ghost 18:39, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Gennady Rozhdestvensky

Closing, stale. Vanamonde (talk) 07:01, 23 June 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: Gennady Rozhdestvensky (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC
Nominator: Sherenk1 (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: Russian conductor. Refereeing Referencing issues. Sherenk1 (talk) 15:24, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Five unreferenced sections. Article also needs a massive cleanup.  Nixinova  T  C  06:42, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose even his date of death is unreferenced. Basics. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:41, 18 June 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) Glasgow School of Art fire

Consensus will not develop to post. Stephen 23:49, 17 June 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: Glasgow School of Art (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In Scotland, a fire destroys the Glasgow School of Art
News source(s): Glasgow Herald
Nominator: Yorkshiresky (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: Second time building has been devastated by fire in four years. Damage appears to be significantly more extensive than 2014 fire. Category A listed building. yorkshiresky (talk) 07:49, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Stating the obvious: A tragic event for those associated with the school, but no wider significance. Sca (talk) 13:32, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Indeed tragic, especially as the historic music venue O2 ABC Glasgow got wiped out as well, but doesn't rise to ITN status. Black Kite (talk) 13:48, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose in the headlines this morning, I'd support, but the article is missing refs and the update is inadequate. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:21, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment. This does seem to be a highly significant structure from an architectural standpoint, but I would like to see wider coverage. 331dot (talk) 15:41, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Sca and Black Kite. Lepricavark (talk) 15:47, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Local fire. –Ammarpad (talk) 17:48, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose Seemingly no significance for anyone not associated with the school/locality. Not ITN worthy Mkwia (talk) 20:45, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose, not because this a regional story, but because the original (very architecturally important) building was destroyed in 2014. This fire is of the replacement, which really means either that it is only a setback for the rebuilding effort, or, if they give up, then the story should have been posted in 2014 and is now stale. Abductive (reasoning) 05:54, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Buildings catch fire all the time. Not of significance even in the UK.  Nixinova  T  C  06:35, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - Lead story on UK national news, coverage in New York Times, Le Monde etc. Building of international importance. Hardly insignificant and more than just a local story. yorkshiresky (talk) 09:38, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

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

References

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: