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 Balangiga bells
The Balangiga bells

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pulled from the main page are generally marked with (Posted) or (Pulled) in the item's subject so it is clear they are no longer active.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

December 18

Portal:Current events/2018 December 18
Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

Politics and elections

December 17

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

Arts and culture

Business and economy

Politics and elections

Science and Technology

RD: Penny Marshall

Article: Penny Marshall (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): NY Daily News
Nominator: Strikerforce (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 actress. StrikerforceTalk 18:51, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

I tried to fix it.--SirEdimon (talk) 21:09, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. A number of paragraphs (particularly in the "career" section) are unsourced - Dumelow (talk) 21:47, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

(Ready) RD: Francis Roache

Article: Francis Roache (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Nominator: Dumelow (talk • give credit)

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

Nominator's comments: American cop and politician. Article looks good to me - Dumelow (talk) 16:05, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Support - nominator is right. Looks good to go.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:34, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support meets RD requirements. I have marked this as ready. --DannyS712 (talk) 18:07, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) Miss Universe 2018

Consensus will not develop to post. Stephen 21:44, 17 December 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: Miss Universe 2018 (talk, history)
Blurb: Catriona Gray of the Philippines is crowned Miss Universe 2018.
Alternative blurb: Catriona Gray representing the Philippines is crowned Miss Universe 2018.
Alternative blurb II: Ángela Ponce becomes the first transgender woman to compete in the Miss Universe pageant, won by Catriona Gray of the Phillipines.
News source(s): [1]
Nominator: BabbaQ (talk • give credit)

Article updated

 BabbaQ (talk) 03:44, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose due to lack of a prose update about the actual pageant and it needs a tense update. Support the good faith of this nom, and I could get behind a more comprehensive article. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:34, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose posting subjective "beauty" pageants, as I did last year when this was not posted. 331dot (talk) 11:48, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - ITN isn't ITN without the news of Miss Universe. Period. STSC (talk) 12:33, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. After the quick close last year, this one has no rationale, and looks like a disruptive nomination. Please do not nominate next year without good reason. wumbolo ^^^ 13:30, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
Note: several editors below use the terms "good faith" and "bad faith". I did not use any of them in my comment, and they are irrelevant here (disruptive ≠ bad faith). wumbolo ^^^ 14:45, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
You said that this nomination is disruptive; that suggests some sort of nefarious motive in making the nomination on the part of the nominator(at least to me). I guess we will just have to disagree about that, but I hope that a well meaning editor was not driven off with your statements that they were disruptive. 331dot (talk) 18:33, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
Wumbolo I see no evidence that this nomination is anything other than in good faith. If you have evidence of bad faith or intent to disrupt, please offer it or withdraw the comment. Thank you. 331dot (talk) 13:33, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
Nominating an insignificant event every year, without remotely reflecting on the fact that the past year's nomination failed, is disruptive. wumbolo ^^^ 13:40, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
Or, the user is checking to see if consensus has changed. That's not bad faith or disruptive. We don't have a "never nominate" list. 331dot (talk) 13:47, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
I agree that this appears to be a good-faith nomination. There is no moratorium on nominating events that previously failed to gain consensus, though of course they usually meet the same outcome. Modest Genius talk 14:39, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) From the policy you cited: Editors may propose a change to current consensus, especially to raise previously unconsidered arguments or circumstances. On the other hand, proposing to change a recent consensus can be disruptive. The nominator raised zero previously unconsidered arguments or circumstances. Since the nominator did not attempt to contest the previous consensus, it should not be changed. wumbolo ^^^ 14:41, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
A year ago is not recent enough to be disruptive. A day, a week, or even a few months, maybe, but not a year. I strongly disagree with your characterization of this nomination even as knowing (and agreeing with the fact that) it will likely fail. 331dot (talk) 14:50, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
What previous consensus? As far as I know, the article titled Miss Universe 2018 has not yet been brought up for discussion. --Jayron32 19:21, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose unless we're going to start recapping The Voice, too. ghost 13:45, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
Miss Universe has been a notable event since 1926, possibly before you were born. STSC (talk) 14:10, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
So? Age is not in the ITN criteria. Modest Genius talk 14:39, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
You're confusing "existing" with "being notable." I'd agree that people once cared about Miss America, but that time passed decades ago. This one is even less notable. ghost 14:48, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. My view hasn't changed since last year: no beauty pageants are sufficiently important (in terms of either encyclopaedic value or media interest) to merit an ITN blurb. No rationale was presented in the nomination, so there's really no reason to change my opinion. Besides, the article is little more than a bunch of tables and a description of the venue. Modest Genius talk 14:39, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
Your rationale of "not sufficiently important in terms of either encyclopaedic value or media interest" would apply to Hockey World Cup, such a minority sport. STSC (talk) 15:13, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Snow close Beauty pageants do not meet the ITN threshold.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:06, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Though I agree with 331dot that this was not a disruptive nomination. Consensus can easily change within a year on ITN. Still, it seems a bit passe to be highlighting beauty pageants in 2018, especially since they're not in the news anyway.--WaltCip (talk) 15:10, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - In general, the "recognition" of beauty pagaents has dramatically declined in the last few decades. Also,I'm thinking that with these types of annual/biannual/etc. events which are not currently in ITNR, that ITNR should be sought first as it doesn't make sense to ITNC a one-off event. (I agree this should not be taken as a disruptive nomination, just better to have had it start at ITNR first). --Masem (t) 17:07, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
  • ‘’‘Oppose not notable enough to be included --DannyS712 (talk) 17:30, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support with proper modification to the article to include the fact that this is the first time that a transgender female has competed in the Miss Universe competition. In my opinion, that makes it different than any other year that this contest has been held and worthy of ITN. StrikerforceTalk 17:38, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
That would make it a decent DYK item. 331dot (talk) 17:47, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose literally of no encyclopedic value. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:02, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support With blurb on first transgender contestant, a massive step for Miss Universe. Kingsif (talk) 21:42, 17 December 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.

December 16

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

Disasters and accidents

Politics and elections

Sports

RD: T. K. Wetherell

Article: T. K. Wetherell (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Nominator: Dumelow (talk • give credit)

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

Nominator's comments: American university president and politician. I had to do a little housekeeping on the article but it looks sufficient - Dumelow (talk) 17:59, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Support - Good faith support of posting.BabbaQ (talk) 21:52, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

2018 Sri Lankan constitutional crisis

Proposed image
Articles: 2018 Sri Lankan constitutional crisis (talk, history) and Ranil Wickremesinghe (talk, history)
Blurb: Ranil Wickremesinghe is reinstated as Prime Minister and Mahinda Rajapaksa relinquishes his claim to the office in response to the Supreme Court ruling President Sirisena’s actions as unconstitutional.
News source(s): BBC, Economynext
Nominator: Blackknight12 (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: Possibly ongoing political crisis, we'll have to see if its truely the end in the next couple of days. Blackknight12 (talk) 12:05, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment – Seems sorta like musical chairs. Sca (talk) 14:05, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Wait I agree with Sca, and feel that a blurb can be posted when the crisis is over and someone is charge with a level of stability. Kingsif (talk) 15:34, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support important development in the crisis. The blurb can be updated if things change again. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:35, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per Ed. Banedon (talk) 23:35, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per Ed.BabbaQ (talk) 03:47, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Ranil Wickremesinghe is orange tagged for refs can't post a BLP vio to the MP bold or otherwise. This story is also way far down in the headlines. We posted this when it started, then it sat in Ongoing for a while ... is the return to the status quo really that "significant" given that the Prime Minister has no real power? --LaserLegs (talk) 12:42, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Domestic politics just isn't that ITN-worthy. STSC (talk) 13:19, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose given that this was already posted, this step is not incrementally important enough for a new post. ghost 13:45, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Return to ongoing. The situation has had several recent developments, reflected in the fact that 2018 Sri Lankan constitutional crisis is getting plenty of updates. I'm not convinced this step necessarily justifies a blurb on top of the previous posting, but I do think we should put 2018 Sri Lankan constitutional crisis back in ongoing for at least a few days. Modest Genius talk 14:44, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose as written, as the article on Ranil Wickremesinghe is ineligible to be the focus article of the blurb. Would probably support a rewritten blurb more explicitly directing readers to the 2018 Sri Lankan constitutional crisis which is in much better shape. I would also support ongoing for that article too. It appears this is still receiving regular updates, so highlighting through ongoing is appropriate. --Jayron32 18:09, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose either return to Ongoing (for how long?) or wait until something significant takes place. This isn't it. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:35, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

(Ready) 2018 Men's Hockey World Cup Final

Article: 2018 Men's Hockey World Cup (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Field Hockey World Cup concludes with Belgium defeating Netherlands in the final.
Alternative blurb: ​In field hockey, Belgium win the World Cup after defeating the Netherlands in the Final.
News source(s): [2]
Nominator: 117.237.197.60 (talk • give credit)
Updater: Dee03 (talk • give credit)
Other updaters: Pelotas (talk • give credit)

Article updated

 117.237.197.60 (talk) 13:09, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Support on notability, oppose on quality I'm a little surprised that this isn't ITN/R, given that the highest levels of a number of far smaller sports (both in terms of participation and viewership) are represented there. But, yes, it needs a prose breakdown of the final at least. Black Kite (talk) 14:23, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Wait until its conclusion. We don't post matches/games in progress. 331dot (talk) 15:55, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Lacking prose update. Tables and lists are no substitute. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:04, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support prose is overrated. In articles like this what matters is 1) who won 2) what the score was, and both are in the article. Banedon (talk) 23:36, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose Prose is existential to an encyclopedia. Without it, you have an almanac. Which is a fine thing, just not the thing we're doing here. ghost 13:52, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Match is completed and results are announced a day earlier. See 2018 Men's Hockey World Cup Final. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.63.61.53 (talk) 13:28, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support once more prose has been added. This appears to be the top event in a noteworthy sport. The blurb should also be edited to include the "In field hockey" opening that we normally use for sports items.--PlasmaTwa2 14:03, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support in principle, but oppose on quality. Neither 2018 Men's Hockey World Cup nor 2018 Men's Hockey World Cup Final has a prose description of the game/tournament. Nevertheless this is the top trophy in a reasonably prominent sport; I'm surprised it's not on ITNR (was it ever discussed?). I've tweaked the blurb slightly - we never include the year and 'hockey' on its own is ambiguous. Modest Genius talk 14:48, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose until a decent prose summary of the final exists. After that, happy to support, and would consider ITNR per previous comments. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:36, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - The Final article has been updated with a match summary. Dee03 04:37, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose original blurb, neutral on the article on the final and altblurb for now. The article on the main tournament has no prose update, just an unreferenced table of results. The article on the final is slightly better but I question the quality of writing: if tightened up (which it badly needs) how much is actually there? The opening half sentence "The 2018 Men's Hockey World Cup Final was a field hockey match to determine the winner of the 2018 Men's Hockey World Cup..." is almost a textbook example of redundancy with the sole apparent aim of shoe-horning it as many links of questionable value as possible. Similarly the prose in the Route to the Final section essentially replicates the the earlier diagram instead of expanding upon it in matters of substance. The prose on the final itself is not significantly better. The match started promisingly. For whom? One of the teams? The viewer? We don't know so that adds nothing. 3142 (talk) 12:42, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Alt blurb. The finals article is main page ready, with sufficient prose. The tournament article is not. --Jayron32 12:45, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

RD: Colin Kroll

Article: Colin Kroll (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): CNN Business
Nominator: Jamez42 (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 of HQ Trivia and Vine. -Jamez42 (talk) 23:59, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose Stub. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:10, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

December 15

Portal:Current events/2018 December 15
Armed conflicts and attacks
  • Kashmir conflict
    • Indian soldiers and counterinsurgency police exchange gunfire with militants in the southern district of Pulwama, resulting in the deaths of one soldier and three militants. The soldiers then opened fire on a crowd of anti-government protesters who gathered after the battle, killing seven civilians and injuring 40 others. (The Independent)

International relations

Politics and elections

RD: Ralph Koltai

Article: Ralph Koltai (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Nominator: Dumelow (talk • give credit)

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

Nominator's comments: German-born British thetre designer with the Royal Shakespeare Company. Article is looking pretty good following recent expansion - Dumelow (talk) 16:20, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) Ukraine Independent Orthodox Church

Wait to renominate on January 6 when procedure happens. Kingsif (talk) 21:40, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Articles: Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church (talk, history) and 2018 Moscow–Constantinople schism (talk, history)
Blurb: ​After the 2018 Orthodox schism, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church creates a church independent from Russia, electing Metropolitan Epifaniy as the leader.
News source(s): BBC
Nominator: Kingsif (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: All the Ukrainian Orthodox noms recently have been denied, but they actually went and did it this time, if that makes it more ITN-worthy. The news was on BBC headline news tonight, so I feel it's "in the news". I think it also technically happened on the 16th in Ukraine, but 15th UTC. Kingsif (talk) 02:39, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment unlike before, there's an article at 2018 Moscow–Constantinople schism with great depth (though it needs copy-editing). For those who have been watching this, the Tomos of Autocephaly won't be granted until January 6 [3]. I'm not up to date as to whether this is relevant to post; Putin or Patriarch Kirill will almost certainly make news in the next few days if it's a critical enough step. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:47, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment The UK and Russia have now responded; very differently. Kingsif (talk) 03:20, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Where did the UK respond and how does it concern the UK? Wakari07 (talk) 11:58, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I support pending blurb changes . Apparently most of the bishops chose to remain in the Russian Orthodox Church (which is still the largest in the country) instead of switching to this new shady organization. Something tells me this has to be at least mentioned in the blurb. Also, the Ukrainians didn't really become independent. Those who switched, they chose to be under the Ecumential patriarchate of Constantinopole, instead of the Russian patriarchate located in Moscow 193.34.160.162 (talk) 06:51, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Also, the article should be renamed. Autocephaly by definition is "the status of a hierarchical Christian Church whose head bishop does not report to any higher-ranking bishop". This church is headed by a metropolitan bishop, not a patriarch, and that bishop reports to Constantinopole. The article therefore should be renamed to "Ukrainian Metropolitan Church" as it is not autocephalous. --193.34.160.162 (talk) 07:26, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
TASS says the Synod of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople granted autocephaly to what TASS calls the Ukrainian Church (a disambiguation page with 10 redirects and 4 see alsos). Someone must be in contradiction with themselves here. I guess we're lucky that Ukrainian Metropolitan Church is still a redlink. Wakari07 (talk) 11:49, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Irrelevant
Read the article Autocephaly before you comment on the issue again. It's not a question of belief or self-profession, autocephaly is a thoroughly defined state in eastern orthodoxy, meaning that the church is fully independent from other orthodox churches and its head has the same status as others. This church is neither of these things, it's officialy subordinated to Constantinople, it's head is a metropolitan, who has a far lower status than a patriarch (think dukes vs kings), and it doesn't even call itself that way (both Constantinopole and these schismatics call themselves "The Ukrainian Orthodox church". And your post strikes me as a prime example of someone who has no idea what he's talking about, but who still tries to talk about issues he has no experise in as if he was not stupid. Goodbye. --193.34.160.162 (talk) 15:49, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
OK, I learned something that I can now safely ignore. Thanks for that. Wakari07 (talk) 16:50, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support --UkrainianCossack (talk) 13:24, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose – As before, wider significance seems doubtful. Sca (talk) 14:06, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Should this be withdrawn until both the autocephaly is granted in January, and a user with some expertise has expanded the articles? Kingsif (talk) 15:31, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support a unique event --AlexKozur (talk) 21:13, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support the religion has hundreds of millions of followers, making this a major event. Banedon (talk) 23:38, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support, this is a huge deal for the Russia-Ukraine relations, and for the Eastern Orthodox Church more broadly. A blurb as proposed is OK, but we might also consider making this an "ongoing" item instead of or in addition to the blurb. There will certainly be important subsequent events. Now that the Unification Council created a new Ukrainian Orthodox Church, it is likely that the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople will proceed with the official recognition of and autocephaly for this Church. Other Eastern Orthodox churches are being pressed to take sides. Many of them have called for convening a pan-Orthodox Synod or synaxis, and it may in fact happen. If, as seems likely, the new Ukrainian Orthodox Church attempts to take over some of the properties currently under the jurisdiction of ROC in Ukraine, there will certainly be a strong reaction from Russia, and further escalation of the crisis is possible. Etc. So the current schism crisis is far from over, and maybe making an "ongoing" item for a while is reasonable under the circumstances. Nsk92 (talk) 02:18, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support A split and the formation of a new church is rare and has historic implications regardless of what you think of it. -TenorTwelve (talk) 05:58, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: User:Ad Orientem has seemingly been the nearest we've had to an expert on this crisis, and he has not spoken yet. If and when he does speak, I expect to be following his lead unless he comes up with something very strange (I'm expecting he will either support now or suggest waiting until the Tomos is granted, which is currently expected to be on January 6, or perhaps he will suggest ongoing). I certainly think the crisis deserves to appear on ITN, but the question is when. Tlhslobus (talk) 06:41, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: This rearrangement of churches does seem to be a major development in one of the world's largest religions (Orthodox Christianity), with some geopolitical aspects too. I support posting the story at some stage, but lack the expertise to know whether this is the right moment to do so. As with previous nominations, I struggle to understand 2018 Moscow–Constantinople schism; in part that's my own ignorance, but it also seems to be poorly written and frequently ungrammatical. Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church is covered in orange-level tags, whilst the article on Epifaniy is mostly proseline and says he's head of Orthodox Church of Ukraine, which may or may not be a different church... Modest Genius talk 14:58, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
Orthodox Church of Ukraine is the newly-created unified church, and the article that should be linked in any blurb. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:55, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is just the preliminary administrative stuff. The tomos is expected to be delivered on January 6 (Christmas eve). That is when the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople (EP) is going to declare the creation of a new exarchate under their jurisdiction that will be separate from the Ukrainian Orthodox Church which is an autonomous part of the Russian Orthodox Church. The term "autocephalous" is controversial since the new entity is not going to be an independent national church. It is going to be entirely under the jurisdiction of the EP. At the moment nobody in the Orthodox Church outside of the EP is recognizing this new entity. I would wait until the tomos is issued. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:34, 17 December 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.

2018 Pulwama encounter

Article: 2018 Pulwama encounter (talk, history)
Blurb: ​An Indian army operation in Pulwama, Jammu and Kashmir leaves seven civilians, three militants and one soldier dead.
News source(s): Hindustan Times, NDTV, Times of India,
Nominator: DiplomatTesterMan (talk • give credit)

 DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 02:38, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Weak support Pretty big story in the region, but the article is currently in a stubby state. Have my full support if significantly expanded. –Ammarpad (talk)
  • Weak oppose without some indication of why this has broader implications, it seems quite regional. Banedon (talk) 23:39, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Question: am I right in thinking border skirmishes are frequent in (disputed) Kashmir? For example, I found 2018 Sunjuwan attack and 2018 Shopian firing incident, both of which had civilian casualties. Is there a reason to see the Pulwama event as more significant than the others that happened just this year, let alone in the history of the Kashmir conflict? Modest Genius talk 15:03, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose stub with no clear indication of broader significance. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:37, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Wilhelm Genazino

Article: Wilhelm Genazino (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): FAZ
Nominator and updater: Gerda Arendt (talk • give credit)

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: He died 12 Dec, but it became known only 14 Dec. Was underreferenced, but I tried. It should be longer, but I have no more time right now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:08, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Support - Ready to go.BabbaQ (talk) 21:47, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - Good enough. --SirEdimon (talk) 22:00, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment – At 200 words of text about a complex career, seems thin for Main Page promotion. Sca (talk) 14:11, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 22:54, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) AFF Championship

No consensus to post. Stephen 22:55, 16 December 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 AFF Championship (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In Southeast Asian association football, Vietnam won their second titles in the AFF Championship after defeating Malaysia in the finals.
News source(s): AFC
Nominator: Molecule Extraction (talk • give credit)

 Molecule Extraction (talk) 15:17, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment It's a very regional tournament. I think it's not notable enough for ITN.--SirEdimon (talk) 19:23, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose we usually require some kind of prose update, and the target article doesn't have it. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:39, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not a top-level tournament, and by far the strongest team eligible to enter didn't even do so. To give an idea of the level here, the winners Vietnam are ranked #100 in the world. Black Kite (talk) 01:04, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - as above. Very much not a top-level tournament, surpassed in reputation, following, and calibre of play by the AFC Cup and Asian Games. Lacking the significance needed to post in ITN. Stormy clouds (talk) 01:26, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Stormy and Black Kite, not particularly big feat. –Ammarpad (talk) 18:28, 16 December 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) Balangiga bells

Proposed image
Article: Balangiga bells (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Balangiga bells, taken by US Army soldiers from the Philippines in 1901 as war trophies, are repatriated after 117 years.
Alternative blurb: ​The Balangiga bells, taken by US Army soldiers from the Philippines during the Philippine-American War as war trophies, are repatriated after 117 years.
Alternative blurb II: ​The Balangiga bells, taken by US Army soldiers from the Philippines as war trophies after reprisals following the Balangiga massacre, are repatriated after 117 years.
News source(s): [4], BBC
Nominator: kguirnela (talk • give credit)

 — KvЯt GviЯnЭlБ Speak! 15:10, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Copying this over from below, since many comments said wait till December 15, and it's happened. Keeping nominator as is, although I am supporting. Banedon (talk) 05:47, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Oppose Who cares? Some minor event in a third world country is definitively not important enough for the ITN 193.34.160.162 (talk) 05:58, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
George c scott as scrooge.jpg


Bah, humbug? – Sca (talk) 15:23, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Support Important event with tie-ins to historically significant incidents supported by a quality article. This is exactly the type of news one would expect to find on ITN. (NorthernFalcon (talk) 07:38, 15 December 2018 (UTC))

  • There was a rough consensus below to post this if the references are fixed, which I believe has happened. Happy to post when I see some more support. --Tone 11:23, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose Not seeing this "in the news", and I'm unconvinced that an essay published at the Wisconsin VFW site qualifies as a WP:RS (and I'm fairly certain that a web archive of a geocities site that had "reproduced" an article from the Philippine Daily Inquirer fails WP:RS) -- but this isn't a hill I'm going to die on either. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:17, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
    • Found a working Google Newspaper archive of the said Philippine Daily Inquirer article. Can't really do much about the so-called reliability of a website from Veterans from Foreign Wars, though... Howard the Duck (talk) 21:58, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Historic and important event. ITN worthy.BabbaQ (talk) 14:28, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support – An interesting story and for once a positive one. (In the news biz such things are known as "brights.")Sca (talk) 15:13, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Actually, after second-checking the references, there are no references from 15 December, all updates from media are a couple of days old. I'd like to see this improved before posting. --Tone 18:21, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
The BBC story, though brief, is today's. Sca (talk) 19:03, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong support really well written article. In depth, comprehensive, well written. This is the kind of quality writing we should be filling the front page with. In terms of quality, this is easily the best article that has been nominated here for months. Great stuff.--Jayron32 21:52, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Updated with the events of December 15th. If anyone has an issue with this article, do a filibuster and tag it. Howard the Duck (talk) 22:14, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
    • I did, STSC revered my sps tags around the VFW essay (which is the foundation for most of the first half of the article) and like I said, not a hill I plan to die on. None of it is a BLP issue so ... whatever ... post this "very significant" return of some church bells. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:23, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
I'll further clarify this in the article talk page. STSC (talk) 11:11, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment would be a decent shout but the blurbs are all too wordy. If it's such a "big deal" why all the verbiage? The Rambling Man (talk) 23:57, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support, the preceding debate [5] [6] [7] and the formal announcement of the decision to return the bells on 14 November [8] [9] made headlines too. It's a "nice culmination" to hear that they're actually restituted now. Wakari07 (talk) 00:17, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose until it's clear this is in Elgin Marbles territory. Doesn't seem to be properly ITN, maybe "ITIN in a sub-class". The Rambling Man (talk) 00:26, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Are the nmarbles returned? Lol. Wakari07 (talk) 00:36, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Meh. The marbles can be returned one day, once. Just like this. Rowing though, it goes on until the ice caps melt. Love the fact though that the champion of US centrism brings out a British example. The same person who said US midterm elections are not notable, and have shoved the almighty Boat Race (Title Caps!) down our throats year after year suggested any returns such as this should be Elgin marbles territory. Unbelievable. Howard the Duck (talk) 00:57, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - long-running diplomatic issue between the Philippines and the US finally resolved. -Zanhe (talk) 06:37, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong support - It's ITN-worthy news that marks the end of the saga for 117 years. Even today(Sunday 16 Dec) there're plenty of news about the bells. STSC (talk) 11:16, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Posting. --Tone 11:39, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

December 14

Portal:Current events/2018 December 14
Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Law and crime

Politics and elections

(Ready) RD: Sondra Locke

Article: Sondra Locke (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC
Nominator: The Rambling Man (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: Filmography unreferenced, but the rest is okay. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:57, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

@Ihcoyc: The relavent section of the guideline says that The event is current, and not stale relative to other events. Singular events that took place more than seven days prior to their nomination are considered stale, as well as any event that is older than the oldest entry in the current "In the News" box. Recent Deaths are considered separate from standard blurbs for this purpose. For purposes of determining timing and staleness, the date is considered when the event was first reported in reliable sources. This will often be the same day as the event itself, but sometimes it can be some time later, such as would be the reporting of scientific discoveries, in which the work has been done months in the past, but results are published in a reliable source some months later. (bolding added) so I think this would be okay. I haven't look at the article yet, so no comment about supporting or opposing. --DannyS712 (talk) 03:31, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Not stale. Article in good shape.--SirEdimon (talk) 06:51, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - Sourced and ready. Death revealed later, so not stale.BabbaQ (talk) 15:20, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Filmography remains unreferenced. Stephen 23:07, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
    @Stephen: - I referenced the Filmography now.BabbaQ (talk) 16:05, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Good to go now.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:21, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Hear, hear --- Coffeeandcrumbs 16:45, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

December 13

Portal:Current events/2018 December 13
Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

International relations
  • Chinese state media reports a second Canadian national, Michael Spavor, has been detained on suspicion of endangering state security, while the PRC foreign ministry say two Canadian nationals are detained in the country. The Spavor investigation follows the detention of former Canadian diplomat Michael Kovrig on December 10 and Canada's December 1 arrest of Huawei executive Meng Wanzhou. (Reuters) (Reuters)

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

(Closed) 2018 Bitcoin bomb threats

Strong consensus against posting. Stormy clouds (talk) 01:27, 16 December 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 Bitcoin bomb threats (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Schools and businesses throughout the U.S. and Canada receive bomb threats.
News source(s): [10] [11]
Nominator: Wumbolo (talk • give credit)
Updater: Hurricane321 (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Dozens upon dozens of cities in North America each having an incident on the scale of the October 2018 United States mail bombing attempts, which we posted. This article is too short at the moment, though. wumbolo ^^^ 14:56, 15 December 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.

George Pell

Article: George Pell (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Australian Cardinal George Pell is convicted of five charges of child sexual abuse.
News source(s): America Magazine NPR Washington Post
Nominator: Calidum (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Pell is now the highest-ranking church official ever convicted of a sexual offense. This case has attracted worldwide attention, despite a gag order from an Australian court. Calidum 06:55, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Support - Was nominated in 2017, and speedily-closed on the grounds that we wait for convictions. That has now occurred, the article is in good shape in relation to referencing, and the significance (highest-ranking church official to be convicted, as stated by the nominator), in my view merits posting. Stormy clouds (talk) 14:50, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Question didn't we just post an Australian Catholic convicted or driven out of power or somesuch over sexual assault? --LaserLegs (talk) 15:09, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
No, we didn’t post Philip Wilson, and coincidentally his conviction has just been quashed on appeal. Stephen 21:00, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, I forgot the name. previous discussion if anyone cares. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:26, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - Good shape article. ITN worthy.BabbaQ (talk) 16:41, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Legally no Australian editor can add information to the article, and the conviction cannot be viewed on the main page in Australia, so as not to predujice the second trial in March. But this is the internet. Stephen 21:00, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia are not a legal document. So you are wrong.BabbaQ (talk) 21:03, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
  • ”Wikipedia are not a legal document”? What are you trying to say? Stephen 22:07, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I guess Australia is smart enough not to block Wikipedia nor burden it with lawyer costs. Wakari07 (talk) 23:41, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Hope so. Would be a lot of $3 contributions. Stormy clouds (talk) 01:23, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - Notable issue, the article looks good. Wakari07 (talk) 23:41, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Questions on wording: isn't "convicted on charges of..." better English? Also, is it an option to write "reportedly convicted..."? Wakari07 (talk) 23:53, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment scrolling through headlines I don't see any mention of it, and the only reason this sexual predator is significant is because he's a high ranking leader of a popular private club. It's a long article, and before posting this to the MP it should be scrutinized for BLP issues and bad refs. I won't be doing that because I don't care about the subject. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:31, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Section "Diocesan episcopal career" is bad enough that I orange tagged it. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:35, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support when the referencing issue of the "Diocesan episcopal career" section is fixed. -Zanhe (talk) 06:34, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
I did what I could and got rid of the tag. Wakari07 (talk) 21:39, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
  • There are unsourced paragraphs, and several statements beyond those that need sourcing. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:29, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
    Perhaps a better target article could be found, such as Catholic Church sexual abuse cases in Australia? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:35, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
    Could be, though I don't know that that one is updated with this. It's a large article and I may have missed it. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:48, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
    Ditto. I'll take a look later. Pell is in there, it's well referenced, it might need a sentence or two update, but then it's good to go I think. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:49, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
    I think you're right. I will be offline for a while though, so someone else can follow through on that if I'm not on. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:05, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

RD: Nancy Wilson

Article: Nancy Wilson (jazz singer) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): CNN, NPR
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: Probably a long shot, there's an orange tag. I haven't got time to personally fix it, apologies. -A lainsane (Channel 2) 14:27, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose - On quality right now. Ping me if fixed by involved parties.BabbaQ (talk) 20:16, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) VSS Unity

No consensus to post. Stephen 23:12, 16 December 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: VSS Unity (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A test flight of Virgin Galactic's VSS Unity crosses the 50-mile space boundary for the first time.
News source(s): BBC News, The Verge
Nominator: Dumelow (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: Not convinced of this one myself but putting it up for discussion for a wider view. The boundary is fairly arbitrary and it has only crossed the American-defined boundary which is lower than the Kármán line, but it is still a milestone in manned spaceflight - Dumelow (talk) 17:30, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak support The ambiguity in the "space border" is between NASA/USAFs 50 miles and the FAI's 62 miles, but as the Verge article above points out, the FAI may be reconsidering this. For all purposes, this is a critical point, with the next major milestone I would expect to see at ITN is when it makes its first passenger-carrying flight, which is several years down the road. --Masem (t) 18:48, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support As the comment and Masem say, there are few realistic "milestones" in civilian spaceflight, and this is certainly one of them (to put it in other words, a plane went to space). Quite significant. Kingsif (talk) 18:55, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose Looks more like a marketing stunt of limited significance in a time when space tourism is only accessible to the few. Brandmeistertalk 21:11, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Is this the first of it's class to do this? I think we need some kind of superlative here to qualify as ITN. ghost 21:19, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Yep, first of the SpaceShipTwo class to achieve this (the previous vehicle VSS Enterprise achieved 22km max altitude before it was lost in a crash) - Dumelow (talk) 22:07, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - a milestone. article seems ready for posting as well.BabbaQ (talk) 22:50, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Seems a rather arbitrary "milestone," of scant general significance. Sca (talk) 23:02, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Didn't even make it to space. Come back when they exceed 100 km, preferably with paying passengers on board. For the avoidance of doubt, none of these events qualify for ITNR as Virgin Galactic does not plan orbital flights, only suborbital. Modest Genius talk 11:37, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose could be a nomiation for the other place, but in news terms, arbitrary, I'll wait for the first paying flight, successful or not. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:48, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Modest Genius. Banedon (talk) 12:09, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose, also per Modern Genius’ rationale. Courcelles (talk) 15:00, 14 December 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: William Newsom

Article: William Newsom (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Nominator: Dumelow (talk • give credit)

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

Nominator's comments: American judge - Dumelow (talk) 17:17, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Weak support And father of Gavin. It's the bare minimum I can support based on its small size. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:50, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • support - just barely over stub status but ready for posting. sourced.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:51, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak support it's brief, but what's there is just fine. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:47, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Insufficient coverage of the subject to meet minimum standards IMO. There's a single sentence covering his 20-year career as a judge, and in general there's more details about his friends in the article and what his father/sister did compared to his legal career. Would be willing to support with a quality paragraph or two about his judicial career. SpencerT•C 15:40, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi Spencer, thanks for the feedback. I have added some further information from the obituaries relating to his judicial career and personal life. Would you mind taking another look? - Dumelow (talk) 22:18, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
Looks good. Posted. SpencerT•C 02:40, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Noah Klieger

Article: Noah Klieger (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Nominator: Dumelow (talk • give credit)

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

Nominator's comments: Israeli journalist and sports administrator - Dumelow (talk) 17:07, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Support there's a {{dn}} in there, but otherwise it's good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:44, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support the dn tag has been fixed, other than that no issues --DannyS712 (talk) 03:27, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 23:13, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) Ankara train collision

Proposed image
Article: Ankara train collision (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Nine people are killed when a high-speed train collides with a locomotive (example of class pictured) at Ankara, Turkey
News source(s): Al Jazeera
Nominator: Mjroots (talk • give credit)
Updater: CeeGee (talk • give credit)

Article updated

 Mjroots (talk) 13:01, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Support - Major event with casulties.--Joseph (talk) 14:53, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Article is short, but relatively comprehensive for what is known so far, and well referenced. --Jayron32 15:01, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak support but be careful with that image, we usually only use the exact object we're talking about, not "one similar"... The Rambling Man (talk) 15:16, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
    • If a photograph of the exact loco was available on Commons, it would have been used. As there wasn't, quality of photo was the overriding factor. Mjroots (talk) 15:27, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
      • I'm aware of that, but we don't use photos of similar locos/aircraft etc. This one will just have to go with no photo. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:30, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak Support this is an utterly insignificant disaster story with a barely above orphaned barely above stub article that is all but guaranteed to be abandoned once this drops out of the headlines (like Kuneru train derailment). It is, however, in the news, so why not. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:58, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support --UkrainianCossack (talk) 18:32, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per LL, this is far too sparse an article to overcome the routine nature of the event. ghost 21:22, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support There is nothing routine about a fatal High-speed rail accident. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 21:26, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • support - eveything is relative, but this is ITN news and should be posted.BabbaQ (talk) 23:01, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • support per Caradhras. Daniel Case (talk) 03:44, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support meets requirements, well referenced, notable, in the news --DannyS712 (talk) 08:27, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Posting. --Tone 11:27, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) Death of Grace Millane

closed. Stale story. --Jayron32 12:51, 13 December 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: Death of Grace Millane (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: Grace Millane was a British tourist whose disappearance in Auckland, New Zealand, in December 2018 received international attention. A 26 year old man was charged with her murder on 8 December, and her body was found in a nearby forest park the following day.
News source(s): [12]
Nominator: Sheldybett (talk)

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.

 Sheldybett (talk) 08:18, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It's sad, but I don't see how it's out of the ordinary or globally notable. Nohomersryan (talk) 09:52, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
    • The thing is, not only is "globally notable" not a requirement for any ITN nomination, but for WP:ITN/DC the only "notability" requirements are WP:N. There is even a banner about that in the nomination template. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:58, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't know if this qualifies for RD since she doesn't have a standalone article (we did RD for Alfie Evans). If it's a blurb you want, you should change the template type please. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:00, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak support for a blurb on the grounds that it received decent amount of attention in the media and it happened in the second most peaceful country in the world according to the Global Peace Index rankings as of 2018 (this is not a recent death any more, though).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:17, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support RD - The subject, Grace Millane, appears to have become a stand-alone article. Although one could make the argument that this person is notable only for their death, that rationale to oppose has been rejected on ITN multiple times.--WaltCip (talk) 12:18, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Even if she is notable, her death was announced on 8 December, so would be stale for RD now. Black Kite (talk) 12:25, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose both. The individual is certainly only notable for her tragic death, and the tragic death is far below any blurb standards. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:25, 13 December 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.

December 12

Portal:Current events/2018 December 12
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

December 11

Portal:Current events/2018 December 11
Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

(Posted) Strasbourg Christmas Market shooting

Article: 2018 Strasbourg attack (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A gunman kills at least three people and injures a dozen others at the world-famous Christmas market in Strasbourg, France, before fleeing.
Alternative blurb: ​A gunman kills three people and injures a dozen at a Christmas market in Strasbourg, France, and is shot dead by police two days later.
Alternative blurb II: ​Two days after the Strasbourg Christmas Market attack, French police shoot and kill suspect Chérif Chekatt near Strasbourg.
News source(s): BBC, AP, Guardian
Nominator: Kingsif (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: It was a big event until talk of Brexit ousted it, at least in Europe. Another terror attack in France. Kingsif (talk) 22:50, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Support - article is ready for posting. a number of deaths. international attention. --BabbaQ (talk) 00:42, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Article is in good shape. Hrodvarsson (talk) 00:48, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - More people died in a shooting in Belgium this year and that wasn't posted. WaltCip (talk) 01:01, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
    • Did it get nominated, was the page good, how intense was the attack coverage? This attack was also two weeks before Christmas at a very famous Christmas market, which adds some weight. More people were killed in a shooting in Brazil on this same day, but the discussion below refers to how it's diminished because of attacks in Brazil being frequent, minimal international coverage, and a stub article. Kingsif (talk) 01:08, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
      • Liege shooting.--WaltCip (talk) 11:47, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
        • Reading that and the article, I'd personally weak support it now, because since the time it has been expanded and is more clearly terrorist-inspired. At the time the article was weak, and it looked like a rampage attack in an isolated area with few implications. The perception is the difference, really - shooting wildly into a famous Christmas market is just more "newsworthy" in public opinion, number of deaths irrelevant. That nom also mentions the Ontario attack, which had no fatalities, but I think it got a lot of support - because of how the Canadians pushed it into the world news and how rare attacks in Canada are. Comparisons need careful consideration of differences as well as similarities. Kingsif (talk) 19:27, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose this was in the news two days ago when it happened, it's not really anymore. Islamic extremist violence in Europe is becoming almost as common as Christian extremist violence in the USA. The article is pretty good though, I won't erect a wall of text if it's posted. --LaserLegs (talk) 03:03, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
    • Weak Support on second thought, WTF, why not? Its still sort of in the news, it was when it happened, article is decent. Go for it. --LaserLegs (talk) 03:05, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support It's a terrorist attack in a part of the world where that sort of thing is not altogether common. The article is an decent shape. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:33, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
You sure they're not altogether that common? See List of terrorist incidents in France. Banedon (talk) 12:16, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I would also propose this could be, if not put in ITN, put in Ongoing, due to the attacker still being at large. Kingsif (talk) 04:47, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
    • If the suspect is captured, we can update the blurb. If they are still at large and the article is getting regular updates when it's about to expire off, it can drop into ongoing. That's been working well for us I think. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:41, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per LaserLegs. Banedon (talk) 12:16, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted. Tweaked blurb to remove purple prose, otherwise this seemed good to go. --Jayron32 12:54, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Post-posting comment – The event itself has become, alas, not uncommon in Western and Central Europe, and the toll of victims is comparatively small. On that basis, it doesn't seem quite up to ITN. However, given a manhunt actively involving two countries, it's OK in ITN – though if the perp isn't found soon we might bump it into Ongoing. Sca (talk) 14:33, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Post-posting comment – Perhaps time to update the blurb. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.96.208.216 (talk) 04:41, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Post-posting oppose. We can't post every shooting with three deaths in ITN. I would not have supported this even when the suspect was at large; now they've been caught I'm even more opposed. No reason to treat this any differently to the shooting in Brazil below. Modest Genius talk 11:40, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
    That's true, but it's also entirely irrelevant. We don't post items by counting the number of deaths. We post items based on quality of the article and whether or not it is something people have heard/read about in the news. There are lots of things where more people have died that we don't have quality articles. We will continue to not post those. Also, we will continue to not post things where more people have died where the story has not been covered, in the proper way, by the proper news sources. --Jayron32 11:57, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
    I agree that death toll is not the deciding factor, but it isn't 'entirely irrelevant' either. The best article in the world won't make up for an insignificant event that barely passes GNG. Coverage in the mainstream media is not a proxy for encyclopaedic value, as the tabloid rumour-mill and sports pages demonstrate. A quality update and coverage in the media are both necessary but not sufficient. Modest Genius talk 12:27, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
    Except the coverage of this story is neither a) in tabloid news or b) in sports pages. What we're using to establish news coverage here is high quality sources. --Jayron32 16:13, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Post-posting oppose per Modest Genius. This sets the bar unncessarily low for the future. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:42, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
    Agreed, though there are a lot of news stories still being produced, the manhunt (a notable part) is over, and the article itself is attracting a lot of edits but mostly conflicts over whether to categorise it as Islamist terror or not. Kingsif (talk) 12:48, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Update – Time to update blurb. Suspect isn't "fleeing" anymore, he's dead. (Article has been updated.)
    – Two Altblurbs offered above. Sca (talk) 14:28, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
    Updated I freelanced a bit to try to merge the original blurb with the new information. I hope that works. Neither of the altblurbs was working for me. --Jayron32 16:18, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
OK, though with the pic. it looks a bit long. Could be shortened by deleting "and injured a dozen others," which isn't essential. Just a suggestion. Sca (talk) 17:49, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 Done. --Jayron32 17:54, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
Xcllnt. But now death toll is up to four. Sca (talk) 17:58, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
Apparently 5 now Kingsif (talk) 19:55, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Petrus Iilonga

Article: Petrus Iilonga (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Nominator: Dumelow (talk • give credit)

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

Nominator's comments: Sitting Deputy Minister of Defence in Namibia. I have overhauled the article, it remains a little on the short side but I will look to expand if any new information comes in the obituaries - Dumelow (talk) 16:22, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

  • That issue has been resolved. ―Susmuffin Talk 07:20, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support While the article is a bit short, it manages to meet our standards. ―Susmuffin Talk 07:20, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted --Jayron32 13:59, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Hiwi Tauroa

Article: Hiwi Tauroa (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): New Zealand Herald
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) 07:23, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Support what's there is brief but adequate. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:22, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - just above Stub-standard but ready to be posted.BabbaQ (talk) 00:43, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted --Jayron32 14:00, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) Campinas Cathedral shooting

No consensus, unimproved. Stephen 02:43, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposed image
Article: Campinas Cathedral shooting (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Gunman kills four people and wounded four others before killing himself during mass shooting at Metropolitan Cathedral (image) of Campinas, Brazil.
News source(s): CNN, BBC, The Guardian, CBS
Nominator: Chronus (talk • give credit)
 Chronus (talk) 22:28, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose we're not linking to a one sentence stub on the main page, and this random act of violence is no where near significant enough to post without a decent article. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:34, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose it's not great, but it's hardly a blip when one considers shootings in Brazil (I could link a website which shows such assaults as a daily event), so not ITN-worthy. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:47, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
This was not an "assault" or a "gang dispute". A man entered in the cathedral of one of the country's largest cities during a mass and killed the faithful. This is not a case of urban violence. Chronus (talk) 23:18, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Wait for more details If this turns out to be some kind of terrorist attack or motivated out of religious hatred I would likely support. But large scale shootings in Brazil are too common otherwise. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:06, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Again, it was not a dispute between criminal factions or a case of robbery. This type of mass shooting is more common in countries like the United States. Chronus (talk) 00:24, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Wait per Ad Orientem. Hrodvarsson (talk) 00:13, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per LaserLegs and The Rambling Man. TheTerribleToess bug me on my talk page! 00:46, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Gun murders are sadly a frequent occurrence in Brazil. There's no reason to single out this one; being in a cathedral does not make it more important than any other shooting. This is barely notable enough to qualify for an article. Modest Genius talk 13:22, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. According to the BBC, "While gun crime is common in Brazil, shootings of this nature and especially in a place of worship are not." wumbolo ^^^ 13:52, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Might support if it was expanded, but it's still a stub.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:02, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Per Legs and TRM. – Sca (talk) 15:41, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per Wumbolo. Banedon (talk) 12:08, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment This kind of shooting is not even close to be common in Brazil. So, it's pretty much notable, however, the article is still a stub.--SirEdimon (talk) 06:45, 15 December 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) Balangiga bells

Superseded by new nom above. Banedon (talk) 05:48, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposed image
Article: Balangiga bells (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Balangiga bells, taken by US Army soldiers from the Philippines in 1901 as war trophies, are repatriated after 117 years.
Alternative blurb: ​The Balangiga bells, taken by US Army soldiers from the Philippines during the Philippine-American War as war trophies, are repatriated after 117 years.
Alternative blurb II: ​The Balangiga bells, taken by US Army soldiers from the Philippines as war trophies after reprisals following the Balangiga massacre, are repatriated after 117 years.
News source(s): NBC, Stars and Stripes, ABS-CBN
Nominator: kguirnela (talk • give credit)
 — KvЯt GviЯnЭlБ Speak! 15:10, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - It's ITN-newsworthy that marks the end of a saga for 117 years, and the related articles look fine. STSC (talk) 16:00, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose on quality. I spot checked 4 refs, two are self published (filipinoamericans.net and an essay at http://vfwwy.org), one dead link, one hand made archive. Not good start. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:57, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment – It is an interesting story, though, and for once a positive one. Sca (talk) 22:06, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose a nice opportunity for a DYK but not an ITN item. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:27, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - Interesting yes, but agree with article quality. "...killing an estimated 48 and wounding 22 of the 78 men of the unit, with only four escaping unhurt" is not very encyclopedic. If four were uninjured and 22 wounded then the "estimated 48" must have been 52. Moriori (talk) 00:05, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
It's because 4 American soldiers were missing in action. STSC (talk) 16:33, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
That reinforces my article quality point. If we know four soldiers were MIA we should say so. And get rid of that awful "estimated".Moriori (talk) 20:52, 12 December 2018 (UTC) Hold the bus, I see someone has added it. Moriori (talk) 20:55, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
  • The massacre happened in 1901 and is therefore no longer news. What's news is the United States return of the bells that they looted as war booty, sent to Wyoming and South Korea, was petitioned by several Philippine governments for its return, and was sent to Manila yesterday, 117 years after it was taken away. That said...Howard the Duck (talk) 01:35, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Wait until December 15th when the bells are returned to Balangiga. It being sent to Manila is just another part of this news story. Also, article should be as per ITN standards. Howard the Duck (talk) 01:35, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Wait The bells will be returned to the church on 15 December, which is a few days from now. ―Susmuffin Talk 02:51, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment waiting won't fix the refs. Go through and fix them up if you want this to have a chance on the 15th. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:00, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
I don't see any major quality issue with Balangiga Bells. If you spotted any individual ref error, you should have tagged them with inline tags. STSC (talk) 16:04, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Ok I'll do it for you. Do you know the inline tag for self-published refs that fail WP:RS? --LaserLegs (talk) 19:15, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
If you hum a few bars, I could fake it.[13] (It's {{Sps}} outside the <ref>...</ref> or {{Self-published source}} inside.) Richard-of-Earth (talk) 19:36, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Richard. I tagged the background sections which have the most questionable sources. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:54, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Presumably there'll be coverage of the actual return on Sunday. Sca (talk) 23:05, 13 December 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: