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.

Maithripala Sirisena in 2015
Maithripala Sirisena

How to nominate an item[edit]

In order to suggest a candidate:

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

Purge this page to update the cache

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

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


  • 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[edit]

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

Please do not...[edit]

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


November 14[edit]

Portal:Current events/2018 November 14

November 13[edit]

Portal:Current events/2018 November 13
Business and economy

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

November 12[edit]

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

Arts and culture

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

(Closed) Kyrsten Sinema elected to the US Senate[edit]

Consensus tells me to withdraw. Kingsif (talk) 01:54, 13 November 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: Kyrsten Sinema (talk, history) and United States Senate election in Arizona, 2018 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Democrat congresswoman Kyrsten Sinema wins the US Senate seat for Arizona, becoming the first female Senator for the State, the first Arizona Democrat since 1995, and the first openly bisexual Senator.
News source(s): New York Times
Nominator: Kingsif (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: Historic victory and seat change, and one of the last results holding out it was so contentious. Kingsif (talk) 01:34, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose Election limited to subnational division with commonplace delayed result announcement. Identity of anyone below the head of a branch of national government is an irrelevant matter for WP:ITN. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 01:38, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose, nom please withdraw. Abductive (reasoning) 01:41, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Strongly recommend that this good faith nom be withdrawn. WaltCip (talk) 01:49, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • SNOW Oppose Good faith nom, but we posted the midterms when they happened, (and they're still up in fact). We're not going to post the last races from the midterms to be called. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:50, 13 November 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.

RD: David Pearson[edit]

Article: David Pearson (racing driver) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Star Tribune
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: GA. Nohomersryan (talk) 00:59, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

  • The entire update appears to be "On November 12th, 2018, David Pearson passed away from an illness." No source, incorrect "th" in the date, and a WP:EUPHEMISM for death. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:53, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
    • It's been updated now, although the cause of death hasn't been confirmed yet. Nohomersryan (talk) 02:12, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support: It has GA status and the above issue seems to have been resolved. --PootisHeavy (talk) 20:30, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) Bali Nine member Renae Lawrence to be released[edit]

Consensus will not develop to post a relatively minor sentence commutation. Stephen 02:09, 13 November 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: Bali Nine (talk, history) and Renae Lawrence (talk, history)
Blurb: Bali Nine member Renae Lawrence scheduled to be released on 21 November, after 12 years in prison
News source(s): [1], [2]
Nominator: Hawkeye7 (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: Notorious drug mule. Caught in Bali in 2005 with 2.6 kg of heroin taped to her body. Two other members of the Bali Nine were executed by firing squad in 2015, and one died in prison. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:29, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose parochial interest, nothing ground-breaking about someone being released after a period of incarceration. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:31, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
    The international interest comes from the execution of two members of the Bali Nine by firing squad. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:33, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
    I didn't say it wasn't interesting, but it's not ground-breaking or ITN-worthy. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:34, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose on quality, link rot has taken hold I'm afraid. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:57, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
    WP:OHNO! Ran the InternetArchiveBot (talk), which repaired six links. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:19, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose posting the conclusion of a sentence. 331dot (talk) 21:06, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
    Need a full stop? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:19, 12 November 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): Death of Stan Lee[edit]

Closed, it's posted, we all know it won't be pulled, Take errors to errors, no reason to leave this open as a battleground. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:02, 12 November 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: Stan Lee (talk, history)
Blurb: ​American comic-book creator Stan Lee dies at the age of 95.
News source(s): TMZ, THR, Variety
Nominator: Power~enwiki (talk • give credit)

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Looks fully referenced; likely to be a flood of updates over the next hour. We may need to wait for independent confirmation. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:50, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment now then, loathe as I am to bring this up, this guy is almost certainly blurbable ("transformative figure"). The Rambling Man (talk) 18:52, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Adding corroborating source beyond TMZ. --Masem (t) 18:58, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support RD and Support blurb Article is in good shape (well-sourced). As TRM said, this is a rare entertainment figure that is known worldwide and is blurb-worthy. --Masem (t) 19:00, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
    • Blurb added, image sent for protection cascade tagging assuming we end up with blurb. --Masem (t) 19:08, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
    • Image is now properly protected should blurb be posted. --Masem (t) 19:25, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support blurb and RD. He certainly was a transformative figure in his field and article is well-referenced. Capitalistroadster (talk) 19:07, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support blurb Very significant and saddening. Article is in good shape. Spengouli (talk) 19:09, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support blurb as long as the Bibliography section is referenced, some things in there need inline cites. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:13, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
    • There is an overarching link (Currently ref 84 as I Read it) to the Grand Comics Database that is being used to cover those all. I think that's okay? --Masem (t) 19:16, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support blurb Transformative in his field. I hope he filmed a ton more cameos for Phase 4. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:13, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support both article is in good shape, important person Abequinn14 (talk) 19:15, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Abequinn14 If it is determined this should be a blurb, that's where it will go, not in both places. 331dot (talk) 19:17, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
I'm just saying if the blurb fails to get support (which doesn't seem to be the case right now) I support a RD. Abequinn14 (talk) 19:20, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support blurb with image I don't think I read a single comic book since I was like 12, so I can say I am unbiased in this regard. And I understand that his influence on the culture of both XXth and XXIst centuries was enormous. Definitively deserves a blurb per importance. Openlydialectic (talk) 19:16, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - Seriously, what are you waiting, Avengers 9? -- (talk) 19:18, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support blurb Much-loved personality. Article in unusually good shape. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:22, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose blurb no where near the level of notability that should be reserved for blurbs. RD is perfectly fine. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:26, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
    Heh, transformative figure in comic books, legendary arch-father of the biggest film franchises in history. Blurb is no doubt at all. Nice try though. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:28, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
    • So many fields, so many transformative figures, so perfectly suited for RD. Don't worry TRM, I'm outnumbered, this will be a blurb ... and for the next two weeks every half assed article that's important to someone will get the "We posted Stan Lee so we have to post this" treatment. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:40, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
      • No, I really don't think so. I'm not American, I'm not a comic book (or comic movie) fan, but I think this passes the test. I'm afraid that now no-one will listen to you. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:42, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support blurb per Capitalistroadster. -A lainsane (Channel 2) 19:31, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support blurb with image. There is a clear consensus. A somewhat longer blurb might be used—I would recommend mentioning a couple of the characters he created, though I'd hate to get bogged down in a debate over which particular ones to use. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:37, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
    • Could mention "and chairman emeritus of Marvel Comics", avoids the question of which characters to include but more where he fell in the world. --Masem (t) 19:40, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
      • Nope, Stan Lee is Stan Lee. No embellishment required. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:50, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Ping @331dot: you around to handle this? Consensus is clear, and the article looks fine. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:41, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 19:43, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Image please. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:47, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
    Bang. Admin magic. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:47, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Less than an hour to blurb someone? I don't think even Stephen Hawking was posted this fast. WaltCip (talk) 19:54, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
    Because most Americans have never heard of Hawking. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:57, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
      • Or maybe because we Americans take better care of our biographies than you Brits? – Muboshgu (talk) 19:59, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
        • No, it was more about consensus than quality. And Hawking is luminary, Lee is contemporary, as you know. Apples and pears. But good attempt at the old USA USA USA bullshit! Next up we'll be giving Wikipedia editors guns to ensure American articles are up to scratch! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:02, 12 November 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.

RD: Ananth Kumar[edit]

Article: Ananth Kumar (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The Times of India
Nominator: Pharaoh of the Wizards (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: Indian Union Minister Ananth Kumar died.- Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:43, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

  • The first half of the article is ok. The second half is... wow. Some of the most genuinely awful proseline I've seen in recent memory. "2. Over 44 cr hot, tasty and nutritious meals have been served to children till end of AY 2018. (May 2018)" indeed. —Cryptic 02:52, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose There are unsourced statements even in the first half of the article. The second half is ... yeah, well. Black Kite (talk) 02:57, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose The front page is not the place for poorly-written articles that do not have enough inline citations. ―Susmuffin Talk 04:00, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose while clearly improved from when the preceding comments were made, the article still needs copyediting by a native English speaker as it's not suitable for main page at this time. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:02, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak Support The article has improved, although it can get better. Breakfastisready (talk) 12:20, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

November 11[edit]

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

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

RD: Douglas Rain[edit]

Article: Douglas Rain (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC
Nominator: Sherenk1 (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: Voiced Hal in 2001: A Space Odyssey. Too many referencing issues. Hopefully will be resolved soon. Sherenk1 (talk) 11:20, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

November 10[edit]

Portal:Current events/2018 November 10
Arts and culture

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime
  • Edmonton Police confirm one of two explosions at the Strathcona County Community Centre in Sherwood Park on November 6th was deliberate, and the other was accidentally set off. They also disclose the suspect shot himself and later died from his wounds. No one else was hurt in the incident, and a motive for the incident is still under investigation. (CTV News)

Politics and elections


(Posted) RD: Ron Johnson (running back)[edit]

Article: Ron Johnson (running back) (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 football player. Article generally very good. A couple of short uncited passages and a bare url. I am away from my computer for a couple of days but hopefully somebody can remedy these minor issues - Dumelow (talk) 00:38, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Support A couple of very minor sentences that need citing (sorry, I know nowt about Rugby League in armour), but this is generally a good article. I fixed the bare URL. Black Kite (talk) 01:28, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support I like the sound of his name. And I learned something about Michigan rushing records. I'm still not sure I know what rushing is, but I've cited the part about him doing it better in one game than any Wolverine ever has. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:08, November 12, 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - Overall decent shape article. Ready.BabbaQ (talk) 08:30, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:01, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD. SpencerT•C 16:13, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

November 9[edit]

Portal:Current events/2018 November 9
Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

Politics and elections

(Posted) Second Congo ebola outbreak[edit]

Article: 2018 Kivu Democratic Republic of the Congo Ebola virus outbreak (talk, history)
Blurb: ​More than 200 people have died from a second outbreak of ebola in Democratic Republic of the Congo in 2018, making it the largest such outbreak in the country's history.
News source(s): CNN, BBC
Nominator: Masem (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: While the outbreak is still going on and wont be resolved for a while, the fact that it is now confirmed as the largest outbreak in this country appears to be newsworthy. While western sources are getting the story now, this stat was made on this date, so posting here. Masem (t) 15:18, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment surely if this is as serious as it seems, it should be an "ongoing" item? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:21, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
    • It's a story that gets updated, but not necessarily on a daily basis. I do see the article seems to be kept up to date, so it could be ongoing, but I see no issue with a blurb either and maybe downgrade to ongoing once it falls off? --Masem (t) 17:57, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
      • Sure, so support as there's a real risk this could become a huge issue, and is an order of magnitude more significant than the forest fires. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:41, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support "No other epidemic in the world has been as complex as the one we are currently experiencing." Granted Oly Ilunga Kalenga may be engaging in a bit of hyperbole, but it's still a major crisis deserving of posting. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:32, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support as long as the blurb is changed to make grammatical sense. Should be e.g. More than 200 people suffer from a second outbreak of ebola in Democratic Republic of the Congo in 2018, making it the largest such outbreak in the country's history. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:44, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
    • fixed -200 + deaths (350+ cases though tracked) --Masem (t) 20:48, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 01:54, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I think the blurb should mention that 200 deaths happened over a period of time (since August). The current blurb gives the impression that 200 people died yesterday. --ASF23 (talk) 02:19, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
    • Added that date. --Masem (t) 19:40, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) Melbourne stabbing[edit]

Consensus will not develop to post a minor attack. Stephen 00:22, 13 November 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 Melbourne stabbing attack (talk, history)
Blurb: ​One person is killed and two injured in a stabbing in Melbourne, Australia.
News source(s):
Nominator: (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: First terrorist attack in Australia for some time. (talk) 02:37, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support based on historical significant of the attack and quality of article given how recently the attack occurred. (note: I also updated the blurb to bold the like to the article) --DannyS712 (talk) 02:51, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • The weakest of possible opposes A seemingly lone wolf operation that ends up only killing one is not really that big a story. I know they said the man may have had a larger plan (with propane tanks) and was a person of intereest before, but still, this ended up with minimal harm. But that said, I'd not be against this being posted, just feel this is where the hypothetical MINIMUMDEATHS should be considered even if it was terrorism related --Masem (t) 06:22, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment seems that knives are the weapon of choice for homicide in Australia. Sadly these things will continue until Australia implements some meaningful knife control laws. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:49, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
The US is just a murderous country, with 17,250 a year. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:27, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Why are you two talking about the USA? I was just pointing out Australias knife murder rate for some context regarding this article. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:50, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose – On significance. Sca (talk) 14:08, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - Significant enough. And ready for posting.BabbaQ (talk) 14:19, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. A relatively minor attack. Tragic for those affected, but we can't post every murder around the world. Modest Genius talk 15:13, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose One fatality, little significance. –Ammarpad (talk) 16:02, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I really don't like the nominator's argument. We already have a systemic bias, and this way of dealing with it is counter-productive. A day before this attack, this prison riot in Tajikistan resulted in 27 deaths, and it was also inspired by ISIS. Being terrorism-related may be DYK material, but it's not always appropriate for ITN. wumbolo ^^^ 16:43, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose just not that noteworthy, and the frankly that blurb could apply to anywhere in London on every third day of the year. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:22, 12 November 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: Roger Hoy[edit]

Article: Roger Hoy (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: English footballer. Another article that might be a little short but seems well sourced - Dumelow (talk) 20:34, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Support - Long enough. Sourced. Ready.BabbaQ (talk) 14:39, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support just about satis. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:20, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 21:51, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Richard Paul Conaboy[edit]

Article: Richard Paul Conaboy (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. Short but well sourced - Dumelow (talk) 09:14, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Weakest oppose this is borderline stub for me, for someone with 40+ years in law, some of it at a relatively high level, the bio is lacking. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:38, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Fair enough. I found a little more to add but not much. I'll keep an eye open for any new info in the obits - Dumelow (talk) 20:00, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Weakest support just about enough I guess, and what's there is fine. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:21, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 21:48, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) 2018 Sri Lankan constitutional crisis[edit]

Proposed image
Article: 2018 Sri Lankan constitutional crisis (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In the ongoing constitutional crisis in Sri Lanka, President Maithripala Sirisena dissolves parliament and calls for elections in violation of the country’s Nineteenth Amendment which he co-sponsored.
Alternative blurb: Sri Lankan President Maithripala Sirisena dissolves parliament and calls a snap elections in violation of the Nineteenth Amendment to the Constitution in the ongoing constitutional crisis.
Alternative blurb II: ​Due to a lack of numbers in an upcoming vote, President Maithripala Sirisena dissolves parliament and calls a snap election in the ongoing constitutional crisis in Sri Lanka.
Alternative blurb III: ​Sri Lankan President Maithripala Sirisena dissolves parliament and calls for early elections.
News source(s): BBC, New York Times, Aljazeera, Colombo Telegraph, The Guardian
Nominator: Blackknight12 (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: The results and effects of 2018 Sri Lankan constitutional crisis will have significant domestic and regional geopolitical consequences. President Sirisena has set a new precedent in boldly violating the constitution which has and will further escalate the crisis. Blackknight12 (talk) 20:55, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose on article quality; also none of the blurbs seem neutrally phrased. I might support on notability once this is cleaned up. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:28, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment the blurb really needs to mention Sri Lanka in there somewhere. Of the ones suggested so far, the first altblurb is the least bad. Thryduulf (talk) 22:26, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Done.--Blackknight12 (talk) 13:56, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - Looks good to me. Sherenk1 (talk) 11:30, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support- huge news, and goes to show the pro-american bias on Wikipedia. Results of a legislative elections in a presidential republic get published immediately, while the announcement of a coup in an asian country is basically ignored. Shame. Openlydialectic (talk) 12:41, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
    • It is not that this isn't important, but we also look to article quality, and this one has a neutrality tag at the very top, which we cannot post with that still there. --Masem (t) 14:07, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
    • Excuse me? It was just pointed out in multiple comments that the U.S. mid-term elections were considered general elections via ITN/R and were not the only instance of such elections being posted to ITN. I'm having a hard time not believing at this point that you're just fishing for a reaction.--WaltCip (talk) 14:33, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
      • @WaltCip:, stop with this demagogy. You know full well that the results we had posted before were from countries that were pairlamentary democracies (e.g. Germany, United Kingdom) and where aforementioned legislative elections therefore determined who was going to become "the real" head of state, they determined who was going to be in the executive branch. The United States is not a legislative elections, so comparing the recent US case with postng elections from the UK or Germany is misleading, and I refuse to believe you don't understand that. You do, you are just not interested in anything but furthering your biases. Openlydialectic (talk) 18:53, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
    • @Openlydialectic: I already know posting this article on the main page is not important to you at all, because you haven't yet fixed the article so it could be posted. You're just here to stir up trouble, and aren't really concerned that Wikipedia properly covers Asian topics. And I know this because if that was a concern of yours, you'd have actually done something useful about it, and cleaned up this article so we could post it. If you had already fixed the article, it would have already been in the main page. --Jayron32 14:50, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
    • Openlydialectic notwithstanding the education provided to you above by admin Jayron, I honestly don't think you seem to understand how this process works. The article is tagged with a POV banner, that needs resolving before it can posted to the main page, that's an actual rule. Secondly, you claim "Results of a legislative elections in a presidential republic get published immediately" yet a cursory glance reveals it wasn't posted "immediately", but 15.5 hours after nomination. Thirdly you don't appear to have noticed that it was an WP:ITNR which meant that all assessments were purely based on quality, and nothing to do with perceived significance. If you need any assistance understanding the ITN process in either this, or any other such case, don't hesitate to give me a shout. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:10, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia has become too tiresome for me to edit it, at least for now, which is why I haven't fixed it. However I will say that seeing how all 3 of you were triggered by my assertion of existance of pro-american bias on wikipedia, it just goes to show that this assessment was indeed correct and is also largerly unfixable seeing how even a mention of such bias triggers a large chunk of wikipedia's editor base Openlydialectic (talk) 15:25, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Well, four of us responded (not three), and I think mostly it was just to correct all the various errors in your assertions. Great response though. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:00, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
TRM accused of pro-American bias - is this a first? Face-smile.svg Tlhslobus (talk) 02:12, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Well indeed, it sums up the absurdity of the initial accusation quite nicely. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:43, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • This situation is significant enough for the main page and should be posted when the article quality concerns are addressed. Lepricavark (talk) 15:07, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment sadly it looks like a bit of a drive-by tagging, the tagger stating "too many problems to list currently" which isn't helpful. The tag ought to be removed until the problems are concisely identified, otherwise this is a stalemate situation. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:10, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment, first I'd like to "thank" those editors kvetching about the process (and accusing me of drive-by tagging) without doing a damn thing about the very obvious issues. Clearly none of the blurbs are acceptable, yet none of the people claiming "bias" have improved them. Second, is "dissolving parliament" by one of the two rival camps really the news-worthy event here, or should this be "ongoing"? Third, the NPOV issues should be pretty obvious, the sourcing on "Rajapaksa presidency" isn't good enough to support "increasingly authoritarian", the timeline section is a list of news stories with no particular concern for importance, "Bribing with cabinet positions" doesn't reflect that section's content, and the "Reactions" section is lousy even as far as those lousy sections go. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:12, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
And neither 2018 Sri Lankan constitutional crisis nor Nineteenth Amendment to the Constitution of Sri Lanka makes clear which of the many odd actions in the past 2 weeks violate that amendment, as is asserted in the first two blurbs. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:14, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Rightly or wrongly, what you did was drive-by tagging as you had enough time to tag and start a section but yet failed to list a single actionable item. Some of those interested in posting this may have benefitted from a clear description of the problems. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:21, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
If I had the time yesterday to list every issue with the article, I would have fixed it myself. If they can't read the article, why should I trust them to write it? power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:35, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
It's not really about you, your standards, what or who you trust, it's about informing the editing population where you thought POV issues existed. Of course, doing what you did was precisely what I said, stalemate. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:30, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Power~enwiki thanks for improving the article, but I have to agree, I think it would have better had you made a clear list to all the problems when tagging the article. I knew there were many problems with the article, but I have been out-resourced this whole time, nor could I keep up with the fast pace of the changing events. But had there been a list I could have focused on fixing those issues when I got back. Having said that, its looks like the article has gone through some changes thanks to User:Power~enwiki, User:LaserLegs and User:Openlydialectic. Are there anymore issues you would like to address?--Blackknight12 (talk) 03:16, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
The article could use about 6 hours of skilled copy-editing; the timeline sections are disjointed at best. Openlydialectic's comment about how there aren't many sources from Sri Lanka is also accurate; unfortunately I'm not sure anyone here can read Sinhala or Tamil. Finally, this still seems like an "ongoing" event rather than the (disputed) dismissal of parliament being notable on its own. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:18, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Ill do some more editing today when I have the time. But just on Openlydialectic comment, the The Daily Mirror is referenced at least 19 times. However Ill make sure to include more variety of Sri Lankan sources too. Hopefully we can get this out today.--Blackknight12 (talk) 03:39, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Question can someone help me with the "Recent events" section, it looks like it was copied almost word for word from it's only source: a BBC article. I don't know if I should tag it for copyvio or if it paraphrases enough or if more refs could save it or what. Feedback welcome. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:39, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Same with the alleged assassination attempt. The article says "Sirisena began firing the heads of state institutions not in his purview and replacing them with those loyal to him." and the NYT article it refs says "Mr. Sirisena began firing the heads of state institutions not in his purview and stacking them with loyalists.". Is this a concern? --LaserLegs (talk) 18:42, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
I don't think it's bad enough to require revdel, but it should be fixed (and should I just assume that everything that's unsourced and awkwardly written is in that BBC or NYT article?) power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:44, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
I was surprised that the ref supported that remark, honestly. You'll have to check them all. I'll get out of your way, have some yard work to do. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:47, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose The article about this crisis has two noted problems about it. That is a lot, especially for an article that we are considering posting to the home page. Furthermore, I do not know how relevant this crisis is to begin with. According to Parliament of Sri Lanka: "The President of Sri Lanka has the power to summon, suspend, prorogue, or terminate a legislative session and to dissolve the Parliament. President can dissolve Parliament only after the lapse of 4 1/2 years or if 2/3 majority of Members of Parliament requests him." While I am no expert on Sri Lankan politics, that other article makes things like this seem quite routine. Alternate Side Parking (talk) 23:54, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
User:Alternate Side Parking This parliament has only been in session since September 2015, thats only just over 3 years.--Blackknight12 (talk) 02:40, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support seems obvious, massive event. Banedon (talk) 03:14, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support A good work by Blackknight12 and massive event .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:24, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose I have a few problems with the article. There are two timelines, they need to be merged, and turned into coherent paragraphs. There is a "recent events" section in the "background" section which makes no sense. Still a number of CN tags and it needs a copyedit for grammar. More importantly though I'm not really seeing widespread coverage of this (before you stomp on my throat, that was enough to kill the Indian nuclear sub story in a few short hours) and even though I've read the article a few times, I still don't understand the problem here: an unpopular former president was made prime minister? Why? So what? --LaserLegs (talk) 11:31, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
I've done some more editing and cleaned up the article. FYI the problem here is not that an unpopular former president was made prime minister, but they way in which he was appointed, the blatant disregard for the law and the multiple violations of the constitution, among other things. I'm not sure where you are from, but this is definitely headline news in the country and the whole region. The crisis has been and currently is widely reported on internationally.--Blackknight12 (talk) 17:17, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
What does the appointment of the house leader have to do with bribery allegations? The economy section is puff. "landslide victory" is puff. Why did Sirisena replace his PM? Has he made any statements to that effect? And so what, the position is largely ceremonial. Oh well, this is certainly going to get posted, and it's better than it was, but it's very rough. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:06, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I agree that Blackknight12 has gotten the article to sufficient quality to post. I'm not sure I can support any of the blurbs; Ongoing may be a better fit. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:51, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support on notability per Banedon, Pharaoh of the Wizards, etc. It's important for Sri Lanka, for the future of democracy in the region generally, and for the long-standing and ongoing Sino-Indian and Indo-Pakistani power struggles in geopolitics (with India and (China+Pakistan) seemingly supporting opposite sides in the dispute). I leave article quality, blurb-wording, and 'blurb vs ongoing' to be judged by others. Tlhslobus (talk) 18:54, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support + alt blurb III - added alt blurb III which is shorter, to the point & makes no mention of the 19th Amendendment that has basically kept it from getting posted. (talk) 06:13, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Well that and the article doesn't explain WHY it happened, or what the impact is, just that it did happen and the opposition lost their minds over it. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:55, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose – One can't see the forest for the trees in this prolix 4,000-word article. If it belongs anywhere, it belongs in Ongoing. – Sca (talk) 14:21, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support altblurb3, which is simple and avoids POV issues. A significant threshold in an ongoing political crisis. The article may not be perfect but it's decent enough. Modest Genius talk 15:17, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support altblurb3 - This should have been posted to the main page two weeks ago when the prime minister was replaced but unfortunately the two nominations were bodged, the nominators didn't even bother to update Portal:Current events. Events have since become even more serious.--Obi2canibe (talk) 23:27, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 00:28, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I am just making a note here that, as identified in ERRORS, the SC of Sri Lanka has issued orders blocking this action. I have updated the ITN template and bumped it up a bit due to this significant change. --Masem (t) 15:31, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Imelda Marcos sentenced[edit]

Article: Imelda Marcos (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Former First Lady of the Philippines Imelda Marcos is convicted of seven counts of grafting over US$200 million to a Swiss foundation, and sentenced to serve up to 77 years in prison.
News source(s): NBC News, BBC, NYTimes
Nominator: Masem (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Article claims to be a GA but it has dozens of CN tags. Note she is (at least, just before today) a sitting politician. Also, this is a case that has been ongoing for 27 years Masem (t) 15:11, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment - I would suggest an alternative blurb that concentrates on her conviction, but not the sentencing. STSC (talk) 15:00, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - Based on the historical factor and Imeldas status. Some work needs to be done I guess, but it could be fixed before nightfall.BabbaQ (talk) 15:54, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose quality is comprehensively below what is required. Will she/can she/has she appealed? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:58, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
    • Yes, she's stated she will appeal (she's losing her current seat in the Ph. Congress, she's fighting to keep it). --Masem (t) 15:59, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose article is heavily orange-tagged, lots of referencing issues, not ready for prime time yet. --Jayron32 16:21, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Should be a shoe-in for the frontpage... Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 17:22, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - No fewer than 13 orange tags! This is not a GA, it is Start class. Mjroots (talk) 17:28, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
    • Yah, I have no idea how it got to GA or descended off that. --Masem (t) 17:31, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
    • FWIW, the quality at GA and when it was put up for FAC wasn't bad at all [3]. It's what happened in the last two years that have "ruined" the article. --Masem (t) 19:43, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support on significance, Oppose on article quality. This has to be a contender for the worst "GA" article on the project. Thryduulf (talk) 19:35, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Strongest possible wait until final confirmation of conviction, which probably won't happen anytime soon. This conviction doesn't change anything. Howard the Duck (talk) 20:56, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
    • As I understand the charges, at minimum she will spend X years of jail time per each charge (I think it was 7) - there's no way around that. As she's 80, that basically means she's going to likely die in jail from natural causes. The actual conviction here means little. --Masem (t) 22:06, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
      • She won't be actually sent to jail until after the appeals process ends. As you said that she's old, she might never be sent to jail, nor her conviction be finalized. Howard the Duck (talk) 22:08, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
        • We don't usually wait on appeals. Nearly ever conviction/sentencing is appealed, and only if that decision is flipped would we repost. --Masem (t) 06:49, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
          • Can anyone else confirm this? I like to see previous case law on this one, considering that nothing changes on Marcos' standing despite conviction, as she's still a free woman, and can still run for elective positions. Unless Marcos doesn't appeal, her conviction means nothing. Howard the Duck (talk) 09:17, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
            • I remember Joseph Estrada's case was posted upon sentencing, because he was president, and that he didn't appeal. Howard the Duck (talk) 09:52, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
        • She was found guilty, that's the main point. STSC (talk) 07:08, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
          • Meh. More people want to see her in jail. Which I guess is the main point of finding someone guilty. Howard the Duck (talk) 09:17, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
I mean the main point in the news, whether she will serve the prison term is another matter, but the conviction would automatically disqualify her from holding public office. STSC (talk) 09:49, 11 November 2018 (UTC)STSC (talk) 09:38, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
No it doesn't. A final confirmation of conviction is needed to perpetually disqualify someone from public office. If Marcos is appealing, it's not final. (Now if Marcos is pardoned, that's another matter.) Howard the Duck (talk) 09:52, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
She may apply for bail and still stand for elections pending appeal. STSC (talk) 10:20, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Exactly. It doesn't disqualify her from public office. This changes nothing. She's still a free (wo)man, can still run for office, and won't go to jail. Howard the Duck (talk) 10:23, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
It's still a victory. This news is very newsworthy in ITN. STSC (talk) 10:38, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
If there's a hollow victory, this is it. They can't even make her pay up what she stole at this point. ITN posts entries when there's a clear change of status (elections notwithstanding) on something/someone. This changes nothing. Wait until the appeals ends, then we'll talk. Howard the Duck (talk) 10:57, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
ITN posts current events, we don't just wait till something traumatic has happened. STSC (talk) 12:45, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Actually ITN does as per WP:MINIMUMDEATHS. That's why ITN posts terrorist attacks, but not when authorities foil such attacks (except for that one time when the targets are especially noteworthy). Howard the Duck (talk) 13:54, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
So it's a hard fast policy as documented by one user's essay that you've used an WP:EASTEREGG to suggest is actually policy ( circumventing the consensus at WP:RfD) . Except for that time when it wasn't a few weeks ago. Got it. ghost 14:27, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Nowhere did I say it's "hard fast policy". Howard the Duck (talk) 14:34, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - The conviction of corruption itself (at long last) is significant news about a notable former First Lady of a poor country. Must post now. STSC (talk) 21:00, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
    Must not. The quality is insufficient. Feel free to help fix it up if you feel that strongly about it being on the main page though. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:18, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
I think the ex-GA article's quality is quite acceptable as it stands. Every article is work-in-progress. Would you like to improve the article? STSC (talk) 07:19, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Well sadly you're wrong, it's nowhere near acceptable. And no, I'm not interested in this article in the slightest, but thanks for the invitation. You're supporting it, you improve it. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:44, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
I won't vote for you in ArbCom in the future then. STSC (talk) 09:05, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Honestly, that's the worst news I've had all day, and I've been awake for literally an hour. Sorry you wouldn't want your Arbs to tell you cold hard facts, the truth, rather they'd obfuscate and conceal? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:56, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Whatever, we were right to reject you in last ArbCom election. STSC (talk) 10:44, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes, and no doubt you felt the bunch you elected were ideal too. What has that got to do with anything here? I'll tell you: absolutely nothing. Stop wasting time. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:45, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Article is simply not up to scratch. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:16, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support agree with STSC. Banedon (talk) 11:08, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
    You agree that we should post items directly in contravention of ITN guidelines? I see. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:47, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per the quality of the article, not the newsworthiness of the event. Nihlus 11:57, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - "Articles are held to a minimum standard of quality. Articles should be a minimally comprehensive overview of the subject, not omitting any major items." The ex-GA article has far more than just this minimum quality required by WP:ITN. STSC (talk) 12:28, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
    As required by WP:ITN: Articles that are subject to serious issues, as indicated by 'orange'- or 'red'-level tags at either the article level or within any section, may not be accepted for an emboldened link. This article has several such "serious" issues. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:46, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
It was targeted by a massive tag-bombing recently from someone like you who can't be bothered to improve it. STSC (talk) 14:42, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
If you disagree with the tags, remove them all. If not, then no problem. You don't have to be "bothered to improve" something when pointing out there's something wrong with it. That's not how it works. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:46, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose I would like to, but unfortunately, the article needs to be fix. BSrap (talk) 14:57, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose A tagged article does not belong in In the news. ―Susmuffin Talk 04:11, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Gosh, I thought this one would be a shoe-in. – Sca (talk) 14:29, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support This is big news especially in light of the presidency direction there.Lihaas (talk) 07:49, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - Please note all the orange tags in the article have been dealt with now. STSC (talk) 17:35, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
    Just the sixty [page needed] and [citation needed] tags to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:56, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
The article has met the minimum quality requirement without any serious issue. May the rambling man keep on rambling. STSC (talk) 19:15, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Of the tags, all I see are "page needed" and "incomplete short citation". Both are issues but those are GA/FA-level completness stuff. WP:V has been just met. For purposes of expediting this, I would remove all those, but leave a link to the current version on the talk page to identify the problem citations so they can be fixed. It's definitely not a lack of sourcing at this point, just formatting of those, which we do not expect perfection at ITN. --Masem (t) 19:39, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) Camp Fire[edit]

Proposed image
Articles: Camp Fire (2018) (talk, history) and Woolsey Fire (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Camp Fire destroys the town of Paradise, California.
Alternative blurb: ​Four concurrent wildfires in California, including the Camp Fire, destroy over 190,000 acres and kill at least 25 people.
Alternative blurb II: ​Four concurrent wildfires in California, including the Camp Fire, and Woolsey Fire (pictured), destroy over 190,000 acres and kill at least 25 people.
News source(s): New York Times, AP, San Jose Mercury News, Guardian, L.A. Times, BBC
Nominator: NorthernFalcon (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: Getting slightly ahead of this one, but this fire appears to be similar to the 2016 Fort McMurray wildfire, which was posted here when it happened. I suspect this article will change rapidly over the next twelve hours. NorthernFalcon (talk) 08:15, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment I've not evaluated the story yet, but if it is posted it needs a much better blurb than that - it needs to say "camp fire" is a specific wildfire and not the usual meaning of "camp fire". It also needs some indication of significance - population? Evacuations? Deaths/injuries? Thryduulf (talk) 11:42, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Population 26,551. Also amazingly this is a place that averages 8 centimeters and 5 days of rain in October and twice or more that in November (think Mediterranean climate, like Italy), and even in the East when it can get 40C and no rain for 5-15 days and pine trees are full of turpentine this kind of thing usually doesn't happen. It takes 3 months of drought for maximum flammability. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 13:24, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose at this point on article quality, it's barely above a stub. Thryduulf (talk) 11:44, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose stub. Not really seeing how it could be much more than this, other than through immense fluffing. This probably needs to go into the Paradise article really. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:36, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Really? A fire starts sunrise, town of 27,000 ordered to evacuate hours later and some are still trapped (nearly every household has cars and officials err on the safe side especially since they must've been in an extreme national weather service red flag fire warning or something and all parts of the state are no stranger to deaths from extreme spread speed), burns everything burnable, grows to 81 square kilometers by evening and it'll be a stub forever without immense fluff? Their typical Nov 9 weather is similar to London except almost triple the rain, this is climatologically unusual. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:41, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, but nothing which couldn't be summed up in a few sentences in the Paradise article. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:47, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

  • Wait – Agree it's a stub at this point, but this looks like it could be fairly major. AP quotes fire official saying "a couple of thousand" structures destroyed, entire town "of 27,000" ordered to evacuate. San Jose paper says "the fire claimed multiple lives." SF Chronicle says "more than 30,000 people fled for their lives." Developing. Sca (talk) 13:59, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Wait Developing too quickly to speedy decline. — Moe Epsilon 14:06, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I know the news on this is the rapid destruction of Paradise due to unpredictable winds, but there's two other fires in CA going, wit the Woolsey fire also having being seen as a similar threat. While wildfires in CA are not uncommon, these two (Camp and Woosley) are extremely close to major towns and thus more threatening than those more well in the wilderness. I agree with waiting just a bit but it might be appropriate to consider a merged blurb here. --Masem (t) 15:27, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak Support the article is short, but that's true for nearly all our disaster porn. Not every day a town of this size is burned to the ground. Expect more details to emerge as residents are allowed to re-enter the area. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:55, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Global warming makes places near deserts like Cali drier by extending the dry season and growing the desert. The climate zones move poleward. The nearest weather station to fire had only 5 millimeters precipitation since April 7th — 3 mm in May and 2 on Oct 2. On ignition day it went from 4°C no wind to 22°C 40kph in 6 hours and dew point actually dropped from -12°C to -18 giving a humidity of 6% which is a third of the driest place on Earth's average. And this was about 20km upwind of and downhill from the town. No wonder it spread fast. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:04, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Wait. 5 dead now, incidentally. Black Kite (talk) 19:54, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Is it safe for body counters to search the town yet? Do they use "death specialists" like coroner for this or people who might be busy now like police? Hopefully there's enough oxygen to let it burn past you breathing a bag of air underwater or in a concrete building or something but I don't know how common that is. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:48, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Update – As of 22:000, six RSs say five dead (NYT: "at least" five) in Paradise-Chico (pop. 90,000) area, with 150,000+ evacuated, including SoCal residents in the path of the Woolsey Fire near Malibu, NW of L.A. (Sources updated above.)Sca (talk) 22:17, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I was wondering about a combined blurb or even ongoing for the various wildfires but there hasn't been a significant update to the prose at 2018 California wildfires since the summer. Thryduulf (talk) 22:30, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Adding an altblurb that talks about all three concurrent fires. While the Camp Fire has the largest attention, the other two are just as dangerous due to the problematic winds. --Masem (t) 22:33, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes the other two burned over the last major barrier (US road 101) and are threatening to burn the homes of ~100,000 people including Malibu. Wow. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:13, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. The Camp Fire is now the most destructive wildfire in California history. The city of Chico, California, pop. 90,000, is on the edge. By comparison, the Fort MacMurray wildfire of two years ago, which we posted, caused an evacuation of 80,000 people with no direct deaths. (talk) 05:02, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support buying it now, just surprised Trump has said it would have been better contained if the population of Paradise had been more fully armed.  The Rambling Man (talk) 12:26, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
I heard he was blaming the media for the fires. Sca (talk) 15:58, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
It's the migrant caravan, that's why democrats want open borders. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:28, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak support. The article could use some improvements. wumbolo ^^^ 13:10, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support (Alt) – As of 14:00, "at least" nine dead, more expected in Paradise area; 200,000 told to evacuate in SoCal. (Sources updated above.)Sca (talk) 14:18, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Camp Fire only, as the general California wildfire article is not in good enough shape. Teemu08 (talk) 14:42, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
    • Whats wrong with the general wildfires page? Everything is sourced, it even surprisingly goes into the reasons for the fires this year. Further, to not post the other major fires going on is putting too much emphasis on the Camp Fire. All three (now four?) fires are wrecking havoc and multiple blazes make fighting just one more difficult. --Masem (t) 15:48, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support this situation is clearly notable enough for the main page. Lepricavark (talk) 15:09, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support (with note that I'm in the affected area) – added a picture along the PCH looking toward Malibu from the Woolsey Fire. So many homes lost here and in Northern California; the Camp Fire is the most destructive in Cali history, definitely ITN-worthy. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:05, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per Cyclonebiskit. -- Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:09, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  • First, let me blow the Camp Fire ash out of my nose, then I will support pbp 03:22, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • As a note to the posting admin, I've put the picture into the bot queue to get the right protections. Hasn't taken yet. --Masem (t) 06:59, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Posting ALT 2. Holding off on the photo for now. – Muboshgu (talk) 07:43, 11 November 2018 (UTC) Image swapped. – Muboshgu (talk) 07:47, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

November 8[edit]

Portal:Current events/2018 November 8
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

(Posted) RD: François N. Macerola[edit]

Article: François N. Macerola (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: Canadian lawyer and film executive. Looks reasonably good to me - Dumelow (talk) 00:04, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment The National Film Board of Canada references are broken. The NFB appears to have redesigned its site sometime in the past several years. Hrodvarsson (talk) 00:59, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
I fixed that. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 04:29, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) 2018 Thousand Oaks Shooting[edit]

WP:SNOW, withdrawn by nominator; Strong consensus against posting. Sadly routine for the US. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 15:46, 8 November 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: Thousand Oaks shooting (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Twelve people were shot dead by a gunman at a dance hall in Thousand Oaks, California.
News source(s): NYT
Nominator: WaltCip (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: A shooting in the USA with a rather high body count (11 plus a Sheriff's deputy, and the gunman himself). WaltCip (talk) 12:18, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment at what point do those shootings become so regular that they no longer belong on ITN? It's been less than two weeks since the Pittsburgh synagogue shooting. --Gerrit CUTEDH 12:23, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
At the point that they stop becoming news.--WaltCip (talk) 12:24, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Juventus vs Man Utd last night is news but it's not on the home page here, so it's got to be more than that. This is at least the 17th mass shooting in the US this year if our cat is accurate – 2018 mass shootings in the United States – albeit it's one of the bigger ones. Ericoides (talk) 13:06, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
It is because of the size that I exercised discretion and chose to nominate this to ITN, since you are correct in that there are simply too many mass shootings in the U.S. to nominate (only 17 by your count?).--WaltCip (talk) 13:17, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Oppose If, jeebus forbid, shootings with 10+ deaths started happening every week, we would stop posting them all. A threshold of frequency does exist, it's just a question of where it lies. We had Stoneman in Feb (17), Sante Fe in May (10) and Pittsburgh in Oct(11). Absent some additional circumstance, I think we've reached BAU now. ghost 13:59, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now due to the article being a stub. When the article is expanded to a reasonable size, will re-evaluate its quality. --Jayron32 12:40, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support While the article is a stub, this is notable. Mass shooting in the United States with more than 10 deaths is automatically notable IMHO. Also, 13 people have now been confirmed dead by CBS News. — Matthew Wong (at PMA), 12:45, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose There's no real point opposing due to stub status, as it will very soon be anything but. You know wat these articles are like. ——SerialNumber54129 12:53, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
    And when it is not a stub, I will reassess the quality. We shouldn't post an article on the main page that is of insufficient quality. --Jayron32 13:16, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support on notability. It shouldn't be too long before it is expanded to sufficient length as more details come in.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:23, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I don't understand what makes this different to any of the other mass shootings that happen in the US? The Pennsylvania shooting was different as a clearly religiously motivated attack on a synagogue - even in the US that is not routine. However a man randomly shooting dead students with no immediately obvious motivation is, incredibly sadly, rather run-of-the-mill for the USA in the 2010s. The body count isn't all that exceptional either - it's only the 6th most deadly in the last 3 years. Thryduulf (talk) 13:49, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. 'Country with virtually no gun control and poor health services surprised when people get shot'. Although frankly if it does get posted, just take a line out of The Onion's book and recycle the headline from any number of the previous shootings. Its not been news for years. If ITN is going to be a news-ticker of sensationalism, it should be covering the Whitehouse's attacks on the free press and blatant distribution of doctored video footage while lying about it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:09, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose because at this point, it is just old news. A mass shooting breaks out, a couple bystanders die. There isn't really anything that sets this different from other shootings that had happened in this year alone... and honestly, if a mass shooting isn't distinguished from other similar incidents (i.e the aforementioned Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania synagogue shooting), it doesn't really deserve a spot here unless there is more than meets the eye here, and we already have more than enough ITN coverages on shootings in the U.S alone. GreatZerosReef (talk) 14:14, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict × 2) Oppose per Thryduulf. Sadly such shootings are basically routine in the US and will likely be largely forgotten within a day or two. I might revisit this if new information reveals something different about this shooting compared to all the others. Regards SoWhy 14:30, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
    • Also, unlike other such shootings, coverage outside the US is slim at best. For example, Der Spiegel has three stories about the US on their homepage at the moment: The first two muslimas in the House, Jim Acosta and Ruth Bader Ginsburg's hospitalization. Top story btw? Courts ordering bans on driving of diesel cars in certain cities. Regards SoWhy 14:51, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
And it's way down the list in "Headlines" ("Schlagzeilen"). – Sca (talk) 14:59, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Business as usual in the United States. Article is just above stub standard. Ribbet32 (talk) 14:49, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Wait – Until perp is ID'd, at least. Meanwhile we can ponder Gerrit 's question at the top of this discussion. To be frank, I'm getting inured to news of U.S. mass shootings that seem random rather than terrorist acts (even though I'm American). This looks like another nutcase. Sca (talk) 14:52, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose barring anything odd in the identification of the shooter. In contrast to the synagogue shooting, which was a religious/ethnic-driven shooting that borders on terrorism, this appears to be far less ideologically driven and more random act of violence. --Masem (t) 15:02, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose another day another mass shooting. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:33, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose We don't post about mass murders in other places of the world where they are a common occurence (like the recent rebelion in a Tajik prison where 40 people died and which doesn't even have a standalone article on wikipedia), so why should the US be any different? I mean, it's not like these things don't happen there every month or so --Openlydialectic (talk) 15:34, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Consensus seems clear. Move to withdraw nom.--WaltCip (talk) 15:45, 8 November 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.

November 7[edit]

Portal:Current events/2018 November 7
Arts and culture
Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

Politics and elections

(Posted) RD: Francis Lai[edit]

Article: Francis Lai (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC
Nominator: Sherenk1 (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: Oscar-winning French composer. Referencing issues. Sherenk1 (talk) 13:05, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose: referencing is very poor - Dumelow (talk) 13:36, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The referencing is still well below the required standard - only half the prose is referenced, the filmography is sourced to IMDB and the awards are unsourced. The "Personal life" section also needs expanding or merging into the "life and career" section (and sourcing). Thryduulf (talk) 11:47, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. Referencing improved. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:20, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak support much better than when I took a look, expand a lead a little and reference the Césars, and I think we're in business. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:39, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
    Sorry, but the remaining three César nominations have totally stumped me. The article has no sources either. Any help much appreciated. Of they could be just commented out for now, of course. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:50, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
    Not really sure what the problem is here that's preventing posting. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:20, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
    Lack of consensus to post, lack of interested admins on a Sunday night, who knows? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:11, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
    Lack of consensus because the opposes are now out of date? Could notable people please try and die on a Monday in future. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:21, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
    Probably. I think we already knew something about that. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:30, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
    Chance or Coincidence? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:36, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 21:43, 11 November 2018 (UTC)


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 [] 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: