(Posted) RD: Tony Bullimore

 The Rambling Man (talk) 13:21, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak support Not the most fleshed-out article, but meets minimum standards and is referenced. Spencer^T•C 00:50, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted Stephen 01:28, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Ron Dellums

Nominator's comments: Political titan. Article needs some more sourcing, which I can work on tonight. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:37, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support when fully sourced; Mobushgu, if you need any help tomorrow (it's midnight here) let me know. Black Kite (talk) 22:49, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Black Kite: I didn't get to it last night. I'd appreciate any help you can offer, since I don't know that I can get to it today. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:17, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Cited pretty fully now. Black Kite (talk) 15:33, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Well-referenced, covers subject fully. Spencer^T•C 16:10, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:02, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted to Ongoing) Carr fire

Article: Carr Fire (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ A wildfire in the vicinity of Redding, California, has burned over 125,000 acres (506 km²), caused the evacuation of over 38,000 people, and resulted in at least six deaths. (Post)
News source(s): BBC, Al Jazeera, CNN, NBC news, NPR, AP, Guardian.
Credits:

• Nominated by Jayron32 (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Article quality seems sufficient, no obvious referencing errors, and updated within the past 24 hours. Jayron32 12:10, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support in the news all weekend, article is pretty good, especially for a recent disaster. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:28, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The BBC notes that "Wildfires are a common occurrence in California during the state's long, hot, dry summers." That said, I would submit this may be better suited for Ongoing, as this is not the only active wildfire in California right now. 331dot (talk) 12:31, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Typhoons flood in the wet season, summer heat scorches. The number of evacuations of the Carr makes it unusual. Still if you have a candidate for ongoing, let me know. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:44, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – It's a big, fierce fire that has affected thousands of residents, but – despite the tragic death Sunday of a firefighter – the number of victims isn't large on a global scale. Sca (talk) 14:52, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because early warning, fire fighting, and infrastructure systems in the United States are more developed? WP:MINIMUMDEATHS is a red link once again. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:15, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's a natural (or semi-natural, depending on cause) disaster for the area affected, but as yet poses no wider significance. (I say this as someone who has a close relative, a USFS employee, currently deployed on a 27 sq. mi. / 71 sq. km. wildfire in Idaho. You won't see any mention of this fire on major news sites, as such fires aren't unusual this time of year – and there have been no casualties.) Sca (talk) 21:53, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak oppose Unless this grows larger, I'm w/ Sca on this - while this wasn't a natural wildfire, (a vehicle started it) its spread has followed the typical wildfire pattern and timing. That said, it is still growing, they are only about 20% contained, I would not rule out any posting if the death toll increases, but as they've been issuing a huge swath of evacuations, I doubt the number will grow much more. --Masem (t) 15:03, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, significant wildfire that continues to be in the news. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:01, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose we keep getting told how California is like the 9th biggest economy on the planet, so an evacuation of a handful of residents doesn't seem notable during a season where fires are commonplace. Sure, it's inconvenient, but then so was 64 days without rain for my grass. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:28, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Typical, somebody has gone and hatted the least boring dialogue here, and there was me thinking Wikipedia was supposedly not censored. Tlhslobus (talk) 04:01, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On second thoughts, hatting is arguably a commendable way to advertise the bits that people like me would never bother to read except for the hat. Except that advertising tends to disimprove it by removing the element of surprise. Tlhslobus (talk) 04:20, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment a little context --LaserLegs (talk) 18:38, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh, I didn't realise the Greek fires were a seasonal event with a highly limited impact, I thought they killed nearly 100 and were probably a result of multiple arson events combined with unseasonal weather? Tsk, must try harder TRM. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:42, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Was it that many, I didn't realize that there was a WP:MINIMUMDEATHS for wildfires caused by human activity. If you could just point me to the relevant policy, we'll be all set. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:03, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't follow you at all. This has nothing to do with something you've made up. This is about impact and notability. Regular wildfires which disrupt a tiny, tiny, tiny portion of a village don't equate to rare arson attacks which leave scores dead. So you actually didn't really provide "context", more you provided a story we did post about a completely different event. And as you know, ITN is not governed by "policy" outside the usual Wikipedia policies, so asking me to point you to a "relevant policy" is actually pointless if you aren't already aware of WP:POLICY. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:12, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, I shared a link for another wildfire which forced evacuations and fatalities. You're welcome. "I thought they killed nearly 100" so if you could just let me know what the WP:MINIMUMDEATHS for a wildfire to be notable is, we're all set. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:17, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  You're missing the point again. It's not just the deaths, it's the irregular nature of it. Of course, California has such inconvenience annually. If you can point me to the last time a mass arson event occurred in Greece, we're all set. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:20, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Ohhhhh, the "irregular nature"? Ok, how about some record heat? Just let me know the WP:MINIMUMTEMPERATURE for heatwave notability and we're all set. Sorry about your lawn, I hope it's not a raging inferno that's destroyed nearly one thousand structures! --LaserLegs (talk) 17:56, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  MINIMUMHEAT: 85 in Britain, 129 in California. But in all seriousness MINIMUMHEATWAVE and MINIMUMFIRE should be based to some degree on rarity so California wildfires do have a higher bar. 101.424242424242 degrees happens a lot in California but would be a blurb in Britain. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:10, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment California has wildfires on a regular basis. They threaten to destroy significant towns once or twice a year, at least recently (the Tubbs Fire last October, the Thomas Fire last December, a smaller one earlier this month). If a significant part of Redding is destroyed, this is notable. As something that has caused evacuations but only minor (500 houses being minor in comparison to 50000) property destruction, I don't think it quite reaches the notability threshold. If it gets worse, it will. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:38, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Meh That shit burn all the time. That ain't news.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 21:23, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose this fire is certainly unfortunate for those affected, but others have noted that wildfires in California are somewhat common. I agree with TRM that this is quite different from the wildfires in Greece that killed at least 91 people. Lepricavark (talk) 22:04, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• It was interesting to me that both the LA Times and the NY Times covered it in depth (major sources from the two largest cities in the US). However, we do have a lot of fires. Killiondude (talk) 22:13, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Minor fires on a global scale. HiLo48 (talk) 22:31, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Fatalities, made the news. pbp 23:37, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Per Sca and others – if more people are killed, maybe, but California seems to always be on fire.  Nixinova  T  C  00:50, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - Wildfires in California are a fairly regular occurrence.--WaltCip (talk) 11:03, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I think the WP:MINIMUMDEATHS debate here and elsewhere points to a logical re-calibration on these types of events. ITNC is meant to judge coverage, article quality, and significance. While any disasters (natural or man-made) can draw coverage, those with greater than normal fatalities can draw greater than normal coverage. Body counts can be a useful counter-argument to those who dismiss widespread coverage as sensationalism, but it should not apply to discussion of significance. Further, because significance is so subjective, we should be lenient on significance when quality and coverage are both high. ghost 11:36, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Note Updated values in blurb due to most recent estimates. --Jayron32 13:48, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment-2 – Now, with more than 800 homes torched, thousands more threatened, 3,600 firefighters deployed, and the fire only 27 percent contained, this is beginning to look like ongoing material. Sca (talk) 14:26, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wildfires in California.--WaltCip (talk) 16:20, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment With over 1200 buildings destroyed, it's already more destructive than last years Thomas fire and is the third largest in CA history. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:00, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  7th actually. But at this rate it's quickly rising in rank. Global warming, yo. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:34, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  It became 6th sometime between then and now. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:03, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  I was referring to number of structures destroyed, my bad. This is what "minor inconvenience" looks like for the people who are so quick to dismiss. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:49, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose blurb, neutral ongoing - the fire has not yet reached a threshold of significance at which I would consider a fully fledged blurb to be required. Low quantity of deaths, and only the seventh most destructive fire in one state means that the impact is not there yet, especially compared to the Greek fires. I would be more open to an ongoing listing, directed either at Carr fire, or to the broader 2018 California wildfires, with improvements to article quality for the latter, as the Carr fire is just one of many ongoing wildfires at the moment. Stormy clouds (talk) 21:32, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb or ongoing I've seen lots of coverage of this. Developing story. Davey2116 (talk) 23:25, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb or ongoing I’m still seeing plenty of coverage of this. Pawnkingthree (talk) 01:01, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb or ongoing with the same reasons as above. Abequinn14 (talk) 15:41, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment at least the pets have found somewhere to call home. Phew! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:02, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thousands of people have lost their homes TRM, why the drive by sarcasm? You've made your opposition clear already. Come on. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:23, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support let's not be anti-US biased. This caused evacuations, dominates local news, killed people - should be sufficient, even if it's sort of a common event. Banedon (talk) 23:55, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted to ongoing. The proposed blurb is too wordy and the fire will likely last at least another week, so ongoing makes sense. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:28, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Probably the thing to do when the fire is out is to blurb that and let it expire off. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:39, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

National Register of Citizens of India

Nominator's comments: Big impact. Article has not been updated. Sherenk1 (talk) 09:18, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose on quality: not updated, missing refs everywhere, needs copyedit. As for the "significance", Bangladesh was East Pakistan before independence, not an Indian state, these people were never citizens. The policy is cruel, but "stripped of their citizenship" is a tad alarmist. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:12, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for all the same reasons as above; lack of quality update, poor quality of article in general, sensationalist tone in blurb. --Jayron32 12:00, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support in principle, due to the story's importance, tho in practice I don't expect this to make the grade on quality grounds (and I've got no plans to work on it). The story seems to be of relevance both to well over a billion people in India and Bangladesh, and to every other democracy with a large unpopular group of actual or alleged 'illegal immigrants', including the USA and much or all of the EU, perhaps especially (but not only) when these tend to provide votes disproportionately for the opposition. It's also of relevance to our readers' understanding of issues such as Islamophobia, racism, multi-culturalism, right-wing populism, the so-called clash of civilizations, and so on. Tlhslobus (talk) 05:15, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Chrysa Spiliotis

Nominator's comments: Most sources in Greek and translation tools lack finesse however think it meets quality standard for MP. Have listed this nomination on the date her body was identified. MurielMary (talk) 10:17, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Notable and the article is referenced enough. I spot checked a few refs and we can accept the rest on good faith. BTW, what a heroic and tragic death. Spiliotis apparently reached safety at a beach, where she left her dog, but returned to the area of the fire to find her husband. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 01:58, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted Stephen 22:50, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) RD: Oliver Dragojević

(Closed) RD: Brian Christopher

(Posted) 2018 Tour de France

Article: 2018 Tour de France (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In cycling, Geraint Thomas wins the Tour de France. (Post)
News source(s): The Guardian
Credits:

• Nominated by Yorkshiresky (talk · give credit)

Article updated
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

Nominator's comments: May want to mention in blurb that this is a first win by a Welshman. yorkshiresky (talk) 17:40, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support A very notable win. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:54, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Article is in good shape so should be posted pronto. There's a ref error that I'll fix. Schwede66 19:15, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Everything looks in order. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:28, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose vast sections of the race overview without sources. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:05, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Now sourced. Black Kite (talk) 20:33, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Most of Route and stages and several bullet points in Classification leadership without refs. If we're "not a ticker" then we don't need to race to post this. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:24, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Looks fine now. Black Kite (talk) 20:33, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Ready to go. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:03, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted Had seen article state at posting, but didn't comment then, but definitely improved since. --Masem (t) 23:25, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Question: Why are we providing free advertising for Geraint Thomas to about 12 million people per day? 2600:100F:B11B:F7E4:112F:611C:677A:FD99 (talk) 05:51, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because we are corrupt and evil. (What a strange question?) It's actually because he won the biggest bike race in the world. HiLo48 (talk) 06:13, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Tomasz Stańko

Article: Tomasz Stańko (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
Credits:

• Nominated by Martinevans123 (talk · give credit)

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Polish trumpeter, composer and improviser strongly associated with free jazz and the avant-garde. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:53, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Although brief, article adequately covers the subject's life and work. Spencer^T•C 20:45, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose some of the latter sections are weakly referenced, e.g. "Tomasz Stańko Quintet", "Video albums", "Appearances"... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:35, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Article is satisfactory and notable enough for RD Mkwia (talk) 18:51, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• More sources now added. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:50, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak oppose per the state of "Appearances" section. That is not a negligible section for a jazz musician. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 20:12, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm sure you won't mind helping to find refs for a few of those 10 unsourced items. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:21, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As always, it would be a pleasure. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 20:24, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discogs is not RS. Even I can edit Discogs.com, and I have before.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 21:19, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So looks like 8 sources are now still needed. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:30, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Good to go. We can can crowd source formatting the refs per MOS. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 14:30, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Have now added the remaining three sources. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:09, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ad Orientem: Thanks. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 18:36, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Posted -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:43, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Malian presidential election, 2018

(Posted) 2018 Lombok earthquake

Nominator's comments: 14 dead on tourist island of Lombok. Sherenk1 (talk) 11:19, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Breaking News: The number has just risen to 15. I'm from Indonesia BTW, so I saw it on TV but up to this moment I haven't been able to find any international sources stating it.–Angga1061 12:10, 29 July 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Angga1061 (talk • contribs) I think this has yet to be verified, but still, it is a pretty high death toll. (P.S. I moved it to July 28, because it happened on that date at UTC although it happened on July 29 at local time.) –Angga1061 16:49, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

More—updated—international coverage:

• Al Jazeera
• BBC: "More than 200 hikers are trapped" on Mount Rinjani.
• CNN
• Deutsche Welle: "Hikers trapped on Lombok volcano after Indonesia earthquake"

–Angga1061 06:00, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

• Support BBC has toll up to 16. Article has good coverage, and its got clear international coverage (just slow reaction due to the remote location) --Masem (t) 14:57, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support good article, good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:38, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted Stephen 23:01, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) North American Heat Wave

(Posted) Archbishop Theodore McCarrick Resigns from the College of Cardinals

Nominator's comments: Major scandal receiving global news coverage. The section on his early career has some serious gaps in referencing. Otherwise the article is not in bad shape. Ad Orientem (talk) 15:39, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. I have taken care of some of the referencing gaps. First resignation since 1927 seems highly significant to me. Neutrality^talk 15:47, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nice job on the article cleanup and referencing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:34, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Notable, and the article is ready. Davey2116 (talk) 17:16, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The blurb should specify the country, maybe something like "American Archbishop...". Isa (talk) 19:41, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea and done. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:05, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Article good and ready to go. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:52, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support the house of cards is creaking... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:07, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose no refs for the first para of the retirement section. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:05, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Few other missing refs and a dead link - don't have time to read/check the rest now, maybe later. Probably a waste of time anyway... --LaserLegs (talk) 21:14, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'm done tagging, not terrible, but needs work. I'm concerned that a lot of his history is from primary sources (web archive copies of his bio from the Archdiocese of Washington and Archdiocese of Newark) - none of the content is alarming, but it'd be nice to not rely on WP:PRIMARY sources for this. Regarding "significance" I'm not sure how this is any different from Harvey Weinstein - McCarrick hasn't been convicted or even charged - which makes this stink of WP:RGW. Story was headline news today, which is all I care about if the refs are fixed. #twocents. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:40, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

These reference issues are all fixed. Neutrality^talk 14:51, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support now GTG nice work.

• Comment In the blurb, there ought to be a comma after "misconduct". Personally I would rewrite it as Following sexual-misconduct allegations, American Archbishop Theodore McCarrick becomes the first cleric to resign from the College of Cardinals in 91 years. — Hugh (talk) 20:37, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted with comma comment above. --Masem (t) 23:24, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Longest lunar eclipse of the 21st century

Nominator's comments: Also anyone who looks at the eclipse will surely notice the unusually color saturated (see mesopic vision) and bright "star" about 6° away (the brightest Mars between 2003 and 2035). Since the Red Planet is only this bright for like 3 weeks once per 15, 17, 32 or 47 years and there's only c. 0.04 total lunar eclipses per 3 weeks then just having a "blood moon" and "blood planet" this bright at the same time won't happen again till everyone alive now dies of old age. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 09:07, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I added sources and a blurb. TompaDompa (talk) 10:08, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Insufficient citations. I'd only support this if it gets up prior. "There's a lunar eclipse tonight" is not terribly exciting. "There was a lunar eclipse last night" is utterly banal. ghost 12:06, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments: lunar eclipses are fairly frequent, see List of 21st-century lunar eclipses. According to that article, this one will be 104 minutes, whereas several others this century will be 102 minutes and there was one in 2000 that was 108 minutes. So while the blurb is technically correct, it's a tiny difference and rests on knowing the exact definition of 21st century. Does that really make it more notable than other lunar eclipses or merit being the main focus of the blurb? If this does get posted, I don't think any ITN blurb should ever go up until the event happens, but this one could go up as soon as the eclipse begins (IIRC we've done that before with eclipses). Modest Genius ^talk 13:04, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The longest of the 4203 total lunar eclipses from 3000 BC to 3000 AD is 106.6 minutes, 104 is not that far from the maximum possible. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:00, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then it looks like the 108 minute entry on List of 21st-century lunar eclipses is incorrect. Modest Genius ^talk 16:17, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some predictions, especially taken from books before fast computers, might still be using a spherical Earth even though other(s) try to figure out the exact density altitude that on average causes the sharpest dropoff in brightness (somewhere around the troposphere-stratosphere border I think, troposphere has a lot of clouds and can make even the Sun dim enough to look at remember) and account for the equatorial bulge of this altitude (which is more bulged than sea level). The place I got 106.6 minutes says 2000 was 106.4 minutes. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:42, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify: I'm not opposed to posting this if lunar eclipses are considered to be notable enough every time they occur (though in which case they should be added to ITNR). I've not been through the archives to see how we treated earlier ones. Right now this is all rather moot anyway, because the article is woefully under-developed, under-referenced and mostly just repeats material from lunar eclipse. Modest Genius ^talk 13:49, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For the record: We posted the total lunar eclipses of December 2010 (first to coincide with a December solstice since 1638), April 2014 (nothing special to make it more notable than a "regular" total lunar eclipse as far as I can tell), and January 2018 (first "super blue blood moon" in 35 years). The September 2015 and April 2015 ones weren't nominated, whereas the April 2015, December 2011, and June 2011 ones were nominated but not posted. That's a complete rundown of the total lunar eclipses of the past 10 years. TompaDompa (talk) 13:54, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Mostly based on Modest Genius; a 104 min vs a 102 min in an otherwise frequent event is not all that great. Also, while I know the motion of the moon/earth/sun are generally fixed and calculated so that we have reasonably strong assurance that this is the longest one of the next 80 years, I think it is brushing up on CRYSTAL to make this claim. (It's not that this won't be 104 min, but that if some asteroid hits the moon and shifts its orbit a bit, things could change). --Masem (t) 13:30, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support before the eclipse happens. "You'll be able to witness this cool astronomical event" is a lot more notable than "You missed seeing this cool event. Too bad we didn't tell you about it earlier, lol." Databased (talk) 13:41, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support if it can be reworded per asteroids and aliens, i.e. "likely". Just kidding about the aliens.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 20:06, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't the the Moon's orbit has ever been affected by an impact event enough for man to notice. If man was around billions of years ago sure but the oldest Moon position records are only a few thousand years old. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:27, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

With scientists doing things like this, can we really be sure the moon's orbit will not change for the next 82! years. It likely won't change.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 22:11, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anybody doubts that the moon's orbit will change in the next 4.75 × 10¹²² years. TompaDompa (talk) 22:48, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Touché! Nice one. In the end, I am in the support camp. I feel no need to fight over symantics.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 23:15, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't recommend it ether. Sca (talk) 21:43, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment we passed on ten new moons for Jupiter, posting this would be obvious earth-bias. This isn't earth-o-pedia, we need to have a galactic view. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:48, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Virgo cluster of clusters of groups of galaxies bias! Only 0.0000005% of stories should be from that supercluster of galaxies. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:37, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak oppose but only because lunar eclipses are pretty dull. I imagine that's why they're not on ITNR. Banedon (talk) 01:37, 27 July 2018 (UTC) Switch to Support since I'm seeing lots of coverage now that the event is taking place. Post ASAP. Banedon (talk) 04:42, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per above. Also, this should be posted before the eclipse occurs. Davey2116 (talk) 02:31, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per LaserLegs, in the interests of avoiding geocentrism on astronomical topics.--WaltCip (talk) 13:10, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support We've posted notable lunar eclipses before. Article is good enough. Passes WP:MINIMUMLENGTHOFECLIPSE. Black Kite (talk) 13:25, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose — No doubt it'll be a dramatic sight in many places, but practical impact and long-term significance are nil. (This user speaks as a veteran of the 2017 solar eclipse.) – Sca (talk) 14:37, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per WaltCip; 100% of Wikipedia's customers are Earth-based and we should not be concerned about "geocentrism" for content on the main page. This should be posted in the next hour; there's no point posting it after the eclipse. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:35, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Is there some sarcasm I'm not getting, or are people actually opposing this because it's "Earth-centric"? Everything we post is "Earth-centric"! Davey2116 (talk) 21:02, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Aside from being the longest in a century, the eclipse also falls on the opposition of Mars which is a rare coincidence. Brandmeister^talk 21:04, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Once per 1,113 years on average (1.428 years per total lunar eclipse, 1 out of 780 UTC days is an opposition of Mars) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:49, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - only local news coverage. wumbolo ^^^ 21:53, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here your go.[1].--- Coffeeandcrumbs 22:52, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And you gave me a link to an Earth-based search engine. Such geocentricism! wumbolo ^^^ 23:08, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Non-intersupercluster search engines make Glaaargxkhxtht'x mad. Virgo Supercluster chauvinism. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:16, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I love this thread. We should create WP:GEOCENTRICISM as a redirect to here. Admin watching, it is well past the time you should have posted IM!HO. I think it is not too late.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 23:23, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Interesting, thought-provoking. Agree that this should be posted asap for timeliness. Jusdafax (talk) 23:36, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Marked for admin, indeed it's a time-sensitive item. Brandmeister^talk 19:06, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - God bless Earth! And nowhere else! Spengouli (talk) 04:14, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Close – The big event is over, continuing coverage is nil, and this item is getting stale fast. Sca (talk) 14:32, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Close - Event's already happened, no longer in the news. Stale.--WaltCip (talk) 16:30, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Almost every item in the box is for things which have already happened. I'm not sure why this would be different. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:06, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

⇒ Because it had zero practical affect on anyone. Sca (talk) 14:58, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Exactly. Closing would be repeating the mistake of pulling the U.S. government shutdown in January. Davey2116 (talk) 20:22, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We've already used up all the longest eclipses of the century (solar, lunar, annular). I'll nominate the 22nd century's longest (2141, 2168, 2186) further in advance. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:20, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Do not close I'm not sure why this hasn't been posted. There's a narrow but definitive consensus. Davey2116 (talk) 19:59, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I miscounted. Going on !votes, there's a 10–4 consensus, and that's counting a nonsensical !oppose based on WP:GEOCENTRISM. It would be an egregious mistake to not post this. Davey2116 (talk) 15:15, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: I'd re-write this blurb as The longest total lunar eclipse in the 21st century occurred on July 27. — Hugh (talk) 20:39, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted Stephen 23:06, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 • Dang, I was hoping we could say goodnight to this old moon story. Sca (talk) 15:04, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Disney acquires Fox

Nominator's comments: This is effectively completing the merger beyond a few smaller details; Comcast's withdrawn their offer, and Disney's already got the DoJ's approval by splitting off some of Fox's networks. As we generally post business details when the ink is dry on the agreement, this seems like the time to post. And the size of this merger is huge. Masem (t) 15:34, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as the proposer mentioned, this is done and huge. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:28, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose article title says it all. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:57, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article likely needs to be moved. It's no longer proposed, it's done. --Masem (t) 17:21, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Didn't we already post it when it was first announced? Cambalachero (talk) 18:36, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • We did actually [Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/December 2017 in December], but given the whole aspect of Comcast's attempt, causing the deal to be raised and requiring the shareholder input, this changed significantly. --Masem (t) 21:51, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Obviously notable. The article should be re-named as above, but otherwise it's good to go. Davey2116 (talk) 21:05, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Stricken per minor regulatory hurdles mentioned below. However, this is still clearly the time to post. Davey2116 (talk) 00:53, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Users at the talk page seem to disagree about the acquisition being completed. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 22:13, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a couple more hurdles in terms of foreign gov'ts but most sources consider this deal to be done and over with, given the Justice Dep'ts earlier signoff. Those gov't could block the deal, but that rarely makes the news as much as events like this here - hence the wording of the blurb (which I did just change to reflect it being an acquisition rather than a merger_) --Masem (t) 00:13, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Really big news. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:55, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support this is huge news. Lepricavark (talk) 02:28, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very notable development. Hrodvarsson (talk) 22:46, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The largest movie studio acquires #4? Bigger news than anything we have up now. ghost 14:10, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted Stephen 22:51, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) RD: Chiyo Miyako

(Posted) Pakistani general election, 2018 / Pakistani general election, 2018 violence

Articles: Pakistani general election, 2018 (talk · history · tag) and Pakistani general election, 2018 violence (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Imran Khan's (pictured) Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf wins a plurality in the Pakistani general election. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Imran Khan's (pictured) Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf wins a plurality in the Pakistani general election that was marred by violence.
News source(s): Al jazeeraEvening Standard, AP. BBC
Credits:

• Nominated by Sherenk1 (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Störm (talk · give credit), Jibran1998 (talk · give credit) and SheriffIsInTown (talk · give credit)

One or both nominated events are listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

Nominator's comments: Opening again. Polls to close in 10 mins. Results in 12 hours. Sherenk1 (talk) 12:49, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• So nominate it in >12 hours, after the article has been updated with the results. There's nothing to discuss until then! Modest Genius ^talk 16:17, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment To repeat a comment from another editor from a ITN discussion about a previous election, "All we are doing is getting a jump on discussing the quality of the article and the eventual wording of the blurb. This is a useful exercise in that it can facilitate getting what is an obvious ITNR item up in a timely manner". Chrisclear (talk) 00:39, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have added a second article about all the violence for combined alt. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 01:31, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support as plurality is official. Sources:[2][3] --- Coffeeandcrumbs 06:30, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Quality articles about an ITN/R item. Chrisclear (talk) 04:13, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Once all the results are in, etc. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:01, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Imran Khan (PTI) has claimed victory: BBC
• Strong support Although election results are still coming in, however, clearly Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf is the winner. I'm ready to support this once the counting is over and article is updated. A major election in a major country. --Saqib (talk) 15:57, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose "General Elections 2018 was held under new delimitation of constituencies which was result of 2017 Census of Pakistan" article needs a copyedit before it can go to MP. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:39, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Party of Ex-PM Nawaz Sharif concedes to Imran Khan BBC — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sherenk1 (talk • contribs) 13:34, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – Khan wins 43 percent of seats in the National Assembly; must form coalition to govern. Sca (talk) 14:48, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Its ready to get posted. The article has been c/e and looks good to go. 122.8.251.250 (talk) 15:21, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, preferably alt-blurb. Articles are pretty good. Davey2116 (talk) 17:19, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Not quite ready yet(Now Ready): [RTE] says, among other things, "European Union observers were critical of the political climate in the run up to the vote, saying there was not a level playing field. The United States voiced similar concerns." The article has quite a bit about the EU position, but seemingly nothing yet about the US position, even tho most of our readers are probably from the US, and the US-Pakistan relationship (quite unlike the EU-Pakistan relationship) has been a rather important issue in geopolitics for decades. The US response is presumably also of far greater interest to our Pakistani readers than is the EU response. But I'm not sure that I'm the best person to try to fix this myself, and I expect there are better (more detailed) sources to quote on this than RTE. Tlhslobus (talk) 17:54, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some other possibly relevant sources from Google:

• • Times of India, 26 July: Doubts raised in US over fairness of Pakistan elections
  • Times of islamabad: US state department response over general elections 2018 in Pakistan, 26 Jul, 2018
  • Express News, Pakistani version:US Questions Fairness of Pakistan Elections | Headlines 3 PM | 28 July 2018 | Express News
  • Time, 1 day ago: Imran Khan Is Pakistan's Donald Trump. Here's What That Means for Relations Between Their Countries
  • Washington Post, 23 hours ago: The Latest: US commends ‘courage’ of Pakistanis who voted
  • Daily Express, UK, 3 days ago: Pakistan election 2018: Trump administration REFUSES to declare the polls 'FREE AND FAIR'

Tlhslobus (talk) 18:20, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have started Pakistani general election, 2018#International.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 19:06, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think I'll now check the other sources above to see if anything more is needed, and whether or not any of it is important enough to need a mention in the lead. I expect to accept that it's ready to go in between half an hour and two hours from now.Tlhslobus (talk) 19:18, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a bit more from the above sources, and I'm now withdrawing my objection and restoring the Ready tag.Tlhslobus (talk) 19:58, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support alt blurb. Khan should be mentioned. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:27, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment "Fairness of election was also doubted due to non-provision of Form 45" These ESL articles have the worst grammar -- whatever post it then. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:21, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Few days after the election, casted ballots belonging to" --LaserLegs (talk) 23:28, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed Ready (which I had simply restored after temporarily removing it until an objection of mine got fixed), as it's preventing your objections getting fixed - these presumably also explain why it wasn't getting posted.Tlhslobus (talk) 00:15, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@LaserLegs: I copyedited the entire paragraph.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 01:05, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

After reading the above, I then had another look at that paragraph and made another 10 changes or so in 3 edits. About half of these seemed definitely necessary, at least to me, and about half desirable and possibly necessary (except perhaps for an s changed to z which may just be a question of spellchecker settings). I then made one 'correction' and 3 wikilinks in the lead, and I then had a look at Laserlegs' original objection of 19:39, 26 July 2018, and found that it was still 'unfixed'. And I then decided to give up, partly because I wasn't sure how to 'fix' it, and partly because I wasn't sure whether it should be 'fixed' at all, as it might well be wholly or partly 'correct' under 'Pakistani English' and my 'fix' might then just be 'Western cultural imperialism' or whatever. For instance 'General Elections' (which is also the opening expression of the lead) seems wrong to me, but it may well be correct in Pakistan (and it might be wrong of me to replace it with 'A general election and 4 provincial elections'). And the same may apply to 'fixes' to the rest of the article, including some of the 'fixes' that I've already made. I'm also unclear who such 'fixes' are meant to satisfy: maybe it's Laserlegs, or maybe it's admins who haven't posted and haven't said why they haven't posted (quite likely for very sensible reasons in both cases). And any non-western editor likely has an equally difficult set of problems of their own. And I don't pretend to know what should be done about any of this.Tlhslobus (talk) 04:52, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I pointed out a few grammar issues, but it's not the same as BLP vios or bad refs. Item is ITN/R and the article is ok, even with the ESL ENGVAR issues. IMO just post it. Its much better than it was. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:37, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Posted alt-blurb. I do not know the right steps to protect Khan's image, so left that out, but that's reasonable to add to this. --Masem (t) 23:22, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) RD: Vladimir Voinovich

(Closed) Gravitational redshift

(Closed) Facebook largest one-day stock drop in history

(Posted) RD: Simegnew Bekele

Nominator's comments: Manager and public face of a national prestige project (Hidase Dam) who was mysteriously found dead in the most public place possible in the country, thus his death has extremely high profile Ethiopia and beyond. It's as if a a top executive was found lying dead off Times Square, by way of comparison. Varavour (talk) 22:58, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose for now. I have doubts that the subject passes WP:ANYBIO. I will have to look more closely at the article and sources. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:22, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Followup I think the article fails WP:VICTIM. Maybe some of this can be merged into another article, but IMO this individual is not independently notable beyond the circumstances of his death. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:31, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per Ad Orientem.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:26, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose while subject to AFD. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:58, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The AFD was closed as keep.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 22:51, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Note The article has been taken off AFD by Ad Orientem, and there was a wide array of sources covering the story:

A detailed analysis of source material

Source assessment table: Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG? BBC News Major international news organization The source discusses the subject directly and in detail ✔ Yes Deutsche Welle Major international news organization The source discusses the subject directly and in detail ✔ Yes The Times (London) The source is a major newspaper The source discusses the subject directly and in detail ✔ Yes New York Times The source is a major newspaper The article discusses the subject directly and in detail ✔ Yes Al Jazeera (English) Major international news organization The article discusses the subject directly and in detail ✔ Yes Voice of America Major international news organization The article discusses the subject directly and in detail ✔ Yes Le Monde The source is a major newspaper The article discusses the subject directly and in detail ✔ Yes CNN Major international news organization The article discusses the subject directly and in detail ✔ Yes France24 Major international news organization The article discusses the subject directly and in detail ✔ Yes This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using ((source assess table)).

Thank you for that. I have collapsed it to make discussion easier.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 23:43, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'd have done that had I known how! I would note the article is ready and incorporates the latest developments surrounding his death. --Varavour (talk) 02:54, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Posted Stephen 22:48, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Ellie Soutter

Nominator's comments: Fully referenced MurielMary (talk) 21:32, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Notable per Youth Olympics medal. Fully referenced. Mentions death in prose, citing two reliable sources.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 01:27, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Does not meet notability per WP:YOUNGATH. WP:NOLY delineates Olympics from Paralympics, where participation in the former is notable but the latter requires a medal. "Youth Olympics" are not included at all. Similar to Tyler Hilinski, coverage outside the death is trivial. Suicide of a young person does not establish notability. ghost 11:55, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• It literally just passed AfD; it seems inappropriate to re-litigate notability concerns here.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:24, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

K, withdraw opposition as I respect process and concede the point on re-litigation. But WOW!!! is that exchange ever an indictment of the AfD process. Not one Keep vote (and votes they are) makes a valid policy citation. ghost 15:39, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Posted Stephen 22:44, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Judith Appelbaum

Nominator's comments: Fully referenced MurielMary (talk) 11:09, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support It's short but just about adequate length, and referencing looks ok.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:29, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose At present, insufficient coverage of the subject. The introduction says she was active in the publishing industry for 50 years, but doesn't have anything specific about her career between the time she was in college and 1998. Spencer^T•C 18:20, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The article says she was an editor at Harpers and Publisher's Weekly during that time. I will try to add some more.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:40, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Her positions in the publishing industry from college to 1998 are stated in the article. MurielMary (talk) 08:45, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Also the third paragraph of the main text describes her life-long achievements which obviously occurred during the period you are querying. MurielMary (talk) 21:35, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support This is now ready. The New York Times article yesterday fixed all the problems. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 02:49, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted Stephen 22:42, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) 2018 As-Suwayda attacks

Nominator's comments: It may be best to merge this with the previous blurb about Syria. Even though it is a war zone this is still an exceptional (and horrifying!) level of casualties, most of them civilian. EternalNomad (talk) 02:23, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Yes merge it. Sherenk1 (talk) 03:55, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Horrendous. I'm not sure the two topics can be readily merged in a blurb, though. (AP added as source.) Sca (talk) 13:46, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Very weak oppose posting separately and merging. Although they are related, looking at other noms on this page they are not likely to be visible at the same time and the two are both independently news-worthy. The South Syrian offensive is about to roll of the page. This is basically an update and bump. Only problem is the page needs a little more expansion and it needs at least a mention at 2018 Southern Syria offensive.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 20:25, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for now, article is barely better than a stub. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:55, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support the article seems fine now, considering how much information we have on our hands as of yet. It's a warzone after all. As for notability - I certainly support it, it's the 13th deadliest terrorist act in the history of the world. Openlydialectic (talk) 00:48, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's questionable to call this terrorism. Around half of those killed were belligerents. If high civilian casualties were the standard for "terrorism" we'd be posting many attacks by Assad (and drone strikes by the US). One might also consider statehood of the attackers, but I think ISIL operations in Syria meet the standard of state actions. ghost 13:32, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've updated the nubmer of deaths to 302 (including the 56 terrorists) Openlydialectic (talk) 11:05, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Posted, combined with the July 23rd blurb. --Masem (t) 23:20, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) 2018 Quetta suicide bombing

(Posted) RD: Corinne Gallant

Nominator's comments: Professor emeritus and Acadian feminist who received the Order of Canada. Recently deceased, as announced by the Universite de Moncton, where she was professor emeritus. I will be updating as more information becomes available. Acebulf (talk) 20:23, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Ready to go.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 23:40, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted Stephen 06:50, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: György Szepesi

Nominator's comments: Article is well sourced --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:03, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Can we give him a little more credit in the lead? The man is the longest-serving sportscaster in the world.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 20:41, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted Stephen 04:32, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Japan heat wave

Nominator's comments: Continuing the trend of heat-related disasters across the globe...record-breaking heat wave is raging across Japan and causing further misery after deadly flooding and mudslides earlier this month. The nation's weather agency is calling the heat wave unprecedented and Kumagaya saw the highest temperature ever observed in Japan on July 23. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 17:02, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Also see that the government is calling a state of emergency for this. Article short but sufficient. --Masem (t) 17:24, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per above.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:32, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment a little context --LaserLegs (talk) 17:41, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • In theory, per WMO there could be 2018 extreme weather events, similar to 2013 extreme weather events, with a combined death toll in the blurb. Brandmeister^talk 20:13, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. There have been a string of such extreme events this summer. Just this month, we have articles for Hurricane Beryl, heat waves in United Kingdom and Ireland, and in North America, as well as Tropical Storm Son-Tinh and 2018 Attica wildfires. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 21:28, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, the death toll is significant, article looks okay. Mz7 (talk) 21:02, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Nolo contendere. -The Gnome (talk) 21:10, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Masem. Banedon (talk) 01:33, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Similar death toll to the wildfires in Greece, and the article is okay. Hrodvarsson (talk) 01:38, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Ditto. Ready. Sca (talk) 01:50, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - per above supports. Article on the short side but presents facts in a straightforward way. Jusdafax (talk) 03:26, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:31, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Sub-surface lake discovered on Mars

 Masem (t) 16:38, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support This is definitely a major discovery.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:29, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support the type of science articles that get picked up by news outlets aren't usually published in Science. Even if the "liquid water" is just perchlorate brine, it is still just 1.5 km deep. Even Lake Vostok deeper than that. Nergaal (talk) 17:54, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's 1.5km under the surface, that's not the depth of the water itself. But it is at least more than 1m deep for it to be detected via the radar instruments per the paper/reports. --Masem (t) 18:02, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - The discovery of a lake of Martian water, however you define “lake,” is big news. Jusdafax (talk) 21:19, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment first, the update relies almost entirely on a single source. Second, I found a number of statements missing refs and whole paragraphs with a single ref - not usually a good sign. I'm not going to !vote because I don't have time to read this monstrous article, but before rushing to post this "very important news" we should take care to check that the article is coherent and well sourced (quantity of sources != well sourced). --LaserLegs (talk) 21:35, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Any scientific discovery is likely only to going to have one strong source to support the update: the peer-reviewed paper (the Science article, in this case). For ITN, we just want to make sure that more mainstream sources cover it, which they certainly are; it just doesn't require us to use those mainstream sources in the article itself. --Masem (t) 21:40, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - genuinely exciting for astrobiologists, and likely the general population at large. Banedon (talk) 01:33, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support alt a very informative and well-sourced Wikipedia article, a significant discovery, a peer-reviewed paper published by a reputable scientific journal.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 02:11, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per everybody above. But please change the link to the relevant section, Water on Mars#Subglacial liquid water (with an anchor if one is needed), as otherwise it's difficult for readers to find what most of them will presumably be looking for.Tlhslobus (talk) 02:28, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've now added the anchor in the article (which protects against section name changes, per MOS), and added altblurbs 2 and 3, which are the blurb and altblurb 1, but now linking to the relevant section.Tlhslobus (talk) 02:47, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:06, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Sergio Marchionne

Nominator's comments: Fully referenced Sherenk1 (talk) 10:00, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - article looks in good shape, a couple of typos in references need sorting. Mjroots (talk) 10:55, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have added some CN, about 10, that need to be sorted. I am going back to help now. Do not post yet.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 11:49, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - The article looks good, moreover Marchionne was a key figure in world automotive industry, an executive who saved historic companies like Fiat and Chrysler from probable bankruptcies. -- Nick.mon (talk) 11:57, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support This should be ready to go.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 13:04, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Support, article seems to be ok, and quite important person in business world -->Typ932 ^T·C 14:12, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Notable person, good article. Hope it goes quickly to the homepage. --Checco (talk) 14:14, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted. Black Kite (talk) 16:43, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Mary Ellis

Nominator's comments: Fully referenced MurielMary (talk) 12:00, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - the last surviving woman to have flown with the Air Transport Auxiliary in World War 2. Rob (talk) 17:24, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted Stephen 23:00, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Pakistani general election

(Posted) 2018 Attica wildfires

Nominator's comments: Just started the article. Lots of work still needed, but this was a catastrophe. --Tone 07:25, 24 July 2018 (UTC) Tone 07:25, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support and note – support, but a small note: I don't want to make a history merge while the article is probably being edited, but it's generally accepted that when two identical articles are made in short order, the first should get the full edit history, in this case 2018 Greek wildfires. Then it can be force-moved to whatever title we want. If you are editing the article, please make the merge and let me know if you need help with the move. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 07:43, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, but beware These fires are extremely serious, but don't expect precision in casualty numbers for quite some time. Weeks at least. I say this as a mature person from a part of the world which has had a number of such events. No matter the usual quality of sources, they depend on emergency services for such numbers, and they will be busy. So just don't put precise numbers in the article and blurb. HiLo48 (talk) 07:56, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose/Wait. The article quality is very minimal; it's a sub-stub as of now that has almost no more information than would be in the blurb itself. When and if the article is expanded to a reasonable length, I would support posting this. --Jayron32 11:06, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – ...in principle, pending expansion of article.

Suggest title of article be changed from "2018 Attica wildfires" to "2018 Greece wildfires" or "2018 Greek wildfires," as the Attica region isn't widely known as a geographic term outside Greece. Second, "Attica" was made (in)famous among U.S.-Eng. speakers by a huge and deadly prison riot in Atticca, N.Y., in 1971. Sca (talk) 14:30, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, as the feller says, "They wanted Attica, they wanted Kent State". —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 14:37, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose the title change. Attica is geographically more defining than the whole country. In addition, Attica should be instantly recognizable to anyone who has listened to even the tiniest amount of ancient history in school (as opposed to prison riots in the 1970s) :P In any case, the article is ready now. I will ask another admin to post this since I nominated it. --Tone 20:56, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tone, it may shock you to learn that a great many Eng.-lang. readers did not study even the tiniest amount of ancient history or the classics in their school days; however, a great many were alive and aware in 1971. Sca (talk) 21:36, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I think you're both wrong. Most readers won't know either of those meanings of the name Attica, so it's good we avoid it in the blurb. However, 70s prison riots do not have any bearing on WP:COMMONNAME, and the Greek region is clearly the dominant usage, so the article title is fine. Modest Genius ^talk 09:59, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - 76 deaths from wildfires is definitely newsworthy --Rockstonetalk to me! 21:58, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:39, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Major dam burst in Laos

Nominator's comments: Massive disaster, homelessness, probable deaths (sorry), set-back for a national buliding program, international implications, etc. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 14:01, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – ...in principle, pending expansion of article. Widespread coverage on prime news sites of a significant disaster. (Details may not emerge soon.) Sca (talk) 14:34, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Used to work in Laos and this is all over the news; one of my students from Attapeu is missing. Although a lot of the news from the country is from non-reliable sources on Facebook, I'll see if there's anything I can find and translate to add to the article. Spencer^T•C 17:48, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: nice work on the article. I cannot believe we are missing articles on three rivers. That is a shame!--- Coffeeandcrumbs

The sheer number of redlinks in that article makes WP:BIAS so blatant. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 18:44, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support though I'd try to work in the number of missing into the blurb. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:34, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Truly more redlinks than I would like to see in an article that will be linked from the Main Page, but I will support this on principle. Strikerforce^Talk 19:43, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redlinks are not necessarily a bad thing. In fact, I would argue they are a good thing as they expose deficiencies in the encyclopedia. But we can do away with the companies. Then maybe editors will feel encouraged to create articles on the rivers. Already done.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 21:55, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Article appears to be in good shape. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:57, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support many deaths, rare type of event - dams dont burst so often. Openlydialectic (talk) 22:06, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted Stephen 22:58, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Paul Madeley

Nominator's comments: England and Leeds United footballer, 724 appearances for one club. Article updated and decently sourced now, I think Black Kite (talk) 22:37, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak support honours section will need refs. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:40, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. Black Kite (talk) 22:56, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Posted Stephen 02:16, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) White Helmets / 2018 Southern Syria offensive

 OtterAM (talk) 21:23, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Insufficient update --LaserLegs (talk) 22:15, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose insufficient update, and insufficient context. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:39, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support major news. Openlydialectic (talk) 01:04, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support either alt 1 or 2 Oppose original blurb. No offense to the nominator, but the blurb makes the mistake of burying the lede like every Western media source. I don't blame you. You were following the media's lead. But more important is Why would rescuers need rescuing? Why should we focus on the pat on the shoulder for Israel like every news source seems to be overeager to do? We should "co-focus" on 2018 Southern Syria offensive, a much more informative article. I recommend something along the lines of:

More than 400 White Helmets are rescued after being trapped by the approaching Syrian offensive near the neighboring Golan Heights.

I predict giving Israel undue credit for doing what any decent neighbor should do will cause much indignation and controversy on the Main Page. I like that it was Israel that did it and I congratulate them but we need NPOV. I cannot help but imagine the reaction of a Palestinian reading this blurb, especially since the recent amendment to Basic Law. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 02:05, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think alt 1 as you wrote it is fine. However, just for the record, Israel's participation was more than just opening its border, because the rescue involved a complex IDF operation. Several other countries were also involved in the planning and/or providing new homes for the evacuated people, including the the UK, the US, Canada, and Jordan. OtterAM (talk) 15:14, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I also have to disagree a little with some assumptions from your last sentence that reads "I cannot help but imagine..." The NPOV of an encyclopedia Wikipedia should be based on fact, not on hypothetical reactions of people to the text. OtterAM (talk) 15:19, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose not really seeing widespread coverage of this, seems more like a minor chapter in an ongoing war. Banedon (talk) 06:44, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I would have to disagree.[6][7][8][9][10][11][12]--- Coffeeandcrumbs 07:14, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They're all US/UK sources however, bar the one by Al Jazeera, which doesn't focus on the evacuation even though it's mentioned. Can you find widespread coverage in non-Western sources? I'm not opposed to a blurb on the territorial changes in the Syrian Civil War, only to this particular evacuation. Banedon (talk) 09:34, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There was a second link from Al-Jazeera about the bigger evacuation (thousands of Syrians, not getting attention).[13]. Why not do both the evacuations and the border offensive in one blurb? Their are plenty of sources for both and one is the cause of the other. Here are more for the White Helmets. Brazil:[14][15], Indonesia: [16], Czech Republic, Český rozhlas:[17], Lebanon, Al Mayadeen:[18], Turkey, Hürriyet: [19].

I can find more for the Syrian Offensive, if anyone like a demonstration of that being a major story as well.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 12:09, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Switch to Support alt 2 per Modest Genius. Banedon (talk) 23:10, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support featuring 2018 Southern Syria offensive, rather than explicitly the White Helmets or Israel. This appears to be a major change to the strategic situation in the ongoing civil war. Following this offensive the Syrian Opposition is restricted to a few northern areas, and Isis is down to its last few isolated pockets. The story is much bigger than the evacuation of a few hundred aid workers. Even better, the article on the offensive is of high quality and ready to post. I've added an altblurb2. Modest Genius ^talk 12:33, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would remove "In the Syrian Civil War,". It is not necessary. I would hate to think our readers are that uninformed.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 12:59, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose – Widespread coverage but it seems to have been overplayed. Sca (talk) 14:37, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose main, support alt 2 - The offensive is definitely more noteworthy than only one of the many groups being affected by it. YuriNikolai (talk) 01:04, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose main, support alt 2 - As above.Sherenk1 (talk) 10:04, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support alt 2 Notability is borderline (we don't post ever campaign of an ongoing war) but article quality more than makes up for any question of significance. ghost 11:46, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I came by to post this, but now find myself removing the ready tag. The target article has changed half-way through, the earlier assessments of quality are now out of date, and we have people expressing support and opposition for two very different blurbs. Meanwhile, the blurb which has the broadest support (ALT2) is actually stale; the offensive began long before our oldest story, and it isn't finished; so what are we posting, and for what date? Marking "needs attention" so these questions may be addressed. Vanamonde (talk) 12:04, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]