(Closed) Equal Rights Amendment

(Closed) Brazil nationwide strike (2)

No consensus to post. Stephen 01:06, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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 Brazil truck drivers' strike (talk · history · tag)
Ongoing item nomination (Post)
News source(s): Bloomberg, Washington Post, BBC, NY Times, The Guardian,The Sydney Morning Herald, Al Jazeera, Deutsche Welle, EuroNews (FR), Le Figaro (FR), Le Journal de Montréal, Corriere del Ticino (IT)
Credits:

• Nominated by Alumnum (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Renominating the article; this time for "ongoing" since it's been more than a week. Other users and I have been improving it and correcting everything wrong and I believe it deserves to be in the main page. Criticism is welcome but please be specific. Alumnum (talk) 20:21, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose it's still in desperate need of a WP:COPYEDIT and I'm not going to do it for you by tagging the whole article. Here is an example "Another criminal act issue is being investigated by the Public Prosecutor's Office on abusive coercion techniques used by some protesters on some truck drivers to difficult the police work, such as dismantling the blockades by parking their trucks in difficult positions and keeping the fuel trucks out of reach.". That's one of many. I also take issue with the title. A "strike" is a work stoppage, but this is more like violent militias setting up illegal roadblocks. You might consider moving the article to 2018 labor unrest in Brazil or 2018 take over of Brazilian highways or something. Lastly, the article is a WP:PROSELINE mess of anecdotal incidents resulting from this on going criminal activity. Thank you for updating this article, but from a quality standpoint it's just not ready for the main page. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:34, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for the third (?) time. Just not good enough. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:23, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment According to Reuters it may be ending. The article needs copy-editing, I'll try to do so tomorrow. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:29, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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: Dan Kneen

Nominator's comments: British motorcycle racer. Fuebaey (talk) 11:50, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Appears to be well referenced.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:16, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Short but looks adequate. –Ammarpad (talk) 21:17, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good work! Marking ready. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:12, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Several uncited sentences in the Marks Bloom Racing section and the Penz13.com BMW Motorrad Racing section is completely unsourced. Thryduulf (talk) 19:44, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Thryduulf and that so-called fair use image uploaded days after this public figure's death. Completely inappropriate and should be removed. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:48, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• @Thryduulf: @The Rambling Man: Please have another look as the article has been substantially updated by Cs-wolves.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:28, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted Stephen 23:34, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Ortho and para-water separated for the first time

(Posted) Turkish currency and debt crisis, 2018

Nominator's comments: The Turkish currency and debt crisis is very much in the news and an economic development of major gravity, with international repercussions. The article is of high quality, covers the subject comprehensively and gives consideration and due weight to its many diverse aspects. 2A1ZA (talk) 10:31, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I have seen the effects of this describing some of the impact on international stock markets, so this is has a reaching impact. --Masem (t) 15:29, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Decent article. Apt for ongoing. –Ammarpad (talk) 15:34, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the markets and business press are reacting to Italy, not Turkey. No opinion on this nom, just FYI. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:32, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose based on your claim that The Turkish currency and debt crisis is very much in the news. This ITN/C post is the first I've heard of it here in the U.S. --184.248.229.190 (talk) 21:14, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

weak oppose do not think worthy of ongoing. That said the stock market has been highly volatile, to say the least (uggh, if only I was trading there...).Lihaas (talk) 03:01, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Updated article. Sherenk1 (talk) 03:55, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good article, substantial and interesting topic, much in the media in Europe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.204.139.3 (talk) 05:51, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose based in this report from yesterday where it now appears the Ruble has been restored as everyone's favourite "love to hate" currency. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:12, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The crisis in Turkey by its nature is a debt crisis now (triggered by the currency), and that debt crisis is certainly ongoing. Even the causes did not yet go away, for example deficits in trade respective current account are still exorbitant and climbing, see this news from today. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 12:18, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Even the lira started a new round of depreciation today, after the disastrous report on sharply deteriorating manufacturing conditions was released. See this news from today. Or this. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 18:24, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Decent article, with broad international ramifications. Turkey is too big to fail so the stock market swings are of interest, but as I see it the ongoing great game stuff makes this blurbable. Jusdafax (talk) 08:30, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The topic is in the news and is very notable, the article is pretty good. Davey2116 (talk) 03:14, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:24, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Missed this one that slid in. That's eight consecutive Euro-centric stories posted to ITN. Time to rename it EuroPedia! --LaserLegs (talk) 08:45, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Instead of complaining about it, please make a nomination. I know you are capable of this. These sorts of comments are bordering on WP:POINT. 331dot (talk) 08:55, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) RD: Arkady Babchenko

(Closed) Roseanne canceled

(Closed) Liege shooting

Nipah Virus

Nominator's comments: It has an article now so nominating again. 30,000 views on Wikipedia. Sherenk1 (talk) 03:47, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose not really seeing this as "in the news", in my jurisdictions at least. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:36, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support It's in my (US-based) Google News feed under the health tab. Update is good, and "The virus is listed alongside Ebola and Zika as one of eight priority diseases the World Health Organization believes could cause a global epidemic." We generally post those two if the outbreak is significant, and I think we're there. ghost 13:48, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  And I thought the WHO had said this wasn't a major outbreak at this time. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:25, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• CommentOppose if this really is an outbreak that's generating enough WP:RS to be featured, then it should be possible to write a standalone article for it similar to 2018 Democratic Republic of the Congo Ebola virus outbreak. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:45, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support CNN and a bunch of other international news organizations are covering it.[1] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:34, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support A lot has changed since previous nomination which I opposed. We now have standalone decent article and pretty sufficient coverage in mainstream media. –Ammarpad (talk) 15:50, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• support death toll rises[2][3]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:54, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for the same reason I opposed the most recent Ebola item. There are far too many diseases around the world that kill huge numbers of people for ITN to start posting every time one outbreak kills a dozen people. It is an unfortunate fact of life that disease kills millions of people each year. This isn't having major impacts that would raise it to ITN levels of significance e.g. no state of emergency has been declared, the WHO haven't got involved, there's no international travel ban etc. Wikipedia has a whole one paragraph of material on this outbreak, buried at the end of a general article on the virus itself. Whilst it's nice to see that the article has been recently expanded, that doesn't justify posting a non-significant event. Modest Genius ^talk 18:17, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

... but it might make the article suitable for WP:DYK. Modest Genius ^talk 17:33, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The flu kills hundreds of times more people every year. HiLo48 (talk) 22:10, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) RD: Cornelia Frances

RD: Serge Dassault

Nominator's comments: Article is borderline. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:02, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose 5 ^{[citation needed]} tags, one reference just links to the French wiki with a ^{[user-generated source]} tag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nixinova (talk • contribs)

(Posted) RD: Neale Cooper

Nominator's comments: Article is in pretty good condition. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:30, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Sufficient for RD. –Ammarpad (talk) 06:10, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support Okay article.  Nixinova  T  C  04:32, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose article is not too bad but there are a couple of CN tags and the Honours section is unreferenced. Pawnkingthree (talk) 02:38, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Pawnkingthree all addressed, now we're good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:14, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Posted. 331dot (talk) 11:18, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Donald H. Peterson

Nominator's comments: Article is well sourced and updated --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 03:58, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support good work as always. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:35, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Looks OK. –Ammarpad (talk) 06:08, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted – Muboshgu (talk) 15:53, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Giro d'Italia

Nominator's comments: I think the Giro should be in ITNR. Bagoto (talk) 12:35, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose no prose summary, tense is wrong, missing refs, and systemic bias. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:06, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support notability because Froome has achieved a "grand tour triple slam" [4] which is rare and interesting. However the article (including the two sub-articles stages 1-11 and stages 12-21) do not have sufficient prose at the current time. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 13:37, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @Lugnuts:: Please do not edit my comment. I deliberately did not bold the word "support" as I did not believe the article was ready at the time and my support only referred to notability. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 17:53, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support either the race or Froome as being the bold target, with both articles being in good shape. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:33, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both articles still missing too many refs to be MP ready. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:52, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Made some improvements as regards tense and a missing ref. --Bagoto (talk) 22:35, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Citations required, and no indication this is significant enough an event to post. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:54, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose- I agree that this is sufficiently notable to be posted, but the article has no prose on the actual event outside of the lead. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 16:47, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per all the other people saying "where's the prose"? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:01, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Indian Premier League Final

Nominator's comments: Article not quite ready yet. Additions to be done. Sherenk1 (talk) 05:14, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Not quite ready is a bit of an understatement. Three lines of text with mutliple empty sections. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:59, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose article needs significant expansion. Lepricavark (talk) 13:53, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Four sentences with one reference is woefully inadequate. Tagged as a stub. Modest Genius ^talk 16:20, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This could be targeted to 2018 Indian Premier League, which is OK. After all, it's a league competition, not just one playoff game. And it's the Indian Premier League that is ITN/R, not the article about the final. Altblurb added. Black Kite (talk) 22:13, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support with altblurb. We could still link the word final. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 22:18, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• We could, but I wouldn't with that article in its current state. Black Kite (talk) 22:21, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose underdeveloped article with a two sentence update. No prose in the body whatsoever, specifically lacks a match summary. Unless someone adds a tournament summary to 2018 Indian Premier League, I don't see that as a viable alternative either. Fuebaey (talk) 23:06, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Dick Quax

Nominator's comments: Via mobile so can someone please fix the template thanks.  Nixinova  T  C  01:00, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Just seen this on RD and thought it would be here. Article looks in good shape. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:58, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Notable person with decent article. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 00:53, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for now, I'm counting eight [citation needed] tags at the moment. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:37, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added quite a few references so now there's only 2 ^{[citation needed]} tags.  Nixinova  T  C  03:21, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I've just removed the last cn. — Hugh (talk) 01:33, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Getting stale, pinging, @The Rambling Man: the ((cn)) issue has been addressed.  Nixinova  T  C  00:18, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted Stephen 00:40, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) 2018 UEFA Champions League Final

Nominator's comments: Currently working on a match summary while waiting for sources. SounderBruce 20:39, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - tears flowing, but this is ready for ITN. I sincerely dislike Sergio Ramos. Stormy clouds (talk) 20:58, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support but only once a house-style blurb (ENGVAR neutral, no score etc) is proposed. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:17, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added an alt blurb based on the 2017 blurb. SounderBruce 21:23, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I added a second alternative blurb that adds the 2018 UEFA Women's Champions League Final while keeping things concise. SounderBruce 21:29, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Come on this has been ready for 12 hours, any admin doing anything around here these days? The Rambling Man (talk) 06:27, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Posting the first one, feel free to change. --Tone 07:45, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Any reason why the women's result was posted and then pulled? MurielMary (talk) 22:23, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • See the nomination for the Women's League result below, which I don't agree with. ITNR says that when men and women's event of the same sport occur simultaneously, they should be bundled, and this was the case (to me, a few days is "simultaneously" when the finals take several months to complete in both events). I can understand the trepidation to post the Women's event by itself, but in combination with the Men's finals, it makes little sense and shows a gender bias that the language in ITNR was meant to avoid. --Masem (t) 22:30, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Alan Bean

Nominator's comments: Bean was the fourth person to walk on the moon. Kees08 (Talk) 19:18, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Article is well-referenced and has decent coverage outside just his astronaut career. SounderBruce 19:49, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment books section unsourced, else it looks fine. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:16, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support books section sourced. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:42, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted. Thryduulf (talk) 21:49, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Ted Dabney

Nominator's comments: Co-founder of Atari. Unfortunately he was less the spotlight compared to Nolan Bushnell so details are not as great as Bushnell's. Masem (t) 17:46, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak oppose barely above stub, and "Dabney appeared on the RetroGaming Roundup podcast in October 2010 and told his story in a two-hour interview.[3]" gives the game away, there's clearly a lot more here that could be added. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:33, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm trying to find access to this one 2009 magazine that he had a lengthy interview in. As I noted, he was known but overshadowed by Bushnell in terms of fame. --Masem (t) 23:39, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • And as I noted, interviews are out there, so the article is inadequate. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:19, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • There's the question of actually how much useful information there can be added from these. For example, there's a 29 page transcript of an interview with him from the Computer History Museum in 2012 which I've already included. Of those 29 pages, there's maybe a page of essential biographical information, the rest of interest in detail of Bushnell, the formation of Atari, and the construction and manufacturing of Computer Space and Pong, which can be discussed on those articles. Much of the interview there is anecdotes, not useful for a bio page, particularly when we have separate key pages for those other topics given their importance to the history. The other articles that I've seen that follow the 2009 interview all have essentially the same, so I'm not expecting of finding more useful relevant biography information. And I should point out that I have expanded it well past a stub (more start-class now) with what I have found. --Masem (t) 13:16, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Also to add, we're at the problem now that we have the current bios that are out there from RSes that are basing their research and writing on what I've added since. eg has some word-for-word from what I wrote) so new sources I fear might be slightly flawed. --Masem (t) 13:18, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Support. Looks like a solid start now but I'm concerned at the reliance on a couple of sources, one of which is oral history. Can you add some more sources, even if they just confirm the existing information? Espresso Addict (talk) 14:13, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the details that involve Bushnell, Alcorn, and the launch of Atari can be readily corroborated - but most of anything outside that (pre- and post-Atari) is going to have to be based on what Dabney had said during the oral history interview, since he never got the fame that Bushnell did. I will add a few for the Atari stuff though. --Masem (t) 14:21, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Added some corroborating sources for the Atari-related stuff. --Masem (t) 14:43, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• @The Rambling Man: and @Espresso Addict: I have more corroborating sources and the key 2009 interview now in place. I'm sure more can be added but this is well past being a stub and gives a good pictures of his career. --Masem (t) 18:23, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted Stephen 00:35, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Repeal of 8th Amendment referendum

Nominator's comments: The result will be announced sometime this afternoon (local time) but exit polls indicate an overwhelming yes vote. In unlikely event of a no there's an altblurb. yorkshiresky (talk) 09:32, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Alt3, once the official count is made. Constitutional amendment to the opposite of the prev position is a major event. Don't hold this until subsequent act of parliament is passed. That might be worthy of another ITN entry, but the change to the constitution is most important.-gadfium 09:46, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Support - I inadvertently nominated this item at the same time as Yorkshiresky, so am removing that and leaving my comments here - I anticipate this nomination being contentious. However, the repeal of the Eighth Amendment has been one of the most controversial and divisive matters in Irish politics for decades - imagine if a referendum repealed the 2nd Amendment stateside. The campaign has been long and arduous, and resulted in a very high turnout. Media coverage has been deafening in Ireland, and sizable abroad, with a lot of British and American media discussing it. The referendum was anticipated to be very tight, but exit polls indicate that it will be a landslide victory for the Yes side. Formal results are expected in the next few hours, following the precedent set by the gay marriage referendum, which we posted. Either way, this is massive news in Ireland (will likely be one of the biggest stories of the decade), and as such I feel it warrants a posting on ITN. I would also prefer altblurb 2, out of those offered above. Stormy clouds (talk) 09:44, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• When counting is complete and the outcome clear definitely strong support. Very significant change in direction for Ireland and is being widely covered in international news. MurielMary (talk) 10:46, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support alt3 when official. One of the prominent no campaigners has conceded defeat according to the BBC, but as this isn't an election that doesn't mean anything formally. This is very likely to be the biggest news from Ireland this year, and a very notable change for a predominantly Catholic country. Thryduulf (talk) 11:02, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment,. As I understand it, strictly speaking this was not a vote to legalize abortion, but a vote to permit the legalization of abortion. Abortion will still be illegal in Ireland until they actually change the laws. As such I would favor a blurb that mentions both the Amendment and abortion(not one or the other). 331dot (talk) 11:03, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot: - that is correct. Should/when the referendum passes, the government will have the ability to implement legislation regarding abortion in Irish law, rather than placing it directly in the constitution (as with, say, guns in the States). I agree as such regarding the blurb. Stormy clouds (talk) 14:23, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Huge story and the article appears comprehensive. Agree with 331dot on the blurb. Jusdafax (talk) 11:07, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - A major social step forward. I too agree with 331dot on the blurb. HiLo48 (talk) 11:21, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support, for all the reasons already given by others, but preferably for something like altblurb 4, which doesn't mention Repealing the 8th, a concept which is both incomprehensible or meaningless outside Ireland, and also arguably technically incorrect. We are not simply repealing the 8th, we are replacing it with different wording, and the new wording is what matters - without it we'd arguably be back to the 1861 Offences against the Person situation (that already banned abortion before the ban got put into the constitution by the 8th amendment in 1983), or at the very least any abortion legislation could be found to be unconstitutional for any number of imaginative reasons by some future conservative Supreme Court.Tlhslobus (talk) 11:33, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support particularly alt IV, per seismic and Tihslobus. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 11:47, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Clearly notable and important. Would support any blurb that emphasised the historic importance. doktorb _words^deeds 12:30, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted, with a slight tweak as a referendum doesn't vote, people vote in one. Also we don't usually use "landslide" or similar. Black Kite (talk) 12:45, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Err, too soon? The vote result hasn't been announced. We're going off exit polls at this point, which are not likely wrong, but not proper --Masem (t) 12:46, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support upon confirmation. [portion of comment moved inside hat] -Ad Orientem (talk) 12:47, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Um, Pulled again. I posted it and then went to look at the article, which isn't updated with the result - mainly, it appears, because the result hasn't been announced (or votes even completely counted) yet, even if the outcome is obvious. Will obviously be posted at that time. Black Kite (talk) 12:49, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why posted it w/o checking? not goodprecedence.Lihaas (talk) 17:14, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I humbly apologise for making a mistake and then immediately fixing it. Hopefully your Wikipedia experience has not been significantly degraded by the three minutes that said error sat on the main page. Black Kite (talk) 18:05, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Piling on Support presuming the exit polls are correct, and agree altblurb IV is best. --Masem (t) 12:52, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Alt 4 – Reads best. (Referenda do not vote, people do.) Sca (talk) 13:10, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• We can probably post at the point where enough constituencies have declared numbers that the result is a mathematical certainty. I assume news orgs will alert when this occurs. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 14:51, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment "landslide" doesn't belong in a blurb. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:54, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Ad Orientem. Lepricavark (talk) 16:00, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• @Black Kite: BBC is reporting that the referendum has mathematically succeeded with only three constituencies left to declare. Now we can post. --Masem (t) 16:39, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted -- KTC (talk) 17:20, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: isn't it spelt "legalisation" in Ireland? Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 17:34, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Anarcho-authoritarian: In the UK both forms are accepted, but s is more common than z. Ireland usually agrees with the UK on spelling matters, but I don't know whether it does in this case (the Irish English article doesn't elucidate). Thryduulf (talk) 17:45, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Anarcho-authoritarian: - I am not fully up on the formalities, but we are generally taught to spell with an "s" rather than "Z" in cases like this. Stormy clouds (talk) 18:03, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I didn't even see it. I literally just reverted to what Black Kite had posted. The Irish Time and the Irish Sun both spell the word with a 's'. I'll change it. -- KTC (talk) 18:12, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Abortion in the Republic of Ireland would be a better link target than the general abortion article. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 17:56, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Pulled) Brazil nationwide strike

Article: 2018 Brazil truck drivers' strike (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Truck drivers in Brazil go on strike nationwide due to rise of diesel prices. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Brazilian President Michel Temer has lowered the price of diesel in a bid to end a truckers' strike that has crippled the country for almost a week.
News source(s): Bloomberg
Credits:

• Nominated by Alumnum (talk · give credit)

 Alumnum (talk) 16:32, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support sees quite a lot of coverage, dominates local news, even the army got involved. Banedon (talk) 22:20, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Clearly having a big effect inside this country. And the article seems good. I must also note that I have not seen this in the news in my country. That's a reason often used by some here to prevent posting of items they don't like. I am clever enough to be able to tell that this IS still important. HiLo48 (talk) 23:14, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@HiLo48: One and two form SMH.Lechatjaune (talk) 23:32, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. This is a big country. I'm not in Sydney. HiLo48 (talk) 23:39, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support got huge international coverage such as Bloomberg, Washington Post, BBC, NY Times, The Guardian,The Sydney Morning Herald, Al Jazeera, Deutsche Welle, EuroNews (FR), Le Figaro (FR), Le Journal de Montréal, Corriere del Ticino (IT) among many others. Lechatjaune (talk) 23:32, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - It appears the article was translated from Portuguese, or written by someone whose English was learned as a second language. I caught a few wording errors, but there may be more. The lede should be looked at in particular. I’d like to support this but not until a copyedit by fresh eyes is completed. Thanks. Jusdafax (talk) 23:54, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jusdafax: Which specific sentences do you think need improvement? - Alumnum (talk) 17:14, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Oppose minimally "in the news" (digging through various sources to find re-published AP stories doesn't count as "in the news" for me). Of course this will be posted because "domestic issue" only exists as a cudgel to keep US-centric stories off the main page, so please deal with the missing refs. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:04, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose not seeing this headlining anywhere in any news that I read. Maybe mildly interesting, but looks like it's on the way to resolution in any case. Chances are we'd post this and then have to remove it like the nonsense "US government shutdown" we had to debate interminably earlier in the year. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:24, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Looks like an important story, article is adequate. I think we can post it and post necessary updates as the situation changes. Davey2116 (talk) 12:30, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose not actually in the news enough to be posted here. Lepricavark (talk) 12:31, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - In the news. Sherenk1 (talk) 04:02, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:52, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Pulled With apologies, there are serious concerns over the referencing and the prose quality. I think we have consensus on notability, but the article is not good. Feel free to revert me when the article is better. Courcelles (talk) 20:13, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Courcelles: Which specific sentences and references do you think need improvement? - Alumnum (talk) 17:14, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The whole article had a machine translated feel the last time I looked at it. See WP:ERRORS yesterday. Yesterday, the infobox even started "trucker driver's strike", which I'm thankful to see has been changed by now. Courcelles (talk) 18:49, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked it; thanks. I've fixed most of the poor grammar and wording in the article (and I keep doing it when new information is added or someone else edits it), but there may still be insufficient references for some statements, which we need to spot. Can any of you please review the article again for a second opinion? Since it's still a very impacting event in Brazil, I believe it needs to be readded to the news. - Alumnum (talk) 22:04, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment it's still full of poor grammar, disambiguation links, contractions, etc. Plus shouldn't this be an Ongoing nom since it started more than a week ago? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:08, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment "Tell me what's wrong and I'll fix it" -- nah, I'm not doing your copyedit for you. I spot check things that don't seem right to me, find bad refs, bad translations ... gives me a bad feeling about the whole article. What I'm not going to do is run 100 sources through Google translate and check every one because I do not care about this topic. It's not interesting to me. I'll check a nominated article before offering a !vote, but I won't fix it. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:22, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) 2018 Mississauga restaurant bombing

(Posted) EU's General Data Protection Regulation

Nominator's comments: The GDPR while only covering European users has significant worldwide implications since it can fine non-EU companies for failing to protect EU citizen data. That's while you've likely been getting tons of "we've updated our T&Cs" even if you're not European over the last few days. Masem (t) 00:09, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose too many missing refs, too late in the day to tag them all now. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:22, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support the article is okay and everyone's probably confused and annoyed by the constant WE'VE UPDATED OUR PRIVACY POLICY spam.  Nixinova  T  C  04:28, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support it is important enough, and the sourcing looks good enough. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:31, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support affects a lot of people. Banedon (talk) 05:10, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose the article is littered with unreferenced statements. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:25, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - The entire world will be affected by this change of EU scandal. It's from the uprise of Zuckenburg Facebook scandal. Privacy laws like this will require all data-involving apps especially social medias to update themselves, and especially Facebook will be affected. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 06:24, 25 May 2018 (UTC) Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 06:30, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support article in sufficient state; not fac. Significant impact globally. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 06:37, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Blurb-worthy, postable. Jusdafax (talk) 07:43, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Good idea. A event which will have significant long-term implications for data privacy, even to users outside the EU. The article isn't brilliant but it's good enough to post. Modest Genius ^talk 10:16, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Per TRM. Referencing issues. Sherenk1 (talk) 11:45, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

oppose evenif worldwide, it is just domestic citizens of 27-28 states (same reasoning domestic US decisions were [rightfully] not posted).Lihaas (talk) 12:18, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate or misuse of EU citizen data by any company worldwide can incur fines of up to 2M Euros or 4% of the company's annual revenues. It's less about how this affects citizens of those states and more about how it is drastically affecting Internet business operations. --Masem (t) 13:26, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Countries. Not states.--WaltCip (talk) 13:36, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We rightly posted US Net Neutrality laws and we'll rightly post this once the article is up to scratch. I'm curious to see how the EU is going to enforce it's laws beyond it's borders though. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:47, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

By fining companies who do business within the EU. Those that don't operate in the EU aren't affected, which is why some US companies have started blocking EU users rather than comply with GDPR. The EU isn't trying to enforce laws beyond its borders, just require multinationals that do operate within the EU to abide by its rules. Modest Genius ^talk 14:16, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And already the lawsuits have started: $8.8B total from lawsuits against Facebook and Google. --Masem (t) 14:27, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The internet isn't a store front, EU citizens can visit websites in countries not bound by the GDPR, whose owners do not maintain a business presence in the EU. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:34, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, but if that website wants to store personal data about EU users they need to comply with the GDPR. Quite how easy it is to enforce will be interesting to see; it's certainly got a lot of multinationals worried. Regardless, this is getting into WP:NOTFORUM rather than an assessment of an ITN blurb. Modest Genius ^talk 14:52, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support This affects a lot of people and companies. Many people have received E-mails already with notifications in relation to this new rule taking effect. Dragnadh (talk) 14:20, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• There's a fair amount of the article that doesn't have inline refs, but most of this can be assumed to be implicitly supported by the text of the law itself. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 16:30, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Notable, and article is adequate. Davey2116 (talk) 22:37, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Posting, the current version does not have referencing issues anymore. --Tone 06:27, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa merger

(Pulled) UEFA Women's Champions League

Nominator's comments: Not sure if this is notable enough. Probably the most notable game of the season in women's football though. Perhaps it could be combined with the inevitable blurb for the men's final. Needs some work though i assume. 37.138.235.204 (talk) 06:07, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose (tweaked the blurb per house style) article has no prose summary of the match. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:13, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering what the norm was. But to be honest, i was too lazy to go through the archives to find an example. So, thanks for fixing it. 37.138.235.204 (talk) 06:17, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Much as I would like to support a women's football item, few fans of the sport are even aware that there is a female version of the champions league, let alone who won it. Right now this just doesn't attract enough interest to merit yet another football story on top of those listed on WP:ITNR. Maybe if the standard improves and the competition gets more media attention, but that's at least a few years away. Football is a long way behind many other sports on gender balance. I suspect the 2019 FIFA Women's World Cup will be the next postable event in women's football. Modest Genius ^talk 10:22, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  The women's world cup actually seems to be ITNR. But anyway, agree that women's football does not attract very much interest or attention. I don't watch it myself either. I was nontheless curious about testing the water about the topic even if it was unlikely to get posted. Honestly, i would even borderline oppose this myself on notability. 37.138.235.204 (talk) 16:37, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Of course the irony is that posting this would be very progressive and probably applauded across the globe as an indication that Wikipedia is more encompassing than most think, but sadly it's clearly not going to happen. None of our readers would complain about this, just the establishment here... The Rambling Man (talk) 06:41, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  And it could even get combined with the men's blurb. Without that possibility i doubt i would have nominated it. But all of that does not matter if the article is not good enough, which i strongly assume it is not. 85.16.163.65 (talk) 10:13, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per Modest Genius. At present, the event does not meet the high notability threshold of an ITN item, unfortunately. Stormy clouds (talk) 11:09, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose not notable enough for ITN. Lepricavark (talk) 18:33, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support It could be bundled with the men's Champions League result into a combined blurb. Just added a summary to complete the article. SounderBruce 19:35, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support adequate game summary now, no missing refs that I can see. With people practically frothing at the mouth shrieking "systemic bias" you'd think there'd be more support for curbing one of the worst actual biases at ITN: sport stories are almost exclusively male. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:14, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • To a large (but not exclusive) extent systematic bias regarding sports coverage at ITN is consequential to the systematic bias in mainstream news coverage, and at least in Europe Women's football is significantly lower in status and coverage than men's events. I don't watch football (men's or women's) so I can't say whether this is justified in terms of quality or participation or any other metric, but even if it is not ITN is not the place to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. I don't have an opinion whether this does meet the notability threshold for ITN, but we don't post things simply to reduce systematic bias otherwise we'd be posting say African women's netball competitions at the same rate we post US men's baseball. Thryduulf (talk) 10:21, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • "To a large (but not exclusive) extent systematic bias regarding sports coverage at ITN is consequential to the systematic bias in mainstream news coverage". Fixed it for you. Thing is, that doesn't stop people from leaping around, shrieking, and spitting venom at US-centric stories righting the great wrongs of America. In this case, we get an easy win: the women's event article is sufficiently updated to feature on the main page. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:38, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Certainly more notable than snooker or canoe races. Gamaliel (talk) 02:09, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Can you back that up somehow, please? I did nominate this article but your statement does not seem likely at all. Objectively and with hard criteria snooker surely is more notable. And canoe races... i suppose that was a disrespectful way of talking about rowing, something rather different? By the way, you seem to edit an awful lot for someone who is retired, does not seem to make sense either. 37.138.77.119 (talk) 18:32, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  !!!!ROWING KLAXON!!!! I'm pretty sure this football match did not have a live audience of 250,000 and a television audience of tens of millions, but happy to be proven wrong, of course!! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:34, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Not quite, it had around 17k viewers in the ground, haha. And TV coverage... yeah there probably was. But nothing like coverage for, for example, the world snooker championship. 37.138.77.119 (talk) 18:42, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  But yet "so much more notable"? I'd say that Ipswich Town F.C. (second tier, mediocre local English football club) get 17k people to most of their home games. Maybe I'll start nominating each of those (especially if we win one or two of them!!) The Rambling Man (talk) 19:19, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry, i actually misremembered and it was 14k attendance. In a ground that holds 16k, a tiny ground and yet still the biggest club game of the season. Does not give any indication that snooker or 'canoe' racing is less notable just looking at that. So Gamaliel, could you provide anything to support your claim that this event was more notable than whole sports like snooker or 'canoe' racing? I am genuinely interested. 37.138.77.119 (talk) 19:37, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  "especially if we win one or two of them!!"... well, at least we won't have to deal with those nominations then... :P 37.138.77.119 (talk) 22:15, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Posted, now that a prose summary of the match has been added per TRM. I've added this to the men's blurb, as per the suggestions above, modeling it off the blurb for 2017's Boat Race. (Unfortunately, having two separate leagues and a picture makes this one just a bit more complex.) I don't any particular attachment to this wording, if someone would like to propose an alternative, or a preference on splitting it out into its own blurb. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:45, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Pull. There is no consensus to add this to ITN; even the nominator describes themselves as 'borderline oppose' following the discussion. There's even less support for combining the blurb with the men's event. I don't understand why this was added. Modest Genius ^talk 10:09, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Eh, seems fine. There's a decent summary in the article. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 10:17, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed, but this is not on ITNR so there needs to be consensus that the item is significant enough for ITN, not just that there is a suitable update. No such consensus exists. Modest Genius ^talk 12:36, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I read a rough consensus above, once a prose summary had been added to TRM's satisfaction. YMMCV. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 13:39, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nope, not at all. I showed no satisfaction, nor any support. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:36, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't mind the blurbs being conflated, but I do mind yet another rogue admin manoeuvre from an admin who has just recently made an error here, and who, in the past, has demonstrated that they should perhaps leave this part of Wikipedia to other, more experienced admins. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:29, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Once again, you've breached your arb restrictions. "The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) is prohibited from posting speculation about the motivations of editors or reflections on their general competence. Straight from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man#Amendments. Now at WP:AE#The Rambling Man. Cheers. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 13:39, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • In your opinion. In my opinion I've simply noted that you've made two mistakes involving the main page in a few days. I don't think you should do that. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:40, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • The in the news template is edited and re-edited all the time, often by Stephen. I really don't have any concerns over that. I also don't have any concerns with people pulling a blurb, which also happens all the time, if there was consensus to post, which there was. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 13:42, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, there was no consensus to post at all. Sorry about that. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:44, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • Good talk here. Really glad we had it. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 13:54, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
            • And a superb and ongoing demonstration of your continual failure to meet WP:ADMINACCT. Which is something anyone is free to discuss. You have been warned before about playing with the main page, and yet here you are, back again, making edits against consensus. It's got to stop. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:57, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

              It was a line call, with votes roughly split, and a paucity of real 3rd party evidence of newsworthiness (or lack of it) in any of them, so I concur with The Ed 17 that it was not wrong to post it at the time.  — Amakuru (talk) 07:47, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

              • No, sorry, that's not how judging consensus works. The votes to oppose were based in policy and addressed core concerns, the votes to support were just ILIKEIT votes (or worse, POINTed votes), and in any case, even just counting them up there was definitely no consensus. Plus the posting admin made a fake claim about my position being "satisfied" without so much as even asking me. It was a bad post. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:57, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

                There is no policy when it comes to ITN, that's one of the reasons why conversations here are sometimes mired in donkey manure. If we had measurable criteria to judge a story by, as we do for article notability, then things might be easier, but in the end the decision to post or not post comes down to editor preference, based on what they consider interesting or notable. Also, your initial oppose was apparently based solely on article quality so in that sense what you said was "satisfied".  — Amakuru (talk) 08:06, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

                No, in no sense was I "satisfied" such that anyone could claim I supported the nomination. And no, policy-based argument trumps personal opinion in every case. So no, there was definitely no consensus here, not even purely numerically. It was a clear mistake to post, as evidenced by the five pull comments below. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:22, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Pull There was absolutely no consensus to post this and it needs to be taken down. At least one of the above supports was demonstrated to be inaccurate. Lepricavark (talk) 19:14, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Pull Agree with Lepricavark and others. No consensus emerged regarding the appropriateness of the subject for ITN. Jip Orlando (talk) 20:15, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Pull No consensus, and I agree with Modest Genius that this competition is just not significant enough (yet).--Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:28, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Pull While i as nominator would have, of course, been happy with seeing this posted, i cannot condone the way it happened. There is no consensus in any way. One support is pure fantasy even, unless they could provide sources to back their claim of course. So as of now should be totally disregarded. I only nominated this because the soon to be men's final would allow a combined blurb, otherwise i would not have nominated and perhaps opposed it. While i realise that is what happened, it was not up to the posting admin to override consensus which i for one completely accept. Especialy a suggestion for a stand alone blurb is highly questionable as even i mentioned that the events notablity in its own right might be not high enough (at least not yet anyway). So, coming from the nominator... please do the right thing. Pull this and follow consensus. 37.138.77.119 (talk) 20:35, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Pull I have no strong opinions on this, but there is clearly no consensus here. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 21:20, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I've pulled it. There wasn't even majority support before posting, and near-unanimous opposition afterward. —Cryptic 21:51, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I support the admin's pull, but forshame to the opposes. It hurt NOTHING to make this a combined blurb, and talk about systemic bias! Male sports at ITN totally over-represented. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:52, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• You are not going to win anyone over by attempting to shame people who are acting in good faith. Lepricavark (talk) 02:12, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support and Repost. Including this in the men's event is eminently sensible - this is the equivalent premier event in the women's calendar, albeit not as widely covered. But we're not a news ticker, we go for encyclopedic interest, and I don't think it hurts us to include it in a combined blurb, as we were doing. It's too long ago now to know whether it was on the front pages of online newspapers, but I suspect it was, given that the Guardian covered it in a minute by minute report,[8] and the BBC has the whole match on their website for viewing.[9].  — Amakuru (talk) 07:39, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: John "TotalBiscuit" Bain

Nominator's comments: I know there's an orange tag, I need to wait a bit to let editing on the death news die out to replace primary with better sources. Masem (t) 23:31, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Possibly the second most cynical brit I know ... may he rest in peace. Re: primary sources -- I dunno if you'll be able to clean that up, he basically podcasted his own illness. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:40, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, I've been able to hit all but 2 (outside one longer Reddit post he made but referred to in other sources). There's a handleful more but his illness/struggle with cancer was well reported on, just not the nitty gritty. --Masem (t) 01:02, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support nice work Masem. Subject passes WP:N and a handful of primary sources about non-controversial items like his illness are ok by me, and WP:PRIMARY would seem to allow this. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:18, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose nearly there, fix final [cn]. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:24, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed up. --Masem (t) 05:32, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. No tags on article. I fixed a CS1 error so there are no more problem hidden categories. wumbolo ^^^ 07:44, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Well-referenced article. Capitalistroadster (talk) 10:40, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Came here to post this. Looks fine to me. shoy (reactions) 13:01, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• support beat me to it.💸Money💸emoji💸^💴 14:11, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Posting, using the article name. Ping me if you want it changed. --Tone 14:13, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Jack Johnson pardon

Consensus will not develop for this to be posted. Stephen 01:06, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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: Jack Johnson (boxer) (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Jack Johnson, the first African American world heavyweight boxing champion, is pardoned for his 1913 conviction for violating the Mann Act. (Post)
News source(s): ESPN
Credits:

• Nominated by Bender235 (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Clearly encyclopedic. bender235 (talk) 18:18, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Other than a quick sentence or two about the action, I'm not finding extensive coverage of this story in news outlets. Even major sports outlets aren't treating it as a "front page" story; it's mostly buried in boxing sections. --Jayron32 18:21, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It sure isn't the dominating story of the day, but I didn't see the Venezuelan presidential election, or the Palme d'Or film festival filling newspaper front pages either, and yet we have them in our current ITN. --bender235 (talk) 20:17, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose This news is small potatoes. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:09, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Posthumous pardons face an uphill battle at ITN. We did post Alan Turing's in December 2013, but Johnson is no Turing, and a year-and-a-day prison term isn't comparable to chemical castration. Oppose. —Cryptic 20:33, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, political act by politician. Abductive (reasoning) 21:58, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: More symbolic; not sure if this would be eligible for DYK but this would be more suited there. Spencer^T•C 22:08, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Cryptic. Daniel Case (talk) 23:34, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Closed) Cancellation of North Korea–United States summit

(Posted) MH17 investigation

Nominator's comments: Official confirmation of the unofficial suspicion, even if the criminal investigation is still ongoing. Brandmeister^talk 13:38, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support It is hard to judge if there is going to be any criminal-type proceedings from this, but official closure on the cause of this crash is appropriate, and the article seems updated and well sourced. --Masem (t) 13:41, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Article quality is sufficient, article is sufficiently updated, item is being covered sufficiently by reliable news sources. --Jayron32 14:23, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Suppport – with the proviso that we avoid language implying that the JIT proved that it was shot down by the Russian BUK. (Presumably, only the Russians know with absolute certainty.) In the article, I changed today's new "confirmed that" to "declared that." There are numerous acceptable uses of "confirmed" farther down in the article. Sca (talk) 15:43, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support as this is merely confirmation of something that was already overwhelmingly likely, but it's certainly in the news and has implications for international relations. Can we make the blurb more concise? I've not checked all the nuances of the report, but would it correct to say "The Joint Investigation Team reports that Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 was shot down by Russian forces"? Modest Genius ^talk 16:39, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• No, because the article suggests that the Buk was under the control of rebel Ukranian forces, not Russian ones. Black Kite (talk) 17:28, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which article suggests that? --bender235 (talk) 20:18, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, what about "The Joint Investigation Team reports that the missile which shot down Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 was provided by Russia"? Modest Genius ^talk 11:28, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Suppport – this is a major development in this investigation. BabbaQ (talk) 22:30, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Until we have a truly independent investigation, everything that comes from it is just politics. HiLo48 (talk) 22:49, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Russian misinformation has found yet another victim, it seems. (/off-topic) --bender235 (talk) 23:33, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is that an attack on me, Russia, or both? HiLo48 (talk) 04:48, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think the only way you could get a "truly independent" investigation would be for aliens from another planet to investigate it. 331dot (talk) 08:36, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That would depend on which planet they came from. Vulcan might be OK, as Vulcanians are not very emotional. Sca (talk) 20:48, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and I'm glad you see that. Many here don't. HiLo48 (talk) 08:54, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see that, but I also see that this is as close to an official conclusion as we are going to get. An investigation involving Russia seems remote(as they would have been involved with this one if they wanted to be) so that shouldn't prevent this from being posted. Readers can see for themselves the nature of this investigation. 331dot (talk) 09:01, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Only if some of us are consistently vigilant about the language used in the article, making sure it always makes it quite clear where statements come from. I'll be watching. HiLo48 (talk) 09:06, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We can't mention this again until those aliens arrive? I think ALT Blurb is perfectly satisfactory. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:06, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak support per Modest Genius. Banedon (talk) 05:41, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Dutch and Australian media report today that the Netherlands and Australia officially hold Russia responsible. I currently don't have the opportunity to update the article, but it might add to the relevance. Thayts ••• 09:04, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - As per above comment. Added alt blurb Sherenk1 (talk) 11:52, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - As per above comments and with alt alt2 blurb. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:06, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I've added a 2nd altblurb to tie the developments together. AU/Netherlands are blaming Russia due to the conclusion of the investigation, even if the investigaton didn't say Russia did it. --Masem (t) 14:07, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per above, with a preference for alt2. Thryduulf (talk) 14:09, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per above, with a preference for the 2nd alt blurb as well, to which I've added the words "Russian" and "formally". Thayts ••• 20:12, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

⇒ The phrase "formally hold Russia responsible" is perplexing. What does it mean in practical terms? Are Australia and the Netherlands going to file criminal charges against the Russian Federation or sue it for damages it in their own domestic courts? Rotsa ruck. Russia is a sovereign state. Nor would one expect action from the International Court of Justice, since Russia is one of the (in effect) permanent members. Seems the original blurb is the only one unequivocally correct. Sca (talk) 20:41, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because they plan to bring Russia to the ICJ. Will the ICJ likely do anything? No, but its a matter of "being on the record" in case they have to justify things like sanctions or other unilaterial actions against Russia. --Masem (t) 22:42, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would support when the ICJ makes a similar conclusion. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 07:29, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It does seem that MH17 may become an ICJ case at some point. If that happens we could consider posting that fact then. Meanwhile, it's high time we either post Alt1 or close the discussion. Sca (talk) 13:17, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per above. Davey2116 (talk) 22:37, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Though if something gets posted, it should be ALT1. While I understand Joint investigation team is not the target article, it is currently a sub-stub that shouldn't be linked on the main page. But even then, HiLo48's concerns are legit. There were no Russian investigators in this "joint" team. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 07:29, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Apart from HiLo48's concern over the investigation, nothing will actually change if Australia and the Netherlands, that is 2 out of 193 UN members, hold Russia responsible for downing the aircraft with no sign of any further implications. Sorry, but this is not going to revive the people who tragically lost their lives in this accident, and no-one on the planet would dare to give a damn that coming to conclusion could change the world. That said, we're not here to advertise the surprisingly outstanding finding that 'Russia downed the aircraft'.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:54, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think the aim here was to "revive the people who tragically lost their lives in this accident", so I don't think you need to apologise. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:58, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Anyway, I fail to see any major implications and world-changing manifestations coming as a result, except we now know that the finding inclines towards Russia as being guilty for downing the aircraft, which is nothing surprisingly outstanding, though. I'd consider posting this only in case the international reactions result in severe consequences, but it doesn't seem that someone cares about the whole thing too much. Yet, no need for a hurry and let's wait to see how this is going to develop.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:33, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  If we wait too long it won't be news. I agree there may not be any direct consequences from this for weeks or months. I'd disagree that "it doesn't seem that someone cares about the whole thing too much." I'm sure there are very many people who want to see Russia held to account, although it seems it was military incompetence that was largely to blame for the tragedy. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:18, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  I consider this news a stepping stone to another resulting news with major impact that would merit inclusion. The consequences of this might be a UN resolution of any sort, economic sanctions, military restrictions, political isolation or whatever else on a global scale. Once any of these happens, we can post a blurb using a clause 'as a result/consequence of' to recall to this news; if nothing happens, then this news would fail the test for producing major impact. There is no time-frame, however, in which anything has to happen, so we can practically keep this on hold indefinitely, and wait for its noteworthiness materialise at any time in future. After three days, we have 2 UN members holding Russia responsible with 190 (excluding Russia) remaining silent and no other sign of potential consequences. But the things might change. Let's wait and see.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:15, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  It's a bit blunt to say no one cares too much indeed, obviously the Netherlands and Australia do, and think of all the victims' relatives... Apart from that, several other countries and organisations like Germany, the UK, the US, the EU and NATO have reacted to the JIT's report and called for Russia to cooperate in the investigation (as until now they seem not to have cooperated constructively at all). This might not have ended up in the article yet, though. Anyway, I certainly believe this story will have a tail and looking at the current doubt of posting this I agree to perhaps post news about a later development instead. Thayts ••• 16:16, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh, and all the other countries that form the JIT obviously care much as well, because why else would they be investigating? Thayts ••• 16:22, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about the Netherlands, but there is nothing notable at all in Australia blaming Russia. The Prime Minister at the time had been blaming Russia for everything that happened in that part of the world for years before the plane crash. (Australia is good at "fearing" Russia. It has forts around the coastline from the 1800s to keep the Russians out.) He blamed Russia for the crash within hours of it happening, before any evidence at all could have existed. That PM has since been sacked by his own party as an electoral liability, but the same party is still in power. What would be notable would be that government saying anything else but Russia did it. HiLo48 (talk) 22:11, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Important story. Davey2116 (talk) 12:28, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

⇒ Stale. Suggest close. Sca (talk) 12:59, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Marked ready, as there seems to be general consensus and not stale, because it's newer than the oldest current ITN item. Brandmeister^talk 18:35, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe so, but in the world out there a news story, like a fish, is stale after three days. Sca (talk) 21:31, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Five days old. Starting to stink. Sca (talk) 22:11, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Posted It's newer than the Man Booker Prize, making it eligible. Note that I posted a slightly different version of the original blurb to directly target the "Findings of the Joint Investigation Team" section. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:49, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Cyclone Mekunu