Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates: Difference between revisions
Line 87: | Line 87: | ||
**:Like I pointed out in my nom, the updates are mostly content tweaks and ref fixes. I'm doubtful that protesters in Pakistan or Taiwan are protesting fuel prices in France. This may still be happening, but it's no longer "in the news". --[[User:LaserLegs|LaserLegs]] ([[User talk:LaserLegs|talk]]) 18:49, 22 December 2018 (UTC) |
**:Like I pointed out in my nom, the updates are mostly content tweaks and ref fixes. I'm doubtful that protesters in Pakistan or Taiwan are protesting fuel prices in France. This may still be happening, but it's no longer "in the news". --[[User:LaserLegs|LaserLegs]] ([[User talk:LaserLegs|talk]]) 18:49, 22 December 2018 (UTC) |
||
**:It's not about updates on the WP article, but how the news in general is updating the situation. And there only seems to be a few blips of changed information day to day while non-violent protests continue. --[[User:Masem|M<span style="font-variant: small-caps">asem</span>]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 21:31, 22 December 2018 (UTC) |
**:It's not about updates on the WP article, but how the news in general is updating the situation. And there only seems to be a few blips of changed information day to day while non-violent protests continue. --[[User:Masem|M<span style="font-variant: small-caps">asem</span>]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 21:31, 22 December 2018 (UTC) |
||
*::: Both of these statements is just self-evidently not true: [[Yellow vests movement#22 December: 'Act VI']] But thanks for making me see this nomination is purely political. [[User:Openlydialectic|Openlydialectic]] ([[User talk:Openlydialectic|talk]]) 22:08, 22 December 2018 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Support removal'''. If it flares up again or there are other significant events it can get a new blurb, but for now it's died down below front-page level. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 20:17, 22 December 2018 (UTC) |
*'''Support removal'''. If it flares up again or there are other significant events it can get a new blurb, but for now it's died down below front-page level. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 20:17, 22 December 2018 (UTC) |
||
Revision as of 22:08, 22 December 2018
![]() | Welcome to In The News. Please read the guidelines. Admin instructions are here. |
![]() |
---|
This page provides a place to discuss new items for inclusion on In the news (ITN), a protected template on the Main Page (see past items in the ITN archives). Do not report errors in ITN items that are already on the Main Page here— discuss those at the relevant section of WP:ERRORS.
This candidates page is integrated with the daily pages of Portal:Current events. A light green header appears under each daily section – it includes transcluded Portal:Current events items for that day. You can discuss ITN candidates under the header.
view — page history — related changes — edit |
Glossary
All articles linked in the ITN template must pass our standards of review. They should be up-to-date, demonstrate relevance via good sourcing and have at least an acceptable quality. Nomination steps
The better your article's quality, the better it covers the event and the wider its perceived significance (see WP:ITNSIGNIF for details), the better your chances of getting the blurb posted.
Headers
Voicing an opinion on an itemFormat your comment to contain "support" or "oppose", and include a rationale for your choice. In particular, address the notability of the event, the quality of the article, and whether it has been updated. Please do...
Please do not...
Suggesting updatesThere are two places where you can request corrections to posted items:
|
Suggestions
December 22
December 22, 2018
(Saturday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Arts and culture
Disasters and accidents
Politics and elections
|
RD: Paddy Ashdown
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Sky News
Credits:
- Nominated by Thryduulf (talk · give credit)
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: UK politician, former leader of the Liberal Democrats. The news is just breaking but I had 3 edit conflicts trying to update the article, but it looks in good shape. Thryduulf (talk) 20:06, 22 December 2018 (UTC) Thryduulf (talk) 20:06, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
- Support RD not flawless (and probably worth waiting an hour for the high-volume editing to die down) but nothing significant that will prevent posting this. Certainly not blurb-worthy, but just prominent enough someone might suggest one. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:11, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
- I agree with your comments about a blurb. He was a prominent figure in British politics for decades, so it's not unreasonable to ask the question but I think the answer is no as he never held high office and wasn't otherwise a major international figure. Thryduulf (talk) 20:15, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
- Support death been up dated (I was one of the edit conflicts), and article good enough. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:14, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
- Wait for moreBig personality but still breaking so we need more confirmation and details. Andrew D. (talk) 20:13, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
- Support The national honours section needs cited, the styles of address is bare (though I don't know if its needed? Don't care, personally - it's understood). Otherwise, clean as a whistle, sharp as a thistle, no sticks, no gristle. ghost 20:16, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
- Support Overall article quality is actually quite decent. Referencing is not perfect, but it is far better than what I typically see for prominent RD nominations. There are a few gaps, but not enough to block posting. (The honours section does need some work though.) -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:48, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
- Support. Enough confirmation, good enough article. - SchroCat (talk) 21:20, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
December 21
December 21, 2018
(Friday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Science and technology
|
RD: Tom Leonard
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
Credits:
- Nominated by GreatCaesarsGhost (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Stormy clouds (talk · give credit)
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: Some issues, but seems reasonably close. ghost 13:16, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
- Weak Support - was working towards a nom myself. Still some problems, particularly with one passage which is poorly referenced, but nearly good to go. Stormy clouds (talk) 14:02, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose – I hate to say it but WP:OR is a problem. It is good original reasearch but original nonetheless.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 15:42, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
Remove: Yellow vest movement
Nominator's comments: I have no doubt that some people somewhere in France are standing around in a yellow vest protesting. This story has largely fallen out of the headlines (particularly since the Christmas market attack); the article is still getting updates but it's mostly content tweaks, re-orgs and some reactions from Taiwan; the last substantial update in the timeline is "Act V" (what does that even mean) on December 15 sort of related to the 2018 Strasbourg attack and before that December 10 with a speech from Macron. Like California wildfires we pull it when the story is done, not when the event is done. Time to take it down, I think. LaserLegs (talk) 23:44, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- Support Removal no significant updates to justify keeping the event in ongoing TheTerribleToess bug me on my talk page! 04:15, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Removal Rise in similar tagged events in Belgium, and Taiwan warrants the maintenance of the status quo. Shadychiri (talk) 08:28, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
OpposeSupport Removal The trickling here and there news will take a long time to stop. The substantial story, however, has slowed down to extent Ongoing is no longer warranted. –Ammarpad (talk) 08:49, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
- Ammarpad You seem to be saying that you support removal, but you wrote "oppose". 331dot (talk) 08:53, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
- My bad. I fixed it. –Ammarpad (talk) 08:58, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
- Ammarpad You seem to be saying that you support removal, but you wrote "oppose". 331dot (talk) 08:53, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
- Support Just about to come here to propose this myself. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 10:28, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Removal What are you guys and girls talking about? It's clearly still ongoing. Just look at the main page of France24 https://www.france24.com/en/ Openlydialectic (talk) 14:28, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
- Support removal The "Ongoing" ticker are meant for events that have, on average, daily major updates. While no question the protests are still ongoing, the news-making is more of a dull roar with a few periodic updates here and there, making it fail the "ongoing" ticker requirement. --Masem (t) 15:36, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
- there clearly are daily (hourly) updates to the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yellow_vests_movement&action=history Openlydialectic (talk) 16:44, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
- Like I pointed out in my nom, the updates are mostly content tweaks and ref fixes. I'm doubtful that protesters in Pakistan or Taiwan are protesting fuel prices in France. This may still be happening, but it's no longer "in the news". --LaserLegs (talk) 18:49, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
- It's not about updates on the WP article, but how the news in general is updating the situation. And there only seems to be a few blips of changed information day to day while non-violent protests continue. --Masem (t) 21:31, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
- Both of these statements is just self-evidently not true: Yellow vests movement#22 December: 'Act VI' But thanks for making me see this nomination is purely political. Openlydialectic (talk) 22:08, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
- Support removal. If it flares up again or there are other significant events it can get a new blurb, but for now it's died down below front-page level. Thryduulf (talk) 20:17, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
December 20
December 20, 2018
(Thursday)
Arts and culture
Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and economy
Disasters and incidents
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Science and technology
Sports
|
RD: F. W. Bernstein
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): FNP
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by Gerda Arendt (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: Only professor for cartoons and comics in Germany, satirist, Neue Frankfurter Schule --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:35, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Donald Moffat
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Fox News, BBC
Credits:
- Nominated by CoatCheck (talk · give credit)
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: Veteran film and Broadway actor. CoatCheck (talk) 15:06, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Needs a lot of work, like citations in the body, a referenced filmography, and a lead that summarizes his key roles. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:43, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- Support Much improved since Muboshgu took a look. Still needs a couple more sentences in the lead but I am not certain which parts of his career to highlight.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 19:29, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, much improved. Can we get those last unsourced items sourced? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:02, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- I think we are good to go now.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 01:09, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, much improved. Can we get those last unsourced items sourced? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:02, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- Support I struck one entry from the filmography but cited the rest. Looks fine now. ghost 12:22, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
- Posted. Thryduulf (talk) 20:10, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
December 19
December 19, 2018
(Wednesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Science and technology
|
(Closed) US President Trump orders the withdrawal of all US troops from Syria
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.
Blurb: US President Donald Trump orders the withdrawal of all US troops from Syria. (Post)
News source(s): Almost every network, eg Zeit, CNN, Al Jazeera, etc
Credits:
- Nominated by Tlhslobus (talk · give credit)
Article updated
- Oppose Trump had long indicated he wanted to remove troops there since April at least, this is not a surprising development. Further, the media is jumping on this as sensationalist news - its very similar to how the UK press was attacking PM May over the Brexit stuff over the last week. --Masem (t) 05:28, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- That's not the impression one gets from reading what the article lead says about 2018, backed by cited sources, but of course if we want to dismiss all our Reliable Sources as Fake News, then we can presumably post or not post anything we like (especially in relation to Trump who has been saying lots of things on lots of subjects for years; on that basis, for instance, we wouldn't post a US withdrawal from NATO as it would 'not be a surprising development' given what Trump has said in the past). Indeed on that basis we could almost never post the end of any country's involvement in any war, since there will almost always have been some indication beforehand that the possibility was being considered. Tlhslobus (talk) 08:08, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- Currently it seems Trump is still mulling the withdrawal, but hasn't issued the relevant order as the commander-in-chief. The Dept. of Defense website hasn't announced the withdrawal either, although it has a link to its Twitter account saying "We have started the process of returning U.S. troops home from #Syria as we transition to the next phase of the campaign". Brandmeistertalk 09:21, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks, do you have a reliable source for 'still mulling over'? Tlhslobus (talk) 10:05, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- That is my reading of news sources - despite the headlines, the situation is unclear. The Dept. of State site currently doesn't mention the withdrawing either. Perhaps wait a bit longer to let the dust settle. Brandmeistertalk 11:34, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- According to this source, after the tweet and the White House announcement, State Department cancelled a scheduled press briefing. That in itself is quite notable already. Wakari07 (talk) 13:33, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- That is my reading of news sources - despite the headlines, the situation is unclear. The Dept. of State site currently doesn't mention the withdrawing either. Perhaps wait a bit longer to let the dust settle. Brandmeistertalk 11:34, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks, do you have a reliable source for 'still mulling over'? Tlhslobus (talk) 10:05, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- It is not that the RS are fake news here, but that with Trump as controversial a president as he is, the news sources cover every action he does in such a critical manner moreso than any president prior, and that creates sensationalist news, making such events seem like the end of the world or the like with how much they cover it. We have to be aware of this media subject inflation in evaluating ITN stories. --Masem (t) 15:25, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- The news source here is the Pentagon, not Twitter. It's Putin here who is happy, not Ivanka. Wakari07 (talk) 16:45, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- The news sources we use to judge whether something is ITN is the mainstream media that are repeated what the Pentagon, the White House, and others involved have said and added their own spin atop it. That's the sensationalism part at play. --Masem (t) 17:00, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- The news source here is the Pentagon, not Twitter. It's Putin here who is happy, not Ivanka. Wakari07 (talk) 16:45, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- Currently it seems Trump is still mulling the withdrawal, but hasn't issued the relevant order as the commander-in-chief. The Dept. of Defense website hasn't announced the withdrawal either, although it has a link to its Twitter account saying "We have started the process of returning U.S. troops home from #Syria as we transition to the next phase of the campaign". Brandmeistertalk 09:21, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- That's not the impression one gets from reading what the article lead says about 2018, backed by cited sources, but of course if we want to dismiss all our Reliable Sources as Fake News, then we can presumably post or not post anything we like (especially in relation to Trump who has been saying lots of things on lots of subjects for years; on that basis, for instance, we wouldn't post a US withdrawal from NATO as it would 'not be a surprising development' given what Trump has said in the past). Indeed on that basis we could almost never post the end of any country's involvement in any war, since there will almost always have been some indication beforehand that the possibility was being considered. Tlhslobus (talk) 08:08, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- Support this is seeing more than enough coverage to support. Plus, even if it's not surprising, if this had been nominated in April it would undoubtedly not have been posted because it "hasn't happened yet". Also, there're articles like this saying there'll be wide implications.. Banedon (talk) 12:28, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Not particularly credible. Changes orders like the wind blows. And Department of Defense and officials contradicted him. That a partial withdrawal may have started is no guarantee that the political rhetoric will become fact. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:34, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose the article is a meticulously referenced monument to proseline. example. It's certainly in the news, but concerns above about Trumps erratic behavior are also valid. A presidential twit is not the same as moving troops. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:52, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose - A manufactured story. As with most other things that Trump has done, this is merely to distract from the recent news regarding the dissolution of the Trump Foundation as well as other legal issues he's facing.--WaltCip (talk) 13:02, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- Support - A major shift in foreign policy [1], confirmed by the White House [2] and the Pentagon [3] and making headlines [4], eliciting notable reactions in the U.S. [5] [6] and around the world [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]. Wakari07 (talk) 13:20, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
CommentOppose – A case of declaring victory and getting out. Timing seems political, shocking though that may seem to some. – Sca (talk) 14:33, 20 December 2018 (UTC)- Oppose for now we'll have to wait and see if he actually withdraws troops, or if the US just withdraws some regular troops, while retaining advisors, spec ops, private military contractors and all the other rabble they brought with them. As of right now, I don't believe for a second the US is actually going to remove their illegal occupation of the country, the hawks are far too strong in Washington (as evidenced by the media meltdown in general). Openlydialectic (talk) 14:36, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose – Article quality well below par. It is basically a monthly timeline of military actions. May I suggest Withdrawal of U.S. troops from Syria similar to Withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq? --- Coffeeandcrumbs 16:10, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Trump swinging around military isn't really news, article still needs work. Kingsif (talk) 19:32, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- Support the actual withdrawal. There is only one way to verify Trump's promise: wait for the withdrawal and post this then. I suspect a bit that this will be canceled and that Trump will rant again on Twitter about "Animal Assad" and blame Obama. wumbolo ^^^ 21:27, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
December 18
December 18, 2018
(Tuesday)
Disasters and accidents
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Science and technology
|
(Posted) RD: Bill Slater
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:
- Nominated by TDKR Chicago 101 (talk · give credit)
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: Article well sourced --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 02:07, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
- Support It looks OK to me. –Ammarpad (talk) 08:17, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
- Comment I've added a couple of cite tags for some statements that are somewhat contentious.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:35, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Pawnkingthree: I've removed the statements because I couldn't find reliable sources to cite them. Otherwise the article is in good shape. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:54, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- Support I've added another reference from The Guardian's obituary. Seems good to go now.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:55, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- Posted Stephen 22:11, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
December 17
December 17, 2018
(Monday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Arts and culture
Business and economy
Politics and elections
Science and technology
|
(Posted) RD: Penny Marshall
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NY Daily News
Credits:
- Nominated by Strikerforce (talk · give credit)
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: American actress. StrikerforceTalk 18:51, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose. Filmography completely unsourced. Capitalistroadster (talk) 19:21, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
- I tried to fix it.--SirEdimon (talk) 21:09, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
- IMDb is not a reliable source for Wikipedia. I just added a Variety article as a source for a number of entries in the filmography (though most of the specific character and episode names are not sourced in that article, so the section may need further cleanup). Funcrunch (talk) 02:22, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose for now. A number of paragraphs (particularly in the "career" section) are unsourced - Dumelow (talk) 21:47, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose for now. The entire filmography section remains unsourced. I tagged it, but the tag was removed by someone. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:26, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose There are several paragraphs that lack inline citations. ―Susmuffin Talk 15:28, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
- Support – Significant and well-known director, actress, and member of the LA/Hollywood community. News of her death has been widely covered, and conspicuous by its absence here. Article looks to be mostly well-cited (this isn't an FA/GA nomination, right?). —[AlanM1(talk)]— 19:30, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
- @AlanM1: No, it's not a GA/FA nomination, but I see at least one completely unsourced paragraph, and WP:BLP still applies to the recently deceased. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:47, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Muboshgu: Is that reason to omit it from the RD list? Is there a guideline about the criteria in this regard? If the unsourced 'graph (in Career?) is the problem, should it be removed so the article can be listed? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 19:24, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- @AlanM1: No, it's not a GA/FA nomination, but I see at least one completely unsourced paragraph, and WP:BLP still applies to the recently deceased. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:47, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
- Support added citations. MurielMary (talk) 22:00, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
- Support Influential director and actress. Article appears to be fully cited now.The lorax (talk) 22:20, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
- Support Article is fully cited now. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 22:35, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
- Not sure why Stephen has put orange tags on the sections of her work. Haven't we discussed this before - if a film etc is a blue link, there's no need to provide a citation as well?? MurielMary (talk) 22:50, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
- I've put orange tags on because they require references, and there is a stream of people here stating that it's fully referenced. This has been discussed endlessly in the past. References need to be in the primary article, and a reader shouldn't need to click through to verify a claim. And many of the blue links are for series articles that do not specify individual episode casts and verify them. And many of the listed media are not blue links. Whether we need a list of every minor appearance in an encyclopaedic article is another matter. Stephen 22:59, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks Stephen for the reply. I remembered the endless discussions but not the outcome! Thanks. MurielMary (talk) 23:10, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
- References added to filmography, needs review by another editor now. TIA. MurielMary (talk) 11:06, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- I'm okay with Filmography. Awards section is not supported by the citation given; most of those can be deleted as niche, though. ghost 12:45, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- Support Sourcing is much improved. I believe it's ready for prime time. †dismas†|(talk) 18:58, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- Support Never heard the word impossible. CoatCheck (talk) 21:46, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- Posted Stephen 22:09, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Francis Roache
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
Credits:
- Nominated by Dumelow (talk · give credit)
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: American cop and politician. Article looks good to me - Dumelow (talk) 16:05, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
- Support - nominator is right. Looks good to go.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:34, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
- Support meets RD requirements. I have marked this as ready. --DannyS712 (talk) 18:07, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
- Posted Stephen 00:28, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
(Closed) Miss Universe 2018
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.
Blurb: Catriona Gray of the Philippines is crowned Miss Universe 2018. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Catriona Gray representing the Philippines is crowned Miss Universe 2018.
Alternative blurb II: Ángela Ponce becomes the first transgender woman to compete in the Miss Universe pageant, won by Catriona Gray of the Phillipines.
News source(s): [14]
Credits:
- Nominated by BabbaQ (talk · give credit)
Article updated
- Oppose due to lack of a prose update about the actual pageant and it needs a tense update. Support the good faith of this nom, and I could get behind a more comprehensive article. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:34, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose posting subjective "beauty" pageants, as I did last year when this was not posted. 331dot (talk) 11:48, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
- Support - ITN isn't ITN without the news of Miss Universe. Period. STSC (talk) 12:33, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose. After the quick close last year, this one has no rationale, and looks like a disruptive nomination. Please do not nominate next year without good reason. wumbolo ^^^ 13:30, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
- Note: several editors below use the terms "good faith" and "bad faith". I did not use any of them in my comment, and they are irrelevant here (disruptive ≠ bad faith). wumbolo ^^^ 14:45, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
- You said that this nomination is disruptive; that suggests some sort of nefarious motive in making the nomination on the part of the nominator(at least to me). I guess we will just have to disagree about that, but I hope that a well meaning editor was not driven off with your statements that they were disruptive. 331dot (talk) 18:33, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
- Note: several editors below use the terms "good faith" and "bad faith". I did not use any of them in my comment, and they are irrelevant here (disruptive ≠ bad faith). wumbolo ^^^ 14:45, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
- Wumbolo I see no evidence that this nomination is anything other than in good faith. If you have evidence of bad faith or intent to disrupt, please offer it or withdraw the comment. Thank you. 331dot (talk) 13:33, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
- Nominating an insignificant event every year, without remotely reflecting on the fact that the past year's nomination failed, is disruptive. wumbolo ^^^ 13:40, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
- Or, the user is checking to see if consensus has changed. That's not bad faith or disruptive. We don't have a "never nominate" list. 331dot (talk) 13:47, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
- I agree that this appears to be a good-faith nomination. There is no moratorium on nominating events that previously failed to gain consensus, though of course they usually meet the same outcome. Modest Genius talk 14:39, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) From the policy you cited: Editors may propose a change to current consensus, especially to raise previously unconsidered arguments or circumstances. On the other hand, proposing to change a recent consensus can be disruptive. The nominator raised zero previously unconsidered arguments or circumstances. Since the nominator did not attempt to contest the previous consensus, it should not be changed. wumbolo ^^^ 14:41, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
- A year ago is not recent enough to be disruptive. A day, a week, or even a few months, maybe, but not a year. I strongly disagree with your characterization of this nomination even as knowing (and agreeing with the fact that) it will likely fail. 331dot (talk) 14:50, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
- What previous consensus? As far as I know, the article titled Miss Universe 2018 has not yet been brought up for discussion. --Jayron32 19:21, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
- Or, the user is checking to see if consensus has changed. That's not bad faith or disruptive. We don't have a "never nominate" list. 331dot (talk) 13:47, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
- Nominating an insignificant event every year, without remotely reflecting on the fact that the past year's nomination failed, is disruptive. wumbolo ^^^ 13:40, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose unless we're going to start recapping The Voice, too. ghost 13:45, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
- Miss Universe has been a notable event since 1926, possibly before you were born. STSC (talk) 14:10, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
- So? Age is not in the ITN criteria. Modest Genius talk 14:39, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
- You're confusing "existing" with "being notable." I'd agree that people once cared about Miss America, but that time passed decades ago. This one is even less notable. ghost 14:48, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
- Miss Universe has been a notable event since 1926, possibly before you were born. STSC (talk) 14:10, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose. My view hasn't changed since last year: no beauty pageants are sufficiently important (in terms of either encyclopaedic value or media interest) to merit an ITN blurb. No rationale was presented in the nomination, so there's really no reason to change my opinion. Besides, the article is little more than a bunch of tables and a description of the venue. Modest Genius talk 14:39, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
- Your rationale of "not sufficiently important in terms of either encyclopaedic value or media interest" would apply to Hockey World Cup, such a minority sport. STSC (talk) 15:13, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
- Snow close Beauty pageants do not meet the ITN threshold.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:06, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose - Though I agree with 331dot that this was not a disruptive nomination. Consensus can easily change within a year on ITN. Still, it seems a bit passe to be highlighting beauty pageants in 2018, especially since they're not in the news anyway.--WaltCip (talk) 15:10, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose - In general, the "recognition" of beauty pagaents has dramatically declined in the last few decades. Also,I'm thinking that with these types of annual/biannual/etc. events which are not currently in ITNR, that ITNR should be sought first as it doesn't make sense to ITNC a one-off event. (I agree this should not be taken as a disruptive nomination, just better to have had it start at ITNR first). --Masem (t) 17:07, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
- ‘’‘Oppose not notable enough to be included --DannyS712 (talk) 17:30, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
- Support with proper modification to the article to include the fact that this is the first time that a transgender female has competed in the Miss Universe competition. In my opinion, that makes it different than any other year that this contest has been held and worthy of ITN. StrikerforceTalk 17:38, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
- That would make it a decent DYK item. 331dot (talk) 17:47, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose literally of no encyclopedic value. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:02, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
- Support With blurb on first transgender contestant, a massive step for Miss Universe. Kingsif (talk) 21:42, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
December 16
December 16, 2018
(Sunday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents
Politics and elections
Sports
|
(Posted) RD: T. K. Wetherell
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
Credits:
- Nominated by Dumelow (talk · give credit)
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: American university president and politician. I had to do a little housekeeping on the article but it looks sufficient - Dumelow (talk) 17:59, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
- Support - Good faith support of posting.BabbaQ (talk) 21:52, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
- The first paragraph of the career section isn't supported by much in the given reference.Stephen 00:31, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
- Hi Stephen. I have taken a look and think I got them all - Dumelow (talk) 01:31, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
(Needs attention) 2018 Sri Lankan constitutional crisis
Blurb: Ranil Wickremesinghe is reinstated as Prime Minister and Mahinda Rajapaksa relinquishes his claim to the office in response to the Supreme Court ruling President Sirisena’s actions as unconstitutional. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Mahinda Rajapaksa resigns from office following which Ranil Wickremesinghe is sworn in as Prime Minister of Sri Lanka thus ending the constitutional crisis.
Alternative blurb II: The Supreme Court of Sri Lanka rules against the actions of President Maithripala Sirisena ending the constitutional crisis and restoring Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe's government.
News source(s): WaPo, BBC, Economynext
Credits:
- Nominated by Blackknight12 (talk · give credit)
Nominator's comments: Possibly ongoing political crisis, we'll have to see if its truely the end in the next couple of days. Blackknight12 (talk) 12:05, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
- Comment – Seems sorta like musical chairs. Sca (talk) 14:05, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
- Wait I agree with Sca, and feel that a blurb can be posted when the crisis is over and someone is charge with a level of stability. Kingsif (talk) 15:34, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
- Support important development in the crisis. The blurb can be updated if things change again. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:35, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
- Support per Ed. Banedon (talk) 23:35, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
- Support per Ed.BabbaQ (talk) 03:47, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Ranil Wickremesinghe is orange tagged for refs can't post a BLP vio to the MP bold or otherwise. This story is also way far down in the headlines. We posted this when it started, then it sat in Ongoing for a while ... is the return to the status quo really that "significant" given that the Prime Minister has no real power? --LaserLegs (talk) 12:42, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose - Domestic politics just isn't that ITN-worthy. STSC (talk) 13:19, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose given that this was already posted, this step is not incrementally important enough for a new post. ghost 13:45, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
- Return to ongoing. The situation has had several recent developments, reflected in the fact that 2018 Sri Lankan constitutional crisis is getting plenty of updates. I'm not convinced this step necessarily justifies a blurb on top of the previous posting, but I do think we should put 2018 Sri Lankan constitutional crisis back in ongoing for at least a few days. Modest Genius talk 14:44, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose as written, as the article on Ranil Wickremesinghe is ineligible to be the focus article of the blurb. Would probably support a rewritten blurb more explicitly directing readers to the 2018 Sri Lankan constitutional crisis which is in much better shape. I would also support ongoing for that article too. It appears this is still receiving regular updates, so highlighting through ongoing is appropriate. --Jayron32 18:09, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose either return to Ongoing (for how long?) or wait until something significant takes place. This isn't it. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:35, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
- Support on notability (I leave others to judge quality) but agree with Jayron that the target should probably be 2018 Sri Lankan constitutional crisis (presumably with some consequent blurb modifications). All the evidence currently suggests that the crisis is resolved at least for the time being, with the successful reestablishment of proper constitutional norms and the proper constitutional government, and the apparent acceptance of this by the (at least temporarily beaten) Rajapaksa. Of course future events may eventually change that, but that's seemingly WP:Crystal (so there seems no justification for Ongoing either). This is not simply ordinary domestic politics, it is the apparent defeat of something close to a coup d'etat (roughly comparable to the Queen in the UK deciding on her own to appoint Boris Johnson PM and order a General election contrary to the will of Parliament, with both then caving in to a Supreme Court ruling), and would almost certainly be posted if it occurred in a Western democracy. Something like that did actually happen in 1970s Australia when Gough Whitlam was ousted by the Queen's representative John Kerr; there was no Wikipedia at the time, but we have recently posted a far more trivial story about the parliamentary elegibility of a few Australian MPs. (Incidentally, both Australia and Si Lanka's population are of similar size, so it might seem a bit racist to try to argue that Australia is far more important than Sri Lanka). Failure to post on grounds of alleged insufficient notability would thus look like a bad case of WP:BIAS. Tlhslobus (talk) 06:46, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
- Support. The constitutional crisis seems to have concluded (per WaPo), now that the constitutional PM is back in power. 39.57.217.25 (talk) 07:53, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
- Him being back to power is non news, it just resets to the status quo before the crisis. We already posted the news, when it was news. –Ammarpad (talk) 08:28, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose both blurb and ongoing. The news is now domestic and of little interest to wider audience. There was crisis and resignations (and that was news and we posted it then) and now no crisis and normalcy restored (and that is non news) per my reply just above this. –Ammarpad (talk) 08:28, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
- Comment: How a crisis ends is at least as much news as how it starts. Indeed it's also more encyclopedic and more informative to the reader who gets to learn far more than at the start, including more about the background (which is what ITN is supposed to supply better than other sources) because we have had more time to write it up (and this extra time also tends to allow us to show better quality articles to our readers, which is another of the stated purposes of ITN). Or perhaps for consistency we shouldn't be reporting the end of wars either, on the basis that peace is normal and therefore the outbreak of peace is not news. Incidentally the main resignation (Rajapaksa's) came at the end of this crisis, not at the start. Tlhslobus (talk) 10:03, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
- You're not wrong, but this ignores the fact that we already had this posted (for a long time). Items eventually fall off or are removed, but that doesn't imply that the thing is over. Events will continue to unfold, some of which may warrant posting themselves. But we cannot imbue them with the significance of the event that already was posted, or ITN would be overwhelmed with the daily skirmishes in Ukraine, Syria, Yemen, etc. ghost 13:00, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
- I'd agree with you if this were just another event in an ongoing crisis. But the facts and the sources indicate that this is the end of this crisis (although it hasn't helped that this was not clear at the time of the nom, resulting in lots of early opposes, etc). Of course the crisis will inevitably have some ongoing effects in the subsequent 'normal politics' phase, but not posting on those grounds would be like not posting the end of a war because it will inevitably have some ongoing effects in the subsequent 'normal peace' phase. Similarly not posting the end of the crisis because we already posted its start is like not posting the end of a war because we already posted its start. (And it would also be like not posting Malcolm Fraser's election win because we had already posted Gough Whitlam's dismissal if Wikipedia existed in the 1970s, except that ITN/R would make that impossible). But a much better argument for not posting (and indeed for closing) relates to the (in my view rather regretable) increasingly apparent unlikelihood of a new consensus to post emerging here before the story goes completely stale. This suggests that some thought may be wanted about what, if anything, can be done to try to avoid this kind of problem in future, tho this is presumably the wrong forum for any such discussion. Tlhslobus (talk) 20:21, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
- You're not wrong, but this ignores the fact that we already had this posted (for a long time). Items eventually fall off or are removed, but that doesn't imply that the thing is over. Events will continue to unfold, some of which may warrant posting themselves. But we cannot imbue them with the significance of the event that already was posted, or ITN would be overwhelmed with the daily skirmishes in Ukraine, Syria, Yemen, etc. ghost 13:00, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose – Per Ghost, TRM. Getting stale, suggest close. Sca (talk) 14:50, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
- Comment: I have updated the blurb (Alternative blurb II) to reflect some of the issues against the quality of the Ranil Wickremesinghe article. This is domestic politics of Sri Lanka, concerning the status of democracy in the country and the avoidance of returning to authoritarianism under Mahinda Rajapaksa, which is one of the most important political issues in the country, but the outcomes of this crisis has effects that resonate through to the whole of South Asia and Asia region, such as allying with India and the West in favour of rule of law and democracy or with China and authoritarianism, to put it simply. The Supreme Court decisions also proved to be landmark rulings in the country, going against the powerful executive branch and showing the independence of the judiciary, independence that was severely curtained under the Presidency of Mahinda Rajapaksa. To put it bluntly this whole crisis is another way Rajapaksa is trying to seek and stay in power, after being barred from the presidency, while he is backed by China, who is using him for there Belt and Road Initiative through Debt-trap diplomacy.--Blackknight12 (talk) 07:50, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- Support and support ongoing - not stale: on 19 December, the Prime Minister appointed his new cabinet and now the race is on to approve a budget before the end of the year. The anticonstitutional coup failed, and that's a major geopolitical event, but "continued acrimony between Sirisena and Wickremesinghe means the crisis is far from over". [15] We can work on the blurb and the articles as the situation continues to evolve. Wakari07 (talk) 13:52, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- Support Alt II The crisis ended on December 16, making this the most current news item on ITN. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 19:03, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
- BTW, the Supreme Court handed down ruling on 13 December. So, still not stale if we go by that date. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 19:06, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
(Posted) 2018 Men's Hockey World Cup Final
Blurb: The Field Hockey World Cup concludes with Belgium defeating Netherlands in the final. (Post)
Alternative blurb: In field hockey, Belgium win the World Cup after defeating the Netherlands in the Final.
News source(s): [16]
Credits:
- Nominated by 117.237.197.60 (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Dee03 (talk · give credit) and Pelotas (talk · give credit)
Article updated
117.237.197.60 (talk) 13:09, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
- Support
on notability, oppose on qualityI'm a little surprised that this isn't ITN/R, given that the highest levels of a number of far smaller sports (both in terms of participation and viewership) are represented there. But, yes, it needs a prose breakdown of the final at least. Black Kite (talk) 14:23, 16 December 2018 (UTC) - Wait until its conclusion. We don't post matches/games in progress. 331dot (talk) 15:55, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
- Concluded now, blurb fixed. Black Kite (talk) 18:43, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Lacking prose update. Tables and lists are no substitute. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:04, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
- Support prose is overrated. In articles like this what matters is 1) who won 2) what the score was, and both are in the article. Banedon (talk) 23:36, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose Prose is existential to an encyclopedia. Without it, you have an almanac. Which is a fine thing, just not the thing we're doing here. ghost 13:52, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
- Support Match is completed and results are announced a day earlier. See 2018 Men's Hockey World Cup Final. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.63.61.53 (talk) 13:28, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
- Support once more prose has been added. This appears to be the top event in a noteworthy sport. The blurb should also be edited to include the "In field hockey" opening that we normally use for sports items.--PlasmaTwa2 14:03, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
- Support in principle,
but oppose on quality.Neither 2018 Men's Hockey World Cup nor 2018 Men's Hockey World Cup Final has a prose description of the game/tournament. Nevertheless this is the top trophy in a reasonably prominent sport; I'm surprised it's not on ITNR (was it ever discussed?). I've tweaked the blurb slightly - we never include the year and 'hockey' on its own is ambiguous. Modest Genius talk 14:48, 17 December 2018 (UTC)- 2018 Men's Hockey World Cup Final has a decent prose summary, so the alt blurb is good to go. Marking ready. Modest Genius talk 12:00, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose until a decent prose summary of the final exists. After that, happy to support, and would consider ITNR per previous comments. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:36, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
- Comment - The Final article has been updated with a match summary. Dee03 04:37, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose original blurb, neutral on the article on the final and altblurb for now. The article on the main tournament has no prose update, just an unreferenced table of results. The article on the final is slightly better but I question the quality of writing: if tightened up (which it badly needs) how much is actually there? The opening half sentence "The 2018 Men's Hockey World Cup Final was a field hockey match to determine the winner of the 2018 Men's Hockey World Cup..." is almost a textbook example of redundancy with the sole apparent aim of shoe-horning it as many links of questionable value as possible. Similarly the prose in the Route to the Final section essentially replicates the the earlier diagram instead of expanding upon it in matters of substance. The prose on the final itself is not significantly better. The match started promisingly. For whom? One of the teams? The viewer? We don't know so that adds nothing. 3142 (talk) 12:42, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
- Support Alt blurb. The finals article is main page ready, with sufficient prose. The tournament article is not. --Jayron32 12:45, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
- Posted Stephen 23:29, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
(Stale) RD: Colin Kroll
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.
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): CNN Business
Credits:
- Nominated by Jamez42 (talk · give credit)
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.
- Oppose Stub. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:10, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose This article is a bit too short. ―Susmuffin Talk 15:29, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
December 15
December 15, 2018
(Saturday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents
International relations
Politics and elections
|
(Posted) RD: Ralph Koltai
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
Credits:
- Nominated by Dumelow (talk · give credit)
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: German-born British thetre designer with the Royal Shakespeare Company. Article is looking pretty good following recent expansion - Dumelow (talk) 16:20, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
(Closed) Ukraine Independent Orthodox Church
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.
Blurb: After the 2018 Orthodox schism, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church creates a church independent from Russia, electing Metropolitan Epifaniy as the leader. (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:
- Nominated by Kingsif (talk · give credit)
- Comment unlike before, there's an article at 2018 Moscow–Constantinople schism with great depth (though it needs copy-editing). For those who have been watching this, the Tomos of Autocephaly won't be granted until January 6 [17]. I'm not up to date as to whether this is relevant to post; Putin or Patriarch Kirill will almost certainly make news in the next few days if it's a critical enough step. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:47, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
- Comment The UK and Russia have now responded; very differently. Kingsif (talk) 03:20, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
- Where did the UK respond and how does it concern the UK? Wakari07 (talk) 11:58, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
- Comment I support pending blurb changes . Apparently most of the bishops chose to remain in the Russian Orthodox Church (which is still the largest in the country) instead of switching to this new shady organization. Something tells me this has to be at least mentioned in the blurb. Also, the Ukrainians didn't really become independent. Those who switched, they chose to be under the Ecumential patriarchate of Constantinopole, instead of the Russian patriarchate located in Moscow 193.34.160.162 (talk) 06:51, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
- Comment Also, the article should be renamed. Autocephaly by definition is "the status of a hierarchical Christian Church whose head bishop does not report to any higher-ranking bishop". This church is headed by a metropolitan bishop, not a patriarch, and that bishop reports to Constantinopole. The article therefore should be renamed to "Ukrainian Metropolitan Church" as it is not autocephalous. --193.34.160.162 (talk) 07:26, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
- TASS says the Synod of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople granted autocephaly to what TASS calls the Ukrainian Church (a disambiguation page with 10 redirects and 4 see alsos). Someone must be in contradiction with themselves here. I guess we're lucky that Ukrainian Metropolitan Church is still a redlink. Wakari07 (talk) 11:49, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Irrelevant
|
---|
|
- Support --UkrainianCossack (talk) 13:24, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
- Weak oppose – As before, wider significance seems doubtful. Sca (talk) 14:06, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
- Comment Should this be withdrawn until both the autocephaly is granted in January, and a user with some expertise has expanded the articles? Kingsif (talk) 15:31, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
- Support a unique event --AlexKozur (talk) 21:13, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
- Support the religion has hundreds of millions of followers, making this a major event. Banedon (talk) 23:38, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
- Support, this is a huge deal for the Russia-Ukraine relations, and for the Eastern Orthodox Church more broadly. A blurb as proposed is OK, but we might also consider making this an "ongoing" item instead of or in addition to the blurb. There will certainly be important subsequent events. Now that the Unification Council created a new Ukrainian Orthodox Church, it is likely that the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople will proceed with the official recognition of and autocephaly for this Church. Other Eastern Orthodox churches are being pressed to take sides. Many of them have called for convening a pan-Orthodox Synod or synaxis, and it may in fact happen. If, as seems likely, the new Ukrainian Orthodox Church attempts to take over some of the properties currently under the jurisdiction of ROC in Ukraine, there will certainly be a strong reaction from Russia, and further escalation of the crisis is possible. Etc. So the current schism crisis is far from over, and maybe making an "ongoing" item for a while is reasonable under the circumstances. Nsk92 (talk) 02:18, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
- Support A split and the formation of a new church is rare and has historic implications regardless of what you think of it. -TenorTwelve (talk) 05:58, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
- Comment: User:Ad Orientem has seemingly been the nearest we've had to an expert on this crisis, and he has not spoken yet. If and when he does speak, I expect to be following his lead unless he comes up with something very strange (I'm expecting he will either support now or suggest waiting until the Tomos is granted, which is currently expected to be on January 6, or perhaps he will suggest ongoing). I certainly think the crisis deserves to appear on ITN, but the question is when. Tlhslobus (talk) 06:41, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
- Comment: This rearrangement of churches does seem to be a major development in one of the world's largest religions (Orthodox Christianity), with some geopolitical aspects too. I support posting the story at some stage, but lack the expertise to know whether this is the right moment to do so. As with previous nominations, I struggle to understand 2018 Moscow–Constantinople schism; in part that's my own ignorance, but it also seems to be poorly written and frequently ungrammatical. Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church is covered in orange-level tags, whilst the article on Epifaniy is mostly proseline and says he's head of Orthodox Church of Ukraine, which may or may not be a different church... Modest Genius talk 14:58, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
- Orthodox Church of Ukraine is the newly-created unified church, and the article that should be linked in any blurb. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:55, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose This is just the preliminary administrative stuff. The tomos is expected to be delivered on January 6 (Christmas eve). That is when the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople (EP) is going to declare the creation of a new exarchate under their jurisdiction that will be separate from the Ukrainian Orthodox Church which is an autonomous part of the Russian Orthodox Church. The term "autocephalous" is controversial since the new entity is not going to be an independent national church. It is going to be entirely under the jurisdiction of the EP. At the moment nobody in the Orthodox Church outside of the EP is recognizing this new entity. I would wait until the tomos is issued. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:34, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
(Closed) 2018 Pulwama encounter
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.
Blurb: An Indian army operation in Pulwama, Jammu and Kashmir leaves seven civilians, three militants and one soldier dead. (Post)
News source(s): Hindustan Times, NDTV, Times of India,
Credits:
- Nominated by DiplomatTesterMan (talk · give credit)
- Weak support Pretty big story in the region, but the article is currently in a stubby state. Have my full support if significantly expanded. –Ammarpad (talk)
- Weak oppose without some indication of why this has broader implications, it seems quite regional. Banedon (talk) 23:39, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
- Question: am I right in thinking border skirmishes are frequent in (disputed) Kashmir? For example, I found 2018 Sunjuwan attack and 2018 Shopian firing incident, both of which had civilian casualties. Is there a reason to see the Pulwama event as more significant than the others that happened just this year, let alone in the history of the Kashmir conflict? Modest Genius talk 15:03, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose stub with no clear indication of broader significance. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:37, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Wilhelm Genazino
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): FAZ
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by Gerda Arendt (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: He died 12 Dec, but it became known only 14 Dec. Was underreferenced, but I tried. It should be longer, but I have no more time right now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:08, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
- Support - Ready to go.BabbaQ (talk) 21:47, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
- Support - Good enough. --SirEdimon (talk) 22:00, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
- Comment – At 200 words of text about a complex career, seems thin for Main Page promotion. Sca (talk) 14:11, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
- Posted Stephen 22:54, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
(Closed) AFF Championship
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.
Blurb: In Southeast Asian association football, Vietnam won their second titles in the AFF Championship after defeating Malaysia in the finals. (Post)
News source(s): AFC
Credits:
- Nominated by Molecule Extraction (talk · give credit)
- Comment It's a very regional tournament. I think it's not notable enough for ITN.--SirEdimon (talk) 19:23, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose we usually require some kind of prose update, and the target article doesn't have it. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:39, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Not a top-level tournament, and by far the strongest team eligible to enter didn't even do so. To give an idea of the level here, the winners Vietnam are ranked #100 in the world. Black Kite (talk) 01:04, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose - as above. Very much not a top-level tournament, surpassed in reputation, following, and calibre of play by the AFC Cup and Asian Games. Lacking the significance needed to post in ITN. Stormy clouds (talk) 01:26, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose per Stormy and Black Kite, not particularly big feat. –Ammarpad (talk) 18:28, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
(Posted) Balangiga bells
Blurb: The Balangiga bells, taken by US Army soldiers from the Philippines in 1901 as war trophies, are repatriated after 117 years. (Post)
Alternative blurb: The Balangiga bells, taken by US Army soldiers from the Philippines during the Philippine-American War as war trophies, are repatriated after 117 years.
Alternative blurb II: The Balangiga bells, taken by US Army soldiers from the Philippines as war trophies after reprisals following the Balangiga massacre, are repatriated after 117 years.
News source(s): [18], BBC
Credits:
- Nominated by kguirnela (talk · give credit)
— •KvЯt GviЯnЭlБ• Speak! 15:10, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Copying this over from below, since many comments said wait till December 15, and it's happened. Keeping nominator as is, although I am supporting. Banedon (talk) 05:47, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Who cares? Some minor event in a third world country is definitively not important enough for the ITN 193.34.160.162 (talk) 05:58, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
- Bah, humbug? – Sca (talk) 15:23, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
Support Important event with tie-ins to historically significant incidents supported by a quality article. This is exactly the type of news one would expect to find on ITN. (NorthernFalcon (talk) 07:38, 15 December 2018 (UTC))
- There was a rough consensus below to post this if the references are fixed, which I believe has happened. Happy to post when I see some more support. --Tone 11:23, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose Not seeing this "in the news", and I'm unconvinced that an essay published at the Wisconsin VFW site qualifies as a WP:RS (and I'm fairly certain that a web archive of a geocities site that had "reproduced" an article from the Philippine Daily Inquirer fails WP:RS) -- but this isn't a hill I'm going to die on either. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:17, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
- Found a working Google Newspaper archive of the said Philippine Daily Inquirer article. Can't really do much about the so-called reliability of a website from Veterans from Foreign Wars, though... Howard the Duck (talk) 21:58, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
- Support Historic and important event. ITN worthy.BabbaQ (talk) 14:28, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
- Support – An interesting story and for once a positive one. (In the news biz such things are known as "brights.") – Sca (talk) 15:13, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
- Comment Actually, after second-checking the references, there are no references from 15 December, all updates from media are a couple of days old. I'd like to see this improved before posting. --Tone 18:21, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
- The BBC story, though brief, is today's. Sca (talk) 19:03, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
- Strong support really well written article. In depth, comprehensive, well written. This is the kind of quality writing we should be filling the front page with. In terms of quality, this is easily the best article that has been nominated here for months. Great stuff.--Jayron32 21:52, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
- Updated with the events of December 15th. If anyone has an issue with this article, do a filibuster and tag it. Howard the Duck (talk) 22:14, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
- I did, STSC revered my sps tags around the VFW essay (which is the foundation for most of the first half of the article) and like I said, not a hill I plan to die on. None of it is a BLP issue so ... whatever ... post this "very significant" return of some church bells. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:23, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
- I'll further clarify this in the article talk page. STSC (talk) 11:11, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
- Comment would be a decent shout but the blurbs are all too wordy. If it's such a "big deal" why all the verbiage? The Rambling Man (talk) 23:57, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
- Support, the preceding debate [19] [20] [21] and the formal announcement of the decision to return the bells on 14 November [22] [23] made headlines too. It's a "nice culmination" to hear that they're actually restituted now. Wakari07 (talk) 00:17, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose until it's clear this is in Elgin Marbles territory. Doesn't seem to be properly ITN, maybe "ITIN in a sub-class". The Rambling Man (talk) 00:26, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
- Are the nmarbles returned? Lol. Wakari07 (talk) 00:36, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
- Meh. The marbles can be returned one day, once. Just like this. Rowing though, it goes on until the ice caps melt. Love the fact though that the champion of US centrism brings out a British example. The same person who said US midterm elections are not notable, and have shoved the almighty Boat Race (Title Caps!) down our throats year after year suggested any returns such as this should be Elgin marbles territory. Unbelievable. Howard the Duck (talk) 00:57, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
- Are the nmarbles returned? Lol. Wakari07 (talk) 00:36, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
- Support - long-running diplomatic issue between the Philippines and the US finally resolved. -Zanhe (talk) 06:37, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
- Strong support - It's ITN-worthy news that marks the end of the saga for 117 years. Even today(Sunday 16 Dec) there're plenty of news about the bells. STSC (talk) 11:16, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
- Posting. --Tone 11:39, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
References
Nominators often include links to external websites and other references in discussions on this page. It is usually best to provide such links using the inline URL syntax [http://example.com] rather than using <ref></ref> tags, because that keeps all the relevant information in the same place as the nomination without having to jump to this section, and facilitates the archiving process.
For the times when <ref></ref> tags are being used, here are their contents: