Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This page provides a forum for editors to suggest items for inclusion in Template:In the news (ITN), a protected Main Page template, as well as the forum for discussion of candidates. This is not the page to report errors in the ITN section on the Main Page—please go to the appropriate section at WP:ERRORS.

This candidates page is integrated with the daily pages of Portal:Current events. Under each daily section header below is the transcluded Portal:Current events items for that day (with a light green header). Each day's portal page is followed by a subsection for suggestions and discussion.

ARA San Juan in March 2007
ARA San Juan in March 2007

How to nominate an item[edit]

In order to suggest a candidate:

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

Purge this page to update the cache

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

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

Headers[edit]

  • Items that have been posted or pulled from the main page are generally marked with (Posted) or (Pulled) in the item's subject so it is clear they are no longer active.
  • Items can also be marked as (Ready) when the article is both updated and there seems to be a consensus to post. The posting admin, however, should always judge the update and the consensus to post themselves. If you find an entry that you don't feel is ready to post is marked (Ready), you should remove the mark in the header.

Voicing an opinion on an item[edit]

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

Please do not...[edit]

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


Suggestions[edit]

November 18[edit]

Portal:Current events/2018 November 18

November 17[edit]

Portal:Current events/2018 November 17
Disasters and accidents

Politics and elections

RD: Alyque Padamsee[edit]

Article: Alyque Padamsee (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Times of India
Nominator: Sherenk1 (talk • give credit)
Updater: Wikistry (talk • give credit)

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: Indian Ad film maker. Referncing issues. Sherenk1 (talk) 14:07, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose per nom, too much unreferenced material, including nothing citing those all-too-important "Awards". The Rambling Man (talk) 15:52, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose This article does not have enough inline citations. Why do people keep suggesting articles that are clearly not fit to be in In the news? ―Susmuffin Talk 02:52, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
    • Because there might be people willing to do the work to fix up citations and the like, if they are notified that the topic could be in the ITN box. --Masem (t) 03:01, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Richard Baker[edit]

Article: Richard Baker (broadcaster) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC
Nominator: Andrew Davidson (talk • give credit)
Updater: 31.53.217.169 (talk • give credit)

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: Prominent broadcaster Andrew D. (talk) 13:06, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose too much unreferenced material in there right now. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:04, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
    Support good to go now. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:53, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support looks reasonable. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:28, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
    Can you chuck a ref at that last sentence in the "Early life ... " section, then we're good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:51, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
    Added. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:52, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted: good work all - Dumelow (talk) 17:27, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) San Juan submarine wreckage[edit]

Articles: ARA San Juan (S-42) (talk, history) and Disappearance of ARA San Juan (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The wreckage of Argentinian submarine San Juan, which disappeared in 2017, is found in the Atlantic Ocean.
News source(s): BBC, Spiegel (in German)
Nominator: Brandmeister (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: Update is raw, should be expanded. Brandmeistertalk 08:26, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Weak oppose - the update in the prose is one poorly constructed sentence, the update to the lead is even more than that. Needs a little more before it can be considered suitable for the main page, notability is there however. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:51, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
    • That has been fixed and fleshed out by now. Brandmeistertalk 14:22, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong support pending some further expansion of the article. Important, interesting news with further developments on the line Openlydialectic (talk) 10:39, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. Not sure how much more can be added. Supporting mainly because the sinking was posted. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:09, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • We go by reliable sources such as the linked The New York Times & BBC News articles, not a Twitter account with a total of 4 tweets (all from today). -- KTC (talk) 15:10, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose Comment – Sunken wrecks are always interesting, but the finding of this 33-year-old sub a year later in very deep water (by a commercial search firm to be paid $7.5 million) doesn't seem very significant. Sca (talk) 13:52, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Final resolution to a major maritime mystery and national tragedy. The article looks to be in good shape. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:45, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support The significant coverage this received when it occurred is neatly book-ended by its resolution. Maritime wrecks of this lethality aren't all that normal nowadays. Chetsford (talk) 19:50, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 21:34, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) Portrait of an Artist (Pool with Two Figures)[edit]

Article: Portrait of an Artist (Pool with Two Figures) (talk, history)
Blurb: David Hockney's Portrait of an Artist (Pool with Two Figures) sells for more than $90 million, becoming the most expensive auction work by a living artist.
News source(s): BBC
Nominator: Randy Kryn (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Nominating Portrait of an Artist (Pool with Two Figures), David Hockney's 1972 painting which just sold for $90.3 million dollars, setting the record for a sale of a work by a living artist. (my first visit to this page) Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:39, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment - Please specify a blurb and source for above. Otherwise it will get ignored. Sherenk1 (talk) 07:20, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
    Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:27, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I think the article would need expansion to be considered. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:42, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Hello LaserLegs. There has been much added since your comment, and the editor working on it is continuing that expansion. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:36, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support It's in the news. Andrew D. (talk) 12:57, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support good work on the article, hard to believe it didn't exist until yesterday. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:03, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Well done, the article is in a good shape now. Posting. --Tone 14:13, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Post posting Support Can I suggest using the image of the painting by the blurb? yorkshiresky (talk) 14:16, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Post posting Support Presumably fair use of the image extends to the Main page. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:26, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Nope, fair use does not extend to the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:28, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Is there a logical reason for that? (Presumably that also means it could never appear at TFA). Would an image of Hockney be suitable instead (except that we don't have one, of course). Martinevans123 (talk) 15:13, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Per the Foundation's requirement to keep fair-use to a minimum, fair-use is only allowed in article space (WP:NFCC#9). This has been the case for many years. It's unfortunate we don't have a free image of Hockney, but he has been a very private person for a long time, so I suppose it's not surprising. Black Kite (talk) 15:22, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Martinevans123 and I can buy/beg/steal a box of crayons and put together an adequate rendition. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:26, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Only more for the TFA idea, a picture of the Case Study House #21 that inspired this painting would be a fair free-license replacement. I wouldn't use such for ITN (too many additional words to explain the connection) but in a TFA blurb, there's room to discuss the house as inspiration. --Masem (t) 15:46, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
To Martin, yes it would not be eligible to appear at TFA, which is quite often the case as to why TFA sometimes runs without an image. While it's a requirement of FAC to have at least one image, it can be a fair use image which cannot subsequently be used on the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:51, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps it is best that there isn't an image of the painting or anything related to it in the "In the news" section, because once someone reads that the odds are probably quite high that they are going to click through just to have a look at the painting. It is presented well at the page, which is being improved and added to at a rapid rate. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:54, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

November 16[edit]

Portal:Current events/2018 November 16
Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

Politics and elections
Science and technology

RD: Zhores Medvedev[edit]

Article: Zhores Medvedev (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Vedomosti
Nominator: Openlydialectic (talk • give credit)

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: Prominent Soviet scientist, dissident. Openlydialectic (talk) 21:24, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

RD: William Goldman[edit]

Article: William Goldman (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC, NYTimes
Nominator: The Rambling Man (talk • give credit)

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

Nominator's comments: Oscar-winning screenwriter, article needs some work, but not beyond saving... The Rambling Man (talk) 15:43, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Support once deficiencies are addressed. Daniel Case (talk) 04:42, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Refimprove tag is justified at the moment. Hrodvarsson (talk) 01:10, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Khmer Rouge leaders guilty of genocide[edit]

Articles: Khieu Samphan (talk, history) and Nuon Chea (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A tribunal finds Khmer Rouge leaders Nuon Chea and Khieu Samphan guilty of genocide.
News source(s): BBC, The New York Times
Nominator and updater: Pudeo (talk • give credit)

Both articles updated

Nominator's comments: Significant news as the tribunal has been on-going for 20 years and these are the only people alive who faced a charge for the Cambodian genocide. Genocide convictions are historical. Pudeo (talk) 12:19, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment trying to check refs in BLP articles is tough when the refs are print books and no page number is in the citation. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
    • The Nuon Chea article has about 1/3 of it's content from a single source, a compilation of excerpts from "Soviet Archives" by a guy named Dmitry Mosyakov. The link at yale.edu is dead, but if you Google the exact title you'll find PDFs from alternate sources. The content in question isn't mundane either, I think it should be stricken if the article is posted. --LaserLegs (talk) 02:06, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
    • Khieu Samphan is better, nothing really outrageous in it. There is a lot sourced to "A Biographical Encyclopedia of Contemporary Genocide: Portraits of Evil and Good." but without page numbers (I don't have access to a university library to check them anyway). Still it's probably ok. --LaserLegs (talk) 02:15, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
    • The tribunal article itself has a pile of detail about the administrative organization of the tribunal which I don't think matters that much. I had to orange tag the list of judges, and added a few CNs here and there. The details about the individual defendants seem ok. I didn't read the controversies section yet, it's late here. If you post this, the tribunal should be the only bold link and needs cleaning up first. --LaserLegs (talk) 02:29, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
      • I added multipled citations to the tribunal article and removed some unsourced information.[1] As for the biographies, they seem ok to me, although not close to GA status or anything like that. I have no preference whether the tribunal or the biographies are bolded. --Pudeo (talk) 09:16, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support in principle. An important (though long-delayed) conviction of a major genocide. Could we get a link to Cambodian genocide into the blurb somewhere? I've not had time to assess the updates or article quality. Modest Genius talk 12:51, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support on the merits; I think that war crimes convictions are generally notable. 331dot (talk) 21:02, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support in principle - genocide convictions are notable starship.paint ~ KO 03:27, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose on notability. This seems really only a technicality. As I understand it, they are both already serving life for crimes against humanity. This genocide conviction merely covers the small fraction of their victims who were not ethnically Cambodian (such as Vietnamese, etc). Even if it were nevertheless deemed notable it might then be quite difficult to get a blurb that does not mislead our readers by overstating the importance of the event, thus damaging Wikipedia by giving some of our readers the impression that we use misleading clickbait. Tlhslobus (talk) 04:49, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Ongoing: Sri Lankan constitutional crisis[edit]

Article: 2018 Sri Lankan constitutional crisis (talk, history)
Ongoing item nomination
Nominator: WaltCip (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: Per WP:ERRORS and the multiple updates that the current blurb has received, it seems clear that this will be an indefinitely ongoing event. WaltCip (talk) 11:45, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment this is already the top story at ITN. This will, once it finally gets to the bottom, be reassessed at the time and added to Ongoing automatically should the admin doing the update decide to do so. Do we need this nomination as well as all that? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:53, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
    My concern is that, if any future updates to this story occur, the blurb will be bumped to the top again as well as updated. We have never allowed that sort of treatment for any other ongoing event. In any case, the ITN photo has been the same person (on and off) for a while now (with Stan Lee to briefly interrupt), and I'm a little leery about having another Lugo on the main page. WaltCip (talk) 13:28, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
    So part of your concern is that you're tired of seeing the picture?? There're scripts that can hide it for you. –Ammarpad (talk) 13:55, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
    I think we have bumped items whose blurbs have changed notably during running. But we don't have to. And as this moves down the page, it'll gravitate into Ongoing. Why wouldn't we apply this same logic to the forest fires? That hit the news again today, "California wildfires: Number of missing leaps to 631" which significantly changes the landscape on that story. So should we re-work the hook, bump it up, or put it in Ongoing until the fires are handled? It looks no different to the Sri Lanka situation. And you could argue the same about the Ebola story..... The Rambling Man (talk) 14:02, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support removing the blurb and dropping this into ongoing now. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:02, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
    Why on earth would we do that? It's easy to change the blurb should anything major happen. It doesn't mean the blurb needs bumping back to the top. Just let it run its course. As far as I know, we've never demoted an article to Ongoing from blurb like that. If you do this, then you should do the same with the fires in Americuh too. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:05, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Wait until the blurb rotates off; if the situation is still fluid at that point, and the article receiving frequent updates, then it can move to ongoing. If there's a genuine need to replace the blurb with a different one (rather than tweaking the originally-posted one) then start a new nomination here. Modest Genius talk 12:54, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Leave the blurb to naturally reach the bottom and be obscured, then if the issue is still in the news, nominate for Ongoing, that's how we do it normally and no convincing reason to do otherwise. –Ammarpad (talk) 13:39, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
    Renomination for ongoing is not necessary for all cases; Khashoggi was shifted down without a renom for example. (per WP:ITN: Older stories which are scheduled to roll off the bottom of the list may be added to ongoing at admins' discretion, provided that the linked article is receiving continuous updates with new information on a regular basis.) SpencerT•C 15:16, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
    I can agree renomination is not necessary but my main point still stands. We don't pull blurb just to convert it to Ongoing, we let it to reach the bottom, unless it's found not worthy of posting in the first place. Also Khashoggi's case was first posted to Ongoing then changed to Blurb after significant turn of events and a new nomination. So there's quite difference here. –Ammarpad (talk) 16:31, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) Proposed redefinition of SI base units[edit]

Article: Proposed redefinition of SI base units (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The International Committee for Weights and Measures confirms new definitions for the kilogram, ampere, kelvin and mole.
Alternative blurb: ​The International Committee for Weights and Measures redefines the units kilogram, ampere, kelvin and mole.
News source(s): ABC, NPR, BBC
Nominator: Adpete (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: A fundamental change to how units are defined in physics; so quite big science news which is at least partly understandable at the popular level, so I think it is appropriate for ITN. Article looks to be in very good shape, though will need an update if the changes are confirmed. Of course we should not post until it is confirmed (16-Nov-2018), but it seems very likely to, so we might as well be ready. Adpete (talk) 00:10, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Wait It hasn't happened yet, it's only expected to happen later today. Wait until it has happened for sure. TheMrP (talk) 00:33, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support pending vote outcome Article is in good shape outside the result of the vote (and presumably if voted for, it will be moved to "Redefinition of SI base units"). Interesting fundamental science news we don't get to post much about. --Masem (t) 00:36, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per Masem. Banedon (talk) 00:44, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support pending vote outcome and R.I.P. to Le Grand K. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:17, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
    • Clearly we need to adjust RDs so we can nominate non-living objects for it. --Masem (t) 01:22, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
      • Support RD per Masem. --DannyS712 (talk) 01:56, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Question I grew up in a metric country, I still find this Good Article to be somewhat inaccessible. Reading it, the definition of a second and a meter are essentially unchanged but the definition of a Kilogram "the current definition defines the kilogram as being the mass of the international prototype kilogram, which is an artefact and not a constant of nature, whereas the new definition relates it to the equivalent mass of the energy of a photon given its frequency, via the Planck constant. " What the hell does that mean? The Planck constant? an "international prototype kilogram"? WTF? If this is adopted, is a kilogram of potatoes going to be larger or smaller than it is now or so negligible that it doesn't matter to anyone who isn't trying to measure the mass of a single molecule? --LaserLegs (talk) 01:50, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
The kilogram is currently defined as the mass of a standard block of metal. See [2] fourth paragraph. Planck's constant is a fundamental constant of nature, and it's related to the energy of a photon by the relation E = hf (E = energy, f = frequency, h is the Planck's constant). If this is adopted, you're not going to notice any differences. The changes are too small to be measurable without highly sophisticated apparatus. Banedon (talk) 02:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
The BBC article has a good summary: right now, the only way to confirm the kg is to go to Paris to check against that weight (the Le Grand K). By switching the system to the Planck constant - which can be measured by anyone with a specific type of electromagnetic balance - then all other factors can be used to derive the kg. --Masem (t) 02:57, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks to you both for your explanation. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:20, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per above. Davey2116 (talk) 02:02, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong support. A historic moment in the history of measurement. wumbolo ^^^ 06:22, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support after proposal is accepted and article moved for the reasons mentioned above. Regards SoWhy 08:57, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support upon actual change, not just proposal. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:19, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support @SoWhy and The Rambling Man: and others: the vote today is a formality; although a necessary part of the process, there is no realistic chance that it will be rejected. Waiting for the completion is like waiting for a U.S. president-elect to take the formal oath at the inauguration, or waiting for Meghan Markle to say "I do". It's perfectly fine to have the event on the main page before that moment. (P.S. the webcast is live!) 209.209.238.189 (talk) 10:11, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • The vote is being called right now... as expected, it has passed. (Unanimous except Kazakhstan, which is absent.) Draft Resolution A redefining the SI units of mass (kg), temperature (K), electrical current (A), and quantity of matter (mole) has passed. 209.209.238.149 (talk) 12:18, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
    Then there appears to be sufficient consensus to post. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:25, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support, but I've added an altblurb which I think is clearer. Should the article be renamed to remove 'proposed' now the motions have passed? Modest Genius talk 12:39, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted Alt blurb for economy of writing. --Jayron32 12:55, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
    • A reminder: the article needed to be updated, it was not outside of changing a bit of the lede. I have added the necessary text and an updated source in the prose so no need to pull, but please make sure to check that when we pre-approve pending the necessary update, the update is actually there and sourced. (A few cn's have been added since but that's post-posting, and they're not significant glaring problems). --Masem (t) 14:39, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • A sudden thought: wasn't the vote by the General Conference on Weights and Measures, not just the International Committee for Weights and Measures? Modest Genius talk 12:57, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
    I think that the committee is the body, and the conference is the meeting of said body; the committee voted at the conference. That's how I read the opening paragraph of the bolded article. The committee met at the conference, and voted on the proposal. --Jayron32 13:14, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
    I read that differently, as the committee proposed a resolution at the conference, which was voted on by all delegates (a lot more people than just the committee). I might be wrong though. Modest Genius talk 13:24, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Does this mean I need to get all my gold bars reweighed and stamped with their newly defined weights? -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:53, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
    Just send them through to me, I can get all that arranged for you, no problem. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:02, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
    No, because within the significant digits of your measuring devices, it doesn't vary enough to change the measurements. My understanding is that this removes the need to update these definitions because they were formerly tied to the mass of the Kilogram#International prototype kilogram, which being an actual, physical object (that is, an actual chunk of metal kept in a room in Paris), the definitions floated based on the variations in the mass of that chunk of metal. While that chunk of metal was quite stable, nothing is infinitely stable, and since it's mass would drift slightly over time, it would require re-definitions of the units (and of a bunch of constants based on those units). The new definition pegs the unit meaning to that of the constants, and obviates the need to compare to a single chunk of metal in Paris. --Jayron32 14:55, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Change "the units" to "the SI base units". These are not run-of-the-mill units, they have a history. wumbolo ^^^ 14:53, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - I'm less happy with the alt blurb because the units haven't been redefined yet, technically that doesn't happen until May 2019. I'd still prefer something along the lines of confirms new definitions as originally proposed. Adpete (talk) 00:34, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

November 15[edit]

Portal:Current events/2018 November 15
Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

International relations

Politics and elections

New supra-kingdom of eukaryotes: Hemimastigophora[edit]

Article: Spironemidae (talk, history)
Blurb: No blurb specified
News source(s): CBC, Nature (peer-reviewed article)
Nominator: 24.114.224.35 (talk • give credit)

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: New biological kingdom appears to have been discovered based on research at Dalhousie University; “as different from other kingdoms as animals are from fungi.” 24.114.224.35 (talk) 18:16, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Weak Oppose due to the link being a DAB page and, also, the complete absence of a blurb; my !vote auto transitions to Support upon resolution of those issues. Chetsford (talk) 19:53, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Nom linked to the wrong things. I have fixed it as best I can. Abductive (reasoning) 02:29, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose, due to insufficient updating of any article. One wonders how it will be possible to say much more than, "little protists turn out to be a sister clade of the Plants+HC+SAR megagroup based on their DNA." Abductive (reasoning) 02:36, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) Brexit resignations[edit]

WP:NAC: consensus is clearly against posting these resignations (only two of which were cabinet-level posts). Many of the comments suggest waiting until either May is deposed or the full parliamentary vote is held. Modest Genius talk 13:48, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Brexit negotiations (talk, history)
Blurb: ​On November 15, 2018, eight British government officials resign in response to the proposed Brexit deal.
News source(s): Evening Standard
Nominator: Kingsif (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: Do we need another Brexit update? But, eight government resignations in a day. Kingsif (talk) 01:48, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose I don't see the update anywhere in the target article. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:56, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Wait like I said at WT:ITN, until May is removed or both sides vote on a deal. --LaserLegs (talk) 02:21, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Ongoing, since this will drag out for a while and constantly make news while at it. Banedon (talk) 02:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose We don't post domestic political activities as a rule. If she is forced out then I would support. Otherwise this bickering over Brexit has been going on and will continue, up to and probably beyond the actual withdrawal date. That of course will be posted assuming article quality is up to snuff. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:50, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Wait If May goes this will obviously be postable, but let's face it, the majority of those resignations were PPSs that no-one had ever heard of. Black Kite (talk) 08:52, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Just the usual Brexit-stuff. Unless it's the PM resigning, it's not really news. Regards SoWhy 08:55, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose would only support a change in Prime Minister or a parliamentary rejection of the deal, everything else is fluff and noise. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:21, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Typical everyday story about Brexit. There is also nothing to wait for here, hope someone will do the needful. –Ammarpad (talk) 09:39, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Not an ITN worthy thing. Sorry...--Mhhossein talk 13:09, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

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

RD: Roy Clark[edit]

Article: Roy Clark (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): [3]
Nominator: Strikerforce (talk • give credit)

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

Nominator's comments: Country music hall of fame member. StrikerforceTalk 17:36, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Support - . Proprietor of the Empty Arms Hotel and also launched Branson, MO concept. May you pleasures be many, your troubles be few. CoatCheck (talk) 17:55, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. Article needs significant work to referencing in numerous main text sections, filmography, TV shows, awards etc. - Dumelow (talk) 17:56, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose with regret per Dumelow. Gloom- Despair- And Agony On Me, Deep Dark Depression- Excessive Misery, If it weren't for bad luck, I'd have no luck at all, Gloom- Despair- And Agony On Me... -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:28, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose needs refs. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:40, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose This article needs to have more inline citations. ―Susmuffin Talk 02:16, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

November 14[edit]

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

Disasters and accidents
  • 2018 California wildfires
    • The death toll in the Camp Fire rises to 56, with the statewide total at 59. Authorities release the names of 130 people who are missing, including many in their 80s and 90s, with the potential that dozens more are unaccounted for. (CBS News)

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

Swedish general election[edit]

Proposed image
Articles: 2018 Swedish government formation (talk, history) and Swedish general election, 2018 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​After two months of negotiations, Swedish Prime Minister candidate Ulf Kristersson loses confidence vote.
Alternative blurb: ​After two months of negotiations, Swedish Prime Minister candidate Ulf Kristersson loses a vote of confidence, forcing an election.
News source(s): https://www.thelocal.se/20181114/swedish-parliament-rejects-centre-right-pm-candidate-ulf-kristersson
Nominator: Specter Koen (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: This vote is significant, as it marks the first time in modern Swedish history that a PM candidate failed a confidence vote, as well as continuing a deeply divided and historically lengthy government formation process. Specter Koen (talk) 10:24, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Wait – For the culmination of the issue, presumably with formation of a new government. Sca (talk) 15:39, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Seemed like he never had a chance, which makes this more or less expected. I'd support the successful formation of government (given the totality of circumstance, including that we did not post the elections). ghost 18:26, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Unless I'm missing something, this just prolongs the existing situation i.e. it's a failed proposal. Maybe there would be a blurb here if/when a government is actually formed, but this is just more political manoeuvring. Modest Genius talk 19:28, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Looking at the archives I see we didn't post the election results in September due to the inconclusive result, and per Modest Genius I think we should continue to wait until the negotiations conclude.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:28, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose it's Sweden, it's politics is irrelevant Openlydialectic (talk) 22:42, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
    Do you mean "its politics"? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:48, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Not irrelevant to the Swedes, at any rate. Sca (talk) 02:25, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: I have added an alt blurb that works in the general election link. pbp 03:00, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

RD: Mario Suárez (singer)[edit]

Article: Mario Suárez (singer) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): El Diario
Nominator: Jamez42 (talk • give credit)

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

Nominator's comments: Venezuelan folk singer Jamez42 (talk) 08:42, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

November 13[edit]

Portal:Current events/2018 November 13
Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

RD: Lucho Gatica[edit]

Article: Lucho Gatica (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BillboardAl Dia NewsPrensa Latina
Nominator: Jamez42 (talk • give credit)

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

Nominator's comments: Chilean bolero singer. My previous nomination got stale because of lack of references, but I still think it is worth nominating again. Jamez42 (talk) 00:06, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment: Needs serious work to referencing before it can be considered. There is only one inline citation in the whole article. There is no reference even for his death - Dumelow (talk) 00:13, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose and potentially listed under the wrong date if the article is to be believed. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:06, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Needs references first, before considering to assess quality. –Ammarpad (talk) 14:30, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Caroline Rose Hunt[edit]

Article: Caroline Rose Hunt (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Dallas News
Nominator: TDKR Chicago 101 (talk • give credit)

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

Nominator's comments: Article is updated and overall well sourced --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 05:24, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Support - Indeed. Ready.BabbaQ (talk) 07:57, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support: Looks good enough. The main sources were dead links but I ran the internet archive bot over it which has remedied that - Dumelow (talk) 00:12, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Good to go. Pawnkingthree (talk) 02:35, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support satis. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:05, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment this has been marked ready for about 16 hours now. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:41, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 22:46, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

November 12[edit]

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

Arts and culture

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

(Posted) RD: Herbert London[edit]

Article: Herbert London (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The New York Times
Nominator: TDKR Chicago 101 (talk • give credit)

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

Nominator's comments: Article is updated and overall well sourced --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:39, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment: Article looks good, there are two bare refs in the list which I assume can quickly be fixed. I note one source for his death says he "died on Saturday" (ie 10 November) but the article (and second source) states he died on 11 November? Would like to see that fixed or the ambiguity noted in the article before posting - Dumelow (talk) 00:21, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Support: One the assumption that the two bare urls in the references will be fixed before posting - Dumelow (talk) 08:37, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Article looks well referenced. Pawnkingthree (talk) 02:34, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment this has been marked for attention for about 16 hours now. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:41, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 22:44, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

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

Consensus tells me to withdraw. Kingsif (talk) 01:54, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

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

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

(Posted) RD: David Pearson[edit]

Article: David Pearson (racing driver) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Star Tribune
Nominator: Nohomersryan (talk • give credit)

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

Nominator's comments: GA. Nohomersryan (talk) 00:59, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

  • The entire update appears to be "On November 12th, 2018, David Pearson passed away from an illness." No source, incorrect "th" in the date, and a WP:EUPHEMISM for death. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:53, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
    • It's been updated now, although the cause of death hasn't been confirmed yet. Nohomersryan (talk) 02:12, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support: It has GA status and the above issue seems to have been resolved. --PootisHeavy (talk) 20:30, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per GA, but wait for better update (currently it reads "Pearson died on November 12, 2018 in Spartanburg, South Carolina. The news was announced by Wood Brothers Racing; no other details were available.") --DannyS712 (talk) 23:02, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Article good to go. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:04, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 05:53, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

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

Consensus will not develop to post a relatively minor sentence commutation. Stephen 02:09, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Articles: Bali Nine (talk, history) and Renae Lawrence (talk, history)
Blurb: Bali Nine member Renae Lawrence scheduled to be released on 21 November, after 12 years in prison
News source(s): [4], [5]
Nominator: Hawkeye7 (talk • give credit)

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

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

(Posted): Death of Stan Lee[edit]

Closed, it's posted, we all know it won't be pulled, Take errors to errors, no reason to leave this open as a battleground. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:02, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposed image
Article: Stan Lee (talk, history)
Blurb: ​American comic-book creator Stan Lee dies at the age of 95.
News source(s): TMZ, THR, Variety
Nominator: Power~enwiki (talk • give credit)

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Looks fully referenced; likely to be a flood of updates over the next hour. We may need to wait for independent confirmation. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:50, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment now then, loathe as I am to bring this up, this guy is almost certainly blurbable ("transformative figure"). The Rambling Man (talk) 18:52, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Adding corroborating source beyond TMZ. --Masem (t) 18:58, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support RD and Support blurb Article is in good shape (well-sourced). As TRM said, this is a rare entertainment figure that is known worldwide and is blurb-worthy. --Masem (t) 19:00, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
    • Blurb added, image sent for protection cascade tagging assuming we end up with blurb. --Masem (t) 19:08, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
    • Image is now properly protected should blurb be posted. --Masem (t) 19:25, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support blurb and RD. He certainly was a transformative figure in his field and article is well-referenced. Capitalistroadster (talk) 19:07, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support blurb Very significant and saddening. Article is in good shape. Spengouli (talk) 19:09, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support blurb as long as the Bibliography section is referenced, some things in there need inline cites. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:13, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
    • There is an overarching link (Currently ref 84 as I Read it) to the Grand Comics Database that is being used to cover those all. I think that's okay? --Masem (t) 19:16, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support blurb Transformative in his field. I hope he filmed a ton more cameos for Phase 4. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:13, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support both article is in good shape, important person Abequinn14 (talk) 19:15, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Abequinn14 If it is determined this should be a blurb, that's where it will go, not in both places. 331dot (talk) 19:17, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
I'm just saying if the blurb fails to get support (which doesn't seem to be the case right now) I support a RD. Abequinn14 (talk) 19:20, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support blurb with image I don't think I read a single comic book since I was like 12, so I can say I am unbiased in this regard. And I understand that his influence on the culture of both XXth and XXIst centuries was enormous. Definitively deserves a blurb per importance. Openlydialectic (talk) 19:16, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - Seriously, what are you waiting, Avengers 9? --159.153.60.78 (talk) 19:18, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support blurb Much-loved personality. Article in unusually good shape. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:22, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose blurb no where near the level of notability that should be reserved for blurbs. RD is perfectly fine. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:26, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
    Heh, transformative figure in comic books, legendary arch-father of the biggest film franchises in history. Blurb is no doubt at all. Nice try though. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:28, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
    • So many fields, so many transformative figures, so perfectly suited for RD. Don't worry TRM, I'm outnumbered, this will be a blurb ... and for the next two weeks every half assed article that's important to someone will get the "We posted Stan Lee so we have to post this" treatment. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:40, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
      • No, I really don't think so. I'm not American, I'm not a comic book (or comic movie) fan, but I think this passes the test. I'm afraid that now no-one will listen to you. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:42, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support blurb per Capitalistroadster. -A lainsane (Channel 2) 19:31, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support blurb with image. There is a clear consensus. A somewhat longer blurb might be used—I would recommend mentioning a couple of the characters he created, though I'd hate to get bogged down in a debate over which particular ones to use. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:37, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
    • Could mention "and chairman emeritus of Marvel Comics", avoids the question of which characters to include but more where he fell in the world. --Masem (t) 19:40, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
      • Nope, Stan Lee is Stan Lee. No embellishment required. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:50, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Ping @331dot: you around to handle this? Consensus is clear, and the article looks fine. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:41, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 19:43, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Image please. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:47, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
    Bang. Admin magic. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:47, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Less than an hour to blurb someone? I don't think even Stephen Hawking was posted this fast. WaltCip (talk) 19:54, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
    Because most Americans have never heard of Hawking. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:57, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
      • Or maybe because we Americans take better care of our biographies than you Brits? – Muboshgu (talk) 19:59, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
        • No, it was more about consensus than quality. And Hawking is luminary, Lee is contemporary, as you know. Apples and pears. But good attempt at the old USA USA USA bullshit! Next up we'll be giving Wikipedia editors guns to ensure American articles are up to scratch! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:02, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

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

RD: Ananth Kumar[edit]

Article: Ananth Kumar (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The Times of India
Nominator: Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk • give credit)

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

Nominator's comments: Indian Union Minister Ananth Kumar died.- Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:43, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

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

November 11[edit]

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

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

(Stale) RD: Douglas Rain[edit]

Stale (non-admin closure) --DannyS712 (talk) 01:22, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Douglas Rain (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC
Nominator: Sherenk1 (talk • give credit)

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: Voiced Hal in 2001: A Space Odyssey. Too many referencing issues. Hopefully will be resolved soon. Sherenk1 (talk) 11:20, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose poorly referenced stub. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:01, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose In the news is not the place for stubs that do not have enough inline citations. ―Susmuffin Talk 17:15, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

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

References[edit]

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: