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.

France national football team
France national football team

How to nominate an item[edit]

In order to suggest a candidate:

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

Purge this page to update the cache

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

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


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pulled from the main page are generally marked with (Posted) or (Pulled) in the item's subject so it is clear they are no longer active.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

Voicing an opinion on an item[edit]

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

Please do not...[edit]

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


July 20[edit]

Portal:Current events/2018 July 20
International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Ride the Ducks boat sinks[edit]

Article: Ride the Ducks (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A Ride the Ducks boat sinks in Table Rock Lake near Branson, Missouri, leaving at least seventeen dead.
News source(s): CBS news
Nominator: Tavix (talk • give credit)
Updater: Strikerforce (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: Significant loss of life. -- Tavix (talk) 15:00, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose - Tragic, but boating accidents happen all the time.--WaltCip (talk) 15:48, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose on article quality. Conceding some rare exceptions, we usually want a stand alone article for linking in ITN blurbs. The currently linked article deals with the business and has all of three sentences with one citation on the incident. That is completely inadequate for ITN. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:03, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Struck oppose. See my comment below. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:36, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Ad Orientem. I agree with the nominator that it is a significant loss of life, but we need a more substantial update, either to the linked article or (preferably) a standalone one.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:06, 20 July 2018 (UTC)<
  • Oppose per above. The article is not of great quality right now, and features only a short paragraph on the accident itself. Tillerh11 (talk) 16:32, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: We now have a stand-alone - Table Rock Lake duck boat accident. Home Lander (talk) 16:48, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support the alternate article, created by me, but acknowledge that it needs to be expanded. I've only got about another thirty minutes or so that I can work on it today, though, so I greatly appreciate any and all help to expand it. StrikerforceTalk 17:12, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose apparently insufficient to merit its own article. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:34, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support New article appears adequate. I did add a single CN tag but it's not enough to hold up posting. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:36, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support new article.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:39, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support new article. Sir Joseph (talk) 17:44, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

July 19[edit]

Portal:Current events/2018 July 19

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

RD: Rayo de Jalisco Sr.[edit]

Article: Rayo de Jalisco Sr. (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): ESPN (in Spanish)
Nominator and updater: MPJ-DK (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.

  MPJ-DK  02:15, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Support - Looks sourced and good 2 go--BabbaQ (talk) 06:59, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - nice work. I agree this is ready. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 12:05, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
The article seems to need {{Spanish name}}. I added the hatnote but an IP reverted. Can someone more familiar check this? @MPJ-DK:? See for example Andrés Manuel López Obrador.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 12:32, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
@Coffeeandcrumbs: I agree that the template is needed for this article, and have reverted the IP. –FlyingAce✈hello 16:00, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Adrian Cronauer[edit]

Article: Adrian Cronauer (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Roanoake Times, Newsweek, All Access
Nominator: Strikerforce (talk • give credit)

Article needs updating

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: Adrian Cronauer was a prominent entertainment figure during the Vietnam War and was the subject of Good Morning Vietnam StrikerforceTalk 14:52, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Article needs to be expanded, in my opinion, before we give full consideration to posting. I'm working on doing that, but of course welcome others to help! StrikerforceTalk 15:00, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support good enough. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:53, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support The article is fine, in my opinion. Hrodvarsson (talk) 22:22, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Well-sourced. Capitalistroadster (talk) 23:06, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - good enough.BabbaQ (talk) 06:58, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted. --Jayron32 11:27, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Denis Ten[edit]

Article: Denis Ten (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Kazinform, BBC
Nominator: JuneGloom07 (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: Denis Ten won a bronze medal in men's singles figure skating at the 2014 Winter Olympics, and is a two-time World medallist. JuneGloom07 Talk 14:28, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Article is now updated, but some sections need sourcing. - JuneGloom07 Talk 15:13, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose with regret. The earlier sections are very well referenced. The latter sections, not so much. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:51, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support after revision. It will be good to go especially if there are some sources added to the detailed results. Well down JuneGloom Capitalistroadster (talk) 01:01, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
    • I've taken care of the sourcing issues in the Career sections, so it's just the Detailed results table left. - JuneGloom07 Talk 02:50, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Looks good source-wise now. Openlydialectic (talk) 06:05, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support With all the excellent work from JG. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 06:39, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - looks good to goBabbaQ (talk) 06:58, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Tragic death. Good work on the article. Davey2116 (talk) 10:25, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted. --Jayron32 11:28, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Israel nation-state of Jewish people[edit]

Article: Basic Law proposal: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Israeli Knesset passes a law that declares Israel the nation-state of the Jewish people.
Alternative blurb: ​The Israeli Knesset passes passes a law declaring that only Jews have the right to self-determination in the country and removing Arabic as an official language
News source(s): BBC Guardian
Nominator: Masem (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: This is having significant impacts on Jew/Arab relationships. Masem (t) 04:35, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose sounds internal to Israel. It's also a law about Israel itself. Israel can presumably call itself whatever it wants, it's whether or not others agree with Israel that matters. Banedon (talk) 05:14, 19 July 2018 (UTC) Switch to Support alt blurb per arguments below, which I find convincing. Banedon (talk) 10:36, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
    • The crux of the bill is that it essential degrades any Arabs in Israel to second class citizens, compared to apartheid. Yes, it's internal to Israel for all purposes, but Israel is a centerpoint of the political strive in the Middle East, this only working against that. --Masem (t) 05:54, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
      • compared to apartheid. The "segregation" clause was removed last week. [1] wumbolo ^^^ 10:27, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
        • The article I linked above is still calling what remains comparable to apartheid, since it still appears to treat Arab Israelis as a different class of citizen than Jewish ones. --13:31, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support This is one of those rare pieces of legislation that is simultaneously both intra-state and transnational. In the latter case, it has significance beyond borders and seems to have received some traction in the news. Chetsford (talk) 09:02, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  • It is worth to add that Arabic language is no more an official language of Israel (if someone can confirm it and add to the articles). Шурбур (talk) 09:33, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support in principle, though the article needs work and has two orange-level tags. It is highly unusual for a democracy to pass a law that legally favours one race over others. This appears to have significant human rights and racism implications, as well as for the peace process. I've added an altblurb that hopefully makes this clearer (based on the Guardian report), though admittedly it's a bit long. Modest Genius talk 10:18, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support alt blurb per above. Rarely does a state engage in such overt racism and discrimination as a matter of public policy. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:29, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  • What is the official religion of Egypt? Afghanistan? Iraq? Syria? Saudi Arabia? etc. quit your hyperbole, it makes your bias even more outlandish. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:44, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes, the practice fell out of favor in 1945 – for a while.... Sca (talk) 14:27, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
And since you think this is about religion, once again demonstrating your ignorance of the difference between religion and ethnicity when it comes to Jews, your blatant Israel flag-waving can be safely ignored. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:39, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per above. Ouch.--WaltCip (talk) 11:02, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  • This is notable as per Chetsford, but the article isn't yet adequate. --LukeSurl t c 11:25, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support in principle – (Prefer alt blurb.) Egregiously xenophobic and discriminatory ethnocentrism that will further inflame incandescent regional passions. Sca (talk) 14:25, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support alt blurb as per above. This will have quite an effect on international policy. Dreigorich (talk) 14:33, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support alt blurb per above. Highly significant, aggressively invidious legislation that will have consequences throughout the Middle East. Davey2116 (talk) 16:33, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support alt blurb when the article is good enough. Black Kite (talk) 17:24, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - And ready for posting. But the Moons of Jupiter article should be posted first.BabbaQ (talk) 17:40, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
In a blue moon. Sca (talk) 20:42, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose this is basically saying that the Jewish state is a Jewish state, nothing inherently new. We didn't post when Afghanistan's new constitution came into force, proclaiming Islam as the state religion, we don't care that most/many other countries have official religions, why should we care when it's Israel? And note also the lead says, "The law is largely symbolic and declarative." Sir Joseph (talk) 20:46, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with state religion. The law relates to the rights of various ethnic groups in the country, not which religion is formally established. You're comparing apples and oranges. Modest Genius talk 16:11, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose article is not in a good way. And that's being generous. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:48, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose alt blurb as it omits the fact that Arabic became the special status language of Israel. wumbolo ^^^ 21:18, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
It includes the fact it was removed as an official language. It has been downgraded. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:47, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support alt blurb It is a notable development, though the article is currently in poor shape. Hrodvarsson (talk) 22:18, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Article lacks citations and is in bad shape. In addition it doesn't fit ITN as nothing was changed practically. The Jewish state puts its nature in formal terms, continues its democratical traditions, and fully respects all of its minorities. ie. nothing really changed. Noon (talk) 12:08, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Netural main blurb, but Oppose alternative blurb. For two reasons - first, the right of self-determination is not specific to Jewish individuals - but rather a national right of the Jewish people/nation - this needs to be made clear. Second - the law did not " removing Arabic as an official language" - The law did state Hebrew is the official language, and stated that Arabic has a special status (to be determined in separate legislation) - with this legislation not modifying the previous status of Arabic (clause 4-C). I'll also note that the "official" status of Arabic prior to the law was somewhat ambiguous (and relied on an ordinance from the British mandate harking back to 1922 - the Israeli system adopting the previous Ottoman and British ordinances on establishment of the state). While some news orgs are not terribly specific on the specifics of the legislation - we should be.Icewhiz (talk) 14:07, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support alt blurb. The main blurb meaninglessly vague; the alt blurb clarifies why it's getting attention. --Calton | Talk 14:12, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Question I keep seeing that this is significant, but no indication why. There can be no reasonable debate that Arabs are second-class citizens in Israel yesterday, today and tomorrow. Insomuch as this legislation codifies the situation it is relevant. But surely prior legislation did so as well. What are the actual real-world impacts of this on the average Israeli Arab? ghost 14:24, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
So previously almost all discrimination was as a result of selectively enforced laws etc. This makes the racism constitutional - which has a knock on effect on society in general. See here for one analysis. There are many others. See Linguistic discrimination for what happens when you start suppressing a people's liguistic heritage. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:28, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose orange tag for lack of citations is a disqualifier to me for the Main Page. The law is purely symbolic, and makes no changes that have any concrete effects. Strong oppose alt-blurb per Icewhiz. Some supporters above speculate greater significance than is immediately apparent. Gluons12 | 15:42, 20 July 2018 (UTC).
My understanding is that this Basic Law must be taken into account by the courts whenever they interpret other laws. So whilst it doesn't immediately change things, it will have a large and ongoing impact. Modest Genius talk 16:08, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose countries amend the constitution with great regularity, and put people in positions of power to interpret constitutions with even greater regularity (in the US we have a pending supreme court nominee who could alter the balance of power on our supreme court). Why Israel's changes merit special attention that other countries don't - like Mexico's 2011 constitutional amendment guaranteeing the right to food (probably the first in the world to do so) and probably myriad others that only get passing mention in high-brow media - seems to further the first-world bias of Wikipedia. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:31, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

July 18[edit]

Portal:Current events/2018 July 18
Armed conflicts and attacks


Business and economy

Disasters and accidents
  • European migrant crisis
    • A migrant boat capsizes off the northern coast of Cyprus, killing at least 19 people, while 25 are reported missing, and the Turkish coast guard rescues 103. (AP)

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology


(Closed) Russian cruiser Dmitrii Donskoi wreck discovery[edit]

Good faith nom but consensus is against posting at this time. In the (unlikely) event that the ship does turn out to be packed with bullion we can open a new discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:32, 20 July 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: Russian cruiser Dmitrii Donskoi (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A joint-team of South Korean, British, and Canadian explorers discover the wreck of Russian cruiser Dmitrii Donskoi off the coast of Ulleungdo island, over a century after its scuttle during the Russo-Japanese War.
News source(s): BBC; The Daily Telegraph; The New York Post
Nominator: (talk • give credit)
Updater: Firebrace (talk • give credit)
Other updaters: Alexpl (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Major discovery of a Russian warship, believed to carry $133 billion in gold. (talk) 13:12, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Not a very large (5,800 tons) or important warship, and the death toll of crew members (60) was comparatively small. Per BBC, "no proof exists that the ship carried gold, with academics raising doubts that a warship would carry such valuable cargo." Sca (talk) 14:36, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment. This would certainly be notable on the Russian Wikipedia! First see if it has been proposed here. Inatan (talk) 16:10, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose: A salvage team is planning to raise the ship; we should hold off till then (if it ever happens). Firebrace (talk) 17:21, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Per #Shipwreck discovery, South Koreans claim to have discovered the wreck before. That needs sorting out in the article. Brandmeistertalk 19:58, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose right now. A more interesting story will be if/when they recover $100 billion in gold. Now that would be newsworthy. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:54, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose That's most likely a scam. No proof it has any gold on it and why would a ship full of gold be sent to fight Japanese forces is an open question. Wait for them to actually raise anything. Openlydialectic (talk) 00:40, 20 July 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.

July 17[edit]

Portal:Current events/2018 July 17
Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

International relations

Politics and elections

Science and technology

(Needs Attention) New moons of Jupiter[edit]

Articles: Moons of Jupiter (talk, history) and Jupiter (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Astronomers discover 10-12 new moons around Jupiter.
Alternative blurb: ​A team of astronomers led by Scott S. Sheppard discover 10 new moons around Jupiter.
Alternative blurb II: ​In astronomy, scientists announce the discovery of 10 new moons around Jupiter
News source(s): CBC News, The Guardian, TIME, Reuters, USA Today, The Wall Street Journal, LA Times Science Magazine
Nominator: (talk • give credit)
Updater: Exoplanetaryscience (talk • give credit)
Other updaters: Dreigorich (talk • give credit) and Vimalkalyan (talk • give credit)

Both articles updated (talk) 22:44, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose There were some discoveries of new moons last year, and the implication that there are many more to be found still. We're also talking moons with sizes on a few kilometers, not massive bodies. Interesting, but it is not a major astronomy discovery. --Masem (t) 23:07, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong support. I wanted to nominate this myself. Increase of 10 moons from 69 to 79 is very significant in astronomy. I wonder if NASA will ever discover more moons orbiting Uranus? (talk) 01:50, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
In astronomy, perhaps, but not here on Earth. Sca (talk) 15:14, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - It's not everyday that you discover new moons, especially such interesting ones that mostly have retrograde orbits and two or more of which are on potential collision courses. They will almost certainly be the subject of intense astronomical scrutiny in the months and years to come. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 02:53, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Sounds interesting to me. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:11, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm unsure how well the target article has been updated (or not). Abductive (reasoning) 03:18, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. Many articles have been updated to reflect the new information, including this one. Also ten moons, not twelve. Twelve accidentally double-counts S/2016 J 1 and S/2017 J 1. Dreigorich (talk) 03:29, 18 July 2018 (UTC) As for my rationale (forgot earlier) how often is it what you get ten new moons reported in one day? Especially for the same planet? Especially one that is going the wrong way in a large crowd of moons? This is huge. Of course, there are likely still a few more moons to be found, so this may not be the last of it. Recent discoveries have only been one or two at a time, so ten is highly unusual. The last time something like this happened if I remember correctly was in 2004 2006, I stand corrected around Saturn when nine moons were reported. Dreigorich (talk) 03:37, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
    • As I read the sources, its not that within one day of observation they found 10-12 moons. It's an accumulation of data over the last year, and published today to report all findings. --Masem (t) 03:42, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
      • Riiiiight. I forgot. facepalm Dreigorich (talk) 03:45, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support 10 is a significant amount.  Nixinova  T  C  04:47, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support the blurb and the bolded article which is much improved since the announcement, largely thanks to the work of Exoplanetaryscience (several credits added for major updaters). Oppose the picture which does not represent any of the discovered moons. I see no place for it in the blurb. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 05:40, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Oppose changing my vote per my comments below about precedent. This should be posted when the eventual paper is published.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 01:39, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support but would like a better blurb pointer to material on the new moons. Jusdafax (talk) 06:29, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
I have linked to Moons of Jupiter#Discovery which I have copyedited. @Jusdafax: would that work?--- Coffeeandcrumbs 07:53, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks! Jusdafax (talk) 08:03, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - interesting and well written article.BabbaQ (talk) 07:42, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - clearly significant astronomy news. 10 meets the WP:MINIMUMMOONS criteria for me. Stormy clouds (talk) 08:31, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support a good interesting story with a decent article section behind it. I've added a bit about S/2016 J 2. --LukeSurl t c 08:34, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Is there a way we could mention Scott S. Sheppard? By my count, he has led various teams that have discovered over 56 of these moons. There are other members that go in and out of these teams but he has consistently been the lead author on almost all of these recent discoveries of the last decade and a half.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 09:21, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Alternative proposed.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 09:27, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
I don't think it's a good idea (or precedent) to pick out individual scientists from a team. Modest Genius talk 10:09, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support This is an interesting discovery and a good ITN material.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:46, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support It's not everyday that 10(!) natural satellites have been discovered. In fact, has this ever happened in the history of mankind? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 09:51, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
    • Yes: the eleven satellites of Jupiter S/2001 J 1 through S/2001 J 11 (now Jupiter XXVIII through XXXVIII) were all announced on 15 May 2002. Double sharp (talk) 14:08, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Question: have these discoveries been published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal? That has been our standard for science items, but I can't find a paper, just press releases and newspaper reports. Modest Genius talk 10:09, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
According to the Guardian, "Sheppard, whose report appears in the International Astronomical Union Minor Planet Electronic Circular." There is no pretty prose but it is confirmed and published by the International Astronomical Union. See data publishing. Are you saying it is not peer reviewed until some old-school publisher extracts its pound of flesh? --- Coffeeandcrumbs 11:07, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
I apologise for the tone of my response. Time for me to get some sleep. Good morning to you all.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 11:21, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes I found the MPECs, but they're just lists of ephemeris coordinates and orbital elements. MPEC is not a journal, and as far as I am aware it isn't peer-reviewed either. Modest Genius talk 11:55, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes, but the MPECs are exactly the standard channel where newly discovered minor planets and natural satellites are announced, after the IAU Minor Planet Centre calculates their orbital solutions based on the team's reported observations; there is not that much else to say about most of the new moons except for the oddly placed prograde one (S/2016 J 2). Given that the paper detailing the team's 2000 and 2001 discoveries was published only in 2003 (10.1038/nature01584), it seems safe to say that if a paper does come out, it won't be news anymore by the time it does. Double sharp (talk) 14:18, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Sure, but if these are a sufficiently important discovery to interest ITN they surely merit a full description in a paper. 'Oumuamua was written up, peer-reviewed and published a month after its discovery, and that is when we posted it on ITN. I am uncomfortable posting science news which has not been through formal peer review. Tbh I don't think the scientists should have issued press releases for unreviewed work either. Modest Genius talk 14:32, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
As Double sharp said, the paper for Jupiter's 2000 and 2001 moons was only released in 2003. That means that we could expect a paper about the 2016-2018 moons in 2020-2021 or so. It won't be news anymore by then. We shouldn't count on a paper being immediately released for these new moons yet. Dreigorich (talk) 14:36, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
That tardiness is because the authors didn't bother to submit their paper until December 2002. That sort of delay is not normal, and the counterexample of 'Oumuamua shows it is far from necessary for new Solar System discoveries. Modest Genius talk 15:57, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
True. Logical fallacy, logical fallacy. Dreigorich (talk) 16:02, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
In past ITN science stories, what usually happens is that Nature or Science or a otherwise high-ranking journal publishes the key paper and then has a news release themselves to go to the media about the paper, which is how those stories get in the news. The fact that these astronomers decided to go to the press before getting a peer-review paper published breaks that cycle, and it's not really appropriate for us at ITN post without the peer-review having been done. --Masem (t) 14:42, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose & wait for a peer-reviewed paper. The discussion above has made it clear that this is based merely on a table of orbit calculations and a press release. For scientific stories, I feel we should wait until any discoveries have passed peer review and been formally published, which this hasn't. Modest Genius talk 16:50, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
I completely understand - just keep in mind that it may be anywhere from next week to a few years, by which this news article will go stale. Dreigorich (talk) 17:16, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
That's not how this works, I'm afraid. Sheppard has discovered numerous other moons of Jupiter (nearly all of the outer retrograde ones, actually) and has submitted them to the minor planet center, which is considered the largest authority on this sort of thing. This sort of discovery is almost routine for him and his team at this point, and the fact that all of these objects have been observed for more than a year AND passed Gareth's rigorous scrutiny is proof enough of their existence. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 19:05, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
I know exactly how this works; Sheppard may have provided evidence to the IAU, and convinced one researcher there, but it has not been published or made available to other scientists. Nor has it been subjected to formal peer review, which I regard as a requirement before posting on ITN. Incidentally, by your own logic this would be a 'routine' discovery and therefore unsuitable for ITN... Modest Genius talk 10:26, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for that pointer. This was what I was going to say but didn't exactly know how to say. Dreigorich (talk) 19:43, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose alt blurb, horrible idea to single out member of team for ITN praise. I shouldn't have to even say this. Abductive (reasoning) 12:32, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Consider it withdrawn. I can see that it was a bad idea on my part.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 21:52, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Highly significant, and the article is in good shape. Davey2116 (talk) 16:42, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Modest Genius. Peer review tends to annihilate most unfounded scientific discoveries.--WaltCip (talk) 17:57, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Meh the number is the only notable news here. All of the moons are at most 2 km wide (1 mile in Murican). Neat, but more like space debris for Jupiter. Nergaal (talk) 20:34, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment in the rush to support this, did no one notice the missing refs in the target article? --LaserLegs (talk) 21:13, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
@LaserLegs: Please be more specific. This is an issue that can be resolved. May I suggest some {{Cn}} tags would be helpful.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 21:49, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Per Walt, Genius, Nergaal. Not convinced of significance. Sca (talk) 21:17, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Sca. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:24, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Question Opposers who are against because of the small sizes of the moons - how is this not significant? Sure, the sizes are insignificant (we will never discover large moons of planets ever again) but what about the number? This is the most that has been reported at once since 2002, as Double sharp states. Dreigorich (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:45, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
    • The fact that they are small moons, and clustered in bands, and with very odd orbits, from what I've read, would give some more prove of how planets were created at the start of the solar system. That's great and all, but that is the type of thing that needs to filter through a peer-reviewed paper. --Masem (t) 21:50, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
      • For those asking for peer review, please read Exoplanetaryscience's comment on how things are verified above: "Sheppard has discovered numerous other moons of Jupiter (nearly all of the outer retrograde ones, actually) and has submitted them to the minor planet center, which is considered the largest authority on this sort of thing. This sort of discovery is almost routine for him and his team at this point, and the fact that all of these objects have been observed for more than a year AND passed Gareth's rigorous scrutiny is proof enough of their existence." Dreigorich (talk) 21:59, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - the issue, as far as I can see, with waiting for peer review, is that the story will no longer be in the news when such a journal or paper is published. A large problem with scientific research is that the media don't report on peer review papers to a large extent, and that leaves us in a predicament. Either we post this item now, in the knowledge that it may not be supported by future papers (which may warrant a further blurb if it happens, as it will be a significant time from now), or we don't post it at all. I understand the rationale for waiting for peer review, and in an ideal world would endorse it. But, with the scientific method being what it is, I don't feel that this is compatible with ITN in this case. As pointed out be Exoplanetaryscience, there is significant evidence to bolster the claims of Sheppard and his researchers. The debate should focus on whether it is enough to post now, as waiting is likely not an option. Stormy clouds (talk) 22:24, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
    • ^ This. This exactly. Dreigorich (talk) 22:26, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
    • This is not true. Most science stories that are nominations or posted here are those are ones that the press have published about because Nature, Science, or some other high level journal had just published the peer-review journal. Most scientists do not talk about key results to the press until they have their peer-reviewed paper out. This is true for astronomy too - at least with agencies like NASA and ESA too. Why this is special , I dunno why, but it is not true that press don't report when peer-reviewed papers come out. --Masem (t) 04:11, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
I concur with Masem: the vast majority of scientists follow this convention and avoid promoting their work in the media until it has been peer-reviewed. The ancient humans story on the ITN template right now is an excellent example - it was reported when the paper came out, not when they first found the artefacts. I don't know why the convention wasn't followed in this case, but for me lack of peer review is important enough to preclude posting. Modest Genius talk 10:35, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
@Masem: - however, this is the exception. There will not be a furore regarding verification of this paper in the media - they won't report heavily on this story again. A large number of the discoveries posted here go through a more conventional route before publishing, but this story hasn't. As to the media not reporting on peer-reviewed papers, the consensus amongst the scientific community is that they don't. Here's John Oliver (I know, not ideal, but he cites reliable sources) discussing the issue. Often we get lucky and post items from thorough researchers, who comply fully with the rigours of the scientific method. This time we didn't, and we have to decide what to do to rectify this. Not posting is understandable, and part of me wishes to go along with it. But we must recognise that it is likely now or never. Stormy clouds (talk) 08:56, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment this doesn't seem too important; I feel these are "moons" to a lesser extent than Pluto (planet) is a planet. On the other hand, there's not a significant amount of news happening elsewhere. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:43, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Not a reason to post. Sca (talk) 00:35, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. Concerns about the lack of peer review are irrelevant, as explained by Exoplanetaryscience. Double sharp (talk) 23:26, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
    • @Double sharp Sorry for accidentally crediting you earlier! Dreigorich (talk) 23:29, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
What I want to know is, is the moon in the seventh house and is Jupiter aligned with Mars? Guess not. Sca (talk) 00:53, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
The Moon is currently in the seventh house in Kolkota (Calcutta), India and/or similar longitudes and Jupiter is a full 82 and 39/60ths degrees from Mars which is obviously not aligned. The Age of Aquarius song thing happens everywhere every 2 years by the way (possibly excluding the polar regions where some astrologers consider houses to be undefined), and the Age of Aquarius happens when the start of the sign of Aries moves to the constellation of Aquarius which (though debatable) is very clearly not the 60s or New Millennium but more like 2600 AD (the song 2525 is much better) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:00, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Maybe, but let's not forget 3-5-0-0. – Sca (talk) 21:49, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I searched through our ITN archives for precedent and read through many of them. This decision to post 1I/ʻOumuamua's detection only after the paper was published was the most relevant. There seems to be precendent for waiting to post when the eventual paper is published, even if the news is stale.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 01:35, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Here is the earlier decision not to post about 25 days earlier.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 01:47, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose these moons are just so small. If natural satellite is to be believed, there's no well-defined limit on what the size of a moon is. If we take this at face value, Saturn would have tens of thousands of moons in its ring system, and every new satellite we send into orbit is a moon! What this discovery is really saying then is that there's a need to define clearly what a moon is (c.f. the redefinition of a planet to exclude Pluto), and this discovery itself isn't very interesting. Weak oppose only because it's still been covered in the media. Banedon (talk) 03:14, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
    • Well to be fair, I don't think we've launched a single object into space more than a couple hundred meters across even on its longest axis. And I get your gist. In the asteroid belt, there's about 500,000 asteroids more than 1 km across, in the kuiper belt, several million or more. But, I'd say it depends quite a bit where they are. a few new kilometer-wide objects in a huge ring system is definitely a lot less notable than a few new ones in a system with only a few dozen of those total. For instance, you'll see that the newly-announced S/2018 J 1 is the 27th brightest moon of Jupiter, making it roughly as notable as, say 92 Undina, the 27th brightest asteroid in the asteroid belt. If they happened to suddenly announce 10 of the 100 largest objects in the asteroid belt, there wouldn't be any doubt that it'd be notable. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 04:03, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
      • Well Jupiter also has rings. Also, personally I'm not so sure about the last part - discovering objects 91-100 by mass in the asteroid belt sounds pretty uninteresting to me, unless there's something special about those asteroid. Banedon (talk) 05:11, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose WOW! We found rocks . . . floating in space . . . in orbit around something! Let's make a big deal about it! Not buying it. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 05:46, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
    • Let's not be ridiculous. If a new planet were discovered it would almost surely be posted, even though it'd just be a rock (or ball of gas) that's floating in space in orbit around the Sun. Banedon (talk) 06:39, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment. Isn't it twelve? I counted them in the table and there are twelve of them. wumbolo ^^^ 08:56, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Ten. Twelve double-counts S/2016 J 1 and S/2017 J 2. Dreigorich (talk) 14:30, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. I would rather read a Wikipedia Featured Article than slog through this discussion. Congratulations to the authors of Moons of Jupiter. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:34, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
What? Only 4,600 words (and counting). Where's your academic stamina? Sca (talk) 01:54, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support This is a very significant discovery. The authors waited a year for it to be confirmed by the International Astronomy Union. This is already a much higher standard of evidence than many things posted in the news, where the only requirement is a "reliable source" reporting on it. Databased (talk) 15:28, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support they're tiny but there's ten of them. Also support mentioning the prograde moon. wumbolo ^^^ 15:46, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
There are 10 of them? Three more than the seven dwarfs? Just counting them is enough to make me sleepy. Sca (talk) 20:58, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. Although the formal acceptance of these newly discovered moons is not yet complete, I doubt any astronomers would doubt the accuracy of anything that has made it past Williams and his team. It is in the news now, and it is notable for the sheer increase in number. As relatively unimportant as they may seem in comparison to, say, the discovery of a dwarf planet, this is the kind of statistic children learn in elementary school. Inatan (talk) 16:00, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. Pretty big discovery, and the article is in good shape. ZettaComposer (talk) 17:01, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose Neat discovery, but as someone else has pointed out, these are insignificant objects in overall size. They're not asteroids or anything else that would pose a threat, at that size, to another celestial body, if they weren't in orbit around Jupiter. I wouldn't be terribly upset if this garnered enough support to post, but I can't place myself into that column. StrikerforceTalk 17:23, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is such a bait and switch (I was reminded of that Carlin joke about an explosion in Pakistan[2]) because it plays on what the average person thinks a "moon" is. No one cares that you found a pebble that maybe kinda sorta orbits Jupiter. ghost 17:44, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Update: This discovery has now been reported in Nature, vol. 559, p. 312-313 (2018). (talk) 17:53, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not seeing the significance of this.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:21, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Reluctant Oppose I really wanted to support this but we aren't talking about moons as most people would understand the term. This sounds like a discovery of orbiting space debris. That is likely to be extremely common for many of the planets in our solar system. Sorry, but in the grand scheme of things this is astronomical trivia. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:28, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Ha! astronomical trivia, that's a funny oxymoron. (talk) 21:41, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Question. Wikipedia is a perfect place for people to find out they are marble-sized moons. There's no question this story was taken up by multiple major news sources. Why do you guys get to decide to keep two Featured Articles off the main page? -SusanLesch (talk) 22:03, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
    This is Wikipedia and it uses consensus to determine what is and what is not suitable in a number of processes. If you'd like to learn more about that, don't hesitate to drop me a line. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:05, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Fair enough except the majority of people here have !voted in Support and you removed the [Ready] flag unilaterally, did you not? -SusanLesch (talk) 22:18, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Sure, if you count votes, it's something like 18-14 in support, but as I'm sure you know, we don't just count votes. In any case, the (Ready) "flag" is merely an informal note to admins when something is a racing certainty, i.e. unanimous or near-unanimous support. This is not that. It needs careful reading. If you'd like any further help, don't hesitate to drop me a line. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:21, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Correction, not marble-sized, "the new ones range in size from about six-tenths of a mile (1 km) to 2.5 miles (4 km)". Thank you, Reuters! -SusanLesch (talk) 00:50, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Unfortunate, because it's not often we get a Featured Article at ITN, but as others have said, these are effectively orbiting debris, and I'm concerned about the peer review aspect as well. Black Kite (talk) 22:10, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I think this may have reached the point where it's time to think about closing the discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:36, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
It seems to me a large portion of opposing votes (and supporting votes for that matter) do not understand why the moons are significant. Sure, they are practically just asteroids, having little significance overall (excepting S/2016 J 2). But they orbit Jupiter, and 10 is no small number when it comes to moons (read the "Discovery" section of Moons of Jupiter to get an idea of how often it happens). The discovery of 1000 asteroids would probably not be worthy of featuring here at ITN (and that does happen from time to time), but with these moons, it is not so much what they are that makes them important, as what the general public attributes to them. Almost no one who has done their reading has any concerns about peer review, so that leaves very few legitimate arguments "against". Inatan (talk) 09:26, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
it is not so much what they are that makes them important, as what the general public attributes to them. That's the best argument against that I've seen. "Hey general public, I just discovered 10 new moons of Jupiter!" "That's amazeballs! How did we miss 10 whole moons all this time?" "Oh, they're pretty small." "Oh, like smaller than our moon?" "Yeah, you could fit a billion of these into the volume of our moon." "Um...that doesn't seem so amazeballs. Why should I care about this? Aren't there a lot of small things floating around the solar system?" "Yeah but these ones orbit Jupiter!" "...I have to go now." ghost 11:24, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
I don't think a random hypothetical dialog is a strong argument to convince me that the general public doesn't care about this issue. In fact, the wide coverage in the news suggests that people care very much. This story has been covered in (Nature) (Discover Magazine) (CNET) (Yahoo) (Wired) (Space) (The Guardian) (Vox) (ABC) (NBC) (CBS) (The Weather Channel) (Popular Science) and (CNN) among others. Databased (talk) 13:58, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
It's not hypothetical at all- it's the reaction of a dozen editors in this very thread. I reviewed three of those article at random. The earliest any of them mention the size is the seventh paragraph. They know full well disclosing the size will make people dismiss the story, so they bury it. Saying "We just found TEN new moons of Jupiter!" will draw peoples attention, which is the media's job. ITNC's job is to separate the wheat from the chaff. ghost 14:44, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment So... end of discussion, anyone? –Angga1061 12:58, 20 July 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Angga1061 (talkcontribs)
18 supporting !votes to 14 opposing. No, thank you, do not close this. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:05, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
At least, not until we get up to 5,000 words. This is a mere 4,600 now. (The target article is 2,600) Sca (talk) 14:19, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
As you have already been told, we don't count votes. Close or post, I think we've heard from enough people to make a decision. ghost 14:32, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. Wow, I actually learned something major about an astronomical topic. --Calton | Talk 14:15, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
These objects presumably have been orbiting Jupiter for countless eons. How does their discovery by Earthlings change anything for any sentient beings anywhere? Sca (talk) 14:25, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Well, that's not the dumbest thing I've read all week, but it has been a long week. --Calton | Talk 14:56, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

July 16[edit]

Portal:Current events/2018 July 16
Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Politics and elections

Law and crime

Science and technology

(Closed) Trump-Putin Summit[edit]

No consensus to post and the discussion is not developing well. --Tone 18:20, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: 2018 Russia–United States summit (talk, history)
Blurb: United States President Donald Trump and Russian dictator Vladimir Putin hold a summit in Finland.
Alternative blurb: ​!-- An alternative blurb. Leave blank if not needed -->
News source(s): The Washington Post, New York Times, TIME Magazine, CNN
Nominator: (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: High-stakes meeting between two controversial leaders. Definitely in the news. (talk) 15:53, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose barring any major outcome of the talks. In contrast to Trump meeting with Kim Jung-un a few months ago, Trump's met with Putin at past G20-type events, so this is just a formal summit between these two. I don't see it groundbreaking at this point. --Masem (t) 16:04, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Wait - no outcome of the summit thus far beyond some soundbites that the media will latch upon. Certainly in the news, but let's await the conclusion of the summit (and the enhancement of the article) before deciding to post or not. Stormy clouds (talk) 16:13, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Wait but currently leaning oppose. Nothing of significance has come out of this so far. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:47, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Trump said exactly what we expected him to say, and did exactly what we expected him to do. Ditto with Putin. The overall newsworthiness of this is nil. Francisco Franco is still dead.--WaltCip (talk) 17:29, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose – per Walt. Daniel Case (talk) 17:32, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support two "world leaders" meet, but I think using "dictator" is not very neutral. Stryn (talk) 17:37, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose this is the type of "Trump + X" story that we should avoid posting. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:46, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose World leaders meet on a regular basis. The term "dictator" is POV. Putin is the president of the Russian federation. We are neither Trumpedia nor Russophopedia.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:47, 16 July 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.

July 15[edit]

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

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Politics and elections

Science and technology


World Series of Poker[edit]

Article: 2018 World Series of Poker (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In poker, the 2018 World Series of Poker conclude with John Cynn winning the main event.
Alternative blurb: ​In poker, the 2018 World Series of Poker concludes with John Cynn winning the main event over Tony Miles.
News source(s): ABC News/Associated Press Los Angeles Times Edmonton Journal ESPN
Nominator: Andise1 (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: Top tier event in poker. Andise1 (talk) 04:50, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose - Playing cards is not a sport. WaltCip (talk) 10:47, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
ITN is not restricted to sport, so whether or not poker counts as one is irrelevant. Modest Genius talk 10:55, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Indeed, it's more about the significance of the news, rather than a debate over whether poker (or chess or darts or snooker) is a "sport". The Rambling Man (talk) 21:25, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm not opposed to this on notability grounds, but much of the prose currently talks about the event in the future tense. --LukeSurl t c 11:02, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I agree that this meets significance threshold. Final Table needs more prose; the final hand at least would be required, IMO. There are also some citations needed. ghost 11:56, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support saw enough coverage of this, plus the large prize pool is a strong indication of notability. Banedon (talk) 03:20, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support on notability grounds but the article still needs some work. The Final Table section in particular talks more about the events leading up to the final table than the actual final table itself. ZettaComposer (talk) 10:50, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose the article is just too weak. A lot of tables and statistics, sure, but nothing proseworthy, and really quite boring to look at too. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:56, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Little to no coverage due to lack of significance. Sca (talk) 14:27, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ray Emery[edit]

Article: Ray Emery (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Sporting News
Nominator: Teemu08 (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: Featured Article Teemu08 (talk) 19:26, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment It may have been listed as a featured article about ten years ago, but it doesn't appear to be featured quality at present. Ray_Emery#Personal_life is a mess. Also, the article isn't updated to reflect his death other than a death date put at the top. How did he die so young? The article doesn't say. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:29, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
    • Yea, this should definitely be FAR-bound, but everything is at least cited. Death info has been added, not that there are very many details. Teemu08 (talk) 19:36, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
      • Not everything. I added some {{cn}} tags. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:53, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
      • I'm glad this got worked on. Support. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:23, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - article may not be FA quality, but good enough for RD. -Zanhe (talk) 01:13, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Complete coverage and referencing of subject. SpencerT•C 01:18, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. No cn's currently in article although it has been worked on since his death. There is a group citation for his stats which may potentially be a problem. Capitalistroadster (talk) 02:27, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Marking as ready. I made some significant improvements to dead links and other refs.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 03:18, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - Good 2 go.BabbaQ (talk) 11:15, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support I'm unclear why this has been sitting here for a day or so without being posted. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:17, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted. Courcelles (talk) 21:18, 16 July 2018 (UTC)


Article: 2018 Wimbledon Championships (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In tennis, the 2018 Wimbledon Championships conclude with Angelique Kerber winning the women's singles and Novak Djokovic winning the men's singles.
Nominator: Power~enwiki (talk • give credit)

Nominated event is listed at WP:ITN/R, meaning that the recurrence of the event should in itself merit a post on WP:ITN, subject to the quality of the article and any update(s) to it.

Nominator's comments: This is on ITNR. The article 2018 Wimbledon Championships has more prose, but I used the same articles as last year's nom. power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:46, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose Both proposed articles are stubs with all prose in the lead followed by table cruft. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:37, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Conditional strong support - subject to some expansion to the target articles - though this was slightly before the World Cup finals, true? Juxlos (talk) 17:11, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
    • Yes, it ended before the World Cup final. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:25, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose currently both articles are completely sub-standard regarding prose. I think this happened last year as well. Black Kite (talk) 17:28, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment as nom I fully agree that the prose isn't good enough yet. I'll try to improve it around 0200GMT if they're still in this state. There may be an option for different articles in bold, as well. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:32, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Every tennis article I've seen on Wikipedia has lacked prose when the tournament ended, yet I still find those articles to be very informative. The people who write them have found a way to convey a lot of useful information through tables. While I do think the article should have more prose, I would support posting it anyway, since it nevertheless contains the information I would want to know about the tournament. Calathan (talk) 20:36, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per Calathan. As I've written before: in articles of this kind, prose is overrated. What I really care about is 1) who won and 2) what the score was, and both are in the article. Banedon (talk) 02:08, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
    • Baloney. When I see an article packed with tables like this, I scroll to the end to look for prose. This one fails to deliver. Also, the tables that I checked don't meet MOS:ACCESS requirements. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:01, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
      • If you're looking for prose on how one-sided the final was, the reasons for the one-sidedness, how this was Djokovic's first championship in ____ time, etc, you're looking at the wrong venue. There are much better venues to read about those than an encyclopedia, which by construction can't even be written in an engaging manner. Banedon (talk) 04:39, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
        • Actually, that's precisely what an encyclopedia does (see Britannica[3]). What you are describing is called an almanac. ghost 13:42, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
          • That's the equivalent of the Wimbledon article proper, which is not the same as the 2018 Wimbledon article. Banedon (talk) 22:01, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
        • If I was expected to beef up the prose to get 2017 World Series, 2018 NBA Finals, and 2018 Stanley Cup Finals posted here (go ahead and look in the archives for those discussions), then why should Wimbledon be posted without prose describing the final match? The Wimbledon article should have prose mentioning all those things that I don't know about as someone who didn't follow the tournament. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:46, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
          • You shouldn't have been expected to beef up the prose of those articles. Or are you saying I should have commented on those nominations to support them without prose summaries? Banedon (talk) 22:01, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Virtually all the prose that is there (and there isn't much) was written before the tournament began. Where is the summary of what actually happened?--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:54, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose junk factoid article, no encyclopedic content beyond tables and stats, not something we would ever feature on the main page, shocking that some people think we do. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:08, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support: tournament articles are like that, this seems at least good. – 333-blue at 11:06, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Not ready. The bolded article is in terrible shape. There's no prose whatsoever on the tournament, and even the data tables are overwhelmingly related to the pre-tournament seeding rather than the competition itself. The supporting men's and women's singles articles have just one sentence each on the finals, and a handful on the rest of the tournament, so are no better targets. This is woefully short of being postable. For such a high-profile event I'm amazed we have such poor articles. Modest Genius talk 13:54, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose in the current state. Needs more prose; notably if every person here who argued that adding quality writing to the article wasn't worth their time had spent that time writing quality text in that article, it probably would have been posted already. Sports journalists have written pages upon pages of text describing every match in excruciating detail. It should be trivial to glean that already written text for sources to expand this to a summary of tournament highlights. --Jayron32 11:30, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) 2018 FIFA World Cup[edit]

Articles: 2018 FIFA World Cup (talk, history) and 2018 FIFA World Cup Final (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In association football, the FIFA World Cup concludes with France defeating Croatia in the final.
Nominator: Davey2116 (talk • give credit)

Both articles need updating

One or both nominated events are listed at WP:ITN/R, meaning that the recurrence of the event should in itself merit a post on WP:ITN, subject to the quality of the article and any update(s) to it.

Nominator's comments: The ongoing item should be removed when this is posted. Davey2116 (talk) 03:08, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment we just call it the Final, not the "final match". The Rambling Man (talk) 06:53, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment since this is likely the next blurb getting up, please prepare some picture to update the Thailand cave, since it will be replaced. This should have happened yesterday already but I instead removed another item that took place on the same day, in order to keep an image. --Tone 08:58, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Note: it's also the finals of Wimbledon today, so the NSU story will probably go as well if the Wimbledon article is in decent shape. Black Kite (talk) 09:06, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  • It's likely that a freely-licensed photo of the winning team or a scene from the match will be uploaded within a few hours of the final, thanks to the OTRS from Soccer.RU. Until one is ready, the winning team's captain should be featured. SounderBruce 14:23, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Or possibly the scorer of a winning goal, if available. We have free images of most of the players, but some are not great (i.e. Lloris, the French captain). Black Kite (talk) 14:27, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  • On second thought, the Man of the Match should be featured. Griezmann seems to be an early contender, having been involved in all three goals so far. SounderBruce 16:23, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Griezmann photo for entry. Mikael Häggström (talk) 17:22, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Griezmann as photo until free image of the winning team surfaces. He is the official MOTM. Nice4What (talk) 17:46, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong support. Perhaps we could add the final score, 4-2?Zigzig20s (talk) 16:54, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong support - nothing left to say Juxlos (talk) 16:57, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  • support - Definitely for ITN.BabbaQ (talk) 16:58, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per above. --AmaryllisGardener talk 17:02, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong Support - Speedy add Nice4What (talk) 17:08, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted Quality appears sufficient pretty quickly. The main article can use some more sourcing here and there but nothing worth holding this up for. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:09, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Note I've added the image of Luca Modric (which was taken at the current tournament) to the Commons protection queue, as he won Best Player of the Tournament. This would seem to be a good stopgap until we get a free image of France actually winning the trophy. Black Kite (talk) 17:42, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
    • This entry is about the winning team, not the best player of the tournament. I think it would be misleading/confusing to have Modric's picture since Croatia lost. Nice4What (talk) 17:48, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
      • No, the entry is about the whole tournament. Also, we're only talking about a temporary image until we get a good free one (in which case, it'd be nice to show Modric if only for a few hours). If Griezmann is MOTM then use him instead. Black Kite (talk) 18:00, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
        • OK, he is. Adding image until we have something better. Black Kite (talk) 18:02, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
          • Wow... Also, as stated above, let's keep the Griezmann photo until the group image is released. Nice4What (talk) 18:10, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Suggestion - How about adding the score to the blurb? Thanks. Jusdafax (talk) 18:08, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
    • Support - Add 4-2 score, notable since it is one of the most amount of scores in a final. Nice4What (talk) 18:10, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
      • Done. Black Kite (talk) 18:21, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
        • Removed the result. We never post results. Strangely enough, 4-2 is the most common result in WC finals ;) --Tone 18:34, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
        • @Tone:, you removed the 4-2 score without participating in discussion. From the Washington Post on its notability:
"The six goals were as many as the previous four finals combined. They were the most in a final since England beat Germany, 4-2, in extra time in 1966 and the most in regulation since Brazil’s 5-2 triumph over Sweden in 1958." ( Source )
The match also notably didn't go into overtime as most finals do. Nice4What (talk) 18:36, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
All true. However, this is still super-arbitrary. If we insisted on breaking the rule of not including the result in the blurb, the explanation would have to be provided there as well - for which we have no room. My humble opinion ;) --Tone 18:39, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Where can this rule about excluding results be found at? And it's not "super-arbitrary", it is notable a 4-2 number is recognizable by even a non-fan of the sport to be a great score. Nice4What (talk) 18:41, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
The blurb could easily be changed to "In association football, the FIFA World Cup concludes with France defeating Croatia 4-2 in the highest-scoring final since 1966." Many sources are reporting on this. Nice4What (talk) 18:43, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
When have we ever posted a score in a blurb about a sports championship? Why should we start now? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:44, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
May be the case where the result (not the score) is a world record. We did this for marathons and 100m a couple of times. Also, "since 1966" is again totally arbitrary. First time since 2002 that it ended in regular time? --Tone 18:47, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps, but there's no record here. These are bits of trivia that are not significant enough to belong in one of our blurbs. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:51, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
I don't think the score of the biggest sporting event in the world, only held every 4 years, was trivia. I didn't think it was a major issue at all, to be honest. But, if that's "how we do things", then ... whatever. Black Kite (talk) 19:06, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
No, we never post scores. Plus, if we ever did, we'd use the manual of style with en-dashes and not hyphens. *shudder* The Rambling Man (talk) 19:21, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
This no-score rule scores big on the counter-intuitive scale. Oh well, it's only ITN. Sca (talk) 20:16, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Including a linked mention of VAR would be far more relevant, especially as it directly led to one of the goals. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:22, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - We have never included the score for any sporting event on ITN. Let's not start now just because it's the World Cup.--WaltCip (talk) 22:40, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
No, let's wait 'til it's Word War III, when we can say we won 3-2 over them. Sca (talk) 23:41, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
    • As @Black Kite: mentioned before, the World Cup is the biggest sporting event in the world that's only held every 4 years. If there were a sporting event to have the score posted, it would be this one. I still believe that the 4–2 score should be attatched. Nice4What (talk) 23:45, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment The score was posted in 2014, was still there when combined with Klauses record hotdogs, and later removed by Tone, re-added by Jayron32, re-removed by Fox, was not included when the hotdogs were removed. It looks like that's how it stayed: "The FIFA World Cup concludes with Germany (captain Philipp Lahm pictured) defeating Argentina in the final.". Personally, I don't care how popular soccer is, the scores look tacky in the blurb and unless we're going to do it for every sport, we're best off doing it for none. I was thinking to close this, but I commented instead. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:26, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
    • Arguably, a 1-0 score in the World Cup final is significantly, implying a very difficult match. A score of 4-2 is not as impressive as a metric. I would argue that if any other finals event ended with a very unusual score or some significant record. --Masem (t) 00:44, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
      • The thing is, there will always be some factoid that seems significant in a "world cup". Most goals scored in total WC appearances, most shots on goal, most goals scored as penalty kicks from blatant dives in the first half, most head butts to the chest, whatever. There will never be a world cup where someone doesn't find some factoid and prop up as "extra important because OMG soccer". Like Tone pointed out, 4-2 is actually the most common result. Instead of pretending soccer is special and having this argument every four years, lets just be happy that it sat in ongoing for six weeks and now it's posted in a blurb within minutes. Isn't that good enough? --LaserLegs (talk) 00:51, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes, the score is the least significant "factoid" about a game. Right? Gimmie a break. Sca (talk) 01:54, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: An image of the French team hoisting the trophy has been uploaded from the Kremlin website. Would look good on the main page, though some players are cropped out. SounderBruce 05:04, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support new photo @Muboshgu, Masem, Stephen, Black Kite, and Tone: Please post this glorious photo. "(French team pictured)" would perhaps work.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 10:47, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support new photo - Assuming the photo is free to post, I strongly suggest replacing the current image. It’s of the best sports photos I have ever seen. Jusdafax (talk) 10:54, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Is it correct to say "(team pictured)" when "France" means the team (not the country), and the squad is pictured? wumbolo ^^^ 11:28, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I think it's a bit irrelevant because the whole squad is in every match-day team (i.e. you can bring any of the other 12 players on as a substitute), but if anyone wants to change it I'm not particularly bothered. Black Kite (talk) 12:33, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Article does not mention the dodgy referring nor the riots in paris...meanwhile Zagreb was the greatest place on earth! (I have pices)Lihaas (talk) 01:38, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support: the top soccer cup deserves a place in the news. – 333-blue at 11:08, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

July 14[edit]

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

Disasters and accidents

Science and technology
  • In data collected by NASA's Juno spacecraft, an INAF team discovers suggestions of a new volcano close to the south pole of Jupiter's moon Io. (Tribune)


(Posted) RD: Theo-Ben Gurirab[edit]

Article: Theo-Ben Gurirab (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The Namibian
Nominator: EternalNomad (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 well-sourced. EternalNomad (talk) 17:03, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Support article is fully sourced. -Zanhe (talk) 23:52, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:54, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - referenced fully. good 2 go.BabbaQ (talk) 14:03, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted. SpencerT•C 01:19, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

July 13[edit]

Portal:Current events/2018 July 13
Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents
  • An explosion at a chemical plant near Cairo, Egypt, injures 12 people. (BBC)
  • An explosion at a chemical plant in Sichuan, China, kills 19 people and injures 12 others. (BBC)

Politics and elections

(Posted) Bombings in Pakistan[edit]

Article: 13 July 2018 Pakistan bombings (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In Pakistan, at least 136 people are killed and more than 335 others are injured in multiple bombings in Mastung and Bannu.
News source(s): Geo News, The Express Tribune, The News International
Nominator: Amirk94391 (talk • give credit)
Updater: Jibran1998 (talk • give credit)
Other updaters: Amirk94391 (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: Huge nums of deaths. Bigger attack than Peshawar's one which was also posted. Amirk94391 (talk) 16:42, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Support - There is no official minimum deaths rule on ITN, but logic follows that if we post the disaster in the same area with fewer deaths, we post the subsequent larger one also.--WaltCip (talk) 17:28, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support in principle – But article looks quite thin. Sca (talk) 20:35, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
    • @Sca: the article is now updated and it'll be expanded even more.Amirk94391 (talk) 03:38, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Looks good – thanks. Sca (talk) 13:45, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support with the expectation of expansion. It is adequate (though only barely) for now. The attacks are horrific even by the bloody standard of that part of the world and are certainly ITN worthy. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:48, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support on notability. Massive death toll. Lepricavark (talk) 21:51, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Article is not very informative in its present state but the event is notable due to the huge number of casualties. Hrodvarsson (talk) 22:46, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support It is one of third recent attacks on a Political party before General Elections of Pakistan, 2018 and death toll is massive. Nauriya, Let's talk - 06:07, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - As per comments above. Sherenk1 (talk) 04:34, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment article needs aligning (lead with infobox figures), the blurb here needs fixing for dab link, the dab links in the article and the raw URLs need to be addressed, but otherwise it seems ok. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:56, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Fixed everything else but we still have a discrepancy. The lead and infobox say 4 people died in Bannu, the section on the attack says 5. Are we counting the perpetrator.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 07:15, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
@The Rambling Man: and @Coffeeandcrumbs: fixed all issues.Amirk94391 (talk) 07:46, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - Notable bombing, article postable. Suggest moving forward. Jusdafax (talk) 07:51, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - Very notable bombing. Ready for posting.BabbaQ (talk) 08:27, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Posting. --Tone 09:29, 14 July 2018 (UTC)


Nominators often include links to external websites and other references in discussions on this page. It is usually best to provide such links using the inline URL syntax [] rather than using <ref></ref> tags, because that keeps all the relevant information in the same place as the nomination without having to jump to this section, and facilitates the archiving process.

For the times when <ref></ref> tags are being used, here are their contents: