Open main menu

Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates

< Wikipedia:In the news

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.

Contents

Strasbourg Christmas market in 2014
Christmas market in Strasbourg

How to nominate an itemEdit

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.

HeadersEdit

  • 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 itemEdit

  • 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)


SuggestionsEdit

December 14Edit

Portal:Current events/2018 December 14

December 13Edit

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

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

International relations
  • Chinese state media reports a second Canadian national Michael Spavor has been detained on suspicion of endangering state security while the PRC foreign ministry say two Canadian nationals are detained in the country. The Spavor investigation follows the detention of former Canadian diplomat Michael Kovrig on Dec. 10 and Canada's Dec. 1 arrest Meng Wanzhou.(reuters), (reuters)

Science and technology

VSS UnityEdit

Article: VSS Unity (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A test flight of Virgin Galactic's VSS Unity crosses the 50-mile space boundary for the first time.
News source(s): BBC News, The Verge
Nominator: Dumelow (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: Not convinced of this one myself but putting it up for discussion for a wider view. The boundary is fairly arbitrary and it has only crossed the American-defined boundary which is lower than the Kármán line, but it is still a milestone in manned spaceflight - Dumelow (talk) 17:30, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Weak support The ambiguity in the "space border" is between NASA/USAFs 50 miles and the FAI's 62 miles, but as the Verge article above points out, the FAI may be reconsidering this. For all purposes, this is a critical point, with the next major milestone I would expect to see at ITN is when it makes its first passenger-carrying flight, which is several years down the road. --Masem (t) 18:48, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support As the comment and Masem say, there are few realistic "milestones" in civilian spaceflight, and this is certainly one of them (to put it in other words, a plane went to space). Quite significant. Kingsif (talk) 18:55, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose Looks more like a marketing stunt of limited significance in a time when space tourism is only accessible to the few. Brandmeistertalk 21:11, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Is this the first of it's class to do this? I think we need some kind of superlative here to qualify as ITN. ghost 21:19, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Yep, first of the SpaceShipTwo class to achieve this (the previous vehicle VSS Enterprise achieved 22km max altitude before it was lost in a crash) - Dumelow (talk) 22:07, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - a milestone. article seems ready for posting as well.BabbaQ (talk) 22:50, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Seems a rather arbitrary "milestone," of scant general significance. Sca (talk) 23:02, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

(Ready) RD: William NewsomEdit

Article: William Newsom (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Nominator: Dumelow (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: American judge - Dumelow (talk) 17:17, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Weak support And father of Gavin. It's the bare minimum I can support based on its small size. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:50, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • support - just barely over stub status but ready for posting. sourced.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:51, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

RD: Noah KliegerEdit

Article: Noah Klieger (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Nominator: Dumelow (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: Israeli journalist and sports administrator - Dumelow (talk) 17:07, 13 December 2018 (UTC)


(Ready) Ankara train collisionEdit

Article: Ankara train collision (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Nine people are killed when a high-speed train collides with a locomotive (example of class pictured) at Ankara, Turkey
News source(s): Al Jazeera
Nominator: Mjroots (talk • give credit)
Updater: CeeGee (talk • give credit)

Article updated

 Mjroots (talk) 13:01, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Support - Major event with casulties.--Joseph (talk) 14:53, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Article is short, but relatively comprehensive for what is known so far, and well referenced. --Jayron32 15:01, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak support but be careful with that image, we usually only use the exact object we're talking about, not "one similar"... The Rambling Man (talk) 15:16, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
    • If a photograph of the exact loco was available on Commons, it would have been used. As there wasn't, quality of photo was the overriding factor. Mjroots (talk) 15:27, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
      • I'm aware of that, but we don't use photos of similar locos/aircraft etc. This one will just have to go with no photo. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:30, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak Support this is an utterly insignificant disaster story with a barely above orphaned barely above stub article that is all but guaranteed to be abandoned once this drops out of the headlines (like Kuneru train derailment). It is, however, in the news, so why not. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:58, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support --UkrainianCossack (talk) 18:32, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per LL, this is far too sparse an article to overcome the routine nature of the event. ghost 21:22, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support There is nothing routine about a fatal High-speed rail accident. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 21:26, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • support - eveything is relative, but this is ITN news and should be posted.BabbaQ (talk) 23:01, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • support per Caradhras. Daniel Case (talk) 03:44, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) Death of Grace MillaneEdit

closed. Stale story. --Jayron32 12:51, 13 December 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: Death of Grace Millane (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: Grace Millane was a British tourist whose disappearance in Auckland, New Zealand, in December 2018 received international attention. A 26 year old man was charged with her murder on 8 December, and her body was found in a nearby forest park the following day.
News source(s): [1]
Nominator: Sheldybett (talk)

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.

 Sheldybett (talk) 08:18, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It's sad, but I don't see how it's out of the ordinary or globally notable. Nohomersryan (talk) 09:52, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
    • The thing is, not only is "globally notable" not a requirement for any ITN nomination, but for WP:ITN/DC the only "notability" requirements are WP:N. There is even a banner about that in the nomination template. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:58, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't know if this qualifies for RD since she doesn't have a standalone article (we did RD for Alfie Evans). If it's a blurb you want, you should change the template type please. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:00, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak support for a blurb on the grounds that it received decent amount of attention in the media and it happened in the second most peaceful country in the world according to the Global Peace Index rankings as of 2018 (this is not a recent death any more, though).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:17, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support RD - The subject, Grace Millane, appears to have become a stand-alone article. Although one could make the argument that this person is notable only for their death, that rationale to oppose has been rejected on ITN multiple times.--WaltCip (talk) 12:18, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Even if she is notable, her death was announced on 8 December, so would be stale for RD now. Black Kite (talk) 12:25, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose both. The individual is certainly only notable for her tragic death, and the tragic death is far below any blurb standards. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:25, 13 December 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.

December 12Edit

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

Arts and culture

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

December 11Edit

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

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

Politics and elections

(Posted) Strasbourg Christmas Market shootingEdit

Article: 2018 Strasbourg attack (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A gunman kills at least three people and injures a dozen others at the world-famous Christmas market in Strasbourg, France, before fleeing.
News source(s): BBC,
Nominator: Kingsif (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: It was a big event until talk of Brexit ousted it, at least in Europe. Another terror attack in France. Kingsif (talk) 22:50, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Support - article is ready for posting. a number of deaths. international attention. --BabbaQ (talk) 00:42, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Article is in good shape. Hrodvarsson (talk) 00:48, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - More people died in a shooting in Belgium this year and that wasn't posted. WaltCip (talk) 01:01, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
    • Did it get nominated, was the page good, how intense was the attack coverage? This attack was also two weeks before Christmas at a very famous Christmas market, which adds some weight. More people were killed in a shooting in Brazil on this same day, but the discussion below refers to how it's diminished because of attacks in Brazil being frequent, minimal international coverage, and a stub article. Kingsif (talk) 01:08, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
      • Liege shooting.--WaltCip (talk) 11:47, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
        • Reading that and the article, I'd personally weak support it now, because since the time it has been expanded and is more clearly terrorist-inspired. At the time the article was weak, and it looked like a rampage attack in an isolated area with few implications. The perception is the difference, really - shooting wildly into a famous Christmas market is just more "newsworthy" in public opinion, number of deaths irrelevant. That nom also mentions the Ontario attack, which had no fatalities, but I think it got a lot of support - because of how the Canadians pushed it into the world news and how rare attacks in Canada are. Comparisons need careful consideration of differences as well as similarities. Kingsif (talk) 19:27, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose this was in the news two days ago when it happened, it's not really anymore. Islamic extremist violence in Europe is becoming almost as common as Christian extremist violence in the USA. The article is pretty good though, I won't erect a wall of text if it's posted. --LaserLegs (talk) 03:03, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
    • Weak Support on second thought, WTF, why not? Its still sort of in the news, it was when it happened, article is decent. Go for it. --LaserLegs (talk) 03:05, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support It's a terrorist attack in a part of the world where that sort of thing is not altogether common. The article is an decent shape. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:33, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
You sure they're not altogether that common? See List of terrorist incidents in France. Banedon (talk) 12:16, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I would also propose this could be, if not put in ITN, put in Ongoing, due to the attacker still being at large. Kingsif (talk) 04:47, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
    • If the suspect is captured, we can update the blurb. If they are still at large and the article is getting regular updates when it's about to expire off, it can drop into ongoing. That's been working well for us I think. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:41, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per LaserLegs. Banedon (talk) 12:16, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted. Tweaked blurb to remove purple prose, otherwise this seemed good to go. --Jayron32 12:54, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Post-posting comment – The event itself has become, alas, not uncommon in Western and Central Europe, and the toll of victims is comparatively small. On that basis, it doesn't seem quite up to ITN. However, given a manhunt actively involving two countries, it's OK in ITN – though if the perp isn't found soon we might bump it into Ongoing. Sca (talk) 14:33, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Post-posting comment – Perhaps time to update the blurb. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.96.208.216 (talk) 04:41, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Petrus IilongaEdit

Article: Petrus Iilonga (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Nominator: Dumelow (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: Sitting Deputy Minister of Defence in Namibia. I have overhauled the article, it remains a little on the short side but I will look to expand if any new information comes in the obituaries - Dumelow (talk) 16:22, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

  • That issue has been resolved. ―Susmuffin Talk 07:20, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support While the article is a bit short, it manages to meet our standards. ―Susmuffin Talk 07:20, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted --Jayron32 13:59, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Hiwi TauroaEdit

Article: Hiwi Tauroa (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): New Zealand Herald
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 updated and well sourced --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 07:23, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Support what's there is brief but adequate. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:22, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - just above Stub-standard but ready to be posted.BabbaQ (talk) 00:43, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted --Jayron32 14:00, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Campinas Cathedral shootingEdit

Article: Campinas Cathedral shooting (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Gunman kills four people and wounded four others before killing himself during mass shooting at Metropolitan Cathedral (image) of Campinas, Brazil.
News source(s): CNN, BBC, The Guardian, CBS
Nominator: Chronus (talk • give credit)

 Chronus (talk) 22:28, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose we're not linking to a one sentence stub on the main page, and this random act of violence is no where near significant enough to post without a decent article. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:34, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose it's not great, but it's hardly a blip when one considers shootings in Brazil (I could link a website which shows such assaults as a daily event), so not ITN-worthy. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:47, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
This was not an "assault" or a "gang dispute". A man entered in the cathedral of one of the country's largest cities during a mass and killed the faithful. This is not a case of urban violence. Chronus (talk) 23:18, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Wait for more details If this turns out to be some kind of terrorist attack or motivated out of religious hatred I would likely support. But large scale shootings in Brazil are too common otherwise. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:06, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Again, it was not a dispute between criminal factions or a case of robbery. This type of mass shooting is more common in countries like the United States. Chronus (talk) 00:24, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Wait per Ad Orientem. Hrodvarsson (talk) 00:13, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per LaserLegs and The Rambling Man. TheTerribleToess bug me on my talk page! 00:46, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Gun murders are sadly a frequent occurrence in Brazil. There's no reason to single out this one; being in a cathedral does not make it more important than any other shooting. This is barely notable enough to qualify for an article. Modest Genius talk 13:22, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. According to the BBC, "While gun crime is common in Brazil, shootings of this nature and especially in a place of worship are not." wumbolo ^^^ 13:52, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Might support if it was expanded, but it's still a stub.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:02, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Per Legs and TRM. – Sca (talk) 15:41, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Balangiga bellsEdit

Article: Balangiga bells (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Balangiga bells, taken by US Army soldiers from the Philippines in 1901 as war trophies, are repatriated after 117 years.
Alternative blurb: ​The Balangiga bells, taken by US Army soldiers from the Philippines during the Philippine-American War as war trophies, are repatriated after 117 years.
Alternative blurb II: ​The Balangiga bells, taken by US Army soldiers from the Philippines as war trophies after reprisals following the Balangiga massacre, are repatriated after 117 years.
News source(s): NBC, Stars and Stripes, ABS-CBN
Nominator: kguirnela (talk • give credit)

 — KvЯt GviЯnЭlБ Speak! 15:10, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Support - It's ITN-newsworthy that marks the end of a saga for 117 years, and the related articles look fine. STSC (talk) 16:00, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose on quality. I spot checked 4 refs, two are self published (filipinoamericans.net and an essay at http://vfwwy.org), one dead link, one hand made archive. Not good start. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:57, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment – It is an interesting story, though, and for once a positive one. Sca (talk) 22:06, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose a nice opportunity for a DYK but not an ITN item. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:27, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - Interesting yes, but agree with article quality. "...killing an estimated 48 and wounding 22 of the 78 men of the unit, with only four escaping unhurt" is not very encyclopedic. If four were uninjured and 22 wounded then the "estimated 48" must have been 52. Moriori (talk) 00:05, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
It's because 4 American soldiers were missing in action. STSC (talk) 16:33, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
That reinforces my article quality point. If we know four soldiers were MIA we should say so. And get rid of that awful "estimated".Moriori (talk) 20:52, 12 December 2018 (UTC) Hold the bus, I see someone has added it. Moriori (talk) 20:55, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
  • The massacre happened in 1901 and is therefore no longer news. What's news is the United States return of the bells that they looted as war booty, sent to Wyoming and South Korea, was petitioned by several Philippine governments for its return, and was sent to Manila yesterday, 117 years after it was taken away. That said...Howard the Duck (talk) 01:35, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Wait until December 15th when the bells are returned to Balangiga. It being sent to Manila is just another part of this news story. Also, article should be as per ITN standards. Howard the Duck (talk) 01:35, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Wait The bells will be returned to the church on 15 December, which is a few days from now. ―Susmuffin Talk 02:51, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment waiting won't fix the refs. Go through and fix them up if you want this to have a chance on the 15th. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:00, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
I don't see any major quality issue with Balangiga Bells. If you spotted any individual ref error, you should have tagged them with inline tags. STSC (talk) 16:04, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Ok I'll do it for you. Do you know the inline tag for self-published refs that fail WP:RS? --LaserLegs (talk) 19:15, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
If you hum a few bars, I could fake it.[2] (It's {{Sps}} outside the <ref>...</ref> or {{Self-published source}} inside.) Richard-of-Earth (talk) 19:36, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Richard. I tagged the background sections which have the most questionable sources. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:54, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Presumably there'll be coverage of the actual return on Sunday. Sca (talk) 23:05, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

December 10Edit

Portal:Current events/2018 December 10
Business and economy

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

(New) RD: Evelyn BerezinEdit

Article: Evelyn Berezin (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC New York Times
Nominator: Thryduulf (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: Designed the first computer-driven word processor, died on the 8th but not reported until the 10th. Article is mostly good but a few more citations are needed.[ Thryduulf (talk) 21:39, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Weak oppose as noted, there are several unreferenced claims there. Most of it is fine though. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:42, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) Voyager 2Edit

Article: Voyager 2 (talk, history)
Blurb: NASA confirms Voyager 2 became the second man-made object to reach interstellar space in November 2018.
Alternative blurb: ​Scientists announce that Voyager 2 has left the heliosphere and entered interstellar space
Alternative blurb II: ​Scientists announce that Voyager 2 has left the heliosphere and entered interstellar space, becoming the second man-made object to do so.
News source(s): BBC, Independent
Nominator: KTC (talk • give credit)

 KTC (talk) 16:12, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Support As I was writing my blurb, I did point out that we posted when Voy 1 was confirmed to have crossed the threshold. --Masem (t) 16:14, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: There is no update to the target article as yet. It currently states: "the spacecraft may instead reach interstellar space sometime in 2019" - Dumelow (talk) 16:19, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
    There's actually been update elsewhere in the article. That sentence have been removed by Masem now. -- KTC (talk) 16:25, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
    Yeah, just moved a few things around to get the update to the body. The lede was updated. --Masem (t) 16:26, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
    OK, thanks. Can't support it at this stage as the article is too poor - there are great swathes of unsourced statements - Dumelow (talk) 20:53, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support in principle, though I haven't had a chance to check the article quality. I've added an altblurb. Strictly speaking the announcement was made by Edward C. Stone of Caltech; NASA just issued the press releases. Modest Genius talk 16:31, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
    • On a quick look, that article seems pretty good, just that pesky orange-tagged Uranus section to address. Modest Genius talk 12:19, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong support. I've also added second alt-blurb, which I would prefer. Openlydialectic (talk) 18:00, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support on notability, oppose on quality. Large sections of entirely unsourced prose (the "Encounter with Uranus" section has no sources and is orange-tagged as such, "Encounter with Neptune" is mostly unsourced). Not ready for the Main Page as it stands. Black Kite (talk) 19:31, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose this was always going to happen, so it's not surprising and therefore not particularly interesting. Banedon (talk) 20:03, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
    Besides which, being second usually isn't a stunner. Sca (talk) 21:35, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
    Lots of things we post (basically everything in ITNR) are "always going to happen". Doesn't mean it's not rare or notable. We're not in contact with either of the Pioneer, and New Horizons was only launched in 2006 (compared to 1977 of the Voyagers) and is slower. This will literally not happen again with any certainty for another few decades. -- KTC (talk) 22:01, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
It's not fair to say that everything in ITNR are "always going to happen". For example take the Football World Cup. The event itself might be "always going to happen", but a particular country winning is not, and that is what's being posted. Banedon (talk) 23:27, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose orange tagged for refs --LaserLegs (talk) 23:23, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose on the references issue only. The Uranus section is entirely lacking in refs, and the Neptune section is about 1/2 unreferenced. Fix those two things, and this is fine for posting. --Jayron32 05:08, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Subject to sourcings/improvements. Regardless if it is second or not, this is pretty mind-blowing, and is up there with the pinnacle of human achievement, along with the wheel, the Internet and the Corby trouser press. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 12:15, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support on the merits; constructing something that then leaves the solar system is a rare and notable achievement. 331dot (talk) 12:17, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support alt-blurb2 on notability. We post flybies and this is at least as notable. wumbolo ^^^ 12:57, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I've made improvements to the "Encounter with Uranus" section, adding citations. It's not perfect, but it's a lot better. Ackatsis (talk) 12:59, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
    • Good job! Now we only need some work on the Jupiter and Neptune sections, and this will be in a decent shape to post. --Tone 13:16, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
      • I've added some extra cites to the Neptune and Jupiter sections. Ackatsis (talk) 14:37, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Posting. I think the updates are sufficient. Not perfect but good enough. --Tone 14:44, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support the notability opposition is, well, bizarre. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:28, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
    • I'll support any man-made object leaving the Heliosphere except objects kicked into space by Lionel Messi (we post too many soccer records already). --LaserLegs (talk) 22:35, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
      • We don't need to worry about that, Messi's great, but not interstellar. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:45, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support - a notable achievement.BabbaQ (talk) 00:11, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Re-wording request Can we please re-word "man-made" to "human-made"? By the way, I add post-posting support for this article. -TenorTwelve (talk) 05:11, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

December 9Edit

Portal:Current events/2018 December 9
Disasters and accidents

Health and environment
  • A beaver is seen in Northern Italy on camera, a species that has not been seen in the country since 1471. (CBC)

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sports

(Posted) RD: John Joseph GibbonsEdit

Article: John Joseph Gibbons (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Nominator: Dumelow (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: American lawyer. Article is short but looks to be well sourced - Dumelow (talk) 00:30, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Weak oppose this is pretty much nothing beyond a stub. If it could be expanded a little then game on but right now, it's too slim to feature, for me. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:29, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose This article is a bit short. If it is expanded, then it could be in In the news. ―Susmuffin Talk 02:57, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Hi The Rambling Man and Susmuffin, thanks for the feedback. I've expanded it a little if you'd like to take another look? - Dumelow (talk)
  • Support Looks sufficiently expanded.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:16, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support The lead is slightly overloaded in comparison to the length of the body but the article seems well sourced. Hrodvarsson (talk) 01:04, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted. SpencerT•C 19:39, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

RD: Eric AndersonEdit

Article: Eric Anderson (basketball) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): fox59
Nominator: DannyS712 (talk • give credit)
Updater: Rikster2 (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.

 DannyS712 (talk) 23:45, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment: two unsourced paragraphs - Dumelow (talk) 01:43, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
@Dumelow: Fixed --DannyS712 (talk) 02:31, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - Issues fixed. Ready.BabbaQ (talk) 08:43, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose once again, this is realistically what we'd consider a stub. What's there is fine, but if that's all we have to say I don't think it's enough right now. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:30, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Mohammed AruwaEdit

Article: Mohammed Aruwa (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Nominator: Dumelow (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: Nigerian senator. I have given the article a quick polish, it looks adequate - Dumelow (talk) 14:27, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Support Looks okay to go. –Ammarpad (talk) 20:40, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak support not sure about that image licence, the content of the article is just about okay. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:31, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted. SpencerT•C 19:39, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) 2018 Copa LibertadoresEdit

Article: 2018 Copa Libertadores Finals (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In association football, the Copa Libertadores concludes with River Plate defeating Boca Juniors in the finals.
News source(s): The Guardian
Nominator: SounderBruce (talk • give credit)
Updater: S.A. Julio (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: Beyond being an ITNR and promoting geographic diversity, this final has been one of the top sports stories of the year due to the delays/change of venue for the second leg. SounderBruce 22:03, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Support – Article seems to have been updated after the match with the latest developments. Clearly a very notable game. MX () 22:47, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose No importance. We shouldn't post every single league from every end of the world to the ITN, otherwise the ITN would be flooded with sports news and not much else. Openlydialectic (talk) 23:43, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
    • As an ITNR item, the event's merits should not be discussed here, only the content and worthiness of the article in its current state. Besides that, this is the second-largest continental club competition by revenue/viewership, eclipsing a lot of American sports championships, so perhaps you should check your biases before declaring it to be of no importance. SounderBruce 23:50, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Not ready. This should definitely be posted per ITNR, but there's no prose summary of the matches. Lots of material on the incidents surrounding the event doesn't make up for having no description of the actual sporting contests. Needs at least a paragraph each of fully-referenced prose on both legs. Modest Genius talk 00:34, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
    • Weak support. The new match summaries just about meet the minimum requirements. The article isn't great but it will have to do. Modest Genius talk 20:00, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I've fixed the citation needed stuff, and the tenses, but it does need a prose summary of the matches. I haven't got time to do this now, but will do later if no-one else has. Black Kite (talk) 11:20, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Doesn't seem significant to most English-speaking readers. Unsee on major Eng.-lang. news sites. Sca (talk) 14:33, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
The Guardian and the Beeb are reporting on it, to be fair. Not much stateside, but then again it is football. Stormy clouds (talk) 14:59, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
It got plenty of coverage here in the UK, at least for the second leg - shown live on TV, the national newspapers had articles before and after the game etc. Regardless, it's on ITNR so significance is already established. Modest Genius talk 15:06, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
@Sca: Do you have proof that "most-English speaking readers" do not find this event significant? MX () 16:24, 10 December 2018 (UTC)


Yes, I have it right here in my desk drawer. Sca (talk) 21:43, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment Some writeup/recap on the final matches should be included. Those opposing on importance need to take that to ITNR. --Masem (t) 16:34, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
    • Support w/ added prose. --Masem (t) 19:27, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Marked ready. The matches have prose, and with this being ITN/R the opposes that speak to notability as opposed to quality are of course not relevant. Black Kite (talk) 18:47, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Quality is the only criterion here and the prose looks sufficient.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:41, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 22:20, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Robert BerglandEdit

Article: Robert Bergland (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: Updated and well sourced --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:33, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Posted Stephen 22:19, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

December 8Edit

Portal:Current events/2018 December 8
Disasters and accidents

Politics and elections

Science and technology

Sports

(Closed) RD: Rod JonesEdit

Stale. SpencerT•C 19:41, 13 December 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: Rod Jones (tight end) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Seattle times (among others)
Nominator: DannyS712 (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.

 DannyS712 (talk) 05:03, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Actually not ready for mainpage. Very stubby. –Ammarpad (talk) 05:32, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
@Ammarpad: I've expanded it some more. --DannyS712 (talk) 06:51, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Changed to weak support. It's now stub, at less than 180 words it can be read within 45 seconds by average reader. –Ammarpad (talk) 09:37, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak Support - Per assume good faith. Start class. Fully sourced.BabbaQ (talk) 09:52, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose once again, what's there is decent but it's not quite start-class, i.e. it's bascially a stub. Expand by a few sentences and I'm all in. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:33, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
@The Rambling Man: I've added some more --DannyS712 (talk) 01:20, 12 December 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.

(Closed) 2018 MLS CupEdit

Consensus will not develop to post. Stephen 04:20, 10 December 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: MLS Cup 2018 (talk, history)
Blurb: Atlanta United FC wins the MLS Cup 2018
News source(s): [3] [4]
Nominator: LaserLegs (talk • give credit)
Updater: SounderBruce (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Atlanta United FC wins the MLS cup in only their second season. Top of field soccer tournament in the worlds third largest country. Article has prose updates, referenced. LaserLegs (talk) 13:03, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment – In the U.S., MLS is widely understood as referring to the Multiple Listing Service of the real estate industry. Sca (talk) 14:23, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. We already post 7 football stories each year (per WP:ITNR), and this is not one of the top trophies in the sport. MLS is somewhere around the 10th best domestic league. The last time this was discussed MLS wasn't even mentioned as a possibility for a domestic league, and LaserLegs themselves felt we already over-represented the topic. Just not important enough. Modest Genius talk 16:56, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
    Yes we post a lot of European soccer, this one isn't in Europe. ITN/R discussion irrelevant. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:02, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose I generally don't support posting even the conclusion of the top domestic leagues that garner a lot more attention worldwide than the MLS. This is perhaps a good-faith nomination far from being sufficiently notable for posting.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:51, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose MLS is not at the level where it warrants ITNR coverage, unfortunately. It will take a few years of clear dominance at the continental level and domestically when competing with other sports leagues before it should be considered. SounderBruce 19:04, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Article is good shape and MLS is one of the major leagues in US.--SirEdimon (talk) 19:06, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. We cannot post the conclusion of every domestic sports league in every country (we'd post little else), and so we have to draw the line somewhere. For me that means we should only post the most significant domestic leagues in the most significant sports. While football (soccer) is clearly one of the internationally most significant sports, MLS is not in the top tier of domestic football leagues (it's third tier at best) and it's not in the top tier of US domestic sports leagues (it's second tier at best) so it doesn't make the cut. Thryduulf (talk) 19:15, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - MLS isn't even arguably the best soccer league in North America, nor is it at the tier of other leagues that are on ITN:R as per other commenters. --PlasmaTwa2 20:35, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose I think we've got the balance about right at the moment on ITNR football stories. Given that we don't post the results of leagues that are clearly higher tier than MLS (i.e. Brazil Série A, broadcast in half the countries of world, Serie A or Ligue 1), this is clearly a non-runner. Black Kite (talk) 20:49, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
    • The "right balance" is 3 European domestic leagues and none from anywhere else? --LaserLegs (talk) 20:55, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment my disdain for soccer is known to a few -- I live in Atlanta which is how I learned about it this year, and the nom is indeed good faith. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:55, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - much and all as my inner football aficionado loves Atlanta's rise to prominence, the MLS is just simply not on the same level as any of the major European leagues, in terms of following or quality, (I would personally have France, Portugal, Netherlands, and Russia ahead of it), and is far behind the size and scope of its competing American leagues. The league is certainly growing, but it is not big enough for ITN yet. Besides, if you are sick of European football, the Copa Libertadores wraps up today too. Stormy clouds (talk) 21:37, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
    • They filled that stadium to capacity too, which really shocked me considering we're in the deep south. Doomed as this nom is, I hope it gets left open a bit longer so I know what the objections will be going in to next year. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:49, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Never heard of this league. Openlydialectic (talk) 23:42, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
    • This is the first division of the world's most popular sport in the most populous English speaking country. If you can't be bothered to inform yourself on the subject being discussed, stay out of the conversation. ghost 01:00, 10 December 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: Lyudmila AlexeyevaEdit

Article: Lyudmila Alexeyeva (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Nominator: Dumelow (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: Russian human rights activist. I am going to try format the refs and add inline citations for the awards. Dumelow (talk) 23:10, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment Just added a bunch of [citation needed] tags. Also, I feel like the article should at least mention her love for Putin and other weird acts/statements. Openlydialectic (talk) 23:33, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
I've dealt with the citations and added a bit about her meeting with Putin for her 90th birthday. Feel free to expand on this if you have the sources - Dumelow (talk) 23:58, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak Support - notable dissident. Article is fully referenced, but appears incomplete as it has no information before 1968, when she was already 41. -Zanhe (talk) 02:08, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Looks much better now. Though I think it would be better if that book section is trimmed to list just few publications. We are not catalog. –Ammarpad (talk) 13:33, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Especially if the lead can be tweaked to remove or rephrase "one of the last Soviet dissidents still active in modern Russia" which seems like an odd thing to write about a deceased person. Yakikaki (talk) 18:35, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support The lead should not be tweaked: it's well-sourced, objective and describes an exceptional personality. That "eulogy" was written in 2004, when she was alive. There's a bit more info on her life before 1968 in the AP article, reference #3. Wakari07 (talk) 19:39, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
    • I think Yakikaki's concern was the "still active" wording (and it's mine too). Perhaps just "active" or qualifying it with a date "at the time of her death was one of the last..." or "described in 2004 as one of..." or something like that. To me the "still" implies a continuing action, which cannot be the case now she has died. Thryduulf (talk) 19:51, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 22:13, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

December 7Edit

Portal:Current events/2018 December 7
International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

(Posted) RD: Belisario BetancurEdit

Article: Belisario Betancur (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): CNN in Spanish
Nominator: EternalNomad (talk • give credit)
Updater: 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 well-sourced. EternalNomad (talk) 21:52, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Support I well sourced the article to make sure it would be ITN ready. Beat me to it! --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:33, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - sourced and readyBabbaQ (talk) 00:24, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support meets RD requirements, updated and sourced --DannyS712 (talk) 02:45, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted – Muboshgu (talk) 19:25, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

(Withdrawn) Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer becomes leader of CDUEdit

WITHDRAWN:
WP:ITN/R Kirbanzo (talk) 16:46, 10 December 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: Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer (talk, history)
Blurb: ​After the CDU leadership election Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer succeeds Angela Merkel as chairperson of the party in Germany.
Nominator: Kirbanzo (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: Pretty large development, considering Merkel was party leader for 18 years until this happened, which may warrant a blurb. Article(s) are of sufficient quality as well. Kirbanzo (talk) 21:49, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Question: Does this qualify as ITN/R? See Wikipedia:In the news/Recurring items#Elections and heads of state --DannyS712 (talk) 22:05, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
    I don't think so. If election of a head of a major party (which is, you know, isn't even a governmental post) in a 80-something million country qualifies for the ITN, I don't know how elections of actual governors in 100- and 200- million provinces across India and China should not. And that's a very slippery slope. Oppose. Openlydialectic (talk) 22:09, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Obviously if she had replaced Merkel as Chancellor, that would be ITN/R, but she hasn't, she's only replaced her as the head of the CDU. The next election for Chancellor isn't until 2021. Black Kite (talk) 00:17, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment In the 69 years that germany has their own government the CDU was 49 years of it in power as the ruling party. In these 49 years the chairman of the CDU has always been the cancellor until today. Its safe to say that the party voted today its cancellor candidate for the Next German federal election, as Angela Merkel resigns with the end of the current legislative period in 2021. Opinion If there is not any political news for saturday that is more history-laden than the CDU election, there is not much against it to show this news at the main page for one day. LennBr (talk) 00:59, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
Actually that's all rather WP:CRYSTAL. AKK could be Chancellor even before the next election if Merkel retires and/or is forced out, tho even that isn't guaranteed given that CDU+CSU have no majority in Parliament. It is NOT 'safe to say that the party voted today its Chancellor candidate for the Next German federal election' (which is not due until 2021) - she could easily be replaced if she does poorly in opinion polls, or gets caught up in some scandal, or falls ill (or dies), or whatever - and in 1980 the Chancellor candidate for the right was CSU leader Franz Josef Strauss, not CDU leader Helmut Kohl, and this could happen again, especially if AKK's similarity to Merkel comes to be seen as an electoral liability, and/or if the CSU leader is seen as better placed to prevent CDU/CSU voters switching to the AfD. And it's not easy to win an election after your party has been in office for 16 years and your previous leader is retiring because voters seem tired of her and you are seen as very similar to her, so being CDU/CSU Chancellor candidate may not mean all that much in 2021. (Of course this is arguably also all a bit WP:CRYSTAL on my part, but then somebody seemingly ought to try to point out some of the apparent inaccuracies in the previous comment). Tlhslobus (talk) 05:14, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Important though it is for the EU, it's domestic politics. Sca (talk) 02:31, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
It's not even clear that it is important for the EU unless and until she becomes Chancellor (and even then it should be rather trivial for the EU compared to things like Brexit (let alone Climate change, etc)).Tlhslobus (talk) 05:38, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
In a general sense, high-level German political change is important to the EU, as Germany is the EU's most populous state and its leading economy. But yes, if she were to become Kanzlerin that would be blurbable. Sca (talk) 14:25, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose As noted above, domestic politics. Would be blurbed when she actually becomes the chancellor. –Ammarpad (talk) 19:20, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. If/when she replaces Merkel as Chancellor of Germany, then I will support a blurb. Unless & until that happens, this is just internal leadership of one political party. Modest Genius talk 00:42, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose As above, this is currently just a change in leadership of the party, not the chancellor. Hrodvarsson (talk) 02:50, 10 December 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.

ReferencesEdit

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: