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

Laurent Gbagbo in 2007
Laurent Gbagbo

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pulled from the main page are generally marked with (Posted) or (Pulled) in the item's subject so it is clear they are no longer active.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

January 19Edit


January 18Edit

Portal:Current events/2019 January 18
Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents
Law and crime

Politics and elections

Swedish government formationEdit

Article: 2018 Swedish general election (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Riksdag reelects the Social Democrat Stefan Löfven as Prime Minister of Sweden.
News source(s): Guardian, Spiegel (in German)
Nominator: Narayanese (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: The general election wasn't in ITN because the winner wasn't obvious, but that has changed with the incumbent government getting two new backing parties and breaking the previous coalition structure. Narayanese (talk) 10:06, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Stale No, no, no, you don't get a second crack at this. The general election was not posted because of quality (four opposes, all on quality grounds). We post elections with nebulous results all the time. ghost 13:38, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support – Officially it's a new government. – Sca (talk) 14:22, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment The proposed blurb is insufficient, and needs to recognize the (for Sweden) long formation process of 4 months, and contain a link to 2018–19 Swedish government formation. ― Heb the best (talk) 15:08, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support – Historic political coalition. The blurb is ok and those interested will find further info. BabbaQ (talk) 18:07, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose the target article isn't even in the proposed blurb, let alone the bold article. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:26, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose The blurb fails to include the target article. ―Susmuffin Talk 03:04, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

January 17Edit

Portal:Current events/2019 January 17
Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents
  • In France, a fire at the University Lyon 1 injures three people. Investigators say that it is a result of an accidental gas bottle explosion. (Euronews)

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

Haemochromatosis affects 20 times more people than previously thoughtEdit

Article: Iron overload (talk, history)
Blurb: Haemochromatosis affects 20 times more people than previously thought
News source(s): BBC. Journal article in the BMJ
Nominator: Count Iblis (talk • give credit)

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: "It was believed to seriously affect about one in 100 carriers. But the new research has suggested the true level could be closer to one in 10 among women, and one in five for men. Lead researcher Prof David Melzer said he was astonished at the findings. "We've shown that hereditary haemochromatosis is actually a much more common and stealth disease, including in older people," he said." Count Iblis (talk) 23:17, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose The article does not appear to have been updated. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:39, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose Even if updated, I don't think this is groundbreaking medical news, particularly since its simply trying to identify the breadth of the diagnosis. --Masem (t) 23:51, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose so many different reasons not to post. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:07, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - Count Iblis, I do appreciate your eagerness to nominate unique stories for ITN, but surely it hasn't escaped your attention that virtually 99% of the stories you've nominated here for ITN have been unequivocally rejected.--WaltCip (talk) 12:57, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
I don't appreciate it. At least update the article.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:23, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
WaltCip Yes, and that's why I don't nominate news items here on a very regular basis, say every few days or so. However, the news items I nominate here are from a certain perspective important, they could well be nominated by some alternate set of editors. The consensus here about the stories that do and don;t get nominated can thus change due to changing attitudes of the existing editors or if new editors were to arrive here. That's why it's not a bad thing to occasionally nominate the sort of news articles like this one. Count Iblis (talk) 22:11, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
To stop the sniping, unless an editor is routinely nominating completely bogus stories which are routinely speedily closed for wasting everyone's time, I don't think we should consider a nominator's "hit ratio" for ITNC. In Cout Iblis' shoes, I would see this has at least a chance, so there's no need to complain about the nom due to the nominator. --Masem (t) 22:21, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Oppose – Obscure – no bloody chance. Sca (talk) 14:43, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose no update, little significance.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:23, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is a rather obscure story. ―Susmuffin Talk 03:05, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

(Re-opened) Major explosion in BogotáEdit

Article: 2019 Bogotá car bombing (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A car bombing at the General Santander National Police Academy in Bogotá, Colombia kills 21 people and leaves 68 injured.
Alternative blurb II: ​A car bombing in Bogotá, Colombia kills at least 21 people.
Alternative blurb III: ​A car bombing at the General Santander National Police Academy in Bogotá, Colombia kills at least 21 people.
News source(s): BBC, The Independent
Nominator: SirEdimon (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: It seems that an article was not yet created, but I think it will be created in the next few hours due to the significance of the event. SirEdimon (talk)

Lol, this nomination seems a little premature if there is not even an article. Suggest writing the article first :) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:34, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I've re-opened the nomination, because an article was created. Support pending article expansion. 2607:FEA8:1DE0:7B4:88BC:38CE:448D:D62F (talk) 04:05, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. Taking out the inevitable "reaction" fluff the article is a bare bones stub. I am not opposed on principle, but article quality as of right now is far below our standards for the main page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:12, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. The article has been expanded since. --BorgQueen (talk) 15:31, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Ad Orientem - padding out with the inevitable "international reaction" section is not a sufficient expansion.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:21, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
    • Did you read the article? There are other sections now. --BorgQueen (talk) 17:38, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - Per improvements.BabbaQ (talk) 18:18, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - I changed the blurbs since now it's reported that 21 people lost their lives in the incident.--SirEdimon (talk) 18:47, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Information - Alternative added. ArionEstar (talk) 22:55, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - Pretty major incident, the article isn't in the best shape, but bringing it to the front page would surely bring more editors to improve it? Alex of Canada (talk) 03:01, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support 21 is a lot. Bolivia is a secure country Openlydialectic (talk) 06:41, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Mary OliverEdit

Article: Mary Oliver (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): NPR
Nominator: Vanamonde93 (talk • give credit)
Updater: Wiki vj20 (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: An argument could be made for a blurb, but personally I do not think her impact was high enough for that. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:57, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Support — the lede is overly short, but otherwise there's nothing wrong with it, and the article is in good shape. I especially appreciate the last two sections "poetic identity" and "critical reviews," which are well-referenced, provide a number of perspectives on her work, and in doing so show her impact on the English literary world. -Darouet (talk) 19:32, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support RD article looks fully referenced; even the awards all have citations. I don't see a blurb either, but I agree that some people might support one. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:33, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Posted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:25, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Chris Wilson (Australian musician)Edit

Article: Chris Wilson (Australian musician) (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: Australian blues musician. Date of death not known but announced today. I've added refs for the discography but the article was OK (except it needs splitting into sections) - Dumelow (talk) 10:51, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Support good article. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:56, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Any more details on his death? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:01, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
There doesn't seem to be much in the reports so far. Just that he had a diagnosis of cancer (I have added this) - Dumelow (talk) 13:01, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support comprehensive, very well referenced. JennyOz (talk) 13:53, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted --Jayron32 16:43, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

January 16Edit

Portal:Current events/2019 January 16
Armed conflicts and attacks

Law and crime

Politics and elections

RD: Jack BogleEdit

Article: John C. Bogle (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: Jack Bogle, the father of the index fund and a frequent critic of the financial services industry dies at 89.
News source(s): Washington Post CNBC& etc.
Nominator: Ad Orientem (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: The article needs a little work, but if it can be brought up to speed this may be worth a blurb. Bogle was a giant in the world of finance and often referred to as the conscience of Wall Street. He invented the low cost index fund as an alternative to the often predatory practices of most brokerage firms. Ad Orientem (talk) 23:25, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose blurb - he was 89 and only a household name among a small group of people. I'm not sure that Warren Buffett would get a blurb, and Bogle is less prominent. Not yet ready for RD either, but I expect that will be fixed in the next few hours. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:32, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Warren Buffet has described Bogle as probably the greatest investor he has ever known. If the standard for a blurb is that the newly deceased was more or less universally recognized as being in the top tier of their profession or calling, then I think he qualifies. Name recognition is not a criteria. That said, I agree that the article needs a little work. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:51, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support blurb when ready. The criterion for death-blurbs is someone at the top of their field, where the field is not too narrow. Michael Atiyah was among the leading mathematicians of his time, and Bogle (from what I'm reading) was one of the most prominent investors. Atiyah should've gotten a blurb, and Bogle should get one, too. Davey2116 (talk) 03:35, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb I would expect that someone that deserves a blurb would have a significant section that makes it clear why this person is clearly blurb-worthy - influence, etc. That's just not there. RD is sufficient but article needs referencing fixing. --Masem (t) 03:51, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb Regardless of someone's influence or fame in a certain area, their death actually has to be In The News - after all, that's the whole point of this section. I'm looking at the BBC website and not only is this story not on the front page, it's not even in the North America news section. Indeed, the only UK news source I can see that has anything on the story is the Financial Times. Black Kite (talk) 07:57, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose inadequately referenced, and certainly not blurb-worthy. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:20, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Referencing concerns seem to have been addressed. Is this RD good to go? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:00, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
    I'm not sure what article you're looking at, but no, it's not good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:04, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
    Added a couple of references — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:12, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb. Blurbs should be reserved for cases in which the death (and perhaps funeral) are so extensively covered by secondary sources that it could have a stand-alone article. Abductive (reasoning) 15:26, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
  • So that's the only criterion now. Although still seems somewhat subjective. Is that written down somewhere as guidance/ policy. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:32, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
  • The criterion is this, from Wikipedia:In_the_news#Recent_deaths_section, and I quote "Deaths where the cause of death itself is a major story...or where the events surrounding the death merit additional explanation" are the standard criteria for the blurb. --Jayron32 18:33, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
  • That's ONE of the criterion. The other of which is a "major transformative world leaders in their field" which is the one the Mr. Bogle would ostensibly qualify. My take is that he is unquestionably major and transformative, but perhaps his field is too narrow. I'm a weak support on the blurb (notwithstanding quality concerns). ghost 21:57, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
  • You missed out a bit - "In rare cases, the death of major transformative world leaders in their field may merit a blurb." This is not one of those.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:26, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  • That's a valid point; I withdraw my support. I do stand by my distaste for people cherry-picking criteria (or making up their own). ghost 19:00, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: The infobox photo is a proabable copyright violation (no credible evidence of free license) and I have nominated it for deletion: see deletion discussion. --Animalparty! (talk) 18:55, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Zimbabwe fuel protestsEdit

Article: Zimbabwe fuel protests (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In Zimbabwe, eight are reported dead as people protest the government's increase in the price of fuel.
News source(s): Al Jazeera, MSN, Zimbabwe Daily
Nominator and updater: Discott (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: The incident is a substantial protest since the 2017 Zimbabwean coup d'état and attempted economic reforms were implemented. As security forces are still in force on the streets keeping order and a strike called to protest the price increases enters its final day the event is assumed to still be ongoing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Discott (talkcontribs) 13:53, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose but weakly, seems like a relatively irrelevant encyclopedic issue, but in any case, the article is very decent. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:29, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
    • In what way is it a "relatively irrelevant encyclopedic issue"?--Discott (talk) 20:39, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
      • I'm not sure how to answer that. It's borderline interesting, it's barely of encyclopedic value, it's probably irrelevant in the "2019 calendar". The Rambling Man (talk) 20:43, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
        • Gosh I would not say that to a Zimbabwean or someone from southern Africa. Would a similar event of the same scale in the USA (for example) also be borderline interesting? Also why is it irrelevent in the 2019 calendar? It did take place entirely in 2019 after all.--Discott (talk) 21:28, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
          • Gosh indeed. In response to your question, it's got nothing to do with the calendar, I'm just not seeing it's in the news. Please try to remember what I said when I made my first post, it was weak opposition and I acknowledged that the article was in a reasonable condition. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:40, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
            • I read today in my local paper that Roundup 360 was banned in France. I don't suppose that will have been ITN either. ^^ SashiRolls t · c 22:46, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support the entry is well written and referenced. SashiRolls t · c 22:21, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support – This news is getting international traction with BCC, CNN, and Al Jazeera reporting on it. In light of deaths, seriousness of the situation, and good quality of the article. I support blurb or some alternative. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 00:24, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
P.S. The government has shutdown the internet.[1] --- Coffeeandcrumbs 00:26, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Quite in the news and the article is fairly OK. –Ammarpad (talk) 06:53, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Posted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:56, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

January 15Edit

Portal:Current events/2019 January 15
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

RD: Mason LoweEdit

Article: Mason Lowe (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Nominator: Dumelow (talk • give credit)
Updater: Kyerjay (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 bull rider, crushed to death by a bull. Article looks to be in good shape - Dumelow (talk) 17:09, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Is he notable? Article only created today, all references from his life are to local news or bull-riding websites. Black Kite (talk) 19:25, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support I see no issues. ghost 13:42, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Article updated Kyerjay (talk) 21:55, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support National coverage from CBS, Foxnews, CNN, The Guardian, CBSSports Net, and USA Today. I have links so these could be added to article. dawnleelynn(talk) 00:48, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) 2019 Nairobi hotel attackEdit

Article: 2019 Nairobi hotel attack (talk, history)
Blurb: ​At least 14 people are killed in a terrorist attack within a Nairobi hotel by the militant group Al-Shabaab.
News source(s): Citizen TV, CNN, BBC
Nominator: Shadychiri (talk • give credit)
Updater: No Swan So Fine (talk • give credit)
Other updaters: Beowul116 (talk • give credit) and Lopifalko (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: The incident is a substantial act of terror in Kenya since Garrisa University college attack. As the Area is cordoned off, the incident is assumed to be still ongoing until the operation is complete 22:15, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Support: Minimal though the article is, it appears well-sourced; this is getting play on the promos for the national evening news here in the U.S. so there's international interest. Daniel Case (talk) 23:30, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - and ready for posting.BabbaQ (talk) 23:35, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Should have added this after fixing up the blurb/nom for Shadychiri. Article is short but sourced and will only grow as more details unfold. --Masem (t) 00:31, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait until the article has some meat on its bones. Right now it's a stub and we don't promote stubs on the main page. Support in principle. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:54, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak support just about good enough. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:42, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak support – Notable, but agree with Orientem that the article really should be fleshed out some before a blurb is posted. Sca (talk) 15:05, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support – Notable enough to be included.----ZiaLater (talk) 15:12, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Article could be expanded per above. Davey2116 (talk) 16:15, 16 January 2019 (UTC)\
  • Support This is a very big news story in Africa, the article is also detailed enough on the event. --Discott (talk) 18:21, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment has been ready to post for five hours or so. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:29, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted. Black Kite (talk) 19:33, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

(Posted to Ongoing) Failed Brexit Vote in UK ParliamentEdit

Article: Brexit (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The UK Parliament votes against the Withdrawal Agreement presented by Prime Minister Theresa May, leaving in doubt whether necessary economic agreements will be in place before the UK's withdrawal from the European Union.
Alternative blurb: ​The UK Parliament votes against the European Union Withdrawal Agreement presented by Prime Minister Theresa May, triggering a vote of confidence in her government.
Alternative blurb II: ​UK's Theresa May cabinet loses the votes about the European Union Withdrawal Agreement but survives the vote of confidence on the following day.
News source(s): NYTimes
Nominator: Masem (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: This is not the end of the Brexit situation, but is a significant vote that alters what will happen in the future. In addition to a "no confidence" put forth against May by the opposition party, May has to come up with alternate Withdrawal proposals by Monday, or risk that UK will leave without any trade/economic agreements in place which is threatening to harm UK's economy. Masem (t) 20:41, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment the last part of the sentence, "leaving in doubt whether the UK will withdrawal from the European Union" seems unnecessarily speculative. It could just as well have said ""leaving in doubt whether the UK will leave the European Union with a deal" or something similar. Nobody knows what will happen now, to be frank. Yakikaki (talk) 20:46, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose unless the government falls. Otherwise this is just the latest chapter in the never ending Brexit drama. We rarely post non-events... i.e. the Commons did not pass the government's Brexit deal. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:48, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose if we get a new PM or a general election out of it, let's re-visit, otherwise this is just another facet of the ongoing omnishambles. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:49, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
    • If TRM (which I will take as an expert on all matters UK) deems this not appropriate, I would not be against a speedy close. Everything I read about this seems to make this a big thing, stateside, but if the UK just sees this as just part of the Brexit situation, then let's keep it to that. --Masem (t) 20:51, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
      I think most of the EU at this point just waits until 29 March is here so we can finally get rid of those drama queens on the island. Regards SoWhy 21:00, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
      I think there's more than a tiny chance we're going to stay in, so better get used to the queens once again. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:07, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
      Minor point: back in November, you said that 'Parliament voting against the "deal"' was worthy of posting. But things changes very quickly on this matter. Carcharoth (talk) 10:08, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
      Actually, no, I said it was "useful news", nothing about "worthy of posting". Given that we're now in a cycle of continual rejection, posting it is probably not actually even useful. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:20, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
      Fair enough, though you did say that in response to my post that asked 'what are the key events that would justify an ITN/C nomination?'. Anyway, when has ITN ever been about posting "useful news"? Carcharoth (talk) 10:24, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
      I'm not sure "justify an INT/C nomination" equates to "worthy of posting". The Rambling Man (talk) 11:39, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose It was a fairly guaranteed fail, everyone predicted it. Wait to see if May resigns. Kingsif (talk) 20:57, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - mainly per TRM. Nothing much has happened yet. Fallout therefrom may be a story, or may not be. The big story will be on Brexit day, currently scheduled for 29 March. Mjroots (talk) 21:02, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
    • Support Ongoing Mjroots (talk) 15:09, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait: Defeats like this are unprecedented, and so are motions of no confidence. I'll defer judgement until tomorrow night. Sceptre (talk) 21:02, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait for the vote of no confidence tomorrow. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 21:06, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Support Ongoing as the no-confidence vote was defeated. This is an ongoing news story very much in the news.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 19:47, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • But even then there's no definitive outcome. I guess a vote of no confidence in the government itself might just about be newsworthy, but even then I'm not sure it's that big a deal compared to what's going on in the backdrop. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:07, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Ongoing Brexit is major news every day in the UK and this will continue as the deadline approaches. As there will be further twists and turns, an entry in Ongoing would be appropriate to help readers find our coverage. Andrew D. (talk) 21:23, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment no offence to the esteemed Wikipedians above, who of course comment in good faith, but it's at times like this that it becomes clear how unfit for purpose ITN really is. And I say this every time. This vote is by far the most significant thing to befall the UK in recent years. It was the biggest defeat by a sitting government in Parliament since democracy began. Yes, it was predicted, but it sets in motion an utterly unpredictable and potentially catastrophic series of events. The no confidence vote tomorrow is a red herring. It will not succeed. But today's story is the headline. Across the world. And of course it should be posted. It probably won't, but it should. There endeth the rant.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:35, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support one would be hard-pressed to find a country where this isn't in the news. Post now, update as new information comes. Banedon (talk) 22:42, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Change the statement : The statement isn't neutral at this moment.--1233Talk 23:31, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait, per others, to see if this develops into either May resigning or the government falling on tomorrow's confidence vote (which I doubt will happen, as May is too smart to let that happen if (or more likely, when) she realizes she won't win and tenders her resignation). Daniel Case (talk) 23:34, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Agree. She might just scrape though tomorrow's vote. And even if she doesn't, she is not obliged to resign or call a General Election. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:46, 15 January 2019 (UTC) p.s. 325 to 306 was a bit of a scrape. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:19, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Suggested alt-blurb in box. Still not great... Moscow Mule (talk) 00:09, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose because it doesn't actually decide anything, but would suggest moving to Ongoing - this is going to move quickly now and generate a lot of stories. Black Kite (talk) 23:42, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Ongoing seems to fit the bill, or lack of it, here. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:06, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support a significant milestone in a major international story which has dominated headlines for years it seems absurd to not post this. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:49, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment The problem is, this particular stage is largely not news as it was expected and everyone not living under a rock knew was going to be the result and its not even the most important step in the whole leave process. The process that started with the leglislation to leave, and will end at the end of March (assuming it doesnt get reversed by then). The no-confidence motion will be news if it passes, but not if it doesnt, but even if it does pass it then only triggers a 14 day window for the government to try and deal their way out of it, if they cant pass another no confidence motion within 14 days, it then triggers a general election (which takes place 25 days after that) - at this point we are near the end of Feb, if that results in a change of Gov, the new Gov then needs to either decide if its holding a new referendum, decide if its taking the deal on the table, attempt to negotiate a new deal with the EU, or just continue to crash out. It could also unilaterally pass legislation to reverse the leave. All of the above are important news-worthy stages, but its going to be spread out over a 2 month period, far too long for 'ongoing'. And some/all of the various options might not take place. So it might be better to have a quick RFC on what main results to include rather than waiting for them to come up individually (if they do). Only in death does duty end (talk) 01:01, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Question for BrExperts: Is "Meaningful vote" really the best name for this article? Will people looking for it be able to find it in a few years' time? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:45, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose as blurb; Ongoing would get my support. At the moment it's just another step on a very long path (and is "bill failed to pass" really an ITN story?) There are several potential outcomes to this which may be on the MP in the next few days/weeks. - SchroCat (talk) 08:29, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Well, the vote was 432 against and 202 in support of the deal, which was the largest majority against a United Kingdom government ever. Surprised this is not in the proposed blurb. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:47, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • True, which is certainly a better blurb, but on reflection I still think Ongoing is better for now - there will be more of this to rumble on over the next 11+ weeks (or even longer) that will be more newsworthy than a parliamentary voting record. - SchroCat (talk) 09:42, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait for the outcome of the confidence vote. If May loses the confidence vote, then I would support, with that information added to the blurb. If May wins the confidence vote, then I would oppose and would wait until Brexit itself, which is only a couple of months away if May wins. (NorthernFalcon (talk) 09:22, 16 January 2019 (UTC))
  • I'm glad you have a crystal ball - Brexit is only one possible outcome, whether she wins or loses! - SchroCat (talk) 09:42, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I would support an entry in ongoing, or potentially an individual entry with wording similar to Martin's comment above. To quote the live news feed from the BBC (entry at 08.39 today), "Theresa May's historic Commons defeat is splashed across the front pages of papers across the globe" (my emphasis). To those who say that this was expected and just another chapter, well, we currently have the US federal government shutdown in 'ongoing', and I don't see that as substantively more significant than the whole Brexit shenanigans. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 09:25, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Brexit has been going on for years. The assumption is that it is going to happen unless a clear, specific event occurs (like a second referendum) to forestall it. The U.S. government shutdown is completely unpredictable and no one knows what is going to happen with it, it's unprecedented in terms of length, and it's having a significant and ongoing impact.--WaltCip (talk) 16:54, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Have we got a Brexit vs US Govt Shutdown competition now? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:00, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - back in November, I started a section at WT:ITN (the talk page for 'In The News', link is to the archived version) to see what thoughts people had about how to handle potential ITN items relating to Brexit and related articles. It may be worth resuming that discussion in the coming days and weeks. User:Sca commented back then that posting the result of the vote should be considered. I think the scale of the historic defeat is what should possibly be posted here. If this was not Brexit, but a parliamentary defeat of this scale on another matter in 'normal' times, we would very likely be posting it (because it would lead to the government collapsing/resigning). But these are not normal times for British parliamentary democracy. Back in November, when opining what would rise to the level of an ITN entry, I said: actual change of PM and/or government, result of any new referendum, formal moment of any Brexit, and hardly anything else. Though this comes close. On balance, I would say an entry now is justifiable. The scale of the defeat will be seen as one of the key moments. Carcharoth (talk) 10:02, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - as usual, the purpose of ITN is utterly ignored in the rush to come up with reasons why this shouldn't be posted. Purpose #1 is To help readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news. It undoubtedly meets that. Purpose #2 is To showcase quality Wikipedia content on current events. The update on this particular vote is admittedly short, but the Brexit article as a whole is well-written and informative, and there is no doubt that readers will be looking for it this week. I acknowledge the caveat about not posting continual updates on the same topic, and I wouldn't have supported any of the previous "developments" that have been rumbling on day after day for the past two months, but this is really the big one. The vote we've been waiting for forever, the government lost it by the biggest margin in history, and despite being predicted, it still changes the course of things completely and has been the top story in all major countries of the world. And going forward I would not expect any further blurbs on Brexit until either a referendum is held, or we crash out in March with no deal, or a deal is agreed and we leave. But those are all weeks or months away. So yes I think we should post this one, but no I don't think that would set a precedent that every other Brexit item will be posted. This is the biggy.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:36, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Voyager is leaving the solar system and Britain is leaving the EU. Rather than trying to figure out the milestones from our own opinions, look at any major news outlet in the world. What is today’s headline? This. Either post it or put it in ongoing. Voyager has no practical impact on daily life. Jehochman Talk 10:51, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • And Voyager wasn't even asked to pay €25.4 billion as an exit fee. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:04, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • This is just another step in the process. There's plenty more where this came from. The only justifiable way of posting Brexit right now is to add it to Ongoing. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:38, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support ongoing, or weak support altblurb - per The Rambling Man. And, for all the people saying it's massive news and such a shift ... it's talked about, around the world, in such vague terms that nobody knows what it changes. Especially the British people, who assumed it was going to fail, so it changes nothing. Though it does guarantee Brexit won't be shut up about at all for a long time - so ongoing. And, symbolically, it is significant, with an overwhelming defeat and the potential but unlikely vote against the government. --Kyerjay (talk) 13:36, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per TRM. Wait until a general election is called, if it even happens. Nihlus 13:50, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per TRM. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 13:57, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose – for now. Have to backpedal from what I said in Nov. about posting the Commons vote, as things still seem to be in a state of flux (if not chaos), and Tuesday's vote doesn't seem so "historic" after all. If only the British pols would either do something or get off the throne, so to speak. Sca (talk) 15:21, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
    Oh, there's no doubt the vote was historic, given the magnitude of the government's defeat, but it's local politics, has not affected the process one iota, and is merely one step in a seemingly infinite number of steps which seem destined to us reneging on Article 50. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:35, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Historic in a general or global sense. However significant for near-term UK politics, its real-world effect is negligible and the Brexit vote doesn't qualify. If one takes the long view of British democracy's long history, it's a minor event. – Sca (talk) 16:41, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Oh, definitely historic in a parochial sense. Like a minor league baseball record or something. You'll note a significant number of people (some of us from the UK) are opposing this nomination. I think we have a clue. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:20, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Since May is said likely to survive today's no-confidence pageant, I could see sticking this in Ongoing until something consequential happens. Sca (talk) 18:00, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Sure, Ongoing is the only viable place for it right now, but be prepared for it to sit there until late-March, possibly later, as these kinds of blips will be taking place between now and then. Is that what we really want, a Brexit note for 2+ months? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:04, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support blurb or ongoing Major news worldwide. I think ongoing would be more appropriate, though, given the developments expected over the next few days. Davey2116 (talk) 16:17, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • This is a difficult one. On one hand, it's something that didn't happen (i.e. the bill didn't pass), internal political squabbling, and we're no closer to knowing if/how Brexit will happen. On the other hand, the defeat was record-breaking, Brexit is the most important event in UK politics for decades, the vote will be of of historical encyclopaedic value, and this is very much 'in the news' worldwide. It's also part of an ongoing process which is taking too long to leave in the 'ongoing' section until it concludes, and there remains the remote possibility that it will cause the government to fall tonight. On balance, wait until we get the outcome of the no confidence vote this evening; if May loses or resigns I support a blurb, if she survives, as seems much more likely, I weak support ongoing, though am not sure which article would be best listed there. Modest Genius talk 16:21, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support ongoing. An important story where new developments are likely to happen on a regular basis for the next couple of months. Nsk92 (talk) 19:56, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment regarding ongoing now I'm cool with this going into Ongoing, but please, everyone note that it will need to stay there for at least three months. Is that what we use Ongoing for? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:00, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
    • If they really extend the exit date for...actually, not sure what they plan to do but they seem keen on doing that for some reason..., it might even stay there for six months or longer. That seems excessive. Regards SoWhy 20:36, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
      • Indeed, there are going to be a number of headline-busting events in the next few weeks relating to Brexit. Most of us Brits don't think this should be on the Main Page at all (ironically) but if it is heading there, then Ongoing and be prepared for three months of it. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:28, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support ongoing per TRM's acquiescence above. I think it's hard to deny that this story is newsworthy in its own right.--WaltCip (talk) 20:34, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Suggested another blurb, needs some trimming, but I think such a blurb is better at the moment than having an ongoing Brexit for 3 months and maybe much longer. --Tone 20:38, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
    No, a blurb for this micro-decision is unnecessary. This event has changed literally nothing. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:26, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
    I disagree that nothing has changed. The unacceptability of May's deal has now been fully exposed. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:43, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
    No, that was never in doubt, ever, at any point. Just look at RS. Not one single one of them had any doubt this was going to be a shambles. Just like all of Brexit. This vote is parochially notable but actually absolutely meaningless in the overall Brexit process. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:48, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
    We don't post news items based on WP:CRYSTAL. The actual result of the vote was the event, it was the proof. The size of the defeat makes it historically significant, regardless of any "Brexit process." Just my personal view. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:59, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
    Yes, thanks, I think I'm aware of CRYSTAL. The actual result was "so what". A big deal in British political history, but not unexpected and changes nothing. Like posting a minor league baseball record. Who cares? Whether it was lost by 1 vote or 200 votes, the result was utterly predictable. We wouldn't expect to post such stories from the US or any other country in the world, why is the UK any different? Nothing changed, nothing unexpected happened. Next. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:06, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
    I'd agree with Tom Harris in The Daily Telegraph who today said: "Politics is littered with milestones. We passed a pretty important one yesterday". Martinevans123 (talk) 22:18, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
    Of course. And Tom is employed to sell newspapers. But thanks for your nostalgic approach, it's really valued. Surprised we're not getting a dodgy YouTube video to accompany it. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:22, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
    Nostalgia strictly ain't what it used to be. But be my guest. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:29, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment do we need to post it? It's not hard to search Brexit if someone wants more info, but it's not like most ITN news and noms where there's simple headline + article with lots of contextual and further information people won't know about. It would be simple headline + nothing more; people know the context, and there's nothing more to say about the votes than no to deal, meh to government. Kingsif (talk) 21:22, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Info Also posting update for anyone not in the UK at the minute - May has announced she will give a speech at 2200 UTC (in about 10 minutes), will update if something comes from that. Kingsif (talk) 21:50, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
    Has she? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:52, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
    Ah, you mean there's going to be a "statement" at 10pm (which looks likely to be delayed because of a football match). Good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:54, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
    Yeh, quite reflective of UK politics Kingsif (talk) 21:57, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
    So, another meaningless political statement. So what? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:07, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
    (edit conflict)Nothing of interest, besides mentioning that all the parties have been and will be working together, except Labour who have gone all Isolationist but are still invited. Kingsif (talk) 22:08, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
    Yes, nothing of interest. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:14, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Ongoing – In view of what's happened, Ongoing seems appropriate. (Or as Ben Bradlee is reputed to have said, "Stick it inside somewhere.") – Sca (talk) 22:26, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose ongoing Brexit and the related negotiations have been going on for almost 2 years now, and it has not been a feature of the "ongoing" section throughout that time. If there are major developments in the process over the next few months, they warrant their own discussion in ITN. But 3 months of (possible) minor developments should not be what the ongoing section is for. PotentPotables ( talk ) 23:35, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Ongoing for now. If nothing of consequence occurs in a reasonable time frame, kill it. Sca (talk) 02:42, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Posted to Ongoing, per rough consensus above. Suggest reviewing in a week with a view to pulling it if no progress has occurred. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:43, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Laurent Gbagbo acquitted of crimes against humanityEdit

Nominator's comments: I know we don't often post acquittals but this is a pretty big case and has been described as a big blow for the ICC, especially as the judges halted the trial early and found the prosecution had not provided sufficient evidence. Worth a discussion, I think - Dumelow (talk) 18:52, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Tentative support, however, the update is thin and the blurb should mention the 2010 crisis. --Tone 19:58, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Article has a severe referencing issue. Entire sections without a single reference.--SirEdimon (talk) 19:59, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose on referencing/quality. Otherwise an appropriate ITN blurb. --Masem (t) 20:18, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support acquittals are as notable as convictions. Banedon (talk) 22:42, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support The acquital of Gbagbo brings into fore the chain of mistrials and acquitals that have befelled the ICC. They stated they had a strong case only for it to wither away. this is something that shouldn't be let go silently Shadychiri (talk) 22:58, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - per notable judgement.BabbaQ (talk) 23:36, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: Would like to see some reactions to the acquittal in the article before posting. SpencerT•C 00:40, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
    • I have added a couple (mass celebrations in IC, but general concern about the ICC's role in future cases). --Masem (t) 00:56, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support when the article's cn-tags are addressed. Davey2116 (talk) 16:24, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose acquittals are seldom as notable as convictions, it's entirely contextual, but in this case it's a big deal. Can't post with BLP violations though. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:24, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support once quality issues are addressed. ICC judgments on heads of state (whether convictions or acquittals) are very rare and important. Neutralitytalk 01:43, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
  • No sourcing issues are apparent on the article now.   Posted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:48, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
    Well, apart from the four [citation needed] tags of course. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:53, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

RD: Carol ChanningEdit

Article: Carol Channing (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): NYT
Nominator: WaltCip (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: Renowned Broadway star, passed away at 97 years old. WaltCip (talk) 12:58, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Weak oppose some paras unreferenced in the main prose and the awards/noms table almost completely uncited. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:03, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. With the exception of some redlinked husbands, it seems gtg. — Wyliepedia @ 15:33, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak support. A couple of citations needed but awards nominations referenced. The two instances where citations are missing are not essential to the article and the text could be amended pending references. Capitalistroadster (talk) 16:14, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
    Actually there looks like there are currently six [citation needed] tags. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:16, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
    There are eleven at the time of this edit. ―Susmuffin Talk 21:27, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose The citations needed tags are just the beginning of the problem. Several of references are to YouTube video clips of her movies and interviews on television talk shows. Much of this article may be original research. Her YouTube videos are worth a watch and very entertaining but they are not reliable sources.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 18:26, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
    • Not necessarily, but they do pose a problem. If she talked about herself on a television interview on a recognized television program, and we can cite show, episode, air date, etc. then that's acceptable as a reliable source. We cannot however link to YouTube videos that aren't uploaded by the show's copyright holder. Spot-check shows most of the video links are clear copyright vios in this sense. That's a major problem, but if they can be changed to {{cite video}} templates without the YouTube link, then that's better. --Masem (t) 18:48, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
      • The reliance on primary sources is pretty bad. Large portions of the personal life section is sourced to divorse court documents hosted on Justia. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 20:49, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose This article has severe issues with its references. ―Susmuffin Talk 21:27, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

January 14Edit

Portal:Current events/2019 January 14
Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

Politics and elections
  • Over 31,000 teachers, nurses, counselors and librarians in Los Angeles, who have been without a contract for more than a year, go on a strike to demand higher pay after negotiations for improved compensation and work conditions failed. (CBS News) (Al Jazeera)

(Posted blurb) Paweł AdamowiczEdit

Article: Paweł Adamowicz (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: Mayor of Gdańsk Paweł Adamowicz dies after being stabbed on stage at a charity concert.
News source(s): The Guardian
Nominator: Ammarpad (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: Polish politician stabbed to death, the article is short though. –Ammarpad (talk) 16:06, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment I actually think a blurb would be more appropriate here. The story is headline news in the UK whereas him dying of natural causes would not be. Thryduulf (talk) 17:12, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak Support Blurb article is close to a stub. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:35, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support blurb...RD is useless. Political asassinations in Europe are extremely rare. - EugεnS¡m¡on 17:38, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support blurb - rare assassination of a politician, in Europe.BabbaQ (talk) 17:43, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose too much is unreferenced for a BLP. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:43, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
    • That issue has been resolved now. --BorgQueen (talk) 06:46, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Pretty much everything save for the assault is unreferenced. Support blurb Mayor of a major Polish city killed by a madman - worth the ITN Openlydialectic (talk) 17:53, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support blurb. The article is in much better shape now. --BorgQueen (talk) 18:11, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support RD While there are a few cites missing from the awards section the article is adequate, if barely, for RD. Oppose blurb This was a mayor, not a national political office holder. And the article, while acceptable for RD, is nowhere near good enough for a blurb. It is only barely a start class. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:18, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose A few of the awards still lack citations. ―Susmuffin Talk 18:25, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support RD - It's pretty big deal here in Poland. It's the first assassination since 1930's --TheDFPL (talk) 18:28, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Blurb It seems this is a major story in European news. In my opinion it satisfies the criteria in WP:ITNRD. — bieχχ (talk) 18:29, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I'd support blurb but the article needs some work with references, for example, most of the awards are unreferenced (blue links do not count). --Tone 19:39, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support RD on improvements, oppose blurb It's an assassination, but of a city's mayor by a criminal that blames the city for his incarceration. It's a very localized domestic situation, and not a result of some international plot. --Masem (t) 19:47, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support blurb Assassinations of European politicians during these times in this manner nonetheless an assassination of a major city mayor in Poland is even rarer. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:57, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Posted I have posted as RD but consensus is emerging for a blurb if sourcing can be improved on the article — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:48, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support blurb. I fixed both citation-needed tags. wumbolo ^^^ 21:28, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support blurb All citation-needed tags have been resolved. Uses x (talk) 21:34, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support blurb notable and acceptable quality --DannyS712 (talk) 22:05, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Pull it's not adequately referenced, no-one appears to have checked this thoroughly enough before it was posted. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:09, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
    • Apart from a few minor awards ("Pro Ecclesia et Pontifice Golden Cross") which could justifiably be removed from the article entirely, what isn't sourced? power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:22, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
    • The only unreferenced parts are four medals, and I would agree that these could be removed from the article if necessary. Uses x (talk) 22:29, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
      • Then fix it or remove it. Right now it's a blatant BLP violation and one which should have prevented any admin from posting it. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:39, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
        • Unsourced awards have been removed, as per BLP Uses x (talk) 22:44, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
          • Thank you, of course that should have happened before it sat on the main page for a couple of hours, especially considering those concerns had been raised some hours before. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:45, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
            • "Blatant BLP violation" is a blatant stretch. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:11, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
              • Of course, unverifiable awards are just fine. Little wonder there's so little trust in some admins to reinforce such important policies here. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:50, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
                • Quality is not binary, and there's a spectrum of quality between "not good enough to post" and "perfect". "Fine" lies somewhere in the middle. --Jayron32 16:07, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
                  • Yes, brilliant. But BLP is a bright line, we simply don't attribute awards to people without verification. Even you know that. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:08, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
                    • It's not that bright. "material challenged or likely to be challenged must be" cited, which implies a) that material unlikely to be challenged may not necessarily require citation, and b) the difference is completely subjective. If you say John Doe won a Nobel prize and was granted the key to the city of Dubuque, I'm going to want the former cited but let the latter go. ghost 13:24, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
                      • It's a bright line. We don't attribute awards to people without them being verifiable, that's very naughty. Indeed, I know at least one person who was actually blocked for doing so. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:39, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support blurb Notable assassination, article now fully sourced. Davey2116 (talk) 03:35, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I've marked it Ready for blurb. --BorgQueen (talk) 06:49, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted, waiting for protection to kick in before adding the image. Smurrayinchester 09:08, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) 2019 Saha Airlines Boeing 707 crashEdit

Article: 2019 Saha Airlines Boeing 707 crash (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Sixteen people are killed when a Boeing 707 of Saha Airlines crashes on landing at Fath Air Base, Iran.
News source(s): (Tehran Times), (BBC News)
Nominator: Mjroots (talk • give credit)

Article updated

 Mjroots (talk) 14:37, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Weak support worst aircrash of the year so far (I know...) and multiple fatalities. Article is okay considering the lack of details available. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:58, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Significant number of deaths from a commercial aviation disaster qualifies for ITN, and the article is short but well-sourced. --Masem (t) 16:02, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support The article looks good and the death toll is quite high. –Ammarpad (talk) 16:13, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - ready to go. and death toll is significant.BabbaQ (talk) 18:07, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Posted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:13, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

January 13Edit

Portal:Current events/2019 January 13
Armed conflicts and attacks
  • Syrian Civil War
    • The Syrian government and pro-government militants fire artillery into villages inside the Idlib de-escalation zone, killing one civilian and leaving two civilians injured. (AA)

Arts and culture

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

Politics and elections

(Posted) RD: Mel StottlemyreEdit

Article: Mel Stottlemyre (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): USA Today
Nominator: Muboshgu (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: Needs a little more sourcing, but I can get it there tonight. Should be good now. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:01, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Support Good to go. I tip my hat to you for the good work.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 05:12, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:02, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted good as gone. --Jayron32 16:02, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Extradition of Cesare BattistiEdit

Consensus will not develop to post this. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:36, 14 January 2019 (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: Cesare Battisti (born 1954) (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Far-left terrorist Cesare Battisti (pictured) is extradited to his homeland Italy after his capture in Bolivia.
News source(s): Avvenire ABC
Nominator: ArionEstar (talk • give credit)
Nominator's comments: Notorious fugitive. Sentenced to life imprisonment since 1995. ArionEstar (talk) 12:17, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Plenty of issues - including referencing, updating ("Italy plans to appeal") and POV ("expiate his sentence") - but I'm going to oppose on significance. Good faith due to the long fight, but I don't think extradition itself is ever be important enough to post (outside of a head of state). ghost 12:36, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose – On notability, significance. (In rare cases, extradition could be worth a blurb – that of Julian Assange, for a hypothetical example.)Sca (talk) 14:01, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Just the fact that (Born 1954) has to be added to the article name shows that notability is in question. Good faith, but there's not a snowball's chance of this getting posted. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ 15:50, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Support. Important, finally the world has started to realize the radical left's danger, probably plenty more to come. Openlydialectic (talk) 16:05, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Openlydialectic I don't get it. Do you support it or oppose it?--SirEdimon (talk) 17:32, 14 January 2019 (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: Phil MasingaEdit

Article: Phil Masinga (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC Guardian
Nominator: Black Kite (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: International footballer, I've tidied it up and cited it, I think it's acceptable now. Black Kite (talk) 11:42, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Support the source given says cancer. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:39, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Seems ready. –Ammarpad (talk) 13:54, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support covers all the main details and well sourced. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:04, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted – Muboshgu (talk) 18:07, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

January 12Edit

Portal:Current events/2019 January 12
Disasters and accidents

Politics and elections

(Posted) RD: Patricia WaldEdit

Article: Patricia Wald (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): washington post
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.

Nominator's comments: American judge DannyS712 (talk) 17:42, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Support Seems well referenced.--SirEdimon (talk) 20:16, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Posted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:32, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose five citation needed tags on a BLP? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:40, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Yeah, that's poor. I've cited two of them and the other three sentences weren't really relevant to her, so I've removed them. All sourced now. Black Kite (talk) 18:01, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

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: