Open main menu

Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/January 2019

< Wikipedia:In the news‎ | Candidates

This page is an archive and its contents should be preserved in their current form;
any comments regarding this page should be directed to Wikipedia talk:In the news. Thanks.

Contents

January 11Edit

Portal:Current events/2019 January 11
Armed conflict and attacks
  • Two Iraqis were killed and 25 others were injured in a car bomb blast outside a public market in the town of Al-Qaim. The Islamic State is presumed to be behind the attack. (TheDailyStar)
Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

Politics and elections

(Posted) RD: Georgy BradyEdit

Article: George Brady (Holocaust survivor) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): czeck radio
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: Holocaust survivor DannyS712 (talk) 17:42, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Meera SanyalEdit

Normally, this would be stale to post. I'm not sure about reposting something that is pulled, so I'll just withdraw as the original nominator. (non-admin closure) --DannyS712 (talk) 18:44, 17 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: Meera Sanyal (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): [1]
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: Indian banker turned politician DannyS712 (talk) 17:53, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Posted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:30, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose The article has a promotional tone without sufficient secondary sources to back it up. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 19:28, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above, sources and tone are dubious. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:56, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Removed; reposting to RD depends on article improvements per above. SpencerT•C 21:51, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose This article relies heavily on primary sources. Also, the tone is questionable at best. ―Susmuffin Talk 18:31, 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) Acting Presidency of Juan GuaidóEdit

Article: 2019 Venezuelan Presidential crisis (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In an ongoing Venezuelan Presidential crisis, Juan Guaidó (pictured) and the National Assembly prepare to usurp start to take rule try to take over from the incumbent Nicolás Maduro.
Alternative blurb: ​In an ongoing Venezuelan Presidential crisis, Juan Guaidó (pictured) and the National Assembly declare incumbent Nicolás Maduro "illegitimate" and start the process of attempting to remove him.
News source(s): The Guardian, Venezuelan Assembly
Nominator and updater: Kingsif (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Kind of a coup, but not being called a coup because everyone thinks it's legitimate... Kingsif (talk) 22:07, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment He says he is ready to assume office, not that he has assumed office. Very different implication. --Masem (t) 21:57, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • His speech said he was ready, then the NA press release says "the president of the National Assembly, deputy Juan Guaidó, assumed the powers of the Presidency of the Republic". Very specifically "assumed", as in, already did it. Kingsif (talk) 22:00, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • This suggests tons of miscommunication going on here. And this suggests that for Guaido to take up the presidency, they have to have the military backing to knock Maduro out so that Guaido can step in. --Masem (t) 22:05, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm going to assume the press release of the National Assembly of Venezuela knows a bit more about its leader than the Miami Herald does. Honestly, I did not think it would happen this immediately, but it seems to have done. (I've read the Caracas Chronicles piece, and yeah, it shows confusion, it's trying to interpret the words of Guaidó at the rally where he says a leader needs more than just saying he's leader. No matter what he meant, I think the later press release overwhelms any confusion.) Kingsif (talk) 22:09, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I cannot access the press release but I am going to assume it is in Spanish based on the link title. If that is the case, we need absolutely assurance on the translation, which I haven't seen yet in news. --Masem (t) 22:23, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Here's a more recent report that suggests that the National Assembly is working a plan to transition the govt in a few weeks (by pleading to military offices to defect to their side), suggesting they have yet to put Gauido in office. --Masem (t) 22:26, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • They seem to be operating on "assumed Presidency, now we're working on kicking out the guy who won't leave". And, for your checks, the original text from the press release is "el presidente de la Asamblea Nacional, diputado Juan Guaidó, asumió las competencias de la Presidencia de la República" — asumió is a preterite ("actions completed in the past") form of asumir (to assume) [2]. Absolute assurance. Kingsif (talk) 22:31, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Now I can see the press release (your second source above, I presume) but do not see anything of that quoted Spanish language in there. Google Translate doesn't given anything of the impression that the NA has made the assumption Guaido is president, only that they want him to be president in the next few weeks as they build up support. --Masem (t) 22:36, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I just reopened the page. Yes, it has changed. That's strange -- the older version with my quoted text says 5:48pm, which is just over an hour ago. Both Guaidó's statements and the closing paragraph of the new version still say "Guaidó is legitimate and recognized as President, but we need to stage a coup before he can actually fulfill that role" Kingsif (talk) 22:54, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • That's the impression I get off a Google translate too, and more in line with how English news sources are reporting this. The NA is presenting Guaido as whom they want to put in as president once they can oust Maduro, hoping that helps to draw some military support to support a coup. Because this appears to be happening over a few weeks this might make this more a ongoing story. But I would also add that we are starting to see protests/rallys (100s to 1000s, but not large yet) in protest, so that may be part of a larger story. --Masem (t) 23:02, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Venezuelan here. The main problem is the conflict between a de facto and a de jure presidency, and which one is it. Some argue that Guaidó assumed the presidency, and the OAS Secretary General recognized him as such, but others don't. In any case, I support a blurb about the new since it is noteworthy. --Jamez42 (talk) 22:18, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose just purely on the kind of tabloid-esque blurb being proposed. This is an encyclopedia, we're not going to post a blurb which makes some such "claim". The Rambling Man (talk) 23:00, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Propose a better one? Kingsif (talk) 23:02, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • A good blurb should mention both Maduro and Guaido and their conflicting appointments. As written, it sounds as if the crisis was over and Guaido will be ruling from now on, which is hardly the actual case. Cambalachero (talk) 00:31, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - I support this, per unusual"coup".BabbaQ (talk) 00:42, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Alt blurb II - article looks ok after a cursory look. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 01:00, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • The time has certainly come to post something...just what the **** that is I do not know. I'm going to go with a tenuous support ongoing for 2019 Venezuelan Presidential crisis. ghost 03:52, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support this or ongoing per ghost. Definitely a significant story, and the article is pretty good. Davey2116 (talk) 05:31, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • As pointed out above, neither Guaidó nor the National Assembly has assumed Guaidó as president. They are preparing Guaidó to be president if they can usurp power. So Alt2 is completely wrong. I have provided Alt3 that describes the situation as I read it from sources. --Masem (t) 05:56, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • The issue with that is "prepare" is just begging to be told Wait, when they've made the biggest move in the last decade of crisis already, so I've tweaked it into Alt4 without changing the "not quite President yet"-ness. Kingsif (talk) 06:03, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support this or ongoing per ghost and Davey2116. But strongly oppose altblurb3 with its use of the word usurp, a thoroughly POV word which, as used in altblurb3, implies that Maduro is legitimate and Guaido and the National Assembly are illegitimate. Tlhslobus (talk) 09:46, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment We have far too many unusable altblurbs up there and should perhaps remove the ones that have been crossed out. Altblurb4 is seemingly the least bad at present, but it probably needs to be changed to 'and start the process of attempting to remove him' because the current wording leaves the impression that removing him is something fairly easy to do. Tlhslobus (talk) 09:59, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Alt3 is now "blurb", alt4 is now alt1. Kingsif (talk) 11:50, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, but I've reworded the new blurb, as 'start to take rule' is bad English (at least where I come from). But other wording such as 'begin to try to remove the incumbent Nicholas Maduro' may perhaps better convey the original intended meaning (though I'm not sure of what exactly that was). Tlhslobus (talk) 15:58, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
In both blurb and altblurb1 'President' may perhaps also be preferable to 'the incumbent' (which may make some readers ask 'incumbent what?').Tlhslobus (talk) 16:40, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
"presidential crisis" probably makes it clear. Kingsif (talk) 17:54, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment – Looks like this belongs in Ongoing. Sca (talk) 13:23, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support and per ghost I'd be willing to support either as a blurb or as ongoing but this situation is too critical to not post something. That being said, the altblurbs have changed many times as the story developed, so while it is blurb-worthy on notability, ongoing is also a viable option while the crisis continues. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ 14:20, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support this or ongoing per ghost and Davey2116.--Panam2014 (talk) 19:38, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support ongoing or the "Alternative blurb".--SirEdimon (talk) 19:44, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support ongoing or the Alternative blurb. --Cambalachero (talk) 22:57, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Posted. Wording still seems a bit awkward, but the ERRORS crowd will help out there I'm sure. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:18, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Suggestion I'd replace "presidential crisis" with "constitutional crisis." -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:04, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Juan Guaidó has been detained which means now he won't be able to take over incumbent president Maduro I believe we should change the blurb to mention this. (BBC) --Bluecrab2 (talk) 17:17, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
    • "Briefly detailed" means he's free again. Not a major change yet. --Masem (t) 17:19, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Note I've tweaked the blurb to closer match the text of the article; the article discusses that Guaidó was declared acting president by the NA, and that the NA disputed the election results. --Jayron32 14:21, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait – Developing, still murky. Either wait or OngoingSca (talk) 13:30, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

(Posted to RD) Michael AtiyahEdit

Article: Michael Atiyah (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: Sir Michael Francis Atiyah, a mathematician and the winner of both the Fields Medal and Abel Prize, dies at the age of 89.
News source(s): oxford university
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) 19:55, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment a few {{cn}}s but overall fairly good shape. Will support in a few hours, once the initial updates are done. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:58, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
    @Power~enwiki: I added a citation that I could find. The 2 remaining tags are very technical details that I couldn't find specific sources for, but the claims are backed up by other (wikipedia) articles that don't have CN tags, suggesting that, in this specific field, it may be common knowledge. --DannyS712 (talk) 21:33, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support RD - article is in decent shape; hugely notable and influential mathematician Spiderone 10:16, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
I certainly wouldn't oppose a blurb either Spiderone 16:59, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support blurb. Only a handful of living mathematicians can be considered more influential, and the article is in solid shape. wumbolo ^^^ 12:59, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support blurb Fields medalist, very influential in mathematics. Davey2116 (talk) 15:08, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support blurb, one of the eminent 20th century mathematicians, winner of both the Fields Medal and Abel Prize, the highest honors in mathematics. Nsk92 (talk) 17:18, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
    @Nsk92, Davey2116, Wumbolo, Spiderone, and Power~enwiki: given the supports for a blurb, I have added one. Pinging those who previously commented on the RD nom - what do you think of the blurb? (blurb inspired by Msk92's reasoning) --DannyS712 (talk) 18:02, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
    Yes sure, looks good to me, thanks. Nsk92 (talk) 19:19, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Agreed. Davey2116 (talk) 22:56, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support RD, Oppose blurb I would reserve RD-blurbs either for particularly shocking events, or for artists or statesmen who are household names whose deaths are making front pages around the world. Yes, the Atiyah-Singer theorem is important. But he is not in the same league of impact on the popular consciousness as a Mandela, a Thatcher, a Bowie. (For the record also, winning both the Abel prize and the Fields medal is not particularly unique: according to Wikidata (tinyurl.com/y7pxt9rw) six Abel prize winners out of the 20 so far were also Fields medallists). Jheald (talk) 20:00, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Posted to RD. If consensus for a blurb emerges, then we can relocate. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:23, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose RD The article was not ready for Main Page. There are several issues that need to be resolved and copy edited. Oppose blurb as not meeting our criterion.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 16:58, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support blurb He proved the Riemann hypothesis. It's hard to get more significant than that. 108.214.193.21 (talk) 17:12, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support blurb, per Nsk92. He was at the top of his field internationally for decades in the second half of the 20th century. I've done some minor c/e to the article but can't help with the maths. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:17, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support RD, oppose blurb While Atiyah was famous in the field of maths, he's nowhere close to the same league as Thatcher, Bush, David Bowie, and other household names who have merited a blurb. 1779Days (talk) 21:41, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  • But the ITNRD guidelines say "major transformative world leaders in their field" qualify for a blurb. There's no question that Atiyah was hugely transformative in his field (which is not by any means a narrow one). Davey2116 (talk) 03:37, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment As I have in the CFP debate every year, I will caution against inventing new criteria ("household name") to reject a candidate. My reading of the rule is basically: "There was no greater living X than Y" (one may have equals but not betters), assuming X is not overly narrow. ghost 13:10, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support blurb as nom. Also, I have changed the section heading to "(Posted to RD) Michael Atiyah" to make it clear that it is still being debated for inclusion as a blurb. --DannyS712 (talk) 04:58, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb His death isn't on the Mandela/Thatcher/Bowie level in terms of reaction. That's what it'd take to get me to support a blurb for the death of an 89 year old. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:09, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • This really isn't a valid !oppose since the "Mandela/Thatcher/Bowie standard" is not policy. Davey2116 (talk) 16:19, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Blurb, a blurb would be a travesty flying in the face of years of consensus. Abductive (reasoning) 05:46, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb This is what RD is for.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:44, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Macedonia renamingEdit

Renominate when finalized; no consensus to post at this time. SpencerT•C 04:58, 17 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: Macedonia naming dispute (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Assembly of the Republic of Macedonia approves a constitutional change for the new name of the country, the Republic of North Macedonia.
News source(s): AP, Bloomberg
Nominator: Brandmeister (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: While I'm not 100% sure it's the right time, this looks like a very significant development in the country's naming dispute. The target article is oversized, however, with minimal update. Brandmeistertalk 19:29, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support pending updatesOppose Not yet ratified (that will be in the next few weeks) according to the AP. (Noting that a previous ITNC nom suggested waiting until it is official). --Masem (t) 19:36, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
I read the AP as saying the full deal (where Greece supports EU membership) isn't approved, but the name change is approved. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:02, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
My bad, you are right, its the deal with Greece still needed ratification, the naming needing to be done before Greece seemed ready to talk. --Masem (t) 20:10, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
But now it looks like sources say your initial read was correct: Macedonia will start using it only after the parliament in Athens also ratifies the agreement. The Guardian. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:17, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - Historic decision.BabbaQ (talk) 00:40, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait - This has been a very slow-moving process (people at the Macedonia talk page archives have been trying to rename the page to North Macedonia since last June) and while this is absolutely a major step in the process, it's not done just yet. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ 04:27, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait - We seemingly need to see formal Greek approval first (and the Greek Government has seemingly just lost its majority in Parliament). Tlhslobus (talk) 09:57, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment- Re article quality, I fail to see any explanation in the article as to why the new name is an improvement (as distinct from a logical disimprovement that is being welcomed for other short-term reasons). Perhaps there are no reliable sources to explain this (possibly because it makes little or no sense to add a longer name, and one that logically implies that Northern Macedonia should try to reunite with the rest of Macedonia, which is seemingly at least partly why the Greeks objected to the old name in the first place, only the new name seems to make that problem worse). I suspect I may not be the only reader who is thus a bit confused and dissatisfied with article quality.Tlhslobus (talk) 09:57, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't understand [tha name] logically implies that Northern Macedonia should try to reunite with the rest of Macedonia at all. Are you suggesting that South Africa considers itself just temporarily separated from the rest of Africa, or that North Carolina secretly dreams of its troops one day marching triumphantly into Charleston? ‑ Iridescent 10:32, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait - most likely but it wont be just this article that would need to be changed. In the past because this area about the 'name' had attracted controversies, after much discussion a WP:MOSMAC decided on a naming convention and for now that is in force until a new one is done etc.Resnjari (talk) 10:26, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Process evidently not complete; broader significance debatable. Ongoing at best. Sca (talk) 13:33, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support how long are we going to wait for? This has passed several milestones already. Banedon (talk) 22:43, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose the article is maintenance tagged, and the rename hasn't actually happened. Nothing to report. Patently clear that this is not something an encyclopaedia should be promoting at this stage. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:41, 16 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.

January 10Edit

Portal:Current events/2019 January 10
Armed conflicts and attacks

Politics and elections

Science and technology

(Closed) RD: Kevin FretEdit

Article: Kevin Fret (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): CNN
Nominator: Thsmi002 (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: Notable as one of the first openly gay Latin trap artist. Thsmi002 (talk) 03:59, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Stale, he died on 10 January and the oldest item in RD is from 11. Check if you can still nominate it at DYK. --Tone 07:11, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Theo AdamEdit

Article: Theo Adam (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): NZZ
Nominator and updater: Gerda Arendt (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: German opara singer, legendary Wotan in Bayreuth and at the Met, - the article was not sourced much but is now. It would be nice to add more obituaries, and expand, but I'm too tired. Help? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:55, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

  •   Posted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:38, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Inauguration of Nicolás MaduroEdit

Closed in relation to the assumption of Guaidó on Jan 11th, posted separately Kingsif (talk) 21:58, 11 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.

Articles: Second inauguration of Nicolás Maduro (talk, history) and Nicolás Maduro (talk, history)
Blurb: Nicolás Maduro is sworn-in as President of Venezuela, while the President of the National Assembly of Venezuela, Juan Guaidó, declares a State of emergency and calls for a coup-de-etat due to Maduro's "illegitimate" election.
Alternative blurb: Nicolás Maduro is sworn-in as President of Venezuela for a second term, whilst countries including the United States and Canada request his resignation and recognize his opposition as the legitimate leaders.
Alternative blurb II: President of the National Assembly of Venezuela, Juan Guaidó, calls for a political coup after the "illegitimate" inauguration of incumbent Republic President Nicolás Maduro. This action is supported by nations including the United States and Canada.
News source(s): Reuters, Venezuelan Assembly
Nominator and updater: Kingsif (talk • give credit)

Article updated
Nominator's comments: The second inauguration of Maduro as President of Venezuela but with extra juice: everyone is pretty sure he wasn't actually elected, so he's forcing the country into its first actual illegal dictatorship, with the elected government declaring a State of Emergency and announcing a coup. Also, yeah, it's the succession of a Head of State of a sovereign state where it's not been elected, so ITN/R? Alternatively post to Ongoing/but I don't recommend "wait" for even more chaos Kingsif (talk) 22:07, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Since Maduro was already President, the head of state is not actually changing so this is not ITNR(I say this without commenting on the merits as a regular nomination). 331dot (talk) 22:12, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose We did post when Maduro was re-elected back last May [3], and we do not generally post inaugurations. The call for a coup as well as various international reactions is not sufficient to pst as ITN. --Masem (t) 23:19, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
State of emergency & international NA support refs
    • As a comment, I cannot find any source that confirms a state of emergency has been declared (at least, from English sources). --Masem (t) 00:36, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
      • This has been reported in Spanish-language sources [4] [5], although whether this specific declaration grants the National Assembly special powers in Venezuela is not clear from the articles (as is implied by the State of emergency article), and seems to be more the NA calling for drastic action and stating that Venezuela is in an emergency (rather than a State of Emergency). SpencerT•C 03:26, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
        • Pretty sure it allows the NA to bypass the Supreme Court, not 100%, though. Kingsif (talk) 04:15, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
          • The NA declared themselves in "an emergency". And I don't think that grants any special power to them, because in fact they don't have any power despite being elected. The fact is that Venezuela is now in a caos, with a president who has no recoginition from any important country in the region, but holds the "de facto" power since he controls the army and a NA that despite legally elected and internationally recognised has no real power in the country.--SirEdimon (talk) 04:28, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
            • This is why I think this is not yet notable for ITN. If they are simply stating that Maduro's new term is similar to a emergency as to try to draw citizen and foreign support, that's just talk and not anything actionable. If it truly a state of emergency declared, that's different. --Masem (t) 06:43, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
              • It’s at least a true state of emergency to the extent that other nations are willingly cutting diplomatic ties to Maduro’s government and officially recognising Guaidó’s. (Would the limits of being able to have a state of emergency under dictatorial pressure add to the emergency, discuss?) Kingsif (talk) 10:31, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
                • Who has "officially" recognized? That's a game-changer. ghost 12:20, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
                  • Germany is the one ref I can easily find (it's in current). I definitely read that maybe Mike Pence (someone high in US) Mike Pompeo that is, gave a statement on it. Here's the US and Canada. Yeah. Also, there's a lot more news for "state of emergency" if you use the term "cabildo abierto" instead - an archaic Latin American term for big emergency meeting that's probably being used by the NA for patriotism points. Kingsif (talk) 12:47, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
                    • Sorry, but there is a world of difference criticizing a leader and official recognition of the opposition (re: US & Canada; no hablo espanol re:Germany) ghost 13:12, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
      • @GreatCaesarsGhost: US statements from Pence and Pompeo (the latter saying "Today, we reiterate our support for Venezuela’s National Assembly, the only legitimate branch of government duly elected by the Venezuelan people. It is time for Venezuela to begin a transitional process that can restore the constitutional, democratic order by holding free and fair elections that respect the will of the Venezuelan people.") go quite a bit further than that, if you want to read. The Germany article opens with "El gobierno de Alemania expresó su apoyo a la Asamblea Nacional de Venezuela para que asuma el Poder Ejecutivo", which I'm sure you can put in google translate. Not sure what you're reading for Canada, the linked article directly says "[Canada] rejects the legitimacy of the new presidential term of Nicolás Maduro. We call on him to immediately cede power to the democratically-elected National Assembly". Another nation is Kosovo, small but still. Kingsif (talk) 13:24, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
      • I feel the altblurb accurately reflects the sources, no?
  • Support The situation in Venezuela is the most serious crisis in the Western Hemisphere within a generation. The article on the office of president of Venezuela is not up to scratch and should not be bolded (or even linked IMO). Otherwise we can discuss the wording of the blurb, but I agree that this is an ITN worthy event. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:54, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose: the re-election of Maduro has already been posted; an inauguration is just a logical consequence and I would only post it if some game-breaking event took place in it that grows beyond the mere inauguration (but I'm not aware of any such development here). I'm even less inclined to post the inauguration of a re-elected president, as it is just a ceremony, and the same person keeps ruling the country. As for the state of emergency, as said above, that only counts if the country was actually in a formal state of emergency; the dictator has deprived the NA of any actual power, so Guaidó's words may be meaningless. And for the call of a coup, again, that's newsworthy only if a coup (or a significant coup attempt) actually takes place. Cambalachero (talk) 14:04, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Per Cambalachero, Masem. – Sca (talk) 14:20, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Bolded articles are up-to-snuff, and the Venezuelan crisis is a major event being covered extensively in reliable news sources. I'd like to see a rewritten blurb, because the one we have is not great, it buries the lead. The lead is not the inauguration, the lead is the NA President calling for revolution. --Jayron32 14:24, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
    • Alt2 is clumsy, but is reordered to put the significant story first. Kingsif (talk) 15:05, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment – "Calling for" is not the same as doing, launching, leading. (Also, at 36 words – or 37 with the grammatically necessary "The" before "president" – Alt2 is rather long.)Sca (talk) 21:32, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • He's begun the process of, but that's even longer. Kingsif (talk) 21:39, 11 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) 2018 Democratic Republic of the Congo general electionEdit

Article: 2018 Democratic Republic of the Congo general election (talk, history)
Blurb: Félix Tshisekedi is declared the winner of the 2018 Democratic Republic of the Congo presidential election.
News source(s): Associated Press, BBC, Guardian
Nominator: Power~enwiki (talk • give credit)

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

Nominator's comments: Some reports suggest that Martin Fayulu or his supporters might dispute the results. For reference, French wiki article on the presidential election. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:45, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Support ITN drought. 100 million country. There was a chance Kabila would try to remain a president, so the fact that opposition won is both a surrpise and an important event in the history of this country as it closes the Kabila chapter for good. Openlydialectic (talk) 03:31, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support The article looks fairly good. –Ammarpad (talk) 11:18, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Sufficiently detailed and referenced prose, current event, covered appropriately by news sources. Checks all of the boxes. --Jayron32 11:44, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Posting. --Tone 11:48, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Post-posting Support - Major election & the article is very detailed. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ 15:07, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

January 9Edit

Portal:Current events/2019 January 9
Disasters and accidents

Law and crime
  • German prosecutors say, based on CCTV images, that most of AfD politician Frank Magnitz's injuries yesterday may have been sustained as he hit the ground after having been elbowed once by three people and falling over. Magnitz says the attack may have been an attempted robbery. (Deutsche Welle)

Politics and elections

Science and technology

(Posted) RD: Anatoly LukyanovEdit

Article: Anatoly Lukyanov (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The New York Times
Nominator: TDKR Chicago 101 (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: Updated and well sourced --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 05:53, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

  • The second paragraph in the lede seems to contain heavy editorializing and is the only unsourced paragraph there. –Ammarpad (talk) 11:26, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Now sourced. –Ammarpad (talk) 01:39, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Looks ok.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:59, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Posting. --Tone 09:25, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

January 8Edit

Portal:Current events/2019 January 8
Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime
  • A Polish woman, Elżbieta Piotrowska, is attacked with an axe and dies from her injuries in Ardee, County Louth, Ireland. A man known to her was later arrested.(RTÉ)
  • An attack on a primary school in Beijing leaves 20 children injured, with three children receiving serious but non-life-threatening injuries. All injured children are receiving hospital treatment. The suspect was apprehended at the scene and an investigation has been launched. (AP News)
  • German politician Frank Magnitz, a member of the AfD party, was beaten unconscious by three masked assailants in the city of Bremen on Monday. AfD party leader Alice Weidel calls the attack an "assassination attempt" and politicians from other German parties condemn the attack. (BBC)
  • Aftermath of the Humboldt Broncos bus crash
    • Jaskirat Sidhu, the driver involved in a fatal crash involving the Humboldt Broncos, pleads guilty to 29 charges against him, including 16 counts of dangerous operation of motorized vehicle causing death and 13 counts of dangerous operation of motor vehicle causing bodily injury. (Sporting News) (CBC)
  • List of UAV-related incidents

Politics and elections

Science and technology

January 7Edit

Portal:Current events/2019 January 7
Armed conflicts and attacks

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sports

Ukrainian ship sinks in the Black SeaEdit

Article: MV Volgo-Balt 214 (talk, history)
Blurb: Ukrainian cargo ship sinks in the Black Sea killing six crew members while seven survive.
News source(s): Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Maritime Executive, ABC News
Nominator: CeeGee (talk • give credit)

 CeeGee 08:11, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment – Of marginal significance. Stubby article needs verb-tense updating. Sca (talk) 13:46, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose – not really of immediate worldwide interest. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:56, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Private or non-passenger-carrying transport disasters are generally not ITN-worthy, barring extraordinary circumstances, which I'm not seeing here. --Masem (t) 17:49, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Edwin EricksonEdit

Article: Edwin Erickson (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Deleware County Daily Times
Nominator and updater: 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 politician DannyS712 (talk) 19:54, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Support - Good to go.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:15, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: Insufficient coverage of his political career. Edwin_Erickson#Pennsylvania_Senate lists committees that he was on, but what were important pieces of legislation he passed, what political positions did he take, special projects, etc.? [6] gives examples of some things he was involved in during his time in county government. SpencerT•C 02:07, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
    I've added some more. --DannyS712 (talk) 04:40, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Looks OK for RD. –Ammarpad (talk) 11:29, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support as nom.   Note: I have marked this as ready given that its been over a day since the last comment and we haven't seen any "oppose" !votes. --DannyS712 (talk) 17:32, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
    • Unmarking ready; there are remaining [citation needed] tags in the article. Once those are resolved, this is good to go. SpencerT•C 01:41, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
      • @Spencer: remarked as ready. Citations added for every single CN tag present! --DannyS712 (talk) 17:18, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted. SpencerT•C 19:47, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) 2019 College Football Playoff National ChampionshipEdit

There are two sides in this discussion, both with strong arguments, none of which seems to prevail. But, with the length of the discussion exceeding the length of the prose in the article itself, I think it is time we close this. Feel free to revert me if you think you can tip the scales. --Tone 09:03, 10 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.

Nominator's comments: This is one of the major sporting events in the U.S. for 2019. It has not been posted by ITN yet, but I still believe it should be. My nomination from last year and User:Thryduulf 's well stated closing statement is at Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates/January_2018#[Closed] 2018 College Football Playoff National Championship at "[Closed] 2018 College Football Playoff National Championship" (p.s. what am I doing wrong that I can't link directly to that archived section?) The annual college basketball championship is on WP:ITN/R, so there's room for amateur competitions. And remember not to oppose it because it has no international impact. It's purely a debate about whether or not it's sufficiently newsworthy. I can point to all the live update sites run, like NY Times, Sporting News, CBS Sports, Washington Post, and The Guardian, which suggests it is. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:46, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Note I fixed the section link --DannyS712 (talk) 05:10, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support as updater – perfectly summed up by Muboshgu, there are countless sites providing live updates and stats; additionally, this Clemson team is the first since Penn in 1897 to finish a season 15–0, making the game that much more historic. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 04:52, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Additional comment – some sources for the 1897 Penn claim: (1) Penn's 1897 Football Team Last To Win National Title With 15-0 Record; Alabama, Clemson Looking To Join Tonight, (2) Guys, 15-0 Clemson might be even better than the 1897 Penn Quakers!, (3) 15-0: The 1897 Penn football team. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 05:13, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Yeah, it's a pretty big thing--but in the US only. The Guardian has been pretty US-focused as well. Drmies (talk) 05:15, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose this hardly makes the news outside of the US. I supported it last year, but only because the blurbs were old; this is not the case right now. Banedon (talk) 05:17, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. I support having an article on the outcome of the game providing the article is well-referenced and up to scratch. At the moment it needs referencing in several sections most notably related to match stats. If referencing is fixed, I will support. Capitalistroadster (talk) 05:18, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Sourcing for the play-by-play and game statistics has now been added. Dmoore5556 (talk) 05:36, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support as a contributor – coverage outside the US includes Canada, UK, and Mexico. Dmoore5556 (talk) 05:27, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Whereas the NCAA Basketball is a true tourney approach based on season records and a bracket elimination tourney, the BCS for football is nowhere close to a true championship series, as it involves the subjective placement of teams by coaches and reporters, rather than any outright measurement of skill. --Masem (t) 05:42, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Comment@Masem: for what it's worth: (1) FBS college football retired use of the BCS system following the 2013 season; this season is the fifth in which the champion has been decided from the four-team College Football Playoff system; (2) the teams that participate in the College Football Playoff are the top four teams in the final College Football Playoff rankings, which are decided upon by the CFP committee, not "coaches and reporters"; (3) said College Football Playoff committee is made up of thirteen members, which is more than can be said about the NCAA basketball tournament's nine-member selection committee; (4) the size of a tournament does not make it notable - take, for example, The Basketball Tournament 2018 - the mere fact that it has more teams than the CFP (72 vs. 4) does not make it more notable (TBT does not make any appearances on the main page); (5) Most of the NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament's 68 participants are far less notable than the CFP's 4 participants (for example, 2017–18 Radford Highlanders men's basketball team vs. 2018 Notre Dame Fighting Irish football team is really a no contest); and (6) you provide no evidence that the CFP is not, as you say, "a true tourney approach based on season records," as wins and losses are some of the main criteria that the CFP committee consider. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 06:08, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
The committee has at their disposal the famous Sagarin ratings, very scientific and made by a computer that's incapable of human bias. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:32, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Support While it may not be news outside the US, it is still news and is being covered by every major US newspaper. Another reason I support is that while it may not be a true championship, it's still widely covered and it is watched by many people. ~ Philipnelson99 (talk) 07:15, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

  • "Please do not 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." 331dot (talk) 07:20, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose posting any amateur university sporting contest (yes that includes the Boat Race). These are not the top level of competition in any sport, of interest mostly to alumni, of extremely limited eligibility, and fall far short of the standards we should apply to sporting blurbs on ITN. Even worse in this case, the (semi-)finalists are chosen subjectively, not even from a proper tournament. Every year someone nominates this, and every year it gets shot down. Just no. Modest Genius talk 11:28, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
[7]. I can guarantee you the 10% of Americans that watched aren't mostly alumni. There are thousands of colleges in the US and 39% of Americans left school between their 16th birthday and end of grade 12 and don't have a college alma mater at all. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:16, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Comment@Serial Number 54129: as was pointed out by 331dot above, "Please do not 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."
Comment @PCN02WPS: No, I'll continue to oppose the posting of MPT. And if you could remember to sign your posts, we'll all be a little better off. ——SerialNumber54129 10:53, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I don't buy the argument of the playoff system giving the NCAA Football tournament more legitimacy. If you can be undefeated UCF with a perfect W/L record and still be shut out of the playoffs by one-loss Oklahoma, your system is a sham. But more to the point, sports stories have a higher bar to cross in order to be posted on ITN. As a sport, it's not notable internationally, despite being a national sensation. It functions as a gateway into pro football for amateur players, and that's really the crux of the matter and why this never gets posted; we already post pro football. WaltCip (talk) 12:04, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Oklahoma had stronger opponents (12.23 points stronger according to the most famous computer ranking (done by a statistician who's been doing this for decades)) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:30, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support In response to WaltCip's point, yes we already post pro football but only one event per year - I think there is room for one college football event too, and it's definitely newsworthy. (By the way, is there a reason why the blurb links to Gridiron football and not the more familiar American football)?-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:21, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Every rationale for opposition can be countered by a sporting event that is ITNR. 1. No global impact 2. Amateur event 3. Not the top tier etc. We post dozens of sporting events each year, but for some reason this one spurs immense fervor in opposition. What is the great harm in posting this? ghost 14:36, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose – On lack of general significance. Sca (talk) 14:46, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Article has quality prose, and is well updated, and subject is a recent event being covered sufficiently by major news sources. --Jayron32 15:35, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - The college football national championship is a major news story in the US, and the article looks well updated and well sourced. The objections to posting seem to be based either on the fact that it isn't a major news story outside the US, or that the current playoff system doesn't do a good job of choosing the champion. The former objection is clearly invalid based on the instructions on this page, while the latter objection seems to have nothing to do with the criteria for posting. Calathan (talk) 21:09, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per Dmoore5556. -- Tavix (talk) 21:17, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Every single year this gets posted on Candidates and every single year it gets a ton of Oppose votes. I don't understand why people don't think this is a event worth posting, it is covered by all major news outlets in the US and tons of people watch it every year. College football is one of the most-watched sports in the US, and the people here should treat it like it is. Swordman97 talk to me 23:51, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
    • If you've lived in a country where English is not the main language of communication, you'll understand why this gets a ton of oppose votes. Banedon (talk) 04:46, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose The points made that this has a lot of coverage and the article is very well updated do not compensate that this is an amateur competition, the playoff featured four selected teams and that the sport is not as popular as football or tennis. Some people may argue that there should be more place for such sport stories on the main page but my opinion is a resounding no. The recently concluded FIFA Club World Cup had better coverage than this with a very well update on its final and, unlike this one, it featured the best players in the world in a much more popular sport. But it did not get posted and it shouldn't, leaving no chance for this either.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:18, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
@Kiril Simeonovski: Michigan Stadium, a college stadium, is the largest capacity stadium in the United States; other college stadiums are close behind. College football is just as if not more popular than NFL professional football(whose championship is ITNR) Marketing, staff salaries, and "scholarships"(i.e. salaries) make this not a simple amateur competition. "Not as popular as football(soccer) and tennis" would rule out most ITNR listed sports. 331dot (talk) 08:25, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Maybe it was, but I don't recall the 2018 FIFA Club World Cup being nominated. 331dot (talk) 08:27, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
@331dot: I don't buy the arguments that the stadium has the highest capacity and that this is even more popular than the NFL. Most ITNR-listed sport items are just the top-tier competition or events that make a global impact by allowing all countries in the world to field teams but there are also some that do not merit inclusion on their recurrence. The loophole in that listing is, however, not compelling in support to this. We have the Super Bowl in less than a month, which is the best of its kind, and that's enough for this sport.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:51, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Eleven soccer competitions are ITNR, as are five rugby union championships, so I don't buy the argument "with the NFL enough football is posted". 331dot (talk) 08:57, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
There is precisely one country where gridiron football is popular, where as association foot ball is enjoyed in well over 50 countries, rugby in at least a dozen. hence why we should not give one sport centric to one one country more itn slots. --Masem (t) 09:07, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
The Canadians might disagree. Please point me to the rule which says sports only get one slot a year per country. It isn't the NFL's fault that college football is as, if not more popular. 331dot (talk) 09:20, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Do the Canadians play the same football as the Americans? Banedon (talk) 12:36, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
They're not quite as different as Rugby League vs. Union, but pretty different. You'd expect the 2nd tier NFL castoffs to dominate the CFL, but that doesn't happen much. The NFL and American college game is quite different as well. The rule differences are seemingly negligible, but it has a dramatic effect on game play. ghost 12:47, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
There's no "rule" outside of the general advice to work against systematic bias. Events in the US preferentially dominate the media so the fact that the NCAA game was reported far and wide is nothing out of the ordinary. But it still basically means that gridiron football is nearly an American-specific game (CFL does not yet have the same type of penetration). So we should be careful how much to promote a sport dominated by one country, and particularly being well aware of the impact of media from that country on worldwide coverage. --Masem (t) 17:31, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Your points are not invalid, but this is not a slippery slope situation. We're talking about ONE additional gridiron event, totaling two. The 11/5 events cited by 331dot are just ITNR; we post others ad hoc as well. The support is massive and eclipses many events on ITNR. Earlier you objected to the selection criteria -- but there are multiple ITNR items (Ashes, TBR, The Rugby Championship) that have set invitees and make no attempt to invite the best teams. I get that many people don't like gridiron and see it as regional, but the idea that we would keep something off ITN because it is only relevant in the country where most of our readers are is absurd. The reason US editors are so passionate about this is because we are creating a profoundly odd experience for nearly half our readership when they come here today and see a darts competition and not the CFP. They don't perceive this as worldly; they see it as snobbish and anti-proletariat. "WP is for high-minded subjects. If we deign to mention sport, it shall be be only those favored in the Olde Country! Chess, Rugby, rowing competitions at thousand year old colleges... that sort of thing." ghost 12:47, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Events like Ashes and the Boat Race, even though they have select invites, are considered the top events in their respective sports. Whereas the NCAA championship is clearly second to the Super Bowl (and there, there's clearly a whole season and playoff structure to determine who plays). --Masem (t) 17:31, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
"Considered the top events in their sports" is inherently problematic as it speaks to the somewhat odd organization of their sports. The Ashes may be the top test event, but it is not contested by the top test sides (nor does it attempt to). It's an apples to oranges comparison, but it's decidedly imbalanced to permit that while condemning CFP for its "subjective placement of teams...rather than any outright measurement of skill." ghost 21:20, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
@Kiril Simeonovski: As User:Thryduulf said when closing last year's discussion, "there is consensus that being an amateur event is not, on it's own, a reason to oppose" – Muboshgu (talk) 16:54, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
@Muboshgu: Please do not quote me with selective context, I actually wrote: "[T]here is consensus that being an amateur event is not, on it's own, a reason to oppose, but such events are not as inherently significant as professional ones in sports that have both. There is consensus that where an event is not the top level of the sport there needs to be some other indication of importance or significance, but there [was] no consensus for there being such in this case, particularly given the limited international interest." and all parts of that carry equal weighting. Consensus can of course change, and I have not assessed whether it has or has not. Thryduulf (talk) 17:43, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
@Thryduulf: I apologize if I misrepresented what you wrote. However, the evidence is that with the college basketball championship, Ashes, and Boat Race all on ITN/R, there is consensus that certain amateur contests are worthy. Otherwise they wouldn't be ITNR. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:45, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
@Muboshgu: I know nothing about college basketball or why it's on ITNR, but The Ashes is not an amateur contest. The point I think you are missing is that it is not necessary to prove that amateur events in general are worthy of being posted at ITN, but you have to show why this amateur event is worthy of being posted at ITN - for example The Boat Race is by far the most significant rowing event in terms of public engagement, etc. despite it being an amateur event in a sport that also has professional contests. People all around the world who don't care one jot about rowing 364 days a year turn up/tune in to watch it live, and the same is true of the Superbowl. Thryduulf (talk) 18:01, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
@Thryduulf: And yet, at least two of the oppose votes in this discussion are opposing it simply for being an amateur event. That was my only point in bringing up your closing statement from last year: that this should be judged on its own merits and not opposed for being amateur. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:07, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
You're right, it shouldn't be opposed simply for being an amateur event. It's generally opposed because it's a rather insignificant event compared to other events in its sport (e.g. Super Bowl) and other events of its level (e.g. Boat Race). Look at the comparisons in worldwide popularity, college playoffs even simply as a phrase means nothing to most. Kingsif (talk) 03:37, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support International coverage; wide interest on par with other sporting events posted on ITN; solid prose update in the article. SpencerT•C 16:44, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose I have two problems with this; one, is the fact it's something that isn't the top tier of the sport - indeed, it's actually amateur sport. We do occasionally post items along those lines, but they tend to be ones with worldwide appeal. So looking at that angle, it might well be very, very, popular in one country (and we shouldn't reject it purely because of that, per the ITN rules) ... but without wishing to invoke WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, on that basis we would be posting at ITN every time that India played Pakistan at test cricket - games that get many times the audience of this one - and that would be ridiculous. The double effect of "not highest level in the sport" and "very much concentrated in one country" is what leads me to oppose this. Black Kite (talk) 17:21, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support International coverage demonstrated above. I don't care about football but I'm seeing it all over the news, so notability shouldn't be in question. Davey2116 (talk) 18:47, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi sports fans and welcome to the ITN Blather Semifinals. We've scored 3,800 words on this topic and there's more to come – stay tuned!Sca (talk) 21:55, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Chipping in because everyone else seems to be. I support college football as much as the next guy, but let's be honest, most people don't know about the sport. Yes, really. It's played professionally in a grand total of three countries, and this isn't a professional competition. It's not ITN/R, even if other college competitions are, and recent professional international association football/soccer/football-as-most-of-the-world-knows-it competitions weren't posted to ITN because they weren't the top competition (i.e. not the World Cup). This isn't the Super Bowl; to post it (with this comparison) would be blatant US-centrism. Kingsif (talk) 01:28, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
    • @Kingsif: Doesn't matter how many countries play gridiron football, doesn't matter that it's not professional, doesn't matter that it's not ITN/R, doesn't matter that it isn't the Super Bowl. Comparison to lesser association football competitions is unjust because soccer is overrepresented on ITN/R and gridiron football gets two a year. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:35, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Now 4,500 and still in play! Sca (talk) 02:40, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you, Sca, and Objection! your honor. Did you say "lesser"? Not sure how international, professional competitions are "lesser" than four colleges having a random selection playoff. And did you say "overrepresented"? Tell how being not posted because it's not the top comp or ITN/R equals "overrepresented on ITN/R"? Both are the exact opposite of your claims. It's really very simple: I like it. You like it. Unfortunately, it's of zero consequence to an overwhelming majority. Gridiron football gets more than two competitions a year, many more if you count college games. Of course, the World Cup is once every four years and still apparently the only viable soccer competition to be posted on ITN. How is this anything but an easy oppose? It has less provenance, less newsworthyness, less coverage, and less international appeal than major soccer competitions that didn't get posted. If you think, despite all that, that it's still worthy, then you are believing that US colleges are inherently more significant in the world than top-tier international elite athletes. Which is utterly false. Kingsif (talk) 03:27, 10 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: Tom RukavinaEdit

Article: Tom Rukavina (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Duluth News Tribune
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) 23:54, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Support Looks good to go. Hrodvarsson (talk) 00:14, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. Well referenced. Capitalistroadster (talk) 04:22, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - Refs look good. Good to go.BabbaQ (talk) 09:11, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 22:46, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Gabonese coup attemptEdit

Article: 2019 Gabonese coup d'état attempt (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Eight soldiers are arrested and two executed after a failed coup attempt to oust Gabonese President Ali Bongo Ondimba.
News source(s): BBC, NYT, AP
Nominator: Ammarpad (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: Soldiers ousted ailing Ali Bingo "to restore democracy." The article is just a stub, bringing it here for attention, so we can have post-able prose in a few hours. –Ammarpad (talk) 08:31, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Support probably important, although I admit I don't know where the hell Gabon even is Openlydialectic (talk) 09:25, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose stub. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:29, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
    Oppose nothing to see here. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:09, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait This is still developing. According to BBC, the government says they have things under control, in which case the article should be renamed as "coup attempt". We'll see as the story develops. --Tone 10:17, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I updated the nomination, as the coup has failed and plotters arrested. –Ammarpad (talk) 13:07, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Neutral much of the article fusses over internet disruption without explaining its relevance in the narrative. ——SerialNumber54129 13:39, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait – They went on TV to announce their coup. Let's see if this develops into anything substantive. Sca (talk) 13:53, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support on notability - it's not ready to post yet, as it's a stub and doens't really cover the event in detail. But if the article is expanded then certainly. This was international news, and if it happened in a more "famous" country there is not a shadow of a doubt it would be posted.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:56, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait Well the article is not ready for submission right now but, being about coup attempt, it is guaranteed to expand so on the basis of article's quality I may soon be supporting it and as far as notability is concerned, it is receiving enough coverage (although not as much as coup attempts usually get, as in case of Turkey in 2016).Amir (talk) 14:16, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support on notability - I can't comment on how far the article is from covering the story in detail, but I don't think notability is in question here. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ 14:17, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose – According to the BBC, the five leaders of the coup have been arrested. AP corroborates and reports two coup participants were killed. Looks like the coup has fizzled. Something not happening usually is not considered ITN material. Sca (talk) 18:07, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Though Turkey is a much larger country, the 2016 Turkish coup d'état attempt very much failed. Despite how it didn't succeed at any of its goals, and those involved were purged, it was unquestionably regarded as a notable event. The only way we can say that the attempt in Turkey was important but the attempt in Gabon was unimportant is if we invent new arbitrary standards like "the Turkish coup forces had access to more weapons than the Gabon forces" or "the one in Gabon shut down the internet, but the one in Turkey shut down newspapers and TV stations" etc, which would really boil down to one happening in a major country and another in a very small country. Brendon the Wizard ✉️
  • There's a vast difference between a coup attempted that involved thousands of people (like Turkey) and one that involved exactly 5 (this one). This seemed far less like a serious threat than anything else. --Masem (t) 19:48, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support on notability - definitely for ITN.BabbaQ (talk) 19:12, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It appears that five guys got on TV, announced they were taking over, and were arrested afterwards. AFAIK there was no large scale violence and the capital Libreville is described as calm by sources. 331dot (talk) 19:54, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose assuming nothing more happens. Article isn't good enough and the events (just 5 participants?) weren't significant enough. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:55, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Five soldiers led by a lieutenant does not constitute a credible coup. Modest Geniustalk 20:17, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support requiring large scale violence to post this kind of thing makes no sense. This will be heavily in the news (at least in the country) for a while, and that's good enough. Banedon (talk) 20:48, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
According to Banedon 's user page, "Banedon" does not exist. Sca (talk) 21:14, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
If I burst into a TV studio broadcasting live and announced I was taking over the US government, I would get hauled off to a mental hospital and get barely a mention in the news. This isn't that much different. 331dot (talk) 21:18, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
But you'd make the news. You'd trigger wide investigations into whether you were acting alone or if there's any credible threat. You'd make people wonder if the FBI should have detected what you were going to do before you actually did it. If the would-be coup were significant enough to attract coverage from major news sources, it should be suitable for ITN as well. Banedon (talk) 23:06, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Say what? Sca (talk) 02:33, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
There's nothing to see here. Move along. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:08, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment wait, wut?! People were trying to overthrow someone the Atlantic Council wanted to give a Global Citizen Award? And you want that on ITN/Wikipedia :D ? Will read page before !voting, per power. SashiRolls t · c 21:25, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Seems to be more so a case of drunken insubordination or a few soldiers' gross overestimation of revolutionary potential than a consequential attempt at overthrowing the government. Hrodvarsson (talk) 00:21, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Shades of 1991 Soviet coup d'état attempt, writ small. Sca (talk) 02:37, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
If this is in fact comparable to the Soviet coup attempt, I don't think that helps the case that it's unimportant considering that the Soviet coup attempt was one of the contributing factors in the country shattering. As for what the long-term consequences of the rare African coup attempt will be, we can't know, but it unquestionably destabilized the country and isn't off of the minds of the people who live there. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ 15:47, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support: Regardless of its size and lack of success, this is clearly an important incident for Gabon and the rest of Central Africa. Coups are getting significantly rarer in Africa in general, and this is the first in Gabon since 1964 I believe. Is it really less notable than the World Darts Championship it would displace?—Brigade Piron (talk) 08:13, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
I'd add that African news is seriously underrepresented on this page, something that Wikipedia has long intended to address. —Brigade Piron (talk) 08:15, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support as per User:Brigade Piron. [8] This source talks of the context: lower petroleum output and prices, the aftermath of the 2016 "election", an ailing kleptocratic son-of-a-dictator president, unwavering support of the international community with France leading the troops... It was more than five soldiers, since two were killed and seven arrested, according to Reuters. Also, a witness saw around 300 people on the street in Libreville, supporting the coup attempt. That's as many daring citizens as France has soldiers in Gabon. Wakari07 (talk) 09:49, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose the article is still too short and I'm not convinced by the significance either.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:45, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
That's why it already has faded from major news sites. Sca (talk) 14:55, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
I don't think you can say it's faded from major news sites when more articles have been written on major news sites since you announced that it's faded. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ 15:47, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
That's a second-day AP story in one newspaper – one I wouldn't call a major news site these days. One that is a major site, NYT, has a second-day story about Gabon officials "inspecting the state radio station where security officers thwarted a coup attempt by army soldiers on Monday." Not significant.
It's not on the AP's main site or the BBC's, nor on Reuters. ("This source" – Reuters story linked by Wakari07 above – is two days old.) Oddly, the Guardian still offers yesterday's video of the plotters' ill-fated TV appearance, but obviously that's old news. It's over. Suggest close. Sca (talk) 18:00, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
So the Washington Post & AP aren't major news sites anymore? That's the first time I've heard that one. Nevertheless, you mention NYT is a major site, so here's an NYT article about it from a couple of hours ago. Here's another article from today and another from 29 minutes ago and another from less than a day ago and another and another. Sure, you could say AllAfrica.com isn't a major news site in America but this isn't really an American story. Most of these stories are about the consequences of the coup, but that only demonstrates that it wasn't an inconsequential unimportant event. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ 17:40, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per the convincing arguments above (some of the opposers have been acting extremely immaturely here btw). Heavily in the news and similar in impact to the failed Turkish coup attempt, which we posted. Davey2116 (talk) 23:38, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
On the contrary - the supports have been saying "a coup is a coup" where the opposition has been showing the cooler heads. From what I've read these guys couldn't have overthrown a Chuck E Cheese's. ghost 02:02, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
There's no consequences to overthrowing a Chuck E Cheese's. If a large European country's internet was shut down & military officers were arrested or executed, it would be posted in a heartbeat. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ 17:33, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes it would. Is there any evidence the coup plotters were responsible for the outage? ghost 21:49, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes; the existing evidence leads to 1 of 2 possibilities: 1) the coup plotters are responsible directly by shutting it down themselves 2) the coup plotters are responsible indirectly as it was shut down by civilians in response to the coup. Source: "The NetBlocks internet shutdown observatory has detected evidence of a major internet disruption in Gabon at 7:00AM UTC Monday 7 January 2018. Affected population centres include Libreville and Port-Gentil. The shutdown comes as military forces have reportedly gained power, with President Ali Bongo reportedly abroad seeking medical treatment. It is presently unclear whether civilian or military forces are responsible for the disruption." Brendon the Wizard ✉️ 23:16, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
@Sca: ghost's user page says ghost "does not exist". What gives? Davey2116 (talk) 18:53, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Incidentally, where's the "systemic bias" crowd? They're everywhere when we're trying to post the James Comey firing or the Kavanaugh confirmation or a freaking government shutdown (18 days and counting), saying we wouldn't post a corresponding event from a small African country. But now when there's a coup attempt in a small African country, there's no one saying we wouldn't not post a corresponding event from a Western country. What gives? Davey2116 (talk) 23:46, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Davey's user page is blank. What gives? Sca (talk) 02:46, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
User:Sca: that's not an argument, and I think you know that. Wakari07 (talk) 09:05, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Personal user pages are optional. Not creating one doesn't mean you're not allowed to comment on talk pages. If Davey2116 is a newcomer, you should know not to WP:BITE them over not doing something that's not even required & has nothing to do with the discussion. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ 17:27, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm still not sure what to think about this, but I am certain that the 2018-2019 Sudanese protests entry needs first work then posting to ITN. As I posted at the portal yesterday, it's tens of thousands of protestors... (If I had more time to work on it I would.) SashiRolls t · c 21:02, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Event is a current event, which is covered properly by legitimate news sources, and the article and its referencing is of sufficient quality. I'd probably like to see a bit longer article, but it's past the stub stage, hits all the major points, and it's well referenced. --Jayron32 17:45, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak support I have been against this but the latest news suggests something a bit more violent and life-threatening (hostages taken, etc.) than the initial reports made it seem. Still seems like a very ineffective way to try to coup. --Masem (t) 18:24, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: Insufficient coverage to be ready for ITN at this point. A standalone article should have sections, not just a single text section and references +/- an infobox. SpencerT•C 00:03, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Time to reassess? The article has been expanded and structured and I guess this is as good as it will get. --Tone 08:56, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support – The article looks good, the news is currently in the news, and it is the perfect example of Wikipedia as a dynamic resource, pointing readers to a subject they might not have been looking for but nonetheless may interest them (per Purpose). ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:06, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Ok, posted. The consensus initially was against since the story was developing but now it has shifted to support. --Tone 09:08, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

January 6Edit

Portal:Current events/2019 January 6
Arts and culture

Disasters and accidents
  • At least 30 people are killed after a gold mine collapses in north-eastern Afghanistan. (BBC)
  • The death toll from a storm that devastated the Philippines shortly after Christmas rises to 126. (News24)

Politics and elections
Science and technology

Muhammad V abdicatesEdit

Article: Muhammad V of Kelantan (talk, history)
Blurb: Muhammad V of Kelantan, the 15th King of Malaysia abdicates.
News source(s): The Guardian & etc.
Nominator: Ad Orientem (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: Change of head of state. Section on early life needs a few refs but article is not in horrible shapes. Ad Orientem (talk) 15:40, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment Abdication of a reigning monarch is a big deal, so this is an automatic support on notability. The article, however, needs a separate section on his abdication that will be highlighted in the blurb instead of his name.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:25, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment you make it sound as if its a big deal, the term king is malaysia is not like european kings that the throne goes to thier children after decades holding the throne, here every 3-5 years the newly elected king leave his job and a new king from another state is elected. lots of sultans who keep selecting as kings and so on and so on. the deputy king will take the job until he also resign which by than his deputy will be crowned.   – HonorTheKing (talk) 21:35, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support: The sudden unexplained abdication seems pretty unusual. Apparently nothing remotely like this has happened before. He also seems to have married a Russian woman about six weeks ago (and hasn't released any public statement confirming or denying or explaining that). It seems likely that the two events are related. —BarrelProof (talk) 08:19, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - as above. unusual abdication. BabbaQ (talk) 19:13, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
  • This is ITNR, so there's no need to support or oppose. This should go up once the article is ready. However, right now it is very bare bones; I'm amazed we have such a short and uninformative article for someone who was head of state of Malaysia for several years, and won the position through an election. The article currently has just one sentence on the abdication - that should be at least a fully-referenced paragraph. Modest Genius talk 20:23, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment If we post this, we ought to be describing him as "Sultan Muhammad V of Malaysia", which seems to be the most common descriptor, and would be consistent with the way we describe European nobility and royalty. I'm unsure why the article is not at that title, but it should either be moved or piped. Vanamonde (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
A quick look shows that the articles for the monarchs of Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Belgium, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and Spain (Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden, Margrethe II of Denmark, Harald V of Norway, Philippe of Belgium, Willem-Alexander of the Netherlands, Elizabeth II, and Felipe VI of Spain) do not include the titles. That is to say, none of the reigning kings and queens of Europe have the word "king" or "queen" in the titles of their Wikipedia articles. TompaDompa (talk) 08:10, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
He was the King (Yang di-Pertuan Agong), not the Sultan of Malaysia. He's Muhammad, Sultan of Kelantan, the fifth of the name from the current dynasty. Wakari07 (talk) 10:09, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes, the numbering is for his sultanate, which is not the same as king of Malaysia. Modest Genius talk 11:31, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
They may not have their titles in front of their names, but many still have their titles in the article title; see Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, for instance. Besides which, when we have posted British royal weddings, we have definitely included the titles of the individuals involved in the blurbs: see [9], for instance. Vanamonde (talk) 16:34, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Not ITNR ITNR seems to be for the election or succession of a new head of state, not the removal/resignation of the old. Typically this would be simultaneous, but not here. ghost 14:22, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Well, this is simultaneous. It's a first-ever event, and just yesterday, six of the nine ruling families agreed to elect a new king (on 24 January, taking office the 31st) – instead of letting the Acting King remain in office until the end of the term. [10] Wakari07 (talk) 16:07, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
That's not what "simultaneous" means. This guy is gone already. The new guy is elected more than two weeks from now. This is not quantum physics. Consider the pope: there is always an interregnum, but the death/abdication of the old one is not ITNR. ghost 16:28, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Readers don't care whether an item is included on bare significance or on ITN/R criteria. Don't you think the death of the Pope would be mentioned? Wakari07 (talk) 16:47, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support on significance. As per several users, the inclusion is warranted under the WP:ITN/R criteria, paragraph "Elections and heads of state". Wakari07 (talk) 16:16, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Are we missing an update on the article? Based on the Guardian, there is definitely at least a paragraph of information we should have that there was speculation that he was going to step down, and definitely the body is missing the statement that he stepped down. --Masem (t) 16:33, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Even on the Malay Wikipedia article, there's barely one sentence, approximately translated as "On 6 January 2019, he had resigned the federal throne as the Yang di-Pertuan Agong and became the first Yang di-Pertuan Agong to step down from the federal throne in the history of Malaysia". I suppose the Malaysian people have other things to do than to speculate about the past or the future. The royal palace gave no reason for the move. This article suggests that the real reason may be in pressure from the Council of Rulers, with the rumours about the marriage only the tipping point. The same source says that a New Straits Times editorial insists that he "stepped down" and didn't abdicate. Wakari07 (talk) 17:49, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
As long as we state that the speculation is speculation, and the speculation is coming from expert sources, and doesn't dip into BLP, then I think there should be some inclusion of ideas why. But still, lack of anything in the body (when I last looked) means this is not properly updated. --Masem (t) 18:19, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose – That such an abdication is "unprecedented," per our article on Muhammad V, doesn't seem broadly significant. Note that the article contains no separate section on his abdication, merely saying in the lead that he abdicated on Jan. 6. There's apparently no separate article on the abdication either. Not even remotely enough information for ITN. Sca (talk) 18:26, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
A few sentences in article space may be ready by 31 January, when his successor is sworn in and takes office. [11] Wakari07 (talk) 18:37, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait Removing the improper ITNR tag. The election of the successor is ITNR, so let's wait and post that. ghost 01:53, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait per ghost. In the (likely not too distant) future we can post something along the lines of: (name) is crowned the 16th King of Malaysia following the abdication of Muhammad V of Kelantan. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ 15:14, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

January 5Edit

Portal:Current events/2019 January 5
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Politics and elections

(Closed) RD: Dragoslav ŠekularacEdit

Stale (non-admin closure) --DannyS712 (talk) 23:32, 12 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: Dragoslav Šekularac (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): fox sports, ny times
Nominator: DannyS712 (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: Serbian footballer. Overall article is in okay shape. --DannyS712 (talk) 17:23, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now: There are a lot of missing references including the entire "club career" and "honors" sections - Dumelow (talk) 20:39, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose mostly unreferenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:53, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now The article could certainly use some cleanup, but it's mostly satisfactory. It needs a few more citations (especially on the unreferenced sections) and possibly a few MoS tweaks and it should be ready. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ 15:58, 10 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: Scott DozierEdit

Article: Scott Dozier (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 murderer and death row inmate. Looks OK, I have been through and cut out uncited statements Dumelow (talk) 12:02, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Support good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:09, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment the last paragraph before "death" is out of date ("The next court hearing regarding the case is scheduled for September 10, 2018", "A response to this motion request is due August 16, 2018."). Probably needs fixing (or removing) before posting. Black Kite (talk) 13:12, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Black Kite, I've now updated that section. Seems the court case with the drug company is still ongoing - Dumelow (talk) 14:38, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 04:04, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Tomos on Ukrainian autocephalyEdit

Article: 2018 Moscow–Constantinople schism (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople Bartholomew I grants autocephaly to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church.
Alternative blurb: ​The Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople Bartholomew I grants autocephaly to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church in the ongoing schism within Eastern Orthodox Christianity.
Alternative blurb II: ​The Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople Bartholomew I grants autocephaly to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church in the ongoing schism within Eastern Orthodox Christianity.
News source(s): BBC, RFERL, AP
Nominator: Brandmeister (talk • give credit)

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: The previous decision on this was to wait until tomos is issued, which has happened today. Article needs update. Brandmeistertalk 14:42, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Support pending improvements to the blurb. It should reflect the controversy surrounding the move, the fact that neither of the existing churches accepted the move on Constantinopole's part, and that the Russian church and it's child church in the Ukraine (the largest religious denomination in the country) explicitly denounced the move Openlydialectic (talk) 17:39, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per Openlydialectic, and noting the last few ITN noms about the progress in this all deferred to this date. Kingsif (talk) 19:35, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support alt blurb This is finally it. I think the alt blurb better reflects the big picture. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:51, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment – No expert on Orthodox Christianity here, but I'd be nervous about "precipitating a major schism." Isn't it about freeing the Ukrainian church from Russian Orthodox hegemony? Historically, "schism" seems to refer more to doctrinal differences, which don't seem to be at play here. – Sca (talk) 23:02, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Schism in the Christian sense generally refers to a breaking of sacramental communion, or among non-sacramental Protestants, withdrawal from fellowship. At the moment approximately half of the worlds 300 million Orthodox Christians are no longer in communion with the See of Constantinople. And not one of the world's canonical autocephalous churches (with the obvious exception of the EP) have recognized this act. Most have criticized it and all continue to recognize the self governing Ukrainian Orthodox Church as the canonical church in Ukraine. Yes, this is a schism. And if it is not settled quickly it could become the worst since 1054 which split the Christian world between East (Orthodox) and West (Roman Catholic). I realize that for those who do not follow religious news, this sort of thing with debates over ancient church canons, ecclesiology and so on is likely to put one into a coma of boredom. But it really is a massively significant event. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:01, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
On top of that, from what I understand, many outside of Russia criticized the Constantinopole's decision because A) it is pretty obviously political and has little to do with religious rules B) creates a bad precedent of direct meddling into affairs of an autocephalous church by the ecumential patriarch, Pope-style. The latter is especially important since no one can guarantee the Ecum. Patriarch won't then move to give independence to churches of Macedonia/Montenegro/Abkhazia/South Osetia/Donest's People's Republic/Kosovo/Bosnia/Moldova/Belarus/etc. Tl;dr this is huge Openlydialectic (talk) 05:03, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
[12] (9:20) Alexander Bratersky (Gazeta.ru) sees Serbia, Bulgaria and Greece as the main risks for Moscow Patriarch Kirill, and by extension, the Russian state. (19:30) Valentin Yakushik (University of Kyiv) raises the business issue of how the church properties will be handled. Wakari07 (talk) 10:37, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
I claim no expertise, but if people are unsure whether 'schism' is tecnically correct, other words like 'rift' or 'split' might do instead. That said, I suspect the question of whether the EP is entitled to do what he has done is probably already a doctrinal difference (and will presumably soon become one if it isn't already), so I suspect it's probably misleading to argue that it's not a schism due to the supposed absence of doctrinal differences. Tlhslobus (talk) 07:18, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
The article's called "Schism" so we should probably follow the suit to avoid WP:EASTEREGG Openlydialectic (talk) 08:15, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Excellent point, I now think 'schism' is probably best.Tlhslobus (talk) 08:19, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support – Support on notability for reasons already given by others above and in earlier noms (important religious story with geo-political implications, etc). Tlhslobus (talk) 07:18, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Schism, rift or whatever, note that according to today's AP article, the issue is "a decree of independence ... of the nascent Orthodox Church of Ukraine, formally severing it from the Russian Orthodox Church." It adds, "Many Ukrainians had resented the status of the Moscow-affiliated church." Sca (talk) 14:03, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Given that context, suggest the blurb avoid the obscure (to most Eng.-lang. readers) term autocephaly – a Greek word (αὐτοκεφαλία) which according to our own article simply means "independence." Yes I know about links, but why not make the blurb readily intelligible to our audience? – Sca (talk) Sca (talk) 16:41, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
PS: To an outsider, this issue seems more about politics and nationalism than about religion. Sca (talk) 14:08, 6 January 2019 (UTC) Sca (talk) 16:41, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
I know we tend to simplify for accessiblity, but on the other hand, as an encyclopedia, we can teach readers words specifically used in a given area. Brandmeistertalk 14:42, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
If they're that interested, they can get those words from the article. Anyway, autocephaly is certainly not a word most Eng.-lang. readers are ever going to use themselves. Sca (talk) 14:52, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I added another altblurb with more accurate links, please check. I think more or less good to go, all articles appear comprehensive and sourced. --Tone 14:20, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
    • Looks better. Was about to add myself. Brandmeistertalk 14:42, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Grammatically, both altblurbs should say "The Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, Bartholomew I, grants...." In English, nouns usually take articles. (But still oppose.) Sca (talk) 15:47, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Commas still needed. Sca (talk) 16:30, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support--UkrainianCossack (talk) 16:57, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. This is a major event for the Eastern Orthodox Church, with significant international implications.Nsk92 (talk) 21:06, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Posting. --Tone 21:11, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Post-posting comment – It'll be Greek to most of our readers. (Ha!) Sca (talk) 21:58, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Or Church Slavonic. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:27, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Post-posting comment - Can someone rewrite the blur (yes I left out the second "b") to lose the seven-dollar words? There's gotta be a more direct way to state what's going on. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.23.23.67 (talk) 02:44, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Poroshenko fracks it and runs blaming Putin. Wakari07 (talk) 09:05, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
??? – Sca (talk)

January 4Edit

Portal:Current events/2019 January 4
Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

(Posted) RD: Leo J. DulackiEdit

Article: Leo J. Dulacki (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): https://www.omaha.com/news/military/retired-lt-gen-leo-dulacki-an-omaha-native-who-fought/article_8ffca8a6-5bd1-500b-aae4-ca4da8660603.html
Nominator: Connormah (talk • give credit)
Updater: AntonyZ (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: Article is in good shape. Death just announced within last 24 hours. Connormah (talk) 05:22, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Support well referenced, great quality article, has been updated, its good to go --DannyS712 (talk) 07:50, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD. SpencerT•C 16:48, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: John BurninghamEdit

Article: John Burningham (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/jan/07/john-burningham-childrens-author-and-illustrator-dies-aged-82
Nominator: Aiken drum (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: Children’s writer. Aiken D 21:45, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

RD: Harold BrownEdit

Article: Harold Brown (Secretary of Defense) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): CNN, NYT
Nominator: Davey2116 (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 nuclear physicist and former U.S. Secretary of Defense (served under President Carter) dies at age 91. Virtually un-referenced. Davey2116 (talk) 03:56, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose. Article has citations needed tag. Article has several unreferenced sections. Capitalistroadster (talk) 04:35, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose too much unreferenced material for this BLP. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:10, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose on verifiability Needs citations throughout the article, especially in the section for his career as the Secretary of Defense. It (hopefully) shouldn't be too hard to find reliable sources to support the article considering their significant role in several presidential cabinets. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ 16:05, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  • @Capitalistroadster:, @The Rambling Man:, @BrendonTheWizard: It turns out that the whole section on his term as Secretary of Defense was a verbatim copy from his biography at defense.gov. It's public domain (hence not a copyvio) but certainly not ideal. I was able to cite some of it from the obits, but the obits are too high-level to cover some of the more specific paragraphs. Should this be posted? Davey2116 (talk) 21:40, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
    I greatly appreciate the work you've done in finding reputable sources for the article. I'm flipping my !vote to Support. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ 23:05, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

RD: John ThornettEdit

Article: John Thornett (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Illawarra Mercury
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: Australian rugby player DannyS712 (talk) 10:55, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Ongoing: United States federal government shutdown of 2018–2019Edit

Article: United States federal government shutdown of 2018–2019 (talk, history)
Ongoing item nomination
News source(s): BBC, CNN
Nominator: Davey2116 (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Ongoing nom since the government has been partially shut down for two weeks, with no end in sight. Regular updates are expected with the new Congress beginning yesterday. This is only the second shutdown of this length since 1996, after the 2013 shutdown. We posted blurbs for both the beginning and the end of the 2013 shutdown. Davey2116 (talk) 22:37, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Strong oppose yet again. First, this is a partial rather than a full shutdown, so it doesn't have the impact of the 2013 one (only ~800k vs 2+M workers affected). Second, whereas there are partisan politics involved with both, this current shutdown is over pettiness rather than a reasonable partisan divide, which is something we should not be encouraging as ITN items, least we start getting into petty squables between parties from other countries. --Masem (t) 22:44, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't think this current shutdown is over pettiness rather than a reasonable partisan divide is relevant to the effects of the shutdown. (And I also disagree that the 2013 shutdown was caused by a "reasonable" partisan divide.) If another country's "petty squabbles" will affect as many federal workers, I'd be happy to post that as well. Davey2116 (talk) 22:50, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Why in God's name are we repeatedly nominating this? Not now, not ever. WaltCip (talk) 23:19, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
  • When I nominated this last week, there was a narrow majority in favor, with more support promised if the shutdown continued past January 3. Davey2116 (talk) 23:50, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I again state that I am not sure what regular updates are expected. Maybe "Speaker Pelosi told Trump for the fifth time the House will not fund a wall." "Speaker Pelosi told Trump for the tenth time the House will not fund a wall" but that's all. As already noted, most of the government is open. 331dot (talk) 23:21, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Obviously you haven't been checking the page history. It's not as simple as you're making it to be. Davey2116 (talk) 23:50, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I am sure that people are making daily updates to the page, that's likely to happen, but we're looking at the significant updates that happen to the story itself. From the last several days, this is just a blame game being played by both sides, which is not major shifts or news. The media is sensationalizing this as well which compounds the issue. --Masem (t) 01:13, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Absolutely none of the content in the "effects" section is about a "blame game". It is about tangible effects of the government shutting down, which are what they are, whether or not the media is sensationalizing it. Davey2116 (talk) 02:38, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Which would be expected to occur and all that does is expand the summary of the effects, it doesn't radically change the story. 331dot (talk) 09:57, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment this should have been a blurb when it started, but it's easy to blurb when it's over. In the news around the world, nearly a million people either furloughed or working without pay ... certainly seems significant to me, just not right for ongoing. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:58, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
    • The blurb nom below was closed in just 90 minutes, it's way past time for that bullshit to stop. Noms exist for seven days, there is no reason at all, none whatsoever, for someone to just go off the rails and close it. In fact... --LaserLegs (talk) 00:59, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - In the news, notable, and of interest worldwide. Jusdafax (talk) 03:08, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. Notable effect impacting the lifes of millions of Americans. Has been going on for several weeks. It is worth noting and individual readers can make up their own mind as to whether to visit the page. Capitalistroadster (talk) 04:14, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose for multiple reasons: (1) this is a routine US political disagreement (2) The "shutdown" isn't really a true government "shutdown" because critical government functions continue as per normal. Chrisclear (talk) 06:15, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
  • As I noted above, this isn't really "routine". This is only the second shutdown of this length since 1996. Davey2116 (talk) 06:35, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment In addition to the January 3 blurb nomination, the December 27 ongoing item nomination remains open. Chrisclear (talk) 06:17, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose certainly not of interest worldwide in any sense, just more bonkers insanity from the orange one. These shutdowns are commonplace, and unless the Trump unleashes some super-power, this is not of note on an ongoing basis either. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:53, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. It's in the news and not trivial. Calidum 10:02, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
  • 'Comment Wait – It's a topic that creeps in a petty pace from day to day. Suggest we wait until it ends, which it will sometime, then consider for a blurb. Sca (talk) 13:54, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose ongoing, would consider supporting a blurb when it ends if it drags on for an unusual time. "And today, again nothing happened" isn't useful to readers; we don't have other political stalemates like the Brexit negotiations in Ongoing, and for the same reason. ‑ Iridescent 14:55, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose these U.S.-only [13] shutdowns. Just because one country decides to be dramatic doesn't mean we should be posting it. I want to know if all of these support !voters would support a blurb when (and if) Trump builds the wall. wumbolo ^^^ 23:48, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per rationale below. SpencerT•C 02:27, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
    • Changing to weak support given recent press conference and corresponding increase in press coverage. SpencerT•C 16:50, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support one would be hard-pressed to find a country in which this wasn't in the news. Banedon (talk) 04:13, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support as it's bounced back up to front page headlines everywhere following Trump's TV spot. Examples - Guardian, CNN, Global News, Al Jazeera, New York Times Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:36, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Changing to support - Trump using the Oval Office to give a televised speech to the American people in a setting usually reserved for national crises has escalated this story to higher than it was previously.--WaltCip (talk) 13:14, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per Ritchie333. -- Tavix (talk) 15:08, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Just because it got a news bump from the nation-wide speech last night, how does this still qualify as ongoing? Most activity still is watching Congress do nothing about it with glacial shifts in positioning? (I know the news "updates" this story every day, but again, we're not talking the type of breaking news as we'd have for Olympics or other ongoing events). --Masem (t) 15:14, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Trump isn't the President of the UK, nor is he the President of Qatar, but those are just two non-US sources that made it their headline story for today. I don't see any sign of this news letting up; indeed, if nothing else happens it's going to get worse. If Trump was on Wikipedia, he'd be indeffed per WP:ICANTHEARYOU by now. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:28, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
A lot of things Trump or enough Congress does gets reported in overseas publications often as headline news, that's the result of 24/7 news cycles. I'm talking significant updates that are more than "Nothing changed today despite negotiations continuing." Ongoing is used as a means to avoid using blurb-space for a a story that would otherwise receive multiple ITN blurbs, and in terms of the shutdown, very few events have been of ITN blurb significance. --Masem (t) 15:42, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
The continuation of the shutdown itself is the story. Multiple agencies of the federal government and their employees are impacted. Even if negotiations stall, each day the shutdown continues represents a continued, sustained impact on the U.S. economy and its citizens. It's not a standard practice in a developed country for a sitting President to weaponize a shutdown of government and threaten to continue it for "months or years", and it's certainly not usual to give a prime-time speech from the Oval Office to bolster that position. It is in the news and it's ongoing. The confluence of events can't be summarized in a blurb, so posting as ongoing is the only alternative to accurately encapsulate all of the above facts.--WaltCip (talk) 16:42, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support this is clearly of note and in the news around the world, and I believe it will only continue to become more notable the longer it goes. Considering the Yellow vests movement was made an ongoing item last month, there's no place for arguments that this only affects a single country. --PlasmaTwa2 23:12, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
  • As this entry is about to drop off ITN/C, marked as needing admin attention to determine a consensus.--WaltCip (talk) 15:33, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - this is big worldwide news; tomorrow this will become the longest-ever government shutdown in U.S. history. Claims that this is "routine" are simply incorrect; these are quite rare. (And I have to say — way more significant than a snooker or darts championship...). Neutralitytalk 18:13, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support due to how long this has now been going on, and the fact that it is still dominating news coverage.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:49, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Certainly not routine. If it was just 2-3 days maybe but it's 20 days in and there doesn't seem to be a sign of it being resolved immediately soon. Juxlos (talk) 18:53, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support This is a notable ongoing situation that we should be posting. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:13, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:15, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support. This has been going on for unusually long time. --Tone 08:08, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Herb KelleherEdit

Article: Herb Kelleher (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Dallas News, CNBC
Nominator: Power~enwiki (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: Obviously not ready now (sourcing issue, the {{advert}} tag), but a prominent enough person that hopefully someone here will take the initiative to improve the article. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:24, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment I've done a lot of work this morning to correct, expand, and add/fix a lot of citations. Could still do a lot more work, and surprised that good ol' Herb had such a scant article to begin with for such a storied life. But I think it should now be up to scratch for RD. Kenmelken (talk) 17:13, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support; all well sourced, neutral, and otherwise problem-free, and to someone like me who's never heard of him before, the article looks rather comprehensive. Nyttend (talk) 02:02, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support well referenced article. Well done Kenmelken. Capitalistroadster (talk) 04:17, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support article in great shape, marked as ready --DannyS712 (talk) 05:53, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Posting. Nice work. --Tone 09:47, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

January 3Edit

Portal:Current events/2019 January 3
Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

Sports

(Closed) 116th United States Congress and Partial government shutdownEdit

Closing because there is a duplicate nomination under Jan 4 (I know one is blurb and one is ongoing but the discussions need to be combined). Best, SpencerT•C 02:26, 6 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.

Nominator's comments: The 116th congress article needs a lot of work but the blurb succinctly --- Coffeeandcrumbs 00:10, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose How many times is this going to be nominated? Ignoring the shutdown, we'ed never ITN the onset of a country's legislative branch (only the result of elections), and the shutdown still is happening because of petty political squabbles that are not appropriate for ITN. --Masem (t) 00:15, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support this sees plenty of new coverage and even if it's a petty political squabble, it's still a political squabble in the world's most powerful country. Banedon (talk) 00:24, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose we posted the election, we don't need to post this. United States federal government shutdown of 2018–2019 might be an ONGOING candidate, but I expect that's already been rejected as a suggestion. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:25, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose because it’s a manufactured drama, not significant news. Jehochman Talk 00:30, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose These happen frequently in the US. I think there was one when I was there in 2013. I wouldn't go so far as Masem and oppose if it were, say, in China, where such a thing would be truly unusual and remarkable, but in the US it is indeed just another routine petty political squabble. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:04, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't call it "routine". In fact, this is only the second shutdown of this length since 1996. Davey2116 (talk) 02:35, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose per Masem, and the fact that this is not even an full shutdown, like that of last year. Stormy clouds (talk) 01:14, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose for multiple reasons: (1) Start of congress is a routine political event and not ITN-worthy (2) this is a routine US political disagreement (3) The "shutdown" isn't really a true "shutdown" because critical government functions continue as per normal Chrisclear (talk) 01:22, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose As above. Hrodvarsson (talk) 01:22, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support it's in the news around the world, has been going on for two weeks with nearly a million people furloughed or working without pay. Certainly seems significant to me. Noms are open for seven days, not ninety minutes, so unless the discussion has become disruptive, there is absolutely no reason, no whatsoever, no justifiable reason to kill a nom after just 90 minutes and a few opposes. Come on. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:01, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support blurb or ongoing as nominated above. Davey2116 (talk) 02:35, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose posting at current time; perhaps in the future if it has more acute impact. SpencerT•C 05:58, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose how many times do we need to nominate and oppose this? Once Trump unleashes some uber-directive, we can start thinking about it again. Until then, this is utterly humdrum and of parochial interest. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:56, 5 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.

(Closed) RD: Gao ChengyongEdit

Stale (non-admin closure) --DannyS712 (talk) 18:02, 9 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: Gao Chengyong (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC
Nominator: DannyS712 (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: Chinese serial killer and rapist DannyS712 (talk) 21:46, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - Ready to go.--BabbaQ (talk) 01:07, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak Support - short, but well cited and serviceable. Stormy clouds (talk) 01:15, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose At 505 words it is just above being a stub, but the article jumps in at 1988 for a subject born in 1964. A line or two bridging the gap would be useful. Hrodvarsson (talk) 01:27, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose Not all serial killers are notable. The page needs to be expanded a bit to clearly show this subject is notable. I suspect that the actual notable subject is the Arrest, trial and execution of Gao Chengyong similar to Arrest and trial of Chen Ziming and Wang Juntao. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 06:21, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose per Hrodvarsson, the article is barely beyond a stub, while what's there is satis. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:11, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Article is well-cited. Yes, it's short, but I wonder if the gap in his younger years is a result of it being underrepresented in the English-speaking media. Perhaps an editor who knows Chinese can help. MX () 22:52, 4 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) Chang'e 4Edit

Article: Chang'e 4 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The CNSA's Chang'e 4 becomes the first spacecraft to land on the far side of the Moon.
News source(s): Guardian
Nominator: SounderBruce (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Another historic space achievement. Article is in good shape, but some paragraphs need sources. SounderBruce 04:31, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Super strong mega support a huge chapter in the future of space exploration Openlydialectic (talk) 07:11, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - Article looks good. Only one cite needed Sherenk1 (talk) 07:46, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - For the same reasons stated by the nominator Fiveop (talk) 08:03, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment No need for capital F : far side of the Moon. Kevin McE (talk) 08:07, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Posting. I'll comment out the part that needs a citation, it is not crucial for the article regarding the landing. --Tone 08:48, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support - Clearly an historic achievement and a good trend if we get these type of stories on the front page quicker. -- Fuzheado | Talk 10:10, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment The Chinese Space Agency also released the first image the spacecraft took from the surface of the moon. I am not familiar with rules of uploading images to wikipedia, so I can't help with this, but my guess is it probably wasn't copyrighted. And if so we can include it both in the article and maybe add to the main page too. If it was indeed copyrighted, if someone could just add it to the article under the fair use it would be great too. Openlydialectic (talk) 12:19, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Can we make it more clear that CNSA is Chinese? This is a historic accomplishment for China and I get the feeling that many aren't familiar with the acronym and might assume NASA launched this if they don't look it up. Or is that necessary? By the way, strong post-posting support. -TenorTwelve (talk) 20:31, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Agree!Sca (talk) 14:51, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Just expand the initialism, no more complaints. It's not the longest blurb in the world so could easily withstand the full name of the organisation being present. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:12, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Could be done, but since the CSNA is an agency of the Chinese government, it would be simpler and more understandable to just say "China's." (Unlike NASA, which has been a recognized and widely understood acronym for half a century, CNSA is neither – it's quite new to English-speaking readers.) Sca (talk) 15:21, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
No, just use the fact, it's much easier to expand and link CNSA to its common name. NASA is the common name for NASA, and China National Space Administration is the common name for CNSA. We wouldn't say "Europe launches..." for the European Space Agency. Let's stick to the facts for a change. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:24, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
– Europe is not a country.
– If we were talking about an American project, we'd say "The U.S. space probe," not the "NASA space probe." Sca (talk) 15:45, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
North America is not a country either. And we do (and have) said "NASA space probe", it's on the main page, right now. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:15, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
NASA stands for National Aeronautic and Space Administration. North America isn’t in play. Jehochman Talk 02:34, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
But the point still remains, we have "NASA space probe" on the main page right now, so major aspects of this complaint thread is based on a false assertion. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:57, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
FWIW, I'm okay with "The China National Space Administration," as it does contain "China." I'm also okay with "NASA's New Horizons" for reasons previously stated (and criticized by some as POV, though they had nothing to do with U.S. nationalism). I apologize again for using impolite cheeky language yesterday. Peace to all. Sca (talk) 14:28, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Support this proposal. Not an immediately obvious acronym Openlydialectic (talk) 20:14, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Could we please get a usable picture? China, if you are listening, could you release some public domain images. This is your chance to shine! Jehochman Talk 02:37, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Jehochman, have you heard from President Xi yet? Sca (talk) 14:02, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 
Chang'e 4 lunar far side landing site
  • Agree. The dramatic photo of the far side rover making its first few feet of exploration would work for me. Is it in the public domain? I would think so. Jusdafax (talk) 03:16, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
    • ...or perhaps not. I’d love to see the rover in action, but I’m not seeing it in the public domain. How about the far side landing site for starters? All I can find in Commons so far, but beats the hair-challenged darts champ. Jusdafax (talk) 05:41, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
A nice try, but the photo at right isn't workable – it'll look like just a gray rectangle. It would indeed be great if we could get one like this. David? – Sca (talk) 14:54, 5 January 2019 (UTC)


January 2Edit

Portal:Current events/2019 January 2
Business and economy
  • China–United States trade war (2018–present)
    • American electronics maker Apple warns that iPhone sales are slowing significantly and the product is in weak demand, blaming trade tensions with China. The company says that it has lowered its expected fiscal earnings for the first quarter as a result, citing disappointing holiday sales figures, and that it could lose $9 billion due to the decline. (The Verge)
Disasters and accidents
Politics and elections

(Closed) RD: Geoffrey LanglandsEdit

Stale (non-admin closure) --DannyS712 (talk) 01:05, 9 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: Geoffrey Langlands (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): NYT
Nominator: 125.209.99.10 (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: Edit out the unreferenced material if it is going to stop this from getting posted. 125.209.99.10 (talk) 10:42, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: Referencing needs improvement; however, removing all of that material - while the quick band-aid solution - would not merit automatic ITN posting IMO; the article needs some kind of prose description of his career. SpencerT•C 21:49, 5 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) Great Belt Bridge rail accidentEdit

Article: Great Belt Bridge rail accident (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A train accident on the Great Belt Fixed Link in Denmark kills 8 passengers
News source(s): AP, CNN, BBC
Nominator: SounderBruce (talk • give credit)
Updater: The joy of all things (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Worst rail accident in Denmark since 1988 and is receiving some international coverage. SounderBruce 08:38, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Support The article looks good and well referenced though I can't read most which are in Danish. However, the last paragraph can do with a rewrite. It will soon be 10 UTC before this is posted, that's why reference like that should be avoided. –Ammarpad (talk) 08:53, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I commented out the 10 am sentence. The article is in a good shape, ready to post when I see some more support. --Tone 09:18, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support very much in the news, and still very much being improved, which allay my concerns about length --DannyS712 (talk) 09:23, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not front page news on CNN or BBC, which is typically Europe-oriented. Even in the Europe section of BBC, it's not the leading story. -- Fuzheado | Talk 10:06, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support – In part due to the rarity of accidents on the Storebaelt bridge, the longest outside Asia. As a second-day story it's still in the news. – Sca (talk) 14:44, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
  • As a point of order, it's not remotely close to "the longest outside Asia"; that would be the Lake Pontchartrain Causeway if you include viaducts, or the Kerch Strait Bridge if you don't. Even the 80-year-old Thousand Islands Bridge is longer. ‑ Iridescent 18:33, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
It's the bridge we're talking about, not the whole causeway (or whatever you choose to call it). Our Great Belt Fixed Link article says the bridge itself is "the world's third-longest main span (1.6 km) and the longest outside of Asia." (And how is this a 'point of order'?)Sca (talk) 15:02, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
@Sca: The main span of a bridge is the longest span between support points like pillars or towers. The length of a bridge is from start to end of the whole bridge and unrelated to spans. The Great Belt Bridge is far down List of longest bridges. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:13, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Oh. Thanks. See strike-through above. (BTW, I wasn't proposing that we put that in the blurb.) Sca (talk) 21:58, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support a most unusual incident and the article is good enough. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:05, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Fuzheado. Certainly not of international significance like the world darts championship. Gamaliel (talk) 16:19, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
    Which you didn't even have time to oppose! The Rambling Man (talk) 15:19, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - Denmark's deadliest rail accident for 30 years. Article up to scratch. Mjroots (talk) 17:15, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Well it makes the BBC headline news on news, and very significant in terms of its location. Kingsif (talk) 17:37, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
    • Not sure what this means. -- Fuzheado | Talk 19:28, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I see a rough consensus to post. --Tone 19:18, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support Unusual rail accident causing fatalities in a country with a very advanced rail transport system. Daniel Case (talk) 19:39, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: 8 passengers in the blurb should be spelled out as "eight passengers", per MOS:NUMERAL. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 15:19, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
    No, there's a consistency being applied across blurbs. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:22, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
    Now it's odd-looking because your "error" was fixed. Ho hum. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:28, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Daryl DragonEdit

Stale (non-admin closure) --DannyS712 (talk) 01:04, 9 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: Daryl Dragon (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): CNN
Nominator: Masem (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: The "Captain" of the duo Captain & Tennille. Sourcing problems still in this. Masem (t) 00:50, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. Main problem appears to be career section which is largely sourced from the Captain and Tennille webpage. Once that is fixed, I would be happy to support. Capitalistroadster (talk) 05:46, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose tagged. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:03, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Tagged articles do not deserve to be in In the news. ―Susmuffin Talk 05:55, 6 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.

(Closed) RD: Bob EinsteinEdit

Stale (non-admin closure) --DannyS712 (talk) 01:04, 9 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: Bob Einstein (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): CNN
Nominator: Masem (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 actor that played "Super Dave Osborne", as well as other notable roles. Article is missing a lot of sourcing. Masem (t) 22:34, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose 16 hours without a comment? But far from sufficiently sourced. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:53, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Mostly unsourced, and some of the existing sources are imdb. Hrodvarsson (talk) 01:29, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose IMDb is not a valid source. ―Susmuffin Talk 06:15, 6 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.

(Closed) RD: Gene OkerlundEdit

Stale (non-admin closure) --DannyS712 (talk) 01:03, 9 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: Gene Okerlund (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): https://www.newsweek.com/mean-gene-okerlund-dead-wwe-hall-famer-passes-away-76-1277134
Nominator: The C of E (talk • give credit)
Updater: Kiraroshi1976 (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: Major professional wrestling announcer who died today.  The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 18:32, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose The article is severely lacking in sources - entire sections without a citation - and suffers badly from WP:PROSELINE issues.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:59, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose due to sourcing issues. In a change from what is normally the case, the awards section is better referenced than the rest of the article.Capitalistroadster (talk) 20:10, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per the sourcing issues. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 20:25, 2 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.

January 1Edit

Portal:Current events/2019 January 1
Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

Politics and elections
Science and technology

(Posted) RD: María Teresa UribeEdit

Article: María Teresa Uribe (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): http://www.elcolombiano.com/antioquia/muerte-de-maria-teresa-uribe-de-hincapie-reconocida-academica-antioquena-JK9950784
Nominator: MurielMary (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: Fully sourced to reliable sources MurielMary (talk) 10:46, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Support - good to go.BabbaQ (talk) 14:05, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support satis. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:25, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Posting. A bit short but sufficient. --Tone 19:07, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) 2019 PDC World Darts ChampionshipEdit

Article: 2019 PDC World Darts Championship (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In darts, the 2019 PDC World Championship ends with Michael van Gerwen (pictured) defeating Michael Smith in the final.
News source(s): BBC, The Guardian, RTE, Stuff.co.nz
Nominator: OZOO (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Sporting championship not on ITNR, posted last year. OZOO (t) (c) 22:51, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Support This is a significant sporting event and the article is well updated with sufficient prose.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:05, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per Pawnkingthree. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:07, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Now that's what a sporting event article should look like. Note: not ITN/R, but we have posted this event in the past. Black Kite (talk) 11:43, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per above.--WaltCip (talk) 13:41, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - Good to go.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:07, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:25, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Could we give the Ultima Thule photo another half day because it was just posted 9 hours ago, and then change to this champion's pic? Jehochman Talk 14:33, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
That seems perfectly reasonable. I actually forgot to update the photo when I posted this and was just working on it when you modified the blurb. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:36, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Post-posting non-comment – So dismayed am I by the nugatoriousness of this item that I am speechless.   Sca (talk) 14:45, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
    There are no good German darts players. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:26, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
But oddly enough, it made German Wiki's ITN too: "In London hat der Niederländer Michael van Gerwen (Bild) die 26. PDC Darts-WM gewonnen."
All I can say is, Die spinnen, die Deutschen.Sca (talk) 21:47, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Hopp is fairly tasty although he doesn't generally get the Sky hype treatment. ‑ Iridescent 20:17, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
    Sure, he's above average, but then aren't we all? What we all aren't is van Gerwen. A legend in his own lifetime. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:30, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Post-posting oppose: Incredibly niche event. Very surprised to see some of the names supporting above. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:38, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
    @Ed, while darts never caught on in America, I can promise you that this is a big deal in the darts core markets (England, the Netherlands and Scotland, and expanding into China); with the exception of football, PDC is the most viewed sport on Sky Sports. ‑ Iridescent 07:48, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Post posting support per my comment above to Ed and per this being a rare example of an article on a recent sporting event that isn't terrible. I'd support invoking IAR and leaving the photo off altogether in favour of the Ultima Thule image; everyone who's looked at the back page of a newspaper in the last decade already knows what van Gerwen looks like, while the New Horizons photos are genuinely unique. ‑ Iridescent 08:21, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes, time to get Baldy out of the box. Sca (talk) 14:51, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
  • A different astronomical item now appears at the top, which made the Ultima Thule photograph's use somewhat jarring. I've switched to the photo of Michael van Gerwen, whose name and face are new to me. (Of course, I don't even follow American sports.) —David Levy 09:33, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
    • We're pro-astronomy biased, but that's fine ;) Lots of good space news recently. When time comes to update the image, a suitable one can be that of the landing site, Von Kármán (lunar crater). --Tone 09:42, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Public domain in the USEdit

No consensus to post. Stephen 22:43, 8 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.

Articles: Public domain in the United States (talk, history) and Copyright Term Extension Act (talk, history)
Blurb: ​For the first time since the Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998, Public domain in the United States grows with the inclusion of works published in 1923.
News source(s): The Verge, Observer
Nominator: Hektor (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: Since 1998 means also since the creation of Wikipedia, Wikisource, Commons... Hektor (talk) 10:18, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment ironically, the article is missing a lot of refs. This story is interesting, but with the clock ticking on Mr. Mouse we'll see if another extension isn't passed in a few years. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:40, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not that this is not important, but the subset of the population that deem it important (which should include WPians) is not that great. It's a type of DYK thing but I do believe also someone is talking about a Signpost article since this is that important to be aware of. Arguably would only become of greater interest to the world in about 5 years, when "Steamboat Willie" is finally due to fall into PD by the same mechanism. --Masem (t) 14:49, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
  • As much as ITN is not a forum, we should take care not to minimize the impact of wikipedians IRL. IP in the US is IP worldwide, and the tides have begun to change. Let me posit it this way: if we are now moving from corporate-driven IP to something more logical, what is the "right time to post?" ghost 19:32, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Where on earth are you getting "IP in the US is IP worldwide" from? It's perfectly possible for something to be PD in the US and still under copyright elsewhere; this is why so many of our own files are hosted in Wikipedia (which follows US copyright) and not on Commons (which doesn't). ‑ Iridescent 19:54, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose no international impact. Banedon (talk) 23:29, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
    • So the only thing blocking this is South USA losing its bloody war of independence from North USA so there's one country on this Europe-sized piece of land instead of two? If Britain and/or France wanted to stop North USA's blockade of most of the world's cotton they could've helped South USA beat North USA in war and any story involving a harmonized law between the 2 countries would suddenly be international (USA and CSA). Also some South USians wanted to annex till South America to grow slavery (not if North USA was fighting a war of attrition with them obviously), if they invaded at least Cuba then stories involving a copyright length harmonization between them would be even more international! Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:09, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
    • @Banedon: Please do not 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. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:30, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
      • I changed the rationale in words, but not in essence. Are you OK with it now? Banedon (talk) 02:05, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
        • @Banedon: You changed the words, but the meaning is the same, and it's still wrong. Stories don't have to have "international impact" to be worthy of ITN. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:50, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
          • @Muboshgu: The 100+ results from searching the archives for "internal politics" might have something to say about that, then. EDIT: Not to mention the 159 results for "international impact". Banedon (talk) 05:41, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose So, 1923 works in the U.S. are automatically PD now because of a law passed in 1998? Low significance. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:32, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Provisional support because of its impact on us/Wikipedia and therefore the sort of thing we ought to be promoting, although the article needs improvement. It's also at least as significant as a darts championship. News coverage: [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] (UK) [28] (Australia) [29] (Canada) and lots more. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:41, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Obvious oppose. Notability or not is irrelevant; the article is atrocious and has entire unreferenced sections let alone paragraphs. ‑ Iridescent 08:03, 3 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) New Horizons encounters Ultima ThuleEdit

Articles: New Horizons (talk, history) and (486958) 2014 MU69 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The NASA probe New Horizons encounters trans-Neptunian object (486958) 2014 MU69, nicknamed Ultima Thule.
Alternative blurb: ​The New Horizons space probe performs a flyby of 2014 MU69, nicknamed Ultima Thule.
News source(s): NYTimes, BBC, The Guardian, Wired, Space, NASA/JHUAPL
Nominator: Dogman15 (talk • give credit)

 Dogman15 (talk) 05:18, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Support Ultima Thule article in good shape. (New Horizons is largely unreferenced.) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:53, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support I was waiting for this. I added a possible alternate wording. Ahiijny (talk) 06:13, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support, a major event in space exploration. How about "...an exploratory flyby" used as a descriptor in the blurb (otherwise it's worded as if it just happened to fly by). Randy Kryn (talk) 06:16, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Posted
  • I posted blurb2. It should be updated after the 10am Eastern press conference. Hopefully we can add the word “successful” and maybe we will get a picture. It takes three hours for the probe to clear the rock, point toward earth, and then send a signal. It’s six light hours away. Jehochman Talk 06:32, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your help, guys. We should go with the alternate blurb, because I'm not good at writing those things. I was just so excited for this that I wanted to suggest it on this page as soon as I possibly could. Dogman15 (talk) 07:39, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - interesting. And ready.BabbaQ (talk) 13:04, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
    Marked. It can be marked by anyone. –Ammarpad (talk) 14:39, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I’m updating the blurb. Jehochman Talk 15:56, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Here's a better quality / crop version of it: File:First color image of Ultima Thule (composite crop).png. I would've updated File:Ultima thule color.png, but the French Wikipedia has placed a lock on the Commons file, which is incredibly annoying. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 21:34, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
It's handled. Jehochman Talk 21:44, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
@Jehochman: We now have two files locked by administrators that are in incorrect categories on Commons. File:Ultima thule color.png and File:Ultima thule color.jpg need to be added to the Composites of 2014 MU69 by LORRI and MVIC and Photographs taken on 2019-01-01 categories, and removed from the New Horizons and the Photos of 2014 MU69 by New Horizons categories. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 22:19, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm not a Commons sysop, so I can't do a damn thing to help. Can you do a {{Edit fully-protected}}? Jehochman Talk 22:58, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
@Jehochman: You implied that you were by saying "It's handled", so I apologise for assuming. {{Edit fully-protected}} doesn't exist on Commons, so I don't how how to go about it. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 23:09, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Ask User:David Levy for help. Jehochman Talk 23:44, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
I've corrected the categorizations. Feel free to request such changes whenever they're needed. —David Levy 23:48, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
@David Levy: Thanks heaps! – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 01:29, 3 January 2019 (UTC)