Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/January 2020

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.


January 16Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy

International relations

Law and crime
  • After his escape from Japan, Carlos Ghosn's Japanese lawyer Junichiro Hironaka and seven other members of his defense resign. Hironaka says Ghosn's escape was a "complete surprise". (CNN)
  • The bodies of seven people are found in a mass grave in the indigenous Ngäbe-Buglé region of Panama. Authorities believe a religious sect performed an exorcism on the victims. Police rescued 15 people who had suffered bodily injuries. (BBC)

Politics and elections

Block of Wikipedia in Turkey liftedEdit

Article: Block of Wikipedia in Turkey (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Access to Wikipedia in Turkey is restored after a 2.5 year-long ban, following a Constitutional Court ruling that declared the ban unconstitutional.
Alternative blurb: ​In Turkey, access to Wikipedia is restored following a ruling by the Constitutional Court that declared the block unconstitutional.
News source(s): Wikimedia press release and reuters article

Nominator's comments: End of a major and long-lasting block of Wikiepdia, important news to Wikiepdians, and all supporters of free speech. dmartin969 02:54, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

John M Wolfson It's not Wikipedia or a Wikipedia editor righting the wrong, it's the legal process in Turkey, and as WP:RGW notes, "We can record the righting of great wrongs". 331dot (talk) 13:06, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
But was this a great wrong that is being righted? It's true that it's a step towards transparency, but governments engage in censorship of information and the Internet all the time.--WaltCip (talk) 13:23, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
I think reversing the denial of access to a database of general human knowledge is righting a great wrong and a great step for free speech in country not known for free speech. 331dot (talk) 13:27, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Was unsuccessfully nominated on 27 December. Stephen 08:46, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
That was the court decision itself, and at the time it was unknown as to if the government would comply. Now, they have. 331dot (talk) 13:09, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support – We are not the only ones that consider this important. NYTimes, DW, Al Jazeera, VOA, and Bloomberg all consider this important. A precedent setting decision by a supreme court of a nation is usually a good candidate for ITN. Some times nazel-gazing is unavoidable, if everyone is admiring our navel as well. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 12:05, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support certainly notable and relevant for this platform.--MaoGo (talk) 12:46, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose same reason as last time, this is likely to be a one-off news event with no follow up. Banedon (talk) 13:02, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. This is not a Wikipedia issue, this is a free speech issue in Turkey. It was notable that the court ruling was made, and also notable that the government complied, given that Turkey is not known for free speech decisions like this one. 331dot (talk) 13:04, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Navel gazing and previously rejected. This is not the whole of the Internet aka China's free speech problem, but one website. Ask if this would have support if instead of Wikipedia it was Google or the New York Times or any other single website. Way too much importance on this being about Wikipedia here. --Masem (t) 13:12, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
    Certainly yes if Google was blocked/unblocked. No for the NYTimes. You underestimate the impact of --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 14:49, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
    I completely understand we are editing on, so any story with Wikipedia in it may seem of much higher importance. But it is at the end of the day just another website, not the entire Internet. I'm trying to consider how important this story is without placing any special value on WP beyond being an online encyclopedia anyone can edit, and to that point, it is just effectively a wiki. May be the world's most important wiki, yes, but in considering this type of story for ITN, that doesn't give it any more special weight. --Masem (t) 15:14, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
    I would have the same opinion if it was Facebook, Amazon, or Twitter. Are you telling me that if China blocked Amazon tomorrow that would not be major news worthy of ITN? People are these days intricately connected to the internet. Severing/restoring access to a major part of it has far reaching consequences. Even in the most humble of estimates, Wikipedia has far reaching impact. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 15:29, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
    Yes, its just one website, not the internet. But it were the case of, for example, Turkey dropping a whole firewall to non-Turkey websites, or China deciding to lift its own firewall, that would be major news as that is definitely a free speech issue either way. Lacking access to one website is not the end of the day. --Masem (t) 15:32, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Strongly support because it is free speech issue in a country, not only Wikipedia itself. It is notable to posted. A previous ITN was opposed because only Court decision. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:29, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per C&C. A major story involving Wikipedia would be of higher interest to Wikipedia's audience anyway. -- Tavix (talk) 15:09, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support – A significant development for freedom of information. The fact that it's Wikipedia is not relevant to the basic issue. – Sca (talk) 15:14, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
PS: French and German Wikis feature it in their ITN sections. – Sca (talk) 15:24, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Without prejudice to the rest of your argument, what other Wikipedias do has no bearing on what the English Wikipedia ought to do. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 19:38, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
No website is an island, entire of itself. – Sca (talk) 15:59, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Navel gazing for sure. But even if it was "Number one ranked site Google unblocked in Turkey" it would not merit front page news. Also, it was not a "significant development for the freedom of information." I was in Turkey multiple times during the "block" and it was an open secret that Wikipedia was available on numerous mobile networks and the block was mostly on landlines/wired networks. -- Fuzheado | Talk 15:43, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per Sca. Far more important than the Boat Race. Gamaliel (talk) 15:48, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
More important than the darts championship, too. – Sca (talk) 16:14, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Or college football.--WaltCip (talk) 16:43, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Is that a 'support' vote? – Sca (talk) 17:48, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support: This is not an event just for Turkey; Italian Wikipedia supported lifting the ban from their edition. There was a #WeMissTurkey campaign online that has been attended by most wikipedians worldwide.--Joseph (talk) 17:10, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
    • That makes it seem even more like navel gazing, tbh. While it's certainly big news for the WMF and Wikipedians, that doesn't show out-of-Wikipedia significance. We didn't post Framgate on ITN, for example. (Not that I don't think Wikipedia isn't a big deal in the real world; I have tried to put Wikipedia's founding on the January 15 OTD and was thereby introduced to the concept of navel gazing, but not everything Wikipedia is newsworthy.) – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 19:38, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
      • I don't think Framgate is a valid comparison. It wasn't headline news in more than a dozen major English-language news outlets and it didn't require a major constitutional court decision on free speech rights.  Vanilla  Wizard  💙 23:30, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - per SCA. It was definitely a freedom of information issue that was resolved. OctaviusSlockpit (talk) 18:15, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per Sca. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 18:55, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose - as much as we take an interest in internet freedom, this is at heart a local domestic story, and there are likely to be many countries around the world that impose or lift restrictions on any website or another at any time or another. The fact that it's Wikipedia shouldn't sway an objective judgement.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:58, 16 January 2020 (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) 19:03, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per Masem. They make a compelling argument. PackMecEng (talk) 19:05, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support I think readers will find this of interest. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:45, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per above. Davey2116 (talk) 22:51, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - this news has been all over the worlds media. also per established news sources. BabbaQ (talk) 22:58, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per C&C. Substantial coverage in reliable sources & it was a notable ruling by their top constitutional courts that reversed the ban. Notability is established through coverage in sources, and coverage is not absent. The fact that the website involved is the one we're using is not a factor. To respond to Masem's hypothetical, of course I'd support the nomination if Wikipedia was swapped out with Google, as it's the #1 website in Turkey (and by extension the world), but I would not support if it was swapped out with the NYT because it doesn't even register in the top 50 websites by traffic. Wikipedia does, and it surpasses websites like Yahoo and Amazon. Combine that with the landmark court ruling on free speech online & the sea of English-language outlets covering it and I see no reason to oppose other than the fear of being accused of navel gazing  Vanilla  Wizard  💙 23:30, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. Would like the article to be more expanded regarding the impact that unblocking Wikipedia will have on censorship in Turkey in general, connecting this to a wider context. Some reactions to the unblocking would also be useful: is there pushback from the government? IMO that would help with my concerns about navel gazing, and I'm willing to reconsider my position if the article is suitable expanded. SpencerT•C 02:22, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Definitely worth posting, this is not just about Wikipedia/Wikimedia issue, it is about freedom of information access in general. The Verge noted here that this is the "tightest Wikipedia ban in the world" as apparently it was the entire domain they blocked. Lifting the ban after this lengthy period is quite important, and yes more important than many niche topics that we post here. – Ammarpad (talk) 05:27, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose not notable and self-referential. -- Rockstonetalk to me! 05:37, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Of absolutely no international significance. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 06:31, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Please consider 331dot's reply to Amakuru. The fact that the story received significant coverage in English-language outlets is itself demonstration of notability outside of Turkey.  Vanilla  Wizard  💙 08:02, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support This is about freedom of information and Wikipedia is accidentally the subject of the whole story. The block being lifted after it was ruled unconstitutional in a large country like Turkey is a major news.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:08, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per navel gazing; it's one website in one country. Other websites and other counties is other stuff. ——SN54129 08:34, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
    I want to reply you that "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." — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:50, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
No website is an island, entire of itself. – Sca (talk) 16:05, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Although there is rough consensus to post this, the article is not properly updated yet, as other editors have pointed out — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:25, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
    I returned to this nomination with a view to posting, but there have been no further updates in three days. Are people satisfied with the update to the target article? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:03, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Navel gazing. Remember when Turkey banned Twitter, then eventually lifted it because the ban was found illegal? Probably not. It had no significant effect, much like this probably won't, and it definitely wasn't worth posting on ITN. Unless we plan to give a blurb to when Turkey decides to kill Pornhub for a few months. Nohomersryan (talk) 18:53, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per Sca. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:54, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment – This sort of topic has a short half-life. Unfortunately, this one is getting stale. Suggest close. (This user supported nom. on Jan. 16. but has stricken it as article is now stale.)Sca (talk) 15:05, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - per C&C. Either post it or close it. Jusdafax (talk) 04:18, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Ban on a single website being lifted in a single country is not news worthy. Amir (talk) 16:37, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Second call for close whichever way it might be. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 18:23, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Third call for close again per Sca. Post it or don't. But it's time to move on. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:56, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  •   Administrator note: it would help if the editors calling for close would indicate if they support or oppose the nomination. As I noted above several days ago, there are lingering doubts on the quality of the update to the target article. I have checked periodically and no further improvements have been forthcoming. Therefore, based on this discussion, I am not confident to call a consensus to post, but neither would it be appropriate to close it. Therefore the default position is that the nomination stays open until it becomes stale — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:15, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
    • @MSGJ: I oppose the post, but Sca and Ad Orientem support it. This is already getting stale and approaching the bottom of the list. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 21:03, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
As noted above, I cancelled my support cuz it's stale. – Sca (talk) 22:51, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) Trump impeachmentEdit

Article: Impeachment of Donald Trump (talk, history)
Ongoing item nomination
News source(s): The New York Times

Nominator's comments: With the impeachment articles delivered to the Senate, we can expect this to be in the news for a while. Banedon (talk) 00:49, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Support in the news, quality article being updated with "new, pertinent information", ticks the actual boxes. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:02, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Nom makes the clear case for this inclusion. Davey2116 (talk) 01:02, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment This ITN Needs at least one reference to be nominated in ongoing. I oppose to posted this article to ongoing this week but i would support it for next week. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:04, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
@Banedon: since this is your nom, would you kindly copy/paste one of the myriad of high quality current references in the actual target article and add it to this nom? Also, thanks for nominating. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:08, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
I don't own noms. Anyone can edit the nomination (I notice WaltClip has already done so). Banedon (talk) 02:11, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support This is a highly consequential ongoing event subject to significant global media attention. Meets all criteria for inclusion. WMSR (talk) 03:07, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
    WMSR, highly inconsequential from now on. Republicans are in majority and as they have stated, they are not convicting their president. So other than political drama, you are not getting anything DBigXray 07:13, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak support It would be better if he gets removed, but there's no reason we can't have both. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 04:25, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support There are procedural steps ahead this week (starting with today's impeachment manager and sending the articles updates) and the trial itself is set to start on Tuesday. No reason not to post it now, though I wouldn't say anything if it isn't posted until Tuesday. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:28, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support given that now the circus shifts from one house to the other. --Masem (t) 06:19, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose we should ignore minor inconsequential events such as the case moving from House to Senate. as per Business insider senate could bring it for hearing on 21 thereafter it will have to be seen when it gets next major updates. Also everyone knows Senate Republicans are not going to vote support, so Trump is not getting impeached convicted. So I cannot see the impact of this going forward. DBigXray 07:07, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
    • Trump is already impeached. The Senate will decide if there is enough to convict him on the terms of impeachment. Even if the Senate votes not to convict, that is still news - it would be the same as a major court case ending with an innocent verdict. --Masem (t) 07:17, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
      Masem, thanks for correction. As a non American I may have wrongly used few terms. I am talking about the (1)"relevant impact" and (2) the schedule of major events. When is the senate going to vote? Not within a week. The impeachment news was already posted. As of now, all I see is, some signed papers were moved with pomp and show, from one chamber to another. --DBigXray 09:12, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose While this is one of the more major events in the process, there's also about a million steps in said process. Ongoing would be a better option in my opinion, but I wouldn't complain if this was posted. -- a lainsane (Channel 2) 07:22, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  •   Posted to ongoing — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:29, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Post-posting comment – A pretty obvious 'must' – even though ultimately the Demos won't prevail. – Sca (talk) 15:28, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Post Posting Support It's back in the news and will be for a while. Ongoing is where this belongs until the trial wraps up. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:32, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support because it is a major political event, and since the trial has started according to the constitution, it is in the news, and should be until the senate delivers the verdict, officially closing the trial. Minecrafter0271 (talk) 18:30, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Ongoing only - Oppose blurb until the impeachment process is concluded. That is the time to post a blurb. Mjroots (talk) 19:34, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • We now have a new article for the trial: Impeachment trial of Donald Trump. Can we update the link to this page? --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 20:54, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
    Updated link — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:21, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support, but for next week I also want to replace the Impeachment of Donald Trump to Impeachment trial of Donald Trump with more specific in ongoing section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:35, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Agree that's likely the better target article. Banedon (talk) 02:23, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support there are a billion people starving to death which I guess is not news but this needs to be on the front page even though everyone knows it`s a stacked deck 2600:1702:2340:9470:14B3:A536:533A:AD06 (talk) 23:56, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
It might have a political effect in November, though. – Sca (talk) 22:34, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Christopher TolkienEdit

Article: Christopher Tolkien (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Var-Matin

Nominator's comments: British editor, third son of the author J. R. R. Tolkien and editor of much of his father's posthumously published work. Jamez42 (talk) 20:57, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Oppose for now too much of it is uncited. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 21:19, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose far too soon for use of "fair use" image. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 14:34, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose unless improved while the topic itself is worth it, the article itself isn't that great. Flalf (talk) 16:28, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose until the article is significantly improved This article is missing several citations and ISBNs. ―Susmuffin Talk 19:11, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment - some work being done on this now. Hopefully there will still be time for this to go up if the improvements are sufficient. Carcharoth (talk) 13:09, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - I've tidied up the article, adding citations and ISBNs for you guys. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:30, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - with thanks to Chiswick Chap for their work on the article. Carcharoth (talk) 14:35, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  Posted. El_C 14:36, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
It's still far too soon to be uploading a fair use image of this individual. It shouldn't be featured on the main page with the image in place. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 14:41, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
TRM is right (and was right to remove it from the article). Let's give this a bit of time. Carcharoth (talk) 14:59, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

January 15Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

International relations

Politics and elections

(Posted) RD: Ivan UstinovEdit

Article: Ivan Ustinov (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s):, Komsomolskaya Pravda

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Centenarian military veteran, counterintelligence agent with NKVD, SMERSH Spokoyni (talk) 01:59, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Support and marking ready. Thorough coverage of subject; article fully referenced. SpencerT•C 03:19, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD. SpencerT•C 05:50, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Post-posting Support well-written article, as usual from the author. -Zanhe (talk) 07:12, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) Russian government resignsEdit

Articles: Dmitry Medvedev (talk, history) and Vladimir Putin (talk, history)
Blurb: Russian prime minister Dmitry Medvedev announces his resignation, alongside the rest of the Russian government.
Alternative blurb: Russian president Vladimir Putin accepts prime minister Dmitry Medvedev's resignation, alongside the rest of the Russian government.
Alternative blurb II: Mikhail Mishustin is appointed Prime Minister of Russia following the resignation of Dmitry Medvedev and his cabinet.

Nominator's comments: Top breaking news on multiple outlets. For sources see DW, Russia TodayJuxlos (talk) 14:03, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Oppose for now. The first bolded article choice has a very short three sentence update which provides no context for the resignation, it merely confirms that it happened. The second bolded article contains even less; a single uncited 8-word sentence. The rest of the article hasn't even been updated to reflect the changes. Some significant work would need to be done on either article before this is ready to be posted to the main page. --Jayron32 14:29, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Very little happens in the Russian government without Putin's OK. According to CNN the government resigned "after Putin proposed constitutional amendments that would weaken his successor and shift power to the prime minister and parliament". Sounds like he is getting ready to be PM again so he can keep running the show. 331dot (talk) 14:33, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Putin is president, not prime minister, and "weaken his successor" (i.e. weaken the future president) means Putin is giving up power. Banedon (talk) 19:39, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Bandeon Putin is referring to his successor as President. Putin is making the PM job more powerful so he can go back to it in 2024 when his presidential term is up. (He's done this once already) I'm sure the changes he wants will be conveniently timed to take effect in 2024. 331dot (talk) 23:00, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
If Putin were a Wikipedia editor, I'd say you were assuming bad faith. Banedon (talk) 23:12, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support in principle, important event, but articles may need improvement. --Jamez42 (talk) 17:03, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support on notability but prefer that we have an article about the government resignation explaining in more detail what led up to it and what the immediate aftermath is (e.g. who will succeed him? we may not know today, but it would be good to have an article to put that information once the story develops further)  Vanilla  Wizard  💙 17:11, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support in principle but I would want to see in the blurb why. According to CNBC it was to allow for Putin to make sweeping constitutional changes. This might be one to give it a few hours or a day to know exactly where Putin is going with this. --Masem (t) 17:22, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support in principle per Masem. We need to focus more on Putin consolidating his own power in this. That's the main point of the story. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:23, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support, but not the current blurb - Let's not pull the wool over our own eyes. The blurb should reflect the actual nature of this power transition, which is to shift power back to Putin.--WaltCip (talk) 17:28, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support alternative blurb--Abutalub (talk) 17:59, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Note: Has anyone who wants to post this blurb done anything to fix the problems already noted in the text of the bolded articles? --Jayron32 19:31, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose on quality. No news is so important as to override quality concerns on BLPs. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:37, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
    @Coffeeandcrumbs: which article is not up to scratch? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:29, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
    MSGJ, none of them but I am more picky than most. Mikhail Mishustin is the worst of all. Putin has up to 8 [citation needed] tags. Medvedev has about 8 to 13 citations needed --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 09:37, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
    Thanks for clarifying. There are some many blurbs proposed, I'm not sure which article we are discussing anymore. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:44, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose it is a substantial change and Russia is a great power, but it's internal to Russia and neither of the two targets right now are directly related to the constitutional changes. Banedon (talk) 19:44, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
    Banedon, Putin's machinations clearly extend beyond the borders of Russia. Not that that is required by ITN anyway. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:08, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support in principle. The story is the resignation of nothing but the Russian government and it's clearly in the news everywhere.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:29, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support in principle, per above. But both articles have cn tags, and it'd be preferable to have an article about the resignation. Davey2116 (talk) 21:56, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose not even the top story on BBC. Wait to see what the consequences are. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 22:10, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now; Putin is the real power in Russia so Medvedev losing his position as Prime Minister means little in the grand scheme of things. However, news in coming days should tell us the significance of this move, and eventually we may blurb that. NorthernFalcon (talk) 22:40, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose It is not significant news for me. Even President putin Announce his resignation, It is not really event important for me. A more important event like this need to include English-speaking country like US or UK. But this event only include single country for example Russia. Is this event related to religion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:18, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
    "Not important" to you does not necessarily mean that it's not notable... we appeal to a worldwide audience. | abequinnfourteen 00:34, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
    Putin is also the head of government of the U.S. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:55, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. This is an important development in geopolitics and is all over the news. It is important to cover on Wikipedia. BirdValiant (talk) 04:57, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Clearly an event with impact. Unlike papers being moved with pomp and show, from one chamber to another. --DBigXray 09:30, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Yea!! Take that, American editors!--WaltCip (talk) 13:03, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. This is a major shake-up in one of the most important governments, and has been widely reported. -- Tavix (talk) 15:12, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment I still feel the provided blurbs are not getting the whole story, but then again, I don't think western sources know the whole story yet. Fingers are pointed at Putin, but there's nothing clear that Putin directed this or is jumping on it. If we really don't have an idea on why this happened, then AltII is the best to use to post. --Masem (t) 15:34, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support – From what I've read Gospodin Putin appears to be maneuvering himself into a position of Nachalnik (boss) for Life. In the long term, this may be more significant than the U.S. House passing the impeachment articles, which unlike the surprising Russian changes was long expected anyway. – Sca (talk) 15:39, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support pbp 23:19, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support, with a preference for alt blurb 2. A significant political development for Riussia, both as a change of government and in terms of adjacent constitutional changes. Nsk92 (talk) 10:34, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  •   Administrator note: there is now sufficient support to post this item, but we are waiting for improvements to the quality and updates on the relevant articles — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:39, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  Fixed--DBigXray 22:13, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment – Second-day reading re Putin's aims: AP, Guardian. – Sca (talk) 15:48, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support but i prefered Altblurb I and II, because it can change to political development in Russia. But i waiting for improvement of the information — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:47, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Still in the news. – Sca (talk) 14:31, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment MSGJ and other admins, I have already updated these articles with the news, since MSGJ commented here. What is stopping it from getting posted ? Silence by admins is not helpful here.--DBigXray 15:09, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Marked 'needs attn.' – Sca (talk) 15:12, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment - I'm here following a message on my talk page, and like MSGJ above I can see there's definitely support for this story in principle, but which of the proposed blurbs is favoured and if so, is the linked article of high enough quality? Looking at Dmitry Medvedev I see 12 citation-needed templates, as well as an orange tag on the "Education" section (dated to 2010) because it only has one line in it. Mikhail Mishustin has just two citation-neededs, although the section on the news story in question (him becoming PM) is quite short at the moment and is probably insufficient to represent this story. Vladimir Putin also has numerous citation-neededs and an "update section" orange tag. So, bottom line - I need guidance as to a definite blurb that is agreed upon, and an article that is of sufficient quality and updated suitably. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 22:28, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
    • Concur with Amakuru, rm attention needed. SpencerT•C 22:31, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment – Getting stale & no longer in the news. Suggest close.Sca (talk) 14:58, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
  •   Fixed I have fixed all the issues pointed by Amakuru above. I suggest Alt Blurb II as it is the most recent and includes all the updates. User:Spencer, MSGJ , User:Masem --DBigXray 15:27, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Posted ALT2 - with thanks to DBigXray for getting the Mikhail Mishustin article up to scratch.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:41, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Why is it a picture of the old PM and not the new PM? Levivich 16:30, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
    •   Agree . A picture of the new PM is more actual content. TarzanASG (talk) 21:13, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
      I will swap the pic as soon as it is protected on Commons (in a few minutes). Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 21:17, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
        Done  — Amakuru (talk) 21:26, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

RD: Rocky JohnsonEdit

Nominator's comments: Was a prominent professional wrestler in the 1970's, as well as the father of one of the most successful actors in the world. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 13:15, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Oppose Work needed on referencing.-- P-K3 (talk) 14:34, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose under-referenced for BLP. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 14:34, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Even if the existing parts were cited and corrected, the majority of his career would be conspicuously absent. We can host a reflection of WWE revisionist history, but shouldn't promote it. Even a non-fan can look at the Championships section and wonder what the hell he did to deserve such recognition. Sadly, reliable sources continue to tow the company line, and he's doomed to be remembered as half of an objectively mediocre "black team" instead of a guy who got over everywhere with everyone. For now, I mean; there'll be a docudrama someday, much too late for RD. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:01, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Bobby BrownEdit

Article: Bobby Brown (footballer, born 1923) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC Sport, Rangers FC

Nominator's comments: Scottish Football Hall of Fame inductee, Scotland national football team manager (1967–71), Rangers F.C. and Scotland goalkeeper in the late 1940s / early 1950s Jmorrison230582 (talk) 12:22, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Support Marking ready. Adequate coverage of subject and referenced. SpencerT•C 22:32, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD  — Amakuru (talk) 22:46, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Suggestion Maybe you should disambiguate that its the footballer that passed away. Yall scared the fuck out of me for a second making me think the R&B singer from New Edition died. Thankfully, he didnt, but that scared the hell out of me for a second. DrewieStewie (talk) 23:40, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

January 14Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and Elections

Science and technology

(Posted) RD: Liang Jun (tractor driver)Edit

Article: Liang Jun (tractor driver) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Most notable as China's first female tractor driver (both pre- and post- Communist revolution), but also a national politician for many years. Kingsif (talk) 00:30, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Microsoft ends support of Windows 7Edit

Self-closing as not going to be posted. As noted, I was testing the waters, and have a good idea where these types of stories fall with the ITN crowd (generally not desired). --Masem (t) 19:35, 15 January 2020 (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: Windows 7 (talk, history)
Blurb: Microsoft ends extended security support for its operating system Windows 7, still in use by millions of computers worldwide.
News source(s): CNBC, BBC

Article updated
Nominator's comments: I am totally testing the ITNC waters on this, and do not have a problem if this gets snow-closed on opposition. But this is worldwide news as Win7 is known prone to security flaws (MS is issuing one last patch today) and there's concern that the millions of computers still running Win7 will become cybersecurity problems. (One could also consider this a "RD" since this kills Win 7, one of the most successful releases of an operating system by MS). However, I fully recognize this is tech/corporate news, the end of support havng been warned about for a year. This is not so much to get readers to update, but to reflect on the end of an era in MS's operating system here. Masem (t) 19:53, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose While I used to have Win 7 (and still use Classic Shell to avoid the outlandish menu design of Win 10), this was expectable sooner or later, just like with previous MS versions superseded by newer ones. Besides, Win 7 will remain functionable without security updates (albeit more vulnerable), just like previous versions. Nostalgia isn't that easy to kill. Brandmeistertalk 20:16, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose good faith nom. Routine business news. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:29, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Ad Orientem. Products get discontinued all the time, and Microsoft has been known for buggy software since at least Internet Explorer 6 (I know it's just a meme/running gag that derives a lot from its dominant position, but still). – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 20:34, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Appreciate the good faith test here. But really, "McDonald's ends support for the Happy Meal"? Sorry. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:39, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
    • There is more an argument that the end of Win7 support will increase security risks due to the large # of computers still running the system. McD killing the Happy Meal is nowhere close a major security problem. I normally agree that the end of a product line is rarely ITN news, but the ubiquity of computers is important here. --Masem (t) 02:23, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
      • With that argument I get the feeling that this would violate at least the spirit of WP:NOT (although I can't put my finger on the exact shortcut - NOTGUIDE, maybe?); while it would be useful as a public service, doing so is not Wikipedia's job. This feels like an issue of PC World rather than a genuinely newsworthy event such as scientists dating the oldest solid material on Earth, for example. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 06:37, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support pointlessly I know but there is still significant usage of Win7/2k8 so the end of security updates has a good deal of risk. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:03, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. That millions of users have not purchased a newer version of a product, putting themselves at risk of viruses/hacking, doesn't seem all that unusual. If Windows itself was being discontinued, that would merit posting, but Windows still exists. 331dot (talk) 21:19, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support the number of people using Windows 7 probably exceeds the population of quite a few countries. If we post news related to those countries, why wouldn't we post this? Banedon (talk) 00:48, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Sounds like big news to me. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:58, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Martinevans. I must have missed the blurb we ran last year when MS ended all support for XP. Daniel Case (talk) 04:34, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Last I saw was here. Though it does not seem like it was actually posted for some reason. PackMecEng (talk) 05:04, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose, publicity stunt by filthy megacorporation. It is suspected that they will continue support for some time. Abductive (reasoning) 05:18, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Important new for the second most used OS currently out there. PackMecEng (talk) 05:23, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose all the speculation as to what might happen now is pure WP:CRYSTAL so post when it becomes an actual issue. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:39, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose – per Martinevans, TRM. It had a 10-year run. – Sca (talk) 14:01, 15 January 2020 (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) Hong Kong protestsEdit

Consensus clearly against posting at this time. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:36, 14 January 2020 (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: 2019–20 Hong Kong protests (talk, history)
Ongoing item nomination
News source(s): Google for "Hong Kong" and sort by news

Article updated
Nominator's comments: This was removed some time ago, but it's clearly still ongoing (see List of January 2020 Hong Kong protests). If people really dislike the 2019-20 Hong Kong protests article, I suppose this could be another target, it just seems weird given that a list would be ongoing. Banedon (talk) 01:02, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose It may be ongoing, and the subarticles may be getting updates, but it has lost its place as a widely covered event that would make it appropriate for ongoing. It's like the impeaching stuff - its clearly still ongoing but the noise in the media right now about it is only a buzz and not major, so it would not be appropriate to be listed at Ongoing. We're looking for ongoing events where there are significant changes or updates on a near-daily basis that get broad media coverage. --Masem (t) 01:05, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose the last significant protest was Jan 1 with about 60k people, and oppose to featuring a "List of" article on the main page. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:26, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose - There is a stronger case to post the protests in Iran than in Hong Kong; at least the former is in the news.--WaltCip (talk) 02:23, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose In the last 50 edits, going back to 10 Jan (4 days), the only new material relates to events in November and October, a couple of sentences about protestors fleeing to Taiwan, and accusations of CIA involvement. The alternative "List of..." article is very much police blotter. I think the best route for this event is to wait for a genuinely notable event as a blurb. (talk) 07:50, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above. There does not appear to be enough recently added material, nor evidence that this is an article which is receiving regular updates, to consider this for ongoing. --Jayron32 14:46, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 15:06, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose mostly per Masem. I feel as though this article is either nominated to be added to Ongoing or removed from Ongoing every other week... mike_gigs talkcontribs 16:25, 14 January 2020 (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) Oldest solid material on Earth discoveredEdit

Articles: Presolar grains (talk, history) and Murchison meteorite (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Research into a meteor finds presolar stardust grains dating older than 5-7 billion years old becoming the oldest solid material found on Earth
Alternative blurb: Stardust in the Murchison meteorite is found to be older than 5-7 billion years old, becoming the oldest solid material found on Earth
Alternative blurb II: Presolar stardust grains in a meteorite are found to be older than 5-7 billion years old, the oldest solid material found on Earth
News source(s): CNN Science News Science Daily

Second article updated, first needs updating

Nominator's comments: Research was done on a meteorite found in 1969 and recent findings are determining it the oldest solid material ever found on earth. It was formed before the Sun was formed. I'm not exactly sure if the cosmic dust page should be featured or presolar grains page or both. I'm also not sure whether or not Oldest dated rocks would be appropriate. Does this count as a rock? Certainly the pages have not been updated at this time. I'm not an expert on this subject so I don't know to what extent this is conclusive but it seemed significant to me. I think this is the Murchison meteorite??? If a page has not been created for this, it might warrant one. I'm also not sure on the terminology whether it be stardust, presolar grains, or presolar stardust grains. Should we mention "older than the sun" anywhere in it? Please feel free to rewrite the blurb if necessary. I'm still new at writing blurbs for ITNR TenorTwelve (talk) 01:31, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Comment Just noting this is based on a paper from Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences so peer-review is there. --Masem (t) 01:37, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose with regret. The article has not been updated. Indeed as far as I can tell it has not been edited in months, so we don't really have anything on the subject of the blurb in the linked article. Also there are some fairly significant gaps in referencing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:39, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support contingent on article update. Strong science news but, as Ad Orientem says, the update needs to be there.--WaltCip (talk) 02:24, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment I would hate to see this miss out because nobody could be bothered updating the article. I'll try to myself, but anyone else could too, rather than pushing this item away while saying it hasn't been updated. HiLo48 (talk) 05:39, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Murchison meteorite has now been updated with this news. I can't see what else is needed before posting it. HiLo48 (talk) 06:44, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Altblurb (note that I have modified and truncated the many blurbs in the original nomination). Article is well written and updated. I chose to link pre-solar grains in the blurb instead of stardust, because that would be the most accurate description of the material (although the stardust page is much better overall). Exciting and fascinating find, and the article about the meterorite itself and actually a good portal to other encyclopedic subjects. (talk) 07:32, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - interesting and newsworthy. Article about subject seems ready for posting.BabbaQ (talk) 07:36, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support when updated, as there is one-sentence update at the moment. --Tone 08:24, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
    So, what do you want to see, and what's stopping you putting it there? This nomination isn't owned by anyone. HiLo48 (talk) 09:00, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
    Agree with Tone; the update is not sufficient yet. I heard on the news some details about how they extracted the particles from the meteorite - that would be appropriate. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:41, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
    So why aren't you adding it? HiLo48 (talk) 17:14, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
    On the other hand, why aren't you?--WaltCip (talk) 17:55, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
    Because it wasn't me who "heard (it) on the news". HiLo48 (talk) 22:29, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'm not keen on the wording "older than 5-7 billion years old". Either it is "older than 5 billion years old", or it is simply "5-7 billion years old". The article says "7 billion years old" so I'm not sure where the 5 came from? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:27, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose for original blurb but Support for Altblurb I and II this sentence needs to update as well for many reasons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:02, 14 January 2020 (UTC)


  1. ^ Weisberger, Mindy (13 January 2020). "7 Billion-Year-Old Stardust Is Oldest Material Found on Earth - Some of these ancient grains are billions of years older than our sun". Live Science. Retrieved 13 January 2020.
  2. ^ Heck, Philipp R.; et al. (13 January 2020). "Lifetimes of interstellar dust from cosmic ray exposure ages of presolar silicon carbide". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. doi:10.1073/pnas.1904573117. Retrieved 13 January 2020.
  • Murchison meteorite article only has the announcement in the lede and not the body, and the article on presolar grains needs more references. Stephen 01:34, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 04:40, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Assume next week we'll have an article titled "Youngest solid material on Earth discovered." – Sca (talk) 14:05, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

January 13Edit

Arts and culture

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents
  • A sinkhole swallows a bus and several pedestrians on a busy street in Xining, China, killing six people and leaving 16 others injured. According to state media, the sinkhole stretches nearly 10m (32 feet) in diameter. (BBC)

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology


(Closed) RD: Jean DelumeauEdit

This is clearly getting stale, so I'll close this myself and go to DYK. (non-admin closure) ミラP 03:08, 20 January 2020 (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: Jean Delumeau (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Le Figaro
Nominator's comments: The French historian. Expanded from frwiki article but needs a little tidying. ミラP 15:35, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Looks good to post — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:38, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose Would like to see more coverage about what he wrote about. Right now it reads like a resume/CV in prose format listing out his various positions and awards. SpencerT•C 02:12, 17 January 2020 (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) 2020 College Football Playoff National ChampionshipEdit

Consensus has established posting for this year, and it won't be pulled. Discussion as to whether to include in ITNR can take place there, now that it has been posted this once. That's how ITNR works, not the other way around. Stephen 22:13, 16 January 2020 (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: 2020 College Football Playoff National Championship (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In gridiron football, Louisiana State (quarterback Joe Burrow pictured) defeats Clemson to win the College Football National Championship.
Alternative blurb: ​In gridiron football, the LSU Tigers (quarterback Joe Burrow pictured) defeat the Clemson Tigers to win the College Football National Championship.
News source(s): USA Today
Nominator's comments: Can't stop won't stop. This is one of the major sporting events in the U.S. for 2020. It's well updated. It has not been posted by ITN yet, but has gotten close. The college basketball championship is ITN/R, so the "amateur" argument is out. 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. There is tons of coverage of this, because it's sufficiently newsworthy for ITN. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:33, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose as in past years. Gridiron football has a very limited appeal (principally NA), and we already cover the most significant event in that (The Super Bowl). Additionally, college footage is equivalent to minor league/amateur sports, which we should not post unless it is like the Boat Race, the most significant event in that sport. Additionally, at least with the NCAA basketball, there's a more proper tourney with multiple brackets and more proper competition, compared to just taking the top 4 coach-ranked teams and doing a short 2 round playoff. --Masem (t) 05:44, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Battle of the Tigers. From Deep South states named after major kings. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 06:00, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support – I think putting an event restricted to two measly schools above a competition, drawn from more than 100 schools that attract tens of thousands of fans to games, is ridiculous. This championship is the culmination of a major league even if the NCAA does not like to admit it for their own greedy reasons. The fan base is huge. The news coverage astronomical. Why should we kowtow to the same bias. College Football has different rules. We have 3 events for rugby league and 3 events for rugby union. Why, pray tell, is gridiron football limited to a single event? --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 06:32, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Because posting multiple events for a single sport in a single country would be overkill? Would you support including the AFL Grand Final and the VFL Grand Final at ITN? The latter is the major feeder competition for another single nation sport. HiLo48 (talk) 09:34, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
If their fan base was as big and their notability as high, then yes. "The 2019 championship drew 25.28 million viewers".[1] Compare that to 2.419 million for AFL Grand Final and likely even fewer for the VFL Grand Final. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:49, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
An approach of looking at pure numbers would be a guaranteed way of having US events dominate ITN. Do we want that? HiLo48 (talk) 22:32, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Actually, it would probably work the other way. Any English Premiership football match broadcasted internationally would exceed 25m easily. Indeed, Manchester United v Wolves tonight in the FA Cup will do. This being posted has opened the gates to a flood of other non ITNR nominations (just in the UK - FA Cup Final, Carabao Cup Final, Championship play-off final, Cricket County Championship, T20 final, Rugby Union Premiership, etc etc) which will probably get rejected by American editors and thus prove our systemic bias. Black Kite (talk) 19:23, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
True. HiLo48 (talk) 00:10, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Masem. Too much has been said in the past so it's annoying to repeat it once again. Those trying to draw an argument from the fact that we regularly post the Boat Race should better question its WP:ITN/R status if they feel so inclined.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:18, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per nom, who puts it well. -- Tavix (talk) 09:13, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. A case can be made that more people follow collegiate football than the NFL; the largest capacity stadiums in the US are mostly college stadiums (Michigan Stadium). This is a big deal for many people. 331dot (talk) 09:56, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Per Masem, and further; the reason the NCAA game gets posted is because basketball is a far more global sport and therefore it gets more international coverage. Here is the UK I can find BBC stories about most year's NCAA finals, but if I search the site for college football, all I get is stories about Donald Trump feeding people burgers at the White House after last year's game - nothing about the actual games. Black Kite (talk) 10:54, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Here in England, our most popular sport is association football. The Premier League is in WP:ITN/R, but we don't post any other English competitions, such as the FA Cup - still in itself a big deal domestically. In fact only two other national leagues, those of Spain and Germany, are in that list. As such, and per HiLo above, given that we already post the top competition in US American football, it would be overkill to post a second one. I get that this is a big deal in America, nobody's denying that, but so are many other things within their respective countries and we don't want to inundate ITN with endless sporting events.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:16, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Per Masem & the others. This is an old issue. Suggest snow. – Sca (talk) 13:53, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Article quality is quite good, and reliable news sources are covering the story at a significant level. Checks all of the boxes. --Jayron32 14:48, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - Not that I think consensus will develop in favor of posting, but I think C&C makes good points here. To say this should not be posted because it is a college sport is directly contradicted by the fact that we post NCAA basketball tourney results. There is only one other American football related event we post, so two doesn't seem like overkill. Additionally, to say that this is only important in North America directly contradicts ITN's general criteria: arguing that something should or should not be posted, solely because of where the event happened, or who might be "interested" in it because of its location, are not usually met with concurrence from the community. mike_gigs talkcontribs 16:36, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
I find posts like that unhelpful. Nobody is saying this should not be posted because it is a college sport, so that's a straw man argument. And I have already addressed the issue of two items on the one sport from one country. Would you support two items on Australian football every year? Even as an Australian, I wouldn't. So please don't both ignore what others have said, and then write as if they've said something they haven't. That's just confrontational. HiLo48 (talk) 17:23, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
@HiLo48: actually, I would be very happy to see both the AFL and the AFLW Grand Finals make ITN. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:10, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
A blind chicken actually found the feed :O - and I agree, ITN should not be a confrontational place or a place to let personal preferences cloud what is and is not appropriate for the front page. MPJ-DK (talk) 17:41, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
First, Masem references this being a college sport (coupled with other reasons) as a reason to not post: college footage is equivalent to minor league/amateur sports, which we should not post unless it is like the Boat Race, the most significant event in that sport. Second, I was responding to the claim that Gridiron football has a very limited appeal (principally NA), again by Masem (nothing against you here Masem!), when I brought up the quote regarding the fact that something appealing only to a certain area was not a reason to oppose posting. I was directly responding to points someone gave as to not post this - one that others agreed with. Finally, stating Would you support two items on Australian football every year? is not a valid way to address the issue of two sports for one country. We could spend endless days asking hypotheticals on ITN noms. I though my post was indeed helpful, and I put time into it, making sure I didn't both ignore what others have said, and then write as if they've said something they haven't. I try very hard not to be confrontational on here, but I feel I must stand up for myself in this case. mike_gigs talkcontribs 17:44, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
My argument related to "gridiron only of interest to NA" is not that we should never cover gridiron football, but that we should respect the fact that other sports have much more dominate/global interest like association football, rugby, and cricket, so they reasonably have multiple events that we include as ITRN, while a single-nation sport like gridiron, even if having some of the highest viewership overall, should still be limited in how much we cover it. Which is reasonable with the Super Bowl, but not the non-professional events like this game. --Masem (t) 17:59, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Indeed. On that basis, you could even argue that events like the Championship play-off final, despite being at second-tier level, should be posted here, given that it's a one-off game with an attendance of 85,000, a worldwide audience in the many millions, and covered in multinational media. It's a slippery slope, and I don't think we'd do ourselves any favours by proceeding down it. Consider also that many popular sports (i.e. Kabaddi) don't have any ITN/R entries... Black Kite (talk) 19:05, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support In the news and a quality article. I'm not sure why we have to restrict ourselves to one article per sport per country. I will support this year's FA Cup Final being posted if it is of sufficient quality.-- P-K3 (talk) 19:06, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support posting and linking to a good quality article. We can certainly afford to less picky about "significance" on ITN — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:36, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support; massive event that certainly deserves its place; the national championship draws millions of fans and is covered by loads of independent, reliable newsmedia sources. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 22:52, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Posted. Consensus (while not unanimous) favors posting; article is in good shape. SpencerT•C 05:15, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment. I'm wondering if the first link should be American football and not gridiron, considering that is the more relevant article. (it's also a GA if that has any bearing). GFOLEY FOUR!— 05:31, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
    •   Fixed It's the American (more popular) version.—Bagumba (talk) 06:40, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Post-posting oppose & Pull, not significant enough to merit a blurb. Doesn't rise to the level of ITN. (talk) 17:25, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Please go into more detail about your reason and what the "level of ITN" is. 331dot (talk) 17:27, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm not going to say pull, but see my comment above in reply to HiLo48. Black Kite (talk) 23:22, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
I agree completely, but let's not shut the door AFTER adding 6 rugby, 4 cricket and who knows how many footie games. A common sense solution would be to pick ONE event from each code (we can debate how distinct a code has to be, but why not post Kabaddi if the quality is there?). We already have all changes to heads of state as ITNR, even though everyone knows some are more significant than others. The Boat Race is fine. NBA Finals are in, "FIBA" (whatever the hell that is) is out. FIFA WC is in, Premier League is out. British Open in, Masters out. Snooker, Darts, Sand-castle building... they all get one, but they still have to have the quality. GreatCaesarsGhost 00:57, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment - @Spencer: there is no consensus to post this. Please pull immediately. Realistically, for this to be considered it should be debated for an entry at WP:ITN/R, that's the place to determine if recurring events are posted, with a proper debate, not through local consensus year-by-year. I don't see anything about this year's event that elevates it above other years and would create an exception.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:39, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
    Consensus can change. It used to be everything was sports, sports, sports. Now we have a lot of politics, diplomatic intrigue, and tragedy. There is nothing wrong with letting a few more sports slip through. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 11:48, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
    Yeah, but now this'll come back again next year and everyone will point to this posting and say that's a precedent. So it ends up in ITN/R by the back door. That's not how it's supposed to work. You might be right that this event is notable enough, but it should be ascertained by the correct means, not through this razor-thin "consensus" at an individual year's discussion, with almost as many opposes as supports.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:21, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
    No, this is how it is supposed to work. ITN/R is for recurring items that have had a track record of being posted - it would be nonsensical to have a discussion about an event that has never been posted in the regular way.-- P-K3 (talk) 16:08, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
    There is zero requirement that a recurring event needs to be listed at ITN/R to be able to qualify as an ITN/C candidate, as long as the ITNC is focused only on the single instance of that recurring event. --Masem (t) 16:22, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep listed. Consensus here is clear and I'm happy and admin finally had the balls to post this. Let's all move on and focus on getting new items on the page rather than whinging this made it. Calidum 15:05, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep listed per Calidum Gamaliel (talk) 15:52, 16 January 2020 (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) Ongoing Removal: Citizenship Amendment Act protestsEdit

Closed without action per consensus. Clearly events are still happening from a quick news check, and a lack of update in only 2 days is far too insufficient to claim "lack of updates". --Masem (t) 21:18, 13 January 2020 (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: Citizenship Amendment Act protests (talk, history)
Ongoing item removal
Nominator's comments: Last update (outside the proseline mess) is "On 11 January, PM Modi visited Kolkata on a two day official visit. Hundreds of people protested against CAA at the Kolkata airport.". The requirements for Ongoing are "continuously updated" but at this point the updates for the article are sporadic and inadequate. LaserLegs (talk) 16:11, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Some cleanup is needed, to be sure, but I see nothing demanding immediate removal. Going through the references section, I can see new information has been added up through today, with numerous sources being added yesterday, over half a dozen, with similar numbers of sources to each of the preceding days. This is still an actively-edited article. --Jayron32 16:21, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose The claim that "updates for the article are sporadic and inadequate" is simply not true. This is still an actively-edited article, and an ongoing event. Please see these links from today [2] [3] [4]--DBigXray 16:23, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Still seeing substantive additions. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:26, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The issue is still making headlines in India. More updates are expected in coming days. Abishe (talk) 16:43, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment this happens every time we try to remove something from ongoing. It doesn't matter if the story is still in the news, the article updates are what matters and ref improvements are not "new, pertinent information". At least Jayron read the criteria even if we disagree. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:02, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
    LaserLegs, Did you raise this concern on the article talk page ? If not, then may be next time you should raise it on the talk page first. That may prevent "this" from happening every time you try to remove something from ongoing. Update:I have notified the article contributors about this thread.--DBigXray 20:19, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
    Of course I read them. I'm pretty sure I wrote them. --Jayron32 21:18, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
    All I care about is the ITN box, that's it. If you don't want your pet project removed, just keep it updated per WP:ITN. Thanks for the WP:CANVAS we may as well snow close this nom now under an avalanche of opposes not informed by WP:ITN and I'll try again next week. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:46, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Is Wikipedia improvement your priority or removing perfectly valid items from ITN using bureaucracy ? If it is the latter, then you should seriously review your tactics, or else all such efforts will continue having the same fate, that it gets every time you try to remove something from ongoing. The comments above dont give an impression that there was much support for your proposal anyway. Finally, I think it is about time for you to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate_notification before you wrongly accuse someone of WP:CANVAS again. --DBigXray 20:58, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose - As per reasons given by others above. --I am not a Seahorse (talk) 20:35, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose "sporadic and inadequate" is a point of view. This is a ongoing protest and will continue for days to come, first Supreme Court hearing itself on 22nd. Some protest are going on continuously, various sections are still to be added. I can see updates on 13th Jan. I don't see any reason for such removal. Dey subrata (talk) 20:44, 13 January 2020 (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) Pervez MusharrafEdit

Consensus will not develop to post. Stephen 04:54, 15 January 2020 (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: Pervez Musharraf (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Former Pakistani president Pervez Musharraf's death sentence is annulled by the Lahore High Court
News source(s): CNN, New York Times, BBC, Wall Street Journal, SCMP, Reuters, CBC, Deutsche Welle,, Al Jazeera, The Hindu, Gulf News,

Article updated
Nominator's comments: This is a BLP and we posted the blurb of sentencing. ((Posted) Pervez Musharraf). The annulment should also be posted for same reasons. DBigXray 12:49, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support This is quite important as the judgement has been proven and declared invalid. Abishe (talk) 16:50, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment Or perhaps the death sentence shouldn't have been posted in the first place and two wrongs don't make a right? Not saying that for sure, just playing devil's advocate. I will say that the entirety of the update as of this moment is "On 13 January 2020, the Lahore High Court annulled the death sentence.[22]" and since that doesn't even say why the annulled it, it's an insufficient update. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:04, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
      Fixed Muboshgu thanks for the review. I have added more updates DBigXray 18:12, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Per Muboshgu, was as insignificant then as now (except maybe for headline catching news). Gotitbro (talk) 20:33, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Trust the system we have for determining ITN-worthiness. We usually post major court case convictions/sentencing (which we did) and Supreme Court decisions. If this is appealed to the Supreme Court of Pakistan, we should post the decision of that court as it sets major precedent. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 23:46, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment. So I'm not clear on this. Was his conviction tossed out, or just his death sentence? He was unlikely to be put to death(he is in another country and dying due to illness) but if his conviction was tossed, that seems notable to me. 331dot (talk) 01:08, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
    331dot, both his conviction and his death sentence was tossed out. and the special court that gave the previous verdict was judged as illegal. DBigXray 10:30, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Of course the sentence was never going to be carried out, which was why it was silly of us to play along with the earlier publicity stunt. Let's not compound that error by acting like this is a shocking new development. GreatCaesarsGhost 01:10, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment If the sentencing by a lower court was assessed important enough to post, so should be the exoneration by a superior High Court (which holds higher importance). The news sites have all published it and rightly so. (see CNN, New York Times, BBC, Wall Street Journal, SCMP, Reuters, CBC, Deutsche Welle,, Al Jazeera) Why are we posting the negative coverage but hiding the rectification of an illegal judgement. We are not here for hitjobs and we should be careful in not appearing as one. This is both unfair and hypocritical at a whole another level. Pinging participants of previous discussion. @Davey2116, Joseywales1961, Vegan Gypsy, Pawnkingthree, Störm, Saqib, and Lefcentreright:--DBigXray 10:53, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose - it was not a full-bench decision, and it will be challenged in Supreme Court who's special bench gave decision. We can't post every development. Störm (talk) 11:50, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Quote: A three-member full bench of the LHC, ..., delivered the unanimous verdict. User:Störm Please check. Also this is the final judgement of the high court. The case may never go to Supreme Court, moreover we should not be guessing the future but assessing the present.--DBigXray 12:00, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose – In practical terms lacks significance. – Sca (talk) 13:56, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above. The death sentence should've never been posted in the first place. Nonstopmaximum (talk) 00:08, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Nonstopmaximum So ex-heads of state being sentenced to death, especially for actions related to their time in office, should not be posted? 331dot (talk) 00:17, 15 January 2020 (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) Taal VolcanoEdit

Article: Taal Volcano (talk, history)
Blurb: Taal Volcano in the Philippines erupts leading to suspension of all flights to and from the capital Manila's Ninoy Aquino International Airport.
Alternative blurb: Taal Volcano in the Philippines erupts after 43 years, spewing ash in several provinces including the capital Manila.
Alternative blurb II: Taal Volcano in the Philippines erupts leading to the suspension of all flights at Ninoy Aquino International Airport.
News source(s): Philippine Daily Inquirer, New York Times, Bloomberg, CNN International, DW, Sydney Morning Herald

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Notable event as the volcano's proximity to populated areas and its eruptive history, it was designated a Decade Volcano, worthy of close study to prevent future natural disasters. Exec8 (talk) 00:50, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Comment that gigantic "The 1754 eruption" section needs to be trimmed before this goes anywhere near the main page. Few missing refs. Nolo on significance. --LaserLegs (talk) 02:11, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support but article should also link to 2020 Taal Volcano eruption instead. ITSQUIETUPTOWN.publictalk 03:50, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support: But the blurb needs to updated as well because can cause many people killed. This link should be linked to 2020 Taal Volcano eruption instead the Taal volcano itself — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:44, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - Definitely for ITN. Article of eruption seems updated and ready.BabbaQ (talk) 09:07, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Altblurb2 added, which links to 2020 Taal Volcano eruption — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:23, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support with Altblurb2 linking to 2020 eruption Joseywales1961 (talk) 12:38, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
  •   Posted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:07, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment just wanted to say that this is the first time I've seen a GIF in ITN. Pretty cool! --Varavour (talk) 09:54, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment Same, wow. Made me do a double-take. It's actually very visually pleasant seeing GIFs on the usually static front page. Sleath56 (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) Joseph Muscat and Robert AbelaEdit

Articles: Joseph Muscat (talk, history) and Robert Abela (talk, history)
Blurb: Robert Abela replaces Joseph Muscat as Prime Minister of Malta in the wake of protests over the murder of Caruana Galizia
Alternative blurb: Joseph Muscat resigns as Prime Minister of Malta, and is replaced by Robert Abela.
Alternative blurb II: Robert Abela becomes Prime Minister of Malta following the resignation of Joseph Muscat.
Alternative blurb III: Prime Minister of Malta Joseph Muscat resigns in the wake of protests over the murder of Caruana Galizia
News source(s): BBC News, CNN, Malta Today

Nominator's comments: Notable event as Malta, an EU member, is rocked by a political crisis. A continuity candidate, Robert Abela, is to be sworn in as Prime Minister today, 13 January, at 3 pm (CET). --> Zugraga talk 10:34, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Article needs updating — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:25, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Alt 2 appears ready now and should be how we frame this item. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 13:40, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose - Target article (Abela) has a cn-tag in the first line, though it is only for his birthday. Also the "Honours" section is completely blank mike_gigs talkcontribs 15:01, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Support now per changes. Thanks Xwejnusgozo! mike_gigs talkcontribs 19:48, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
@Boud: Sorry. We are not a news service. None of those headlines (which sound somewhat sensational) were posted here at ITN. Any change to the ALT3 would require consensus. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:20, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
@Ad Orientem: We are not a news service, agreed; but also, we don't (shouldn't) present information in a misleading way. Omitting context is one way of being misleading. I've struck the word "update" in my comment because that's misleading; I meant "correct". (Parenthesis: The protests article gives plenty of sourced evidence of the anger described in the headlines, though "anger" would be more neutral than "outcry" or "outrage" - agreed there). I don't see any arguments above in favour of removing the links to the protests article and the Caruana Galizia, apart from Amakuru's post-posting "I don't think" comment. In terms of consensus, was in favour of including the protests article. I don't see any arguments presented here against ALT3. Boud (talk) 22:51, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
I did another strike in my comment to clarify that the newness of the headlines is irrelevant: what is relevant is that they describe the event in context, which we would do with ALT3 (or the original blurb). Boud (talk) 23:09, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Again, this needs to be resolved through WP:CONSENSUS. As an uninvolved admin, absent some serious breach of policy/guidelines, it would be inappropriate for me to unilaterally make substantive changes to the blurb. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:10, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Fair enough that you want to remain an uninvolved admin. @Zugraga, Coffeeandcrumbs, Mike gigs, Xwejnusgozo, and Amakuru: - Are there any objections to shifting to ALT3? Boud (talk) 01:59, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Only if we begin with Abela. I don't mind more context but the primary focus should be the appointment of a new head of government not the exit of the old. "​Robert Abela becomes Prime Minister of Malta following the resignation of Joseph Muscat in the wake of ...." --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 04:09, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Blurb updated. There seems to be a rough consensus to include details on the protest, but per C&C the focus should still be on the new PM, so I've amended it to the current wording of ALT0. Hope this is OK with everyone. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 10:06, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
    Yes, that looks reasonable to me - thanks! Boud (talk) 23:03, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

January 12Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks
  • Four Iraqi soldiers are wounded when mortar shells strike Balad Air Base, 40 miles (64 km) north of Baghdad, which houses U.S. military personnel. The mortars struck the runway inside the base. (Reuters)

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Politics and elections

Science and technology

(Posted) RD: Tony GarnettEdit

Article: Tony Garnett (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Skopeliti, Clea (January 12, 2020). "Tony Garnett, TV and film producer, dies aged 83". The Guardian. Retrieved January 14, 2020.

Article updated

Nominator's comments: TV and film producer, dies aged 83. Needs a few more cites, but will work on those this afternoon.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:09, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Comment I've finished tidying up cites, think it's good to go now.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:24, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Yes I agree this looks ready.-- P-K3 (talk) 20:18, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Posted -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:36, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Kazuo SakuradaEdit

Article: Kazuo Sakurada (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Meltzer, Dave (January 12, 2020). "Daily Update: Kazuo Sakurada passes away, Saudia Arabia, Rich Swann". Wrestling Observer Newsletter. Retrieved January 12, 2020.

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Long time professional wrestler, worked extensively in Japan and North America during his carer MPJ-DK (talk) 03:04, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

  • More reliable source needed for his death. Also, can the personal life section be expanded a bit? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:30, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
    Wrestling Observer Newsletter is a reliable source, the most reliable source of all pro wrestling news sites. I have not found anything on his personal life supported by reliable sources, only blogs and forum posts. MPJ-DK (talk) 14:19, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
    Sorry I'm not familiar with wrestling sources. I guess I was asking for mainstream sources, but if you say these are reliable then I'll accept that — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:14, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  • No opposition, so   Posted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:33, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Paulo GonçalvesEdit

Article: Paulo Gonçalves (motorcyclist) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): A Voz da Póvoa

Nominator's comments: The motorracer. Could use a little copyediting and some extra Dakar Rally placements but good to go. ミラP 02:50, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Can you help to copyedit "During the 2020 edition, the engine started in the third stage, and it was even announced its withdrawal" because I have no idea what this means? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:34, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
    @MSGJ: Done. ミラP 01:00, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Awaiting further comments. This is looking good now, perhaps too much reliance on a single source though — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:44, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose - per MSGJ above, needs a few more diverse sources. I think they're out there as his death is in the English-language news too.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:25, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  • @Amakuru: I've added CNN and Guardian refs. ミラP 13:04, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD - @Miraclepine: thanks for the updated refs, and I've added a couple more myself so it's good to do now. Posted.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:08, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Sir Roger ScrutonEdit

Article: Roger Scruton (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The Telegraph

Nominator's comments: Well known conservative and traditionalist English political/social philosopher. Article is in good shape. Ad Orientem (talk) 19:50, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Weakest oppose the "selected" works section is unreferenced, the rest is probably GA-level. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 20:18, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose there's also no prose update on his death, no mention of his 6-month battle with cancer. I'm finding sources for the works, but finding a single (e.g. British Library) listing for them all may be the way to go. Kingsif (talk) 21:44, 12 January 2020 (UTC) Support article in great shape, updated, very influential man in the UK in general and in world political philosophy. Has an SPS for his works in the main bio but since a google shows them very easily as his with a variety of other sources, seems fine, should be good to post. Kingsif (talk) 00:00, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
@ Kingsif & The Rambling Man: I think the issues you raised have been addressed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:56, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Updated and well referenced. If the works section is still a problem, it could be blanked except for the template, as there exists a sub-article for his works that readers could be directed towards. Hrodvarsson (talk) 05:34, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support: As arguably the greatest philosopher of our age, his passing should be marked. He was far more than a thinker and writer though: in Eastern Europe his work ensured that after Communism fell, there was an intellectual class ready to guide those lands into the new landscape without which there would have been anarchy. Hogweard (talk) 07:38, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. Looks well sourced. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:47, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
  •   Posted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:15, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

January 11Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Politics and elections

RD: Stan KirschEdit

Nominator's comments: American actor and filmmaker. Article looks well-sourced, only query is size Skteosk (talk) 09:34, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: La Parka IIEdit

Article: La Parka II (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): @LuchaLibreAAA (January 11, 2020). "Con mucha tristeza lamentamos informar que nuestro amigo e ídolo de la lucha libre mexicana Jesús Alfonso Escoboza Huerta "LA PARKA" ha fallecido" [We are very sad to report that our friend and idol of Mexican wrestling Jesús Alfonso Escoboza Huerta "LA PARKA" has passed away.] (in Spanish). Twitter. Retrieved January 11, 2020. (Official twitter account of his employer)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Died today as a results of injuries he suffered during a match MPJ-DK (talk) 03:33, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Support - Article looks fairly well referenced mike_gigs talkcontribs 04:27, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - looks good to go to me.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:45, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Per the above. And remember kids, don't try this at home... Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 17:53, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD --valereee (talk) 19:36, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

(Posted and updated) Qaboos bin Said al SaidEdit

Article: Qaboos bin Said al Said (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Sultan Qaboos bin Said Al Said of Oman, the Arab world's longest-serving ruler, has died.
Alternative blurb: ​In Oman, Haitham bin Tariq Al Said is named the country's new ruler after his cousin Sultan Qaboos bin Said al Said dies at age 79.
News source(s): BBC

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: He was longest serving in Arab world, major role of mediating regional conflicts. Sherenk1 (talk) 00:48, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Note I have updated the nomination to reflect that this event is covered by ITNR as it involves a change in head of state. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:03, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Article seems up to scratch. The death of the undisputedly most powerful figure in a country is certainly worth a blurb. EternalNomad (talk) 00:50, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support at least RD, indifferent towards blurb looks good enough. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 00:53, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - I personally see no reason as to why not. Article is ready.BabbaQ (talk) 00:59, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
  • No comment on article quality. Support a blurb especially when his successor is agreed/named in up to 3 days or so time, a combined blurb on the succession would be ITNR anyway. -- KTC (talk) 01:02, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - RD is a no-brainer to me. I think he may "deserve" a blurb.--SirEdimon (talk) 01:03, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support The blurb can be updated when the successor is announced. Article is decent shape with referencing and is being updated. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:25, 11 January 2020 (UTC) -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:25, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support blurb Notable and article looks good.Johndavies837 (talk) 01:28, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Wait Is Qaboos bin Said al Said's religion is Islam and related to Saudi? I can support it if he refers his nationality because it is interested to me. Otherwise, I Support it for article's quality and it is notable. Separate article needs to explain this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:30, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
I don't understand. Why is his religion relevant? Johndavies837 (talk) 02:10, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
  Posted. El_C 02:16, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment The tense used in the blurb is unusual; I think we generally use present tense (i.e. "dies" or "dies aged 79"). EternalNomad (talk) 02:17, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
  Done. I've also restructured the original blurb. El_C 02:22, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment - Possible to have his picture as well? Sherenk1 (talk) 02:34, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support even aside from his status as the longest-serving ruler of the Arab world, he was the incumbent monarch of a sovereign country, so a blurb is appropriate.  Vanilla  Wizard  💙 03:08, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment - Can we add the new ruler: Haitham bin Tariq Al Said on the blurb. Sherenk1 (talk) 06:45, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
    That would be nice, but that article is still rather short. Hopefully it will be expanded now. What wording would you suggest? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:49, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
    See alt blurb above.—Bagumba (talk) 12:35, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment The ascension of Haitham bin Tariq Al Said is ITN/R, the death of the sitting head is not. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:13, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support succession update Haitham readable prose size is currently 1457, which I'll IAR for my personal requirement of matching DYK min requirememt of 1500.—Bagumba (talk) 12:18, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Blurb updated to alt to include succession. -- KTC (talk) 13:07, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

(Posted and reworded) 2020 Taiwanese presidential electionEdit

Article: 2020 Taiwanese presidential election (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Incumbent Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen wins the 2020 Taiwanese presidential election with a landslide victory.
Alternative blurb: Tsai Ing-Wen (pictured) is re-elected President of Taiwan.
Alternative blurb II: ​Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen wins the 2020 Taiwanese presidential election with 57.1 percent of the votes
News source(s): Hongkongfp, The Guardian, Reuters, BBC

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Taiwan is a small country but the elections were quite important as the incumbent President was against Chinese administration. Abishe (talk) 14:26, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Oppose for now. More prose is needed regarding the results of the election. Currently there is just one sentence stating who won. mike_gigs talkcontribs 15:31, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Support - Looks good now! mike_gigs talkcontribs 04:29, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support the alternative blurb. Concise and factual, and it is a notable news item. - Indefensible (talk) 19:42, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support important news. Thankyoubaby (talk) 21:07, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose – For as long as I have been stalking ITN/C, we have required a summary-in-prose for the §Results. That section should have at least 3–4 sentences summarizing the outcome and citing sources like [5][6][7][8]. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 00:11, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
CnC I have added a basic 3 line summary there. Others are welcome to expand.--DBigXray 00:39, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support added Alt blurb II --DBigXray 00:29, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Alt1 and marking ready; I added some additional information to the results section so it meets minimum standards. SpencerT•C 01:45, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment I think the legislative election should be mentioned as well since it is less predicted. Ythlev (talk) 02:56, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Posted  — Amakuru (talk) 13:36, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Amakuru, can someone post the credits. --DBigXray 13:44, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
  Done. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 13:46, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Whether Taiwan is a country or not does not take away from the existence of this election, nor its newsworthiness or effect on world affairs. 331dot (talk) 15:37, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Well, it might be of consideration if the nomination was nodded through on the basis of the WP:ITN/R for national elections. It doesn't look it was though, and I agree that as a de facto independent state and a significant player on the global stage, this is clearly worthy of posting.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:39, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
To pile on, I agree with both 331dot and Amakuru. – Ammarpad (talk) 17:25, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Further discussion on wording of blurbEdit
  • Tsai Ing-wen Her article says she is President of the Republic of China, but our blurb is to "President of Taiwan". Seems 1) inconsistent 2) weird not to link to the office if we are going to capitalize "President".—Bagumba (talk) 15:29, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
    I've made "President" lowercase, and also added an "as" to the sentence, unless you think that's wrong.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:45, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
    There's still the issue of whether we had a standard for national politics whether it's referred to as Republic of China (as her bio uses) or Taiwan.—Bagumba (talk) 16:14, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
    Perhaps "In Taiwan, Tsai Ing-wen (pictured) is re-elected as President of the Republic of China." (also serves as an educating point of Taiwan/Republic of China)—Bagumba (talk) 16:44, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
    You may want to tell President Tsai that she isn't President of Taiwan, as her own press office doesn't appear to be aware. (Pretty much the entire platform of the DPP is that Taiwan is an independent country and the "Republic of China" symbolism should be dropped. Wikipedia insisting on using Kuomintang terminology is roughly on a par with insisting we call Gerry Adams British.) ‑ Iridescent 17:15, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
    The term "President of Taiwan" does not appear anywhere in the link you provided. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 14:00, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
    Probably best to simply say "President of the Republic of China (Taiwan)" as is represented on official Taiwanese documents. The current construction appears amateur and partisan - like the work of someone who has not done their homework on Taiwan. Another suggestion entirely is to simply say she won the "2020 Taiwanese presidential elections" without actually specifying the office. But anything is better than this current line. And in response to the above, Tsai herself, in her victory speech, repeatedly makes reference to "Repubilc of China -- Taiwan". So while it is true that the DPP wants to drop "Chinese" symbols, she has not herself made this a priority, not nearly to the same extent as Chen Shui-bian anyway, and also pays lip service to the designation "ROC-Taiwan" during the debates and policy presentations. Colipon+(Talk) 17:47, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
    @Iridescent: The link you provided says "Office of the President Republic of China (Taiwan)" at the very top. My only preference is that Main Page is consistent with the linked articles, however that is achieved. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 18:02, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
    Oppose any change. The country is commonly called Taiwan, not the Republic of China (which may be a confusing term for many people if they're not familliar with the ROC/PRC distinction). It is unnecessary to mention that term at all in the blurb, and it certainly isn't an error.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:01, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
    De-capping can be interpreted as a form demoting importance. We are allowing POV to creep in, even if unintentional. We should use her official title or find a way to capitalize President as suggested below by Bagumba. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 13:55, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
    Actually de-capping is simply part of Wikipedia guidelines, as indicated at MOS:JOBTITLES so it's not a question of demoting importance. We do it across the board, including at List of presidents of the United States and all related titles which use "president" as a common noun rather than as part of a title. And furthermore, we have long-standing convention of calling that country Taiwan. The linked event itself is titled the 2020 Taiwanese presidential election. I get that there are complications around the naming of the country and the political status re China, but really the current wording is exactly how we'd style any other presidential re-election. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 15:06, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
    Amakuru, in this case, we have made two decisions to get here. First, we chose to ignore her official title because, I assume, we think the reader is stupid. Second, we chose to decap president even though it is not modified (i.e. preceded by "the") and not plural. Her title is "President of the Republic of China" and we should say so. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 15:53, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
    Note that small p for smaller countries is a common occurrence at ITN. See Wikipedia:Main Page history/2013 March 17 where Xi Jinping got a capital P even when modified by "new". Sure MOS was different then but my point is still the same. We bend over backwards to capitalize major nations' titles but we can't be bother to make a few changes to the blurb to make sure we treat smaller countries with the same respect. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 16:06, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
    • Another alternative that can be considered that could be workable to all parties is "Tsai Ing-wen wins the 2020 presidential elections in Taiwan." Neutral, accurate, concise. Colipon+(Talk) 00:39, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
      Or: "Tsai Ing-wen (pictured) wins the Taiwanese presidential election and is re-elected president", so as to follow the wording of the article title and be able to use "president" unqualified. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 03:15, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
    • Another error Considering she was already president (and got re-elected), she needs to be introduced as "President Tsai Ing-wen is ..."—Bagumba (talk) 07:22, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
      Suggestion: "In Taiwan, President Tsai Ing-wen (pictured) is re-elected." this avoids the whole Republic of China/Taiwan conundrum. There is no issue referring to the geographical location as "Taiwan".—Bagumba (talk) 07:31, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Bagumba, this is a good idea. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 13:55, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
I think this would work.-- P-K3 (talk) 15:58, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
I am in favour of this proposal also. Colipon+(Talk) 18:12, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Blurb amended - per my comments above, I don't really think this is necessary but since people are unhappy, there seems to be a rough consensus, and it's not the end of the world, I have amended the blurb with Bagumba's suggestion.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:27, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

January 10Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

(Stale) Quetta bombingEdit

Article: 2020 Quetta bombing (talk, history)
Blurb: ​At least 15 people are killed in a suicide bombing inside a mosque in Quetta, Pakistan.
News source(s): NYT Al Jazeera

Article updated

Nominator's comments: A horrible news with significant no. of deaths. Vegan Gypsy (talk) 19:24, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Thanks for your work on this article, but it is now older than the oldest item currently on ITN, so according to the rules it will not be posted. If there are further developments, please nominate again — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:32, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Wolfgang DaunerEdit

Article: Wolfgang Dauner (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Stuttgarter Zeitung

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Legendary jazz pianist in Germany, also fusion composer. Article was tagged for sources. I noticed his death only last night, and am on vacation. If anybody is inclined to add, there's much more in German, and the 2010 interview is fascinating reading. Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:57, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Support' - article is in reasonable shape, well-cited, and has the fundamental info. Marking as ready.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:56, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  •   Posted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:17, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Neil PeartEdit

Article: Neil Peart (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): CBC

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Drummer for the band Rush. Death on the 7th but only reported today. Article needs sourcing TLC. Masem (t) 21:22, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Suggest blurb: widely considered the greatest drummer (or at least routinely in the top 3) of all time. - Floydian τ ¢ 21:34, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose not a blurb in any sense, and article isn't ready. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 21:36, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
    • Definitely not a blurb. He retired on news he had cancer, this was not a surprised. If he died in the midst of touring as a surprise to everyone, maybe. But this is not like Prince or David Bowie in terms of musicians. --Masem (t) 21:39, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
      • He retired because of arthritis not long ago, his death was still completely unexpected. - Floydian τ ¢ 21:41, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
        • It's terribly sad but it's not a blurb. If Ringo Starr or even Roger Taylor died right now, we wouldn't blurb him. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 21:44, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
          • Ringo I would think would get a blurb—his entire career may have been through the good fortune of attaching himself to other people's coat-tails, but his level of fame is such that even if his death were completely expected after a long illness, I'd still expect it to get the 'full blacked-out front page, souvenir supplement, and "what he meant to me" by z-list celebs' treatment in every paper. With the exception of Trump and QEII his name is almost certainly better known globally than that of any current head of state. This guy, however, is not Ringo; if I stopped a hundred people in the street and asked "who was the drummer in Rush?" I doubt a single one could name him. ‑ Iridescent 21:55, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
            • Exactly. He's very important probably to a group of people of a certain age and type - eg people that likely were in college in the 70s and 80s when Rush was the big thing - but not as much a global household name as Ringo, or Prince, or Bowie. This to me is an issue around the same problem that led to us posting Carrie Fisher as a blurb which we retroactively saw as a mistake - an "important" person to a certain clique but not really that important in the long run. --Masem (t) 22:12, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
              • Ringo should never get a blurb, I'm not sure how he would ever meet the "transformative" criterion. Even Thomas would agree with me. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 22:23, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
                • He was a part of a package—it's "four lads who shook the world", not "three lads who shook the world and their ugly mate". When the time comes I'll be very surprised if he doesn't get overwhelming support for a blurb; unless the Third World War starts on the same day it will be guaranteed the be the lead story in every news outlet in the world. Plus, it's probably one of the best BLP articles on Wikipedia (admittedly assisted by the fact that he hasn't done anything of note for 50 years so it doesn't need much updating), so it will be an opportunity to showcase it. ‑ Iridescent 22:31, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
                  • We'll have to wait and see. Unless there's recognition for his work as The Fat Controller, I'm not interested. As we all know, Paul said Ringo wasn't even the best drummer in the band. His work isn't transformative, it's just Sideshow Bob-esque. I personally love some of the Beatles' anthology work where Ringo expresses instrumentally. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 22:41, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose RD on quality - this is apparently a "good article", but it's not really very good because large parts of it lack citations. Also oppose blurb, as noted above he's famous but not that famous.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:09, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Despite being a good article it has numerous sourcing issues. If these aren’t fixed soon and his page isn’t featured on RD this could also be a candidate for GA demotion. Nonstopmaximum (talk) 22:21, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment I plan to work on sourcing and fixing some of the worse bits. Not worth a blurb, but a listing will suffice. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 22:54, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support blurb - This isn't just some drummer. This is Neil Peart. Come on. WaltCip (talk) 23:09, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb if it's not obvious from my comments above. Quite aside from the quality issue, I've never heard of him and I'd be willing to bet that I don't know a single person who's heard of him, and I've lived my life surrounded by muso types. ‑ Iridescent 23:12, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb Never heard of him, and rock music is one of my interests. P-K3 (talk) 23:28, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
LOL, ok --LaserLegs (talk) 23:48, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support blurb - Lyricist and drummer of the one of the greatest rock bands of all time. CoatCheck (talk) 23:45, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Blurb while Peart is widely recognized by anyone with a clue as a well known and influential drummer, my subjective criteria for a blurb is the death/funeral becoming a news item on it's own (think Michael Jackson) and not just an obit. We can bump it to a blurb in a day or two if it's still making headlines. Oppose RD for now because of the CN tags. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:48, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support RD: Highly notable drummer. There's thousands of rock drummers in the world, but not too many are in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and the Order of Canada. Article has 91 sources, how many does it need, 100? TomCat4680 (talk) 23:54, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Firstly, if you’re supporting RD, then notability is not relevant. Secondly, it’s not the number of sources overall, but the number of statements that are unsourced.P-K3 (talk) 01:13, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Regretful oppose RD on article quality alone. I was quite surprised that this wasn't already up, but looking at the article I can see many uncited paragraphs. Can switch to support once this gets cleaned up. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 00:48, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support RD - definitely RD ready.BabbaQ (talk) 01:00, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
    • It's not RD ready - its 90% there, but there are several CN tags, and a fair number of sections very light on reference that need it, like "Playing style reinvention". It's close, but not close enough. --Masem (t) 01:24, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support blurb and RD' - His influence on rock was big enough to justify blurb, don't see why people don't want blurb. Doomgloom2678 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:51, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support for RD only when citations are improved Joseywales1961 (talk) 10:19, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support blurb and RD' Very important drummer, musician. And a writer to boot. 91 sources, and you are quibbling over the few paragraphs that need additional citation? Again, a deliberately perverse result. Not unlike when Dr. John died. 7&6=thirteen () 14:50, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
    • Yes we are quibbling about missing citations. Material highlighted on WP's main page should be showing our best work. Lots of missing citations is not our best work. --Masem (t) 15:01, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
It has 100 sources. Is it the "best article in Wikipedia?" No. But it is a very good article, if not a perfect one. Perfection is not a requirement for inclusion on the main page.
USA Today's writers compared him favorably to other top shelf rock drummers.He was “considered one of the best rock drummers of all time, alongside John Bonham of Led Zeppelin; Ringo Starr of The Beatles; Keith Moon of The Who; Ginger Baker of Cream and Stewart Copeland of The Police.” Henderson, Cydney; Deerwester, Jayme (January 11, 2020). "Rush drummer Neil Peart dies of brain cancer at 67: 'Rest in peace brother'". USA TODAY. Gannett News. Retrieved January 11, 2020. As Variety wrote: "[w]idely considered one of the most innovative drummers in rock history, Peart was famous for his state-of-the-art drum kits — more than 40 different drums were not out of the norm — precise playing style and on stage showmanship. Cornell, Jeff; Aswad, Jef (January 11, 2020). "Neil Peart, Rush Drummer, Dies at 67". Variety. Retrieved January 11, 2020. 7&6=thirteen () 18:45, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Number of references mean nothing. Its where there are large swathes of text including non-obvious statements that are not sourced. We aren't asking for perfection, but an article marked GA with this many CNs has clearly fallen out of the quality that it had been when it was at GA. That GA was back in 2008, so clearly 12 years of time have left the article in a poor state to not be yet postable. --Masem (t) 19:09, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

If I wasn't using a mobile phone, I'd simply comment out the unreferenced statements. Hopefully one of the above supporters can. - Floydian τ ¢ 22:01, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Support RD. Notable drummer but we shouldn't just give a blurb to everyone. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 21:58, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Ready no more CN tags, no more orange tags. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:18, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD  — Amakuru (talk) 13:39, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

RD: John CrosbieEdit

Article: John Crosbie (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): [1]

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Canadian politician with a very long and storied career; this includes holding many top positions like Minister of Justice/Finance/Transport/Fisheries, being Lieutenant Governor of Newfoundland, longtime MP and MLA with many cabinet positions at Provincial level. In those roles played a major part in decades of Canadian politics. Ultimograph5 (talk) 18:46, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Weak support Generally in good shape but could do with a better reference than autobiography in the Leadership Bid section, also the life after politics section could be improved with sources to some of the statements Joseywales1961 (talk) 19:21, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose too much unreferenced material for a BLP, let alone one going to the main page. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:49, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Too many "citation needed" templates. If improvements are made, please "ping" me. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 15:00, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) US House votes to limit Trump's military powerEdit

SNOW close  — Amakuru (talk) 14:15, 10 January 2020 (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: Donald Trump (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The US House of Representatives vote to limit the war powers of US President Donald Trump against Iran without congressional approval
News source(s): BBC, CNN, Al Jazeera
Nominator's comments: This is quite relevant to mention amid the tensions between US and Iran. Abishe (talk) 02:57, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose As the BBC says it is " a largely symbolic resolution", definitely non-binding. It's basically the dem-heavy House going "We're warning you that we think you have overextended your war powers." and had no ramifications outside of election year politicking. --Masem (t) 03:14, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose No significance. It's just one chamber and there is zero chance this is going to pass the Senate. It's political theater. And in any event we don't don't do domestic politics below national elections (conceding rare exceptions). -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:17, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Symbolic measure with no long-term significance and no chance of being taken up in the Senate.--WaltCip (talk) 13:09, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose House does a lot of things without the Senate. SpencerT•C 13:24, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Per 4 previous. Suggest snow. – Sca (talk) 14:06, 10 January 2020 (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) 2019–20 Persian Gulf crisisEdit

Not going to happen.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:10, 10 January 2020 (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: 2019–20 Persian Gulf crisis (talk, history)
Ongoing item nomination

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Though this started way back in May 2019, the crisis has further aggravated by the US-Iran tensions. Abishe (talk) 03:19, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Yes, the air strike and retalitory missile firing was news, but all news suggest the events have quieted at this point and its already falling off the front page coverage. --Masem (t) 03:21, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support hasn't de-escalated completely yet, if it does we can remove it in a few days' time. Banedon (talk) 03:42, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per my rational here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:43, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose the flight crash and airstrike blurbs cover the major points for now.—Bagumba (talk) 09:51, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose - No further escalation expected at this time.--WaltCip (talk) 13:09, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Per previous. No need. – Sca (talk) 14:08, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Same reasoning as opposing US-Iran Relations for Ongoing a couple days ago mike_gigs talkcontribs 16:11, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak Support Ongoing crisis, continuing tensions. De-escalation is by all signs temporary as the underlying tension remains. Ultimograph5 (talk) 18:37, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
Ain't gonna fly. Suggest snow. – Sca (talk) 18:55, 10 January 2020 (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) UK Parliament approves Britain to leave from EUEdit

SNOW close  — Amakuru (talk) 14:13, 10 January 2020 (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: Brexit (talk, history) and Brexit negotiations (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The UK Parliament approves UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson's Brexit deal to leave the European Union by 31 January 2020
Alternative blurb: ​The House of Commons vote in favour of UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson to leave the European Union following the Brexit negotiations.
News source(s): BBC, CNN, Al Jazeera
Nominator's comments: After nearly three years, its done for the UK to leave EU. Finally the UK Parliament has given mandate to leave EU. Abishe (talk) 03:46, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Assuming the article quality is up to scratch, I would expect that Brexit will be posted when it actually happens. And its worth noting that this isn't even the final approval. The House of Lords still has to rubber stamp the bill. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:52, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Still has to be rubber stamped by The Lords and the Queen (and, at least as far as I know, by the EU Parliament, which might yet decide to be a bit awkward because it may not like been treated as a rubber stamp, tho this is so little In The News that, for all I know or care, it may have happened already without me noticing). Even then it will probably be fairly minor news. Incidentally, I wouldn't take it too much for granted that we'll post it when it happens at the end of this month, on grounds both that it's stale news (having been known about at least since Bojo won his majority in the election last month, which we posted) and at least arguably means little as this is (at least arguably) Brexit In Name Only(BRINO) while the 'real Brexit', if any, won't happen until the end of the transition period at the end of this year (assuming that isn't postponed, or fudged, etc) - but those are all questions for us to deal with then, not now. Tlhslobus (talk) 11:10, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment Note that it would probably make more sense to put Brexit back into Ongoing instead of posting this (tho I'd almost certainly be opposed to Ongoing too, for such reasons as that it's now only minor news, etc). Tlhslobus (talk) 11:30, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose, wait until the 31st and post then. --Tone 11:41, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose & wait. As others have pointed out, passing the Commons is not the final step in becoming law. More importantly, the event itself happens in three weeks, so it would be more appropriate to post on 31 Jan / 1 Feb. Modest Genius talk 11:53, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Tone.--WaltCip (talk) 13:09, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Conditionally support only after 31st January this will be posted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:54, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Per Walt, Orientem. Just an interim bit. – Sca (talk) 14:11, 10 January 2020 (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 9Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

Politics and elections

(Posted) RD: Mike ResnickEdit

Article: Mike Resnick (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Locus Tor

Article updated

Nominator's comments: 5-time Hugo Award winner, Guest of Honor at Chicon 7, I've updated/found sourcing, article is in good-enough shape now. --valereee (talk) 14:21, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Weak oppose a couple of citations being requested still. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 20:21, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
    I've searched and searched, can't find sourcing, have removed this content. I believe the article now has no citation needed tags. --valereee (talk) 20:39, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support as the unsourced content has been removed. I don't see anything needing a citation now mike_gigs talkcontribs 21:50, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
  •   Posted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:20, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Yong Pung HowEdit

Article: Yong Pung How (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Straits Times

Nominator's comments: He established Singapore's sovereign wealth fund, GIC, and central bank. He returned to practise law, and became the chief justice of Singapore, modernising the judiciary during his term. robertsky (talk) 01:16, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Support Article looks in good shape Joseywales1961 (talk) 11:28, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
  •   Posted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:07, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ana Lucrecia TagliorettiEdit

Article: Ana Lucrecia Taglioretti (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): La Nación, ABC, Wochenblatt

Nominator's comments: Blind Paraguayan violinist, member of the National Symphonic Orchestra and recipient of the Young Leader of the Year award. The approximate date of her death was on 7 January, but her body was found on 9 January. Jamez42 (talk) 17:10, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Looks good to me — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:01, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
  •   Posted just before this became stale — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:40, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

January 8Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Science and technology

(Closed) RD: Buck HenryEdit

Article: Buck Henry (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Deadline

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Screenwriter for The Graduate, co-created Get Smart. Unfortunately the usual cadre of sourcing problems with not-quite-top-tier Hollywood figures and needs a lot of sourcing TLC. This news came late, so maybe improvements in the morning?` Masem (t) 07:41, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Ongoing: Iran-United States relationsEdit

SNOW close. SpencerT•C 23:02, 8 January 2020 (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: Iran–United States relations (talk, history)
Ongoing item nomination
Nominator's comments: There is a timeline section which is getting regular updates and this seems to make more sense than perpetually updating a blurb LaserLegs (talk) 19:39, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose - No, I don't think so. There is no evidence that any further escalation will be taking place.--WaltCip (talk) 19:49, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose while the current blurb is on the main page. I am open to reconsidering once the blurb drops off the main page if there is enough going on to justify a place in ongoing. But let's cross that bridge when we get to it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:32, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose as blurb is already on main page and it seems as though (hopefully) this will be winding down soon mike_gigs talkcontribs 20:35, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - No further escalation? There was a response attack from Iran last night. And comments from Trump today. This is a clear case for Ongoing.BabbaQ (talk) 20:52, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
BabbaQ I think they mean after the missile attack, there will be no more responses. 331dot (talk) 21:07, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose - All relations are ongoing. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:10, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose good faith nomination & I'd be willing to post an article specifically about the current US-Iran crisis (rather than just the relations), but only after the current blurbs are pushed out of the box (and only if there's continued news of new escalations at the time of posting, of course)  Vanilla  Wizard  💙 21:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose 2019–20 Persian Gulf crisis would probably be the better ongoing target, but I would reconsider posting the ongoing when the blurbs drop off, pending the situation at the time. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:43, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
That is a better target. If the nom weren't drowning in opposes I'd update it. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:21, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Enough is enough. – Sca (talk) 22:49, 8 January 2020 (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: Christopher BeenyEdit

Article: Christopher Beeny (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC

Article updated

Nominator's comments: British actor. Death was on Jan 3 but only being broadly reported in RSes today. Usual sourcing problems on the -ologies. Masem (t) 19:32, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Pilar de BorbónEdit

Article: Infanta Pilar, Duchess of Badajoz (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): La Vanguardia

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Very known woman in Spanish society as it was the sister of Emeritus King. Article needs some improving --Alsoriano97 (talk) 13:29, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: June Bacon-BerceyEdit

Article: June Bacon-Bercey (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The New York Times

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Article in good shape. Her death was announced and made known of early today. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 10:34, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Support - sourced and ready.BabbaQ (talk) 12:30, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - Article looks good. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 18:22, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - Looks good to go mike_gigs talkcontribs 20:38, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I appreciate it was announced today, but I don't think this belongs on "recent deaths" because it is not a recent death. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:53, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Posted, there's a prior consensus that a significantly delayed death announcement is used as a proxy for the date of death. Stephen 21:49, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
    Exactly right. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 21:36, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752Edit

Article: Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In Tehran, Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752 crashes shortly after takeoff, killing all 176 aboard.
Alternative blurb: Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752 crashes shortly after takeoff from Tehran, killing all 176 aboard.
Alternative blurb II: Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752 is shot down by Iran shortly after takeoff from Tehran, killing all 176 people on board.
Alternative blurb III: Iran says it mistakenly shot down a Ukrainian airliner shortly after it took off at Tehran, killing all 176 people on board.
News source(s): Al Jazeera, Reuters, Bloomberg, AP, BBC, Guardian, AFP

Nominator's comments: Plane crash with 180 passengers on board. Death toll not known at this time. Andise1 (talk) 04:14, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Support seems like a bad crash. Juxlos (talk) 04:30, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Of course but wait maybe an hour or two till we get more information. The coincidence is very interesting. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 04:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
    Good time to short Boeing. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 04:49, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support but wait for the death toll, per C&C. No reports so far that this is connected to the bigger Iran story. Davey2116 (talk) 04:57, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment Reports affirming all 180 aboard (crew + passengers) killed --Masem (t) 05:42, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Unfortunately, there are no survivors. (talk) 05:44, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Notable for a number of unfortunate reasons, including the incredible coincidence with other current events involving Iran. - Indefensible (talk) 06:00, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - article generally in good shape, tagged sections could probably be lost without detriment to the article. Mjroots (talk) 06:02, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support The death toll has been corrected to 176 by CNN though, that should be taken into account before posting. – Ammarpad (talk) 06:07, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment Given that the crash site is near Parand, perhaps the headline should be changed from "In Tehran" to "Near Tehran" or similar, unless Tehran is changed to Tehran Province. - Indefensible (talk) 06:32, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support with altblurb or change to the main blurb as suggested by Indefensible. — MarkH21talk 06:42, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Death toll confirmed & the article has been expanded significantly since the last time I checked  Vanilla  Wizard  💙 06:55, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
  Posted. El_C 07:00, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Blurb Change Question If I want to get the 'accidental missile' claims into the blurb (I'm not sure that I do, due to the words 'accidental' and 'claims', but there's a case for doing so, as their omission arguably will look strange and/or censored to many of our readers, etc), where should I ask for this, given that the omission is not an error and thus doesn't properly belong at WP:ERRORS, and that posting here (under a Posted heading) leaves the question almost invisible? Tlhslobus (talk) 11:51, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
    It's not invisible. You can post here. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:57, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
    Thanks for your feedback. I didn't say it was invisible, I said it was almost invisible because of the 'Posted' bit in the section heading, which is presumably why the matter is being (problematically) debated at ERRORS, where it doesn't belong (because there are no actual errors). I've now started a discussion on this issue here. Tlhslobus (talk) 13:18, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
    Tlhslobus, this is already being discussed at ERRORS. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 12:13, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
    Thanks, Coffeeandcrumbs, but it's problematic at ERRORS (because there are no actual errors). I've now started a discussion on this issue here. Tlhslobus (talk) 13:18, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose change of blurb - similar to MH17, we should not post speculation about the cause, even in the form of accusations and denials, until it is officially confirmed. The originally posted version of blurb and the article text are sufficient to educate readers about what happened and what may have happened.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:32, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
There is no unbiased international body to make an official determination here. There is verified video of the missile strike and RS are reporting this as a shootdown (if unintentional). 331dot (talk) 15:18, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Change blurb by adding "Iran rejects claims that it was shot down.". I did boldly make this change, as outlined at WP:MPE, but have since commented it out at Amakuru's request there. I believe the wording covers the claim that the aircraft was shot down, and Iran's denial that is was, without giving either side undue weight. Mjroots (talk) 14:44, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
I might suggest "hit by a missile" which might imply less of a deliberate act(as "shot down" might). 331dot (talk) 15:20, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
331dot "shot down" does not imply intent. Iran Air Flight 655 is an example of this - there was no intent to shoot down a civilian airliner in that case. Mjroots (talk) 15:27, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
Fair enough. 331dot (talk) 15:31, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment Are we meant to discuss here or where Tlhslobus has suggested? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:15, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
    • @Martinevans123: - here for this blurb, general discussion of the issue wher Tlhslobus suggested - WT:ITN I think. Mjroots (talk) 15:18, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
Claims & counterclaims continue. Wait until cause made clear (which, as in the somewhat similar case of MH17, could be years).
Sca (talk) 19:01, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose change of blurb. Encyclopedia should report known and clear facts, not speculation. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:34, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose change Too many NPOV concerns. Why dignify a topic some countries say "probably" happened? Why is the denial given more weight? Why are the specific countries not mentioned? More notable and straightforward to wait for the airline's country's findings.—Bagumba (talk) 19:39, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Update blurb Iran has formally acknowledged they shot the plane down. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:24, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Update blurb per Ad Orientem.--SirEdimon (talk) 05:41, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Blurb updated Mjroots (talk) 05:45, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment Should Iran's involvement be added to the lead e.g. "Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752 is shot down by Iran shortly ..." or it's ommited because they said it's an accident? See Alt II.—Bagumba (talk) 06:29, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Post-posting comment – "Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752 is shot down shortly after takeoff..." is a woefully soft formulation. Every RS I've seen uses "Iran admits ... accidentally" or something like "Iran says it unintentionally..." (Source links above updated.)
Suggested change:
"Iran says it mistakenly shot down a Ukrainian airliner shortly after it took off at Tehran, killing all 176 people on board."
Sca (talk) 14:04, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
"Admit" is a word to watch, and they've said it's a mistake, so that would have to be in there if we added more than "is shot down by Iran" (see alt II).—Bagumba (talk) 14:50, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
OK, suggestion modified to "says" & offered as alt3 above. – Sca (talk) 15:02, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Iran update Use alt II.—Bagumba (talk) 14:59, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Alt3. – Sca (talk) 15:05, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
    Re: "says it mistakenly shot down"" if we have to write "says", it means there's doubt. I'd say plain "shot down" is the most neutral for now.—Bagumba (talk) 15:32, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Well, we need a present-tense verb before the shooting-down part, as the latter occurred three days ago and is no longer the news about the topic (hence its past-tense "shot down"). – Sca (talk) 15:42, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Bagumba: Permit me to point out that says was substituted for admits to allay your objection the the latter. Beyond that, says doesn't necessarily imply doubt – especially since half the people on board were Iranians. For that reason, it's been pretty obvious that some Iranian military galoot made a huge mistake, and now Iran right up to its top leader admits this is so. But I do suggest that admits makes more sense here. – Sca (talk) 15:59, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
@Sca: Refer to WP:INTEXT. If it's a general fact, we don't write "XYZ says", because it does leave the impression that other people dont think that. In this case "says" is needed, because there is skepticism.—Bagumba (talk) 16:16, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, I was looking at "is shot down" from alt II.—Bagumba (talk) 15:51, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Alt2 - To leave out who shot down the plane is an insult to the readers mike_gigs talkcontribs 15:40, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Alts 2 & 3 say Iran shot it down. – Sca (talk) 15:44, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support ALT3. Iran took responsibility and we ought to give them credit. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:24, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
    It's givning WP:UNDUE weight to Iran's statement. The world agrees that they shot it down. The verdict is out if it was a mistake.—Bagumba (talk) 17:24, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
    "Iran shot down..." is fine. Keep the passive voice out of the news if you can. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:16, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
    I am ok with Iran at the start, was only worried if that puts the focus unduly on them, which might actually be ok at this phase.—Bagumba (talk) 02:54, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support ALT2, somene says doesn't sound good to me. Stryn (talk) 17:21, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support ALT2 Mjroots (talk) 17:23, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support ALT2 -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:53, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support ALT2, "Iran says" puts the focus of the news item on the press statement, and not on the much more obvious issue of a civilian plane crashing due to military action. I'm not opposed to merely adding "mistakenly" to the current blurb if some find this critical. Rami R 18:09, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
    "mistakenly" would require a "says", since it's currently not generally accepted by the world that it was a mistake.—Bagumba (talk) 18:27, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support ALT3 or a variant which makes clear there is a dispute as to intent - Rami's suggestion is OK. It's not neutral to say they "shot it down" without qualification, because that implies a deliberate shooting.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:22, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
    implies a deliberate shooting : Not so. Not saying "mistakenly" means we dont know the intent definitively, and the reader can read the article for more background. If a reader's inherent bias assigns intent when it's not stated, the issue is human nature and the reader, not the lack of wording. In the meantime, Iran's role remains out of the blurb, when nobody is disputing that they shot the plane.—Bagumba (talk) 02:26, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support ALT3 as per Amakuru above. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:25, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support ALT2.--SirEdimon (talk) 23:38, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment There's protests within Iran, doubting whether it was a mistake.[9] (argument against "mistake" in blurb, not to include protest in blurb). At any rate, ALT2 or 3 are better than the current ommision of Iran's role.—Bagumba (talk) 04:22, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
  • From Sunday 's RS news:
– Iran braces for protests after admitting plane shootdown
– Iran admits it shot down jetliner by mistake
– Protests erupt again in Iran after admission of plane strike
– 'Disastrous mistake': Iran acknowledges shooting down Ukrainian airliner
Support' blurb change as follows (call it Alt4):
"Protests arise after Iran admits it mistakenly shot down a Ukrainian airliner near Tehran, killing all 176 people on board."
Sca (talk) 13:38, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
I would support something like this. Either way, I think something has to be done to update this blurb. There is a clear consensus that the blurb should mention that Iran says it shot down the aircraft: 12 people support adding this information and I don't see anyone outright opposing it mike_gigs talkcontribs 21:44, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
  •   Updated to include "by Iran", i.e. alt2. More discussion needed on whether to include protests — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:27, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Well, that's an improvement anyway – even though it's something the whole world has known for days. But protests are continuing. – Sca (talk) 14:19, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
And Iran announces unspecified arrests of military persons who allegedly were responsible. [10], [11], [12]Sca (talk) 14:02, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) 2020 Iranian attack on U.S. forces in IraqEdit

Article: 2020 Iranian attack on U.S. forces in Iraq (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Iranian forces strike U.S. forces at two airbases in Iraq.
Alternative blurb: ​In retaliation for the American airstrike which killed General Qasem Soleimani, Iran launches missiles at American forces at two airbases in Iraq.
Alternative blurb II: ​No one killed as Iran launches missiles at the two American airbases in Iraq.
News source(s): Rolling Stone, AFP, ABC, CNBC, Vice, AP, BBC, Guardian, Reuters

Nominator's comments: Slightly premature nomination as it's very recent news, not sure whether it would work best as a standalone blurb or an additional update to the existing blurb. Recommend waiting for casualties. I've provided a rough blurb for now that we can work off of.  Vanilla  Wizard  💙 04:09, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Support update only – Already reports that there were no casualties. It is not accurate to refer to them as U.S. bases. One was a U.S.-allied Iraqi base. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 04:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
After a U.S. airstrike kills Iranian general Qasem Soleimani (pictured), at least 56 people die in a stampede during his burial procession in Kerman, and Iranian forces attack two military bases in Iraq.
I suggest the above blurb. A second blurb will repeat half of the information in the current blurb. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 04:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Much appreciated, I was having trouble finding a way to concisely cover all of the notable points. I'd be fine with that blurb, the only problem is just how many articles are bolded at once.  Vanilla  Wizard  💙 04:31, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
I consider it a positive. Each of these are either new articles or have been significantly improved. We should take the middle ground and let the reader choose which aspect of the story they are interested in reading. This is eventually going to end in an ongoing article at something like 2020 escalation in the Persian Gulf crisis, since this whole thing is an escalation of the 2019–20 Persian Gulf crisis. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 04:35, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per above. I agree with the above that the blurb should mention the killing of Soleimani. Adding in the stampede at the funeral may make for too complicated a blurb; I suggest not including the stampede in this blurb (altblurb suggested), and posting it separately, given the death toll. Davey2116 (talk) 04:57, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support only as a replacement/update for the current Soleimani blurb. As noted above, the blurb would be too long if we include both this and the stampede, so after the stampede has had sufficient time on the front page (possibly in a few hours) I'd replace it with this. NorthernFalcon (talk) 06:26, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
    The blurb by Coffeeandcrumbs could also work, as it's just concise enough.NorthernFalcon (talk) 06:28, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - Support blurb by Coffeeandcrumbs Sherenk1 (talk) 07:51, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Coffeeandcrumb's blurb. It's concise and also allows retainment of preceding aspects. Sleath56 (talk) 08:35, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose and wait till the details of "significant" impact emerge. AS per the reports released so far. No one has died. Iraq-Syria is a war zone and we dont post every missile attack in a war.--DBigXray 08:39, 8 January 2020 (UTC).
  • I'm wondering if we should move this to ongoing, as it's possible events could come quickly in the next few days. This might be better than amending the blurb every time. 331dot (talk) 08:50, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
    • "All is well"? Nsk92 (talk) 09:14, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Blurb updated according to suggestion by Coffeeandcrumbs — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:53, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support blurb by Coffeeandcrumbs, or, alternately, making the US-Iran tensions an 'ongoing' item. There likely to be quick further developments there. Nsk92 (talk) 09:06, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Well, then wait till those "likely to happen quick further developments" actually occur. We post only after things have occured. DBigXray 09:09, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Plenty of significant developments have occurred already. Nsk92 (talk) 09:15, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
please tell me what "'significant' developments have occurred already", In the article I see only a few missiles fired and no one killed (yet). I would say 'pretty normal' for a 'War Zone'.--DBigXray 09:18, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Oh, come on now, seriously? Open the front page of any major newspaper, in any language, in any country of the world, and you will get answers to your questions. Storming of the U.S. embassy in Iraq by shiite militas. A U.S. drone strike killing a top Iranian general and several Iraqi shiite militia leaders. Mass anti-U.S. demonstrations in Iran and Iraq. The Iraqi parliament passing a resolution calling for explusion of foreign troops. The international coalition suspending operations against ISIS in Iraq. A retaliatory ballistic missile attack by Iran on the U.S. bases in Iraq. None of these are ordinary things that are "normal" for Iraq. Nsk92 (talk) 09:42, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Please keep your comments limited to the topic of this thread, the article 2020 Iranian attack on U.S. forces in Iraq only. Those points are updates for another article already posted.DBigXray 09:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support This is an event which may happen once during decades, thus it is too important. --Seyyed(t-c) 10:23, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Posting. --Tone 11:47, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
    Tone, I do not understand. This was already posted! Did you not read the comments above? --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 12:18, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
    @Tone: suggest you undo your update as C&C's prose is superior and had already been posted. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:21, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Hm, seems that you are correct, that was already a part of the blurb. I see it is fixed now. --Tone 12:26, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Tone, no, it is not fixed. Revert back to the revision by Stephen. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 12:31, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
I've reverted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:50, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Post-posting comment – Of comparatively minor significance in the current context. – Sca (talk) 14:11, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

January 7Edit

Armed conflict and attacks

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

(Stale) RD: Jacques DessangeEdit

Article: Jacques Dessange (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): RTBF, Spanish Vanity Fair

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Could use some expansion, certainly on the minor controversies in his last years which I haven't included. Fram (talk) 11:48, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

  • I would like to know a bit about what he did between 1977 (when he stopped working as a hairdresser) and 2004 (when he retired) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:03, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose seems to have massive gaps in bio, per above. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:37, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Radcliffe waveEdit

No consensus was formed on quality/significance during most of the debate time here, and regrettably it's now too late for this one as several newer stories are already posted.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:43, 12 January 2020 (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: Radcliffe wave (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Astronomers discover largest gaseous structure ever seen in the Milky Way, relatively close to us
Alternative blurb: ​Astronomers discover the Radcliffe wave, the largest gaseous structure in the Milky Way
Alternative blurb II: ​Astronomers discover the Radcliffe wave, a monolithic, wave-shaped gaseous structure in the Milky Way, made up of interconnected stellar nurseries, stretching over 9000 light years across. It is the largest gaseous structure ever seen in the Milky Way. Only 500 light-years from the Sun, its close proximity surprised scientists.
News source(s): The Guardian, BBC
 Lopifalko (talk) 23:53, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment I think the article needs to be improved quite a bit before it is ready for a main page link. --mfb (talk) 00:07, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak support on notability but oppose on quality since the article is only 2 paragraphs. (Added alt blurb, could use improving)  Nixinova  T  C   01:32, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Comment I have added more. -Lopifalko (talk) 06:20, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Lacks impact/significance. – Sca (talk) 15:58, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment: I am confused why a new article has been created. The study proposes that Gould's Belt is in the shape of a linear wave, not a ring as previously supposed. So why hasn't this proposal been added to our existing article on the topic? Modest Genius talk 15:00, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
    That's probably a better question at the article talk page, if you have concerns, start a merge discussion, and notify the appropriate WikiProjects. People with technical backgrounds to better understand the nature of the issue are more likely to read those places rather than here. --Jayron32 15:25, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong Support. Brand news. MSN12102001 (talk) 21:46, 11 January 2020 (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: Elizabeth WurtzelEdit

Article: Elizabeth Wurtzel (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): AV Club, WaPost

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Author of Prozac Nation. Article is in good shape. Masem (t) 20:18, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Comment Bibliography needs refs --LaserLegs (talk) 20:38, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
    • ISBN numbers added to books to source. --Masem (t) 21:12, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Daniel Case (talk) 23:58, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment. Not read this carefully (it seems to be very heavy on quotations), I'm not keen on the sourcing for her (alleged) biological father. While he is deceased, her mother might not be (alive in 2015). Espresso Addict (talk) 05:47, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Notable author. †dismas†|(talk) 21:01, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
  • @Masem: there is one {{cn}} if you can attend to it — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:40, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
    • After several minutes digging the court records up, I've added it. --Masem (t) 22:13, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD. SpencerT•C 23:05, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

(Pulled) RD: Larry GoganEdit

Article: Larry Gogan (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): RTE

Nominator's comments: Popular Irish radio Disk Jockey dies aged 81 Joseywales1961 (talk) 14:00, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Oppose until there's an RS that says that he's actually dead. —Wasell(T) 19:17, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
    Updated lead to include death date and reference Joseywales1961 (talk) 19:27, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
  •   Posted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:44, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment at least half a dozen unreferenced claims in the version of the BLP posted, including purported awards. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:40, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Pulled. This shouldn't really have been posted as nobody in the discussion above said it was ready to go, and a quick glance reveals lots of uncited gunk.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:18, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

January 6Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

Politics and elections

(Posted) RD: Prem Nath HoonEdit

Article: Prem Nath Hoon (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The Times of India

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Article requires some copyediting for grammar Nizil (talk) 07:02, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Minati MishraEdit

Article: Minati Mishra (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): New Indian Express

Nominator's comments: The Odissi dancer. I'm on a tight schedule now, but the sourcing issues (that one sentence in the legacy section and the filmography of five films) can be addressed easily. ミラP 16:27, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Support Copyedited a bit. Looks good to go. Filmography section cited now. -Nizil (talk) 07:23, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD. SpencerT•C 23:07, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Lincoln Chafee 2020 presidential campaignEdit

Non-admin closure. I don't normally like rapid WP:SNOW closes but there is no way this is going to get posted. Please re-open if you feel strongly otherwise. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:47, 6 January 2020 (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: Lincoln Chafee 2020 presidential campaign (talk, history)
Blurb: No blurb specified
Alternative blurb: ​Former Rhode Island governor Lincoln Chafee begins a 2020 campaign for president as a Libertarian.
Nominator's comments: I don't have strong confidence that other users will feel the same way, but I think this is a significant event. Go easy on me since this is my first ITN/C nomination. –MJLTalk 22:25, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not to sound too harsh, but we've not given any other space to any other 2020 candidate yet, and doesn't make sense to now. We'll likely post when the Dems finish their primaries to pick their candidate, and should Chafee achieve that soft 5% line as to become invited to the major debates/get campaign financing - the first such 3rd party to do so if that happens - that might be a point, but I don't see that happening now. --Masem (t) 22:27, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
    @Masem: I believe Bill Weld's entry was mentioned with a blurb. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯MJLTalk 23:08, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
    It looks like Weld's was announced via Portal:Current Events but not by ITNC, I think? If we have given any specific candidate for 2020 any time at ITNC, that was a mistake, that's the last thing we should be doing. --Masem (t) 23:12, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Thanks for the nomination, but this isn't getting significant coverage in the news, because its effect is minimal. The Libertarian party rarely gets more than a few percentage points. Chaffee can't make up his mind which party he wants to belong to. 331dot (talk) 22:53, 6 January 2020 (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: John BaldessariEdit

stale, unimproved. Stephen 22:02, 13 January 2020 (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: John Baldessari (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Los Angeles Times, KPCC
Nominator's comments: Southern California-based artist pbp 19:00, 6 January 2020 (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: Hans TilkowskiEdit

Article: Hans Tilkowski (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Tagesschau, Spiegel

Article updated

Nominator's comments: German national team goalkeeper, between the posts in the 1966 World Cup final, conceeding the infamous Wembley Goal. Not overly long, but all is sourced. Zwerg Nase (talk) 15:19, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Support - Looks sourced well enough to me mike_gigs talkcontribs 18:01, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - sourced and ready.BabbaQ (talk) 22:30, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now - "Honours" section is unreferenced at the moment. Fix that and it will be good to go. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 23:38, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
    Posted - I had failed to notice that all the mentioned honours are already cited in the section above. All fine.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:41, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

January 5Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Venezuelan National Assembly (Speaker) electionEdit

Article: 2020 Venezuelan National Assembly Delegated Committee election (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Incumbent Venezuelan National Assembly (NA) president Juan Guaidó is prevented from entering parliament to vote in the NA presidential election as Maduro-backed candidate Luis Parra is declared the winner.
Alternative blurb: ​Juan Guaidó's position as president of the National Assembly of Venezuela is disputed by deputy Luis Parra
News source(s): BBC

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Might need to create a page for Parra. Quite significant per freedoms in Venezuela and international communities. Kingsif (talk) 20:22, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Oppose this is an internal legislative process -- like choosing the speaker of the house. Guiado (who refused to support a new parliamentary election) will easily win the necessary 87 votes to be president of the assembly and will continue to insist that he is the Venezuelan president (even though the Supreme Tribunal of Justice disagrees). Literally nothing is changing here, and this is not a popular election by the people of Venezuela because Guaido has ruthlessly refused to hold one. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:23, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Interesting how you say he'll easily win at a point when he apparently lost, which the blurb also said already. Laser, man, this oppose sounds arbitrary. Note that when you told me to not ask at the talk page, I was starting that discussion to see if people thought it would only be considered a speaker election rather than part of the presidential debate. Apparently that concern is accurate. Kingsif (talk) 22:43, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose I don't have any recollection of internal parliamentary votes being posted for ITN Juxlos (talk) 08:51, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose We don't post parliamentary elections, and there's a good reason for that. – Ammarpad (talk) 13:47, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Murky. Also, a lot going on elsewhere. – Sca (talk) 14:39, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support in principle, international coverage and good article quality, but I will propose an altblurb to guarantee the neutrality needed for the nomination. The New York Times, CNN, Financial Times, El País, Miami Herald, among others.
To the users viewing this as an internal legislative election: @LaserLegs:@Juxlos:@Ammarpad:@Sca:, this is a major development to the Venezuelan crisis, which has had already a lot of coverage itself and is geopolitically important. Guaidó's bid to the presidency depends on his position as president of the National Assembly, and the article of the presidential crisis itself has not been included in the ITN so far, so this would be a good opportunity to do it. I plan to continue expanding and improving the article. I understand if you keep your position to oppose the nomination, I only want you to consider this not just as a simple internal election, but rather an important event in Venezuela.
To the posting user, if it is decided to post the entry: Several wordings can be included before "Juan Guaidó" for neutrality, context or convenience, such as "Venezuelan opposition leader Juan Guaidó", "President of the National Assembly of Venezuela Juan Guaidó", "Disputed President of Venezuela Juan Guaidó", "During the Venezuelan presidential crisis, Juan Guaidó's (...)". --Jamez42 (talk) 16:46, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Whilst electing two different speakers simultaneously is certainly unusual, this is just another twist in the long-running attempt by Guaido to oust Maduro, and the resistance to that. If/when there's a change in who actually runs the country, then that would be a good ITN blurb. A disputed election to a non-executive position is not. Modest Genius talk 17:43, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose With rare exceptions, we don't generally post domestic political disputes other than national elections. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:01, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support It is not about the election per se, but the use of force to replace the legislative leadership and to remove the claim of power to the interim presidency of Guaidó, also it was widely covered.--MaoGo (talk) 20:51, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose local news. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:44, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

January 4Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

(Posted) RD: Tom Long (actor)Edit

Article: Tom Long (actor) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s):

Nominator's comments: The Australian actor. I've added some sources to the filmography but some gaps can be filled if possible. ミラP 02:33, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Comment. Not well developed enough; there are only 2 sentences on his entire career. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:38, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
@Espresso Addict: I've expanded it a little. ミラP 16:36, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Now that ミラ has expanded the article and the references are ok. Joseywales1961 (talk) 18:50, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 23:09, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Singular They word of the yearEdit

Non-admin close - consensus is unlikely to develop in favor of posting. If this closure is too premature, feel free to reopen.  Vanilla  Wizard  💙 21:23, 4 January 2020 (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: Singular they (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Using they to refer to a person with a non-binary gender identity is the Word of the Decade by American Dialect Society
News source(s):
Nominator's comments: high time to feature the prominence of this. After nobody nominated it when Merriam-Webster announced it as Word of the Year in 2019 I hereby believe it is time, offering my first ITN nominee. Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by CapnZapp (talkcontribs)
  • Weak Support normally we don't post these sorts of things, but the article is in surprisingly good shape given the subject and I'm not sure how else it could be featured (not expanded enough for DYK). --LaserLegs (talk) 12:15, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not a significant "honor" (we don't even post Time's person of the year). --Masem (t) 16:08, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment I know that similar news about the word of the year in the German language appears regularly on the main page of the German Wikipedia, so it makes a lot of sense to adopt this practice for the English language here. After all, this is an English-language encyclopedia and recurrent news pertaining to the language is a very good on-topic encyclopedic content. However, what bewilders me the most is which one of the many annual assessments to take as the most relevant (probably Merriam-Webster's or Oxford's).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:45, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Masem, news of transient significance from a non-regulatory language body (unlike some kind of English language reform). Brandmeistertalk 17:56, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Question Is it too late to nominate Apostrophe Protection Society for ITN/RD? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:05, 4 January 2020 (UTC) (p.s. "word of the year"? what an incredibly dull choice)
  • Oppose. Thanks for the nomination, but this is just a group of people deciding that a certain word (and by extension issue) is worthy of recognition- much as Time magazine's 'person of the year' is just the opinion of a group of editors at a magazine. In neither case is a governmental body or other impartial authority making a selection. 331dot (talk) 19:12, 4 January 2020 (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 3Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents
Law and crime

(Posted) RD: Abu Mahdi al-MuhandisEdit

Article: Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The Guardian

 ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 12:04, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Just noting that this individual was killed in the same incident as Soleimani. 331dot (talk) 19:14, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support I guess we all forgot the obvious additional thing to do. Juxlos (talk) 04:42, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Sufficient quality.—Bagumba (talk) 12:49, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per Bagumba. TJMSmith (talk) 17:12, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
  •   Posted to recent deaths, but I would much prefer to update the blurb on Qasem Soleimani to include this person as an additional bolded link. What do others think? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:59, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
    • Agree with MSGJ, makes sense to publish together Joseywales1961 (talk) 18:35, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
    • Disagree. We should not change the current blurb. The death of Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis is not notable enough to be posted as a blurb. It is backwards to include him in Soleimani's, just because they died in the same airstrike, as it would give him undue weight. When discussion blurbs, we specifically discuss whether they are notable. We do not do that for RD. ― Hebsen (talk) 06:28, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Jack SheldonEdit

Too old now.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:13, 10 January 2020 (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: Jack Sheldon (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Washington Post
Nominator's comments: Trumpeter known for being the musical director of the Merv Griffin show and the singing voice of some Schoolhouse Rock episodes DrewieStewie (talk) 16:29, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose The article is almost entirely unreferenced. Cannot be posted to main page in current state. --Jayron32 17:18, 3 January 2020 (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) Qasem Soleimani killedEdit

To consolidate discussion on next steps. Please discuss at #2020 Iranian attack on U.S. forces in Iraq. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 04:32, 8 January 2020 (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: Qasem Soleimani (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In Baghdad, Iraq, American forces assassinate Iranian general Qasem Soleimani (pictured), commander of the Quds Force.
Alternative blurb: ​In Baghdad, Iraq, American forces kill General Qasem Soleimani, commander of the Iranian Quds Force.
Alternative blurb II: ​After American forces kill General Qasem Soleimani, commander of the Iranian Quds Force, in an airstrike, at least 40 are killed in a stampede during his funeral procession.
Alternative blurb III: ​After U.S. forces kill top Iranian General Qasem Soleimani in an airstrike, at least 40 people are killed in a stampede during his funeral procession at Kerman, Iran.
Alternative blurb IV: ​At least 40 people are killed in a stampede during the funeral procession of Qasem Soleimani, who was killed in an airstrike by U.S. forces.
News source(s): AP, BBC, Guardian, Reuters

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Not confirmed by American officials at this time, but, if true, this represents a huge escalation between the U.S. and Iran. Davey2116 (talk) 01:34, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Ҥ (talk) 02:01, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Qualified Support If true... this is a really big deal. But we need solid confirmation and we need to be very careful about how we word the blurb. In particular the word "assassinate" is one we need to be careful with. It should only be used if it is being widely used by RS sources in their reporting. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:30, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
  • OpposeWait for confirmation of belligerent. Citations need in BLP article. §In popular culture orange tagged. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 02:51, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - waiting for American confirmation sounds pretty silly, since clearly the Iranians have more reliable information about whether Qasem Soleimani is dead. Banedon (talk) 02:55, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
    We were waiting for confirmation on who killed him. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 02:58, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment: The US has officially acknowledged killing him and that should be published in all the relevant media outlets momentarily. Nole (chat·edits) 03:04, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
  • SupportThis is currently a breaking news story on CNN[2]Riadse96 (talk) 03:12, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support and Comment the 2020 Baghdad International Airport attack article is in development, I would say either wait for it or update with it later. Juxlos (talk) 03:16, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support – This is part of a significant heating of the Iran–United States relationship and will undoubtedly lead to further conflict. Even that latter point aside, it is significant news, and that's what ITN is about. Master of Time (talk) 03:20, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support alt blurb & Oppose original blurb - I also think 2020 Baghdad International Airport attack would suit better in this case.--SirEdimon (talk) 03:21, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Enormous news story, no quality concerns with the articles (bar the pop culture section, which can be fixed), blurbs are sufficient.  Vanilla  Wizard  💙 03:23, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
  •   Posted. El_C 03:27, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support - writing a wikinews article about this now, breaking news. --DannyS712 (talk) 03:46, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support, obviously. Suleimani was one of the most powerful men in the Middle East for well over a decade. Him being killed in an air strike is a huge deal. Kurtis (talk) 04:19, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment - Can we link 2020 Baghdad International Airport attack on the news as it is mostly ready. Sherenk1 (talk) 05:33, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
  •   Done. El_C 05:40, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment Because multiple people including another highly notable military commander (Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis) were killed and it's the airstrike that's the main story here I'm thinking we can mention those in the blurb. (e.g. In Baghdad an American airstrike kills 10 people, including Soleimani and al-Muhandis) EternalNomad (talk) 01:39, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
    I'd oppose changing the blurb in that way, as it suggests the airstrike had some purpose other than to kill Soleimani. I prefer the current blurb ("In Baghdad, Iraq, an American airstrike kills General Qasem Soleimani (pictured), commander of the Iranian Quds Force.") Levivich 05:13, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment 50+ were killed after a stampede in his funeral - I think we have to either have a blurb for this, or somehow incorporate this into the existing blurb. Juxlos (talk) 14:25, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Post-posting comment – Yeah, with "at least 40" (AP) killed in stampede at funeral procession, [13] [14] [15] [16] we probably should update the existing blurb. – Sca (talk) 14:35, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
I've suggested an alt blurb incorporating the stampede; I used 'at least 40' dead since his article cites 40 dead, but figures seem to vary slightly. 331dot (talk) 14:42, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Suggest slightly shorter Alt3, offered above. – Sca (talk) 14:52, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
– Shades of Nicholas II. – Sca (talk) 15:03, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Blurb Updated using alt 3 to reflect the funeral deaths. [Merry Christmas!] -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:00, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm removing "top" from "top Iranian General" because it evokes a type of hyperbolic media headline inappropriate for a more sober encyclopedia. (There's no rank of "Top General" AFAIK, and he wasn't even of the most senior rank of general. His importance is implied by the fact that we're highlighting his death.) Sandstein 15:14, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes. I was just thinking of that. I will attend to it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:20, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Proposed better wording proposed in alt4 — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:52, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Propose alblurb V: In Baghdad, Iraq, an American airstrike kills General Qasem Soleimani (pictured), commander of the Iranian Quds Force, and at his funeral procession in Kerman, Iran, at least 56 people die in a stampede. The current wording minimizes the impact of the killing, as if it is just context to the stampede. This is actually two related things that are both noteworthy of blurbs in themselves. ― Hebsen (talk) 18:52, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Why does the world's press insist on calling it a "stampede"? This event doesn't seem to fit the description in that Wikipedia article. It wasn't a stampede, it was a crush. The term is pipe-linked as crush of people at e.g. Hillsborough disaster, and I'd suggest that's the wording that should appear in the blurb. Will ask at Errors. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:51, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
  • If Iranians called it a stampede and the major news agencies call it a stampede I'm comfortable with calling it a stampede. Juxlos (talk) 23:46, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment Iran has shot several missiles at two US bases in the area. [17] Not to minimize the deaths from the crush/stampede here, but I think this may be a more important facet that we should be featuring here. --Masem (t) 00:20, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Seconded, perhaps something like:
In retaliation for the American airstrike which killed General Qasem Soleimani, Iran launches missiles at American forces in Iraq.
At this time the casualties are not known. Davey2116 (talk) 00:50, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Agreed - I started a separate nomination for discussion about the Iranian strike in particular. A blurb combining both the killing of Soleimani and the Iranian strike may be a little too wordy, especially if we continue to mention the deadly stampede.  Vanilla  Wizard  💙 04:15, 8 January 2020 (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 2Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

(Posted) Cieneguillas prison riotsEdit

Article: Cieneguillas prison riots (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Seventeen inmates are killed in two prison riots at a rehabilitation center in Cieneguillas, Mexico.
News source(s): El Universal, BBC

Article updated

 Kingsif (talk) 21:47, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Support - Sourced. Ready. ITN worthy.BabbaQ (talk) 22:32, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose and not ready. A one sentence update for the second riot is not at all satisfactory. Background section can be re-titled "filler" and ignored. I believe this qualifies as a Bus plunge disaster stub. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:52, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
  • There is much more on the second riot, spread through the other sections. The background gives important context. 16 people in one riot is more than Mexico has seen in years and isn't exactly your everyday 'bus plunge' anywhere else. We posted riots with four dead last year, which already meets the threshold for notable number of deaths, so you can't oppose on that. @Laser, I know you're blunt with everyone, but a little good faith would be appreciated on my end, at least. Kingsif (talk) 00:56, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Good article quality and significant death toll. --Jamez42 (talk) 01:23, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Posted. SpencerT•C 23:08, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Sam WycheEdit

Article: Sam Wyche (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): New York Times

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Doesn't say it in the article, because no one's pointed this out yet but only NFL coach to be on different sides in two separate Super Bowls featuring the same teams. Updated to make sure everything's sourced since his January 2 death Daniel Case (talk) 06:07, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Support I added a couple more sources. Good to go.—Bagumba (talk) 12:40, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
  •   Posted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:08, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Marian FinucaneEdit

Article: Marian Finucane (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The Irish Times

Nominator's comments: The Irish broadcaster. Only one paragraph needs a ref but it should be good to go. ミラP 17:49, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Support References added, the article looks ready (to me) Joseywales1961 (talk) 18:40, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
  •   Posted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:23, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Shen Yi-mingEdit

Article: Shen Yi-ming (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s):

Nominator's comments: Given the one below is at AFD, I'll take it from here. Only the education section is unsourced but the whole thing should be good. ミラP 16:52, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Support, given the education section has been referenced I think it's in good shape. Besides, it's a gruesome death of someone important. (I mean, every death is gruesome in this case, I mean what it meant for the country this particular death). --CoryGlee (talk) 23:27, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Good but short article, well referenced Joseywales1961 (talk) 00:04, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD. SpencerT•C 05:27, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) 2020 New Taipei helicopter crashEdit

No consensus to post. Shen Yi-ming has been posted to RD, which seems a good solution. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:36, 3 January 2020 (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: 2020 New Taipei helicopter crash (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A helicopter carrying 13 people, including Taiwanese Chief of the General Staff Shen Yi-ming, the head of the Republic of China Armed Forces, crashes near the capital Taipei.
News source(s): BBC, AP
Nominator's comments: Article at stub level since it has just been created. Notable figures have died. Sherenk1 (talk) 07:58, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment. The blurb does not mention that the Army chief (and maybe others) died. 331dot (talk) 08:36, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment Article is also at AfD. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 11:28, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Bus plunge disaster stub --LaserLegs (talk) 13:51, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
    I congratulate you on your recent discovery of this silly term, but encourage you to read the article more carefully as none of the three stories you've so tagged in the past week qualify. GreatCaesarsGhost 14:16, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment – Eight military deaths is not quite ITN-level news. Might we instead develop an RD for Gen. Shen Yi-ming? – Sca (talk) 14:38, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose We generally do not plot crashes of military craft carrying military personnel (line of duty, etc.) RD for Yi-ming is reasonable. --Masem (t) 14:46, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose RD for Shen Yi-ming would be logical though. Black Kite (talk) 16:30, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose on notability but support RD for the Chief of Staff. Kingsif (talk) 23:12, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose only on quality and length. People are people and I see no indication that this was a battle field operation. I do not understand how crashes of military transport in peace time are any less notable. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 23:14, 2 January 2020 (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) 2020 Jakarta floodsEdit

Article: 2020 Jakarta floods (talk, history)
Blurb: ​At least 16 people are killed and more than 19,000 displaced as flash floods hit the Indonesian capital of Jakarta, after the city had its most intense rainfall in 24 years.
Alternative blurb: ​At least 53 people are killed and more than 173,000 displaced as flash floods hit the Indonesian capital of Jakarta.
News source(s): BBC, Reuters, AP

 Sherenk1 (talk) 04:27, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Support, came here to see why it is not already on front page. Renata (talk) 12:40, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose The article is generally light on details, and short if you exclude the background section (which I do when considering updates). Also isn't it monsoon season over there? Isn't rain expected? Seems we routinely crap on similar weather related stories in the US (tornadoes, floods, fires). --LaserLegs (talk) 13:55, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
Rain is expected, but this was the worst in 24 years. 331dot (talk) 16:05, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support in principle – pending development of article. Reuters puts toll at 26. – Sca (talk) 14:43, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Mimihitam (talk) 20:15, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose on article quality - currently about half uncited. Kingsif (talk) 23:11, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support, I think it's good enough as of now. This is definitely one of the worst Jakarta floods in the last 20 years (perhaps to the same extent or even worse than the 2007 one). Masjawad99💬 08:42, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
Correct, per APSca (talk) 14:59, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support good to go.Yogwi21 (talk) 05:22, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment: Almost ready, but needs a bit of copyediting before I would be willing to post: 2020_Jakarta_floods#History especially, but the other sections could do with some as well. Expansion-wise, meets minimum standards but could use more. SpencerT•C 06:25, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
    It could use an infobox too. – Muboshgu (talk) 06:31, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Support This is the first natural disaster of the year that I have heard of apart from Australian bushfires. But I want to alert that the article says 48 prople have been killed but the blurb mentions only 16. Abishe (talk) 06:34, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Support Alt1 – Toll up to 53, says AP on Saturday. – Sca (talk) 13:48, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
  •   Posted No mention of displaced was currently in the article (and any reports are likely a current count and not cumulative, counting those already back home).—Bagumba (talk) 14:19, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
    I now see in the article (with a different number than in the blurb): More than 397,000 residents had been evacuated to higher grounds. Discussion can continue whether more than death toll should be in the suggested blurbs.—Bagumba (talk) 14:37, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

January 1Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

(Posted) RD: Chris BarkerEdit

Article: Chris Barker (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The Guardian

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Former footballer who died suddenly at 39. Article is decent. P-K3 (talk) 20:28, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Support referenced; brief but adequate depth of coverage. SpencerT•C 05:29, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Posted. Black Kite (talk) 14:46, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD Don LarsenEdit

Article: Don Larsen (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): NY Post

Article updated

Nominator's comments: American sports (baseball) legend. Article is in good shape. Ad Orientem (talk) 05:27, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Support for RD. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:42, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Posted Gone to throw another perfect game to Yogi. – Muboshgu (talk) 06:00, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: David SternEdit

Article: David Stern (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Yahoo Sports

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Former commissioner of the NBA. Johndavies837 (talk) 21:28, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Support: Has now been reported by ESPN and other major news sources. Resolved the only extant cn tag pbp 23:01, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per guideline MOS:PROSE, prose is preferred over a simple list of events under "Notable events during Stern's tenure". Also per policy WP:STRUCTURE, a dedicated controversy section does not seem appropriate at "Controversies"—Bagumba (talk) 00:15, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
    Support NPOV issues with "Controversy" section resolved. Timeline list also integrated into prose.—Bagumba (talk) 09:30, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support for RD. Concerns have been addressed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:44, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support — Absolutely notable enough for RD. Prose issues have since been resolved. Aria1561 (talk) 06:47, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Posted. Black Kite (talk) 12:37, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) 2020 PDC World Darts ChampionshipEdit

Article: 2020 PDC World Darts Championship (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In darts, Peter Wright (pictured) defeats Michael van Gerwen to win the 2020 PDC World Darts Championship
News source(s): BBC The Guardian

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Sporting championship not currently on ITNR. Been posted last two years. OZOO (t) (c) 21:20, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Oppose No indication of significance of this event for the popular bar sport. Perhaps best to debate this on WP:ITNR in lieu of annual rehash. Happy New Year all.—Bagumba (talk) 00:57, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Support. I don't usually comment at ITN/C, but to cancel out the ludicrous oppose above. A high-quality article on the main global championship in a sport as high-profile and popular as darts (and a championship with an even higher profile than usual this year owing to the extensive press coverage of Fallon Sherrock) should be an absolute no-brainer for ITN. ‑ Iridescent 08:31, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. A great article about an event that has coverage in the news and readers might learn something from. 331dot (talk) 08:35, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support global event and the article's in reasonable shape. ——SN54129 09:07, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support and marked Ready. Excellent article, event has enough global reach to be eligible for ITN (as per last two years). I have moved the image to WP:CMP so that it will be protected if/when this is promoted. Black Kite (talk) 12:34, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Posted --Jayron32 13:59, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Post-posting comment A period is missing from the end of this ITN entry as is. Hill Crest's WikiLaser! (BOOM!) 15:59, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Post-posting comment – Ludicrous placement among three serious news items about international events involving dozens of deaths. Darts? Inappropriate in context. (But at least we got rid of the ridiculous picture.)Sca (talk) 15:09, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
  • We post items when they happen, in chronological order. We cannot control when such events will happen. We don't have that sort of power. Maybe if you can control human events in that way, you could pitch in and prevent sporting events from happening in close temporal proximity to major tragedies. That would help. --Jayron32 15:26, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, I know all that. Had I voted on this item, which is not WP:ITNR, I would have opposed it (per Bagumba) as lacking significance, but it was obvious it was going to get railroaded in, as in the past, by the usual coterie of diehard darts devotees. – Sca (talk) 16:14, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
Most of what we post is not on ITNR. Being on ITNR has never been a requirement for something to be posted. --Jayron32 17:16, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, I know that. The point was, it didn't have to be posted, and it's not a significant news item – even in the rarefied world of sports. – Sca (talk) 14:01, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Reliable sources would disagree with your assessment that this is not significant. --Jayron32 14:45, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

British sources, perhaps? – Sca (talk) 15:17, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

RD: Ng Jui PingEdit

Article: Ng Jui Ping (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The Straits Times

Nominator's comments: Chief of the Singapore Army. ミラP 14:39, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Oppose Article seems to be a list of schools and jobs (in essence, a CV or resume), without any real depth of coverage of the subject. SpencerT•C 01:36, 2 January 2020 (UTC)