Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/October 2019

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.

October 31Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy
  • Ana Botín, the chairwoman of Spain's Santander bank, which has suffered a major stock price fall since reporting its disappointing third quarter earnings, buys €3.61 million worth of shares as a display of confidence. (Reuters)

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

(Posted) RD: Gurudas DasguptaEdit

Article: Gurudas Dasgupta (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Telegraph

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Article may require some copyediting. Nizil (talk) 04:35, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Support article is updated with CE and enough details are available. — Harshil want to talk? 05:26, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support – Looks good to me. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 13:02, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted Kees08 (Talk) 20:23, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Cotabato earthquakesEdit

Article: 2019 Cotabato earthquakes (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A series of earthquakes hits Mindanao, Philippines, killing at least 21 people. (Post)
News source(s): Rappler, ABS-CBN News, The Philippine Star

Article updated

Nominator's comments: The aftermath of the earthquake is still on the news. Several buildings several destroyed. BSrap (talk) 04:36, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Support – Everything looks good enough to post. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 09:32, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - Three big earthquakes (> 6 magnitude) within 16 days, God must be quite angry. STSC (talk) 12:06, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
    • Oppose No more so then She usual is - magnitude 6 earthquakes happen about every 3 days. This is neither particularly large nor deadly as far as quakes go. GreatCaesarsGhost 21:38, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
Earthquake bigger than magnitude 5.5 is normally classified as major earthquake. Triple major earthquake happened at one place is unusual. STSC (talk) 15:40, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Significant enough, article in good shape. Brandmeistertalk 09:46, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support g2g. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 11:06, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
  •   Posted A series of earthquakes hit rather than hits but I'm guessing this could be ENGVAR, and will change it on request. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:24, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Cystic fibrosis medication approvedEdit

Consensus against posting. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 12:58, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Cystic fibrosis (talk, history)
Blurb: A combination of medications for treating cystic fibrosis are approved for use in United States. (Post)
News source(s): [1] [2]

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Sources say it's a breakthrough because it attacks the underlying genetic causes as opposed to just alleviating the symptoms. Banedon (talk) 20:59, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: The drug itself needs a standalone article for evaluation. Additionally, it is worth noting that this medication consists of 3 components, 2 of which have previously been used to treat CF (ivacaftor and tezacaftor), so in some sense, those parts of the drug aren't "new". SpencerT•C 21:16, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose due to no target article of the drug. INeedSupport :V 02:48, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
  • US-centrism alert This news item is clearly only about the United States. Not necessarily a problem in itself, but that fact, at least, must be mentioned in the blurb. I have no idea whether the drug(s) are already used elsewhere in the world. Are they? It would be nice (perhaps important?) to know whether this is a world first event or not. HiLo48 (talk) 02:55, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Unless Trikafta is expanded, sourced from MEDRS. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 04:02, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Current bolded link to Elexacaftor/ivacaftor/tezacaftor is just a three-sentence stub. No indication of how this is anything more than another run-of-the-mill drug approval. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bagumba (talkcontribs) 04:54, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per all of the above valid concerns. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 08:21, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose as article is a stub ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 12:21, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Per previous. Narrow impact. Suggest close. – Sca (talk) 12:24, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. No reason to think this is any more significant than any other medicine approval. Article is woeful. Modest Genius talk 12:33, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Closed) 2019 Northeast Brazil oil spillEdit

Consensus to post unlikely to emerge. – Ammarpad (talk) 22:22, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: 2019 Northeast Brazil oil spill (talk, history)
Ongoing item nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC, The Guardian, CBS, The Washington Post, Reuters

Article updated
 Chronus (talk) 09:29, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose didn't we blurb this? I'm seeing practically nothing of substance in the article for the last week or so. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:45, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per TRM. Nominate a new blurb if there is a significant piece of new information. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:28, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Ditto. – Sca (talk) 12:24, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose as there probably won't be any major updates until they find the actual cause of the spill, a lot of speculation until then. Plus looks like there's been a bit of edit warring going on yesterday and today ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 13:59, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose I'm not seeing a large number of ongoing updates; the spill happened and triggered clean-up events, that was ITN-blurb worthy, but its not like any crisis changes from this point onward. Post-investigation results would be likely appropriate, depending. --Masem (t) 15:13, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Posted) 2019 Pakistan train fireEdit

Article: 2019 Pakistan train fire (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A fire on a passenger train near Liaquatpur, Pakistan kills at least 74 people. (Post)
News source(s): Reuters, AP, BBC, Guardian

Nominator's comments: Deadliest rail accident in Pakistan since 2003. Mjroots (talk) 09:07, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Weak support big disaster, article just beyond stub. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:23, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - As above Sherenk1 (talk) 09:56, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Article is of sufficient quality, and well referenced. It's a bit short, but what is there is fine. --Jayron32 12:19, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment – Sketchy. (And were they "gas" stoves or "kerosene" stoves?) – Sca (talk) 12:28, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
    • Kerosene, per source. Mjroots (talk) 12:58, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support as it's just large enough, but more expansion would be nice as news comes in ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 13:57, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
  • CommentGuardian quotes Railways Minister Rashid Ahmed saying the fire was caused by the explosion of a gas canister, and "the presence of kerosene with the passengers in the moving train further spread the fire." (Three sources added.)Sca (talk) 14:02, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per me already thinking of it [3] ——SN54129 17:36, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak support. The event is notable enough but the article could do with more content. Particularly a map showing the location of incident would be useful, as would context of any similar events. Thryduulf (talk) 18:05, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
    • @Thryduulf: it's got a map, which Liaquatpur is marked on. Mjroots (talk) 18:36, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
      • @Mjroots: not in a way that you can see looking at the thumbnail, or indeed in any way other than opening the map full size and searching for Liaquatpur on it with no clue about where to start looking. Thryduulf (talk) 18:48, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
        • Plus the sources are quite vague about the location. Abductive (reasoning) 20:36, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Expansion would be lovely, but it's good enough to post now. GreatCaesarsGhost 18:34, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak support seriously notable in news, however article pretty short. comrade waddie96 ★ (talk) 19:43, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose disaster stub --LaserLegs (talk) 20:31, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
    Every article was once a stub. – Ammarpad (talk) 22:34, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Article in a good shape. – Ammarpad (talk) 22:25, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
  •   Posted. Wasn't sure whether "on a passenger train" needed to be part of the link or not — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:30, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Shurijo fireEdit

No consensus to post. SpencerT•C 01:43, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Shurijo (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A fire engulfs World Heritage site Shurijo (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​A fire engulfs Shuri Castle, a Japanese World Heritage Site dating back to the 14th century
Alternative blurb II: ​A fire engulfs the 14th-century Shuri Castle, a World Heritage Site in Okinawa, Japan
News source(s): [4]

Article updated
 Banedon (talk) 00:09, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I think the blurb needs to say that the castle is in Okinawa, Japan, and its main hall has been destroyed by the fire. --BorgQueen (talk) 02:58, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
@BorgQueen: I've added an alt blurb partly incorporating your suggestion. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 03:37, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support as it is a major event involving a World Heritage Site. I'd suggest a change to the blurb to add more context for readers unfamiliar with the subject – something along the lines of "A fire engulfs Shuri Castle, a Japanese World Heritage Site dating back to the 14th century" – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 02:58, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support though the section of the article on the fire should be expanded. This is a historic UNESCO site, and the fire is being covered internationally. Such a tragedy. Davey2116 (talk) 04:08, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support in principle, but wait until expanded. There is just not enough material right now to post this to the main page. Conceding occasional exceptions, we usually prefer events nominated at ITN to have their own stand alone article. As of this comment we have exactly four sentences. That's not enough. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:05, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
Oppose based on added background below. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:44, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Agree with AO. Very little on the fire in the article. Jusdafax (talk) 05:19, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support in principle per AO, Alt blurb II preferred. Mjroots (talk) 09:19, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per the article most of the buildings destroyed only dated back a few decades, mostly having been rebuilt in 1945. If this was about the original buildings being destroyed, it'd be newsworthy. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:25, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
    Actually destroyed in 1945 and rebuilt in 1992. The heritage refers to the stone foundations which were not destroyed in the fire. Stephen 10:07, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
    Thanks for the correction, let’s make it a strong oppose then. I’ve got clothes older than the buildings destroyed. This is completely misleading and not in the slightest newsworthy. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 10:38, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose large swaths of the article without references not suitable for MP --LaserLegs (talk) 10:30, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Per TRM. (Plus, apparently no casualties.) – Sca (talk) 12:34, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose as the section of the article about the fire isn't very detailed. Expansion needed ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 13:55, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. There is only one short paragraph about the fire, and even that's not fully referenced. Thryduulf (talk) 18:07, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose tragic, but too much of the article is completely unreferenced. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 18:09, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: As of yet all information in public during since it happened is reflected to the "short" description. Officials has just begun investigations. No substantial expansion on the fire is not expected in few days. --Aphaia (talk) 18:31, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per TRM. comrade waddie96 ★ (talk) 19:44, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

October 30Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economics
  • Twitter announces it will ban all political ads on its platform starting November 22. (BBC News)

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime


(Posted) 2019 World SeriesEdit

Article: 2019 World Series (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In baseball, the Washington Nationals win the World Series (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​In baseball, the Washington Nationals defeat the Houston Astros to win the World Series.
Alternative blurb II: ​In baseball, the Washington Nationals defeat the Houston Astros to win the World Series (MVP Stephen Strasburg pictured).

Article updated

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.

 --- Coffeeandcrumbs 03:50, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose at the moment. Quite a few unsourced statements in the game summaries, and the Background section is fairly anemic. SounderBruce 04:13, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
    SounderBruce, the article has 18 kb of prose and 92 unique cited references, in addition to some "further reading" sources. Usually, ITN/R nominations are empty but for tables. Please be more specific on why you're opposing this. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:16, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
    • The team background subsections lack anything substantial about their regular season form. As an example, MLS Cup 2018 has a full paragraph about the regular season. It's a bit of a minor point, but I think it's a basic thing that needs to be considered for a high-traffic article. SounderBruce 04:20, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
      SounderBruce, that's what a GA needs. Not what ITN criteria ask for. You're comparing a 2018 article to an article for a series that ended less than an hour ago. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:24, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
      • The regular season summaries were added before the match and it's been pretty standard like that for other soccer ITNs (2019 FIFA Women's World Cup and 2019 UEFA Champions League Final). It's not unreasonable to expect the same of a sports final with similar levels of coverage and even more time to prepare. SounderBruce 04:27, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
        The 2018 MLS Cup article is about the same size with the same number of references as this article. If there's any serious issue in sourcing or accuracy, that's one thing. There's WP:NODEADLINE for getting it to GA status. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:34, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support There is always room for improvement but this article is well referenced and more than adequate for the main page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:22, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Procedural Note: This nom appears to duplicate one under the correct date (30 October). They should probably be merged. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:25, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
    Ad Orientem, fixed. I wondered why I didn't get an EC with Coffee. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:32, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support, with particular support for Alt 1 - this is obviously a major sporting event that should be included. Plenty of precedent in prior years for inclusion as well. Ganesha811 (talk) 04:44, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - I agree with AO that this article is well-referenced. It’s also reasonably complete. The blurb might include the notable fact that this is the first time the Nationals franchise has won the championship. Jusdafax (talk) 05:10, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support pbp 05:36, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Image placed in prot queue. I'd like to give the oil spill a full 48 hr (which ends in a few hours) before we post this, but this is what we expect a sport tourney result article to look like - summary of main games, additional details around the event, etc. Yes, there's one CN but that's a box score result show should be easy to source. --Masem (t) 06:12, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - 'Tis their first Series win. – Illegitimate Barrister (talkcontribs), 06:22, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment did we include a blurb about it being the franchise's first win when the Blues or Raptors won? Unless it was included for them, I'd say it's fine to exclude it. --PlasmaTwa2 06:41, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
    For the Raptors in the NBA Finals, it was mentioned that they were the first Canadian champs.[5]Bagumba (talk) 13:01, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
  • PostedBagumba (talk) 08:25, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I posted a note at WP:ERRORS, the pic was swapped out by MSGJ without explanation -- I'm sure there is a reason I'm just wondering why. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:58, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jim Gregory (ice hockey)Edit

Article: Jim Gregory (ice hockey) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Sportsnet

Article updated

 Connormah (talk) 21:33, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Support Looking OK to me. – Ammarpad (talk) 00:08, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Good sources, reasonable summary of career. Teemu08 (talk) 00:12, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD. SpencerT•C 02:17, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

October 29Edit

Business and economics
  • WhatsApp sues Israeli cyber intelligence firm NSO Group for allegedly spying on 1,400 users on four continents. Among those affected were diplomats, journalists, and government officials. If moved forward, it could set a major legal precedent for cybersecurity. (Reuters)
Disasters and accidents
International relations

Politics and elections

(Posted) RD: Cong WeixiEdit

Article: Cong Weixi (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Phoenix News

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Influential Chinese writer known for his works on laogai labour camps. Zanhe (talk) 11:13, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Support - Overall the article seems OK. STSC (talk) 13:18, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - This is a newly expanded article that is well sourced. Thsmi002 (talk) 13:26, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - everything seems well sourced ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 13:52, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
  •   Posted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:02, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

RD: John Witherspoon (actor)Edit

Article: John Witherspoon (actor) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): CBS

Article updated

Nominator's comments: C Class article. Sourcing needs a lot of work. Volunteers needed. DBigXray 07:48, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) US Recognition of Armenia GenocideEdit

(non-admin closure) There is consensus not to post. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 06:35, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Armenian genocide recognition (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The United States formally recognizes the Armenian genocide (Post)
News source(s): US House of Representatives, Reuters, NY Times, The Guardian, Der Spiegel

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Historic recognition. Article changes are pending protection-review. Comes right before the same Congress passed sanctions on Turkey for the recent Syrian incursion (which await Presidential approval). (talk) 07:41, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per Armenian Genocide recognition#Countries there are precedents already, similar to successive legalization of some issues by various countries. Brandmeistertalk 08:29, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Posturing over Syria. Could be added as a "reaction" to that article, which is already posted. GreatCaesarsGhost 11:38, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose – One hundred years too late. No impact. – Sca (talk) 12:45, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose The US formally recognizing something? Not news. Kingsif (talk) 13:24, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support – You have to listen to the speeches in the House of Representatives to comprehend the challenges prior the recognition ! Being sarcastic by writing: "One hundred years too late" or "US formally recognizing something? Not news", is just nonsense ! Obama could not even use the term genocide when he was a president ! @GreatCaesarsGhost: The Turkish aggression was mentioned by Pelosi as a prelude to the resolution, since the aggressor is being the same ! UniSail2 (talk) 13:57, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
    • The US has a long history of making friends with horrible people and turning a blind eye to the atrocities they commit. That we should finally concede obvious facts to thumb our noses at them when friendship turns sour is neither commendable nor noteworthy. GreatCaesarsGhost 19:53, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Most important country in the world recognizes the second largest genocide in modern history and people here are trying to vote this down? (talk) 15:21, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
  • What does "Most important country" even mean? Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ) 17:57, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Too little, too late. WaltCip (talk) 16:23, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose minor development in United States-Turkey relations. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:19, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose slow handclap for arriving a "few" years late. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:07, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose It's not clear that this represents a formal recognition on the part of the United States. It's a resolution passed by one chamber of Congress. The President could probably issue such a declaration unilaterally, but for Congress to do so would require both houses to pass a bill and get the POTUS to sign it or override his veto. At present I don't believe the blurb is factually accurate. The article may need to consider this as well. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:34, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
    Ad Orientem, a terrific point. Even if the Senate also passes the resolution, it's highly likely that Trump will veto it. After all, he is quite beholden to strongmen like Erdogan. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:47, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
The above two are factually inaccurate. You are confusing the passage of Bills (which require both House and Senate, and Presidential approval; a.k.a. "laws") with the passage of Resolutions. The result of Bills is law, in the context of US Code, which requires definition of acts and punishments and so on. Obviously, the state of Turkey is not a subject of the US Code, and thus a Bill concerning the Armenian Genocide cannot be made, and the proper avenue for such is a Resolution. I find the sniping about whether Trump would veto such a hypothetical Bill to be unnecessary and uninformed. You're opining on things that are in the news - do you read the news? (talk) 06:23, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lebanese prime minister resignsEdit

Articles: 2019 Lebanese protests (talk, history) and Saad Hariri (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Lebanese prime minister Saad Hariri resigns amidst the 2019 Lebanese protests (Post)
News source(s): [6]

Article updated

 Banedon (talk) 00:27, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Wait until resignation is accepted by the Lebanese President. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ) 00:32, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait per above, especially given that Hariri already once resigned, only to withdraw it later. If we know Hariri's successor as well, we can mark this ITNR. (talk) 07:11, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
A change in PM is not ITNR unless it is the result of a general election. 331dot (talk) 07:17, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Ah, yes, you're right. (talk) 07:43, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
....which isn't to say it can't be nominated under the regular process, only that it is not ITNR. 331dot (talk) 07:45, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose only because of quality of the article about Saad Hariri. I have placed some hopefully helpful tags on the BLP article. Shouldn't be impossible to source but some of the trivia about his family should just be removed if a source cannot be found. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 09:00, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support despite the lacking of Saad Hariricomrade waddie96 ★ (talk) 19:47, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose The resignation has to be accepted first before becoming legally effective and second, the article has tag issues. – Ammarpad (talk) 22:28, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per collection of comments above re. article quality and yet-incomplete process. Kingsif (talk) 20:17, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 22:28, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

(Removed) Remove Brexit from ongoingEdit

Consensus is to remove for now. I would expect that at some point it will be back, but with the recent delay and the forthcoming election, it's unlikely anything of great significance on this topic will be happening until December at the earliest. If that prediction proves to be wrong, anyone is free to renominate for ongoing or a blurb. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:15, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Brexit (talk, history)
Ongoing item removal (Post)
Nominator's comments: The recent "flextension" to Brexit (till 31 January) has cooled the previous tension. It now seems the UK is heading into a general election campaign, which will have a big Brexit component, but will also be about wider UK politics. In theory "UK general election 2019" could be an ongoing topic, but this would be highly irregular to have one country's election as an ongoing topic, in addition to/instead of the normal blurb of the results. Perhaps Brexit will again be ongoing-worthy post-election, but there has to be a drop off point. LukeSurl t c 09:58, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support removal, as it has been postponed and the main next event will be the election which is a separate story. --Tone 10:07, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Remove – This article is a mess. I would usually say wait a few days but fuck it, get this ugly useless article off the main page. It is a waste of MP space. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 10:10, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Suppot removal now's the time for a brief pause here. It seems that nothing directly related to Brexit will happen until the General Election debacle is resolved, so we can remove this for the time being. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 10:14, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support/Remove A different target article needs to be used next time this is nominated for Ongoing. Or the Brexit article should be a very general summary of events thus far, with the granular details in the sub-articles. It's actually gotten better than the last time I read through it, so there's hope for it yet. (talk) 10:40, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Remove. Agreed. The deadline has been extended from 31 Oct, probably until January. Whilst political manoeuvring will continue, the issue now moves on to if/when there is an election. Fine to let it drop off ITN, but we should be prepared to bring it back if a withdrawal agreement passes. Modest Genius talk 12:09, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep Additions to the article continue to be made through as recently as today. Article is still being updated. --Jayron32 12:12, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Remove we'll blurb the election results obviously. There will be ongoing posturing and bickering but with the "flextension" accepted there is nothing significant in the Brexit process now until parliament passes some legislation. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:24, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Remove per nom.-- P-K3 (talk) 12:39, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Remove – Yeah, it's on hiatus for the time being. Thank goodness for small blessings. – Sca (talk) 12:55, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Removed While the election cycle will obviously circle around Brexit in the UK, there is clearly not going to be any direct Brexit action until afterwards. Pulling per above. --Masem (t) 13:56, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support removal per above. SpencerT•C 17:17, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep at least for a day since there was just a big development. Can pull afterwards. Banedon (talk) 00:22, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
    It has been removed already. So the only way to go back is via new nomination. – Ammarpad (talk) 01:10, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
      Administrator note: As long as the discussion remains open consensus can theoretically change. That said, I don't see that as likely and my guess is the discussion will be closed tomorrow (today?) at some point. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:09, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I agree with Banedon. We should've kept it in ongoing for about a day after the last development, for people who are reasonably late to the news. Davey2116 (talk) 02:28, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep Still dominating the front pages and still evolving as the new phase of an election is started, with daily updates to the timeline on 28 and 29 October. Andrew D. (talk) 11:57, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
    • As I pointed in my Removal post above: the UK election is clearly going to cycle around Brexit, but there are not going to be any direct Brexit actions until that election is over. When the election is over, and the new gov't focus returns 100% to Brexit before Jan 31 2020, then we can talk about readding it where there will be direct Brexit news. --Masem (t) 12:53, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
      • The calling of an election is itself a direct effect as this upsets the schedule of the fixed term act. This is triggering the resignation and retirement of a number of high-profile politicians. The economic, financial and logistical planning and publicity which was targeted on Oct 31 is now being reset to focus on a new date which is even more uncertain. There are plenty of direct effects as businesses and migrants try to cope with this. These effects are quite considerable compared to the Trump impeachment matter, which seems to have less impact and less readership – the Brexit article is getting about double the number of readers of any of the other ongoing articles and the trend is that it's bouncing up. I was in the USA all last week and nobody in the real world talked about those other things once. Anyway, as Masem has an opinion about this, they are not impartial. As we have no consensus, their admin action should be reverted. Andrew D. (talk) 16:26, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

October 28Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

(Posted) RD: Kay HaganEdit

Article: Kay Hagan (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): CNN

Article updated

Nominator's comments: American politician, former U.S. Senator from North Carolina (2009–15), dies at age 66. Article in good shape. Davey2116 (talk) 19:08, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Support On balance, almost entirely referenced, with only three three tags early on in the article body. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 19:47, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose it is unknown why the politicians is death, but i Support it for article quality and importance. Max923 (talk) 22:52, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support A former senator is notable Poydoo (talk) 21:43, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
Poydoo Just for your information, notability is not at issue for RD nominations; anyone that merits an article is notable enough to be listed in RD. The only purpose of this discussion is to evaluate article quality. 331dot (talk) 07:52, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Her committee assignments (apparently) may or may not have happened. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:47, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
    • Committees are cited, haven't looked at the rest of the article. Kees08 (Talk) 16:27, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose article not up to scratch. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 10:15, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Way too many CNs throughout the entire article. — Chevvin 12:16, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Chevvin and InedibleHulk, I have filled in the citations. Hameltion (talk, contribs) 16:49, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Great work by Hameltion. Davey2116 (talk) 17:01, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Well done on getting it up to snuff. Article looks solid. --Jayron32 17:19, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Good work --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:20, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Referencing appears to have been fixed.-- P-K3 (talk) 17:21, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support – Ready. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 17:34, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support – and good to go.BabbaQ (talk) 17:39, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted – Muboshgu (talk) 18:15, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) 2019 World Rally ChampionshipEdit

Article: 2019 World Rally Championship (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Estonian crew of Ott Tänak and Martin Järveoja (both picture) win the 2019 World Rally Championship. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​The Estonian crew of Ott Tänak and Martin Järveoja (both picture) win the 2019 World Rally Championship at the 2019 Rally Catalunya.
Alternative blurb II: ​The Estonian crew of Ott Tänak and Martin Järveoja (both picture) win the 2019 World Rally Championship to become the first non-French crew to win the championship since 2003.
Alternative blurb III: Ott Tänak and Martin Järveoja (both pictured) win the 2019 World Rally Championship.
News source(s): Official website AutoSport CNA
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: It was the first for a non-French crew to have won the championship in fifteen years in the sport. Unnamelessness (talk) 14:38, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

  • No, no, no. Too many bold links. If you want to have any chance of getting this posted, delete all your suggested blurbs and start with just 1 blurb with 2019 World Rally Championship as the only bold link. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 14:47, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per C&C, as well as what may be a little anti-French bias in the blurbs. Even if you take his advice though, the article has an update needed banner, which is concerning for an ITN article ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 14:52, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support once the bolded article is updated with 2019 Rally Catalunya. I have edited the blurbs. Main article appears to be otherwise well-sourced. Black Kite (talk) 15:05, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Should we postpone it until the season is finished (in November)? It would be like "​In motorsport, World Rally Championship concludes with Ott Tänak and Martin Järveoja (both pictured) winning the Drivers' and the Co-Drivers' Championship." We would have time to make the articles much better aswell. Pelmeen10 (talk) 20:41, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support and comment: Given how it's been fifteen years since a non-French driver won the championship, not to mention that it's the first for Estonia and the first since Didier Auriol for a Toyota factory driver to win the WRC, I don't see why wouldn't we put this in the news column. As for Autosport though, there has been some concerns in rallying circles over it being RS, e.g. Tanak's supposed move to Hyundai which is neither thoroughly confirmed nor debunked as of the time of this writing. Blake Gripling (talk) 01:29, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 05:49, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't see the need to include their nationality in the blurb, as they were not competing for Estonia (if anything, their primary affiliation in this context is Toyota). --LukeSurl t c 10:01, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
    • Btw, just after Tänak finished the race, they only played the Estonian anthem in the podium. But not Japanese. If a driver wins a race, they play both – in this case we later heard the Belgian (Neuville) and South-Korean (Hyundai) anthem. Pelmeen10 (talk) 18:32, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Vladimir BukovskyEdit

Article: Vladimir Bukovsky (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Good article status Soviet-era dissident who revealed the political abuse of psychiatry in the USSR. Pudeo (talk) 13:57, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Support Good article = good enough ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 14:54, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Appears well-referenced.-- P-K3 (talk) 15:49, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
  •   Posted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:33, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Ongoing Removal: 2019 Hong Kong ProtestsEdit

Article: 2019 Hong Kong protests (talk, history)
Ongoing item removal (Post)

Nominator's comments: Article is now orange tagged for WP:NPOV. Suggest re-nomination after resolution. (talk) 10:26, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Remove Orange tagged and stale. Last update in the List of October 2019 Hong Kong protests article was October 20th. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:04, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait The last substantive update was for events that occurred October 23rd, and the orange tag had been mis-applied. It is approaching staleness, but I'd say give it 24-48 hours to see if more recent events get added. --Jayron32 12:43, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support (removal) - The article has been hijacked by activists, and seriously violated the WP:NPOV and WP:SOAPBOX policies. The "ongoing protests" have been only the weekend routine of vandalism on subway stations and Chinese-owned shops while from Monday to Friday would be quiet. Shouldn't have been put on Wikipedia's main page because it would compromise on the neutral stance of Wikipedia. STSC (talk) 13:47, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
These are some disputable claims. The article does not seem egregiously biased to me as it does to you; in fact, it reads to me as objective as one might reasonably hope for, given such a sensitive subject. I also do not see how merely acknowledging on ITN that these protests are ongoing would compromise the neutral stance of Wikipedia, and saying that these protests should never have been posted (even at their height) seems unfair in my opinion. Davey2116 (talk) 20:04, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
The problem is they don't tell you much about the ugly side of the protesters (rioters) in the article(s). Posting an item on ITN is a way to promote the articles on Wikipedia main page; if Wikipedia promotes a heavily one-sided article then that would very much compromise on the neutrality of Wikipedia. STSC (talk) 22:12, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
Again, I do not think the article is heavily one-sided at all. The article does include information on violent protesters. Please see the 'controversies' section of the article, which is pretty objective to me. If I had to say, it's clearly more negative about the protesters than positive; there are indeed a few sentences which could be construed as 'redeeming', but that's because they're supposed to be. I think the section is quite comprehensive. If you disagree, WP:SOFIXIT by adding more information supported by WP:RS. Also, I agree with the consensus that the protesters should not be called 'rioters' in the article. The term 'rioters' is charged and WP:POV, while 'protesters' is neutral. Davey2116 (talk) 22:40, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
Comprehensive? Far from it, they have not mentioned the protesters (rioters) have damaged hundreds of traffic lights, and the beating up of elderly men and women and many more other violent incidents. I did try to correct the imbalance in the article but my edits were quickly removed by the activists. We're seeing now just weekends of vandalism by some students then they going back to college during weekdays. STSC (talk) 00:03, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
I have glanced through the 18 edits you've made to the article, to see for myself whether your incredible claim, that hitherto-unnamed activists have been brigading and whitewashing the article (which would be a serious transgression of WP:COI and WP:NOTHERE, at the very least), is true. The one sourced edit among them still stands. Most of the other edits are wording changes; the justified ones ('triad members' to 'suspected triad gangs', 'citizens' to 'protesters', etc.) are still there, while, for instance, the unsourced invocation in Wikipedia's voice of the charged WP:POV term 'rioters' (which is itself an issue of vehement disagreement between the two sides of the protests) does not stand. So as an uninvolved observer, I don't see much evidence that activists have been quickly removing your edits. Moreover, none of your edits address what you believe to be an omission of the allegations that protesters damaged hundreds of traffic lights, and the beating up of elderly men and women and many more other violent incidents. You haven't edited the page since September 12; if you feel so strongly about this, then I invite you to add these to the article. I would be with you 100% if your sourced edits are removed with no explanation. Davey2116 (talk) 01:55, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
@Davey2116: - I have added the "100 traffic lights" issue [7] to the article. STSC - if you are so aware of missing information, then why aren't you adding it? starship.paint (talk) 06:53, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment as noted last time, the protests are so large as to have multiple articles that should be checked for updates, and in this case, the relevant one is List of October 2019 Hong Kong protests... which hasn't had anything since Oct 20. I would wait 24-48hr (this nom) to make sure nothing boils up in HK and updated here. --Masem (t) 13:49, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
    @Masem: - I have updated the child article [8] and the parent article [9] of events on 26 and 27 October. starship.paint (talk) 07:12, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
    Relative to the magnitude of the daily events that were occurring when this was ongoing, these two updates aren't really significant. This is not dismissing that the protests aren't continuing, just that the amount of news-worthy stories out of them has dropped considerably, so removal is appropriate at this time. --Masem (t) 13:47, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose / Wait until after this weekend per above. Davey2116 (talk) 19:14, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
    • Why is waiting for a week going to help? Is one update a week enough to keep a story in "ongoing"? --LaserLegs (talk) 19:16, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
Just barely, yes. The ongoing criterion sets the oldest blurb as a guideline for the cutoff. Besides, by its very nature this protest is expected to give its most major updates each weekend. We do not have enough information at this time to predict with reasonable confidence that no major updates are imminent. Davey2116 (talk) 20:04, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support removal per Masem and STSC. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 19:58, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: Currently the oldest ITN blurb is the Japan Series posted on 23 October, any ongoing article with the older update than 23 October (the date of the oldest blurb) should be removed according to ITN criteria. STSC (talk) 20:06, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait – still ongoing, prominently in the international press, as of yesterday, from what I can tell. Levivich 20:28, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
ITN is not a news ticker. "Articles are NOT posted to ongoing merely because they are related to events that are still happening" per WP:ITN. - STSC (talk) 20:44, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
The next sentence of WP:ITN reads: "In order to be posted to ongoing, the article needs to be regularly updated with new, pertinent information." 2019 Hong Kong protests was updated today with information about the "silent majority". It was updated less than 48 hours ago with information about water cannons used by police at a recent protest. Events continue to occur, at least weekly so far, that lead me to believe that the article will continue to be updated in the future, as it has been this past week. Levivich 03:35, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose remains very much in the news. Objections based on the NPOV tag can be addressed simply by deleting the tag (lol) and besides historically we've left articles on the template as long as they were untagged when they were posted. PS, I see someone has already removed the tag. Banedon (talk) 20:59, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support removal far less about this in the news than other such niche events, article is struggling to find something to really report that would be considered encyclopaedically valuable. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 21:10, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
    @The Rambling Man: - an temporary ban against doxxing of police has been approved by the courts. [10] That's new and has ramifications on free speech. starship.paint (talk) 07:19, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep Still highly notable Poydoo (talk) 21:45, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep - I've taken the time to address concerns by STSC, Masem, The Rambling Man and CaradhrasAiguo who voted to remove. Things are still going on, and added to the articles - for more, see my responses above. starship.paint (talk) 07:20, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment from nominator: I came back this morning and see that the orange tag is removed. There is pretty bad edit warring going on. Possible BLP vios are noted and then reverted. I have voted multiple times in favor of this item in Ongoing, when this event was heated and fluid. Now, things have calmed down, and we have a few new pieces of information here and there: indignation from a mosque, Chinese Communist Party comments about Catalan protests, and court orders against doxxing. These come at the cost of featuring occasional BLP and NPOV vios from the front page. "Waiting" for events as a means to keep something in Ongoing is very much CRYSTAL, and could just as well preclude removing ANY Ongoing item. On balance, do the few new edits justify keeping this in Ongoing, against what is very clearly non-consensus about the article's content (see talk)? (talk) 07:48, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
    130, I believe this is the talk page section you are referring to. We have only 6 sources provided. Of these, the 5th source overlaps with the 1st and the 4th. The content of the 1st, 2nd, 4th and 6th sources are all reflected in the article already. The 3rd source is in Chinese, so I held off on including it (please provide an English one). People claiming bias and missing things must provide sources to back up their claims, after all, they already have the knowledge about what is missing! starship.paint (talk) 11:44, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, but I am not editing this article at all (I did put in a revert request yesterday), I merely took a look at the talk page once I saw the orange tag a few days ago. The non-consensus goes far beyond that particular section of the talk page. The problems with attributing suicides are clearly BLP issues, especially since some of them are arguably not even suicides. The Suicides section includes someone who died while trying to jump onto a inflatable cushion, for example. (talk) 06:40, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Obvious keep as the protests "show no signs of relenting" and continue to make international headlines. Citobun (talk) 09:33, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Question what do we need to do to get this stale zombie article out of the box? After being ignored for a week, List of October 2019 Hong Kong protests now has two tiny one sentence updates -- surely not something we'd keep on the main page. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:22, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
    List of October 2019 Hong Kong protests is not the article linked to on the main page. It's 2019 Hong Kong protests. Levivich 15:32, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
    To stress this point again, when we have a long sprawling event like these protests, it is not unreasonable that the major updates fall into sub-articles within a summary-style approach with the "main" topic page receiving far fewer. Assuming the sub-articles are getting updated with significant news-making updates and are linked easily from the "main" page, that's the situation to judge in keeping an ongoing at ITN for this situation. --Masem (t) 15:41, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Remove We've really got to work on the criteria for ongoing. There is a clear inertia problem with getting things down once they are up. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:44, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Great work by starship.paint in updating the article. Davey2116 (talk) 17:03, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
    • So to be clear, the the way we're doing this is to ignore the article for a week until it's nominated for removal, then add a few sentences of prose while insisting "it's still in the news and still being updated"? This is the second week in a row it's been nominated for removal as stale only to be "saved" by some last-minute updates. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:48, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
      • So to be clear, you're more interested in "winning" a discussion like this than seeing the article in question improved? You'd rather people did NOT update the article? --Jayron32 17:56, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
        • It has nothing to do with "winning" we had a stale article in the box for a week which is a disservice to our readers, and the only reason anyone paid attention to it was to keep it on the main page. That's all. If the article were getting regular quality updates I'd not be advocating for it's removal. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:05, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
        • But do we really need the consensus to remove an 'ongoing' listing? Shouldn't an admin just remove it as soon as the article is not very updated (according to ITN criteria)? STSC (talk) 18:09, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
Yes, a nomination and consensus are both required to get something out of Ongoing. See this page's Talk for my Nth essay on why this is a problem. Having a higher standard for Ongoing removal than for Ongoing addition means that there's a kinetic trap-like accumulation articles on the main page (which is incredibly valuable internet real estate). I can't remember what year the 2013 Ebola Outbreak got removed from Ongoing, and some very niche political events enjoyed long stays in Ongoing. (talk) 08:22, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose (keep) – Still the No. 1 political problem in the world's most populous country. (That's populous, not 'popular.')Sca (talk) 13:01, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep - Activity will increase today (expecting mass rallies on Hong Kong Island, conflicts in Prince Edward and Central). I will try to update the article by tomorrow (Tuen Mun scuffles, Yuen Long conflicts) and produce a summary of October events. The protests itself are in a bit of a disjointed state but it is still ongoing. OceanHok (talk) 16:48, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep thanks to recent improvements, noteworthy piece of info for the news. comrade waddie96 ★ (talk) 19:48, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Argentine electionsEdit

Articles: 2019 Argentine general election (talk, history) and Alberto Fernández (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Opposition candidate Alberto Fernández (pictured) wins a decisive victory in the Argentine elections. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Alberto Fernández (pictured) is elected president in the Argentine elections.
News source(s): BBC

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

Nominator's comments: At least the Uruguayan election went to a run-off, so as to not have ITN bombarded by Latin American presidents. Kingsif (talk) 03:18, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Support. Well referenced. Good to go. MSN12102001 (talk) 10:10, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Comments I am confused about the Results section. The only sub-section with prose is primary elections and it makes it sound as if there will be another general election sometime in the future ("[such and such] all received enough valid votes to participate in the general election"). The un-updated Electoral system section clears this up, but only with inference from the reader. Perhaps make it more clear under Results that the stipulated second round was cancelled. Section Opinion polls is empty, and perhaps the link to the dedicated article about this should be folded into prose elsewhere. (talk) 10:13, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
Additionally, Fernándaz's article is orange tagged and can't be featured until it is resolved. (talk) 11:29, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not enough results prose, eh? --LaserLegs (talk) 11:13, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. Argentina election results LIVE updates: Fernández wins as voters turn on Macri [1] --AbDaryaee (talk) 12:32, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. There is no prose results for the general election in the "results" section. Please update with actual text so we can post this. The Canadian election below missed being posted because no one who wanted it posted was willing to do the work to write about the election. If someone does wish this to be posted, please update. --Jayron32 12:41, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not enough prose, not enough sourcing in existing prose. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:24, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
Oppose It is not important event yet for me. --Max923talk 20:43, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
Struck sock vote. --qedk (t c) 10:50, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

October 27Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents
  • 2019 California wildfires
    • Further evacuations are ordered, with 180,000 people now affected. Power companies are scheduled to cut supplies for a million people today, doubling the size of what is already the biggest blackout in California history in a bid to prevent further fires igniting from damaged electric cables. (BBC News)

International relations
  • North Korea–United States relations
    • The government of North Korea says that it is "running out of patience with the U.S." due to "unilateral hostile disarmament demands" and warns that the cordial relationship between Kim Jong-un and Donald Trump would not prevent the talks from derailing. (ABC News)
  • Since convening on 6 October, the synod of Catholic bishops from Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, French Guiana, Guyana, Peru, Venezuela, and Suriname gather with Pope Francis in Rome. According to the bishops, "a deep personal, social and structural conversion" is needed in response to the "unprecedented" environmental and social crisis in the Amazon. (Catholic News Service)

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology


(Posted) RD: John ConyersEdit

Article: John Conyers (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): CNN

Article updated

 – Muboshgu (talk) 21:55, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Weak Oppose I added one CN and though I'm not tagging it, the list of caucus memberships needs a bunch of refs. Some of the caucuses are likely trivial and could be removed if no one can find a source. All in all the article is in decent shape and should not require much work to get it posted. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:00, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
    Support Looks good to go. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:25, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
    Ad Orientem, I dealt with the CN tag. Can source the caucus memberships. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:12, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
    Ad Orientem, all sourced, except for the "Congressional Cement Caucus" (?), which I removed. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:19, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Sad to hear it. Article is ready. Davey2116 (talk) 03:51, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
  •   Posted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:47, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

RD: Paul BarrereEdit

Article: Paul Barrere (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)

 7&6=thirteen () 21:07, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose for now Needs lots of sourcing. And oppose blurb, doesn't merit one. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:56, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Article has sourcing problems and is definitely not worthy of a blurb. Nonstopmaximum (talk) 01:00, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

(Posted to Ongoing) Dissolving of Chilean governmentEdit

Article: 2019 Chilean protests (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Following weeks of public protests, Chilean President Sebastián Piñera (pictured) fires all sitting ministers of his government. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​Following weeks of public protests, all sitting ministers of the Chilean government are dismissed.
News source(s): BBC

Article updated

Nominator's comments: A big step in ongoing protests. Kingsif (talk) 18:45, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment Although Sebastián Piñera was already in ITN, the article is pretty horrible. It has NPOV and citation needed tags. I already removed 2,500 bytes worth of unsourced dubious information a couple of days ago. That had been tagged with {{citation needed}} since December 2017. Would be great if this article was better. --Pudeo (talk) 19:05, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Pudeo. The Piñera article is a BLP disaster zone and cannot be linked on the main page in its current state. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:30, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per two above -- too biased is the article of Sebastián Piñera. --CoryGlee (talk) 21:39, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment added altblurb minus link to Piñera (yes, it's a bit of a disaster that will take a while to clean). Kingsif (talk) 21:55, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support alternative blurb or ongoing – The alternative blurb doesn't link to Sebastián Piñera. 2019 Chilean protests seems fine quality-wise, and ought to be on the main page, possibly as an Ongoing event (if it continues). Over a million people were reported to have protested this weekend. Levivich 02:44, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support ongoing per above. Davey2116 (talk) 03:52, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
  •   Posted to ongoing. If there is support for a blurb, please keep discussing — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:44, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) 2019 Ethiopian riotsEdit

Article: 2019 Ethiopian riots (talk, history)
Blurb: ​At least 67 people are killed in a series riots and inter-ethnic clashes across Ethiopia. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​At least 67 people are killed in a series riots across Ethiopia after an an activist claims security forces tried to detain him.
Alternative blurb II: ​At least 67 people are killed in protests and inter-ethnic clashes in Ethiopia's Oromo Region and surrounding areas.
Alternative blurb III: ​At least 67 people are killed in riots in Ethiopia's Oromo Region and surrounding areas after an an activist claims security forces tried to detain him.
News source(s): Reuters AFP AP New York Times Le Monde BBC

Nominator's comments: Article may need some work, but this is undoubtedly newsworthy and has been covered widely in reliable sources. Willing to make necessary changes for readiness. Varavour (talk) 18:43, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment Nothing? --Varavour (talk) 22:01, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Alt2 – We should be specific about where (Oromo) but linking to the journalist-activist is undue at this time. Oppose calling it "riots". RS use the word "protests". (See Google Search results of Ethiopian riots and Ethiopia protests.)--- Coffeeandcrumbs 00:37, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Alt2, tweaked wording per Coffeeandcrumbs; marking ready. SpencerT•C 02:19, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per above. Davey2116 (talk) 03:53, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
  •   Posted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:37, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Abū Bakr al-Baghdadi is killedEdit

Article: Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi (talk, history)
Blurb: Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi is killed by US military forces. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​Self-professed Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant caliph Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and two of his wives kill themselves during a US raid in Idlib, Syria.
Alternative blurb II: Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi kills himself during a US raid in Idlib, Syria.
Alternative blurb III: Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi kills himself and three of his children during a US raid in Idlib Governorate, Syria.
Alternative blurb IV: Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi is dead after a US raid in Idlib, Syria.
News source(s): Fox News and it is being widely reported. AP, BBC, AFP, Guardian

Article updated

Nominator's comments: This is major news. Article appears to be in good shape and is being updated as info becomes available. Ad Orientem (talk) 04:31, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Wait According to most media sources (including the Fox News link, which says “believed to be” Baghdadi) his death is still awaiting final confirmation, and given that he has been incorrectly reported dead many times we should be extra cautious to make sure his death is reliably confirmed beyond a shadow of a doubt. Would definitely support upon confirmation; probably the world’s most wanted individual for the past several years. EternalNomad (talk) 04:43, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support once confirmed - Aviartm (talk) 04:46, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment CNN is reporting he was killed when he detonated a suicide vest, so it should be described as a suicide. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 04:48, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support once confirmed Although evidence is pointing out that he likely is deceased at this time. I agree with EternalNomad that caution should be taken. Nonstopmaximum (talk) 05:13, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
    Support alt blurb 2 Nonstopmaximum (talk) 13:30, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support suicide scenario Rumour is he offed himself, so no "we got him" moment for Trump. Could be fake news, but Osama bin Laden wasn't exactly proven dead, either. Offered a blurb. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:15, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
He's assumed room temperature because the intelligence people found the murderous little SOB and the military went in. Whether he chose to go out like Hitler in the bunker or guns blazing is not material to my mind. President bone spurs had nothing to do with it either way. Same was true of Obama and bin-Laden. That said, if he did throw his own off switch that should be reflected and I would support the alt blurb. -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:34, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Hitler would have had no clue what to do with two wives. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:51, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
There were so many things about which Hitler had no clues. – Sca (talk) 01:38, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
  • We have contradicting blurbs here. Article, even-though detailed, contains sketchy narrations and an interesting timeline of the times he was reported to be dead/injured before. We should really be careful not rush in spreading this, notwithstanding the rushed reports of the "reliable sources" who are in competition to break the news first. Wikipedia should wait for the FACTS to emerge, after the hype dissipates. – Ammarpad (talk) 07:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support alt blurb once confirmed per above. Davey2116 (talk) 07:35, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Added a simplified alt blurb. Nonstopmaximum (talk) 07:46, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - Wives not newsworthy. If posting before official confirmation, use blurb in passive voice: Man believed to be Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi is killed during a US raid in Idlib, Syria. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 08:12, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support alt blurb 3 Trump confirmed it Added alt-blurb 3 on the basis of what Trump has announced (talk) 13:26, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait – Independent confirmation would be best. Note, however, that Trump says unequivocally that he's dead.Sca (talk) 13:30, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Because the Orange One is absolutely a trustworthy reliable source. WaltCip (talk) 13:31, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
I didn't say DT was independent – hence the however. – Sca (talk) 13:49, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
PS: He's more a loose cannon writ large. – Sca (talk) 15:05, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support suicide theory, just confirmed by the President of the United States. --CoryGlee (talk) 13:32, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support if confirmed. NYT suggests death has not been officially confirmed yet. Once people are confident enough, it's a no-brainer for the main page. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 13:43, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
    • Note that the article is listing him as dead with heavy RS usage. Seems like he is very likely dead. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 13:49, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support it's been announced. I'm not sure what further proof we need. Calidum 13:45, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Going against the flow here, I'm not sure he's worth a blurb. He wasn't Osama. RD anyone? – Sca (talk) 13:50, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Through sheer magnitude of ISIL's aftermath (including the transnational destruction of cultural heritage) he's at least equal to Osama. Hence blurb. Brandmeistertalk 14:27, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I can't create new pages, but we should consider establishing a new article about his death. Just how we have one about Osama's death (talk) 14:07, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support blurb The Atlantic calls it an "end of an era", also even saying it is more notable than the death of Osama bin Laden because al-Baghdadi still had followers both as a head of "state" and a religious leader. US officials confirmed to death so good to go. --Pudeo (talk) 14:18, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
    I'd like to note that he technically wasn't killed by the US forces as he detonated his suicide vest killing three of his children at that. This has been confirmed by the US government, so I strongly believe we should consider one of the blurbs that mention that it was suicide. Also, I am pretty sure that both suicide and child murder and forbidden in Islam so there's an argument to mention that he killed himself and his children if nothing else then to denounce this animal further. (talk) 14:20, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support, with preference for alt blurb 2. The details about his death have now been officially confirmed. Nsk92 (talk) 14:21, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Note to admins: if you're going to use either Alt-blurb 1 or 2 take note that he wasn't killed in the city of Idlib, but rather somewhere in the Idlib Governorate. Thank you. (talk) 14:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support don't use altblurb 1 or the original. Both make claims which don't appear to be correct. (He killed himself, but his wives didn't, they just had suicide vests.) I prefer 2 over 3, since as horrible as what he did may be, it doesn't seem to be the sort of detail for ITN. Edit: I would add 3 may not be correct either. I'm pretty sure Trump gave some indication they weren't sure who's children these were. Most likely they were Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi's children, but it doesn't sound like they've confirmed it via DNA tests or anything like that at the moment. Nil Einne (talk) 14:35, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support – Alt2 – Must admit it is, momentarily at least, today's No. 1 story in RS-land. – Sca (talk) 15:05, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Alt2 Article is of quality to post, and clearly a ITN blurb. Alt2 seems the most accurate to the points of what has been confirmed. --Masem (t) 15:15, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Alt2 as per everyone. --Rockstonetalk to me! 15:19, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Alt2 as the event clearly qualifies, and Alt2 gives the most detail without being overly wordy. The WordsmithTalk to me 15:37, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. An article about the raid was recently created. Wondering if there should be a wikilink to it. --Deansfa (talk) 15:41, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per others. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 16:01, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
  Posted. Decided not to pipe in Barisha raid due to orange tag — will wait till this is resolved. El_C 16:28, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
I have removed the orange tag, but I remain still not confident enough about the article's quality to pipe it. I open the floor to comments regarding that. El_C 16:35, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
I agree with removal of the tag (was about to do it myself) but I think we should probably wait at least a few hours for sources with more detail to be available so the article can be a bit more developed. The WordsmithTalk to me 16:40, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Comment: Considering that Trump has been known to lie on multiple occasions and there is no independent verification, I would clarify that this is a claim by the US government, not a verifiable fact. All sources named above merely repeat Trump's statement or use vague terms, such as "believed dead" (AFP), "Trump says..." (AP), "says Donald Trump", "There has been no official confirmation..." (BBC) or "target believed to be Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi" (Fox News). If we post this, it should thus probably be prefaced "According to the US government, ..." Regards SoWhy 16:30, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - it is sloppy and irresponsible in the extreme to post in Wikivoice that "Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi kills himself during a US raid" when both the BBC [11] and Guardian [12] sources attribute the suicide to Trump's tweet (elsewhere I have seen this attributed to a US official). BBC: "The fugitive leader... killed himself... President Donald Trump has said." Guardian: "US president says jihadist leader detonated suicide vest in US raid in north-west Syria." @El C, Masem, Pudeo, Ad Orientem, and Aviartm: this is not to suggest in the slightest that Trump is "lying." Please rephrase to Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi is dead after a US raid in Idlib, Syria." Thanks. -Darouet (talk) 19:53, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Pretty much all RS sources are saying he killed himself. Some are attributing this to Trump, but many had already confirmed his death and the manner of it from government sources. The bottom line is that no RS sources are questioning the official narrative of his death and unless that changes, we shouldn't either. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:00, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with "confirming" Baghdadi's death, it's about attributing the statement that he committed suicide, killing himself and his family. I have tried to verify your statement by following the wikilinks in the blurb at the top of our front page, but the sources cited in our articles also attribute the suicide to Trump / US officials, as does our article Barisha raid. Please correct our linked wiki articles immediately with "pretty much all the RS sources" [sic] you've referred to, or correct our blurb to match the sources currently used in our article. -Darouet (talk) 20:03, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
I'm sorry but I disagree with your position which I believe is contrary to what the RS sources are all plainly saying. And it seems to me you are splitting hairs here. If RS sources start to raise questions we can go there. But only then. Beyond which, if you want to change what is being written in the articles, this is the wrong forum. You need to discuss that on the relevant article's talk page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:12, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
@Ad Orientem: you've gotten it exactly backwards: our articles Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and Barisha raid correctly reflect what sources are saying by reporting Baghdadi's death, and attributing the claim of his suicide to Trump. What you've posted to the front of Wikipedia does not reflect what we've written in our articles, nor the sources our articles cite, as shown below. This isn't splitting hairs, this is the different between reporting facts (as newspapers have correctly done) and transforming quotes from US officials into facts (as you have done with our blurb). Sorry I know that things move fast at ITN so it's OK to have made a mistake, but this should be corrected promptly. -Darouet (talk) 20:22, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
The top hits on Google news:
  • The Atlantic [13] like the Abbasids, he is dead—smashed to bits, according to Trump, by a self-detonated suicide vest.
  • NBC News [14] Trump said the ISIS leader "died like a dog, he died like a coward. He was whimpering, screaming, and crying."
  • ABC News [15] The president said al-Baghdadi, "went into a dead-end tunnel, whimpering and crying and screaming all the way," and died when he detonated a suicide vest.
  • Reuters [16] Baghdadi killed himself during the raid by detonating a suicide vest, Trump said in a televised address from the White House.
  • BBC [17] The fugitive leader of the Islamic State (IS) group killed himself during a US military operation in north-west Syria, President Donald Trump has said.
  • The Guardian [18] US president says jihadist leader detonated suicide vest in US raid in north-west Syria.
  • Agence France-Presse [19] As U.S. troops bore down on al-Baghdadi, he fled into a “dead-end” tunnel with three of his children, Trump said, and detonated a suicide vest.
  • Associated Press [20] US media cited multiple government sources as saying Baghdadi may have killed himself with a suicide vest as US special operations forces descended.
That so many high quality sources attribute the statement of his suicide in and of itself should cause you to either use attribution, or refrain from stating that Baghdadi killed himself in Wikivoice, and instead state that he is dead after a U.S. raid. -Darouet (talk) 20:16, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Does any high quality RS express doubt at Trump's statement ? If they used the language "Trump claimed"... then there may be reason to word ours more carefully. None of these sources express any doubt. --Masem (t) 20:26, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
So literally every RS chooses to attribute the claim of suicide to Trump or US officials, but you think our own news service should go one step further and state the suicide is a fact, unless an RS explicitly contests the claim?
Or, are you arguing that there's simply no meaningful difference between attributing the suicide to US officials (RS), and reporting the suicide as a fact (what we've done here)? -Darouet (talk) 20:36, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Its a distinction without a difference. No news sources have actually seen the remains, nor are they ever going to do so. There's not likely to ever be a certified death certificate or video or something, so attributing it to the US government when no sources have disputed any part of it is essentially a definitive statement. The WordsmithTalk to me 20:43, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
@The Wordsmith: interesting, I wonder why reliable sources see a difference between attribution and fact. -Darouet (talk) 20:49, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
That's down to their style guides. Newspapers tend to refrain from making definitive factual statements without having the paperwork. Hence when discussing a crime, they will always write allegedly or according to..., even if the perpetrator has confessed and there's zero doubt, until the jury verdict has been published. As a tertiary source, Wikipedia works a little differently. Attributing the statement to the US government wouldn't be incorrect for us, but I don't think it is necessary in this case unless there was even a hint of doubt. The WordsmithTalk to me 20:54, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
I'm going to go out on a limb and argue that if every reliable news source attributes a claim, Wikipedia's In the News service should do the same. WP:Verifiability is a core and policy of this encyclopedia, but when I seek to verify that what we've written here is true — Baghdadi killed himself and his own children — instead I am directed to reliable sources that we cite, telling me not that he killed himself, and instead that Donald Trump and U.S. officials have stated as much [21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28].
What that means in plain English is that verification of the first item in our ITN service has failed.
We easily can and should do better than this. The rule of thumb, when there is uncertainty, is that we should be cautious, conservative, and report only what is absolutely known. -Darouet (talk) 00:08, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
Our current first item claims 67 people were killed in protests, based on the say-so of a regional Ethiopian police commissioner Wikipedia doesn't have an article on. Wikipedia does have articles indicating police are generally distrusted, Ethiopia is generally corrupt and strangers are generally risky. But no attribution and no worries. Same with the 39 lorry bodies, except some of those chiefs have articles. Those potential lying government administrations don't seem to bother you. This is because this one real person was associated with Trump by most outlets which makes you click here, OR or not. Or is there an alternative explanation? InedibleHulk (talk) 03:01, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Post-posting commentAll the RS stories I've seen say he killed himself, and most quote DT. If some other scenario were reliably reported, we could look at it, but unless/until that happens we'll stick with what we've got. (This should not be interpreted as any endorsement of DT.)Sca (talk) 22:07, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
@Sca: in that case you haven't read one of the five sources cited at the top of this post (Fox, AP, BBC, AFP, Guardian), nor have you read any of the additional five sources I posted above. Not a single one of them "says" (or prints) that Baghdadi killed himself. Instead they report that according to Trump or US officials, he killed himself. Can you please give links to the RS you're referring to and quote them directly, as I have done above. -Darouet (talk) 23:51, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Here are the sources I quoted above by the way: [29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36]. -Darouet (talk) 00:08, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
In that case?
Polemics. (PS: This user never reads Fox 'News.')Sca (talk) 01:34, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
As in, you haven't produced even one of All the RS stories [you]'ve seen that reports Baghdadi killed himself, without attributing the statement to Trump or US officials. -Darouet (talk) 01:52, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I wouldn't be opposed to a change to Alt 4 given the concerns Darouet mentions. That said, I suspect that the US narrative is likely to become the widely accepted such that most future reports will simply treat it as factual but it will still only be based on reports from US officials. Unless people fail to talk Trump out of releasing a video I guess. I would also note that while alt 4 may reduce concerns, ultimately even confirmation of his death is based solely on US officials although some variant of this is true for a lot of things we post. Nil Einne (talk)
    Also I'd be careful when evaluating sources. Anything before Trump's press conference is IMO irrelevant in deciding how the media are treating this. There were a lot of early reports of his death via a suicide vest but AFAIK these were from unnamed US officials speaking "off the record" as it were. The media tend to understandably treat such reports with caution. It's only when officials confirm on the record that the media tend to treat it as more definite, which started with the press conference. Nil Einne (talk) 00:29, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I think we need to be careful here. AFAIK there is not a single RS source that has questioned the US Government's account of what happened. Adopting the language change suggested above would at least implicitly suggest that the official version could be false. And that, in the absence of RS corroboration is a huge NPOV fail. Whatever our views of Trump, it should not prejudice us to the point where we start looking for things that don't exist. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:41, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
We are, right now, being the opposite of careful, by adopting definitive language when all sources attribute the claim of Baghdadi's suicide. If you think that sources are adopting the appropriate tone when they write, "According to Donald Trump and US officials," why do you think we're adopting too skeptical a tone when write exactly the same thing? You can't have it both ways. -Darouet (talk) 01:52, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
Iranian, Iraqi and Syrian officials told some reporters around when US officials told others. Not a Trump invention, he was just authorized to speak on it. And so the news (generally and correctly) says he "announced" it, not "claimed" it. These anonymous US officials were described as high-ranking Pentagon and Army dudes, not the usual vague sort "familiar with a situation". InedibleHulk (talk) 03:20, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
First, it would be helpful if you linked and quoted sources, rather than referring to their existence vaguely and leaving it to everyone else to try and verify what you've written. Second, anonymous US officials, and "high-ranking Pentagon and Army dudes," are not reliable sources of fact: they are parties to a conflict, they have an interest in what is said about their own actions, and what they say may or may not be true. They can however be quoted with attribution, and that is what all reputable sources of information (except us in this case) do. -Darouet (talk) 13:06, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, still can't figure out copy/paste on this thing. Reuters and Al Mayadeen carried the Iranian and Syrian officials, the non-Trump Americans are in various already-linked pieces here. I don't see what involved parties who've wanted to kill or capture Baghdadi would gain by making up a suicide, but sure, it's possible for some unknown reason. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:49, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment the current blurb is incredibly politically biased. It is phrased in such a way to make sure no iota of positive can be attribuited to Trump. Every terrorist attack and mass shooting posted on ITN has been "X people have been killed" without stating and the shooter/terrorist killed himself. Good job ITN keeping things politically biased. 2601:602:9200:1310:4422:EA17:C2EC:BF6C (talk) 01:13, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
Previous IP user has posted a total of two edits. – Sca (talk) 01:44, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Responding to the IP, I made the alt blurb that was posted to be as short, informative, and neutral as possible. A reference to the president is unnecessary. Nonstopmaximum (talk) 01:53, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. I'm really quite surprised at how definitive the ITN statement is here. I just finished reading related articles in a series of papers, and they aren't nearly as black-and-white in their phraseology. I suspect that part of this might be due to the fact that Trump has a long and colorful history of exaggerating, misstating, speaking extemporaneously, and so on; in other words, he's simply not considered a reliable source. There is a reason why so many outlets are saying "Trump says" rather than "this happened". I think Wikipedia should share that level of caution here. Risker (talk) 04:46, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
    That reason is most outlets know associating a real person, place or thing with Trump will increase its clickability significantly for a few days. When he normally lies, someone calls him on it within minutes. Even WaPo and ISIS aren't trying, because they heard the same thing from multiple and relatively credible witnesses and governments. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:44, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
As multiple editors have noted above, there's no way to verify whether the information is true or false. Given that uncertainty, all reliable sources attribute the statement that Baghdadi killed himself. You are asking us, instead, to accept it as fact. Your speculation that attribution is for "clicks" is pure OR. -Darouet (talk) 13:01, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Masem asks "Does any high quality RS express doubt at Trump's statement?" -- Doubts over Donald Trump's dramatic account of Baghdadi raid. The whole claim from Trump smelled of tripe and that's why no respectable news outlet transformed his claim from "Trump said" to fact. It now seems very likely this "Trump said" will be widely mocked as the nonsense it clearly was. -- Colin°Talk 12:31, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
    Audiovisual details are doubted there, none of which are or were in our blurb. In the ABC interview linked in your story, defense secretary Mark Esper vouches for suicide. Just not whimpering and screaming and whatnot. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:55, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Because the suicide claim is questionable for all the reasons stated above, but the death appears to be verified, I have changed it to read Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi dies during a US raid in Idlib, Syria. A reader can look at the article to find precise statements about how the death allegedly occurred. Discussion may continue and if a consensus emerges to use more specific wording, it can be updated again. Jehochman Talk 12:53, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Note that per Reuters Turkey now says it "coordinated" with U.S. in Baghdadi operation. – Sca (talk) 13:25, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

RD: Ivan MilatEdit

Article: Ivan Milat (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [37]

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Death announced today. BabbaQ (talk) 01:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose That's a redirect to a section in an article about the murders he committed. He doesn't have his own article. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:36, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I am not at all sure why he doesn't have his own article, or why the article is called "Backpacker Murders". It's the result of a merger in 2008, after discussion on the talk page between 4 editors, all of whom seemed to have lived in the US. I guess that's maybe an indication of how the case was known there, but I think that in Australia, his name is better known than the term "Backpacker murders". The Guardian obit is titled "Ivan Milat, Australia's most notorious serial killer, dies aged 74" [38]. It also has another article "Ivan Milat's chilling serial backpacker murders still haunt Australia" [39]. The ABC has "Australian serial killer Ivan Milat dies in Long Bay prison, aged 74" [40] and "Secrets of the forest: Ivan Milat, Australia’s most notorious serial killer, is dead. How many more murders remain unsolved?" [41]. 39 of the 83 (ish) sources have the name Milat in the title. But I don't want to spend time on the article myself. RebeccaGreen (talk) 05:54, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
RebeccaGreen , I think the subject being the most notorious Astralian murderer deserves his own bio. (assuming there is enough material to write there). This should have been on ITN RD. --DBigXray 07:07, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Over half of the current article is about him, his trial and imprisonment, interviews about other disappearances, etc. There's plenty for an article about him. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:27, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Per Muboshgu. – Sca (talk) 13:32, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support This is big news. Article had 35,000 page views on 26 October. The article is in fairly good shape. It is common to merge articles on major criminals with the article on their crimes per WP:CRIME: A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic [sic] material relating to that person. Since his name is a redirect to that article, he qualifies for RD. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:42, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per the Ian Brady precedent. P-K3 (talk) 19:53, 27 October 2019 (UTC) When I voted it wasn't a standalone article; now Oppose on quality.-- P-K3 (talk) 12:55, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Temporary oppose – Until it snows at the AfD. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 02:45, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose on quality. A whole-article CE is needed for this hastily-created BLP. I got tripped up on whether Milat married a pregnant man, and whether he had worked as a construction worker for 20 years by the time he was 17, and whether a vegetable (onion, specifically) identified Milat for one of his crimes. This is a very bad article, and I hope that some of the above strike their !votes until it is fixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:05, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose on quality - the article makes no sense. The "Arrest and trial" section begins with police surveilling his house because of some crimes that are never mentioned at all - who are Clarke and Walters? Onions? The Belanglo murders? You've effectively got an article here about a notorious serial killer than doesn't explain his crimes at all. Needs a lot of work. Black Kite (talk) 10:46, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Note: if the BLP hadn't existed, I would have supported per the Ian Brady precedent, because the murder article is perfectly good. Black Kite (talk) 10:48, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I agree, it's a pity in a way that someone has unmerged the biography from the crime, as given the Ian Brady precedent, an RD posting could have linked to Backpacker murders. Now we have a mess :-( RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:51, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
This is what comes from the insistence of some that we mustn't glorify criminals. It also hides a lot of the nasty stuff they did. HiLo48 (talk) 05:39, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

October 26Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents
Business and economy

Law and crime

RD: Robert EvansEdit

Article: Robert Evans (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Variety

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Producer of a number of classic films (Chinatown, Urban Cowboy,etc.), but a woefully poor and BLP-problematic article. Masem (t) 19:25, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: V. NanammalEdit

Article: V. Nanammal (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC News, Yoga Grandma Passes, India Today, ToI

Article updated

Nominator's comments: C Class article with excellent sourcing. She was India's oldest living yoga teacher. DBigXray 06:51, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Support article is in good enough shape for the main page, has been updated, no maintenance tags. Marking as ready given lack of objections --DannyS712 (talk) 23:49, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Needs substantial copyediting (e.g. "She learned yoga from her father, who was a martial artist, Nanammal's husband was a Siddha practitioner in the village and was also into agriculture.", among other issues) and reorganization (for example, there is a lot of information about the subject's family under "Yoga Practice" when that information does not relate to Yoga: "During those days, the primary business was agriculture in Kerala state, where their family owned coconut and cashew farms, along with traditional Siddha medicine.) SpencerT•C 02:13, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
  Fixed User:Spencer thanks for the constructive feedback, I have copy edited the article following your suggestions. --DBigXray 08:06, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
@DBigXray: her death needs to be mentioned in prose in the body of the article. Change "Later activity" to "Later life and death". --- Coffeeandcrumbs 03:49, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support minor copyedit may required. -Nizil (talk) 06:28, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Mild support needs a copyedit, and could be expanded a bit more. Otherwise it is well-sourced. Kees08 (Talk) 06:53, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I came to post, but her death is still not mentioned outside the infobox. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:14, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
  Fixed User:Coffeeandcrumbs I have changed the section header per your suggestion and expanded. Also added info about her death. MSGJ please see if this can now be posted. --DBigXray 09:28, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support – Ready. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 09:50, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
  •   Posted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:30, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

October 25Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents
  • Lion Air Flight 610
    • Indonesian investigators conclude their probe of the disaster with the release of a 353-page final report. The report states the crash was caused by a combination of flawed software design by Boeing, a failure of Lion Air to ground the jet over issues it had previously experienced, and inappropriate pilot responses to the developing emergency. (BBC News)
  • A car collides with pedestrians and other vehicles after running two red lights while accelerating in central Shanghai. At least five are killed and nine more injured. (South China Morning Post)
International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections


(Posted) RD: Don ValentineEdit

Article: Don Valentine (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BI

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Start Class article with excellent sourcing DBigXray 07:09, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Weak oppose has a citation needed tag --DannyS712 (talk) 23:55, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
  Fixed DannyS712, missing citation added.--DBigXray 09:43, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support short article, but sourced. Written well enough from a prose perspective Kees08 (Talk) 06:35, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
  •   Posted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:10, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Dilip ParikhEdit

Article: Dilip Parikh (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NDTV

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Needs copyediting and grammar corrections Nizil (talk) 06:56, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Support - article is adequate for RD. -Zanhe (talk) 21:14, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose: Political career is mostly a list of election results and positions held; any information available regarding what Parikh did in his role as a politician (new laws, political positions, projects, etc.)? SpencerT•C 00:32, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
    His short stint as Chief Minister was not much eventful because he was running a minority government. I could not find anything significant in references to add. Regards,-Nizil (talk) 09:32, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - good enough for recent deaths section. Marking as ready given only 1 weak oppose (that was responded to) --DannyS712 (talk) 23:57, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD. SpencerT•C 02:09, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Northeast Brazil oil spillEdit

Article: Northeast Brazil oil spill (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The entire coastline of Northeast Brazil is hit by an oil spill of unknown origin. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​A mysterious oil spill hits the entire coast of Northeast Brazil.
Alternative blurb II: ​A mysterious oil spill around the northeast coastline of Brazil reaches 200 localities in nine states, contaminating water, fisheries, and beauty spots.
Alternative blurb III: ​A mysterious oil spill around the northeast coast of Brazil reaches 200 localities in nine states, contaminating water, fisheries, and beauty spots. Investigators believe it may have originated from Venezuela.
News source(s): BBC, The Guardian, CBS, The Washington Post, Reuters

Article updated

 Chronus (talk) 22:58, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment: Recommend this nomination be as a regular item; Chronus, can you suggest a blurb for this? Best, SpencerT•C 04:14, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support and added alt 2 and 3. Article could use some improvement, but good enough for ITN. Kingsif (talk) 17:03, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose the article is light on specifics -- it's largely general information about the impact of any oil spill. Except for "confidentially" blaming Venezuela, there are only very general details like "30 tankers from ten different countries" and "As of October 23, contamination had reached more than 200 localities". The article leaves me, as a reader, asking "How much oil? Where? What damage? What's being done to clean it up?" The article lacks all of those crucial specifics. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:50, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
    • The oil was produced in Venezuela, that is a fact, but nobody knows how much oil (it just keeps coming) because nobody knows when or where or who caused the spill. It's a very mysterious spill. But it's one of the biggest (if not the biggest) environmental disaster in Brazilian recent history.--SirEdimon (talk) 03:48, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
      • After the Amazon fires? But yeah, if they're certain it's from Venezuela, the only way to measure it is to ask Venezuela. Kingsif (talk) 04:05, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
        • @LaserLegs: This is a disaster that is still in progress. There is still no concrete information about the origin of the oil, nor about its quantity, much less about the environmental and human impacts, which take longer time to measure. Understand that the entire coast of the Brazilian Northeast has been reached, so there is not a single place to be mentioned in the text. What's being done to clean it up? Please read the fourth paragraph of the introductory text and you will have your answer. Chronus (talk) 08:13, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
        • @Kingsif: Amazon fires occur every year, but only received wide media coverage in 2019. About your question about Venezuela, see this and this. Chronus (talk) 08:13, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
    • Reply Article is getting better, needs a copyedit. Everything is in the lead, the impact section is mostly fluff. Still missing crucial details on observed impact so far.--LaserLegs (talk) 13:30, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
      • @LaserLegs: I'll try I've sectioned it off and written a standard lead. Kingsif (talk) 13:45, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
    • Weak Support pretty well fleshed out at this point. Still needs a copyedit for grammar like "from the nine states of the Northeast Brazil". Needs a better blurb. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:55, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Sturm (talk) 02:15, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Improve the tone by changing "a mysterious oil spill" to "an oil spill of unknown origin". --LukeSurl t c 11:08, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
  •   Posted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:05, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
    Note: I left off "entire" from the blurb because otherwise I am sure that someone will be at ERRORS saying that some little beach didn't get any oil. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:39, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
    Another note: I've just realised that the use of "hit" in "Northeast Brazil is hit by an oil spill" is probably too informal for Wikipedia. What verb would be better? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:27, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
    "hit" --> "affected"? SpencerT•C 17:18, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
    Nice — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:21, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
    Hey, 2019 Northeast Brazil oil spill is still a ongoing event. Sturm (talk) 03:49, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
    See more recent nom (now closed) to make it ongoing. Basically, while there's still cleanup of it going on, its not a significant news event any more. --Masem (t) 04:03, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Uluru climbing banEdit

Article: Uluru (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In Australia, a ban against climbing Uluru takes effect. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Uluṟu-Kata Tjuṯa National Park permanently ban climbing on Uluru, due to the spiritual significance of the site to Aṉangu people.
Alternative blurb II: ​In Australia, a ban against climbing Uluru takes effect, due to the spiritual significance of the site to Aṉangu people.
News source(s): BBC, CNN, CBC, The Guardian, ABC Australia

Nominator's comments: Very interesting piece of news; a ban on one of the most sacred and iconic landmarks in the world is certain to impact tourism at least in the country. EternalNomad (talk) 17:37, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose on quality alone. The item has been global news for a day or so, but the article really needs substantial work. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 17:45, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per TRM. As far as I can tell, there's only actually a line on the actual climbing ban? PotentPotables (talk) 23:27, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose both on quality and importance. Governments issue bans everyday. – Ammarpad (talk) 12:26, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Per previous. Of interest to a specialized audience. Sca (talk) 14:20, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support on significance. This is not any old ban, but has received much publicity worldwide, probably at least partly because many readers are likely to see it as implicitly significant in many different areas, such as 'God/Religion v Mammon', colonizers v colonized, alleged 'science/rationality' v alleged 'superstition', tourist rights v native rights, ancient v modern, conservation v jobs, politically correct v politically incorrect, and so on, and is quite likely to have knock-on effects elsewhere in the world as a result, even if these arguments are not necessarily spelled out explicitly in Reliable Sources and in our article (and perhaps rightly so, to avoid becoming UNDUE, etc). As for article quality, I don't normally regard myself as qualified to judge whether our quality standards are being met, but a superficial look at the article suggests, at least to me, that there is an orange flag that would need fixing, but assuming that gets fixed, I think the article currently seemingly gives a brief but reasonable and arguably adequate summary of the history of the disputes over native ownership and climbing rights, thus providing our readers with the background to this story, which at least arguably fulfils the first stated purpose of ITN articles ("To help readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news."). But as already mentioned, I am not the best person to judge such quality issues. Tlhslobus (talk) 23:43, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't necessarily have a position on whether this should be included for ITNR, though it is very significant for indigenous rights. My comment is that if this is to be posted that it should mention it was to honor the wishes of the indigenous Aṉangu People who hold Uluru to be sacred because otherwise such a climbing ban may seem to be without cause. It gives more context and is educational. This can be added without violating NPOV, I believe. As Wikipedia is a global audience and I am from the US, many don't know the indigenous context of Uluru (I think). So I am open to including this but preferably with some mention of being motivated by indigenous wishes. -TenorTwelve (talk) 19:47, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
I tried new blurb. --Jenda H. (talk) 21:57, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
I've added altblurb 2, as I feel Australia needs to be mentioned for the benefit of the many readers who have no idea where Uluru is. Tlhslobus (talk) 18:00, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support alt blurb 2 in principle but the article's issues have still not been sorted out. Davey2116 (talk) 19:27, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Maria ButinaEdit

WP:NAC: this nomination has snow chance of being posted, with unanimous opposition. Release at the end of a sentence clearly won't gain consensus. Modest Genius talk 16:22, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Maria Butina (talk, history)
Blurb: Maria Butina (pictured), Russian citizen convicted of crimes relating to the 2016 United States presidential election, is released from prison and is expected to be immediately deported to Moscow (Post)
Alternative blurb: Maria Butina (pictured), Russian citizen convicted of conspiracy to act as a foreign agent and interfere with the 2016 United States presidential election, is released from prison and is expected to be immediately deported to Moscow
News source(s): BBC, Reuters, CNN

Article updated
 comrade waddie96 ★ (talk) 14:55, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose not updated and really not that noteworthy. She was sentenced to a crime, served her time and is now being released and deported. I'm not sure why this is of interest. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 15:04, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per TRM, and from waves of possible NPOV violation later in the article. The intention and phrasing of this nom ('Russian citizen convicted of crimes in US') also seems to be trying to imply that convicting her was wrong, more POV (the article is not that bad, and is otherwise well-written). Kingsif (talk) 15:16, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per TRM as well, even then I don't think this is something significant enough to be covered in ITN. GreatZerosReef (talk) 15:38, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose The conviction/sentencing was the ITN story, not her release. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:02, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

October 24Edit

International relations

Law and crime
Politics and elections


(Posted) 2019 Bolivian general election resultsEdit

Articles: 2019 Bolivian general election (talk, history) and Evo Morales (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In Bolivia, incumbent president Evo Morales (pictured) is re-elected to office, after days of violent protests and claims of electoral fraud over delayed results. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​In Bolivia, incumbent president Evo Morales (pictured) is re-elected to office, after days of violent protests.
Alternative blurb II: ​Amidst days of violent protests and claims of electoral fraud, incumbent Bolivian president Evo Morales is re-elected to office.
Alternative blurb III: ​In Bolivia, incumbent president Evo Morales (pictured) is re-elected to office, though his party loses their majority in the Chamber.
News source(s): BBC

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: Now the result has been officially announced, a general election blurb nom (see protests one below - they can be combined). Kingsif (talk) 11:18, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Support ITNR election nomination with a succinct article, with prose for all suitable sections. Also incorporates the Bolivian protests (which for some reason have not yet been posted). Accessible. (talk) 11:25, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
Also added a shortened altblurb130.233.2.235 (talk) 11:29, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Ugh, should we really post this? I mean, this was clearly a fake election. We dont post election news in North Korea or China or Russia and being mentiioned on the main page of the 4th post popular website in the world would give this dictator more legitimacy when we should -- (talk) 11:41, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
    • Consensus is firmly in favor of posting the results of sham elections. We do have a history of contextualizing with "reactions," which we don't do for legit elections. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:13, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak Support/Comment what if we combine this nom with the Bolivian Protests nom and make both the election and protests the target articles? I added alt2 to reflect this. Make sense, or too much in one nom? ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 11:53, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment There's also the potential to include that his party lost their majority in the chamber; that would then definitely be too many things in one blurb. Kingsif (talk) 11:54, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Alt2. Per above. MSN12102001 (talk) 15:49, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose the results table appears to be incomplete. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 16:05, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
  • @The Rambling Man: which part? looks complete to me. Percentage points are only given for valid votes, if that's it. Kingsif (talk) 16:47, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I just hit refresh, yeah. The other tabs of the vote results source gave the seat count, but these now appear blank. So... that's a problem. Separately, I might adjust the percentages to include invalid ballots. Kingsif (talk) 16:54, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Should be good now, found a Bolivian newspaper that reported on the TREP results on 21 Oct. - Chamber results complete, Senate reported at 83% counted. Kingsif (talk) 17:52, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per above. Davey2116 (talk) 01:32, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted combined with protests nom below. SpencerT•C 04:20, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Quantum supremacyEdit

Strong consensus not to post. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 15:04, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Quantum supremacy (talk, history)
Blurb: Google claims to have achieved quantum supremacy by completing a 10,000-year calculation in 200 seconds. (Post)
News source(s): [42]
Credits: (talk) 19:15, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Nice suggestion, but which article are we pointing to (with a bold wikilink) and has that article been sufficiently updated and is it of sufficient quality? I will look and form my own opinion, and others will hopefully weigh in. I am a little concerned that Google's claim may be hyped up. One commentator said that a more efficient standard platform could solve the problem in three days. Three days to three minutes is still a big improvement, but if so, the claim needs to be adjusted so that it's not puffery. Jehochman Talk 19:20, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
    • Oppose, as premature. The article quantum supremacy looks good but from it I learned that Google's claim is not yet accepted science, and doesn't meet the requirements of quantum supremacy. See IBM's cricism. Jehochman Talk 19:23, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose due to the skepticism that is evident in the article, and per Jehochman. Perhaps we wait for wider confirmation ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 19:28, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Snowpose per Jehochman. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:33, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose claiming that it's not accepted science is unfair because a peer-reviewed article has already been published [43]. However, there seems to be scant coverage in the mainstream media. It's in the science sections, but not the actual headlines. Weak oppose for now, can switch to support if there's more coverage. Banedon (talk) 01:29, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is just a claim that requires verification through practical application. Normally, it is not notable for inclusion per se unless it yields solutions to yet unsolved problems due to the quantum barrier.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:10, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Every current claim of quantum supremacy is marketing fluff. In general, there's no one moment that would definitively mark quantum supremacy, but currently all Google, IBM etc claims revolve around very narrow problems carefully chosen to be as hard as possible for classical computers and as easy as possible for quantum ones, with no real world applications. Smurrayinchester 08:56, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Meh. – Sca (talk) 12:24, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Yet another trivia. – Ammarpad (talk) 13:14, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Jehochman. GreatZerosReef (talk) 14:13, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Closed) WPV3 eradicatedEdit

Strong consensus not to post. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 15:05, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Polio eradication (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The World Health Organization certifies the eradication of wild poliovirus type 3. (Post)
News source(s): WHO, BBC
 TompaDompa (talk) 17:42, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support A couple cn's in the 2000-2005 history section but nothing that should be hard to fix. Otherwise updated and looks good, and a significant event. --Masem (t) 17:48, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose While the article itself isn't bad, there are only a couple sentences on the 2019 eradication (the "event"), and more or less they simply say "WP3 was declared eradicated in October 2019". There really hasn't been a major update in the article reflecting the eradication ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 19:24, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose No, 'cause it's only one of many strains. I expect Overwhelming support for the nom once all strains are eradicated and the disease seizes to exist -- (talk) 23:17, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
    • I wouldn't say one of many strains. Only WPV1 remains now, and there were only three strains to begin with. TompaDompa (talk) 23:52, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
      • There are also further vaccine-caused strains, at least as far as i understand. -- (talk) 23:59, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support based on the source, 2/3 of the way there which is a significant milestone. Banedon (talk) 01:31, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose notability/impact. PV3 is a terribly niche virus and has been a non-issue, from an epidemiological standpoint, even decades ago. The pre-fixing of "W" onto the beginning of viral names is a tactic that borders on marketing. Essentially, they're taking credit for "eradicating" a genetically narrowly-defined virus to get press and funding. PV3 cases are still going to occur, just not this WPV3 strain. Contra the above, there are hundreds of PV strains, they are just categorized as -1, -2, and -3 ('type strains') for historical reasons. Heck, PV1 is still around even while having one of the most efficacious vaccines available for decades. (talk) 05:41, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose of course we should reconsider when polio is eradicated full stop. Until then, this is just another incremental step towards a real news story. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 07:30, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is a step in the right direction but this isn't the full eradication, and it nowhere near reaches the smallpox level of news. Nonstopmaximum (talk) 08:02, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Arcane and obscure. – Sca (talk) 12:27, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. If/when polio is eradicated then it would be appropriate to post. One particular strain of the virus is only an incremental step towards that goal. Modest Genius talk 12:35, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per TRM and Modest Genius.-- P-K3 (talk) 12:38, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. per TRM. – Ammarpad (talk) 13:16, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

October 23Edit

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

(Posted) RD: Xie GaohuaEdit

Article: Xie Gaohua (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Beijing News

Article updated

 Zanhe (talk) 20:54, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Support Article clearly explains the subject's role as a politician, and is complete and well-referenced. Marking "ready". SpencerT•C 04:23, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted Kees08 (Talk) 06:41, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: James W. MontgomeryEdit

Article: James W. Montgomery (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Episcopal Diocese of Chicago

Article updated

Nominator's comments: 9th Episcopal Bishop of Chicago Teemu08 (talk) 14:21, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Bolivian protestsEdit

Article: 2019 Bolivian protests (talk, history)
Blurb: Violent protests (pictured) erupt across Bolivia in response to accusations of electoral fraud in the recent general election. (Post)
News source(s): CNN

Nominator's comments: Bolivian elections reported as fraudulent (Monday), two years after president claims human rights violations to change the law and allow himself to run again. Mysteriously missing results and protestors decapitating a statue of Hugo Chávez to leave outside a politician's door (Tuesday). President calls it a coup, OAS says to redo but doesn't expect he will (Wednesday). Kingsif (talk) 00:00, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment: Suggest blurb nomination; could you provide a possible blurb for the protests? SpencerT•C 00:54, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
    • Changed nom from ongoing to blurb. Kingsif (talk) 01:37, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - Article is in good shape. Event is very signficant.--SirEdimon (talk) 01:57, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Two CN's need addressing before posting, but they should not be too difficult. Otherwise, would support. Very interesting that this country had a popular referendum overturned by a supranational convention almost two years ago, and now they're suffering political instability and protests. This is becoming a trend! (talk) 06:06, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Absolutely no comment on the dictatorship vs. success rates of pseudo-socialist economic malpractice regimes in South America (all joking - and thanks for tag fixes) Kingsif (talk) 08:37, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Fixed, Support130.233.2.47 (talk) 06:43, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per above, but as we haven't posted anything about the election, perhaps the blurb could go into more detail about it. Davey2116 (talk) 08:50, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
I think that would be hard to do, concisely and objectively. The immediate and stated cause of this is electoral irregularities of the most recent election (which is hard to take seriously, seeing that pre-election and exit polling are all in general agreement with the official results). More likely, the near-half of the country that voted for someone other than the winner, are upset that the winner is now taking on a fourth consecutive term in a country whose constitution explicitly bans any more than two consecutive terms, but this is still allowed because someone 50 years ago signed a treaty. The article gets this point across in, I think, an even-handed way, but I can't come up with a blurb that does as well. Best to just point to the article and let readers find out for themselves. (talk) 09:18, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
As said, but in short format, it's going to be hard to give a blurb about an election when it might not be over? Harder to make it objective. Kingsif (talk) 09:42, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - major unrest. Article is well sourced. -Zanhe (talk) 22:14, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted combined with election nomination above. SpencerT•C 04:19, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) 2019 Grays incidentEdit

Article: 2019 Grays incident (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In Grays, England, 39 dead bodies are found in an international freight chiller lorry believed to have originated in Bulgaria. (Post)
News source(s): The Guardian, BBC

Article updated

Nominator's comments: International mass murder/organised crime investigation & Brexit implications. (There was an AfD closed as Speedy Keep). Kingsif (talk) 18:04, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Support - I do not know it this gets attention world wide because it happens in England. But it is for sure all over the world media and the article seems ready for posting. sourced and good to go.BabbaQ (talk) 18:15, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - Mass killing, apparently of illegal immigrants, by an international organised crime group. Of significant historical notability to the world, not just Europe. Similar to the 2000 Dover incident. Jim Michael (talk) 19:18, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - worldwide notability indeed, and well built article. Sad we have to post it ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 19:44, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - per above supports. Seems well-sourced at first read. I notice a discussion on the Talk page regarding proposed alternate article titles. Jusdafax (talk) 20:17, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait – It's widely published all right, but something about it makes me nervous. For one thing, the Guardian and the BBC say the driver/suspect is named Mo Robinson, but both are quite dodgy about it. Guardian: "believed to be Mo Robinson," BBC: "named locally as Mo Robinson." Neither statement is in the nominated article; if this were an official identification it would be there. Instead, we say he was a 25-year-old from such-and-such. I don't like it. Further, we know nothing about the victims or where they were from. Also, the 'Reactions' section conveys no real information. Suggest we wait for more details. – Sca (talk) 22:03, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Name not included per BLP concerns. There is so little information on suspects that connecting only one man, who may just be an unlucky driver, to 39 murders, obviously not happening. Kingsif (talk) 22:30, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) 2019 Japan SeriesEdit

Article: 2019 Japan Series (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In baseball, the Fukuoka SoftBank Hawks defeat the Yomiuri Giants to win the Japan Series (MVP Yurisbel Gracial pictured). (Post)
News source(s): Japan Times

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.

 – Muboshgu (talk) 14:01, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Support - This is what an article on a recurring event should look like. Includes prose, pictures, and appropriate updates.--WaltCip (talk) 14:11, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per WaltCip.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:16, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support almost as good as some of those bloody Boat Race articles... The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 14:40, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
    The Rambling Man, damn those races and their high quality. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:47, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. I agree the article is good. Some prose on the reaction or aftermath would be nice, but it's fine to post as it is. Modest Genius talk 15:10, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per everyone else. A refreshing ITN/R article! ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 15:13, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. Let the boat race klaxons sound in support of the winners! Well sourced, plenty of prose between the tables, and a couple pictures. Rockphed (talk) 15:15, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted. SpencerT•C 16:58, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

October 22Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

Politics and elections

(Closed) WeWork CEO SeveranceEdit

Consensus against posting (non-admin closure) --DannyS712 (talk) 03:00, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Articles: WeWork (talk, history) and Adam Neumann (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Following a failed IPO, WeWork founder Adam Neumann is awarded a $1.7 billion severance package (Post)
News source(s): CNBC

Both articles updated
Nominator's comments: Absolutely gobstopping malfeasance, even by the standards of our latter day tech bubble/guilded age, that has dominated financial press for days. Decent articles. I can't find recent data, but as of 2012, the largest severance package for a CEO was $417 million, for Jack Welch of GE, in 2001. (talk) 10:32, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose really nice piece of trivia well suited to other parts of the main page. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 10:38, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Does not rise to the level of importance needed for ITN material despite all the hype. – Ammarpad (talk) 13:22, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose not ITN-worthy. -Zanhe (talk) 22:12, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment from nominator: are severance packages a priori not suitable for ITN? This is beating the previous record by a factor of more than 3, 18 years after it was set. I feel that had this been a new marathon record, it would have had an easier time here. (talk) 07:35, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Hardly definitive, but I haven't seen this reported anywhere until I read it here. ITN is not for publicizing great wrongs. 331dot (talk) 07:53, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Posted) RD: Zeng RongshengEdit

Article: Zeng Rongsheng (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Paper

Article updated

 Zanhe (talk) 01:20, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Posted Stephen 03:44, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Rolando PaneraiEdit

Article: Rolando Panerai (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Il Messagiero and others (some say 23 Oct, but also say Maggio is an opera house - which it isn't)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: One of the best-known Italian baritones, partner of Mria Callas, long career, many recordings, active as director until last year. I did what I could about an article with no references. - Sad job. --–

  • Support - Good job sourcing everything! -Zanhe (talk) 01:23, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 03:42, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Hans ZenderEdit

Article: Hans Zender (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NYT

Article updated

Nominator's comments: German composer better known as a conductor. Stephen Climax, where more sources could be found. Sad. I once talked to him. Mostly out today. Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:52, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment Article looks good, but spot check of refs has some problems. I'm having trouble getting ref. 7 from archive and the original is apparently gone. (talk) 06:22, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
    Sorry, that's ref. 8, Rheingau music fest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:24, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
    Thank you, replaced by a concert review from one of the concerts. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:12, 24 October 2019 (UTC) ... and found one for the other as well. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:19, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Chris (sheep)Edit

Article: Chris (sheep) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Sydney Morning Herald, BBC

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Article is well sourced, and seems to fully cover the subject, despite its short length Spokoyni (talk) 23:18, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Spokoyni, need to apply {{convert}} to a lot of those measurements, because we Americans are not converting to the metric system. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:21, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Well if you won't, you won't. I've added conversion templates, I don't know what '30 jumpers' converts to in sweaters, and nor does the template, so I think you'll have to live with that. Spokoyni (talk) 23:34, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Looks ok. P-K3 23:43, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Looks good, well referenced. RebeccaGreen (talk) 05:43, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
  •   Posted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:00, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Marieke VervoortEdit

Article: Marieke Vervoort (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Needs expanding a bit. I'm nominating to draw attention to this article in case anyone has the inclination to improve it. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:53, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Weak oppose what's there is mostly okay, but it's hard to believe this is all we have to say about her. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:57, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
    Support this is good to go. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:32, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose the article is on the brink of being a stub. Many parts of it are vague or brief (eg. "Marieke Vervoort was a Belgian Paralympic athlete and Paralympic champion who suffered from an incurable muscle disease." What disease? That's the whole summary) but if extra work can be done on this article I'd support it, especially because of the way she died. Rockin 12:44, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
    Support Looks good now, thanks @RebeccaGreen:! Rockin 13:11, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - just barely, but it seems sufficient for RD.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:02, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Rockin. The article is basically a stub and is lacking in details. Nonstopmaximum (talk) 14:15, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
    Support The article is still short but is much more satisfactory on information now. Nonstopmaximum (talk) 12:49, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support I'll try to update and add to it - there are several good obituaries to use as sources. RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:56, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per others, sadly it's basically a stub ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 16:50, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Looks good now. Great work in little time! Thanks ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 15:40, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I have started adding to the article, from obituaries and from articles in the Dutch, French and German Wikipedias, which all have more information about her and the early part of her career. None, I think, name the disease, so it should not be a problem that the English Wikipedia article doesn't name it either. I will continue working on this tomorrow, including finding and adding more sources for the information. RebeccaGreen (talk) 18:59, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment @The Rambling Man, RockinJack18, Nonstopmaximum, and Mike gigs: please have a look now. Does it need more work? I realise that there is no medal record in the info box. (I have added a medal record in the info box.) There is more info available in the other Wikipedia articles still, which I will check again in case there are more essential events and achievements, but this now has a summary of her major sporting achievements from 2012-2016, as well as more details of her illness, honours, etc. RebeccaGreen (talk) 05:39, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
    Much better, could still use some expansion but is good enough for RD now. I've changed my vote. Nonstopmaximum (talk) 12:49, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Good article, sad tale. (talk) 06:11, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support, the article looks to be in sufficiently good shape now. Nsk92 (talk) 15:42, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 23:02, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Raymond LeppardEdit

Article: Raymond Leppard (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NYT

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Per the discusion on my talk, I nominate before I did the slightest thing. Planning to work on it, help welcome. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:07, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose about half is unreferenced. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:44, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
    I said I didn't update, no? But I did now, please look again. His school is not referenced, nor his concertmaster of 14 years. I like such details, even if I can't find a ref. Drop them when they break the rules ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:16, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Sufficiently referenced now.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:29, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Following the addition of more references ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 16:51, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 23:01, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Emperor Naruhito enthronedEdit

Good faith nomination, but unfortunately consensus is strongly opposed to posting. [Note: I am INVOLVED, so this should be understood as a soft close. Anyone who disagrees is free to re-open the discussion.] -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:18, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Articles: 2019 Japanese imperial transition (talk, history) and Naruhito (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Japanese emperor Naruhito is enthroned (Post)
News source(s): [44] [45]

Article updated
 Banedon (talk) 02:47, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support on significance, but oppose due to quality at time - the emperor's article is okay, but the transition article is rather full of overdetailed timelines and Japanese that the majority of English-language readers can't understand. -A lainsane (Channel 2) 03:19, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Opposeboth articles are in violation of BLP with scores of uncited claims about living people. The entire Foreign Dignitaries section, for example, and also see tags placed on Naruhito. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 03:53, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose on article quality only. There are some referencing gaps but I think most of them should be easily fixable. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:29, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Naruhito's article is a BLP disaster zone, the transition article is full of unreferenced and non-updated claims. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:46, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. We already posted the abdication & succession in May. No need for the formal ceremony as well. Modest Genius talk 11:24, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose posting the formal coronation/inauguration, which we don't usually do except in unusual circumstances. As noted, he's already the emperor, this is just the formality. 331dot (talk) 11:32, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Per previous. Ceremonial formality, etc. – Sca (talk) 12:47, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - No, on all counts. STSC (talk) 13:51, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Has already been posted in the past.BabbaQ (talk) 18:10, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

October 21Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks
Arts and culture
Disasters and accidents
International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Northern Ireland direct ruleEdit

Articles: Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2019 (talk, history) and Same-sex marriage in Northern Ireland (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The deadline to form a new Northern Ireland Executive passes without agreement, meaning that laws decriminalising abortion and recognising same-sex marriage come into effect. (Post)
News source(s): Guardian, BBC News, BBC News 2, BBC News 3

Both articles updated

Nominator's comments: News coverage is a bit confusing: Although abortion services won't open in NI until 2020, it was decriminalized in NI as of midnight last night meaning women can access English services without paying and without committing a crime. Similarly, same-sex marriage won't be available until early next year when Northern Ireland's pension laws etc get updated, but the law mandating it has already come into effect. Smurrayinchester 08:40, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Weak oppose certainly newsworthy but all three target articles suffering in their own ways from lack of quality. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:51, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Whilst this is good news, we've stopped posting the legalisation of same-sex marriage in even large & populous sovereign countries. NI is a small non-sovereign region with 3% of the UK population. Modest Genius talk 11:17, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose The blurb is unenlightening, and visiting the bold link did nothing to clarify the issue. What's going on here? An Act has been proposed, and did not pass, and this leads to new laws being made re: LBGT and abortion? And according to the article this has something to do with Brexit and a renewable energy scandal? The lede states that this places the burden of legalizing these things onto the British (London) government in 2020; where and how does this new government/laws come into effect, then? If this is a routine change in government, I would support it on ITNR. If this is about legalizing sex and abortion, I would need more information before !voting. If this is about Brexit and/or some other scandal, the update should go to those respective articles and re-nominated. In any case, some clarification is needed before posting. (talk) 13:02, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - both article and blurb issues that needs to be completed before posting. Not opposing posting when completed, ping me.BabbaQ (talk) 22:40, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Sorry, but we have long since passed the point where we need to be posting each legalization of SSM. If Russia or Saudi Arabia legalize it drop me a line. Otherwise, this is just more of the same. At some point we need to stop posting these events, and IMHO that point was a couple of years ago. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:22, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: Agree with the opposes above on same sex marriage but am I the only one who finds the abortion part surprising enough to post, considering that GB legalised abortion half a century ago. I can't help but think that Northern Ireland just now legalising abortion is notable enough to deserve some thought. WP:LOGGEDOUT. (talk) 04:14, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
    No, I agree, the abortion aspect is by far more significant than the same-sex marriage issue which appears to have fixated most commentators here. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:45, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
    I agree the abortion part affects more people, but my opinion is the same: this law affects a non-sovereign region with a population of less than two million. We would not post the legalisation of abortion in just, say, Multan. Modest Genius talk 18:55, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Ad Orientem. Legalization of SSM among countries around the world is steadily increasing. The abortion part is also rather unnoteworthy here on similar merit. Nonstopmaximum (talk) 10:21, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support on notability; an interesting, newsworthy story which is being covered here in the U.S. as well. However, the issues with the articles still have not been addressed. Davey2116 (talk) 08:45, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Bengt FeldreichEdit

Article: Bengt Feldreich (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [46]

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Death announced today. --BabbaQ (talk) 19:21, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Support Short but well-sourced. – Ammarpad (talk) 03:00, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 05:38, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Thomas D'Alesandro IIIEdit

Article: Thomas D'Alesandro III (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The New York Times

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Article updated and well sourced --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 14:29, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Eric CooperEdit

Article: Eric Cooper (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Active Major League Baseball umpire (worked the playoffs just a couple of weeks ago), died unexpectedly at 52. Article is cited and has been updated. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:06, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Support, looks short but decent. Do we know anything about his early life? Just curious.Please add a source here. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:11, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted (though details about early life would be nice) Kees08 (Talk) 15:28, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Post Posting Support Article looks good enough, but I am concerned about how quickly this was posted with little chance of reaching a true consensus. One support is not enough, even for a RD ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 16:49, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
    mike gigs, precedent has established that an experienced nominator and an experienced admin together constitute consensus for recent death nomination. An RD nom doesn't even need a single support. If an admin is confident the article quality is good enough, they can post. I haven't seen an RD being pulled from ITN for at least the past year and half. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 19:38, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
    mike gigs does have a valid point; this article is definitely on the brief side and I welcome Kees08 to joining ITN as the most recently promoted admin (and thus "experienced admin" may be pushing it, no offense intended), but unless the article is of more solid quality, I do prefer to wait for more improvement/expansion (and I would have preferred to wait longer for this particular nomination). Just my 2 cents. SpencerT•C 03:27, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
    You can pull it if you like, will not bother me at all. Though including the nominator and myself, there are four supports. I took a look for more sources and did not see anything interesting to add, though that does not mean it doesn't exist! Kees08 (Talk) 07:24, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
    I don't think you did anything wrong - quick turnarounds on RDs are to be encouraged, not discouraged.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:33, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

(Ready) 2019 Canadian federal electionEdit

Article: 2019 Canadian federal election (talk, history)
Blurb: ​​In the Canadian federal election, the ruling Liberal Party, led by Justin Trudeau (pictured), loses its majority but wins the most seats in the House of Commons. (Post)
News source(s): CBC, AP, BBC, AFP, Reuters

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: Pre-emptive nomination. Listed in WP:ITN/R. Results will be close so pre-emptively providing blurbs for the two front-running parties gripped in a tie in opinion polls. Blurbs and pictures can be updated as the results become more clear into the evening. (talk) 06:18, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Support but I'm not sure the pre-emptive nomination was necessary. You're right - it's on ITN/R, and so there's no question this will be posted. However, we must avoid posting in haste - we will only put a blurb up when it is clear whether it's a majority/minority parliament, and who has won the majority or won the most seats. As you say, if it's really close, that may take some time to work out. We will only post when we are 100% sure. (talk) 11:06, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Unable to vote until we have a completed article with properly cited final prose synopses of the completed election. Unless and until we have that, we cannot assess quality. --Jayron32 12:09, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Just domestic politics. STSC (talk) 13:28, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
Just wait and see, for now. STSC (talk) 13:51, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
STSC General elections are on the recurring events list, meaning notability is not at issue. If you disagree with general elections being on the list, you are free to propose its removal on the ITNR talk page. 331dot (talk) 13:34, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
By the time this is posted the election will be decided so I don’t see that as an issue.-- (talk) 18:09, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Important international event. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:56, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support when the results are added to the article. The networks have called a minority government for Trudeau. Davey2116 (talk) 02:37, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support, but the Liberal Party isn't "them". (The) Liberals are. The party lost its majority, see? InedibleHulk (talk) 04:02, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
    Merci. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:18, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support upon condition - Prose required in results section. Otherwise article looks good. Sherenk1 (talk) 04:37, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose until we have a prose summary of results. We have held up many other elections for that reason. We need to be consistent. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 06:38, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - the results are basically tallied and final. For the same reason, a couple of people who opposed above would presumably withdraw that opposition now. Alsadius (talk) 10:33, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. Although there are a few seats still to resolve, the outcome is clear (Liberals largest party but without a majority). The article looks fine to me, admittedly on only a quick look. Modest Genius talk 11:20, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - Results give Trudeau two more years. (Four sources added above.) – Sca (talk) 12:56, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
    Minority governments tend to last about that long, but not as a rule, and the leaders can stick around for another shot at a majority afterward. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:01, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Coffeeandcrumbs, we still need some prose on the results. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:04, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Article is extremely wordy, and in my opinion gets far too granular. Except, for the one section that actually matters: Results. I'm not certain that intraparty events going back to 2015 are really necessary, nor is a whole paragraph about one institution's "promises kept" publication. But at the very least, flesh out Results. (talk) 13:32, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Reading through the article, you'd think that the election hasn't finished yet, even though it has. Agreed with above that results prose is needed.--WaltCip (talk) 13:38, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. The background is well developed, but the results section, which is the only current event worth posting, has not yet been updated with an adequate amount of well-referenced prose. --Jayron32 15:20, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WaltCip and the IP above him. This article seems to be more about the results of the 2015 election than the current election. Rockphed (talk) 18:10, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I am striking my oppose because the results have been added. I still think it is way too wordy about everything except the results. If I had any idea how to fix it, I would just do it. Call me neutral I suppose. Rockphed (talk) 12:42, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose TBDs?! The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:47, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Article has now been updated so no more TBDs but I would like to see some prose in the results section before supporting.-- P-K3 (talk) 13:25, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I will try again, with dead-neutral prose, but the odds are good that I will be reverted again. This was a very polarized (issues and regional) election, with no end to that in sight. - Tenebris (talk) 12:54, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
    • Results prose completed -- what do you think? I really hope this will suffice for posting. I know editing / article division is very necessary in the rest of the article, but I am hesitant to tackle it just now, since I really don't think I will get very far with any substantial changes until emotions calm down. - Tenebris (talk) 13:48, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
  • @STSC, Coffeeandcrumbs, GreatCaesarsGhost, WaltCip, Jayron32, and Rockphed: awaiting any comments on the update to the article, please — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:05, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support – But this should be one of the last items on ITN. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 08:35, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
    You're right. It could not bump off a more recent item. The only way would be to add it as a fifth blurb, but the right hand side of the main page is already looking long on my display, so it doesn't look like this will be possible — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:43, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

October 20Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Politics and elections

(Posted) RD: Nick ToschesEdit

Article: Nick Tosches (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): New York Times

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Bilbiography/discography/etc. is an issue. Spengouli (talk) 17:29, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose per nom, spot on. The majority of the article is just fine, but the 'ography sections need work. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 20:09, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
    Working on the 'ography sections. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 02:42, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support – "I've gone more than 40 years without having to use an alarm clock or go to an office. At this point, I don't think I'd be capable of it. I don't think I could deprive myself of that sky. It would be like putting an animal in a cage."[47] --- Coffeeandcrumbs 10:08, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - Nice work C&C! ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 12:06, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I seem to recall that bibliography, discography, and film and television appearances do not require inline citations. Wanted to verify that is accurate before I posted it. Kees08 (Talk) 15:21, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
    @Kees08: we require some form of referencing (ISBN/OCLC or citation) on all claims on BLPs. I realized I missed a few things before. Everything should be good to post now. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 17:16, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
    Thanks, glad I waited to post it :). Good work on the updates! Kees08 (Talk) 01:40, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
  •   Posted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:25, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

October 19Edit

Disasters and accidents

Politics and elections

(Posted) RD: Erhard EpplerEdit

Article: Erhard Eppler (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Der Spiegel

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Influential German politician, minister, - yes, still some refs missing, but I need to go out now, - would be so pleased if the refs miraculously appeared when I return ;) Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:57, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Weak oppose looks like it's 88% of the way there but still too much unreferenced for a BLP. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 20:11, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
    Please look again. I dropped a few details, such as exactly which election district sent him when, because I think they are of little relevance in the long run, and I'm tired. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:43, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Referencing improved; covers political career beyond just listing positions. SpencerT•C 02:06, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - everything is referenced. -Zanhe (talk) 06:08, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted Kees08 (Talk) 06:16, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Parliamentary votes on Brexit | Letwin amendmentEdit

Consensus not to post — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:12, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Parliamentary votes on Brexit (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The UK parliament passes the Letwin amendment (Oliver Letwin pictured) forcing a delay to Brexit until legislation implementing a proposed withdrawal agreement has been passed. (Post)
News source(s): The New York Times, Reuters
Nominator's comments: I am proposing removing Brexit from ongoing and blurbing it. It can be put in ongoing later this year when this heats up again. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 18:51, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
  • A lot of things are going to happen quickly in the next few days. I can certainly understand a blurb but I wonder if this is the right point at which to do it(for example, Johnson's deal may yet still pass) or if so much is going to happen that it should remain where it is. 331dot (talk) 18:53, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose UK actually leave the EU, UK revoke Article 50 okay blurb. All other steps along the way, keep it Ongoing. -- KTC (talk) 19:47, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Neutral. An historic moment certainly, and a surprise. Perhaps the most startling aspect being Johnson's apparent insistence that he is prepared to defy the Benn Act and break the law. But tend to agree with 331dot. The next vote, a re-run of the intended "meaningful vote" of today, is now tabled for as soon as Monday. Although the numbers look like they will be very similar to today's. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:50, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Bercow has left open the possibility he will not allow another vote. It's going to be an interesting next few days. 331dot (talk) 23:29, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support but maintain it in ongoing, as well. This is certainly making international headlines. However, if we're making this a blurb, then the Letwin amendment section of the article needs to be fleshed out a lot. If the story changes drastically soon, then we can always edit the blurb. Davey2116 (talk) 20:26, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support conditional on removal from ongoing like we ought to have done a month ago. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:27, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is what ongoing is for. Although a significant skirmish in the never ending political bickering between those who want out and those who are desperately (and somewhat successfully) trying to scupper Brexit, ultimately it is a not a major shift in the status quo. The next blurb on this should be either the UK leaves the EU or they revoke Article 50. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:41, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
    • It's been "Ongoing" for more than 2 years -- is it your proposal to leave Brexit in the ITN box until the ultimate conclusion? --LaserLegs (talk) 23:05, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
Yes, as long as it continues to receive sufficient news coverage to justify it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:10, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Totally agree with Ad Orientem, it's blurb or ongoing, not both. This is just one more incremental step in the process. Enough with nominating every single step. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:44, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
    My proposal is to remove the ongoing. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 22:47, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
    Coffeeandcrumbs, that would be far superior to having an ongoing and a blurb, but this delay doesn't end Brexit, so its still ongoing. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:54, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose The focus has already moved on to the sending of the letters. Next up is the parliamentary manouevring to get the latest deal back into the schedule alongside the Queen's Speech. It's too fast-moving and indecisive for a blurb. Andrew D. (talk) 07:35, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose – It ain't over yet. – Sca (talk) 12:24, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Andrew. Lots going on, will likely be hard to nail down a specific blurb for a few days so let's wait in Ongoing until there's something clearer to post. Sam Walton (talk) 11:26, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. Brexit is (correctly) already in ongoing, and we can't post a blurb every time Boris Johnson loses a vote (that's roughly one a week at the moment). Whilst there is an awful lot going on in Brexit, the situation is moving quickly and Letwin's amendment is just one more twist in the tale. I would be more supportive of a blurb about the large protest march that was going on simultaneously, which appears to have been the second-largest protest in British history. Modest Genius talk 17:11, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose we're not far away from some news which may be digestible by our readers rather than this somewhat esoteric move which, while important, will soon be actioned with results. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:01, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ongoing: replace "Brexit" with "Brexit negotiations in 2019"Edit

Article: Brexit negotiations in 2019 (talk, history)
Ongoing item nomination (Post)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Brexit is a horrible uninformative article that is not helpful to link to. We should link to Brexit negotiations in 2019. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 09:42, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Sounds reasonable, fixing. --Tone 10:22, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
  • The negotiations finished Thursday, so not sure that target is appropriate anymore. Currently, it is up to the House of Commons, so perhaps Parliamentary votes on Brexit, though it is not really updated. Still thinks the main Brexit article is the best target. Also, can you please elaborate on why the Brexit articles is horrible uninformative. I find it very informative, but a bit difficult to navigate. ― Hebsen(previously Heb the best) (talk) 10:37, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
    Mostly agree, Hebsen. But I think Parliamentary votes on Brexit might be a better target once updated. May be less of a wait than anticipated, as voting on Oliver Letwin's delaying amendment is currently underway. First House of Commons Saturday sitting for 37 years. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:39, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
Hebsen, I have on several occasions visited Brexit to find out what is going on and came out uninformed. I agree, however, that Parliamentary votes on Brexit may in time make a good substitute if updated. My personal criteria for an ongoing link is where can the reader easily find the most up to date information. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 18:04, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
  • WP:ERRORS was solely created to deal with issues like this. Please let's direct further "fix this" issues there. – Ammarpad (talk) 19:53, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
    • I will try that next time this ever comes up but I think I would have been referred back to here. I would think replacing an article should be vetted and discussed here. This was not an error or a minor update. This was a proposal to delist and replace in FPC parlance. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 21:05, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose "Brexit means Brexit". The focus of the affair keeps shifting between the diplomatic negotiations; the various parliaments and personalities; the street protests; the courts; &c. Trying to identify the news focus with blurbs or the suggested sub-article is misleading as the story soon moves on. The timeline section in the main Brexit article might be a good place to start but we shouldn't assume that the reader already knows what Brexit means and so it's best to start at the top. Andrew D. (talk) 07:26, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I have reverted the link back to Brexit per comments above — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:01, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - Yes, it does make sense. STSC (talk) 13:32, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support and I'm invoking my super special and meaningful "strongest possible" enhancement for this !vote. The Brexit article is too long to serve the intended purpose of providing information on what's in the news. GreatCaesarsGhost 18:39, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Deborah OrrEdit

Article: Deborah Orr (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s):

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Scottish journalist. Upgraded from stub to start. While there are obituaries, I picked a BBC one because the article makes no indication that she worked for them so it should be independent. Some of the paragraphs are one sentence and could be merged, but other than that, article is decent. ミラP 16:49, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Looks good,   Posted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:45, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

October 18Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy
  • UK clothing retailer Bonmarché collapses into administration. The chain employs 2,900 people and operates 318 stores. (iNews)

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

(Posted) 2019 Santiago protestsEdit

Article: 2019 Santiago protests (talk, history)
Blurb: Protestors in Santiago, Chile attack the metro, bringing the whole system to a standstill and a declaration of emergency by President Sebastián Piñera. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Violent protests in Santiago, Chile over increased metro fares cause President Sebastián Piñera to order a declaration of emergency.
News source(s): NY Times, BBC, Le Monde, El País

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Riots/protests that have disabled Chile's capital metro system, more than half of the population of the entire country now living under state of emergency, which will persist for at least another 10 days. (talk) 08:27, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Support alt1 Appears to be significant, well covered in the media, and article is well sourced. Sam Walton (talk) 11:32, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - updated and ready.BabbaQ (talk) 11:43, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support, on notability. In addition to what others have said above: Chile's President has declared a state of emergency, and military troops have been deployed to contain civilian unrest for the first time since the fall of Pinochet in 1987. Nsk92 (talk) 11:47, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support on notability and quality of the article. Lots of protests lately! ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 12:01, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - It's getting bigger now. STSC (talk) 13:38, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
  •   Administrator note: I came to post, but I'm wondering about bringing the whole system to a standstill and a declaration of emergency by President Sebastián Piñera. Do we need to know that it brought the whole system to a standstill, and is "bring" the right verb to use with a declaration. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:49, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
    From the news today, the protests have gone beyond the metro; the instigation was the metro fare hike. There's at least 5 deaths and 70 "incidents" of violence, so I made an altblurb to capture that. --Masem (t) 13:54, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
    Thanks for that Masem. I have   Posted the altblurb, and added Piñera to the image protection list. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:00, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support. Major protests in a location which hasn't seen this sort of violence for decades. Modest Genius talk 17:16, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support per above. Davey2116 (talk) 17:21, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Kamlesh TiwariEdit

Now stale. The news is older than the oldest recent death at Template:In the News. This qualifies for WP:DYK. Please nominate there. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 22:19, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Kamlesh Tiwari (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Hindu, Times of India

Article updated
  Harshil want to talk? 03:40, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose There are significant gaps in basic information. Dates are missing. The article reports criminal cases lodged four years ago w/o explaining their outcome. It doesn't even explicitly identify the subjects nationality although that can be guessed from the body. The subject is clearly notable but the article is going to need serious expansion before it can be posted. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:24, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
@Ad Orientem: Kindly revise your vote. I have updated the article. -- Harshil want to talk? 06:43, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
There is now an orange POV tag at the top. That's a showstopper until whatever issues it refers to are corrected. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:23, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
It’s no more. — Harshil want to talk? 08:08, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose There's nothing in the article about his life up until 2012. Indeed, apart from one sentence there's nothing about him apart from his comment about Muhammad and his death. Black Kite (talk) 13:38, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I agree with the above !votes. However, you might make an article Assassination of Kamlesh Tiwari and re-nominate that, using the information already in the BLP. There's enough sourcing to show notability and religiously-motivated political assassinations are newsworthy. (talk) 07:19, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
    No way: we don't need two different articles on this person — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:48, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Looking better now. I don't understand the following sentence: Thousands of Muslims protected in Muzaffarnagar and demanded death penalty for Tiwari. Perhaps it needs proof-reading, but it's getting there. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:49, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Closed) Wreck of the Japanese aircraft carrier Kaga foundEdit

No consensus to post. Stephen 22:57, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Japanese aircraft carrier Kaga (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The wreck of the Japanese aircraft carrier Kaga has been found, seventy-seven years after being sunk during the Second World War's Battle of Midway. (Post)
News source(s): Associated Press, Washington Post, The Independent, United States Naval Institute

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Wreck identification was confirmed this week, leading to the articles linked above. This article is a FA, and we've previously posted discovered warship wrecks like French battleship Danton. The update could do with some expanding. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:46, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Everybody loves shipwrecks. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:50, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose trivia. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:54, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Contrary to Hawkeye's opinion, not everyone loves shipwrecks. Some of us are quite indifferent to them. A ship that was sunk during WWII is brought back up... so what? It's not significant. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:04, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Worth pointing out that the general location of the ship has been known since 1999...--Trans-Neptunian object (talk) 22:05, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak Support Conceding an element of trivia, it's in a popular genre. Also the article being FA is always a plus. That said the blurb is a bit wordy. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:16, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support May not be as notable as the likes of Titanic or Bismarck, but this wasn't an ordinary ship either. The article itself is also in very good shape. Nonstopmaximum (talk) 04:58, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose – The remains of Kaga lie more than 3 miles below the surface and won't ever be "brought back up," nor will she be accessible to divers. Discoveries of sunken wrecks have become frequent. RV Petrel has found 31. This one doesn't seem particularly significant. – Sca (talk) 13:29, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Like, what's going to happen, man? ——SerialNumber54129 18:29, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Uninteresting trivia at best. --qedk (t c) 21:36, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
  • PS: – Now the wreck of Akagi has been found in similar circumstances. That makes 32. – Sca (talk) 14:33, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Whilst the FA-class article gave me pause, this doesn't seem to be a particularly notable wreck (unlike Titanic, or Mary Rose). The implications of a more precise location seem extremely limited, and Sca makes a good point that this research vessel is finding several large shipwrecks every year. Modest Genius talk 17:15, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I would support this as an interesting story and an opportunity to showcase one of our best articles. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:50, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Closed) First all-female spacewalkEdit

Will not be posted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:13, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Articles: Jessica Meir (talk, history) and Christina Koch (talk, history)
Blurb: ​American astronauts Jessica Meir and Christina Koch complete the first all-female spacewalk. (Post)
News source(s): CNN, NYT

Both articles updated
 Davey2116 (talk) 19:12, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose it's a nice piece of trivia. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:33, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Interesting indeed but not really ITN-worthy. Could be a cool DYK if the articles are promoted to GA, which they very well could be ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 19:49, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Another milestone. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:50, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose.--WaltCip (talk) 20:21, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This is a good example of something typically found in the DYK section. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 20:33, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support I agree this would have been a great DYK (especially because of the reason the first planned all-female spacewalk was scrapped) but that doesn't make it not worthy of ITN. --valereee (talk) 20:56, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Trivial. "First female X" is often going to be trivial. Sometimes it could be a true breakthrough, but sometimes it's this. What's so significant about two women doing a spacewalk together? This isn't even the first female spacewalk. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:59, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Internationally, not trivial.[48][49] Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:31, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Come on, you two.--WaltCip (talk) 21:30, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • There's a huge amount of fuss around it based on the failure the first time around because the perceived sexism in not carrying different size suits. Hence the coverage. But in encyclopedic value terms, this is pure trivia. Did we post the fist time two men space-walked together? Will we post the first time two African-Americans spacewalk together? Doubt it. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 21:35, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
    In encyclopedic terms it is not trivial (no matter how bolded), its "making history", and it is already included in the encyclopedia. (We are currently carrying a woman who ran fast, because she was a woman who ran fast.) These things non-trivially matter to people around the world.[50] Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:01, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
    Actually, she did something a woman has never done before. These women just happened to be in the same place at the same time, repeating a feat that women have done for years and years and years. Yawn. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 16:45, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
    It is plainly false that they just happened to be in the same place at the same time, and untrue that women walked together in space before.[51] Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:41, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
    I didn't say that women had walked in space together. Do keep up. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 12:40, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
    So, these women did do something not done by women before. That the history of space walks is some sixty-years-old, only reinforces that this is history making and how the world changes.[52] [53] -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:32, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
    No, as I said, women have done spacewalks for years. Just because there was a crowd of them this time, it doesn't make it significant other than the hysteria around the space suits issue last time round. Hyperbolic trivia. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 14:40, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
    All the reliable sources says it's history making and significant that these women did this. Your opinions are entirely unsupported, except by ultra-fringe personal ipsa-dixit. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:06, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
    That's hilarious. There's a strong consensus against this trivia for precisely the reasons I've given. Perhaps everyone else opposing is into this "ultra-fringe theorising" ipsa-dixit quod erat demonstrandum!! The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 15:38, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
    But it is not hilarious, it is just the case that you are only basing your arguments on your personal opinions, regardless of each reliable source that contradicts your personal opinions -- according to reliable sources, which note facts of the history of space walks including earlier women, these women's space walk has history making significance. And your only response, instead of basing things on the evidence of sources is to say you're personally bored be these women's accomplishments. So you personally find it not interesting, in the very face of multiple reliable sources being interested in these women's accomplishment. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:52, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
    No, it's still hilarious. Feel free to batter all the others who have formed a strong consensus against this trivia being posted. And it wasn't the spacewalk that was boring I'm afraid Alan. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 18:26, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
    Battering, how odd, since basically all your personal opinion comments have been down here under my reliably sourced comments, it would be you who would be battering. And what you are battering with, over and over and over, is your continued unsourced personal opinion belittling (see eg, [54] [55] ) these women's accomplishment in the face of multiple reliable sources that express in detail these women made history. (Also, your attempts to support an argument by claiming others also have personal unsourced opinions is without logic.) -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:23, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
    No, you misunderstand again. I simply pointed to the clear consensus against this trivial story being newsworthy for this encyclopedia. I think that's really all that needs to be said. Without the NASA failed suits issue, this would be even less interesting than it currently is, which is already clearly borderline, regardless of your reliable sources. Cheers, but as suggested by others, more suited for a different part of the main page! And it's so trivial that it isn't even mentioned in the spacewalk article!!! The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:42, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
    You continue to batter with unsourced personal opinion, mutiple reliable sources demonstrate it is newsworthy and not trivial, continuing your extended effort to belittle what these women did. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:49, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
    No, quite the opposite, I'm stating the facts, this is trivial. One woman has done a spacewalk. Plenty of women have done spacewalks. For 20 years. Now two have done it at the same time. It's nothing really to do with belittling the achievements of these two women at all. They did great. But it makes precisely zero difference that they were two women or two men or two African-Americans or two Jews or two midgets. These are fractionally incremental and trivial changes, indeed this one so insignificant that even this encyclopedia's article excludes it. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:54, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
    You are not stating facts you battering with your unsupported personal opinions belittling these women's accomplishment as mere trivia, because the facts as established by multiple reliable sources include the earlier space walks and say what these women did here is historic. According to reliable sources it does matter to history that these women did this, again contrary to your personal opinion. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:04, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
    It doesn't matter, it's minutiae. As evidenced by this encyclopedia and this community. Now, feel free to have the final word as this is going nowhere; many of us disagree that this is in any sense "historic", by all means "batter" one of them as it won't work on me. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 20:07, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
    Your unsourced personal opinion that reliable sources don't matter is just continuation of your battering -- reliable sources are are actual evidence in contrast to personal opinion. Your unsourced personal opinion on historic, is belied by multiple reliable sources, who all say it is historic. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:25, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Interesting trivia. More suited for DYK. – Ammarpad (talk) 21:51, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support International reliable sources report this rare feat. Trillfendi (talk) 22:15, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
  • OpposeEileen Collins was breaking the glass ceiling. This is just nice trivia. Wait for the first all female crew. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 23:48, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Chasing the headlines only. -- Harshil want to talk? 03:15, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support It is the 221st spacewalk on the ISS alone (I think we are somewhere are 400 spacewalks all time? Had trouble finding the exact number). Important enough of an achievement to be featured in my opinion. If every ~400 spacewalks and 35 years (time between Svetlana's spacewalk and now) we feature an achievement like this, so be it. Kees08 (Talk) 06:18, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak support in that this is being made a big deal by the news, and I think is fair to post, though acknowledging that it was "just" another spacewalk otherwise. That said, Meir's article has sourcing issues, a visible CN and the awards need a proper source (the only one goes to the home page of JSC which is not sufficient). --Masem (t) 13:59, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
    • I took care of those issues and many others, perhaps Coffeeandcrumbs would be able to spend time citing the last little bits and whatever other work needs done...? Kees08 (Talk) 06:43, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
      Kees08, of course. Done. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 07:27, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - as above, the important glass ceiling regarding spacewalks was broken in the past, leaving this as little but a nice bit of trivia worthy perhaps of DYK. Stormy clouds (talk) 17:27, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Huge news for 1/2 population of the world (talk) 20:03, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
    Really? Getting them the right to vote was huge news for women. Equal pay would be too. I don't see too many women celebrating in the streets over this. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:39, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose. – Sca (talk) 12:33, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Meir's article indicates that this was done in the execution of routine maintenance. I don't think even avid female space enthusiasts are going to be interested in changing batteries. (talk) 06:43, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. A welcome but trivial development. The first woman to spacewalk was notable, but that was Svetlana Savitskaya in 1984. That no men were outside during this particular routine spacewalk is not something that's going to break any glass ceilings. Modest Genius talk 12:37, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose, per Modest Genius. —Brigade Piron (talk) 18:51, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment time to put this one out its misery methinks. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 18:57, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Posted) 2019 Lebanese protestsEdit

Article: 2019 Lebanese protests (talk, history)
Blurb: ​After government plans to tax calls made through WhatsApp, protests break out in Lebanon. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​Country-wide protests erupt after the government of Lebanon announces plans to tax gasoline, tobacco, and online phone calls.
Alternative blurb II: ​Several cabinet ministers resign amid protests in Lebanon which began after the government announced plans to tax gasoline, tobacco, and online phone calls.
News source(s): [56]

Nominator's comments: Country-wide protests, just coming into the news PotentPotables (talk) 17:53, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Agreed, corrected! --Shahen books (talk) 18:01, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Alt Blurb - Good article but I thought the blurb could be improved in wording a bit so i proposed Alt1 ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 19:44, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose trivial. If these protests rise to something notable, perhaps revisit. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:48, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - the most violent protest events in Lebanon in the 21st century.GreyShark (dibra) 11:49, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
  • @Coffeeandcrumbs: what is your opinion on this item? (I notice you have looked at the article.) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:58, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
    @MSGJ and PotentPotables: things are heating up and there have been a few government resignations. The article, however, is difficult to read and understand. The article sourcing looks good but needs copy editing for grammar and style. The timeline of events also contributes to making this article hard to understand. For example, there is no context offered for why "Samir Geagea, chief of the Lebanese Forces, calls for Prime Minister Saad Hariri's resignation" and then the next day announces "the resignation of the Ministers of the Lebanese Forces". If we got rid of the list and turned to paragraphs for October 18 and 19, I would support. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 19:20, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
    @Coffeeandcrumbs: I've changed the lists into paragraphs, and they make a lot more sense now a la explaining why people did things/what they said. I'll give the rest of the article a quick read through for style/grammar, but it should be good now. PotentPotables (talk) 01:06, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support alt2 which I added. I used "amid" because it is not exactly clear if the ministers resigned because of protests or in support of the protests. Perhaps it should be "during". I also toned down the puffery and colorful language (i.e. "erupt" and "country-wide"). --- Coffeeandcrumbs 01:18, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support alt2 as Nominator PotentPotables (talk) 01:28, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support alt2 per Coffeeandcrumbs. -Zanhe (talk) 06:03, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
  •   Posted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:01, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Post-posting comment – While domestically significant, these events seem below ITN's usual criteria, and the article is less than lucent. – Sca (talk) 13:15, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Mark HurdEdit

Article: Mark Hurd (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): CNN

Nominator's comments: Doesn't seem that far from postable at the moment. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:14, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) 2019 Military World GamesEdit

Thanks for the nomination, but this will not have consensus to post. 331dot (talk) 22:33, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: 2019 Military World Games (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The 7th Military World Games officially opens in Wuhan, China (Post)
News source(s): prnewswire, Xinhuanet, The Telegraph, U.S. Department of Defense

Article updated
Nominator's comments: This is the largest ever Military World Games with participants from over 100 countries Abishe (talk) 07:14, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Would like to see some of those sections in the article expanded significantly, but support in principle — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:30, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose It's not in the news. PR Newswire is just a distributor of press-releases. Andrew D. (talk) 10:08, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Not a significant event. Modest Genius talk 11:16, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Per previous. – Sca (talk) 12:40, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose I have added Telegraph and US DoD sources. The time to nominate this is probably the conclusion of the games, when results are in and the article is finalized. (talk) 13:08, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks but the DoD is not a news organisation and the Telegraph article was published back in July. Compare this with the space walk which is in all MSM. Andrew D. (talk) 22:23, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait until conclusion of the games. Will assess quality at that point. Until we have a concluded games and a relatively complete descriptive prose of them, there's nothing to post. --Jayron32 13:09, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose time to close. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:34, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

October 17Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents
Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology
  • NASA announces that the InSight Mars lander's heat probe had successfully dug 3 centimetres (1.2 in) into the ground after becoming stuck 35 centimetres (14 in) in the ground in February 2019, confirming that the probe had not hit a rock and instead simply didn't have enough friction in the soil to dig much deeper. The vehicle landed near the Martian equator in November 2018. (

(Closed) RD: Márta KurtágEdit

Stale. Stephen 22:21, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Márta Kurtág (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): France Musique

Article updated
Nominator's comments: companion for life and at the piano to composer György Kurtág - I had to wrte the article from scatch, helped - hope it's not as emotional as I am, blessed by having been to their concert once --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:39, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Posted) RD: Göran MalmqvistEdit

Article: Göran Malmqvist (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [57], [58]

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Member of the Swedish Academy --BabbaQ (talk) 17:32, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Support - I thought of nominating this but the article quality was too poor. Kudos to BabbaQ for sourcing everything. -Zanhe (talk) 22:12, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 22:20, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Elijah CummingsEdit

Article: Elijah Cummings (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: American politician, and incumbent U.S. Representative, Elijah Cummings dies at age 68. (Post)
News source(s): CNN, NBC

Article updated

Nominator's comments: American politician and incumbent U.S. Representative dies at age 68. Possible blurb? Article in pretty good shape. Davey2116 (talk) 09:47, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose blurb, support RD This congressman wasn't very notable on the national scene. That being said, the sourcing is good enough for RD. Nonstopmaximum (talk) 10:05, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support RD and, although it breaks my heart to type this, Oppose blurb. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 10:10, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support RD. Good article and well referenced. Oppose blurb. One of 500+ elected officials, held a few committee chairs, like many of those other 500+ do. (talk) 10:41, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support RD Article looks good. Johndavies837 (talk) 10:47, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per above. MSN12102001 (talk) 11:22, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - ready to go.BabbaQ (talk) 11:28, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support looks good to go. DoctorSpeed ✉️ —Preceding undated comment added 11:34, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support RD and Oppose Blurb per others. If we did a blurb for every congressman, ITN would be nothing but deaths! Good article though ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 11:38, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
    Well Cummings was more than just your regular congressman, but I agree that he doesn't reach what should be a high bar for blurb over RD.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:42, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
  •   Posted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:03, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

October 16Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

International relations

(Posted) RD: Patrick DayEdit

Article: Patrick Day (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)

Nominator's comments: Boxer who died from brain injury after losing fight by knockout this weekend gone. NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM (talk) 18:12, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Support article is well sourced. PotentPotables (talk) 21:40, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support prominent coverage in many major news outlets (note: I am article creator) RonSigPi (talk) 21:48, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted Kees08 (Talk) 22:08, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Leah BracknellEdit

Article: Leah Bracknell (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [59]

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Death announced today. BabbaQ (talk) 16:01, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

October 15Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

Politics and elections

(Posted) Catalonia independence trialEdit

Article: Trial of Catalonia independence leaders (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Trial of Catalonia independence leaders concludes with heavy jail sentences, sparking protests (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​Protests erupt in Catalonia after the verdict in the trial of Catalonia independence leaders is released, with nine government officials being sentenced to imprisonment.
Alternative blurb II: ​The Trial of Catalonia independence leaders concludes with nine jail sentences, sparking protests in and near Barcelona.
News source(s): Independent World News, BBC

Article updated

 Banedon (talk) 01:01, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Am I missing an update that claims there was protests after the verdicts? It happened (BBC) but I mean, I'm not seeing that apparently in the article. --Masem (t) 01:25, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose until updated. When there's a sufficient section on not just the convictions and sentences, but also protests, take this as support. Kingsif (talk) 01:47, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I've added sections for protests, the reactions by the convicted and politicians. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 10:31, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Alt Blurb now as protest section has been added (I added a bit more). Robust article, but perhaps we could beef up the blurb a bit? Proposing alt blurb ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 12:05, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Good work by mike_gigs. Either of the alt blurbs is fine by me. Davey2116 (talk) 12:41, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment – This may be ITN-worthy, but article needs revision, probably by a native speaker of English. – Sca (talk) 12:46, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
    • I've done a general job of copy-editing the article. Some of the longer run-on sentences should make more sense now, and some grammar/tense issues are fixed. PotentPotables (talk) 20:04, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Alt Blurb 2 - Major geopolitical event. Article quality has been greatly improved. -Zanhe (talk) 21:56, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Alt Blurb 2 - "heavy" is a controversial adjective to use; as for alt1, Jordi Cuixart is not a government official. Neodop (talk) 02:37, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support blurb 2. I intended to add this to the news section at Portal:Law, but that is fed by Wikinews, which apparently is lacking an article on the subject. Does anyone here edit Wikinews? bd2412 T 03:02, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
    Nobody edits Wikinews, it's a dead project. Strange decision to populate Wikipedia portal content from there. Stephen 03:46, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
    For a "dead project", it is surprisingly consistent in keeping the section populated with coverage of recent developments. bd2412 T 03:53, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support on notability, with preference for the alt 2 wording. The pre-trial reaction section would benefit from a reduction of proseline. Hrodvarsson (talk) 04:29, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
  •   Posted alt blurb 2 — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:25, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
    Protected File:Retrat oficial del Vicepresident Oriol Junqueras (cropped).jpg, who received the highest sentence, in case this can be worked in — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:42, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Should we replace "jail" with "prison"? In American English, these are two slightly different things and this instance corresponds to the latter. This blurb has nothing to do with the United States or Canada, but there's no harm in using the term that's correct in all varieties of English :) — MarkH21 (talk) 07:41, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
    Okay, sounds logical. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:54, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

October 14Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture
  • A stone statue is discovered in the walls of a church in England. Officials believe the statue had been hidden inside those walls for about 400 years since the Restoration period. (MSN) (Daily Mail)

Business and economy

Law and crime

(Posted) RD: Anke FuchsEdit

Article: Anke Fuchs (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Die Welt

Article updated

Nominator's comments: German national minister (not for long), Vice president of Bundestag, other functions - expanded stub. Enough? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:18, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) 2019 Man Booker prizeEdit

Articles: Margaret Atwood (talk, history) and Bernardine Evaristo (talk, history)
Blurb: Margaret Atwood (pictured) and Bernardine Evaristo jointly win the 2019 Booker Prize. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Margaret Atwood's The Testaments and Bernardine Evaristo's Girl, Woman, Other jointly win the Booker Prize for Fiction.
News source(s): Flood, Alison (14 October 2019). "Margaret Atwood and Bernardine Evaristo share Booker prize 2019". The Guardian. Retrieved 14 October 2019.

Both articles updated

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

Nominator's comments: Unusually the prize was shared between two winners. Articles seem in good shape. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:23, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose only on minor sourcing issues. I found two places on Atwood's need CN as well as her writing section for anything not blue-linked (a single source may be able to cover that). Evaristo's got on existing cn, and some honors are not sourced. I'd be willing to turn a blind eye to those in the latter case - it is reasonably close for posting. But Atwood's definitely need just a few more. --Masem (t) 22:33, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
    • Since we usually focus on the winning book, both books are in good shape (as in the altblurb) and this should be good. --Masem (t) 13:33, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Shouldn't 2019 Booker Prize be the bold article? --LukeSurl t c 13:03, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Booker prize was awarded for specific works (The Testaments & Girl, Woman, Other) rather than to the authors in general. --LukeSurl t c 13:05, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
    • WP:ITNAWARDS says Unless otherwise noted, the winner of the prize is normally the target article. Is the winner the book or the author? (I have a feeling we've gone over this in previous years.)-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:07, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
      • For Man Booker, it is the books, not the author. Fortunately both book articles seem good (second is a tad short but likely can grow with this news). Altblurb added and also noting that the name of the awards have officially changed this year --Masem (t) 13:32, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
      • The Prize wasn't nominated for ITN in 2018, but in 2017 the book was the target article. PotentPotables (talk) 14:48, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose both author's articles need work. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:38, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
    • Given that the books are supposed to be the target, and that the authors' are "close" (not suitable if they were target but fine as links), I think this should be good. --Masem (t) 16:37, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm being BOLD and Posted this (using the altblurb highlighting the books which we normally do for Booker prize), after making sure a few CNs on "The Testaments" were fixed. Otherwise I think this would have scrolled off despite being ready. Atwood's picture added to image protection queue. --Masem (t) 20:38, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) End of 2019 Ecuadorian protestsEdit

Article: 2019 Ecuadorian protests (talk, history)
Blurb: More than ten days of protests in Ecuador end after President Lenín Moreno (pictured) agrees to repeal austerity measures and restore fuel subsidies. (Post)

Nominator's comments: Related to #(Removed) Ongoing removal: 2019 Ecuador protests. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 02:53, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Support seems reasonable. Banedon (talk) 03:18, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support major development. -Zanhe (talk) 06:46, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support major news. Well referenced. Ready to go. MSN12102001 (talk) 11:43, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support a fine looking article indeed ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 12:08, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per above. Davey2116 (talk) 12:39, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - Hallelujah. I only wish Hong Kong protests would end in a similar fashion. STSC (talk) 13:58, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted – Muboshgu (talk) 14:19, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Harold BloomEdit

Stale. (non-admin closure) ミラP 16:51, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Harold Bloom (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NYT (private window, Javascript off)
Nominator's comments: Cursory inspection would appear to show no significant problems with references. Bibliography self-referencing with ISBNs and similar cites. May be a blurb candidate. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 21:26, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment As someone who does research and teaches in his field—for what that's worth—I would not call him a "transformative world leader" in literary theory and criticism as far as a blurb is concerned. He is famous outside academia for The Western Canon and his curmudgeonly behavior, and he has published an awful lot of scholarship, but his most likely candidate for a "transformative" work (The Anxiety of Influence) is neither a seminal text for Romanticists nor for psychoanalytic critics. I'd love to see a blurb for a literary scholar, but he's probably not the one. PaulKeeperson (talk) 23:21, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose as the Writing Career section is fairly undereferenced ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 12:10, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per mike. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:39, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Removed) Ongoing removal: 2019 Ecuador protestsEdit

Article: 2019 Ecuadorian protests (talk, history)
Ongoing item removal (Post)

Nominator's comments: This was resolved earlier. Rockin 20:31, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Remove obviously it's a wrap. One more blurb if you want. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:23, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support (removal) - Very glad to see the unrest has ended peacefully. STSC (talk) 21:58, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support removal and support blurb – IMO, this is a blurb-able event. "This new agreement was the result of hours of negotiations, live on TV".[60] What a novel concept. Apparently, the revolution will be televised!--- Coffeeandcrumbs 23:39, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support removal and a blurb, if just because I don't think any other 2019 protest has yet ended, let alone peacefully (or in a week). Kingsif (talk) 00:12, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: 2019_Ecuadorian_protests#Austerity_measures_reversed could use a little expansion. SpencerT•C 00:47, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
    Spencer, done. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 01:15, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Done. --BorgQueen (talk) 01:59, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Nobel Memorial Prize for EconomicsEdit

Articles: Esther Duflo (talk, history) and Michael Kremer (talk, history)
Blurb: The 2019 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences is awarded to Abhijit Banerjee, Michael Kremer, and Esther Duflo (the award's youngest winner ever) for their work in poverty reduction. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​The 2019 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences is awarded to Abhijit Banerjee, Esther Duflo, and Michael Kremer for their work in poverty reduction.
News source(s): [61]

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

Nominator's comments: Final Nobel award for the year. Duflo article in pretty good shape, Banerjee article a bit of a mess, Kremer article short. Kenmelken (talk) 20:26, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose on quality. Duflo looks fine, but first two are not quite there on sourcing. Also oppose "youngest" part of blurb - we didn't do that for Goodenough who was the oldest winner, shouldn't do that here. --Masem (t) 20:29, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
    • Also seeded Banerjee and Duflo's images for protection. --Masem (t) 20:39, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
      • Fair enough regarding the blurb; alt blurb added. Agree with you on quality. Not sure whether I'll have time to help on these, but wanted to get them up here. Thanks for image help. Kenmelken (talk) 20:41, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
        • They are not far off. I don't know economics well so can't be much help but I'd say its about an hour's worth of work between the two at worst. --Masem (t) 20:50, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
    • Now Ready --Masem (t) 15:52, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: If we use altblurb, we should restore the correct alphabetical listing: The 2019 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences is awarded to Abhijit Banerjee, Esther Duflo and Michael Kremer for their work in poverty reduction. Ipigott (talk) 06:40, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
    • Good point. I fixed the altblurb and struck the original. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 08:58, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support altblurb - sourcing has been fixed on both articles, no more CN tags present. PotentPotables (talk) 12:39, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per above. The articles have been greatly improved. Davey2116 (talk) 12:45, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  •   Posted. El_C 15:57, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Ongoing removal: 2019 Hong Kong protestsEdit

Consensus is against removal. --qedk (t c) 21:38, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: 2019 Hong Kong protests (talk, history)
Ongoing item removal (Post)
Nominator's comments: This has been "ongoing" for forever we got it out once and it popped back in a few days later. The article is being updated but the last event to be added was a taxi driver hitting some people in a crowed on the 6th. This is another one that's ready to age off. LaserLegs (talk) 13:09, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support (removal) - There have been no frequent updates on the article, it's a waste of space in 'ongoing'. STSC (talk) 13:41, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak support. The crisis certainly isn't over, and the protests are still major and continuing. But actual new developments are few and far between, so I guess we can remove it for the time being.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:05, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support removal - While there has been expansion in recent days (a large one on October 13), it mostly relates to expanding older information. The newest substantive information in the article seems to me to be at least 1 week old. If there were more recent information worth documenting, it should be there. --Jayron32 15:10, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose There are least 5 major updates in the last 3 days (in addition to wordsmiths), and additionally, there are more elements adjacent to the situation that are not appropriate to include at this main article related to how the protests have affected American businesses (NBA, Apple, South Park, Blizzard Entertainment, etc.) which is still a major discussion point. --Masem (t) 18:33, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
    • This is the situation comparable to the Venz. government problems about 6 months ago - there were many sub-articles on specific details being updated, that it didn't appear there were that many updates on the target one from the ITN box. But we kept it on the basis those other updates were happening. --Masem (t) 18:53, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
List of October 2019 Hong Kong protests last update October 8th "Reactions" article is orange tagged, is irrelevant to the protests (except for PRC reactions) and I don't see the substantive update. Thanks for clarifying exactly why this should be taken down. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:53, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Only one main article per ongoing event, not a group of sub-articles, should be considered when assessing the updates. STSC (talk) 19:41, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
That's not how we judged teh Venz. government case, and I would expect that certain large long events (ala Brexit) have the same situation: at some point, the updates are more frequent in sub-articles and not the main, but the main is still the best "launch" point for tthose looking for it. --Masem (t) 19:52, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
The ITN criteria on update always refers to one main article, not a group of related articles, per event. STSC (talk) 20:04, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
And again, we have been flexible in the past when the ongoing event grows well beyond a single article. This is how we have dealt with news events constructed in Summary Style approach. If we were talking a blurb, I would definitely expect one - or two - targets that have been clearly updated before posting, but Ongoing is more unique. Heck, this is how the Olympics and the FIFA World Cup stories work - we link to the overarcing topic page, but the updates mostly come from sub-pages, with the main topic page updated completely on the event closure. --Masem (t) 01:00, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Masem. Davey2116 (talk) 18:45, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Masem. Banedon (talk) 22:28, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
    • Y'all realize that Masems principal argument - the updates are in the sub-articles - has been debunked right? --LaserLegs (talk) 23:00, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
      • It's been debunked in your mind, but not in mine. Banedon (talk) 00:56, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
        • So just tell us what "sub article" has been updated. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:07, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
          • 2019 Hong Kong protests. Banedon (talk) 01:10, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
            • Latest update "During protests on 6 October" .... I had this same problem prying the empanada drama out of he box ... "consensus" that something which no longer belonged in the box did belong in the box. Will an admin please just acknowledge that this is stale and yank it already? --LaserLegs (talk) 01:26, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
              • You'd have to convince them that there's consensus, and the way this nomination has been going, I'd say they're more likely to conclude that there is consensus against this being stale and therefore will not yank it. Or, to put it another way: "Y'all realize that LaserLeg's principal argument - that the article is stale - has been debunked right?" Banedon (talk) 01:33, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
                • I asked you what article had been updated, and when you offered one, I showed you the last update was from October 6th --- I mean .... I can't even grasp how you're still insisting that it's not stale. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:36, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
                  • "Latest revision as of 20:30, 14 October 2019". I can't even grasp how you're reading 14 October 2019 as October 6th. Hell, there've been almost 100 updates to that article since Octboer 6. Are you calling all of them insignificant, unsubstantive, etc? Well, good luck with your attempt to remove this. I consider this conversation over. Banedon (talk) 01:39, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
                    • LMFAO really? Is that all you're doing is clicking "history"? Do you not actually read this stuff before commenting? The updates from the 14th are refs and content tweaks, no new content. I mean ... really? Really? You're not just trolling me? --LaserLegs (talk) 01:43, 15 October 2019 (UTC) You're not trolling me, wow, you just click history, scroll down the list, and then dig in on keeping this in the box. Try reading the content please. Wow. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:47, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Masem. The game is now truly afoot - this is bigger news now than any point prior. The PRC overplayed their hand on the Morey business, and now everyone's watching to see what's next. GreatCaesarsGhost 23:57, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - concerns that there are no updates are now invalid as I have updated the article. [62] The violence has escalated this weekend with the first homemade bomb and a stabbed police officer. starship.paint (talk) 09:58, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose/Keep The last three days has had significant new information added to the article. Much different from the last time this was up for removal. I voted to Remove at that time, FWIW. (talk) 12:07, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose – In view of the continuing intractability of the situation, this needs to stay in Ongoing. It's China's No. 1 political problem. – Sca (talk) 12:54, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Masem. Even though it'll be "ongoing" for a long time, that isn't a reason to remove it from Ongoing. -- Rockstonetalk to me! 14:22, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal. I just updated List of October 2019 Hong Kong protests and there is plenty more to write or translate from the Chinese Wikipedia. feminist (talk) 15:49, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Removed; re-added) Ongoing removal: Trump impeachmentEdit

Article: Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump (talk, history)
Ongoing item removal (Post)

Nominator's comments: This is going to be "ongoing" for a long time. We should blurb major milestones like house votes, certain resignations, charges filed, etc but the hearings will go on until November 2020 at least. We need to resist the "more Trump noise" objection to blurbs as well. The President of the United States wields extraordinary power and major events in this train wreck of an administration are in the news and do impact real people in the US and globally. LaserLegs (talk) 11:22, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Support, and consider replacing if and when an impeachment vote occurs in the House of Representatives (which, if passed, will move the issue to the Senate). As of now the inquiry itself is under question because of not adhering to the rules of the past three presidential impeachment inquiries. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:39, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
    • Well the inquiry itself is not at all "under question" because there is no requirement to hold a vote to begin such an inquiry and the rightist shrieking "it's illegitimate" is not the sort of tidbit we'd feature on the MP -- exactly the reason it's time to come down. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:45, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support due to lack of meaningful updates. In the past week, aside from the addition of citations, the only major updates that have been made have been the results of public opinion polling on the matter, which is newsworthy but not enough to warrant Ongoing status in my opinion. I would support putting this back up once things actually get moving, but as of now nothing of note is being added to the article, just opinions like "51% of the public supports impeachment" and "Senator Bob doesn't support impeachment", etc. ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 11:57, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support.--WaltCip (talk) 11:59, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Done. --BorgQueen (talk) 12:16, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • WTF – It is called a weekend. There was major testimony on Friday. Today is Monday. One hour discussion while U.S. editors are still commuting to work.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 12:49, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
    • A long weekend at that, holiday Monday (Columbus Day) in the U.S., holiday Monday (Thanksgiving) in Canada. Government inquiries are taking a few days off. (But no vote -- no opinion on this, other than surprised at the speed.) - Tenebris (talk) 20:00, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
    • I'm in Atlanta -- but I too even as the nominator am surprised at the warp speed with which this came down --LaserLegs (talk) 12:59, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
      • I supported taking this down, but I too was shocked by how fast it actually came down with only three votes. It needed more time and input ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 13:39, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
        • I wish we had this sort of speed when it comes to posting RD items.--WaltCip (talk) 14:15, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal First, this should be re-added for the time being until a proper consensus is reached. This story is still anticipating regular major updates. I'm sympathetic to the nom's concern that retaining this in ongoing makes editors less likely to support a potential blurb on the investigations in the near future, but in my view, it will be difficult to get us all to agree which events are blurbable and I don't see a reason not to leave this up until we do. As for blurbs on other Trump topics, I believe we should post more of those as well, but I don't think removing this from ongoing now will make that more likely. Davey2116 (talk) 14:35, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support removal I agree with the nominator rationale. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 14:38, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support I nominated the formal start of the impeachment hearings when this came through expecting it only to be a blurb, because, as noted then, this is a months-long process, and whereas we can reasonable expect the house to pass the articles of impeachment, whether that will be voted on by the Senate is unclear, and last time that happened, at Watergate, was a 6-some months long process. A blurb is not necessary at this point; should the House pass the articles of impeachment, that would be an appropriate blurb (not ongoing), and only until the Senate actually takes up the trial part would ongoing be appropriate. (I will say, an hour to make the decision given times of day relative to where this story occurs is far too fast, but not disagreeing with net outcome). --Masem (t) 14:55, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support removal. I think it was OK to have this up at first but, as previously noted, it is now likely to be a long-running process. If developments start happening fast (as they do with Brexit) then we can reconsider.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:00, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support removal per nom. SpencerT•C 00:01, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal per Coffeeandcrumbs -- Rockstonetalk to me! 14:12, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal ongoing exists precisely for items that are going to be in the news for a while. Banedon (talk) 22:18, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal per Coffeeandcrumbs and Banedon. Brexit and Hong Kong protests have been ongoing for even longer and are both kept. This is exactly what "ongoing" is for. -Zanhe (talk) 00:21, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I think it's odd that these recent oppose !vote have come after the House has decided not to vote for starting an investigation (yes, this "inquiry" was not even a formal investigation!), thereby abandoning this most recent charade. Are we supposed to keep articles in Ongoing even after the actors have left the stage? (talk) 06:26, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
    Or it could be because I have been updating this article daily and it is a quality article on an ongoing subject in the news. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 06:57, 16 October 2019 (UTC) you are incorrect, the House sets its own rules and doesn't need a full vote to start an impeachment investigation.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:58, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Yes, they set their own rules, and even when playing by their own rules, and within their own clique, they still voted "no". "Unofficial gathering of like-minded politicans agree to do nothing" is what you want to keep in Ongoing. (talk) 06:35, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose This is a major ongoing event that continues to get front page news coverage globally. If this isn't what "Ongoing" was intended for then we need to just shut it down. I also think the removal was somewhat premature and at present there is no consensus to remove. -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:36, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment In the few days since I !voted, the inquiry has still been major news, and the consensus has gotten far murkier. This should be re-added as the removal at the time had only three supports, which did not constitute a legitimate consensus; and there's no consensus for removal now. Davey2116 (talk) 20:39, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Reposted due to lack of consensus for removal. Initial removal was unreasonably hasty, with not even an hour and only three commenters between posting and removal. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 06:11, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
    • Agree that removal was on the hasty side. At the same time, there is clearly not consensus for this to remain in the Ongoing section either. SpencerT•C 01:57, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
      • The proposal is to remove the subject from ongoing. It was added with a clear consensus. A change in its status should also require consensus. -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:36, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
This was deservedly absent from Ongoing for over a week. Make a new nomination if you want it back up. (talk) 06:35, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
No, it was not. There was never any consensus to remove it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:36, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Trim The entry in Ongoing seems too wordy, taking 5 words, when none of the other entries need more than three. I reckon that just one word would be enough – "Impeachment" – and if we go to two, like the title of this section here, that's plenty: "Trump impeachment". We surely don't need words like "Donald" or "against", right? Andrew D. (talk) 11:19, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
It would have to be "Trump impeachment inquiry". You see, this isn't actually an impeachment proceeding, and to use "Trump impeachment" would suggest something that it is not. It's an "inquery", and unlike in the UK, in the US there is no legal definition of an "inquiry". Even the subpoenas carry no sanction. We might as well shorten it to "Trump impeachment brouhaha" or the slightly longer "Trump impeachment coffee klatch".
The linked article uses the word "proceedings" repeatedly to describe what's happening. We don't need a particular vague word to describe the current phase as the point of ongoing is that this is a protracted affair and these typically go through several stages. Brexit, for example, doesn't get into where we're at exactly because the exit is turning out to be quite an elaborate process. Andrew D. (talk) 12:51, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: SulliEdit

Article: Sulli (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC

Article updated

Nominator's comments: K-pop star. As usual reference issues with filmography. Article looks great though. Sherenk1 (talk) 09:57, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Support. I and others have fixed up missing refs, and the article seems comprehensive and neutral enough otherwise. Good to go IMHO.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:33, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Well sourced article ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 11:58, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted --BorgQueen (talk) 12:22, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Remove Brexit from OngoingEdit

Consensus is against removal. --qedk (t c) 21:39, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Brexit (talk, history)
Ongoing item removal (Post)
Nominator's comments: Yes, I know this is still "in the news" and the article is still being updated. And I am by no means arguing that it is less significant than other items in Ongoing. At the same time, we have 5 items in the section that in my browser are being pushed onto 3 lines. Based on updates in the Brexit article (at Brexit#2019), it seems like the next major event in the process will be on 31 October, which is when the deal deadline is. I am proposing to pull Brexit from Ongoing until that point, when a new blurb item can be nominated for a significant update in the process. Fundamentally, the recent bloatedness of Ongoing isn't sustainable long-term for ITN so I'm just trying to think about how we can re-frame individual items and events to better serve readers at ITN. SpencerT•C 00:30, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Au contraire. I think October 19 will be of some importance; certainly Parliament sitting on a Saturday for the first time in—how long?—is worthy of some note? Daniel Case (talk) 01:30, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Remove if there is a deal on the 19th great blurb it. If BoJo asks for an extension blurb that too. If the UK crashes out certainly blurb that, and if they revoke article 50 release the doves. Right now the only "updates" are both sides insisting "there is a path to a deal but lots to be done" which is the same bullshit we've been hearing for years. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:50, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Retain in Ongoing This continues to be major news, frequently on the front page on both sides of the Atlantic. That's what ongoing is for. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:57, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal per above. This is an ongoing event, with significant updates regularly; I do not see a problem with the current ongoing section, there are lots of events there because there are lots of events going on right now. Davey2116 (talk) 03:54, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Remove per LaserLegs. If a major development happens it should get a blurb, but at this point it's just ongoing churn with nothing of note to report. Morgan695 (talk) 04:25, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support (removal) - What is the point to put Brexit in the 'ongoing' section? We all know that the negotiation is ongoing until it happens. STSC (talk) 04:35, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose/Keep Yes, I know this is still "in the news" and the article is still being updated. Thank you for making the argument for me. There's no "space" requirement for Ongoing that I'm aware of. But if there were, I suggest we remove the Trump Impeachment link. A drama started by the man himself to prove how foolish and gullible the media are and we obliged him. Additionally, the article is shite. Take a look at the diffs and the talk page. (talk) 06:17, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Drop your tiresome holier-than-thou shtick. ITN does not operate in an editorial capacity. The impeachment inquiry was in the news. We'd have looked ridiculous if we didn't publish anything.--WaltCip (talk) 12:08, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support (removal) I agree with User:Spencer who has put up a very fine argument. This can be posted back later on easily when it comes in international headlines. --DBigXray 06:52, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal. Not this again... Unless an extension is agreed, (in which case removal would probably be appropriate), this story is going to continue to be major news through to 31 October. If anything this is the crunch point, with only 17 days to go and no definite resolution in sight yet.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:20, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support keeping on ITN - We're in the last two weeks before Brexit is to go into effect. We're going to look absolutely stupid if we pull the ongoing entry this early with how politically frantic the next few days are going to be.--WaltCip (talk) 12:05, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Pull I'll repeat myself (again) that nothing newsworthy has happened since the big court decision that was blurbed. Whatever happens at the end of the month will probably be blurbworthy. We're really stretching the purpose of ongoing here. Separately, anyone wishing to figure out what has happened in the last month that is significant enough to have this on the real front page of the internet would struggle to do so by clicking through to this massive article. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:28, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose The remove premise is wrong. The next major event is this week - the EU Leader's meeting and the Saturday sitting of the UK Parliament. These will certainly generate significant directional changes one way or another. Leaky caldron (talk) 12:34, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose – What, now? Just when B-day is getting close? Nah. – Sca (talk) 12:50, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
    • 17 days is close? Really? --LaserLegs (talk) 13:00, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Closer than three years. – Sca (talk) 13:06, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose if something even more significant happens, blurb it. Until then, Brexit is a clear and present danger. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 13:02, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Remove – This article has become bloated and gone significantly below our quality standards. It is completely unreadable! There is no way this article would manage to get bold linked from anywhere else on the Main Page. Continuous appearance on the Main Page has only contributed to this article's deterioration. We should pull this article and allow editors the opportunity to nominate a subpage for ongoing. Pull this embarrassing shitty article. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 15:13, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Remove The only recent updates are a few minor procedural things. The process seems to be in a holding pattern until the actual day of the Brexit. And yes, the article is really hard to read in its bloated state. Blurb it then. Remove the ongoing now. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:41, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal Still being regularly updated and it would unwise to remove at this time, with the Saturday sitting of Parliament being just days away. Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:54, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Remove — limited updates over the last 2 weeks, with the most notable changes revolving around a future referendum on Scottish independence in 2021. Most edits are maintenance rather than content. Can easily be re-added as a blurb when something major happens again. The article is cumbersome to navigate due to bloat (79kb prose!) as well. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 16:05, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
    • Reiterating that there are hardly any substantial updates to this article (edits on Oct 14 were almost entirely citation related with 1 adding the name of a Bill introduced last month,0 on Oct 15, and 1 edit updating an old statistic on Oct 16). ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 01:35, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
  •   Administrator note: we are split down the middle on this. There is no consensus to remove this item, but equally there is no consensus for it to remain on the template. Supporters of removal say there are limited or insignificant updates occuring; opponents say the article is being regularly updated. What's the truth of the matter? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:16, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose (Keep) -- Seems like bad timing to take this off. Not only are there new developments daily, but given the swiftly approaching deadline, it seems this is only likely to heat up even more in the next two weeks. Kenmelken (talk) 12:14, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment – Looks like opposes (= keep) marginally (10:8) outnumber supports (= pull). – Sca (talk) 13:02, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
PS: Still current. – Sca (talk) 14:06, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Also, WP:NOTAVOTE. I would hope that whatever the tallies, an admin looking at this discussion might take the WP:COMMONSENSE view that to keep this topic in the "Ongoing" section for a couple of weeks when nothing was happening, and then remove it just when things are kicking off again, would be rather contradictory...  — Amakuru (talk) 21:17, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Removal as per nom. However, if individual events become newsworthy, those should definitely appear ITN -- Rockstonetalk to me! 14:20, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal. The Brexit saga is getting into a real crunch time period now. There are daily developments of some sort and, as noted above, things are going to heat up as the deadline gets closer. Nsk92 (talk) 21:24, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal. As we get closer to the 31st there will only be more news about this, especially before the upcoming summit. 331dot (talk) 21:46, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 • Still current – now talking 'deal.' [63] [64] [65]Sca (talk) 20:07, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal - It makes no sense to remove it from Ongoing at this time. Try again after Brexit has been implemented.BabbaQ (talk) 20:15, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment There will be updates soon. Official reports - PM & Junker - confirming new deal agreed. But N.I. DUP not on board so no confirmed "accepted" deal. This is all highly relevant so suggest it is left open. Leaky caldron (talk) 09:50, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal Deal has now been agreed [66], so lots of things are happening and it should be left open. PotentPotables (talk) 12:51, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal. I would have supported if I'd got to it some days ago, but given today's developments, upcoming votes, and the impending 31 October deadline, I suspect this won't be out of ITN until Brexit either happens (in which case we can go ahead with a blurb) or we get another extension, in which case we can just remove from Ongoing. Sam Walton (talk) 12:53, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Sources – re UK-EU 'deal'AP, BBC, Reuters, AFP. (Requires parliamentary approval on both sides of the Channel.) – Sca (talk) 13:36, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal This has been dominating the front pages of newspapers in the UK and the drama is being followed closely in other countries. It's just a single word of six letters and so isn't taking up much space compared to other ITN entries. Andrew D. (talk) 08:49, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

October 13Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime
  • California becomes the first U.S. state to ban the sale of fur products. The law goes into effect on January 1, 2023. (CNN)

Politics and elections

(Posted) RD: Hevrin KhalafEdit

Article: Hevrin Khalaf (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [67]

Article updated

Nominator's comments: New article on recently deceased politician and civil engineer. Thsmi002 (talk) 13:40, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment I would like a few more biographical details before supporting. As it is, even her birthdate is not precise. Institution of her civil engineering degree, family, and so on would also be appreciated. (talk) 14:10, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
    I found this which has more bio (no birth date though, and a different year) but have no idea if reliable. Tell me yes, and I will update the article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:53, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Support Life section is suitable now. (talk) 06:20, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - highly notable death. Article is well sourced. -Zanhe (talk) 21:03, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - I was wondering if she might be a WP:BLP1E, as there don't seem to be many sources that predate her killing, but the roles she's had suggest she's probably notable anyway. Sourcing and quality looks OK.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:15, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  •   Posted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:32, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

RD: Stephen Moore (actor)Edit

Article: Stephen Moore (actor) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Start Class article. sourcing needs work, volunteers needed. DBigXray 07:15, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose – Notable roles section needs to be sourced, changed to prose, and merged to Acting career section. Otherwise, this is a stub with a list addendum. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 02:10, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Brigid Kosgei: new women's marathon recordEdit

Article: Brigid Kosgei (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In athletics, Brigid Kosgei breaks the women’s world record for the marathon. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​In athletics, Kenyans Brigid Kosgei breaks the women’s world record for the marathon and Eliud Kipchoge becomes the first person to run a marathon in less than two hours, in a non-IAAF event.
Alternative blurb II: Brigid Kosgei breaks the women’s marathon world record at the Chicago Marathon.
News source(s): Guardian

Nominator's comments: Combining with Eliud Kipchoge’s record yesterday makes most sense, but blurb would need some finessing. 2A00:23C5:508F:3E01:94CC:A77F:65A3:41D7 (talk) 17:32, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment While in the same area, I think the two different stories require two different blurbs, there's far too much that could mis-construed between these (one is an official WR, the other is not, for example). --Masem (t) 17:41, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support first blurb or alt2, i.e. individual. (Kosgei's article seems decent enough that both could be bolded.) Maybe just refer to the Chicago marathon as the Chicago marathon, rather than 'an event'... Kingsif (talk) 21:03, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support alt2 – This record has been in place for 16 years. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 21:14, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose arbitrary record in a non-IAAF event. Shouldn't have posted the other one either. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:23, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
    • Chicago marathon is very much a IAAF event, hence why *this* is called a World's Record, whereas the other wasn't. --Masem (t) 23:26, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
    • It is in fact one of the World Marathon Majors.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 23:59, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
      • My bad, I misunderstood the alt-blurb combination. Sorry about that. Still opposed to sports trivia in the box. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:48, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support alt blurb 2 per above. Davey2116 (talk) 03:55, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support ALT2 per above. Morgan695 (talk) 04:26, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment What is the history of posting WRs in athletics? Dalilah Muhammad broke a 16-year-old record in the 400 m hurdles in July, and improved on it at the World Championships earlier this month, for example. The July WR does not seem to have been nominated. The October WR was mentioned in the World Athletics Championships discussion, but nothing came of it. Hrodvarsson (talk) 04:34, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  •   Posted ALT2. No one commented on the quality of the article but it looks pretty reasonable to me. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:23, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Ongoing: Operation Peace SpringEdit

Article: 2019 Turkish offensive into north-eastern Syria (talk, history)
Ongoing item nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Article updated

Nominator's comments: Per Cyclonebiskit, this fell off the main page. 2607:FEA8:1DE0:7B4:9921:813:D6EE:EF80 (talk) 04:36, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Support - Still in the news, article is getting updated as well Sherenk1 (talk) 06:08, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - per Sherenk1 --TILRs (talk) 10:32, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment it's orange tagged for neutrality, usually a no-go for MP --LaserLegs (talk) 11:12, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
    The page is under 1RR, but people are giving live updates on the battle, resulting in problems that can't be solved quickly... starship.paint (talk) 11:15, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support (conditionally) ... if the orange tag is resolved. STSC (talk) 13:45, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  •   Posted. El_C 17:50, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

October 12Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime