Wikipedia

Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/October 2019

< Wikipedia:In the news | Candidates

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

October 31

edit
October 31, 2019 (2019-10-31) (Thursday)
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 Dasgupta

edit
Article: Gurudas Dasgupta (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Telegraph
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

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

(Posted) Cotabato earthquakes

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(Closed) Cystic fibrosis medication approved

edit
Consensus against posting. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 12:58, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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 · tag)
Blurb: ​ A combination of medications for treating cystic fibrosis are approved for use in United States. (Post)
News source(s): [1] [2]
Credits:

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)[reply]
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 spill

edit
Consensus to post unlikely to emerge. – Ammarpad (talk) 22:22, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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 · tag)
Ongoing item nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC, The Guardian, CBS, The Washington Post, Reuters
Credits:

Article updated
 Chronus (talk) 09:29, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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 fire

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

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

(Closed) Shurijo fire

edit
No consensus to post. SpencerT•C 01:43, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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 · tag)
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]
Credits:

Article updated
 Banedon (talk) 00:09, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@BorgQueen: I've added an alt blurb partly incorporating your suggestion. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 03:37, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
Oppose based on added background below. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:44, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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 30

edit
October 30, 2019 (2019-10-30) (Wednesday)
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

Sports

(Posted) 2019 World Series

edit
 
Article: 2019 World Series (talk · history · tag)
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).
Credits:

Article updated
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

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

(Posted) RD: Jim Gregory (ice hockey)

edit
Article: Jim Gregory (ice hockey) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Sportsnet
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

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

October 29

edit
October 29, 2019 (2019-10-29) (Tuesday)
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 Weixi

edit
Article: Cong Weixi (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Phoenix News
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

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

RD: John Witherspoon (actor)

edit
Article: John Witherspoon (actor) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): CBS
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

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

(Closed) US Recognition of Armenia Genocide

edit
(non-admin closure) There is consensus not to post. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 06:35, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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). 130.233.2.235 (talk) 07:41, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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?130.233.2.235 (talk) 06:23, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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 resigns

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

Article updated

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

A change in PM is not ITNR unless it is the result of a general election. 331dot (talk) 07:17, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yes, you're right.130.233.2.235 (talk) 07:43, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
....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)[reply]

(Removed) Remove Brexit from ongoing

edit
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)[reply]

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 · tag)
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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.130.233.2.235 (talk) 10:40, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Remove per nom.-- P-K3 (talk) 12:39, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove – Yeah, it's on hiatus for the time being. Thank goodness for small blessings. – Sca (talk) 12:55, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Support removal per above. SpencerT•C 17:17, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep at least for a day since there was just a big development. Can pull afterwards. Banedon (talk) 00:22, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It has been removed already. So the only way to go back is via new nomination. – Ammarpad (talk) 01:10, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
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 28

edit
October 28, 2019 (2019-10-28) (Monday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

(Posted) RD: Kay Hagan

edit
Article: Kay Hagan (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): CNN
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(Posted) 2019 World Rally Championship

edit
 
Article: 2019 World Rally Championship (talk · history · tag)
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
Credits:

The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

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)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Vladimir Bukovsky

edit
Article: Vladimir Bukovsky (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

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)[reply]

Ongoing Removal: 2019 Hong Kong Protests

edit
Article: 2019 Hong Kong protests (talk · history · tag)
Ongoing item removal (Post)
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Article is now orange tagged for WP:NPOV. Suggest re-nomination after resolution. 130.233.2.235 (talk) 10:26, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
  • Keep Still highly notable Poydoo (talk) 21:45, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)?130.233.2.235 (talk) 07:48, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
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.130.233.2.235 (talk) 06:40, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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.130.233.2.235 (talk) 08:22, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Keep thanks to recent improvements, noteworthy piece of info for the news. comrade waddie96 ★ (talk) 19:48, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Argentine elections

edit
 
Articles: 2019 Argentine general election (talk · history · tag) and Alberto Fernández (talk · history · tag)
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
Credits:

One or both nominated events are listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

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)[reply]

  • Support. Well referenced. Good to go. MSN12102001 (talk) 10:10, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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.130.233.2.235 (talk) 10:13, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, Fernándaz's article is orange tagged and can't be featured until it is resolved.130.233.2.235 (talk) 11:29, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Express
  • 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)[reply]
  • Oppose Not enough prose, not enough sourcing in existing prose. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:24, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It is not important event yet for me. --Max923talk 20:43, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Struck sock vote. --qedk (t 桜 c) 10:50, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

October 27

edit
October 27, 2019 (2019-10-27) (Sunday)
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

Sports

(Posted) RD: John Conyers

edit
Article: John Conyers (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): CNN
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

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

RD: Paul Barrere

edit
 
Article: Paul Barrere (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:07, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted to Ongoing) Dissolving of Chilean government

edit
 
Article: 2019 Chilean protests (talk · history · tag)
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
Credits:

Article updated

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

(Posted) 2019 Ethiopian riots

edit
Article: 2019 Ethiopian riots (talk · history · tag)
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
Credits:

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)[reply]

(Posted) Abū Bakr al-Baghdadi is killed

edit
 
Article: Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi (talk · history · tag)
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
Credits:

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • Support once confirmed - Aviartm (talk) 04:46, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Hitler would have had no clue what to do with two wives. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:51, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There were so many things about which Hitler had no clues. – Sca (talk) 01:38, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Because the Orange One is absolutely a trustworthy reliable source. WaltCip (talk) 13:31, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say DT was independent – hence the however. – Sca (talk) 13:49, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
PS: He's more a loose cannon writ large. – Sca (talk) 15:05, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@The Wordsmith: interesting, I wonder why reliable sources see a difference between attribution and fact. -Darouet (talk) 20:49, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • Post-posting comment – All 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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
In that case?
Polemics. (PS: This user never reads Fox 'News.') – Sca (talk) 01:34, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
Previous IP user has posted a total of two edits. – Sca (talk) 01:44, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Note that per Reuters Turkey now says it "coordinated" with U.S. in Baghdadi operation. – Sca (talk) 13:25, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Ivan Milat

edit
Article: Ivan Milat (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [37]
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

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

  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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. --DBigXrayᗙ 07:07, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • Oppose – Per Muboshgu. – Sca (talk) 13:32, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Temporary oppose – Until it snows at the AfD. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 02:45, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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 130.233.2.235 (talk) 07:05, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]

October 26

edit
October 26, 2019 (2019-10-26) (Saturday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents
Business and economy

Law and crime

RD: Robert Evans

edit
Article: Robert Evans (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Variety
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

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)[reply]

(Posted) RD: V. Nanammal

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

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

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

  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  Fixed User:Spencer thanks for the constructive feedback, I have copy edited the article following your suggestions. --DBigXrayᗙ 08:06, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]
  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. --DBigXrayᗙ 09:28, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

October 25

edit
October 25, 2019 (2019-10-25) (Friday)
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

Sports

(Posted) RD: Don Valentine

edit
Article: Don Valentine (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BI
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

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

  Fixed DannyS712, missing citation added.--DBigXrayᗙ 09:43, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Dilip Parikh

edit
Article: Dilip Parikh (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NDTV
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

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

(Posted) Northeast Brazil oil spill

edit
 
Article: Northeast Brazil oil spill (talk · history · tag)
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
Credits:

Article updated

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

Uluru climbing ban

edit
 
Article: Uluru (talk · history · tag)
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
Credits:

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Oppose both on quality and importance. Governments issue bans everyday. – Ammarpad (talk) 12:26, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – Per previous. Of interest to a specialized audience. Sca (talk) 14:20, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
I tried new blurb. --Jenda H. (talk) 21:57, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

(Closed) Maria Butina

edit
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)[reply]

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 · tag)
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
Credits:

Article updated
 comrade waddie96 ★ (talk) 14:55, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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 24

edit
October 24, 2019 (2019-10-24) (Thursday)
International relations

Law and crime
Politics and elections

Sports

(Posted) 2019 Bolivian general election results

edit
 
Articles: 2019 Bolivian general election (talk · history · tag) and Evo Morales (talk · history · tag)
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
Credits:

Article updated
One or both nominated events are listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

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)[reply]

  • 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.130.233.2.235 (talk) 11:25, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also added a shortened altblurb130.233.2.235 (talk) 11:29, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

(Closed) Quantum supremacy

edit
Strong consensus not to post. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 15:04, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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 · tag)
Blurb: ​ Google claims to have achieved quantum supremacy by completing a 10,000-year calculation in 200 seconds. (Post)
News source(s): [42]
Credits:
 128.62.69.171 (talk) 19:15, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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 eradicated

edit
Strong consensus not to post. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 15:05, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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 · tag)
Blurb: ​ The World Health Organization certifies the eradication of wild poliovirus type 3. (Post)
News source(s): WHO, BBC
Credits:
 TompaDompa (talk) 17:42, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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 23

edit
October 23, 2019 (2019-10-23) (Wednesday)
Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

(Posted) RD: Xie Gaohua

edit
Article: Xie Gaohua (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Beijing News
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

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

(Posted) RD: James W. Montgomery

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

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

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

(Posted) Bolivian protests

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Fixed, Support130.233.2.47 (talk) 06:43, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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.130.233.2.47 (talk) 09:18, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

(Posted) 2019 Grays incident

edit
Article: 2019 Grays incident (talk · history · tag)
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
Credits:

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Support - worldwide notability indeed, and well built article. Sad we have to post it ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 19:44, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

(Posted) 2019 Japan Series

edit
 
Article: 2019 Japan Series (talk · history · tag)
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
Credits:

The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

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

October 22

edit
October 22, 2019 (2019-10-22) (Tuesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

Politics and elections

(Closed) WeWork CEO Severance

edit
Consensus against posting (non-admin closure) --DannyS712 (talk) 03:00, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. 130.233.2.235 (talk) 10:32, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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 Rongsheng

edit
Article: Zeng Rongsheng (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Paper
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

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

(Posted) RD: Rolando Panerai

edit
Article: Rolando Panerai (talk · history · tag)
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)
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

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. --–

(Posted) RD: Hans Zender

edit
Article: Hans Zender (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NYT
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

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)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Chris (sheep)

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

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Marieke Vervoort

edit
Article: Marieke Vervoort (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

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)[reply]

Looks good now. Great work in little time! Thanks ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 15:40, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Raymond Leppard

edit
Article: Raymond Leppard (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NYT
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

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)[reply]

(Closed) Emperor Naruhito enthroned

edit
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)[reply]

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 · tag) and Naruhito (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Japanese emperor Naruhito is enthroned (Post)
News source(s): [44] [45]
Credits:

Article updated
 Banedon (talk) 02:47, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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 21

edit
October 21, 2019 (2019-10-21) (Monday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Arts and culture
Disasters and accidents
International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Northern Ireland direct rule

edit
Articles: Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2019 (talk · history · tag) and Same-sex marriage in Northern Ireland (talk · history · tag)
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
Credits:

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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.130.233.2.47 (talk) 13:02, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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. 69.140.120.9 (talk) 04:14, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Bengt Feldreich

edit
Article: Bengt Feldreich (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [46]
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

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

(Posted) RD: Thomas D'Alesandro III

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

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

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

(Posted) RD: Eric Cooper

edit
Article: Eric Cooper (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • Posted (though details about early life would be nice) Kees08 (Talk) 15:28, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

(Ready) 2019 Canadian federal election

edit
 
Article: 2019 Canadian federal election (talk · history · tag)
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
Credits:

The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

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. 99.244.174.197 (talk) 06:18, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • 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. 88.215.17.228 (talk) 11:06, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Oppose - Just domestic politics. STSC (talk) 13:28, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just wait and see, for now. STSC (talk) 13:51, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
By the time this is posted the election will be decided so I don’t see that as an issue.--69.157.252.96 (talk) 18:09, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

October 20

edit
October 20, 2019 (2019-10-20) (Sunday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Disasters and accidents

Politics and elections

(Posted) RD: Nick Tosches

edit
Article: Nick Tosches (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): New York Times
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

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

October 19

edit
October 19, 2019 (2019-10-19) (Saturday)
Disasters and accidents

Politics and elections

(Posted) RD: Erhard Eppler

edit
Article: Erhard Eppler (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Der Spiegel
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

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)[reply]

(Closed) Parliamentary votes on Brexit | Letwin amendment

edit
Consensus not to post — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:12, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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 · tag)
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
Credits:
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Support conditional on removal from ongoing like we ought to have done a month ago. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:27, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
Yes, as long as it continues to receive sufficient news coverage to justify it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:10, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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 · tag)
Ongoing item nomination (Post)
Credits:

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • I have reverted the link back to Brexit per comments above — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:01, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Yes, it does make sense. STSC (talk) 13:32, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Deborah Orr

edit
Article: Deborah Orr (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-50122643
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

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)[reply]

October 18

edit
October 18, 2019 (2019-10-18) (Friday)
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 protests

edit
Article: 2019 Santiago protests (talk · history · tag)
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
Credits:

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. 130.233.2.47 (talk) 08:27, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) RD: Kamlesh Tiwari

edit
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)[reply]

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 · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Hindu, Times of India
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
  Harshil want to talk? 03:40, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
@Ad Orientem: Kindly revise your vote. I have updated the article. -- Harshil want to talk? 06:43, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
It’s no more. — Harshil want to talk? 08:08, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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 found

edit
No consensus to post. Stephen 22:57, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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 · tag)
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
Credits:

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)[reply]
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 spacewalk

edit
Will not be posted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:13, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Both articles updated
 Davey2116 (talk) 19:12, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Come on, you two.--WaltCip (talk) 21:30, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
 


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 protests

edit
Article: 2019 Lebanese protests (talk · history · tag)
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]
Credits:

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

(Posted) RD: Mark Hurd

edit
Article: Mark Hurd (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): CNN
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

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

(Closed) 2019 Military World Games

edit
Thanks for the nomination, but this will not have consensus to post. 331dot (talk) 22:33, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 17

edit
October 17, 2019 (2019-10-17) (Thursday)
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. (Space.com)

(Closed) RD: Márta Kurtág

edit
Stale. Stephen 22:21, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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 · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): France Musique
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
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)[reply]
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 Malmqvist

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

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

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

(Posted) RD: Elijah Cummings

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

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

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)[reply]

October 16

edit
October 16, 2019 (2019-10-16) (Wednesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

International relations

(Posted) RD: Patrick Day

edit
Article: Patrick Day (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

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)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Leah Bracknell

edit
Article: Leah Bracknell (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [59]
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

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

October 15

edit
October 15, 2019 (2019-10-15) (Tuesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

Politics and elections

(Posted) Catalonia independence trial

edit
 
Article: Trial of Catalonia independence leaders (talk · history · tag)
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
Credits:

Article updated

 Banedon (talk) 01:01, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

October 14

edit
October 14, 2019 (2019-10-14) (Monday)
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 Fuchs

edit
Article: Anke Fuchs (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Die Welt
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

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)[reply]

(Posted) 2019 Man Booker prize

edit
 
Articles: Margaret Atwood (talk · history · tag) and Bernardine Evaristo (talk · history · tag)
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.
Credits:

Both articles updated
One or both nominated events are listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • Shouldn't 2019 Booker Prize be the bold article? --LukeSurl t c 13:03, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) End of 2019 Ecuadorian protests

edit
 
Article: 2019 Ecuadorian protests (talk · history · tag)
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)
Credits:

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

(Closed) RD: Harold Bloom

edit
Stale. (non-admin closure) ミラP 16:51, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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 · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NYT (private window, Javascript off)
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
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)[reply]
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 protests

edit
Article: 2019 Ecuadorian protests (talk · history · tag)
Ongoing item removal (Post)

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

(Posted) Nobel Memorial Prize for Economics

edit
Articles: Esther Duflo (talk · history · tag) and Michael Kremer (talk · history · tag)
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]
Credits:

One or both nominated events are listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

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)[reply]

(Closed) Ongoing removal: 2019 Hong Kong protests

edit
Consensus is against removal. --qedk (t 桜 c) 21:38, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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 · tag)
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 impeachment

edit
Article: Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump (talk · history · tag)
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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Support.--WaltCip (talk) 11:59, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. --BorgQueen (talk) 12:16, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Support removal I agree with the nominator rationale. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 14:38, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Support removal per nom. SpencerT•C 00:01, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose removal per Coffeeandcrumbs -- Rockstonetalk to me! 14:12, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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?130.233.3.131 (talk) 06:26, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    130.233.2.131 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)[reply]
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.130.233.2.47 (talk) 06:35, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
This was deservedly absent from Ongoing for over a week. Make a new nomination if you want it back up.130.233.2.47 (talk) 06:35, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, it was not. There was never any consensus to remove it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:36, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Sulli

edit
Article: Sulli (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

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

(Closed) Remove Brexit from Ongoing

edit

Consensus is against removal. --qedk (t 桜 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 · tag)
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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.130.233.3.131 (talk) 06:17, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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. --DBigXrayᗙ 06:52, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Oppose – What, now? Just when B-day is getting close? Nah. – Sca (talk) 12:50, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Closer than three years. – Sca (talk) 13:06, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
  •   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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Comment – Looks like opposes (= keep) marginally (10:8) outnumber supports (= pull). – Sca (talk) 13:02, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Still current. – Sca (talk) 14:06, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
 • Still current – now talking 'deal.' [63] [64] [65] – Sca (talk) 20:07, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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 13

edit
October 13, 2019 (2019-10-13) (Sunday)
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 Khalaf

edit
Article: Hevrin Khalaf (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [67]
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

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

Support Life section is suitable now.130.233.3.131 (talk) 06:20, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Stephen Moore (actor)

edit
Article: Stephen Moore (actor) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

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

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

edit
Article: Brigid Kosgei (talk · history · tag)
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
Credits:

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)[reply]

(Posted) Ongoing: Operation Peace Spring

edit
Article: 2019 Turkish offensive into north-eastern Syria (talk · history · tag)
Ongoing item nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

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)[reply]

October 12

edit
October 12, 2019 (2019-10-12) (Saturday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Sports

(Posted) RD: Ding Shisun

edit
Article: Ding Shisun (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): CGTN, Xinhua
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: President of Peking University during the Tiananmen protests. Zanhe (talk) 06:27, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support on condition. A well formatted article. I cannot check the sources (language: 9 sources in Chinese and 2 in English), but per nominator's previous BLP work I assume that they are in order. I am somewhat uncertain about this from the article: In an interview with China Central Television, Ding described his tenure as president a failure, because the English-language CGTN reference, which refers to the same CCTV interview, this is not mentioned, and in fact describes Ding's time at PKU as easy-going and approachable. I am somewhat uneasy about my support here, because this line is a near-direct quote from Ding (the only one in the article), concerning his most notable achievement. Might you point me to the line in reference 5 where I can find this?130.233.3.131 (talk) 13:47, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the direct quote from the source: "在接受央视的采访时，丁石孙说：我是个失败的校长 ...". Translation: "In an interview with CCTV, Ding Shisun said: I am a failed president ..." This is also mentioned in the Radio France obituary. -Zanhe (talk) 20:57, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, good work.130.233.3.131 (talk) 06:21, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Burkina Faso mosque attack

edit
Article: Burkina Faso mosque attack (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ 16 people dead and two injured in Burkina Faso mosque attack (Post)
News source(s): AFP / France 24, BBC DW, India Today, UN Secretary General
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: start class, well sourced DBigXrayᗙ 06:17, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TompaDompa, I disagree. The article contains whatever information has been reported so far. Feel free to remove anything if you find it is not relevant to the article. --DBigXrayᗙ 17:53, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with TompaDompa. The Attack section is just a copy-paste of the lede, which is itself not very informative, while the Background section is unnecessarily long. COATRACK is deserved here. If this is a summary of all information reported so far, then we will have to wait for more reporting to get the article posted.130.233.3.131 (talk) 06:28, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you click on the links above, you will find that a similar type of coverage, which is expected in initial reports. Are you going to claim the AFP and BBC are also coatracking ? --DBigXrayᗙ 07:25, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I click them and find that they are not suitable for a Wiki article, let alone the front page. If more info comes in, perhaps that will change but at this moment, no.130.233.3.131 (talk) 08:46, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's a WP:STUB, hidden by the fact that there is a lot of tangential information. The tangential information is not necessarily excessive for a proper article, but as it stands, the article is almost entirely tangential information. We are of course limited by what the sources report, but unless we get more information that is directly relevant to the attack, this isn't up to snuff for the main page. TompaDompa (talk) 10:11, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support. Labelling the article as WP:COATRACK is well wide of the mark. It is not about "one or more connected but tangential subjects", and there is no evidence that it has been "edited to make a point about something else", as suggested at COATRACK. The "Background" section is fine as part of a comprehensive article on this subject, and the only issue with it is that the section on the attacks themselves is too short at the moment. It would certainly be desirable to expand that, but I don't think it's a showstopper right now - as the nom says, this is a start-class article - hence the weak support. Significance-wise, with sixteen deaths and geopolitical implications, this is notable enough to be posted.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:27, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Ongoing: 2019 Ecuadorian protests

edit
Article: 2019 Ecuadorian protests (talk · history · tag)
Ongoing item nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC, Al Jazeera
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: In the news. Article looks in good shape. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:32, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

May be worth considering for Ongoing? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:40, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Typhoon Hagibis (2019)

edit
Article: Typhoon Hagibis (2019) (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Torrential rain and tornado-like winds are lashing large parts of Japan, as the country endures what could be its worst storm for 60 years. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Japan suffers torrential rain and high winds as Typhoon Hagibis, its worst storm for 60 years, makes landfall
Alternative blurb II: ​ More than 1 million people in Japan are ordered to leave their homes as Typhoon Hagibis causes power outages, flooding and widespread travel disruption
Alternative blurb III: ​ At least 23 people are reported dead as Japan recovers from its biggest storm in decades.
Alternative blurb IV: ​ Typhoon Hagibis makes landfall in Japan, killing more than 50 people and causing severe flooding.
News source(s): BBC, Al Jazeera, The Guardian, Yahoo News, Reuters, AP
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: "Worst storm in 60 years", has impacted Rugby World Cup and Formula One. Has referencing issues. Sherenk1 (talk) 14:53, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AP now saying "as high as" 33, which never would have been permitted in the Olden Days.Meanwhile, Reuters now strikes a more staid stance with "at least 30." – Sca (talk) 17:54, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Meant in terms of saying "its biggest storm"; obviously the death toll is quantified as we normally to. --Masem (t) 17:58, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The AP on Oct. 14 quotes Japan's Kyodo News agency on death toll of 48. Unfortunately, the article verges on WP:HATRACK.
– Sca (talk) 13:32, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Pie3141527182: In my experience, the evacuations are NEVER more important then the deaths and damage that occurred. I would say that the ≥56 people who died from the storm are more important then any number of evacuations that are occurring. NoahTalk 21:44, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Reg Watson

edit
Article: Reg Watson (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Australian TV producer. Reference issues. Sherenk1 (talk) 14:47, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Sara Danius

edit
Article: Sara Danius (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [68]
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Was a key player in the 2018 Nobel literature prize scandal. BabbaQ (talk) 09:30, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support At 1606 characters, it's on the short side, but just long enough not to be considered a stub. Thanks to BabbaQ for sorting out a few referencing issues. Looks good to go otherwise.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:46, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Kipchoge marathon record

edit
 
Article: Eliud Kipchoge (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Kenya's Eliud Kipchoge becomes the first person to run a marathon in less than two hours, at a non-IAAF event in Vienna, Austria (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Kenya's Eliud Kipchoge becomes the first person to run a marathon in less than two hours, at the INEOS 1:59 Challenge, a non-IAAF event in Vienna, Austria
News source(s): NY TimesBBC News
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Doesn't count as an official world record because he used cars for pacing and pacemakers entered the race midway through, (hence the comment about it being non-IAAF and if anyone can think of a better wording then great). But this is still making headlines around the world.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:08, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

October 11

edit
October 11, 2019 (2019-10-11) (Friday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

Politics and elections

2019 California power shutoff

edit
Article: 2019 California power shutoff (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ High fire danger created by gusty winds and dry conditions led to the electric utility PG&E shutting off power for almost 800,000 customers, or 2.5 million people in Northern California, some for more than 36 hours (Post)
Credits:

 EagerBeaverPJ (talk) 21:55, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Robert Forster

edit
Article: Robert Forster (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Variety
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Usual problems with B-tier actors, in terms of sourcing roles. Masem (t) 02:55, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Alexei Leonov

edit
 
Article: Alexei Leonov (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Former Cosmonaut Alexei Leonov, the first person to conduct a spacewalk, dies at the age of 85. (Post)
News source(s): TASS
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Leonov was the first person to walk in space. BBC Jmorrison230582 (talk) 11:51, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi WaltCip. My opposite view is that this not being either a blurb or a death listing as soon as possible is sort of embarrassing, given the prominence of the subject, for Wikipedia. At least in my point of view, which I've tried to explain below. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:43, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb quality is vastly improved, and certainly notable enough. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 22:44, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb, article looks a fine now, thanks to all who helped. A bit more lead would be a service to readers, - there was more to his life than the first wal in space, no? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:49, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Nobel Peace Prize

edit
Articles: Abiy Ahmed (talk · history · tag) and 2019 Nobel Peace Prize (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed of Ethiopia is awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed of Ethiopia is awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts in easing the long-standing tensions between Ethiopia and Eritrea.
News source(s): CNN
Credits:

Both articles need updating
One or both nominated events are listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

Nominator's comments: Abiy Ahmed is awarded the 2019 Nobel Peace Prize for his work in easing the long-standing tensions between Ethiopia and Eritrea. Ahmed's article is generally in good shape, but the prize article should be expanded. Davey2116 (talk) 09:10, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's down to five CNs now, but I'm off for dinner. If anyone wants to give them a fix while I'm gone, I'd be grateful PotentPotables (talk) 18:11, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

October 10

edit
October 10, 2019 (2019-10-10) (Thursday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture
  • The Swedish Academy awards the 2018 Nobel Prize in Literature to Olga Tokarczuk, "for a narrative imagination that with encyclopedic passion represents the crossing of boundaries as a form of life", and the 2019 prize to Peter Handke, "for an influential work that with linguistic ingenuity has explored the periphery and the specificity of human experience". The 2018 prize is awarded only now because last year it was postponed due to a scandal. (The Guardian)
Disasters and accidents
Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

Sports

(Posted) RD: Tsai Ying-wen (political scientist)

edit
Article: Tsai Ying-wen (political scientist) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Taipei Times
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

 Zanhe (talk) 19:52, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Zanhe, any chance you have access to more information related to Tsai's research focus (e.g. what does he argue in From Monarchy and Autocracy to Democracy?) It's a decent, well-referenced article, but it just doesn't have the depth of coverage for the subject's central profession that I would like to see in an RD article. SpencerT•C 00:12, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Spencer: Unfortunately information about him is really hard to find as all search results are overwhelmed by false hits of his namesake, the president of Taiwan. Also few academic publications in Taiwan and China are accessible online. -Zanhe (talk) 00:48, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Weak support per above. SpencerT•C 01:22, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Nobel Prize for Literature

edit
Articles: Olga Tokarczuk (talk · history · tag) and Peter Handke (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Following the 2018 cancellation, the 2018 Nobel Prize in Literature is given to Olga Tokarczuk and the 2019 prize is given to Peter Handke (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

 PotentPotables (talk) 11:08, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the work Gerda! An IP address (173.13.67.91) has re-inserted the controversy section, completely unsourced, so that will now probably need monitoring and removing/sourcing PotentPotables (talk) 13:38, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for removing. A lot od detailed sourced controversy stuff is already commented out in the article, - at present undue weight. New controversy now about the Nobel Prize itself. Yes, monitoring will be needed. I still think it's now in decent enough shape to be mentioned. The Rambling Man, Masem, Susmuffin? - Blurb simply: The 2019 Nobel Prize in Literature is given to Peter Handke (pictured). - I had no time for the 2018 recipient. Anybody? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:49, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I really think it would be poor to only have Handke in the blurb. Olga's is not so far away but does require someone more familiar in literature to tackle it. --Masem (t) 14:13, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Why can't we have Olga in a separate blurb? Why should we clutter the news with any "Following the 2018 cancellation"? Readers will find that, I am sure. How I miss Poeticbent. He could have done justice to Olga. If we split the two recipients we could have both pictured, otherwise I am sure who will win a beauty contest ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:27, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about timeliness or applying logic here Gerda, I'm afraid, it's about wikilawyering. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 15:42, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We have just shown it possible to get 9 Laureate articles up to main page posting within 48-72hrs (at worst) with a bit of work. It should not be that hard. This should be where we can show the open wiki nature of WP should shine. Olga's is not that far off but just needs someone more aware of how the literature world works to do some source searching. Could we just feature Handke, sure but that's really disrespecting Olga here. --15:58, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
And as I write this, there is one paragraph left which just needs sources to confirm works were published. It is 98% there. --Masem (t) 16:01, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As before, it's about getting more EYES on the pages. People who may have the expertise may wish to help if they see it on the main page in need of help. Right now we're keeping this present news story a closed shop from 99.9% of our readers who don't know about the arcane process of ITNC. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 16:03, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Right, and we want to make sure these pages are in good enough shape (meeting core policies particularly BLP) before they hit the main page. eg: Goodenough's could have a LOT more written about him from what I did the other day, I did enough to get it to front page. This is no different from any other RD, RD blurb, sporting event, awards show, major disaster, etc. Nobels do not get a special pass, but should also be some of the easiest to update once they are announced and articles on their bios come flooding in. --Masem (t) 16:12, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

October 9

edit
October 9, 2019 (2019-10-09) (Wednesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

(Posted) RD: Andrés Gimeno

edit
Article: Andrés Gimeno (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [71]
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Tennis player, won the French Open (grand slam tournament) in 1972. Article is not ready for publication yet, but seems to be one that with relatively minimal effort would be a good addition to our RD section. Fram (talk) 09:08, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) 2019 Halle attack

edit
While very sad, consensus is against posting this. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:51, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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 Halle attack (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Two people are killed and two others are injured in attacks by a man wearing military camouflage near a synagogue and at a kebab shop in Halle, Saxony-Anhalt, Germany. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Two people are killed and two others are injured after attacks in Halle, Sasony-Anhalt, Germany
News source(s): CNN, Reuters, BBC, Guardian, AFP, dpa
Credits:
 – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 21:46, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I had this confused with the recent truck attack, also in Germany130.233.2.235 (talk) 08:41, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Coverage is very widespread, though – due to Germany's history in the first half of the 20th century and to xenophobic fringers in today's eastern Germany. (Here's an interesting sidebar about the Halle shooter.) – Sca (talk) 13:55, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh its clearly widespread, no question it meets that part of ITN. But it was only two deaths, which we (at ITNC) would not normally blink at, and the live-streaming part is only highlighted since that brings comparisons to Christchurch. --Masem (t) 13:58, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, only two random victims, but the underlying issues are current and very serious. And as various observers (including Merkel) have noted, the death toll could have been much higher. – Sca (talk) 14:09, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
PS: One of Spiegel's stories is headlined, "The lone perpetrator, who wasn't alone" ("Der Einzeltäter, der nicht allein war"). – Sca (talk) 14:21, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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) Operation Peace Spring

edit
Article: Operation Peace Spring (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Turkey begins a military offensive into Rojava, Syria after U.S. troops withdraw from the region (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Turkey launches Operation Peace Spring into Rojava, Syria after U.S. troops withdraw from the region
News source(s): CNN, AP, BBC, AFP, Reuters
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Notable development in Syrian Civil War. Would also suggest adding to ongoing if not blurb. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 14:13, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest getting rid of the flags and simply working a few reaction-comments considered trenchant or significant into a prose section. The flags themselves look like padding – or, uh, flag-waving. – Sca (talk) 20:43, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Why was Rojava removed from the blurb? Adds context to the specific area and target of the operation. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 22:39, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with Nice4What that it should be more specific than just "into Syria." At the very least, it should be something like "[[Rojava|northern Syria]]", but the best option (in my opinion) is to mention Rojava by name. Rojava is Turkey's target, not the Syrian state or government itself.  Vanilla  Wizard  💙 23:04, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This has been done. Please report further updates at WP:ERRORS so discussion can occur in one place. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 00:42, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
[72] Count Iblis (talk) 16:21, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Cyclonebiskit: - could you post this to ongoing? This fell off the front page but the offensive is still continuing. starship.paint (talk) 00:07, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Nobel Prize for Chemistry

edit
 
Articles: John B. Goodenough (talk · history · tag) and M. Stanley Whittingham (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The Nobel Prize in Chemistry is given to John B. Goodenough (pictured), M. Stanley Whittingham and Akira Yoshino for the development of lithium-ion batteries. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ The Nobel Prize in Chemistry is given to John B. Goodenough, M. Stanley Whittingham and Akira Yoshino for the development of lithium-ion batteries.
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

One or both nominated events are listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

Nominator's comments: note 3 target articles, 2 crap, 1 "goodenough". The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 11:23, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Ecuadorian protests

edit
Article: 2019 Ecuadorian protests (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ During a week of protests in Ecuador calling for the resignation of President Lenín Moreno the government is relocated to Guayaquil from Quito, where a state of emergency is declared. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Protests in Ecuador calling for the resignation of President Lenín Moreno cause the government to relocate from Quito to Guayaquil.
News source(s): Al Jazeera Deutsche Welle Voice of America CNN Bloomberg
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Extensive coverage. At least six days of protests in Ecuador. The unrest has been so intense that a state of emergency was declared, the government palace was taken by protesters and the government was relocated from the capital Quito to the city of Guayaquil. If suitable, a blurb could be considered. Jamez42 (talk) 14:38, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

October 8

edit
October 8, 2019 (2019-10-08) (Tuesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime
  • Thirteen men are arrested in the United Kingdom for drug smuggling. The authorities believe that over several years, the suspects imported approximately 50 tonnes of illegal drugs from the Netherlands, valued at several tens of millions of pounds. The National Crime Agency called it “the biggest ever [drug] conspiracy that we've seen in the UK”. (BBC News)

Politics and elections
Science and technology

(Posted) RD Francis S. Currey

edit
Article: Francis S. Currey (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [73]
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: WWII Medal of Honor recipient. Not in horrible shape but needs a couple cites. Ad Orientem (talk) 20:00, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Serafim Fernandes de Araújo

edit
Article: Serafim Fernandes de Araújo (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): G1 Globo, Vatican News
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Brazilian cardinal of the Catholic Church. Article fairly short, but well-referenced. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 16:35, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Nobel Prize for Physics

edit
 
Articles: Jim Peebles (talk · history · tag) and Michel Mayor (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The Nobel Prize in Physics is given to Jim Peebles, Michel Mayor, and Didier Queloz. (Queloz and Mayor pictured) (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ The Nobel Prize in Physics is given to Jim Peebles, Michel Mayor, and Didier Queloz.
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

One or both nominated events are listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

Nominator's comments: note 3 target articles, 2 crap, 1 stub The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 11:30, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Not unlike good ol' days when you had only one recipient to improve.... Brandmeistertalk 11:49, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Articles are not up to standards, especially Mayor's, which is riddled with [citation needed]s. Perhaps we could try and predict who will win the Nobel prize tomorrow and try to get a head start on updating their article... ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 12:07, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment indeed, the proposed targets are junk. The article on the prize itself is a GA and the list of winners is an FL. But apparently that's "cheating". Perhaps we won't be featuring the most important awards of the year at all this year. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 16:49, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change the target to the prize article I understand that that's the "easy way out", but none of the prize-winners' articles are Main Page-worthy, and it'd be a disservice not to include this when it's specifically a routine item; I'm sure IAR will allow it. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:43, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, this is not good. I am going to use the fact that we got an article on Shuping Wang from nothing to RD posting in around 24hr. It should not be hard for existing articles on these three researchers, particularly with the Nobel coverage, to get tidied up to post. They are close BLP violations as they stand, and this is burying the problem by moving the target to the list. I know the Nobels are important, and those that feel that they are should be working to improve the article. --Masem (t) 20:46, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment what about featuring 51 Pegasi b, discovered by two of the laureates? --Mjoppien (talk) 21:26, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm constantly impressed by the creativity of people trying to bypass the quality criterion. Next we'll feature Enrico Fermi because 1) it's a featured article (!!!) 2) he won the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1938, so it's related to this event 3) it's preferable to say something other than nothing for the most important awards of the year. Sorry, but no. I oppose featuring any article aside from the three winners. If the articles aren't "good enough", either lower standards or improve them. If neither of those can be done, then just don't post. Banedon (talk) 01:20, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Impromptu RFC Articles for the researchers are a must for Nobels, et al. These are prizes awarded to people. Contrary to popular belief, the Nobel Prize is not actually awarded for specific work, but rather for an overall body of work that may not neatly fit in a Wikipedia article; so, linking to articles about the work is not suitable either. Biographies for these people should be easy, because they all have a long and accomplished history already before winning the Nobel.130.233.2.235 (talk) 09:20, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Support. By not publishing the news we have doomed the articles that could have been viewed and improved by millions of users. This shouldn't be about notoriety. A singer's article is usually well referenced when compared to scientists who are barely known outside their field prior to winning the Nobel Prize. This has become a popularity contest that scientists are bent to lose. A former Nobel Laureate in Literature, Toni Morrison's death was a blurb while three Nobel Laureates in Science get overlooked. This is depressing Manish2542 (talk) 09:55, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that not publishing the blurb with a different target is tantamount to dooming the articles to remain less than mediocre. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 10:13, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would also support the alt blurb. The extra prominence given to these articles may lead to further improvement. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:45, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support altblurb. TRM's arguments make the most sense to me in all three of these debates (it'll be 4 by tomorrow). Kenmelken (talk) 12:29, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I respect TRM's point, but oppose the workaround in all cases. His voice is usually the loudest against the "damn the quality, we must post!" crowd. GreatCaesarsGhost 14:52, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not saying "damn" the quality, I'm saying target either the Good Article about the prize, or the Featured List about the prize winners. Their quality is more than sufficient for this purpose. So hopefully I've clarified your misunderstanding of my position here. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 14:54, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support alt blurb. Consensus here is sufficient now. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 14:54, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment [74] "Unless otherwise noted, the winner of the prize is normally the target article.". Is this no longer the case? --LaserLegs (talk) 15:03, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And bold or not, we can't post orange tagged BLP articles to the main page. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:07, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Did you see the word "normally"? The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 15:16, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What makes this case an exception? --LaserLegs (talk) 16:20, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus? The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 17:03, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

October 7

edit

(Posted) New Saturn moons

edit

Template:ITN candidate

(Posted) RD Warren William Eginton

edit

Template:ITN candidate

(Posted) Nobel Prize for Medicine

edit

Template:ITN candidate

  • Oppose not one of the three target articles is suitable for main page inclusion, let alone all of them. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 13:34, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree, but I do want to stress, we should not "fall back" to making the prize list the target as we have done in the past when the winners are not at quality. That's lazy. It should not be hard with this news to get those three up a bit in the next 12-24hrs. --Masem (t) 13:40, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well that's a matter of taste, I suppose it depends if you want to either not post it at all, or post it with a different target. Worst case would be someone just deleting all the unreferenced material to leave a couple of crap stubs. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 13:49, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • While it is a matter of taste, the primary purpose is to redirect readers to quality content (and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER). If we don't have that, failing to post is nothing to cry about. We routinely post borderline notability cases to the RDs while omitting household names because of quality. GreatCaesarsGhost 14:11, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • And with these, none of them are so far off the mark as to not likely be fixed in a short amount of time given the added coverage that should come as papers assemble some additional biographical stuff. (The hardest will likely be the awards list on each to source each one). But that has to be done, there's no excuse for not doing it on Nobel prize winners, or cheating that by using the list as the target. We expect it for other academic ITNRs, no reason to weaken that here. --Masem (t) 14:19, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • I think it's somewhat disingenuous and misleading to insinuate that the associated featured list is not of quality content. Nor is it "cheating". ITNR just makes a recommendation. And as I said, if those three articles aren't rescued then is it better to not feature the prize at all or to feature it using the FL? I wonder. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 14:44, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
              • I know the Nobels are easily much more significant than the Grammys or Emmys, but quality is still a top priority for ITN over significance. And while there's nothing wrong with the list necessarily, it does not given the actual winners respect to simply call their articles a wash and not worth posting. (I would understand using the if these were non-existent articles to start and making a new article would be difficult, but we proved last year (or the year before?) that it was possible to make a quality article of a Nobel winner in <48hr.) --Masem (t) 14:56, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Putting aside my opinion on whether or not this event should be even considered for ITN (as well as my thoughts on the principle of ITN/R), the articles for the three winners are indeed lacking in both sourcing and content - specifically content related to their work that won them the Nobel Prize. Ratcliffe would be the best article of the three, but still I think it would be questionable for even a RD nom ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 18:07, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Notable enough to ITN. Very interesting news. Articles well referenced. Good to go. MSN12102001 (talk) 08:46, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As long as the articles are not good, we cannot post. I have now removed the awards without sources and renamed the sections as "Selected awards", which is a quick fix. But all three bios still need some more references to be ok. --Tone 10:30, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Except for one section on Ratcliffe's, these are nearly there. --Masem (t) 21:35, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Support. By not publishing the news we have doomed the articles that could have been viewed and improved by millions of users. This shouldn't be about notoriety. A singer's article is usually well referenced when compared to scientists who are barely known outside their field prior to winning the Nobel Prize. This has become a popularity contest that scientists are bent to lose. A former Nobel Laureate in Literature, Toni Morrison's death was a blurb while three Nobel Laureates in Science get overlooked. This is depressing Manish2542 (talk) 09:55, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, blurbing Morrison's death was absurd and violated even the stated RD criteria for blurbs.130.233.2.235 (talk) 11:10, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We improve articles and then post them, not the other way around... RD criteria allows for the blurbing of "major transformative world leaders" as determined "on a sui generis basis through a discussion at WP:ITNC," which is precisely what happened with Morrison. GreatCaesarsGhost 11:41, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that the alt blurb provides a perfect vehicle to be the best of both worlds, getting the news that people are looking for (and expecting from an encyclopedia) onto the main page, and enabling a vast audience to help improve the articles. But it seems that lawyering around the wording of ITNR is the theme of the moment. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 11:46, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But at the same time, for any other topic that is a blurb, we expect more than a simple update. Adding three rows to a table (even if it is featured) is not a significant update. We criticize sport events for lacking blurbs, awards shows for lacking prose, etc. Additionally, with the amount of coverage of the Nobels, it should not be that hard to at least get any of the Laureates articles to reasonably quality to post. They don't have to be perfect, but should identify minimally their career, their research (particularly that they got the Nobel for) and notable recognition. People fix these things, so we should not be expecting any less now. Otherwise, we're playing favorites with certain topics which we should not be. --Masem (t) 13:52, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Shall we make a case study? If we post the award article bolded and the laureates' articles get updated, this is good. Otherwise, we stick to posting only if the articles are in a good shape? A one-off case study. I was considering to feature Nobels as ongoing, but there is no 2019 all-inclusive article, just the template. --Tone 14:08, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's amazing how hard some people are working here to prevent these being posted in any shape. After all, who would expect the biggest encyclopedia in the world to feature the Nobel prizes on their main page? We're stopping them through our own lawyering and bureaucracy. Damaging. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 14:11, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would love to have something posted, just trying to find the best way. I'd fix the articles myself but I simply have too many other things going on. --Tone 14:16, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, Tone, I get it. I know you're trying, I most definitely wasn't including in that group of people working hard to prevent it being posted. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 14:18, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question - RamblingMan/Tone, can you evaluate what more Semenza and Kaelin's articles need now? If you say what the BLP violations are I will know what to work on - thank you very much. Also, someone added a birthdate for Semenza and did not reply to my request for a source for it. Should the birthdate be removed? I have not found a source mentioning his birthdate. Thank you for your help. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 14:48, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind, moot now thanks to Masem's great work, and Masem thank you also for answering the birthdate question (birthdate has been removed pending a source).70.67.193.176 (talk) 16:36, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

October 6

edit

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2019 October 6 Template:Cob

(Posted) RD: Yevgeny Bushmin

edit

Template:ITN candidate

RD: Rip Taylor

edit

Template:ITN candidate

(Posted) 2019 World Athletics Championships

edit

Template:ITN candidate

Medal counts almost always favour the highest population/richest nations. They really tell us little about the event. Some smaller nations with one or two brilliant athletes will never top the medal count. HiLo48 (talk) 20:55, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As ITNR, none is needed, but neither is one prevented from being appended. Medal counts are obviously going nowhere. I think it would be a disservice to the participating athletes to highlight only the controversial parts. Notable records are a possibility but we would need to have target articles suitable for the main page.130.233.2.235 (talk) 06:29, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Discovery of En Esur

edit

Template:ITN candidate

2019 Portuguese legislative election

edit

Template:ITN candidate

October 5

edit

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2019 October 5 Template:Cob

October 4

edit

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2019 October 4 Template:Cob

(Posted) RD: Ginger Baker

edit

Template:ITN candidate

(Posted) RD: Diahann Carroll

edit

Template:ITN candidate

(Posted) Iraqi economic protests

edit

Template:ITN candidate

Basically the protests have been ongoing since 2018, I just updated it with the 2019 protests. I've edited the blurb to reflect that. STSC (talk) 12:16, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have also expanded the content. STSC (talk) 14:12, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Ping you assert that the Template:Tq but there is nothing from January 2019 to September 2019. starship.paint (talk) 14:18, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing written in the article for that period; I updated it with the latest protests happened in October. STSC (talk) 15:15, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The article infobox claims that protests have been going on for a year. I will remove that then. starship.paint (talk) 16:17, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The infobox only indicates the current status that is 'ongoing'. Besides, nothing written doesn't mean nothing happened actually. I've read the news about the Iraq protests in June this year. STSC (talk) 16:29, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have now added the June protest to the content. STSC (talk) 22:27, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have fixed them; the prosline in 2018 section is not ideal but I would try to edit to minimise it. STSC (talk) 00:54, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looks much better now, nice work. It still reads like a list of stuff that happened without a lot of context - "sacked the airport" I mean damn that could be a paragraph in itself. This will probably end up posted, please keep expanding. Cheers. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:07, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In expository writing, one usually introduces or summarizes the most salient points in the beginning, then proceeds to a more detailed narrative. Since I lack expertise on Iraq and the Middle East generally, I left it to others to revise the article to correspond more closely to the blurb, which properly begins, "At least seventy people are killed...." (Suggest change seventy to 70.) – Sca (talk) 13:29, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
BBC: "The death toll in anti-government protests that have swept Iraq the past five days has soared to at least 70, security and medical sources say." – Sca (talk) 22:57, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Now almost 100 deaths which are solely related to the October protests. [77] - STSC (talk) 16:07, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Template:U, please update the article first and then report updates at WP:ERRORS. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 22:49, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

October 3

edit

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2019 October 3 Template:Cob

(Posted) RD: Wen Chuanyuan

edit

Template:ITN candidate

(Posted) RD: Miguel León-Portilla

edit

Template:ITN candidate

October 2

edit

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2019 October 2 Template:Cob

(Posted) RD: John Kirby

edit

Template:ITN candidate

RD: Kim Shattuck

edit

Template:ITN candidate

(Posted) B-17 crash

edit

Template:ITN candidate Crash of one of the few remaining airworthy B-17 Flying Fortress of World War II, involving multiple fatalities. This is notable. Dmoore5556 (talk) 00:04, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wingspan: 103 ft, 9 in. (31.5 m.). – Sca (talk) 13:32, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe not "small small" like a private prop plane, but I meant more that this was a private, non-commercial passenger plane, and we have typically shied from posting private and military plane crashes unless there are more factors at plane. The fact this was an historical plane involved (And thus part of the coverage) is why I'm only weakly opposing. If it was a modern private plane with the same causalities we likely wouldn't be posting it. --Masem (t) 14:43, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Extremely sad, but I'm not seeing the long term significance of the event. Also the casualty level is below what we typically look for in disasters. Frankly I think the claim to WP:N is kinda weak. My guess is this will drop from the news cycle within a day or two. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:19, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and I make no claim to long-term significance; it was submitted in consideration of the "entries of timely interest" guidance. Not clear that both earthquakes currently featured from last week are still in the news cycle either. Dmoore5556 (talk) 00:44, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just drawing on general memory. FWIW, I have longstanding interests in aviation and in WWII, and take note of such crashes. Every once in a while you read about one. – Sca (talk) 14:26, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it wasn't a military aircraft, as it was privately owned and not operated by the government. 331dot (talk) 18:33, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The discussions here involve (mostly) a clash of opinions, not facts. For example, there is an argument to consider this a military craft (it is a B-17, after all), or not (based on its absence of commission). I feel it is not, but those who have a different opinion are not wrong, and I don't think it's civil to call other people's opinions invalid. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:42, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Hargovind Laxmishanker Trivedi

edit

Template:ITN candidate

(Posted) RD: Peter Sissons

edit

Template:ITN candidate

(Posted) RD: Karel Gott

edit

Template:ITN candidate

(Posted) Peru constitutional crisis

edit

Template:ITN candidate

A country going through a political crisis against corruption for years has its president dissolve congress. This is notable.--ZiaLater (talk) 08:37, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

President of Peru Martín Vizcarra dissolves the Congress of Peru while they vote to remove him from office, resulting in a constitutional crisis.
would work. I think it still needs massaging. Rockphed (talk) 14:48, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

October 1

edit

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2019 October 1 Template:Cob

RD: Russell Bucklew

edit

Template:ITN candidate

  • His biographical details would include his criminal case history and the various court challenges. If BLPCRIME did not exist, it would be fully possible to have a reasonably length article that gets into a bit more about his pre-prison life and the legal battles he fought. But, at the same time, this isn't like a John Hinckley Jr. where the crime itself was the subject of much attention. So because we are respecting BLPCRIME here, it is reasonable to use the article about his last legal defense as his bio, since that covers his entire life. --Masem (t) 05:50, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nominator. This can be argued the other way, but I don't see any significant issue in the article to bar posting now. Maybe we should amend ITNRD to prohibit posting "criminals" or people with repulsive history? because it currently does not prevent so. – Ammarpad (talk) 06:24, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The RD criteria has already been expanded to include non-humans. Expanding it to include court cases by way of the deaths of the people involved it too far. There was a similar nomination a few weeks back concerning the one of the Jonesboro murderers, in which the page for the court case was apparently re-named for the person and then nominated for RD. It was a bad idea then and it's still a bad idea. The nominator's beef is with BLPCRIME, not RD.130.233.2.252 (talk) 06:38, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    No, the basis of your oppose is factually incorrect. No one is expanding it to include court cases. Individuals who do not have their own article but who have significant coverage in another article are already eligible for RD, though it's determined on a case-by-case basis. And that's what we're doing here. – Ammarpad (talk) 06:58, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It is completely legit to consider this on a case-by-case basis for inclusion but the nominated article lacks real biographical information. The background section is full of information about state-level legislation and the poorly covered biographical information is put in function of invoking the Baze v. Rees decision for such cases in general. The article needs to undergo complete restructuring so that a biographical section with real biographical information, such like early life, education, career and other important life events, in function of the person's life is added (irrespective of whether the current background section will be cleansed or not). And yes, there might be cases where people without stand-alone articles qualify for RD but this is definitely not one of them considering the coverage of person's life in the nominated article. The article in its current shape seems to be ready for posting a blurb on the court case as the main news but it is very unlikely to receive sufficient support for inclusion.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:57, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose it's the case that's notable, not the individual involved. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 08:29, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – Per Stephen, TRM. Being momentarily famous for being dead isn't ITN-worthy. – Sca (talk) 13:22, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Technically, that's not the case. He was a criminal who's legal battle to avoid the death penalty was notable. There's not that much coverage (but enough) of noting his lethal injection yesterday, its the battles before he was known for, of which this SCOTUS case was his last chance. --Masem (t) 13:31, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Then it seems to me he was notable for the trial & the death sentence, which was carried out. – Sca (talk) 18:19, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Ammarpad - a standalone article is not necessary for RD if there is sufficient coverage in another article.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:49, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Per WP:ITN, RD postings can be of "an individual human, animal or other biological organism that has recently died may have an entry in the recent deaths section if it has a Wikipedia article." The target article is for a case not the individual in question. Thereby this does not qualify for RD. Those evaluating the nomination should comment if the target article and story (the case) is notable for a blurb. Otherwise to qualify for RD the person in question needs a standalone Wikipedia article. SpencerT•C 01:23, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's not what that says: it says that an individual with a standalone articles is presumed notable for an RD and discussion should only focus on quality. This does not say that an individual that is discussed in RSes in the context of another article is ineligible for RD, but the automatic nature is not there. I fully expected the discussion here to consider if a person notable but limited by BLPCRIME should still be noted for RD. --Masem (t) 01:27, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd also note we made an exception for Ian Brady who due to BLPCRIME did not get an article of his own. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:32, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Eric Pleskow

edit

Template:ITN candidate

(Posted) 2019 Hong Kong protests

edit

Template:ITN candidate

I'm entitled to my opinion to vote just like anyone else and I've given my reason for that. I remind you just take part in the debate without any personal attack on others per WP:CIVILITY - STSC (talk) 13:46, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Tq Tells one all they need to know about this editor. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 15:18, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Jumping to conclusions, dear patriot? starship.paint (talk) 15:37, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am a U.S. citizen, that hardly makes myself a "patriot", so do better. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 15:40, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, American and patriot aren't mutually exclusive. starship.paint (talk) 15:44, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That is a load of gibberish. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 16:05, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Corrosive fluid" and "Sprite" aren't mutually exclusive, either. One just sounds worse. Lemon juice, white vinegar and seawater can also bring a tear to a grizzled cop's eye, as well as season a trout. Everything is a weapon if it falls into the wrong hands. Go sulfuric or go home, I say. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:58, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A hardly unexpected behaviour from Starship.paint, given this[79] blocking him indefinitely for harassment. STSC (talk) 17:02, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Today (1 October) is public holiday in Hong Kong if you still don't know. STSC (talk) 13:38, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support ongoing – as they're still going on – and seem likely to continue (sporadically?) for quite some time. A glaring embarrassment for China. (Reminds me a little of the pre-Wallfall demos in E. Germany – during which the regime realized it couldn't start shooting its own people inside the country.) – Sca (talk) 14:12, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait but generally Support - Today is special because of the HK holiday, and there are a lot more protesters out there which are raising the level of violence out of that. Let's see if that's sustained into tomorrow, but I also don't see a problem adding it back (I was weakly opposed to the remove only that events had slowed down but the protests were still ongoing). --Masem (t) 14:15, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This is ongoing and major world news. I am surprised to find that it has even been removed... Zwerg Nase (talk) 14:49, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Offensichtlich, some people just don't like Ongoing. – Sca (talk) 15:50, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per TRM. And, having read The Guardian update above, hysterical news reports seem to be unclear whether the protestor rioter was armed/charging at police, whether a sole officer overstepped protocol, or whether this actually reflects a broader policy shift on the part of HKPF. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 15:18, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The rioter kept charging at the officer with a metal tube; the officer just shot him in self defence. STSC (talk) 23:46, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose ongoing but I'd support a blurb. Seriously what is the rush to put things in ongoing? Blurb it, if it's still ongoing when the blurb is about to expire off, put it in the OG box. Seriously.... --LaserLegs (talk) 15:31, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
One person shot "by a live round" but not killed is not a blurb. (PS: "Shot by a live round" (BBC) doesn't make sense. 'Rounds' don't shoot, guns do.) – Sca (talk) 15:42, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The (at least) weekly protests/demonstrations/riot/fight for freedom/terrorist attacks (pick your favourite) have been ongoing since June. How much "still ongoing" do you want it to be? -- KTC (talk) 17:42, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hold up Police seem to have a hunch some Molotovs are scheduled to fly today. Zero shot to one shot is not a dramatic eruption nor chaotic escalation. A bunch of people or government buildings literally catching fire would be both. Wait till midnight. If nothing beats a rowdy shot teen by then, maybe. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:29, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Given the history of Hong Kong, a protestor getting shot by the police is a signficant escalation. -- KTC (talk) 17:42, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Viewing him as a protestor, it stands out. But as a guy attacking armed cops, it can't be that weird locally, can it? It's not like shooting protestors for the sake of quashing protest, which should always be remarkable and shameful. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:23, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This was posted to ongoing until only four days ago. My question to those voting, if that hadn't happen and this was a proposal to remove, would your vote still be the same (support<->opp rmv, oppose<->supp rmv)? If not, why not? -- KTC (talk) 17:42, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note Just to clarify things: ITN is not meant to be a newsticker. The only reason ITN exists is to highlight quality Wikipedia writing about current events. At the time the Hong Kong Protests article was removed from ongoing, it was no longer current. It did not, still does not, and never will have anything to do with whether or not other sources, such as news organizations, are reporting on this. It only has to do with whether or not the Wikipedia article is being continuously updated with that information. If you all had wanted to keep this in ongoing, you all would have been updating it along the way. At this point, I'm fine with returning it there, but is everyone going to just abandon it again and let it go out-of-date? Because if so, what's the point? --Jayron32 17:47, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed there will be lack of interest in the article in a few days time, believe me. That's why it was taken off 'ongoing' in the first place. STSC (talk) 18:35, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If and when the article no longer meets the criteria to be listed as ongoing, it can and will be removed. That's not a reason to decide not to list it as such when it does meet the criteria, and it's quite fallacious to think it is. The "why bother" mentality with that comment is just as lethargic as the editors you suspect will fail to keep the article updated for very long.  Vanilla  Wizard  💙 21:11, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  – Sca (talk)

Template:-

LaserLegs, The purpose of ongoing (according to Wikipedia:In_the_news#Ongoing_section) is "to maintain a link to a continuously updated Wikipedia article about a story which is itself also frequently in the news" and the criteria is that it the article is being continuously updated with new information. More relevant here is that "Generally, these are stories which may lack a blurb-worthy event, but which nonetheless are still getting regular updates to the relevant article." When assessing whether or not this proposal meets the criteria, rather than keeping in mind what WP:ITN does not say, let's keep in mind what it does say.  Vanilla  Wizard  💙 21:01, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So it does say that. I would appreciate being corrected without the snark, but I thank you nonetheless. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:53, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've no intention of being snarky here, but perhaps it came off that way because the original post of our back-and-forth here (the suggestion that we believe that stories which don't qualify ought to be "stuffed into ongoing to an indeterminate amount of time" and that this is somehow a rebuttal to the rationale of the support !votes) struck me as being a less-than-respectable comment. If I'm not mistaken (and I sincerely apologize in advance if I'm having a false memory), you've in the past suggested that it should be a requirement that editors know how long any story will stay in ongoing before putting it there, and you seem to be reiterating that belief here. Nobody has a crystal ball. We don't know when the article will or will not go out of shape, we don't know when the story will or will not cease to be in the news. Of course the amount of time that this story will remain on ITN is indeterminate, and there's no problem with that. We'll cross the bridge of removal when we get to it.  Vanilla  Wizard  💙 22:36, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - This is definitely for Ongoing now. Situation has intesified etc.BabbaQ (talk) 21:56, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – I !voted to remove and I stand by that but we should not hesitate to add it back. It appears this is not over and is certainly in the news. The first injury from a live round may not warrant a blurb but certainly establishes the situation is ongoing. Sometimes we do not wait long enough before removing an item. That is a fact of life. News is unpredictable. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 23:21, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Supports outweigh opposes 3:2. Timely. – Sca (talk) 01:51, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates/October_2019&oldid=1177618032"