Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This page provides a forum for editors to suggest items for inclusion in Template:In the news (ITN), a protected Main Page template, as well as the forum for discussion of candidates. This is not the page to report errors in the ITN section on the Main Page—please go to the appropriate section at WP:ERRORS.

This candidates page is integrated with the daily pages of Portal:Current events. Under each daily section header below is the transcluded Portal:Current events items for that day (with a light green header). Each day's portal page is followed by a subsection for suggestions and discussion.

Artist's concept of the Mars rover
Artist's concept of the Mars rover

How to nominate an item[edit]

In order to suggest a candidate:

  • Update an article to be linked to from the blurb to include the recent developments, or find an article that has already been updated.
  • Find the correct section below for the date of the event (not the date nominated) in UTC.
    • Do not add sections for new dates. These are automatically generated (at midnight UTC) by a bot; creating them manually breaks this process. Remember, we use UTC dates.
  • Nominate the blurb for ITN inclusion under the "Suggestions" subheading for the date, emboldening the link in the blurb to the updated article. Use a level 4 header (====) when doing so.
    • Preferably use the template {{ITN candidate}} to nominate the article related to the event in the news. Make sure that you include a reference from a verifiable, reliable secondary source. Press releases are not acceptable. The suggested blurb should be written in simple present tense.
    • Adding an explanation why the event should be posted greatly increases the odds of posting.
  • Please consider alerting editors to the nomination by adding the template {{ITN note}} to the corresponding article's talk page.

Purge this page to update the cache

There are criteria which guide the decision on whether or not to put a particular item on In the news, based largely on the extensiveness of the updated content and the perceived significance of the recent developments. These are listed at WP:ITN.

Submissions that do not follow the guidelines at Wikipedia:In the news will not be placed onto the live template.

Headers[edit]

  • Items that have been posted or pulled from the main page are generally marked with (Posted) or (Pulled) in the item's subject so it is clear they are no longer active.
  • Items can also be marked as (Ready) when the article is both updated and there seems to be a consensus to post. The posting admin, however, should always judge the update and the consensus to post themselves. If you find an entry that you don't feel is ready to post is marked (Ready), you should remove the mark in the header.

Voicing an opinion on an item[edit]

  • Format your comment to contain "support" or "oppose", and include a rationale for your choice. In particular, address the notability of the event, the quality of the article, and whether it has been updated.
  • Some jargon: RD refers to "recent deaths", a subsection of the news box which lists only the names of the recent notable deceased. Blurb refers to the full sentences that occupy most of the news box. Most eligible deaths will be listed in the recent deaths section of the ITN template. However, some deaths may be given a full listing if there is sufficient consensus to do so.
  • The blurb of a promoted ITN item may be modified to complement the existing items on the main page.

Please do not...[edit]

  • ... add simple "support!" or "oppose!" votes without including your reasons. Similarly, curt replies such as "who?", "meh", or "duh!" are usually not helpful. Instead, explain the reasons why you think the item meets or does not meet the ITN inclusion criteria so a consensus can be reached.
  • ... oppose an item because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive.
  • ... accuse other editors of supporting, opposing or nominating due to a personal bias (such as ethnocentrism). Conflicts of interest are not handled at ITN.
  • ... comment on a story without first reading the relevant article(s).
  • ... oppose a WP:ITN/R item here because you disagree with current WP:ITN/R criteria (these can be discussed at the relevant Talk Page)


Suggestions[edit]

February 19[edit]


RD: Karl Lagerfeld[edit]

Article: Karl Lagerfeld (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): [1]
Nominator: BabbaQ (talk • give credit)

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Iconic fashion designer. BabbaQ (talk) 11:40, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

February 18[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks
International relations

Law and crime
Politics and elections

RD: George Cawkwell[edit]

Article: George Cawkwell (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): [2]
Nominator: DannyS712 (talk • give credit)

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

 DannyS712 (talk) 14:23, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment - One award is unreferenced. One reference is permanently dead.--SirEdimon (talk) 20:45, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
    @SirEdimon: Unreferenced award now referenced. The permanently dead link - the only source I could find was [3], and I'm not sure it meets WP:RS --DannyS712 (talk) 20:52, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
    DannyS712 This is dead.--SirEdimon (talk) 20:56, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
    @SirEdimon: I meant the only replacement source (a like link to replace the dead one) is the one linked above --DannyS712 (talk) 20:57, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
"George Cawkwell Christ church" and "George Cawkwell Auckland" fared well for me. Dat GuyTalkContribs 21:04, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
The ref is fine.--SirEdimon (talk) 21:33, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
@SirEdimon: I disagree. The source in the nomination, despite leaning a bit primary, can at least be believed since it is from Cawkwell's university-college. A search of `"tickleme.info" -site:tickleme.info` doesn't lead me to anywhere mentioning it, and especially considering the .info TLD which I rarely tend to trust I very much doubt it's reliability. I've replaced the reference. Dat GuyTalkContribs 21:46, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
DatGuy You maybe right, but I think, taking out this specific ref will not damage the article. It can be replaced by a more reliable source.--SirEdimon (talk) 21:58, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - All refs issues resolved. Article is fine for me.--SirEdimon (talk) 21:33, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

RD: Peter Wells (director)[edit]

Article: Peter Wells (director) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): [4]
Nominator: DannyS712 (talk • give credit)

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

 DannyS712 (talk) 14:23, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) The Independent Group[edit]

Not going to have any chance of gaining consensus unless something else major happen, in which case it can be renominated. -- KTC (talk) 21:39, 18 February 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: The Independent Group (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In the United Kingdom, seven Labour MPs leave the party to form The Independent Group.
Alternative blurb: ​In the United Kingdom, seven Labour MPs leave the party to form The Independent Group in protest against Jeremy Corbyn's leadership and failure to deal with antisemetism.
News source(s): (BBC)
Nominator: Mjroots (talk • give credit)
Updater: Absolutelypuremilk (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Major split in Labour party. Accept that my alt blurb may be seen as non-neutral by some, so please state which blurb you prefer. Mjroots (talk) 12:56, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose internal politics. If it impacted Brexit then I’d reconsider otherwise it’s just a thing that affects a handful of people who didn’t see this coming. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:11, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose as a parochial political in-fighting. A split in a party in the minority is unlikely to result in any substantive shift in government. Good faith nomination but a consesus to post is unlikely to form.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 13:14, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait. This isn't really that significant yet, but it might become so if it attracts a significant number of MPs from across the house - expecially if it does so in a way that impacts Brexit - or it could fizzle out. If it is posted, the blurb should probably include "United Kingdom" in there somewhere. Thryduulf (talk) 13:18, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
    • Blurbs reworked to include UK. Mjroots (talk) 13:32, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment th BBC report I read says they are describing themselves as not a party, are all those categories therefore incorrect? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:35, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
    • Issues with the article should be directed to the article's talk page. The above does not impact on the nomination, which does not claim that they are a political party, but merely names the new group. Mjroots (talk) 13:39, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
      • Um, see below! If people are mistakenly thinking something because the article is erroneous, and voting accordingly, it needs to be mentioned. It wouldn’t be right if people read the article and suddenly believed we have a new party in the UK when they themselves are saying we don’t, wouldn’t you agree? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:43, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support this is the first time a new party with multiple MPs has been formed since the 1980s and the reasons surrounding its formation are also noteworthy. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 13:36, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above. If this proves significant in any fundamental way, then sure. But for now it's just a side show to the ongoing Brexit shenanigans.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:48, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Per TRM, Coffeecrumbs. Parochial political spat. Sca (talk) 14:14, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is quite domestic politics. –Ammarpad (talk) 16:13, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Most arguements above in agreement, but would also add that seven out of 248 (I believe) Labour MPs is a drop in the bucket. In contrast, as a hypothetical example, if 100 or more of those all dropped into a brand new party, that might be more significant. --Masem (t) 16:34, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support this is something which has been spoken about for months and has finally occured - agree that seven isn't a very significant number but is nonetheless a major story in UK politics. Successfulwd (talk) 17:31, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose At the moment, this split is insignificant. There is no evidence thus far that they intend to form a new party or even run in the next election, and seven party members is not sufficient to reach the level of significance. If further developments arise, such as more members joining them, and this group organizing to contest new elections, then perhaps significance may be reached at that time. But as of now, significance has not yet been reached. (NorthernFalcon (talk) 17:42, 18 February 2019 (UTC))
  • Wait. Let's give this a bit more time. I suppose this could make some outsized waves, but we would have to see. Article seems pretty good though. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk- 17:44, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Minor spat affecting a tiny minority within a minority party. British MPs resign the party whip or are suspended all the time (prior to today, there were already 5 independent former-Labour MPs who've resigned from the party plus one who's been expelled); all that's mildly unusual here is that seven of them have done so on the same day. ‑ Iridescent 17:47, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Iridescent and the fact that Labour is not in a coalition or confidence and supply means this splinter will not affect the balance of power in this Parliament. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 18:42, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

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

(Posted) RD: Paul Flynn (politician)[edit]

Article: Paul Flynn (politician) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC
Nominator and updater: DBigXray (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: UK MP for 31 years. Start class article with decent sourcing. DBigXray 10:32, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Weak support it's a dreadfully constructed article but what's there is almost entirely cited. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:44, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support I don't know that I would call it "dreadfully constructed" but the structure could be improved and there are a couple of sections boarding on proseline, but what's there is comprehensive and cited. Thryduulf (talk) 13:11, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Agree with the sentiments above. This article could really benefit from exposure on the Main Page, leading to a proper copy edit by the masses. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 13:21, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Largely an unsung Labour stalwart. No one can deny his dedication in serving the people of Newport. Any ideas on improving the structure welcome. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:24, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted  — Amakuru (talk) 13:53, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

February 17[edit]

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sports

(Posted) RD: Ethel Ennis[edit]

Article: Ethel Ennis (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Baltimore Sun
Nominator: Coffeeandcrumbs (talk • give credit)
Updater: SirEdimon (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Please, let us try as much as possible to feature women and people of color. This article needs work. Nominating now to solicit team work. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 17:55, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Support - I think I fixed all the refs issues. Please tell me if something else needs to be done.--SirEdimon (talk) 20:10, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support, looks good now, thank you. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:50, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 04:45, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

February 16[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Politics and elections
Sports

(Posted) RD: Patrick Caddell[edit]

Article: Patrick Caddell (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): NYT, AP
Nominator: Davey2116 (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: American political operative, best known for his work on Jimmy Carter's 1976 campaign, dies at 68. Davey2116 (talk) 03:20, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Support satisfactory. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:43, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support good enough for RD, although I dislike sections that consist entirely of a short sentence and lengthy quote. Thryduulf (talk) 13:07, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
    Ditto. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 13:51, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • plus Posted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:58, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Sam Bass (artist)[edit]

Article: Sam Bass (artist) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): [5]
Nominator: DannyS712 (talk • give credit)

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

 DannyS712 (talk) 09:07, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Support satisfactory. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:19, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Good enough to post. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 13:51, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - and ready to post--BabbaQ (talk) 14:00, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 22:11, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Battle of Baghuz Fawqani[edit]

Article: Battle of Baghuz Fawqani (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant loses all of its territory in Syria following its defeat by the Syrian Democratic Forces, U.S. and France.
Alternative blurb: ​The Syrian Democratic Forces, supported by the U.S. and France, defeat and capture the last territories controlled by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant in Syria.
News source(s): Reuters
Nominator: Nice4What (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: 'Caliphate' being territorially defeated after 5 years is major news. Adding this post pre-emptively to avoid this being posted late (as was the case for North Macedonia.) When this happens (which it will per official sources, this is not WP:CRYSTALBALL) I suggest posting it as soon as the article is swiftly updates. Nice4What (talk) 18:02, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Support This is very significant and the article appears to be in decent shape. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:06, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait, the last news I heard said it's on the verge of defeat. The situation will probably clarify within a day or two. Brandmeistertalk 09:22, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose the article on it's own doesn't explain it's significance vs any other battle in the ongoing civil war. I'm concerned about claiming "the defeat of ISIL" because their principal opponent declares it such. ISIL will be taking credit for suicide bombings for the next 20 years. From a quality standpoint, there are some large paragraphs with a single source, and the prose which is there is filled with the usual irrelevant anecdotal commentary like "The civilian truck drivers said 18 foreigners were among the dozens of civilians fleeing with them". We're supposed to be reporting on the "final defeat of ISIL in Syria" but the article is highlighting 18 non-Syrians fleeing? Come on. The problem with WP:RECENTism is that the article gets fluffed up with this sort of reliably sourced but ultimately unverified factoids. When the Syrian civil war ends and either the SDF or Assad surrenders and admits defeat, then that's a post. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:59, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Ongoing and promote to blurb if/when the battle concludes. Banedon (talk) 22:04, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ken Nordine[edit]

Article: Ken Nordine (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): WBEZ.org
Nominator: Yorkshiresky (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Noted voice over artist. Article appears to be in good shape with no contentious issues. yorkshiresky (talk) 16:38, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Weak Oppose The article is not in horrible shape, but there are a handful of spots that really need a cite. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:46, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose plenty of unreferenced items in there. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:38, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Moved the discography to a new page, which is where most of the unreferenced items are.yorkshiresky (talk) 10:16, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support I agree with the decision to split the discography while leaving a selected short list. His list of credits is rather long. This is good to go. I wish we could get a voice sample though. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 14:08, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 22:08, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Bruno Ganz[edit]

Article: Bruno Ganz (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC
Nominator: Sherenk1 (talk • give credit)
Updater: Gerda Arendt (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Swiss actor. As usual, refs issue. Sherenk1 (talk) 12:16, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose. Significantly under referenced. Thryduulf (talk) 12:51, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Will work on it, but too nice weather to do it now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:22, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
I added refs, and commented out awards without one. Please look again. Obituaries in major English papers. We'd look silly not to mention him. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:38, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support – Well referenced. @Gerda Arendt: take another look at the awards section. I think you broke your comments.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 17:57, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support – Internationally known for his performance in Downfall (Der Untergang). Sca (talk) 18:29, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Sca, nobody here is interested in that. Only if it and everything else has a reference. Please add some, if you can, to the awards commented out, and to role descriptions added late. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:05, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. One the greatest German-speaking actors of all times and the article is well referenced.--SirEdimon (talk) 19:31, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted Well done to everybody who helped get the article up to scratch. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:39, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Li Rui[edit]

Article: Li Rui (politician) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The New York Times
Nominator: Coffeeandcrumbs (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: I think Li died on February 16. The bot failed to archive and create new date section at midnight. The article is referenced and ready to post IMO. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 06:23, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Bot isn't working, I'll leave a note on the operator's talk page; moved from February 15 per nom --DannyS712 (talk) 07:18, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. Good enough. Thryduulf (talk) 12:52, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. Looks good to go. –Ammarpad (talk) 13:59, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - Small, but in good shape.--SirEdimon (talk) 20:19, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  • plus Posted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:59, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

February 15[edit]

Armed conflict and attacks
Business and Economy

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sports

(Posted) RD: Dave Smith (archivist)[edit]

Article: Dave Smith (archivist) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Deadline
Nominator and updater: DBigXray (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Well sourced, start class article. DBigXray 04:00, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Support Short but sweet and well referenced. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 04:58, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:39, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

plus Posted --Tone 10:35, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Lee Radziwill[edit]

Stale. Stephen 01:30, 18 February 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: Lee Radziwill (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): [6][7][8][9]
Nominator and updater: Willthacheerleader18 (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: American socialite, sister of Jackie Kennedy Onassis. Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 14:47, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Significant gaps in sourcing, some explicitly tagged but most not. Thryduulf (talk) 15:00, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - way too many {{fact}} tags. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:25, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. Sourcing of article has improved but still a couple of citations needed. Capitalistroadster (talk) 02:48, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: Page is now at Lee Radziwiłł (with diacritics). —Hugh (talk) 01:14, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

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

(Closed) 2019 American State of Emergency[edit]

Good faith nomination, but as with most Trump themed nominations, this was Dead on Arrival. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:45, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: 2019 American Declaration of a State of Emergency (talk, history)
Blurb: U.S. President Donald Trump declares a national emergency in the United States over the issue of the U.S.–Mexico border.
News source(s): [10]
Nominator: ExclusiveWillows (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: Notable event that according to the New York Times will set a massive precedent on executive power, it has received widespread attention in popular culture and the press, and it will be notable in the long-run. It also fulfills Trump's signature campaign promise. ExclusiveWillows (talk) 20:52, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose First, article quality but that can be improved. But moreso this is 100% partisan politics, wholly expected (since its been rumbling for month+ on this) , and we know that this is not like declaring martial law or to respond to disasters but simply a way to access gov't coffers. --Masem (t) 21:05, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose The article as it stands now is entirely slanted towards a point of view opposing the National Emergency and is not objective at all. The nominator has attempted to revert even minor revisions to the article that attempt to correct this issue.XavierGreen (talk) 21:22, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Something like the 100th SOE Trump has announced out of similar partisan battles. And it seems to have already left the news. Kingsif (talk) 21:43, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose – The DTs yet again. Sca (talk) 22:23, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose on quality but support on significance. This is most certainly in the news, whether anyone likes it or not, and it's a totally bogus state of emergency in a country with incredible influence over international affairs. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:07, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose on all counts. The ginger whinger has tried some trump card for Mexican takeout? WHAT? The Rambling Man (talk) 00:10, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. ExclusiveWillows, let's bang this thing out before we renominate. We have to make quite a few improvements before we renominate. I have a something in my sandbox for when we get this done. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk- 00:22, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Why haven't we put all of the other national states of emergency on the front page of Wikipedia when they have occurred? I agree that this should be in the Current Events section (as it already is), but this should not be ITN (if I have my acronyms right). -TenorTwelve (talk) 00:31, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

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

February 14[edit]

Armed conflict and attacks

Business and economy

Law and crime

Politics and elections

(Posted) RD: Andrea Levy[edit]

Article: Andrea Levy (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC News
Nominator and updater: Ritchie333 (talk • give credit)
Other updaters: SusunW (talk • give credit) and Coffeeandcrumbs (talk • give credit)

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: One for Black History Month, please Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:20, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Support looks just about good enough. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:25, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak support; "weak" because born in London to Jamaican parents who sailed to England on the Empire Windrush in 1948 sounds dubious (I can't find any source that her mother sailed on the Windrush in 1948, and it's certainly not cited), and if even the first sentence contains an error it throws the accuracy of the rest of the article into question. ‑ Iridescent 12:30, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
From The Guardian obituary - "Levy was born in London in 1956 to parents who were part of the boom in immigration that shaped postwar Britain, her father arriving in the UK on the Empire Windrush in 1948 and her mother following shortly afterwards." I've removed the date, if somebody insists on a time period, "post-war" could be used. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:37, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
So that's a source for her father; where's any indication that her mother sailed on the Windrush? It's not as if there was only one passenger ship sailing the transatlantic route in the 1940s. ‑ Iridescent 12:50, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
The article doesn't say that (at least in the current version). I note an IP tried to fix this but was reverted. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:56, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
@Ritchie333: she came on a banana boat. I've added the source. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 03:04, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Too many quotes. What we have here is not a biography which is what is supposed to be. It is simply a collection of quotes from reviews. The article is unsatisfactory in general.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 12:44, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm not in a position to improve the article much until this evening, though I will say it is in much better shape than many RD nominations I have seen, which require extensive work before they're ready. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:46, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
@SusunW:, @Megalibrarygirl:, @Rosiestep: - can you help with this? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:49, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Support – Great work. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 16:35, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your help too. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:50, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - good enough.BabbaQ (talk) 13:38, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - the awards section is completely uncited, and I'm not certain the sole citation in the second paragraph of the "Work" section supports all the information there (and if it does it will need to be checked to make sure we're not relying too heavily on a single source). Thryduulf (talk) 15:56, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
    Her awards looked like they were cited in the preceding sections. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:44, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
    Support my concerns have all been addressed. Thryduulf (talk) 16:50, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Comment, I do not know if I can support as a contributor to improving the citations and text, but I believe we have now addressed the concerns previously expressed and think that it should move forward. SusunW (talk) 16:54, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
I've given the three of us who have worked on the article to address the above issues credit. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:57, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Ready now. Great work. Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:07, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • plus Posted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:31, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) 2019 Pulwama attack[edit]

Article: 2019 Pulwama attack (talk, history)
Blurb: ​38 security personnel were killed in an attack near Pulwama, Kashmir.
Alternative blurb: ​38 security personnel were killed in a suicide bombing attack near Pulwama in Kashmir.
Alternative blurb II: ​Two separate bombings in Khash, Zahedan and Pulwama, Kashmir left 27 Revolutionary Guards and 38 security personnel killed, respectively.
News source(s): The Times of India, AP, BBC
Nominator and updater: Nizil Shah (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: One of the deadliest terror attack in India in last few years. Better blurb is welcome. Nizil (talk) 06:29, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Support. Suggest changing the blurb to:
Around 40 security personnel were killed in a suicide bombing attack near Pulwama in Kashmir.
-- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:51, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
@Kautilya3:, Death toll varies from 36 to 44 in different sources so I had written the lowest. The numbers can be updated as exact numbers are known. I think the article should be linked differently in your blurb. I have posted altblurb. -Nizil (talk) 10:44, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes, that is why it is better to use a round number. I can live with linking the article to the "suicide bombing attack" key phrase. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:57, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Updated number to 38 as per list released.-Nizil (talk) 11:18, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - long enough and good coverage. Also recommend at minimum autoconfirm protection, ASAP. Juxlos (talk) 10:15, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - This is in the news. Will have long lasting impact on relation between India and Pakistan Sherenk1 (talk) 11:00, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - Now death toll rises to 44, please consider it too.-- Prongs31 11:33, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - Also major news in the UK. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:41, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment the number killed is a bit of a mess within the article, various points claim various numbers, starting with 49 and ending with 38. And since we don't start sentences with numbers, it would probably be ideal to start with "At least 38 people..." just to cover both scenarios. The rest of the article is satisfactory for main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:16, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment – AP says 41. BBC 46. (Added above as sources). Blurbs should be in present tense. Sca (talk) 13:50, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support This is one of the deadliest attacks since Kashmir insurgency began and is also receiving massive media coverage. As far as death toll is concerned, I'd say that the blurb should be updated to 49 deaths. Amir (talk) 14:11, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support A major attack which will have profound effect in the domestic affairs of India, and the overall diplomatic and security situation in South Asia. Bharatiya29 14:41, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • plus Posted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:43, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
    @MSGJ:, Someone changed Kashmir to India-controlled Kashmir. Kashmir is a disputed region so better use word India-administered Kashmir or neutral Kashmir as proposed in the original blurb. Controlled implies forceful occupation.-Nizil (talk) 02:42, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
    I have moved your comment to WP:ERRORS — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 05:19, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: As I suggested new blurb above, it is sufficient to merge two suicide bombing attack , 2019 Pulwama attack and 2019 Khash-Zahedan suicide bombing.Saff V. (talk) 08:06, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
No, not a good idea. I do not see a clear connection between the perpertrators. These should be separate line items as they occurred in two separate non-bordering nations. It appears to be mere coincidense that the two events are similar and occurred within days of each other. They are both ITN-worthy events in their own right.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 09:20, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Airbus A380 cancellation[edit]

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: Airbus A380 (talk, history)
Blurb: Airbus announces the cancellation of production of the Airbus A380 airliner starting from 2021.
News source(s): Airbus, BBC
Nominator: Brandmeister (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: While seemingly a marketing decision, this marks an era in the aviation history. Article updated. Brandmeistertalk 09:29, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose I'm not sure it really does "mark an era", after all there will still be plenty of A380s flying around. If this was about the last one being retired, I think it would mark the end of an era, but just announcing that they'll stop making it in two years time is not really anything to write home about. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:53, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
    • I mean that after 2021 there will be no more new A380 which is a short and rather unexpected production span (merely 16 years) compared to many (if not most) other airliners. Boeing 747, for example, is still in production, since 1968. Airbus A320 is being produced since 1986. Brandmeistertalk 11:29, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
      • No, that's really not that remarkable. The 717 was only in production for eight years, the 707 for 22 years, the A310 for 15 years etc. This isn't special. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:40, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
        • Except that they weren't as large as A380, of course. Brandmeistertalk 12:58, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
          • I really fail to see how that makes this anything more than a piece of random trivia, better suited to another section of the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:02, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't be so quick to deep-six this. If we were rolling out a new highest-capacity plane, even by a negligible margin, that would warrant posting (IMO). Here we have a rollback in the highest capacity plane in production from 850 to 650. Why? Is is just not needed? Then why was it ever built? There seems to be a story there worth telling, and the article does a fine job of it. ghost 13:09, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
    Things moved on. No big deal. Certainly nowhere near ITN significance. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:18, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
    You already cast your vote and made your rationale known. You present no additional arguments here. There's no need to reply to every comment by every other editor. ghost 14:19, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
    I answered your questions. If you don't want to have questions answered, don't ask them. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:06, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Perhaps significant for (some of) the countries in which Airbus planes are manufactured/assembled, but not for the big aviation picture. Jumbojets will be around for a long time. Sca (talk) 13:50, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not seeing the significance here for an event that is still two years away. Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:38, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Even if it was the stoppage of A380s today, the end of production of a product like a plane really means little. It would be different if Airbus was going out of business and producing its last plane (an event equivalent to Ford producing its last vehicle), but Airbus will exist after stoppage of the A380. --Masem (t) 15:53, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

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

February 13[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

International relations

Law and crime
Politics and elections
Science and technology
  • Exploration of Mars
    • The mission of NASA's Opportunity rover on Mars comes to an end. The rover stopped communicating in June 2018 after a Martian dust storm, and attempts to reestablish communications have not been successful. (NASA)

(Comments needed) 2019 Khash-Zahedan suicide bombing[edit]

Article: 2019 Khash–Zahedan suicide bombing (talk, history)
Blurb: ​27 Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps were killed in a suicide bombing on the KhashZahedan road in Sistan and Baluchestan Province
News source(s): NYT, BBC
Nominator: Saff V. (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: I am going to improve and edit the article Saff V. (talk) 07:40, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment This article may have POV and neutrality issues. Maybe all it needs is a copy edit. It reads as confusing and garbled to me. However, it does appear to have good sourcing.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 16:06, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Support The article has improved since I reviewed it a few days ago. The news is significant. Iran has largely remained unscathed while it's proxy states have suffered major losses. An attack on Iranian soil leading to the deaths of so many Revolutionary Guards is significant news. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 14:25, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Hans Stadlmair[edit]

Article: Hans Stadlmair (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BR
Nominator and updater: Gerda Arendt (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: conductor and composer, MKO for almost four decades, 6000 concerts --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:00, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Support - Well referenced. One award is not referenced, but I suppose it's easy to fix.--SirEdimon (talk) 05:37, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
The award is referenced now, and I'll look for more. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:01, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support – Sufficient detail and referencing. Good to go. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 09:10, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support sufficient quality, its ready for the main page --DannyS712 (talk) 10:17, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted. Thryduulf (talk) 12:54, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Eric Harrison (footballer)[edit]

Article: Eric Harrison (footballer) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Nominator: Dumelow (talk • give credit)

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Footballer and coach responsible for Fergie's Fledglings. I have expanded and formatted the article - Dumelow (talk) 08:56, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Support good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:48, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support No apparent issues of concern. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 14:50, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment this has been good to go for nearly nine hours folks. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:31, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 21:44, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Bibi Ferreira[edit]

Article: Bibi Ferreira (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Globo
Nominator: Coffeeandcrumbs (talk • give credit)
Updater: Muboshgu (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Working. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 03:17, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

  • I didn't nominate this one because it's still a stub and my Portuguese no es bueno. (I know that's Spanish.) – Muboshgu (talk) 04:04, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - I was about to nominate it, but I was without time to work on the article and I thought it would be better to improve the article before nominating it.--SirEdimon (talk) 04:28, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak support lead could use a little expansion, but the article, while short, is satisfactory. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:49, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
I expanded the lead slightly to give the scope of her career. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 14:52, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - Article could be expanded but the article, despite being short, is well referenced and Ferreira was one the greatest actresses in the history of Brazilian theater.--SirEdimon (talk) 19:42, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 22:01, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) End of NASA Opportunity rover mission[edit]

Article: Opportunity (rover) (talk, history)
Blurb: NASA concludes the fourteen-year Opportunity Mars rover mission after being unable to wake the rover from hibernation initiated by a June 2018 duststorm.
News source(s): The Verge, NYTimes
Nominator: Masem (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: NASA is set to give a press conference in about 3hr here to formally state they ended the progrm, but NASA is no longer actively seeking to wake the rover. I note that this is NOT an ITNR, but the lifetime of the rover is a significant human achievement. (If we are worried about a blurb, this may be a rare case of calling it an RD, but I don't think that would be easy to persaude). Unfortunately, due to how we have a summary-style approach to the Opportunity article with several sub-articles, there's some sourcing problems on the main article. Masem (t) 16:19, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Wait until after the press conference is held making the official announcement, and oppose unless and until that information is properly added to the article; when those conditions are met, I would be fine with posting the article on the main page. It's in good shape. --Jayron32 16:25, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose the other way round to Jayron, but the same, we can't post something that hasn't happened, but once it has happened, we can post it assuming someone makes a lot of changes to the article, tenses, updates etc. Premature nomination. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:10, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
    Support a seminal rover, and an updated article. Job done. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:27, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Officially declared dead. Will be updating in moments here. --Masem (t) 19:15, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
    Good work. I wonder if there's any mileage in looking at ITNR for an additional entry on space entities which have passed their sell-by date. Or perhaps they just speak for themselves. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:20, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
    This is unique, I feel, due to the fact NASA pulled 55x more mission time out of this than planned. If it died after 4 months after a 3 month-expected start, ehhhhh. I think this a "best judgement" case here, on merits alone. --Masem (t) 19:25, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. NASA has released a statement that they are officially considering the rover to be dead and detailed all the efforts the agency went through to reestablish contact with it since it entered protective hibernation on June 12, 2018. Sir Trenzalore (talk) 21:02, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per above. Davey2116 (talk) 22:46, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 22:49, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Off-topic --LaserLegs (talk) 22:31, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Oppose -- for giving undue weight to bad news on the Main Page. This department should report more good news, for a fair representation of what is going on in the world. The news on WP's Main Page is heavily skewed towards certain subjects, especially reports of disasters and other bad news.    — The Transhumanist   00:15, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
I refer you to the words of Maggie Smith:

...The world is at least
fifty percent terrible, and that’s a conservative
estimate, though I keep this from my children.
For every bird there is a stone thrown at a bird.
For every loved child, a child broken, bagged,
sunk in a lake. Life is short and the world
is at least half terrible, and for every kind
stranger, there is one who would break you...

Two of the four items on ITN now are good news. I would even argue this is positive news; the conclusion of a highly-successful mission.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 00:28, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
This. I consider that while its a shame we could get another 14 yrs out of it, we did get 50 times more out of what was planned due to some human ingenuity. --Masem (t) 03:20, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
The Transhumanist We can only consider what is nominated, and we have no control over the goings on in the world. If you would like to see more 'good' stories, I invite you to nominate them. 331dot (talk) 10:53, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
I think that Transhumanist comment was meant for the Haiti story. There is a duplicate comment there from an IP minutes earlier. ghost 13:15, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
I will note that, regardless of which story Transhumanist was talking about, I have seen zero articles he improved and nominated in the past 2-3 days to fix the perceived problem he has. It's one thing to note the existence of a problem. It's quite another to note the existence of a problem, and then demand that other people, who have no more authority than you do, fix that problem. If Transhumanist had really wanted the problem fixed, he would have actually fixed it. --Jayron32 13:27, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

(Posted to ongoing) Haitian protests[edit]

Article: 2019 Haitian protests (talk, history)
Ongoing item nomination
News source(s): Al Jazeera, BBC, Deutsche Welle, The Miami Herald
Nominator: ZiaLater (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: Seven consecutive days of ongoing protests occurring in Haiti with thousands of demonstrators and calls for a transitional government. At least four dead and dozens injured. --ZiaLater (talk) 16:10, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Wait this may have been already ongoing for seven days but it's just really hitting significant news coverage now. The article doesn't really articulate a week's worth of serious activity either. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:08, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose -- for giving undue weight to bad news on the Main Page. This department should report more good news, for a fair representation of what is going on in the world. The news on WP's Main Page is heavily skewed towards certain subjects, especially reports of disasters and other bad news. 2600:1:9810:BFFE:614E:1B8B:67B1:AE75 (talk) 00:09, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
    Struck invalid comment. Please bring general concerns like this to WT:ITN instead of disrupting this page — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 05:33, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support The article isn't in bad shape - could be better but not bad - and it's quite reflective of Venezuela right now, if with a decade's less warning. It can definitely sit in Ongoing. Unfortunately, not many good news story are ongoing, it's mostly protests, odd politics, and international sports (1 bad, 2 neutral). Kingsif (talk) 02:40, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Significant news, sufficient article. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:18, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support News coverage has now increased to a level sufficient for ITN. The article is well referenced.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 15:57, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  • plus Posted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:03, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) North Macedonia[edit]

Article: North Macedonia (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Prespa Agreement comes into force, ending a 27-year naming dispute with the Republic of Macedonia renaming itself the Republic of North Macedonia
Alternative blurb: The Republic of Macedonia changes its name to North Macedonia, ending a 27-year naming dispute after the Prespa Agreement comes into effect as Macedonia begins the process for its accession into NATO.
Alternative blurb II: ​The Republic of Macedonia changes its name to the Republic of North Macedonia as the Prespa Agreement comes into effect ending a 27-year naming dispute.
News source(s): RadioFreeEurope, Washington Post, The Guardian
Nominator: Nice4What (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: This has been nominated many times before and delayed, but Greece has finally ratified the NATO accession protocol. The agreement is therefore in effect, with a deadline of 15 February for all name changes to be implemented. The only other delay I can see will be waiting for North Macedonia to notify the United Nations of the official name change, but that will be in the coming days.
UPDATE: Country is officially renamed North Macedonia as of 12 February (see new sources added). Nice4What (talk) 04:10, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Support - Time to post.BabbaQ (talk) 12:39, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't see the necessary updates yet. --Tone 14:32, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Not trying to stall this clearly-going-to-be-ITN story, but from the above article "With Greece's ratification of the NATO accord, the former Yugoslav republic will now write to the United Nations, its member states, and international organizations, formally announcing the name change. A government spokesman told the AP this would happen "in coming days."" It sounds like that letter will be the point of official change? I don't know, the situation seems to change a new bit of this story comes up. --Masem (t) 18:02, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - Macedonia's accession into NATO, which per sources was the final obstacle preventing the Republic from using the name, was a success. If I'm not mistaken we posted Montenegro's accession into NATO as a standalone story, but I'd recommend an altblurb that adds Macedonia's accession as a footnote. It's not easy to make it succinct, but it is noteworthy enough to put it somewhere in the blurb. I do agree with Masem that we should probably watch for developments over the next few days, but that shouldn't be an issue large enough for the nomination to go stale. If the UN adoption of the name is the real point of official change, we can modify the blurbs to mention that if necessary. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ 23:03, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm a bit confused as to the whole mess. I'm reading this BBC article (from last week) [11] that says that NATO accession is not yet there (but virtually guaranteed), but Greece being the first to ratify it validates the naming of North Macedonia? It's also odd that no big sources are covering this above event; they've got coverage from last week. You would think this is 100% the type of story BBC and NYtimes would be covering today if today was the milestone we've been waiting on. Also wholly separate but to help guide, there's an RFC [12] and a move request [13] related to the naming. Going by the move request, it sounds like the official date the name change takes effect is Feb 15 (this Friday), but I can't easily find a place to confirm that. AGain, this entire situation is clearly ITN, and I have little doubt anything will change the trajectory of this. But that said, given that we appear to be waiting on the name change (potentially), our ITN should align with that. --Masem (t) 00:10, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm honestly about as confused as you are, but to the best of my knowledge, the guarantee of their accession into NATO was what they were waiting for before adopting the name change. I will clarify that my support !vote does not mean that I think we need to post it now, but I didn't vote !wait because I don't expect the nomination to go stale before we post it. I'm going off of the previous ITN nomination which I voted !wait on as it cited a BBC article which, if I'm not mistaken, said that Macedonia won't start using the name North Macedonia until their accession into NATO. Now that there's no obstacles to their accession, what I've read up to this point leads me to believe there's also no obstacles to their name change. That being said, I'm more than happy to wait a few days for further clarification. I don't expect that we post this today, tomorrow, or the day after that, but I do think that - unlike all the prior attempts at posting this - we won't need to close the nomination. If it is confirmed on February 15th, we can post it then. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ 00:37, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • COMMENT I don't know who added the alt blurb, but North Macedonia didn't enter NATO, Greece has just signed the NATO accession protocol. The other 28 member states have to do the same. Nice4What (talk) 00:42, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • You are correct; for all intents and purposes, the blurb is to be regarded as being in the future (for now). Both the part where Macedonia changes their name to North Macedonia & the part where Macedonia joins NATO are technically still (near) future events. The latter paved the way for the former, which should be happening in less than a week. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ 06:34, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait until Friday. Both the name change and ascension to NATO are significant, but given timing and confluence, we should just post together. ghost 13:34, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment – Meh. Sca (talk) 13:40, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait Man, people are just itchy to get this posted; so far every nomination has been an incremental step along the way towards the name change. If anything, these repeated nominations are just going to annoy people into voting against it when the time does come. Our current article even says "it is scheduled to be renamed to North Macedonia." Let's wait until the new letterhead is printed up and it's all done before we post this? --Jayron32 14:42, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • COMMENTS - North Macedonia did not enter NATO, the process has not even began yet. Also, Should this wait until the page has been moved to North Macedonia and all relevant changes done? --Michail (blah) 00:31, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Reposted discussion since official reports indicate the name change has officially occurred, so there may be no need to wait anymore (in regards to the original blurb, the Alt Blurb about NATO won't happen for another year...) Nice4What (talk) 03:43, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support now From the move discussion, this official document appears to confirm the name change as official as 12 Feb. --Masem (t) 04:13, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Procedural oppose – We cannot post until the page is moved. Otherwise, we would be sabotaging the move discussion. We would need an admin to speedy close the discussion before hand. ITN cannot blurb a name change until the name of the subject article is also renamed. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 04:58, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
    Comment The current state of the relevant RFC to move the page seems to have very overwhelming support, (near unanimous !votes for moving it, and all !votes since the official adoption were fully unanimous in their support) so I think it would be appropriate for an administrator to close it per SNOW. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ 05:07, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment & Support MSGJ has renamed the country's article to North Macedonia (which probably says a lot about his/her political biases, seeing how it took half a year after the official renaming for the WP:Commonname to be satisfied in the case of Swaziland/eSwatini), so I think we're ready to go and post this. Finally. Openlydialectic (talk) 09:04, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. – Illegitimate Barrister (talkcontribs), 09:39, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. This is in the news now as an official complete event. The article has been moved. The time for posting is now. The posting admin can figure out the exactities of the blurb. LukeSurl t c 10:08, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support I stroke alt 1 as premature and suggested a new blurb. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 10:32, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • plus Posted --Tone 10:46, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
    @Tone: I didn't want to rush to ERRORS before asking - why is "Prespa Agreement" capitalized? The article is named "Prespa agreement". --DannyS712 (talk) 10:51, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
    I've seen both in RS. Given the brevity required of the MP, "A" seems more natural. ghost 12:11, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Pedro Morales[edit]

Stale. Stephen 01:48, 18 February 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: Pedro Morales (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): ESPN, CBS Sports
Nominator: LM2000 (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

 LM2000 (talk) 02:03, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose– I generally trust the sections cited to an offline source as generously contributed by an IP in 2012 (diff). Those sections have remained largely untouched. However, since then 3 additionals sections have been added: Early life, Legacy and Personal life. These new sections are generally constructive and sourced to online sources. However, a spot check of several of these sections reveals that our article drifts away from what the sources say. For example, in the Early life section, a sentence reads: "In New York he also became a professional wrestling fan, witnessing Miguel Pérez, Sr.'s run as one half of the only undefeated NWA Capitol (WWWF's predecessor) World Tag Team Champions along Antonino Rocca." However, the source only says "he became a wrestling fan following the tag team of Antonino Rocca & Miguel Perez." I will change my !vote to support once we go over these three sections for verification and cite any other stray uncited claims. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 03:40, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
The results of his matches in the article, which are what is being sourced with the offline reference, are congruent with our online sources as far as I can tell. Being a wrestler from the pre-internet era, that is as good as we can get since WWE only lists a select few. And, in any case, what makes him notable is easily sourced. Old School WWC Fan (talk) 07:19, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Also, in regards to Rocca/Pérez, that bit of trivia is not false. Their titles were replaced and they did not lose them. It's superfluous to Morales, but not something that would make the content unreliable. Old School WWC Fan (talk) 07:23, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
I have finished verifying the Early life section. But there are more issues possibly in the Legacy section and definitely in the Personal life section. It says "Morales married his wife Karen in 1966." The source gives no date. Our articles says his son was born in 1974. But we can not be sure from the same source whether he was born in 1973 or 74. These are uncited claims and original synthesis not contained in the sources. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 07:46, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose looks like there needs to be serious evaluation of the article versus verifiable reliable sources. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:28, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

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

February 12[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

Sports

(Closed) RD: Lyndon LaRouche[edit]

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: Lyndon LaRouche (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): NY Times
Nominator: Ad Orientem (talk • give credit)

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Subject was a famous fringe political personality and perennial American (Democrat) presidential candidate. Article needs a short section on his personal life and death but is otherwise both lengthy and decently referenced. Ad Orientem (talk) 21:31, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Posted) El Chapo[edit]

Articles: United States of America v. Joaquín Guzmán Loera (talk, history) and Joaquín "El Chapo" Guzmán (talk, history)
Blurb: Mexican drug lord Joaquín "El Chapo" Guzmán is found guilty of all criminal counts and scheduled for life imprisonment.
Alternative blurb: ​Mexican drug lord Joaquín "El Chapo" Guzmán is found guilty of all ten criminal counts, including one mandating life imprisonment.
Alternative blurb II: ​Former Sinaloa Cartel leader Joaquín "El Chapo" Guzmán is found guilty of all criminal counts in the United States, including running a Continuing Criminal Enterprise, which carries a mandatory life sentence.
Alternative blurb III: ​Mexican drug lord Joaquín "El Chapo" Guzmán is found guilty of 10 criminal charges, one mandating life imprisonment.
News source(s): CNN, BBC, AP, Guardian, Reuters
Nominator: MX (talk • give credit)

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Biggest drug lord ever convicted. Found guilty today of all counts and is scheduled for life imprisonment. Article is updated with what we have so far in the news. MX () 17:46, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

MX, what do you mean "scheduled" for life imprisonment? Is there any other potential sentencing outcome? Don't we usually post sentencing rather than convictions? The article's lead is insufficient in describing the article. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:57, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment This is clearly an ITN-appropriate story, but I will point out that no sentence has been handed down yet. --Masem (t) 17:57, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
His first count, Continuing Criminal Enterprise, already holds a mandatory life imprisonment without parole. He was found guilty of all charges. Sentence is scheduled for June but IMO this is more newsworthy since we already know how June will play out. MX () 17:58, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Fair enough on that point. Added an altblurb so we know that minimum he will get is life (barring a plea bargain) --Masem (t) 18:05, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support It's in the news now, and the article is of sufficient quality with an update. If it's a mandatory minimum life sentence, I think we know enough to not wait for sentencing. The conviction is the bigger deal. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:30, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support alt2. I tweaked the phrasing for clarity. --Jayron32 19:26, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support As noted above, "it's in the news now", and June will be a non-story (a confirmation and little more). Can I suggest a blurb (which ever is eventually gone with) that is phrased "all criminal charges" not "all ten", as the latter suggests the reader is already cognisant of those charges. And it might avoid an appearance at WP:ERRORS. Or even WP:ERRORS2 :) ——SerialNumber54129 19:34, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
    • I think the reason to say "all ten" because it tells the reader a rough idea of the scope of the trial. "All charges" could mean as few as ~3, as many as.. well, there's no reasonable limit if they included manslaught-type charges. -Masem (t) 23:42, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - Historic. Significant.BabbaQ (talk) 21:53, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per others. Appropriate. Spengouli (talk) 21:54, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Alt3 (Succinct.) – Yup, off to the slammer. (Three more sources.) Sca (talk) 22:39, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support its ITN now, sources and quality good, marked as ready --DannyS712 (talk) 02:02, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 02:59, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support – good news.    — The Transhumanist   00:17, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
    Not for El Chapo — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 05:32, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Gordon Banks[edit]

Article: Gordon Banks (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC
Nominator: Dumelow (talk • give credit)

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: England's 1966 world cup goal keeper. This is a good article, update needed - Dumelow (talk) 09:56, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Support could use more on the circumstances of his death and the reactions to it, but article is in very good nick. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:26, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support: Well-referenced article, currently a GA. Death section can be expanded as more details are known. MX () 15:00, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  • plus Posted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:24, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
I don’t think this was ready, I see five “citation needed” tags. -- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:39, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Very surprised those "slipped through the net", as it were. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:46, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
@Martinevans123: Can't be Pele's edits then huh :) ——SerialNumber54129 19:29, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
But great to see Bruce Rambolaar, diving across to the article's far post there, to save the day. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:53, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

References[edit]

Nominators often include links to external websites and other references in discussions on this page. It is usually best to provide such links using the inline URL syntax [http://example.com] rather than using <ref></ref> tags, because that keeps all the relevant information in the same place as the nomination without having to jump to this section, and facilitates the archiving process.

For the times when <ref></ref> tags are being used, here are their contents: