Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates: Difference between revisions
→Super Bowl LIV: ready |
|||
Line 82: | Line 82: | ||
*'''Support''' There's a couple CNs floating around in the broadcast sections - more on international versions - which should be fixed but far from serious problems as these tend to be minor elements (as they are not major regions of issue) and could be removed until sourcing can be found. --[[User:Masem|M<span style="font-variant: small-caps">asem</span>]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 16:17, 3 February 2020 (UTC) |
*'''Support''' There's a couple CNs floating around in the broadcast sections - more on international versions - which should be fixed but far from serious problems as these tend to be minor elements (as they are not major regions of issue) and could be removed until sourcing can be found. --[[User:Masem|M<span style="font-variant: small-caps">asem</span>]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 16:17, 3 February 2020 (UTC) |
||
*Pinging opposers, {{ping|Black Kite|The Rambling Man|SounderBruce|Bagumba|WaltCip}}. All {{tl|cn}} tags have been addressed. Marking '''ready''', unless someone else finds a problem I'm missing. – [[User:Muboshgu|Muboshgu]] ([[User talk:Muboshgu#top|talk]]) 16:53, 3 February 2020 (UTC) |
*Pinging opposers, {{ping|Black Kite|The Rambling Man|SounderBruce|Bagumba|WaltCip}}. All {{tl|cn}} tags have been addressed. Marking '''ready''', unless someone else finds a problem I'm missing. – [[User:Muboshgu|Muboshgu]] ([[User talk:Muboshgu#top|talk]]) 16:53, 3 February 2020 (UTC) |
||
*'''Support''' now improvements have been made.-- [[User:Pawnkingthree|P-K3]] ([[User talk:Pawnkingthree|talk]]) 17:02, 3 February 2020 (UTC) |
|||
==== Ivan Král ==== |
==== Ivan Král ==== |
Revision as of 17:02, 3 February 2020
Welcome to In the news. Please read the guidelines. Admin instructions are here. |
In the news toolbox |
---|
This page provides a place to discuss new items for inclusion on In the news (ITN), a protected template on the Main Page (see past items in the ITN archives). Do not report errors in ITN items that are already on the Main Page here— discuss those at the relevant section of WP:ERRORS.
This candidates page is integrated with the daily pages of Portal:Current events. A light green header appears under each daily section – it includes transcluded Portal:Current events items for that day. You can discuss ITN candidates under the header.
view — page history — related changes — edit |
Glossary
All articles linked in the ITN template must pass our standards of review. They should be up-to-date, demonstrate relevance via good sourcing and have at least an acceptable quality. Nomination steps
The better your article's quality, the better it covers the event and the wider its perceived significance (see WP:ITNSIGNIF for details), the better your chances of getting the blurb posted.
Headers
Voicing an opinion on an itemFormat 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. Please do...
Please do not...
Suggesting updatesThere are two places where you can request corrections to posted items:
|
Archives
February 3
February 3, 2020
(Monday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Health and environment
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
|
February 2
February 2, 2020
(Sunday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Arts and culture
Health and environment
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Sports
|
RD: Bernard Ebbers
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): CNN
Credits:
- Nominated by Masem (talk · give credit)
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: Former CEO of WorldCom that went to prison on fraud charges . Article seems okay on sourcing? Writing could be out of proseline but not a requirement for ITN. Masem (t) 16:12, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
(Ready) Super Bowl LIV
Blurb: In American football, the Kansas City Chiefs defeat the San Francisco 49ers to win the Super Bowl (MVP Patrick Mahomes pictured). (Post)
Credits:
- Nominated by Muboshgu (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Chainclaw (talk · give credit) and JMyrleFuller (talk · give credit)
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) 03:06, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
- Support - well sourced, lots of prose, looks good to me. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 03:12, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
- Wait until a prose summary has been added to the article. SounderBruce 03:15, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
- SounderBruce, it's been added. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:13, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose as there are still many paragraphs without citations and the prose itself is very dull. The team preview sections include far too many statistics and not enough of the narrative. Other sections, like Advertising and Entertainment, are short despite being important parts of the event. SounderBruce 08:08, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
- Support as as ITNR -- Rockstonetalk to me! 03:38, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
- Rockstone35 Events on the ITNR list do not need support on the merits/"support as ITNR"; this discussion is for evaluating the quality of the article. 331dot (talk) 12:13, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose Most of the details in "Game summary" is unsourced. The details seem quite low level, so either source the current prose or reword based on high-level action described in published recaps.—Bagumba (talk) 05:57, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
- Support It is well-referenced and significant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.137.171.220 (talk) 07:22, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose many claims completely unreferenced, not just in the game summary section either. A lot of work to do. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:54, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose Although we should never let perfect be the enemy of good, since this event is ITN/R it is important that something so large have the proper sourcing - GA-level sourcing, even - before we post it on the main page for the world to see. Significance is not in dispute as this is ITN/R. Support arguments to this effect are therefore redundant. WaltCip (talk) 12:07, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
- Comment WaltCip I think you must oppose it to include in ITN/R because this nomination only happens in single country, not multiple countries, like Wuhan coronavirus.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.137.171.220 (talk)
- Please do not carry disagreements from one discussion to another. 331dot (talk) 12:41, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
- That is not why I am opposing. Please read my rationale again, closely.--WaltCip (talk) 13:12, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
- All posts must have proper sourcing. The sourcing requirements are not impacted (either way) by ITN/R status or the size of the article. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:56, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, but when something has received as much publicity and analysis as the Super Bowl has, it really should not be that hard to find solid, reliable sources for every significant statement in the article.--WaltCip (talk) 13:58, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
- Trans: ... has received as much sportified hype. – Sca (talk) 15:05, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, but when something has received as much publicity and analysis as the Super Bowl has, it really should not be that hard to find solid, reliable sources for every significant statement in the article.--WaltCip (talk) 13:58, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
Not ready. Unfortunately I have to agree with the opposes - there is a lot of unreferenced material there.I've added a bunch of {{cn}}s; the game summary could also do with at least minimal sourcing. The statistics should be easy to source for those in the know (I'm not one). Modest Genius talk 12:46, 3 February 2020 (UTC)- Support. The reference improvements are good enough for me. Modest Genius talk 16:18, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose until the many citation issues have been fixed; I'm sure this won't take long for someone who knows the subject (i.e. not me). Black Kite (talk) 12:49, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose I could understand the urge to post this if we were just waiting on recap and proper sourcing for that, but many of the sections on the lead-up to the game are lacking sources. That's a no-go. --Masem (t) 14:43, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
- Comment – I seem to remember seeing a much worse Brexit article being posted in worse condition. The Brexit article only recently added a section in the body for the 31 January event and the section only has a single sentence about the actual major ITN-worthy event. This is what happens when we set our standards depending on our personal perception of importance. We look like hypocrites. Let's see what happens when North America wakes up. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 14:59, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
- An blurb-worthy update could easily just be a sentence or two. The recent bump-back-to-blurb of the coronavirus due to the UN's declaration only needed one sentence and the sourcing to reflect that, because the rest of the article already existed and was in good shape. Same with Brexit. For sports events - not singling out the Super Bowl here - describing the event after it happens needs more than one sentence. The sporting event is the meat of the story, whereas in the other cases, it is just additional events atop the main existing one. And we know completing a recap is not impossible to do within 24hr or less when dedicated editors are on it (tip of hat to TRM and Boat Race here). No one is being a hypocrite here. --Masem (t) 15:06, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
- Comment There are no unreferenced blocks of text anymore -- needs a re-check. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:57, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
- Not sure if it's fully ready, but I've improved the sourcing of the game summary section. Lepricavark (talk) 16:11, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
- Support There's a couple CNs floating around in the broadcast sections - more on international versions - which should be fixed but far from serious problems as these tend to be minor elements (as they are not major regions of issue) and could be removed until sourcing can be found. --Masem (t) 16:17, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
- Pinging opposers, @Black Kite, The Rambling Man, SounderBruce, Bagumba, and WaltCip:. All {{cn}} tags have been addressed. Marking ready, unless someone else finds a problem I'm missing. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:53, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
- Support now improvements have been made.-- P-K3 (talk) 17:02, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
Ivan Král
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Robert Muller (February 2, 2020). Leslie Adler (ed.). "Ivan Kral, author of Dancing Barefoot song, dies, aged 71". Reuters.
Credits:
- Nominated by 7&6=thirteen (talk · give credit)
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 (☎) 02:47, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
- Comment Article is orange-tagged, and missing some refs. Kingsif (talk) 02:59, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose many claims in the article unreferenced, and the filmography needs serious work. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:55, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
73rd BAFTA Film Awards
Blurb: At the 73rd British Academy Film Awards, 1917 (director Sam Mendes pictured) wins Best Film, along with six other awards. (Post)
Alternative blurb: At the 73rd British Academy Film Awards, 1917 wins Best Film, along with six other awards, including Best Director for Sam Mendes (pictured).
News source(s): BBC
Credits:
- Nominated by Kingsif (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Rucxa (talk · give credit), Cinemacriterion (talk · give credit) and Cytkory (talk · give credit)
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.
Nominator's comments: Could mention that Mendes won Best Director because using his image (alt), though ITN/R mentions film Kingsif (talk) 22:58, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
- Support I've added a short section of text about the ceremony, similar to the previous awards, to make it more than just a table. PotentPotables (talk) 00:10, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
- Weak oppose it's still barely stub in terms of prose. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:57, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
- Strongly oppose for original blurb because it will include problems in grammar (who, when, why), but I recommend to Support Altblurb. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.137.171.220 (talk) 12:51, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
- Not ready. The article is just a big results table; there's a grand total of 170 words of prose. Needs substantial expansion. Also, 'Baftas' is surely better known than 'British Academy Film Awards'. Modest Genius talk 12:54, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
- "BAFTA" is the initialism for the organization, and while it is common to call these awards BAFTAs in casual speak, it is not precise. "BAFTA Film Awards" would be the only other acceptable alternative (as there are also other BAFTA awards out there now). --Masem (t) 14:42, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Salahuddin Wahid
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
Credits:
- Nominated by Juxlos (talk · give credit)
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: Indonesian politician, religious figure, and VP Candidate back in 2004 Juxlos (talk) 21:49, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
- Comment Can you add references to this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.137.171.220 (talk) 22:03, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
- The article is well-referenced, including the updates about his death. HaEr48 (talk) 22:12, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
- Support Well-referenced throughout. PotentPotables (talk) 22:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
- Support satis. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:58, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
- Posted to RD — Amakuru (talk) 10:23, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Mike Moore
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): RNZ
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by Nixinova (talk · give credit)
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: Former Prime Minister of New Zealand. Nixinova T C 21:48, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Opposeneeds refs, and the self-published website appears to no longer exist in any case. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 23:28, 1 February 2020 (UTC)- Fixed. Nixinova T C 04:15, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
- Good work, I'm happy to support this now. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:59, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
- Fixed. Nixinova T C 04:15, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
- Support Moore was also director of the World Trade Organization an internationally prominent role. Kiwichris (talk) 06:07, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
- Support article now much tidier and better referenced. MurielMary (talk) 06:55, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
- Support - Seems ready.BabbaQ (talk) 16:55, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
- Comment. Some sections seem to need more sourcing. In particular, unless I'm misunderstanding, the entire World Trade section was supported by something that did not seem to me to be cogent. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:07, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
- Fixed, the link was to the wrong version of the archived page. Nixinova T C 02:04, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
- Posted to RD — Amakuru (talk) 10:21, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
RD: Mad Mike Hoare
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Telegraph
Credits:
- Nominated by Joseywales1961 (talk · give credit)
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: British World War 2 officer and famous mercenary, inspiration for the film The Wild Geese, references updated Joseywales1961 (talk) 20:02, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
- Comment. Whole sections unsourced. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:11, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
- Many more references added since your post, how does it look to you now? Joseywales1961 (talk) 23:50, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
- Support was just about to nominate this myself. Well referenced. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:38, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose still a few unreferenced claims in there, tagged. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 10:04, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose much seems to be referenced to reviews of, or lectures based on, a book published by his son; some of this is also attributed to organisations who cannot have reviewed the content; the book may or may not be a reliable source (I imagine not), but indirect reports on the book don't seem reliable to me. PaulBetteridge (talk) 11:30, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
February 1
February 1, 2020
(Saturday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents
Health and environment
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
|
(Posted) RD: Peter Serkin
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NY Times
Credits:
- Nominated by Zingarese (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Gerda Arendt (talk · give credit)
Article needs updating
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: Grammy Award winner and great artist. Marginal work on refs is needed. Zingarese talk · contribs 04:02, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
Oppose Half unreferenced.Nixinova T C 04:18, 2 February 2020 (UTC)- ...which is why I mentioned that some marginal work on refs is needed? Zingarese talk · contribs 13:31, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
- Yes? I said that because that's my reasoning for opposing? Would you prefer "per nom"? Nixinova T C 18:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
- Have you looked again? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:40, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
- Support. Thank you for nominating, - wanted to that now. More refs were added, please check again. - Yes, Bach Mozart Beethoven and other bits are not specifically referenced, but as far as I can see no unusual claim is left without a source. More detail would be possible from the obits. Anybody? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:04, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
- Support: Much improved since I last looked at it. Nixinova T C 05:19, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
- Support good to go. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 10:07, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
- Posted to RD — Amakuru (talk) 10:25, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
January 31
January 31, 2020
(Friday)
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
Health and environment
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
|
(Posted) RD: Anne Cox Chambers
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): CNN
Credits:
- Nominated by MurielMary (talk · give credit)
Article needs updating
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.
MurielMary (talk) 11:39, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- Needs a prose update on her death — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:21, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- Support Looks good now Joseywales1961 (talk) 12:55, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- Support good to go. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 13:11, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- Support good to go indeed.BabbaQ (talk) 17:09, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- Posted. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:14, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
RD: Mary Higgins Clark
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Variety
Credits:
- Nominated by Masem (talk · give credit)
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: Author of numerous suspense novels. A few CNs lingering in the body, but the ologies need a lot of work. Masem (t) 03:40, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose per nom. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 12:49, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Oppose a considerable amount of the references are referring to her own work Joseywales1961 (talk) 12:52, 1 February 2020 (UTC)reviewed as per note below Joseywales1961 (talk) 15:23, 1 February 2020 (UTC)- As a note, that appears to be her autobiography, which is perfectly acceptable once the basis of notability was established by independent, third-party secondary sourcing (which is clearly there). As long as it is only supporting basic biographical details or her own specific thoughts, and not contestable statements. --Masem (t) 14:48, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- Support, in the news and mentioned quite a bit. --Rockstonetalk to me! 01:47, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose I was willing to overlook the one remaining CN, but it's also an NPOV concern if unsourced:
critics have complained that the books are of lesser quality
—Bagumba (talk) 06:30, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Janez Stanovnik
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by Tone (talk · give credit)
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: Prominent Slovenian politician, President of the Socialist Republic of Slovenia. The references have been updated. Tone 18:46, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support Prominent politician, article seems to be well referenced (in Slovenian I presume so I'll let someone else read those) 46.7.236.180 (talk) 22:09, 31 January 2020 (UTC) oops not logged on Joseywales1961 (talk) 22:10, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support Looks good to me. – Ammarpad (talk) 04:17, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- Posted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:14, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Homero Gómez González
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Time
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by TJMSmith (talk · give credit)
- Created by Enwebb (talk · give credit)
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: Mexican environmental activist TJMSmith (talk) 16:56, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- @The Rambling Man: I've expanded the article since nominating it. TJMSmith (talk) 19:26, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support - No longer a stub since TJMSmith's great improvements, contains details about death which has been reliably sourced. Achaea (talk) 18:46, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- Posted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:57, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Léon Mokuna
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by Brigade Piron (talk · give credit)
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: Belgian-Congolese footballer, and one of the first Africans to play in Europe. —Brigade Piron (talk) 13:25, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 16:57, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- Looks good. Just noting that our article says he was 91 when he died, but the BBC says he was 90 — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:51, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support Article looks good, @MSGJ I would go with our articles date as it is the same as the players page on Le ballon rond Joseywales1961 (talk) 22:17, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- Fair enough, Posted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:52, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
(Removed) Ongoing removal: 2019–20 Lebanese protests
Nominator's comments: Last update on the 27th, last major milestone was the new government on the 21st. There are some one-sentence updates in between but not a single one mentions the size of the protests. LaserLegs (talk) 11:30, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- Remove Per nom. No continuing information about the protests being added to the article; if the notable piece is the formation of a new government, a new ITN item should be posted as such with the correct article as the subject. SpencerT•C 13:00, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep for now. The last milestone was the passing of the 2020 budget on 27 January while protesters tried to prevent the parliamentary session. Twelve people (including 4 seriously) were injured in the protests outside the government building. Wait a couple of days. The Grammy awards were on 26 January. Until the Grammys roles off this is still current. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 14:23, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- Grammy awards just rolled off with Brexit going up. SpencerT•C 02:07, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- Weak Support for Removal Yes, its still going, yes it has reasonable updates, but this is a type of "white noise" protest - its going to go on indefinitely, and it is not necessarily terribly violent as compared to the Hong-Kong ones. We have a LOT of ongoing right now, and of the present ones, this is least headline-y so in considering prioritization and keeping the ITN box reasonably sized, this could go. --Masem (t) 14:34, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- Remove The nature of protest has evolved in the past few years, such that large scale protests are becoming common place. We have two on ongoing now, and have had several others in the recent past. We need to start rethinking how we handle protests in the way we have US-school shootings and LGBT rights decisions - understanding that the world is different now. GreatCaesarsGhost 14:56, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment. We are going to have to consider having a fixed maximum number of ongoing items, as we do for RDs. This seems to be the least current of the set. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:44, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support removal - according to [1], the demonstrations are losing steam. Banedon (talk) 03:45, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- Ready consensus seems clear on this one, time to pop it off --LaserLegs (talk) 11:46, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- Removed — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:10, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
(Closed) New IBM CEO Appointed
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.
Blurb: Arvind Krishna is appointed as CEO of IBM replacing Ginni Rometty. (Post)
News source(s): [2] [3]
Both articles updated
- Oppose Changes in CEOs to my knowledge are almost never placed on the ITN section. For example the replacements of McDonalds CEO Steve Easterbrook, Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer, and Alphabet, Inc. CEO Larry Page were not placed there, and all three companies are larger than IBM nowadays. This is because they happen way too frequently to be of note. Mount Patagonia (talk) 06:45, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose Not significant enough for ITN. Nixinova T C 07:14, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose Barring extraordinary circumstances, we don't post this type of business news. --Masem (t) 07:18, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose trivial; barely worthy of a line's update in each respective article, so not worthy of main page inclusion. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 07:56, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose Neither figure was a founder of the company, company is not a sector leader, impact of the change seems to be purely bureaucratic. I'll add that the way this is being treated in business commentary is awful, and I'd like to not invite that sort of thing here.130.233.2.197 (talk) 09:58, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment re-opened. If we can post the machinations of the eastern orthodox church we can give IBM a fair shake. The Rometty article isn't bad, the Krishna article is too short at present. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:25, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose due to lack of impact and for consistency with other CEO nominations in recent years. We did not post changes of CEO in much bigger companies and I don't see any reason to make an exception for IBM. Also, Krishna's article is extremely short and uninformative. Modest Genius talk 12:42, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
(Posted) Ongoing: 2019–20 Australian bushfire season
Ongoing item nomination (Post)
News source(s): ABC, AP
Credits:
- Nominated by Bumbubookworm (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Peter Campbell (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Nominator's comments: State of emergency declared in Australian Capital Territory. The Chief Minister is telling people in the southern suburbs of the capital Canberra to be prepared for fire arriving (About 10km away). Plenty of updates in the last few days Bumbubookworm (talk) 03:19, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support I still don't think this should have been removed in the first place. Only question is whether to add this as a blurb or put it directly into Ongoing. I'm weakly in support of a blurb since it's a milestone event, but that's it. Banedon (talk) 03:33, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support Still continuously updated. Nixinova T C 05:39, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support Should never have been removed. For anyone with doubts, have a look at the Emergency notifications page for my state right now - http://emergency.vic.gov.au/respond/ HiLo48 (talk) 07:53, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- I see one emergency, in Cape Conran, a place the article doesn't mention. Still optimistically doubtful. For Victoria, anyway. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:57, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support complete no-brainer. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:45, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- Posted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:18, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose what? The only recent development in this mess of an article is one sentence about an emergency declaration in the ACT on Jan 31. Everything else is a week old. Did I miss something here? --LaserLegs (talk) 10:53, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- Post-posting support. Clearly still ongoing, and the ACT update is sufficient update on its own. Apparently more unfavourable weather conditions may lead to a bigger resurgence in the next few days. — Amakuru (talk) 11:00, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment – AP report says fires "threaten Canberra’s southern suburbs." – Sca (talk) 13:13, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- But next day threat subsides. – Sca (talk) 13:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
(Posted) Brexit
Blurb: The United Kingdom formally withdraws from the European Union. (Post)
Alternative blurb: The United Kingdom withdraws from the European Union and begins an eleven-month transition period.
Alternative blurb II: The United Kingdom leaves the European Union
Alternative blurb III: The United Kingdom leaves the European Union.
News source(s): (BBC), (Vox), AP, Guardian, Reuters
Credits:
- Nominated by Mount Patagonia (talk · give credit)
Nominator's comments: Well, after almost four years the day has finally come. For those not in the know, one of the most powerful nations is leaving one of the largest and most powerful supranational organizations on Earth, and it is the first time the procedure for leaving has been carried out in full. It has cause a lot of political and economic turmoil at home and abroad in the past, and will assuredly continue to do so in the near future. The article itself has been put in the ITN section in the past, is generally in good shape, and is being continuously updated. The reason I'm nomming it now is, barring a really freaky event, it is certain to happen at this point. Mount Patagonia (talk) 00:15, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Oppose Old news.Just kidding! But there are better targets - Brexit withdrawal agreement, e.g. There's already been some discussion on the talk page. Also, I'd prefer we wait until 23:00 to post. GreatCaesarsGhost 00:28, 31 January 2020 (UTC)- Yeah I didn't know there was a discussion on the article to link (this is my first time nominating for ITN). If there is a clear preference for a different article, we can swap them out (if it works that way). I also wasn't expecting for this to be posted immediately, just to have enough consensus to post when it actually does happen. Sorry for any inconvenience. Mount Patagonia (talk) 00:37, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose Only affects one nation </sarcasm> Clearly this was going to be posted once official and this day is it. --Masem (t) 00:39, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment I Oppose because it only related to single country, not like Wuhan coronavirus outbreak, which has related to multiple countries, but I Support it for significance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.76.226.238 (talk) 00:48, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- Thats not how this works, see #Please do not..., and anyway this does not only relate to one country as it affects the whole EU. Nixinova T C 00:56, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support, obviously major news. This should be posted at 11pm when it actually takes place. Nixinova T C 00:56, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- Non-constructive sarcasm Only affects one nation (European Union) JK Anyway, I support adding this at some point soon. Geographyinitiative (talk) 00:52, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- Suppport per nom. Jusdafax (talk) 00:55, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment Drop the word "formally" from the blurb. Should just read as "The United Kingdom withdraws from the European Union." Proposing alt blurb that mentions transition period. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 00:57, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support once it actually happens. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:41, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- Added Alt2. The withdrawal agreement is the best target, but I would Oppose at this moment, as it have a number of unreferenced sections, and a number of maintenance tags that needs to be cleared up first. ― Hebsen (talk) 02:12, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- Similarly, would "The United Kingdom leaves the European Union as the withdrawal agreement, including an 11-month transition period, comes into effect." be okay? Trying to indicate that the agreement is the active instrument in this withdrawal. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 02:30, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- Pro forma Support per above. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:52, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment I get the feeling that people will be wondering why we don't have it up if we don't have it up by the time it happens. I'd be more than happy to tackle any quality concerns opposers might have. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 02:34, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note Some comments got deleted, I assume accidentally, here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:28, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- support: Blurb not to be posted before 23:00 UTC. Mjroots (talk) 04:56, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support Alt-blurb II with the substituted as per proposed above. Any quality concerns should be dealt with as they're brought up, but posting this is a given Sleath56 (talk) 05:39, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support per others above, but use the original blurb (or alt3) as it was the UK's triggering of Article 50 that means that the UK is leaving, not the ratification of the withdrawal agreement (otherwise why is there an article about no deal Brexit?). Iffy★Chat -- 10:01, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support in general. I've added a blurb ALT3, which just gives a concise summary of the basic story, without unnecessary guff about "formal withdrawals" etc so I'd favour that. Also oppose bolding of Brexit withdrawal agreement because it's not ready quality-wise. — Amakuru (talk) 11:05, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support any sensible wording, and any sensible target article, and we shouldn't get too hung up on the quality issues, though it is important to have the article be a reasonable standard. Agree this should not be posted before 23:00 GMT on Friday 31/01/2020, and it should possibly be delayed until a suitable time after that to allow for the updating of all the related articles on Brexit and those articles that say the UK is part of the European Union. Certainly the target article will need to be up-to-date otherwise we will look silly. Carcharoth (talk) 11:09, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support either alt1 or alt3, posting at 23:00 tonight. There's no need to mention the withdrawal agreement, though I can see a case for the transition period. The Brexit article is huge and I'm not a fan of starting with a timeline, but it covers everything and has links to all the other relevant articles. Modest Genius talk 12:38, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose – Brexit is an absolutely horrible article. I strongly oppose posting that trash on the Main Page. Use European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 12:52, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support (on 23:00) finally - major event. Article isn't the best ever but it's not exactly the worst ever, with around 7 hours left to improve it. People will open the Brexit article with or without ITN anyway. Juxlos (talk) 13:30, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support No-brainer on significance; I can see an argument for favouring the wirhdrawal agreement article over the main Brexit one.-- P-K3 (talk) 13:33, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support, prefer "leaves" rather than "withdraws" as the more commonly used term. 49 TL 14:31, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support only after it happens, which at this point is in approximately six hours. NorthernFalcon (talk) 16:46, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment - can anyone think of a suitable picture? Would using File:UK location in the EU 2016.svg be OK? Carcharoth (talk) 17:13, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- That looks ideal to me. It even works at ITN scale, which is unusual for a map. Modest Genius talk 18:26, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- How about this as an illustration? Anchors away! – Sca (talk) 18:49, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- If I recall correctly, maps aren't allowed to be used for ITN. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 19:17, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- There's no rule. ITN has generally avoided maps because they tend to be unreadable at 150px width. This one works fine at that scale. Modest Genius talk 20:17, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- If I recall correctly, maps aren't allowed to be used for ITN. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 19:17, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- How about this as an illustration? Anchors away! – Sca (talk) 18:49, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- I've added that one to CMP in readiness — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:29, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- That looks ideal to me. It even works at ITN scale, which is unusual for a map. Modest Genius talk 18:26, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support in principle and put it as simple as "UK leaves the EU". There is simply no need to mention any further details such as the withdrawal agreement or the transition period.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:56, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support – After 3+ years of ballyhooed folderol it would be strange indeed if we ignored it. Alt1 seems reasonable (@ 23:00), although "leaves" might be better than "withdraws." – Sca (talk) 18:08, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support per nom. --Minecrafter0271 (talk) 19:22, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment - Gibraltar is leaving too. Should be mentioned in the blurb - "the United Kingdom and Gibraltar..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjroots (talk • contribs) 19:41, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- Since Gibraltar is part of the UK, that would be redundant. Kingsif (talk) 19:44, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- Not so, Gibraltar is in the EU, unlike, the Isle of Man and Channel Islands, for example. Gib took part in the referendum, IoM and CI didn't. Mjroots (talk) 20:05, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- What? Are you saying that nobody living on the islands was allowed to vote in the referendum!? You're also implying that Gibraltar was allowed to vote separately if they stay or go - the Gibraltar vote was almost 100% remain, but it was counted as part of a southern English region that was otherwise largely leave. It's part of the UK. Or are we saying "Great Britain, Northern Ireland, Gibraltar, and the rest of the British Isles and territories constituting the UK leave the EU"!? Sure, Gibraltar is probably the most relevant, given it entirely borders different EU countries, but that doesn't mean it's not constitutionally part of the UK, or it wouldn't be leaving. Kingsif (talk) 20:20, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- Gibraltar isn't part of the UK, constitutionally or otherwise; it's a British Overseas Territory under UK rule. 49 TL 21:57, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- While Gibratar is not part of the UK directly or in the conventional sense it is still under the jurisdiction and sovereignty of the UK so it is not worth mentioning it in the blurb. Spy-cicle💥 Talk? 22:46, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support obvious - I find the withdrawal bill and the concept to both be necessary target articles, and would prefer that blurb. And to post at 11 GMT, which I think is also uncontroversial. Kingsif (talk) 19:44, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment Could we not just post it as an RD for "The UK's common sense" or something? Black Kite (talk) 19:55, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- That died years ago, if we ever had it. Modest Genius talk 20:18, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- Administrator note There is not unanimous support for any of the blurbs, but perhaps alt IV has broad consensus. Suggest posting at about 23:05 to give time for relevant articles to be updated. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:34, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- No-one has expressed support for European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 as the bold link (except presumably whoever added alt4). The options under discussion were Brexit and/or Brexit withdrawal agreement. Modest Genius talk 22:02, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- I can see some opposition to both of these articles expressed above — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:05, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- No-one has expressed support for European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 as the bold link (except presumably whoever added alt4). The options under discussion were Brexit and/or Brexit withdrawal agreement. Modest Genius talk 22:02, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support Alt III. Of course. MSN12102001 (talk) 22:13, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support Alt I and II per above. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 22:15, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- Prefer anything except alt IV. It would be perverse not to link Brexit at all, even if it's not the bolded link. —Cryptic 22:19, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- Agreed. Modest Genius talk 22:22, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- Certainly. Strong Oppose Alt 4. The withdrawal article shouldn't be bolded I don't think, and we must link Brexit. — Amakuru (talk) 22:34, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- Agreed. Modest Genius talk 22:22, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support as long as blub IV is not used (becuase we need to link Brexit) and is posted at or after 11pm GMT. Spy-cicle💥 Talk? 22:42, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- I have removed IV from the list, in the hope that we can reach agreement on one of the other three — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:55, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support Alt II: It's useful and relevant to link the withdrawal agreement. — MarkH21talk 23:00, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment official as of just around two minutes ago. Juxlos (talk) 23:02, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- Posted alt. Feel free to change. --Tone 23:06, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- Good choice, Tone. Let's leave it at that. — Amakuru (talk) 23:11, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- Agreed, that one will do fine — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:12, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- Tweaked slightly from "withdraws" to "leaves" as several editors expressed preference for this wording — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:14, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- Calm down dear, it's only the transition period There needs to be a more robust implication of guidelines currently out there. At the moment the article is full of maps showing the UK in the EU. I don't know if all of these are valid still. I still Support the blurb redirecting to Brexit, the withdrawal and the EU. By the way, my "Brexit Breakfast" will be Fajitas tomorrow. Something neutral.--2A00:23C4:3E0F:4400:ACB1:1A1B:1127:FF65 (talk) 23:42, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- Good blurb choice at this point if there is anything more to say it should be painted on a bus. Suggest closing this. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:23, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- Post-posting support per above. Davey2116 (talk) 03:02, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
(Closed) Impeachment trial of Donald Trump
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.
Blurb: The senate votes 51-49 not to call witnesses. (Post)
News source(s): [4]
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by Minecrafter0271 (talk · give credit)
- Created by Concord19 (talk · give credit)
Article updated
- Oppose This likely means that the vote to acquit will happen next week, which is the right point to post and conclude the story. --Masem (t) 23:32, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- I know, but it is still pretty notable. If it goes in In the News twice, it isn't the end of Wikipedia. It just means that two events took place and they will link to the same article! Minecrafter0271 (talk) 23:36, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose it's in onging already, and the acquittal is imminent we can blurb his victory lap next week. Imagine celebrating a trial with no witness testimony...--LaserLegs (talk) 00:21, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose Wait until next week. -- Rockstonetalk to me! 00:22, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
January 30
January 30, 2020
(Thursday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
Health and environment
Law and crime
|
(Posted) 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak
Blurb: The World Health Organization declares the outbreak of respiratory disease from a novel coronavirus to be a Public Health Emergency of International Concern. (Post)
News source(s): WHO, BBC
Credits:
- Nominated by Espresso Addict (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Tsukide (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Nominator's comments: I know we've just had an item on this, but we have generally run PHEIC declarations in the past. Article is being continuously updated. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:40, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support this had always been my threshold for ongoing. Suggest removing from OG, blurb this milestone and let it drop back into OG when it ages off. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:09, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose. We've already run the coronavirus story. Ongoing is there to precisely to deal with the issue of new and more severe updates being made. We rarely run the same story again because a new development has occurred,even where individual steps seem quite momentous. — Amakuru (talk) 22:29, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose This is a significant development but the article has already been blurbed and is currently at ongoing. I think that's enough for now. If this turns into a pandemic or something obviously more serious than where we are now, I may reconsider. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:53, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- Suppport per LaserLegs. Add this blurb and once it drops, readd 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak to ongoing. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 23:33, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- There's been only 6 "declarations" by WHO since 2009. I think this is the stuff of ITNR autoposting level. 205.175.106.117 (talk) 00:23, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support per LaserLegs, and in deference to Ebola PHEIC ITN on 17 July 2019 PotentPotables (talk) 00:38, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- Strongly support per LaserLegs and many other editors in reference to significance of world events. It is also be historic for health history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.76.226.238 (talk) 00:50, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- Suppport per LaserLegs. International significance and worldwide news coverage. Jusdafax (talk) 00:53, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose We did post The Last Time, and will probably post the WHO's Next PHEIC. I Can't Explain my exact thinking on this, but I just don't feel compelled to Substitute a blurb when we already have the ongoing. GreatCaesarsGhost 01:00, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- I would think blurbs are of higher importance than ongoing, so substituing ongoing with a blurb should be a good idea. Nixinova T C 05:43, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support - important milestone. Add back to ongoing when it rolls off. Nixinova T C 01:05, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support I know we just had a blurb on this, but this is clearly a significant milestone and it's also front page news. Blurb this, return it to ongoing after it falls off. NorthernFalcon (talk) 04:20, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support per above. Hrodvarsson (talk) 04:26, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- Strong support As others have said, it's a significant development, coronavirus continues to make international news, and a PHEIC is a rare event. Johndavies837 (talk) 04:48, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support provided it should obviously drop from Ongoing while the blurb is up. Sleath56 (talk) 05:44, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support - major development in the top news topic worldwide. -Zanhe (talk) 06:43, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support but suggest some numbers are added too, e.g. the spread across countries, and/or dead/infected. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:47, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- Please suggest blurb and I will update — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:22, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- One thing to bear in mind is that the declaration is explicitly NOT because of the increase in cases in China, it's because of the risk of spread to low/middle income countries, so any addition needs not to link the two. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:56, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- Please suggest blurb and I will update — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:22, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support. WHO declaration is a necessary and critical requirement for many legal and business decisions (business travel, emergency funding, research grants, etc.). An exceptionally rare step for the WHO, and one that was up until very recently contentious for China. This clearly deserves a blurb, whether the current Ongoing entry is pulled or not (I just note that re-posting to Ongoing should have an accompanying nomination).130.233.2.197 (talk) 09:51, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- Posted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:01, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment in this case the consensus seems clear to return to ongoing once the blurb ages off I don't think we need another nom for that when the time comes. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:55, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- But with death toll (today: 213) constantly rising, it's still the No. 1 international story. – Sca (talk) 14:31, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- Indeed, I think if the blurb stays here for too long, we should propose to go back to the statistics of infection/mortality rather than the WHO proclamation. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 14:35, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- We could always write the current blurb as "The Wuhan coronavirus outbreak kills at least 213, and is declared a Public Health Emergency of International Concern by WHO". ("WHO" can stay abbreivated here if space is at a premium)." --Masem (t) 14:38, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- "Of International Concern" would be expendable in the interest of space. Or we could say "an international public health emergency" (without the bureaucratic caps). – Sca (talk) 18:18, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- As I write above, the declaration is explicitly NOT because of the increase in cases in China, it's because of the risk of spread to low/middle income countries, so any addition of cases needs not to link the two. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:56, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- "Of International Concern" would be expendable in the interest of space. Or we could say "an international public health emergency" (without the bureaucratic caps). – Sca (talk) 18:18, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- We could always write the current blurb as "The Wuhan coronavirus outbreak kills at least 213, and is declared a Public Health Emergency of International Concern by WHO". ("WHO" can stay abbreivated here if space is at a premium)." --Masem (t) 14:38, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- Indeed, I think if the blurb stays here for too long, we should propose to go back to the statistics of infection/mortality rather than the WHO proclamation. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 14:35, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- But with death toll (today: 213) constantly rising, it's still the No. 1 international story. – Sca (talk) 14:31, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
China toll hits 304 361. – Sca (talk) 14:22, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
Spitzer Space Telescope
Blurb: After extending its original 5-year mission to 16 years, NASA terminates the Spitzer Space Telescope program. (Post)
Alternative blurb: The Spitzer Space Telescope is retired after 16 years of infrared observations
News source(s): CBS News Science
Credits:
- Nominated by Masem (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Nominator's comments: The actual command to end the mission will happen within the next 24hr (probably daytime in Houston) tiiiiny chance it will not happen. Masem (t) 04:24, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment I'd support this -- it needs a lot of refs --LaserLegs (talk) 12:06, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment – Shutting down a technical device seems rather, er, anticlimactic. – Sca (talk) 13:49, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- Given the fact that Spitzer is in the orbit around the Sun, there will be no spectacular reentry, such was the case of the Mir space station, for example. So, this is the end. Support when the references are addressed. --Tone 14:20, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support in principle, though oppose on the referencing (which needs a lot of work). We also need to wait for confirmation that the off switch has been flicked and an update added to the article. This is the end of a highly productive mission. Adding altblurb and another source. Modest Genius talk 14:35, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose Large gaps in referencing. The history section is already tagged as such, and there are several other places where referencing is spotty as well. Fix that and I will change my vote. --Jayron32 15:25, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose Tagged article is not of high enough quality to appear on the main page. It has little referencing in the History section. Spy-cicle💥 Talk? 17:04, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose I don't see the international significance of such an event. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 23:46, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose I don't see where the significance to broad audience is too. Add that to the referencing problem, then I have to oppose this. – Ammarpad (talk)
- Oppose on referencing issues. Nixinova T C 21:21, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose Needs refs, but would support if improved. Kingsif (talk) 00:38, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
RD: John Andretti
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Indianapolis Star
Credits:
- Nominated by Thrashbandicoot01 (talk · give credit)
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 Andretti racing family. Thrashbandicoot01 (talk) 04:32, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose Most of the article is unreferenced, including the parts about his death and personal life. — MarkH21talk 07:50, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose per above. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 13:47, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose per nom. Nixinova T C 21:22, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
January 29
January 29, 2020
(Wednesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
Health and environment
International relations
|
(Closed) Northwestern Syria offensive
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.
Blurb: Syrian government forces retake the strategic town of Maaret al-Numan in the Northwestern Syria offensive (November 2019–present) (Post)
Alternative blurb: Syrian government forces retake the strategic town of Maaret al-Numan in the Northwestern Syria offensive.
News source(s): [5]
Credits:
- Nominated by Banedon (talk · give credit)
- Updated by RopeTricks (talk · give credit)
Article updated
- Comment proposed Alt1, which eliminates disambig "(November 2019–present)" and adds a full stop. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 13:17, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose tagged articles should not be featured on the main page. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 14:47, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose I feel like this blurb is trying to imply something ("strategic town") without stating it outright in a way that can be debated. If the argument is that this is the beginning of the end, I'd say we passed that point when the Turks moved in last year (which we posted). GreatCaesarsGhost 17:24, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- You might want to check the article on the town. I quote, "As the Syrian Civil War followed, the town's strategic position on the road between Damascus and Aleppo made it a significant prize." Banedon (talk) 22:05, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- ...and Gettysburg was a significant prize in the summer of '63; not so much in '65. Given the current state of the war, this doesn't really change anything. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:14, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- You might want to check the article on the town. I quote, "As the Syrian Civil War followed, the town's strategic position on the road between Damascus and Aleppo made it a significant prize." Banedon (talk) 22:05, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose for a long protracted conflict, I'd expect we'd only post the point that most sources would consider to be the "end" of the conflict (less the skimishes and cleanup that often follow). This doesn't seem be treated that way. --Masem (t) 18:39, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose – Another day in Idlib. – Sca (talk) 18:44, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose - Offensive is still ongoing. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 04:20, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose. Would have supported this as an ongoing link, however, article quality is simply not good enough for the main page. Clean it up, and I'll change my vote. --Jayron32 12:49, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
January 28
January 28, 2020
(Tuesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
Health and environment
Law and crime
Politics and elections
|
(Posted) RD: Paul Farnes
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Telegraph
Credits:
- Nominated by Ad Orientem (talk · give credit)
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: Last surviving RAF fighter ace from the Battle of Britain. Only two other pilots survive. Article looks to be in reasonably good shape. [Memory eternal.] Ad Orientem (talk) 00:11, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Weak oppose- two unreferenced claims only, the rest is fine. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 12:17, 30 January 2020 (UTC)- Support good to go now. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 20:48, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support As references were expanded earlier today, looks fairly good Joseywales1961 (talk) 20:15, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support Looks ok.-- P-K3 (talk) 20:27, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment. Suggest holding off a little, as the outgoing Pete Stark has only been up since 21:12. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:21, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support I have managed to improve referencing and expand the article it looks ready to go although there probably could be more added through The Daily Telegraph obituary but I unfourtnately do not have the time. Spy-cicle💥 Talk? 23:01, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- Posted Stephen 23:40, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Yang Xiaobo
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Paper, Radio France
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by Zanhe (talk · give credit)
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: Former mayor of Huangshi, a major city near Wuhan. Probably the first notable death of the Wuhan coronavirus outbreak. Death announced on this date (actual date not yet disclosed). Zanhe (talk) 02:55, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support Short but adequate and decently referenced. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:02, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support Article is sourced and recently expanded. TJMSmith (talk) 04:06, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- Posted to RD — Amakuru (talk) 07:01, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Harriet Frank Jr.
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): New York Times
Credits:
- Nominated by Nohomersryan (talk · give credit)
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: Is a GA and looks generally good to me, although I don't think some of the awards are directly cited in the body? Could maybe use another set of eyes. Nohomersryan (talk) 00:25, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Weak Oppose Awards and filmography need cites.Otherwise looks good. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:21, 29 January 2020 (UTC)- Ref'd those sections. Only thing I can't corroborate is that Edgar Award, so it might be worth removing. Nohomersryan (talk) 03:10, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support Good to go. The one CN is not enough to hold up posting given the otherwise solid article quality. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:31, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- Posted to RD — Amakuru (talk) 07:01, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
(Closed) RD: Lexii Alijai
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.
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): USA Today
Credits:
- Nominated by TJMSmith (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Beemer69 (talk · give credit), Tinton5 (talk · give credit) and Surachit (talk · give credit)
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.
- Oppose - This death wasn't recent. It occurred nearly a month ago, where recent deaths are usually people who died within a few days prior. Minecrafter0271 (talk) 23:26, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- Only adding to affirm the death was widely reported when her body was found UPI, so this definitely is stale for RD. --Masem (t) 03:07, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Nicholas Parsons
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:
- Nominated by The Rambling Man (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Ritchie333 (talk · give credit) and Philip Cross (talk · give credit)
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 work... The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 11:11, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support An amazing entertainer who was still working until not long before his death at 96. -- JediLofty Talk to meFollow me 11:22, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Waitand see if somebody can fix the fact tags without hesitation, repetition or deviation. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:54, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support Article has now been cleaned up sufficiently. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:30, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:08, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support article looks in good shape Joseywales1961 (talk) 13:52, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support per others. Spengouli (talk) 13:55, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support, good improvements took just a minute. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:57, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support well respected entertainer in UK, oldest working presenter (at 96) and presenter of longest running panel show since its inception Hoffie01 (talk) 14:00, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support, looks good to me. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 14:12, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- Posted --Jayron32 15:07, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
(Posted) Ongoing: 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak
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.
Ongoing item nomination (Post)
Credits:
- Nominated by Stephen (talk · give credit)
- Post-posting support clearly still ongoing and being updated. No issues. --Masem (t) 03:23, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- Post-posting support This has to stay as Ongoing because it is ongoing. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:36, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- This is the logical thing to do. – Ammarpad (talk) 03:47, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- Post Posting Endorse Filing this under WP:COMMONSENSE. No need to jump through the bureaucratic hoops all over again. It's still front page news more or less daily and likely to remain so for a while. The article is still in good shape. Good call. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:58, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- Post-posting endorse clearly the right call. Lepricavark (talk) 06:30, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- PP Support – Still very much in the news, more than any other ongoing item we've put in recently. Nixinova T C 07:36, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- Endorse. Clearly still in the news, and likely to be so for a while. Hard to get an edit in edgewise in the article. Espresso Addict (talk) 08:13, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support posting as ongoing The story just keeps getting bigger. Nsk92 (talk) 09:57, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- Clear consensus in favour so just tagging as posted. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 11:12, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- Automatically support the story is being update. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.76.226.238 (talk) 13:13, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- Post-posting comment – With the toll in China at
106132 and some cases confirmed elsewhere, we should keep a close watch on this for possible new blurb. – Sca (talk) 13:40, 28 January 2020 (UTC) - Comment there was consensus for OG in the original nom, good call from Stephen to post. This is going to be in the box for a year... --LaserLegs (talk) 19:29, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
January 27
January 27, 2020
(Monday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Arts and culture
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
Health and environment
Law and crime
Politics and elections
|
(Posted) 2020 Brazilian floods and mudslides
Blurb: Floods and landslides hit southeastern Brazil, killing at least 50 people and leaving thousands outside their homes. (Post)
News source(s): FOX News BBC Al Jazeera
Credits:
- Nominated by ArionEstar (talk · give credit)
- Created by Elijahandskip (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Droodkin (talk · give credit)
Nominator's comments: Large number of deaths. ArionEstar (talk) 02:33, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Oppose until significantly expanded. Currently it is a micro-stub consisting of two sentences and a total of 41 words (including numbers).-Ad Orientem (talk) 02:38, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support Still a bit short but it's adequate and referencing is acceptable. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:07, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose on quality: Two sentences and two refs isn't nearly enough for the main page. Nixinova T C 07:38, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose per Ad Orientem and Nixinova, the article is not nearly long enough for the main page at this point. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 13:28, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
*Support on notability; oppose on quality. Clearly undeniable deserving of ITN, but it urgently needs improvement. MSN12102001 (talk) 15:07, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support. Great work. Well referenced. Ready to go. MSN12102001 (talk) 09:22, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support - significant event. I have tried expanding the article as required and it should be a lot better now. Droodkin (talk) 20:35, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support Indeed, very nice work. Though somewhat short, it is packed with good info and is highly readable. @Nixinova, Ad Orientem, MSN12102001:another look? GreatCaesarsGhost 02:53, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- Posted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:10, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- Could you please correct the blurb ASAP? There is a comma between a subject and a predicate, a terrible mistake. (Floods and landslides in southeastern Brazil, kill at least 60 people...)--Adûnâi (talk) 13:35, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
(Closed) 2020 United States Air Force E-11A crash
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.
Blurb: A United States Air Force flight crashes in Dih Yak District, Afghanistan, killing all five on board. (Post)
News source(s): bbc voa, AP
Credits:
- Nominated by LaserLegs (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Mjroots (talk · give credit)
- Wait until the US says it was shot down. 331dot (talk) 01:12, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Wait per 331dot.We don't have enough information right now and most of what we are hearing is coming from the Taliban. It should go w/o saying that they are not a reliable source for the time of day. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:25, 28 January 2020 (UTC)Wait– While the U.S. has confirmed the crash, no details available. – Sca (talk) 13:44, 28 January 2020 (UTC)- Support - whether or not it was shot down, the article isn't in bad shape with all that is known included. Mjroots (talk) 12:05, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- Mjroots It matters if it was shot down or not, as that likely affects coverage of this and the significance of the crash. I haven't seen a great deal of coverage of this- but if the Taliban brought down an aircraft, that's much more notable. Military personnel take on the risk of things like this happening when they sign up(unlike civilian aircraft carrying passengers). 331dot (talk) 12:41, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- Whether it was shot down, or suffered a double engine failure (per forum gossip), it is still the first fatal hull loss for the type. Mjroots (talk) 12:45, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose – U.S. retrieves the remains of two crewmen, the only occupants, and says no indication plane was shot down. – Sca (talk) 13:31, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose somewhat trivial accident by the sounds of things. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 14:50, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose As I suspected, an unfortunate but run of the mill accident that the Taliban is trying to turn into propaganda hay. Good faith nomination given what we knew at the time (which wasn't much) but no thanks. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:48, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- "an unfortunate but run of the mill accident" describes the vast majority of these disaster articles we post, and as mjroots points out this is the first hull loss for the type. Still, I see this nom is toast. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:23, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- First fatal hull loss. Mjroots (talk) 21:56, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- "an unfortunate but run of the mill accident" describes the vast majority of these disaster articles we post, and as mjroots points out this is the first hull loss for the type. Still, I see this nom is toast. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:23, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
(Closed) Caspian Airlines Flight 6936
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.
Blurb: All 144 people on board Caspian Airlines Flight 6936 (aircraft pictured) survive when the aircraft overruns the runway on landing at Mahshahr Airport, Iran. (Post)
News source(s): Mehr News
Credits:
- Created and nominated by Mjroots (talk · give credit)
Article updated
- Oppose unless this has wider news coverage- which may not happen for a simple overrunning of the runway, where the chances of casualties are low(unlike say, the Miracle on the Hudson). 331dot (talk) 11:24, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose this certainly is good news but not really notable enough for main page. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 11:28, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- Weak support not every day an aircraft overruns, and the MD-80s were extensively built. Weak because the article is still kind of disaster-stubby. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:10, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- I can only work with what is available. Mjroots (talk) 12:20, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- I know, I'm not judging contributors just reading it that's my sense of it. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:25, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- I can only work with what is available. Mjroots (talk) 12:20, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose – although it's very good news, I don't see this as being notable enough for the main page. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 13:24, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose – Per 331dot, TRM. Glad they all survived. – Sca (talk) 14:44, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose - It's possible the newsworthiness of this item might be inflated due to the previous airline "accident" that took place in Iran. Still, we generally don't post no-casualty accidents on ITN, as morbid as that principle seems.--WaltCip (talk) 15:11, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- There is precedent for posting a no-casualty accident on ITN. Mjroots (talk) 15:45, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- ITN was a different kettle of fish back then.--WaltCip (talk) 16:00, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose. I agree that such a large over-run is unusual, as is the under-carriage being ripped from an aircraft full of passengers and it coming to rest on a public road. However, the aircraft seems to have survived as well as anyone could have hoped, and there are only two injuries. A dramatic near-miss certainly, but not significant enough for an ITN blurb. It should be possible to expand the article enough to qualify for DYK. Modest Genius talk 15:59, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose We generally don't post near-misses: it would have to be an event like US Airways Flight 1549 ("Miracle on the Hudson") where there was significant attention to the rescue efforts/etc. And even then, not an assurance. --Masem (t) 16:01, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
References
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: