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.

Nursultan Nazarbayev in 2017
Nursultan Nazarbayev

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]

March 23[edit]


March 22[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy
  • The giant money manager BlackRock says that it is buying eFront, the leading provider of management software for alternative investments, for $1.3 billion in cash. (MarketWatch)

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sports
  • The English Football League is to deduct Birmingham City F.C. nine points for breaching profitability and sustainability rules. Birmingham City are the first club to be deducted points since the EFL introduced its new profitability and sustainability regulations in 2016. (BBC)

RD: Frans Andriessen[edit]

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

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: Wholly inadequate but perhaps there are Dutchophiles out there that may help. The subject seems like a highly notable figure. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 03:57, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Special Counsel investigation[edit]

Article: Special Counsel investigation (2017–2019) (talk, history)
Blurb: Robert Mueller concludes his Special Counsel investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 United States presidential election.
News source(s): CNBC, New York Times

Nominator's comments: Robert Mueller concluded his Special Counsel investigation and gave the final report to U.S. Attorney General William Barr. Aviartm (talk) 22:10, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose simply, in one word...: so? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:15, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose It's concluded but we have no idea what it says and what actions will happen. I would think that when the report's conclusions are given out, that's a blurb, but not the mere conclusion. --Masem (t) 22:17, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait until the results are disclosed, which could happen within the next few days. Spengouli (talk) 22:19, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. Significance is unclear. This nomination, while expected, is premature. I suggest withdrawing pending developments. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:30, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait What are the results? Brendon the Wizard ✉️ 22:44, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Ongoing as it has been for two years, getting regular updates and certainly "in the news" lets just pop this down into ongoing like another zombie link that'll never come out. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:49, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
    Nah, too pointy that. There are no other "zombie link"s which will never come out. This, on the other hand, may have no more detail ever to be released. So it's utterly pointless. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:00, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose no details yet, wait. --Bohbye (talk) 23:04, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment The details are here. Count Iblis (talk) 01:07, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
You seem to have forgotten to put a Face-smile.svg after your comment. Face-smile.svg Tlhslobus (talk) 01:24, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Comment The details are here. Face-smile.svg Davey2116 (talk) 01:34, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait The Attorney General is reportedly expected to release a summary for Congressional leaders over the weekend or early next week, which is then reportedly expected to promptly become public knowledge, so we can probably wait until then (on the other hand much of the detail may never be released). Tlhslobus (talk) 01:31, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait Seems like more details are to come over the weekend, and this is definitely the leading story on most RS so it's definitely already getting the requisite coverage for ITN. I wouldn't oppose putting this in ongoing now, but I think we should wait. Davey2116 (talk) 01:34, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - The longest headline seen on ITN. Yup just wanted to say that. Sherenk1 (talk) 02:24, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose The blurb made assumption that everyone is aware of or following the now concluded investigation. Also it's said to be concluded, but we don't know what is in the conclusion or what will happen after the 'conclusion'. – Ammarpad (talk)

Ongoing removal Brexit negotiations[edit]

Article: Brexit negotiations (talk, history)
Ongoing item removal

Nominator's comments: EU granted an extension, April 12th maybe else end of May. The extension itself might be a good thing to blurb and pop this out of the ongoing box as there is nothing but British legislative maneuvering for the next few weeks. LaserLegs (talk) 16:56, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose there will need to be votes in the House of Commons imminently to agree to May's deal in order to secure any extension. This is live news and ongoing, and there seems to be absolutely no good reason at all to remove it from Ongoing as it impacts hundreds of millions of people, just not in the US directly. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:53, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
    • Commons has to vote on it before April 12 so this is "ongoing" while May fakes her vote twice and loses again? Brexit impacts the UK, the EU and the entire world .. but it's going dark until MV3 (or lack thereof) finally sets a Brexit date. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:01, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
      • Yes, and that vote will take place next week, so it's hardly "going dark". Deary me. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:02, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
        • Are we just leaving this in until it happens, or it's postponed indefinitely? If so, fine, I'll stop asking. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:03, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
          • There will be plenty of time to revisit that question soon, but now is definitely the wrong time.Tlhslobus (talk) 18:08, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
            • Ok I'll drop it. FWIW I want to see this as blurbs, not buried as ongoing. I'm not challenging the significance of this item in any way. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:12, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
              • No problem with that, but if you want a blurb then nominate one.Tlhslobus (talk) 18:19, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
              • This scenario is precisely what Ongoing is all about. The next blurb should be when we finally do leave (or Article 50 is revoked). Until then, everything else is fundamentally incremental yet of high significance. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:00, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per TRM. Tlhslobus (talk) 18:08, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Next week is probably the most important week in this whole complete and utter shambles process. Black Kite (talk) 19:03, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Are the world's currency speculators giddy with excitement? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:21, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose – It ain't over 'til it's over. – Sca (talk) 20:24, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - This saga has become too long to still be in our News. HiLo48 (talk) 01:37, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
What do you mean "our News"? Are you suggesting this is unworthy of ITN for some editorial reason? I don't understand your comment. WaltCip (talk) 02:12, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose until March 29, then revisit. It should remain as long as there is a nonzero chance of crashing out. -- King of ♠ 03:43, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

2019 Yancheng chemical plant explosion[edit]

Article: 2019 Yancheng chemical plant explosion (talk, history)
Blurb: An explosion at a chemical plant in Jiangsu province, China killeds at least 40, with at least 90 more injured.
News source(s): BBC, AP, AFP

Nominator's comments: Article just created. Notable deaths. Sherenk1 (talk) 03:02, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose at the moment. Article is a stub. Capitalistroadster (talk) 05:47, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Improve highly significant, but not ready to post just yet. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ 13:57, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support – in principle, pending article expansion. AFP puts death toll at 67. – Sca (talk) 16:38, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support – in principle, after expansion. --Leiem (talk) 08:12, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Ongoing removal Cyclone Idai[edit]

No consensus to remove and article is still getting update. – Ammarpad (talk) 08:07, 23 March 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: Cyclone Idai (talk, history)
Ongoing item removal
Nominator's comments: Article says it's dissipated, time to come down. The effects of natural disasters are felt for weeks, months, years -- can't leave them in the ongoing box forever. LaserLegs (talk) 14:29, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support removal.Sca (talk) 16:38, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
    May I ask why? NoahTalk 02:05, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal. We actually just bumped it to ongoing. This is a currently unfolding humanitarian disaster, likely the deadliest cyclone in the Southern Hemisphere within historical memory. Beira, a large city of more than half a million, has been 90% damaged or destroyed according to IFRC. Some areas have yet to be reached by rescue operations. Over 200 people in Zimbabwe are still missing. This is comparable to the 2000 Mozambique flood, which made international headlines and whose scale remained unknown for weeks. Despite being semi-protected, the article is receiving constant updates, having been edited 30+ time since the last 24 hours. 67.69.69.63 (talk) 17:33, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
    • Not sure why a storm that was already a remnant low got put into the box in the first place, but the storm is over. The impact of Hurricane Maria is still ongoing. Time to move on. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:36, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
      • Hurricane Maria was only edited 4 times in the past week. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 18:50, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
      • CA, you're making the same mistake I made opposing the nom (see below). GreatCaesarsGhost 18:58, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal Still undergoing significant updates. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 18:50, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
    • The storm is over --LaserLegs (talk) 18:59, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
      • "The purpose of the ongoing section is to maintain a link to a continuously updated Wikipedia article about a story which is itself also frequently in the news." Italics as found at WP:ITN#Ongoing section.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 19:24, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. Still receiving significant updates and still in the news internationally. (A fresh item was on the BBC index page when I got in this evening, despite the Brexit fever we're all suffering over here.) Espresso Addict (talk) 01:28, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment @LaserLegs: The body count is still going up. It has been steadily increasing by about 35-75 per day. Not to mention disease outbreaks of chlorea, dysentary, and malaria are starting. I hardly consider that as over. This has been a major news headline and still continues to be. The article is being updated frequently as well. I see no reason to remove this yet. NoahTalk 02:00, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal Re comparison with Maria: Difference here is that direct effects are still ongoing with floodwaters encompassing hundreds of square miles of land including a city of 200,000 people (readily visible from space). As mentioned by Coffeeandcrumbs, it still meets criteria for WP:ITN ongoing with regular article updates and global news headlines. Would be fine with this being removed once the flooding subsides or if it falls out of major headlines. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 02:12, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Compare this with this.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 05:04, 23 March 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.

March 21[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sports

RD: Mike Cofer (linebacker)[edit]

Article: Mike Cofer (linebacker) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): [2]

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: Appears ready at least superficially. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 03:57, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Kazakhstan capital renamed[edit]

Article: Astana (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The capital of Kazakhstan, Astana, is renamed to Nursultan
News source(s): See article

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Per the nom below about Nursultan's resignation Banedon (talk) 03:35, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Question: Should this be a separate nom, or an amendment to the already posted blurb about his resignation (and if the latter, where should it be discussed, given that its omission is not technically an error, and may thus not be accepted at WP:ERRORS)? Tlhslobus (talk) 05:00, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is trivial. The renaming of cities is a usual procedure in many countries following the end of a political era and this is not an exception. Also note that this is the fourth renaming of the city since 1961.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:20, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment To everyone commenting how this city has changed names many times before, you do realize they were literally all from when the Russians/Soviets ruled the area, Almaty was the Kazakh capital, and the land that is today the capital was then totally undeveloped, right? The only other time that Astana's name, as the capital of the independent country, changed its name was when "Astana" was established to begin with. Let's put a stop to this flood of uninformed comments. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ 12:33, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  • And you do realise that most of the people commenting here know considerably more about the topic than you and are actually aware that Tselinograd was a major showpiece Soviet city (I still remember being bussed around by an unnervingly enthusiastic Intourist guide), not "totally undeveloped", and that if you don't know the most basic facts about the place you're probably not best placed to accuse others of making "uninformed comments"? ‑ Iridescent 12:52, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  • All of the city's iconic landmarks were nonexistent; Kazakhstan rapidly developed the area in the process of building a new capital city. More importantly, Tselinograd was neither the capital nor renamed by Kazakhstan itself. Kazakhstan wasn't even a country in 1961. The comments here make it sound like they just can't stop renaming the capital, but in reality it was only recently that it even became a capital and only recently did Kazakhstan have the ability to call the shots. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ 13:18, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I think the point is well and truly missed, this isn't really about the status of the city, it's more about the continual name-changing, which isn't commonplace with London or Paris etc. If London had changed its name as frequently as Astana then I guarantee most of us would be voting against it. Just as we are voting against this trivial change. P.S. your signature is a real overhead. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:26, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Kiril. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:05, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. As Kiril says, this is trivial; particular in post-Soviet states, towns, cities and other administrative districts are renamed all the time, and Akmoly/Akmolinsk/Tselinograd/Akmola/Astana/Nursultan is a particularly extreme example. (Plus, it doesn't take an extreme amount of crystal-ballgazing to guess that in a fairly short time Nursultan's dictatorship will be reappraised and the name will be changed yet again.) ‑ Iridescent 10:26, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  • What are you talking about? The reason why it was renamed was because Nursultan isn't president anymore. To say that "in a fairly short time" the dictatorship will be overthrown entirely is very, very much WP:CRYSTALballing. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ 12:35, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support on importance - how often are national capitals renamed? Not very often. But oppose based on the article quality, too many unsourced sections. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 12:07, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
"How often are national capitals renamed?" Apparently, if you check the article of the city in question, it's been renamed at least three or four times within the past 100 years. So for this particular city, quite often.--WaltCip (talk) 12:10, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
You might want to check the dates on when the city was renamed. The city was neither 1) a capital city 2) developed land nor 3) in an independent country. Just because the Soviets couldn't stop playing with the name doesn't mean this is unimportant. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ 12:37, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Renaming a capital city is exactly the notable information an encyclopedia should put on its front page doktorb wordsdeeds 12:12, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Renaming this particular capital city is not notable due to the underlying circumstances.--WaltCip (talk) 12:22, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Just because the Soviets couldn't figure out what to call it doesn't mean that it's unimportant when a sovereign state changes the capital city's name. It's the capital city of a sovereign country, and note that this is the only time that Astana as the capital of independent Kazakhstan was renamed, with the only exception being the establishment of "Astana" as "Astana." Note that the capital used to be Almaty before Astana was built by the independent Kazakhstan. Before the city 90s when the country was sovereign, this area was very undeveloped. If we were talking about any well-known country's capital, whether Washington or Tokyo or London or Beijing, I guarantee that there would be unanimous support. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ 12:29, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose quality. Tags added. Even with refs, Geography, Economy and Demographics woefully undersized. Update is a single sentence. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:20, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose on both quality and importance. Name changes are not uncommon, it's not ITN worthy.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:41, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per BrendonTheWizard, when article is in shape. Notable story. Most of the !opposes aren't really convincing. Davey2116 (talk) 16:40, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per BrendonTheWizard and Spencer, in particular stressing this is the only renaming since the move of the capital from Almaty in the 1990s. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 17:11, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
    • Just wanted to point out that I haven't made any comments in support or in opposition to the nomination; was just noting information about previous items on ITN above. Best, SpencerT•C 21:01, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support on notability, per BrendonTheWizard among others (I'll leave others to judge quality). This is the only time in my lifetime of over 60 years that I can remember being aware of a country renaming its existing capital, tho I suspect there may be other instances of which I was unaware at the time (or have since forgotten), tho I'd have to check (if I knew how to do that). Note that I'm not talking about naming of new capitals (such as Brasilia, Islamabad, perhaps Astana itself) nor of just changing the English translation of an unchanged non-English capital (such as from Peking to Beijing, and possibly from Rangoon to Yangon - tho our article seems ambiguous about its local name in that instance). But even if I'm unaware of some such changes, I'd expect they're pretty rare (and also changes, if any, in tiny states would be less significant than changes in a mid-size state like Kazakhstan). Incidentally, even if quality were to remain an issue, there would still be a case for adding the name-change (presumably without bolding) to our existing blurb about Nursultan Nazarbayev's retirement. Tlhslobus (talk) 17:13, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: Should all Support !votes (such as mine) be disallowed on grounds that they are obviously violating WP:RGW by secretly trying to treat Kazakhstan with more respect than Sacha Baron Cohen does by posting an item about it, or should all Oppose !votes be disallowed on grounds that they are obviously violating WP:RGW by secretly trying to treat Kazakhstan with more respect than Sacha Baron Cohen does by censoring this instance of Kazakhs behaving ridiculously? Or should both sets of !votes be disallowed on grounds that they are obviously violating WP:RGW as explained above? Face-smile.svg Tlhslobus (talk) 18:00, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
    Most people in Kazakhstan would be far more interested in the fact they beat Scotland 3-0 in the Euro qualifiers last night, not yet another name change... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:03, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
    Not sure about that (perhaps because reading of Kazakh minds is not one of my telepathic gifts). But the only reason that result was a shock is because Kazakhstan are normally rubbish at soccer despite having a much larger population than Scotland, and most people tend not to be interested in sports where their country is rubbish (indeed arguably most people aren't all that interested in many sports where their country is rather good). But in any case our article is not primarily for the benefit of our Kazakh readers - I suspect it may be of more interest to readers who like to know their capitals because they enjoy quizzes and Trivial Pursuits, etc, even if I'm not quite sure where it says that pleasing Trivial Pursuits addicts is one of the major purposes of ITN Face-smile.svg Tlhslobus (talk) 04:36, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose on quality This article is a hot mess. Even the claim that this city has been renamed has [citation needed] tag. It contains clearly anachronistic statements like "Nursultan became the capital city of Kazakhstan in 1997". --- Coffeeandcrumbs 19:18, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support as amendment to blurb already on the front page. Yes, Astana has been renamed on a number of occasions, but that was before it became an important city. The last time a national capital city has been renamed was in 2000, when Santa Fe de Bogota was renamed Bogota. The last time a city was renamed significantly fashion rather was when Frunze was renamed Bishkek in 1991. Furthermore, the renaming of important cities is encyclopedic knowledge and exactly the kind of information Wikipedia should feature more prominently than news media would. (NorthernFalcon (talk) 21:33, 22 March 2019 (UTC))
  • Oppose "Also note that this is the fourth renaming of the city since 1961." +Astana#EtymologyAmmarpad (talk) 08:11, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) European Wikipedia blackouts[edit]

Consensus will not develop to post this. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:49, 22 March 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: Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market#Public protests (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Four European Wikipedias undergo a blackout to protest against controversial internet legislation
News source(s): https://www.theverge.com/2019/3/21/18275462/eu-copyright-directive-protest-wikipedia-twitch-pornhub-final-vote
Nominator's comments: Four European Wikipedias undergoing a blackout seems like a significant event, especially for the for ITN of the largest Wikipedia language version. There are also some other major sites like Reddit and Twitch that display banners or hinder a specific feature today. This news was featured on major media in each language, for example Tagesschau, Der Spiegel, dr.dk, and many other sites.

I hope it's okay to link to a specific article section. The (sub)article itself could use some love, but I'm afraid that I don't feel very confident yet in editing Wikipedia. Confiks (talk) 21:34, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment At least the target article is in relatively good shape. A few citations needed. The only thing I think that is worthy of discussion will be whether this is a truly significant event or just some navel gazing. I think I would be more OK with this if we included Reddit and Twitch.tv. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 21:55, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose navel gazing. If it had been Amazon or Google or Apple or something, sure, but not a handful of our own encyclopedias. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:02, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
    • I can see how this can be seen as navel gazing. Still, more than 91 million internet-connected users [3] in those four countries didn't have access to Wikipedia. Also, for example, Wikipedia is the 7th most visited site in Germany [4]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Confiks (talkcontribs) 22:32, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above. Navel gazing.--174.64.100.70 (talk) 22:18, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Navel. – Sca (talk) 23:22, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  • The website blackouts are symbolic at best. If the protests on the 23rd amount to anything, that would be the time to post. —Cryptic 23:30, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose the article is still crap (though eventually this POS will be fisted onto the main page because "significant"). "Article 13 would require use of content-matching technologies" oh that sounds interesting, what would the requirements be, what parties would implement it and how would royalties be paid? I have no idea, the article doesn't explain it, instead going into endless detail on special interests complaining about the rules. This is what, the fifth time this piece of shit article has washed up at ITN/C? --LaserLegs (talk) 00:19, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Wikipedia-related news in every case so far has not been ITN-worthy content, and this is no different. SpencerT•C 01:41, 22 March 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.

March 20[edit]

Business and economy

International relations

Politics and elections
Sports

RD: Eunetta T. Boone[edit]

Article: Eunetta T. Boone (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): [5], [6]

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: Short but no sourcing issues. This may be all that is currently available from RS. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 05:27, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Weak support very light on details but what's there is adequate. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:23, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Mary Warnock, Baroness Warnock[edit]

Article: Mary Warnock, Baroness Warnock (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The Guardian

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: Almost there. Just needs some TLC. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 21:34, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose for now, too many [citations needed]. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:32, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. I have covered all the citations requested or hidden the text. (I am not willing to buy into the Telegraph/Times access model so someone who is will probably be able to add more from their obituaries.) Espresso Addict (talk) 01:30, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment The works listed under "As author:" are unsourced. The article seems fine otherwise. Hrodvarsson (talk) 03:04, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 04:03, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Google Stadia[edit]

Consensus will not develop to post a commercial announcement. Stephen 21:45, 20 March 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.

Proposed image
Article: Google Stadia (talk, history)
Blurb: Google announces development of a cloud gaming service (logo pictured) called Google Stadia.
News source(s): BBC
 GeographyAholic talk 18:51, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Good faith nom. But even if this were notable, there's no metrics to measure the impact that this product may have until it's been released.--WaltCip (talk) 19:08, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Note I edited it but User:Czar created it and added some actual content to start the thing. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 19:35, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose a good candidate for another section of the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:54, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose posting product announcements. As TRM says, there are other Main Page places this might be suitable. 331dot (talk) 19:57, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Absolutely no free advertising on the Main Page, please. Or anywhere else. Sca (talk) 20:35, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Good faith, and perhaps it can be posted elsewhere as others have noted, but it's not exactly ITN. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ 21:27, 20 March 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 to Ongoing) Cyclone Idai[edit]

Article: Cyclone Idai (talk, history)
Ongoing item nomination
News source(s): BBC, Aljazeera, The Washington Post, The Guardian, AP

Nominator's comments: Major humanitarian crisis unfolding in Mozambique and Zimbabwe with flood waters continuing to rise. Idai is being called one of the worst tropical cyclones on record in the entire Southern Hemisphere (indeed there is only one or two other known cyclones that have caused greater loss of life in the hemisphere: the 1892 Mauritius cyclone and possibly Cyclone Leon-Eline). Hundreds of people remain missing in both countries and the death toll is expected to exceed 1,300 between the two. Remains a big story in global media outlets. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 17:10, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

  • I was going to oppose on the basis that it is clearly NOT ongoing, and we don't post to ongoing just because an event has ongoing effects (or we feel the blurb wasn't up long enough). However, it appears an admin has now unilaterally posted this. So...nevermind, I guess. GreatCaesarsGhost 18:36, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
    The ITN guidelines say, "Older stories which are scheduled to roll off the bottom of the list may be added to ongoing at admins' discretion, provided that the linked article is receiving continuous updates with new information on a regular basis." This is clearly happening here, just see how much has been added today by Cyclonebiskit.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:13, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Indeed it does. Big-time mea culpa there. I've been misinterpreting "articles are NOT posted to ongoing merely because they are related to events that are still happening" as requiring that the events themselves be ongoing. No such requirement exists. My apologies, Espresso Addict. GreatCaesarsGhost 11:30, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I added it to Ongoing when I saw it had rolled off without seeing this entry, as the event clearly meets the guidelines quoted above for the reasons given by Cyclonebiskit. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:52, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Good call. I've amended it to aftermath as the Cyclone itself has dissipated, but moving to ongoing can definitely be at a sole admin's discretion. Stephen 21:56, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

March 19[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Health and environment

International relations

Politics and elections

(Posted) Nursultan Nazarbayev's resignation[edit]

Proposed image
Article: Nursultan Nazarbayev (talk, history)
Blurb: Nursultan Nazarbayev (pictured) resigns as President of Kazakhstan, appointing Kassym-Jomart Tokayev as acting president.
Alternative blurb: Nursultan Nazarbayev (pictured) resigns as the first President of Kazakhstan after a 29 year tenure, appointing Kassym-Jomart Tokayev as interim president.
News source(s): Reuters, etc

Article updated

Nominator's comments: After almost 30 years in office. Article updated. Brandmeistertalk 14:14, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Support WP:ITN/R and article seems reasonably well-sourced and does not have an excessive number of tags. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 17:24, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:ITN/R .BabbaQ (talk) 18:57, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support WP:ITN/R & good-shape articles. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ 19:21, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose on quality and malformed blurb. Many more citations needed in the target article (eg. Personal life and Honours sections unreferenced). I don't think this is ITN/R. ITNR says nothing about resignations. Perhaps the target should be the new president. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 19:47, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. A change in head of state is ITNR- though I believe(could be wrong) we don't typically post interim/acting leaders, it seems the Acting President will be so until the end of the term. 331dot (talk) 19:51, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
    • ITNR does mention "succession of a head of state", but only "where head of state is not an elected position" (although the article says that all Nazarbayev's elections have been considered sham). Brandmeistertalk 20:52, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
      • That has usually been interpreted to mean any change in head of state. We also don't judge the validity or fairness of a country's elections(some would argue the last US presidential election was a sham because the person with the most votes did not win). 331dot (talk) 23:56, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
      • As Banedon said below, if a head of state resigning isn't ITNR, it should be. To your point about "where head of state is not an elected position" though: Nazarbayev was widely regarded by reliable sources to have been a dictator. We would very likely post if Kim Jong Un resigned and appointed a new head of state. Technically, they have elections in the DPRK, just as Nursultan Nazarbayev technically "won his election" with 97.7 percent of the "vote", but transfers of power are extremely rare in Kazakhstan (so rare that this is the only time it's ever happened) Brendon the Wizard ✉️ 23:58, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
      • I would further add that if the argument is that the elections shouldn't count as elections because they were just show elections, then the ITNR would apply after all(since the position is not really 'elected') 331dot (talk) 00:00, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support if a head of state resigning isn't ITNR, it should be. Banedon (talk) 22:54, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support, but add context: "resigns as President of Kazakhstan after 29 years in power, appointing.." Johndavies837 (talk) 23:37, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I also support the inclusion of more contextual information. It is very significant how lengthy Nazarbayev's tenure was (nearly three decades) as the first and (until now) only President of independent Kazakhstan. I've proposed an altblurb, but if someone can produce a more concise version that still includes the significant details, I'd support it. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ 23:58, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support: Given WP:INT/R the suddenness of his resignation and the impact it will have on Kazakhstan, I think that this event is worthy of being on the main page. 20Infernix04 (talk) 00:17, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
The whole point of ITNR is that it presumes the event is notable enough for posting on the merits; we are only waiting for agreement on the blurb and adequate article quality. 331dot (talk) 23:55, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. Some citations are needed and the article could do with updating in places. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:01, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I have no problem with this going up as a blurb (pending a quality review) but to be ITNR there would need to be a standalone article about the change in leadership. I don't recall ever using the article about an elected official as the target of a change of leadership blurb. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:06, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Please point out where that requirement is. 331dot (talk) 00:08, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Hrm, you're right, no such requirement exists. Thanks 331dot. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:18, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Nazarbayev did not state any reason for his resignation (much to the shock of Russian officials which viewed him as a key ally). As a result, it would be very difficult to produce an article specifically about the change in leadership which was uniquely sudden and unexplained, but that certainly shouldn't prevent a blurb about the only change in power the country has ever seen. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ 00:14, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support altblurb. Clearly notable; this should be made ITN/R if it isn't. The presidency section and the resignation subsection are now sourced, but the remainder of the article still has a few cn tags. Davey2116 (talk) 02:04, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support: WP:ITN/R and certainly a notable event. Article also looks to be updated and minimally comprehensive about the resignation, although details about the protests would be nice. Altblurb better shows the significance of the event. — MarkH21 (talk) 02:09, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Change of head of state is notable but the article needs more infomation about what is going on, two paragraphs is not going to cut it. Swordman97 talk to me 02:27, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Posting. There are some citing issues across the article but the updated paragraph is ok. More content is always welcome but it covers the basics. I commented out the honors section since it has serious referencing issues. --Tone 08:48, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
    • Pull This article has many sourcing and NPOV issues that were ignored. I do not doubt the significance of the event but my issue was with the quality of the article.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 16:50, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Should we note that the capital city Astana has officially been renamed to "Nursultan" effective immediately, or would this make the blurb far too cluttered? Brendon the Wizard ✉️ 20:33, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
    • I briefly thought about this, as the renaming of any country's capital is newsworthy. But perhaps it should be considered on its own merits. Brandmeistertalk 20:56, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Karen Uhlenbeck first woman to receive Abel Prize in mathematics[edit]

Proposed image
Article: Karen Uhlenbeck (talk, history)
Blurb: Karen Uhlenbeck becomes the first woman to receive the Abel Prize in mathematics.
Alternative blurb: Karen Uhlenbeck becomes the first woman to receive the Abel Prize in mathematics for "her pioneering achievements in geometric partial differential equations, gauge theory and integrable systems."
Alternative blurb II: Karen Uhlenbeck becomes the first woman to receive the Abel Prize in mathematics for "her pioneering achievements in geometric partial differential equations, gauge theory and integrable systems, and for the fundamental impact of her work on analysis, geometry and mathematical physics."
News source(s): NY Times

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: Karen Uhlenbeck is the first woman to win this exceptionally prestigious award. I think this remarkable accomplishment is newsworthy. I enjoy sandwiches (talk) 11:46, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Abel is actually ITNR, so we needn't consider the gender aspect. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:40, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
In any case, the story is not appearing in the front page at the moment, so I thought I'd nominate it. The blurb can be re-worked to down weight gender, if that's what people prefer. I just included this angle because it's the angle that most of the news sources are featuring. OtterAM (talk) 18:12, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
She certainly is a noteworthy academic, though I would posit that being the first woman is a notable detail of her achievement. I enjoy sandwiches (talk) 19:02, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose on quality - only a short paragraph for what her work actually is is not sufficient. I realize reading the selected works this is very esoteric math but we still need more discussion of it. --Masem (t) 13:47, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
This is a fair point. I will try to expand this section later today. If any other math aficionados want to give it a whirl, feel free. I enjoy sandwiches (talk) 19:40, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
The expanded content works for me. I don't think that needs to be in the blurb but primary concern is met. --Masem (t) 01:31, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Interesting story that is getting a lot of press. (I accidentally created a second nomination above, but have removed that one.) I think the article is sufficient for a short biography. OtterAM (talk) 18:15, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
I have added a reference to the New York Times article. OtterAM (talk) 18:18, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Please crop the watermark before posting. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 19:07, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Or remove protection so I can do it.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 19:13, 19 March 2019 (UTC)c
  • Support - I will support this because of win of prestigious award, article and sources looks decent.BabbaQ (talk) 19:25, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. There is a problem with an article that is so unbalanced between the trivial details of her career and any information beyond the bald topic areas of her research. This does not inform readers about what her breakthroughs are and why they are important. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:05, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Support. Now much improved. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:47, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. Bit list-heavy but sufficient sources and quality. First female winner of "Nobel prize for mathematics" is certainly notable. Per sources, maybe a blurb can be used that includes said commonly made comparison to the Nobel prizes? Regards SoWhy 20:12, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support This article has come a long way in the last hour.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 20:42, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support This is (arguably) the highest recognition in mathematics. Absolutely ITN-worthy. Would prefer either the altblurb or altblurb2. — MarkH21 (talk) 22:55, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Agree, though may favor the first altblurb 2/2 space constrictions. I enjoy sandwiches (talk) 23:38, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support About time for a good news story. Two mass shootings, a natural disaster, and an air crash. Run it! Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:13, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose not at all "minimally comprehensive". She got the award " for "her pioneering achievements in geometric partial differential equations, gauge theory and integrable systems, and for the fundamental impact of her work on analysis, geometry and mathematical physics." and the achievements section has basically one sentence about each. "She has also contributed to topological quantum field theory and integrable systems" This is one of the reasons she won the award for crying out loud give the WP:READERs something to go on. The article is not suitable for posting to MP for this. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:57, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
What would "minimally comprehensive" entail? An in-depth description of her technical work would be more than minimal. There's a reason that the New York Times, CNN, etc. don't say much on her contributions, it's hard to suitably summarize them for a general audience.
Her work on singularities of harmonic maps in geometric analysis (aka geometric PDEs) really was foundational and simultaneously applicable to gauge theory, Yang–Mills theory, and integrable systems. In some sense, the three sentences in the latter two paragraphs are really about those contributions in simultaneity (she did not really work on those independently of each other). In any case, it would take more work to provide more in-depth technical descriptions as a non-specialist but I would argue that it is minimally comprehensive. — MarkH21 (talk) 01:06, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
I don't know what "minimally comprehensive" is for this subject, that's sort of the point though. I read it, the whole "Research" section is little more than a bullet point list of what she won the award for, it doesn't tell me anything about her contributions to those areas. Honestly all the Able Prize winner articles are poor, except Nash but that's not really fair. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:16, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Some of the others are quite a bit more comprehensive, e.g. Jean-Pierre Serre, Michael Atiyah, John Tate. However, Uhlenbeck is not as famous or well-known as some past winners and there is relatively less information on her and her work. In general though, descriptive writing of technical mathematical work is a rare and valuable art. — MarkH21 (talk) 01:23, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support alt blurb 1 or 2. Article is sufficient. Davey2116 (talk) 01:59, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support alt blurb 2. Article is good to go. Swordman97 talk to me 02:35, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Finally something that doesn't involve people dying :P Kaldari (talk) 03:31, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • plus Posted --Tone 08:49, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

March 18[edit]

Law and crime

Science and technology

RD: Kenneth To[edit]

Article: Kenneth To (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): [7][8]

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: 26-year-old swimmer dies of heart attack. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 23:00, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment. Needs copy editing and some referencing. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:40, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose the "one ref at the end of each para" doesn't quite work here, a lot of unreferenced material. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:34, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) 2019 Utrecht shooting[edit]

Article: 2019 Utrecht shooting (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A man has opened fire in a tram in the Dutch city of Utrecht, killing three and injuring nine people
News source(s): BBC, AP, Guardian, Reuters, dpa, RTL

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: News still to come in. Article in initial stages. Sherenk1 (talk) 11:39, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose until more details are available upon which we can base a judgement. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:31, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment – Looks to be of comparatively minor moderate significance. Sca (talk) 13:39, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Three dead, nine wounded. Blurb amended. Mjroots (talk) 15:14, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - death toll rises. BabbaQ (talk) 17:04, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
AP, Reuters, dpa say three dead and five (rather than nine) injured. (Added to sources.) – Sca (talk) 17:27, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Rises, yes, but doesn't come close to the 21 killed in Mali on the same day. Barely cracks the top ten deadliest attacks of the week. GreatCaesarsGhost 01:29, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
    GreatCaesarsGhost, feel free to nominate that attack in Mali. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:43, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. – Illegitimate Barrister (talkcontribs), 20:39, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support article is of sufficient quality, well referenced, detailed enough, topic is currently in the news. Checks all the boxes.--Jayron32 22:16, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose disaster stub. Motivation still unknown. Outrageous statement "Several witnesses have claimed that the probable motive for the attack was an honour killing after a family dispute between two relatives." not backed by refs. No thanks. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:41, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support on notability. Rare case of mass shooting in the Netherlands. Article has been afd'ed though that seems a strange decision as the story is still in the headlines. Hrodvarsson (talk) 03:13, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • The body count is quite low in the scheme of things, and there is no other factor which may suggest greater significance. There is much bias in the western media about this kind of attack being normal where brown/black people live but big news when it happens in our house. Add to that the theme of one of THEM coming HERE and killing US. We need to be cautious about thinking this significant because of the coverage it is getting; it often says more about the coverage than the event. GreatCaesarsGhost 11:16, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Several sources [9] [10] [11] say terrorism still being considered as a motive (or personal/family issues). – Sca (talk) 13:32, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. International continued coverage despite the many tragedies in the news cycle. Article seems fine. wumbolo ^^^ 19:06, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted modified blurb. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:19, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Ongoing removal: Brexit negotiations[edit]

Withdrawn for now, I guess we'll revisit after the request for an extension is made (or isn't). --LaserLegs (talk) 14:19, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Brexit negotiations (talk, history)
Ongoing item removal
Nominator's comments: Last update was several days ago. LaserLegs (talk) 11:21, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose nothing substantive happens over the weekend. This week will see yet more Brexit votes, and an inevitable delay to implementation of Article 50, this isn't the time to remove it. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:30, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose – The never-ending Brexit story goes on. – Sca (talk) 13:40, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per TRM.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:12, 18 March 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.

March 17[edit]

Disasters and accidents

Politics and election

(New) Pakistan Super League[edit]

Article: 2019 Pakistan Super League Final (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In cricket, Quetta Gladiators defeat Peshawar Zalmi in the final to win the Pakistan Super League.
News source(s): BBC

Article updated

 Bigfoot Yeti (talk) 07:53, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment WOW! Finally a sports nom with at least some prose.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 10:57, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak support a big event and this one is significant given issues over the last many years in hosting top-level sport in Pakistan itself. Article is alright, could use a bit more prose, but as noted above, nice to see some there already. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:25, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Alan Krueger[edit]

Article: Alan Krueger (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): NY Times

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.

 IntoThinAir (talk) 17:58, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Support Looks good to me. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:09, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:11, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support good to go. --BabbaQ (talk) 18:41, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. I don't think this is quite ready. The sourcing needs work -- there are several claims based on primary sources only (not all tagged) as well as unsourced material in the infobox. The lead needs rewriting. When did he stop being chair of the White House Council of Economic Advisers? Espresso Addict (talk) 21:18, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:50, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Manohar Parrikar[edit]

Article: Manohar Parrikar (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): NDTV

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: Start Class article with everything sourced. Indian Chief Minister. DBigXray 15:17, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Support The person in question is significant enough to be present in RD. The article too seems good. Adithya Pergade (talk) 17:48, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Everybody who has an article on Wikipedia is "significant enough to be present in RD".--SirEdimon (talk) 18:33, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Everything seems to be accounted for. GreatCaesarsGhost 18:29, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - One importante statement is unsourced: "He has since been credited with transparent, efficient and fast decision making in what was till then thought of as a sluggish ministry. He has also opened up several investigations into alleged scams like Augusta Westland Chopper scam." This kind of thing must be referenced.--SirEdimon (talk) 18:34, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • SirEdimon agree, I have removed this unsourced claim from the article and move to the talk page. Please see if you can now support this--DBigXray 18:45, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - Good to go in my opinion.--SirEdimon (talk) 18:49, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support good enough quality for RD. Marked as ready --DannyS712 (talk) 22:10, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 22:22, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

March 16[edit]

Disasters and accidents
  • A fire at a refugee camp in Nigeria kills eight and leaves 15,000 homeless. The residents are people displaced by ongoing conflict with Boko Haram. (Reuters)
  • 2019 Midwestern U.S. floods
    • Flooding over large portions of Nebraska leave one dead and two missing with over 900 people using emergency shelters. Many roads and highways in the state are also closed. (USA Today)
Law and crime
Politics and elections

(Posted) RD: Dick Dale[edit]

Article: Dick Dale (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination

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: LOADS of work needed. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:35, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: Everything in the main prose is now cited to a source (with the caveat that I haven't checked every source already in the article beyond a few basic spot checks) and a lot of prose has been cleaned up. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:54, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. Thanks to Ritchie333, the article is in much better shape. The discography still needs work so it is not ready to post. Capitalistroadster (talk) 02:35, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support I think the singles are covered by ref #45. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 21:33, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Looks like the article is good enough to post. Swordman97 talk to me 02:40, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - decent shape now. BabbaQ (talk) 23:11, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 23:57, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) 2019 Jayapura flooding[edit]

Article: 2019 Jayapura flood and landslide (talk, history)
Blurb: ​At least 89 people are killed by a flash flood and landslide in Jayapura Regency and Jayapura, Indonesia.
News source(s): The Guardian (via AFP), DW

Nominator's comments: News is a bit buried by the media block in Papua and the NZ/Ethiopia events, but it's still there in front pages. Juxlos (talk) 11:45, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Support - The article is a bit small but seems good enough for me and the death toll is, obviously, very significative.--SirEdimon (talk) 18:38, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. Article is adequate and sourced, though mainly not in English. The BBC is covering this on their world news index page and the ref I've added covers most of the basics. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:19, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support It's true that this has been overshadowed by NZ shooting and Ethiopia crash, but it's tragic too and the article looks OK. – Ammarpad (talk) 06:16, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Did not receive due attention because of other major international news, but coverage that did occur was reasonable. Death toll is significant. AusLondonder (talk) 11:48, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose quality. "The administrative villages of Dobonsolo, Doyobaru and Hini Kumbi were the most affected" most affected how? 73 are dead? Where? How? The impact section has a total of six lines of prose, one of which is dedicated to a damaged helicopter. Is a damaged helicopter "very significant"? I know I'm in the minority here, but this is another disaster stub that tells very little. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:15, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - per refs, per attention, per coverage.BabbaQ (talk) 18:59, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - Ok coverage of event. Well referenced. Obviously significant number of deaths.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 20:58, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted – Muboshgu (talk) 21:33, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Six Nations Championship[edit]

Article: 2019 Six Nations Championship (talk, history)
Blurb: Wales win the 2019 Six Nations Championship with a Grand Slam.
Alternative blurb: ​In rugby, Wales win the 2019 Six Nations Championship with a Grand Slam.
Nominated event is listed at WP:ITN/R, meaning that the recurrence of the event should in itself merit a post on WP:ITN, subject to the quality of the article and any update(s) to it.

 Sceptre (talk) 16:49, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose great graphics and tables. Prose? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:20, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Lacks prose... It needs background information in the article body and supporting info for some sections. NoahTalk 04:52, 17 March 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: