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.

Sebastián Piñera in 2018
Sebastián Piñera

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)
Skip to top
Skip to bottom

Suggestions[edit]

October 23[edit]

Law and crime

Politics and elections

October 22[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Law and crime

Politics and elections

RD: Marieke Vervoort[edit]

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

RD: Raymond Leppard[edit]

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

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

Emperor Naruhito enthroned[edit]

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

Articles: 2019 Japanese imperial transition (talk, history) and Naruhito (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Japanese emperor Naruhito is enthroned
News source(s): [1] [2]

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

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

October 21[edit]

Arts and culture

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Northern Ireland direct rule[edit]

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

Both articles updated

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

  • Weak oppose certainly newsworthy but all three target articles suffering in their own ways from lack of quality. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:51, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Whilst this is good news, we've stopped posting the legalisation of same-sex marriage in even large & populous sovereign countries. NI is a small non-sovereign region with 3% of the UK population. Modest Genius talk 11:17, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose The blurb is unenlightening, and visiting the bold link did nothing to clarify the issue. What's going on here? An Act has been proposed, and did not pass, and this leads to new laws being made re: LBGT and abortion? And according to the article this has something to do with Brexit and a renewable energy scandal? The lede states that this places the burden of legalizing these things onto the British (London) government in 2020; where and how does this new government/laws come into effect, then? If this is a routine change in government, I would support it on ITNR. If this is about legalizing sex and abortion, I would need more information before !voting. If this is about Brexit and/or some other scandal, the update should go to those respective articles and re-nominated. In any case, some clarification is needed before posting.130.233.2.47 (talk) 13:02, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - both article and blurb issues that needs to be completed before posting. Not opposing posting when completed, ping me.BabbaQ (talk) 22:40, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Sorry, but we have long since passed the point where we need to be posting each legalization of SSM. If Russia or Saudi Arabia legalize it drop me a line. Otherwise, this is just more of the same. At some point we need to stop posting these events, and IMHO that point was a couple of years ago. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:22, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: Agree with the opposes above on same sex marriage but am I the only one who finds the abortion part surprising enough to post, considering that GB legalised abortion half a century ago. I can't help but think that Northern Ireland just now legalising abortion is notable enough to deserve some thought. WP:LOGGEDOUT. 69.140.120.9 (talk) 04:14, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
    No, I agree, the abortion aspect is by far more significant than the same-sex marriage issue which appears to have fixated most commentators here. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:45, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Bengt Feldreich[edit]

Article: Bengt Feldreich (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): [3]

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

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

(Posted) RD: Thomas D'Alesandro III[edit]

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

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

(Posted) RD: Eric Cooper[edit]

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

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

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

2019 Canadian federal election[edit]

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

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

Nominator's comments: Pre-emptive nomination. Listed in WP:ITN/R. Results will be close so pre-emptively providing blurbs for the two front-running parties gripped in a tie in opinion polls. Blurbs and pictures can be updated as the results become more clear into the evening. 99.244.174.197 (talk) 06:18, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Support but I'm not sure the pre-emptive nomination was necessary. You're right - it's on ITN/R, and so there's no question this will be posted. However, we must avoid posting in haste - we will only put a blurb up when it is clear whether it's a majority/minority parliament, and who has won the majority or won the most seats. As you say, if it's really close, that may take some time to work out. We will only post when we are 100% sure. 88.215.17.228 (talk) 11:06, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Unable to vote until we have a completed article with properly cited final prose synopses of the completed election. Unless and until we have that, we cannot assess quality. --Jayron32 12:09, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Just domestic politics. STSC (talk) 13:28, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
Just wait and see, for now. STSC (talk) 13:51, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
STSC General elections are on the recurring events list, meaning notability is not at issue. If you disagree with general elections being on the list, you are free to propose its removal on the ITNR talk page. 331dot (talk) 13:34, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
By the time this is posted the election will be decided so I don’t see that as an issue.--69.157.252.96 (talk) 18:09, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Important international event. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:56, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support when the results are added to the article. The networks have called a minority government for Trudeau. Davey2116 (talk) 02:37, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support, but the Liberal Party isn't "them". (The) Liberals are. The party lost its majority, see? InedibleHulk (talk) 04:02, October 22, 2019 (UTC)
    Merci. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:18, October 22, 2019 (UTC)
  • Support upon condition - Prose required in results section. Otherwise article looks good. Sherenk1 (talk) 04:37, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose until we have a prose summary of results. We have held up many other elections for that reason. We need to be consistent. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 06:38, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - the results are basically tallied and final. For the same reason, a couple of people who opposed above would presumably withdraw that opposition now. Alsadius (talk) 10:33, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. Although there are a few seats still to resolve, the outcome is clear (Liberals largest party but without a majority). The article looks fine to me, admittedly on only a quick look. Modest Genius talk 11:20, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - Results give Trudeau two more years. (Four sources added above.) – Sca (talk) 12:56, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
    Minority governments tend to last about that long, but not as a rule, and the leaders can stick around for another shot at a majority afterward. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:01, October 22, 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Coffeeandcrumbs, we still need some prose on the results. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:04, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Article is extremely wordy, and in my opinion gets far too granular. Except, for the one section that actually matters: Results. I'm not certain that intraparty events going back to 2015 are really necessary, nor is a whole paragraph about one institution's "promises kept" publication. But at the very least, flesh out Results.130.233.2.47 (talk) 13:32, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Reading through the article, you'd think that the election hasn't finished yet, even though it has. Agreed with above that results prose is needed.--WaltCip (talk) 13:38, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. The background is well developed, but the results section, which is the only current event worth posting, has not yet been updated with an adequate amount of well-referenced prose. --Jayron32 15:20, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WaltCip and the IP above him. This article seems to be more about the results of the 2015 election than the current election. Rockphed (talk) 18:10, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose TBDs?! The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:47, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

October 20[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Politics and elections

(Posted) RD: Nick Tosches[edit]

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

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

  • Oppose per nom, spot on. The majority of the article is just fine, but the 'ography sections need work. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 20:09, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
    Working on the 'ography sections. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 02:42, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support – "I've gone more than 40 years without having to use an alarm clock or go to an office. At this point, I don't think I'd be capable of it. I don't think I could deprive myself of that sky. It would be like putting an animal in a cage."[4] --- Coffeeandcrumbs 10:08, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - Nice work C&C! ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 12:06, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I seem to recall that bibliography, discography, and film and television appearances do not require inline citations. Wanted to verify that is accurate before I posted it. Kees08 (Talk) 15:21, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
    @Kees08: we require some form of referencing (ISBN/OCLC or citation) on all claims on BLPs. I realized I missed a few things before. Everything should be good to post now. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 17:16, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
    Thanks, glad I waited to post it :). Good work on the updates! Kees08 (Talk) 01:40, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
  • plus Posted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:25, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

October 19[edit]

Disasters and accidents

Politics and elections

(Posted) RD: Erhard Eppler[edit]

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

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

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

(Closed) Parliamentary votes on Brexit | Letwin amendment[edit]

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

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

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

Ongoing: replace "Brexit" with "Brexit negotiations in 2019"[edit]

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

Article updated

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

  • Sounds reasonable, fixing. --Tone 10:22, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
  • The negotiations finished Thursday, so not sure that target is appropriate anymore. Currently, it is up to the House of Commons, so perhaps Parliamentary votes on Brexit, though it is not really updated. Still thinks the main Brexit article is the best target. Also, can you please elaborate on why the Brexit articles is horrible uninformative. I find it very informative, but a bit difficult to navigate. ― Hebsen(previously Heb the best) (talk) 10:37, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
    Mostly agree, Hebsen. But I think Parliamentary votes on Brexit might be a better target once updated. May be less of a wait than anticipated, as voting on Oliver Letwin's delaying amendment is currently underway. First House of Commons Saturday sitting for 37 years. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:39, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
Hebsen, I have on several occasions visited Brexit to find out what is going on and came out uninformed. I agree, however, that Parliamentary votes on Brexit may in time make a good substitute if updated. My personal criteria for an ongoing link is where can the reader easily find the most up to date information. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 18:04, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
  • WP:ERRORS was solely created to deal with issues like this. Please let's direct further "fix this" issues there. – Ammarpad (talk) 19:53, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
    • I will try that next time this ever comes up but I think I would have been referred back to here. I would think replacing an article should be vetted and discussed here. This was not an error or a minor update. This was a proposal to delist and replace in FPC parlance. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 21:05, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose "Brexit means Brexit". The focus of the affair keeps shifting between the diplomatic negotiations; the various parliaments and personalities; the street protests; the courts; &c. Trying to identify the news focus with blurbs or the suggested sub-article is misleading as the story soon moves on. The timeline section in the main Brexit article might be a good place to start but we shouldn't assume that the reader already knows what Brexit means and so it's best to start at the top. Andrew D. (talk) 07:26, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I have reverted the link back to Brexit per comments above — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:01, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - Yes, it does make sense. STSC (talk) 13:32, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support and I'm invoking my super special and meaningful "strongest possible" enhancement for this !vote. The Brexit article is too long to serve the intended purpose of providing information on what's in the news. GreatCaesarsGhost 18:39, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
Today's entertainment. – Sca (talk) 15:00, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Deborah Orr[edit]

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

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

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

October 18[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

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

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

(Posted) 2019 Santiago protests[edit]

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

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Riots/protests that have disabled Chile's capital metro system, more than half of the population of the entire country now living under state of emergency, which will persist for at least another 10 days. 130.233.2.47 (talk) 08:27, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

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

(Closed) RD: Kamlesh Tiwari[edit]

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

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

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.
  Harshil want to talk? 03:40, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose There are significant gaps in basic information. Dates are missing. The article reports criminal cases lodged four years ago w/o explaining their outcome. It doesn't even explicitly identify the subjects nationality although that can be guessed from the body. The subject is clearly notable but the article is going to need serious expansion before it can be posted. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:24, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
@Ad Orientem: Kindly revise your vote. I have updated the article. -- Harshil want to talk? 06:43, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
There is now an orange POV tag at the top. That's a showstopper until whatever issues it refers to are corrected. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:23, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
It’s no more. — Harshil want to talk? 08:08, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose There's nothing in the article about his life up until 2012. Indeed, apart from one sentence there's nothing about him apart from his comment about Muhammad and his death. Black Kite (talk) 13:38, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I agree with the above !votes. However, you might make an article Assassination of Kamlesh Tiwari and re-nominate that, using the information already in the BLP. There's enough sourcing to show notability and religiously-motivated political assassinations are newsworthy.130.233.2.47 (talk) 07:19, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
    No way: we don't need two different articles on this person — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:48, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Looking better now. I don't understand the following sentence: Thousands of Muslims protected in Muzaffarnagar and demanded death penalty for Tiwari. Perhaps it needs proof-reading, but it's getting there. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:49, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

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

Wreck of the Japanese aircraft carrier Kaga found[edit]

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

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Wreck identification was confirmed this week, leading to the articles linked above. This article is a FA, and we've previously posted discovered warship wrecks like French battleship Danton. The update could do with some expanding. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:46, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

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

(Closed) First all-female spacewalk[edit]

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

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

Both articles updated
 Davey2116 (talk) 19:12, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose it's a nice piece of trivia. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:33, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Interesting indeed but not really ITN-worthy. Could be a cool DYK if the articles are promoted to GA, which they very well could be ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 19:49, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Another milestone. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:50, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose.--WaltCip (talk) 20:21, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This is a good example of something typically found in the DYK section. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 20:33, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support I agree this would have been a great DYK (especially because of the reason the first planned all-female spacewalk was scrapped) but that doesn't make it not worthy of ITN. --valereee (talk) 20:56, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Trivial. "First female X" is often going to be trivial. Sometimes it could be a true breakthrough, but sometimes it's this. What's so significant about two women doing a spacewalk together? This isn't even the first female spacewalk. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:59, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Internationally, not trivial.[5][6] Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:31, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Come on, you two.--WaltCip (talk) 21:30, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • There's a huge amount of fuss around it based on the failure the first time around because the perceived sexism in not carrying different size suits. Hence the coverage. But in encyclopedic value terms, this is pure trivia. Did we post the fist time two men space-walked together? Will we post the first time two African-Americans spacewalk together? Doubt it. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 21:35, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
    In encyclopedic terms it is not trivial (no matter how bolded), its "making history", and it is already included in the encyclopedia. (We are currently carrying a woman who ran fast, because she was a woman who ran fast.) These things non-trivially matter to people around the world.[7] Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:01, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
    Actually, she did something a woman has never done before. These women just happened to be in the same place at the same time, repeating a feat that women have done for years and years and years. Yawn. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 16:45, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
    It is plainly false that they just happened to be in the same place at the same time, and untrue that women walked together in space before.[8] Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:41, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
    I didn't say that women had walked in space together. Do keep up. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 12:40, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
    So, these women did do something not done by women before. That the history of space walks is some sixty-years-old, only reinforces that this is history making and how the world changes.[9] [10] -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:32, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
    No, as I said, women have done spacewalks for years. Just because there was a crowd of them this time, it doesn't make it significant other than the hysteria around the space suits issue last time round. Hyperbolic trivia. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 14:40, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
    All the reliable sources says it's history making and significant that these women did this. Your opinions are entirely unsupported, except by ultra-fringe personal ipsa-dixit. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:06, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
    That's hilarious. There's a strong consensus against this trivia for precisely the reasons I've given. Perhaps everyone else opposing is into this "ultra-fringe theorising" ipsa-dixit quod erat demonstrandum!! The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 15:38, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
    But it is not hilarious, it is just the case that you are only basing your arguments on your personal opinions, regardless of each reliable source that contradicts your personal opinions -- according to reliable sources, which note facts of the history of space walks including earlier women, these women's space walk has history making significance. And your only response, instead of basing things on the evidence of sources is to say you're personally bored be these women's accomplishments. So you personally find it not interesting, in the very face of multiple reliable sources being interested in these women's accomplishment. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:52, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
    No, it's still hilarious. Feel free to batter all the others who have formed a strong consensus against this trivia being posted. And it wasn't the spacewalk that was boring I'm afraid Alan. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 18:26, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
    Battering, how odd, since basically all your personal opinion comments have been down here under my reliably sourced comments, it would be you who would be battering. And what you are battering with, over and over and over, is your continued unsourced personal opinion belittling (see eg, [11] [12] ) these women's accomplishment in the face of multiple reliable sources that express in detail these women made history. (Also, your attempts to support an argument by claiming others also have personal unsourced opinions is without logic.) -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:23, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
    No, you misunderstand again. I simply pointed to the clear consensus against this trivial story being newsworthy for this encyclopedia. I think that's really all that needs to be said. Without the NASA failed suits issue, this would be even less interesting than it currently is, which is already clearly borderline, regardless of your reliable sources. Cheers, but as suggested by others, more suited for a different part of the main page! And it's so trivial that it isn't even mentioned in the spacewalk article!!! The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:42, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
    You continue to batter with unsourced personal opinion, mutiple reliable sources demonstrate it is newsworthy and not trivial, continuing your extended effort to belittle what these women did. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:49, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
    No, quite the opposite, I'm stating the facts, this is trivial. One woman has done a spacewalk. Plenty of women have done spacewalks. For 20 years. Now two have done it at the same time. It's nothing really to do with belittling the achievements of these two women at all. They did great. But it makes precisely zero difference that they were two women or two men or two African-Americans or two Jews or two midgets. These are fractionally incremental and trivial changes, indeed this one so insignificant that even this encyclopedia's article excludes it. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:54, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
    You are not stating facts you battering with your unsupported personal opinions belittling these women's accomplishment as mere trivia, because the facts as established by multiple reliable sources include the earlier space walks and say what these women did here is historic. According to reliable sources it does matter to history that these women did this, again contrary to your personal opinion. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:04, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
    It doesn't matter, it's minutiae. As evidenced by this encyclopedia and this community. Now, feel free to have the final word as this is going nowhere; many of us disagree that this is in any sense "historic", by all means "batter" one of them as it won't work on me. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 20:07, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
    Your unsourced personal opinion that reliable sources don't matter is just continuation of your battering -- reliable sources are are actual evidence in contrast to personal opinion. Your unsourced personal opinion on historic, is belied by multiple reliable sources, who all say it is historic. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:25, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Interesting trivia. More suited for DYK. – Ammarpad (talk) 21:51, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support International reliable sources report this rare feat. Trillfendi (talk) 22:15, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
  • OpposeEileen Collins was breaking the glass ceiling. This is just nice trivia. Wait for the first all female crew. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 23:48, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Chasing the headlines only. -- Harshil want to talk? 03:15, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support It is the 221st spacewalk on the ISS alone (I think we are somewhere are 400 spacewalks all time? Had trouble finding the exact number). Important enough of an achievement to be featured in my opinion. If every ~400 spacewalks and 35 years (time between Svetlana's spacewalk and now) we feature an achievement like this, so be it. Kees08 (Talk) 06:18, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak support in that this is being made a big deal by the news, and I think is fair to post, though acknowledging that it was "just" another spacewalk otherwise. That said, Meir's article has sourcing issues, a visible CN and the awards need a proper source (the only one goes to the home page of JSC which is not sufficient). --Masem (t) 13:59, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
    • I took care of those issues and many others, perhaps Coffeeandcrumbs would be able to spend time citing the last little bits and whatever other work needs done...? Kees08 (Talk) 06:43, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
      Kees08, of course. Done. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 07:27, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - as above, the important glass ceiling regarding spacewalks was broken in the past, leaving this as little but a nice bit of trivia worthy perhaps of DYK. Stormy clouds (talk) 17:27, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Huge news for 1/2 population of the world 5.44.170.9 (talk) 20:03, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
    Really? Getting them the right to vote was huge news for women. Equal pay would be too. I don't see too many women celebrating in the streets over this. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:39, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
Macaca fuscata juvenile yawning.jpg


  • Oppose. – Sca (talk) 12:33, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Meir's article indicates that this was done in the execution of routine maintenance. I don't think even avid female space enthusiasts are going to be interested in changing batteries.130.233.2.47 (talk) 06:43, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. A welcome but trivial development. The first woman to spacewalk was notable, but that was Svetlana Savitskaya in 1984. That no men were outside during this particular routine spacewalk is not something that's going to break any glass ceilings. Modest Genius talk 12:37, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose, per Modest Genius. —Brigade Piron (talk) 18:51, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment time to put this one out its misery methinks. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 18:57, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

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

(Posted) 2019 Lebanese protests[edit]

Article: 2019 Lebanese protests (talk, history)
Blurb: ​After government plans to tax calls made through WhatsApp, protests break out in Lebanon.
Alternative blurb: ​Country-wide protests erupt after the government of Lebanon announces plans to tax gasoline, tobacco, and online phone calls.
Alternative blurb II: ​Several cabinet ministers resign amid protests in Lebanon which began after the government announced plans to tax gasoline, tobacco, and online phone calls.
News source(s): [13]

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

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

(Posted) RD: Mark Hurd[edit]

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

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

(Closed) 2019 Military World Games[edit]

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

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

Article updated
Nominator's comments: This is the largest ever Military World Games with participants from over 100 countries Abishe (talk) 07:14, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Would like to see some of those sections in the article expanded significantly, but support in principle — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:30, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose It's not in the news. PR Newswire is just a distributor of press-releases. Andrew D. (talk) 10:08, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Not a significant event. Modest Genius talk 11:16, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Per previous. – Sca (talk) 12:40, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose I have added Telegraph and US DoD sources. The time to nominate this is probably the conclusion of the games, when results are in and the article is finalized.130.233.3.131 (talk) 13:08, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks but the DoD is not a news organisation and the Telegraph article was published back in July. Compare this with the space walk which is in all MSM. Andrew D. (talk) 22:23, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait until conclusion of the games. Will assess quality at that point. Until we have a concluded games and a relatively complete descriptive prose of them, there's nothing to post. --Jayron32 13:09, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose time to close. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:34, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

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

October 17[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

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

(Closed) RD: Márta Kurtág[edit]

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

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

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

(Posted) RD: Göran Malmqvist[edit]

Article: Göran Malmqvist (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): [14], [15]

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

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

(Posted) RD: Elijah Cummings[edit]

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

Article updated

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

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

  • Oppose blurb, support RD This congressman wasn't very notable on the national scene. That being said, the sourcing is good enough for RD. Nonstopmaximum (talk) 10:05, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support RD and, although it breaks my heart to type this, Oppose blurb. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 10:10, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support RD. Good article and well referenced. Oppose blurb. One of 500+ elected officials, held a few committee chairs, like many of those other 500+ do.130.233.3.131 (talk) 10:41, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support RD Article looks good. Johndavies837 (talk) 10:47, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per above. MSN12102001 (talk) 11:22, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - ready to go.BabbaQ (talk) 11:28, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support looks good to go. DoctorSpeed ✉️ —Preceding undated comment added 11:34, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support RD and Oppose Blurb per others. If we did a blurb for every congressman, ITN would be nothing but deaths! Good article though ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 11:38, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
    Well Cummings was more than just your regular congressman, but I agree that he doesn't reach what should be a high bar for blurb over RD.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:42, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
  • plus Posted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:03, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

October 16[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

International relations

(Posted) RD: Patrick Day[edit]

Article: Patrick Day (talk, history)
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: Boxer who died from brain injury after losing fight by knockout this weekend gone. NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM (talk) 18:12, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

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

(Posted) RD: Leah Bracknell[edit]

Article: Leah Bracknell (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): [16]

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: Death announced today. BabbaQ (talk) 16:01, 16 October 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: