Jump to content

Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 51: Line 51:
*'''Oppose''' and the close was an appropriate snow-close since this has zero chance of posting so reopening is just wasting everyone's time. If he becomes PM and is subsequently imprisoned whilst in office, then we'll talk. All that's happened today is that a junior judge has ruled that the case isn't wholly vexatious and consequently is outside her competence and needs to be heard by a higher court; specifically noting in so doing that "the allegations which have been made are unproven accusations and I do not make any finding of fact". There's {{em|theoretically}} a dangerous precedent in private prosecutions of politicians for campaign promises, as it theoretically sets a precedent for those with the biggest pockets to tie political opponents up in litigation, but we're nowhere near that stage yet. ‑ [[User:Iridescent|Iridescent]] 14:03, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' and the close was an appropriate snow-close since this has zero chance of posting so reopening is just wasting everyone's time. If he becomes PM and is subsequently imprisoned whilst in office, then we'll talk. All that's happened today is that a junior judge has ruled that the case isn't wholly vexatious and consequently is outside her competence and needs to be heard by a higher court; specifically noting in so doing that "the allegations which have been made are unproven accusations and I do not make any finding of fact". There's {{em|theoretically}} a dangerous precedent in private prosecutions of politicians for campaign promises, as it theoretically sets a precedent for those with the biggest pockets to tie political opponents up in litigation, but we're nowhere near that stage yet. ‑ [[User:Iridescent|Iridescent]] 14:03, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
::<small>Ah yes, "an enormous waste of everyone's time that has zero chance of success." Sounds familiar. [[User:Martinevans123|Martinevans123]] ([[User talk:Martinevans123|talk]]) 14:08, 29 May 2019 (UTC) </small>
::<small>Ah yes, "an enormous waste of everyone's time that has zero chance of success." Sounds familiar. [[User:Martinevans123|Martinevans123]] ([[User talk:Martinevans123|talk]]) 14:08, 29 May 2019 (UTC) </small>
:::<small>That's because it is familiar. 19x out of 20 when Count Iblis' name is at the end of a nomination, it is going nowhere at the speed of light. This one is bordering on frivolous and it is a complete waste of time, which is exactly what WP:SNOW is supposed to be for. -[[User:Ad Orientem|Ad Orientem]] ([[User talk:Ad Orientem|talk]]) 14:18, 29 May 2019 (UTC)</small>
*{{ec}} TWICE. '''Oppose''' - Besides the laughably egregious [[WP:BLP]]-violating allegations within the blurbs, we post convictions, not arrests.--[[User:WaltCip|WaltCip]] ([[User talk:WaltCip|talk]]) 14:05, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
*{{ec}} TWICE. '''Oppose''' - Besides the laughably egregious [[WP:BLP]]-violating allegations within the blurbs, we post convictions, not arrests.--[[User:WaltCip|WaltCip]] ([[User talk:WaltCip|talk]]) 14:05, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' minor local politics, not worthy of really any kind of headline, let alone inclusion in Wikipedia's news section. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|talk]]) 14:06, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' minor local politics, not worthy of really any kind of headline, let alone inclusion in Wikipedia's news section. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|talk]]) 14:06, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Revision as of 14:18, 29 May 2019

Click here to nominate an item for In the news. In the news toolbox
Shortcut

This page provides a place to discuss new items for inclusion on In the news (ITN), a protected template on the Main Page (see past items in the ITN archives). Do not report errors in ITN items that are already on the Main Page here— discuss those at the relevant section of WP:ERRORS.

This candidates page is integrated with the daily pages of Portal:Current events. A light green header appears under each daily section - it includes transcluded Portal:Current events items for that day. You can discuss ITN candidates under the header.

Ismail Haniyeh in September 2022
Ismail Haniyeh

view — page history — related changes — edit

Glossary

  • Blurbs are one-sentence summaries of the news story.
    • Altblurbs, labelled alt1, alt2, etc., are alternative suggestions to cover the same story.
    • A target article, bolded in text, is the focus of the story. Each blurb must have at least one such article, but you may also link non-target articles.
  • Articles in the Ongoing line describe events getting continuous coverage.
  • The Recent deaths (RD) line includes any living thing whose death was recently announced. Consensus may decide to create a blurb for a recent death.

All articles linked in the ITN template must pass our standards of review. They should be up-to-date, demonstrate relevance via good sourcing and have at least an acceptable quality.

Nomination steps

  • Make sure the item you want to nominate has an article that meets our minimum requirements and contains reliable coverage of a current event you want to create a blurb about. We will not post about events described in an article that fails our quality standards.
  • Find the correct section below for the date of the event (not the date nominated). Do not add sections for new dates manually - a bot does that for us each day at midnight (UTC).
  • Create a level 4 header with the article name (==== Your article here ====). Add (RD) or (Ongoing) if appropriate.
Then paste the {{ITN candidate}} template with its parameters and fill them in. The news source should be reliable, support your nomination and be in the article. Write your blurb in simple present tense. Below the template, briefly explain why we should post that event. After that, save your edit. Your nomination is ready!
  • You may add {{ITN note}} to the target article's talk page to let editors know about your nomination.

The better your article's quality, the better it covers the event and the wider its perceived significance (see WP:ITNSIGNIF for details), the better your chances of getting the blurb posted.

Purge this page to update the cache

Headers

  • When the article is ready, updated and there is consensus to post, you can mark the item as (Ready). Remove that wording if you feel the article fails any of these necessary criteria.
  • Admins should always separately verify whether these criteria are met before posting blurbs marked (Ready). For more guidance, check WP:ITN/A.
    • If satisfied, change the header to (Posted).
    • Where there is no consensus, or the article's quality remains poor, change the header to (Closed) or (Not posted).
    • Sometimes, editors ask to retract an already-posted nomination because of a fundamental error or because consensus changed. If you feel the community supports this, remove the item and mark the item as (Pulled).

Voicing an opinion on an item

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.

Please do...

Shortcut
  1. Pick an older item to review near the bottom of this page, before the eligibility runs out and the item scrolls off the page and gets abandoned in the archive, unused and forgotten.
  2. Review an item even if it has already been reviewed by another user. You may be the first to spot a problem, or the first to confirm that an identified problem was fixed. Piling on the list of "support!" votes will help administrators see what is ready to be posted on the Main Page.
  3. Tell about problems in articles if you see them. Be bold and fix them yourself if you know how, or tell others if it's not possible.

Please do not...

Shortcut
  1. Add simple "support!" or "oppose!" votes without including your reasons. Similarly, curt replies such as "who?", "meh", or "duh!" are not helpful. A vote without reasoning means little for us, please elaborate yourself.
  2. Oppose an item just because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. We post a lot of such content, so these comments are generally unproductive.
  3. Accuse other editors of supporting, opposing or nominating due to a personal bias (such as ethnocentrism). We at ITN do not handle conflicts of interest.
  4. Comment on a story without first reading the relevant article(s).
  5. Oppose a recurring item here because you disagree with the recurring items criteria. Discuss them here.
  6. Use ITN as a forum for your own political or personal beliefs. Such comments are irrelevant to the outcome and are potentially disruptive.

Suggesting updates

There are two places where you can request corrections to posted items:

  • Anything that does not change the intent of the blurb (spelling, grammar, markup issues, updating death tolls etc.) should be discussed at WP:Errors.
  • Discuss major changes in the blurb's intent or very complex updates as part of the current ITNC nomination.

Suggestions


May 29

May 29, 2019 (2019-05-29) (Wednesday)
Arts and culture

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

May 28

May 28, 2019 (2019-05-28) (Tuesday)
International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

Judge orders Boris Johnson to go on trial for lying and misleading in Brexit campaign

Reclosing as SNOW. --Masem (t) 14:15, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Articles: Boris Johnson (talk · history · tag) and Brexit (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Judge orders Boris Johnson to go on trial for lying and misleading in Brexit campaign (Post)
News source(s): Independent
Credits:

Both articles need updating
 Count Iblis (talk) 13:30, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm surprised this was slapped down quite so promptly (6 minutes), given that it's a legal first in England and Wales and given the prominence of BoJo in the Tory leadership contest. Perhaps the Brexit Bus wil be driven into court as evidence. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:55, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I don't mind this being closed if there are a rapid number of opposes, but not on zero. With that in mind, I'm going to Oppose as a) it's not worldwide news and b) Boris Johnson lying isn't exactly news anymore either. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:59, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Oooh, worra bitch." Martinevans123 (talk) 14:02, 29 May 2019 (UTC) [reply]
  • Oppose and the close was an appropriate snow-close since this has zero chance of posting so reopening is just wasting everyone's time. If he becomes PM and is subsequently imprisoned whilst in office, then we'll talk. All that's happened today is that a junior judge has ruled that the case isn't wholly vexatious and consequently is outside her competence and needs to be heard by a higher court; specifically noting in so doing that "the allegations which have been made are unproven accusations and I do not make any finding of fact". There's theoretically a dangerous precedent in private prosecutions of politicians for campaign promises, as it theoretically sets a precedent for those with the biggest pockets to tie political opponents up in litigation, but we're nowhere near that stage yet. ‑ Iridescent 14:03, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, "an enormous waste of everyone's time that has zero chance of success." Sounds familiar. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:08, 29 May 2019 (UTC) [reply]
That's because it is familiar. 19x out of 20 when Count Iblis' name is at the end of a nomination, it is going nowhere at the speed of light. This one is bordering on frivolous and it is a complete waste of time, which is exactly what WP:SNOW is supposed to be for. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:18, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Record-breaking May tornado outbreak

Proposed image
Article: Tornado outbreak of May 2019 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ More than 170 tornadoes in the United States leave nine people dead and hundreds injured. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ A series of tornado outbreaks in the U.S. leaves nine people dead and hundreds injured.
Alternative blurb II: ​ A series of severe storms in the U.S. results in extensive flooding and more than 170 tornadoes.
Alternative blurb III: ​ A record-breaking series of tornado outbreaks in the U.S. leaves fourteen people dead and hundreds injured.
News source(s): [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Significant number of tornadoes every single day for more than ten days (so far), including hits on major cities -- more than 171 so far by sources, although the article is still catching up. I will be adding a section on the flooding later today. There have been so many tornadoes that I can't specify "central" United States, because tornadoes have been occurring from California/New Mexico to Maryland/New York. (There have even been a couple of minor tornadoes in Canada, but by impact this focus should definitely be on the United States.) Most, however, have occurred between Oklahoma and Ohio. I hope that we do not have to consider this for "ongoing", since there is possibly an end in sight. Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 16:57, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I did not create the article, and there are too many significant updaters to single anyone out. I hope I got the creator right -- please correct me if I erred. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 17:00, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Update We are now into nation-wide record territory, reflected in a new alt-blurb and sources. The 12th day of this activity has set a U.S. record for successive days with more than 8 tornadoes a day. (The previous record was set in 1980.) The total number of confirmed tornadoes has exceeded 220. As noted below, the NYT reports more than 500 preliminary tornado reports in a month -- which, even for the U.S., is (quoting) "approaching uncharted territory". Several states have already surpassed their typical annual total number of tornadoes. Updated death toll is well into double figures for the period (thanks largely to improved forecasting and access to shelters). For context, the 2011 Super Outbreak, the largest ever of its kind, recorded a total of 360 confirmed tornadoes in three days -- but its deaths were limited to just six states, the vast majority of them in Alabama. Only three previous U.S. tornado outbreaks have ever been recorded with 100+ tornadoes. Leaving this now to update the article and start working on the flooding section. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 04:34, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Nine dead is not quite at the threshold expected to post regional weather-related catastrophes on ITN.--WaltCip (talk) 17:41, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose old and unremarkable news. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:05, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "outbreak" started about 11 days ago. If you want an "ongoing" nomination, say so. But to blurb this completely unremarkable "outbreak' which "broke out" 11 days ago would somewhat defeat the point. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:11, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
By that reasoning, reporting the results of most season-cumulative sporting events would be "old news". - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 02:58, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about?! Season-long sports events aren't decided until usually the very end or at least very very close to the very end of the season. Good try though. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:14, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And neither was the full severity of this situation fully defined until close to its ending. In the way that I nominated it, it was opposed as "old", even though it is still making headlines around the world (including in the UK). Yet were I to nominate it as "ongoing", the nomination would be opposed on the basis that it is nearly over. Good try, though. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 09:32, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Torandos are common this time of year, and its not all coming from the same storm/weather system. That they all fell within a certain week is unfortunate, but this is a fact of life living in the midwest/tornado alley in the US. I would be more "forgiving" , I guess, if there was significantly more singular damage and death from the same common storm system than from one. --Masem (t) 19:02, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support top of my news feed today says "11 straight days of tornadoes have US approaching 'uncharted territory'". We post typhoons during typhoon season and floods during flood season -- no reason to oppose tornadoes during tornado season unless you're also going to oppose the next time routine seasonal floods kill a handful of people in an under developed country with poor infrastructure and emergence response. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:03, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I seem to recall the front page posting some sort of UK related weather posting as well. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:05, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • We don't post all floods. Thousands of people in India and China die each year from flooding and typhoons - but their deaths collectively do not come from a single storm but the overall rainy season. So we aren't posting those "routine" deaths. But when a single system makes that much of a death toll, that becomes notable on its own. --Masem (t) 04:39, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose Tornado outbreaks this time of year are not uncommon. So far we have (thankfully) not had a really serious mass casualty event. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:41, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose making hay of a coincidence (more or less per Masem). GreatCaesarsGhost 00:55, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose – Essentially a car crash in slow motion. Collectively, this prolonged outbreak is impressive but aside from May 27, no one day is particularly impressive. It's not nationally record-breaking as far as I can tell, and claims of such are largely sensationalism. The event is certainly unusually prolonged with consistently damaging events. However, it pales in comparison to the 2011 Super Outbreak (catastrophic singular event) and the May 2003 tornado outbreak sequence (closest comparable prolonged event). As of this comment, 218 tornadoes have been confirmed nationwide from May 17–28, the number of reports is far less useful/notable as those include duplicates of long-track tornadoes and events that didn't turn out to be tornadoes. This falls way short of the 10-day tornado record of roughly 500 confirmed tornadoes set in April 2011. The flood aspect has been building since February and will continue to expand through June. The floods can't be attributed to this event alone. My comments may need adjustments pending further details of yesterday's tornadoes in Kansas and Missouri, but we'll cross that bridge when we get there. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 07:35, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
True that the total number of tornadoes falls short of the all-time record (thankfully). However, this is only the fourth ever tornado event with these kinds of numbers since records were kept. Also, unlike the record-breaker, the other aspects of these storms have additionally caused significant damage, injury, and some loss of life. In that respect, this event is in a class by itself. Again, true that the flooding had begun prior to these storms, but that flooding was largely limited to spring riverine flooding and had been dropping when this cycle hit. The severe flash flooding is, by its nature, tightly associated with specific storm systems. To put the amount of rainfall into context, May records are being broken by as much as 50%; and multiple all-time monthly records are at risk. Finally, every single county in the state of Oklahoma is currently in a state of emergency, and has been since May 24. Similar far-reaching weather-related states of emergency are only seen for the strongest hurricanes. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 09:32, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kawasaki stabbings

Article: Kawasaki stabbings (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ At least two people are dead and 18 injured after been attacked by a knife-wielding man in a Japanese city, south of Tokyo. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ At least two people were killed and 18 injured after a knife attack in the Japanese city of Kawasaki, south of Tokyo.
Alternative blurb II: ​ A knife-wielding man attacked a group of schoolchildren waiting for a bus in a Japanese city near Tokyo.
Alternative blurb III: ​ A knife attack by a man on a group of schoolchildren in Kawasaki, Japan, leaves two dead and 17 injured.
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Rare incident. Article is in process of being updated. Sherenk1 (talk) 03:47, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support alt 3 sans "by a man." -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:57, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Yes, it's unusual for Japan, but certainly not unprecedented. If the new wp:minimumdeaths is "it's been a little while since it's happened HERE" then we'll be posting these things left and right, for every country other than the U.S. The usual barrier to entry is quality of the article, but this one is roughly 300 words. I fail to see how this benefits our readers. GreatCaesarsGhost 00:51, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Per GreatCaesarsGhost (and others). Unfortunately, as it stands, these types of events are common, so I don't think a typical person reading the news would be very concerned about this, even though it happened in an unusual place. Pie3141527182 (talk) 11:29, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – Shocking in that it involved children, but otherwise a parochial event without broader significance. Article at 300 words doesn't merit Main Page promotion. Sca (talk) 12:50, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

May 27

May 27, 2019 (2019-05-27) (Monday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
  • French police arrest four people in connection with last Friday's bombing in Lyon's historic city center that injured 13 people. Anti-terrorist prosecutors are leading the investigation. District mayor Denis Broliquier said the bomb was a relatively weak explosive that was too small to kill. No one has claimed responsibility for the attack. (BBC News)
  • Over Sunday and Monday, 55 people die of asphyxiation in various prisons across the Brazilian city of Manaus. (BBC News)

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

Politics and elections

RD: Bill Buckner

Article: Bill Buckner (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): ESPN
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Still needs a good deal more sourcing to be postable. Masem (t) 19:12, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sebastian Kurz

Articles: Sebastian Kurz (talk · history · tag) and Kurz government (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Austrian Chancellor Sebastian Kurz and his government were dismissed through a parliamentary motion of no confidence. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Chancellor of Austria Sebastian Kurz and his government are dismissed after losing motion of no confidence following the Ibiza affair.
Alternative blurb II: ​ Austrian Chancellor Sebastian Kurz is dismissed in a parliamentary no-confidence vote, paving the way for new elections.
News source(s): The New York Times, Bloomberg, AP, BBC, dpa, Guardian, Spiegel (in German)
Credits:

 Colonestarrice (talk) 14:44, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Ibiza affair did not necessarily mean the end of the whole cabinet. And it is the first time in Austria a parliamentary motion of no confidence was successful and the head of government along with their cabinet were removed. And if it wasn't noteworthy, the media wouldn't report about it so excessively. Colonestarrice (talk) 18:29, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Smurray notes at the top that this no-confidence vote will have a more immediate effect than the breakup of the coalition with the Strache's FPÖ. – Sca (talk) 20:36, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, as I mentioned before the caretaker or interim government had limited powers. "With the swearing-in of an interim government, there is the possibility of conducting the affairs of state calmly and in an orderly way until election day," said Kurz.[7] "President Van der Bellen told a press conference on Tuesday, emphasising that the caretaker administration would be expected not to implement major new legislation or government spending."[8] They just finished off the lame duck before the elections. --Pudeo (talk) 20:49, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. Yeah, I see from Spiegel that the new elections still are scheduled for September. Sca (talk) 22:09, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
On May 28 Vice Chancellor Hartwig Löger was sworn in as acting chancellor. – Sca (talk)

(Posted) 2019 European Parliament election

Proposed image
Articles: 2019 European Parliament election (talk · history · tag) and European People's Party group (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The results of the 2019 European Parliament election are announced, with the European People's Party group, led by Manfred Weber (pictured), taking the most seats. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ In the European Parliament election, the European People's Party group, led by Manfred Weber (pictured), wins the most seats.
Alternative blurb II: ​ In the European Parliament election, the European People's Party group lose seats but remain the largest party.
Alternative blurb III: ​ In the European Parliament election, the centre-right and centre-left lose seats, with liberals, the far-right and greens and regionalists making the largest gains.
Alternative blurb IV: ​ The results of the 2019 European Parliament election are announced: EVP X%/Seats(+-), S&D X%/Seats(+-) , ALDE X%/Seats(+-), Green/EFA X%/Seats(+-), ECR X%/Seats(+-), EFDD X%/Seats(+-), GUE/NGL X%/Seats(+-), Non-inscrits X%/Seats(+-), Others X%/Seats(+-).
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Now that results are out, let's look at this again Kingsif (talk) 01:50, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose for now. Article needs expanded discussion of the results. Also the proposed blurb would be described in the news business as "burying the lead." The real story here is that parties representing both the hard left and right made substantial gains in the election at the expense of the more traditionally centrist parties. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:47, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I added a alternative blurb. We usually only announce the winner of the most seats. The rest is best left for the article to handle. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 03:04, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not really accurate. Basically all groups that weren't the socialists or the conservatives made gains (although the far-left group, the NGL, also lost seats), with the biggest gains being the traditionally very centrist ALDE! Smurrayinchester 07:31, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Opinion: It think it is out of question, that this topic needs to be news on the main page. The article isnt ready yet, as it seems. However, when it is, I suggest a blurb, that shows the results of the fractions and behind that in brackets the difference of seats they lost or gained. LennBr (talk) 07:52, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The blurb is going to be very difficult here - EU parliament group leader is not really the same thing as a party leader, and the EPP (and all other party groups) are a very long way from any kind of majority (the EU Parliament isn't really a majoritarian system anyway - the EU "government" is primarily made up of the heads of government of member states and the commissioners they appoint). I'd suggest deleting "led by Manfred Weber" - we* can have a separate blurb when either Weber or his S&D rival Timmermans (or someone else entirely!) gets elected President of the European Commission when the EU parliament convenes in July. I've added a couple of alt-blurbs that hopefully better reflect how EU politics works. Smurrayinchester 07:52, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support alternative blurb III once the preliminary results for all countries are in and documented in the article. This is the most decent summary that can be made. Replace the photo with one of the European Parliament chamber or a similar neutral image. A full listing of numbers does not make for a good blurb. --Gerrit CUTEDH 08:57, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support alt III per Gerrit. It's the most concise and neutral way to summarize the results. But of course we need to wait until all preliminary results are in, the article currently has no data for France and Poland. Regards SoWhy 09:17, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support alt III - and pending updates of latest results.BabbaQ (talk) 09:28, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Alt3 – when content is ready. – Sca (talk) 12:44, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Alt3 – a difficult one to properly describe because these are unlike national elections where a party could win a plurality or a majority and form a government. This one is the best of the choice available though. This is Paul (talk) 13:28, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • But there is a kind of equivalent to forming a government, in that Manfred Weber has at least arguably been 'elected' as the next President of the European Commission. Tlhslobus (talk) 17:46, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

May 26

May 26, 2019 (2019-05-26) (Sunday)
Armed conflict and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Politics and elections

Sports

2019 IIHF World Championship

Article: 2019 IIHF World Championship (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ ​In ice hockey, the IIHF World Championship concludes with Finland defeating Canada in the final. (Post)
News source(s): Washington Post (Associated Press), Reuters
Credits:

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

 --Pudeo (talk) 21:07, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now Although it is notable (and there were other IIHF World Championships that were posted to ITN), the article is currently lacking any summary compared to the posted ones. I will probably start making a summary if I can find some sources about it. INeedSupport :3 02:24, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think if both are target articles (the final should be included in the nom), then they both need prose updates; less in the main page for each match than those match pages will get. Kingsif (talk) 07:01, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Bart Starr

Article: Bart Starr (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): ESPN
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: About 20% of main prose need sourcing Masem (t) 17:55, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Former Thai PM Prem Tinsulanonda dies

Article: Prem Tinsulanonda (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb:  Former Thai Prime Minister Prem Tinsulanonda dies (Post)
News source(s): [9] [10]
Credits:

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

 Banedon (talk) 12:31, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOFIXIT please. 70.171.32.188 (talk) 13:55, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, not interested in the slightest. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:33, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose article needs a lot of working, sourcing and clean up. --LLcentury (talk) 15:23, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even if it's improved, oppose blurb until someone demonstrates a reason we should have a blurb. Not every former head of state gets a blurb. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:42, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definitely worthy of a blurb, he was leader of the 20th largest country in the world for over 8 transformative years in Thai history and served as prince regent of Thailand in 2016. It would be a travesty if this man did not get at least RD, I have little experience in fixing citations so I'm going to need my fellow Wikipedians to step up to the plate and help make the changes needed to make this RD and/or blurb worthy. 1779Days (talk) 04:29, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support for RD at least, not opposed to blurb. --Varavour (talk) 11:36, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • What do you mean by Strong support for RD at least? Per ITNR, he will get his RD if article quality is brought up to scratch. So are you saying the article quality is now good enough, or that we should post RD regardless of quality (per WP:IAR or similar), or are you just exhorting others to improve the article, or do you have some other meaning entirely? Tlhslobus (talk) 19:27, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Resignation of Peter O'Neill

Article: Peter O'Neill (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Papua New Guinea's Prime Minister Peter O'Neill has resigned following a series of high-level defections from his government to the opposition. (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Not sure if INTR. Article is not great could use some edits. Sherenk1 (talk) 07:20, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

May 25

May 25, 2019 (2019-05-25) (Saturday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Disasters and accidents

Politics and elections

Science and technology

Sports

Palme d'Or

Article: Parasite (2019 film) (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Parasite wins the Palme d'Or. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ South Korean film Parasite wins the Palme d'Or at the 2019 Cannes Film Festival
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

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

 The Rambling Man (talk) 22:16, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

May 24

May 24, 2019 (2019-05-24) (Friday)
Armed conflict and attacks
Disasters and accidents
Law and crime

Politics and elections

(Posted to RD) RD: Murray Gell-Mann

Article: Murray Gell-Mann (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb:  American physicist Murray Gell-Mann, who conceived the quark and received the Nobel Prize in Physics, dies at the age of 89. (Post)
News source(s): Caltech
Credits:

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

 Count Iblis (talk) 05:31, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you have specific lines that should be sourced, please give details here: Talk:Murray Gell-Mann#ITN proposal cleanup--MaoGo (talk) 20:15, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Portuguesa prison uprising

Article: Acarigua prison riot (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ A prison uprising in Acarigua, Venezuela leaves at least 29 prisoners dead. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ A prison riot in Acarigua, Venezuela leaves at least 29 prisoners dead, and 19 guards injured.
News source(s): Time
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Might not get through—not as big as last year's prison riot—but still hits death toll (29 confirmed in Spanish sources) and an unexpected event, all things considered. Kingsif (talk) 21:37, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose "reported that the uprising in fact began on May 14" strange grammar. "with fighting breaking out when they refused to let police enter the prison in fear of being robbed." prisoners were afraid of being robbed? "Prisons in Venezuela are largely overpopulated" this may or may not be true, but unless this specific prison was overcrowded, it's irrelevant. Far too much of the content is attributed to Humberto Prado of the Venezuelan Prison Observatory -- which is an activist group that called it a "massacre" .. needs official sources for NPOV. If you can write an article that's got official sources or better yet eyewitness accounts from the WP:RS then fine, otherwise I'll pass. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:56, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@LaserLegs: Suggest re-reading now. Initial effort was to get some content on there, more sources now. RS, local, official, BBC, etc. Looks to be more a dispute over visitors and maybe some overcrowding. And we know what you think of Venezuela, but some would argue NGOs are more reliable over there than the official story; everything in the article now, though, is attributed and treated fairly. Kingsif (talk) 23:07, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'll take a look in the AM if this isn't speedy posted to the MP by then. What some people call NGOs, others call activists in the employ of hard right Christofascists determined to punish the Venezuelan people for believing in economic equality for all --LaserLegs (talk) 23:18, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Re-affirm my oppose. I went looking for WP:RS to see if the title should be "uprising" or "riot" and didn't see this in headlines anywhere, either on the aggregators or on major pub (even hard right sites like Fox Noise or the WSJ) -- this item simply isn't "in the news" --LaserLegs (talk) 23:40, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
the BBC] not good enough for you? A lot of the world is sleeping and RS will wait until it has a solid story, we all accept news coming out of Venezuela takes time. Kingsif (talk) 23:56, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The BBC putting a story on their website isn't the same as that story being in the news. You are capable of noticing the difference right? Between a story being featured on top tier aggregators like Google or Bing, or being a lead story on print or broadcast, or being featured on the main page of a major media outlet -- and printing some news copy in the hopes of being picked up by a search engine? The obvious difference between those things isn't completely lost on you, is it? --LaserLegs (talk) 15:58, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not lost on me, I’ll assume the condescension I read isn’t intentional because I respect you, Laser: I was responding to the assertion there weren’t RS for terminology, no comment on the level of feature, simply noting there are definitely RS to review (and now more articles now it’s got some clarity). Kingsif (talk) 11:31, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have left more RSs in the Talk page. --MaoGo (talk) 19:01, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • I wouldn't say so; the place name is identified as "Acarigua, Venezuela" as a unit. It would only require the comma after the country name if there absolutely should be an "in" after the comma between city and country names (so if the sentence needed to say "...Acarigua, in Venezuela,..." to be structurally sound). This works fine without. Kingsif (talk) 02:45, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Needs a comma after Venezuela. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:21, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) 2019 Surat fire

Article: 2019 Surat fire (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Twenty children die in a fire accident in Surat, India. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Twenty people die in a fire accident in Surat, India.
Alternative blurb II: ​ A fire at a coaching centre in Surat, India, kills 22 students.
Alternative blurb III: ​ An accidental fire at a coaching centre in Surat, India, kills 22 students.
News source(s): The Times of India, BBC News
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Deaths of 20 children in fire accident is saddening and unusual. The incident is covered around the world. Nizil (talk) 18:07, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment nolo on this disaster stub, but strong oppose blurbs that highlight child deaths as being somehow more tragic than anyone elses. All death is a tragedy. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:57, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, if only children have died, there's something to be said for including that in the blurb. If it's 20 children and 20 adults, go with "40 people", otherwise it should be fine. Kingsif (talk) 23:08, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nope. If children are the target of some attack like Boko Haram or that Saudi bus bombing then maybe, but a random tragedy, the victims age is trivia, just like their gender, height, whatever else. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:16, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Kingsif: and @LaserLegs:, I have struck down the blurb as I found that the most students died in the accident were aged between 17 and 22. So children would be inappropriate term. You may change it to students if seem appropriate. Regards,-Nizil (talk) 07:34, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Students =/= children, I wonder where the reporting came from. Kingsif (talk) 07:40, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say be careful with 'students', because it suggests that the fire was in a school. If it was in a school, great, if not, maybe stick with 'people'. Kingsif (talk) 19:49, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It was at a school. Students is more descriptive. All the coverage and the government reaction is focused on private schools, colleges, and other quasi-educational institutions. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 20:23, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The articles I've read call the building a commercial one that happened to have schooling facilities on the floors where the fire occurred. As such, calling out that the victims were only children and/or students is fine in this case. --Masem (t) 20:32, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment is a "fire accident" the same as an "accidental fire"? Only where I'm from, I've never heard of a "fire accident". Also, RS have now put the death toll at 22, so the article and blurb are out of date. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:28, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My people have a long history of intentionally setting fires with good intentions, then getting drunk (sometimes that is the intention). A lot can go wrong. When it's the mere scalding of orphans or browning of carpets, it's a fire accident. When it sets the forest/house/arcade on fire, that new fire is an accidental fire. In this case, it's the latter. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:19, May 26, 2019 (UTC)
What I'm saying is that I've never heard of a "fire accident", but an "accidental fire", yes. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:22, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. I'm just trying (maybe failing) to be the first to tell you of the former. Accidents resulting from fire, as opposed to fires resulting from accidents. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:13, May 27, 2019 (UTC)
After reading this, I have proposed alt3 and struck alt. Thanks.-Nizil (talk) 08:36, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Theresa May

It's posted, and there is clear consensus that it's time to close and move on --LaserLegs (talk) 23:27, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Articles: Theresa May (talk · history · tag) and 2019 European Parliament election in the United Kingdom (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ British Prime minister Theresa May announces her intention to resign from office. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ British Prime minister Theresa May announces her intention to resign so that a new leader can deliver Brexit
Alternative blurb II: ​ British Prime minister Theresa May, under pressure over her handling of Brexit, announces her intention to resign
Alternative blurb III: ​ Facing backlash over the handling of Brexit, British Prime minister Theresa May announces her intent to resign.
Alternative blurb IV: ​ British Prime minister Theresa May, facing backlash over the handling of Brexit, announces her intent to resign.
News source(s): BBC News The Guardian Le Monde Reuters Spiegel Online Sydney Morning Herald Moscow Times
Credits:
Nominator's comments: Local news at the moment, but will probably ramp up to international news as the day progresses. Not expecting a rush of support but if you don't ask you don't get. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:28, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait She's stepping down as Tory leader on the 7th of June, which will only then start a new leadership contest. Worth posting, but not until something actually happens. --IrnBruFan7 (talk) 09:42, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since the party in control is not changing, I might oppose this, but given the intertwining of her PM-ship with Brexit, I think I would support. I could see posting it now, but no problem waiting, either. 331dot (talk) 09:44, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - yes, 7th June is the party leader resignation date, but it won't be in the news then (she will likely stay on as prime minister until the new party leader is elected). The best times for this to be on ITN is both now and when the new party leader takes office (which will be ITN/R as a new prime minister). Carcharoth (talk) 09:47, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Carcharoth New PMs are not ITNR unless as the result of a general election,("Changes to the head of government are discussed on their own merits."); this is simply the party changing its leader. 331dot (talk) 09:56, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Technically the new PM won't be ITNR (assuming there is one, which just may be problematic if by then s/he will clearly be unable to command a Commons majority due to the possible public departure by then of enough pro-Remain Tories to try to make it harder to bring about the no-deal Brexit that any Tory will probably have to promise to be prepared to do in order to get elected by party members). However if there is a new PM it is almost inconceivable that they would not be posted despite not being technically ITNR. Tlhslobus (talk) 01:15, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would support now as another step in the Brexit debacle if the blurb and target article were updated accordingly. She'll remain PM until the sitting head of state appoints a new one, after the leadership election. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:36, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support ITNR seems to deal with normal successions. The UK Prime Minister resigning in defeat over what is being called mismanagement of Brexit seems like a bigger deal than that. --valereee (talk) 11:15, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: (edit conflict) I know politicians are prone to U-turns but saying "I will resign on this date because I have failed to do X" is pretty concrete. Unconcerned about being followed up by another Brexit story, ITN is about the news and Brexit seems to be half of the news these days (although international coverage will only focus on the key details). SITH (talk) 11:50, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - tried to do an altblurb that mentions Brexit, but it is really difficult. She has clearly resigned over Brexit, but how can that be phrased neutrally? Carcharoth (talk) 11:49, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure we need to mention the reason in the blurb, that's what the news stories and article are for. 331dot (talk) 11:51, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is precedent:

The Ibiza affair, a political scandal, causes the collapse of the Austrian government and triggers a snap election.

If you want to focus on her government, the target article would be Second May ministry. Carcharoth (talk) 11:57, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, the focus of the blurb was the scandal itself, which is easier to word neutrally. This is a blurb about Theresa May, not Brexit. 331dot (talk) 12:00, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You are right. The blurb should be about Brexit and how it has resulted in this resignation. Carcharoth (talk) 12:06, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The news here is not Brexit, but May resigning while citing Brexit as a reason. That can be explained in the article. 331dot (talk) 12:07, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is very much part of the ongoing Brexit news saga. Carcharoth (talk) 12:22, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's part of it, but not the whole story(unlike the Austria example you give). I think we will just need to agree to disagree; the chips will fall where they may. 331dot (talk) 12:30, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait - we should post this story as and when a new leader takes over as PM. At the moment it's a little bit WP:CRYSTAL, because who knows what might happen next.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:00, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • That will be early July. No need to wait until then. Carcharoth (talk) 12:06, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Maybe, maybe not. If the remain-leaning Tories decide they can't support the new leader then they won't become PM, there'd probably be a general election instead. Either way, today's announcement is just the beginning of a process (or somewhere in the middle if you count it as part of the whole Brexit debacle). We've already established that individual milestones in the process, including the meaningful votes, are not worthy of ITN and it's the change of leader itself that will be the newsworthy thing, not this announcement. Because if we post this now, then it's likely people will oppose a future "Foo Bar succeeds Theresa May as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom" story, and I think the latter is the one that is more ITN-worthy.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:09, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      It is ironic that you are quoting WP:CRYSTAL, while speculating about what might happen. Sometimes I think we just need to accept something is in the news and not try too hard to predict what may be newsworthy next month. Carcharoth (talk) 12:22, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support but with a preference of mentioning Brexit in the blurb, as that's the thing which makes this resignation exceptional. 49 TL 12:19, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blurb now because it's currently in the news and derivative stories will likely be in the news for a while longer (that's even though historically we've waited till the replacement takes office. Embrace the bias I suppose.). Banedon (talk) 12:25, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This is in the news now; no sense in waiting.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:29, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment alt 2 looks fine, but the update, buried half way down the article, is one sentence. I won't read this very long article, I hope the supporters have scrutinized it for BLP vios (as so often happens people support things they do not fully understand) --LaserLegs (talk) 12:31, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Not a traditional changing of the guard as far as ITN is concerned, but still exceedingly newsworthy given the context.--WaltCip (talk) 12:43, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait We shouldn't be posting this story twice, which is effectively what we'll do when we put up the inevitable blurb saying who the new Prime Minister is. Just leave this story until we know the result of the leadership election. 88.215.17.228 (talk) 12:46, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment... Oppose ... because I didn't want to cast the only outright oppose vote. It's in the news all right, but a) it was certainly not unexpected, b) the announcement has no immediate official effect, and c) it would be more meaningful to readers to blurb the eventual announcement of her successor, IMO. – Sca (talk) 13:01, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
David Who? – Sca (talk) 14:09, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is no real comparison with Thatcher, who, for better or worse, was a significant transformative figure in the history of her country (and arguably elsewhere too), while May is a brief transitional figure who is resigning as expected precisely because of her inability to transform anything (arguments over who is to blame for that are not relevant to whether her departure belongs on our front page). Tlhslobus (talk) 01:05, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@DBigXray: Is the PM of Cambodia trying and failing to negotiate an exit from the European Union? 331dot (talk) 14:55, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 331dot FYI, I am following this topic from the very beginning. This is a news specific to the British Politics. We should see how this one specific event (only the "intention") affects others. This should be enough hint to clarify my position. regards. --DBigXrayᗙ 15:33, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose we don't normally post "announcements of intention". The Rambling Man (talk) 14:46, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • The extensive news coverage is about more than the intent to resign. The difficulty is coming up with a blurb that reflects headlines such as:

      'Theresa May quits: UK set for new PM by end of July'; Brexit brings down May, Johnson stakes leadership claim; May quits amid Brexit impasse, will be gone in weeks; May standing down after failing to negotiate Brexit deal; Theresa May, Undone by Brexit, Will Step Down as Prime Minister; May to resign after failures on Brexit.

      Though actually, those headlines make clear that the nomination should have focused on the reasons for the resignation. There won't be this sort of coverage when the new leader takes over. Carcharoth (talk) 15:22, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait until the transition takes place. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:52, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why is there this focus on trying to decide which stage of a process should go on ITN? Surely the point to put something up is when it is in the news. This is major news, that has been leading the news pages of nearly all the major news sites in Europe and the USA and the rest of the Anglophone world for most of the day. It is getting far more coverage than the Austrian government collapse, yet there appears to be entrenched opposition to this because it is Brexit and no-one really knows how to handle the disjointed way the 'milestones' happen. I really don't get why the Austrian government thing (which didn't really feature much at all in the news) got posted and this event might not get posted. (Brythones said it much better than I did.) Carcharoth (talk) 15:13, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd support Brexit going back into Ongoing. After all, this event, the next few weeks of leadership elections, possible general elections, and eventual Brexit (or not) are all related to the core event of Brexit. May's departure is incidental. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:19, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support this is a major news topic. Brythones (talk) 15:06, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait until the resignation is official. This isn't even the first time that May herself has announced an intention to resign. --Jayron32 15:18, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • (ec) It IS official. She will officially resign on 7 June. She stood outside Downing Street behind a podium for goodness sake. This is not like her other vague announcements that she would step aside when Brexit was over (ha!).-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:29, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'll tell you what is news - I don't believe a sitting British Prime Minister has ever broke down in tears in public before. I watched the speech and was all for saying "don't let the door hit you on the way out" until the last three seconds, then I just sat there in silence. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:46, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
One may feel sorry for a person in such a predicament, but empathy does not make the event more newsworthy. – Sca (talk) 22:02, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
At least there was no fit of coughing, and the numbers on the door of No 10 didn't fall off. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:26, 25 May 2019 (UTC) [reply]
A universally expected event involving the universally expected person, who's been in the Brexit 'news' for nearly three years, is more newsworthy than the identity of her unknown successor – whose task it will be to achieve some degree of order in the interminable UK-EU brouhaha? – Sca (talk) 21:55, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, no (and I pity the person who comes next), but this is sooner than expected and taking over the news. May resigning is, let's accept it, definitely news; if we wait for the successor (also news in itself) this will no longer be the story and we likely wouldn't condense them into one blurb (i.e. we'd veto '[X] becomes UK PM after May resigns because Brexit' because of squishing multiple stories and old news). Kingsif (talk) 22:00, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Questions are being asked as to why this hasn't been run yet. Daniel Case (talk) 22:12, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support this is page 1, above-the-fold news everywhere. If her "intention" to resign is newsworthy, then it's newsworthy. – Levivich 00:26, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Objectively this isn't really significant news, as distinct from an excuse for the media to make a fuss about it to try to sell more copies and more advertising (where the story sells largely for 'human interest' reasons, including all those pictures of her briefly in tears, which have a lot in common with similar showbiz celeb stories that we quite rightly don't post on our front page). Her resignation had been expected for a long time, if only because she had already announced she was going to resign. All we really have is a date for when the race to succeed her officially begins (unofficially it has been going on ever since she lost her Commons majority 2 years ago, and more intensely recently after her previous announcement that she would be resigning). We still don't know precisely when she will cease to be PM (because that depends on how long the succession race lasts, and just conceivably also on whether the new Tory leader can command a majority in the Commons), let alone who her successor will be and what that will or won't mean for whether or when Brexit happens and whether it's with or without a deal. In effect it's just another fairly minor and fully expected development in the ongoing Brexit saga (and arguably even less significant in that context in real terms than the supposedly 'meaningless' Euro election results expected on Sunday, when her party is expected to get humiliated). I think it unlikely that a similar story would be posted about most other countries. I expect to support posting any new PM, whenever there actually is one. Tlhslobus (talk) 00:39, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support although her departure has long been predicted, the actual announcement of her resignation is still significant and received worldwide coverage. -Zanhe (talk) 05:30, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted. Sandstein 06:55, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-posting Oppose until it actually happens and when the Britishers have a new PM. --Invisible Lad (talk) 07:39, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-posting question was there really consensus to post here? I know I'm not a neutral observer in this, but I don't see any consensus either way given the variety of strong arguments against the significance of this versus the supports principally being "but it's in the news now" (which is not sufficient on it's own, otherwise we'd be posting daily about celebrities). Thryduulf (talk) 10:24, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely not. There is significant opposition, which was not dismissed. Pull immediately. What's the point in a discussion here if it's just going to be ignored?  — Amakuru (talk) 12:14, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There was a rough consensus. The supports were not just “this is in the news now”, they were “this is a Prime Minister resigning so it is significant and in the news now.” There is no point waiting to June 7 and I don’t attach much weight to those arguments. Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:42, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close - Sandstein interpreted there to be a consensus and posted this. The discussion is done. We must get ourselves out of the habit of repeatedly posting and pulling items, as it only confuses our readers. Instead, we should focus on making sure that the blurb is accurate and the articles are sufficiently updated now that this has been posted. WaltCip (talk) 13:16, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Walt, although I opposed posting this one. Please, no more dilettantish Pushmi-Pullyu episodes. – Sca (talk) 13:29, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"I'd say, "Of course-e-ros, Can't you?" Martinevans123 (talk) 18:26, 25 May 2019 (UTC) [reply]
  • What's the problem here? We have a link to a high quality article that's made headlines around the world, about a meaningful (though predicted) milestone in a major change to an economic union that affects millions of people. Satisfies WP:ITN#Purpose brilliantly. It is basically the exact opposite of the completely irrelevant disaster stubs about to be whisked onto the main page. I suggest moving on. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:38, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I guess the problem was that some people thought there was no consensus to post. I was in the Oppose camp, but I think the interpretation of consensus was reasonable. I made it about 18-12 for posting, which is well short of a 2 to 1 supermajority, but there was a heavy majority for posting among the later votes (about 8 out of the last 10 votes), which it seemed reasonable to interpret as the consensus having shifted from 'no consensus' to 'consensus to post'. So on that basis I'm now offering post-posting support. And I'm also inclined to agree with WaltCip's above call for Close.Tlhslobus (talk) 21:31, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, me too. I vehemently disagreed with cherry-picking this ceremonious moment of declaration of intent of something inconsequential, but there's a consensus. Although, as always with so many stupid alt blurbs, it was impossible to know what people were actually voting for. I guess it's an echo of the Brexit debacle, no-one really knowing what they were in favour of, yet being absolutely in favour of what it was, regardless, to their dying day. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:35, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

May 23

May 23, 2019 (2019-05-23) (Thursday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

RD: Zakir Rashid Bhat

Article: Zakir Rashid Bhat (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: "India's most wanted" militant Sherenk1 (talk) 08:40, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Arolsen Archives (13 Million Nazi Era Archives Made Available Online

Closing, clear that it's not ready. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:36, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's comments: I think this is fairly significant and should be highlighted, just browsing some of the documents and details that they kept track of is something to see, perhaps especially in today's world. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:20, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't DYK require the article to be either new or significantly expanded that would prohibit this from being on the page? I also don't think I can find a picture that would make this a featured picture, nor one that would be appropriate for the page, perhaps a list but what do you suggest? Sir Joseph (talk) 20:28, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Make it GA quality and Bob's your uncle. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:30, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
[11] is tomorrow night. Based on that outcome we'll see what I can do. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:33, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – No clear target article in the blurb. If we assume the Arolsen Archives is the target article, the article is in need of significant improvements in referencing; several paragraphs lack citations. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 19:32, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per above. This is very interesting but at the moment I'm not convinced ITN is the best place to promote this on the main page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:36, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Closed) 2019 European Parliament election

If you want ongoing, nom for ongoing. The election is WP:ITNR so when they're done go ahead and nom. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:56, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article: 2019 European Parliament election (talk · history · tag)
Ongoing item nomination (Post)
News source(s): European Parliament
Credits:

The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Nominator's comments: These elections are large and take place over 23-26 May, so it would be appropriate to add them to Ongoing before the results are in. —AlphaMikeOmega (talk) 17:39, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Lots of elections are "large" (for any given definition of large) and by convention we generally only post the results. I don't see any compelling reason to post an in-process election to "ongoing" in contravention of existing practice. There's nothing inherently special about these elections over any other we normally post. --Jayron32 17:53, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Jayron32. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:58, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Further to Jayron's points, EU elections don't equate to what we normally think of as elections; the European Parliament is a largely symbolic body with minimal actual influence. We also won't have a "result" on Sunday in the sense one normally thinks of it; each of the 28 participating nations is electing members of its own political parties (the current largest party in the parliament is the German CDU, with 29 of the 751 seats), so there won't be a result as such, as much as the prelude to weeks of coalition-building until we eventually end up with something that looks like this. In the unlikely event that there's a clear outcome (that is, the loose coalitions that make up the PES or EPP groupings manage to get a majority), I wouldn't object to our posting the result. (European elections are currently in ITNR, but probably shouldn't be. This was the alleged "consensus" that led to them being added.) ‑ Iridescent 18:08, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I would disagree that it is purely symbolic; the EU has a convoluted power-sharing structure, but the European Parliament does have a legislative role it shares with the Council and the Commission, and the legislation the EU passes (of which the Parliament has a role, though not the only role) is binding on member states. I also understand that it has a convoluted means of creating coalitions and forming the equivalent of a "government", which will not happen right when the election is complete. However, under the "strike-while-the-iron-is-hot" principle (that is, posting articles to the main page when people are reading about those topics in the news), this should still be posted when the elections are complete (and the article is properly updated with enough well-referenced added) so that the posting coincides with the pre-eminence in news sources. As to your third point, ITNR is largely irrelevant if consensus is to post it anyways. The presence, or lack thereof, or dubiousness-of-being-on ITNR should have no bearing on discussions here at ITNC which may determine that an item is worth posting without regard to ITNR status. The fact that something does or doesn't belong on ITNR because you call into question the process that put it there should have no bearing on whether or not this specific item has consensus to be posted. --Jayron32 18:16, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It does have veto powers, but it has no Right of initiative—they can block things from happening, and theoretically they can dismiss the Commission, but they can't propose their own laws. Whether something is legitimately ITNR is entirely valid; if it's ITNR then we're only concerned with the article quality, not with whether the topic is actually newsworthy, but if it's not then we're also judging whether this is actually something readers want to know. Except in those countries where the results are of domestic significance as a predictor of how forthcoming national elections will play out, the EU elections won't even be a main story when the results are published on Monday; people really don't care. (Can you name your Euro-MP?) ‑ Iridescent 18:38, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but not being on ITNR (or not supposed to be on ITNR) has no bearing on whether or not the news is actually covering THIS specific event. News either is, or is not, covering it. ITNR just means that those are events we EXPECT news to cover, but the actual evidence is in the actual news. ITNR status cannot make the actual news coverage not be there. And here is my full list of MEPs: ∅ --Jayron32 20:18, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Wales has four: Jill, Glenys, Nathan and Kay. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:49, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    If Wikipedia has an award for unflattering photography, that infobox will certainly win it; when Nigel Farage is the most normal looking person in the group, something is seriously wrong somewhere. ‑ Iridescent 19:37, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close until results are released. A consensus to post to ongoing will not develop. This item is explicitly listed as ITNR: Wikipedia:In the news/Recurring items#Elections and heads of state. The above discussion can continue at WT:ITNR and this can be re-nominated after May 26.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 19:41, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have proposed the removal of this item on ITNR. As long as the ITNR status of this item is in dispute, it cannot be assumed that there is an automatic consensus to post, and so ITNR should not apply here. Similar to when an article proposed for ITNC is nominated for deletion.--WaltCip (talk) 19:58, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Posted) RD: Beaton Tulk

Article: Beaton Tulk (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): CBC
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Well sourced and updated --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:35, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) 2019 Indian general election

Article: 2019 Indian general election (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The Bharatiya Janata Party, led by incumbent Prime Minister Narendra Modi, wins the most seats in the 2019 Indian general election. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ The Bharatiya Janata Party-led National Democratic Alliance wins a majority in the Indian general election.
Alternative blurb II: ​ The incumbent Bharatiya Janata Party and its allies, led by Narendra Modi, win the 2019 Indian general election by a landslide.
Alternative blurb III: ​ The Bharatiya Janata Party wins the 2019 Indian general election, becoming only the second government in Indian history to hold consecutive terms in office.
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Results will be announced within 24 hours, so we can update the blurb then. Posting it now so that editors can take note of comments to improve article to post in ITN. I believe more prose will be needed especially in the Results section. Sherenk1 (talk) 04:46, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wait till the complete result gets declared.

  • Support Article is being updated, major news outlets are all-but-calling it, and given the reason for Modi's surprise victory (recent tensions with Pakistan) and Pakistan's recent missile test this seems like major news --valereee (talk) 10:27, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The election results are halfway through and the BJP is leading by over 20 seats over the majority (295, as of now). In any case, the National Democratic Alliance will win since the next largest party is leading in 50 seats or so. Added a speculative blurb to reflect that. And obviously, wait till results are declared (will take 6 hours approximately). --qedk (t 桜 c) 10:31, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose unless and until results section is expanded to similar quality as rest of article, and tenses (i.e. "will be") are changed to reflect completion of the election. If and when any of that is done, consider this a full support without having to ping me to change it. --Jayron32 10:57, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support subject to update and final result. Trends and leads show that result is unlikely to change so I am supporting the ALTBlurb. I proposed it according to the 2014 election ITN blurb.-Nizil (talk) 11:25, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The final results, i.e. leads -> won, are now being officially declared. Let us wait a few more hours, till enough "won" declarations are out to officially confirm Mr Modi's victory. The results section is now cleaner than when this nom was made. I agree, we need more prose in the results section. I am just waiting for multiple WP:RS to publish the text on the results, and then we can summarize them in our own words, thereby meet our WP:V and other content norms. Other than all that, I support the nom. The article was one of the top 25 high traffic en-wikipedia articles in April, and I suspect it will be in the top 25 or 100 again in May. Suggests that it is a notable subject. If we decide to put out a blurb and something needs a check, please leave me a message on my talk page. I have to take care of kids and do some RL chores, but will keep an eye and help if I can. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:45, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. As soon as it is announced (a few hours). El_C 12:05, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added altblurb3, consecutive terms almost never occur in Indian politics. [12] --qedk (t 桜 c) 14:53, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support but I'd like to add that our blurb should include Modi, since winning the most seats in a parliamentary system decides the person who holds the office of Prime Minister. NorthernFalcon (talk) 15:15, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: [a] The final results can be seen here. Based on the 402 "wins" and 138 "leading-but-pending" officially declared, Modi and the BJP alliance have officially crossed the 272 "won" mark already, i.e. won the majority according to their Election Commission. (the first two blurbs are now supported by the official results) [b] the BJP with its alliance is leading on many more, confirming the landslide-victory call of all the international media I have checked so far (e.g. Australia, Canada, France, Japan, UK, US, etc) plus their domestic media. [c] I have added some more prose with sources to the results section after the table. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:54, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Added. Chose to go with alt.2, for now. Special thanks goes Ms Sarah Welch, for all her efforts. El_C 19:00, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

May 22

May 22, 2019 (2019-05-22) (Wednesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime
Politics and elections

(Posted) RD: Judith Kerr

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

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

Nominator's comments: Needs references. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:58, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

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

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates&oldid=899356972"