Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates: Difference between revisions
→December 26: Táňa Fischerová |
→RD: Nomination header: Táňa Fischerová |
||
Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
---- |
---- |
||
<!-- Insert new nominations below this line --> |
<!-- Insert new nominations below this line --> |
||
==== RD: |
==== RD: Táňa Fischerová ==== |
||
{{ITN candidate |
{{ITN candidate |
||
| article = Táňa Fischerová |
| article = Táňa Fischerová |
||
Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
| sign = [[User:Jenda H.|Jenda H.]] ([[User talk:Jenda H.|talk]]) 19:42, 26 December 2019 (UTC) <!-- Do NOT change this --> |
| sign = [[User:Jenda H.|Jenda H.]] ([[User talk:Jenda H.|talk]]) 19:42, 26 December 2019 (UTC) <!-- Do NOT change this --> |
||
}} |
}} |
||
==== (Ready) 26 Dec solar eclipse ==== |
==== (Ready) 26 Dec solar eclipse ==== |
||
{{ITN candidate |
{{ITN candidate |
Revision as of 19:43, 26 December 2019
Welcome to In the news. Please read the guidelines. Admin instructions are here. |
In the news toolbox |
---|
This page provides a place to discuss new items for inclusion on In the news (ITN), a protected template on the Main Page (see past items in the ITN archives). Do not report errors in ITN items that are already on the Main Page here— discuss those at the relevant section of WP:ERRORS.
This candidates page is integrated with the daily pages of Portal:Current events. A light green header appears under each daily section – it includes transcluded Portal:Current events items for that day. You can discuss ITN candidates under the header.
view — page history — related changes — edit |
Glossary
All articles linked in the ITN template must pass our standards of review. They should be up-to-date, demonstrate relevance via good sourcing and have at least an acceptable quality. Nomination steps
The better your article's quality, the better it covers the event and the wider its perceived significance (see WP:ITNSIGNIF for details), the better your chances of getting the blurb posted.
Headers
Voicing an opinion on an itemFormat your comment to contain "support" or "oppose", and include a rationale for your choice. In particular, address the notability of the event, the quality of the article, and whether it has been updated. Please do...
Please do not...
Suggesting updatesThere are two places where you can request corrections to posted items:
|
Archives
December 26
December 26, 2019
(Thursday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Law and crime
Politics and elections
|
RD: Táňa Fischerová
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Český rozhlas, Novinky.cz
Credits:
- Nominated by Jenda H. (talk · give credit)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Jenda H. (talk) 19:42, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
(Ready) 26 Dec solar eclipse
Blurb: An annular eclipse visible across much of Asia occurs (Post)
News source(s): [1][2][3]
Credits:
- Nominated by Banedon (talk · give credit)
Nominator's comments: I don't know about this. Annular eclipses are not ITNR, and they aren't that uncommon apparently, annular eclipses that are visible from large swathes of Earth are uncommon. It's making the news (just put in "eclipse" into Google) so I'm nominating this. Banedon (talk) 07:51, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
- Support - Such event occurred after 296 years of long wait, a unique event. I think it should be in news. Rocky 734 (talk) 10:20, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
- Support - Unique event. Article looks ready for posting. BabbaQ (talk) 10:39, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
- Support. Per above. MSN12102001 (talk) 17:24, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
December 25
December 25, 2019
(Wednesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Arts and culture
Law and crime
Politics and elections
|
RD: Ari Behn
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Express.co.uk, De Telegraaf
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by BabbaQ (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
--BabbaQ (talk) 20:48, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
Typhoon Phanfone causes at least thirteen deaths in the Phillipines
Blurb: Typhoon Phatfone makes landfall in the Phillipines causing at least twenty deaths with many more missing (Post)
News source(s): BBC, AP, Guardian
Credits:
- Nominated by Joseywales1961 (talk · give credit)
- Created by Hamham31 (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Nominator's comments: Death toll stands at 13 this morning, the article is being updated as I write so hopefully it will contain good details Joseywales1961 (talk) 11:09, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
- Comment – Support in principle, but existing piece is far too technical in a meteorological way and completely fails to tell the human story. AP says 20 killed. – Sca (talk) 15:29, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
- support - Article needs some human stories indeed. But the overall article right now are ok for posting.BabbaQ (talk) 15:46, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
December 24
December 24, 2019
(Tuesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents
International relations
Politics and elections
|
RD: Andrew Miller
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Daily Mail
Credits:
- Nominated by skteosk (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: British former politician. Article needs further sourcing. Skteosk (talk) 08:47, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose for now as it is undersourced. Lmk if sourcing is improved. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:01, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
Citizenship Amendment Act protests
Blurb: In India, Prime Minister Modi defends law on citizenship for migrants, while the protests (pictured) continue with twenty five dead. (Post)
Alternative blurb: In India, protests (pictured) against the law on citizenship for migrants continue with twenty five dead.
News source(s): CAA protests deadlier than months-long Hong Kong protests: 25 killed in India, 2 deaths reported in Hong Kong, BBC India protests: PM Modi defends citizenship bill amid clashes, CNN Protests rage across India over citizenship law
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by DBigXray (talk · give credit)
- Created by I am not a Seahorse (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Pali Upadhyay (talk · give credit) and Ankur Jyoti Dewri (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Nominator's comments: Protests continue, Excellent sourcing, Deadlier than the Hong Kong protests already. DBigXrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 23:40, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
- Ongoing would probably be a better idea.--WaltCip (talk) 23:55, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for the comment. The government instead of relenting has decided to defend the law, even though death toll climbs. Both are major news items across major newspapers. So a blurb is merited IMHO. An ongoing, though acceptable, will be the bare minimum for this. --DBigXrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 00:00, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose blurb or ongoing. Proseline in the extreme, bad grammar. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:58, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
- LaserLegs, I did one round of copy-editing (edit: protests article). DTM (talk) 11:23, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
- Comment: Article needs quite a bit of cleanup: there is a lot of duplicate information throughout, some copyediting is needed, and I'm not sure if a name list of all of the protest casualties is helpful in the article; I don't think that's typically done for similar articles (but I could be incorrect). SpencerT•C 00:52, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
- Ongoing support for the protest article. --Vegan Gypsy (talk) 01:30, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
- Support ongoing per above. Davey2116 (talk) 03:32, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose both blurb and ongoing Nothing notable enough to warrant another blurb. Ongoing would be ideal, but oppose on quality issues per LaserLegs because the proseline is too much at Citizenship Amendment Act protests. Also, since its currently organized geographically instead of chronologically, it's hard to navigate to the ongoing details. One example would be organization of 2019 Hong Kong protests, which had been in ongoing for a while.—Bagumba (talk) 04:24, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
- 24 December Times of India In one voice, 80,000 Bengaluru citizens reject CAA , the article has a timeline for fans of chronology. The geographical names are listed chronologically and not alphabetically. The protests are not under a central organisation so it is useful to read geographically how it proceeded. You are welcome to propose changes on the talk page. DBigXrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 04:59, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
- Support The protests are still making headlines and of course Indian PM has strongly defended his aim of bringing the CAA into force. The blurb is looking good from my point of view. However protests are usually recommended to be posted in ongoing section. I see only Maltese protests are included under ongoing section and that too is in the verge of removal. Now the main opposition party Congress has come into the party as they also hold rally against CAA. Abishe (talk) 07:44, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
- Ongoing support as the protests continue to make headlines in international news sources --I am not a Seahorse (talk) 08:36, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
- Ongoing – This is just the sort of topic Ongoing is meant for. If there were a sudden, significant development of course a blurb could be reconsidered. – Sca (talk) 13:24, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
- Support Ongoing per Sca, et al. – Ammarpad (talk) 15:05, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
- Ongoing as this is a significant event with ongoing action. Taewangkorea (talk) 22:59, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
- Ongoing - Yes to ongoing! Sherenk1 (talk) 10:55, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
- Conditional Ongoing if alternative blurb gets changed to protest against and in favour of as protests supporting the bill are also on peak by ruling party and other affiliates.— Harshil want to talk? 14:03, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
- User:Harshil169 your comment makes absolutely no sense to me at all. An ongoing has no blurb. If you have a better blurb, feel free to add it in the template above and support your own blurb. --Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 15:29, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
- Ongoing - this is very much in the news. Banedon (talk) 14:24, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
- Support alt blurb Can shift to ongoing if needed later. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:10, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
- This story was already posted two weeks ago and rolled off. As an ongoing nomination the protests article is terrible, tagged, bad English, proseline, extraneous details about every region, etc. Has anyone actually read it? Stephen 08:23, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
- Stephen, I did one round of reading and copyediting (edit: protests article). It isn't that bad... DTM (talk) 11:25, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose - The article must include loss of public property. Many state governments have assessed the losses and sent bills to the rioters. Without this information this article clearly looks highly opinionated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jangid (talk • contribs) 12:14, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
- Jangid please provide the refs for this concern, so that it can be fixed. --Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 13:42, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
- DBigXray, here they’re: https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/caa-protests-up-government-starts-process-seize-property-protesters-involved-violence-1630471-2019-12-22 and https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/explain-or-pay-for-damage-up-administration-sends-notice-to-26-people-in-sambhal-for-caa-violence-1631638-2019-12-26 . However, so far, only Uttar Pradesh has done this...RedBulbBlueBlood9911 (talk) 15:15, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
- Fixed RedBulbBlueBlood9911 and Jangid thanks for the kind note and the link. I have included this into the article. thanks.
- Support - yes to Ongoing and Blurb. Phoe6 (talk) 15:22, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
- Support ongoing only - we already had a blurb. Besides, it looks like the protests won’t slowdown anytime soon, given the fact that they are seen as a protest against the government itself... RedBulbBlueBlood9911 (talk) 16:46, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
- RedBulbBlueBlood9911, do you find the blurb not notable enough ? the death number is significant. As Muboshgu suggested, what stops from promoting this as a blurb and roll it off to ongoing if it still continued ? --Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 19:11, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
December 23
December 23, 2019
(Monday)
Armed conflict and attacks
Business and economy
Health and environment
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
|
Sri Lankan cricket team in Pakistan
Blurb: Pakistan beat Sri Lanka to win first home Test cricket series in a decade since the 2009 attack on the Sri Lankan team. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Pakistan beat Sri Lanka to win first home Test cricket series to be played in Pakistan in a decade since the 2009 attack on the Sri Lankan team.
News source(s): DAWN BBC Al Jazeera France 24 NYT WaPo AFP
Credits:
- Nominated by Vegan Gypsy (talk · give credit)
- Created by Lugnuts (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Nominator's comments: The first home Test series in a decade in Pakistan is In the News and the article now also contains summary of the matches. Vegan Gypsy (talk) 16:20, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
- Question had Pakistan not played a match in their own country in a decade or Sri Lanka had refused to play in Pakistan for a decade? --LaserLegs (talk) 21:38, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
- Comment I believe this nominated before and rejected. --Masem (t) 04:25, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
- Comment Previous discussion was here. Seems to have been a combination of the topic not suitable for ITN and quality of target issues—Bagumba (talk) 07:45, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
(Posted to RD) RD: John Cain
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): ABC
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by Hawkeye7 (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Canley (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Former premier of Victoria. I have added references to the article, and think it is passable. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:58, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
- Support References were very shabby, great job! --Canley (talk) 02:01, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
- Support Excellent article. Well sourced. Can't see any reason for delay on this. HiLo48 (talk) 02:24, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
- Comment I changed the death date in the article to 22nd, since it was reported on 23rd source that he "died overnight". Unless it's a timezone discrepancy ...
- That date of death seems very hard to pin down. The ABC source that the article and you have used is the only one I can find that goes close to giving a precise date, and all it says is "died overnight". We cannot tell if that means before or after midnight. What I can see happening now is that a lot of other sources will begin to post whatever we write as the date as fact. HiLo48 (talk) 05:07, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
- The Canberra Times says "died on Monday", but that could be a "date announced" assumption. May have to wait for a death notice. --Canley (talk) 06:05, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
- That date of death seems very hard to pin down. The ABC source that the article and you have used is the only one I can find that goes close to giving a precise date, and all it says is "died overnight". We cannot tell if that means before or after midnight. What I can see happening now is that a lot of other sources will begin to post whatever we write as the date as fact. HiLo48 (talk) 05:07, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
- Support I was going to just post, but will let other eyes verify the death date change I made.—Bagumba (talk) 04:48, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
- Support - added another (Australian newspaper) source that states died on Monday (23rd) Joseywales1961 (talk) 12:33, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
- Posted to RD. SpencerT•C 21:37, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Mr. Niebla
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): MedioTiempo (es)
Credits:
- Nominated by MPJ-DK (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
- Support Solid sourcing, good story, no glaring Spanglish. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:13, December 24, 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Far too much of the article is about the fights and championships he "won". In pro wrestling, this information is telling us nothing more than what scriptwriters at the time decided his character would do. It tells us nothing of the person who has just died. It's the equivalent of discussing the activities of characters an actor played in movies or plays, as if they actually happened. Not an acceptable article. HiLo48 (talk) 04:09, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
- Support Thoroughly sourced Good Article. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:13, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
- Didn't realise it had been assessed as a Good Article. That's seriously ridiculous. How can a collection of acting scripts become a good article? Not a good look for Wikipedia. HiLo48 (talk) 05:17, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
- So I am sorry to see that you think this is the appropriate platform for you to get on a soapbox. Your non-policy based point has been clearly made, how bout we let other people chime in? MPJ-DK (talk) 05:32, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
- What is non-policy based about my Oppose comment? Do we really accept the scripts of pro-wrestling as somehow describing a person's life? HiLo48 (talk) 05:38, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
- Please do point to the policy that supports your oppose based on the fact that the article is "too much about his career" - would you lodge a similar complaint if an article about a golfer is primarily abou their golf career? if an article about a career military office is primarily about their army career? If the article on a politician is primarily about their political work? Please show me that policy and i'll happily withdraw this nomination on the spot. MPJ-DK (talk) 15:12, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
- Misrepresentation is a crappy form of argument. At no point have I said that the article is "too much about his career". Of course we write about the successes of a pro-golfer, because they would be real. The "successes" of a pro-wrestler are not. They are created by scriptwriters. There is a massive difference. HiLo48 (talk) 22:44, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
- The successes, while you might consider them to be created by scriptwriters, are due to the wrestlers' ability and drawing power, so it's not like the wrestler is removed from the equation. As such, even a fictitious championship is an accomplishment, as it is an acknowledgement that the promotion has enough faith in them to make them a face of the company. I would argue, therefore, that it is not as empty as you claim, and that the most talented performers rise to the top, much like in more "true" athletic competitions. However, we're getting distracted from the fact that the article is considered sufficiently notable for posting, and it has already been reviewed for quality. GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:24, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
- I don't think I misrepresented anything, I presented your argument in a different context and you didn't like it. So let's compare them to actors - except here he played the same role since 1994 basically - So championships could be considered the same as awards, appearing on major shows = "Special guest appearance" etc. his in-ring achivements is to a degree a result of his skills, charisma etc. not that different than an actor. Are you saying that the article on actors with a 30 year career should not include the awards someone voted for him to get (not won "competitively" after all), not include supporting or starring roles in shows and movies? is that not, generally speaking, what an actors career section covers? So yes here he gets in the ring and pretends to want to injure his opponents, no different than getting on a stage and do Shakespear, no diffent than guest starring on the Golden Girs, no different than being a space cleric with a fantasy weapon - except he played that role day in and day out any time he was in public. And you never cited any actual policy, so as it stands it is your personal opinion and nothing more. MPJ-DK (talk) 04:07, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
- "...championships could be considered the same as awards" Utter nonsense. The championships only exist because someone wrote them into the script. Never the case with awards. There is no way that article deserves to be "Good". HiLo48 (talk) 07:40, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
- So again more clear hostility towards the subjet matter, but nothing policy based. Thank you for confirming that there is nothing but your personal opinion behind the objection. MPJ-DK (talk) 08:09, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
- Again, completely wrong. I have no feelings either way about the subject matter, but I know that the article supporting this is a load of total rubbish. That IS a policy based issue. HiLo48 (talk) 08:39, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
- So again more clear hostility towards the subjet matter, but nothing policy based. Thank you for confirming that there is nothing but your personal opinion behind the objection. MPJ-DK (talk) 08:09, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
- "...championships could be considered the same as awards" Utter nonsense. The championships only exist because someone wrote them into the script. Never the case with awards. There is no way that article deserves to be "Good". HiLo48 (talk) 07:40, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
- Misrepresentation is a crappy form of argument. At no point have I said that the article is "too much about his career". Of course we write about the successes of a pro-golfer, because they would be real. The "successes" of a pro-wrestler are not. They are created by scriptwriters. There is a massive difference. HiLo48 (talk) 22:44, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
- Please do point to the policy that supports your oppose based on the fact that the article is "too much about his career" - would you lodge a similar complaint if an article about a golfer is primarily abou their golf career? if an article about a career military office is primarily about their army career? If the article on a politician is primarily about their political work? Please show me that policy and i'll happily withdraw this nomination on the spot. MPJ-DK (talk) 15:12, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
- What is non-policy based about my Oppose comment? Do we really accept the scripts of pro-wrestling as somehow describing a person's life? HiLo48 (talk) 05:38, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
- So I am sorry to see that you think this is the appropriate platform for you to get on a soapbox. Your non-policy based point has been clearly made, how bout we let other people chime in? MPJ-DK (talk) 05:32, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
- Didn't realise it had been assessed as a Good Article. That's seriously ridiculous. How can a collection of acting scripts become a good article? Not a good look for Wikipedia. HiLo48 (talk) 05:17, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
- An even stronger Oppose ...based on new information added to the article today. See Mr. Niebla#Name confusion. It tells us that at least four different wrestlers have used the ring name "Mr. Niebla". That makes the nomination of the death of just one of these people and linking it to this article somewhat problematic. HiLo48 (talk) 08:39, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
- Bolding three separate votes from a single person seems like it's designed to mislead others. GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:30, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
- Posted even though HiLo48 doesn't like it. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:59, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
- ITN is supposed to encourage people to read our best articles. Sensible readers will laugh at this one. It's like going back to the 1960s when people believed pro-wrestling was real. HiLo48 (talk) 22:12, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
RD: Ahmed Gaid Salah
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC, Aljazeera, France 24, NYT
Credits:
- Nominated by Jamez42 (talk · give credit)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Algerian army chief, compelled President Bouteflika to resign this year. Jamez42 (talk) 14:26, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
(Removed) Ongoing Removal 2019 Maltese protests
Nominator's comments: The last "protests" were on December 13th (though the article doesn't say how many people) and the last update a was a week ago for an "NGO" calling on he government for "protection". Not "regularly updated with new, pertinent information". In addition, the article makes numerous references to non-specific "NGOs" which makes it impossible to attribute actions and statements to specific groups. Finally, the whole thing is in desperate need of a copyedit for grammar. LaserLegs (talk) 13:47, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
- Remove No updates for the past week. SpencerT•C 15:34, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose - Still plenty of edits over the last few days. I say lets keep it on for a few more days at least.BabbaQ (talk) 20:40, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
- It's ref improvements and reactions. This article about protests is not being "regularly updated with new, pertinent information" --LaserLegs (talk) 21:28, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
- Most recent substantial update is for 16 December (even though the events on that date are very mild) and the oldest ITN item is from 17 Dec. Per WP:ITN, Articles whose most recent update is older than the oldest blurb currently on ITN are usually not being updated frequently enough for ongoing status. SpencerT•C 00:47, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
- Remove Also seems to be out of the news now. Kingsif (talk) 22:00, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
- Remove Everything seems to have subsided. – Ammarpad (talk)
- Removed—Bagumba (talk) 11:21, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
(Posted) Assassination of Jamal Khashoggi
Blurb: A court in Saudi Arabia sentences five people to death for the 2018 killing of Jamal Khashoggi. (Post)
News source(s): BBC, AP, Guardian, Reuters
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by Spokoyni (talk · give credit)
- Created by Octoberwoodland (talk · give credit)
- Updated by DBigXray (talk · give credit) and Martinevans123 (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Nominator's comments: One orange tag on one section, otherwise a solid well-sourced article. Significant development in this case now that Saudi Arabia has handed down the first legal judgements regarding culpability. Spokoyni (talk) 10:24, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
- Comment Article should be better structured to identify the trial and sentencing here. Also, the list of purported names in "Alleged perpetrators" seems like a BLP violation per BLPCRIME, unless they are those that have been part of this sentencing. --Masem (t) 14:38, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, they are a part of this widely popular case. 17 of them are Sanctioned by US Treasury. I have noted this. --DBigXrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 17:10, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
- Support as a major contributor of this article. Article has excellent sources, upto date and contains all the info a reader needs. --DBigXrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 15:05, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
- Comment: Section on the sentencing could use some more expansion: e.g. reactions, impact, etc. SpencerT•C 15:36, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
- Spencer, Thanks for the constructive feedback. I have expanded the section and included major response. DBigXrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 20:31, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
- Support The verdicts have attracted widespread criticism for convicting the hit men but allowing the high-level organisers to walk free. This needs to be added. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:00, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
- WP:RGW may be of interest to you. No comment on the nom --LaserLegs (talk) 19:06, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
- WP:RGW may be of interest to leading human rights groups around the world, as the internal affairs of RSA often are? The article should just report what they say, because it's in the news? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:10, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
- I misunderstood your comment. Sorry. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:54, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
- Support significant development that is in the news, but Martin is right that we should also mention of the widespread criticism of this verdict. Lepricavark (talk) 19:24, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
- Posted. But by all means, please feel free to draft an alternate blurb. El_C 21:41, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks El_C, can someone post the credits ? --DBigXrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 23:47, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
- credits given by User:Ammarpad. Thx. --DBigXrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 10:28, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
- User:Ammarpad - you've only given credits to one of those listed. User:Octoberwoodland and I are still waiting. Spokoyni (talk) 07:32, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
- credits given by User:Ammarpad. Thx. --DBigXrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 10:28, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks El_C, can someone post the credits ? --DBigXrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 23:47, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
December 22
December 22, 2019
(Sunday)
Armed conflict and attacks
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Science and technology
|
(Posted) RD: Ram Dass
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
Credits:
- Nominated by LaserLegs (talk · give credit)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Recent deaths: Ram Dass. Dass died on December 22. The author of Be Here Now and other books. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:29, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
- Support Solid article. Schwede66 21:41, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
- Just a bit more for those who may not know of his work. Ram Dass' importance in both the 1960s counter-culture and the 1970s western understanding of yoga and perceptional consciousness training is very notable, and his book Be Here Now influenced many in the same way Yogananda's Autobiography of a Yogi had done for decades. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:59, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
- Support - The article is indeed solid, with strong references in all sections except “Works” which will require help before posting. Jusdafax (talk) 06:02, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
- Have made some clean-up and polishing edits in "Works". Randy Kryn (talk) 12:04, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
- Support good work. --DBigXrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 12:08, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
OpposeOnly 1/4 recordings and 1/7 films cited. Let's get a majority.—Bagumba (talk) 12:17, 25 December 2019 (UTC)- Was just able to add cites to three of the films, and can attest to one of the recordings, but as with many "counterculture" figures there's not going to be a lot of main stream coverage of the recordings and films. IMBD covers some, and sales sites others, but the New York Times, not so much (unless an obit mentions some). Hopefully this be might be enough to add Dass to our recent deaths mentions. Even with little main stream coverage of his death (probably not yet added to the CNN crawler) the page has gotten hundreds of thousands of views since he died. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:44, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
- I saw a couple on Amazon. Probably ok. Strike oppose.—Bagumba (talk) 15:05, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
- Was just able to add cites to three of the films, and can attest to one of the recordings, but as with many "counterculture" figures there's not going to be a lot of main stream coverage of the recordings and films. IMBD covers some, and sales sites others, but the New York Times, not so much (unless an obit mentions some). Hopefully this be might be enough to add Dass to our recent deaths mentions. Even with little main stream coverage of his death (probably not yet added to the CNN crawler) the page has gotten hundreds of thousands of views since he died. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:44, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
- Posted – Muboshgu (talk) 15:16, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
RD: Tony Britton
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:
- Nominated by Black Kite (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: British actor, article needs a bit of work Black Kite (talk) 18:19, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
- Support Tony Britton was a prominent and well-known British actor who had a long career because he periodically reinvented himself. He was a leading man in films in the late 1950s; a character actor in films and on TV in the 1960s and early 1970s; and a sitcom star in the late 1970s and throughout the 1980s. Alanrhobson (talk) 00:52, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose – Needs more in-line citations for verification. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 03:53, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Prime Minister of Cuba
Blurb: Forty-three years after Fidel Castro abolished the position, Manuel Marrero Cruz becomes the 17th Prime Minister of Cuba. (Post)
News source(s): BBC News, CNN, Reuters
Credits:
- Nominated by PotentPotables (talk · give credit)
- Created by Samtondiaz (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Dr42 (talk · give credit) and Lim Zhi Hang (talk · give credit)
Nominator's comments: Notable change in Cuba's governing, first appointment in 43 years. PotentPotables (talk) 11:31, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
- Support Per nomination as it is ITN and a story of significant global political impact. Dr42 (talk) 11:48, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
- Support. Per DR42. Very important news in political world. MSN12102001 (talk) 12:59, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
- Weak support. It is a remarkable developing news but yet he didn't contest in the elections to become the PM. However it is still a major news in Cuban politics. On the other hand, the article has just been created and need more expansion. Abishe (talk) 14:10, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
- Support article's in realtively decent shape, and it's covered by most of the major news outlets. ——SN54129 14:16, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose As both BBC and CNN are reporting, this is mostly a ceremonial position: the power of the Cuban gov't retained in the Communist Party and the President. --Masem (t) 14:24, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose – Per Masem. Reuters quotes govt. as saying PM will be "the administrative right hand of the president." – Sca (talk) 15:31, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
- Support - historic. Article seems ready.BabbaQ (talk) 18:03, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
- Support per above. Davey2116 (talk) 18:08, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose – Basically a stub. The article is not a biography. It is basically a press release. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 21:25, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose on quality, consider this support if/when article is improved. Kingsif (talk) 00:29, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
RD: Thomas Chandy
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Times of India
Credits:
- Nominated by Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk · give credit)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Former Kerala minister Thomas Chandy died Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:36, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose – Not widely covered; lacks general significance. – Sca (talk) 15:34, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
- RDs are not evaluated by their "significance", but by the quality of the article. If the article is ok the RD is approved. ALL people with an article on Wikipedia are considered notable and/or significant enough for a RD.--SirEdimon (talk) 16:57, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
- This is true, but the death does need to be reported in reliable news sources. Not a question here for Times of India. --Masem (t) 03:59, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
- RDs are not evaluated by their "significance", but by the quality of the article. If the article is ok the RD is approved. ALL people with an article on Wikipedia are considered notable and/or significant enough for a RD.--SirEdimon (talk) 16:57, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose – Needs improvement to sourcing. We do not need a separate WP:CSECTION for unindicted allegation. Allegations are levied against politician daily. I doubt it even has due weight in an article this short. It reads like a minor accusation that was blown out of proportion because it is recent. The man lived for 72 years. Is this thing that happened in the last 2 years worth 1/5 of the article space? --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 21:38, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
December 21
December 21, 2019
(Saturday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
Law and crime
|
RD: Emanuel Ungaro
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC, The Guardian, Vogue
Credits:
- Nominated by Jamez42 (talk · give credit)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: French fashion designer Jamez42 (talk) 14:49, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
- Comment: A few unreferenced sections. SpencerT•C 05:06, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
(Closed) 2019 FIFA Club World Cup
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Blurb: Liverpool defeats Flamengo to win the 2019 FIFA Club World Cup. (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:
- Nominated by SirEdimon (talk · give credit)
- Oppose I think football has enough coverage on ITN already, and this is not a significant enough competition. P-K3 (talk) 21:30, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
- First of all, this is the most important club competition on football world. Second, this is ITN worth, please check WP:ITNR.--SirEdimon (talk) 21:39, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
- It’s not ITN/R, so I am free to oppose on significance. And it is nowhere near as important as the UEFA Champions League which gets much more attention. P-K3 (talk) 21:45, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
- FIFA World Cup is ITNR, FIFA Club World Club is not.—Bagumba (talk) 18:43, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
- First of all, this is the most important club competition on football world. Second, this is ITN worth, please check WP:ITNR.--SirEdimon (talk) 21:39, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose - I'd agree with Pawnkingthree, although in one sense this is the ultimate prize in club football, being a tournament for the winners of the continental cups, it doesn't actually have the prestige of the individual UEFA and South American events. It also doesn't look like we posted it last year, and I don't recall seeing it any other year either. — Amakuru (talk) 23:27, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
- Support on notability (I leave others to judge quality), despite it not being ITNR, and despite it receiving less attention than the Champions League in much of the world (though Latin America, or at least South America, may well be an exception, as may some of the other countries whose teams are taking part). But that's seemingly WP:systemic bias, a bit like saying that we should not report the British or Brazilian elections, or elections at the UN (to give another instance where the world is deemed less important than some of its parts), because we supposedly have far too much politics anyway and because the US elections receive far more coverage (yes, I know most such elections are ITNR, but that's not really the point). In this case it is likely to be of interest to more of our readers than usual because it's a rare case of an English team winning this cup (which, incidentally, is probably part of the reason why we didn't post it last year). To those who might say that's systemic bias in favour of an English-speaking country, my reply is that in this case any such biaa is legitimate because this is after all English Wikipedia (I would not expect, for instance, German Wikipedia to omit stories of interest to their German-speaking readers on the basis that this is bias in favour of such readers). I might perhaps add that this year, unusually, I was more interested in this cup than in the Champions League (because that was an all-English final this year, which is less interesting than English v Brazilian), despite me being neither English nor British - and I suspect I'm not alone among our readers in having felt that way. Tlhslobus (talk) 23:51, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose - The only clubs that win this competition are European teams or South American teams, and we already post when those teams qualify to this tournament when they win their respective continental championships. Furthermore, the manager of the winning side had several quotes justifying the value of this tournament to the press, found in this article on BBC, implying that the tournament is looked down upon enough that he felt he had to justify its value. That said, this is technically the ultimate competition of club football, and FIFA treats it this way, even if the fans do not, so it's only a weak oppose. NorthernFalcon (talk) 02:29, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
- Klopp's above-mentioned comments are because the tournament is looked upon with contempt and hostility by some elements in Europe (tho not the remaining 90% of the world). The fact that the BBC chose to show the final live in prime time on its main channel (BBC ONE) suggests that this contempt and hostility is not shared by huge numbers of ordinary fans (and Europe's excellent recent record in the cup suggests that major European clubs like Real Madrid now take it seriously too). This does not mean that they regard it as more important than the Champions League, but if that were a requirement for posting at ITN, then about 90% of our ITNR sports items would have to be removed (and huge numbers of non-sporting events would also have to be removed), etc. Incidentally the last Cricket World Cup to be held in India (about 4 years ago, if I remember right) chose to market itself as 'the Cup that matters', presumably because many in India think the T20 world cup is more important, but we quite rightly did not use this as grounds for not posting (nor even for removing it from ITNR). Tlhslobus (talk) 17:27, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
- Support on notability and
ask where to proposeproposed this for ITN/R (here - there are single-country and continental club competitions, yet not the World club competition, that seems counter-intuitive). Main article is updated with final, though more prose on final is in the separate article on it. Kingsif (talk) 02:44, 22 December 2019 (UTC) - Oppose – There is no final match summary in either 2019 FIFA Club World Cup or 2019 FIFA Club World Cup Final. I would support if the article on Final had a summary. We've had a lot of non-sports news recently. Doesn't hurt to have this posted. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 03:03, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Soccer receives plenty of recognition via ITN/R events. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:55, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose - The Club World Cup is not highly regarded in the Anglosphere, in part because of its format (a straight knockout with byes for certain confederations). When the new format debuts in 2021 and the tournament becomes a quadrennial event, I think it should warrant a place in ITNR. SounderBruce 06:56, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Martin Peters
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:
- Nominated by SirEdimon (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: English footballer and manager. Member of the England team which won the 1966 FIFA World Cup and played the 1970 World Cup --SirEdimon (talk) 17:21, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
- Support Referenced and good depth of coverage of subject. SpencerT•C 17:26, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
- Support Nice well referenced article about an important football player 46.7.236.180 (talk) 21:45, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
- Weak oppose - the career stats and honours sections are unreferenced at the moment. Rest of the article looks good enough. — Amakuru (talk) 23:21, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
- Support I've added a number of ref's and fixes. I ref'ed the honours section which Amakuru noted. The career stats haven't been ref'ed but I don't think we should be worried about that. I am happy with the article as it stands. Govvy (talk) 12:01, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
- Posted If anyone wants to remove the appearances section, that's fine, but given that this is a well sourced article, I'm unconvinced we should be worrying about that. Black Kite (talk) 17:49, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks. Could someone give me the "credits", please?--SirEdimon (talk) 18:50, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
- Done --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 03:51, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks. Could someone give me the "credits", please?--SirEdimon (talk) 18:50, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
December 20
December 20, 2019
(Friday)
Armed conflict and attacks
Business and economy
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Science and technology
|
Creation of United States Space Force
Blurb: President Trump signs defense bill that officially creates the United States Space Force. (Post)
Alternative blurb: The United States Space Force, the sixth branch of the United States Armed Forces, is officially created.
News source(s): NPR, The Guardian, BBC, ABC.
Credits:
- Nominated by Puzzledvegetable (talk · give credit)
- Created by Bitsdotlies (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Garuda28 (talk · give credit)
Nominator's comments: This is the first time that a new branch has been added since 1947. This will also be the first time that the United States will have a dedicated space military presence, as NASA is a civilian agency, and the Air Force only did this as a side mission. PuzzledvegetableIs it teatime already? 20:23, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose A United States Space Command was created in 1985 and there was an announcement by Trump about this in August. It's not clear that this is any more than an administrative reorganisation. What's the practical impact? Andrew🐉(talk) 22:00, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
- This is more than an administrative reorganization. A new branch was announced on 20 December. This new branch is of equal status to the Army and Navy. This is completely different than a command being shuffled around for bureaucratic purposes. This new branch will have its own uniform, song, march, rank structure, etc. It's as independent from the Air Force as the Marine Corps is from the Navy. This hasn't been done since 1947. --PuzzledvegetableIs it teatime already? 22:23, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
- Its own song!? But it doesn't actually have one yet, right? I see that people have been parodying this for some time – see Billboard, for example. This seems to be similar to Trump's wall on the Mexico border – more of a work-in-progress than a discrete achievement. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:19, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
- By the way, note that Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker has been the top-read article on Wikipedia for several days now, because nobody cares what ITN thinks about it. That's something that actually exists – you can go to the movies and see it yourself whereas Trump's Space Force seems to be like Reagan's Star Wars; an aspiration rather than an actuality. "No one’s ever really gone." – Luke Skywalker. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:47, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
- The funding already exists as this has officially been sanctioned by an act of Congress, and a Chief of Space Operations has already been appointed. The comparison to Reagan's Star Wars is incredibly weak. --PuzzledvegetableIs it teatime already? 23:56, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
- The Act of Congress is the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020, which is a huge bundle of programs, policies and pork for the Department of Defense. There's lots in there such as items for cyberspace, for example. A bill of this sort is passed every year and we would need a good reason to highlight particular items in it. Andrew🐉(talk) 00:14, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
- "There is established a United States Space Force as an armed force within the Department of the Air Force." Last time something similar to that was said, the Allies had just emerged victorious from World War II. It's been over 70 years, hardly the annual occurrence you make it seem to be. I'm not sure what everyone else isn't getting. Congress has created a new branch of the Armed Forces. It's as official as it's ever going to get. This rarely ever happens, and it reflects a major change in American military policy, and how it has been affected by changing technologies. --PuzzledvegetableIs it teatime already? 00:28, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
- Emerged victorious from World War II directly due to extremely real and important air superiority of armed forces. No such clear and present danger this time, just similar in that they're new branches and the press is concerned with the commander-in-chief. Almost a whole other scoop, 72 years later, each with its own official and imaginary merit systems. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:41, December 23, 2019 (UTC)
- "There is established a United States Space Force as an armed force within the Department of the Air Force." Last time something similar to that was said, the Allies had just emerged victorious from World War II. It's been over 70 years, hardly the annual occurrence you make it seem to be. I'm not sure what everyone else isn't getting. Congress has created a new branch of the Armed Forces. It's as official as it's ever going to get. This rarely ever happens, and it reflects a major change in American military policy, and how it has been affected by changing technologies. --PuzzledvegetableIs it teatime already? 00:28, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
- The Act of Congress is the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020, which is a huge bundle of programs, policies and pork for the Department of Defense. There's lots in there such as items for cyberspace, for example. A bill of this sort is passed every year and we would need a good reason to highlight particular items in it. Andrew🐉(talk) 00:14, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
- The funding already exists as this has officially been sanctioned by an act of Congress, and a Chief of Space Operations has already been appointed. The comparison to Reagan's Star Wars is incredibly weak. --PuzzledvegetableIs it teatime already? 23:56, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
- This is more than an administrative reorganization. A new branch was announced on 20 December. This new branch is of equal status to the Army and Navy. This is completely different than a command being shuffled around for bureaucratic purposes. This new branch will have its own uniform, song, march, rank structure, etc. It's as independent from the Air Force as the Marine Corps is from the Navy. This hasn't been done since 1947. --PuzzledvegetableIs it teatime already? 22:23, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose There is going to be at least a year of administrative setup before there is actually a separate branch. It would be better once the Space Force is officially the 6th branch, as right now, all activities will be under the Air Force. [4] --Masem (t) 22:34, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
- It already is a separate branch. It's true that they have allotted 18 months to fully separate the branches, but the official separation has happened. Everything from here is purely administrative. --PuzzledvegetableIs it teatime already? 22:47, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
- It's not fully separate. There is no person right now that can say they are a Space Force member, only that they are part of the Space Force division under the Air Force. In 18 months a lot can change (and this also potentially is where the impeachment process may come into play, to revoke such programs after the fact). When it is actually separated, then it might make sense to post. But as noted in these articles, this is not the first national-level military-directed space agency anywhere, so I don't see why calling out the US version is necessary. --Masem (t) 23:38, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
- "There is no person right now that can say they are a Space Force member..." In that case, we should definitely edit the lead to John W. Raymond, which reads "John William "Jay" Raymond is a general in the United States Space Force..." --PuzzledvegetableIs it teatime already? 00:00, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
- Also worth noting that this has officially been sanctioned by an act of Congress. It's unlikely that same Congress is going to revoke it just because Trump happens to be the President that signed this into law. --PuzzledvegetableIs it teatime already? 00:05, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
- It's not fully separate. There is no person right now that can say they are a Space Force member, only that they are part of the Space Force division under the Air Force. In 18 months a lot can change (and this also potentially is where the impeachment process may come into play, to revoke such programs after the fact). When it is actually separated, then it might make sense to post. But as noted in these articles, this is not the first national-level military-directed space agency anywhere, so I don't see why calling out the US version is necessary. --Masem (t) 23:38, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
- It already is a separate branch. It's true that they have allotted 18 months to fully separate the branches, but the official separation has happened. Everything from here is purely administrative. --PuzzledvegetableIs it teatime already? 22:47, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
- Support - Another step of Trump solidifying his political legacy.--WaltCip (talk) 23:15, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose another Trump fake victory that will never be funded or really implemented. At most it's a reorg of the air force and another big government expansion and waste of public funds. Let me know when Mars leaves the UN. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:31, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose As Trump news, we have enough. As space war news, it's too soon, still feels "fake". I'll support when the first drop of blood is vaporized (rebel, robot or imperial). InedibleHulk (talk) 03:24, December 23, 2019 (UTC)
- Weak support if I'm not mistaken, this is the first time any nation has created a space force, making this a historic milestone. Weak support because it's not the first time space-related weapons have been destroyed, see e.g. anti-satellite weapon. Still, if other countries respond by establishing their own space force, not posting this would be a mistake. Banedon (talk) 14:23, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
(Posted) State of the Netherlands v. Urgenda Foundation
Blurb: The Dutch Supreme Court upholds a ruling that the Netherlands government must meet established emissions reduction milestones, establishing the first legal case of climate change impacting human rights. (Post)
Alternative blurb: The Dutch Supreme Court upholds a ruling that the Netherlands government must meet established emissions reduction milestones, creating the first legal precedent on the impact of climate change on human rights
News source(s): Bloomberg, The Guardian
Credits:
- Nominated by Masem (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Nominator's comments: While this case had made news in 2015 from the lower court ruling, it had been appealed twice, but upheld at all points. I think the article is pretty much there? There's some weird formatting stuff I can't figure out immediately, but sourcing, it seems to be there. Masem (t) 16:51, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
- Support Appears to be a pretty landmark case, Supreme Court verdict. Kingsif (talk) 19:59, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
- Support - per historic landmark case/ruling.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:30, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
- Could someone fix reference 11? It doesn't point anywhere. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:43, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
- No idea where the "Black 2005" source is but I found the original (or least versions of) of the documents that it was sourcing, so bad ref 11 is now removed. --Masem (t) 21:50, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
- Support Historic case. Taewangkorea (talk) 02:01, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
- Support per above. Davey2116 (talk) 03:38, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
- No article about the case itself? Gotitbro (talk) 06:25, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose – Oddly named target, a 2,500-word piece, is too general and broad. This Netherlands ruling is more than halfway down in it. Needs a separate article. – Sca (talk) 13:53, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
- While there is probably enough details for a separate article about the case, the news is not so much the case but the fact that we have an affirmed highest-court ruling that climate change impacts human rights, which is the whole point of the term "climate justice". --Masem (t) 16:55, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
Oppose Needs a stand-alone article for the case.SpencerT•C 17:27, 21 December 2019 (UTC)- Support Standalone article created and looks good; kudos to User:Masem. Marking ready. SpencerT•C 18:14, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
- Wait - Agree with Spencer. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 18:25, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
- Comment @Spencer, Sca, and Nice4What: Separate article has been created, blurb updated. --Masem (t) 01:34, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
- Suggest removing "Climate Justice" piece as a target, leaving only State of the Netherlands v. Urgenda Foundation. (Unwieldy article name could be simplified, though.) – Sca (talk) 15:40, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
- I concur with Sca. SpencerT•C 18:14, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
- I'm fine with removing "climate justice" (as I wrote the case article, I think it needs to be tuned towards "climate change litigation" to be a bit more neutral, but that would take more work). Not sure how to reduce the name, as not familiar enough with how Dutch law cases get shortened. (Could it be "Netherlands v. Urgenda?" not sure?) --Masem (t) 18:41, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
- "2019 Netherlands climate ruling" – ?? – Sca (talk) 14:55, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
- I'm fine with removing "climate justice" (as I wrote the case article, I think it needs to be tuned towards "climate change litigation" to be a bit more neutral, but that would take more work). Not sure how to reduce the name, as not familiar enough with how Dutch law cases get shortened. (Could it be "Netherlands v. Urgenda?" not sure?) --Masem (t) 18:41, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
- I concur with Sca. SpencerT•C 18:14, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
- Suggest removing "Climate Justice" piece as a target, leaving only State of the Netherlands v. Urgenda Foundation. (Unwieldy article name could be simplified, though.) – Sca (talk) 15:40, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
- Posted alt blurb. The newly-created article has been stable, and there was sufficient support already beforehand.—Bagumba (talk) 05:20, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
- Question: Is the term "precedent" accurate? Are lower courts in the Netherlands bound by prior cases? Is the meaning of the word "precedent" in Dutch law different from its generally understood meaning in common law, the legal system used by the majority of English-speaking countries (considering that this is the English Wikipedia)? feminist (talk) 13:46, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Boeing Orbital Flight Test
Blurb: An anomaly occurs during the first test flight of the Boeing Starliner spacecraft, preventing a planned rendezvous with the International Space Station (Post)
News source(s): BBC, Space.com
Credits:
- Nominated by PhilipTerryGraham (talk · give credit)
– PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 14:12, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
- Weak oppose On the basis that if it successfully got there, on something really bad happened, it would definitely be ITN-worthy, but this is a bit of a boring nothing in between both. Kingsif (talk) 19:58, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
- @Kingsif: The failure of a crew-rated spacecraft is "boring"? – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 05:56, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
- I could be wrong but I don't believe it is yet crew-rated(hence the test flight). 331dot (talk) 08:06, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
- Well, nothing effectively happened? It missed the target, when reaching would be interesting. It didn't blow up or set on fire or otherwise cause injury. A blurb isn't "thing was supposed to happen but didn't", you know? Like "guy was going to break the world record but fell short" isn't worth a blurb unless there's an independently interesting reason why. And per standards of ITNs for space exploration, I think only a successful flight & rendezvous warrants a blurb. Kingsif (talk) 16:45, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
- I could be wrong but I don't believe it is yet crew-rated(hence the test flight). 331dot (talk) 08:06, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
- @Kingsif: The failure of a crew-rated spacecraft is "boring"? – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 05:56, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
- Weak support First paragraph needs a reference. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:40, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose – Lacks general significance. – Sca (talk) 13:55, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose - Test flights generally should not be ITN, even if the eventual purpose is to carry a manned payload - unless crew are already aboard, as with the fateful Apollo 1 test.--WaltCip (talk) 16:43, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
- Really? Pretty sure this falls under ITNR of "The first and last launches of any type of rocket". The equivalent would be the first landing of Buran or the Space Shuttle. Also, this specific flight had enough drama/anomalies to make it more notable, and it's the first time a ground-landing was done by an American entity. 2601:602:9200:1310:B8D2:9472:B23:A690 (talk) 20:31, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
- This is 81st launch of the Atlas V rocket. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 21:56, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
- But the first orbit of the Boeing CST-100 Starliner.--WaltCip (talk) 13:29, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
- This is 81st launch of the Atlas V rocket. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 21:56, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Polish judicial disciplinary panel law
Blurb: Polish judicial disciplinary panel law passed by Sejm, despite warnings this may force Poland out of EU evoking widespread protests throughout Poland. (Post)
News source(s): [5][6][7][8][9]
Credits:
- Created and nominated by MozeTak (talk · give credit)
MozeTak (talk) 20:19, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
- Wait Per the article, not yet passed into law. Unless however the protests from this decision rise to an ITN-notable level of posting. SpencerT•C 23:42, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
December 19
December 19, 2019
(Thursday)
International Relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Science and technology
|
(Closed) Evo Morales
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Blurb: Bolivian prosecutors issue arrest warrant against Former Bolivian President Evo Morales (Post)
News source(s): Al Jazeera, The Guardian
Credits:
- Nominated by Abishe (talk · give credit)
Article updated
- Oppose - They need to catch him first.--WaltCip (talk) 13:08, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose for now. Seems to be an incremental part of a larger story which has not yet reached its climax. The big two aspects here would be 1) When he was deposed (already posted) and when (if) he is convicted (hasn't happened yet). --Jayron32 13:25, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
- Wait for a conviction. An arrest warrant is not enough to justify an ITN blurb. Modest Genius talk 13:37, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose – Per previous. Obviously. – Sca (talk) 14:05, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose They did it a while ago and are not going to get him. IMO the next ITN-worthy Bolivian politics post would be Morales dies or the elections that Áñez keeps pushing back. Or Áñez arrested. Who knows. Kingsif (talk) 14:48, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose though I think if he was actually arrested it might merit posting as former heads of state are not often arrested. 331dot (talk) 15:18, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
- Wait The situation is speculative at this point. Trillfendi (talk) 17:43, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
(Closed) Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Blurb: The final episode of the Skywalker saga premieres and goes on general release. (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:
- Nominated by Andrew Davidson (talk · give credit)
- Updated by ChristianJosephAllbee (talk · give credit), Richiekim (talk · give credit) and Sc2353 (talk · give credit)
Article updated
- Wait for a longer plot summary that has actual refs (can you do that? Seems odd to be ok with several paragraphs of prose based on some attendees recollection). As a cultural story, this is as worthy of posting as any literary award, article is pretty decent otherwise. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:53, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
- -whimper- ... Oppose. Yes, Star Wars is a cultural phenomenon, embedded into the psyche of the Anglophone world (primarily the U.S.) but we do not post blurbs of a movie's premiere based on that alone, unless it's coupled with the smashing of a major global record. In fact, I can't imagine a single instance where we would post a premiere of a movie sans a record-breaking - perhaps Stanley Kubrick coming back from the dead to make a movie?--WaltCip (talk) 13:06, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose unless and until something newsworthy aside from the release happens. --Jayron32 13:23, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose lets leave such blurbs (i.e. blurbs of a movie's premiere) for the tabloids. --DBigXrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 13:25, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose the mere release of a film. Iff it breaks box office records, then we could consider it for ITN. Modest Genius talk 13:36, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
State of emergency declared in Australia's New South Wales
Blurb: State of emergency is declared in Australia's New South Wales following record breaking temperatures and ongoing bushfires. (Post)
Alternative blurb: State of emergency is declared in New South Wales, Australia following record breaking temperatures and ongoing bushfires
News source(s): BBC, Al Jazeera, Guardian, Reuters, AP
Credits:
- Nominated by Abishe (talk · give credit)
- Created by Mitch Ames (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Mitch Ames (talk · give credit), Bidgee (talk · give credit) and HiLo48 (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Nominator's comments: Bushfires are quite regular in Australia but this time around the bushfires have been uncontrollable. The bushfires have also resulted in implementing state of emergency in New South Wales. Abishe (talk) 07:50, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
- Wondering if it should also mention the "record-breaking heatwave" with the record set on Tuesday and than broken the next day. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:04, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
- Comment The first day of the tour match between New Zealand cricket team and Victoria had to be cancelled due to the extreme heat conditions. The heatwaves are quite significant this time around as they have caused to postpone/reschedule international and domestic sport events. Abishe (talk) 08:27, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
- Support Adjusted a bit. Definitely notable. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:30, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
- Comment Misleading title and blurb. The state of emergency is only in one of Australia's six states, New South Wales. It covers only slightly more than 10% of the country. I won't support the current blurb. HiLo48 (talk) 08:52, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
- Comment Oops it is my error and I just included NSW in the blurb. Abishe (talk) 09:30, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
- Support Although there have been "only" 6 fatalities, these bushfires are notable in that they have been ongoing for over a month, and have only grown larger during that time. Furthermore the air quality in Sydney has been at hazardous levels for many days since early November, with flow on effects to residents' health and the cancellation of various events. Chrisclear (talk) 10:00, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
- Comment "Australia's New South Wales" sounds very clumsy. It's unlikely a blurb about Arizona would say "The United States' Arizona". I added an alternative blurb. Chrisclear (talk) 10:00, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Need clearer indications of impact. State of emergency is as much about becoming prepared than a measurement of incurred doom. The California wildfires in October/November did not get posted; a state of emergency was declared there.[10]—Bagumba (talk) 10:28, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
- Support - News from that region of the world tends to be rare on ITN.--WaltCip (talk) 13:06, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
- That would be less of a problem if more editors (not just Australians) worked to prevent such nominations falling off this page. HiLo48 (talk) 02:42, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose for now, seems better suited to ongoing as a topic, though I note the current target article is rather sparse; many sections consist of a single sentence and it needs a lot of expansion. --Jayron32 13:27, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
- Comment - This is NSW's second State of Emergency (first one for this fire season was in November). This isn't a typical fire season, in NSW the season typically starts in mid-late November north of the state and early-mid December in the south, this season started around August and ramped up in September due to drought and above average temperatures. In a season you'll see one or two big (major) fires but so far I have lost count. I do know that approximately 2.7 million hectares has been burnt so far.
- The blurb needs more work, I would help but I'm off on a deployment in a few hours. Bidgee (talk) 13:51, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
- Comment – Gigantic, intense fire situation that's been and continues to be widely covered by RS media. (Record-breaking as a compound modifier of temperatures is hyphenated.) – Sca (talk) 14:10, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose in current state (though significance is met). Have any of the support votes actually attempted to read this article? The NSW section first has a few paragraphs, each about a different fire. Then a few graphs in summary of the whole season, Then more graphs each about a different fire! Then more summary! This isn't an article; it's research notes. GreatCaesarsGhost 19:08, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose at the moment, the article simply isn't up to scratch - it's a list of events, some of which are unsourced and many of which are out of date, with one line in the lead saying "A state of emergency has been declared". We can't put that on the front page at the moment. Black Kite (talk) 19:27, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose ...for now. Maybe this is linked to the wrong article. 2019–20 Australian bushfire season is just this year's ongoing article about the season's bushfires. Such articles are typically a mess for a while, often being contributed to by enthusiastic, new editors unfamiliar with our conventions. It will be in poor condition for some time yet. Bushfires in southern states are usually worse in January and February. These articles are cleaned up later after things settle down. The problem is, I don't know what article to point to that will be in good condition. HiLo48 (talk) 21:30, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
- Target suggestion Agreed that it's an inappropriate target for a main page item. All of Australia is not on fire now. A model might be like 2019 California wildfires, and even that has individual links to specific fires, and is not proseline for the entire state.—Bagumba (talk) 01:59, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
- Comment – Two firefighters killed. We really shouldn't be ignoring this topic. (Two sources added above.) – Sca (talk) 13:50, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
- That's the second comment you've made in this nom arguing this event is significant. No one is disputing this - the objection is quality. If you are passive-aggressively arguing that quality should be ignored, be less passive. GreatCaesarsGhost 15:52, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
- Not 'suggesting' anything of the kind. Be less disparaging. I do suggest that some of our Australian colleagues familiar with the topic and the country work on the article. – Sca (talk) 13:40, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
- Why just Australians? And this article is not likely to become stable enough to support the nomination in the time-frame required. HiLo48 (talk) 23:17, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
- Not 'suggesting' anything of the kind. Be less disparaging. I do suggest that some of our Australian colleagues familiar with the topic and the country work on the article. – Sca (talk) 13:40, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
- Comment As GreatCaesarsGhost has just noted, we need a better quality article to support this nomination. I have already pointed out further up this discussion that the linked article, 2019–20 Australian bushfire season, is unlikely to become a quality, stable in the time frame we need. As its name shows, the period it covers extends into next year. It covers the whole country, ten times the area involved with the subject of this nomination. Fires are only just now firing up (sorry) in the southern states of Victoria and South Australia, and the southern part of Western Australia, and will continue through to at least April next year if past years are any guide. It's the kind of article that attracts new and enthusiastic but unskilled editors. It just isn't the right article. We obviously need an article on the declaration of the state of emergency if we are to follow our guidelines. Or, and this is the biggie, accept that this IS a major news item, and should not miss out on being posted just because nobody thought of situations like this when they wrote the guidelines. If we can't do that, we perhaps need to rethink the headline on our main page. After all, this definitely IS In the News. HiLo48 (talk) 23:21, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Homo erectus
Blurb: Homo erectus survived into comparatively recent times in South East Asia, a new study has revealed (Post)
Alternative blurb: Study reveals Homo erectus survived until around 110,000 years ago in South East Asia, more recently than previously known
Alternative blurb II: A study suggests Homo erectus died off due to rainforests destroying its natural grassland habitat in Java, around 110,000 years ago.
News source(s): BBC
Credits:
- Nominated by Sherenk1 (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Nominator's comments: As per article "The latest study highlights a mind-boggling truth: that many of the species we thought of as transitional stages in this onward march overlapped with each other, in some cases for hundreds of thousands of years." Sherenk1 (talk) 06:25, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
- Comment On first blush, this seems to fail impact. It's been known for decades (and been postulated for over a century) that various Homo species were contemporaneous. The breakthrough work in the last few decades was establishing that they were co-located and intermingled as well. The actual story here is that it brings the most-recent date for (specifically) erectus forward by ca. 200 ky (to 100 kya from 300 kya). On one hand, I'd like to see stories like this get Main Page featured. OTOH, this is pretty "meh" even from someone who works close to this field, and the article is not great.130.233.3.203 (talk) 07:16, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
- Suggest changing blurb to give an actual timeframe. "Comparatively recently" is meaningless. The article is of high quality. Thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:25, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
- Comment Current blurb is also a close paraphrase of the BBC subheadline.[11].—Bagumba (talk) 09:49, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
- I don't see any updates in the article. This is a must before we can discuss otherwise this ITN-worthy story. --Tone 10:03, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
- Support different angle We've known humanity has been brutally attacking rainforests for a while, but now we "know" the rainforest killed our best cousins. Every last one of them! This changes everything. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:23, December 19, 2019 (UTC)
- Comment - Agreed with above that "comparatively recently" is a phrase that is useless at best, and recklessly misleading at worst. Would prefer to see a more concrete timeframe.--WaltCip (talk) 13:09, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
- I've added an alternative blurb based on the BBC article. User:GKFXtalk 17:40, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Target article has not been updated, no clear text related to this story in the target article. --Jayron32 13:29, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose, this is incremental, and based on a sketchy dating method. We know that Homo floresiensis arose about 100ka on a nearby island, and their ancestor was probably H. erectus.Abductive (reasoning) 22:23, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
(Posted, Ongoing removed) Impeachment of Donald Trump
Blurb: President Donald Trump is impeached by the United States House of Representatives. (Post)
Alternative blurb: President Donald Trump is impeached by the United States House of Representatives, charging him with abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.
Alternative blurb II: The United States House of Representatives votes to impeach President Donald Trump.
News source(s): The Guardian; NBC News
Credits:
- Nominated by 331dot (talk · give credit)
- Created by Nixinova (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Coffeeandcrumbs (talk · give credit) and Arglebargle79 (talk · give credit)
Nominator's comments: The vote is going to be within the hour, and no one thinks it will fail(if it did, that would likely merit posting too). I've suggested two blurbs though I'm open to changes. It could be pulled from Ongoing. I'm also open to a different image- and I wouldn't be opposed to leaving the current image of Musharraf up for awhile longer. 331dot (talk) 00:56, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
- Support and we can pull it from ongoing until the Senate trial starts --LaserLegs (talk) 01:08, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
- Image suggestion can we fair use this Associated Press image of Trump next to George Nader (businessman)? [12] --LaserLegs (talk) 01:28, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
- Strong support Extremely historic day, and with only 8 minutes voting to go on the first article, its looking definite that Trump will be the third president ever to be impeached (finally!). Nixinova T C 01:17, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
- Support it's internal to the US and part of a two-step process, but this is making so much news worldwide I think we should blurb it anyway. Banedon (talk) 01:21, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
- Strong support -- this is as much breaking news as the impeachment of any head of state. However, while his impeachment is all but certain now (needs 218 votes, at 208 at time of posting), we should wait until it actually passes -- Rockstonetalk to me! 01:21, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
- Update Trump just became the third U.S. president to be impeached. 2 Dems
and 1 Repubbroke ranks. Nixinova T C 01:28, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
- Did a Republican vote yes? Amash is an independent. 331dot (talk) 01:29, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
- There's only 1 indep vote at the moment but the Repub vote got removed a minute ago. Nixinova T C 01:34, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
- Did a Republican vote yes? Amash is an independent. 331dot (talk) 01:29, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
- Support Headline news in what I'm guessing is every major and medium news outlets. Really easiest support. Juxlos (talk) 01:32, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
- Support...but wait until final results come through and the second vote is held. This is obviously notable, though. | abequinnfourteen 01:31, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
- The second article has passed as well. Master of Time (talk) 01:44, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
- Support original blurb. | abequinnfourteen 01:59, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
- Support. Historic day. Only third time in U.S. history a president has been impeached. Master of Time (talk) 01:37, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
- Update Article II just passed. Nixinova T C 01:44, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
- Strong support: Only third President in U.S. history to be impeached, obviously major news. TomCat4680 (talk) 01:49, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
- Ready @331dot: marked ready, this one seems obvious for a blurb, at least no one has commented on ongoing. You're involved but since you're around if you wanna post you may as well. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:51, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
- Support Historic moment. House is adjourned, both articles passed. Vanilla Wizard 💙 01:54, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
- Support pbp 01:58, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
- Support, incredibly historic to get impeached at all, let alone be the first impeached during the first term. Going to be in the news all over the place. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 02:00, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
- Support HUGE news. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 02:00, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
- Support This is one of the most important American political events of the last few decades. ―Susmuffin Talk 02:01, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
- Not counting all the wars, sure, it's up there. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:10, December 19, 2019 (UTC)
- Support Obviously. Kingsif (talk) 02:07, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
- Support per above. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 02:08, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
- Support even if slightly pile on and per above -- a lad insane (Channel 2) 02:09, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
- Extremely Weak Oppose solely on article quality. The background section is under referenced. Fix it and we should be g2g. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:11, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
- With how much traffic the page is getting, this problem will probably fixed in like 3 seconds. Nixinova T C 02:20, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
- Posted and Removed the ongoing on the basis that once this blurb falls off, the ongoing would likely go back on - at least, after Congress reconvinces in Jan and the Senator takes it up... (assuming they do). Trump image just added to prot queue. --Masem (t) 02:12, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
- Should the picture be updated to be of the US President? -- Rockstonetalk to me! 02:17, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
- Has he been sentenced to death? Why not wait until then before switching pictures. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:19, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
- Not yet, but the top blurb gets the pic. It's in the protection queue now. --LaserLegs (talk) 02:20, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
- If you include political death under that definition, then yes. Nixinova T C 02:22, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
- Has he been sentenced to death? Why not wait until then before switching pictures. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:19, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
- How many times has he allegedly commited suicide now, six? InedibleHulk (talk) 02:38, December 19, 2019 (UTC)
- Now image is protected, so image swapped. --Masem (t) 02:26, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
- Should the picture be updated to be of the US President? -- Rockstonetalk to me! 02:17, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
- Post-posting support Historic. Davey2116 (talk) 02:45, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
- I think the blurb requires a clarification that Trump remains with 100% of his prerogatives until the Senate vote. I believe many countries besides US have impeachment where the person is actually temporary suspended until the trial vote. Or at least the locked linked article should clearly state that. 205.175.106.160 (talk) 03:45, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
- Probably something to comment on the talk page of the article; clarifying all the details in the blurb would be too long. SpencerT•C 04:11, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
- The altblurb that was posted gives the impression that there's more to come. --Masem (t) 05:19, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
- Post-Posting Comment Forwarding to Senate may be held up apparently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CoatCheck (talk • contribs) 05:20, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
- Post-posting support Suggest that we modify & bump the current blurb with the Senate's vote results, when they come in. Admins, please note this recent RfC.130.233.3.203 (talk) 07:27, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
- The Senate is unlike to be voting on this anytime before 2020 - the House wanted this done before Congress leaves for holiday break. By that point the blurb will clearly have rolled off, and we'll likely have put back the ongoing on the impeachment hearings. But 99% likely that either way the Senate votes on conviction, we'll post (even if they fail to convict, which is likely expected). --Masem (t) 07:49, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
- Comment: Anybody opposed to changing the blurb to "President Donald Trump is impeached by the United States House of Representatives, on charges of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress"? The present blurb ("charging him with") grammatically seems to imply that Trump charges himself, although the true meaning is clear from context. Another way to make this clearer would be "The United States House of Representatives impeaches President Donald Trump, charging him with abuse of power and obstruction of Congress". Sandstein 08:33, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
- Agree, and I went with your first suggestion — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:22, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
- Post-posting suggested re-word - Trump isn’t impeached until the House articles are sent to the Senate. Suggested re-word: The United States House of Representatives votes to impeach President Donald Trump. CoatCheck (talk) 20:32, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
- False. Trump is impeached. An opinion article and Fox News aren't the best sources to prove any points youre trying to make. Nixinova T C 19:14, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
- Post-Posting Support: Present wording is fine as it is. Sleath56 (talk) 00:50, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
(Posted to RD) Herman Boone
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: Legendary high school football coach Herman Boone dies at the age of 84 (Post)
Alternative blurb: Herman Boone, legendary coach of the T.C. Williams High School football team, dies at the age of 84
Alternative blurb II: Legendary high school football coach Herman Boone, who was immortalized in the 2000 film Remember the Titans, dies at 84
News source(s): https://wtop.com/alexandria/2019/12/herman-boone-alexandria-football-coach-immortalized-in-remember-the-titans-dies-at-84/
Credits:
- Nominated by 2601:187:4581:7F50:A4EE:F954:9CC6:6166 (talk · give credit)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: This deserves a listing given the significance this person has in both local and national history. 2601:187:4581:7F50:A4EE:F954:9CC6:6166 (talk) 00:17, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
- Not sure the nominator understand that he will be posted to Recent Deaths as long as the article is updated. 331dot (talk) 00:21, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
- I'm well aware of that... my point being that IMHO this deserves more than just an RD mention. 2601:187:4581:7F50:A4EE:F954:9CC6:6166 (talk) 00:24, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
- RD only. He was important for the local area, but wouldn't be as known nationally without the film. Blurbs are typically reserved for deaths where the death itself is an event, or for world-transforming figures at the tip top of their field. Neither is the case here. 331dot (talk) 00:37, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
- No blurb I genuinely understand and appreciate how high school football can seem larger-than-life in some states, but most readers grew up in the real world instead. To them, a coach is just a sort of teacher. A better-paid teacher, but still pretty common. Scoring a movie deal is universally cooler, but only goes so far. Gets you a blurb nomination. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:56, December 19, 2019 (UTC)
- RD only, per 331dot. The only sportsperson I can remember being posted as a blurb was Muhammad Ali. (There may be others I've forgotten, but that's the level we're talking about). Black Kite (talk) 01:02, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
- Gretzky's getting a great one someday. But yeah, Ali was the greatest. The Great Khali will likely be an exception to this unwritten "great" rule. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:10, December 19, 2019 (UTC)
- InedibleHulk It isn't unwritten, see WP:ITNRD. 331dot (talk) 01:15, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
- I mean the rule about assuming greatness based on a person's clear and present moniker. Generally holds true, but there'll always be pretenders. Khali was good in the lesser The Longest Yard, but that only goes so far toward immortality. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:26, December 19, 2019 (UTC)
- InedibleHulk It isn't unwritten, see WP:ITNRD. 331dot (talk) 01:15, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
- Gretzky's getting a great one someday. But yeah, Ali was the greatest. The Great Khali will likely be an exception to this unwritten "great" rule. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:10, December 19, 2019 (UTC)
- RD only Nowhere near as notable as "top of field" people. Juxlos (talk) 01:48, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
- RD and RD-ready. All statements in article are sourced. pbp 01:51, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
- RD only, obviously. P-K3 (talk) 02:29, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
- RD only. Even if we were to consider a blurb, the current ones listed are absolutely laughable in their use of loaded language and puffery. WaltCip (talk) 02:42, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
- Not absolutely "funny" yet. Remember when Jesse Owens was misdiagnosed as a "civil rights champion" for running against the backdrop of Hitler looking stupid? What if...no...we'd get cancelled. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:14, December 19, 2019 (UTC)
- InedibleHulk, I dread the day John Lewis dies. That is going to be one hell of a contentious ITN nomination. Gives me flashbacks of John McCain's nomination. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 07:09, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
- Then let that fear guide us toward eradicating the orange menace at the heart of his activism, before people hear about him for the first time! By us, I mean you guys. Wake up, verifiers! InedibleHulk (talk) 08:58, December 19, 2019 (UTC)
- InedibleHulk, I dread the day John Lewis dies. That is going to be one hell of a contentious ITN nomination. Gives me flashbacks of John McCain's nomination. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 07:09, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
- Not absolutely "funny" yet. Remember when Jesse Owens was misdiagnosed as a "civil rights champion" for running against the backdrop of Hitler looking stupid? What if...no...we'd get cancelled. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:14, December 19, 2019 (UTC)
- RD only per others. A respectable coach, but lightyears away from being a world-transformative figure required for a blurb. Article seems to be in good shape for RD. EternalNomad (talk) 03:52, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
- Posted to RD. SpencerT•C 04:16, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
- RD only, obviously.
both local and national history
- are you aware it needs to be of international relevance? Nixinova T C 04:18, 19 December 2019 (UTC) - Citation formats No impact to the merits of posting, but the inline page number referencing format used (i.e. the colons next to the footnote marker e.g.[1]: 500 ) is rare and confusing enough, but then the page numbers in the inline text and the citation don't even match. Ideally, the citation would not need any page number with this "style". Perhaps anyone with access to those offline sources can resolve the page number conflicts.—Bagumba (talk) 04:42, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
References
- ^ Dummy. p. 210.
- Done. Looks like someone misinterpreted
|pages=
to mean the total number of pages in the source. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 07:01, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
- Done. Looks like someone misinterpreted
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: