Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates
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:
|
Suggestions
September 26
September 26, 2017
(Tuesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and economy
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Science and technology
|
September 25
September 25, 2017
(Monday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Arts and culture
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Science and technology
|
RD: Eman Ahmed Abd El Aty
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Khaleej Times
Credits:
- Nominated by Sherenk1 (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.
Sherenk1 (talk) 02:34, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose. A couple of uncited claims (I've tagged them), but I don't expect they'll be too difficult to source. Other than that, the article is basic but there are no obvious missing gaps. Thryduulf (talk) 08:34, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
[Closed] Ongoing: 2017 North Korea crisis
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Ongoing item nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC NYT
Credits:
- Nominated by Banedon (talk · give credit)
- Oppose Because there's WP:SNOW chance of this being posted, and the closers are WP:UNINVOLVED. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:35, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
- Comment I'm slightly more tolerate towards an ongoing nomination, however like I said before, the source used in this nomination (as well as the previous one) is misleading, De Telegraaf mistranslated the report, stating that North Korea or the U.s. has declared war, however in actuality neither side officially made a declaration, as mentioned by other major news such as the New York Times, BBC, and Fox News, all of which covered this event but did not say it was a true declaration of war. I suggest changing the source to a more reliable source such as one of the ones I mentioned. SamaranEmerald (talk) 21:50, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
- Feel free to edit the nomination. I don't own it, and don't mind you changing it. Banedon (talk) 21:52, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
- Okay, that's better, at least that issue's resolved. SamaranEmerald (talk) 21:55, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
- Feel free to edit the nomination. I don't own it, and don't mind you changing it. Banedon (talk) 21:52, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose until someone makes a Celebrity Deathmatch involving Kim Jung-Un and the orange warmonger. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:02, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose Tweets and insults do not an ongoing make. Missile launches and the like can be evaluated on their own. Warmonger? As in against the NFL? The bigotry is stale. μηδείς (talk) 22:32, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose It is not really a crisis per se, it is heightened tensions between the US, NK, and other countries. It's a war of words, which happens all the time. --MASEM (t) 00:04, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose per Masem. No official declaration of war has been made and no significant actions have occurred aside from a lot of grandstanding. ZettaComposer (talk) 12:47, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
- Support - fits all the criteria for ongoing. Regular updates to the article, recurrent topic in the news, serious, real-world impact as evidenced by diplomatic efforts. And please, next time a) the closer should determine consensus based on the merits of the oppose/suppose and b) editors like Ramblingman or Muboshgu should provide a rationale instead of just posting some juvenile nonsense.
- Preceding posted by IP user 81.204.120.137, who arbitrarily reopened discussion. Sca (talk) 15:52, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
- And closed again, as there is no consensus, notwithstanding the grumblings of an anon user.--WaltCip (talk) 16:38, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
- Preceding posted by IP user 81.204.120.137, who arbitrarily reopened discussion. Sca (talk) 15:52, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
[Closed] 2017 North Korea crisis
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: North Korea decares war against the United States/ (Post)
Alternative blurb: North Korea says that the United States has declared war against it.
News source(s): De Telegraaf (in Dutch).
Credits:
- Nominated by Mjroots (talk · give credit)
Article needs updating
- Misleading - North Korea has claimed that the U.S. has declared war on North Korea. Nothing has actually happened. NYT--WaltCip (talk) 16:05, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose, suggest close - the reality is that Norea Korea is saying that the US has declared war on it, not the other way around, and it "will have every right to make countermeasures." [1]--Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:14, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose - War of words, it looks like. 42.109.130.44 (talk) 16:19, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
- ALT Blurb added. Mjroots (talk) 16:20, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose at this point. X saying Y went to war with it without Y actually formally declaring it is not "going to war". Yes, there are things to watch for but let's not jump at a misleading statement here. --MASEM (t) 16:26, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose Still a Trump/Kim dick measuring contest. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:32, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
- Support pbp 17:52, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
- Support, but would strongly prefer ongoing. The crisis is clearly ongoing and significant, given that this war of words has clear real-world ramifications. Unrelated, the quality of some of the oppose votes here is shocking. Fly-by graffitis. 81.204.120.137 (talk) 17:57, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
- This screed right underneath another support vote which doesn't even provide a rationale. But forget about that; those opposes are "fly-by graffitis".--WaltCip (talk) 18:45, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
- Strongest Oppose this is 100% misleading, other sources have stated that North Korea has only 'accused' the US of declaring war. Besides North Korea does this regularly during the annual military exercises conducted by the U.S. and South Korea. SamaranEmerald (talk) 18:16, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose Der Telegraaf really screwed up and misinterpreted the actual statement, this is what happens when you translate a foreign language into English, you get poor...well...translations. Besides the BBC report on the CE page states that North Korea is accusing the flyby of U.S aircrafts as a declaration of war, however no official declarations have been made by either side. Kirliator (talk) 18:30, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
- De Telegraaf is fairly tabloid-y as far as Dutch newspapers go, but regardless, this incident is in the news at plenty of places. A quick Google search brings up NBC News and The New York Times, among others. The quality of the source listed in the template shouldn't be too big an issue. ~Mable (chat) 18:38, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose When North Korea actually shoots down an airplane we can reconsider. For now this is just tough-talk. EternalNomad (talk) 18:39, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Iraqi Kurdistan independence referendum, 2017
Blurb: Iraqi Kurdistan votes in favour of independence, though the vote is dismissed as unconstitutional by the Iraqi federal government (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:
- Nominated by Sherenk1 (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Ahmedo Semsurî (talk · give credit) and Koopinator (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Nominator's comments: World news. Landmark decision by the Kurds. Sherenk1 (talk) 15:08, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
- At least wait until the results are in ^_^; ~Mable (chat) 18:29, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
- Wait. The results, either way, will be ITN-worthy and any significant violence or other events during the polling might be, but that the vote is happening is not. Thryduulf (talk) 19:56, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
- Support as a notable, important news story. Wait till results. It'll be important to note in the blurb that the referendum is not considered legal by Baghdad. The probable "yes" vote shouldn't be reported in a way that makes it seem like a new, de jure, internationally recognized, sovereign state is to be created. --LukeSurl t c 20:46, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
- Support - now there are results, I've tweaked the blurb to match the Scottish referendum blurb. Smurrayinchester 12:32, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
- Support Important story, and article looks ready bar the final results. Although votes are still being counted a big "yes" is expected.[2]--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:44, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
- Support - Major development covered by the global media houses. Albert Dawkins (talk) 18:10, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
September 24
September 24, 2017
(Sunday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Transport
|
[Closed] [Posted] German federal election, 2017
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: CDU/CSU, led by Angela Merkel, wins plurality in the German federal election. (Post)
Alternative blurb: CDU/CSU, led by Angela Merkel, wins the most seats in the German federal election.
Alternative blurb II: CDU/CSU, led by Angela Merkel, retains plurality in the German federal election.
Credits:
- Nominated by Tone (talk · give credit)
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
- Comment "... wins a plurality ..." again, this isn't common parlance outside some jurisdictions. For instance, I looked at the BBC article and that term isn't used at all. Can we either link or rephrase appropriately? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:43, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
- Agreed, "wins most seats" is probably the better alternative, as indicated in the NZ nomination below. --Tone 21:28, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
- I'd argue that "wins a plurality" is better here. In NZ, it's plausible that either Labour or Nationals will be able to get a coalition majority. Here, the only possible coalitions are CDU-led ones (CDU-SPD grand coalition or a CDU-Green-FDP Jamaica coalition - numerically, there's no coalition that makes Schulz Chancellor, since traffic light and red-red-green both fall well short), so the election is Merkel's win. Smurrayinchester 08:02, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
- Agreed, "wins most seats" is probably the better alternative, as indicated in the NZ nomination below. --Tone 21:28, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose this POV blurb. A quick look at the FT suggests Merkel is significantly weakened ("Merkel set for fourth term but support weakens") and "Nationalist AfD make historic breakthrough in German elections". The blurb should reflect that.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:51, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
- The originally proposed blurb does not express a POV (in any direction) it simply states facts. whether Merkel is weakened (or not) is a point of view however and so not appropriate for a blurb - the article can and should reflect the balance of opinions about the election noted in reliable sources, but there is not space to do that here. Thryduulf (talk) 22:58, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
- I think there may be space to reflect reliable third-party sources.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:17, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
- We should definitely reflect that the AfD has become the third-party in German politics. It's the first time in more than half a century that a far-right party has entered the German parliament, and with a significant proportion of the seats (The Times of London predicts about 90), which, in and of itself is significant, not PoV and also fact --Andrew 23:20, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
- The AfD, a small party that received 13% of the vote and that isn't expected to form a government, doesn't belong in the blurb. The main story is that the CDU/CSU became the largest party (allowing Merkel to continue as Chancellor). --Tataral (talk) 10:32, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
- I think there may be space to reflect reliable third-party sources.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:17, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
- How is "win plurality" POV? It's a positive fact. --bender235 (talk) 23:39, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
- Support – No-brainer: No. 1 political story in the world. That the results were predicted doesn't lessen its importance. (It will be interesting to see how a coalition including, presumably, both the traditionally business-friendly FDP and the environmentalist Greens functions.) Sca (talk) 01:12, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
- Support This is clearly an event of international significance. Angela Merkel is regarded as one of the three most powerful people (and most powerful woman) in the world; with some even regarding her as "leader of the free world" I support the current proposed blurb or something along the lines of "most seats" or "largest party". I oppose mentioning the AfD in the short blurb, that is something readers should go to the election article to read about. AusLondonder (talk) 03:55, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
- Support Should be mentioned as major news. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:58, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
- Support – How about "retains plurality" in the blurb? I think that's more accurate to the sources. Regardless, the article looks good! ~Mable (chat) 08:24, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Maplestrip: I'm not entirely sure why but we seem to avoid the term 'plurality' here. 331dot (talk) 10:12, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
- Apparently, it's called a "relative majority" in the UK, so I suppose that's a more European-focused alternative? What dialect do we usually use on the front page? ~Mable (chat) 10:29, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
- I think you are right that "plurality" is not understood or familiar to all readers. I believe we usually just state the winner "won the most seats". 331dot (talk) 10:31, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
- I think it's very odd that a word like "plurality" is apparently not well-known. "Won the most seats" looks both unspecific and awkward to me. It could mean either a majority or a plurality, after all. Readers can always click the link to the election if they are unclear on how many seats the party won exactly. ~Mable (chat) 10:37, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
- I've followed UK elections for 25 years and I have never heard the word "plurality" used in any media coverage or analysis of them. Sorry, I'm just not familiar with the term and I know I'm not alone in that.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:40, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
- I think it's very odd that a word like "plurality" is apparently not well-known. "Won the most seats" looks both unspecific and awkward to me. It could mean either a majority or a plurality, after all. Readers can always click the link to the election if they are unclear on how many seats the party won exactly. ~Mable (chat) 10:37, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
- I think you are right that "plurality" is not understood or familiar to all readers. I believe we usually just state the winner "won the most seats". 331dot (talk) 10:31, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
- Apparently, it's called a "relative majority" in the UK, so I suppose that's a more European-focused alternative? What dialect do we usually use on the front page? ~Mable (chat) 10:29, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Maplestrip: I'm not entirely sure why but we seem to avoid the term 'plurality' here. 331dot (talk) 10:12, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
- Comment. Remember folks that this is ITNR and as such does not need support on the merits. 331dot (talk) 10:11, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
- Support. No-brainer. --Tataral (talk) 10:24, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
- Posted altblurb. --Jayron32 11:46, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
- So we're just not going use the word 'plurality' on the frontpage? "Relative majority" isn't a good replacement either? ~Mable (chat) 11:49, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
- Is the word "most" confusing to any English speaker? --Jayron32 17:48, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, one could easily read it as "over 50%". Are the two alternatives confusing to any English speaker? They're not used often, but they are accurate, specific, and easy enough to comprehend. I don't have reason to believe these terms are confusing. ~Mable (chat) 18:26, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
- Well, I suppose if you didn't know what the word "most" meant, then anything is possible. Most means "more than anyone else". It has never been a synonym for "majority". Can you propose a word that means the exact same thing as "most" in all English countries but which is not the word "most" then? Because we've never found one. But I'd like to see you try. --Jayron32 18:32, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
- Funnily enough, if you ask it like that, "majority" does come to mind first. This would be a good replacement in sentences like "most countries" or "most planets"; "the majority of countries" and "the majority of planets." In this context, "plurality" is probably a better word to use, as "plurality" and "majority" have two different meanings when it comes to vote counting. ~Mable (chat) 18:42, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
- Majority means ONLY more than 50%. The word "plurality" is largely unknown outside of the U.S. Keep trying though. It's fun to watch. The universal word that means only "more than every other one" without meaning more than half is "most". --Jayron32 19:00, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
- Funnily enough, if you ask it like that, "majority" does come to mind first. This would be a good replacement in sentences like "most countries" or "most planets"; "the majority of countries" and "the majority of planets." In this context, "plurality" is probably a better word to use, as "plurality" and "majority" have two different meanings when it comes to vote counting. ~Mable (chat) 18:42, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
- Well, I suppose if you didn't know what the word "most" meant, then anything is possible. Most means "more than anyone else". It has never been a synonym for "majority". Can you propose a word that means the exact same thing as "most" in all English countries but which is not the word "most" then? Because we've never found one. But I'd like to see you try. --Jayron32 18:32, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, one could easily read it as "over 50%". Are the two alternatives confusing to any English speaker? They're not used often, but they are accurate, specific, and easy enough to comprehend. I don't have reason to believe these terms are confusing. ~Mable (chat) 18:26, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
- Is the word "most" confusing to any English speaker? --Jayron32 17:48, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
- So we're just not going use the word 'plurality' on the frontpage? "Relative majority" isn't a good replacement either? ~Mable (chat) 11:49, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
- Post-posting comment – I'm posting this here rather than at WP:MP/E because there it would be summarily dismissed as "not an error."
- The current blurb's phrase "wins the most seats" is the most bland, misleading and uninteresting choice possible. As all major news sites have reported, the news is that the CDU/CSU's share declined by almost 21 percent, from 41.5 percent of the vote in 2013 to just under 33 percent, and that as a result Merkel will have to form a new coalition – presumably with the Greens and the resurgent FDP – while the right-wing AfD will be in opposition. Complicated for sure. But how about a blurb that at least gives a hint of what happened:
- The CDU/CSU, led by Angela Merkel, loses ground in the German federal election. — ??
- Sca (talk) 14:57, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
- Bland is not misleading. Did any other party win more seats? --Jayron32 17:48, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
- You must have misread something Sca, the CDU "only" fell by 8.6% to a total of 33% of the vote. Still a big loss but not by 20%. The 20.5% figure in the results of the election is for the SPD, which lost 5.2% from the prior election.91.49.76.32 (talk) 18:21, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
- Bland is not misleading. Did any other party win more seats? --Jayron32 17:48, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
- • Take 41.5% of vote (2013 share), subtract 32.9% (2017 share) = 8.6 fewer percentage points = 20.7% drop in percentage share of vote.
- • Take 311 parliamentary seats (2013), subtract 246 (2017 result) = 65 = 20.9% drop in number of seats.
- Oh it appears i am stupid and misread your comment... oops. Sorry about that haha. Although it is a bit weird to give a relative percentage drop of the two results instead of saying they lost 8.6% of the vote.91.49.76.32 (talk) 19:22, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
- The news – the main news story as covered by reliable sources – is that CDU/CSU won the election (as expected) and that Merkel will continue as chancellor (presumably with a new coalition). That Merkel "loses ground" is an interpretation/POV. That the CDU/CSU lost some seats compared to the unusually good result back in 2013 doesn't change the fact that they won this election. Furthermore, as all other parties consider the two extremist parties on the far right and the far left to be toxic and are unwilling to form a government with them, the CDU/CSU hasn't necessarily lost that much, if any, influence, when it comes to the question of forming a government, or adopting government policy. The extremists can show up in the Bundestag and rant and shout, but if no other party is willing to cooperate with them, they won't have any influence. --Tataral (talk) 19:11, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Sca: Indeed it would be closed at WP:ERRORS as "not an error", this is because it is not an error and changing the venue does not change this and I'm rather tempted to hat this, but will leave it for now. Thryduulf (talk) 20:00, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
- Not an error Wikipedia is here to report bare facts, not slants on those facts as directed by certain factions of our usership. This should be closed. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:28, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
- Tataral: Re Merkel "loses ground" is an interpretation/POV. Absolutely not, it's a fact, and one all the mainline news sites led with. The fact is that the CDU/CSU lost 20.7% percent of it's share of the vote compared to four years ago. Not unepected, but very significant since, with the departure of the SPD, it means a new government. Thus, the blurb is misleading in that by itself, it implies no change. Sca (talk) 20:42, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
- That's bordering on nonsense. It does no such thing, you have simply inferred "no change". There is no implication of such. Has any one single general election resulted in an identical outcome to the status quo? I doubt it. To start adding a slant on it is not Wikipedia's job, leave it to WikiTribune or WikiNews or some such other doomed project, I'm certain they'd welcome input from such an experienced Wikipedian. That stuff doesn't belong on our main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:46, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
2017 Spanish constitutional crisis
Ongoing item nomination (Post)
News source(s): (BBC), (NY Times), (Independet), Guardian, (Euronews), (Bloomberg)
Credits:
- Nominated by Banedon (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Nominator's comments: From below, courtesy of Jenda H. Banedon (talk) 21:13, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose ongoing, as before. 331dot (talk) 22:55, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
- Support Article is receiving adequate, regular updates, about every day or other day as new information becomes available. That's all we really need for ongoing. --Jayron32 02:26, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
- Support This is a major constitutional crisis occurring in a significant European country generally regarded as democratic. No credible reason to ignore any longer. AusLondonder (talk) 03:57, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
- Support Major news of international interest. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:00, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
- Support as before. ~Mable (chat) 08:25, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
- Support Focus on the Spainish/Catalonia tensions rather than the pending vote is the right way to present this as ongoing. --MASEM (t) 13:34, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose ongoing perhaps pointlessly but this is way down at the bottom of the bing and google world news sections, and not even ranking on the top stories. Maybe a weak benchmark, but it's one I use to judge "in the news" vs "in the I think this is important and should be on the main page". Even a blurb is questionable since the referendum is non-binding, but we'll see if it makes headlines. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 19:49, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose hardly being updated. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:28, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
- Support per above. Many recent updates, very major news story. Davey2116 (talk) 00:01, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
- Support as before. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:21, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
September 23
September 23, 2017
(Saturday)
Arts and culture
Disasters and accidents
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
|
[Posted] New Zealand general election, 2017
Blurb: The National Party, led by Bill English, wins plurality in the New Zealand general election. (Post)
Alternative blurb: The National Party, led by Bill English, wins the most seats in the New Zealand general election.
Alternative blurb II: The National Party, led by Bill English, wins the most seats in the New Zealand general election but falls 2 seats short of a majority.
News source(s): RNZ
Credits:
- Nominated by This is Paul (talk · give credit)
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
This is Paul (talk) 20:25, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
- Comment the article still seems to need some final updates, which is understandable, but in the meantime, we do tend avoid terms like "pluarilty" which are meaningless to a vast majority of readers, or if necessary link. Do you mean a "simple majority" or similar? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:38, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
- This is my first go at nominating one of these, and I based this entry on the one for Merkel so apologies for any misunderstanding. The party is the largest party in the NZ parliament, but doesn't have a majority so would either need to form a minority government or have some kind of confidence-and-supply agreement. Perhaps it's easier just to link the term, or wait till a decision is made on who will form the government. This is Paul (talk) 20:54, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
- No wuckers, just a case of not using odd terms for such elections. I'd say at least link the term, but BritEng, (and I thought maybe NzEng) would never use such terminology. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:59, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
- As I mentioned in one of these two threads, relative majority is the UK version of this. ~Mable (chat) 12:00, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
- No wuckers, just a case of not using odd terms for such elections. I'd say at least link the term, but BritEng, (and I thought maybe NzEng) would never use such terminology. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:59, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
- This is my first go at nominating one of these, and I based this entry on the one for Merkel so apologies for any misunderstanding. The party is the largest party in the NZ parliament, but doesn't have a majority so would either need to form a minority government or have some kind of confidence-and-supply agreement. Perhaps it's easier just to link the term, or wait till a decision is made on who will form the government. This is Paul (talk) 20:54, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
- comment I've suggested a couple of alt-blurbs using "wins the most seats" rather than "plurality". The article does use the term "plurality" in the lead, but I've got no idea how commonly used that term is in NZ English. Thryduulf (talk) 21:14, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks, both sound pretty good. Not sure whether the term is used in NZ English, but like The Rambling Man I suspect it probably isn't. This is Paul (talk) 21:23, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
- Comment Maybe we should wait until the government is confirmed as there is a reasonable possibility of it being Labour led. AIRcorn (talk) 06:00, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
- Support blurb 1 – I do believe "plurality" is a perfectly fine word to use, at least in international English. As for New Zealand's dialect, I would not know. Either way, any of these blurbs is fine, really. "Wins the most seats" is a bit awkward and difficult to parse for me personally, but oh well. ~Mable (chat) 08:28, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
- Apparently, a plurality is called a "relative majority" in the UK. Is that term used in New Zealand? If so, that may be a logical alternative. We may want to standardize our wording, though, seeing as the front page is "one page" and using different dialects on it may be unusual. ~Mable (chat) 10:30, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
- No one has even commented upon the "relative majority" option in either of the threads, and now the above thread is closed because of a different reason, I'm not even sure what to do. Bring it up at WP:ERRORS? I figured issues brought up before the blurb actually went up should reach somekind of consensus before the blurb goes up, but I guess not? ~Mable (chat) 05:46, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
- Apparently, a plurality is called a "relative majority" in the UK. Is that term used in New Zealand? If so, that may be a logical alternative. We may want to standardize our wording, though, seeing as the front page is "one page" and using different dialects on it may be unusual. ~Mable (chat) 10:30, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
- Posted Altblurb. --Jayron32 11:43, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
RD: Charles Bradley (singer)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:
- Nominated by Sherenk1 (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.
Sherenk1 (talk) 11:20, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose. More citations are needed (I've tagged several places) and at least one of the citations that is there doesn't verify the adjacent text - I've tagged the one I spotted but I haven't got time to check all of them. Thryduulf (talk) 11:38, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose a little more tweaking required around the referencing. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:41, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
September 22
September 22, 2017
(Friday)
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
Politics and elections
Science and technology
|
[Closed] Uber banned in London
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: Transport for London announces that Uber's license to operate in London will not be renewed. (Post)
News source(s): Telegraph
Credits:
- Nominated by Smurrayinchester (talk · give credit)
Article updated
- Support Decent breadth of coverage, article in !good condition, and if nothing else, it's nice for us to be able to post some good news on the front for a change. — fortunavelut luna 11:19, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
- Support decent article, story is in the news, a sad blow to consumer choice and competition. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 11:27, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose local story. It isn't even Uber being banned in the UK, only in London. Comparing with e.g. this, this is insignificant. Banedon (talk) 11:37, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose – Interesting news item. I believe it's just a bit too local for ITN - if it were the entirety of England/the UK, I may have !voted differently. Article looks good, but I don't believe this news is signifact enough. The article also doesn't spend much time describing the situation. ~Mable (chat) 11:39, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose but only because they can appeal and Ubers are still free to roam London. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:41, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
- It wasn't clear from what I was reading, can they continue to operate during the appeal process? They have 20 days to file, but their current permit expires 9/30. I'm not trying to sway you, just wondering. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 11:54, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
- Yes - if they appeal, they can continue to operate until that appeal is dealt with. Black Kite (talk) 12:24, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
- It wasn't clear from what I was reading, can they continue to operate during the appeal process? They have 20 days to file, but their current permit expires 9/30. I'm not trying to sway you, just wondering. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 11:54, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
- Support - This could be the first domino to fall for Uber, considering the excoriating publicity the company is receiving for its corporate culture.WaltCip (talk) 12:34, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
- I'd rather wait for some of the later, bigger dominos to fall. WP:CRYSTAL, after all. ~Mable (chat) 13:33, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose. This is hardly the first place to ban or restrict Uber, as Uber (company)#Legal status by country should make clear. Many of the previous challenges involved much bigger territories than London (e.g. Germany / France). Given that context, I don't see how potentially being driven out of London rises to the level of ITN. And even if it did, I would want to see more than a 2 sentence update to the article before considering it for ITN. Dragons flight (talk) 13:14, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose As Uber has said it will appeal this, we have a legal battle ahead of us and that will take time to resolve. And this is just one city, and certainly not in the US where Uber's main business is in. Minor drop in the bucket. --MASEM (t) 13:22, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose As Banedon notes, it is only London, not the U.K. as a whole. Besides people can still get around via taxis, buses, and subways, so it would only have little impact at most. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 14:01, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose – Per various comments above. Not ITN material. Sca (talk) 14:58, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose - Not yet at a significant enough level for ITN. Especially since an appeal is inevitable. ZettaComposer (talk) 15:16, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose This really isn't global ITN-level material. It's already banned/voluntarily withdrawn from places as diverse as Hungary, Alaska and Japan. This is the perfect example of systemic bias. As a whole we're more likely to live in London and use Uber; we shouldn't let that cloud editorial decisions. AusLondonder (talk) 19:31, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
September 21
September 21, 2017
(Thursday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
International relations
Law and crime
[Posted] RD: Liliane Bettencourt
Article: Liliane Bettencourt (talk · history · tag) Nominator's comments: The world's richest woman – Muboshgu (talk) 03:06, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Recent deaths nomination (Post) News source(s): BBC Credits:
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
[Closed] Aaron Hernandez's brain severely damaged by C.T.E.The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Articles: Aaron Hernandez (talk · history · tag) and Chronic traumatic encephalopathy (talk · history · tag) Nominator's comments: "Jose Baez, Hernandez’s lawyer, said Hernandez’s brain showed a level of damage that was seen in players with a median age of 67 years." Count Iblis (talk) 23:47, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Blurb: Aaron Hernandez diagnosed with C.T.E. (Post) News source(s): NYT Credits:
Both articles updated
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
[Close] 2017 Spanish constitutional crisis [ex-Catalan independence referendum, 2017]The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article: 2017 Spanish constitutional crisis (talk · history · tag) Nominator's comments: Even if there will be no referendum on 1st October. This is allready significant story. Jenda H. (talk) 08:57, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Ongoing item nomination (Post) News source(s): (BBC), (NY Times), (Independet), Guardian, (Euronews), (Bloomberg) Credits:
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
September 20
|