Jump to content

Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:In the news

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 159.53.110.192 (talk) at 16:43, 25 September 2019 (→(Posted) 2I/Borisov). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

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

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

Yahya Sinwar in 2011
Yahya Sinwar

view — page history — related changes — edit

Glossary

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

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

Nomination steps

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

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

Purge this page to update the cache

Headers

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

Voicing an opinion on an item

Format your comment to contain "support" or "oppose", and include a rationale for your choice. In particular, address the notability of the event, the quality of the article, and whether it has been updated.

Please do...

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

Please do not...

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

Suggesting updates

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

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

Suggestions

September 25

September 25, 2019 (2019-09-25) (Wednesday)
Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

Hazza Al Mansouri

Proposed image
Article: Hazza Al Mansouri (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Hazza Al Mansouri (pictured), the first United Arab Emirates astronaut, is launched to the International Space Station (Post)
News source(s): The New York Times, CBS News
Credits:

 – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 15:55, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - quality is not good enough, too many citations needed. Also not sure if this is really newsworthy, we don't typically cover the first astronaut from X country do we? Presumably the mission itself, Soyuz MS-15, might qualify under WP:ITN/R, although its article is also little more than a stub.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:17, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I mean, this is important for UAE and don't want to downplay that, but superlative things like this (first X to Y) don't necessary make the greatest ITNs unless we're talking national leaders. --Masem (t) 16:20, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

September 24

September 24, 2019 (2019-09-24) (Tuesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

(Posted) 2I/Borisov

Article: 2I/Borisov (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Astronomers confirm the discovery of the first interstellar comet, ahead of its closest approach to the Sun on 7 December (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Astronomers confirm the comet 2I/Borisov as the first interstellar comet, ahead of its closest approach to the Sun on 7 December
Alternative blurb II: ​ Astronomers confirm 2I/Borisov as the first verified interstellar comet, ahead of its closest approach to the Sun on 7 December
News source(s): Instituto de Astrofísica de Canarias (IAC), The New York Times, arXiv, IAU, CNN, Phys.org
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: This was scrolling off the ITNC previously, which was nominated when the yet-to-be-published paper was released. There were opposes one the technical quality of the article (which, as a science article, may be unactionable) and concerns about the lack of peer-review/published paper (see [1]). However, on this day (Sept 24) as it was about to scroll off, the International Astronomical Union have confirmed the findings of Borisov and renamed it as "2I/Borisov", confirming it as the second interstellar object to be observed and the first comet of that type. This was based on independent findings from NASA and ESA among others - this should be the equivalent of peer-review to alleviate that issue. There is new news coverage of this discovery (24th and beyond) and the IAU's naming in association with this, so I believe this requalifies as a new ITNC discussion, though again, I link back to the past one for review of the !votes. – Masem (t) 15:06, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump

Article: Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Speaker Nancy Pelosi of the U.S. House of Representatives announces a formal impeachment inquiry against President Donald Trump. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Speaker Nancy Pelosi of the U.S. House of Representatives announces a formal impeachment inquiry against President Donald Trump related to the Ukraine controversy.
Alternative blurb II: ​ U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announces a formal impeachment inquiry against President Donald Trump related to the Ukraine controversy.
News source(s): CNN, BBC, AP, WX Post, Reuters
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Yes, this is not the end of the road on this, but this is the first actual formal inquiry by one full chamber (committees have talked of it before). Obviously, we're not going to have resolution for several months, but this is a significant aspect of the long-running situation over Trump and the formal announcement is a point of no return on the process. Masem (t) 21:40, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

comment What does "impeachment inquiries" mean? Seems like a bit more clarity would be useful because I can't assess how momentous this is based on the blurb.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:44, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

^^^ that. I can get behind that. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:42, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The impeachment inquiry has already begun through Pelosi's announcement. The Constitution doesn't require a formal commencement/vote. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 13:59, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Rockphead above. I question how newsworthy this is if it doesn't go anywhere. The announcement of an inquiry isn't news, it's the result that is. ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 12:37, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait. As far as I can tell, this is just an announcement. The inquiry hasn't begun, and it's a long way from an impeachment vote. Impeachment of a sitting US president would certainly be ITN-worthy; a political announcement of intention is not. Perhaps if the House votes to charge Trump, that would be an appropriate point to post this story. Also, there is no clear consensus to post, so I'm removing the 'ready' tag. Modest Genius talk 12:49, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support though I'd concede it's not an absolute necessity to post now. But on a point of clarity: this is not a political gesture or "mere" announcement, but the actual start of proceedings. The inquiry is now happening. Also, fears of a constant stream of Trump posts were valid in Jan '17, but we've managed it well. We mustn't throw out the baby with the bathwater. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:54, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait although User:GreatCaesarsGhost has answered my most cogent question already, the procedure, which would only have a concrete result if 2/3 of the Republican-dominated Senate voted to convict Trump, seems more of a political stunt than anything else. I would urge to see where this leads before we make an elephant out of a molehill. complainer 13:41, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) 2019 British prorogation controversy

Proposed image
Article: 2019 British prorogation controversy (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (Middlesex Guildhall pictured) unanimously rules that the September 2019 Prorogation of Parliament was unlawful. It is declared null and void, and of no effect. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (venue pictured) rules that the recent prorogation of parliament was unlawful.
Alternative blurb II: ​ In the landmark legal case of The Crown (appellant Miller) v The Prime Minister, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (chambers pictured) unanimously rules that PM Boris Johnson deliberately ill-advised HM Queen Elizabeth II and that his prorogation of parliament was unlawful, nullifying both and recalling the government.
News source(s): (Sky news) BBC News
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Breaking news Mjroots (talk) 09:48, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support once articles fully updated. May be worth waiting short while to see what the immediate response is and how that is reported. Apparently, it is now up to the Speakers of the Houses to decide the next steps. Uncharted territory indeed. Might also be best to use the term 'unlawful' (I am not sure if that is different to illegal). Carcharoth (talk) 09:50, 24 September 2019 (UTC) Article now updated, with thanks to User:Charlie Awesome. Carcharoth (talk) 10:02, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Added updater to template. Mjroots (talk) 10:07, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It wouldn't be a big deal in the US where it is common for SCOTUS to overrule POTUS (some scores). But the UK supreme court is quite a new institution (2009) and this is the first time that it has struck down a decision of the PM and Crown. So it's novel for the UK. Andrew D. (talk) 15:23, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Change to Support based off of the arguments by others here on the effects of this ruling. While I don't think you can argue it doesn't have to do with Brexit, the results of it reaches far outside the topic (though I doubt we'll reach a consensus) ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 13:13, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Neutral - Here I am torn. In the overall scheme of Brexit, this is just an incremental next step in the proceedings, since we're no closer one way or another to a resolution. However, in terms of overall U.K. politics, this is a monumental ruling - it's the Courts involving itself in the dealings of Parliament, something which has never, ever happened before. I think if we were to post a blurb regarding this story, we would want to focus less on the fact that it's Brexit-related, and more about the meaningfulness of the ruling itself.--WaltCip (talk) 12:00, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The blurb does not mention Brexit. The importance of this ruling is that it limits a PM's powers to arbitrarily prorogue parliament, and so has implications for all future prime ministers. BabelStone (talk) 12:12, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support as it stands, then.--WaltCip (talk) 12:26, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: the recent Supreme Court ruling is the biggest political and legal event in the UK for generations. If this is not newsworthy, nothing is. -- The Anome (talk) 12:32, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per 331dot.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:38, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as others have said, although this may have arose because of Brexit (although one of the issues is Johnson claimed or didn't), it's only tangentially related and the effects and consequences are far wider. Nil Einne (talk) 12:39, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    What are the effects and consequences other than parliament reconvening? The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 12:43, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It applies constitutional limits to the PM's powers to prorogue parliament, so in future governments will not be able to arbitrarily prorogue parliament for long periods of time just because they want to. It is a major constitutional clarification which goes well beyond Brexit. BabelStone (talk) 12:48, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    So it's a clarification of something that currently exists? And how many times has parliament been prorogued in the past? The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 12:50, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It is usual for Parliment to be prorogued every year, Everytime there is a queens speech parliment is prorogued beforehand to allow the qureen to prepare. So what was once a mundane and routine event in parliment is now open to scruteny by the crown, and the PM needs "addiquette justification" to do something that before they could do for any reason which is effectivly removal of powers of the PM to hand over to the Judicial system. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.159.132.48 (talk) 15:09, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Brexit may be the context of this prorogation and the Supreme Court case, but the ruling is not about that, it's about whether a government can use prorogation to avoid scrutiny by parliament. The article as it stands is adequate and up to date, though I expect that the Supreme Court section will be expanded soon. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:42, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support If you are opposing because of Brexit you are fundamentally wrong. I refer to the 1st paragraph of the SC Judgement, with emphasis added: "It is important to emphasise that the issue in these appeals is not when and on what terms the United Kingdom is to leave the European Union. The issue is whether the advice given by the Prime Minister to Her Majesty the Queen on 27th or 28th August 2019 that Parliament should be prorogued from a date between 9th and 12th September until 14th October was lawful. It arises in circumstances which have never arisen before and are unlikely ever to arise again. It is a “one off”. But our law is used to rising to such challenges and supplies us with the legal tools to enable us to reason to a solution." Leaky caldron (talk) 12:46, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    This is entirely to do with Brexit. The prorogration itself (which we declined to report here) was so the government could pursue a deal or no-deal without interruption, and the ruling today is similarly a ruling that the Brexit-inspired prorogation was not lawful. If this had come out of the blue, or not in connection with the events that had led up to it, I would agree it would be a standalone story, but ultimately we wouldn't be where we are now but for the ongoing Brexit shenanigans. It would be wrong to post this when we haven't posted other developments in the story hitherto.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:51, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Absolutely spot on. This would never have happened if it weren't for Brexit. To pretend or claim otherwise is wholesale misleading, just like what those naughty Tories did! The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 12:54, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    He's not the Prime Minister, he's a very naughty boy!  — Amakuru (talk) 13:11, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support. This is a substantial constitutional ruling which will have long-term impacts on the balance between government and parliament in the UK. It takes place within the context of political manoeuvring over Brexit, but is not itself about Brexit. I can understand why some would see this as an obscure technical point, but overall I'm in favour of posting. The article looks excellent; the blurb could do with some work. Modest Genius talk 12:53, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This is what the ongoing Brexit section is for. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:09, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Having been pinged on this, haven't not yet had coffee, and just looking at the blurb and not going to the articles, what is the net impact? The blurbs need a bit more "downgrading" to address this point. (I'm sure its in the article, but this was the first thing that came to mind). --Masem (t) 13:28, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I've asked that question a couple of times. There's a lot of "theoretical" guff going on here, actual impact is that government will reconvene tomorrow and Brexit will be on the table for debate once again, i.e. business as usual. Nothing has changed legally, this is simply a clarification of existing process which it was deemed the PM abused. Otherwise, it's just about making BoJo even more unpopular. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 13:34, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yes, potentially. The prime minister has been found to have acted unlawfully, and all the other parties are calling on him to resign. The 'Background' section of the article has info about other questionable prorogations, not just in the UK - and one in the UK which Americans probably have some knowledge of: "In 1774, George III prorogued Parliament after the passage of the Quebec Act upon the advice of Lord North, one of the triggers of the American Revolution". RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:12, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Potentially?! Yup, but it's not going to happen is it? The decision today is simply a clarification of an existing procedure, nothing more. It's politically hot, but then what isn't these days? The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 14:17, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Highly significant precedent, global significance. Neutralitytalk 14:05, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you explain why please? The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 14:07, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's one report, which gives the general view: "While securing the absolute supremacy of parliament over the government or executive, it marks a significant moment in asserting for the judiciary an enhanced position within the UK’s unwritten constitution. Some will see it as a further advance in the supreme court’s development into a constitutional court. ... Eirik Bjorge, professor of law at Bristol University, said: 'The court has shown that in extreme circumstances it is not afraid of policing the executive even in the middle of what used to be referred to as forbidden territory for judges:high policy and the royal prerogative.'" Neutralitytalk 14:16, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Which doesn't show it's a precedent and doesn't demonstrate how in any sense it could be called globally significant. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 14:18, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, it's obviously a precedent. David Allen Green, for example, said: "This may be one of the most significant constitutional law judgments for a generation." (Financial Times). As for global significance, in addition to the potential effect on the Brexit process, the case has been followed closely elsewhere, especially in the many countries with a British legal tradition (e.g., this column in the Times of India: "India, no doubt, sets its own norms of governance but this verdict will cast its shadow."). Neutralitytalk 14:27, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It's pure crystal balling. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 14:33, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – Another misstep in the ongoing political farce. – Sca (talk) 14:08, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - for those arguing this is a massive deal and will have huge ramifications, aside from the WP:CRYSTAL aspect of that argument, I think all the evidence is that that prediction is false. The media and parliament will make a big deal of it for a few days, but ultimately it simply reaffirms what should have been obvious all along - the executive, as just one branch of government, does not get to make all the rules. The judiciary and legislature are involved too. As such this doesn't really set precedent for much in the future, and also doesn't really make mcuh difference to what will transpire next in the Brexit farce. Next week this will be forgotten as we move on to the next drama.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:29, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • The irony of invoking WP:CRYSTAL and then speculating about how people will react over the coming days... :-) I don't have much more time today to comment, but I am genuinely puzzled as to why people cannot see that this is an historic landmark ruling. If I had time, I would find numerous sources to back that up (maybe others can do that). Yes, there is a connection to Brexit, but that does not mean that this should be ignored, and it certainly does not mean that false arguments should be made here. What The Rambling Man said about it being "business as usual" is complete bunkum (and I hope no-one is being taken in by that). To take one example, the prorogation has been declared null and void, so bills that had been going through parliament (such as the domestic abuse bill and others) that were going to need to be re-introduced, are now 'live' again. That in itself doesn't make the case for it being on ITN, but it does show TRM's comments to be misleading. And can we please stop using the "Brexit is in ongoing" argument to dismiss valid nominations. The links in ongoing are tucked away down the bottom of the template and are not the same as having something mention up top and front and centre in a blurb with a picture. Carcharoth (talk) 15:33, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - "We are not amused." Must see it on ITN. - STSC (talk) 15:13, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This is newsworthy as its own headline independent of Brexit. NorthernFalcon (talk) 15:24, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support On notability: The case is legally R v Johnson - R means The Queen. The UK is a constitutional monarchy, which for the purposes here means that the Queen and the government by constitution have to get on. This ruling, as much as many agree with it, is tantamount to a constitutional crisis, which is being felt by those across the UK and by those who understand in all the countries it deals with politically... and it's not a Brexit deal; from the BBC report: "Lady Hale emphasised in the ruling that the case was "not about when and on what terms" the UK left the EU - it was about the decision to suspend Parliament." Which is a separate legal matter, and one involving the Queen and the PM on opposite sides. (And for more context, most R v gov't cases, especially recently, are completely thrown out as laughable for pitting them against each other - the only one that's gone to a ruling was this same case first presented in Scottish parliament, which ruled the same way) Kingsif (talk) 15:52, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: if this was purely another cog in the Brexit wheel, even I, as the person who wrote the article, would've opposed it being in ITN. However, and I have the utmost respect for TRM, a full bench case before the Supreme Court is very rare, let alone a 11–0 ruling from said case, let alone one on the subject of prerogative powers. As far as newsworthiness goes, I'd put it this way: we'd not post Ilhan Omar introducing articles of impeachment against Trump to ITN, but if it was Steny Hoyer? We'd post that, and this is more like the latter than the former. Sceptre (talk) 16:32, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    That’s all very well but to me is borderline law trivia. The facts of the matter are that we effectively go back to the status quo, and more people hate Boris. Everything else will be part of a UK law students syllabus for years to come but nothing much more. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 16:49, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Marking as ready, weight of consensus is to post. Mjroots (talk) 16:44, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support There is no doubt in my mind that posting this improves the project, which is the paramount concern. GreatCaesarsGhost 16:51, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: WP:CRYSTAL is about the content of WP articles, and is not relevant to whether a news item is ITN-worthy. Citing it as a reason to Oppose is the same as saying you do not actually have a reason to Oppose.
This ruling is an historic power shift within the UK government, putting a cap on all PMs to come, not just BJ in the coming weeks. Saying it merely is a footnote to Brexit—and that may very well turn out to be true as far as Brexit itself is concerned—is ludicrous. To give a US example, it would be like saying Marbury v. Madison was an incredibly insignificant little SCOTUS ruling, since Marbury did not get that appointment after all. Correct, he did not, but to focus on the immediate, official details would be missing the point.
Supreme Court rulings are often like that. Talking about them as if this never happens is not contributory to intelligent discussion. Since pretty much every last RS is looking past the immediate, official details in this ruling, so should we. (I got edit-conflicted, including anyway.) 2607:F470:6:2001:C92F:F568:9359:4026 (talk) 17:20, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Technically, this only sets a precedent if the ruling is actually followed. Marbury V Madison was allowed to stand both because it ruled in favor of the people in power and because it was against the interest of the justices who made the decision (if my memory serves). If the Queen says "Parliament is still out of session" and that sticks, a different precedent is set. I think it is crystal to declare that this is setting a precedent without the benefit of actually seeing what happens. Rockphed (talk) 18:57, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The article certainly meets the quality standards. We could go with:
  • QUESTION Why is an article bolded that was not nominated, and has no consensus for posting? Mjroots (talk) 13:46, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sod it, I've removed the bolding and re-bolded the nominated article, for which there was consensus to post. Any case for bolding a different article can be discussed via a separate nomination for that article, and consensus gained before it gets bolded. Mjroots (talk) 13:51, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      @Mjroots: with all due respect, your comment here and reversion of the change in bold article looks like WP:Wikilawyering to me. The article R (Miller) v The Prime Minister and Cherry v Advocate General for Scotland, which did not exist at the time of the ITN nom, is clearly the one that actually pertains to this news item, i.e. the supreme court judgement. The prorogation article covers the wider event that begun two weeks ago. The case article is also obviously up-to-scratch in terms of our ITN article quality requirements. Sceptre and Coffeeandcrumbs both expressed the opinion that it should be bolded above, so I used WP:COMMONSENSE this morning and made the change. I don't want to get into a wheel war with you, but I request you to please revert back to having the version with the other article bolded. There is no need to open up a whole new nomination just to effect a change in the hook. For the record, if a new consensus is needed, I Sceptre's suggestion to support change of bolded article. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 15:50, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Amakuru: - the objection I have is this:- Almost the whole of the discussion above related to the prorogation article, which was nominated, and for which consensus was gained to be posted. The case article was not nominated or discussed, so no consensus could be gained for it being the main blurb article. One suggestion to change the bolded article cannot overrule a large number of supporters for the nominated article.
        As I've calmed down a bit now, is there any harm in bolding both? I have no objection to that. Mjroots (talk) 15:58, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        @Mjroots: from scanning the conversation above, other than the fact that the quality of the article was asserted early on, the vast majority of !votes are regarding the noteworthiness of this story for ITN, I think it's reading too much into it to say that every supporter is explicitly saying they want the prorogation article to be the bolded one, and no other. Assuming the case article's quality is up-to-scratch (something which I don't think you are denying) the !votes on significance can apply to that article as much as they can apply to the one that was suggested in the nomination. But anyway, your proposal of having two bolded links is fine with me - and Coffeeandcrumbs actually did propose that this morning - so I've gone ahead and done that. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 16:07, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        Both articles are in fine shape, and a credit to all editors who have worked on them. Glad we could settle this between us. Mjroots (talk) 16:20, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

September 23

September 23, 2019 (2019-09-23) (Monday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations
  • Iran says a UK-flagged ship seized several months ago is free to depart. MV Stena Impero, an oil tanker, was captured in response to the seizure of an Iranian oil tanker in Gibraltar over allegations it was carrying fuel to Syria. (The Independent)

Law and crime

Sports

(Posted) RD: Robert Hunter (lyricist)

Article: Robert Hunter (lyricist) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Rolling Stone
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Some referencing issues. I'll do my best to work on them, but I'd appreciate more eyes on this. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:45, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Andre Emmett

Article: Andre Emmett (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NYT
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: NBA player. Start Class article with good sourcing. DBigXrayᗙ 16:28, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Working Adding User:Bagumba to this as he is already helping with the improvements. --DBigXrayᗙ 05:54, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Sid Haig

Article: Sid Haig (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): TMZ, LoudWire
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Captain Spaulding (disturbing clown) from Rob Zombies horror movies. C Class article with decent sourcing. Filmography needs work. has now been fixed. Announced on 23 DBigXrayᗙ 15:11, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man, lot of work has been done to fix the sourcing. Kindly review again. regards. --DBigXrayᗙ 05:59, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Working to fix these issues. Some help will be appreciated. --DBigXrayᗙ 07:38, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@DBigXray: I've been fixing and adding citations to the article this morning. Working as quickly as I can. –Matthew - (talk) 13:37, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Madhav Apte

Article: Madhav Apte (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Hindu
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Start Class article with excellent sourcing DBigXrayᗙ 14:59, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mac_Henni thanks for the review and comment. Please read WP:STUB this article is way beyond the stub. I will see if a death section is needed since it was a natural death. Normally for non notable deaths a separate section isn't really needed.--DBigXrayᗙ 15:35, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome, @DBigXray Maccore Henni Mii! Pictochat Mii! —Preceding undated comment added 15:41, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Carl Ruiz

Article: Carl Ruiz (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The New York Times
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Article well sourced --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 06:03, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

71st Emmys

Article: 71st Primetime Emmy Awards (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ At the Primetime Emmy Awards, Fleabag wins Outstanding Comedy Series, and Game of Thrones wins Outstanding Drama Series. (Post)
News source(s): Entertainment Weekly
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: I feel there still needs to be more about the ceremony than just the winners and list of presenters. Eg, there is usually details of "in memorandum", etc. Masem (t) 03:16, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Cook goes bankrupt

Article: Thomas Cook Group (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Thomas Cook Group goes bankrupt (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ The British Thomas Cook Group travel company financially collapses, triggering repatriation efforts for hundreds of thousands of tourists around the world.
News source(s): CNN, BBC
Credits:

Article updated

 "Thomas Cook on Friday confirmed to CNN that it currently has 600,000 customers on vacation, including those 160,000 from the United Kingdom." Count Iblis (talk) 02:32, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose Expected bankruptcy, and part of the bankruptcy costs will be getting those still on travel back to their home nations. Nothing significant in the long term. --Masem (t) 02:55, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It birthed the largest peacetime rescue operation in British history, but rescuing people from airports while their captors fully cooperate is pretty mundane stuff. Thomas Cook flew the exact same number out under mostly similar conditions, nobody batted an eye. Plenty more travel groups will be happy to fill the mediumish void this closure opens; it had a good run, just not so great. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:27, September 23, 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - as alluded to above, no long term impact on the level that necessitates an ITN blurb for anyone beyond those left stranded by the collapse. Stormy clouds (talk) 06:07, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Between this and the passed-over Purdue bankruptcy, I'm wondering what criteria (if any) would be suitable to posting bankruptcies on ITN. That bankruptcies happen occasionally and are codified seems to be enough, in many editors' minds, to oppose these nominations. Well, murders, bombings, elections, etc. also happen occasionally and are codified. Is the impact of this or other bankruptcies less than what is right now on the ticker (yet-another climate protest, basketball and Gaelic football contests, and a victimless drone attack)?.130.233.2.252 (talk) 06:23, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Even assuming all the clients are delayed, and all the jobs are lost, that's 622,000, which is a tenth of the average viewership of that basketball game, just via Cuatro. But that's a very generous assumption. The climate dealy is spread through 150 countries, is this service area close? Don't know Gaelic football, don't want to know. Business news has a lot of competition, relatively, so we should only worry about the Top 25 or so. Industry leaders, at least, like how we discriminate in sports, politics and massacre. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:28, September 23, 2019 (UTC)
Brilliant, very strong. Next time we have a mass shooting in the US, I'll quote that's 622,000, which is a tenth of the average viewership of that basketball game, just via Cuatro. Completely out of context, utterly meaningless. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 18:06, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I had another bit about the oil depot bombing killing people through a ripple effect, but couldn't nail down those figures like I could for the rating, so deleted it instead. Dying is more impactful than losing a job by about a thousand times and we'd all fire a stranger to buy a round of good nationalistic cheer for a hundred buddies, mates and comrades down at the old bar, ancient tavern or abandoned barracks when "our team" brings home gold and glory, not just stay an extra day and save a few bucks, quid or cigarettes on the way back to the same safe harbour they were already promised when they set out over well-charted waters with every expectation of returning home safely. So if 600,000 or more people lose their jobs, that's a World Cup-level dissolution; if 22 people are killed in public, that's Cook-class urban violence. That's only accounting for the simplest part, of course, age kind of matters. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:49, September 24, 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Does not rise to the level of significance and impact needed for ITN blurb. – Ammarpad (talk) 06:40, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – It's a big travel agency, not a multinational bank. (But will the phrase "a Cook's tour" stay with us?) – Sca (talk) 14:34, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support that this is the decline and fall of a company which has its origins back to 1841 is truly an indictment of the damage being cause by the B word in the UK, but it doesn't stand a chance in this world of multi-billion-US$ corporations. "It's not BIG ENOUGH! It's not MULTINATIONAL ENOUGH!" &c. Plus, the largest peacetime repatriation of UK citizens to boot. But not gonna make it here amongst the majority of commentators, not in a million years. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 16:37, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Largest peacetime repatriation" sounds extraordinary until you realize that the last time we had the "largest peacetime repatriation" was merely two years ago, with the dissolution of Monarch Airlines. Somewhat arbitrary record-busting, similar to each time the S&P 500 reaches a new all-time high.--WaltCip (talk) 17:33, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well sort of. It was an "add-on" to the closure of an historic company. But I take the point, and do so with a smile, in the spirit with which it was intended! The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 17:39, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yep - no comment on the merits of the company itself, just trying to temper what I view as somewhat hyperbolic language. The company's existence since 1841 is probably enough to certify its overall notability (makes you wonder if we need an RD ticker for large companies!)--WaltCip (talk) 19:09, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The other problem with bankruptcy nowadays is that is generally is a solution to financial problem but no longer typically means "the company's done for". Bankruptcy freezes debt and other ongoing commitments, among other steps that allow companies to then seek potential creditors to help out and resolve some of those issues. For example, PG&E did this just recently to prepare for dealing with costs from the Camp Fire and other wildfires last year [2] So the storys on this one, I'm reading this as a standard bankruptcy protection step. Doesn't mean they will end up completely closing shop, but more than likely will recover with reduced service in the future. --Masem (t) 18:00, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Per TRM; and: it's the oldest holiday company (that was) still running, first package holiday company - a disaster for the industry and evidence of the impact of Brexit. And 150,000 British people (even more including non-Brits) needing repatriation from locations all around the world, largely with the cooperation of Spanish airlines. It's actually quite a big deal, and ITN is also very slow at the moment. The world industry leader in family tourism has imploded, a government operation has been triggered as a matter of peacetime emergency, that's definitely ITN-worthy. Kingsif (talk) 17:14, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in light of recent news that 600,000 travellers have been stranded around the world as a result of this bankruptcy, which I believe establishes notability. NorthernFalcon (talk) 17:43, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    They're not stranded, they just need a ride home. Most will find one at a fair price, some will pay extra. Maybe get a refund someday. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:34, September 24, 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose as, unfortunately, LCC's are going bankrupt at a fast rate these days (Monarch, Primera Air, WOW, and probably Norwegian soon) so it's not particularly noteworthy ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 18:08, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't just an airline, it's the oldest travel agency that ever there was. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 18:24, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support but needs a better blurb. I really don't understand why some are saying this is just another bankruptcy. More than 21,000 people in 16 countries are at risk of losing their jobs and more than 600,000 customers are affected, among other factors mentioned above. It's the top story across Europe at least, and it's also making headlines elsewhere in the world. But somehow that's not important enough. Meanwhile, the All-Ireland Championship, for which I have not seen any significant coverage (at least not outside the sports world), is deemed notable for ITN. Puzzling. Johndavies837 (talk) 20:52, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's not an American company. That's about it. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 21:04, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Kingsif. This is a household name in the UK and a big deal. Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:27, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose purely on article quality. The company was founded in 1841, and was among the first, and most successful companies to pioneer organized travel for leisure. They made leisure travel accessible to the middle class and eventually, albeit on a somewhat limited scale, even to the working class. Their influence on culture and society was profound in ways that few other companies can claim. If/when Sears ever goes under I may support a blurb for them on similar grounds as the Amazon.com of the last century. Unfortunately almost none of this is discussed in the linked article. Also there are referencing issues with some of the tables. If these issues can be addressed, I would likely support. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:32, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Much of that is discussed in the Thomas Cook & Son article which maybe should be part of the blurb. Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:48, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It might be easier to just copy and merge some of the relevant material into the article about the current iteration of the company in an expanded corporate history section. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:51, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

September 22

September 22, 2019 (2019-09-22) (Sunday)
Arts and culture
Disasters and accidents
Health and environment
Law and crime
Politics and elections

RD: J. Michael Mendel

Article: J. Michael Mendel (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): IndiaToday
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Producer for The Simpsons and Rick and Morty. Start Class article with excellent sourcing DBigXrayᗙ 16:38, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

September 21

September 21, 2019 (2019-09-21) (Saturday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents
Health and environment
International relations
  • Iran's Revolutionary Guards leader, Hossein Salami, warns that "any country that attacks the Islamic Republic will have their mainland turned into the main battlefield". He further added that "any attack will not stop until the full destruction of the aggressor". (Al Arabiya English)
Law and crime
Politics and elections

RD: Günter Kunert

Article: Günter Kunert (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NDR
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Versatile German writer between East and West. Referenced more, and works added. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:22, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Sigmund Jähn

Article: Sigmund Jähn (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Tagesspiegel
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: First German to fly into space. Article needs some work Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:25, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Barron Hilton

Article: Barron Hilton (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): ABC, variety
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Founder of Hilton Hotels, hotel magnate and AFL founder. C Class article with good sourcing. Death announced on 21 Sept. DBigXrayᗙ 12:20, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed The offending section has been trimmed by page contributors and the unsourced lines moved to talk.  User:Stephen and The Rambling Man please review again if this can now be promoted. --DBigXrayᗙ 06:55, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

September 20

September 20, 2019 (2019-09-20) (Friday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Arts and culture
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Science and technology

(Posted) RD: Irina Bogacheva (mezzo-soprano)

Article: Irina Bogacheva (mezzo-soprano) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Telegraph, Mariinsky Theatre
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Russian operatic mezzo who also trained and appeared at La Scala and The Met, among others, and influential voice teacher. I found the article as a stub. There could be more from the detailed obit if needed. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:45, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Tropical Storm Imelda

Thankfully short-lived and localised. Stephen 01:15, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article: Tropical Storm Imelda (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Tropical Storm Imelda causes flooding and at least 2 4 5 deaths in southeast Texas. (Post)
News source(s): The Guardian, The New York Times
Credits:
Nominator's comments: Wait and see. Final death toll likely higher. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 22:19, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Closed) Antonio Brown released

Consensus to post unlikely to develop. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 22:40, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Proposed image
Articles: Antonio Brown (talk · history · tag) and New England Patriots (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Following a recent release from the Oakland Raiders stemming from professional misconduct, American football player Antonio Brown (pictured) is released from the New England Patriots following sexual assault allegations, having played only one game with the franchise. (Post)
News source(s): Fox News, CNBC, ESPN
Credits:

Article updated
 DrewieStewie (talk) 21:06, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This is a good faith nomination, but sports transactions are not what we post here. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:08, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Muboshgu: You're probably right, I just nominated it owing to the unique circumstances regarding this certain player who has received significant news coverage for his misconduct. It isn't just any sports release, its a release based on many high profile incidents with different franchises and possible legal consequences. DrewieStewie (talk) 21:10, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      DrewieStewie, I understand that, as I've seen the Brown saga in the news. But, we are a global encyclopedia, American football is barely played outside of the U.S. at all, and this is really only significant to Brown, not the league as a whole. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:20, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just a little piece of advice. If you're going to talk about a sport, at least please tell us all what it is. HiLo48 (talk) 21:32, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Noted. Good points from you two. At the very least, I have explicitly added american football to the blurb per suggestion. DrewieStewie (talk) 21:55, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Thanks for the nomination, and I welcome you to make more, but if we post this sports transaction it becomes harder to say no to the next one. In addition, there is a difference between something being news in a niche field(like sports) and something being news generally. I don't think this is appearing as general news on say the front page of a website/newspaper, just under a sports section. 331dot (talk) 22:00, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Posted) September 2019 climate strike

Article: September 2019 climate strike (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Global climate change strikes inspired by Swedish activist Greta Thunberg take place in 150 countries as part of the Fridays for Future protests. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Global climate change strikes take place in 150 countries as part of the Fridays for Future protests.
News source(s): Reuters, Guardian, Vox, Nature, AP, BBC, dpa, AFP
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Could instead be listed as "ongoing", as the strikes take place primarily today but will continue up to and including 27 September. — Bilorv (talk) 09:54, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps appropriate for the article's talk page? – Sca (talk) 15:46, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We're at 26 now, which is much better. In general, if you don't want it to be taken down but do want it to get better than the solution is obvious: Fix it yourself instead of just talking about it. — Bilorv (talk) 16:23, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, its fine now. At the point I was commenting, I didn't have enough time available to try to fix. But I did want to note it here, that in future considering of worldwide-organized events like this, the article should have a better broad coverage to be considered at quality for posting. nothing else to worry about in this specific case now. --Masem (t) 17:18, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

September 19

September 19, 2019 (2019-09-19) (Thursday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and economy
  • A German magazine reports that the chief financial officer of automobile manufacturer BMW, Nicolas Peter, plans to cut between 5,000 and 6,000 jobs at that company, mostly at the Munich headquarters, before 2022. (Reuters)
  • UK-based travel agent Thomas Cook is reported to be attempting to sell assets as it seeks to prevent its collapse. The group employs 20,000 people and, were it to collapse, approximately 150,000 British customers currently abroad could require repatriation assistance from the Civil Aviation Authority in the largest peacetime operation of its kind. (Sky News)
  • Over the last three days, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York adds more than US$200 billion liquidity to the money market, countering a spike in the repo rate on Tuesday. (Business Day)
Disasters and accidents
International relations
Law and crime
Science and technology

(Attention Needed) RD: Zine El Abidine Ben Ali

Article: Zine El Abidine Ben Ali (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Euronews
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: President of Tunisia until he was ousted in 2011. Johndavies837 (talk) 14:51, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Ongoing: Rugby World Cup

Consensus against ongoing, nominate when the winner is known for a regular blurb. --Tone 15:34, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article: 2019 Rugby World Cup (talk · history · tag)
Ongoing item nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Article updated
Nominator's comments: Begins on Friday, September 20, 2019 87.140.111.165 (talk) 07:46, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose posting single sport events in progress, which is not what Ongoing is intended for. The one exception is the FIFA World Cup(which I oppose as well) as the most popular sport in the world. The final result of this event can be posted. 331dot (talk) 07:54, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
2019 FIFA Women's World Cup and 2019 Cricket World Cup were posted as well. A sport event in progress is an ongoing event per definitionem. 87.140.111.165 (talk) 09:03, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, we're well past the "is not what Ongoing is intended for" argument now, as proven above. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:12, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I guess Ongoing is turning into a sports ticker before our eyes. Technically the 2019 Major League Baseball season is ongoing, and as such would merit posting under this criteria. I'm not sure that's a good thing. 331dot (talk) 18:40, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would further add that rugby is not nearly as popular as football/soccer and cricket(the #1 and #2 sports in the world, I believe). 331dot (talk) 18:41, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not one person on earth would conclude that the MLB season is equivalent to the Rugby World Cup. And it may not be as popular as football or rugby, but it's a globally followed sport unlike baseball. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 18:46, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What updates are there aside from match results? 331dot (talk) 18:40, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Match results and even prose reports about matches if someone was prepared to write them, just like the prose summaries of other sporting events. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 18:46, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – I regret voting yes for FIFA Women's and voting no on Cricket World cup. 2019 FIFA Women's World Cup did not sustain consistent prose updates but 2019 Cricket World Cup did keep up. If 2015 Rugby World Cup is an indication of what we can expect, it is clear we will not get the proper amount of serious prose updates. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 19:41, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Illustrative material seems undue – stock photos and that superfluous map of Japan. – Sca (talk) 20:58, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose What matters is who is the champion, not what happens on each and every day, the way it is in the Olympics or the FIFA World Cup. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:57, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose - We post FIFA World Cup to ongoing because it is insanely popular and gets massive coverage internationally. I'm sure this Rugby event gets coverage, but nowhere close to the degree of coverage as FIFA has. That said, it is a month+ long competition of more than a few region teams involved, and updating seems to be in place, so it would be fully reasonable to be ongoing, hence the weak oppose, but I am concerned about having too many of these smaller world cups "flood" Ongoing. --Masem (t) 23:07, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Sport competitions in Ongoing until there is clear criteria for inclusion. A cutoff for popularity or % of world participating nations or anything more objective. Like with any Ongoing nomination, proposals for removal due to poor updates must be taken seriously. "It is notable and I haven't had time" just keeps crap articles on the front page. And [Rugby] it may not be as popular as football or [cricket? sic], but it's a globally followed sport unlike baseball What, then entire Western Hemisphere plus Japan is not global enough?130.233.2.183 (talk) 05:48, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How truly popular is baseball south of the US-Mexico border? (Genuine question. I personally love the game.) HiLo48 (talk) 10:45, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Very, very popular, especially in Mexico, Cuba, and other Central America countries. Some articles of interest include Pan American Baseball Confederation and baseball in Cuba.--WaltCip (talk) 11:50, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Israeli legislative election

Proposed image
Article: September 2019 Israeli legislative election (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ After April elections failed to produce a ruling coalition, the Blue and White alliance (leader Benny Gantz pictured) wins the most seats in the second Israeli legislative election this year. (Post)
News source(s): (National Post), AP, BBC, Guardian, AFP, Reuters
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Official results expected Thursday. Right now the final outcome is unclear, other than that Netanyahu has probably lost. 2607:FEA8:1DE0:7B4:B05D:6D6C:4581:976B (talk) 00:14, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would say no in the interest of brevity/clarity. Best attempt I can muster: "After April elections fail to produce a ruling coalition, the Blue and White party win a plurality in the second Israeli legislative election this year." GreatCaesarsGhost 12:03, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand it "plurality" is largely an American term; "the most seats" is what we usually do. 331dot (talk) 19:37, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The nominated event is ITNR; quality is the only thing being discussed. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:03, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment With the results mostly in by this point, should we offer a blurb and post as soon as possible that the Blue and White party has won a plurality, or should we wait (however long it takes) for a new Prime Minister to be announced? It's not clear yet whether or not this is the end of Netanyahu's premiership, or if he will remain a caretaker PM.  Vanilla  Wizard  💙 18:16, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
General practice in such cases seems to be to wait for formation of a new govt., which in this case could take as long as it did in Italy, and for its formal installation. IMO we tend to be somewhat overcautious about the installation part. – Sca (talk) 21:07, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The mere fact that Israel needed a second election at all is noteworthy, as it's the first time one was necessary. After the last election, no government was ever formed and it's a possibility this time too. That doesn't mean this shouldn't be posted. ITNR states "The results of general elections", not the formation of governments(though we have occasionally posted those in unusual cases, which this might very well be). 331dot (talk) 21:14, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Are unsettled elections in Israel more important than unsettled elections in Italy? – Sca (talk) 21:22, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm dealing with the election in front of me. The 'election' is settled- it's the government that is not. 331dot (talk) 21:24, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No it's not settled. By 'unsettled' I mean elections that have failed to produce a governmental result. Please don't quibble about semantics. And how about answering the question? – Sca (talk) 15:52, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's not semantics. The election is over and settled. We know the results. Now the process to form a government is underway. Two different steps. I did answer your question. And as noted below, Italy's change in government was not due to an election. 331dot (talk) 18:12, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I personally concur with 331dot; Italy's governing coalition collapsed and its PM resigned, but there were no election results to post, so it's an apples-to-oranges comparison.  Vanilla  Wizard  💙 21:35, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is not general practice at all. Say what you want about this ITN/R (and I'm on the record as hating it), but there is no ambiguity: the election result is ITNR, not the formation of government. The results are NOW known, to the level of specificity that would be shown in the blurb. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:53, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, why didn't you support the Conte nomination? – Sca (talk) 20:46, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What in the holy hell are you talking about? My comment here is to clarify an ITNR consensus regarding elections. That nom was not for an election. ALSO, I supported that nom. I was the FIRST supporter of that nom. Jesus. GreatCaesarsGhost 23:41, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment, the first after the nominator's, says "I'm leaning support," but I don't see an actual support vote. Au revoir. – Sca (talk) 13:51, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

September 18

September 18, 2019 (2019-09-18) (Wednesday)
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections

RD: Graeme Gibson

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

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

Nominator's comments: Canadian novelist, Margaret Atwood's partner. 2607:FEA8:1DE0:7B4:B05D:6D6C:4581:976B (talk) 22:17, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Fernando Ricksen

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

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

Nominator's comments: Professional footballer best known for his time in Scotland with Rangers  The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 11:59, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not yet: The whole 24 years of his life before joining Rangers are not covered. It will be a challenge to find resources for something outside the English-speaking world in the 1990s, but this is a major absence. The honours are unsourced, some of them coming from this time in Holland in the 1990s as well. 2A00:23C5:E1AB:4500:195F:BAD6:53EC:BC46 (talk) 15:02, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

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

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates&oldid=917816937"