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 Jenda H. (talk | contribs) at 19:42, 26 December 2019 (→‎December 26: Táňa Fischerová). 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.

Srettha Thavisin in 2023
Srettha Thavisin

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.
Skip to top
Skip to bottom

Archives

December 26

December 26, 2019 (2019-12-26) (Thursday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Law and crime

Politics and elections

RD: Nomination header

Article: Táňa Fischerová (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Český rozhlas, Novinky.cz
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.

 Jenda H. (talk) 19:42, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Ready) 26 Dec solar eclipse

Article: Solar eclipse of December 26, 2019 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ An annular eclipse visible across much of Asia occurs (Post)
News source(s): [1][2][3]
Credits:

Nominator's comments: I don't know about this. Annular eclipses are not ITNR, and they aren't that uncommon apparently, annular eclipses that are visible from large swathes of Earth are uncommon. It's making the news (just put in "eclipse" into Google) so I'm nominating this. Banedon (talk) 07:51, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

December 25

December 25, 2019 (2019-12-25) (Wednesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Law and crime

Politics and elections

RD: Ari Behn

Article: Ari Behn (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Express.co.uk, De Telegraaf
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.

 --BabbaQ (talk) 20:48, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Typhoon Phanfone causes at least thirteen deaths in the Phillipines

Article: Typhoon Phanfone (2019) (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Typhoon Phatfone makes landfall in the Phillipines causing at least twenty deaths with many more missing (Post)
News source(s): BBC, AP, Guardian
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Death toll stands at 13 this morning, the article is being updated as I write so hopefully it will contain good details Joseywales1961 (talk) 11:09, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

December 24

December 24, 2019 (2019-12-24) (Tuesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Politics and elections

RD: Andrew Miller

Article: Andrew Miller (politician) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Daily Mail
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: British former politician. Article needs further sourcing. Skteosk (talk) 08:47, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Citizenship Amendment Act protests

Proposed image
Articles: Citizenship Amendment Act protests (talk · history · tag) and Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In India, Prime Minister Modi defends law on citizenship for migrants, while the protests (pictured) continue with twenty five dead. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ In India, protests (pictured) against the law on citizenship for migrants continue with twenty five dead.
News source(s): CAA protests deadlier than months-long Hong Kong protests: 25 killed in India, 2 deaths reported in Hong Kong, BBC India protests: PM Modi defends citizenship bill amid clashes, CNN Protests rage across India over citizenship law
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Protests continue, Excellent sourcing, Deadlier than the Hong Kong protests already. DBigXrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 23:40, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment. The government instead of relenting has decided to defend the law, even though death toll climbs. Both are major news items across major newspapers. So a blurb is merited IMHO. An ongoing, though acceptable, will be the bare minimum for this. --DBigXrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 00:00, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
LaserLegs, I did one round of copy-editing (edit: protests article). DTM (talk) 11:23, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
24 December Times of India In one voice, 80,000 Bengaluru citizens reject CAA , the  article has a timeline for fans of chronology. The geographical names are listed chronologically and not alphabetically. The protests are not under a central organisation so it is useful to read geographically how it proceeded. You are welcome to propose changes on the talk page. DBigXrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 04:59, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:Harshil169 your comment makes absolutely no sense to me at all. An ongoing has no blurb. If you have a better blurb, feel free to add it in the template above and support your own blurb. --Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 15:29, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Stephen, I did one round of reading and copyediting (edit: protests article). It isn't that bad... DTM (talk) 11:25, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - The article must include loss of public property. Many state governments have assessed the losses and sent bills to the rioters. Without this information this article clearly looks highly opinionated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jangid (talk • contribs) 12:14, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Jangid please provide the refs for this concern, so that it can be fixed. --Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 13:42, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DBigXray, here they’re: https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/caa-protests-up-government-starts-process-seize-property-protesters-involved-violence-1630471-2019-12-22 and https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/explain-or-pay-for-damage-up-administration-sends-notice-to-26-people-in-sambhal-for-caa-violence-1631638-2019-12-26 . However, so far, only Uttar Pradesh has done this...RedBulbBlueBlood9911 (talk) 15:15, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Fixed RedBulbBlueBlood9911 and Jangid thanks for the kind note and the link. I have included this into the article. thanks.
RedBulbBlueBlood9911, do you find the blurb not notable enough ? the death number is significant. As Muboshgu suggested, what stops from promoting this as a blurb and roll it off to ongoing if it still continued ? --Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 19:11, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

December 23

December 23, 2019 (2019-12-23) (Monday)
Armed conflict and attacks

Business and economy

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sri Lankan cricket team in Pakistan

Article: Sri Lankan cricket team in Pakistan in 2019–20 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Pakistan beat Sri Lanka to win first home Test cricket series in a decade since the 2009 attack on the Sri Lankan team. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Pakistan beat Sri Lanka to win first home Test cricket series to be played in Pakistan in a decade since the 2009 attack on the Sri Lankan team.
News source(s): DAWN BBC Al Jazeera France 24 NYT WaPo AFP
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: The first home Test series in a decade in Pakistan is In the News and the article now also contains summary of the matches. Vegan Gypsy (talk) 16:20, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

LaserLegs, latter. --Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 21:45, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted to RD) RD: John Cain

Article: John Cain (41st Premier of Victoria) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): ABC
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: Former premier of Victoria. I have added references to the article, and think it is passable. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:58, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That date of death seems very hard to pin down. The ABC source that the article and you have used is the only one I can find that goes close to giving a precise date, and all it says is "died overnight". We cannot tell if that means before or after midnight. What I can see happening now is that a lot of other sources will begin to post whatever we write as the date as fact. HiLo48 (talk) 05:07, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Canberra Times says "died on Monday", but that could be a "date announced" assumption. May have to wait for a death notice. --Canley (talk) 06:05, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Mr. Niebla

There's nothing more to discuss, badger, or harangue. It's been posted. Go enjoy your Christmas. WaltCip (talk) 22:48, 25 December 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: Mr. Niebla (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): MedioTiempo (es)
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: Mexican professional wrestler MPJ-DK (talk) 00:44, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Far too much of the article is about the fights and championships he "won". In pro wrestling, this information is telling us nothing more than what scriptwriters at the time decided his character would do. It tells us nothing of the person who has just died. It's the equivalent of discussing the activities of characters an actor played in movies or plays, as if they actually happened. Not an acceptable article. HiLo48 (talk) 04:09, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Thoroughly sourced Good Article. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:13, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't realise it had been assessed as a Good Article. That's seriously ridiculous. How can a collection of acting scripts become a good article? Not a good look for Wikipedia. HiLo48 (talk) 05:17, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So I am sorry to see that you think this is the appropriate platform for you to get on a soapbox. Your non-policy based point has been clearly made, how bout we let other people chime in? MPJ-DK (talk) 05:32, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What is non-policy based about my Oppose comment? Do we really accept the scripts of pro-wrestling as somehow describing a person's life? HiLo48 (talk) 05:38, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please do point to the policy that supports your oppose based on the fact that the article is "too much about his career" - would you lodge a similar complaint if an article about a golfer is primarily abou their golf career? if an article about a career military office is primarily about their army career? If the article on a politician is primarily about their political work? Please show me that policy and i'll happily withdraw this nomination on the spot. MPJ-DK (talk) 15:12, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Misrepresentation is a crappy form of argument. At no point have I said that the article is "too much about his career". Of course we write about the successes of a pro-golfer, because they would be real. The "successes" of a pro-wrestler are not. They are created by scriptwriters. There is a massive difference. HiLo48 (talk) 22:44, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The successes, while you might consider them to be created by scriptwriters, are due to the wrestlers' ability and drawing power, so it's not like the wrestler is removed from the equation. As such, even a fictitious championship is an accomplishment, as it is an acknowledgement that the promotion has enough faith in them to make them a face of the company. I would argue, therefore, that it is not as empty as you claim, and that the most talented performers rise to the top, much like in more "true" athletic competitions. However, we're getting distracted from the fact that the article is considered sufficiently notable for posting, and it has already been reviewed for quality. GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:24, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I misrepresented anything, I presented your argument in a different context and you didn't like it. So let's compare them to actors - except here he played the same role since 1994 basically - So championships could be considered the same as awards, appearing on major shows = "Special guest appearance" etc. his in-ring achivements is to a degree a result of his skills, charisma etc. not that different than an actor. Are you saying that the article on actors with a 30 year career should not include the awards someone voted for him to get (not won "competitively" after all), not include supporting or starring roles in shows and movies? is that not, generally speaking, what an actors career section covers? So yes here he gets in the ring and pretends to want to injure his opponents, no different than getting on a stage and do Shakespear, no diffent than guest starring on the Golden Girs, no different than being a space cleric with a fantasy weapon - except he played that role day in and day out any time he was in public. And you never cited any actual policy, so as it stands it is your personal opinion and nothing more. MPJ-DK (talk) 04:07, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"...championships could be considered the same as awards" Utter nonsense. The championships only exist because someone wrote them into the script. Never the case with awards. There is no way that article deserves to be "Good". HiLo48 (talk) 07:40, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So again more clear hostility towards the subjet matter, but nothing policy based. Thank you for confirming that there is nothing but your personal opinion behind the objection. MPJ-DK (talk) 08:09, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Again, completely wrong. I have no feelings either way about the subject matter, but I know that the article supporting this is a load of total rubbish. That IS a policy based issue. HiLo48 (talk) 08:39, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • An even stronger Oppose ...based on new information added to the article today. See Mr. Niebla#Name confusion. It tells us that at least four different wrestlers have used the ring name "Mr. Niebla". That makes the nomination of the death of just one of these people and linking it to this article somewhat problematic. HiLo48 (talk) 08:39, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
ITN is supposed to encourage people to read our best articles. Sensible readers will laugh at this one. It's like going back to the 1960s when people believed pro-wrestling was real. HiLo48 (talk) 22:12, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[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.

RD: Ahmed Gaid Salah

Article: Ahmed Gaid Salah (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC, Aljazeera, France 24, NYT
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: Algerian army chief, compelled President Bouteflika to resign this year. Jamez42 (talk) 14:26, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Removed) Ongoing Removal 2019 Maltese protests

Article: 2019 Maltese protests (talk · history · tag)
Ongoing item removal (Post)

Nominator's comments: The last "protests" were on December 13th (though the article doesn't say how many people) and the last update a was a week ago for an "NGO" calling on he government for "protection". Not "regularly updated with new, pertinent information". In addition, the article makes numerous references to non-specific "NGOs" which makes it impossible to attribute actions and statements to specific groups. Finally, the whole thing is in desperate need of a copyedit for grammar. LaserLegs (talk) 13:47, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Assassination of Jamal Khashoggi

Proposed image
Article: Assassination of Jamal Khashoggi (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ A court in Saudi Arabia sentences five people to death for the 2018 killing of Jamal Khashoggi. (Post)
News source(s): BBC, AP, Guardian, Reuters
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: One orange tag on one section, otherwise a solid well-sourced article. Significant development in this case now that Saudi Arabia has handed down the first legal judgements regarding culpability. Spokoyni (talk) 10:24, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Article should be better structured to identify the trial and sentencing here. Also, the list of purported names in "Alleged perpetrators" seems like a BLP violation per BLPCRIME, unless they are those that have been part of this sentencing. --Masem (t) 14:38, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they are a part of this widely popular case. 17 of them are Sanctioned by US Treasury. I have noted this. --DBigXrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 17:10, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RGW may be of interest to you. No comment on the nom --LaserLegs (talk) 19:06, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RGW may be of interest to leading human rights groups around the world, as the internal affairs of RSA often are? The article should just report what they say, because it's in the news? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:10, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I misunderstood your comment. Sorry. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:54, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks El_C, can someone post the credits ? --DBigXrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 23:47, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
credits given by User:Ammarpad. Thx. --DBigXrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 10:28, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:Ammarpad - you've only given credits to one of those listed. User:Octoberwoodland and I are still waiting. Spokoyni (talk) 07:32, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

December 22

December 22, 2019 (2019-12-22) (Sunday)
Armed conflict and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

(Posted) RD: Ram Dass

Article: Ram Dass (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
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: Recent deaths: Ram Dass. Dass died on December 22. The author of Be Here Now and other books. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:29, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just a bit more for those who may not know of his work. Ram Dass' importance in both the 1960s counter-culture and the 1970s western understanding of yoga and perceptional consciousness training is very notable, and his book Be Here Now influenced many in the same way Yogananda's Autobiography of a Yogi had done for decades. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:59, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Tony Britton

Article: Tony Britton (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: British actor, article needs a bit of work Black Kite (talk) 18:19, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Prime Minister of Cuba

Article: Manuel Marrero Cruz (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Forty-three years after Fidel Castro abolished the position, Manuel Marrero Cruz becomes the 17th Prime Minister of Cuba. (Post)
News source(s): BBC News, CNN, Reuters
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Notable change in Cuba's governing, first appointment in 43 years. PotentPotables (talk) 11:31, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Thomas Chandy

Article: Thomas Chandy (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Times of India
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: Former Kerala minister Thomas Chandy died Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:36, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose – Not widely covered; lacks general significance. – Sca (talk) 15:34, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • RDs are not evaluated by their "significance", but by the quality of the article. If the article is ok the RD is approved. ALL people with an article on Wikipedia are considered notable and/or significant enough for a RD.--SirEdimon (talk) 16:57, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – Needs improvement to sourcing. We do not need a separate WP:CSECTION for unindicted allegation. Allegations are levied against politician daily. I doubt it even has due weight in an article this short. It reads like a minor accusation that was blown out of proportion because it is recent. The man lived for 72 years. Is this thing that happened in the last 2 years worth 1/5 of the article space? --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 21:38, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

December 21

December 21, 2019 (2019-12-21) (Saturday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

RD: Emanuel Ungaro

Article: Emanuel Ungaro (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC, The Guardian, Vogue
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: French fashion designer Jamez42 (talk) 14:49, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) 2019 FIFA Club World Cup

No consensus to post. SpencerT•C 05:16, 25 December 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 FIFA Club World Cup (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Liverpool defeats Flamengo to win the 2019 FIFA Club World Cup. (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:
 --SirEdimon (talk) 20:25, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I think football has enough coverage on ITN already, and this is not a significant enough competition. P-K3 (talk) 21:30, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I'd agree with Pawnkingthree, although in one sense this is the ultimate prize in club football, being a tournament for the winners of the continental cups, it doesn't actually have the prestige of the individual UEFA and South American events. It also doesn't look like we posted it last year, and I don't recall seeing it any other year either.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:27, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on notability (I leave others to judge quality), despite it not being ITNR, and despite it receiving less attention than the Champions League in much of the world (though Latin America, or at least South America, may well be an exception, as may some of the other countries whose teams are taking part). But that's seemingly WP:systemic bias, a bit like saying that we should not report the British or Brazilian elections, or elections at the UN (to give another instance where the world is deemed less important than some of its parts), because we supposedly have far too much politics anyway and because the US elections receive far more coverage (yes, I know most such elections are ITNR, but that's not really the point). In this case it is likely to be of interest to more of our readers than usual because it's a rare case of an English team winning this cup (which, incidentally, is probably part of the reason why we didn't post it last year). To those who might say that's systemic bias in favour of an English-speaking country, my reply is that in this case any such biaa is legitimate because this is after all English Wikipedia (I would not expect, for instance, German Wikipedia to omit stories of interest to their German-speaking readers on the basis that this is bias in favour of such readers). I might perhaps add that this year, unusually, I was more interested in this cup than in the Champions League (because that was an all-English final this year, which is less interesting than English v Brazilian), despite me being neither English nor British - and I suspect I'm not alone among our readers in having felt that way. Tlhslobus (talk) 23:51, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose - The only clubs that win this competition are European teams or South American teams, and we already post when those teams qualify to this tournament when they win their respective continental championships. Furthermore, the manager of the winning side had several quotes justifying the value of this tournament to the press, found in this article on BBC, implying that the tournament is looked down upon enough that he felt he had to justify its value. That said, this is technically the ultimate competition of club football, and FIFA treats it this way, even if the fans do not, so it's only a weak oppose. NorthernFalcon (talk) 02:29, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Klopp's above-mentioned comments are because the tournament is looked upon with contempt and hostility by some elements in Europe (tho not the remaining 90% of the world). The fact that the BBC chose to show the final live in prime time on its main channel (BBC ONE) suggests that this contempt and hostility is not shared by huge numbers of ordinary fans (and Europe's excellent recent record in the cup suggests that major European clubs like Real Madrid now take it seriously too). This does not mean that they regard it as more important than the Champions League, but if that were a requirement for posting at ITN, then about 90% of our ITNR sports items would have to be removed (and huge numbers of non-sporting events would also have to be removed), etc. Incidentally the last Cricket World Cup to be held in India (about 4 years ago, if I remember right) chose to market itself as 'the Cup that matters', presumably because many in India think the T20 world cup is more important, but we quite rightly did not use this as grounds for not posting (nor even for removing it from ITNR). Tlhslobus (talk) 17:27, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Posted) RD: Martin Peters

Article: Martin Peters (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: English footballer and manager. Member of the England team which won the 1966 FIFA World Cup and played the 1970 World Cup --SirEdimon (talk) 17:21, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

December 20

December 20, 2019 (2019-12-20) (Friday)
Armed conflict and attacks

Business and economy

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

Creation of United States Space Force

Article: United States Space Force (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ President Trump signs defense bill that officially creates the United States Space Force. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ The United States Space Force, the sixth branch of the United States Armed Forces, is officially created.
News source(s): NPR, The Guardian, BBC, ABC.
Credits:

Nominator's comments: This is the first time that a new branch has been added since 1947. This will also be the first time that the United States will have a dedicated space military presence, as NASA is a civilian agency, and the Air Force only did this as a side mission. PuzzledvegetableIs it teatime already? 20:23, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose A United States Space Command was created in 1985 and there was an announcement by Trump about this in August. It's not clear that this is any more than an administrative reorganisation. What's the practical impact? Andrew🐉(talk) 22:00, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is more than an administrative reorganization. A new branch was announced on 20 December. This new branch is of equal status to the Army and Navy. This is completely different than a command being shuffled around for bureaucratic purposes. This new branch will have its own uniform, song, march, rank structure, etc. It's as independent from the Air Force as the Marine Corps is from the Navy. This hasn't been done since 1947. --PuzzledvegetableIs it teatime already? 22:23, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Its own song!? But it doesn't actually have one yet, right? I see that people have been parodying this for some time – see Billboard, for example. This seems to be similar to Trump's wall on the Mexico border – more of a work-in-progress than a discrete achievement. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:19, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • By the way, note that Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker has been the top-read article on Wikipedia for several days now, because nobody cares what ITN thinks about it. That's something that actually exists – you can go to the movies and see it yourself whereas Trump's Space Force seems to be like Reagan's Star Wars; an aspiration rather than an actuality. "No one’s ever really gone." – Luke Skywalker. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:47, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • The funding already exists as this has officially been sanctioned by an act of Congress, and a Chief of Space Operations has already been appointed. The comparison to Reagan's Star Wars is incredibly weak. --PuzzledvegetableIs it teatime already? 23:56, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • The Act of Congress is the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020, which is a huge bundle of programs, policies and pork for the Department of Defense. There's lots in there such as items for cyberspace, for example. A bill of this sort is passed every year and we would need a good reason to highlight particular items in it. Andrew🐉(talk) 00:14, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • "There is established a United States Space Force as an armed force within the Department of the Air Force." Last time something similar to that was said, the Allies had just emerged victorious from World War II. It's been over 70 years, hardly the annual occurrence you make it seem to be. I'm not sure what everyone else isn't getting. Congress has created a new branch of the Armed Forces. It's as official as it's ever going to get. This rarely ever happens, and it reflects a major change in American military policy, and how it has been affected by changing technologies. --PuzzledvegetableIs it teatime already? 00:28, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
              • Emerged victorious from World War II directly due to extremely real and important air superiority of armed forces. No such clear and present danger this time, just similar in that they're new branches and the press is concerned with the commander-in-chief. Almost a whole other scoop, 72 years later, each with its own official and imaginary merit systems. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:41, December 23, 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose There is going to be at least a year of administrative setup before there is actually a separate branch. It would be better once the Space Force is officially the 6th branch, as right now, all activities will be under the Air Force. [4] --Masem (t) 22:34, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • It already is a separate branch. It's true that they have allotted 18 months to fully separate the branches, but the official separation has happened. Everything from here is purely administrative. --PuzzledvegetableIs it teatime already? 22:47, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's not fully separate. There is no person right now that can say they are a Space Force member, only that they are part of the Space Force division under the Air Force. In 18 months a lot can change (and this also potentially is where the impeachment process may come into play, to revoke such programs after the fact). When it is actually separated, then it might make sense to post. But as noted in these articles, this is not the first national-level military-directed space agency anywhere, so I don't see why calling out the US version is necessary. --Masem (t) 23:38, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Another step of Trump solidifying his political legacy.--WaltCip (talk) 23:15, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose another Trump fake victory that will never be funded or really implemented. At most it's a reorg of the air force and another big government expansion and waste of public funds. Let me know when Mars leaves the UN. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:31, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose As Trump news, we have enough. As space war news, it's too soon, still feels "fake". I'll support when the first drop of blood is vaporized (rebel, robot or imperial). InedibleHulk (talk) 03:24, December 23, 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak support if I'm not mistaken, this is the first time any nation has created a space force, making this a historic milestone. Weak support because it's not the first time space-related weapons have been destroyed, see e.g. anti-satellite weapon. Still, if other countries respond by establishing their own space force, not posting this would be a mistake. Banedon (talk) 14:23, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) State of the Netherlands v. Urgenda Foundation

Article: State of the Netherlands v. Urgenda Foundation (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The Dutch Supreme Court upholds a ruling that the Netherlands government must meet established emissions reduction milestones, establishing the first legal case of climate change impacting human rights. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ The Dutch Supreme Court upholds a ruling that the Netherlands government must meet established emissions reduction milestones, creating the first legal precedent on the impact of climate change on human rights
News source(s): Bloomberg, The Guardian
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: While this case had made news in 2015 from the lower court ruling, it had been appealed twice, but upheld at all points. I think the article is pretty much there? There's some weird formatting stuff I can't figure out immediately, but sourcing, it seems to be there. Masem (t) 16:51, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest removing "Climate Justice" piece as a target, leaving only State of the Netherlands v. Urgenda Foundation. (Unwieldy article name could be simplified, though.) – Sca (talk) 15:40, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with Sca. SpencerT•C 18:14, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with removing "climate justice" (as I wrote the case article, I think it needs to be tuned towards "climate change litigation" to be a bit more neutral, but that would take more work). Not sure how to reduce the name, as not familiar enough with how Dutch law cases get shortened. (Could it be "Netherlands v. Urgenda?" not sure?) --Masem (t) 18:41, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"2019 Netherlands climate ruling" – ?? – Sca (talk) 14:55, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • plus Posted alt blurb. The newly-created article has been stable, and there was sufficient support already beforehand.—Bagumba (talk) 05:20, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: Is the term "precedent" accurate? Are lower courts in the Netherlands bound by prior cases? Is the meaning of the word "precedent" in Dutch law different from its generally understood meaning in common law, the legal system used by the majority of English-speaking countries (considering that this is the English Wikipedia)? feminist (talk) 13:46, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Boeing Orbital Flight Test

Article: Boeing Orbital Flight Test (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ An anomaly occurs during the first test flight of the Boeing Starliner spacecraft, preventing a planned rendezvous with the International Space Station (Post)
News source(s): BBC, Space.com
Credits:

 – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 14:12, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak oppose On the basis that if it successfully got there, on something really bad happened, it would definitely be ITN-worthy, but this is a bit of a boring nothing in between both. Kingsif (talk) 19:58, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Kingsif: The failure of a crew-rated spacecraft is "boring"? – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 05:56, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I could be wrong but I don't believe it is yet crew-rated(hence the test flight). 331dot (talk) 08:06, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, nothing effectively happened? It missed the target, when reaching would be interesting. It didn't blow up or set on fire or otherwise cause injury. A blurb isn't "thing was supposed to happen but didn't", you know? Like "guy was going to break the world record but fell short" isn't worth a blurb unless there's an independently interesting reason why. And per standards of ITNs for space exploration, I think only a successful flight & rendezvous warrants a blurb. Kingsif (talk) 16:45, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Polish judicial disciplinary panel law

Article: Polish judicial disciplinary panel law (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Polish judicial disciplinary panel law passed by Sejm, despite warnings this may force Poland out of EU evoking widespread protests throughout Poland. (Post)
News source(s): [5][6][7][8][9]
Credits:

 MozeTak (talk) 20:19, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

December 19

December 19, 2019 (2019-12-19) (Thursday)
International Relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections
Science and technology

(Closed) Evo Morales

Unlikely to gain consensus to post. The feedback is clear. – Ammarpad (talk) 03:52, 20 December 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: Evo Morales (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Bolivian prosecutors issue arrest warrant against Former Bolivian President Evo Morales (Post)
News source(s): Al Jazeera, The Guardian
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Arrest order issued to former Bolivian President who is already facing charges related to corruption. He has been given refugee status in Argentina Abishe (talk) 12:57, 19 December 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) Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker

SNOW close. Bring back to nominations if it breaks the box office record or something. We did post the Avengers Endgame because of that. --Tone 13:35, 19 December 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: Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The final episode of the Skywalker saga premieres and goes on general release. (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: This is big news, of course, but I'm not sure if we should focus on the premiere or the general release. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:05, 19 December 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.

State of emergency declared in Australia's New South Wales

Article: 2019–20 Australian bushfire season (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ State of emergency is declared in Australia's New South Wales following record breaking temperatures and ongoing bushfires. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ State of emergency is declared in New South Wales, Australia following record breaking temperatures and ongoing bushfires
News source(s): BBC, Al Jazeera, Guardian, Reuters, AP
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Bushfires are quite regular in Australia but this time around the bushfires have been uncontrollable. The bushfires have also resulted in implementing state of emergency in New South Wales. Abishe (talk) 07:50, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wondering if it should also mention the "record-breaking heatwave" with the record set on Tuesday and than broken the next day. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:04, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That would be less of a problem if more editors (not just Australians) worked to prevent such nominations falling off this page. HiLo48 (talk) 02:42, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now, seems better suited to ongoing as a topic, though I note the current target article is rather sparse; many sections consist of a single sentence and it needs a lot of expansion. --Jayron32 13:27, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This is NSW's second State of Emergency (first one for this fire season was in November). This isn't a typical fire season, in NSW the season typically starts in mid-late November north of the state and early-mid December in the south, this season started around August and ramped up in September due to drought and above average temperatures. In a season you'll see one or two big (major) fires but so far I have lost count. I do know that approximately 2.7 million hectares has been burnt so far.
The blurb needs more work, I would help but I'm off on a deployment in a few hours. Bidgee (talk) 13:51, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Gigantic, intense fire situation that's been and continues to be widely covered by RS media. (Record-breaking as a compound modifier of temperatures is hyphenated.) – Sca (talk) 14:10, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose in current state (though significance is met). Have any of the support votes actually attempted to read this article? The NSW section first has a few paragraphs, each about a different fire. Then a few graphs in summary of the whole season, Then more graphs each about a different fire! Then more summary! This isn't an article; it's research notes. GreatCaesarsGhost 19:08, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose at the moment, the article simply isn't up to scratch - it's a list of events, some of which are unsourced and many of which are out of date, with one line in the lead saying "A state of emergency has been declared". We can't put that on the front page at the moment. Black Kite (talk) 19:27, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose ...for now. Maybe this is linked to the wrong article. 2019–20 Australian bushfire season is just this year's ongoing article about the season's bushfires. Such articles are typically a mess for a while, often being contributed to by enthusiastic, new editors unfamiliar with our conventions. It will be in poor condition for some time yet. Bushfires in southern states are usually worse in January and February. These articles are cleaned up later after things settle down. The problem is, I don't know what article to point to that will be in good condition. HiLo48 (talk) 21:30, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Target suggestion Agreed that it's an inappropriate target for a main page item. All of Australia is not on fire now. A model might be like 2019 California wildfires, and even that has individual links to specific fires, and is not proseline for the entire state.—Bagumba (talk) 01:59, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Two firefighters killed. We really shouldn't be ignoring this topic. (Two sources added above.) – Sca (talk) 13:50, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    That's the second comment you've made in this nom arguing this event is significant. No one is disputing this - the objection is quality. If you are passive-aggressively arguing that quality should be ignored, be less passive. GreatCaesarsGhost 15:52, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not 'suggesting' anything of the kind. Be less disparaging. I do suggest that some of our Australian colleagues familiar with the topic and the country work on the article. – Sca (talk) 13:40, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Why just Australians? And this article is not likely to become stable enough to support the nomination in the time-frame required. HiLo48 (talk) 23:17, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As GreatCaesarsGhost has just noted, we need a better quality article to support this nomination. I have already pointed out further up this discussion that the linked article, 2019–20 Australian bushfire season, is unlikely to become a quality, stable in the time frame we need. As its name shows, the period it covers extends into next year. It covers the whole country, ten times the area involved with the subject of this nomination. Fires are only just now firing up (sorry) in the southern states of Victoria and South Australia, and the southern part of Western Australia, and will continue through to at least April next year if past years are any guide. It's the kind of article that attracts new and enthusiastic but unskilled editors. It just isn't the right article. We obviously need an article on the declaration of the state of emergency if we are to follow our guidelines. Or, and this is the biggie, accept that this IS a major news item, and should not miss out on being posted just because nobody thought of situations like this when they wrote the guidelines. If we can't do that, we perhaps need to rethink the headline on our main page. After all, this definitely IS In the News. HiLo48 (talk) 23:21, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Homo erectus

Article: Homo erectus (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Homo erectus survived into comparatively recent times in South East Asia, a new study has revealed (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Study reveals Homo erectus survived until around 110,000 years ago in South East Asia, more recently than previously known
Alternative blurb II: ​ A study suggests Homo erectus died off due to rainforests destroying its natural grassland habitat in Java, around 110,000 years ago.
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: As per article "The latest study highlights a mind-boggling truth: that many of the species we thought of as transitional stages in this onward march overlapped with each other, in some cases for hundreds of thousands of years." Sherenk1 (talk) 06:25, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted, Ongoing removed) Impeachment of Donald Trump

Proposed image
Article: Impeachment of Donald Trump (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ President Donald Trump is impeached by the United States House of Representatives. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ President Donald Trump is impeached by the United States House of Representatives, charging him with abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.
Alternative blurb II: ​ The United States House of Representatives votes to impeach President Donald Trump.
News source(s): The Guardian; NBC News
Credits:

Nominator's comments: The vote is going to be within the hour, and no one thinks it will fail(if it did, that would likely merit posting too). I've suggested two blurbs though I'm open to changes. It could be pulled from Ongoing. I'm also open to a different image- and I wouldn't be opposed to leaving the current image of Musharraf up for awhile longer. 331dot (talk) 00:56, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Did a Republican vote yes? Amash is an independent. 331dot (talk) 01:29, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There's only 1 indep vote at the moment but the Repub vote got removed a minute ago.  Nixinova  T C   01:34, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support original blurb. | abequinnfourteen 01:59, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not counting all the wars, sure, it's up there. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:10, December 19, 2019 (UTC)
How many times has he allegedly commited suicide now, six? InedibleHulk (talk) 02:38, December 19, 2019 (UTC)

(Posted to RD) Herman Boone

Article: Herman Boone (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb:  Legendary high school football coach Herman Boone dies at the age of 84 (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Herman Boone, legendary coach of the T.C. Williams High School football team, dies at the age of 84
Alternative blurb II: ​ Legendary high school football coach Herman Boone, who was immortalized in the 2000 film Remember the Titans, dies at 84
News source(s): https://wtop.com/alexandria/2019/12/herman-boone-alexandria-football-coach-immortalized-in-remember-the-titans-dies-at-84/
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: This deserves a listing given the significance this person has in both local and national history. 2601:187:4581:7F50:A4EE:F954:9CC6:6166 (talk) 00:17, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm well aware of that... my point being that IMHO this deserves more than just an RD mention. 2601:187:4581:7F50:A4EE:F954:9CC6:6166 (talk) 00:24, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • RD only. He was important for the local area, but wouldn't be as known nationally without the film. Blurbs are typically reserved for deaths where the death itself is an event, or for world-transforming figures at the tip top of their field. Neither is the case here. 331dot (talk) 00:37, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • No blurb I genuinely understand and appreciate how high school football can seem larger-than-life in some states, but most readers grew up in the real world instead. To them, a coach is just a sort of teacher. A better-paid teacher, but still pretty common. Scoring a movie deal is universally cooler, but only goes so far. Gets you a blurb nomination. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:56, December 19, 2019 (UTC)
  • RD only, per 331dot. The only sportsperson I can remember being posted as a blurb was Muhammad Ali. (There may be others I've forgotten, but that's the level we're talking about). Black Kite (talk) 01:02, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Gretzky's getting a great one someday. But yeah, Ali was the greatest. The Great Khali will likely be an exception to this unwritten "great" rule. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:10, December 19, 2019 (UTC)
InedibleHulk It isn't unwritten, see WP:ITNRD. 331dot (talk) 01:15, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I mean the rule about assuming greatness based on a person's clear and present moniker. Generally holds true, but there'll always be pretenders. Khali was good in the lesser The Longest Yard, but that only goes so far toward immortality. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:26, December 19, 2019 (UTC)
Not absolutely "funny" yet. Remember when Jesse Owens was misdiagnosed as a "civil rights champion" for running against the backdrop of Hitler looking stupid? What if...no...we'd get cancelled. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:14, December 19, 2019 (UTC)
InedibleHulk, I dread the day John Lewis dies. That is going to be one hell of a contentious ITN nomination. Gives me flashbacks of John McCain's nomination. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 07:09, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Then let that fear guide us toward eradicating the orange menace at the heart of his activism, before people hear about him for the first time! By us, I mean you guys. Wake up, verifiers! InedibleHulk (talk) 08:58, December 19, 2019 (UTC)
  • RD only per others. A respectable coach, but lightyears away from being a world-transformative figure required for a blurb. Article seems to be in good shape for RD. EternalNomad (talk) 03:52, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted to RD. SpencerT•C 04:16, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • RD only, obviously. both local and national history - are you aware it needs to be of international relevance?  Nixinova  T C   04:18, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citation formats No impact to the merits of posting, but the inline page number referencing format used (i.e. the colons next to the footnote marker e.g.[1]: 500 ) is rare and confusing enough, but then the page numbers in the inline text and the citation don't even match. Ideally, the citation would not need any page number with this "style". Perhaps anyone with access to those offline sources can resolve the page number conflicts.—Bagumba (talk) 04:42, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Dummy. p. 210.
 Done. Looks like someone misinterpreted |pages= to mean the total number of pages in the source. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 07:01, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[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=932553943"