Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This page provides a forum for editors to suggest items for inclusion in Template:In the news (ITN), a protected Main Page template, as well as the forum for discussion of candidates. This is not the page to report errors in the ITN section on the Main Page—please go to the appropriate section at WP:ERRORS.

This candidates page is integrated with the daily pages of Portal:Current events. Under each daily section header below is the transcluded Portal:Current events items for that day (with a light green header). Each day's portal page is followed by a subsection for suggestions and discussion.

Abhijit Banerjee in 2011
Abhijit Banerjee

How to nominate an item[edit]

In order to suggest a candidate:

  • Update an article to be linked to from the blurb to include the recent developments, or find an article that has already been updated.
  • Find the correct section below for the date of the event (not the date nominated) in UTC.
    • Do not add sections for new dates. These are automatically generated (at midnight UTC) by a bot; creating them manually breaks this process. Remember, we use UTC dates.
  • Nominate the blurb for ITN inclusion under the "Suggestions" subheading for the date, emboldening the link in the blurb to the updated article. Use a level 4 header (====) when doing so.
    • Preferably use the template {{ITN candidate}} to nominate the article related to the event in the news. Make sure that you include a reference from a verifiable, reliable secondary source. Press releases are not acceptable. The suggested blurb should be written in simple present tense.
    • Adding an explanation why the event should be posted greatly increases the odds of posting.
  • Please consider alerting editors to the nomination by adding the template {{ITN note}} to the corresponding article's talk page.

Purge this page to update the cache

There are criteria which guide the decision on whether or not to put a particular item on In the news, based largely on the extensiveness of the updated content and the perceived significance of the recent developments. These are listed at WP:ITN.

Submissions that do not follow the guidelines at Wikipedia:In the news will not be placed onto the live template.

Headers[edit]

  • Items that have been posted or pulled from the main page are generally marked with (Posted) or (Pulled) in the item's subject so it is clear they are no longer active.
  • Items can also be marked as (Ready) when the article is both updated and there seems to be a consensus to post. The posting admin, however, should always judge the update and the consensus to post themselves. If you find an entry that you don't feel is ready to post is marked (Ready), you should remove the mark in the header.

Voicing an opinion on an item[edit]

  • 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.
  • Some jargon: RD refers to "recent deaths", a subsection of the news box which lists only the names of the recent notable deceased. Blurb refers to the full sentences that occupy most of the news box. Most eligible deaths will be listed in the recent deaths section of the ITN template. However, some deaths may be given a full listing if there is sufficient consensus to do so.
  • The blurb of a promoted ITN item may be modified to complement the existing items on the main page.

Please do not...[edit]

  • ... add simple "support!" or "oppose!" votes without including your reasons. Similarly, curt replies such as "who?", "meh", or "duh!" are usually not helpful. Instead, explain the reasons why you think the item meets or does not meet the ITN inclusion criteria so a consensus can be reached.
  • ... oppose an item because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive.
  • ... accuse other editors of supporting, opposing or nominating due to a personal bias (such as ethnocentrism). Conflicts of interest are not handled at ITN.
  • ... comment on a story without first reading the relevant article(s).
  • ... oppose a WP:ITN/R item here because you disagree with current WP:ITN/R criteria (these can be discussed at the relevant Talk Page)
Skip to top
Skip to bottom

Suggestions[edit]

October 18[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

2019 Military World Games[edit]

Article: 2019 Military World Games (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The 7th Military World Games officially opens in Wuhan, China
News source(s): prnewswire, Xinhuanet, The Telegraph, U.S. Department of Defense

Article updated

Nominator's comments: This is the largest ever Military World Games with participants from over 100 countries Abishe (talk) 07:14, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Would like to see some of those sections in the article expanded significantly, but support in principle — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:30, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose It's not in the news. PR Newswire is just a distributor of press-releases. Andrew D. (talk) 10:08, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Not a significant event. Modest Genius talk 11:16, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Per previous. – Sca (talk) 12:40, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose I have added Telegraph and US DoD sources. The time to nominate this is probably the conclusion of the games, when results are in and the article is finalized.130.233.3.131 (talk) 13:08, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait until conclusion of the games. Will assess quality at that point. Until we have a concluded games and a relatively complete descriptive prose of them, there's nothing to post. --Jayron32 13:09, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

October 17[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology
  • NASA announces that the InSight Mars lander's heat probe had successfully dug 3 centimetres (1.2 in) into the ground after becoming stuck 35 centimetres (14 in) in the ground in February 2019, confirming that the probe had not hit a rock and instead simply didn't have enough friction in the soil to dig much deeper. The vehicle landed near the Martian equator in November 2018. (Space.com)

(Posted) RD: Elijah Cummings[edit]

Article: Elijah Cummings (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: American politician, and incumbent U.S. Representative, Elijah Cummings dies at age 68.
News source(s): CNN, NBC

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: American politician and incumbent U.S. Representative dies at age 68. Possible blurb? Article in pretty good shape. Davey2116 (talk) 09:47, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose blurb, support RD This congressman wasn't very notable on the national scene. That being said, the sourcing is good enough for RD. Nonstopmaximum (talk) 10:05, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support RD and, although it breaks my heart to type this, Oppose blurb. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 10:10, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support RD. Good article and well referenced. Oppose blurb. One of 500+ elected officials, held a few committee chairs, like many of those other 500+ do.130.233.3.131 (talk) 10:41, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support RD Article looks good. Johndavies837 (talk) 10:47, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per above. MSN12102001 (talk) 11:22, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - ready to go.BabbaQ (talk) 11:28, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support looks good to go. DoctorSpeed ✉️ —Preceding undated comment added 11:34, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support RD and Oppose Blurb per others. If we did a blurb for every congressman, ITN would be nothing but deaths! Good article though ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 11:38, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
    Well Cummings was more than just your regular congressman, but I agree that he doesn't reach what should be a high bar for blurb over RD.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:42, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
  • plus Posted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:03, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

October 16[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

(Posted) RD: Patrick Day[edit]

Article: Patrick Day (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Boxer who died from brain injury after losing fight by knockout this weekend gone. NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM (talk) 18:12, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Support article is well sourced. PotentPotables (talk) 21:40, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support prominent coverage in many major news outlets (note: I am article creator) RonSigPi (talk) 21:48, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted Kees08 (Talk) 22:08, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Leah Bracknell[edit]

Article: Leah Bracknell (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): [1]

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Death announced today. BabbaQ (talk) 16:01, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

October 15[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

Politics and elections

(Posted) Catalonia independence trial[edit]

Proposed image
Article: Trial of Catalonia independence leaders (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Trial of Catalonia independence leaders concludes with heavy jail sentences, sparking protests
Alternative blurb: ​Protests erupt in Catalonia after the verdict in the trial of Catalonia independence leaders is released, with nine government officials being sentenced to imprisonment.
Alternative blurb II: ​The Trial of Catalonia independence leaders concludes with nine jail sentences, sparking protests in and near Barcelona.
News source(s): Independent World News, BBC

Article updated

 Banedon (talk) 01:01, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Am I missing an update that claims there was protests after the verdicts? It happened (BBC) but I mean, I'm not seeing that apparently in the article. --Masem (t) 01:25, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose until updated. When there's a sufficient section on not just the convictions and sentences, but also protests, take this as support. Kingsif (talk) 01:47, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I've added sections for protests, the reactions by the convicted and politicians. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 10:31, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Alt Blurb now as protest section has been added (I added a bit more). Robust article, but perhaps we could beef up the blurb a bit? Proposing alt blurb ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 12:05, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Good work by mike_gigs. Either of the alt blurbs is fine by me. Davey2116 (talk) 12:41, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment – This may be ITN-worthy, but article needs revision, probably by a native speaker of English. – Sca (talk) 12:46, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
    • I've done a general job of copy-editing the article. Some of the longer run-on sentences should make more sense now, and some grammar/tense issues are fixed. PotentPotables (talk) 20:04, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Alt Blurb 2 - Major geopolitical event. Article quality has been greatly improved. -Zanhe (talk) 21:56, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Alt Blurb 2 - "heavy" is a controversial adjective to use; as for alt1, Jordi Cuixart is not a government official. Neodop (talk) 02:37, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support blurb 2. I intended to add this to the news section at Portal:Law, but that is fed by Wikinews, which apparently is lacking an article on the subject. Does anyone here edit Wikinews? bd2412 T 03:02, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
    Nobody edits Wikinews, it's a dead project. Strange decision to populate Wikipedia portal content from there. Stephen 03:46, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
    For a "dead project", it is surprisingly consistent in keeping the section populated with coverage of recent developments. bd2412 T 03:53, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support on notability, with preference for the alt 2 wording. The pre-trial reaction section would benefit from a reduction of proseline. Hrodvarsson (talk) 04:29, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
  • plus Posted alt blurb 2 — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:25, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
    Protected File:Retrat oficial del Vicepresident Oriol Junqueras (cropped).jpg, who received the highest sentence, in case this can be worked in — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:42, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Should we replace "jail" with "prison"? In American English, these are two slightly different things and this instance corresponds to the latter. This blurb has nothing to do with the United States or Canada, but there's no harm in using the term that's correct in all varieties of English :) — MarkH21 (talk) 07:41, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
    Okay, sounds logical. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:54, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

October 14[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture
  • A stone statue is discovered in the walls of a church in England. Officials believe the statue had been hidden inside those walls for about 400 years since the Restoration period. (MSN) (Daily Mail)

Business and economy

Law and crime

RD: Anke Fuchs[edit]

Article: Anke Fuchs (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Die Welt

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: German national minister (not for long), Vice president of Bundestag, other functions - expanded stub. Enough? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:18, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

(Ready) 2019 Man Booker prize[edit]

Proposed image
Articles: Margaret Atwood (talk, history) and Bernardine Evaristo (talk, history)
Blurb: Margaret Atwood (pictured) and Bernardine Evaristo jointly win the 2019 Booker Prize.
Alternative blurb: Margaret Atwood's The Testaments and Bernardine Evaristo's Girl, Woman, Other jointly win the Booker Prize for Fiction.
News source(s): Flood, Alison (14 October 2019). "Margaret Atwood and Bernardine Evaristo share Booker prize 2019". The Guardian. Retrieved 14 October 2019.

Both articles updated

One or both nominated events are listed at WP:ITN/R, meaning that the recurrence of the event should in itself merit a post on WP:ITN, subject to the quality of the article and any update(s) to it.

Nominator's comments: Unusually the prize was shared between two winners. Articles seem in good shape. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:23, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose only on minor sourcing issues. I found two places on Atwood's need CN as well as her writing section for anything not blue-linked (a single source may be able to cover that). Evaristo's got on existing cn, and some honors are not sourced. I'd be willing to turn a blind eye to those in the latter case - it is reasonably close for posting. But Atwood's definitely need just a few more. --Masem (t) 22:33, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
    • Since we usually focus on the winning book, both books are in good shape (as in the altblurb) and this should be good. --Masem (t) 13:33, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Shouldn't 2019 Booker Prize be the bold article? --LukeSurl t c 13:03, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Booker prize was awarded for specific works (The Testaments & Girl, Woman, Other) rather than to the authors in general. --LukeSurl t c 13:05, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
    • WP:ITNAWARDS says Unless otherwise noted, the winner of the prize is normally the target article. Is the winner the book or the author? (I have a feeling we've gone over this in previous years.)-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:07, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
      • For Man Booker, it is the books, not the author. Fortunately both book articles seem good (second is a tad short but likely can grow with this news). Altblurb added and also noting that the name of the awards have officially changed this year --Masem (t) 13:32, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
      • The Prize wasn't nominated for ITN in 2018, but in 2017 the book was the target article. PotentPotables (talk) 14:48, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) End of 2019 Ecuadorian protests[edit]

Proposed image
Article: 2019 Ecuadorian protests (talk, history)
Blurb: More than ten days of protests in Ecuador end after President Lenín Moreno (pictured) agrees to repeal austerity measures and restore fuel subsidies.

Nominator's comments: Related to #(Removed) Ongoing removal: 2019 Ecuador protests. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 02:53, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Support seems reasonable. Banedon (talk) 03:18, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support major development. -Zanhe (talk) 06:46, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support major news. Well referenced. Ready to go. MSN12102001 (talk) 11:43, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support a fine looking article indeed ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 12:08, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per above. Davey2116 (talk) 12:39, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - Hallelujah. I only wish Hong Kong protests would end in a similar fashion. STSC (talk) 13:58, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted – Muboshgu (talk) 14:19, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

RD: Harold Bloom[edit]

Article: Harold Bloom (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): NYT (private window, Javascript off)

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Cursory inspection would appear to show no significant problems with references. Bibliography self-referencing with ISBNs and similar cites. May be a blurb candidate. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 21:26, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment As someone who does research and teaches in his field—for what that's worth—I would not call him a "transformative world leader" in literary theory and criticism as far as a blurb is concerned. He is famous outside academia for The Western Canon and his curmudgeonly behavior, and he has published an awful lot of scholarship, but his most likely candidate for a "transformative" work (The Anxiety of Influence) is neither a seminal text for Romanticists nor for psychoanalytic critics. I'd love to see a blurb for a literary scholar, but he's probably not the one. PaulKeeperson (talk) 23:21, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose as the Writing Career section is fairly undereferenced ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 12:10, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

(Removed) Ongoing removal: 2019 Ecuador protests[edit]

Article: 2019 Ecuadorian protests (talk, history)
Ongoing item removal

Nominator's comments: This was resolved earlier. Rockin 20:31, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Remove obviously it's a wrap. One more blurb if you want. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:23, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support (removal) - Very glad to see the unrest has ended peacefully. STSC (talk) 21:58, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support removal and support blurb – IMO, this is a blurb-able event. "This new agreement was the result of hours of negotiations, live on TV".[2] What a novel concept. Apparently, the revolution will be televised!--- Coffeeandcrumbs 23:39, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support removal and a blurb, if just because I don't think any other 2019 protest has yet ended, let alone peacefully (or in a week). Kingsif (talk) 00:12, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: 2019_Ecuadorian_protests#Austerity_measures_reversed could use a little expansion. SpencerT•C 00:47, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
    Spencer, done. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 01:15, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Done. --BorgQueen (talk) 01:59, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Nobel Memorial Prize for Economics[edit]

Articles: Esther Duflo (talk, history) and Michael Kremer (talk, history)
Blurb: The 2019 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences is awarded to Abhijit Banerjee, Michael Kremer, and Esther Duflo (the award's youngest winner ever) for their work in poverty reduction.
Alternative blurb: ​The 2019 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences is awarded to Abhijit Banerjee, Esther Duflo, and Michael Kremer for their work in poverty reduction.
News source(s): [3]

One or both nominated events are listed at WP:ITN/R, meaning that the recurrence of the event should in itself merit a post on WP:ITN, subject to the quality of the article and any update(s) to it.

Nominator's comments: Final Nobel award for the year. Duflo article in pretty good shape, Banerjee article a bit of a mess, Kremer article short. Kenmelken (talk) 20:26, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose on quality. Duflo looks fine, but first two are not quite there on sourcing. Also oppose "youngest" part of blurb - we didn't do that for Goodenough who was the oldest winner, shouldn't do that here. --Masem (t) 20:29, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
    • Also seeded Banerjee and Duflo's images for protection. --Masem (t) 20:39, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
      • Fair enough regarding the blurb; alt blurb added. Agree with you on quality. Not sure whether I'll have time to help on these, but wanted to get them up here. Thanks for image help. Kenmelken (talk) 20:41, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
        • They are not far off. I don't know economics well so can't be much help but I'd say its about an hour's worth of work between the two at worst. --Masem (t) 20:50, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
    • Now Ready --Masem (t) 15:52, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: If we use altblurb, we should restore the correct alphabetical listing: The 2019 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences is awarded to Abhijit Banerjee, Esther Duflo and Michael Kremer for their work in poverty reduction. Ipigott (talk) 06:40, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
    • Good point. I fixed the altblurb and struck the original. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 08:58, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support altblurb - sourcing has been fixed on both articles, no more CN tags present. PotentPotables (talk) 12:39, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per above. The articles have been greatly improved. Davey2116 (talk) 12:45, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • plus Posted. El_C 15:57, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Ongoing removal: 2019 Hong Kong protests[edit]

Article: 2019 Hong Kong protests (talk, history)
Ongoing item removal

Nominator's comments: This has been "ongoing" for forever we got it out once and it popped back in a few days later. The article is being updated but the last event to be added was a taxi driver hitting some people in a crowed on the 6th. This is another one that's ready to age off. LaserLegs (talk) 13:09, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Support (removal) - There have been no frequent updates on the article, it's a waste of space in 'ongoing'. STSC (talk) 13:41, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak support. The crisis certainly isn't over, and the protests are still major and continuing. But actual new developments are few and far between, so I guess we can remove it for the time being.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:05, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support removal - While there has been expansion in recent days (a large one on October 13), it mostly relates to expanding older information. The newest substantive information in the article seems to me to be at least 1 week old. If there were more recent information worth documenting, it should be there. --Jayron32 15:10, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose There are least 5 major updates in the last 3 days (in addition to wordsmiths), and additionally, there are more elements adjacent to the situation that are not appropriate to include at this main article related to how the protests have affected American businesses (NBA, Apple, South Park, Blizzard Entertainment, etc.) which is still a major discussion point. --Masem (t) 18:33, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
    • This is the situation comparable to the Venz. government problems about 6 months ago - there were many sub-articles on specific details being updated, that it didn't appear there were that many updates on the target one from the ITN box. But we kept it on the basis those other updates were happening. --Masem (t) 18:53, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
List of October 2019 Hong Kong protests last update October 8th "Reactions" article is orange tagged, is irrelevant to the protests (except for PRC reactions) and I don't see the substantive update. Thanks for clarifying exactly why this should be taken down. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:53, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Only one main article per ongoing event, not a group of sub-articles, should be considered when assessing the updates. STSC (talk) 19:41, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
That's not how we judged teh Venz. government case, and I would expect that certain large long events (ala Brexit) have the same situation: at some point, the updates are more frequent in sub-articles and not the main, but the main is still the best "launch" point for tthose looking for it. --Masem (t) 19:52, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
The ITN criteria on update always refers to one main article, not a group of related articles, per event. STSC (talk) 20:04, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
And again, we have been flexible in the past when the ongoing event grows well beyond a single article. This is how we have dealt with news events constructed in Summary Style approach. If we were talking a blurb, I would definitely expect one - or two - targets that have been clearly updated before posting, but Ongoing is more unique. Heck, this is how the Olympics and the FIFA World Cup stories work - we link to the overarcing topic page, but the updates mostly come from sub-pages, with the main topic page updated completely on the event closure. --Masem (t) 01:00, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Masem. Davey2116 (talk) 18:45, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Masem. Banedon (talk) 22:28, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
    • Y'all realize that Masems principal argument - the updates are in the sub-articles - has been debunked right? --LaserLegs (talk) 23:00, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
      • It's been debunked in your mind, but not in mine. Banedon (talk) 00:56, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
        • So just tell us what "sub article" has been updated. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:07, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
          • 2019 Hong Kong protests. Banedon (talk) 01:10, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
            • Latest update "During protests on 6 October" .... I had this same problem prying the empanada drama out of he box ... "consensus" that something which no longer belonged in the box did belong in the box. Will an admin please just acknowledge that this is stale and yank it already? --LaserLegs (talk) 01:26, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
              • You'd have to convince them that there's consensus, and the way this nomination has been going, I'd say they're more likely to conclude that there is consensus against this being stale and therefore will not yank it. Or, to put it another way: "Y'all realize that LaserLeg's principal argument - that the article is stale - has been debunked right?" Banedon (talk) 01:33, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
                • I asked you what article had been updated, and when you offered one, I showed you the last update was from October 6th --- I mean .... I can't even grasp how you're still insisting that it's not stale. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:36, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
                  • "Latest revision as of 20:30, 14 October 2019". I can't even grasp how you're reading 14 October 2019 as October 6th. Hell, there've been almost 100 updates to that article since Octboer 6. Are you calling all of them insignificant, unsubstantive, etc? Well, good luck with your attempt to remove this. I consider this conversation over. Banedon (talk) 01:39, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
                    • LMFAO really? Is that all you're doing is clicking "history"? Do you not actually read this stuff before commenting? The updates from the 14th are refs and content tweaks, no new content. I mean ... really? Really? You're not just trolling me? --LaserLegs (talk) 01:43, 15 October 2019 (UTC) You're not trolling me, wow, you just click history, scroll down the list, and then dig in on keeping this in the box. Try reading the content please. Wow. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:47, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Masem. The game is now truly afoot - this is bigger news now than any point prior. The PRC overplayed their hand on the Morey business, and now everyone's watching to see what's next. GreatCaesarsGhost 23:57, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - concerns that there are no updates are now invalid as I have updated the article. [4] The violence has escalated this weekend with the first homemade bomb and a stabbed police officer. starship.paint (talk) 09:58, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose/Keep The last three days has had significant new information added to the article. Much different from the last time this was up for removal. I voted to Remove at that time, FWIW.130.233.3.131 (talk) 12:07, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose – In view of the continuing intractability of the situation, this needs to stay in Ongoing. It's China's No. 1 political problem. – Sca (talk) 12:54, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Masem. Even though it'll be "ongoing" for a long time, that isn't a reason to remove it from Ongoing. -- Rockstonetalk to me! 14:22, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal. I just updated List of October 2019 Hong Kong protests and there is plenty more to write or translate from the Chinese Wikipedia. feminist (talk) 15:49, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

(Removed) Ongoing removal: Trump impeachment[edit]

Article: Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump (talk, history)
Ongoing item removal

Nominator's comments: This is going to be "ongoing" for a long time. We should blurb major milestones like house votes, certain resignations, charges filed, etc but the hearings will go on until November 2020 at least. We need to resist the "more Trump noise" objection to blurbs as well. The President of the United States wields extraordinary power and major events in this train wreck of an administration are in the news and do impact real people in the US and globally. LaserLegs (talk) 11:22, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Support, and consider replacing if and when an impeachment vote occurs in the House of Representatives (which, if passed, will move the issue to the Senate). As of now the inquiry itself is under question because of not adhering to the rules of the past three presidential impeachment inquiries. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:39, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
    • Well the inquiry itself is not at all "under question" because there is no requirement to hold a vote to begin such an inquiry and the rightist shrieking "it's illegitimate" is not the sort of tidbit we'd feature on the MP -- exactly the reason it's time to come down. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:45, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support due to lack of meaningful updates. In the past week, aside from the addition of citations, the only major updates that have been made have been the results of public opinion polling on the matter, which is newsworthy but not enough to warrant Ongoing status in my opinion. I would support putting this back up once things actually get moving, but as of now nothing of note is being added to the article, just opinions like "51% of the public supports impeachment" and "Senator Bob doesn't support impeachment", etc. ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 11:57, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support.--WaltCip (talk) 11:59, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Done. --BorgQueen (talk) 12:16, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • WTF – It is called a weekend. There was major testimony on Friday. Today is Monday. One hour discussion while U.S. editors are still commuting to work.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 12:49, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
    • A long weekend at that, holiday Monday (Columbus Day) in the U.S., holiday Monday (Thanksgiving) in Canada. Government inquiries are taking a few days off. (But no vote -- no opinion on this, other than surprised at the speed.) - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 20:00, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
    • I'm in Atlanta -- but I too even as the nominator am surprised at the warp speed with which this came down --LaserLegs (talk) 12:59, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
      • I supported taking this down, but I too was shocked by how fast it actually came down with only three votes. It needed more time and input ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 13:39, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
        • I wish we had this sort of speed when it comes to posting RD items.--WaltCip (talk) 14:15, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal First, this should be re-added for the time being until a proper consensus is reached. This story is still anticipating regular major updates. I'm sympathetic to the nom's concern that retaining this in ongoing makes editors less likely to support a potential blurb on the investigations in the near future, but in my view, it will be difficult to get us all to agree which events are blurbable and I don't see a reason not to leave this up until we do. As for blurbs on other Trump topics, I believe we should post more of those as well, but I don't think removing this from ongoing now will make that more likely. Davey2116 (talk) 14:35, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support removal I agree with the nominator rationale. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 14:38, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support I nominated the formal start of the impeachment hearings when this came through expecting it only to be a blurb, because, as noted then, this is a months-long process, and whereas we can reasonable expect the house to pass the articles of impeachment, whether that will be voted on by the Senate is unclear, and last time that happened, at Watergate, was a 6-some months long process. A blurb is not necessary at this point; should the House pass the articles of impeachment, that would be an appropriate blurb (not ongoing), and only until the Senate actually takes up the trial part would ongoing be appropriate. (I will say, an hour to make the decision given times of day relative to where this story occurs is far too fast, but not disagreeing with net outcome). --Masem (t) 14:55, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support removal. I think it was OK to have this up at first but, as previously noted, it is now likely to be a long-running process. If developments start happening fast (as they do with Brexit) then we can reconsider.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:00, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support removal per nom. SpencerT•C 00:01, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal per Coffeeandcrumbs -- Rockstonetalk to me! 14:12, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal ongoing exists precisely for items that are going to be in the news for a while. Banedon (talk) 22:18, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal per Coffeeandcrumbs and Banedon. Brexit and Hong Kong protests have been ongoing for even longer and are both kept. This is exactly what "ongoing" is for. -Zanhe (talk) 00:21, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I think it's odd that these recent oppose !vote have come after the House has decided not to vote for starting an investigation (yes, this "inquiry" was not even a formal investigation!), thereby abandoning this most recent charade. Are we supposed to keep articles in Ongoing even after the actors have left the stage?130.233.3.131 (talk) 06:26, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
    Or it could be because I have been updating this article daily and it is a quality article on an ongoing subject in the news. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 06:57, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
    130.233.2.131 you are incorrect, the House sets its own rules and doesn't need a full vote to start an impeachment investigation.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:58, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Sulli[edit]

Article: Sulli (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: K-pop star. As usual reference issues with filmography. Article looks great though. Sherenk1 (talk) 09:57, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Support. I and others have fixed up missing refs, and the article seems comprehensive and neutral enough otherwise. Good to go IMHO.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:33, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Well sourced article ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 11:58, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted --BorgQueen (talk) 12:22, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Remove Brexit from Ongoing[edit]

Article: Brexit (talk, history)
Ongoing item removal

Nominator's comments: Yes, I know this is still "in the news" and the article is still being updated. And I am by no means arguing that it is less significant than other items in Ongoing. At the same time, we have 5 items in the section that in my browser are being pushed onto 3 lines. Based on updates in the Brexit article (at Brexit#2019), it seems like the next major event in the process will be on 31 October, which is when the deal deadline is. I am proposing to pull Brexit from Ongoing until that point, when a new blurb item can be nominated for a significant update in the process. Fundamentally, the recent bloatedness of Ongoing isn't sustainable long-term for ITN so I'm just trying to think about how we can re-frame individual items and events to better serve readers at ITN. SpencerT•C 00:30, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Au contraire. I think October 19 will be of some importance; certainly Parliament sitting on a Saturday for the first time in—how long?—is worthy of some note? Daniel Case (talk) 01:30, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Remove if there is a deal on the 19th great blurb it. If BoJo asks for an extension blurb that too. If the UK crashes out certainly blurb that, and if they revoke article 50 release the doves. Right now the only "updates" are both sides insisting "there is a path to a deal but lots to be done" which is the same bullshit we've been hearing for years. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:50, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Retain in Ongoing This continues to be major news, frequently on the front page on both sides of the Atlantic. That's what ongoing is for. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:57, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal per above. This is an ongoing event, with significant updates regularly; I do not see a problem with the current ongoing section, there are lots of events there because there are lots of events going on right now. Davey2116 (talk) 03:54, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Remove per LaserLegs. If a major development happens it should get a blurb, but at this point it's just ongoing churn with nothing of note to report. Morgan695 (talk) 04:25, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support (removal) - What is the point to put Brexit in the 'ongoing' section? We all know that the negotiation is ongoing until it happens. STSC (talk) 04:35, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose/Keep Yes, I know this is still "in the news" and the article is still being updated. Thank you for making the argument for me. There's no "space" requirement for Ongoing that I'm aware of. But if there were, I suggest we remove the Trump Impeachment link. A drama started by the man himself to prove how foolish and gullible the media are and we obliged him. Additionally, the article is shite. Take a look at the diffs and the talk page.130.233.3.131 (talk) 06:17, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Drop your tiresome holier-than-thou shtick. ITN does not operate in an editorial capacity. The impeachment inquiry was in the news. We'd have looked ridiculous if we didn't publish anything.--WaltCip (talk) 12:08, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support (removal) I agree with User:Spencer who has put up a very fine argument. This can be posted back later on easily when it comes in international headlines. --DBigXray 06:52, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal. Not this again... Unless an extension is agreed, (in which case removal would probably be appropriate), this story is going to continue to be major news through to 31 October. If anything this is the crunch point, with only 17 days to go and no definite resolution in sight yet.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:20, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support keeping on ITN - We're in the last two weeks before Brexit is to go into effect. We're going to look absolutely stupid if we pull the ongoing entry this early with how politically frantic the next few days are going to be.--WaltCip (talk) 12:05, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Pull I'll repeat myself (again) that nothing newsworthy has happened since the big court decision that was blurbed. Whatever happens at the end of the month will probably be blurbworthy. We're really stretching the purpose of ongoing here. Separately, anyone wishing to figure out what has happened in the last month that is significant enough to have this on the real front page of the internet would struggle to do so by clicking through to this massive article. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:28, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose The remove premise is wrong. The next major event is this week - the EU Leader's meeting and the Saturday sitting of the UK Parliament. These will certainly generate significant directional changes one way or another. Leaky caldron (talk) 12:34, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose – What, now? Just when B-day is getting close? Nah. – Sca (talk) 12:50, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
    • 17 days is close? Really? --LaserLegs (talk) 13:00, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Closer than three years. – Sca (talk) 13:06, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose if something even more significant happens, blurb it. Until then, Brexit is a clear and present danger. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 13:02, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Remove – This article has become bloated and gone significantly below our quality standards. It is completely unreadable! There is no way this article would manage to get bold linked from anywhere else on the Main Page. Continuous appearance on the Main Page has only contributed to this article's deterioration. We should pull this article and allow editors the opportunity to nominate a subpage for ongoing. Pull this embarrassing shitty article. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 15:13, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Remove The only recent updates are a few minor procedural things. The process seems to be in a holding pattern until the actual day of the Brexit. And yes, the article is really hard to read in its bloated state. Blurb it then. Remove the ongoing now. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:41, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal Still being regularly updated and it would unwise to remove at this time, with the Saturday sitting of Parliament being just days away. Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:54, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Remove — limited updates over the last 2 weeks, with the most notable changes revolving around a future referendum on Scottish independence in 2021. Most edits are maintenance rather than content. Can easily be re-added as a blurb when something major happens again. The article is cumbersome to navigate due to bloat (79kb prose!) as well. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 16:05, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
    • Reiterating that there are hardly any substantial updates to this article (edits on Oct 14 were almost entirely citation related with 1 adding the name of a Bill introduced last month,0 on Oct 15, and 1 edit updating an old statistic on Oct 16). ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 01:35, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
  •  Administrator note: we are split down the middle on this. There is no consensus to remove this item, but equally there is no consensus for it to remain on the template. Supporters of removal say there are limited or insignificant updates occuring; opponents say the article is being regularly updated. What's the truth of the matter? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:16, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose (Keep) -- Seems like bad timing to take this off. Not only are there new developments daily, but given the swiftly approaching deadline, it seems this is only likely to heat up even more in the next two weeks. Kenmelken (talk) 12:14, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment – Looks like opposes (= keep) marginally (10:8) outnumber supports (= pull). – Sca (talk) 13:02, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
PS: Still current. – Sca (talk) 14:06, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Also, WP:NOTAVOTE. I would hope that whatever the tallies, an admin looking at this discussion might take the WP:COMMONSENSE view that to keep this topic in the "Ongoing" section for a couple of weeks when nothing was happening, and then remove it just when things are kicking off again, would be rather contradictory...  — Amakuru (talk) 21:17, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Removal as per nom. However, if individual events become newsworthy, those should definitely appear ITN -- Rockstonetalk to me! 14:20, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal. The Brexit saga is getting into a real crunch time period now. There are daily developments of some sort and, as noted above, things are going to heat up as the deadline gets closer. Nsk92 (talk) 21:24, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal. As we get closer to the 31st there will only be more news about this, especially before the upcoming summit. 331dot (talk) 21:46, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 • Still current – now talking 'deal.' [5] [6] [7]Sca (talk) 20:07, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal - It makes no sense to remove it from Ongoing at this time. Try again after Brexit has been implemented.BabbaQ (talk) 20:15, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment There will be updates soon. Official reports - PM & Junker - confirming new deal agreed. But N.I. DUP not on board so no confirmed "accepted" deal. This is all highly relevant so suggest it is left open. Leaky caldron (talk) 09:50, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal Deal has now been agreed [8], so lots of things are happening and it should be left open. PotentPotables (talk) 12:51, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal. I would have supported if I'd got to it some days ago, but given today's developments, upcoming votes, and the impending 31 October deadline, I suspect this won't be out of ITN until Brexit either happens (in which case we can go ahead with a blurb) or we get another extension, in which case we can just remove from Ongoing. Sam Walton (talk) 12:53, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Sources – re UK-EU 'deal'AP, BBC, Reuters, AFP. (Requires parliamentary approval on both sides of the Channel.) – Sca (talk) 13:36, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal This has been dominating the front pages of newspapers in the UK and the drama is being followed closely in other countries. It's just a single word of six letters and so isn't taking up much space compared to other ITN entries. Andrew D. (talk) 08:49, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

October 13[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime
  • California becomes the first U.S. state to ban the sale of fur products. The law goes into effect on January 1, 2023. (CNN)

Politics and elections

(Posted) RD: Hevrin Khalaf[edit]

Article: Hevrin Khalaf (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): [9]

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: New article on recently deceased politician and civil engineer. Thsmi002 (talk) 13:40, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment I would like a few more biographical details before supporting. As it is, even her birthdate is not precise. Institution of her civil engineering degree, family, and so on would also be appreciated.130.233.3.131 (talk) 14:10, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
    I found this which has more bio (no birth date though, and a different year) but have no idea if reliable. Tell me yes, and I will update the article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:53, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Support Life section is suitable now.130.233.3.131 (talk) 06:20, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - highly notable death. Article is well sourced. -Zanhe (talk) 21:03, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - I was wondering if she might be a WP:BLP1E, as there don't seem to be many sources that predate her killing, but the roles she's had suggest she's probably notable anyway. Sourcing and quality looks OK.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:15, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • plus Posted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:32, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

RD: Stephen Moore (actor)[edit]

Article: Stephen Moore (actor) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Start Class article. sourcing needs work, volunteers needed. DBigXray 07:15, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose – Notable roles section needs to be sourced, changed to prose, and merged to Acting career section. Otherwise, this is a stub with a list addendum. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 02:10, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Brigid Kosgei: new women's marathon record[edit]

Article: Brigid Kosgei (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In athletics, Brigid Kosgei breaks the women’s world record for the marathon.
Alternative blurb: ​In athletics, Kenyans Brigid Kosgei breaks the women’s world record for the marathon and Eliud Kipchoge becomes the first person to run a marathon in less than two hours, in a non-IAAF event.
Alternative blurb II: Brigid Kosgei breaks the women’s marathon world record at the Chicago Marathon.
News source(s): Guardian

Nominator's comments: Combining with Eliud Kipchoge’s record yesterday makes most sense, but blurb would need some finessing. 2A00:23C5:508F:3E01:94CC:A77F:65A3:41D7 (talk) 17:32, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment While in the same area, I think the two different stories require two different blurbs, there's far too much that could mis-construed between these (one is an official WR, the other is not, for example). --Masem (t) 17:41, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support first blurb or alt2, i.e. individual. (Kosgei's article seems decent enough that both could be bolded.) Maybe just refer to the Chicago marathon as the Chicago marathon, rather than 'an event'... Kingsif (talk) 21:03, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support alt2 – This record has been in place for 16 years. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 21:14, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose arbitrary record in a non-IAAF event. Shouldn't have posted the other one either. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:23, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
    • Chicago marathon is very much a IAAF event, hence why *this* is called a World's Record, whereas the other wasn't. --Masem (t) 23:26, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
    • It is in fact one of the World Marathon Majors.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 23:59, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
      • My bad, I misunderstood the alt-blurb combination. Sorry about that. Still opposed to sports trivia in the box. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:48, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support alt blurb 2 per above. Davey2116 (talk) 03:55, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support ALT2 per above. Morgan695 (talk) 04:26, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment What is the history of posting WRs in athletics? Dalilah Muhammad broke a 16-year-old record in the 400 m hurdles in July, and improved on it at the World Championships earlier this month, for example. The July WR does not seem to have been nominated. The October WR was mentioned in the World Athletics Championships discussion, but nothing came of it. Hrodvarsson (talk) 04:34, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • plus Posted ALT2. No one commented on the quality of the article but it looks pretty reasonable to me. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:23, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Ongoing: Operation Peace Spring[edit]

Article: 2019 Turkish offensive into north-eastern Syria (talk, history)
Ongoing item nomination
News source(s): BBC

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Per Cyclonebiskit, this fell off the main page. 2607:FEA8:1DE0:7B4:9921:813:D6EE:EF80 (talk) 04:36, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Support - Still in the news, article is getting updated as well Sherenk1 (talk) 06:08, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - per Sherenk1 --TILRs (talk) 10:32, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment it's orange tagged for neutrality, usually a no-go for MP --LaserLegs (talk) 11:12, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
    The page is under 1RR, but people are giving live updates on the battle, resulting in problems that can't be solved quickly... starship.paint (talk) 11:15, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support (conditionally) ... if the orange tag is resolved. STSC (talk) 13:45, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  • plus Posted. El_C 17:50, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

October 12[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Sports

(Posted) RD: Ding Shisun[edit]

Article: Ding Shisun (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): CGTN, Xinhua

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: President of Peking University during the Tiananmen protests. Zanhe (talk) 06:27, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Support on condition. A well formatted article. I cannot check the sources (language: 9 sources in Chinese and 2 in English), but per nominator's previous BLP work I assume that they are in order. I am somewhat uncertain about this from the article: In an interview with China Central Television, Ding described his tenure as president a failure, because the English-language CGTN reference, which refers to the same CCTV interview, this is not mentioned, and in fact describes Ding's time at PKU as easy-going and approachable. I am somewhat uneasy about my support here, because this line is a near-direct quote from Ding (the only one in the article), concerning his most notable achievement. Might you point me to the line in reference 5 where I can find this?130.233.3.131 (talk) 13:47, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Here's the direct quote from the source: "在接受央视的采访时,丁石孙说:我是个失败的校长 ...". Translation: "In an interview with CCTV, Ding Shisun said: I am a failed president ..." This is also mentioned in the Radio France obituary. -Zanhe (talk) 20:57, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, good work.130.233.3.131 (talk) 06:21, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support No issues. Appears to be well referenced. Pawnkingthree (talk) 01:09, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD. SpencerT•C 03:07, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Burkina Faso mosque attack[edit]

Article: Burkina Faso mosque attack (talk, history)
Blurb: ​16 people dead and two injured in Burkina Faso mosque attack
News source(s): AFP / France 24, BBC DW, India Today, UN Secretary General

Article updated

Nominator's comments: start class, well sourced DBigXray 06:17, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose The article is pretty much a WP:COATRACK, having very little information about the attack itself. In the body, I count 6 sentences about the attack, with 27 sentences that are not about the attack. TompaDompa (talk) 16:59, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
TompaDompa, I disagree. The article contains whatever information has been reported so far. Feel free to remove anything if you find it is not relevant to the article. --DBigXray 17:53, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
I have to agree with TompaDompa. The Attack section is just a copy-paste of the lede, which is itself not very informative, while the Background section is unnecessarily long. COATRACK is deserved here. If this is a summary of all information reported so far, then we will have to wait for more reporting to get the article posted.130.233.3.131 (talk) 06:28, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
If you click on the links above, you will find that a similar type of coverage, which is expected in initial reports. Are you going to claim the AFP and BBC are also coatracking ? --DBigXray 07:25, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I click them and find that they are not suitable for a Wiki article, let alone the front page. If more info comes in, perhaps that will change but at this moment, no.130.233.3.131 (talk) 08:46, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
It's a WP:STUB, hidden by the fact that there is a lot of tangential information. The tangential information is not necessarily excessive for a proper article, but as it stands, the article is almost entirely tangential information. We are of course limited by what the sources report, but unless we get more information that is directly relevant to the attack, this isn't up to snuff for the main page. TompaDompa (talk) 10:11, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak support. Labelling the article as WP:COATRACK is well wide of the mark. It is not about "one or more connected but tangential subjects", and there is no evidence that it has been "edited to make a point about something else", as suggested at COATRACK. The "Background" section is fine as part of a comprehensive article on this subject, and the only issue with it is that the section on the attacks themselves is too short at the moment. It would certainly be desirable to expand that, but I don't think it's a showstopper right now - as the nom says, this is a start-class article - hence the weak support. Significance-wise, with sixteen deaths and geopolitical implications, this is notable enough to be posted.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:27, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Ongoing: 2019 Ecuadorian protests[edit]

Article: 2019 Ecuadorian protests (talk, history)
Ongoing item nomination
News source(s): BBC, Al Jazeera

Article updated

Nominator's comments: In the news. Article looks in good shape. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:32, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment the article was posted on ITN a few days ago, I can't see any significant changes or major turns in the protests since then? PotentPotables (talk) 15:38, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
May be worth considering for Ongoing? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:40, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Maybe for ongoing, the activities seem to a slow burn, but the indigenous rights group now seems to have de facto control of the capital Quito, if that was worth putting in a blurb with an RS? Kingsif (talk) 16:21, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I'd recommend ongoing. We posted this to ITN not two days ago; it was removed quickly, because of the large number of recent stories. Posting again would be overkill, in my opinion, unless some other headline-making incident occurs; but ongoing is appropriate. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:33, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Ongoing per Vanamonde93. Banedon (talk) 20:37, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Ongoing. Per above. MSN12102001 (talk) 23:08, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose once you seize an oil pipeline and start using weapons don't you become a terrorist? Strange how bad the POV situation has gotten at Wikipedia. Anyway, the updates are sparse one-line updates of what would be major events -- not much of a main page article. #twocents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LaserLegs (talkcontribs)
    Just for info, posted last time at 06:25 on 10 October 2019. These are the edits since then. 11,114 bytes → 41,411 bytes? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:32, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
    • As the cliche goes, "One [person]'s terrorist is another [person]'s freedom fighter." --- Coffeeandcrumbs 23:59, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support ongoing per Vanamonde93. The situation is comparable to the Hong Kong protests, which is in ongoing right now. -Zanhe (talk) 23:15, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
    • The situation, maybe, but the article quality isn't even close. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:21, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
    • Agree the situation is similar to the Hong Kong protests. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:35, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support ongoing as per Vanamonde93, significant events happening on the ground which can reasonably and logistically be placed on the ongoing list. Droodkin (talk) 10:56, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - The article has been frequently updated. STSC (talk) 13:36, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 15:25, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Typhoon Hagibis (2019)[edit]

Article: Typhoon Hagibis (2019) (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Torrential rain and tornado-like winds are lashing large parts of Japan, as the country endures what could be its worst storm for 60 years.
Alternative blurb: Japan suffers torrential rain and high winds as Typhoon Hagibis, its worst storm for 60 years, makes landfall
Alternative blurb II: ​More than 1 million people in Japan are ordered to leave their homes as Typhoon Hagibis causes power outages, flooding and widespread travel disruption
Alternative blurb III: ​At least 23 people are reported dead as Japan recovers from its biggest storm in decades.
Alternative blurb IV: Typhoon Hagibis makes landfall in Japan, killing more than 50 people and causing severe flooding.
News source(s): BBC, Al Jazeera, The Guardian, Yahoo News, Reuters, AP

Article updated

Nominator's comments: "Worst storm in 60 years", has impacted Rugby World Cup and Formula One. Has referencing issues. Sherenk1 (talk) 14:53, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose "could be" tells me this is not yet ITN appropriate. Wait for landfall/damage/deaths. --Masem (t) 14:55, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above and for the fact the article is not of sufficient quality. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 14:57, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - Added blurb. Nine deaths so far. Sherenk1 (talk) 04:32, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - Death toll now up to 24. I would support in principle once the article is good enough. NorthernFalcon (talk) 09:28, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support – in principle – Reuters puts death toll at 23. – Sca (talk) 11:54, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Please avoid using superlative language in the blurbs. Altblurb 3 is the best one, but no reason to try to make the storm seem more significant than it needs to be. --Masem (t) 17:38, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
AP now saying "as high as" 33, which never would have been permitted in the Olden Days.Meanwhile, Reuters now strikes a more staid stance with "at least 30." – Sca (talk) 17:54, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Meant in terms of saying "its biggest storm"; obviously the death toll is quantified as we normally to. --Masem (t) 17:58, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support in principle but all of the given hooks are too superlative. Something like "Typhoon Hagibis kills at least 35 people in Japan." should suffice. (death toll per WaPo) Morgan695 (talk) 00:26, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Noteworthy storm, alt blurb 3 is fine but I will also support a simple "Typhoon Hagibis kills at least 35 people in Japan." per above if the consensus is in favor of it. Davey2116 (talk) 03:59, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support, as per Davey2116 above. Official death toll seems to be now 37. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:24, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose on quality - the "meteorological history" section is almost entirely unreferenced, and the bits about landfall in the preparation section (which arguably should be in "impact") need citing too. Support on notability, if these issues are resolved.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:36, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
The AP on Oct. 14 quotes Japan's Kyodo News agency on death toll of 48. Unfortunately, the article verges on WP:HATRACK.
Sca (talk) 13:32, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support alt2 because it gets the point across and acknowledges the damage but doesn't use superlatives. It's in the news so it should definitely be up there. Pie3141527182 (talk) 19:28, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
@Pie3141527182: In my experience, the evacuations are NEVER more important then the deaths and damage that occurred. I would say that the ≥56 people who died from the storm are more important then any number of evacuations that are occurring. NoahTalk 21:44, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose based on the lack of met references Sorry, I know this is extremely notable for the deaths and destruction it left in Japan, but I must oppose the nomination based on the lack of references. NoahTalk 21:28, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
    • Pinging @Cyclonebiskit: who is one of the better editors on hurricans/tropical storms/typhoons to see if they can help on the storm history. --Masem (t) 21:56, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
      • Unfortunately WPTC lost its auto-archiver for tropical cyclone advisories, so we're severely hampered with how we can handle meteorological histories of typhoons. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 23:18, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

RD: Reg Watson[edit]

Article: Reg Watson (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Australian TV producer. Reference issues. Sherenk1 (talk) 14:47, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose per nom. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 14:57, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support when improved with more sources - not a problem with obituaries in The Guardian, The Age, the UK Telegraph, etc. RebeccaGreen (talk) 18:01, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose I’m sure there are sources out there but the work has not been done yet. Pawnkingthree (talk) 01:12, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Sara Danius[edit]

Article: Sara Danius (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): [10]

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Was a key player in the 2018 Nobel literature prize scandal. BabbaQ (talk) 09:30, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Support At 1606 characters, it's on the short side, but just long enough not to be considered a stub. Thanks to BabbaQ for sorting out a few referencing issues. Looks good to go otherwise.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:46, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Article expanded now. --cart-Talk 12:33, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support She became internationally known through her work in the Swedish Academy and as its first female permanent secretary. (You might remember the clip where she announced the Nobel prize for Bob Dylan). No blurb though. --cart-Talk 10:38, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per W.carter --TILRs (talk) 13:25, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted. I did !vote above, but this doesn't seem controversial and three others say it's ready so I've posted it. Anyone may revert or challenge me if they disagree.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:43, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Kipchoge marathon record[edit]

Proposed image
Article: Eliud Kipchoge (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Kenya's Eliud Kipchoge becomes the first person to run a marathon in less than two hours, at a non-IAAF event in Vienna, Austria
Alternative blurb: ​Kenya's Eliud Kipchoge becomes the first person to run a marathon in less than two hours, at the INEOS 1:59 Challenge, a non-IAAF event in Vienna, Austria
News source(s): NY TimesBBC News

Nominator's comments: Doesn't count as an official world record because he used cars for pacing and pacemakers entered the race midway through, (hence the comment about it being non-IAAF and if anyone can think of a better wording then great). But this is still making headlines around the world.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:08, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Support in principle. Breaking the two-hour mark in a marathon is a huge sport achievement.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:13, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support, two hours was always the "unobtainable" barrier. Worthy of a blurb. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:02, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose it was not "a marathon", but "a run over a marathon distance". Not an official race, or record. When this gets done in an official race, then it is a dead cert for posting. Until then, no. Mjroots (talk) 10:22, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
    Who cares whether it's "official" or not? The purpose of ITN is to "help readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news". This is clearly in the news, across the world, and is trending on Twitter and so on, we have a reasonable quality article on Kipchoge, so clearly people will want to find it. Even Seb Coe, the IAAF head, has commented that this is a significant achievement.[11]  — Amakuru (talk) 10:28, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
    "Marathon" didn't orignally mean a race (although it is usually used that context), it is running or walking an exact distance. Covering that distance in a record time is what's making news, not that somebody won a race. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:36, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - historic record of sorts. Article seems ready.BabbaQ (talk) 10:33, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Too much unsourced information in Competition record sections. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 10:35, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
    @Coffeeandcrumbs: almost all of the results there are in the IAAF source [12], although it takes a bit of navigating around to find them all. And there doesn't seem to be a way to create a URL link to specific years or sections of the results pages. I'm not sure how to do this better? Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 11:05, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
    • Thanks, consider me neutral. I spot checked several stats. In most case, they were verifiable in the source you cited. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 11:09, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment The event itself, INEOS 1:59 Challenge, could be linked in the blurb. TompaDompa (talk) 10:39, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
    The sponsor is not important really. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:55, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
    Proposed altblurb. starship.paint (talk) 14:25, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support An amazing achievement many years in the making. Getting lots of news. Kipchoge does hold the world record. That it was not in an official race is sort of meh, it is the distance... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:48, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - an astounding achievement that is in the news. starship.paint (talk) 11:25, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose' pacemakers matter. There's a reason the World Record for the Women's marathon must be set in all-women competitions. It's a nice achievement, but save the blurb for if/when it becomes a real world record. Banedon (talk) 13:09, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support all over the news, notable and something our readers will be looking to learn more about. Indeed, Wikipedia's opportunity to demonstrate the differences between a competition record and a standalone record, and assist our audience. Post it!! The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 13:52, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support pbp 14:09, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per above. Davey2116 (talk) 14:39, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted did not yet change picture but that's ready to go. --Masem (t) 14:49, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
    • Comment I edit conflicted with Masem updating the template, but I would have used the original blub as I agree with Doc James that the sponsor doesn't really need mentioning. Thryduulf (talk) 14:52, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

October 11[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

Politics and elections

RD: Robert Forster[edit]

Article: Robert Forster (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Variety

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Usual problems with B-tier actors, in terms of sourcing roles. Masem (t) 02:55, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Alexei Leonov[edit]

Proposed image
Article: Alexei Leonov (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Former Cosmonaut Alexei Leonov, the first person to conduct a spacewalk, dies at the age of 85.
News source(s): TASS

Nominator's comments: Leonov was the first person to walk in space. BBC Jmorrison230582 (talk) 11:51, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Support and probably should be added quickly due to prominence. The article is in good shape and is being improved after this news broke. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:54, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  • p.s. support blurb per below comments, and add that the high importance of Leonov in the history of flight seems apparent. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:46, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose because of quality of the article but should be a blurb when ready. The first person to ever to perform an EVA was a major accomplishment in human history. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 12:56, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
    • Support blurb – --- Coffeeandcrumbs 21:41, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose on quality, as well as Oppose blurb - first man to walk is space is not the same as a world-transformative leaders, and I'm not seeing the type of coverage to make a blurb necessary here. --Masem (t) 13:45, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support blurb Great man. His achievement, both in terms of the risk and the impact is second only to those of Armstrong and Gagarin, at least in my opinion.--5.44.170.9 (talk) 14:37, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose on quality but support blurb once ready. There aren't many actions a human could have conducted that are so unearthly in their uniqueness. The first spacewalk is certainly one of them and per the IP, this places Leonov squarely up there with Neil and Yuri. I hope someone with the knowledge can fix the article. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 16:11, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support blurb based on importance, oppose based on quality at the moment. The impact of the first space walk was huge. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:27, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support blurb once the quality improves. This achievement is, quite literally, out of this world. ZettaComposer (talk) 16:58, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose even if every statement is referenced, the article is still not postable. One gigantic biography section? No thanks. How about early life, military career, as a cosmonaut, post space program. Before we wax on about his contributions too much, the Soviets would have found someone to go out that door. If this is gonna get a blurb, the article needs to be good. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:22, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
    Before we wax on about his contributions too much, the Soviets would have found someone to go out that door. wtf?! Absurd. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 17:24, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
    And instead of Armstrong NASA could have retrained Ham to become, for his second spaceflight, the first primate to walk on the Moon and we would all have known his name in school and mourned his death in 1983. But Armstrong made his one small step well after Leonov made his to set that portion of the human achievements of the 1960s into motion. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:48, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support blurb when ready Very significant accomplishment and certainly something readers would be interested in. Also a good opportunity to break from the Western pop culture bias. EternalNomad (talk) 17:47, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb - It's true Leonov's spacewalk was a massive achievement for the Space Race, but he was not himself a transformative world leader. Sadly, does not meet that particular standard for a blurb.--WaltCip (talk) 18:03, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Hi WaltCip. My opposite view is that this not being either a blurb or a death listing as soon as possible is sort of embarrassing, given the prominence of the subject, for Wikipedia. At least in my point of view, which I've tried to explain below. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:43, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Transformative world leader status. The human races' reach and growth took a transforming new step when Leonov opened that capsule door and floated out into space. When the technology on his body enabled him to become a form of cosmonaut-piloted outerwear spacecraft, he carried the human race further off-planet. The astronauts who walked on the Moon did another kind of spacewalk, but a spacewalk nonetheless. Leonov was the first in the history of life on Earth to open a door and walk out into orbit. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:38, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
    Indeed. Space-walking astronauts are one of the most enduring images of modern history. And Leonov was the first of them. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:01, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support blurb. Article looks much better now. Still a lot of unreferenced awards, but I'm ok with hacking them off if we can't find sources. There will still be plenty left ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 19:54, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support blurb, oppose on quality. The article is littered with "citation needed" templates. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 20:12, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support blurb – Done, no more CN templates. We should post a blurb for the first of the Skywalkers. We posted Neil Armstrong's death quickly with comments to the tune of "We shouldn't even have to discuss this". Wakari07 (talk) 21:30, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support blurb and kudos to Coffeeandcrumbs for a great job improving citations for the article. -Zanhe (talk) 22:26, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support blurb per Randy Kryn and Vanamonde93. I would also like to mention Leonov's second space mission, which ushered in the era of US-Russian cooperation in space. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:39, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Support blurb quality is vastly improved, and certainly notable enough. -A lainsane (Channel 2) 22:44, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Support blurb, article looks a fine now, thanks to all who helped. A bit more lead would be a service to readers, - there was more to his life than the first wal in space, no? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:49, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted. Black Kite (talk) 23:08, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support blurb per above. Davey2116 (talk) 05:44, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment please replace the image with one of Leonov now, this is the top story. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 10:56, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
    The plan is to cycle the pic through the Nobel laureates one by one, giving each around six hours, before they all drop off the bottom. Thus Leonov should be the main pic by about tomorrow.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:08, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Nobel Peace Prize[edit]

Proposed image
Articles: Abiy Ahmed (talk, history) and 2019 Nobel Peace Prize (talk, history)
Blurb: Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed of Ethiopia is awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.
Alternative blurb: Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed of Ethiopia is awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts in easing the long-standing tensions between Ethiopia and Eritrea.
News source(s): CNN

Both articles need updating

One or both nominated events are listed at WP:ITN/R, meaning that the recurrence of the event should in itself merit a post on WP:ITN, subject to the quality of the article and any update(s) to it.

Nominator's comments: Abiy Ahmed is awarded the 2019 Nobel Peace Prize for his work in easing the long-standing tensions between Ethiopia and Eritrea. Ahmed's article is generally in good shape, but the prize article should be expanded. Davey2116 (talk) 09:10, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Support, I would support him (because his peace have made that) TILRs. It will be more better article. I should support adding Every Nobel Peace Prize-related articles to 'In the news' TILRs (talk) 13:06, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose About a dozen marked CNs, but that's all I'm seeing stopping Ahmed's article. Should not be hard to get that resolved. --Masem (t) 13:22, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Image above is seeded for image protection. --Masem (t) 16:32, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I've managed to get it down to 7 marked CNs, added citations for quite a few things and removed some false info. Should be very near to a postable state! PotentPotables (talk) 17:53, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
It's down to five CNs now, but I'm off for dinner. If anyone wants to give them a fix while I'm gone, I'd be grateful PotentPotables (talk) 18:11, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Looking much better now. Many citations added. ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 19:52, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Article is down to one CN, which is a much better state than it was in. Thanks to all who helped find sources and clean it up! PotentPotables (talk) 20:09, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. Article is in good shape. Only one "citation needed" template left. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 20:14, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment ALL "citation needed" templates have been replaced with sources! PotentPotables (talk) 20:20, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
    • Marking Ready --Masem (t) 20:29, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support – Per above. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 20:29, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Posting. Excellent job! --Tone 20:32, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
    Credits posted to editors — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:39, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

References[edit]

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: