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.

Joe and Anthony Russo in 2013
Joe and Anthony Russo

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)

Suggestions[edit]

July 22[edit]


July 21[edit]

Business and economy

International relations
  • United States–Venezuela relations
    • The United States military announces that one of its airplanes was dangerously followed over international waters for a prolonged time by a Venezuelan fighter jet on Friday. There was no conflict between the aircraft. (The Guardian)
    • The Venezuelan military reports that on Friday, an American Naval reconnaissance plane entered its national airspace covertly and illicitly, threatening flights to Maiquetia airport; the United States asserts that their aircraft was over international waters in the Caribbean on an approved mission. (Bloomberg)
  • Foreign relations of Argentina
    • President Mauricio Macri and Justice and Human Rights Minister of Argentina Germán Garavano say that Argentina will start to receive reports of human rights abuses and criminal accusations against the Venezuelan government. Macri also reiterates his support for Juan Guaidó. (TN)

Politics and elections

Sports

(Posted) Avengers: Endgame becomes the highest-grossing film of all time[edit]

 MSN12102001 (talk) 13:30, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Support, article has been updated and is of good quality. This is a major achievement and has been reported in mainstream news sources. feminist (talk) 13:59, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Avatar became the top in 2009 - in other words, it's been c. 10 years since the top place shifted. Juxlos (talk) 14:20, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose 93 of the 100 highest grossing films worldwide [1] were made this century, and just 2 were made prior to 1993. Higher nominal grosses are a given when ticket prices increase with inflation. What's more, tracking methodology has changed overtime with the specific intent to goose the numbers to create sensational headlines like this [2]. More than a dozen films have a higher domestic gross when inflation is accounted for, while no valid comparison can be made for international receipts. Nominal box office is simply not as important as this headline would suggest. GreatCaesarsGhost 14:48, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Note that out of the top 50 current highest-grossing movies, only 4 had been top of all time at some point: Jurassic Park (1993), Titanic (1997), Avatar (2009), and Avengers: Endgame. That's one movie every six years on average - about the same as heads of state and six times less often than the boat races. Juxlos (talk) 17:50, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose *John Oliver impersonation* Cool. This is a major achievement which has not been toppled since 2009, but I find it a bit hard as to seeing how this blurb could be global news worthy. No doubt this would make a great DYK hook. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 15:02, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: If this is to be posted, I feel like the bolded link should be to List of highest-grossing films, not to Avengers: Endgame. For one thing, the former is a WP:Featured list whereas the latter has no particular quality-related distinctions. For another, I believe we tend to bold the "competition" (for lack of a better word) rather than the winner in sports and politics (that is to say, we bold 2018 FIFA World Cup and 2019 Danish general election, not France national football team or Mette Frederiksen), and this should be done analogously. We also have the option of linking to the more specific List of box office records set by Avengers: Endgame, though I'm not sure that would add anything of value. TompaDompa (talk) 15:07, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - this is "too fast" a record to track, and it is bound to be broken again. Nothing against the achievement, but this was also not unexpected. (Again, I feel we should have a talk with DYK to allow "Trivia in the news" qualify there too, since we often get ITNCs about superlative events that just don't fit the basis of ITN but still could be main page featured). --Masem (t) 15:12, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support With move to streaming I wouldn't be so sure it'll be broken. It took 10 years for Avatar to be passed and that took 11 years to overtake Titanic, so it's not a regular occurrence. Quick search shows coverage across the globe. Bold link to List of Highest Grossing Films, rather than the film. 86.142.181.62 (talk) 15:41, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per above Abajurrujaba (talk) 15:43, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per GreatCaesarsGhost. This isn't really a record. Ok, it breaks the record on non-adjusted figures, but so what? It hasn't even broken the top ten yet on the adjusted chart nor is it likely to. It just isn't significant news. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:47, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
    • @MSN12102001: Thanks for that. I realize now that I'm looking at the domestic list, not the international. Regardless, even on the international it's still a billion dollars away from Gone With The Wind. Still not a record. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:00, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Hammersoft; no real records broken. ——SerialNumber54129 15:53, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment @Hammersoft: @Serial Number 54129: See Highest-grossing films adjusted for inflation MSN12102001 (talk) 15:57, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Beyond inflation, one should consider increased population. GWTW is estimated to have sold over 6 tickets for every person in the U.S. Star Wars was around 1 ticket per person. Titanic, while a relative juggernaut, sold just 0.487. A movie shouldn't get bonus points for coming out later. GreatCaesarsGhost 17:04, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per above. Just remember: almost 10 years!!! 87.196.73.139 (talk) 16:43, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per above. This is a major achievement and has been reported in all mainstream news source. 95.93.184.195 (talk) 16:48, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
I.P.s have as much right to vote as anyone, but we would do well to considered the potential for commercial promotion here. GreatCaesarsGhost 17:04, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Only the 11th film since 1915 to break the record: List of highest-grossing films#Timeline of highest-grossing films. It's the second in Wikipedia's history and we posted the first. Inflation exists but this is still a rare and very notable achievement. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:22, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not much news here. News sources describing this event are pretty brief. Ruyter (talkedits) 18:44, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support On precedent that Avatar doing so was posted. If the same debate over population and popularity inflation and the comments carrying an implicit media-isn't-news vibe were resolved to post 10 years ago, do we need to go through them all again? It is an achievement, even more in an expanding media bubble, and one of the more notable non-award achievements within the world of film (and maybe, arts at large). Kingsif (talk) 20:33, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support trivial or not, this is a big deal in film industry, it definitely deserves mentioning on the main page, not to mention the pervious One was posted a decade back. 2607:FCC8:B085:7F00:50F9:763E:22C2:C23C (talk) 21:10, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - suggestions that the record is broken frequently seem somewhat disingenuous, given that it took a decade and a cultural juggernaut to overtake the existing record, while the fact that it fails to top unadjusted box-office records is irrelevant in my view as someone who follows the box office. Gone with the Wind is unlikely to ever be surpassed in this regard, and that is a consequence of the way in which entertainment has changed. Gone with the Wind, and many of the other films in the top 10 unadjusted, remained in cinemas for years, as television, home video, and obviously the internet had not yet taken root, rather than films being in theatres for a few months as they are now. Arguments of inflation are also complicated with regards to Avatar by the massive influence of 3D and other premium formats it was shown in on its gross, adjustments that impossible to consider when adjusting. The simple fact is, a decade long record in a massive entertainment industry has been broken, it is in the news, and it absolutely is of interest to the readership of Wikipedia. This should be posted. Stormy clouds (talk) 21:34, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per above. I agree that this is notable enough for inclusion. Davey2116 (talk) 21:39, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. 11x6 to Support. READY? MSN12102001 (talk) 22:26, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Entertainment trivia. Adjusting for inflation this looks like a non-event. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:30, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose – On lack of significance. – Sca (talk) 22:35, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak support per Stormy clouds, although I'm uncomfortable the numbers aren't adjusted for inflation. Banedon (talk) 00:24, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Stormy clouds made a very strong case. I'm sold.--SirEdimon (talk) 00:42, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 00:44, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

July 20[edit]

Arts and culture

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Sports

(Posted) RD: Sheila Dikshit[edit]

Article: Sheila Dikshit (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): [3]

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.

 DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 11:15, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose for now. A handful of cites needed but over all article quality is not dreadful. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:15, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Cleaned up the article a little. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 01:24, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak Support. She was the longest serving CM of Delhi and a notable politician from the Indian National Congress, but at the same time, she was accused of corruption in the Commonwealth Games scam. On article quality, I agree with Ad Orientem. RedBulbBlueBlood9911 (talk) 06:05, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose still unreferenced material therein. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 07:13, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I only saw a couple of cn tags so I took care of them. Not sure if anything in the infobox needs a citation, but the prose is cited. The grammar is not great and could use a copyedit. Tried to use old citations to avoid circular referencing. Kees08 (Talk) 08:33, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support have tidied up the grammar, punctuation etc. With the referencing done by Kees08 it now looks ready for the main page. MurielMary (talk) 09:33, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - after improvements.BabbaQ (talk) 10:14, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support what a cool name Kingsif (talk) 15:04, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD. SpencerT•C 17:33, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

RD: Terry Isaac[edit]

Article: Terry Isaac (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): [4]

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.

 ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 00:15, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment I'm a little worried that the second half of the article is nearly all sourced to primary works written by Isaac. Its not that we can't use primary source but about 1/3-1/2 the content is sources only to those, and that's a tad unconfortable. That said, the sourcing is otherwise there. --Masem (t) 00:18, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Masem. Article tagged. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:21, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose until the "affiliated sources" issue is resolved. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 07:14, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

July 19[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Politics and elections

Sports

RD: Marisa Merz[edit]

Article: Marisa Merz (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): http://www.artnews.com/2019/07/20/marisa-merz-dead/

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: Fully sourced. MurielMary (talk) 09:38, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment: One unsourced sentence, and I'm not sure if the Recent Exhibitions section is appropriate for this article. feminist (talk) 14:06, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: César Pelli[edit]

Article: César Pelli (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): NY Times, BBC, Bloomberg

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: Argentine–American architect who designed some of the tallest skyscrappers in the world. SirEdimon (talk) 19:25, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Support The four books should have there ISSN number or a more complete reference, but otherwise looks good. --Masem (t) 19:29, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support agree with above - aside from some GAN-level issues the article is fine. Juxlos (talk) 19:40, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:18, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Arswendo Atmowiloto[edit]

Article: Arswendo Atmowiloto (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination

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: Article was created shortly after his death, but this is more a case of "nobody made an article before" than post-death coverage Juxlos (talk) 09:08, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Support satis. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 17:01, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Looks fine. --Masem (t) 19:29, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:19, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

2019 Africa Cup of Nations[edit]

Article: 2019 Africa Cup of Nations (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In association football, the Africa Cup of Nations concludes with Algeria defeating Senegal in the final.
News source(s): CNN

Nominated event is 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.

 Yogwi21 (talk) 23:14, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Wrong target article. 2019 Africa Cup of Nations Final should be the one in bold. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 00:08, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment The final needs a prose summary of the game. Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:23, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose on quality. The article needs a match summary in prose, updated tenses in the Background section, a Post-match section for some of those statistics, and something in the Route to the final section. SounderBruce 00:25, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

July 18[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

International relations

Law and crime

(Closed) Argentina becomes first Latin American country to declare Hezbollah as "terrorists"[edit]

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

Articles: Hezbollah (talk, history) and AMIA bombing (talk, history)
Blurb: Argentina becomes the first Latin American country to declare Hezbollah a "terrorist organization"
Alternative blurb: ​On the 25th anniversary of the AMIA bombing, Argentina becomes the first Latin American country to declare Hezbollah a "terrorist organization"
News source(s): Jerusalem Post BBC

Both articles updated
Nominator's comments: First nomination, so I will take it all positive --CoryGlee (talk) 11:39, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. Good quality of both articles and very interesting news. MSN12102001 (talk) 12:58, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose A relatively minor development and not an independently notable event. No mention that I could find in the first blurb's article and only the most brief mention in the article on the bombing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:38, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
@Ad Orientem:, that's in part, because the pages are fully protected and I can't edit further :( --CoryGlee (talk) 16:50, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Argentina is only semi-protected while the bombing article is extended confirmed protected. Unfortunately both articles have been persistent targets of disruptive editing so this can't be helped. I suggest posting edit requests on their respective talk pages. However my oppose basically stands. This is no more than a blip in global political affairs and would not warrant its own article which is usually (though not always) a litmus test for ITN nominations. Thank you for your contributions and welcome to the project. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:56, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose would be better suited to another section of the main page. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 16:52, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Important on paper but not yet sure how this will make an impact on the broader picture. --Masem (t) 16:58, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Not significant enough to meet the threshold for ITN. El_C 17:00, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
@Ad Orientem:, et al., thanks for your welcoming me Sirs! I now understand how it works :) --CoryGlee (talk) 17:04, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

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) Chris Froome declared winner of the 2011 Vuelta[edit]

Not happening. power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:37, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Articles: 2011 Vuelta a España (talk, history) and Chris Froome (talk, history)
Blurb: Chris Froome declared winner of the 2011 Vuelta
News source(s): VeloNews

Both articles updated
 Count Iblis (talk) 05:07, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Obviously a result of the original winner having been stripped of wins for doping, but this is more a technicality than an "win". Further, the Vuelta is not a normal ITNR-type race. If this had changed a previous Tour De France, maaaybe but still talking a technicality. If anything, the story may be that of Juan José Cobo not challening the doping ruling, but even then, minor story. --Masem (t) 05:22, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose would be better suited to another part of the main page. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 05:37, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per significance and relevance concerns. I am not really familiar with this sports things, but why are we resuscitating an 8-year old event? 2011? – Ammarpad (talk) 05:43, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
    Because it's in the news that Froome was retrospectively awarded the title after Juan Jose Cobo was DQ'd. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 05:52, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
    Ah, I see. But even then, it's not really in the news in the ITN sense, and where are the 2018 and 2019 winners? Have we ever posted any? In fact, FaceApp is more in the news than this trivia at this time. – Ammarpad (talk) 06:14, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
    Well no, and that's why this nomination has 100% consensus against posting. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 06:18, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose If the event was the Tour de France or another ITN/R event I might consider it, but I don't think this is major enough news. Black Kite (talk) 10:53, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Per previous. A retrospective technicality. Sca (talk) 14:42, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

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) Kyoto Animation massacre[edit]

Article: Kyoto Animation arson attack (talk, history)
Blurb: A fire at an animation studio in Kyoto kills at least 33 people.
Alternative blurb: An arson attack at an animation studio in Kyoto kills at least 33 people.
News source(s): BBC, Guardian, Kyodo News Agency, AP

Nominator's comments: Suspected arson, with at least 13 deaths. feminist (talk) 07:20, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose Still needs a lot of work right now. HawkAussie (talk) 08:22, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
    • Support After those edits, I think it would be good enough. For me I prefer the alt-blurb compared to the first blurb. HawkAussie (talk) 12:10, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose on quality. The article is barely above a stub and doesn't explain why the event is significant. Thryduulf (talk) 10:18, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Thryduulf although I think it's quite plain why a fire in Kyoto killing more than a score is significant. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 10:20, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
    Support just about enough now. This is global news right now, seldom that Japan is subject to such murder on a mass scale. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 11:26, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support As a major and unsual deliberate attack. I've added an alt-blurb clarifying that it was (according to police) deliberate arson. Smurrayinchester 11:38, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support – The article is of solid quality right now, covers the important details, and this is certainly a major massacre on one of the most important animation studios. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 13:29, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Guardian says 33 deaths. Sca (talk) 13:34, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - It's now the worst mass-murder incident by an individual in post-war Japan... I've also added a second alt-blurb to highlight this - it's not a suspected arson attack anymore, it was a pre-meditated massacre. Now think arson attack is the best way to address this. Have edited the second alt blurb. Kettleonwater (talk) 13:41, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support There's a few odd problems on the references, but I knock that up to the rates of editing on this, but it is otherwise sourced well. --Masem (t) 13:52, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Alt I, but drop the word "suspected". Article is well updated. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ) 14:26, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment The word "massacre" in both the current article title, and altblurb II is questionable. There's a page move discussion at the target article, it is looking like this will end up at "arson attack" (reflecting news sources). --Masem (t) 14:29, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
    Exactly why I see the first alternative as the best option at the moment. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ) 14:32, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Have edited the second blurb. Kettleonwater (talk) 15:18, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
"Malicious" is not a good addition... I suggest just "An arson attack at an animation studio in Kyoto kills at least 33 people." Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ) 15:39, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Alt1 – Notable mortality. ("Malicious" in Alt2 seems inappropriate – arson, if proven, is by def. malicious.) – Sca (talk) 15:46, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I've moved the article to the "arson attack" title per COMMONNAME and the talk page discussion. Blurb updated. Enterprisey (talk!) 16:25, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support altblurb now that the title has been changed. Spengouli (talk) 16:34, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted. 331dot (talk) 16:44, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

July 17[edit]

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology
  • Astronomers rule out the chances of ~30-meter asteroid 2006 QV89's impacting Earth in September 2019 by eliminating the possibility of its passing through an area where it would have to be if it were on an impacting orbit. Prior to this, the asteroid had been given a one-in-7,000 chance of impacting Earth. (phys.org)

(Posted) Ebola outbreak now an international health emergency[edit]

Article: 2018–19 Kivu Ebola epidemic (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The World Health Organization declares the Ebola outbreak in Congo an international public health emergency.
Alternative blurb: ​The World Health Organization declares the Ebola outbreak in Congo an international public health emergency after it spreads to the city of Goma.
News source(s): AP News, BBC News, The New York Times, NPR, The Guardian

Article updated

Nominator's comments: After a man infected with the virus made it to Goma, a city of 2 million with an international airport, the WHO made this declaration, only the fifth time such a pronouncement has been made by the organization. Qono (talk) 20:22, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Support ONGOING MSN12102001 (talk) 21:24, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment The supposed target article is not linked anywhere in the blurb. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:24, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
    Ad Orientem, Thanks for flagging. In my quick search, I didn't see the article specific to this outbreak. I've updated the link in the original blurb. Qono (talk) 22:33, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Provided altblurb. Article in good shape. Would NOT recomment ongoing because dealing with this is well beyond the scope of a few weeks (the intent of Ongoing), but WHO declaring this an emergency is definitely ITN worthy. --Masem (t) 22:30, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support blurb This is a significant and uncommon event. Quality wise the article is solid, being both lengthy and well referenced. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:46, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support blurb - significant. Article seems ready for posting.BabbaQ (talk) 22:50, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Marked as ready. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:53, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted. SpencerT•C 01:48, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Warren Cole[edit]

Article: Warren Cole (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): [5]

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: Won an Olympic gold medal at the 1968 Summer Olympics ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 17:25, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Support satis. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 17:59, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Short but adequate. Marking as "ready." -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:25, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted. Thryduulf (talk) 10:20, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) El Chapo sentenced[edit]

Solid consensus against posting again.
Sca (talk) 22:12, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
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: Joaquín "El Chapo" Guzmán (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Mexican druglord Joaquín "El Chapo" Guzmán is sentenced to life imprisonment by a US federal court.
News source(s): Guardian, etc

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Recurring chap in ITN, but this seems to be it (unless he manages to escape again). Brandmeistertalk 16:51, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - per sentence, quality of article and previous postings on progress of this case.BabbaQ (talk) 16:57, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - We posted when he was found guilty (his conviction already carried a mandatory life in prison). See previous discussion for more details. El Chapo was already "scheduled" for life imprisonment when we posted in February 2019. Being found guilty was more important than this. MX () 17:12, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Previously posted the conviction with the likely life sentence back in Feb. --Masem (t) 17:18, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. Per above. MSN12102001 (talk) 19:00, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose The sentencing was proforma as it was mandated by law and understood as such when he was convicted, which we covered. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:10, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per above Abajurrujaba (talk) 19:22, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. There was no chance the sentence was going to be anything else. We usually just post the conviction; in this case we also posted his capture as a fugitive. 331dot (talk) 19:28, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose No need to post this twice.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:16, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

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: Andrea Camilleri[edit]

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

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.

 The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 12:43, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose for now. Referencing leaves much to be desired. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:03, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  • oppose. Referencing needs a lot of work with the bibliography having problems. Capitalistroadster (talk) 01:50, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • oppose - still some work that needs to be done.BabbaQ (talk) 21:01, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

July 16[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks
  • Syrian Civil War
    • Syrian government airstrikes targeting residential areas in the towns of Jisr al-Shughur, Khan Shaykhun, Maar Shoreen, Hantoteen and Ain Al Bardeh in Idlib province, kill at least nine civilians and injure 14 others. (AA)

Business and economy
  • Nate Sutton, associate general counsel of Amazon, in testimony before a committee of the U.S. Senate, denies that the company uses individual data to compete unfairly with smaller sellers using its third-party platform. (Seeking Alpha)

Law and crime

Politics and elections

(Closed) RD: John Paul Stevens[edit]

Stale, unimproved. Stephen 00:24, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
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: John Paul Stevens (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): CNN

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: Article looks fairly good but is seeing further updates. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:08, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support (sadly). Article in good shape. Davey2116 (talk) 01:12, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now - not a bad article but there are several paragraphs with no references. Pawnkingthree (talk) 01:15, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
    • Some of the paragraphs are quotes from Supreme Court decisions -- the referencing is in the text for those. The paragraph on "Bush v. Gore", for example, might need a source for "scathing dissent", but the blockquote is cited. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:19, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. Some significant gaps in referencing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:16, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose sourcing is poor. Too many sourcing missing in " Judicial philosophy" which absolutely needs to be sourced otherwise it is BLP/OR violations. --Masem (t) 02:52, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose not ready. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 10:51, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support pbp 18:01, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  • What's your rationale?-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:36, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  • There are literally whole paragraphs unreferenced in there. It's a BLP violation. These kind of supports should be summarily ignored as it's clear that no attention to quality has been paid. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 18:45, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
    • Quality is worth accounting for, but the supports show that these users support the blurb, rather than think it is not notable or ITN worthy. Master of Time (talk) 19:16, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
      • What makes you think that? No blurb has been proposed, and neither supporter has mentioned a blurb. And in any case, it's clearly not about the individual being "not notable or ITN worthy", just read the words in RD template being used here. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 19:30, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
        • @The Rambling Man: I got as much right to vote support as you do to vote oppose. It is not necessary that I conform to your rationale for voting. Nor is it necessarily for you to continually badger and hound people who disagree with you, as you perennially do on this and other boards. Finally, I think you throw around the term "BLP violation" too liberally. And, @Pawnkingthree:, my rationale is, "I believe this is notable enough to be on the main page, regardless of the quality of the article". pbp 22:53, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
          • Yes, you can !vote whatever way you like, but this isn't the first time you've voted support for an RD whose quality is astonishingly poor and a BLP violation. Your rational is irrelevant, all RDs are considered notable enough for inclusion in the RD section of the ITN template, all we consider for such nominations is the quality. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 05:08, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
            • Shut up, TRM. I will not be badgered by you. You may think you can bully others around on this project, but not me. pbp 15:06, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
              • Nice personal attack. Please read the notes in the RD template which clearly state: 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. If you need any more assistance with this, I'm happy to help. Cheers! The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 17:32, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Orange tagged as requiring more citation. Thryduulf (talk) 10:22, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

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: Johnny Clegg[edit]

Article: Johnny Clegg (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): eNCA, BusinessDay

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.

 Lefcentreright (talk) 18:36, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose too much unreferenced material. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 18:46, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - much work needed.BabbaQ (talk) 11:09, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - This has been pretty well cleaned up at this point. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:31, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The discography remains entirely unsourced. Thryduulf (talk) 10:24, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support: I replaced most cn tags for recordings and commented one out. I see no more problems. Too tired to make the lead better. Anybody else? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:22, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 00:22, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Ursula von der Leyen elected President of the European Commission[edit]

Proposed image
Article: Ursula von der Leyen (talk, history)
Blurb: Ursula von der Leyen (pictured) is elected President of the European Commission, as the first female president
News source(s): [6], AP, BBC, Guardian, AFP, dpa

Article updated

 Ana Stelline (talk) 17:39, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Support I opposed the "nomination" of her for president, but because I only vote on real news. It's real now. And article is almost pristine, bar one cn. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:42, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - she has been voted in now. Time to post.BabbaQ (talk) 18:00, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support with the only nit being the description of the vote majority in the lede and the appropriate section - one suggested "narrow" the other suggested "large". But that's trivial fixing. Also the right time as the vote makes it as official as possible. (Also will argue this should be ITNR elsewhere). --Masem (t) 18:07, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per above. Davey2116 (talk) 18:49, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. Per above MSN12102001 (talk) 19:04, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support – The No. 1 story today. A separate article on the EU Commission presidential election – with all its political maneuvering – might have been preferable, but the target article is decent. – Sca (talk) 19:08, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

plus Posted Feel free to add the photo. --Tone 19:13, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:22, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Can we add that she is the first woman elected President of the European Commission? Thanks,

-TenorTwelve (talk) 23:59, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Post-posting comment (and I'll copy this to MP talk) The article for the EC President uses the term "appoint" throughout regarding the selection of a new president. Not "elect". This is for good reason, as these are not "elections" in layman's terms, because they are not popular plebicites. Please change "elected" to "appointed".130.233.3.189 (talk) 07:43, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
    Actually, three of the sources above use "elected" and three use "confirmed"; none use "appointed". The relevant Art. 17.7 of the Treaty of the European Union says [..] the European Council [...] shall propose to the European Parliament a candidate for President of the Commission. This candidate shall be elected by the European Parliament by a majority of its component members. [...] (emphasis added). So the term "elected" is actually correct based on the law that governs said process. Regards SoWhy 07:58, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

July 15[edit]

Law and crime
  • A police raid on a neo-Nazi group in northern Italy results in the arrest of three people. Sophisticated weaponry, including a Matra Super 530F air-to-air missile, are seized during the operation. (BBC)

(Posted) RD: Werner Müller (politician)[edit]

Article: Werner Müller (politician) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Spiegel

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 manager of energy companies, minister of economics 1998–2002, Manager of the Year in 2008. Had one line of an article, it's a bit better now. Expansion welcome, some sources have great detail. Not my normal topic, please check for overly German terms. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:20, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

  • CommentGerda, are the '[de]' links to German Wiki articles permitted (or useful) on Eng.-lang. Wiki? – Sca (talk) 14:14, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
    Both permitted and useful, - an invitation to write a translation, and a support of a certain notability, - readers with no knowledge of German can safely ignore them. We have the template {{ill}} for some reasons. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:24, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
OK. And since most educated Germans know at least some English, I guess we can assume that a good number of them also read the Eng.-lang. Wiki. Tschüß!Sca (talk) 22:19, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
In his case, however, they are still better off with the German version. I didn't copy all, because then a single unsourced fact may be in the way of appearing here. Read the speech by Horst Köhler if you can. Going to use it more in the article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:23, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support – Looks presentable. Sca (talk) 22:22, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted. Thryduulf (talk) 10:28, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Karl Shiels[edit]

Article: Karl Shiels (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): SUN

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 with everything sourced. Irish actor DBigXray 05:59, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Support looks good to go --DannyS712 (talk) 11:13, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted after moving an unsourced sentence to the talk page. Thryduulf (talk) 10:31, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Thryduulf, can someone please post the credits.--DBigXray 18:46, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 Done by User:Pawnkingthree--DBigXray 04:41, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) MaryEllen Elia resigns[edit]

SNOW close. No chance. – Ammarpad (talk) 23:43, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
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: MaryEllen Elia (talk, history)
Blurb: ​New York State Education commissioner MaryEllen Elia resigns over private school standards of education controversy.
Alternative blurb: ​New York State education controversy results in resignation of MaryEllen Elia, State Commissioner of Education.
News source(s): New York Post, Wall Street Journal
Nominator's comments: This is an important event, however the article needs updating, sounds a little biased, and the story may be too New York centric. Puzzledvegetable
  • Oppose sub-local politics. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 21:40, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm puzzled about the impetus for this nom., but since I've been vegetating all afternoon my little gray cells may be sluggish. – Sca (talk) 22:03, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
As an individual event, I would agree. However, seen as part of the larger controversy, I believe this event is notable enough. Check out this link to New York Education Yeshiva Education Controversy on Google. I'm not saying that everything that comes up is a reliable source, but this should give you an idea of the extent of the coverage. --Puzzledvegetable|💬|📧|📜 23:01, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Care to explain it to the rest of us? The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 23:03, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure if you're being rhetorical, but here goes: An advocacy group called YAFFED filed a claim that private schools in New York, particularly Jewish Ultra Orthodox schools, were not teaching the "substantially equivalent education" that is required of private schools. In response, Elia issued a list of guidelines to address the issues. The guidelines were deemed inappropriate, and many community leaders called them unfair. A joint Jewish and Catholic effort resulted in the guidelines being suspended in State Court. And now, in response, MaryEllen Elia has resigned. --Puzzledvegetable|💬|📧|📜 23:38, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Apart from the lack of notability as an individual event, there is not even an article about the larger controversy.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 23:06, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose good faith nom, but there is not the slightest chance of this gaining consensus to post. We don't do local politics at ITN. I would encourage the OP to withdraw the nomination before it starts snowing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:37, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

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.

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: