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.

Duncan Laurence
Duncan Laurence

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]


May 20[edit]

Arts and culture

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections
Science and technology

2019 Indonesian general election[edit]

Article: 2019 Indonesian general election (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In the 2019 Indonesian general election, Joko Widodo is reelected President of Indonesia, while his party PDI-P wins the largest share of legislative votes.
News source(s): Nikkei, The New York Times

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.

Nominator's comments: Legislative election is pending official sources, but I imagine there will be results by the time this gets posted. Juxlos (talk) 19:46, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Support Notable enough, assuming it's all true, sourced, and of sufficient quality. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 21:38, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Game of Thrones[edit]

no. --Jayron32 15:10, 20 May 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: Game of Thrones (talk, history)
Blurb: Game of Thrones, the most popular television series on the planet, concludes.
Alternative blurb: ​The television series Game of Thrones concludes.
News source(s): CNN, Guardian
 --5.44.170.9 (talk) 02:33, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  • In the unlikely event this is a serious nomination, obviously oppose. Aside from anything else, it's not remotely "the most popular television series on the planet", given that in most markets it's only available on obscure cable or satellite channels. ‑ Iridescent 02:39, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
>" in most markets it's only available on obscure cable or satellite channels" While I couldn't find data for worldwide popularity, as someone who myself lives in a third-world country I guarantee you it's about as popular as it is in the US. I.e. it's everywhere. --5.44.170.9 (talk) 03:42, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment for what it's worth, we did post both the last Harry Potter book and the last film, so there is some precedent here. That said, I think we would need some sort of viewership record broken to validate its posting, and we don't have those numbers yet. I would probably support if it ends up being the highest-rated cable episode of all time, but it will be hard to get reliable worldwide numbers. Teemu08 (talk) 03:02, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
>"if it ends up being the highest-rated cable episode of all time" As a hardcore fan I guarantee you that's not happening. =5.44.170.9 (talk) 03:15, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
The blurb about the final Harry Potter film was about the audience record being broken, not just the fact that it was released. While we did briefly post the publication of the final book in the series, that was in the very early years of ITN when we didn't really have notability criteria and discussions looked like this. ‑ Iridescent 12:06, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose I think there are only a few television shows that have both international appeal and viewership as well as decades of episodes to suggest even a possible ITN, those being Doctor Who and The Simpsons. And even then, like with GoT here, there could be spinoff series which means the show really hasn't end. --Masem (t) 04:45, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose - WHAT? As per above. Sherenk1 (talk) 04:47, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Hold your damn horses! - Most of the Western hemisphere was asleep at the time that this was nominated and eventually closed. Two hours is hardly enough time to gauge a snow closure under those circumstances. As for where I stand on this, I'm no fan of the series, but I know enough about it to recognize that social media was practically deluged by this. It would be idiotic to assume that there was nothing newsworthy about this series. Support and I urge this nomination to be re-opened for a full 24 hours. WaltCip (talk) 10:50, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
    Huh? It was nominated at 9.30pm Eastern/5.30pm Pacific time. The only significant English-language market where most of the population would be asleep at that time is UK/Ireland, where GoT is only shown on satellite channel Sky Atlantic and has only once reached the 5,000,000 viewer mark (to put it in perspective, the record UK viewership for GoT is less than half the current audience of the ailing I'm a Celebrity...Get Me Out of Here!). If you really feel this needs further discussion I don't object to it being re-opened, but treating a programme this niche as "in the news" would really open the floodgates, since more popular shows either come to an end or have significant developments all the time (The Big Bang Theory ended a couple of weeks ago, for instance). ‑ Iridescent 11:46, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
    Because it's only shown on Sky Atlantic over here, and we don't even get HBO Go, it's become ridiculously pirated which makes viewing numbers inflated. I'm sure I've even seen it said that it's the most pirated show ever. Not sure that this makes it worthy of a blurb though. --IrnBruFan7 (talk) 12:06, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
    GoT is #1 on the Nielsen ratings for cable network TV[1] That's beating out all of the NBA playoff games by at least 2.0 rating points. Throughout the season it has destroyed viewer records[2] posting viewership into the tens of millions. In terms of advertising and social media visibility, GoT is practically ubiquitous. Any advertiser that's able to latch onto the brand to help sell its product will do so[3]. The impact of this series on popular culture is undeniable.--WaltCip (talk) 12:14, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I've posted a more accurate blurb but I oppose posting this. Most news coverage simply discusses the plot. 331dot (talk) 11:50, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose - I understand the nom. But I have to oppose based on the fact that this belongs in some Entertainment mag, not on Wikipedia ITN. Also quite Americanized news.BabbaQ (talk) 11:56, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - this has no hope of notability in the current ITN landscape. ZettaComposer (talk) 11:58, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I’m not opposed to entertainment noms - the casting of the first female Doctor Who got a fair amount of support I recall, although it wasn’t posted - and GoT is a good example of “water cooler” TV that isn’t seen much anymore. I doubt there will be media companies live blogging of the last episode of Big Banc Theory. The target article is good quality but would need more of an update to cover reactions to the finale. Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:04, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose I like GoT, but simply noting the (currently) last show airing is completely insignificant. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:20, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
@The Rambling Man: What story can ITN post that would properly reflect the significance in this series in a way that is considered "in the news"?--WaltCip (talk) 12:27, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
I guess record viewership of the final episode might cut it? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:31, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Fair enough. I don't have a problem now if this nom is re-closed, but I do reserve the right to re-nom should those circumstances arise.--WaltCip (talk) 12:45, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Sure, but I'd expect it to fail as well. Back in the day, we had a third of our country's population watching a snooker match at 1 a.m. I don't think 1/3 of the population of anywhere is going to be watching GoT. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:04, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Insignificant, grossly hyped. (And GoT article at 11,000 words is grossly overwritten.) Sca (talk) 12:42, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak support in the grand scheme of things this is irrelevant; on the other hand the series had way more viewers than e.g. some of the entertainment things on ITNR. Banedon (talk) 12:51, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
    @Banedon, what did you have in mind? The only TV show I can see at ITNR is the Eurovision Song Contest, which has an audience literally an order of magnitude higher than GoT (I don't think the figures are in for this year, but last year's got 186,000,000 viewers). ‑ Iridescent 12:56, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
    @Iridescent: for example, the films that win the Berlin International Film Festival. Banedon (talk) 13:05, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:NOTTVGUIDE, although I agree with User:WaltCip that the SNOW was a bit premature. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 13:04, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Question I have no comment on GoT (never watched it, don't care) but didn't we blurb the end of LOTSW? --LaserLegs (talk) 13:24, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
    No; it was TFA on the day the last episode aired which may be what you're remembering. ‑ Iridescent 13:34, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
    And that had run for 47 years, not 4. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:36, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
    Right-o, I remember the discussion. Guiding Light was posted I think. I'll nominate (or support) the Simpsons when it's time finally comes. Cheers! --LaserLegs (talk) 13:56, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - As stated before, I recognize that the consensus is probably trending against this nomination, but I do appreciate that it was re-opened for a proper discussion. We need to get out of the habit of having these pseudo-snow closes after just two !votes and a handful of hours.--WaltCip (talk) 13:46, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
    +1 to that. Noms are alive for 7 days, not 7 hours, and the "regulars said no so close" behavior needs to stop. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:56, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per most of the above and strongly support SNOW CLOSE. There is no realistic likelihood that consensus to post will develop. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:18, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment should this be a "JON SNOW CLOSE"????!!!! ROFLMAO. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:20, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
    • It used to be a JON SNOW close but I got reverted ;) --Tone 14:36, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
      • Someone named John commented about the SNOW close. Does that count? ;) --WaltCip (talk) 15:00, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is what happens when Peter Stringfellow directs Lord of the Rings. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 14:50, 20 May 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.

May 19[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

International relations

Law and crime

May 18[edit]

Arts and culture

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment
  • Dengue fever
    • The Cook Islands secretary of health, Josephine Herman, says that the country is holding and containing the latest outbreak of Dengue, which has killed 22 people and infected another 28. (Radio New Zealand)

Law and crime
  • Crime in Alabama
    • One person was killed and eight injured in a shooting after a dispute between two women at a large high school graduation party. The suspect is still at large. (Associated Press)

Politics and elections

Sports

(Posted) RD: Signe Marie Stray Ryssdal[edit]

Article: Signe Marie Stray Ryssdal (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Nettavisen

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: Recent death of a Norwegian lawyer and politician. Thsmi002 (talk) 13:37, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

RD: Austin Eubanks[edit]

Article: Austin Eubanks (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.

Nominator's comments: New article that is well sourced. Thsmi002 (talk) 13:03, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose This is a perfect match of the Bartman clause in WP:1E. Every report referenced in the article is centered on Columbine and it's lasting impact (just as every "where are they now" story treats Bartman). GreatCaesarsGhost 15:48, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Looks to be adequately referenced. -- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:53, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose a few unreferenced claims, and I'm inclined to agree with GCG re 1E but this is ITN not AFD, so while the article exists and if it gets to be in okay shape, there's not much we can do here about it. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:51, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Ibiza affair[edit]

Article: Ibiza affair (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Austrian political scandal, the Ibiza affair, has resulted in the end of the current government and new elections.
Alternative blurb: ​A video showcasing Austrian Vice-Chancellor Strache and his deputy asking for highly controversial electoral support from a Russian oligarch, now known as the Ibiza affair, resulted in the end of the current government and a snap election in Austria.
Alternative blurb II: ​Austrian Vice Chancellor Heinz-Christian Strache and a key Freedom Party (FPÖ) colleague resign following revelations of unethical politics, prompting Chancellor Sebastian Kurz to cancel the conservatives's coalition with the FPÖ and slate new elections.
Alternative blurb III: ​An Austrian political scandal, known as the Ibiza affair, has resulted in the end of the current government and a snap election.
Alternative blurb IV: ​The Ibiza affair, an Austrian political scandal, resulted in the end of the current government and a snap election.
News source(s): ORF (de), tagesschau (de), washingtonpost (en), Süddeutsche Zeitung (German), NY Times

 Colonestarrice (talk) 19:17, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

  • A better blurb is needed and the article needs better referencing, otherwise this is a big story that is fit for ITN. --Tone 19:26, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • The Russians are funding and supporting ultra-rightwing nationalists? I'm shocked. SHOCKED. The article is missing refs, not MP ready. --LaserLegs (talk)
  • Comment I added some more refs, I hope it's sufficient now. Colonestarrice (talk) 20:01, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
And I changed the blurb. Colonestarrice (talk) 20:36, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment since the election will presumably be ITNR, this can be covered then. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:53, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
A scandal, which is widely considered the biggest one of the second republic, and the sudden end of a government (an extraordinary controversial one in addition), is, in my opinion, more interesting than a normal election. Colonestarrice (talk) 21:35, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Sure, which is presumably why you proposed the nomination. Thanks for reiterating your interest in getting the story posted. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:40, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support – Alt2, which I hope is a bit clearer. (For any users who understand German, here's the video.)Sca (talk) 21:36, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
PS: "Ibiza affair" may not ring a bell with most Eng.-lang. readers. Suggest some generic title, such as "2019 Austrian political controversy." ("Affair" may be associated with sexual peccadillos; "scandal" may strike some as overwrought.) Sca (talk) 21:46, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Agree with that. Right now, proposals look like the worst kind of tabloid journalism ("affair", "showcasing", "revelation", etc etc). Let's not forget this is an encyclopedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:50, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
I decline to debate your comment (expected), and you seem to be ignoring my disapproval of "affair" and "scandal," but IMO "revelations" (linked to the article) is a perfectly NPOV use of the word for the contents of the video, which is all over the Net. – Sca (talk) 22:02, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
PS: Would you care to comment on the aforementioned title of the article? Sca (talk) 22:09, 18 May 2019 (UTC) (edit conflict)
Sure, it's crappy, non-intuitive, non-encyclopedic, might be a worthy redirect but nothing more. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:11, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Decline away. I was agreeing with your general point. But I embellished it with a refusal to dip into tabloidism with garbage like "revelations". Encyclopedias don't use those terms. The press who want to sell newspapers might do. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:05, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
OK, well I don't like the newly extant use of "published" to mean posted on a website, but I suppose "reports" could be substituted for "revelations" in this instance. Sca (talk) 22:12, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
I think we've generally accepted "published" to include "published on the internet" for about ... 20 years. Time moves on. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:15, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Who's we? Not usual in U.S. English, in my experience. – Sca (talk) 22:20, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
John Bull pointing.png
Well I guess that's symptomatic of the US who currently seem determined to return their own universe to the 1970s. Disgraceful really. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:21, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

─────────────────────────

"Determined to return their own universe to the 1970s." – WP:NAT
– Speaking of which, how's that Brexit project of yours going? – Sca (talk) 02:24, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
I don't know what you mean, it's nothing to do with me. And it's not nationalist editing, that's simply a statement of fact. But good try!! The Rambling Man (talk) 13:25, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
"a key Freedom Party (FPÖ) colleague" – Gudenus is not important enough to deserve 5 words. You mentioned the FPÖ twice, considering that most people don't know what the FPÖ is, that is a bit superfluous in my opinion. "...Colleague resign following revelations..." – to mention individual resignations is redundant since the whole government is gone after all. "...revelations of unethical politics..." – some say it's unethical others say it's immoral, illegal, corrupt... what we can all agree on is that it is "highly controversial" .Colonestarrice (talk) 07:40, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Agree allusion to Gudenus can be dropped. FYI, since you apparently understand German, here's German Wiki's version:
Nach dem Rücktritt Heinz-Christian Straches als Vizekanzler und FPÖ-Parteiobmann im Zuge der "Ibiza-Affäre" hat Bundeskanzler Sebastian Kurz vorgezogene Neuwahlen in Österreich vorgeschlagen."
Parteiobmann was a new one to me. – Sca (talk) 15:13, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I orange-tagged the reactions proseline. Needs to be fixed. I don't speak German. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:10, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support – Alt3 – Yes it is (if possibly a bit thin?) – although I suggest "scandal" be replaced by "controversy" or "imbroglio." This topic remains prominently in the news. Sca (talk) 13:28, 19 May 2019 (UTC) (edit conflict)
Imbroglio? How about "pecadillo" or "hullabaloo"?WaltCip (talk) 13:54, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Peccadillo is subliminally raunchy. Hullabaloo his a nice ring to it but makes me think of Cat Ballou. – Sca (talk) 14:55, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Alt3/4 Easy to understand, and general support for government-ending political scandal Kingsif (talk) 13:23, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
PT: "results in." – Sca (talk) 14:59, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Added alt 4 Kingsif (talk) 15:14, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support alt4 – changed "Kurz government" to "current government" and "dissolution" to "end", otherwise it's fine, but you really need to post it now before it becomes completely redundant. Colonestarrice (talk) 17:37, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support –definitely for ITN. Which blurb is used I leave for others to decide.BabbaQ (talk) 18:14, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted, slightly modified blurb. --Tone 18:16, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Post-posting comment – Thanks to all for getting this complex topic boiled down a succinct, readable blurb.
    Suggest minor revision to read: "The Ibiza affair, a political scandal, causes the collapse of the Austrian government and triggers a snap election." (current is redundant). – Sca (talk) 20:42, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Eurovision Song Contest 2019[edit]

Article: Eurovision Song Contest 2019 (talk, history)
Blurb: The Netherlands, represented by Duncan Laurence, wins the Eurovision Song Contest in Tel Aviv, Israel.
News source(s): [4]

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.

Nominator's comments: Nominating it now so we can discuss blurb layout which is discussed each year. BabbaQ (talk) 08:13, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose not updated, no winner. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:39, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Obviously can't post yet, but everything else around it seems reasonably well documented and sourced for the event. Basically just looks like once the final vote tally is there, it will be "complete" to post, barring any oddities. --Masem (t) 17:56, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • You're about four hours early, the final hasn't even started yet and voting takes several hours. Kingsif (talk) 18:30, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
    • That's a semi-standard practice of nominating ITNR items earlier for prepping them. Brandmeistertalk 18:58, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
      • The comment was more about the fact that a lot of the main article content should come from the final, so it was drastically under-developed, i.e. that ESC is one ITN/R that can't be prepped much in advance, and also has very generic blurb wording (little ITN prep) but needs that article coverage from after the event. Kingsif (talk) 15:18, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Contest is now over. Duncan has won. Congrats! We should use an image of him, probably his image on his page. --PootisHeavy (talk) 23:09, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • The scoreboard section is missing data and is awkwardly formatted. Also some references missing at lower-level awards. --Tone 08:27, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support UK amassed 16 more points than Jemini did in 2003. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:26, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted, looks fine now. --Tone 18:18, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  • @Tone: Double quote marks on song titles? -- AxG /   18:55, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
    Indeed, and not in italics. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:58, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Australia general election[edit]

Article: 2019 Australian federal election (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Liberal–National Coalition, led by Prime Minister Scott Morrison, wins the most seats in the Australian federal election.
Alternative blurb: ​The Liberal–National Coalition, led by Prime Minister Scott Morrison, retains government at the Australian federal election.
News source(s): BBC

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.

Nominator's comments: Exit polls initially indicated Labor won, but its leader Shorten has now conceded based on actual results giving the governing coalition the most seats(though not a majority, at least yet) 331dot (talk) 14:17, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Strongly support This is a big day for Australia. Chongkian (talk) 15:36, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. Anarchyte (talk | work) 16:32, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. El_C 18:28, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support very good article, updated Kingsif (talk) 18:31, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Thumbs up ITNR stuffs. --qedk (t c) 18:58, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support but we don't need to include the year of the election, it's hardly ITN if it's 2018 (or 2020 for that matter). The Rambling Man (talk) 20:55, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, forgot to pipe it. 331dot (talk) 00:48, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

UTC)

  • Support - Good article. Referenced. Good to go.BabbaQ (talk) 00:55, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - Once all the votes are counted, I would suggest changing the blurb to reference whether Morrison has won a majority government or a minority government. NorthernFalcon (talk) 04:14, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support but Change the blurb - the fact that the Coalition won the most seats is not directly relevant; there were scenarios where they could have won the most seats but lost government. More importantly, I haven't seen any RS describe the win in those words. Blurb should replace "wins the most seats in the Australian federal election" with something like "retains government at the Australian federal election". Adpete (talk) 04:38, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I chose to go with the original blurb since it seemed more cogent and since PM already implies the position was retained. Also, "retains government" just sounds a bit awkward. El_C 05:31, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Added. El_C 05:23, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) 2019 redefinition of SI base units[edit]

I think we're done here. – Ammarpad (talk) 06:38, 19 May 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: 2019 redefinition of SI base units (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A redefinition of the metric system base units comes into force today, the 144th anniversary of the Metre Convention.
News source(s): NIST
Nominator's comments: This should be posted on 20 May 2019 (It comes into effect everywhere on earth at one second after midnight (UTC) on that day). Guy Macon (talk) 15:25, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment The decision was posted last year. This is the same coming into effect stuff (laws, bills, inaugurations, etc) that is not typically posted. Brandmeistertalk 15:51, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose only because we posted when the body passed the change last year. Important change but had its time at ITN. --Masem (t) 15:52, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Posted when it was hot off the press, it's done and dusted now. --qedk (t c) 18:53, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose and suggest closure, been here, done this. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:41, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Brandmeister. Banedon (talk) 23:45, 18 May 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.

May 17[edit]

International relations

Law and crime

(Posted) RD: Herman Wouk[edit]

Article: Herman Wouk (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): New York Times

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 seems to be in good shape. Notable writer. EternalNomad (talk) 20:02, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose for now. The usual gaps in referencing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:15, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Blurb Carry on Once the referencing is fixed, I mean. Absolutely no reason not to now that the floodgates have opened, except the "Rule of Three". What are we, superstitious? The man was "transformative" back in the day, can't deny it. Just like Ashley Massaro and Grumpy Cat (and has seniority over the last three pictured ripe old folks). InedibleHulk (talk) 23:54, May 17, 2019 (UTC)
    Neither Massaro or Cat blurbed. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:05, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Maybe they should have. Grumpy Cat, especially, was still bigger than anyone in her field, and her death greatly impacts her empire's earning potential from here on. Not like Hollywood changed in the slightest for lack of formerly transformative Doris Day. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:06, May 18, 2019 (UTC)
Still, the point remains they didn't blurb, and Day did, and it appears you're now trying to suggest that people who are not transformative at the time of death shouldn't be eligible for a blurb? Is that what you're trying to say? Be clear. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:56, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm saying he was transformative back in the day like the other five were, doing things that many news sources remembered when they died, and for which three of the six got blurbs (rightly or wrongly). I've long said people should die while still transformative to matter here; if I ran this zoo, Wouk and Grumpy Cat would come closest to my ideal (but nonexistent) main page. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:42, May 19, 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose – This BLP contains many unsourced claims. Neutral on blurb or not. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 00:31, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I found sources for everything (someone can fix the ref format if they want, I can't wrangle that template). For the list of works, can we just use Amazon or isbnsearch or do I need to find an RS for every one of them? --LaserLegs (talk) 01:28, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support blurb once referencing is fixed. He was a centenarian with change, and we just have had a couple of other ones who might not have gotten there but for having three-digit ages. (Also, one wonders: Will Stephen King retroactively change the name of that story? Daniel Case (talk) 05:16, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose on quality, and even when it's up to scratch, RD only. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:03, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
    Support RD some good work on the article means it's good to go for RD. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:43, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Ready missing refs fixed, thanks to Lotje for fixing my bare refs. Blurb has not been ruled out so such a discussion should stay open. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:44, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • For blurb supporters @InedibleHulk and Daniel Case: - is this international news? Not sure how transformative in the world he was if the BBC doesn’t even pick up his death? How do non-American / non-Israel sources (since he’s Jewish) report him? starship.paint (talk) 23:54, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
My post was half in jest since we just had a batch of centenarians or near-centenarians we blurbed for, partially, that it seems. I honestly didn't expect it would come close to passing. Daniel Case (talk) 01:09, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
My suggestion was completely serious infosfar as the standards have become an absolute joke, so the entire situation is half in jest (from my vantage point). The North rmembers him as "a consummate writer until the end." For as much transformation as the other three brought most of our parents and grandparents back in the day, I don't recall any international news praising them for sticking to it well into everyone's current millenium. But yeah, more sincerely than anything, these things do come in threes; I'll strike my suggestion for that alone. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:35, May 19, 2019 (UTC)
  • Posting. --Tone 09:45, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
    • Thank you. Can I get ITN credit for finding missing refs? --LaserLegs (talk) 11:44, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Same-sex marriage in Taiwan[edit]

Article: Same-sex marriage in Taiwan (talk, history)
Blurb: Taiwan becomes the first country in Asia to legalize same-sex marriage
Alternative blurb: Taiwan becomes the first country in Asia to legalize same-sex marriage, effective 24 May.
Alternative blurb II: Taiwan becomes the first location in Asia to legalize same-sex marriage, effective 24 May.
Alternative blurb III: Taiwan becomes the first non-western entity to legalize same-sex marriage, effective 24 May.
News source(s): [5][6]

Article updated

Nominator's comments: It says in the first line of the article that it's illegal, but that's only because the bill was passed today and won't take effect till the 24th of May. Nominating it now because it's making the news now. Banedon (talk) 07:14, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose just about catching up with civilisation in general. Good trivia. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:18, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
    Around 30/190+ countries recognize same sex marriage. Taiwan will be the first in Asia, the most populous continent. Civilisation has a long way to go. starship.paint (talk) 08:17, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
    Yep, so they're about the 30th country to do so. We've rejected plenty of others, the "first in Asia" is arbitrary, and "the most populous continent" is really irrelevant. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:21, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
    Countries are most commonly grouped via their continents, so that’s not arbitrary. If you have a more obvious way of grouping countries, let me know. Plus, it’s not just me, it’s the reliable sources note that being first in Asia is exactly why it’s so notable. AP / Reuters / Guardian / NYT. This is commonly mentioned in the first sentence, and if you can’t recognise it’s importance, it’s you that is disagreeing with the reliable sources. starship.paint (talk) 10:41, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
    It's an arbitrary intersection. It is a VERY slow news period right now, and I'm still not interested that this is the 26th country to (almost but not yet) legalise it. It's great for those concerned, but it's just a sign of the times. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:55, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Overwhelmingly notable but wait - Thanks for giving me credit — even if I happened to somewhat jump the gun on including it as legal. I support including it... but I think we should wait until May 24, 2019 to include it on the frontpage. It's the first country in Asia to legalize same-sex marriage.MarvellingLiked (talk) 07:22, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - for now. Try again when it comes into effect.BabbaQ (talk) 07:52, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Strongly support This is historic and same-sex marriage will be/is on every continent now. If you would prefer to wait until it goes into effect or is signed, feel free. Taiwan will be the first country in Asia to legalize same-sex marriage! -TenorTwelve (talk) 08:11, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
    And, what, the 25th country in the world? As noted, just catching up... The Rambling Man (talk) 08:16, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
It's the first in Asia. That's pretty notable to say the least. MarvellingLiked (talk) 09:41, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Pretty arbitrary to say the least. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:46, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
"The first in Asia" may arbitrary, but it stands in for a cluster of very significant metrics. It's the first Chinese-speaking country to legalize ssm, which makes it an inroad into a tremendous culture with a history of conservative familial attitudes. It's the first country to legalize which is neither European nor a former European colony, which is significant as the modern gay-rights movement, worldwide, is associated with the West. theBOBbobato (talk) 11:21, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
I'd be careful with saying it's an "inroad", since it implies that legalizing same-sex marriages is a good thing. For a large fraction of the world's population (ironically including a majority of Taiwan's population), it isn't . Banedon (talk) 14:48, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
I wouldn't be careful at all with saying "inroads". Bigotry is still bigotry even if a large number of people are bigoted. There's no reason to suppose a false equivalency in cases where we are comparing two positions where one position is based on bigotry and another is not. --Jayron32 18:00, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
The word 'bigot' carries negative connotations, so the same argument applies to that too. Banedon (talk) 20:34, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
I'd say "bigotry" is apt. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:55, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment But is this even going to stay? I am aware that there was a 2018 referendum on exactly this issue that actually failed. Can somebody clear this up? (as I don't know the exact details of it) Syopsis (talk) 09:01, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
    • It's explained in the article. Basically, the referendum was not binding and it didn't supercede the Supreme Court ruling that the government had to introduce same-sex marriage. Smurrayinchester 09:27, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per the same reason for my last 12 or so opposes on similar nominations. Just the latest in the endless succession of countries legalizing SSM. If Russia or Saudi Arabia decide to join the parade I would likely support. Otherwise we have posted more than enough of these. -Ad Orientem (talk) 12:25, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support That's a really good article, and I'm not sure why anyone would feel as though it wasn't good enough quality for the main page. --Jayron32 12:49, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
    Nobody has felt that way. Nor has this actually happened in reality, so a really odd support. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:04, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
    Similarly, it seems odd to me that decisions about what to post on the main page should be based on my personal interest in the topic. I'm just one person, and the things I am interested in should have little bearing on what appears on the main page. --Jayron32 13:08, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
    Keep banging that drum. Last time I looked, this worked on consensus, which involves opinion, not simply on article quality. That works nicely for RD but not for news stories, otherwise we'd be inundated and drowning in Trump factoids. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:42, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
    No one has yet nominated a Trump factoid. But keep pretending that they do if it makes you feel better about placing your own personal interests above article quality. --Jayron32 15:13, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
    Where were you in 2018?? Trump factoid nominations were a nonstop deluge for a while, even into early 2019.--WaltCip (talk) 15:29, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
    You'll notice none of those got posted. The system works. --Jayron32 16:51, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
    Actually, some did get posted, but if your approach had been applied, most all of them would have been posted. Hence you need to stop pretending that ITN rules are aligned to your own belief system, they are not. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:55, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Irrelevant personal comments.
  • Jayron, I respect most of what you post, but "Trump ticker" was a theme for a year. Honestly, you're having one of those days!! (And when you get ITN rules changed to meet your personal version, let me know, in the meantime I'll keep !voting per the status quo. I would have thought an admin should be aware of that....) The Rambling Man (talk) 16:48, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
    You don't respect me. You never have. You've made that clear in almost every interaction you've had with me for almost a decade. It's been a rare comment you've left in response to something I have said that I would call respectful. --Jayron32 16:51, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
    Please read more carefully, something an admin must do. I respect what you post (mostly). That is what I said. You're off the mark several times in several places lately, but that's just human nature. What you shouldn't be doing as an admin is pretending that ITN has some kind of different ruleset to that written, because you're in a position where others may believe what you say, and it simply isn't correct I'm afraid. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:54, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
    Have I ever, even once, used my admin tool set to override a consensus established via a discussion here, or anywhere else? Have I ever promoted an item against consensus? If not, then my admin status has nothing to do with it. Admins (in situations where they have no intention of using their admin tools) do not have less rights to their own opinions than non-admins do. As long as I have no intention of using my admin tools, I am free to express my opinions, even if it later turns out that other people have different opinions. I'm quite capable of accepting that, sometimes, consensus ends up going differently than how I feel that it should. It happens. It's never bothered me that it does sometimes, because I don't expect that everyone is always going to agree with me. --Jayron32 18:04, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
    Once again, you're seeing things which simply aren't there, about the fourth time today. I've never accused you of abusing any admin tools (much like myself, we both respect those 100%) but admins should not be promoting a perceived version of the ITN rules which is not reflected in the reality of the ITN rules. Arguing that individuals are not entitled to make representation based on their opinion is wholesale inaccuracy and you should desist from this immediately (in fact, you should have stopped doing it years back). That's the part of being an admin you need to address. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:09, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
    You keep bringing up rules. Where in this discussion did I mention rules? --Jayron32 18:27, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
    Sorry, did anyone say you brought up rules? No, you keep promoting a position which is contrary to the current ruleset at ITN. You know that and it's not admin-worthy. You probably know that too. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:32, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support – Mainly because it's the first in Asia, where draconian legal prohibitions remain common. Sca (talk) 13:07, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I have to contradict my good friend TRM here and go with a support. The article quality is the tipping point for me in my opinion. Very well-written and comprehensive. "First in Asia" is also no small potatoes.--WaltCip (talk) 13:39, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Ad Orientem and potential POV endorsing which is discouraged. Brandmeistertalk 14:31, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
    What would be a NPOV way to write it then? starship.paint (talk) 14:40, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
    Simply not blurbing it. Picking this up because it's "first in Asia" has WP:IMPARTIAL and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS implications, particularly amid wide array of readers' beliefs and stances. Brandmeistertalk 15:02, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
    @Brandmeister: Per WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, "We can record the righting of great wrongs". Equal marriage is controversial to some, but it's happening and is worthy of attention. It directly improves millions of people's lives by allowing them to marry who they choose. First in Asia is notable because cultures tend to correlate with continents, so it indicates that equal marriage isn't a Western-only phenomenon. User:GKFXtalk 23:44, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - Taiwan is 23 million people, plus first in Asia. Kaldari (talk) 14:48, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait I would rather wait until the day it will be in effect. Anything can change between now and that day. INeedSupport :3 14:59, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
@INeedSupport: Without commenting on the merits of this nomination, I would say that notable laws almost always get more attention the day they are passed and not the day they go into effect. If this is to be posted, the right time would be now. 331dot (talk) 15:02, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support first in Asia is a significant milestone. ZettaComposer (talk) 15:09, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I would avoid the word "country". Perhaps State (which is what our article on Taiwan refers to it as), or place or location, or just "first in Asia". ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 15:12, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Some sources seem to avoid use of 'country' while some use it(HuffPost above). I will put the choice as a potential blurb. 331dot (talk) 15:14, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Indeed, the fact that so much trouble is going into trying to create a notable intersection probably demonstrates that it's not such a notable intersection after all. Why not just "26th country in the world", that's absolute and underlines the true notability. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:49, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I added an alternative blurb (III), which I would support if it is in fact cited that Taiwan is the first non-Western location to legalize SSM. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 16:56, 17 May 2019 (UTC) Nevermind, South Africa already does it, but I have c/e'd some of the other blurbs. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 16:59, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. Gay rights are infrequently recognized outside the west; that a non-western culture has taken this step is a big deal, and that's not because I think so, but because the sources do; most major news outlets are giving prominence to the fact that Taiwan is the first Asian country to legalize SSM. It's being reported widely not just in the west and in Taiwan, but by news organizations in Hong Kong, Russia, India, Pakistan, and Qatar; in short, it's global news, and we ought to post it. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:30, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support I'm seeing a lot of coverage of this and the article quality is good.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:32, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per the fact that this is global news (see the sources from Vanamonde above) and we have a good quality article on the topic. Thsmi002 (talk) 18:01, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment – Looks like 9:4 in favor with one wait. Suggest post. – Sca (talk) 21:17, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait until 24 May How about we wait until the actual day it happens? Kingsif (talk) 23:41, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted There's a consensus here to do so, and waiting until 24 May doesn't appear relevant from those sources. Black Kite (talk) 23:49, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Post-posting oppose This has been happening all the time recently, so it's honestly not surprising to me. Yes, it's the first Asian country, but we can essentially categorize the countries however we want and likely be able to create a "first" somewhere else (as in, any country can really be the "first" country to do something). I'm not saying that it's unimportant, just that in the relative scheme of the movement it's not. (Edit: Basically per The Rambling Man, as my reasoning on not posting is basically the same.) Pie3141527182 (talk) 00:35, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
    in the relative scheme of the movement it's not - now gay rights supporters in Asia have an example in Asia to point to. Instead of gay rights opponents just pointing to gay rights being Western values. starship.paint (talk) 00:59, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
    I was thinking of this a bit, but in the end that's sort of a PoV argument. If I were going based off my opinions, I'd probably support this, but the average person is not a gay rights activist nor a gay rights opponent - it doesn't concern them much. Yes, it's a good support for the movement, but by "in the relative scheme of the movement it's not" I'm referring to if a typical person were asked to make a timeline, this would be one of the harder things to find. (And I might have missed the mark, but it's not coming up on the news for me unless I specifically search "Asia" or "Taiwan", though I suppose the former holds some significance.) Pie3141527182 (talk) 01:24, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support - per Sca and Vanamonde. Also - NYT - Asia, a region where such rights have lagged. This is why it's historic. starship.paint (talk) 00:56, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Taiwan isn't a country, it's a breakaway province of the Peoples Republic of China and has no meaningful international recognition. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:31, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Quit trying to stir the pot. WaltCip (talk) 02:09, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
This is a legitimate point of contention and NPOV issue; Taiwan's status is disputed and does not have widespread acceptance. I'm not convinced the blurb should state "country". 331dot (talk) 02:38, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Let's just use State (polity), that's what Taiwan's article says. starship.paint (talk) 03:33, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
It's okay, it's not like the Chinese can read what we put anyway. --PlasmaTwa2 05:35, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - highly notable policy shift for an Asian country. It may be the 25th to do it, but it's the first in an entire area of the world. That's significant, and it's kind of silly to argue otherwise. --PlasmaTwa2 05:35, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
    "country" is purely incorrect and it's incredibly embarrassing that an enclycopedia is sitting with it on the main page. Incredible. And as for "it's the first in an entire area of the world (sic)", that's just silly. Every place is "in an entire area of the world". Get real. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:01, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
I'd ask you to educate yourself on the meaning of the world country before giving your opinion on the matter (nevertheless, it has been changed to state). Every place is "in an entire area of the world" but not every place is the "first in an entire area of the world". You haven't provided any compelling reason to believe that being the first on a continent of 50+ states or the first state of non-European descent is not notable from an encyclopedic standpoint other than you don't like the item. Go hard, but good luck. --PlasmaTwa2 15:08, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
I'd be happy to respond if your comment made sense. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:36, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • pull this should either be posted on the 24th when the law kicks in, or it should have been done two years ago when the measure was first announced. Today is just one minor step on the road, and the hook as stands isn't even accurate. It was a poor choice to post this I'm afraid, there wasn't any consensus to do so.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:44, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
As I noted above, new laws get the most attention when they are passed, not when they are proposed or when they take effect. 331dot (talk) 10:48, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Well this one was "passed" on 24 May 2017 when the constitution compelled the legislature to pass said law within two years. That was newsworthy, certainly, but like Brexit this is a story with many parts and this is just a middle one. Either way, there's no Consensus for it to be there so it needs to go, pending further discussion.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:52, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
I would respectfully disagree that there was no consensus to post this, in looking at the above discussion. 331dot (talk) 10:57, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
No, the court didn't "pass" it, it just set a 2 year countdown. Like most nations, the Court cannot make law it can only clarify it, and must pass the buck to legislation if the current law is insufficient (like in this case). If the legislative body passed a bill the week after the Court decision, then we would have posted it then. But they posted it nearly 2 years after the Court decision, and there's nothing now stopping it from going into effect, so this seems like the right time to post on this matter. --Masem (t) 15:12, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • (Somewhat ironic) Post-posting support. Although as a supporter of ssm I'm happy that the law has passed, I originally thought of calling for this to be pulled as deeply misleading to our readers, as what happens in Taiwan is unlikely to be much of a precedent for the rest of Asia due to Taiwan's need for Western support in order to survive (in this respect, it would be a bit like describing a similar event in Israel as the first in Asia). But on reflection (and justified per WP:IAR and WP:5P5 if necessary) I thought it might actually be useful to indirectly give at least some of our more skeptical readers at least the chance (by 'reading between the lines') to realize that the only 'country' to have legalized ssm in the continent where a majority of the world's people live is a 'country' that needs Western support to survive. After all we are here to inform our readers, and this may be all the more important when the information runs counter to the impression they may normally get from our Politically Correct media (probably usually including Wikipedia's front page). This may not be the theoretically ideal way of doing this, but then such theoretical ideals rarely or never happen in practice, and objections based on them should thus be ignored. Tlhslobus (talk) 16:17, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Don't pull It's all cool, state, country, who cares. It's a big thing and it's right to post it to ITN. Article is good, news is hot off the press. Since it's already posted, let it stew, why pull it to post it when the news is stale. --qedk (t c) 18:56, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

May 16[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents
Politics and elections
International relations

(Posted) RD: Mick Micheyl[edit]

Article: Mick Micheyl (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): http://www.purepeople.com/article/mort-de-mick-micheyl-chanteuse-sculptrice-et-marraine-de-laurent-gerra_a336356/1

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: Fully sourced article. MurielMary (talk) 12:24, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ashley Massaro[edit]

Proposed image
Article: Ashley Massaro (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): [7]

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: Good article DannyS712 (talk) 00:48, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Support sourced and all. MPJ-DK (talk) 01:06, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support already GA, ready to post.LM2000 (talk) 01:31, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Good Article, and updated. -Zanhe (talk) 01:47, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support as nominator - I've added references for anything that looked like it could use one. Marking as ready --DannyS712 (talk) 02:01, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support: Well written and sourced. The Optimistic One (talk) 03:28, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 05:08, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support: Well written and sourced. Good article. 7&6=thirteen () 16:55, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

(Posted as blurb): I. M. Pei[edit]

Posted as blurb, consensus unlikely to change. --Tone 16:14, 17 May 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.

Proposed image
Article: I. M. Pei (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: Chinese–American architect I. M. Pei dies at the age of 102.
News source(s): NYT

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: Since he was a legendary architect, could be a blurb (although was 102). Article is FA. Nohomersryan (talk) 21:26, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support blurb An older FA, but it's in good shape. He is one of the most well-known architects of his time and does have name recognition among the wider public. SounderBruce 21:55, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support, agree. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:56, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support –  Prominent individual and good article. Also per above. Aviartm (talk) 22:20, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
    @SounderBruce, Gerda Arendt, and Aviartm: - could you be clear on whether you support “RD only” or “blurb”? Thanks :) starship.paint (talk) 23:54, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
    Even support image, this one: File:JFK library Stitch Crop.jpg. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:35, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support blurb - his contributions to architecture are no less significant than Doris Day's to pop culture. -Zanhe (talk) 22:28, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support blurb Article is in great shape and notability is consistent with other recent blurb postings. Teemu08 (talk) 22:32, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD, discussion can continue regarding a blurb. Stephen 23:19, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support blurb per Zanhe. —Hugh (talk) 23:41, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support blurb - Level 4 vital article, Top-Importance for Architecture, Featured Article, one of the most revered architects in the world per NYT, one of the most significant and prolific architects of the 20th century, the New York-based designer left a legacy of notable buildings that span the globe per WaPo. starship.paint (talk) 23:48, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support blurb – Since he was such a prominent individual, I support the blurb Starship.paint Aviartm (talk) 00:37, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb madness We've seen this Aretha Franklin effect whataboutize us before. It was wrong then, and it's wrong now. Relaying a name, job description and age is RD's job, and it goes even more in-depth that that in one line. These lines are both redundant and inferior to the ones literally one click away. Save the blurbs for a when a death carries some deeper, wider or at least wordier meaning. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:10, May 17, 2019 (UTC)
  • Support blurb I. M. Pei was very prominent, clearly the top of his field. He definitely deserves a blurb. Davey2116 (talk) 01:37, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
    Comment Just refreshed my knowledge of his projects. I am even more sure that he is noteworthy enough for a blurb. Davey2116 (talk) 01:44, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: looking at the template now, including Pei would probably result in three consecutive blurbs about notable deaths on the Main Page. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 02:11, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
    Is that an issue? This was bound to happen sooner or later. Life's like that, it's random. starship.paint (talk) 02:39, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Random nothing, they come in threes. Went Franlin, Annan, Vajpayee last time. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:54, May 17, 2019 (UTC)
  • Support blurb Highly significant in both American and Chinese culture. feminist (talk) 02:46, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Promoted to blurb Stephen 05:09, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb. I'm sure he was important in his field, but nowhere near the level for a blurb. This is what RD exists for.  — Amakuru (talk) 05:52, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Post-Support blurb Top of his field, article in good shape, of course he's blurb worthy. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 06:46, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb per InedibleHulk. RD was not created to shuttle off unimportant people from ITN, and a blurb is not a special honor granted to Really Important People. The purpose of RD is to avoid an endless string of "So and so died at the age of 98". If a blurb about a death imparts no meaningful information beyond the death itself it doesn't need to be a blurb. Blurbs regarding deaths should be reserved for when some explanation is needed because the death itself bears special attention. Merely dying should, of itself, NOT merit a blurb. Instead, we should only write blurbs for when we need to explain that the death was unusual (perhaps a suicide or plane crash or assassination) or when the aftermath of the death itself needs explaining (large memorial services, major investigations, etc.) If all we have to say is "So and so died because they were old", then that is exactly what RD is for. --Jayron32 13:57, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
    No, blurbs are also okay for the following reason as stated in WP:ITNRD: In rare cases, the death of major transformative world leaders in their field may merit a blurb. These cases are rare, and are usually posted on a sui generis basis through a discussion at WP:ITNC that determines there is community consensus that the death merits a blurb. starship.paint (talk) 14:08, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
    I agree. It is doubtless that Pei was one of the major transformative world leaders in their field , exactly what the ITN rules state. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:49, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - There appears to be a tendency of, whenever we post a blurb of someone's death (usually a Western figure) whose claim to fame is recognition in pop culture, the standard for a death blurb temporarily becomes lowered for subsequent deaths since it seems trite to equate someone the likes of Doris Day to a world leader like Nelson Mandela or Margaret Thatcher. That being the case, I.M. Pei is a featured article. I also disagree with Jayron that blurbs are chiefly reserved for unusual deaths, since recent examples have clearly shown that it takes more than a death being unusual or unexpected to be blurbed - people usually trot out the Mandela-Thatcher standard whenever something like that is proposed (see Keith Flint). Once again, this is an area of ITN that seems to be an unavoidably grey area, and we're getting no closer to clarity.--WaltCip (talk) 14:12, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
    @WaltCip: - would you know how robust the vital article classifications are? Mandela is Level 3, Thatcher, Day and Pei are Level 4, while Bob Hawke is Level 5. starship.paint (talk) 14:40, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
    That is meaningless to me, as I'm sure it is to several other editors. The nomination process for "Vital articles" is about as insular a process I've seen on Wikipedia, even more so than ITN.--WaltCip (talk) 14:45, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
    Indeed. It's hysterical enough to use article quality classes to argue for their inclusion, but to bring this completely isolated "vital article" silliness (controlled by around half a dozen users) to the voting process is beyond words... The Rambling Man (talk) 14:47, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support blurb I am working on death information and talk page to bring everything to ship-shape, this seems like a no-brainer to post to ITN for me. --qedk (t c) 14:31, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support blurb. We've left the Thatcher-Mandela standard far behind, and should not be quoting it at all any more. Even setting aside the infamous Carrie Fisher blurb, we have in recent times posted Bob Hawke, Christopher Lee, Karl Lagerfeld, Kofi Annan, and Charles Aznavour, all of whom had nowhere near the level of global influence Thatcher or Mandela did; we also posted George H. W. Bush, Aretha Franklin, Prince, David Bowie, and Atal Behari Vajpayee, who had wide name recognition but still were not as transformative as Thatcher or Mandela. That hasn't been our standard for quite a while. Pei certainly meets the broader standard. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:47, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • It's slightly ridiculous that the top three ITN items are all recent deaths, and then we have another six in the Recent Deaths section itself. We're death obsessed at the moment.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:56, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Indeed; I thought four RD's was the limit. 331dot (talk) 15:58, 17 May 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: Jamil Naqsh[edit]

Article: Jamil Naqsh (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Dawn

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 well sourced --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:50, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Support - the "life" section is a bit short but article is fully sourced and adequate overall. -Zanhe (talk) 22:36, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Conditional support An article on an artist should have at least one example of relevant art before it's fully adequate, even if what is there is sourced overall. I don't hold the word count against it. He was no great novelist for a reason. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:33, May 18, 2019 (UTC)
I notice he has two External Links galleries, and that's good enough if not fully adequate. I made the article a bit shorter, but it's still OK. Now it teaches a little about post-1989 Pakistani presidential politics, too. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:04, May 18, 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - looks fine overall. Invisible Lad (talk) 09:07, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - @Tone: @Stephen: @Jayron32: @Black Kite: Isn't this a perfect example of WP:BIAS when even a cat is featured on RD and the not-so-influential White celebrity and politician also get a blurb but a Brown person's nomination is being ignored so it goes stale? - Invisible Lad (talk) 06:10, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Posting. --Tone 08:09, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

(Posted as blurb) RD: Bob Hawke[edit]

Article: Bob Hawke (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: Former Prime Minister of Australia Bob Hawke dies at 89
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.

Nominator's comments: Half decent article, with a tiny number of [citation needed] tags... The Rambling Man (talk) 10:18, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Support Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:25, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support I agree, their is properly some sections that need referencing. But other than that I think this is worthy. Matt294069 (talk) 10:39, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support blurb. Death of significant leaders of major (loosely defined) countries usually merit a blurb.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:42, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Not sure if there is a defined process and/or precedent for situations where editors see a Recent Death nomination and wish to see the article as a blurb. Chrisclear (talk) 11:57, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Usually it's done as a Recent Death nom with a suggestion for a blurb as an option.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:37, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Blurb I think he's notable enough for a blurb post. INeedSupport :3 13:39, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Blurb Former head of state of a major nation. Notable enough for blurb. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 15:02, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Blurb Hawke was not merely an Australian Prime Minister, but also the third-longest serving Australian Prime Minister, winning four elections, making him one of Australia's most significant Prime Ministers. During his time in power Australia selected its national anthem, created its medicare system, and passed an act which removed the last vestiges of British authority over Australia. NorthernFalcon (talk) 15:28, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Blurb after a few CNs are fixed (only 2 or 3 , nothing insane). I'm of the general opinion that former elected leaders of at least the G7/G8 or G20 countries should be blurbed on their death, being significant worlds leaders. --Masem (t) 15:50, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
The G20 has far less to do with world leaders and their significance than it does with finance ministers' and bank governors' balance sheets. Just a bunch of rich governments, but not even the richest. There really is no solid reason any country's treasurers are or aren't invited to the meetings. If membership counts for anyone in matters of death, it should at least be money-type folk, not leader-type. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:24, May 17, 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Article is of decent quality, in-depth, and well written. Prefer RD over blurb, since we don't have anything more to say than "he died", but will also not stand in the way of a blurb if others feel this article merits one. --Jayron32 15:51, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Blurb he was a significant and important part of the history of beautiful Australia and Oceania and the foreign policy. I'm 26 year old young man and I was almost born under his administration but I was born in 1992 LOL. Totally support blurb. Kind regards. --LLcentury (talk) 16:11, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support blurb. Decent article, high profile figure and we currently have shortage of news on the template. – Ammarpad (talk) 16:16, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose because there are additional citations needed. No opinion on blurb or not. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 18:31, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
    @Coffeeandcrumbs: On the balance, there were very few, but the one that were there I have cleaned up. I don't think they should have held up the article, but if you want to hold it up, it was also a very quick fix. Most were for non-essential personal analyses, and removal of those did not alter the narrative at all. There were also a few unneeded cn tags that appeared to be asking for cites for banal and uncontentious things like the number of seats won in elections or the like. It looks like there are no more cn tags. Since all of the cn tags have been dealt with, can you re-assess the article quality? Thanks. --Jayron32 19:06, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
    IMO, there is no such thing as "banal and uncontentious things" when BLP's are concerned. If a citation cannot be found then the claim was never notable in the first place. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 19:53, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment to any admin keen enough to help, let's get an image of Bob over to Krinklebot. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:09, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted as blurb. Black Kite (talk) 19:16, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment image is now GOOD TO GO! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:41, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
    • Image updated. --Masem (t) 21:52, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Post-posting Support as blurb. My support for this was lost when my blurb recommendation was removed, so repeating my earlier comments: The most transformative post World War 2 Prime Minister of Australia, won 4 elections, was in office for over 8 years, and made significant changes, such as floating the Australian Dollar, introduced universal healthcare (Medicare), introduced the Sex Discrimination Act, deregulated the banking industry, reduced tariffs, amongst other achievements. Chrisclear (talk) 21:45, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Post-blurbing oppose Relays three facts of six already listed in Recent Deaths. Pointless duplication. The picture is a bonus, though, I guess. (That didn't stay up for long.) InedibleHulk (talk) 01:14, May 17, 2019 (UTC)
  • Post-posting oppose blurb - I didn't see this in my diversified newsfeed. Not a world transforming figure who died of old-age. This isn't in-the-news even in Australia with the ongoing elections there. He doesn't rise to the level of Mandela-Thatcher-Vajpayee. Invisible Lad (talk) 09:31, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Iván Simonovis[edit]

No consensus to post, stale. Stephen
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: Iván Simonovis (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Venezuelan prisoner Iván Simonovis leaves house arrest.
Alternative blurb: ​Venezuelan former police commissioner Iván Simonovis leaves house arrest after fifteen years.
News source(s): The New York Times, Reuters
Nominator's comments: Update of the Venezuelan presidential crisis, Simonovis is arguably the best known "political prisoner" in the country. Jamez42 (talk) 15:22, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose for someone so purportedly "best known", his article is a weak stub. This isn't newsworthy enough either. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:35, 17 May 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.

May 15[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks
  • Militants kill at least 17 Niger Armed Forces troops in an ambush near the Malian border. Another 11 soldiers are missing; six others have been evacuated to a hospital. No group has claimed responsibility. (BBC) (Reuters)

Arts and culture

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

May 14[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

(Posted) RD: Grumpy Cat[edit]

Article: Grumpy Cat (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: All memes will be grumpy today... SoWhy 10:27, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Support - Very well referenced, better than humans Sherenk1 (talk) 10:32, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Mjroots (talk) 10:33, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - death not announced until 16 May, so should be considered as happenening on that date if posted. Mjroots (talk) 10:39, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
    Color me completely confused. Isn't the "event" wrt ITN the death and not the announcement of death? Regards SoWhy 10:48, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
    Normal practice when there's a delay. Mjroots (talk) 10:54, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
    Only for long delays, not for a day or two. Stephen 11:05, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support satis. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:57, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 11:05, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

RD: Alice Rivlin[edit]

Article: Alice Rivlin (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): NPR, WaPo

Article needs updating

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 economist, former vice chair of the Federal Reserve, dies at age 88. Article needs some work. Davey2116 (talk) 01:13, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose quite a bit of it is under-referenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:49, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - until work is done.BabbaQ (talk) 21:42, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

RD: Tim Conway[edit]

Article: Tim Conway (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): MSN

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: The usual sourcing problems with American television stars. Masem (t) 16:58, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment This one is going to need some work before it can be posted. However, if/when it is brought up to scratch, it might be worth a blurb. I don't want to turn ITN into an obit page but Conway was a comedic legend. [Memory eternal.] -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:45, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
FWIW, I'm not sure he's quite blurb-level. A famliar name & face in the '60s, but probably not a household name like Doris Day. (OK, another precinct heard from.) – Sca (talk) 21:20, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose not good enough. And definitely not blurb-worthy in any situation. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:23, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Large portions lack references. No opinion on blurb. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 23:07, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb, but Support RD – if references sorted. Radagast (talk) 01:37, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support RD for sure now, the article has been cleaned up a bit. This guy was a comedic legend. Granted there are some tags but I think it passes notability for a RD. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:11, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
    Anyone with an article "passes notability for a RD". The Rambling Man (talk) 19:59, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support good enough for posting --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:48, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
    In what sense does 26 [citation needed] tags (and more needed) mean it's "good enough for posting"? This is a BLP. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:00, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Too many unsourced statements.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:01, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose That's a lot of citation needed tags I saw there. Needs substantial work. INeedSupport :3 20:34, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

May 13[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

(Posted) RD: Hu Jinqing[edit]

Article: Hu Jinqing (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The Beijing News

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: Well sourced article on a notable animator, director, and pioneer in Chinese paper cuttingThsmi002 (talk) 12:13, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Unita Blackwell[edit]

Article: Unita Blackwell (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Mississippi Today

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: Good article. Every section is well sourced. --PootisHeavy (talk) 03:22, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Support - article looks great. -Zanhe (talk) 04:11, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support, I came to nominate the article brought to GA quality by Coffee. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:22, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:40, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support I agree with the others above. Great article! Thsmi002 (talk) 14:05, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted. --Jayron32 15:04, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) World Record solo dive[edit]

Consensus will not emerge to post this, despite COI attempts to generate excitement. Stephen 02:39, 14 May 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: Victor Vescovo (talk, history)
Blurb: Victor Vescovo sets a new world record for a deepest human-occupied dive under the ocean, reaching the bottom of Challenger Deep.
News source(s): https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/victor-vescovo-deepest-dive-pacific/index.html
Nominator's comments: This is a pro-forma posting of a malformed nomination. I just cleaned it up for the person who nominated it. I have not reviewed the article as yet. Jayron32 17:30, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Challenger Deep should be groomed and prepared as a major news item. A new world record solo dive to the bottom of the Challenger Deep in the Mariana Trench, part of a series of *five* dives below 10,800m, including two world record setting solo dives by Victor Vescovo, was announced today. See https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-48230157 , https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/victor-vescovo-deepest-dive-pacific/index.html and other media as they come online. For background, please read Vescovo's blog post at https://fivedeeps.com/home/expedition/pacific/live/ which recounts the series of dives in Challenger Deep and Sirena Deep. The implications of this new world record mean a whole series of pages are affected, see:

Extended content

The official press release from the expedition was made available this morning, see https://tritonsubs.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/FDE-Challenger-Release-FINAL.pdf and Victor Vescovo and Patrick Lahey are doing press at the Explorer's Club in New York today. I anticipate major media coverage in the coming days for references, as well as free/CC images. Due to WP:COI I cannot do this myself, as I have been the general counsel for Triton Submarines for ten plus years, since shortly after I left WMF. --Brad Patrick (talk) 15:10, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment: suggest that Victor Vescovo is the article to be updated. Would support, pending a more substantial update to the article. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:06, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
    PS, worked for WMF but doesn't know how to wikilink??? I fixed them up for you — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:08, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
    Sysop with 1000 edits??! The Rambling Man (talk)
    105 edits at 2006 sysopping! PrimeHunter (talk) 16:14, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
    He was the WMF Legal Counsel. Which is why he had sysop rights, but did not edit much. He had the job before Mike Godwin, IIRC. --Jayron32 16:35, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose they beat a 60-year-old record by 11m? Incremental and objectively meaningless. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:28, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose as can be seen from the Challenger Deep article, the bottom of the trench was already reached by Bathyscaphe Trieste in 1960, making this record dubious. Banedon (talk) 21:25, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per TRM really, beating a record set 60 (sixty) years ago by 11 metres is not exactly massive news. Black Kite (talk) 22:44, 13 May 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 blurb) RD: Doris Day[edit]

Article: Doris Day (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Hollywood actress and singer Doris Day dies aged 97.
News source(s): NBC, AP

Article updated

Nominator's comments: B-class, looks good, minor cn problems should be easily fixable. Update done by a variety of users. SoWhy 13:08, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

  • support Looks decent enough. good to go.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:13, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait Citations are needed for several claims in the "Personal life" section, particularly the endorsement of "Dubya" and her relationship to Christian Science. Hopefully the obituaries will cover this lot as the day progresses and this will cease to be an issue. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:14, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
All done. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:34, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  • The endorsement I couldn't source. As for Christian Science, I added two sources that were pretty easy to find on GBooks. The rest seems sourced sufficiently, so I removed the tag. Regards SoWhy 13:23, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak Support The studio album section needs one or more references and there are a couple of minor claims and one quote that could use a cite. But overall this article is in pretty decent shape and I think adequate for the main page. Add a cite for the studio albums and I will line out the "weak" in my support. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:32, 13 May 2019 (UTC)-Ad Orientem (talk) 13:32, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - but maybe worth a blurb? Mjroots (talk) 13:34, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - Looks good to go! The lorax (talk) 14:30, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - Significant death, "Harry Truman, Doris Day, Red China, Johnnie Ray" Rockin 14:38, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Blurb on notability. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:28, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
    • Already out of the headlines in Google news. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:42, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted by Fuzheado about 1 hour ago. --Jayron32 16:08, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support and I would also support a blurb. Davey2116 (talk) 18:29, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support blurb. Major transformative figure. And I know this shouldn't be a factor but we haven't had a new blurb for a week now.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:53, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support blurb - notable, quality up to par, and per Amakuru --DannyS712 (talk) 19:04, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support blurb - C'mon; it's Doris Day.--WaltCip (talk) 19:37, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
    Que sera, sera Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:27, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support blurb - Main news headline on BBC all day, sounds like a blurb. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:42, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support blurb - Global news, article in good shape, g2g for blurb. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:49, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  •  Administrator note: please propose a blurb — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:01, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
    plus Posted blurb — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:13, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  • The cropped one is not yet cleared on protection but the profile one is. Done. --Masem (t) 21:40, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Post posting support - Seriously, it's Doris Day folks. Black Kite (talk) 23:34, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Post-posting oppose blurb per LaserLegs Who the hell is Doris day? 5.44.170.9 (talk) 00:23, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Doris Kappelhoff, that's who. Everyone knows that. – Sca (talk) 13:56, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
I have replaced the orange tag with a CN. The orange tag was overkill. That said, we still have an entirely unsourced section for her discography. That really needs to be fixed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:14, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
This just shows in stark terms how quality controls in ITN don't make sense. Banedon (talk) 12:56, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
-ography sections of bios tend to be a bunch of non-notable (not blue linked) works, or where the person has a cameo or guest role which is not 100% obvious from looking at the lede of the indicated work. Here, for Day, the albums are all bluelinked, and it is 100% clear that these are all albums featuring Day going by their lede. Ideally, they should be sourced, but we're begging a source for the obvious and if push came to shove, copying one source from each blue linked is possible. --Masem (t) 13:48, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
-ography sections are implicitly sourced to their own credits. Presumably, a record album with Doris Day's name printed on it is a reliable published source that Doris Day did actually record the album. With her name on it. --Jayron32 16:39, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
We just comment out the content, or WP:CFORK it to a different article to get around sourcing issues. I've raised it, no one cared. Open an RFC at WT:ITN if you see the need to make a change, this isn't the place. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:33, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Nothing was forked since the nomination was proposed.[8] Sources were requested for the -ography sections and they were provided. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 21:43, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Note to anyone thinking of pulling: improving this article is preferable to protect Wikipedia reputation. Doris Day Wikipedia page defaced with graphic image after her death. Sure, the item was posted prematurely by two admins that seem to ignore ITN standards but pulling it would be an even worse move. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 21:54, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
I tried to argue for ography sections to be reffed few weeks ago but was told it's not a requirement, even though the lack of source means we have to do original research in choosing what to put in. So that's the consensus it would seem.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:00, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
There I fixed it the same way we handle this for all the other dead celebs with unreferneced bodies of work that we want to railroad onto the main page. You're welcome. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:32, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
I have returned it and added back the source that was unnecessarily removed. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 02:11, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
There is no need to "fix" this citation problem: linking out to articles in lists like this does not require a citation. See (e.g.) Slayer#Discography also WP:BLUE and WP:LOW. Honestly, guys. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 03:12, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
See also WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The fact that some other articles don't cite the discography section doesn't mean that's the correct thing to do. Although this is more about standalone list pages then embedded lists, there is guidance at Wikipedia:Stand-alone_lists#Selection_criteria which instructs us to define selection criteria for the list and then "it is especially important that inclusion be based on reliable sources given with inline citations for each item". So although the works themselves provide a cite for their existence, reliable sourcing is needed to establish which entries to select and which not to select. In the case of Doris Day the decision Coffeeandcrumbs made was to list all albums in the article, and source that list from AllMusic. That is the correct thing to do, and ensures that (a) we are not listing things that are not regarded by reliable sources as albums, and (b) that we don't miss any. I think some sort of sitewide discussion may be required here because this issue is coming up repeatedly. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 06:41, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
If I don't have a citation for something, I should not add it to the article. It reasonably follows that if someone else adds uncited content and I cannot cite it myself with reasonable effort, it should be struck. Seems the simplest way to address this. GreatCaesarsGhost 11:12, 15 May 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: