Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates

This page provides a forum for ors 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.

Robert Mueller in 2011
Robert Mueller

How to nominate an item[]

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 ors 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[]

  • 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pulled from the main page are generally marked with (Posted) or (Pulled) in the item's subject so it is clear they are no longer active.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[]

  • 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...[]

  • ... 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 ors 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[]

March 26[]


March 25[]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment
  • Bayer and Johnson & Johnson announce that they have reached a $775 million agreement to settle approximately 25,000 outstanding litigation cases, which claim that their drug Xarelto caused severe and sometimes fatal bleeding episodes. Bayer and Johnson & Johnson had successfully defended the safety of the drug in all six prior cases that went to trial. (Stat)

International relations

Law and crime

Blurb: Proclamation on Recognizing the Golan Heights as Part of the State of Israel[]

Proposed image
Article: Proclamation on Recognizing the Golan Heights as Part of the State of Israel (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The United States recognizes Israeli sovereignty over the disputed Golan Heights, occupied since 1967.
Alternative blurb: ​The United States recognizes Israeli sovereignty over the disputed Golan Heights, internationally recognized as occupied Syrian territory.
News source(s): BBC Proclamation text

Nominator's comments: Significant development, US is the only other nation other than Israel to recognize the Golan as Israeli. I used the word "occupied" as this is not disputed by the international community, not even the United Nations. Also important in the context of the upcoming Israeli election. Nice4What (talk) 00:35, 26 March 2019 (UTC)


RD: Fred Malek[]

Article: Fred Malek (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Politico

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.

 – Muboshgu (talk) 20:37, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Oppose - Only one page and is the English one. Without rellevance. (Alsoriano97) (talk) 21:03, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

@Alsoriano97: All individuals with a standalone WP article are presumed to be notable and may have an entry in RD as long as the article is updated and of sufficient quality. "Relevance" would be, well, not relevant in this case. –FlyingAce✈hello 22:18, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

RD: Scott Walker (singer)[]

Article: Scott Walker (singer) (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: Rock singer. Ref issues. Sherenk1 (talk) 09:00, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

March 24[]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture
  • The 2019 Global Teacher Prize and its $1 million (£760,000) purse is awarded to Brother Peter Tabichi, a Franciscan science teacher from rural Kenya. Tabichi gives away 80 percent of his salary to support poorer pupils at the Keriko Mixed Day Secondary School in Pwani Village, Nakuru. (BBC)

Disasters and accidents
  • Stoneman Douglas High School massacre aftermath
    • More than 60 school, county, city, child services and law enforcement officials, as well as mental health specialists, teachers and parents, hold an emergency meeting after the suicide of a second Stoneman Douglas survivor. Florida's emergency chief is requesting the state Legislature provide more mental health resources for the community. Coral Springs, Florida, police reported that, Saturday night, a current sophomore killed himself. Last week, Sydney Aiello, a 19-year-old graduate who had recently been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder, took her own life. (The Guardian) (Miami Herald)

International relations

Politics and elections

(Posted) Special Counsel investigation conclusion[]

Article: Special Counsel investigation (2017–2019) (talk, history)
Blurb: ​U.S. Attorney General William Barr sends a four-page letter to Congress that there is not sufficient evidence that President Donald Trump colluded with Russia or obstructed justice.
Alternative blurb: ​The Special Counsel investigation concludes without sufficient evidence to determine if U.S. President Donald Trump colluded with Russia or obstructed justice.
Alternative blurb II: ​The Special Counsel investigation concludes that there was no collusion between U.S. President Donald Trump and Russia during the 2016 presidential election and there was insufficient evidence pertaining to allegations of obstructed justice.
Alternative blurb III: ​The Special Counsel investigation concludes that there was no collusion between U.S. President Donald Trump's campaign and Russia during the 2016 presidential election and there was insufficient evidence pertaining to allegations of obstructed justice.
Alternative blurb IV: ​The U.S. Special Counsel investigation, headed by Robert Mueller (pictured), concludes.
News source(s): CNBC, ABC News

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Main conclusions of the Special Counsel's findings have been released. Aviartm (talk) 22:10, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

  • I would also support Ongoing, as it appears this story might develop over the next week. Davey2116 (talk) 03:59, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
  • See comment below. Davey2116 (talk) 23:58, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Coffeeandcrumbs, perhaps the hook could say "not sufficient evidence the campaign colluded with Russia, while allegations of obstruction of justice were not addressed", or something like that? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:34, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
  • However, Barr did address that issue.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 20:38, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
  • While Mueller presented the available evidence, he did not make the final call. The blurb is technically correct but lacks context and is misleading for such a controversial topic. Mueller as Barr quotes said it does not exonerate the president on the question of obstruction.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 20:51, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Couldn't I or whoever that accepts this nomination and puts it on the Main Page improve the blurb to add the context that it does not exonerate Trump completely yet? Aviartm (talk) 21:10, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Sounds good to me. ITN also requires that the updated bolded articles meet certain standards. See oppose by Masem below.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 21:18, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
  • @Coffeeandcrumbs: Alright. I made it present tense and improved it. I think if I added the exoneration part will make it too long but I am not sure. Should be added though. Aviartm (talk) 21:35, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
  • You have not improved it at all.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 21:51, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Coffeeandcrumbs & Muboshgu I think my altblurb is best because in the four page letter, Barr states that they could not conclude on obstruction of justice but did say no collusion..."The Special Counsel’s investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election. As the report states: “[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities." You can read the letter here. Aviartm (talk) 22:47, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
    Aviartm, "did not establish ... collusion" =/= "exonerated on collusion". The letter doesn't say Mueller concluded there was no collusion, he just didn't conclude that there was. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:55, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Muboshgu I did recognize earlier today the ambiguous nature of the letter. However, in the second half discussing obstruction of justice, Barr deliberately says "The Special Counsel therefore did not draw a conclusion — one way or the other — as to whether the examined conduct constituted obstruction." I feel that if the DOJ had an exact position on collusion, they would clearly state so like they did in the letter on obstruction of justice. Aviartm (talk) 23:44, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
    Aviartm, what you "feel" is not the same as what we objectively know. Mueller wrote: "While this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him”. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:56, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Muboshgu True. Yes, that quotation is in the letter but under the Obstruction of Justice section, not the whole letter. This is also stated in the letter that clears the confusion: "In making this determination, we noted that the Special Counsel recognized that “the evidence does not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference," and that, while not determinative, the absence of such evidence bears upon the President's intent with respect to obstruction." So the Special Counsel did recognize that they could not find any links of Trump and/or his Campaign colluding but could not reach a consensus on obstruction of justice. These are two things. Aviartm (talk) 00:08, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
    Aviartm, "the evidence does not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime" is also not the same thing as an exoneration. Especially since we don't yet know what the evidence is. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:20, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Muboshgu Yes but wouldn't you think the DOJ, if they knew that reliable, reputable evidence investigated by the Special Counsel showed that the President did collude, they would be saying that? The Special Counsel did conclude, it is done. That is the Special Counsel's findings assessed by the DOJ. Since the blurb is to report the findings and not speculate further potential investigation, altblurb2 appears to be the most appropriate. After all, Wikipedia is not a NOTACRYSTALBALL. Aviartm (talk) 00:29, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
    Aviartm, I wouldn't think too much of it because that's the unknown: WP:OR/WP:SYNTH. I could easily suggest that Barr's letter was the coverup Trump appointed him for, but I can't be sure of that. All I know is that he hasn't been exonerated from anything, and the other investigations continue. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:03, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
  • MuboshguThe New York Times link was to the AG Letter, not their take, so no WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. The only thing that Trump has been exonerated of is allegations of Russian collusion, not Obstruction of Justice. This is what I have repeatedly been saying. That is why Ad Orientem has been saying. Please read my 3rd most recent comment or go to the Donald Trump Article Talk Page where we have conversed there. Aviartm (talk) 02:02, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── @Muboshgu What you know is neither here nor there. We go by what reliable sources are saying. And they are all reporting that the investigation by the Special Counsel has stated that there was no collusion between either the President or his campaign and Russia. That's what is being reported and that is what we go with. Anything else is likely a BLP vio. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:15, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Ad Orientem, saying that "there was no collusion" is not the same thing as "the SC did not find collusion" and that's the important distinction to make. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:27, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Muboshgu Except that the SC did state that there was no collusion. They did not state that there was insufficient evidence. They said there was no collusion. See the above quote from the NY Times. Any statement saying or implying anything else is false and a BLP violation. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:31, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Ad Orientem No, the SC hasn't stated anything publicly. This is what AG Barr is stating, not Mueller. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:52, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
No. It is what pretty much every reliable source is saying. And that, again, is what we go with. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:00, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Ad Orientem, we really need to be careful with what we're calling "reliable sources" in this because sometimes you find out that you were just wrong. This needs to be vague. Jerry Nadler: “His conclusions raise more questions than they answer.” – Muboshgu (talk) 02:41, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
No. We abide by what RS sources say. Not our intuition, gut feelings, personal knowledge, suspicions etc. If they make a mistake and correct it, then so do we. That I have to explain this to an admin is disconcerting. Right now RS sources are pretty much unanimously saying that Trump and his campaign have been cleared of the collusion accusations. Your position is starting to look like a bad case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:52, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Ad Orientem, perhaps it is. Alt2 is probably a fine compromise blurb, and all of the updates that happen will be nominated and debated. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:59, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
WASHINGTON — The investigation led by Robert S. Mueller III found that neither President Trump nor any of his aides conspired or coordinated with the Russian government’s 2016 election interference, according to a summary of the special counsel’s key findings made public on Sunday by Attorney General William P. Barr.
Mr. Barr also said that Mr. Mueller’s team drew no conclusions about whether Mr. Trump illegally obstructed justice. Mr. Barr and the deputy attorney general, Rod J. Rosenstein, determined that the special counsel’s investigators lacked sufficient evidence to establish that Mr. Trump committed that offense, but added that Mr. Mueller’s team stopped short of exonerating Mr. Trump.[2]
  • Ad Orientem Great job on the altblurb2. Currently am having a conversation with Muboshgu if you noticed and that is what I was trying to convey. Great job on the altblurb! :) (I was about to upload my comment but our s conflicted with your article pice.)
Yup. The Fat Lady hasn't sung yet. – Sca (talk) 01:58, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
  • GreatCaesarsGhost "The Special Counsel's investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election. As the report states: “[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.” - Barr AND Mueller's words together on Russian interference. Again, lastly, with Obstruction of Justice: "The Special Counsel therefore did not draw a conclusion - one way or the other – as to whether the examined conduct constituted obstruction. Instead, for each of the relevant actions investigated, the report sets out evidence on both sides of the question and leaves unresolved what the Special Counsel views as “difficult issues” of law and fact concerning whether the President's actions and intent could be viewed as obstruction. The Special Counsel states that “while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.” - Barr AND Mueller's words together. Current Blurb holds both of these points. Nothing is distorted about the Current Blurb. Aviartm (talk) 20:12, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
I would concede that the consensus above says the *ending itself* is noteworthy (I'm neutral/weak oppose myself). Barr's summary is decidedly POV though and should be removed in any case. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:36, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
I have no doubt this will continue in the house, but the DOJ investigation is done and as AG it's Barrs summary to write. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:18, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
No one suggested he is lying, but he is a biased partisan in this matter - there is every reason to think his specific interpretation of the findings will be colored by that partisanship. RS's have gone to great lengths to attribute the statement to Barr, and it is WP:OR to transfer it to Mueller. GreatCaesarsGhost 14:56, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
I agree with GreatCaesarsGhost. We shouldn't attribute Barr's words to Mueller. Originally, only Barr knew what was in the report, but it has since been delivered to Congress, and Congress already disputes Barr's summary of it. We're in no position to make the judgment call that Barr is right and Congress is wrong. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ 15:32, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
However – particularly in view of the amateurish pulling of Previn on Feb. 28 – I can't support pulling this one. Instead, suggest we relegate it to Ongoing. The vagaries of U.S. politics being what they are, it's likely to go on as a news story for some time. – Sca (talk) 13:57, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Edit: To clarify, I weakly oppose all the other blurbs for being too long / WP:UNDUE-y. I would support Ongoing. -- Ununseti (talk) 00:06, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Another reason to stick it in Ongoing for now, rather than just ignore it. – Sca (talk) 14:42, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with Robert Mueller's conclusions. It has to do with failing to attribute the summary of the report to William Barr. There is an ongoing post-mortem to this investigation here that we need to account for, and we currently are not.--WaltCip (talk) 16:43, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
I tried earlier but I guess that was not applicable due to the information we were trying to reach a consensus.
The DOJ investigation is done, and the AG has provided a summary of his findings. I'm afraid that's how it is. When the house convenes new investigations, when those conclude, we can post them as well. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:56, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Exactly, include both. It is the only proper thing to do in the first place. Aviartm (talk) 16:57, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Dan Rather via Twitter
@danrather

I've covered enough big news stories to know that sometimes the headlines from the first day can evolve considerably as more information comes to light.

24 Mar 2019[1]

  • Gamaliel If you would like to explain why it is inaccurate, please explain. However, so far, no one that has objected the Current Blurb has any grounds as the Current Blurb contains both 2 focal points of the report best as possible. Trump IS exonerated of collusion with his Campaign, not with obstruction of justice. As clear as day and night. Aviartm (talk) 20:06, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Well the summary from Barr doesn't say "exonerated" it says no evidence, let's just use the AG wording and be done with it. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:17, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
  • FallingGravity Already says that. Here is the full quote: "The Special Counsel's investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election. As the report states: “[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.” The Special Counsel did not find any link of the Trump Campaign colluding with Russia. Aviartm (talk) 20:20, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
That's using WP:OR to change "conspired or coordinated" into "colluded", which isn't a legal term, just a buzzword. FallingGravity 20:53, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
There is no need to play semantics when either of those words convey the message effectively. Since, "conspire" is a synonym to "collude". Aviartm (talk) 21:12, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
I think we should prioritize legal terms over buzzwords. This is an encyclopedia, not a political blog. FallingGravity 21:33, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
It doesn't matter how many times these articles mention "collusion". What matters is that the official report says "conspired" and "coordinated", and it does not (as far as we know) say "collusion". This is backed up by multiple WP:RS. FallingGravity 22:56, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
The Rambling Man There has been 13 Supports in any fashion of the ITN being posted and only 4 Opposed. Even include the 3 Pulls and that is only 7. Essentially twice as many people support it being posted. Please stop Wikipedia:FILIBUSTER. Aviartm (talk) 21:53, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
TRM, I am sincerely having a hard time understanding what "Please, this isn't Brexit..." is supposed to mean.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 23:49, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
  • {{u|Coffeeandcrumbs) Thank you Coffee for your position on the matter. I agree with you 100%. Ad Orientem was the first to discuss about IDONTLIKEIT and it drove him to leave the conversation, which I think should not happen. The Current Blurb is the best one in accordance to current news and the conclusion synopsis by the DOJ. If this is what the DOJ finds and concludes, then that is what we will publish here like we did. I Support closing the discussion. This circus has gone long enough. Aviartm (talk) 00:30, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
I made a minor change to the wording in response to main-page errors but am in no way qualified to judge the wider issue. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:25, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
1. Adding an attribution (e.g., "according to U.S. Attorney General William Barr") to the current blurb
2. Alt blurb 4
3. Ongoing
Of these three, I prefer alt blurb 4. Apologies for clarifying my support so late; I initially added my support when the pertinent question was whether the story is significant enough, not which blurb to use. Davey2116 (talk) 23:58, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Davey2116 Sounds like you are talking about me and that's alright. The Current Blurb is neutral and impartial because the Current Blurb is entirely dependent on the findings of the DOJ. How is this bias? Can you please explain how using the official government's conclusions for the Current Blurb is bias? Because it would be nefarious to come up with our own conclusions to fit some narrative that we think the DOJ got wrong. It is not Wikipedia nor its participants space to conclude what the Department of Justice concludes. Aviartm (talk) 00:30, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I already did. The current blurb is asserting that Barr is accurately representing Mueller's findings. Alt blurb 4 is not making any determination on whether Barr is or is not, and neither does the article. Many RS do not state definitively that Barr is accurately representing Mueller. So I think we should go with alt blurb 4, or add an attribution to Barr to the blurb. Davey2116 (talk) 00:44, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
  • For the record, I oppose closing this discussion. By my count there are at least twelve !votes against the current blurb, and a similar number in favor; no consensus either way. Davey2116 (talk) 23:58, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
  • No, there are 14+ Support votes in favor of the uploading of the Blurb. There are only 5 Oppose votes. Add the Pulls, that makes it 8 total votes that in some way oppose the Nomination. I have already rehashed this detail earlier with my conversation with The Rambling Man. Soooo many IDONTLIKEIT and Wikipedia:FILIBUSTER violations to contort the truth. Aviartm (talk) 00:30, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Then I suggest you count again. I've counted three times and I see 10 supports for the current blurb, and 12 opposing it (either supporting alt blurb 4 or ongoing). I don't see how this is IDONTLIKEIT or FILIBUSTER. I simply want an accurate blurb posted, with consensus, neither of which is demonstrated by the current blurb. Davey2116 (talk) 00:44, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

March 23[]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents
  • Rescuers scramble to rescue about 1,300 passengers and crew from the cruise ship Viking Sky adrift off the coast of Norway. (CNN)

International relations

Politics and elections

RD: Rafi Eitan[]

Article: Rafi Eitan (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): NYT

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: Israeli intelligence officer and politician, who was instrumental in the capture of Adolf Eichmann, dies at age 92. Article needs lots of work. Davey2116 (talk) 03:57, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

RD: Victor Hochhauser[]

Article: Victor Hochhauser (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination

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

Nominator's comments: He died today, and any RD is assumed to be a suitable ITN candidate. He and his wife Lilian have been called "Britain's foremost independent promoters of classical music and ballet". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwardx (talkcontribs) 11:06, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) MV Viking Sky[]

Non-admin closure. Fails to meet WP:MINIMUMDEATHS. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:25, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further s should be made to this discussion.

Proposed image
Article: MV Viking Sky (talk, history)
Blurb: ​More than 1,300 passengers and crew are evacuted from the cruise ship Viking Sky (pictured), which suffered an engine failure off the coast of Norway.
News source(s): (De Telegraaf) (in Dutch), BBC, AP, Reuters, Guardian
Nominator's comments: Breaking atm, not all passengers rescued yet, but expected to be. Blurb can be altered if situation changes but this could be a good news story to put on MP for a change. Mjroots (talk) 17:36, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose The engines stalled and while there was a potential threat of it running into some rocks, they have it at stablized. It is not sinking or in danger of that, but its also not going anywhere fast for a while. Evacuating a stalled ship is not ITN worthy. (Add that there is no update on the target article). --Masem (t) 20:19, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
    • Evacuation continuing all night, article is updated to state this. Mjroots (talk) 20:53, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
  • CommentAP, Reuters describe evacuation of some passengers, of whom there are more than 1,000, by helicopter in stormy weather. Seems quite dramatic. – Sca (talk) 21:59, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose The precautionary evacuation of a ship at sea is not really something that warrants a blurb. Yes, there are some maritime incidents that should, or would have, merited attention from ITN. But not this. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:57, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak support the disabling and evacuation of a modern ship with 1300 PAX on it isn't exactly routine -- CCL Triumph was stranded at sea 5 or 6 years ago I don't know if there was another one since. The operator has 11 more orders of identical hulls being built by Fincantieri. Y'all let me know how this is somehow more routine than people being killed by tropical storms in under-developed tropical countries. Outside the incident, the article is really thin, some could be ported from MV Viking Star since they're identical hulls (or really a spinoff article is needed for the class). All-in an interesting and dramatic story. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:05, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait – Developing. Potentially a top int'l. story. Sca (talk) 23:54, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It is good news for the passengers evacuated but doesn't cut the mustard as an ITN story. If a major ocean liner sank, that would be an ITN story providing the article was up to scratch. Capitalistroadster (talk) 01:13, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose It looks to me like the blurb could ultimately say "Ship doesn't sink. Nobody hurt". HiLo48 (talk) 02:54, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment It looks like some passengers were injured by furniture and debris due to the rough waves, and about 300 have been evacuated by helicopter. The rest are just sat there waiting for another boat. Not sure where I stand, but it's certainly big in the news. Kingsif (talk) 08:00, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose might make a suitable quirky story for another part of the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:54, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Withdraw support – All the opposes notwithstanding, this is still the No. 1 story, and for good reason: A 47,000-ton cruise ship with nearly 1,000 people still on board is under tow in stormy seas. It may all end well, but still we can't ignore this high drama. – Sca (talk) 14:25, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Now arrived safely in port. Boat will be repaired, everyone fine. Drama but also Oppose this isn't a major impact on anything. Oh no, there was a really bad storm but everything is fine. Kingsif (talk) 16:05, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Well, it was a whale of a story while it lasted. – Sca (talk) 17:01, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

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

(Posted) Battle of Baghuz Fawqani[]

Please go to WP:ERRORS for errors. I have added this possible error there.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 16:15, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further s should be made to this discussion.

Article: Battle of Baghuz Fawqani (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant loses all of its territory in Syria following its defeat by the Syrian Democratic Forces and the US-led coalition.
Alternative blurb: ​The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant loses all of its territory in Syria following its defeat by the Syrian Democratic Forces, US, France, and UK.
Alternative blurb II: ​The Syrian Democratic Forces, supported by the U.S., France and the UK, defeat and capture the last territories controlled by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant in Syria.
News source(s): DW BBC
Nominator's comments: 'Caliphate' being territorially defeated after 5 years is major news. Readding this nomination. Also, remove item from ongoingNice4What (talk) 15:16, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - I think this is pretty conclusive. WaltCip (talk) 15:27, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak Support - Unlike Waltcip above, I don't think this is pretty conclusive, since IS has already largely transformed itself into a guerrilla force quite some time ago, and will probably be around as such for quite some time to come. But it does mark at least the symbolic end of one particular phase of the conflict, and, incidentally, also seems likely to have some practical consequences, especially on the coalition side (possible withdrawal of at least some Western troops, possible reanimation of conflicts involving Kurds, Shias, Syrians, Turks, Russians, etc), even if it would be WP:CRYSTAL to try to predict precisely what those consequences might be (tho it would also be WP:CRYSTAL to oppose it on the basis of some claim that it is unlikely to have any significant consequences, which is why I'm mentioning some such possible consequences here). Tlhslobus (talk) 16:01, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support The ISIL's defeat in Syria was recently announced by the US, as I remember. Brandmeistertalk   19:47, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support clearly newsworthy and important. Very good article quality and comprehensiveness, and properly updated. The battle wasn't in Ongoing for nothing – ISIS is gone 🦀 🇸🇾. wumbolo ^^^ 20:12, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per above. Clearly notable, and article is of excellent quality. Davey2116 (talk) 20:19, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Question is it "over"? Has ISIL surrendered and accepted defeat? A peace treaty signed? Unicorns and flowers blooming in Syria? We're not going to have another "very important final battle against ISIL in Syria" in some other bombed out city stuck in the box for a month? Trump announced ISIL is 100% defeated in Syria but that guy isn't exactly trustworthy. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:37, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm asking a question, is this really done? --LaserLegs (talk) 22:58, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Declared done by the SDF and the coalition. Nice4What (talk) 23:13, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Ambivalent re blurb, but totally oppose both alternative blurbs.There were 30 countries involved, not just "The Syrian Democratic Forces, supported by the U.S., France and the UK,.... ". Moriori (talk) 23:16, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support The article is long and well referenced, but irrelevant factoids like "One YPG commander stated that some desperate ISIL militants would resort to wearing women's clothing when fleeing." or "civilian truck drivers said 18 foreigners were among the dozens of civilians fleeing with them" but that doesn't really matter. The good news is we'll never post another ISIL bombing or shooting in Syria because this is 'the decisive, "final battle" against the Islamic State'. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:25, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Whose law is it that says you need a smiley to let people know you're being ironic online? The alternative possibility that you have just mindlessly swallowed some piece of fake news just seems too ghastly to contemplate Face-smile.svg Tlhslobus (talk) 03:53, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
@King of Hearts: We usually do not post maps per Wikipedia:In the news#Pictures.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 03:20, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
If you are tired of the former dictatorpresident, may I suggest a photo of Karen Uhlenbeck who never got her true day in the sun.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 03:23, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Replaced with an SDF fighter. Sad we didn't get to feature her, but at this point she's the last item on the list and it's a bit too late for that. -- King of ♠ 05:48, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment The blurb is misleading. ISIL lost all of their territory as a result of defeats inflicted by the Russia-led and the US-led forces separately. The fact that the final defeat was in the Battle of Baghuz Fawqani does not cr only the US-led forces for the overall victory, which is unfortunately indicated in the current wording of the posted blurb. So, either the blurb will focus on the defeat in the Battle of Baghuz Fawqani, which is not even mentioned explicitly, and only consequentially mention ISIL's ultimate defeat or the part with the allied belligerents will be removed to make the blurb clear and neutral. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:03, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
  • No, we cannot bold link to an article not vetted by this project.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 16:01, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

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

March 22[]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy
  • Global investment management company BlackRock says that it is buying eFront, the leading provider of management software for alternative investments, for $1.3 billion in cash. (MarketWatch)

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sports
  • The English Football League is to deduct Birmingham City F.C. nine points for breaching profitability and sustainability rules. Birmingham City are the first club to be deducted points since the EFL introduced its new profitability and sustainability regulations in 2016. (BBC)

RD: Frans Andriessen[]

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

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

Nominator's comments: Wholly inadequate but perhaps there are Dutchophiles out there that may help. The subject seems like a highly notable figure. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 03:57, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Special Counsel investigation[]

No census to post this 22 month long media extravaganza. Revisit when the report is released. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:14, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further s should be made to this discussion.

Article: Special Counsel investigation (2017–2019) (talk, history)
Blurb: Robert Mueller concludes his Special Counsel investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 United States presidential election.
News source(s): CNBC, New York Times
Nominator's comments: Robert Mueller concluded his Special Counsel investigation and gave the final report to U.S. Attorney General William Barr. Aviartm (talk) 22:10, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose simply, in one word...: so? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:15, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose It's concluded but we have no idea what it says and what actions will happen. I would think that when the report's conclusions are given out, that's a blurb, but not the mere conclusion. --Masem (t) 22:17, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait until the results are disclosed, which could happen within the next few days. Spengouli (talk) 22:19, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. Significance is unclear. This nomination, while expected, is premature. I suggest withdrawing pending developments. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:30, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait What are the results? Brendon the Wizard ✉️ 22:44, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Ongoing as it has been for two years, getting regular updates and certainly "in the news" lets just pop this down into ongoing like another zombie link that'll never come out. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:49, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
    Nah, too pointy that. There are no other "zombie link"s which will never come out. This, on the other hand, may have no more detail ever to be released. So it's utterly pointless. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:00, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose no details yet, wait. --Bohbye (talk) 23:04, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment The details are here. Count Iblis (talk) 01:07, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
You seem to have forgotten to put a Face-smile.svg after your comment. Face-smile.svg Tlhslobus (talk) 01:24, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Comment The details are here. Face-smile.svg Davey2116 (talk) 01:34, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait The Attorney General is reportedly expected to release a summary for Congressional leaders over the weekend or early next week, which is then reportedly expected to promptly become public knowledge, so we can probably wait until then (on the other hand much of the detail may never be released). Tlhslobus (talk) 01:31, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait Seems like more details are to come over the weekend, and this is definitely the leading story on most RS so it's definitely already getting the requisite coverage for ITN. I wouldn't oppose putting this in ongoing now, but I think we should wait. Davey2116 (talk) 01:34, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - The longest headline seen on ITN. Yup just wanted to say that. Sherenk1 (talk) 02:24, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose The blurb made assumption that everyone is aware of or following the now concluded investigation. Also it's said to be concluded, but we don't know what is in the conclusion or what will happen after the 'conclusion'. – Ammarpad (talk)
  • Oppose – In the U.S. speculation is rife over the contents of the report, but until it's released its delivery to the attorney general is of scant import. Sca (talk) 14:05, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Perhaps when there is something to report instead of "something done". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.31.161.250 (talk) 14:17, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

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

(Closed) Ongoing removal Brexit negotiations[]

Consensus against removal ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 04:00, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further s should be made to this discussion.

Article: Brexit negotiations (talk, history)
Ongoing item removal
Nominator's comments: EU granted an extension, April 12th maybe else end of May. The extension itself might be a good thing to blurb and pop this out of the ongoing box as there is nothing but British legislative maneuvering for the next few weeks. LaserLegs (talk) 16:56, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose there will need to be votes in the House of Commons imminently to agree to May's deal in order to secure any extension. This is live news and ongoing, and there seems to be absolutely no good reason at all to remove it from Ongoing as it impacts hundreds of millions of people, just not in the US directly. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:53, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
    • Commons has to vote on it before April 12 so this is "ongoing" while May fakes her vote twice and loses again? Brexit impacts the UK, the EU and the entire world .. but it's going dark until MV3 (or lack thereof) finally sets a Brexit date. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:01, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
      • Yes, and that vote will take place next week, so it's hardly "going dark". Deary me. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:02, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
        • Are we just leaving this in until it happens, or it's postponed indefinitely? If so, fine, I'll stop asking. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:03, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
          • There will be plenty of time to revisit that question soon, but now is definitely the wrong time.Tlhslobus (talk) 18:08, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
            • Ok I'll drop it. FWIW I want to see this as blurbs, not buried as ongoing. I'm not challenging the significance of this item in any way. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:12, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
              • No problem with that, but if you want a blurb then nominate one.Tlhslobus (talk) 18:19, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
              • This scenario is precisely what Ongoing is all about. The next blurb should be when we finally do leave (or Article 50 is revoked). Until then, everything else is fundamentally incremental yet of high significance. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:00, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per TRM. Tlhslobus (talk) 18:08, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Next week is probably the most important week in this whole complete and utter shambles process. Black Kite (talk) 19:03, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Are the world's currency speculators giddy with excitement? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:21, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose – It ain't over 'til it's over. – Sca (talk) 20:24, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - This saga has become too long to still be in our News. HiLo48 (talk) 01:37, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
What do you mean "our News"? Are you suggesting this is unworthy of ITN for some orial reason? I don't understand your comment. WaltCip (talk) 02:12, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I am suggesting that. In reality, nothing new is happening. Just a stalemate in a country's parliament. There are many of those around the world. HiLo48 (talk) 02:52, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose until March 29, then revisit. It should remain as long as there is a nonzero chance of crashing out. -- King of ♠ 03:43, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Point of information: Are we talking "nonzero" Celsius, Fahrenheit or Kelvin? – Sca (talk) 14:10, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose as the page is undergoing significant updates and is still in the news. I would even support a blurb about today's Brexit protests [4] if someone created the page.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 17:35, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
    People's Vote march, 2019. Looks like someone did it.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 22:45, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per TRM.--SirEdimon (talk) 19:03, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Time to Close? (per WP:SNOW and/or no realistic chance of reaching a consensus for removal). Tlhslobus (talk) 03:57, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

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

(Posted) 2019 Yancheng chemical plant explosion[]

Article: 2019 Yancheng chemical plant explosion (talk, history)
Blurb: An explosion at a chemical plant in Xiangshui, Jiangsu province, China, kills at least 64 people and injures more than 90 others.
News source(s): BBC, AP, AFP

Nominator's comments: Article just created. Notable deaths. Sherenk1 (talk) 03:02, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Ongoing removal Cyclone Idai[]

No consensus to remove and article is still getting update. – Ammarpad (talk) 08:07, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further s should be made to this discussion.

Article: Cyclone Idai (talk, history)
Ongoing item removal
Nominator's comments: Article says it's dissipated, time to come down. The effects of natural disasters are felt for weeks, months, years -- can't leave them in the ongoing box forever. LaserLegs (talk) 14:29, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support removal.Sca (talk) 16:38, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
    May I ask why? NoahTalk 02:05, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal. We actually just bumped it to ongoing. This is a currently unfolding humanitarian disaster, likely the deadliest cyclone in the Southern Hemisphere within historical memory. Beira, a large city of more than half a million, has been 90% damaged or destroyed according to IFRC. Some areas have yet to be reached by rescue operations. Over 200 people in Zimbabwe are still missing. This is comparable to the 2000 Mozambique flood, which made international headlines and whose scale remained unknown for weeks. Despite being semi-protected, the article is receiving constant updates, having been ed 30+ time since the last 24 hours. 67.69.69.63 (talk) 17:33, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
    • Not sure why a storm that was already a remnant low got put into the box in the first place, but the storm is over. The impact of Hurricane Maria is still ongoing. Time to move on. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:36, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal Still undergoing significant updates. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 18:50, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
    • The storm is over --LaserLegs (talk) 18:59, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
      • "The purpose of the ongoing section is to maintain a link to a continuously updated Wikipedia article about a story which is itself also frequently in the news." Italics as found at WP:ITN#Ongoing section.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 19:24, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. Still receiving significant updates and still in the news internationally. (A fresh item was on the BBC index page when I got in this evening, despite the Brexit fever we're all suffering over here.) Espresso Addict (talk) 01:28, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment @LaserLegs: The body count is still going up. It has been steadily increasing by about 35-75 per day. Not to mention disease outbreaks of chlorea, dysentary, and malaria are starting. I hardly consider that as over. This has been a major news headline and still continues to be. The article is being updated frequently as well. I see no reason to remove this yet. NoahTalk 02:00, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal Re comparison with Maria: Difference here is that direct effects are still ongoing with floodwaters encompassing hundreds of square miles of land including a city of 200,000 people (readily visible from space). As mentioned by Coffeeandcrumbs, it still meets criteria for WP:ITN ongoing with regular article updates and global news headlines. Would be fine with this being removed once the flooding subsides or if it falls out of major headlines. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 02:12, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Compare this with this.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 05:04, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

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

March 21[]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sports

(Posted) RD: Mike Cofer (linebacker)[]

Article: Mike Cofer (linebacker) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): [5]

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

Nominator's comments: Appears ready at least superficially. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 03:57, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Kazakhstan capital renamed[]

No consensus to post. Stephen 05:17, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further s should be made to this discussion.

Article: Astana (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The capital of Kazakhstan, Astana, is renamed to Nursultan
News source(s): See article

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Per the nom below about Nursultan's resignation Banedon (talk) 03:35, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Question: Should this be a separate nom, or an amendment to the already posted blurb about his resignation (and if the latter, where should it be discussed, given that its omission is not technically an error, and may thus not be accepted at WP:ERRORS)? Tlhslobus (talk) 05:00, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is trivial. The renaming of cities is a usual procedure in many countries following the end of a political era and this is not an exception. Also note that this is the fourth renaming of the city since 1961.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:20, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment To everyone commenting how this city has changed names many times before, you do realize they were literally all from when the Russians/Soviets ruled the area, Almaty was the Kazakh capital, and the land that is today the capital was then totally undeveloped, right? The only other time that Astana's name, as the capital of the independent country, changed its name was when "Astana" was established to begin with. Let's put a stop to this flood of uninformed comments. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ 12:33, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  • And you do realise that most of the people commenting here know considerably more about the topic than you and are actually aware that Tselinograd was a major showpiece Soviet city (I still remember being bussed around by an unnervingly enthusiastic Intourist guide), not "totally undeveloped", and that if you don't know the most basic facts about the place you're probably not best placed to accuse others of making "uninformed comments"? ‑ Iridescent 12:52, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  • All of the city's iconic landmarks were nonexistent; Kazakhstan rapidly developed the area in the process of building a new capital city. More importantly, Tselinograd was neither the capital nor renamed by Kazakhstan itself. Kazakhstan wasn't even a country in 1961. The comments here make it sound like they just can't stop renaming the capital, but in reality it was only recently that it even became a capital and only recently did Kazakhstan have the ability to call the shots. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ 13:18, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I think the point is well and truly missed, this isn't really about the status of the city, it's more about the continual name-changing, which isn't commonplace with London or Paris etc. If London had changed its name as frequently as Astana then I guarantee most of us would be voting against it. Just as we are voting against this trivial change. P.S. your signature is a real overhead. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:26, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Trans.: Over the top – ?? – Sca (talk) 14:25, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Kiril. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:05, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. As Kiril says, this is trivial; particular in post-Soviet states, towns, cities and other administrative districts are renamed all the time, and Akmoly/Akmolinsk/Tselinograd/Akmola/Astana/Nursultan is a particularly extreme example. (Plus, it doesn't take an extreme amount of crystal-ballgazing to guess that in a fairly short time Nursultan's dictatorship will be reappraised and the name will be changed yet again.) ‑ Iridescent 10:26, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  • What are you talking about? The reason why it was renamed was because Nursultan isn't president anymore. To say that "in a fairly short time" the dictatorship will be overthrown entirely is very, very much WP:CRYSTALballing. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ 12:35, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support on importance - how often are national capitals renamed? Not very often. But oppose based on the article quality, too many unsourced sections. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 12:07, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
"How often are national capitals renamed?" Apparently, if you check the article of the city in question, it's been renamed at least three or four times within the past 100 years. So for this particular city, quite often.--WaltCip (talk) 12:10, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
You might want to check the dates on when the city was renamed. The city was neither 1) a capital city 2) developed land nor 3) in an independent country. Just because the Soviets couldn't stop playing with the name doesn't mean this is unimportant. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ 12:37, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Renaming a capital city is exactly the notable information an encyclopedia should put on its front page doktorb wordsdeeds 12:12, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Renaming this particular capital city is not notable due to the underlying circumstances.--WaltCip (talk) 12:22, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Just because the Soviets couldn't figure out what to call it doesn't mean that it's unimportant when a sovereign state changes the capital city's name. It's the capital city of a sovereign country, and note that this is the only time that Astana as the capital of independent Kazakhstan was renamed, with the only exception being the establishment of "Astana" as "Astana." Note that the capital used to be Almaty before Astana was built by the independent Kazakhstan. Before the city 90s when the country was sovereign, this area was very undeveloped. If we were talking about any well-known country's capital, whether Washington or Tokyo or London or Beijing, I guarantee that there would be unanimous support. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ 12:29, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose quality. Tags added. Even with refs, Geography, Economy and Demographics woefully undersized. Update is a single sentence. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:20, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose on both quality and importance. Name changes are not uncommon, it's not ITN worthy.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:41, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per BrendonTheWizard, when article is in shape. Notable story. Most of the !opposes aren't really convincing. Davey2116 (talk) 16:40, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per BrendonTheWizard and Spencer, in particular stressing this is the only renaming since the move of the capital from Almaty in the 1990s. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 17:11, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
    • Just wanted to point out that I haven't made any comments in support or in opposition to the nomination; was just noting information about previous items on ITN above. Best, SpencerT•C 21:01, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support on notability, per BrendonTheWizard among others (I'll leave others to judge quality). This is the only time in my lifetime of over 60 years that I can remember being aware of a country renaming its existing capital, tho I suspect there may be other instances of which I was unaware at the time (or have since forgotten), tho I'd have to check (if I knew how to do that). Note that I'm not talking about naming of new capitals (such as Brasilia, Islamabad, perhaps Astana itself) nor of just changing the English translation of an unchanged non-English capital (such as from Peking to Beijing, and possibly from Rangoon to Yangon - tho our article seems ambiguous about its local name in that instance). But even if I'm unaware of some such changes, I'd expect they're pretty rare (and also changes, if any, in tiny states would be less significant than changes in a mid-size state like Kazakhstan). Incidentally, even if quality were to remain an issue, there would still be a case for adding the name-change (presumably without bolding) to our existing blurb about Nursultan Nazarbayev's retirement. Tlhslobus (talk) 17:13, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: Should all Support !votes (such as mine) be disallowed on grounds that they are obviously violating WP:RGW by secretly trying to treat Kazakhstan with more respect than Sacha Baron Cohen does by posting an item about it, or should all Oppose !votes be disallowed on grounds that they are obviously violating WP:RGW by secretly trying to treat Kazakhstan with more respect than Sacha Baron Cohen does by censoring this instance of Kazakhs behaving ridiculously some Kazakhs seemingly behaving ridiculously, at least in my foolish eyes, until I noticed non-Kazakh behaviour in places like Mount Rushmore, Alexandria, and Harare, formerly named after the then-British PM Lord Salisbury in a country formerly named after the guy who organised its then-conquest, Cecil Rhodes; of course in my native Dublin, to get a street or train station named after you, the smart move used to be to have got yourself executed by the British in 1916 Face-smile.svg. Or should both sets of !votes be disallowed on grounds that they are obviously violating WP:RGW as explained above? Face-smile.svg Tlhslobus (talk) 18:00, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
    Most people in Kazakhstan would be far more interested in the fact they beat Scotland 3-0 in the Euro qualifiers last night, not yet another name change... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:03, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
    Not sure about that (perhaps because reading of Kazakh minds is not one of my telepathic gifts). But the only reason that result was a shock is because Kazakhstan are normally rubbish at soccer despite having a much larger population than Scotland, and most people tend not to be interested in sports where their country is rubbish (indeed arguably most people aren't all that interested in many sports where their country is rather good). But in any case our article is not primarily for the benefit of our Kazakh readers - I suspect it may be of more interest to readers who like to know their capitals because they enjoy quizzes and Trivial Pursuits, etc, even if I'm not quite sure where it says that pleasing Trivial Pursuits addicts is one of the major purposes of ITN Face-smile.svg Tlhslobus (talk) 04:36, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose on quality This article is a hot mess. Even the claim that this city has been renamed has [citation needed] tag. It contains clearly anachronistic statements like "Nursultan became the capital city of Kazakhstan in 1997". --- Coffeeandcrumbs 19:18, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support as amendment to blurb already on the front page. Yes, Astana has been renamed on a number of occasions, but that was before it became an important city. The last time a national capital city has been renamed was in 2000, when Santa Fe de Bogota was renamed Bogota. The last time a city was renamed significantly fashion rather was when Frunze was renamed Bishkek in 1991. Furthermore, the renaming of important cities is encyclopedic knowledge and exactly the kind of information Wikipedia should feature more prominently than news media would. (NorthernFalcon (talk) 21:33, 22 March 2019 (UTC))
  • Oppose "Also note that this is the fourth renaming of the city since 1961." +Astana#EtymologyAmmarpad (talk) 08:11, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose – I never accepted the renaming of Nieuw Amsterdam in 1664, and I don't accept this one either. – Sca (talk) 14:30, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Your comment reminds me of what New Mexico and Illinois did after the IAU reclassified Pluto: "we won't accept this, Pluto will remain a planet here". Unfortunately for them, I don't think the rest of the world cared. Banedon (talk) 02:26, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

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

(Closed) European Wikipedia blackouts[]

Consensus will not develop to post this. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:49, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further s should be made to this discussion.

Article: Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market#Public protests (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Four European Wikipedias undergo a blackout to protest against controversial internet legislation
News source(s): https://www.theverge.com/2019/3/21/18275462/eu-copyright-directive-protest-wikipedia-twitch-pornhub-final-vote
Nominator's comments: Four European Wikipedias undergoing a blackout seems like a significant event, especially for the for ITN of the largest Wikipedia language version. There are also some other major sites like Reddit and Twitch that display banners or hinder a specific feature today. This news was featured on major media in each language, for example Tagesschau, Der Spiegel, dr.dk, and many other sites.

I hope it's okay to link to a specific article section. The (sub)article itself could use some love, but I'm afraid that I don't feel very confident yet in ing Wikipedia. Confiks (talk) 21:34, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment At least the target article is in relatively good shape. A few citations needed. The only thing I think that is worthy of discussion will be whether this is a truly significant event or just some navel gazing. I think I would be more OK with this if we included Reddit and Twitch.tv. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 21:55, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose navel gazing. If it had been Amazon or Google or Apple or something, sure, but not a handful of our own encyclopedias. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:02, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
    • I can see how this can be seen as navel gazing. Still, more than 91 million internet-connected users [6] in those four countries didn't have access to Wikipedia. Also, for example, Wikipedia is the 7th most visited site in Germany [7]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Confiks (talkcontribs) 22:32, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above. Navel gazing.--174.64.100.70 (talk) 22:18, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Navel. – Sca (talk) 23:22, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  • The website blackouts are symbolic at best. If the protests on the 23rd amount to anything, that would be the time to post. —Cryptic 23:30, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose the article is still crap (though eventually this POS will be fisted onto the main page because "significant"). "Article 13 would require use of content-matching technologies" oh that sounds interesting, what would the requirements be, what parties would implement it and how would royalties be paid? I have no idea, the article doesn't explain it, instead going into endless detail on special interests complaining about the rules. This is what, the fifth time this piece of shit article has washed up at ITN/C? --LaserLegs (talk) 00:19, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Wikipedia-related news in every case so far has not been ITN-worthy content, and this is no different. SpencerT•C 01:41, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

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

March 20[]

Business and economy

International relations

Politics and elections
Sports

(Posted) RD: Eunetta T. Boone[]

Article: Eunetta T. Boone (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): [8], [9]

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: Short but no sourcing issues. This may be all that is currently available from RS. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 05:27, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Mary Warnock, Baroness Warnock[]

Article: Mary Warnock, Baroness Warnock (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The Guardian

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: Almost there. Just needs some TLC. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 21:34, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Google Stadia[]

Consensus will not develop to post a commercial announcement. Stephen 21:45, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further s should be made to this discussion.

Proposed image
Article: Google Stadia (talk, history)
Blurb: Google announces development of a cloud gaming service (logo pictured) called Google Stadia.
News source(s): BBC
 GeographyAholic talk 18:51, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Good faith nom. But even if this were notable, there's no metrics to measure the impact that this product may have until it's been released.--WaltCip (talk) 19:08, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Note I ed it but User:Czar created it and added some actual content to start the thing. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 19:35, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose a good candidate for another section of the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:54, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose posting product announcements. As TRM says, there are other Main Page places this might be suitable. 331dot (talk) 19:57, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Absolutely no free advertising on the Main Page, please. Or anywhere else. Sca (talk) 20:35, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Good faith, and perhaps it can be posted elsewhere as others have noted, but it's not exactly ITN. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ 21:27, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

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

(Posted to Ongoing) Cyclone Idai[]

Article: Cyclone Idai (talk, history)
Ongoing item nomination
News source(s): BBC, Aljazeera, The Washington Post, The Guardian, AP

Nominator's comments: Major humanitarian crisis unfolding in Mozambique and Zimbabwe with flood waters continuing to rise. Idai is being called one of the worst tropical cyclones on record in the entire Southern Hemisphere (indeed there is only one or two other known cyclones that have caused greater loss of life in the hemisphere: the 1892 Mauritius cyclone and possibly Cyclone Leon-Eline). Hundreds of people remain missing in both countries and the death toll is expected to exceed 1,300 between the two. Remains a big story in global media outlets. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 17:10, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Indeed it does. Big-time mea culpa there. I've been misinterpreting "articles are NOT posted to ongoing merely because they are related to events that are still happening" as requiring that the events themselves be ongoing. No such requirement exists. My apologies, Espresso Addict. GreatCaesarsGhost 11:30, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Good call. I've amended it to aftermath as the Cyclone itself has dissipated, but moving to ongoing can definitely be at a sole admin's discretion. Stephen 21:56, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

March 19[]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Health and environment

International relations

Politics and elections

(Posted) Nursultan Nazarbayev's resignation[]

Article: Nursultan Nazarbayev (talk, history)
Blurb: Nursultan Nazarbayev (pictured) resigns as President of Kazakhstan, appointing Kassym-Jomart Tokayev as acting president.
Alternative blurb: Nursultan Nazarbayev (pictured) resigns as the first President of Kazakhstan after a 29 year tenure, appointing Kassym-Jomart Tokayev as interim president.
News source(s): Reuters, etc

Article updated

Nominator's comments: After almost 30 years in office. Article updated. Brandmeistertalk 14:14, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

  • I also support the inclusion of more contextual information. It is very significant how lengthy Nazarbayev's tenure was (nearly three decades) as the first and (until now) only President of independent Kazakhstan. I've proposed an altblurb, but if someone can produce a more concise version that still includes the significant details, I'd support it. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ 23:58, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
The whole point of ITNR is that it presumes the event is notable enough for posting on the merits; we are only waiting for agreement on the blurb and adequate article quality. 331dot (talk) 23:55, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Please point out where that requirement is. 331dot (talk) 00:08, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Hrm, you're right, no such requirement exists. Thanks 331dot. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:18, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Nazarbayev did not state any reason for his resignation (much to the shock of Russian officials which viewed him as a key ally). As a result, it would be very difficult to produce an article specifically about the change in leadership which was uniquely sudden and unexplained, but that certainly shouldn't prevent a blurb about the only change in power the country has ever seen. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ 00:14, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Karen Uhlenbeck first woman to receive Abel Prize in mathematics[]

Proposed image
Article: Karen Uhlenbeck (talk, history)
Blurb: Karen Uhlenbeck becomes the first woman to receive the Abel Prize in mathematics.
Alternative blurb: Karen Uhlenbeck becomes the first woman to receive the Abel Prize in mathematics for "her pioneering achievements in geometric partial differential equations, gauge theory and integrable systems."
Alternative blurb II: Karen Uhlenbeck becomes the first woman to receive the Abel Prize in mathematics for "her pioneering achievements in geometric partial differential equations, gauge theory and integrable systems, and for the fundamental impact of her work on analysis, geometry and mathematical physics."
News source(s): NY Times

Article updated

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: Karen Uhlenbeck is the first woman to win this exceptionally prestigious award. I think this remarkable accomplishment is newsworthy. I enjoy sandwiches (talk) 11:46, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

In any case, the story is not appearing in the front page at the moment, so I thought I'd nominate it. The blurb can be re-worked to down weight gender, if that's what people prefer. I just included this angle because it's the angle that most of the news sources are featuring. OtterAM (talk) 18:12, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
She certainly is a noteworthy academic, though I would posit that being the first woman is a notable detail of her achievement. I enjoy sandwiches (talk) 19:02, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
This is a fair point. I will try to expand this section later today. If any other math aficionados want to give it a whirl, feel free. I enjoy sandwiches (talk) 19:40, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
The expanded content works for me. I don't think that needs to be in the blurb but primary concern is met. --Masem (t) 01:31, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
I have added a reference to the New York Times article. OtterAM (talk) 18:18, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Or remove protection so I can do it.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 19:13, 19 March 2019 (UTC)c
Support. Now much improved. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:47, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Agree, though may favor the first altblurb 2/2 space constrictions. I enjoy sandwiches (talk) 23:38, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
What would "minimally comprehensive" entail? An in-depth description of her technical work would be more than minimal. There's a reason that the New York Times, CNN, etc. don't say much on her contributions, it's hard to suitably summarize them for a general audience.
Her work on singularities of harmonic maps in geometric analysis (aka geometric PDEs) really was foundational and simultaneously applicable to gauge theory, Yang–Mills theory, and integrable systems. In some sense, the three sentences in the latter two paragraphs are really about those contributions in simultaneity (she did not really work on those independently of each other). In any case, it would take more work to provide more in-depth technical descriptions as a non-specialist but I would argue that it is minimally comprehensive. — MarkH21 (talk) 01:06, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
I don't know what "minimally comprehensive" is for this subject, that's sort of the point though. I read it, the whole "Research" section is little more than a bullet point list of what she won the award for, it doesn't tell me anything about her contributions to those areas. Honestly all the Able Prize winner articles are poor, except Nash but that's not really fair. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:16, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Some of the others are quite a bit more comprehensive, e.g. Jean-Pierre Serre, Michael Atiyah, John Tate. However, Uhlenbeck is not as famous or well-known as some past winners and there is relatively less information on her and her work. In general though, descriptive writing of technical mathematical work is a rare and valuable art. — MarkH21 (talk) 01:23, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

References[]

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

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

  1. ^ Dan Rather [@danrather] (24 Mar 2019). "I've covered enough big news stories to know that sometimes the headlines from the first day can evolve considerably as more information comes to light" (Tweet) – via Twitter.