Welcome to In The News. Please read the guidelines. Admin instructions are here.

In the news toolbox
Error reports (WP:ERRORS) Nominations (WP:ITN/C) Image protection (WP:CMP) Discussion (WT:ITN) Admin guide (WP:ITN/A) General criteria (WP:ITN) Death criteria (WP:ITN/DC) Recurring items (WP:ITNR) Awards · Sports · Discussion Current events portal (P:CE) Archives (2008–11)
v t e

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.

Laurent Gbagbo In Zimbabwe, eight people are killed amid protests over the government's increase in the price of fuel. Former President of Ivory Coast Laurent Gbagbo (pictured) is acquitted of crimes against humanity by the International Criminal Court. A terrorist attack by the militant group Al-Shabaab at a hotel compound in Nairobi, Kenya, kills at least twenty-one people. In Poland, Gdańsk Mayor Paweł Adamowicz dies after being stabbed on stage at a charity concert. Fifteen people are killed when a Saha Airlines Boeing 707 crashes on landing at Fath Air Base, Iran. Ongoing: Brexit United States federal government shutdown Recent deaths: Mary Oliver Chris Wilson Mel Stottlemyre Phil Masinga Nominate an article view - page history - related changes -

Suggestions[]

January 18[]

Swedish government formation[]

The general election wasn't in ITN because the winner wasn't obvious, but that has changed with the incumbent government getting two new backing parties and breaking the previous coalition structure. Narayanese (talk) 10:06, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

January 17[]

Haemochromatosis affects 20 times more people than previously thought[]

Nominator's comments: "It was believed to seriously affect about one in 100 carriers. But the new research has suggested the true level could be closer to one in 10 among women, and one in five for men. Lead researcher Prof David Melzer said he was astonished at the findings. "We've shown that herary haemochromatosis is actually a much more common and stealth disease, including in older people," he said." Count Iblis (talk) 23:17, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose The article does not appear to have been updated. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:39, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
• Weak oppose Even if updated, I don't think this is groundbreaking medical news, particularly since its simply trying to identify the breadth of the diagnosis. --Masem (t) 23:51, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose so many different reasons not to post. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:07, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

(Re-opened) Major explosion in Bogotá[]

Nominator's comments: It seems that an article was not yet created, but I think it will be created in the next few hours due to the significance of the event. SirEdimon (talk)

Lol, this nomination seems a little premature if there is not even an article. Suggest writing the article first :) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:34, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

• I've re-opened the nomination, because an article was created. Support pending article expansion. 2607:FEA8:1DE0:7B4:88BC:38CE:448D:D62F (talk) 04:05, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose for now. Taking out the inevitable "reaction" fluff the article is a bare bones stub. I am not opposed on principle, but article quality as of right now is far below our standards for the main page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:12, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Mary Oliver[]

Nominator's comments: An argument could be made for a blurb, but personally I do not think her impact was high enough for that. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:57, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

• Support — the lede is overly short, but otherwise there's nothing wrong with it, and the article is in good shape. I especially appreciate the last two sections "poetic identity" and "critical reviews," which are well-referenced, provide a number of perspectives on her work, and in doing so show her impact on the English literary world. -Darouet (talk) 19:32, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support RD article looks fully referenced; even the awards all have citations. I don't see a blurb either, but I agree that some people might support one. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:33, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
• Posted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:25, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Chris Wilson (Australian musician)[]

Nominator's comments: Australian blues musician. Date of death not known but announced today. I've added refs for the discography but the article was OK (except it needs splitting into sections) - Dumelow (talk) 10:51, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

• Support good article. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:56, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
• Any more details on his death? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:01, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be much in the reports so far. Just that he had a diagnosis of cancer (I have added this) - Dumelow (talk) 13:01, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

• Support comprehensive, very well referenced. JennyOz (talk) 13:53, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
• Posted --Jayron32 16:43, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

January 16[]

RD: Jack Bogle[]

Nominator's comments: The article needs a little work, but if it can be brought up to speed this may be worth a blurb. Bogle was a giant in the world of finance and often referred to as the conscience of Wall Street. He invented the low cost index fund as an alternative to the often predatory practices of most brokerage firms. Ad Orientem (talk) 23:25, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose blurb - he was 89 and only a household name among a small group of people. I'm not sure that Warren Buffett would get a blurb, and Bogle is less prominent. Not yet ready for RD either, but I expect that will be fixed in the next few hours. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:32, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Warren Buffet has described Bogle as probably the greatest investor he has ever known. If the standard for a blurb is that the newly deceased was more or less universally recognized as being in the top tier of their profession or calling, then I think he qualifies. Name recognition is not a criteria. That said, I agree that the article needs a little work. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:51, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

• Support blurb when ready. The criterion for death-blurbs is someone at the top of their field, where the field is not too narrow. Michael Atiyah was among the leading mathematicians of his time, and Bogle (from what I'm reading) was one of the most prominent investors. Atiyah should've gotten a blurb, and Bogle should get one, too. Davey2116 (talk) 03:35, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

• By the way, if Warren Buffett doesn't get a blurb, I daresay that the serial blurb-!opposers have gone far too far. He's a household name and has been in the top five richest people for as long as I can remember. Davey2116 (talk) 03:35, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose blurb I would expect that someone that deserves a blurb would have a significant section that makes it clear why this person is clearly blurb-worthy - influence, etc. That's just not there. RD is sufficient but article needs referencing fixing. --Masem (t) 03:51, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose blurb Regardless of someone's influence or fame in a certain area, their death actually has to be In The News - after all, that's the whole point of this section. I'm looking at the BBC website and not only is this story not on the front page, it's not even in the North America news section. Indeed, the only UK news source I can see that has anything on the story is the Financial Times. Black Kite (talk) 07:57, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose inadequately referenced, and certainly not blurb-worthy. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:20, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
• Referencing concerns seem to have been addressed. Is this RD good to go? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:00, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

  I'm not sure what article you're looking at, but no, it's not good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:04, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

  Added a couple of references — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:12, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose blurb. Blurbs should be reserved for cases in which the death (and perhaps funeral) are so extensively covered by secondary sources that it could have a stand-alone article. Abductive (reasoning) 15:26, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

• So that's the only criterion now. Although still seems somewhat subjective. Is that written down somewhere as guidance/ policy. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:32, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

• The criterion is this, from Wikipedia:In_the_news#Recent_deaths_section, and I quote "Deaths where the cause of death itself is a major story...or where the events surrounding the death merit additional explanation" are the standard criteria for the blurb. --Jayron32 18:33, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

• That's ONE of the criterion. The other of which is a "major transformative world leaders in their field" which is the one the Mr. Bogle would ostensibly qualify. My take is that he is unquestionably major and transformative, but perhaps his field is too narrow. I'm a weak support on the blurb (notwithstanding quality concerns). ghost 21:57, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Zimbabwe fuel protests[]

Nominator's comments: The incident is a substantial protest since the 2017 Zimbabwean coup d'état and attempted economic reforms were implemented. As security forces are still in force on the streets keeping order and a strike called to protest the price increases enters its final day the event is assumed to still be ongoing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Discott (talk • contribs) 13:53, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose but weakly, seems like a relatively irrelevant encyclopedic issue, but in any case, the article is very decent. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:29, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • In what way is it a "relatively irrelevant encyclopedic issue"?--Discott (talk) 20:39, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure how to answer that. It's borderline interesting, it's barely of encyclopedic value, it's probably irrelevant in the "2019 calendar". The Rambling Man (talk) 20:43, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
      • Gosh I would not say that to a Zimbabwean or someone from southern Africa. Would a similar event of the same scale in the USA (for example) also be borderline interesting? Also why is it irrelevent in the 2019 calendar? It did take place entirely in 2019 after all.--Discott (talk) 21:28, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
        • Gosh indeed. In response to your question, it's got nothing to do with the calendar, I'm just not seeing it's in the news. Please try to remember what I said when I made my first post, it was weak opposition and I acknowledged that the article was in a reasonable condition. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:40, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
          • I read today in my local paper that Roundup 360 was banned in France. I don't suppose that will have been ITN either. ^^ SashiRolls ^{t · c} 22:46, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
            • I don't even know what that means. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:54, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support the entry is well written and referenced. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 22:21, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support – This news is getting international traction with BCC, CNN, and Al Jazeera reporting on it. In light of deaths, seriousness of the situation, and good quality of the article. I support blurb or some alternative. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 00:24, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

P.S. The government has shutdown the internet.[1] --- Coffeeandcrumbs 00:26, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

• Support Quite in the news and the article is fairly OK. –Ammarpad (talk) 06:53, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
• Posted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:56, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

January 15[]

RD: Mason Lowe[]

Nominator's comments: American bull rider, crushed to death by a bull. Article looks to be in good shape - Dumelow (talk) 17:09, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

• Is he notable? Article only created today, all references from his life are to local news or bull-riding websites. Black Kite (talk) 19:25, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
  • WP:NRODEO says "Have participated as athletes at the highest level of professional competition." Lowe contested the "Built Ford Tough World Finals" from 2015-17, which seems to have been the top event in bull-riding at the time. ghost 22:25, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Yeah, 9th in the world in his sport at one point, and only the third bull rider killed by bulls (since association founded). --Kyerjay (talk) 23:26, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) 2019 Nairobi hotel attack[]

Nominator's comments: The incident is a substantial act of terror in Kenya since Garrisa University college attack. As the Area is cordoned off, the incident is assumed to be still ongoing until the operation is complete 22:15, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

• Support: Minimal though the article is, it appears well-sourced; this is getting play on the promos for the national evening news here in the U.S. so there's international interest. Daniel Case (talk) 23:30, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support - and ready for posting.BabbaQ (talk) 23:35, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support Should have added this after fixing up the blurb/nom for Shadychiri. Article is short but sourced and will only grow as more details unfold. --Masem (t) 00:31, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
• Wait until the article has some meat on its bones. Right now it's a stub and we don't promote stubs on the main page. Support in principle. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:54, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
• Weak support just about good enough. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:42, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
• Weak support – Notable, but agree with Orientem that the article really should be fleshed out some before a blurb is posted. Sca (talk) 15:05, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support – Notable enough to be included.----ZiaLater (talk) 15:12, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support Article could be expanded per above. Davey2116 (talk) 16:15, 16 January 2019 (UTC)\
• Support This is a very big news story in Africa, the article is also detailed enough on the event. --Discott (talk) 18:21, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
• Comment has been ready to post for five hours or so. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:29, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
• Posted. Black Kite (talk) 19:33, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

(Posted to Ongoing) Failed Brexit Vote in UK Parliament[]

Nominator's comments: This is not the end of the Brexit situation, but is a significant vote that alters what will happen in the future. In addition to a "no confidence" put forth against May by the opposition party, May has to come up with alternate Withdrawal proposals by Monday, or risk that UK will leave without any trade/economic agreements in place which is threatening to harm UK's economy. Masem (t) 20:41, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

• Comment the last part of the sentence, "leaving in doubt whether the UK will withdrawal from the European Union" seems unnecessarily speculative. It could just as well have said ""leaving in doubt whether the UK will leave the European Union with a deal" or something similar. Nobody knows what will happen now, to be frank. Yakikaki (talk) 20:46, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose unless the government falls. Otherwise this is just the latest chapter in the never ending Brexit drama. We rarely post non-events... i.e. the Commons did not pass the government's Brexit deal. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:48, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose if we get a new PM or a general election out of it, let's re-visit, otherwise this is just another facet of the ongoing omnishambles. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:49, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • If TRM (which I will take as an expert on all matters UK) deems this not appropriate, I would not be against a speedy close. Everything I read about this seems to make this a big thing, stateside, but if the UK just sees this as just part of the Brexit situation, then let's keep it to that. --Masem (t) 20:51, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

    I think most of the EU at this point just waits until 29 March is here so we can finally get rid of those drama queens on the island. Regards SoWhy 21:00, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

    I think there's more than a tiny chance we're going to stay in, so better get used to the queens once again. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:07, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

    Minor point: back in November, you said that 'Parliament voting against the "deal"' was worthy of posting. But things changes very quickly on this matter. Carcharoth (talk) 10:08, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

    Actually, no, I said it was "useful news", nothing about "worthy of posting". Given that we're now in a cycle of continual rejection, posting it is probably not actually even useful. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:20, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

    Fair enough, though you did say that in response to my post that asked 'what are the key events that would justify an ITN/C nomination?'. Anyway, when has ITN ever been about posting "useful news"? Carcharoth (talk) 10:24, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

    I'm not sure "justify an INT/C nomination" equates to "worthy of posting". The Rambling Man (talk) 11:39, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose It was a fairly guaranteed fail, everyone predicted it. Wait to see if May resigns. Kingsif (talk) 20:57, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - mainly per TRM. Nothing much has happened yet. Fallout therefrom may be a story, or may not be. The big story will be on Brexit day, currently scheduled for 29 March. Mjroots (talk) 21:02, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Ongoing Mjroots (talk) 15:09, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
• Wait: Defeats like this are unprecedented, and so are motions of no confidence. I'll defer judgement until tomorrow night. Sceptre (talk) 21:02, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
• Wait for the vote of no confidence tomorrow. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 21:06, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Support Ongoing as the no-confidence vote was defeated. This is an ongoing news story very much in the news.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 19:47, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

• But even then there's no definitive outcome. I guess a vote of no confidence in the government itself might just about be newsworthy, but even then I'm not sure it's that big a deal compared to what's going on in the backdrop. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:07, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

• Ongoing Brexit is major news every day in the UK and this will continue as the deadline approaches. As there will be further twists and turns, an entry in Ongoing would be appropriate to help readers find our coverage. Andrew D. (talk) 21:23, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
• Comment no offence to the esteemed Wikipedians above, who of course comment in good faith, but it's at times like this that it becomes clear how unfit for purpose ITN really is. And I say this every time. This vote is by far the most significant thing to befall the UK in recent years. It was the biggest defeat by a sitting government in Parliament since democracy began. Yes, it was predicted, but it sets in motion an utterly unpredictable and potentially catastrophic series of events. The no confidence vote tomorrow is a red herring. It will not succeed. But today's story is the headline. Across the world. And of course it should be posted. It probably won't, but it should. There endeth the rant.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:35, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support one would be hard-pressed to find a country where this isn't in the news. Post now, update as new information comes. Banedon (talk) 22:42, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
• Change the statement : The statement isn't neutral at this moment.--1233^Talk 23:31, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
• Wait, per others, to see if this develops into either May resigning or the government falling on tomorrow's confidence vote (which I doubt will happen, as May is too smart to let that happen if (or more likely, when) she realizes she won't win and tenders her resignation). Daniel Case (talk) 23:34, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

• Agree. She might just scrape though tomorrow's vote. And even if she doesn't, she is not obliged to resign or call a General Election. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:46, 15 January 2019 (UTC) p.s. 325 to 306 was a bit of a scrape. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:19, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: Most of the coverage of the defeat is on meaningful vote, and 2019 motion of no confidence in the May ministry has been created. How about an alt-blurb combining those two articles? Would that garner more support? Moscow Mule (talk) 23:36, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, I think it probably would. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:48, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks. Suggested alt-blurb in box. Still not great... Moscow Mule (talk) 00:09, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose because it doesn't actually decide anything, but would suggest moving to Ongoing - this is going to move quickly now and generate a lot of stories. Black Kite (talk) 23:42, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
• Ongoing seems to fit the bill, or lack of it, here. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:06, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support a significant milestone in a major international story which has dominated headlines for years it seems absurd to not post this. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:49, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
• Comment The problem is, this particular stage is largely not news as it was expected and everyone not living under a rock knew was going to be the result and its not even the most important step in the whole leave process. The process that started with the leglislation to leave, and will end at the end of March (assuming it doesnt get reversed by then). The no-confidence motion will be news if it passes, but not if it doesnt, but even if it does pass it then only triggers a 14 day window for the government to try and deal their way out of it, if they cant pass another no confidence motion within 14 days, it then triggers a general election (which takes place 25 days after that) - at this point we are near the end of Feb, if that results in a change of Gov, the new Gov then needs to either decide if its holding a new referendum, decide if its taking the deal on the table, attempt to negotiate a new deal with the EU, or just continue to crash out. It could also unilaterally pass legislation to reverse the leave. All of the above are important news-worthy stages, but its going to be spread out over a 2 month period, far too long for 'ongoing'. And some/all of the various options might not take place. So it might be better to have a quick RFC on what main results to include rather than waiting for them to come up individually (if they do). Only in death does duty end (talk) 01:01, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
• Question for BrExperts: Is "Meaningful vote" really the best name for this article? Will people looking for it be able to find it in a few years' time? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:45, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose as blurb; Ongoing would get my support. At the moment it's just another step on a very long path (and is "bill failed to pass" really an ITN story?) There are several potential outcomes to this which may be on the MP in the next few days/weeks. - SchroCat (talk) 08:29, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

• Well, the vote was 432 against and 202 in support of the deal, which was the largest majority against a United Kingdom government ever. Surprised this is not in the proposed blurb. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:47, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

• True, which is certainly a better blurb, but on reflection I still think Ongoing is better for now - there will be more of this to rumble on over the next 11+ weeks (or even longer) that will be more newsworthy than a parliamentary voting record. - SchroCat (talk) 09:42, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

• Wait for the outcome of the confidence vote. If May loses the confidence vote, then I would support, with that information added to the blurb. If May wins the confidence vote, then I would oppose and would wait until Brexit itself, which is only a couple of months away if May wins. (NorthernFalcon (talk) 09:22, 16 January 2019 (UTC))

• I'm glad you have a crystal ball - Brexit is only one possible outcome, whether she wins or loses! - SchroCat (talk) 09:42, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

• Comment I would support an entry in ongoing, or potentially an individual entry with wording similar to Martin's comment above. To quote the live news feed from the BBC (entry at 08.39 today), "Theresa May's historic Commons defeat is splashed across the front pages of papers across the globe" (my emphasis). To those who say that this was expected and just another chapter, well, we currently have the US federal government shutdown in 'ongoing', and I don't see that as substantively more significant than the whole Brexit shenanigans. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 09:25, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Brexit has been going on for years. The assumption is that it is going to happen unless a clear, specific event occurs (like a second referendum) to forestall it. The U.S. government shutdown is completely unpredictable and no one knows what is going to happen with it, it's unprecedented in terms of length, and it's having a significant and ongoing impact.--WaltCip (talk) 16:54, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Have we got a Brexit vs US Govt Shutdown competition now? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:00, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

• Comment - back in November, I started a section at WT:ITN (the talk page for 'In The News', link is to the archived version) to see what thoughts people had about how to handle potential ITN items relating to Brexit and related articles. It may be worth resuming that discussion in the coming days and weeks. User:Sca commented back then that posting the result of the vote should be considered. I think the scale of the historic defeat is what should possibly be posted here. If this was not Brexit, but a parliamentary defeat of this scale on another matter in 'normal' times, we would very likely be posting it (because it would lead to the government collapsing/resigning). But these are not normal times for British parliamentary democracy. Back in November, when opining what would rise to the level of an ITN entry, I said: actual change of PM and/or government, result of any new referendum, formal moment of any Brexit, and hardly anything else. Though this comes close. On balance, I would say an entry now is justifiable. The scale of the defeat will be seen as one of the key moments. Carcharoth (talk) 10:02, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
• Comment - as usual, the purpose of ITN is utterly ignored in the rush to come up with reasons why this shouldn't be posted. Purpose #1 is To help readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news. It undoubtedly meets that. Purpose #2 is To showcase quality Wikipedia content on current events. The update on this particular vote is admittedly short, but the Brexit article as a whole is well-written and informative, and there is no doubt that readers will be looking for it this week. I acknowledge the caveat about not posting continual updates on the same topic, and I wouldn't have supported any of the previous "developments" that have been rumbling on day after day for the past two months, but this is really the big one. The vote we've been waiting for forever, the government lost it by the biggest margin in history, and despite being predicted, it still changes the course of things completely and has been the top story in all major countries of the world. And going forward I would not expect any further blurbs on Brexit until either a referendum is held, or we crash out in March with no deal, or a deal is agreed and we leave. But those are all weeks or months away. So yes I think we should post this one, but no I don't think that would set a precedent that every other Brexit item will be posted. This is the biggy.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:36, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
• Voyager is leaving the solar system and Britain is leaving the EU. Rather than trying to figure out the milestones from our own opinions, look at any major news outlet in the world. What is today’s headline? This. Either post it or put it in ongoing. Voyager has no practical impact on daily life. Jehochman ^Talk 10:51, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

• And Voyager wasn't even asked to pay €25.4 billion as an exit fee. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:04, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

• This is just another step in the process. There's plenty more where this came from. The only justifiable way of posting Brexit right now is to add it to Ongoing. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:38, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

• Support ongoing, or weak support altblurb - per The Rambling Man. And, for all the people saying it's massive news and such a shift ... it's talked about, around the world, in such vague terms that nobody knows what it changes. Especially the British people, who assumed it was going to fail, so it changes nothing. Though it does guarantee Brexit won't be shut up about at all for a long time - so ongoing. And, symbolically, it is significant, with an overwhelming defeat and the potential but unlikely vote against the government. --Kyerjay (talk) 13:36, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per TRM. Wait until a general election is called, if it even happens. Nihlus 13:50, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Per TRM. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:57, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose – for now. Have to backpedal from what I said in Nov. about posting the Commons vote, as things still seem to be in a state of flux (if not chaos), and Tuesday's vote doesn't seem so "historic" after all. If only the British pols would either do something or get off the throne, so to speak. Sca (talk) 15:21, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

  Oh, there's no doubt the vote was historic, given the magnitude of the government's defeat, but it's local politics, has not affected the process one iota, and is merely one step in a seemingly infinite number of steps which seem destined to us reneging on Article 50. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:35, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Historic in a general or global sense. However significant for near-term UK politics, its real-world effect is negligible and the Brexit vote doesn't qualify. If one takes the long view of British democracy's long history, it's a minor event. – Sca (talk) 16:41, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Oh, definitely historic in a parochial sense. Like a minor league baseball record or something. You'll note a significant number of people (some of us from the UK) are opposing this nomination. I think we have a clue. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:20, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Since May is said likely to survive today's no-confidence pageant, I could see sticking this in Ongoing until something consequential happens. Sca (talk) 18:00, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Sure, Ongoing is the only viable place for it right now, but be prepared for it to sit there until late-March, possibly later, as these kinds of blips will be taking place between now and then. Is that what we really want, a Brexit note for 2+ months? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:04, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

• Support blurb or ongoing Major news worldwide. I think ongoing would be more appropriate, though, given the developments expected over the next few days. Davey2116 (talk) 16:17, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
• This is a difficult one. On one hand, it's something that didn't happen (i.e. the bill didn't pass), internal political squabbling, and we're no closer to knowing if/how Brexit will happen. On the other hand, the defeat was record-breaking, Brexit is the most important event in UK politics for decades, the vote will be of of historical encyclopaedic value, and this is very much 'in the news' worldwide. It's also part of an ongoing process which is taking too long to leave in the 'ongoing' section until it concludes, and there remains the remote possibility that it will cause the government to fall tonight. On balance, wait until we get the outcome of the no confidence vote this evening; if May loses or resigns I support a blurb, if she survives, as seems much more likely, I weak support ongoing, though am not sure which article would be best listed there. Modest Genius ^talk 16:21, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support ongoing. An important story where new developments are likely to happen on a regular basis for the next couple of months. Nsk92 (talk) 19:56, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
• Comment regarding ongoing now I'm cool with this going into Ongoing, but please, everyone note that it will need to stay there for at least three months. Is that what we use Ongoing for? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:00, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • If they really extend the exit date for...actually, not sure what they plan to do but they seem keen on doing that for some reason..., it might even stay there for six months or longer. That seems excessive. Regards SoWhy 20:36, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
    • Indeed, there are going to be a number of headline-busting events in the next few weeks relating to Brexit. Most of us Brits don't think this should be on the Main Page at all (ironically) but if it is heading there, then Ongoing and be prepared for three months of it. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:28, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support ongoing per TRM's acquiescence above. I think it's hard to deny that this story is newsworthy in its own right.--WaltCip (talk) 20:34, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
• Suggested another blurb, needs some trimming, but I think such a blurb is better at the moment than having an ongoing Brexit for 3 months and maybe much longer. --Tone 20:38, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

  No, a blurb for this micro-decision is unnecessary. This event has changed literally nothing. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:26, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

  I disagree that nothing has changed. The unacceptability of May's deal has now been fully exposed. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:43, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

  No, that was never in doubt, ever, at any point. Just look at RS. Not one single one of them had any doubt this was going to be a shambles. Just like all of Brexit. This vote is parochially notable but actually absolutely meaningless in the overall Brexit process. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:48, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

  We don't post news items based on WP:CRYSTAL. The actual result of the vote was the event, it was the proof. The size of the defeat makes it historically significant, regardless of any "Brexit process." Just my personal view. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:59, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

  Yes, thanks, I think I'm aware of CRYSTAL. The actual result was "so what". A big deal in British political history, but not unexpected and changes nothing. Like posting a minor league baseball record. Who cares? Whether it was lost by 1 vote or 200 votes, the result was utterly predictable. We wouldn't expect to post such stories from the US or any other country in the world, why is the UK any different? Nothing changed, nothing unexpected happened. Next. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:06, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

  I'd agree with Tom Harris in The Daily Telegraph who today said: "Politics is littered with milestones. We passed a pretty important one yesterday". Martinevans123 (talk) 22:18, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

  Of course. And Tom is employed to sell newspapers. But thanks for your nostalgic approach, it's really valued. Surprised we're not getting a dodgy YouTube video to accompany it. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:22, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

  Nostalgia strictly ain't what it used to be. But be my guest. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:29, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

• Comment do we need to post it? It's not hard to search Brexit if someone wants more info, but it's not like most ITN news and noms where there's simple headline + article with lots of contextual and further information people won't know about. It would be simple headline + nothing more; people know the context, and there's nothing more to say about the votes than no to deal, meh to government. Kingsif (talk) 21:22, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
• Info Also posting update for anyone not in the UK at the minute - May has announced she will give a speech at 2200 UTC (in about 10 minutes), will update if something comes from that. Kingsif (talk) 21:50, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

  Has she? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:52, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

  Ah, you mean there's going to be a "statement" at 10pm (which looks likely to be delayed because of a football match). Good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:54, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

  Yeh, quite reflective of UK politics Kingsif (talk) 21:57, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

  So, another meaningless political statement. So what? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:07, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

  ( conflict)Nothing of interest, besides mentioning that all the parties have been and will be working together, except Labour who have gone all Isolationist but are still invited. Kingsif (talk) 22:08, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

  Yes, nothing of interest. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:14, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

• Ongoing – In view of what's happened, Ongoing seems appropriate. (Or as Ben Bradlee is reputed to have said, "Stick it inside somewhere.") – Sca (talk) 22:26, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose ongoing Brexit and the related negotiations have been going on for almost 2 years now, and it has not been a feature of the "ongoing" section throughout that time. If there are major developments in the process over the next few months, they warrant their own discussion in ITN. But 3 months of (possible) minor developments should not be what the ongoing section is for. PotentPotables ( talk ) 23:35, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Ongoing for now. If nothing of consequence occurs in a reasonable time frame, kill it. Sca (talk) 02:42, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

• Posted to Ongoing, per rough consensus above. Suggest reviewing in a week with a view to pulling it if no progress has occurred. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:43, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Laurent Gbagbo acquitted of crimes against humanity[]

Nominator's comments: I know we don't often post acquittals but this is a pretty big case and has been described as a big blow for the ICC, especially as the judges halted the trial early and found the prosecution had not provided sufficient evidence. Worth a discussion, I think - Dumelow (talk) 18:52, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

• Tentative support, however, the update is thin and the blurb should mention the 2010 crisis. --Tone 19:58, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

• Comment Article has a severe referencing issue. Entire sections without a single reference.--SirEdimon (talk) 19:59, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose on referencing/quality. Otherwise an appropriate ITN blurb. --Masem (t) 20:18, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support acquittals are as notable as convictions. Banedon (talk) 22:42, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support The acquital of Gbagbo brings into fore the chain of mistrials and acquitals that have befelled the ICC. They stated they had a strong case only for it to wither away. this is something that shouldn't be let go silently Shadychiri (talk) 22:58, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support - per notable judgement.BabbaQ (talk) 23:36, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
• Comment: Would like to see some reactions to the acquittal in the article before posting. Spencer^T•C 00:40, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I have added a couple (mass celebrations in IC, but general concern about the ICC's role in future cases). --Masem (t) 00:56, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support when the article's cn-tags are addressed. Davey2116 (talk) 16:24, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
• Weak oppose acquittals are seldom as notable as convictions, it's entirely contextual, but in this case it's a big deal. Can't post with BLP violations though. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:24, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support once quality issues are addressed. ICC judgments on heads of state (whether convictions or acquittals) are very rare and important. Neutrality^talk 01:43, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
• No sourcing issues are apparent on the article now. Posted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:48, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

  Well, apart from the four [citation needed] tags of course. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:53, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

RD: Carol Channing[]

Nominator's comments: Renowned Broadway star, passed away at 97 years old. WaltCip (talk) 12:58, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

• Weak oppose some paras unreferenced in the main prose and the awards/noms table almost completely uncited. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:03, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support. With the exception of some redlinked husbands, it seems gtg. — Wyliepedia @ 15:33, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
• Weak support. A couple of citations needed but awards nominations referenced. The two instances where citations are missing are not essential to the article and the text could be amended pending references. Capitalistroadster (talk) 16:14, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

  Actually there looks like there are currently six [citation needed] tags. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:16, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

  There are eleven at the time of this . ―Susmuffin ^Talk 21:27, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose The citations needed tags are just the beginning of the problem. Several of references are to YouTube video clips of her movies and interviews on television talk shows. Much of this article may be original research. Her YouTube videos are worth a watch and very entertaining but they are not reliable sources.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 18:26, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Not necessarily, but they do pose a problem. If she talked about herself on a television interview on a recognized television program, and we can cite show, episode, air date, etc. then that's acceptable as a reliable source. We cannot however link to YouTube videos that aren't uploaded by the show's copyright holder. Spot-check shows most of the video links are clear copyright vios in this sense. That's a major problem, but if they can be changed to {{cite video}} templates without the YouTube link, then that's better. --Masem (t) 18:48, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
    • The reliance on primary sources is pretty bad. Large portions of the personal life section is sourced to divorse court documents hosted on Justia. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 20:49, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose This article has severe issues with its references. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 21:27, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

January 14[]

(Posted blurb) Paweł Adamowicz[]

Nominator's comments: Polish politician stabbed to death, the article is short though. –Ammarpad (talk) 16:06, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

• Comment I actually think a blurb would be more appropriate here. The story is headline news in the UK whereas him dying of natural causes would not be. Thryduulf (talk) 17:12, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
• Weak Support Blurb article is close to a stub. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:35, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support blurb...RD is useless. Political asassinations in Europe are extremely rare. - EugεnS¡m¡on 17:38, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support blurb - rare assassination of a politician, in Europe.BabbaQ (talk) 17:43, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose too much is unreferenced for a BLP. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:43, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • That issue has been resolved now. --BorgQueen (talk) 06:46, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Pretty much everything save for the assault is unreferenced. Support blurb Mayor of a major Polish city killed by a madman - worth the ITN Openlydialectic (talk) 17:53, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support blurb. The article is in much better shape now. --BorgQueen (talk) 18:11, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support RD While there are a few cites missing from the awards section the article is adequate, if barely, for RD. Oppose blurb This was a mayor, not a national political office holder. And the article, while acceptable for RD, is nowhere near good enough for a blurb. It is only barely a start class. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:18, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose A few of the awards still lack citations. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 18:25, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support RD - It's pretty big deal here in Poland. It's the first assassination since 1930's --TheDFPL (talk) 18:28, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support Blurb It seems this is a major story in European news. In my opinion it satisfies the criteria in WP:ITNRD. — bieχχ (talk) 18:29, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
• I'd support blurb but the article needs some work with references, for example, most of the awards are unreferenced (blue links do not count). --Tone 19:39, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support RD on improvements, oppose blurb It's an assassination, but of a city's mayor by a criminal that blames the city for his incarceration. It's a very localized domestic situation, and not a result of some international plot. --Masem (t) 19:47, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support blurb Assassinations of European politicians during these times in this manner nonetheless an assassination of a major city mayor in Poland is even rarer. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:57, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
• Posted I have posted as RD but consensus is emerging for a blurb if sourcing can be improved on the article — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:48, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support blurb. I fixed both citation-needed tags. wumbolo ^^^ 21:28, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support blurb All citation-needed tags have been resolved. Uses x (talk) 21:34, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support blurb notable and acceptable quality --DannyS712 (talk) 22:05, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
• Pull it's not adequately referenced, no-one appears to have checked this thoroughly enough before it was posted. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:09, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Apart from a few minor awards ("Pro Ecclesia et Pontifice Golden Cross") which could justifiably be removed from the article entirely, what isn't sourced? power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:22, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • The only unreferenced parts are four medals, and I would agree that these could be removed from the article if necessary. Uses x (talk) 22:29, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
    • Then fix it or remove it. Right now it's a blatant BLP violation and one which should have prevented any admin from posting it. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:39, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
      • Unsourced awards have been removed, as per BLP Uses x (talk) 22:44, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
        • Thank you, of course that should have happened before it sat on the main page for a couple of hours, especially considering those concerns had been raised some hours before. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:45, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
          • "Blatant BLP violation" is a blatant stretch. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:11, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
            • Of course, unverifiable awards are just fine. Little wonder there's so little trust in some admins to reinforce such important policies here. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:50, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
              • Quality is not binary, and there's a spectrum of quality between "not good enough to post" and "perfect". "Fine" lies somewhere in the middle. --Jayron32 16:07, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
                • Yes, brilliant. But BLP is a bright line, we simply don't attribute awards to people without verification. Even you know that. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:08, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
                  • It's not that bright. "material challenged or likely to be challenged must be" cited, which implies a) that material unlikely to be challenged may not necessarily require citation, and b) the difference is completely subjective. If you say John Doe won a Nobel prize and was granted the key to the city of Dubuque, I'm going to want the former cited but let the latter go. ghost 13:24, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
                    • It's a bright line. We don't attribute awards to people without them being verifiable, that's very naughty. Indeed, I know at least one person who was actually blocked for doing so. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:39, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support blurb Notable assassination, article now fully sourced. Davey2116 (talk) 03:35, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
• I've marked it Ready for blurb. --BorgQueen (talk) 06:49, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
• Posted, waiting for protection to kick in before adding the image. Smurrayinchester 09:08, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) 2019 Saha Airlines Boeing 707 crash[]

 Mjroots (talk) 14:37, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

• Weak support worst aircrash of the year so far (I know...) and multiple fatalities. Article is okay considering the lack of details available. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:58, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support Significant number of deaths from a commercial aviation disaster qualifies for ITN, and the article is short but well-sourced. --Masem (t) 16:02, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support The article looks good and the death toll is quite high. –Ammarpad (talk) 16:13, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support - ready to go. and death toll is significant.BabbaQ (talk) 18:07, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
• Posted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:13, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

January 13[]

(Posted) RD: Mel Stottlemyre[]

Nominator's comments: Needs a little more sourcing, but I can get it there tonight. Should be good now. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:01, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

• Support Good to go. I tip my hat to you for the good work.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 05:12, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:02, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
• Posted good as gone. --Jayron32 16:02, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Extradition of Cesare Battisti[]

Consensus will not develop to post this. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:36, 14 January 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: Cesare Battisti (born 1954) (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Far-left terrorist Cesare Battisti (pictured) is extradited to his homeland Italy after his capture in Bolivia.
News source(s): Avvenire ABC
Nominator: ArionEstar (talk • give cr)

Nominator's comments: Notorious fugitive. Sentenced to life imprisonment since 1995. ArionEstar (talk) 12:17, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose Plenty of issues - including referencing, updating ("Italy plans to appeal") and POV ("expiate his sentence") - but I'm going to oppose on significance. Good faith due to the long fight, but I don't think extradition itself is ever be important enough to post (outside of a head of state). ghost 12:36, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose – On notability, significance. (In rare cases, extradition could be worth a blurb – that of Julian Assange, for a hypothetical example.) – Sca (talk) 14:01, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Just the fact that (Born 1954) has to be added to the article name shows that notability is in question. Good faith, but there's not a snowball's chance of this getting posted. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 15:50, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Support. Important, finally the world has started to realize the radical left's danger, probably plenty more to come. Openlydialectic (talk) 16:05, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Openlydialectic I don't get it. Do you support it or oppose it?--SirEdimon (talk) 17:32, 14 January 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) RD: Phil Masinga[]

Nominator's comments: International footballer, I've tidied it up and cited it, I think it's acceptable now. Black Kite (talk) 11:42, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

• Support the source given says cancer. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:39, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support Seems ready. –Ammarpad (talk) 13:54, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support covers all the main details and well sourced. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:04, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
• Posted – Muboshgu (talk) 18:07, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

January 12[]

(Posted) RD: Patricia Wald[]

Nominator's comments: American judge DannyS712 (talk) 17:42, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

• Support Seems well referenced.--SirEdimon (talk) 20:16, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
• Posted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:32, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose five citation needed tags on a BLP? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:40, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

• Yeah, that's poor. I've cited two of them and the other three sentences weren't really relevant to her, so I've removed them. All sourced now. Black Kite (talk) 18:01, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

January 11[]

(Posted) RD: Georgy Brady[]

Nominator's comments: Holocaust survivor DannyS712 (talk) 17:42, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

• Support satis. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:42, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support Looks OK. –Ammarpad (talk) 13:59, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
• Posted. Black Kite (talk) 18:10, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Meera Sanyal[]

(Posted) Acting Presidency of Juan Guaidó[]

Article: 2019 Venezuelan Presidential crisis (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In an ongoing Venezuelan Presidential crisis, Juan Guaidó (pictured) and the National Assembly prepare to usurp start to take rule try to take over from the incumbent Nicolás Maduro.
Alternative blurb: ​In an ongoing Venezuelan Presidential crisis, Juan Guaidó (pictured) and the National Assembly declare incumbent Nicolás Maduro "illegitimate" and start the process of attempting to remove him.
News source(s): The Guardian, Venezuelan Assembly
Nominator and updater: Kingsif (talk • give cr)
Article updated

Nominator's comments: Kind of a coup, but not being called a coup because everyone thinks it's legitimate... Kingsif (talk) 22:07, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

• Comment He says he is ready to assume office, not that he has assumed office. Very different implication. --Masem (t) 21:57, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

• His speech said he was ready, then the NA press release says "the president of the National Assembly, deputy Juan Guaidó, assumed the powers of the Presidency of the Republic". Very specifically "assumed", as in, already did it. Kingsif (talk) 22:00, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

• This suggests tons of miscommunication going on here. And this suggests that for Guaido to take up the presidency, they have to have the military backing to knock Maduro out so that Guaido can step in. --Masem (t) 22:05, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

• I'm going to assume the press release of the National Assembly of Venezuela knows a bit more about its leader than the Miami Herald does. Honestly, I did not think it would happen this immediately, but it seems to have done. (I've read the Caracas Chronicles piece, and yeah, it shows confusion, it's trying to interpret the words of Guaidó at the rally where he says a leader needs more than just saying he's leader. No matter what he meant, I think the later press release overwhelms any confusion.) Kingsif (talk) 22:09, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

• I cannot access the press release but I am going to assume it is in Spanish based on the link title. If that is the case, we need absolutely assurance on the translation, which I haven't seen yet in news. --Masem (t) 22:23, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
• Here's a more recent report that suggests that the National Assembly is working a plan to transition the govt in a few weeks (by pleading to military offices to defect to their side), suggesting they have yet to put Gauido in office. --Masem (t) 22:26, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

• They seem to be operating on "assumed Presidency, now we're working on kicking out the guy who won't leave". And, for your checks, the original text from the press release is "el presidente de la Asamblea Nacional, diputado Juan Guaidó, asumió las competencias de la Presidencia de la República" — asumió is a preterite ("actions completed in the past") form of asumir (to assume) [3]. Absolute assurance. Kingsif (talk) 22:31, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

• Now I can see the press release (your second source above, I presume) but do not see anything of that quoted Spanish language in there. Google Translate doesn't given anything of the impression that the NA has made the assumption Guaido is president, only that they want him to be president in the next few weeks as they build up support. --Masem (t) 22:36, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

• I just reopened the page. Yes, it has changed. That's strange -- the older version with my quoted text says 5:48pm, which is just over an hour ago. Both Guaidó's statements and the closing paragraph of the new version still say "Guaidó is legitimate and recognized as President, but we need to stage a coup before he can actually fulfill that role" Kingsif (talk) 22:54, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

• That's the impression I get off a Google translate too, and more in line with how English news sources are reporting this. The NA is presenting Guaido as whom they want to put in as president once they can oust Maduro, hoping that helps to draw some military support to support a coup. Because this appears to be happening over a few weeks this might make this more a ongoing story. But I would also add that we are starting to see protests/rallys (100s to 1000s, but not large yet) in protest, so that may be part of a larger story. --Masem (t) 23:02, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Venezuelan here. The main problem is the conflict between a de facto and a de jure presidency, and which one is it. Some argue that Guaidó assumed the presidency, and the OAS Secretary General recognized him as such, but others don't. In any case, I support a blurb about the new since it is noteworthy. --Jamez42 (talk) 22:18, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose just purely on the kind of tabloid-esque blurb being proposed. This is an encyclopedia, we're not going to post a blurb which makes some such "claim". The Rambling Man (talk) 23:00, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

• Propose a better one? Kingsif (talk) 23:02, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

• A good blurb should mention both Maduro and Guaido and their conflicting appointments. As written, it sounds as if the crisis was over and Guaido will be ruling from now on, which is hardly the actual case. Cambalachero (talk) 00:31, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

• Support - I support this, per unusual"coup".BabbaQ (talk) 00:42, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support Alt blurb II - article looks ok after a cursory look. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 01:00, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
• The time has certainly come to post something...just what the **** that is I do not know. I'm going to go with a tenuous support ongoing for 2019 Venezuelan Presidential crisis. ghost 03:52, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support this or ongoing per ghost. Definitely a significant story, and the article is pretty good. Davey2116 (talk) 05:31, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
• As pointed out above, neither Guaidó nor the National Assembly has assumed Guaidó as president. They are preparing Guaidó to be president if they can usurp power. So Alt2 is completely wrong. I have provided Alt3 that describes the situation as I read it from sources. --Masem (t) 05:56, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

• The issue with that is "prepare" is just begging to be told Wait, when they've made the biggest move in the last decade of crisis already, so I've tweaked it into Alt4 without changing the "not quite President yet"-ness. Kingsif (talk) 06:03, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

• Support this or ongoing per ghost and Davey2116. But strongly oppose altblurb3 with its use of the word usurp, a thoroughly POV word which, as used in altblurb3, implies that Maduro is legitimate and Guaido and the National Assembly are illegitimate. Tlhslobus (talk) 09:46, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
• Comment We have far too many unusable altblurbs up there and should perhaps remove the ones that have been crossed out. Altblurb4 is seemingly the least bad at present, but it probably needs to be changed to 'and start the process of attempting to remove him' because the current wording leaves the impression that removing him is something fairly easy to do. Tlhslobus (talk) 09:59, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
• Comment Alt3 is now "blurb", alt4 is now alt1. Kingsif (talk) 11:50, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, but I've reworded the new blurb, as 'start to take rule' is bad English (at least where I come from). But other wording such as 'begin to try to remove the incumbent Nicholas Maduro' may perhaps better convey the original intended meaning (though I'm not sure of what exactly that was). Tlhslobus (talk) 15:58, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

In both blurb and altblurb1 'President' may perhaps also be preferable to 'the incumbent' (which may make some readers ask 'incumbent what?').Tlhslobus (talk) 16:40, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

"presidential crisis" probably makes it clear. Kingsif (talk) 17:54, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

• Comment – Looks like this belongs in Ongoing. Sca (talk) 13:23, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support and per ghost I'd be willing to support either as a blurb or as ongoing but this situation is too critical to not post something. That being said, the altblurbs have changed many times as the story developed, so while it is blurb-worthy on notability, ongoing is also a viable option while the crisis continues. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 14:20, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support this or ongoing per ghost and Davey2116.--Panam2014 (talk) 19:38, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support ongoing or the "Alternative blurb".--SirEdimon (talk) 19:44, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support ongoing or the Alternative blurb. --Cambalachero (talk) 22:57, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
• Posted. Wording still seems a bit awkward, but the ERRORS crowd will help out there I'm sure. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:18, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
• Suggestion I'd replace "presidential crisis" with "constitutional crisis." -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:04, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
• Comment Juan Guaidó has been detained which means now he won't be able to take over incumbent president Maduro I believe we should change the blurb to mention this. (BBC) --Bluecrab2 (talk) 17:17, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  • "Briefly detailed" means he's free again. Not a major change yet. --Masem (t) 17:19, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
• Note I've tweaked the blurb to closer match the text of the article; the article discusses that Guaidó was declared acting president by the NA, and that the NA disputed the election results. --Jayron32 14:21, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
• Wait – Developing, still murky. Either wait or Ongoing – Sca (talk) 13:30, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

(Posted to RD) Michael Atiyah[]

 DannyS712 (talk) 19:55, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

• Comment a few {{cn}}s but overall fairly good shape. Will support in a few hours, once the initial updates are done. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:58, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

  @Power~enwiki: I added a citation that I could find. The 2 remaining tags are very technical details that I couldn't find specific sources for, but the claims are backed up by other (wikipedia) articles that don't have CN tags, suggesting that, in this specific field, it may be common knowledge. --DannyS712 (talk) 21:33, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

• Support RD - article is in decent shape; hugely notable and influential mathematician Spiderone 10:16, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

I certainly wouldn't oppose a blurb either Spiderone 16:59, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

• Support blurb. Only a handful of living mathematicians can be considered more influential, and the article is in solid shape. wumbolo ^^^ 12:59, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support blurb Fields medalist, very influential in mathematics. Davey2116 (talk) 15:08, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support blurb, one of the eminent 20th century mathematicians, winner of both the Fields Medal and Abel Prize, the highest honors in mathematics. Nsk92 (talk) 17:18, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

  @Nsk92, Davey2116, Wumbolo, Spiderone, and Power~enwiki: given the supports for a blurb, I have added one. Pinging those who previously commented on the RD nom - what do you think of the blurb? (blurb inspired by Msk92's reasoning) --DannyS712 (talk) 18:02, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

  Yes sure, looks good to me, thanks. Nsk92 (talk) 19:19, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. Davey2116 (talk) 22:56, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

• Support RD, Oppose blurb I would reserve RD-blurbs either for particularly shocking events, or for artists or statesmen who are household names whose deaths are making front pages around the world. Yes, the Atiyah-Singer theorem is important. But he is not in the same league of impact on the popular consciousness as a Mandela, a Thatcher, a Bowie. (For the record also, winning both the Abel prize and the Fields medal is not particularly unique: according to Wikidata (tinyurl.com/y7pxt9rw) six Abel prize winners out of the 20 so far were also Fields medallists). Jheald (talk) 20:00, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
• Posted to RD. If consensus for a blurb emerges, then we can relocate. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:23, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose RD The article was not ready for Main Page. There are several issues that need to be resolved and copy ed. Oppose blurb as not meeting our criterion.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 16:58, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support blurb He proved the Riemann hypothesis. It's hard to get more significant than that. 108.214.193.21 (talk) 17:12, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support blurb, per Nsk92. He was at the top of his field internationally for decades in the second half of the 20th century. I've done some minor c/e to the article but can't help with the maths. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:17, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support RD, oppose blurb While Atiyah was famous in the field of maths, he's nowhere close to the same league as Thatcher, Bush, David Bowie, and other household names who have merited a blurb. 1779Days (talk) 21:41, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

• But the ITNRD guidelines say "major transformative world leaders in their field" qualify for a blurb. There's no question that Atiyah was hugely transformative in his field (which is not by any means a narrow one). Davey2116 (talk) 03:37, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

• Comment As I have in the CFP debate every year, I will caution against inventing new criteria ("household name") to reject a candidate. My reading of the rule is basically: "There was no greater living X than Y" (one may have equals but not betters), assuming X is not overly narrow. ghost 13:10, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support blurb as nom. Also, I have changed the section heading to "(Posted to RD) Michael Atiyah" to make it clear that it is still being debated for inclusion as a blurb. --DannyS712 (talk) 04:58, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose blurb His death isn't on the Mandela/Thatcher/Bowie level in terms of reaction. That's what it'd take to get me to support a blurb for the death of an 89 year old. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:09, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

• This really isn't a valid !oppose since the "Mandela/Thatcher/Bowie standard" is not policy. Davey2116 (talk) 16:19, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose Blurb, a blurb would be a travesty flying in the face of years of consensus. Abductive (reasoning) 05:46, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose blurb This is what RD is for.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:44, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Macedonia renaming[]

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: