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.

Narendra Modi in 2015
Narendra Modi

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pulled from the main page are generally marked with (Posted) or (Pulled) in the item's subject so it is clear they are no longer active.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


May 25[]

Science and technology

May 24[]

Armed conflict and attacks
Disasters and accidents
Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

RD: Murray Gell-Mann[]

Article: Murray Gell-Mann (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Caltech

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.

 Count Iblis (talk) 05:31, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Portuguesa prison uprising[]

Article: 2019 Portuguesa, Venezuela prison uprising (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A prison uprising in Acarigua, Venezuela leaves at least 29 prisoners dead.
News source(s): Time

Nominator's comments: Might not get through—not as big as last year's prison riot—but still hits death toll (29 confirmed in Spanish sources) and an unexpected event, all things considered. Kingsif (talk) 21:37, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

@LaserLegs: Suggest re-reading now. Initial effort was to get some content on there, more sources now. RS, local, official, BBC, etc. Looks to be more a dispute over visitors and maybe some overcrowding. And we know what you think of Venezuela, but some would argue NGOs are more reliable over there than the official story; everything in the article now, though, is attributed and treated fairly. Kingsif (talk) 23:07, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll take a look in the AM if this isn't speedy posted to the MP by then. What some people call NGOs, others call activists in the employ of hard right Christofascists determined to punish the Venezuelan people for believing in economic equality for all --LaserLegs (talk) 23:18, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Re-affirm my oppose. I went looking for WP:RS to see if the title should be "uprising" or "riot" and didn't see this in headlines anywhere, either on the aggregators or on major pub (even hard right sites like Fox Noise or the WSJ) -- this item simply isn't "in the news" --LaserLegs (talk) 23:40, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
the BBC] not good enough for you? A lot of the world is sleeping and RS will wait until it has a solid story, we all accept news coming out of Venezuela takes time. Kingsif (talk) 23:56, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

2019 Surat fire[]

Article: 2019 Surat fire (talk, history)
Blurb: Twenty children die in a fire accident in Surat, India.
Alternative blurb: ​Twenty people die in a fire accident in Surat, India.
News source(s): The Times of India, BBC News

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Deaths of 20 children in fire accident is saddening and unusual. The incident is covered around the world. Nizil (talk) 18:07, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

  • However, if only children have died, there's something to be said for including that in the blurb. If it's 20 children and 20 adults, go with "40 people", otherwise it should be fine. Kingsif (talk) 23:08, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Nope. If children are the target of some attack like Boko Haram or that Saudi bus bombing then maybe, but a random tragedy, the victims age is trivia, just like their gender, height, whatever else. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:16, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  • So you wouldn't be shocked following a link saying "20 people" to then learn they were all children? Kingsif (talk) 23:18, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  • @Kingsif: and @LaserLegs:, I have struck down the blurb as I found that the most students died in the accident were aged between 17 and 22. So children would be inappropriate term. You may change it to students if seem appropriate. Regards,-Nizil (talk) 07:34, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Students =/= children, I wonder where the reporting came from. Kingsif (talk) 07:40, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  • @Sherenk1: I have expanded/updated the article. Thanks.-Nizil (talk) 07:49, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Theresa May[]

Articles: Theresa May (talk, history) and 2019 European Parliament election in the United Kingdom (talk, history)
Blurb: ​British Prime minister Theresa May announces her intention to resign from office.
Alternative blurb: ​British Prime minister Theresa May announces her intention to resign so that a new leader can deliver Brexit
Alternative blurb II: ​British Prime minister Theresa May, under pressure over her handling of Brexit, announces her intention to resign
Alternative blurb III: ​Facing backlash over the handling of Brexit, British Prime minister Theresa May announces her intent to resign.
Alternative blurb IV: ​British Prime minister Theresa May, facing backlash over the handling of Brexit, announces her intent to resign.
News source(s): BBC News The Guardian Le Monde Reuters Spiegel Online Sydney Morning Herald Moscow Times

Nominator's comments: Local news at the moment, but will probably ramp up to international news as the day progresses. Not expecting a rush of support but if you don't ask you don't get. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:28, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Carcharoth New PMs are not ITNR unless as the result of a general election,("Changes to the head of government are discussed on their own merits."); this is simply the party changing its leader. 331dot (talk) 09:56, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Technically the new PM won't be ITNR (assuming there is one, which just may be problematic if by then s/he will clearly be unable to command a Commons majority due to the possible public departure by then of enough pro-Remain Tories to try to make it harder to bring about the no-deal Brexit that any Tory will probably have to promise to be prepared to do in order to get elected by party members). However if there is a new PM it is almost inconceivable that they would not be posted despite not being technically ITNR. Tlhslobus (talk) 01:15, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure we need to mention the reason in the blurb, that's what the news stories and article are for. 331dot (talk) 11:51, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
There is precedent:

The Ibiza affair, a political scandal, causes the collapse of the Austrian government and triggers a snap election.

If you want to focus on her government, the target article would be Second May ministry. Carcharoth (talk) 11:57, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
In that case, the focus of the blurb was the scandal itself, which is easier to word neutrally. This is a blurb about Theresa May, not Brexit. 331dot (talk) 12:00, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
You are right. The blurb should be about Brexit and how it has resulted in this resignation. Carcharoth (talk) 12:06, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
The news here is not Brexit, but May resigning while citing Brexit as a reason. That can be explained in the article. 331dot (talk) 12:07, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
This is very much part of the ongoing Brexit news saga. Carcharoth (talk) 12:22, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
It's part of it, but not the whole story(unlike the Austria example you give). I think we will just need to agree to disagree; the chips will fall where they may. 331dot (talk) 12:30, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Someone must have begged her to stay on those extra few days? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:12, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  • It is in the news now. Why wait until late July? You are right, it is most definitely in the news. It is the top news on all the major news sites I have been to so far. Do you think ITN would have failed to cover Margaret Thatcher's resignation? David Cameron's resignation was merged with the referendum result. Carcharoth (talk) 13:16, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
David Who? – Sca (talk) 14:09, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
There is no real comparison with Thatcher, who, for better or worse, was a significant transformative figure in the history of her country (and arguably elsewhere too), while May is a brief transitional figure who is resigning as expected precisely because of her inability to transform anything (arguments over who is to blame for that are not relevant to whether her departure belongs on our front page). Tlhslobus (talk) 01:05, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  • It means she can escape being pushed out by the predicted dismal Tory result on Monday. Strong and stable to the very end. But I agree, not sure why it has been included in the nomination as a relevant article. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:24, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
@DBigXray: Is the PM of Cambodia trying and failing to negotiate an exit from the European Union? 331dot (talk) 14:55, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  • 331dot FYI, I am following this topic from the very beginning. This is a news specific to the British Politics. We should see how this one specific event (only the "intention") affects others. This should be enough hint to clarify my position. regards. --DBigXray 15:33, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  • (ec) It IS official. She will officially resign on 7 June. She stood outside Downing Street behind a podium for goodness sake. This is not like her other vague announcements that she would step aside when Brexit was over (ha!).-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:29, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
I'll tell you what is news - I don't believe a sitting British Prime Minister has ever broke down in tears in public before. I watched the speech and was all for saying "don't let the door hit you on the way out" until the last three seconds, then I just sat there in silence. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:46, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
One may feel sorry for a person in such a predicament, but empathy does not make the event more newsworthy. – Sca (talk) 22:02, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
At least there was no fit of coughing, and the numbers on the door of No 10 didn't fall off. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:26, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
A universally expected event involving the universally expected person, who's been in the Brexit 'news' for nearly three years, is more newsworthy than the identity of her unknown successor – whose task it will be to achieve some degree of order in the interminable UK-EU brouhaha? – Sca (talk) 21:55, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Oh, no (and I pity the person who comes next), but this is sooner than expected and taking over the news. May resigning is, let's accept it, definitely news; if we wait for the successor (also news in itself) this will no longer be the story and we likely wouldn't condense them into one blurb (i.e. we'd veto '[X] becomes UK PM after May resigns because Brexit' because of squishing multiple stories and old news). Kingsif (talk) 22:00, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

May 23[]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

RD: Zakir Rashid Bhat[]

Article: Zakir Rashid Bhat (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC

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

Nominator's comments: "India's most wanted" militant Sherenk1 (talk) 08:40, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Arolsen Archives (13 Million Nazi Era Archives Made Available Online[]

Closing, clear that it's not ready. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:36, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further s should be made to this discussion.

Article: Arolsen Archives-International Center on Nazi Persecution (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Around 13 million documents from Nazi Concentration Camps are posted online.
News source(s): https://www.jpost.com/Diaspora/Around-13-million-documents-from-Nazi-concentration-camps-posted-online-590335
Nominator's comments: I think this is fairly significant and should be highlighted, just browsing some of the documents and details that they kept track of is something to see, perhaps especially in today's world. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:20, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose probably a good candidate for one of the other sections of the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:30, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Doesn't DYK require the article to be either new or significantly expanded that would prohibit this from being on the page? I also don't think I can find a picture that would make this a featured picture, nor one that would be appropriate for the page, perhaps a list but what do you suggest? Sir Joseph (talk) 20:28, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Make it GA quality and Bob's your uncle. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:30, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
[1] is tomorrow night. Based on that outcome we'll see what I can do. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:33, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose – No clear target article in the blurb. If we assume the Arolsen Archives is the target article, the article is in need of significant improvements in referencing; several paragraphs lack citations. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 19:32, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above. This is very interesting but at the moment I'm not convinced ITN is the best place to promote this on the main page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:36, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

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

(Closed) 2019 European Parliament election[]

If you want ongoing, nom for ongoing. The election is WP:ITNR so when they're done go ahead and nom. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:56, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further s should be made to this discussion.

Article: 2019 European Parliament election (talk, history)
Ongoing item nomination
News source(s): European Parliament

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: These elections are large and take place over 23-26 May, so it would be appropriate to add them to Ongoing before the results are in. —AlphaMikeOmega (talk) 17:39, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Lots of elections are "large" (for any given definition of large) and by convention we generally only post the results. I don't see any compelling reason to post an in-process election to "ongoing" in contravention of existing practice. There's nothing inherently special about these elections over any other we normally post. --Jayron32 17:53, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Jayron32. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:58, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Further to Jayron's points, EU elections don't equate to what we normally think of as elections; the European Parliament is a largely symbolic body with minimal actual influence. We also won't have a "result" on Sunday in the sense one normally thinks of it; each of the 28 participating nations is electing members of its own political parties (the current largest party in the parliament is the German CDU, with 29 of the 751 seats), so there won't be a result as such, as much as the prelude to weeks of coalition-building until we eventually end up with something that looks like this. In the unlikely event that there's a clear outcome (that is, the loose coalitions that make up the PES or EPP groupings manage to get a majority), I wouldn't object to our posting the result. (European elections are currently in ITNR, but probably shouldn't be. This was the alleged "consensus" that led to them being added.) ‑ Iridescent 18:08, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
    I would disagree that it is purely symbolic; the EU has a convoluted power-sharing structure, but the European Parliament does have a legislative role it shares with the Council and the Commission, and the legislation the EU passes (of which the Parliament has a role, though not the only role) is binding on member states. I also understand that it has a convoluted means of creating coalitions and forming the equivalent of a "government", which will not happen right when the election is complete. However, under the "strike-while-the-iron-is-hot" principle (that is, posting articles to the main page when people are reading about those topics in the news), this should still be posted when the elections are complete (and the article is properly updated with enough well-referenced added) so that the posting coincides with the pre-eminence in news sources. As to your third point, ITNR is largely irrelevant if consensus is to post it anyways. The presence, or lack thereof, or dubiousness-of-being-on ITNR should have no bearing on discussions here at ITNC which may determine that an item is worth posting without regard to ITNR status. The fact that something does or doesn't belong on ITNR because you call into question the process that put it there should have no bearing on whether or not this specific item has consensus to be posted. --Jayron32 18:16, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
    It does have veto powers, but it has no Right of initiative—they can block things from happening, and theoretically they can dismiss the Commission, but they can't propose their own laws. Whether something is legitimately ITNR is entirely valid; if it's ITNR then we're only concerned with the article quality, not with whether the topic is actually newsworthy, but if it's not then we're also judging whether this is actually something readers want to know. Except in those countries where the results are of domestic significance as a predictor of how forthcoming national elections will play out, the EU elections won't even be a main story when the results are published on Monday; people really don't care. (Can you name your Euro-MP?) ‑ Iridescent 18:38, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
    Yes, but not being on ITNR (or not supposed to be on ITNR) has no bearing on whether or not the news is actually covering THIS specific event. News either is, or is not, covering it. ITNR just means that those are events we EXPECT news to cover, but the actual evidence is in the actual news. ITNR status cannot make the actual news coverage not be there. And here is my full list of MEPs: ∅ --Jayron32 20:18, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
    Wales has four: Jill, Glenys, Nathan and Kay. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:49, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
    If Wikipedia has an award for unflattering photography, that infobox will certainly win it; when Nigel Farage is the most normal looking person in the group, something is seriously wrong somewhere. ‑ Iridescent 19:37, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Close until results are released. A consensus to post to ongoing will not develop. This item is explicitly listed as ITNR: Wikipedia:In the news/Recurring items#Elections and heads of state. The above discussion can continue at WT:ITNR and this can be re-nominated after May 26.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 19:41, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - I have proposed the removal of this item on ITNR. As long as the ITNR status of this item is in dispute, it cannot be assumed that there is an automatic consensus to post, and so ITNR should not apply here. Similar to when an article proposed for ITNC is nominated for deletion.--WaltCip (talk) 19:58, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't agree with that - otherwise anyone could stall a nom they don't like by proposing its removal at ITNR.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:17, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I also don't agree. I'm sure you're not doing this Walt, but it could easily be a way to game the system each and every time an ITNR we don't like (let's say .... oooooh... The Boat Race...??!) comes up. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:43, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

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

(Posted) RD: Beaton Tulk[]

Article: Beaton Tulk (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): CBC

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

Nominator's comments: Well sourced and updated --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:35, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) 2019 Indian general election[]

Article: 2019 Indian general election (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Bharatiya Janata Party, led by incumbent Prime Minister Narendra Modi, wins the most seats in the 2019 Indian general election.
Alternative blurb: ​The Bharatiya Janata Party-led National Democratic Alliance wins a majority in the Indian general election.
Alternative blurb II: ​The incumbent Bharatiya Janata Party and its allies, led by Narendra Modi, win the 2019 Indian general election by a landslide.
Alternative blurb III: ​The Bharatiya Janata Party wins the 2019 Indian general election, becoming only the second government in Indian history to hold consecutive terms in office.
News source(s): BBC

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

Nominator's comments: Results will be announced within 24 hours, so we can update the blurb then. Posting it now so that ors can take note of comments to improve article to post in ITN. I believe more prose will be needed especially in the Results section. Sherenk1 (talk) 04:46, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Wait till the complete result gets declared.

  • Let's decide on the blurb. El_C 18:33, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I have taken that phrase out. If you wish to retain it some other form, please see the article's talk page. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:29, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Added. Chose to go with alt.2, for now. Special thanks goes Ms Sarah Welch, for all her efforts. El_C 19:00, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

May 22[]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime
Politics and elections

(Posted) RD: Judith Kerr[]

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

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

Nominator's comments: Needs references. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:58, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

May 21[]

Armed conflict and attacks
  • Eleven people including the National People’s Party (NPP) Member of Legislative Assembly (MLA), Tirong Aboh and his son were killed in an ambush at 12th mile in Khonsa-Deomali road in Tirap District in Arunachal Pradesh. (Reuters)

Business and economy

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sports

(Closed) Kami Rita[]

Consensus will not develop to post. Stephen 03:34, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further s should be made to this discussion.

Article: Kami Rita (talk, history)
Blurb: Kami Rita climbs Mount Everest for a record 23rd and 24th time, six days apart.
News source(s): The Washington Post, Smithsonian Magazine
 --- Coffeeandcrumbs 02:57, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose not wishing to diminish his amazing achievement in any way, he broke the record in May 2018 and plans to get to 25 ascents before he retires. Stephen 03:55, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose would make for good trivia. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:18, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Trivia in every respect. – Ammarpad (talk) 08:59, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose It's not that groundbreaking in my opinion. INeedSupport :3 01:29, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Piling on. It doesn't cut the mustard for ITN. Hrodvarsson (talk) 03:09, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

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

RD: Binyavanga Wainaina[]

Article: Binyavanga Wainaina (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: Prize-winning Kenyan writer. Could use some more refs, article is almost there. Sherenk1 (talk) 12:04, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

I added several citations. No more cn tags. Pinging Sherenk1 and Stephen. = paul2520 (talk) 15:42, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
@Stephen:  Done. = paul2520 (talk) 12:51, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Man Booker International Prize 2019[]

Article: Man Booker International Prize (talk, history)
Blurb: Omani author Jokha Alharthi wins the Man Booker International Prize becoming the first Arabic writer to do so.
Alternative blurb: ​The Man Booker International Prize is awarded to Omani author Jokha Alharthi for Celestial Bodies, the first book written in Arabic to win the prize.
Alternative blurb II: Omani author Jokha Alharthi wins the Man Booker International Prize.
News source(s): BBC

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: First Arabic writer. Sherenk1 (talk) 07:32, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

@Sherenk1: Generally ITN worthy but the article contains no references for the winning entry, just shortlist and longlist. That needs to be fixed first. Also, that she is the first Arabic writer to win is not in the article. Regards SoWhy 08:16, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
@SoWhy: Support - MBI prize is second biggest prize to Nobel for international literature. I have fixed the issues in the original article posted by commenter. 9:26, 22 May 2019
@SoWhy: and @The Rambling Man: - This last year entry shows the Man Booker article as bold. Sherenk1 (talk) 11:40, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Contrary to the rules at ITNR then. Just because someone made a mistake, no need to repeat it. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:47, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
To be fair, the reason that mistake was made last year was because even though there was consensus that the article on the author wasn't up to scratch and if it ran we'd need to bold either the prize or the book while leaving the author unbolded, some guy called "The Rambling Man" complained that it hadn't been posted. ‑ Iridescent 17:18, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Oddly, it seems that the consensus in that discussion was that "the winner of the prize" referred to the winning book, not the winning author.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:37, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Nobody normally listens to me when I complain, I don't see why that time was any different. And just because I can assess consensus, it doesn't mean I agree with it. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:22, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Nan Winton[]

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

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: First female newsreader on the BBC. Died on 11 May but only announced in sources today. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:13, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Apparently things doesn't need votes in order to be posted. Interesting. INeedSupport :3 17:48, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
If the article is of sufficient quality an RD is presumed to be postable. Admins can use their discretion in such cases.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:01, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Indeed, absolutely no problem here unless you can see any issues with the article? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:20, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
I didn't really see any problems with the article. I just thought that votes are required in order to post things. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ INeedSupport :3 19:23, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Not if we assume that some of our admins are capable of assessing article quality of RDs. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:35, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

May 20[]

Armed conflict and attacks
Arts and culture

Business and finance

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

(Closed) RD: Niki Lauda[]

Not happening. --qedk (t c) 20:17, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further s should be made to this discussion.

Article: Niki Lauda (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: Three-time Formula One world champion Niki Lauda dies at 70.
News source(s): BBC, Fox Sports, USA Today, The Guardian

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: Three-time F1 World Drivers' Champion and motosport legend. Could, even, deserve a blurb. The article has some sourcing issues, however, I expect improvements in the next few hours as the news of his death will begin to spread. SirEdimon (talk) 03:33, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Lots of referencing issues. Oppose blurb. Sherenk1 (talk) 03:47, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - sparsely referenced at the moment. Capitalistroadster (talk) 03:53, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - blurb added. Mjroots (talk) 05:05, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose what a dismal article for such a champion. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:19, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose with regret - in the words of Murray Walker .... "and here's Lauda, his article's coming into ITN and unless I'm very much mistaken ... I AM very much mistaken ... OH MY WORD AND LOOK AT THAT .... IT'S LARGELY UNSOURCED! Well this has blown it for Niki Lauda after he had such a promising time at qualifying, James, what do you think?" Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:24, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - for now. Can support if s are made to improve the article. Ping me when completed.BabbaQ (talk) 11:08, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Weakly oppose blurb. In terms of Championship wins he's one of six drivers in join sixth place overall, and while some do regard him as one of the greatest, he's no Senna or Schumacher and didn't have the impact on the sport in other ways like Jackie Stewart has done. Sourcing is improving but there is still a long way to go. Thryduulf (talk) 12:10, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose due to so much needing sourcing. I did a bit of work on the opening section, though. Can someone take a look at his helmet and give it a good polish? Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 18:31, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

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

(Posted) 2019 Indonesian general election[]

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

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

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

  • Updates resolved (and tags removed). Juxlos (talk) 23:21, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Game of Thrones[]

no. --Jayron32 15:10, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further s should be made to this discussion.

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

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

May 19[]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

International relations

Law and crime

May 18[]

Arts and culture

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

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

Politics and elections

Sports

(Posted) RD: Signe Marie Stray Ryssdal[]

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

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

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

(Posted) RD: Austin Eubanks[]

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

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

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

I removed the one unreferenced claim I saw. Thsmi002 (talk) 02:56, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Ibiza affair[]

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

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

And I changed the blurb. Colonestarrice (talk) 20:36, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
A scandal, which is widely considered the biggest one of the second republic, and the sudden end of a government (an extraordinary controversial one in addition), is, in my opinion, more interesting than a normal election. Colonestarrice (talk) 21:35, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Sure, which is presumably why you proposed the nomination. Thanks for reiterating your interest in getting the story posted. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:40, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
PS: "Ibiza affair" may not ring a bell with most Eng.-lang. readers. Suggest some generic title, such as "2019 Austrian political controversy." ("Affair" may be associated with sexual peccadillos; "scandal" may strike some as overwrought.) Sca (talk) 21:46, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Agree with that. Right now, proposals look like the worst kind of tabloid journalism ("affair", "showcasing", "revelation", etc etc). Let's not forget this is an encyclopedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:50, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
I decline to debate your comment (expected), and you seem to be ignoring my disapproval of "affair" and "scandal," but IMO "revelations" (linked to the article) is a perfectly NPOV use of the word for the contents of the video, which is all over the Net. – Sca (talk) 22:02, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
PS: Would you care to comment on the aforementioned title of the article? Sca (talk) 22:09, 18 May 2019 (UTC) ( conflict)
Sure, it's crappy, non-intuitive, non-encyclopedic, might be a worthy redirect but nothing more. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:11, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Decline away. I was agreeing with your general point. But I embellished it with a refusal to dip into tabloidism with garbage like "revelations". Encyclopedias don't use those terms. The press who want to sell newspapers might do. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:05, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
In the interest of accuracy, https://www.britannica.com/topic/Nike-Inc - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 00:30, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
OK, well I don't like the newly extant use of "published" to mean posted on a website, but I suppose "reports" could be substituted for "revelations" in this instance. Sca (talk) 22:12, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
I think we've generally accepted "published" to include "published on the internet" for about ... 20 years. Time moves on. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:15, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Who's we? Not usual in U.S. English, in my experience. – Sca (talk) 22:20, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
John Bull pointing.png
Well I guess that's symptomatic of the US who currently seem determined to return their own universe to the 1970s. Disgraceful really. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:21, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

─────────────────────────

"Determined to return their own universe to the 1970s." – WP:NAT
– Speaking of which, how's that Brexit project of yours going? – Sca (talk) 02:24, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
I don't know what you mean, it's nothing to do with me. And it's not nationalist ing, that's simply a statement of fact. But good try!! The Rambling Man (talk) 13:25, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
"a key Freedom Party (FPÖ) colleague" – Gudenus is not important enough to deserve 5 words. You mentioned the FPÖ twice, considering that most people don't know what the FPÖ is, that is a bit superfluous in my opinion. "...Colleague resign following revelations..." – to mention individual resignations is redundant since the whole government is gone after all. "...revelations of unethical politics..." – some say it's unethical others say it's immoral, illegal, corrupt... what we can all agree on is that it is "highly controversial" .Colonestarrice (talk) 07:40, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Agree allusion to Gudenus can be dropped. FYI, since you apparently understand German, here's German Wiki's version:
Nach dem Rücktritt Heinz-Christian Straches als Vizekanzler und FPÖ-Parteiobmann im Zuge der "Ibiza-Affäre" hat Bundeskanzler Sebastian Kurz vorgezogene Neuwahlen in Österreich vorgeschlagen."
Parteiobmann was a new one to me. – Sca (talk) 15:13, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Imbroglio? How about "pecadillo" or "hullabaloo"?WaltCip (talk) 13:54, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Peccadillo is subliminally raunchy. Hullabaloo his a nice ring to it but makes me think of Cat Ballou. – Sca (talk) 14:55, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
PT: "results in." – Sca (talk) 14:59, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Added alt 4 Kingsif (talk) 15:14, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Eurovision Song Contest 2019[]

Article: Eurovision Song Contest 2019 (talk, history)
Blurb: The Netherlands, represented by Duncan Laurence, wins the Eurovision Song Contest in Tel Aviv, Israel.
News source(s): [6]

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

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

(Posted) Australia general election[]

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

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

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

Sorry, forgot to pipe it. 331dot (talk) 00:48, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

UTC)

  • I chose to go with the original blurb since it seemed more cogent and since PM already implies the position was retained. Also, "retains government" just sounds a bit awkward. El_C 05:31, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Added. El_C 05:23, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) 2019 redefinition of SI base units[]

I think we're done here. – Ammarpad (talk) 06:38, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further s should be made to this discussion.

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

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

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: