Open main menu

This page provides a forum for editors to suggest items for inclusion in Template:In the news (ITN), a protected Main Page template, as well as the forum for discussion of candidates. This is not the page to report errors in the ITN section on the Main Page—please go to the appropriate section at WP:ERRORS.

This candidates page is integrated with the daily pages of Portal:Current events. Under each daily section header below is the transcluded Portal:Current events items for that day (with a light green header). Each day's portal page is followed by a subsection for suggestions and discussion.

Bernardine Evaristo in 2008
Bernardine Evaristo

How to nominate an itemEdit

In order to suggest a candidate:

  • Update an article to be linked to from the blurb to include the recent developments, or find an article that has already been updated.
  • Find the correct section below for the date of the event (not the date nominated) in UTC.
    • Do not add sections for new dates. These are automatically generated (at midnight UTC) by a bot; creating them manually breaks this process. Remember, we use UTC dates.
  • Nominate the blurb for ITN inclusion under the "Suggestions" subheading for the date, emboldening the link in the blurb to the updated article. Use a level 4 header (====) when doing so.
    • Preferably use the template {{ITN candidate}} to nominate the article related to the event in the news. Make sure that you include a reference from a verifiable, reliable secondary source. Press releases are not acceptable. The suggested blurb should be written in simple present tense.
    • Adding an explanation why the event should be posted greatly increases the odds of posting.
  • Please consider alerting editors to the nomination by adding the template {{ITN note}} to the corresponding article's talk page.

Purge this page to update the cache

There are criteria which guide the decision on whether or not to put a particular item on In the news, based largely on the extensiveness of the updated content and the perceived significance of the recent developments. These are listed at WP:ITN.

Submissions that do not follow the guidelines at Wikipedia:In the news will not be placed onto the live template.

HeadersEdit

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pulled from the main page are generally marked with (Posted) or (Pulled) in the item's subject so it is clear they are no longer active.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

  • Format your comment to contain "support" or "oppose", and include a rationale for your choice. In particular, address the notability of the event, the quality of the article, and whether it has been updated.
  • Some jargon: RD refers to "recent deaths", a subsection of the news box which lists only the names of the recent notable deceased. Blurb refers to the full sentences that occupy most of the news box. Most eligible deaths will be listed in the recent deaths section of the ITN template. However, some deaths may be given a full listing if there is sufficient consensus to do so.
  • The blurb of a promoted ITN item may be modified to complement the existing items on the main page.

Please do not...Edit

  • ... add simple "support!" or "oppose!" votes without including your reasons. Similarly, curt replies such as "who?", "meh", or "duh!" are usually not helpful. Instead, explain the reasons why you think the item meets or does not meet the ITN inclusion criteria so a consensus can be reached.
  • ... oppose an item because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive.
  • ... accuse other editors of supporting, opposing or nominating due to a personal bias (such as ethnocentrism). Conflicts of interest are not handled at ITN.
  • ... comment on a story without first reading the relevant article(s).
  • ... oppose a WP:ITN/R item here because you disagree with current WP:ITN/R criteria (these can be discussed at the relevant Talk Page)
Skip to top
Skip to bottom

SuggestionsEdit

October 21Edit

Crime and law
International relations

Politics and elections

RD: Thomas D'Alesandro IIIEdit

Article: Thomas D'Alesandro III (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The New York Times

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: Article updated and well sourced --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 14:29, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

RD: Eric CooperEdit

Article: Eric Cooper (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: Active Major League Baseball umpire (worked the playoffs just a couple of weeks ago), died unexpectedly at 52. Article is cited and has been updated. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:06, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Support, looks short but decent. Do we know anything about his early life? Just curious.Please add a source here. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:11, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

2019 Canadian federal electionEdit

Article: 2019 Canadian federal election (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Liberal Party, led by Justin Trudeau (pictured), wins the most seats in the Canadian federal election.
Alternative blurb: ​The Conservative Party, led by Andrew Scheer (pictured), wins the most seats in the Canadian federal election.
News source(s): CNN, 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: Pre-emptive nomination. Listed in WP:ITN/R. Results will be close so pre-emptively providing blurbs for the two front-running parties gripped in a tie in opinion polls. Blurbs and pictures can be updated as the results become more clear into the evening. 99.244.174.197 (talk) 06:18, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Support but I'm not sure the pre-emptive nomination was necessary. You're right - it's on ITN/R, and so there's no question this will be posted. However, we must avoid posting in haste - we will only put a blurb up when it is clear whether it's a majority/minority parliament, and who has won the majority or won the most seats. As you say, if it's really close, that may take some time to work out. We will only post when we are 100% sure. 88.215.17.228 (talk) 11:06, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Unable to vote until we have a completed article with properly cited final prose synopses of the completed election. Unless and until we have that, we cannot assess quality. --Jayron32 12:09, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Just domestic politics. STSC (talk) 13:28, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
Just wait and see, for now. STSC (talk) 13:51, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
STSC General elections are on the recurring events list, meaning notability is not at issue. If you disagree with general elections being on the list, you are free to propose its removal on the ITNR talk page. 331dot (talk) 13:34, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

October 20Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Politics and elections

RD: Nick ToschesEdit

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

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: Bilbiography/discography/etc. is an issue. Spengouli (talk) 17:29, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose per nom, spot on. The majority of the article is just fine, but the 'ography sections need work. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 20:09, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
    Working on the 'ography sections. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 02:42, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support – "I've gone more than 40 years without having to use an alarm clock or go to an office. At this point, I don't think I'd be capable of it. I don't think I could deprive myself of that sky. It would be like putting an animal in a cage."[1] --- Coffeeandcrumbs 10:08, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - Nice work C&C! ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 12:06, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

October 19Edit

Disasters and accidents

Politics and elections

(Posted) RD: Erhard EpplerEdit

Article: Erhard Eppler (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Der Spiegel

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: Influential German politician, minister, - yes, still some refs missing, but I need to go out now, - would be so pleased if the refs miraculously appeared when I return ;) Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:57, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Weak oppose looks like it's 88% of the way there but still too much unreferenced for a BLP. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 20:11, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
    Please look again. I dropped a few details, such as exactly which election district sent him when, because I think they are of little relevance in the long run, and I'm tired. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:43, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Referencing improved; covers political career beyond just listing positions. SpencerT•C 02:06, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - everything is referenced. -Zanhe (talk) 06:08, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted Kees08 (Talk) 06:16, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Parliamentary votes on Brexit | Letwin amendmentEdit

Article: Parliamentary votes on Brexit (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The UK parliament passes the Letwin amendment (Oliver Letwin pictured) forcing a delay to Brexit until legislation implementing a proposed withdrawal agreement has been passed.
News source(s): The New York Times, Reuters

Nominator's comments: I am proposing removing Brexit from ongoing and blurbing it. It can be put in ongoing later this year when this heats up again. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 18:51, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

  • A lot of things are going to happen quickly in the next few days. I can certainly understand a blurb but I wonder if this is the right point at which to do it(for example, Johnson's deal may yet still pass) or if so much is going to happen that it should remain where it is. 331dot (talk) 18:53, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose UK actually leave the EU, UK revoke Article 50 okay blurb. All other steps along the way, keep it Ongoing. -- KTC (talk) 19:47, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Neutral. An historic moment certainly, and a surprise. Perhaps the most startling aspect being Johnson's apparent insistence that he is prepared to defy the Benn Act and break the law. But tend to agree with 331dot. The next vote, a re-run of the intended "meaningful vote" of today, is now tabled for as soon as Monday. Although the numbers look like they will be very similar to today's. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:50, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Bercow has left open the possibility he will not allow another vote. It's going to be an interesting next few days. 331dot (talk) 23:29, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support but maintain it in ongoing, as well. This is certainly making international headlines. However, if we're making this a blurb, then the Letwin amendment section of the article needs to be fleshed out a lot. If the story changes drastically soon, then we can always edit the blurb. Davey2116 (talk) 20:26, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support conditional on removal from ongoing like we ought to have done a month ago. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:27, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is what ongoing is for. Although a significant skirmish in the never ending political bickering between those who want out and those who are desperately (and somewhat successfully) trying to scupper Brexit, ultimately it is a not a major shift in the status quo. The next blurb on this should be either the UK leaves the EU or they revoke Article 50. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:41, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
    • It's been "Ongoing" for more than 2 years -- is it your proposal to leave Brexit in the ITN box until the ultimate conclusion? --LaserLegs (talk) 23:05, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
Yes, as long as it continues to receive sufficient news coverage to justify it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:10, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Totally agree with Ad Orientem, it's blurb or ongoing, not both. This is just one more incremental step in the process. Enough with nominating every single step. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:44, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
    My proposal is to remove the ongoing. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 22:47, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
    Coffeeandcrumbs, that would be far superior to having an ongoing and a blurb, but this delay doesn't end Brexit, so its still ongoing. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:54, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose The focus has already moved on to the sending of the letters. Next up is the parliamentary manouevring to get the latest deal back into the schedule alongside the Queen's Speech. It's too fast-moving and indecisive for a blurb. Andrew D. (talk) 07:35, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose – It ain't over yet. – Sca (talk) 12:24, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Andrew. Lots going on, will likely be hard to nail down a specific blurb for a few days so let's wait in Ongoing until there's something clearer to post. Sam Walton (talk) 11:26, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

(Fixed) Ongoing: replace "Brexit" with "Brexit negotiations in 2019"Edit

Article: Brexit negotiations in 2019 (talk, history)
Ongoing item nomination

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Brexit is a horrible uninformative article that is not helpful to link to. We should link to Brexit negotiations in 2019. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 09:42, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Sounds reasonable, fixing. --Tone 10:22, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
  • The negotiations finished Thursday, so not sure that target is appropriate anymore. Currently, it is up to the House of Commons, so perhaps Parliamentary votes on Brexit, though it is not really updated. Still thinks the main Brexit article is the best target. Also, can you please elaborate on why the Brexit articles is horrible uninformative. I find it very informative, but a bit difficult to navigate. ― Hebsen(previously Heb the best) (talk) 10:37, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
    Mostly agree, Hebsen. But I think Parliamentary votes on Brexit might be a better target once updated. May be less of a wait than anticipated, as voting on Oliver Letwin's delaying amendment is currently underway. First House of Commons Saturday sitting for 37 years. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:39, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
Hebsen, I have on several occasions visited Brexit to find out what is going on and came out uninformed. I agree, however, that Parliamentary votes on Brexit may in time make a good substitute if updated. My personal criteria for an ongoing link is where can the reader easily find the most up to date information. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 18:04, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
  • WP:ERRORS was solely created to deal with issues like this. Please let's direct further "fix this" issues there. – Ammarpad (talk) 19:53, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
    • I will try that next time this ever comes up but I think I would have been referred back to here. I would think replacing an article should be vetted and discussed here. This was not an error or a minor update. This was a proposal to delist and replace in FPC parlance. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 21:05, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose "Brexit means Brexit". The focus of the affair keeps shifting between the diplomatic negotiations; the various parliaments and personalities; the street protests; the courts; &c. Trying to identify the news focus with blurbs or the suggested sub-article is misleading as the story soon moves on. The timeline section in the main Brexit article might be a good place to start but we shouldn't assume that the reader already knows what Brexit means and so it's best to start at the top. Andrew D. (talk) 07:26, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I have reverted the link back to Brexit per comments above — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:01, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - Yes, it does make sense. STSC (talk) 13:32, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

October 18Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy
  • UK clothing retailer Bonmarché collapses into administration. The chain employs 2,900 people and operates 318 stores. (iNews)

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

2019 Santiago protestsEdit

Article: 2019 Santiago protests (talk, history)
Blurb: Protestors in Santiago, Chile attack the metro, bringing the whole system to a standstill and a declaration of emergency by President Sebastián Piñera.
Alternative blurb: Violent protests in Santiago, Chile over increased metro fares cause President Sebastián Piñera to order a declaration of emergency.
News source(s): NY Times, BBC, Le Monde, El País

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Riots/protests that have disabled Chile's capital metro system, more than half of the population of the entire country now living under state of emergency, which will persist for at least another 10 days. 130.233.2.47 (talk) 08:27, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Support alt1 Appears to be significant, well covered in the media, and article is well sourced. Sam Walton (talk) 11:32, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - updated and ready.BabbaQ (talk) 11:43, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support, on notability. In addition to what others have said above: Chile's President has declared a state of emergency, and military troops have been deployed to contain civilian unrest for the first time since the fall of Pinochet in 1987. Nsk92 (talk) 11:47, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support on notability and quality of the article. Lots of protests lately! ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 12:01, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - It's getting bigger now. STSC (talk) 13:38, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
  •   Administrator note: I came to post, but I'm wondering about bringing the whole system to a standstill and a declaration of emergency by President Sebastián Piñera. Do we need to know that it brought the whole system to a standstill, and is "bring" the right verb to use with a declaration. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:49, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
    From the news today, the protests have gone beyond the metro; the instigation was the metro fare hike. There's at least 5 deaths and 70 "incidents" of violence, so I made an altblurb to capture that. --Masem (t) 13:54, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
    Thanks for that Masem. I have   Posted the altblurb, and added Piñera to the image protection list. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:00, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

RD: Kamlesh TiwariEdit

Article: Kamlesh Tiwari (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The Hindu, Times of India

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.

  Harshil want to talk? 03:40, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose There are significant gaps in basic information. Dates are missing. The article reports criminal cases lodged four years ago w/o explaining their outcome. It doesn't even explicitly identify the subjects nationality although that can be guessed from the body. The subject is clearly notable but the article is going to need serious expansion before it can be posted. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:24, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
@Ad Orientem: Kindly revise your vote. I have updated the article. -- Harshil want to talk? 06:43, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
There is now an orange POV tag at the top. That's a showstopper until whatever issues it refers to are corrected. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:23, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
It’s no more. — Harshil want to talk? 08:08, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose There's nothing in the article about his life up until 2012. Indeed, apart from one sentence there's nothing about him apart from his comment about Muhammad and his death. Black Kite (talk) 13:38, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I agree with the above !votes. However, you might make an article Assassination of Kamlesh Tiwari and re-nominate that, using the information already in the BLP. There's enough sourcing to show notability and religiously-motivated political assassinations are newsworthy.130.233.2.47 (talk) 07:19, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Wreck of the Japanese aircraft carrier Kaga foundEdit

Article: Japanese aircraft carrier Kaga (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The wreck of the Japanese aircraft carrier Kaga has been found, seventy-seven years after being sunk during the Second World War's Battle of Midway.
News source(s): Associated Press, Washington Post, The Independent, United States Naval Institute

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Wreck identification was confirmed this week, leading to the articles linked above. This article is a FA, and we've previously posted discovered warship wrecks like French battleship Danton. The update could do with some expanding. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:46, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Support Everybody loves shipwrecks. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:50, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose trivia. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:54, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Contrary to Hawkeye's opinion, not everyone loves shipwrecks. Some of us are quite indifferent to them. A ship that was sunk during WWII is brought back up... so what? It's not significant. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:04, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Worth pointing out that the general location of the ship has been known since 1999...--Trans-Neptunian object (talk) 22:05, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak Support Conceding an element of trivia, it's in a popular genre. Also the article being FA is always a plus. That said the blurb is a bit wordy. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:16, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support May not be as notable as the likes of Titanic or Bismarck, but this wasn't an ordinary ship either. The article itself is also in very good shape. Nonstopmaximum (talk) 04:58, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose – The remains of Kaga lie more than 3 miles below the surface and won't ever be "brought back up," nor will she be accessible to divers. Discoveries of sunken wrecks have become frequent. RV Petrel has found 31. This one doesn't seem particularly significant. – Sca (talk) 13:29, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Like, what's going to happen, man? ——SerialNumber54129 18:29, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Uninteresting trivia at best. --qedk (t c) 21:36, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
  • PS: – Now the wreck of Akagi has been found in similar circumstances. That makes 32. – Sca (talk) 14:33, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

First all-female spacewalkEdit

Articles: Jessica Meir (talk, history) and Christina Koch (talk, history)
Blurb: ​American astronauts Jessica Meir and Christina Koch complete the first all-female spacewalk.
News source(s): CNN, NYT

Both articles updated

 Davey2116 (talk) 19:12, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose it's a nice piece of trivia. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:33, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Interesting indeed but not really ITN-worthy. Could be a cool DYK if the articles are promoted to GA, which they very well could be ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 19:49, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Another milestone. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:50, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose.--WaltCip (talk) 20:21, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This is a good example of something typically found in the DYK section. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 20:33, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support I agree this would have been a great DYK (especially because of the reason the first planned all-female spacewalk was scrapped) but that doesn't make it not worthy of ITN. --valereee (talk) 20:56, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Trivial. "First female X" is often going to be trivial. Sometimes it could be a true breakthrough, but sometimes it's this. What's so significant about two women doing a spacewalk together? This isn't even the first female spacewalk. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:59, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Internationally, not trivial.[2][3] Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:31, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Come on, you two.--WaltCip (talk) 21:30, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • There's a huge amount of fuss around it based on the failure the first time around because the perceived sexism in not carrying different size suits. Hence the coverage. But in encyclopedic value terms, this is pure trivia. Did we post the fist time two men space-walked together? Will we post the first time two African-Americans spacewalk together? Doubt it. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 21:35, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
    In encyclopedic terms it is not trivial (no matter how bolded), its "making history", and it is already included in the encyclopedia. (We are currently carrying a woman who ran fast, because she was a woman who ran fast.) These things non-trivially matter to people around the world.[4] Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:01, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
    Actually, she did something a woman has never done before. These women just happened to be in the same place at the same time, repeating a feat that women have done for years and years and years. Yawn. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 16:45, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
    It is plainly false that they just happened to be in the same place at the same time, and untrue that women walked together in space before.[5] Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:41, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
    I didn't say that women had walked in space together. Do keep up. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 12:40, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
    So, these women did do something not done by women before. That the history of space walks is some sixty-years-old, only reinforces that this is history making and how the world changes.[6] [7] -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:32, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
    No, as I said, women have done spacewalks for years. Just because there was a crowd of them this time, it doesn't make it significant other than the hysteria around the space suits issue last time round. Hyperbolic trivia. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 14:40, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
    All the reliable sources says it's history making and significant that these women did this. Your opinions are entirely unsupported, except by ultra-fringe personal ipsa-dixit. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:06, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
    That's hilarious. There's a strong consensus against this trivia for precisely the reasons I've given. Perhaps everyone else opposing is into this "ultra-fringe theorising" ipsa-dixit quod erat demonstrandum!! The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 15:38, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
    But it is not hilarious, it is just the case that you are only basing your arguments on your personal opinions, regardless of each reliable source that contradicts your personal opinions -- according to reliable sources, which note facts of the history of space walks including earlier women, these women's space walk has history making significance. And your only response, instead of basing things on the evidence of sources is to say you're personally bored be these women's accomplishments. So you personally find it not interesting, in the very face of multiple reliable sources being interested in these women's accomplishment. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:52, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
    No, it's still hilarious. Feel free to batter all the others who have formed a strong consensus against this trivia being posted. And it wasn't the spacewalk that was boring I'm afraid Alan. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 18:26, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
    Battering, how odd, since basically all your personal opinion comments have been down here under my reliably sourced comments, it would be you who would be battering. And what you are battering with, over and over and over, is your continued unsourced personal opinion belittling (see eg, [8] [9] ) these women's accomplishment in the face of multiple reliable sources that express in detail these women made history. (Also, your attempts to support an argument by claiming others also have personal unsourced opinions is without logic.) -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:23, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
    No, you misunderstand again. I simply pointed to the clear consensus against this trivial story being newsworthy for this encyclopedia. I think that's really all that needs to be said. Without the NASA failed suits issue, this would be even less interesting than it currently is, which is already clearly borderline, regardless of your reliable sources. Cheers, but as suggested by others, more suited for a different part of the main page! And it's so trivial that it isn't even mentioned in the spacewalk article!!! The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:42, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
    You continue to batter with unsourced personal opinion, mutiple reliable sources demonstrate it is newsworthy and not trivial, continuing your extended effort to belittle what these women did. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:49, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
    No, quite the opposite, I'm stating the facts, this is trivial. One woman has done a spacewalk. Plenty of women have done spacewalks. For 20 years. Now two have done it at the same time. It's nothing really to do with belittling the achievements of these two women at all. They did great. But it makes precisely zero difference that they were two women or two men or two African-Americans or two Jews or two midgets. These are fractionally incremental and trivial changes, indeed this one so insignificant that even this encyclopedia's article excludes it. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:54, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
    You are not stating facts you battering with your unsupported personal opinions belittling these women's accomplishment as mere trivia, because the facts as established by multiple reliable sources include the earlier space walks and say what these women did here is historic. According to reliable sources it does matter to history that these women did this, again contrary to your personal opinion. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:04, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
    It doesn't matter, it's minutiae. As evidenced by this encyclopedia and this community. Now, feel free to have the final word as this is going nowhere; many of us disagree that this is in any sense "historic", by all means "batter" one of them as it won't work on me. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 20:07, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
    Your unsourced personal opinion that reliable sources don't matter is just continuation of your battering -- reliable sources are are actual evidence in contrast to personal opinion. Your unsourced personal opinion on historic, is belied by multiple reliable sources, who all say it is historic. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:25, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Interesting trivia. More suited for DYK. – Ammarpad (talk) 21:51, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support International reliable sources report this rare feat. Trillfendi (talk) 22:15, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
  • OpposeEileen Collins was breaking the glass ceiling. This is just nice trivia. Wait for the first all female crew. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 23:48, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Chasing the headlines only. -- Harshil want to talk? 03:15, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support It is the 221st spacewalk on the ISS alone (I think we are somewhere are 400 spacewalks all time? Had trouble finding the exact number). Important enough of an achievement to be featured in my opinion. If every ~400 spacewalks and 35 years (time between Svetlana's spacewalk and now) we feature an achievement like this, so be it. Kees08 (Talk) 06:18, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak support in that this is being made a big deal by the news, and I think is fair to post, though acknowledging that it was "just" another spacewalk otherwise. That said, Meir's article has sourcing issues, a visible CN and the awards need a proper source (the only one goes to the home page of JSC which is not sufficient). --Masem (t) 13:59, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
    • I took care of those issues and many others, perhaps Coffeeandcrumbs would be able to spend time citing the last little bits and whatever other work needs done...? Kees08 (Talk) 06:43, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
      Kees08, of course. Done. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 07:27, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - as above, the important glass ceiling regarding spacewalks was broken in the past, leaving this as little but a nice bit of trivia worthy perhaps of DYK. Stormy clouds (talk) 17:27, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Huge news for 1/2 population of the world 5.44.170.9 (talk) 20:03, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
    Really? Getting them the right to vote was huge news for women. Equal pay would be too. I don't see too many women celebrating in the streets over this. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:39, 20 October 2019 (UTC)


  • Oppose. – Sca (talk) 12:33, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Meir's article indicates that this was done in the execution of routine maintenance. I don't think even avid female space enthusiasts are going to be interested in changing batteries.130.233.2.47 (talk) 06:43, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. A welcome but trivial development. The first woman to spacewalk was notable, but that was Svetlana Savitskaya in 1984. That no men were outside during this particular routine spacewalk is not something that's going to break any glass ceilings. Modest Genius talk 12:37, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

2019 Lebanese protestsEdit

Article: 2019 Lebanese protests (talk, history)
Blurb: ​After government plans to tax calls made through WhatsApp, protests break out in Lebanon.
Alternative blurb: ​Country-wide protests erupt after the government of Lebanon announces plans to tax gasoline, tobacco, and online phone calls.
Alternative blurb II: ​Several cabinet ministers resign amid protests in Lebanon which began after the government announced plans to tax gasoline, tobacco, and online phone calls.
News source(s): [10]

Nominator's comments: Country-wide protests, just coming into the news PotentPotables (talk) 17:53, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Agreed, corrected! --Shahen books (talk) 18:01, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Alt Blurb - Good article but I thought the blurb could be improved in wording a bit so i proposed Alt1 ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 19:44, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose trivial. If these protests rise to something notable, perhaps revisit. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:48, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - the most violent protest events in Lebanon in the 21st century.GreyShark (dibra) 11:49, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
  • @Coffeeandcrumbs: what is your opinion on this item? (I notice you have looked at the article.) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:58, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
    @MSGJ and PotentPotables: things are heating up and there have been a few government resignations. The article, however, is difficult to read and understand. The article sourcing looks good but needs copy editing for grammar and style. The timeline of events also contributes to making this article hard to understand. For example, there is no context offered for why "Samir Geagea, chief of the Lebanese Forces, calls for Prime Minister Saad Hariri's resignation" and then the next day announces "the resignation of the Ministers of the Lebanese Forces". If we got rid of the list and turned to paragraphs for October 18 and 19, I would support. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 19:20, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
    @Coffeeandcrumbs: I've changed the lists into paragraphs, and they make a lot more sense now a la explaining why people did things/what they said. I'll give the rest of the article a quick read through for style/grammar, but it should be good now. PotentPotables (talk) 01:06, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support alt2 which I added. I used "amid" because it is not exactly clear if the ministers resigned because of protests or in support of the protests. Perhaps it should be "during". I also toned down the puffery and colorful language (i.e. "erupt" and "country-wide"). --- Coffeeandcrumbs 01:18, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support alt2 as Nominator PotentPotables (talk) 01:28, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support alt2 per Coffeeandcrumbs. -Zanhe (talk) 06:03, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
  •   Posted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:01, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Post-posting comment – While domestically significant, these events seem below ITN's usual criteria, and the article is less than lucent. – Sca (talk) 13:15, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Mark HurdEdit

Article: Mark Hurd (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): CNN

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

Nominator's comments: Doesn't seem that far from postable at the moment. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:14, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) 2019 Military World GamesEdit

Thanks for the nomination, but this will not have consensus to post. 331dot (talk) 22:33, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: 2019 Military World Games (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The 7th Military World Games officially opens in Wuhan, China
News source(s): prnewswire, Xinhuanet, The Telegraph, U.S. Department of Defense

Article updated
Nominator's comments: This is the largest ever Military World Games with participants from over 100 countries Abishe (talk) 07:14, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Would like to see some of those sections in the article expanded significantly, but support in principle — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:30, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose It's not in the news. PR Newswire is just a distributor of press-releases. Andrew D. (talk) 10:08, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Not a significant event. Modest Genius talk 11:16, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Per previous. – Sca (talk) 12:40, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose I have added Telegraph and US DoD sources. The time to nominate this is probably the conclusion of the games, when results are in and the article is finalized.130.233.3.131 (talk) 13:08, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks but the DoD is not a news organisation and the Telegraph article was published back in July. Compare this with the space walk which is in all MSM. Andrew D. (talk) 22:23, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait until conclusion of the games. Will assess quality at that point. Until we have a concluded games and a relatively complete descriptive prose of them, there's nothing to post. --Jayron32 13:09, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose time to close. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:34, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

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

October 17Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology
  • NASA announces that the InSight Mars lander's heat probe had successfully dug 3 centimetres (1.2 in) into the ground after becoming stuck 35 centimetres (14 in) in the ground in February 2019, confirming that the probe had not hit a rock and instead simply didn't have enough friction in the soil to dig much deeper. The vehicle landed near the Martian equator in November 2018. (Space.com)

(Posted) RD: Göran MalmqvistEdit

Article: Göran Malmqvist (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): [11], [12]

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: Member of the Swedish Academy --BabbaQ (talk) 17:32, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Support - I thought of nominating this but the article quality was too poor. Kudos to BabbaQ for sourcing everything. -Zanhe (talk) 22:12, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 22:20, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Elijah CummingsEdit

Article: Elijah Cummings (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: American politician, and incumbent U.S. Representative, Elijah Cummings dies at age 68.
News source(s): CNN, NBC

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: American politician and incumbent U.S. Representative dies at age 68. Possible blurb? Article in pretty good shape. Davey2116 (talk) 09:47, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose blurb, support RD This congressman wasn't very notable on the national scene. That being said, the sourcing is good enough for RD. Nonstopmaximum (talk) 10:05, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support RD and, although it breaks my heart to type this, Oppose blurb. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 10:10, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support RD. Good article and well referenced. Oppose blurb. One of 500+ elected officials, held a few committee chairs, like many of those other 500+ do.130.233.3.131 (talk) 10:41, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support RD Article looks good. Johndavies837 (talk) 10:47, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per above. MSN12102001 (talk) 11:22, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - ready to go.BabbaQ (talk) 11:28, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support looks good to go. DoctorSpeed ✉️ —Preceding undated comment added 11:34, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support RD and Oppose Blurb per others. If we did a blurb for every congressman, ITN would be nothing but deaths! Good article though ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 11:38, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
    Well Cummings was more than just your regular congressman, but I agree that he doesn't reach what should be a high bar for blurb over RD.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:42, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
  •   Posted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:03, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

October 16Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

International relations

(Posted) RD: Patrick DayEdit

Article: Patrick Day (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination

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

Nominator's comments: Boxer who died from brain injury after losing fight by knockout this weekend gone. NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM (talk) 18:12, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Support article is well sourced. PotentPotables (talk) 21:40, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support prominent coverage in many major news outlets (note: I am article creator) RonSigPi (talk) 21:48, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted Kees08 (Talk) 22:08, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Leah BracknellEdit

Article: Leah Bracknell (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): [13]

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: Death announced today. BabbaQ (talk) 16:01, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

October 15Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

Politics and elections

(Posted) Catalonia independence trialEdit

Article: Trial of Catalonia independence leaders (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Trial of Catalonia independence leaders concludes with heavy jail sentences, sparking protests
Alternative blurb: ​Protests erupt in Catalonia after the verdict in the trial of Catalonia independence leaders is released, with nine government officials being sentenced to imprisonment.
Alternative blurb II: ​The Trial of Catalonia independence leaders concludes with nine jail sentences, sparking protests in and near Barcelona.
News source(s): Independent World News, BBC

Article updated

 Banedon (talk) 01:01, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Am I missing an update that claims there was protests after the verdicts? It happened (BBC) but I mean, I'm not seeing that apparently in the article. --Masem (t) 01:25, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose until updated. When there's a sufficient section on not just the convictions and sentences, but also protests, take this as support. Kingsif (talk) 01:47, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I've added sections for protests, the reactions by the convicted and politicians. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 10:31, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Alt Blurb now as protest section has been added (I added a bit more). Robust article, but perhaps we could beef up the blurb a bit? Proposing alt blurb ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 12:05, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Good work by mike_gigs. Either of the alt blurbs is fine by me. Davey2116 (talk) 12:41, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment – This may be ITN-worthy, but article needs revision, probably by a native speaker of English. – Sca (talk) 12:46, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
    • I've done a general job of copy-editing the article. Some of the longer run-on sentences should make more sense now, and some grammar/tense issues are fixed. PotentPotables (talk) 20:04, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Alt Blurb 2 - Major geopolitical event. Article quality has been greatly improved. -Zanhe (talk) 21:56, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Alt Blurb 2 - "heavy" is a controversial adjective to use; as for alt1, Jordi Cuixart is not a government official. Neodop (talk) 02:37, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support blurb 2. I intended to add this to the news section at Portal:Law, but that is fed by Wikinews, which apparently is lacking an article on the subject. Does anyone here edit Wikinews? bd2412 T 03:02, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
    Nobody edits Wikinews, it's a dead project. Strange decision to populate Wikipedia portal content from there. Stephen 03:46, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
    For a "dead project", it is surprisingly consistent in keeping the section populated with coverage of recent developments. bd2412 T 03:53, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support on notability, with preference for the alt 2 wording. The pre-trial reaction section would benefit from a reduction of proseline. Hrodvarsson (talk) 04:29, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
  •   Posted alt blurb 2 — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:25, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
    Protected File:Retrat oficial del Vicepresident Oriol Junqueras (cropped).jpg, who received the highest sentence, in case this can be worked in — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:42, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Should we replace "jail" with "prison"? In American English, these are two slightly different things and this instance corresponds to the latter. This blurb has nothing to do with the United States or Canada, but there's no harm in using the term that's correct in all varieties of English :) — MarkH21 (talk) 07:41, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
    Okay, sounds logical. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:54, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

October 14Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture
  • A stone statue is discovered in the walls of a church in England. Officials believe the statue had been hidden inside those walls for about 400 years since the Restoration period. (MSN) (Daily Mail)

Business and economy

Law and crime

(Posted) RD: Anke FuchsEdit

Article: Anke Fuchs (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Die Welt

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: German national minister (not for long), Vice president of Bundestag, other functions - expanded stub. Enough? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:18, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) 2019 Man Booker prizeEdit

Articles: Margaret Atwood (talk, history) and Bernardine Evaristo (talk, history)
Blurb: Margaret Atwood (pictured) and Bernardine Evaristo jointly win the 2019 Booker Prize.
Alternative blurb: Margaret Atwood's The Testaments and Bernardine Evaristo's Girl, Woman, Other jointly win the Booker Prize for Fiction.
News source(s): Flood, Alison (14 October 2019). "Margaret Atwood and Bernardine Evaristo share Booker prize 2019". The Guardian. Retrieved 14 October 2019.

Both articles updated

One or both nominated events are 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: Unusually the prize was shared between two winners. Articles seem in good shape. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:23, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose only on minor sourcing issues. I found two places on Atwood's need CN as well as her writing section for anything not blue-linked (a single source may be able to cover that). Evaristo's got on existing cn, and some honors are not sourced. I'd be willing to turn a blind eye to those in the latter case - it is reasonably close for posting. But Atwood's definitely need just a few more. --Masem (t) 22:33, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
    • Since we usually focus on the winning book, both books are in good shape (as in the altblurb) and this should be good. --Masem (t) 13:33, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Shouldn't 2019 Booker Prize be the bold article? --LukeSurl t c 13:03, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Booker prize was awarded for specific works (The Testaments & Girl, Woman, Other) rather than to the authors in general. --LukeSurl t c 13:05, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
    • WP:ITNAWARDS says Unless otherwise noted, the winner of the prize is normally the target article. Is the winner the book or the author? (I have a feeling we've gone over this in previous years.)-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:07, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
      • For Man Booker, it is the books, not the author. Fortunately both book articles seem good (second is a tad short but likely can grow with this news). Altblurb added and also noting that the name of the awards have officially changed this year --Masem (t) 13:32, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
      • The Prize wasn't nominated for ITN in 2018, but in 2017 the book was the target article. PotentPotables (talk) 14:48, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose both author's articles need work. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:38, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
    • Given that the books are supposed to be the target, and that the authors' are "close" (not suitable if they were target but fine as links), I think this should be good. --Masem (t) 16:37, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm being BOLD and Posted this (using the altblurb highlighting the books which we normally do for Booker prize), after making sure a few CNs on "The Testaments" were fixed. Otherwise I think this would have scrolled off despite being ready. Atwood's picture added to image protection queue. --Masem (t) 20:38, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) End of 2019 Ecuadorian protestsEdit

Article: 2019 Ecuadorian protests (talk, history)
Blurb: More than ten days of protests in Ecuador end after President Lenín Moreno (pictured) agrees to repeal austerity measures and restore fuel subsidies.

Nominator's comments: Related to #(Removed) Ongoing removal: 2019 Ecuador protests. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 02:53, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Support seems reasonable. Banedon (talk) 03:18, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support major development. -Zanhe (talk) 06:46, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support major news. Well referenced. Ready to go. MSN12102001 (talk) 11:43, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support a fine looking article indeed ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 12:08, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per above. Davey2116 (talk) 12:39, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - Hallelujah. I only wish Hong Kong protests would end in a similar fashion. STSC (talk) 13:58, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted – Muboshgu (talk) 14:19, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

RD: Harold BloomEdit

Article: Harold Bloom (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): NYT (private window, Javascript off)

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: Cursory inspection would appear to show no significant problems with references. Bibliography self-referencing with ISBNs and similar cites. May be a blurb candidate. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 21:26, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment As someone who does research and teaches in his field—for what that's worth—I would not call him a "transformative world leader" in literary theory and criticism as far as a blurb is concerned. He is famous outside academia for The Western Canon and his curmudgeonly behavior, and he has published an awful lot of scholarship, but his most likely candidate for a "transformative" work (The Anxiety of Influence) is neither a seminal text for Romanticists nor for psychoanalytic critics. I'd love to see a blurb for a literary scholar, but he's probably not the one. PaulKeeperson (talk) 23:21, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose as the Writing Career section is fairly undereferenced ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 12:10, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per mike. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:39, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

(Removed) Ongoing removal: 2019 Ecuador protestsEdit

Article: 2019 Ecuadorian protests (talk, history)
Ongoing item removal

Nominator's comments: This was resolved earlier. Rockin 20:31, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Remove obviously it's a wrap. One more blurb if you want. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:23, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support (removal) - Very glad to see the unrest has ended peacefully. STSC (talk) 21:58, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support removal and support blurb – IMO, this is a blurb-able event. "This new agreement was the result of hours of negotiations, live on TV".[14] What a novel concept. Apparently, the revolution will be televised!--- Coffeeandcrumbs 23:39, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support removal and a blurb, if just because I don't think any other 2019 protest has yet ended, let alone peacefully (or in a week). Kingsif (talk) 00:12, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: 2019_Ecuadorian_protests#Austerity_measures_reversed could use a little expansion. SpencerT•C 00:47, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
    Spencer, done. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 01:15, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Done. --BorgQueen (talk) 01:59, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Nobel Memorial Prize for EconomicsEdit

Articles: Esther Duflo (talk, history) and Michael Kremer (talk, history)
Blurb: The 2019 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences is awarded to Abhijit Banerjee, Michael Kremer, and Esther Duflo (the award's youngest winner ever) for their work in poverty reduction.
Alternative blurb: ​The 2019 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences is awarded to Abhijit Banerjee, Esther Duflo, and Michael Kremer for their work in poverty reduction.
News source(s): [15]

One or both nominated events are 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: Final Nobel award for the year. Duflo article in pretty good shape, Banerjee article a bit of a mess, Kremer article short. Kenmelken (talk) 20:26, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose on quality. Duflo looks fine, but first two are not quite there on sourcing. Also oppose "youngest" part of blurb - we didn't do that for Goodenough who was the oldest winner, shouldn't do that here. --Masem (t) 20:29, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
    • Also seeded Banerjee and Duflo's images for protection. --Masem (t) 20:39, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
      • Fair enough regarding the blurb; alt blurb added. Agree with you on quality. Not sure whether I'll have time to help on these, but wanted to get them up here. Thanks for image help. Kenmelken (talk) 20:41, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
        • They are not far off. I don't know economics well so can't be much help but I'd say its about an hour's worth of work between the two at worst. --Masem (t) 20:50, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
    • Now Ready --Masem (t) 15:52, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: If we use altblurb, we should restore the correct alphabetical listing: The 2019 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences is awarded to Abhijit Banerjee, Esther Duflo and Michael Kremer for their work in poverty reduction. Ipigott (talk) 06:40, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
    • Good point. I fixed the altblurb and struck the original. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 08:58, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support altblurb - sourcing has been fixed on both articles, no more CN tags present. PotentPotables (talk) 12:39, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per above. The articles have been greatly improved. Davey2116 (talk) 12:45, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  •   Posted. El_C 15:57, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Ongoing removal: 2019 Hong Kong protestsEdit

Consensus is against removal. --qedk (t c) 21:38, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: 2019 Hong Kong protests (talk, history)
Ongoing item removal
Nominator's comments: This has been "ongoing" for forever we got it out once and it popped back in a few days later. The article is being updated but the last event to be added was a taxi driver hitting some people in a crowed on the 6th. This is another one that's ready to age off. LaserLegs (talk) 13:09, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support (removal) - There have been no frequent updates on the article, it's a waste of space in 'ongoing'. STSC (talk) 13:41, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak support. The crisis certainly isn't over, and the protests are still major and continuing. But actual new developments are few and far between, so I guess we can remove it for the time being.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:05, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support removal - While there has been expansion in recent days (a large one on October 13), it mostly relates to expanding older information. The newest substantive information in the article seems to me to be at least 1 week old. If there were more recent information worth documenting, it should be there. --Jayron32 15:10, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose There are least 5 major updates in the last 3 days (in addition to wordsmiths), and additionally, there are more elements adjacent to the situation that are not appropriate to include at this main article related to how the protests have affected American businesses (NBA, Apple, South Park, Blizzard Entertainment, etc.) which is still a major discussion point. --Masem (t) 18:33, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
    • This is the situation comparable to the Venz. government problems about 6 months ago - there were many sub-articles on specific details being updated, that it didn't appear there were that many updates on the target one from the ITN box. But we kept it on the basis those other updates were happening. --Masem (t) 18:53, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
List of October 2019 Hong Kong protests last update October 8th "Reactions" article is orange tagged, is irrelevant to the protests (except for PRC reactions) and I don't see the substantive update. Thanks for clarifying exactly why this should be taken down. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:53, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Only one main article per ongoing event, not a group of sub-articles, should be considered when assessing the updates. STSC (talk) 19:41, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
That's not how we judged teh Venz. government case, and I would expect that certain large long events (ala Brexit) have the same situation: at some point, the updates are more frequent in sub-articles and not the main, but the main is still the best "launch" point for tthose looking for it. --Masem (t) 19:52, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
The ITN criteria on update always refers to one main article, not a group of related articles, per event. STSC (talk) 20:04, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
And again, we have been flexible in the past when the ongoing event grows well beyond a single article. This is how we have dealt with news events constructed in Summary Style approach. If we were talking a blurb, I would definitely expect one - or two - targets that have been clearly updated before posting, but Ongoing is more unique. Heck, this is how the Olympics and the FIFA World Cup stories work - we link to the overarcing topic page, but the updates mostly come from sub-pages, with the main topic page updated completely on the event closure. --Masem (t) 01:00, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Masem. Davey2116 (talk) 18:45, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Masem. Banedon (talk) 22:28, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
    • Y'all realize that Masems principal argument - the updates are in the sub-articles - has been debunked right? --LaserLegs (talk) 23:00, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
      • It's been debunked in your mind, but not in mine. Banedon (talk) 00:56, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
        • So just tell us what "sub article" has been updated. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:07, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
          • 2019 Hong Kong protests. Banedon (talk) 01:10, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
            • Latest update "During protests on 6 October" .... I had this same problem prying the empanada drama out of he box ... "consensus" that something which no longer belonged in the box did belong in the box. Will an admin please just acknowledge that this is stale and yank it already? --LaserLegs (talk) 01:26, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
              • You'd have to convince them that there's consensus, and the way this nomination has been going, I'd say they're more likely to conclude that there is consensus against this being stale and therefore will not yank it. Or, to put it another way: "Y'all realize that LaserLeg's principal argument - that the article is stale - has been debunked right?" Banedon (talk) 01:33, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
                • I asked you what article had been updated, and when you offered one, I showed you the last update was from October 6th --- I mean .... I can't even grasp how you're still insisting that it's not stale. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:36, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
                  • "Latest revision as of 20:30, 14 October 2019". I can't even grasp how you're reading 14 October 2019 as October 6th. Hell, there've been almost 100 updates to that article since Octboer 6. Are you calling all of them insignificant, unsubstantive, etc? Well, good luck with your attempt to remove this. I consider this conversation over. Banedon (talk) 01:39, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
                    • LMFAO really? Is that all you're doing is clicking "history"? Do you not actually read this stuff before commenting? The updates from the 14th are refs and content tweaks, no new content. I mean ... really? Really? You're not just trolling me? --LaserLegs (talk) 01:43, 15 October 2019 (UTC) You're not trolling me, wow, you just click history, scroll down the list, and then dig in on keeping this in the box. Try reading the content please. Wow. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:47, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Masem. The game is now truly afoot - this is bigger news now than any point prior. The PRC overplayed their hand on the Morey business, and now everyone's watching to see what's next. GreatCaesarsGhost 23:57, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - concerns that there are no updates are now invalid as I have updated the article. [16] The violence has escalated this weekend with the first homemade bomb and a stabbed police officer. starship.paint (talk) 09:58, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose/Keep The last three days has had significant new information added to the article. Much different from the last time this was up for removal. I voted to Remove at that time, FWIW.130.233.3.131 (talk) 12:07, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose – In view of the continuing intractability of the situation, this needs to stay in Ongoing. It's China's No. 1 political problem. – Sca (talk) 12:54, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Masem. Even though it'll be "ongoing" for a long time, that isn't a reason to remove it from Ongoing. -- Rockstonetalk to me! 14:22, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal. I just updated List of October 2019 Hong Kong protests and there is plenty more to write or translate from the Chinese Wikipedia. feminist (talk) 15:49, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

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

(Removed; re-added) Ongoing removal: Trump impeachmentEdit

Article: Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump (talk, history)
Ongoing item removal

Nominator's comments: This is going to be "ongoing" for a long time. We should blurb major milestones like house votes, certain resignations, charges filed, etc but the hearings will go on until November 2020 at least. We need to resist the "more Trump noise" objection to blurbs as well. The President of the United States wields extraordinary power and major events in this train wreck of an administration are in the news and do impact real people in the US and globally. LaserLegs (talk) 11:22, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Support, and consider replacing if and when an impeachment vote occurs in the House of Representatives (which, if passed, will move the issue to the Senate). As of now the inquiry itself is under question because of not adhering to the rules of the past three presidential impeachment inquiries. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:39, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
    • Well the inquiry itself is not at all "under question" because there is no requirement to hold a vote to begin such an inquiry and the rightist shrieking "it's illegitimate" is not the sort of tidbit we'd feature on the MP -- exactly the reason it's time to come down. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:45, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support due to lack of meaningful updates. In the past week, aside from the addition of citations, the only major updates that have been made have been the results of public opinion polling on the matter, which is newsworthy but not enough to warrant Ongoing status in my opinion. I would support putting this back up once things actually get moving, but as of now nothing of note is being added to the article, just opinions like "51% of the public supports impeachment" and "Senator Bob doesn't support impeachment", etc. ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 11:57, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support.--WaltCip (talk) 11:59, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Done. --BorgQueen (talk) 12:16, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • WTF – It is called a weekend. There was major testimony on Friday. Today is Monday. One hour discussion while U.S. editors are still commuting to work.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 12:49, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
    • A long weekend at that, holiday Monday (Columbus Day) in the U.S., holiday Monday (Thanksgiving) in Canada. Government inquiries are taking a few days off. (But no vote -- no opinion on this, other than surprised at the speed.) - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 20:00, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
    • I'm in Atlanta -- but I too even as the nominator am surprised at the warp speed with which this came down --LaserLegs (talk) 12:59, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
      • I supported taking this down, but I too was shocked by how fast it actually came down with only three votes. It needed more time and input ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 13:39, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
        • I wish we had this sort of speed when it comes to posting RD items.--WaltCip (talk) 14:15, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal First, this should be re-added for the time being until a proper consensus is reached. This story is still anticipating regular major updates. I'm sympathetic to the nom's concern that retaining this in ongoing makes editors less likely to support a potential blurb on the investigations in the near future, but in my view, it will be difficult to get us all to agree which events are blurbable and I don't see a reason not to leave this up until we do. As for blurbs on other Trump topics, I believe we should post more of those as well, but I don't think removing this from ongoing now will make that more likely. Davey2116 (talk) 14:35, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support removal I agree with the nominator rationale. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 14:38, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support I nominated the formal start of the impeachment hearings when this came through expecting it only to be a blurb, because, as noted then, this is a months-long process, and whereas we can reasonable expect the house to pass the articles of impeachment, whether that will be voted on by the Senate is unclear, and last time that happened, at Watergate, was a 6-some months long process. A blurb is not necessary at this point; should the House pass the articles of impeachment, that would be an appropriate blurb (not ongoing), and only until the Senate actually takes up the trial part would ongoing be appropriate. (I will say, an hour to make the decision given times of day relative to where this story occurs is far too fast, but not disagreeing with net outcome). --Masem (t) 14:55, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support removal. I think it was OK to have this up at first but, as previously noted, it is now likely to be a long-running process. If developments start happening fast (as they do with Brexit) then we can reconsider.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:00, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support removal per nom. SpencerT•C 00:01, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal per Coffeeandcrumbs -- Rockstonetalk to me! 14:12, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal ongoing exists precisely for items that are going to be in the news for a while. Banedon (talk) 22:18, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal per Coffeeandcrumbs and Banedon. Brexit and Hong Kong protests have been ongoing for even longer and are both kept. This is exactly what "ongoing" is for. -Zanhe (talk) 00:21, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I think it's odd that these recent oppose !vote have come after the House has decided not to vote for starting an investigation (yes, this "inquiry" was not even a formal investigation!), thereby abandoning this most recent charade. Are we supposed to keep articles in Ongoing even after the actors have left the stage?130.233.3.131 (talk) 06:26, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
    Or it could be because I have been updating this article daily and it is a quality article on an ongoing subject in the news. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 06:57, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
    130.233.2.131 you are incorrect, the House sets its own rules and doesn't need a full vote to start an impeachment investigation.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:58, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Yes, they set their own rules, and even when playing by their own rules, and within their own clique, they still voted "no". "Unofficial gathering of like-minded politicans agree to do nothing" is what you want to keep in Ongoing.130.233.2.47 (talk) 06:35, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose This is a major ongoing event that continues to get front page news coverage globally. If this isn't what "Ongoing" was intended for then we need to just shut it down. I also think the removal was somewhat premature and at present there is no consensus to remove. -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:36, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment In the few days since I !voted, the inquiry has still been major news, and the consensus has gotten far murkier. This should be re-added as the removal at the time had only three supports, which did not constitute a legitimate consensus; and there's no consensus for removal now. Davey2116 (talk) 20:39, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Reposted due to lack of consensus for removal. Initial removal was unreasonably hasty, with not even an hour and only three commenters between posting and removal. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 06:11, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
    • Agree that removal was on the hasty side. At the same time, there is clearly not consensus for this to remain in the Ongoing section either. SpencerT•C 01:57, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
      • The proposal is to remove the subject from ongoing. It was added with a clear consensus. A change in its status should also require consensus. -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:36, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
This was deservedly absent from Ongoing for over a week. Make a new nomination if you want it back up.130.233.2.47 (talk) 06:35, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
No, it was not. There was never any consensus to remove it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:36, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Trim The entry in Ongoing seems too wordy, taking 5 words, when none of the other entries need more than three. I reckon that just one word would be enough – "Impeachment" – and if we go to two, like the title of this section here, that's plenty: "Trump impeachment". We surely don't need words like "Donald" or "against", right? Andrew D. (talk) 11:19, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
It would have to be "Trump impeachment inquiry". You see, this isn't actually an impeachment proceeding, and to use "Trump impeachment" would suggest something that it is not. It's an "inquery", and unlike in the UK, in the US there is no legal definition of an "inquiry". Even the subpoenas carry no sanction. We might as well shorten it to "Trump impeachment brouhaha" or the slightly longer "Trump impeachment coffee klatch".
The linked article uses the word "proceedings" repeatedly to describe what's happening. We don't need a particular vague word to describe the current phase as the point of ongoing is that this is a protracted affair and these typically go through several stages. Brexit, for example, doesn't get into where we're at exactly because the exit is turning out to be quite an elaborate process. Andrew D. (talk) 12:51, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: SulliEdit

Article: Sulli (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: K-pop star. As usual reference issues with filmography. Article looks great though. Sherenk1 (talk) 09:57, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Support. I and others have fixed up missing refs, and the article seems comprehensive and neutral enough otherwise. Good to go IMHO.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:33, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Well sourced article ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 11:58, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted --BorgQueen (talk) 12:22, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Remove Brexit from OngoingEdit

Consensus is against removal. --qedk (t c) 21:39, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Brexit (talk, history)
Ongoing item removal
Nominator's comments: Yes, I know this is still "in the news" and the article is still being updated. And I am by no means arguing that it is less significant than other items in Ongoing. At the same time, we have 5 items in the section that in my browser are being pushed onto 3 lines. Based on updates in the Brexit article (at Brexit#2019), it seems like the next major event in the process will be on 31 October, which is when the deal deadline is. I am proposing to pull Brexit from Ongoing until that point, when a new blurb item can be nominated for a significant update in the process. Fundamentally, the recent bloatedness of Ongoing isn't sustainable long-term for ITN so I'm just trying to think about how we can re-frame individual items and events to better serve readers at ITN. SpencerT•C 00:30, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Au contraire. I think October 19 will be of some importance; certainly Parliament sitting on a Saturday for the first time in—how long?—is worthy of some note? Daniel Case (talk) 01:30, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Remove if there is a deal on the 19th great blurb it. If BoJo asks for an extension blurb that too. If the UK crashes out certainly blurb that, and if they revoke article 50 release the doves. Right now the only "updates" are both sides insisting "there is a path to a deal but lots to be done" which is the same bullshit we've been hearing for years. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:50, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Retain in Ongoing This continues to be major news, frequently on the front page on both sides of the Atlantic. That's what ongoing is for. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:57, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal per above. This is an ongoing event, with significant updates regularly; I do not see a problem with the current ongoing section, there are lots of events there because there are lots of events going on right now. Davey2116 (talk) 03:54, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Remove per LaserLegs. If a major development happens it should get a blurb, but at this point it's just ongoing churn with nothing of note to report. Morgan695 (talk) 04:25, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support (removal) - What is the point to put Brexit in the 'ongoing' section? We all know that the negotiation is ongoing until it happens. STSC (talk) 04:35, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose/Keep Yes, I know this is still "in the news" and the article is still being updated. Thank you for making the argument for me. There's no "space" requirement for Ongoing that I'm aware of. But if there were, I suggest we remove the Trump Impeachment link. A drama started by the man himself to prove how foolish and gullible the media are and we obliged him. Additionally, the article is shite. Take a look at the diffs and the talk page.130.233.3.131 (talk) 06:17, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Drop your tiresome holier-than-thou shtick. ITN does not operate in an editorial capacity. The impeachment inquiry was in the news. We'd have looked ridiculous if we didn't publish anything.--WaltCip (talk) 12:08, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support (removal) I agree with User:Spencer who has put up a very fine argument. This can be posted back later on easily when it comes in international headlines. --DBigXray 06:52, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal. Not this again... Unless an extension is agreed, (in which case removal would probably be appropriate), this story is going to continue to be major news through to 31 October. If anything this is the crunch point, with only 17 days to go and no definite resolution in sight yet.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:20, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support keeping on ITN - We're in the last two weeks before Brexit is to go into effect. We're going to look absolutely stupid if we pull the ongoing entry this early with how politically frantic the next few days are going to be.--WaltCip (talk) 12:05, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Pull I'll repeat myself (again) that nothing newsworthy has happened since the big court decision that was blurbed. Whatever happens at the end of the month will probably be blurbworthy. We're really stretching the purpose of ongoing here. Separately, anyone wishing to figure out what has happened in the last month that is significant enough to have this on the real front page of the internet would struggle to do so by clicking through to this massive article. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:28, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose The remove premise is wrong. The next major event is this week - the EU Leader's meeting and the Saturday sitting of the UK Parliament. These will certainly generate significant directional changes one way or another. Leaky caldron (talk) 12:34, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose – What, now? Just when B-day is getting close? Nah. – Sca (talk) 12:50, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
    • 17 days is close? Really? --LaserLegs (talk) 13:00, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Closer than three years. – Sca (talk) 13:06, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose if something even more significant happens, blurb it. Until then, Brexit is a clear and present danger. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 13:02, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Remove – This article has become bloated and gone significantly below our quality standards. It is completely unreadable! There is no way this article would manage to get bold linked from anywhere else on the Main Page. Continuous appearance on the Main Page has only contributed to this article's deterioration. We should pull this article and allow editors the opportunity to nominate a subpage for ongoing. Pull this embarrassing shitty article. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 15:13, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Remove The only recent updates are a few minor procedural things. The process seems to be in a holding pattern until the actual day of the Brexit. And yes, the article is really hard to read in its bloated state. Blurb it then. Remove the ongoing now. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:41, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal Still being regularly updated and it would unwise to remove at this time, with the Saturday sitting of Parliament being just days away. Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:54, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Remove — limited updates over the last 2 weeks, with the most notable changes revolving around a future referendum on Scottish independence in 2021. Most edits are maintenance rather than content. Can easily be re-added as a blurb when something major happens again. The article is cumbersome to navigate due to bloat (79kb prose!) as well. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 16:05, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
    • Reiterating that there are hardly any substantial updates to this article (edits on Oct 14 were almost entirely citation related with 1 adding the name of a Bill introduced last month,0 on Oct 15, and 1 edit updating an old statistic on Oct 16). ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 01:35, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
  •   Administrator note: we are split down the middle on this. There is no consensus to remove this item, but equally there is no consensus for it to remain on the template. Supporters of removal say there are limited or insignificant updates occuring; opponents say the article is being regularly updated. What's the truth of the matter? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:16, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose (Keep) -- Seems like bad timing to take this off. Not only are there new developments daily, but given the swiftly approaching deadline, it seems this is only likely to heat up even more in the next two weeks. Kenmelken (talk) 12:14, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment – Looks like opposes (= keep) marginally (10:8) outnumber supports (= pull). – Sca (talk) 13:02, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
PS: Still current. – Sca (talk) 14:06, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Also, WP:NOTAVOTE. I would hope that whatever the tallies, an admin looking at this discussion might take the WP:COMMONSENSE view that to keep this topic in the "Ongoing" section for a couple of weeks when nothing was happening, and then remove it just when things are kicking off again, would be rather contradictory...  — Amakuru (talk) 21:17, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Removal as per nom. However, if individual events become newsworthy, those should definitely appear ITN -- Rockstonetalk to me! 14:20, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal. The Brexit saga is getting into a real crunch time period now. There are daily developments of some sort and, as noted above, things are going to heat up as the deadline gets closer. Nsk92 (talk) 21:24, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal. As we get closer to the 31st there will only be more news about this, especially before the upcoming summit. 331dot (talk) 21:46, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 • Still current – now talking 'deal.' [17] [18] [19]Sca (talk) 20:07, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal - It makes no sense to remove it from Ongoing at this time. Try again after Brexit has been implemented.BabbaQ (talk) 20:15, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment There will be updates soon. Official reports - PM & Junker - confirming new deal agreed. But N.I. DUP not on board so no confirmed "accepted" deal. This is all highly relevant so suggest it is left open. Leaky caldron (talk) 09:50, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal Deal has now been agreed [20], so lots of things are happening and it should be left open. PotentPotables (talk) 12:51, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal. I would have supported if I'd got to it some days ago, but given today's developments, upcoming votes, and the impending 31 October deadline, I suspect this won't be out of ITN until Brexit either happens (in which case we can go ahead with a blurb) or we get another extension, in which case we can just remove from Ongoing. Sam Walton (talk) 12:53, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Sources – re UK-EU 'deal'AP, BBC, Reuters, AFP. (Requires parliamentary approval on both sides of the Channel.) – Sca (talk) 13:36, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal This has been dominating the front pages of newspapers in the UK and the drama is being followed closely in other countries. It's just a single word of six letters and so isn't taking up much space compared to other ITN entries. Andrew D. (talk) 08:49, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

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

ReferencesEdit

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: