In the news toolbox
Error reports Nominations History (Posts · Nominations) Discussion General criteria Death criteria Recurring items Admin guide Image protection Current events portal

This page provides a place to discuss new items for inclusion on In the news (ITN), a protected template on the Main Page (see past items in the ITN archives). Do not report errors in ITN items that are already on the Main Page here— discuss those at the relevant section of WP:ERRORS.

This candidates page is integrated with the daily pages of Portal:Current events. A light green header appears under each daily section – it includes transcluded Portal:Current events items for that day. You can discuss ITN candidates under the header.

Kasia Niewiadoma In cycling, Katarzyna Niewiadoma (pictured) wins the Tour de France Femmes. Doctors strike and protests occur across India after the rape and murder of a female physician in Kolkata. Paetongtarn Shinawatra becomes Prime Minister of Thailand after Srettha Thavisin is dismissed by the Constitutional Court. The World Health Organization declares the mpox epidemic to be a global health emergency. Ongoing: Israel–Hamas war timeline Russian invasion of Ukraine timeline Sudanese civil war timeline Recent deaths: Afa Anoaʻi Sphen (penguin) Mike Lynch Al Attles Bill Pascrell Daniela Larreal Nominate an article

 BabbaQ (talk) 23:32, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Given his age (103), I wonder if we could consider a blurb. Daniel Case (talk) 23:48, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Note I am adding a proposed blurb. Though long retired, Douglas was a giant in Hollywood's golden age and is a film legend. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:51, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb The article is almost ready. Davey2116 (talk) 23:58, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, of course. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:00, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose blurb unless it becomes clear that the outpouring of grief, tributes, etc is the equivalent of what we saw for Mandela, Bowie, Prince, Carrie Fisher, etc. So far, it just looks like the death of a notable person, which is what RD is for. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:01, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the customary standard for a blurb at ITN. What we generally judge is their place in history and their rank or importance within their field. If public mourning were the standard we might as well eliminate almost everybody outside of current celebrities and heads of state. In this case; Douglas was by any reasonable measure in the absolute top rank of film legends. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:08, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ad Orientem, That's not how I judge death blurbs. I judge it based on whether the death is an obituary or the death is a news story. Kobe Bryant is another good example of that. Kirk Douglas is of course a legend of Hollywood. But, I doubt we're going to see the same level of coverage for him as we saw for Kobe. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:10, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Blurb needs improving, but besides of that I think its good to go. Jtnav04 (talk) 00:06, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose blurb This is tough, but we need a better line in the sand on RD blurbs on celebs, and I don't think Douglas makes that. Legendary actor, no question, but was he one of the greats? Ehhhhhhhhh... its debatable enough that I'd advise againsta blurb. Oppose RD on article quality, at least one tagged section. --Masem (t) 00:15, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Bah! to Blurb "Health complications" at 103, what a scoop! Huge star, though, of course. Deserves credit, just not in a blurb. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:37, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb - They don't come any bigger or more legendary. Jusdafax (talk) 00:58, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support blurb One of the greats of the Golden Years of Hollywood, and one of the last of them. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:27, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

+1 Daniel Case (talk) 01:33, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment old man dies of old age is exactly what RD is for. Sourcing is better but not there yet. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:52, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose blurb. Loved him as an actor (perhaps not so much as a person), but I can't really work up the enthusiasm for a blurb here. He wasn't just old, he was extremely old, and his career was long behind him by every conceivable metric. I understand the arguments based on his significance, but there's more to being blurbworthy than that, imo, like extended tributes or some surprise factor. Granted, I'll give you that I was surprised by his death because I'd figured he'd found the secret to immortality by this point. :p Nohomersryan (talk) 02:06, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose blurb per Masem. Hrodvarsson (talk) 05:28, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb - absolute legend, 'nuff said. Mjroots (talk) 05:42, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb - Legend, what's more unique is that he's one of the last surviving stars of the Hollywood's Golden Age. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 05:45, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb - One of the last surviving people of the Golden Age of Hollywood. --Comrade TruthTeller (talk) 05:52, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb, but not the one proposed, since it implies his age was a factor. Better to focus on his having been "a legendary actor and one of the last from the Golden Age of cinema," as Olivia de Havilland is now. She's also 103, and was in 49 films, to Douglas's 90. --Light show (talk) 06:12, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • We cannot go in anywhere close to that much praise in a blurb. Blurbs need to be neutral if we're going to do one. --Masem (t) 06:36, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The word "legendary" was used in a number of quotes in the article and as cited headlines from CBS and the LA Times. Without the word, it focuses more on his longevity. --Light show (talk) 06:44, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Posted to RD while blurb discussion continues. El_C 06:21, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support blurb didn't we post the dude turning 100 in OTD? I'd suppose his death is at least as notable as that. -- a lad insane (Channel 2) 06:36, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose any posting until those awards are fully referenced. Once that's done, a blurb is fine, other than the tedious and predictable Trump nonsense and more coronavirus cases tickers going on, Douglas' death is top news. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 06:53, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While I didn't add most of those, I can cite probably all of them in about 15 minutes if there's a way to. --Light show (talk) 07:06, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support blurb some very famous people, regardless of how old they were when they died, are worthy of blurbs based on their notability alone. —Jonny Nixon (talk) 07:02, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• PULL – What the fuck? This is a shamble of an article. So much unsourced crap. No mention of Natalie Wood. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 07:17, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Article: Impeachment trial of Donald Trump (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The United States Senate votes to acquit President Donald Trump (pictured) on two articles of impeachment. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ The United States Senate acquits President Donald Trump (pictured) of both articles of impeachment.
Alternative blurb II: ​ The United States Senate acquits President Donald Trump (pictured) of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.
News source(s): AP, BBC, Guardian, AFP, Reuters
Credits:

• Nominated by Coffeeandcrumbs (talk · give credit)
• Updated by UpdateNerd (talk · give credit)

Article needs updating

 --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 21:19, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Obviously. MSN12102001 (talk) 21:37, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Important event. When this is added it should be removed from Ongoing.  Nixinova   T   C   21:39, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Tallies: 52-48 abuse of power, 53-47 obstruction of Congress. – Sca (talk) 21:42, 5 February 2020 (UTC) [reply]
• Pro forma Support Obviously. Also Support concurrent removal from ongoing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:47, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, blurb is good. Remove from ongoing. Jip Orlando (talk) 21:51, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Important event. Tagged article looks ready; remove from ongoing.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 21:53, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per above. Davey2116 (talk) 21:54, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - per nom. readyBabbaQ (talk) 21:59, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Posting – Muboshgu (talk) 22:16, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I suggest we update the blurb, to explain what the articles of impeachment was about. See AltBlurb2. ― Hebsen (talk) 22:23, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support altblurb 2 @Muboshgu: or at least replace the "both" with "two". – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:52, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use WP:ERRORS for requesting changes to the blurb.  Nixinova   T   C   22:56, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: German composer of operas and other music, Gilgamesh for EXPO 2000 - I updated the article for his 75th birthday, 2 years ago. Publisher Schott has a works list. Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:38, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support satis. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:09, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose while this article is technically up to snuff, this death is not being reported in English language sources and the subject is very niche and only marginally notable enough for an article. 1779Days (talk) 09:21, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  We look for sources here, not notability. An opera commisioned for the EXPO, literally "exposed" to an international public, seems notable enough. The death of Márta Kurtág wasn't reported in international papers until much later, - we can't wait for that. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:42, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – Looks adequate. (FWIW – and I know some will say 'nothing' – he's in German and French Wikis' RD sections.) – Sca (talk) 14:23, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – looks ok.BabbaQ (talk) 20:29, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - good quality. -Zanhe (talk) 21:14, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted Stephen 22:49, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: Influent and awarded Spanish filmmaker whose films have ended up being ones of most relevants in Spanish cinema, although article needing improving. Alsoriano97 ^talk 20:55, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Opposer stub. Taewangkorea (talk) 22:36, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above. Minecrafter0271 (talk) 22:39, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose stub consisting of only three sentences. -Zanhe (talk) 04:19, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• oppose – not ready,BabbaQ (talk) 20:30, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: This is about to roll off of ITN. I am sure that re-adding it to Ongoing is foregone, given the rapid state of news and global attention, but the nomination is here for procedure. Article is getting 100+ updates per day, many substantial, and is tracking the RSes very well. I have re-named the nomination to reflect what will probably be the eventual name of the article (after move) and to more accurately reflect the new name used in RSes. 130.233.2.197 (talk) 10:20, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment there was strong support to return to ongoing in the blurb discussion, I don't think we need this one. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:24, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Leaning oppose because it will automatically added in ongoing section if that blurb on 30 January fell down to archive. There are strong support to include in ongoing unless blurb is fallen to below. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.137.171.220 (talk) 10:38, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – Per previous. – Sca (talk) 13:29, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Article is still getting updates, good candidate to slide it into an Ongoing slot once it rolls off. --Jayron32 17:05, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Jayron.-- P-K3 (talk) 17:12, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• It seems that both Support and Opposition are in favor of the same thing. I don't think we need any other debate - this is as stone-cold obvious as they come. GreatCaesarsGhost 17:17, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Right but since the rules were changed, taking away admin discretion in adding items to Ongoing we are obliged to go through this, are we not?-- P-K3 (talk) 17:22, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Right, but we don't need "admin discretion" because there was very clear support in the blurb nomination to return to OG once it rolled off. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:34, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Re-posted to Ongoing - you can call it consensus from before, consensus here, or admin discretion, whichever you prefer. But clearly a consensus to have this back at ongoing, now that it's rolled off the bottom of the blurbs again.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:48, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd call it WP:COMMONSENSE. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:23, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, we'd changed the rules because some contentious blurb stories had "automatically" rolled into OG and it's next to impossible to crowbar a story out of there. I see no reason why we can't build consensus to roll into OG when the blurb expires as part of the blurb nom. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:42, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, none of the ones that had were particularly contentious. Some people just feel like they need to be involved with every decision, and automatically object when they feel like they weren't asked, regardless of whether or not the decision was a good one. --Jayron32 13:35, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it's quite easy to remove a story from the ongoing section. You just need to 1) stop news organizations from reporting it and 2) stop Wikipedia editors from improving the article in the ongoing link. --Jayron32 13:36, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Post-Posting Comment – With the China toll (490) rising daily, and the number of cases outside China growing (11 in U.S.) – and with prime RS sites continuing to feature the story prominently – we may be underplaying the topic because it's recurrent. Understand the 'rolling off' issue, but updated versions could be re-posted as available. – Sca (talk) 14:46, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It could be, but if it's a substantial difference in the story it should be re-nominated here on ITN/C. Spencer^T•C 23:45, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: Influential literary critic, public intellectual and Holocaust survivor. —Brigade Piron (talk) 07:40, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - article in good shape and relatively well sourced. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 12:28, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose plenty of references missing. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 13:46, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you be more specific? I agree the article could be more happily structured, but the referencing seems fairly good to me. —Brigade Piron (talk) 09:27, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's a sprinkling of [citation needed] tags and the maintenance tag there for the mainly unreferenced "Awards and honors" section. This is a BLP so it simply can't be posted in its current state. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:31, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really covered by WP:BLP? Nothing in the article is "particularly [...] contentious or questionable material about the dead that has implications for their living relatives and friends". I agree that the article is not perfect, but there seems no particular logic behind many of the <citation needed> tags. As for awards, I would personally consider the section worth culling entirely. Do you agree? —Brigade Piron (talk) 13:31, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest it's better to reference the claims rather than simply cull them for the purposes of getting it onto the main page. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:59, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: Significant North American sports figure, first black QB in Pac 12 history, first black head coach in CFL. NFL hall of famer, 9x all-pro. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 13:53, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - well sourced, looks good to me. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 15:09, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support No issues.-- P-K3 (talk) 19:55, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose far too soon for a non-free image to be used under fair use. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 20:34, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  It seems the non-free image rationale is credible (File talk:Willie Wood Packers.jpg). Killiondude (talk) 21:53, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per TRM. Image is replaceable.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:56, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  As mentioned in the link to the file talk page provided by Killiondude above, in theory yes, but in practice it's exceedingly unlikely to happen. In any case, why not simply remove the image if that's the only barrier to posting?-- P-K3 (talk) 14:03, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment WP:ITN is an area of Wikipedia that I have never frequented, so I won't comment on the nom itself. However, I will address the image (as I uploaded it). "Wood had been confined to assisted living facilities for about 13 years before his death and had suffered from advanced stage dementia for nearly a decade". He just hasn't been out and about to photographed during the digital image age. It's not like similar players from his era (like Paul Hornung) who have returned to Lambeau Field in heir old age. The likelihood of reasonably tracking down someone with a free photo of Willie Wood it highly unlikely. There also doesn't appear to be any timeframe in WP:NFCCP that would preclude use of a non-free image immediately after a death if there is clearly "no free equivalent" that will likely become available. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:37, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speaking with an NFC hat on, this is exactly an appropriate situation where the NFC can be used because we can document the person was not readily out in public (in this case, long term assisted living), and thus can safely assume there is likely no free image that could have been created over the last decade. NFC is fine here. --Masem (t) 22:39, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Amakuru and The Rambling Man, does this satisfy your concerns? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:54, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Or remove the image, as I have done, and wait 6 months to see if a family member or friend comes forward with a more modern photo to celebrate his life. There's no rush to upload an image. Stephen 03:24, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which I reverted. Please provide a policy that backs up what you are saying. Timing isn't discussed anywhere. The burden isn't on us to search the ends of the earth for a free photo. If a free one isn't available, or likely to be ever made available, fair use can be claimed. A family member coming forward to Wikipedia with a photo?? Really? Does that routinely happen? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 04:18, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, removing the photo from the article isn't the proper way to challenge the image Stephen. If you believe the fair use claim isn't valid, then propose deletion at WP:FFD. Removing the image from the article won't lead to any consensus discussion. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 04:30, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: Actor, director and longtime producer. The article is orange tagged since 2013, but I'm working on it. Issues resolved. --SirEdimon (talk) 17:26, 5 February 2020 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]

• Support Looks good.-- P-K3 (talk) 20:56, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I added the death to that yesterday but felt the article was too far from quality for ITN and did not nominate. It is clearly in shape now (including a bulk source to cover the ology part) so seems ready. --Masem (t) 22:36, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted Stephen 03:19, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: Influential archaeologist. Death announced on this date (died on Jan. 30). Zanhe (talk) 02:43, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: Article is well-sourced. —Brigade Piron (talk) 11:31, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support good to go. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 13:49, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted  — Amakuru (talk) 22:11, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: Corona virus blurb went in 1/30, last update to this article is 2/1. The article is broken down geographically and many regions have had no update for well over a week. The updates are poor, with a one liner on Feb 1 about thousands gathering for a pride parade (where there were also slogans shouted against the CAA). The last events of any notability was a human chain on Jan 26 that had 6 to 7 million people however there is but three sentences of prose to describe it (no details about planning, execution, logistics, or whom to attribute the attendance) and a shooting on 1/30 which resulted in one injury (also lacking any prose outside the "chronology" section). The only two events of any sort of significance don't have an update that would have gotten them posted to the main page on their own -- simply put the article is a massive running list of "what" with very little else. Lastly, it's a monster, is yellow tagged for a copy edit and there are paragraphs of prose outside the chronology section are unrelated factoids stitched together without whitespace. The protests may still be "in the news" and I'm certain you'll find WP:RS reporting it, but the article that our WP:READERS read is not being continuously updated with "new, pertinent information" (this article was posted because of protests, not political machinations) and is in a poor state to feature on the main page. Time to come down. LaserLegs (talk) 23:06, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support removal c'mon folks, the "ongoing" is becoming a bit of a coathanger. Resist that shoddy temptation. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 23:38, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, apparently only topics like Brexit and Trump's impeachment (US-UK) are allowed to linger on for months as a coat hanger. This is a clear bias. --DBigXrayᗙ 09:49, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support removal per nom. This article has also suffered under the pressure of increased exposure on the Main Page. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 23:43, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom.  Nixinova   T   C   00:58, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Haven't heard about this one in weeks Kingsif (talk) 02:08, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Removal While there are still protests going on, they are a dull roar relative to the rest of the world news and far from how violent they were when we first posted. No prejudice of reposting if a major shift happens since there's still controversy over it. --Masem (t) 02:20, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Removed Stephen 02:25, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I am quite surprised by how quickly this has been pulled off. In another Ongoing removal discussion Bagumba pointed that "Impeachment_trial_of_Donald_Trump isn't over, and it's been updated since the oldest blurb, which is Jan 30 coronavirus blurb." Similarly approx 30 Kbs of update were added to this article since Jan 30 and yet this has been voted out. The issue of grammar, is quite shallow and easily fixed. Removal here is an example of an obvious bias against topics that are not US-UK related. --DBigXrayᗙ 09:49, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Re-post per DBigXray. Clearly still ongoing,[4][5] and the whole point of this Ongoing section is that there is no time limit, and we therefore keep the item as a one-phrase link at the bottom of the ITN template, until it's no longer in the news. Not just when Wikpedians think it's done it's time. And frankly, like DBigXray I am disappointed in my fellow editors in rushing to remove this clearly ongoing major item in a non-Western country, while at the same time retaining the moribund final rites and foregone-conclusion that is the Trump impeachment trial. Not saying Trump shouldn't be kept - it should (for now) - but so should this.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:32, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support removal per the coathanger principal. Things have unquestionably petered out, and yes - Trump and Brexit did linger for far too long. I voted to remove them both. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:53, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support removal Per above and nom. Spencer^T•C 03:16, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Post-Removal Oppose per DBigXray and based on media coverage. The protests and related politics haven’t died down. You can check on Google if you want. https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=caa&client=safari&hl=en-gb&prmd=nbiv&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiA-afW3rrnAhWAzTgGHZVcBy8Q_AUIFCgB&biw=1024&bih=665 RedBulbBlueBlood9911 (talk) 15:37, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Article: 2019 Malawian general election (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The Malawian Constitutional Court declares the results of the 2019 general election null and void. Peter Mutharika (pictured) is declared as not having been duly elected and is no longer president. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ The Malawian Constitutional Court annuls the results of the 2019 general election which re-elected Peter Mutharika (pictured), ordering fresh election.
News source(s): BBC, Al Jazeera, Guardian, Reuters, AFP
Credits:

• Nominated by Mjroots (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Kampolama (talk · give credit)

Article updated

 Mjroots (talk) 20:39, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Can I suggest reference to the Court ordering fresh elections is added, with a link to 2020 Malawian general election? Number 57 21:13, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added.  Nixinova   T   C   01:01, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Number 57: - you are always at liberty to add an altblurb to any nom. At the time I nominated, the 2020 article did not exist, so an altblurb including it is appropriate. Mjroots (talk) 06:23, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Article is fairly minimal but maybe just enough. Looks like the court has thrown out the whole govt. (Sources added above.) – Sca (talk) 22:14, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support on both quality and notability.  Nixinova   T   C   01:01, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Alt - not terribly long but article is well-sourced, alt blurb sounds better to me. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 02:39, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support in principle but why not consider "The Malawian Constitutional Court annuls the results of the 2019 general election in which Peter Mutharika (pictured) was re-elected and orders fresh elections." —Brigade Piron (talk) 11:34, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Alt looks good. I have c/e'd the alt to say "fresh election" instead of " a new election". Brigade Piron IMHO alt blurb is good enough. DBigXrayᗙ 11:50, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Marked ready. Alt1 looks okay. – Sca (talk) 13:32, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose original blurb because there is grammar errors what is meaning of "null and void". But I Support for Alt1 because it is well reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.137.171.220 (talk) 23:25, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted - ALT1, per consensus above.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:46, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: Former CEO of WorldCom that went to prison on fraud charges . Article seems okay on sourcing? Writing could be out of proseline but not a requirement for ITN. Masem (t) 16:12, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak oppose poor article but mostly within policy. Several sentences which need refs per BLP. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:19, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Article: Super Bowl LIV (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In American football, the Kansas City Chiefs defeat the San Francisco 49ers to win the Super Bowl (MVP Patrick Mahomes pictured). (Post)
Credits:

• Nominated by Muboshgu (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Chainclaw (talk · give credit) and JMyrleFuller (talk · give credit)

The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

 – Muboshgu (talk) 03:06, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - well sourced, lots of prose, looks good to me. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 03:12, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait until a prose summary has been added to the article. SounderBruce 03:15, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  SounderBruce, it's been added. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:13, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose as there are still many paragraphs without citations and the prose itself is very dull. The team preview sections include far too many statistics and not enough of the narrative. Other sections, like Advertising and Entertainment, are short despite being important parts of the event. SounderBruce 08:08, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as as ITNR -- Rockstonetalk to me! 03:38, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rockstone35 Events on the ITNR list do not need support on the merits/"support as ITNR"; this discussion is for evaluating the quality of the article. 331dot (talk) 12:13, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Most of the details in "Game summary" is unsourced. The details seem quite low level, so either source the current prose or reword based on high-level action described in published recaps.—Bagumba (talk) 05:57, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support It is well-referenced and significant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.137.171.220 (talk) 07:22, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose many claims completely unreferenced, not just in the game summary section either. A lot of work to do. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:54, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Post-posting support as a global event and a half-decent article. Good work to those of you who made it decent enough post, respect. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:21, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Although we should never let perfect be the enemy of good, since this event is ITN/R it is important that something so large have the proper sourcing - GA-level sourcing, even - before we post it on the main page for the world to see. Significance is not in dispute as this is ITN/R. Support arguments to this effect are therefore redundant. WaltCip (talk) 12:07, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment WaltCip I think you must oppose it to include in ITN/R because this nomination only happens in single country, not multiple countries, like Wuhan coronavirus.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.137.171.220 (talk)

Please do not carry disagreements from one discussion to another. 331dot (talk) 12:41, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is not why I am opposing. Please read my rationale again, closely.--WaltCip (talk) 13:12, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All posts must have proper sourcing. The sourcing requirements are not impacted (either way) by ITN/R status or the size of the article. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:56, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but when something has received as much publicity and analysis as the Super Bowl has, it really should not be that hard to find solid, reliable sources for every significant statement in the article.--WaltCip (talk) 13:58, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trans: ... has received as much sportified hype. – Sca (talk) 15:05, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Not ready. Unfortunately I have to agree with the opposes - there is a lot of unreferenced material there. I've added a bunch of {{cn}}s; the game summary could also do with at least minimal sourcing. The statistics should be easy to source for those in the know (I'm not one). Modest Genius ^talk 12:46, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The reference improvements are good enough for me. Modest Genius ^talk 16:18, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose until the many citation issues have been fixed; I'm sure this won't take long for someone who knows the subject (i.e. not me). Black Kite (talk) 12:49, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I could understand the urge to post this if we were just waiting on recap and proper sourcing for that, but many of the sections on the lead-up to the game are lacking sources. That's a no-go. --Masem (t) 14:43, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – I seem to remember seeing a much worse Brexit article being posted in worse condition. The Brexit article only recently added a section in the body for the 31 January event and the section only has a single sentence about the actual major ITN-worthy event. This is what happens when we set our standards depending on our personal perception of importance. We look like hypocrites. Let's see what happens when North America wakes up. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 14:59, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • An blurb-worthy update could easily just be a sentence or two. The recent bump-back-to-blurb of the coronavirus due to the UN's declaration only needed one sentence and the sourcing to reflect that, because the rest of the article already existed and was in good shape. Same with Brexit. For sports events - not singling out the Super Bowl here - describing the event after it happens needs more than one sentence. The sporting event is the meat of the story, whereas in the other cases, it is just additional events atop the main existing one. And we know completing a recap is not impossible to do within 24hr or less when dedicated editors are on it (tip of hat to TRM and Boat Race here). No one is being a hypocrite here. --Masem (t) 15:06, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    But there was not even a single sentence when it was posted. Some of the very same people that opposed this item, supported posting Brexit without a single mention of the exit in the body of the article. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:17, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There are no unreferenced blocks of text anymore -- needs a re-check. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:57, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Not sure if it's fully ready, but I've improved the sourcing of the game summary section. Lepricavark (talk) 16:11, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support There's a couple CNs floating around in the broadcast sections - more on international versions - which should be fixed but far from serious problems as these tend to be minor elements (as they are not major regions of issue) and could be removed until sourcing can be found. --Masem (t) 16:17, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Pinging opposers, @Black Kite, The Rambling Man, SounderBruce, Bagumba, and WaltCip:. All {{cn}} tags have been addressed. Marking ready, unless someone else finds a problem I'm missing. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:53, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support now improvements have been made.-- P-K3 (talk) 17:02, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted -- Fuzheado | Talk 17:14, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 7&6=thirteen (☎) 02:47, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Article is orange-tagged, and missing some refs. Kingsif (talk) 02:59, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose many claims in the article unreferenced, and the filmography needs serious work. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:55, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, not sure how I feel about putting an orange-tagged article on the main page. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 02:44, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Article: 73rd British Academy Film Awards (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ At the British Academy Film Awards, 1917 (director Sam Mendes pictured) wins Best Film, along with six other awards. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ At the British Academy Film Awards, 1917 wins Best Film and six other awards, including Best Director for Sam Mendes (pictured).
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

• Nominated by Kingsif (talk · give credit)

Article updated
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

Nominator's comments: Could mention that Mendes won Best Director because using his image (alt), though ITN/R mentions film Kingsif (talk) 22:58, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I've added a short section of text about the ceremony, similar to the previous awards, to make it more than just a table. PotentPotables (talk) 00:10, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose it's still barely stub in terms of prose. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:57, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Support great work from Kingsif, good to go. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 20:09, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Strongly oppose for original blurb because it will include problems in grammar (who, when, why), but I recommend to Support Altblurb. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.137.171.220 (talk) 12:51, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Not ready. The article is just a big results table; there's a grand total of 170 words of prose. Needs substantial expansion. Also, 'Baftas' is surely better known than 'British Academy Film Awards'. Modest Genius ^talk 12:54, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "BAFTA" is the initialism for the organization, and while it is common to call these awards BAFTAs in casual speak, it is not precise. "BAFTA Film Awards" would be the only other acceptable alternative (as there are also other BAFTA awards out there now). --Masem (t) 14:42, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • As Masem said, BAFTA is the common name of the Academy (British Academy of Film and Television Arts). Imagine calling the Academy Awards 'the Academys' in formal writing. Note that in other years, it's passed with a short prose update, like PotentPotables said, because it's not a prose-y kind of article. Kingsif (talk) 18:23, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • However, there was a presentation - it may not be the media blast that we get from Oscars or other film awards - but there was an audience and it was broadcast, and there a few articles out there talking about some events from it (for example Phoenix' acceptance speech). And now that I was double checking to look, I do see a few lines about it near the bottom. Would like more but that's at addressing there was an actual "show" part of this. --Masem (t) 18:52, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Now expanded the Ceremony section - this section was previously about as long as it is in previous years, now it might be a bit heavy. Kingsif (talk) 19:47, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Looks good, I now support. I suggest moving that text above the table, otherwise readers could miss it. Modest Genius ^talk 20:40, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose sourcing is unclear and prose is inadequate. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:19, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Where is the sourcing unclear? Refs can't be added in that table so they're above (though it could theoretically come under PLOT as it was broadcast, anyway) Kingsif (talk) 19:47, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support The sourcing is actually fine: in the current version sources 1 and 6 cover the whole of the awards and nomination table, which is fine. And while there probably could be more on the ceremony, what's there is at least addressing it. The only thing I see that could be added immediately are award presenters as from previous years. --Masem (t) 18:55, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  There's barely a stub worth of prose. It's not suitable at all. A quick comparison to last year's article demonstrates what is possible. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:23, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Last year's article also has little prose, just a list of presenters. However, the point is moot - I've now massively expanded the prose section. Kingsif (talk) 19:47, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And that's brilliant, well done and thank you for such an effort! The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 20:09, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Thanks to Kingsif, sufficient prose now.-- P-K3 (talk) 20:13, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Alt1, on film's notability. – Sca (talk) 22:19, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted – Muboshgu (talk) 22:22, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: Indonesian politician, religious figure, and VP Candidate back in 2004 Juxlos (talk) 21:49, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Can you add references to this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.137.171.220 (talk) 22:03, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The article is well-referenced, including the updates about his death. HaEr48 (talk) 22:12, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Well-referenced throughout. PotentPotables (talk) 22:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support satis. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:58, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted to RD  — Amakuru (talk) 10:23, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: Former Prime Minister of New Zealand.  Nixinova   T   C   21:48, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose needs refs, and the self-published website appears to no longer exist in any case. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 23:28, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed.  Nixinova   T   C   04:15, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good work, I'm happy to support this now. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:59, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Moore was also director of the World Trade Organization an internationally prominent role. Kiwichris (talk) 06:07, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support article now much tidier and better referenced. MurielMary (talk) 06:55, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Seems ready.BabbaQ (talk) 16:55, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Some sections seem to need more sourcing. In particular, unless I'm misunderstanding, the entire World Trade section was supported by something that did not seem to me to be cogent. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:07, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed, the link was to the wrong version of the archived page.  Nixinova   T   C   02:04, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted to RD  — Amakuru (talk) 10:21, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Should this be moved back down to Feb 1 on this page? He died on Feb 1 UTC.  Nixinova   T   C   19:16, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: British World War 2 officer and famous mercenary, inspiration for the film The Wild Geese, references updated Joseywales1961 (talk) 20:02, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Whole sections unsourced. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:11, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Many more references added since your post, how does it look to you now? Joseywales1961 (talk) 23:50, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support was just about to nominate this myself. Well referenced. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:38, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose still a few unreferenced claims in there, tagged. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 10:04, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose much seems to be referenced to reviews of, or lectures based on, a book published by his son; some of this is also attributed to organisations who cannot have reviewed the content; the book may or may not be a reliable source (I imagine not), but indirect reports on the book don't seem reliable to me. PaulBetteridge (talk) 11:30, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: Grammy Award winner and great artist. Marginal work on refs is needed. Zingarese talk · contribs 04:02, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Half unreferenced.  Nixinova   T   C   04:18, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  ...which is why I mentioned that some marginal work on refs is needed? Zingarese talk · contribs 13:31, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes? I said that because that's my reasoning for opposing? Would you prefer "per nom"?  Nixinova   T   C   18:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Have you looked again? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:40, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Thank you for nominating, - wanted to that now. More refs were added, please check again. - Yes, Bach Mozart Beethoven and other bits are not specifically referenced, but as far as I can see no unusual claim is left without a source. More detail would be possible from the obits. Anybody? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:04, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Much improved since I last looked at it.  Nixinova   T   C   05:19, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support good to go. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 10:07, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted to RD  — Amakuru (talk) 10:25, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 MurielMary (talk) 11:39, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Needs a prose update on her death — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:21, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done. MurielMary (talk) 12:25, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Looks good now Joseywales1961 (talk) 12:55, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support good to go. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 13:11, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support good to go indeed.BabbaQ (talk) 17:09, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:14, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: Prominent Slovenian politician, President of the Socialist Republic of Slovenia. The references have been updated. Tone 18:46, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Prominent politician, article seems to be well referenced (in Slovenian I presume so I'll let someone else read those) 46.7.236.180 (talk) 22:09, 31 January 2020 (UTC) oops not logged on Joseywales1961 (talk) 22:10, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Looks good to me. – Ammarpad (talk) 04:17, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
•  Posted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:14, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: Mexican environmental activist TJMSmith (talk) 16:56, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose stub. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 16:57, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: I've expanded the article since nominating it. TJMSmith (talk) 19:26, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - No longer a stub since TJMSmith's great improvements, contains details about death which has been reliably sourced. Achaea (talk) 18:46, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
•  Posted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:57, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: Belgian-Congolese footballer, and one of the first Africans to play in Europe. —Brigade Piron (talk) 13:25, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 16:57, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Looks good. Just noting that our article says he was 91 when he died, but the BBC says he was 90 — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:51, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Article looks good, @MSGJ I would go with our articles date as it is the same as the players page on Le ballon rond Joseywales1961 (talk) 22:17, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Fair enough,  Posted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:52, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: Last update on the 27th, last major milestone was the new government on the 21st. There are some one-sentence updates in between but not a single one mentions the size of the protests. LaserLegs (talk) 11:30, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Remove Per nom. No continuing information about the protests being added to the article; if the notable piece is the formation of a new government, a new ITN item should be posted as such with the correct article as the subject. Spencer^T•C 13:00, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now. The last milestone was the passing of the 2020 budget on 27 January while protesters tried to prevent the parliamentary session. Twelve people (including 4 seriously) were injured in the protests outside the government building. Wait a couple of days. The Grammy awards were on 26 January. Until the Grammys roles off this is still current. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 14:23, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Grammy awards just rolled off with Brexit going up. Spencer^T•C 02:07, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support for Removal Yes, its still going, yes it has reasonable updates, but this is a type of "white noise" protest - its going to go on indefinitely, and it is not necessarily terribly violent as compared to the Hong-Kong ones. We have a LOT of ongoing right now, and of the present ones, this is least headline-y so in considering prioritization and keeping the ITN box reasonably sized, this could go. --Masem (t) 14:34, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Remove The nature of protest has evolved in the past few years, such that large scale protests are becoming common place. We have two on ongoing now, and have had several others in the recent past. We need to start rethinking how we handle protests in the way we have US-school shootings and LGBT rights decisions - understanding that the world is different now. GreatCaesarsGhost 14:56, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. We are going to have to consider having a fixed maximum number of ongoing items, as we do for RDs. This seems to be the least current of the set. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:44, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support removal - according to [6], the demonstrations are losing steam. Banedon (talk) 03:45, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Ready consensus seems clear on this one, time to pop it off --LaserLegs (talk) 11:46, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
•  Removed — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:10, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: State of emergency declared in Australian Capital Territory. The Chief Minister is telling people in the southern suburbs of the capital Canberra to be prepared for fire arriving (About 10km away). Plenty of updates in the last few days Bumbubookworm (talk) 03:19, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I still don't think this should have been removed in the first place. Only question is whether to add this as a blurb or put it directly into Ongoing. I'm weakly in support of a blurb since it's a milestone event, but that's it. Banedon (talk) 03:33, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Still continuously updated.  Nixinova   T   C   05:39, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Should never have been removed. For anyone with doubts, have a look at the Emergency notifications page for my state right now - http://emergency.vic.gov.au/respond/ HiLo48 (talk) 07:53, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see one emergency, in Cape Conran, a place the article doesn't mention. Still optimistically doubtful. For Victoria, anyway. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:57, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support complete no-brainer. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:45, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
•  Posted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:18, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose what? The only recent development in this mess of an article is one sentence about an emergency declaration in the ACT on Jan 31. Everything else is a week old. Did I miss something here? --LaserLegs (talk) 10:53, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Post-posting support. Clearly still ongoing, and the ACT update is sufficient update on its own. Apparently more unfavourable weather conditions may lead to a bigger resurgence in the next few days.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:00, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – AP report says fires "threaten Canberra’s southern suburbs." – Sca (talk) 13:13, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But next day threat subsides. – Sca (talk) 13:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Map of UK (in orange) and EU (in blue)

Article: Brexit (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The United Kingdom formally withdraws from the European Union. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ The United Kingdom withdraws from the European Union and begins an eleven-month transition period.
Alternative blurb II: ​ The United Kingdom leaves the European Union and as the withdrawal agreement, including an 11-month transition period, comes into effect.
Alternative blurb III: ​ The United Kingdom leaves the European Union.
News source(s): (BBC), (Vox), AP, Guardian, Reuters
Credits:

• Nominated by Mount Patagonia (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Well, after almost four years the day has finally come. For those not in the know, one of the most powerful nations is leaving one of the largest and most powerful supranational organizations on Earth, and it is the first time the procedure for leaving has been carried out in full. It has cause a lot of political and economic turmoil at home and abroad in the past, and will assuredly continue to do so in the near future. The article itself has been put in the ITN section in the past, is generally in good shape, and is being continuously updated. The reason I'm nomming it now is, barring a really freaky event, it is certain to happen at this point. Mount Patagonia (talk) 00:15, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Old news. Just kidding! But there are better targets - Brexit withdrawal agreement, e.g. There's already been some discussion on the talk page. Also, I'd prefer we wait until 23:00 to post. GreatCaesarsGhost 00:28, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah I didn't know there was a discussion on the article to link (this is my first time nominating for ITN). If there is a clear preference for a different article, we can swap them out (if it works that way). I also wasn't expecting for this to be posted immediately, just to have enough consensus to post when it actually does happen. Sorry for any inconvenience. Mount Patagonia (talk) 00:37, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Only affects one nation </sarcasm> Clearly this was going to be posted once official and this day is it. --Masem (t) 00:39, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I Oppose because it only related to single country, not like Wuhan coronavirus outbreak, which has related to multiple countries, but I Support it for significance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.76.226.238 (talk) 00:48, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thats not how this works, see #Please do not..., and anyway this does not only relate to one country as it affects the whole EU.  Nixinova   T   C   00:56, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, obviously major news. This should be posted at 11pm when it actually takes place.  Nixinova   T   C   00:56, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Non-constructive sarcasm Only affects one nation (European Union) JK Anyway, I support adding this at some point soon. Geographyinitiative (talk) 00:52, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Suppport per nom. Jusdafax (talk) 00:55, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Drop the word "formally" from the blurb. Should just read as "The United Kingdom withdraws from the European Union." Proposing alt blurb that mentions transition period. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 00:57, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support once it actually happens. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:41, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Added Alt2. The withdrawal agreement is the best target, but I would Oppose at this moment, as it have a number of unreferenced sections, and a number of maintenance tags that needs to be cleared up first. ― Hebsen (talk) 02:12, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Similarly, would "The United Kingdom leaves the European Union as the withdrawal agreement, including an 11-month transition period, comes into effect." be okay? Trying to indicate that the agreement is the active instrument in this withdrawal. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 02:30, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Pro forma Support per above. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:52, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I get the feeling that people will be wondering why we don't have it up if we don't have it up by the time it happens. I'd be more than happy to tackle any quality concerns opposers might have. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 02:34, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Note Some comments got deleted, I assume accidentally, here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:28, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• support: Blurb not to be posted before 23:00 UTC. Mjroots (talk) 04:56, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Alt-blurb II with the substituted as per proposed above. Any quality concerns should be dealt with as they're brought up, but posting this is a given Sleath56 (talk) 05:39, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per others above, but use the original blurb (or alt3) as it was the UK's triggering of Article 50 that means that the UK is leaving, not the ratification of the withdrawal agreement (otherwise why is there an article about no deal Brexit?). Iffy★Chat -- 10:01, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support in general. I've added a blurb ALT3, which just gives a concise summary of the basic story, without unnecessary guff about "formal withdrawals" etc so I'd favour that. Also oppose bolding of Brexit withdrawal agreement because it's not ready quality-wise.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:05, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support any sensible wording, and any sensible target article, and we shouldn't get too hung up on the quality issues, though it is important to have the article be a reasonable standard. Agree this should not be posted before 23:00 GMT on Friday 31/01/2020, and it should possibly be delayed until a suitable time after that to allow for the updating of all the related articles on Brexit and those articles that say the UK is part of the European Union. Certainly the target article will need to be up-to-date otherwise we will look silly. Carcharoth (talk) 11:09, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support either alt1 or alt3, posting at 23:00 tonight. There's no need to mention the withdrawal agreement, though I can see a case for the transition period. The Brexit article is huge and I'm not a fan of starting with a timeline, but it covers everything and has links to all the other relevant articles. Modest Genius ^talk 12:38, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – Brexit is an absolutely horrible article. I strongly oppose posting that trash on the Main Page. Use European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 12:52, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support (on 23:00) finally - major event. Article isn't the best ever but it's not exactly the worst ever, with around 7 hours left to improve it. People will open the Brexit article with or without ITN anyway. Juxlos (talk) 13:30, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support No-brainer on significance; I can see an argument for favouring the wirhdrawal agreement article over the main Brexit one.-- P-K3 (talk) 13:33, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, prefer "leaves" rather than "withdraws" as the more commonly used term. 49 TL 14:31, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support only after it happens, which at this point is in approximately six hours. NorthernFalcon (talk) 16:46, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - can anyone think of a suitable picture? Would using File:UK location in the EU 2016.svg be OK? Carcharoth (talk) 17:13, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  That looks ideal to me. It even works at ITN scale, which is unusual for a map. Modest Genius ^talk 18:26, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  How about this as an illustration? Anchors away! – Sca (talk) 18:49, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  If I recall correctly, maps aren't allowed to be used for ITN. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 19:17, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  There's no rule. ITN has generally avoided maps because they tend to be unreadable at 150px width. This one works fine at that scale. Modest Genius ^talk 20:17, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I've added that one to CMP in readiness — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:29, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support in principle and put it as simple as "UK leaves the EU". There is simply no need to mention any further details such as the withdrawal agreement or the transition period.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:56, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – After 3+ years of ballyhooed folderol it would be strange indeed if we ignored it. Alt1 seems reasonable (@ 23:00), although "leaves" might be better than "withdraws." – Sca (talk) 18:08, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. --Minecrafter0271 (talk) 19:22, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Gibraltar is leaving too. Should be mentioned in the blurb - "the United Kingdom and Gibraltar..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjroots (talk • contribs) 19:41, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Since Gibraltar is part of the UK, that would be redundant. Kingsif (talk) 19:44, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Not so, Gibraltar is in the EU, unlike, the Isle of Man and Channel Islands, for example. Gib took part in the referendum, IoM and CI didn't. Mjroots (talk) 20:05, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• What? Are you saying that nobody living on the islands was allowed to vote in the referendum!? You're also implying that Gibraltar was allowed to vote separately if they stay or go - the Gibraltar vote was almost 100% remain, but it was counted as part of a southern English region that was otherwise largely leave. It's part of the UK. Or are we saying "Great Britain, Northern Ireland, Gibraltar, and the rest of the British Isles and territories constituting the UK leave the EU"!? Sure, Gibraltar is probably the most relevant, given it entirely borders different EU countries, but that doesn't mean it's not constitutionally part of the UK, or it wouldn't be leaving. Kingsif (talk) 20:20, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Gibraltar isn't part of the UK, constitutionally or otherwise; it's a British Overseas Territory under UK rule. 49 TL 21:57, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• While Gibratar is not part of the UK directly or in the conventional sense it is still under the jurisdiction and sovereignty of the UK so it is not worth mentioning it in the blurb.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 22:46, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support obvious - I find the withdrawal bill and the concept to both be necessary target articles, and would prefer that blurb. And to post at 11 GMT, which I think is also uncontroversial. Kingsif (talk) 19:44, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Could we not just post it as an RD for "The UK's common sense" or something? Black Kite (talk) 19:55, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  That died years ago, if we ever had it. Modest Genius ^talk 20:18, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

•  Administrator note There is not unanimous support for any of the blurbs, but perhaps alt IV has broad consensus. Suggest posting at about 23:05 to give time for relevant articles to be updated. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:34, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  No-one has expressed support for European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 as the bold link (except presumably whoever added alt4). The options under discussion were Brexit and/or Brexit withdrawal agreement. Modest Genius ^talk 22:02, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I can see some opposition to both of these articles expressed above — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:05, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Alt III. Of course. MSN12102001 (talk) 22:13, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Alt I and II per above. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 22:15, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Prefer anything except alt IV. It would be perverse not to link Brexit at all, even if it's not the bolded link. —Cryptic 22:19, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed. Modest Genius ^talk 22:22, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Certainly. Strong Oppose Alt 4. The withdrawal article shouldn't be bolded I don't think, and we must link Brexit.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:34, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as long as blub IV is not used (becuase we need to link Brexit) and is posted at or after 11pm GMT.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 22:42, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I have removed IV from the list, in the hope that we can reach agreement on one of the other three — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:55, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Alt II: It's useful and relevant to link the withdrawal agreement. — MarkH₂₁^talk 23:00, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment official as of just around two minutes ago. Juxlos (talk) 23:02, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted alt. Feel free to change. --Tone 23:06, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Good choice, Tone. Let's leave it at that.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:11, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Agreed, that one will do fine — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:12, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Tweaked slightly from "withdraws" to "leaves" as several editors expressed preference for this wording — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:14, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Calm down dear, it's only the transition period There needs to be a more robust implication of guidelines currently out there. At the moment the article is full of maps showing the UK in the EU. I don't know if all of these are valid still. I still Support the blurb redirecting to Brexit, the withdrawal and the EU. By the way, my "Brexit Breakfast" will be Fajitas tomorrow. Something neutral.--2A00:23C4:3E0F:4400:ACB1:1A1B:1127:FF65 (talk) 23:42, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Good blurb choice at this point if there is anything more to say it should be painted on a bus. Suggest closing this. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:23, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Post-posting support per above. Davey2116 (talk) 03:02, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]