Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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.

Intense Tropical Cyclone Idai on 14 March, shortly after reaching its peak intensity
Cyclone Idai

How to nominate an item[edit]

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.

Headers[edit]

  • Items that have been posted or pulled from the main page are generally marked with (Posted) or (Pulled) in the item's subject so it is clear they are no longer active.
  • Items can also be marked as (Ready) when the article is both updated and there seems to be a consensus to post. The posting admin, however, should always judge the update and the consensus to post themselves. If you find an entry that you don't feel is ready to post is marked (Ready), you should remove the mark in the header.

Voicing an opinion on an item[edit]

  • 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)


Suggestions[edit]

March 19[edit]


March 18[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Science and technology

2019 Utrecht shooting[edit]

Article: 2019 Utrecht shooting (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A man has opened fire in a tram in the Dutch city of Utrecht, killing three and injuring nine people
News source(s): BBC, AP, Reuters, dpa

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: News still to come in. Article in initial stages. Sherenk1 (talk) 11:39, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose until more details are available upon which we can base a judgement. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:31, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment – Looks to be of comparatively minor moderate significance. Sca (talk) 13:39, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Three dead, nine wounded. Blurb amended. Mjroots (talk) 15:14, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - death toll rises. BabbaQ (talk) 17:04, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
AP, Reuters, dpa say three dead and five (rather than nine) injured. (Added to sources.) – Sca (talk) 17:27, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Rises, yes, but doesn't come close to the 21 killed in Mali on the same day. Barely cracks the top ten deadliest attacks of the week. GreatCaesarsGhost 01:29, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. – Illegitimate Barrister (talkcontribs), 20:39, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support article is of sufficient quality, well referenced, detailed enough, topic is currently in the news. Checks all the boxes.--Jayron32 22:16, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose disaster stub. Motivation still unknown. Outrageous statement "Several witnesses have claimed that the probable motive for the attack was an honour killing after a family dispute between two relatives." not backed by refs. No thanks. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:41, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support on notability. Rare case of mass shooting in the Netherlands. Article has been afd'ed though that seems a strange decision as the story is still in the headlines. Hrodvarsson (talk) 03:13, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Ongoing removal: Brexit negotiations[edit]

Withdrawn for now, I guess we'll revisit after the request for an extension is made (or isn't). --LaserLegs (talk) 14:19, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Brexit negotiations (talk, history)
Ongoing item removal
Nominator's comments: Last update was several days ago. LaserLegs (talk) 11:21, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose nothing substantive happens over the weekend. This week will see yet more Brexit votes, and an inevitable delay to implementation of Article 50, this isn't the time to remove it. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:30, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose – The never-ending Brexit story goes on. – Sca (talk) 13:40, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per TRM.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:12, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

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

March 17[edit]

Disasters and accidents

Politics and election

RD: Alan Krueger[edit]

Article: Alan Krueger (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): NY 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.

 IntoThinAir (talk) 17:58, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Support Looks good to me. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:09, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:11, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support good to go. --BabbaQ (talk) 18:41, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. I don't think this is quite ready. The sourcing needs work -- there are several claims based on primary sources only (not all tagged) as well as unsourced material in the infobox. The lead needs rewriting. When did he stop being chair of the White House Council of Economic Advisers? Espresso Addict (talk) 21:18, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Manohar Parrikar[edit]

Article: Manohar Parrikar (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): NDTV

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: Start Class article with everything sourced. Indian Chief Minister. DBigXray 15:17, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Support The person in question is significant enough to be present in RD. The article too seems good. Adithya Pergade (talk) 17:48, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Everybody who has an article on Wikipedia is "significant enough to be present in RD".--SirEdimon (talk) 18:33, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Everything seems to be accounted for. GreatCaesarsGhost 18:29, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - One importante statement is unsourced: "He has since been credited with transparent, efficient and fast decision making in what was till then thought of as a sluggish ministry. He has also opened up several investigations into alleged scams like Augusta Westland Chopper scam." This kind of thing must be referenced.--SirEdimon (talk) 18:34, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • SirEdimon agree, I have removed this unsourced claim from the article and move to the talk page. Please see if you can now support this--DBigXray 18:45, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - Good to go in my opinion.--SirEdimon (talk) 18:49, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support good enough quality for RD. Marked as ready --DannyS712 (talk) 22:10, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 22:22, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

March 16[edit]

Disasters and accidents
  • A fire at a refugee camp in Nigeria kills eight and leaves 15,000 homeless. The residents are people displaced by ongoing conflict with Boko Haram. (Reuters)
  • Flooding over large portions of Nebraska leave one dead and two missing with over 900 people using emergency shelters. Many roads and highways in the state are also closed. (USA Today)
Law and crime
Politics and elections

RD: Dick Dale[edit]

Article: Dick Dale (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: LOADS of work needed. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:35, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: Everything in the main prose is now cited to a source (with the caveat that I haven't checked every source already in the article beyond a few basic spot checks) and a lot of prose has been cleaned up. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:54, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. Thanks to Ritchie333, the article is in much better shape. The discography still needs work so it is not ready to post. Capitalistroadster (talk) 02:35, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

2019 Jayapura flooding[edit]

Article: 2019 Jayapura flood and landslide (talk, history)
Blurb: ​At least 73 people are killed by a flash flood and landslide in Jayapura Regency and Jayapura, Indonesia.
News source(s): The Guardian (via AFP), DW

Nominator's comments: News is a bit buried by the media block in Papua and the NZ/Ethiopia events, but it's still there in front pages. Juxlos (talk) 11:45, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Support - The article is a bit small but seems good enough for me and the death toll is, obviously, very significative.--SirEdimon (talk) 18:38, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. Article is adequate and sourced, though mainly not in English. The BBC is covering this on their world news index page and the ref I've added covers most of the basics. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:19, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support It's true that this has been overshadowed by NZ shooting and Ethiopia crash, but it's tragic too and the article looks OK. – Ammarpad (talk) 06:16, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Did not receive due attention because of other major international news, but coverage that did occur was reasonable. Death toll is significant. AusLondonder (talk) 11:48, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose quality. "The administrative villages of Dobonsolo, Doyobaru and Hini Kumbi were the most affected" most affected how? 73 are dead? Where? How? The impact section has a total of six lines of prose, one of which is dedicated to a damaged helicopter. Is a damaged helicopter "very significant"? I know I'm in the minority here, but this is another disaster stub that tells very little. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:15, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - per refs, per attention, per coverage.BabbaQ (talk) 18:59, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Six Nations Championship[edit]

Article: 2019 Six Nations Championship (talk, history)
Blurb: Wales win the 2019 Six Nations Championship with a Grand Slam.
Alternative blurb: ​In rugby, Wales win the 2019 Six Nations Championship with a Grand Slam.
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.

 Sceptre (talk) 16:49, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose great graphics and tables. Prose? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:20, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Lacks prose... It needs background information in the article body and supporting info for some sections. NoahTalk 04:52, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

March 15[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks
Health and environment

International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections

(Posted) RD: Mike Thalassitis[edit]

Article: Mike Thalassitis (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Guardian

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: C Class article with very good sourcing. A footballer and TV star. DBigXray 10:06, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Support on quality - good enough for RD --DannyS712 (talk) 17:05, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support, marking ready. SpencerT•C 18:07, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - Good to go.--SirEdimon (talk) 18:40, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 22:03, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

School strike for climate[edit]

Article: School strike for climate (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Hundreds of thousands of pupils and students worldwide go on school strike to demand political action against global warming.
News source(s): (CNN) + see also other sources in Article

Article updated

 --PJ Geest (talk) 09:29, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Support News or Ongoing Disclaimer... I edit this article. Global phenom and original inspiration Swedish teen Greta Thunberg has been nominated for Nobel Peace Prize. The article attracts new (young?) editors so there are sometimes spates of cleanup work to be done, and extra care to ensure neutrality but its a very good start. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:38, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support I saw enough coverage of this to support. Banedon (talk) 12:40, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment – Lots of coverage all right, but while one may very much sympathize with the objective, gauging the impact of these demonstrations, i.e. their significance, is problematic. They haven't had any immediate effect on consequential climate policies or, obviously, on the climate itself. – Sca (talk) 13:19, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
See "Swedish student leader wins EU pledge to spend billions on climate" and "Greta Thunberg—Swedish Teen who Inspired School Climate Strikes—Nominated for Nobel Peace Prize"NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:10, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - significant protest internationally ... by children, even. starship.paint ~ KO 15:23, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Regardless of notability, the article is not main page material in its current state. The table needs quite a few fixes (sourcing, proper sorting, and so on) before it can be considered acceptable quality-wise, and there's some WP:PROSELINE as well. TompaDompa (talk) 16:28, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support on significance, but article needs some work. Davey2116 (talk) 17:03, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support The strike appears to already had an immediate impact, the UN Secretary General has called an emergency climate summit in response to the strikes.The lorax (talk) 17:49, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Not sure "calling for" a meeting to discuss the problem can be described as an impact or effect. Sca (talk) 20:27, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support This is getting a lot of attention and the article looks to be in decent shape. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:12, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment This has been "happening" for almost one year now. Why to put it on the main page now? It doesn't seem "ITN" material for me. It's not a current event (that happened in the past few hours or days), it has been happening for a long time now. It seems more like an "ongoing" thing for me.--SirEdimon (talk) 18:29, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Although there have been a few here and there, and even fewer have been large (>10,000), there was great buildup to March 15 and estimates are something like 2000+ events in 100+ countries involving 1 to 1.4 million people, just in the last 72 hours. That's very different from the here-and-there events that happened before, even if some of them were "large". NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:46, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Agree with NewsAndEventsGuy --PJ Geest (talk) 19:02, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose still not clear why this isn't "ongoing". The Rambling Man (talk) 19:38, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support – Ongoing only, in line with TRM and my comments above. Sca (talk) 20:30, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose on quality. Disorganised and poorly sourced. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:36, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose both on quality and significance, since we're here. – Ammarpad (talk) 05:41, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • There is both something to say for blurb and ongoing. It is true the size of protests of 15 March where exceptional and they don't plan a global strike every week (probably less then once a month). On the other hand it is already been going on (and growing) for a long time. Plus for a lot of countries 15 March was only the first time they protested, so there is a chance this still expands in these countries in the future (which remains of course to be seen). For me this is a bit similar to the yellow vest movement, I don't know the yellow vests where blurb(s) or ongoing? I hope we get to concensus on this fast. PJ Geest (talk) 09:58, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Indeed, we should keep in mind that global warming has been "ongoing" for decades if not centuries. Sca (talk) 14:32, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
So has Universe, Evolution, and especially taxation. You're point? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:55, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
I trust you to figure that out for yourself. – Sca (talk) 17:03, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • In the meanwhile the article has better quality and is better sourced. From above I interpret that there is more support for ongoing. So I suppose we should go for ongoing. --PJ Geest (talk) 19:18, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Yes it has been ongoing but how does that prevent us from blurbing now . Wars are ongoing but we choose to post blurbs when a significant and distinct event occurs within that war. On 15 March, these strikes came to the first notable climax. Sure, there is a chance for continued growth but this event is at least a noteworthy peak. Unlike other ongoing protests currently, this occurred in multiple countries in coordination. The current blurb is just not good enough and I am not opposed to ongoing but it would be challenged in 24 hours as the page may not sustain the updates required for ongoing. We have a significant noteworthy update and we should try to come up with a good blurb.----- Coffeeandcrumbs 19:29, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Along those lines see "In the largest ever protest of its kind..." and "...an international strike for climate action — reportedly the largest protest against global warming in human history. An estimated 1.4 million people in 123 countries took part. " NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:38, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per Coffeeandcrumbs. —Hugh (talk) 00:29, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • What about following blurb: More than 1 million pupils and students worldwide quit school for taking part in the largest protest against global warming in history. --PJ Geest (talk) 14:51, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: W. S. Merwin[edit]

Article: W. S. Merwin (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): New York Times, NPR

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: Start Class article with good sourcing. United States Poet Laureate and Twice winner of Pulitzer Prize for Poetry DBigXray 08:08, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Support. Well referenced article. Capitalistroadster (talk) 08:10, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support clearly meets RD requirements (great sourcing for the bibliography and awards); marked as ready --DannyS712 (talk) 16:52, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support done deal, especially now the easter egg links are gone. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:40, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Per above.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 21:50, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD. SpencerT•C 23:50, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

(Removed) Ongoing removal 2019 Venezuelan blackout[edit]

Article: 2019 Venezuelan blackout (talk, history)
Ongoing item removal

Nominator's comments: Both CNN and Fox agree that the blackout is over. Of course the consequences will continue for some time, but the thing which was ongoing is no longer. LaserLegs (talk) 23:27, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

  • It seems a little odd to me to remove something that was only added 24 hours ago. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:59, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
    • Reliable sources say it's over. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:15, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Per the article, “the blackout has yet to be fully resolved as of 15 March”. Stephen 00:31, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
    • So the article is not updated, another good reason to remove it. Per WP:RS "Power has returned to Venezuela after a week after the country was plunged into darkness". --LaserLegs (talk) 01:02, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  • [1] Some power is back but looking to weeks to restore across the country. That said, this is now in "recovery" mode, so I would remove it as it has nothing directly to do with the ongoing presidential crisis. --Masem (t) 01:11, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: Perhaps this could be bumped from the ongoing section to one of the bulleted items, especially since the third newest item at present is from 12 days ago. SpencerT•C 01:15, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
    • Thats a fine idea, the event was significant and a blurb is certainly appropriate. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:29, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
      • My suggestion for a blurb at this point would be something like "Electricity and water is restored to main population centers of Venezuela, after the country suffered a complete national blackout for 7 days". But that's about it. Kingsif (talk) 07:10, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Remove but no need for a blurb.If we're to add a blurb for it, then no need for removing it from the Ongoing in the first place. – Ammarpad (talk) 06:10, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  • ”The power outage had yet to be fully resolved as of 16 March” according to Venezuelan sources, or we could quote “reliable” American sources themselves quoting the information minister from a failing government. Stephen 00:37, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
    • Right, "fully" resolved according to anti-government Venezuelan sources. Reuters and the Guardian if "American sources" need to be de-legitimized with quotation marks. So we can keep in the ongoing box localized regional blackouts that have absolutely nothing at all whatsoever to do with the ongoing political issues in the country, or we can get it out of there already. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:57, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
      • There, I updated the lead with reliable sources, now can we please get this turd of an article off the main page? --LaserLegs (talk) 15:21, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Well? Are we pulling this or not? WaltCip (talk) 15:23, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
    • Do you support or oppose pulling it? --LaserLegs (talk) 15:52, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Removed. Now appears out of the news, even if minor outages are still ongoing. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:50, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

RD: Y. S. Vivekananda Reddy[edit]

Article: Y. S. Vivekananda Reddy (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: Andhra politician Y. S. Vivekananda Reddy stabbed to death
News source(s): the Times of India ,India Today

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.

 Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:52, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment - Several paragraphs without a single reference.--SirEdimon (talk) 00:39, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose first two paras of bio unref. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:44, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Cyclone Idai[edit]

Proposed image
Article: Cyclone Idai (talk, history)
Blurb: ​After killing at least 126 people in southern Africa, Cyclone Idai (satellite image pictured) makes landfall in Mozambique.
Alternative blurb: ​Flash floods and winds caused by Cyclone Idai (satellite image pictured) kill at least 173 people in Mozambique, Malawi, South Africa, and Zimbabwe.

Nominator's comments: Deadliest weather disaster thus far in 2019, and an unusually powerful storm for Mozambique. Worst damage thus far was from the precursor floods during the storm's formative stages, effects from the more powerful landfall today are unknown. Impact section needs some love but the bare essentials are there. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 01:23, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Support – Impact section could use some work but the rest is a real good start page. Is 15 March the best date for our purposes? I think we are lagging behind sources. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 02:31, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
    • We're definitely behind on the flood event, but the system just made landfall near Beira, Mozambique, and would likely warrant an update blurb regardless. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 03:26, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
      • I updated the deaths here after the total increased from 126 to 145 confirmed. Impacts are going to come in at a slow rate since Mozambique could see up to 500mm (20 in) of rain in addition to what it already has. Not to mention the ongoing gale force winds. NoahTalk 00:20, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - As above. Sherenk1 (talk) 03:03, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait until impact on Beira is known, then Support. 2607:FEA8:1DE0:7B4:11DC:4DC2:7E1B:466 (talk) 03:55, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - Article is good enough for me and the event is clearly significative.--SirEdimon (talk) 22:44, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - Has impacted hundreds of thousands of people and killed about 140, seems worthy to be on the news. DerpieDerpie:D 14:01, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted KrinkleBot seems to be down so no image for now. SpencerT•C 14:42, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - The description is somehow inappropriate as some deaths within the 169 are caused after landfall. 🐱💬 15:35, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
    Technically speaking, all the deaths were caused after the first landfall occurred. @Spencer: Probably would be better to use the alt blurb as it gives a more accurate scope of the storm's deadliness without being factually inaccurate. Additionally, I reverted the main one to the original 126 since we can't be certain of what was caused before and after the second landfall. NoahTalk 19:59, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
    Shifted to alt blurb. Thanks, SpencerT•C 00:58, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Christchurch mosque shootings[edit]

Article: Christchurch mosque shootings (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A mass shooting at two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand, results in multiple deaths.
Alternative blurb: ​A mass shooting at two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand, results in multiple deaths and injuries unknown.
News source(s): 1 News, AP News, Guardian, BBC

Article updated

 Sheldybett (talk) 02:24, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Support but wait a few hours as the incident is still ongoing and the article is not yet well developed. This is an unprecedented event in New Zealand - we've had terrorist incidents before but not involving this number of (probable) deaths, possible multiple perpetrators, and never with automatic weapons, which are not readily available in this country. The blurb needs work. Excuse me if I'm not coherent, I'm in shock.-gadfium 03:05, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - And post as soon as possible. BabbaQ (talk) 03:13, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait Yes this is notable, but we need more information and a better blurb. AIRcorn (talk) 03:15, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - The blurb needs tweaking. Hazara Birar (Talk)
  • Wait - Not clear information. Article is not ready Sherenk1 (talk) 03:26, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support when the article is updated with new information. The event is clearly notable. 2607:FEA8:1DE0:7B4:11DC:4DC2:7E1B:466 (talk) 03:52, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - police have now confirmed multiple fatalities, which makes it ITN-worthy IMHO, given the rarity of such events in that part of the world. Blurb needs work though (no need for the street, for instance); I suggest something like A mass shooting at two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand, results in multiple deaths. Adpete (talk) 04:01, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per Adpete, and concur on their suggestion of a clearer blurb. —Hugh (talk) 04:03, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Will we be clearly indicating that this was a terrorist attack>? DS (talk) 04:05, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Best here to follow the lead of the main news sources, per WP:RS. But certainly not yet, since I haven't seen it called that in the RS. Adpete (talk) 04:07, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait Still needs more information, but it is notable enough.∻ℳcCunicano 04:30, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 04:32, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • The blurb Can we reword the blurb to say "white supremacist terror attack"? The PM of Australia is already using the word 'terrorism' to describe what has happened. The shooter's manifesto also spoke of "white identity"-TenorTwelve (talk) 08:39, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
No. Unless you get that phrase accepted into the article. Stephen 09:30, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
No. We generally do not identify ideological motivations for mass shootings in blurbs. I don't recall "Islamic extremists" or "anti-gay" showing up in earlier terror attack blurbs. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:45, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • UpdateMike Bush confirmed 50 deaths. This is likely the final toll so no need for at least.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 20:39, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 Done -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:49, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

March 14[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents
Law and crime
Politics and elections

(Posted) RD: Jake Phelps[edit]

Article: Jake Phelps (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): San Francisco Chronicle

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: Editor of skateboarding magazine Thrasher. Fully sourced. Samuel Wiki (talk) 10:36, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose Article is a stub. --___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 11:27, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Article is no longer a stub. Editors are clearly interested in it. Lots of press about him with his recent passing. --Wil540 art (talk) 17:13, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Good enough. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:04, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose basically a stub. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:27, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted, just about good enough, and not a lot of other details online about him. Stephen 03:35, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) 2019 Tel Aviv attempted strike[edit]

No consensus to post. Stephen 22:33, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: 2019 Tel Aviv missile strike (talk, history)
Blurb: No blurb specified
Nominator's comments: I suspect we will not post yet but, according to RS, a counter strike is sure to follow. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 22:33, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait - Until further escalations etc. If that happens consider this a Support.BabbaQ (talk) 00:03, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Usual skirmish. Already out of news Sherenk1 (talk) 03:27, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Usual? This is the first rocket attack to reach Tel Aviv since 2014. Sir Joseph (talk) 03:30, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

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

(Posted) RD: Birch Bayh[edit]

Article: Birch Bayh (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): AP & etc.

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: Prominent US Senator from the land of long ago. Article is not in horrible shape but as usual, referencing needs some work. Ad Orientem (talk) 14:37, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose Still needs a fair amount of work. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:08, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support RD, may be a blurb candidate: authors of portions of the US constitution probably qualify. Only 'unreferenced' section I saw currently is self-referencing to pre-Internet official government publications. Currently meets any reasonable referencing requirements. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 06:23, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support I tagged the hell out of the page and all requested citations were provided. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 09:26, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Article is now fully sourced after the work of Coffeeandcrumbs (and myself). Davey2116 (talk) 19:53, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per above. Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:55, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 22:31, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

RD: Godfried Danneels[edit]

Article: Godfried Danneels (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): De Standaard

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: Belgian Cardinal. Well fleshed out article (I haven't written nor updated it, I'm just the nominator here). Fram (talk) 13:06, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Charlie Whiting[edit]

Article: Charlie Whiting (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC, news.com.au

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: One of the most influential people in Formula 1. Edit: Oof, I made the nomination before looking at the article, so I didn't realise how sparse it is. JuneGloom07 Talk 02:36, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Weak oppose for someone in such a prominent position for such a period, the article is basically a stub. What's there seems fine, but just not comprehensive. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:28, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
    • I've added links to some obituaries to the talk page. Not got time to add from them myself atm. Mjroots (talk) 08:05, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. Expanded so it is no longer a stub. Reasonably well referenced. Capitalistroadster (talk) 08:10, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. What's there is referenced but it's not really comprehensive enough - the 2005 US GP incident does seem to be unduly prominent and the "Legacy" section isn't about his legacy but tributes to him. He was of massive importance to the sport and does have a great legacy in terms of safety improvements, etc. that just isn't covered at all. Thryduulf (talk) 10:58, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Have expanded a bit more. Everything that is there is referenced, and the vital details about him are there as well. Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:51, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support – Appears decent enough. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 23:05, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 23:08, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

March 13[edit]

Armed conflict and attacks
  • Syrian Civil War
    • The SOHR reports that Syrian government shelling and Russian air strikes occur in several areas in Idlib province, in the first such raids since a September truce deal, killing at least 15 civilians including eight children and wounding around 60. (TRT World) (Aljazeera)

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment
  • At least 111 schools in Malaysia are shut down following the treatment of 200 children, staff, and others being poisoned. Authorities suspect that a chemical dump in the southern state of Johor is responsible for the sudden illnesses. (Reuters) (CNBC)

Law and crime

Politics and elections
  • Brexit negotiations
    • The UK's parliament votes against a no-deal Brexit. This greatly increases the chance of a delayed Brexit, to be voted on Thursday, as well as opening the door to the possibility of a second referendum. (CBC)

Science and technology

Sports

(Closed) RD: Harry Hughes[edit]

Stale--- Coffeeandcrumbs 06:05, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Harry Hughes (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): NYT

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: American politician and former Governor of Maryland (1979–1987) dies at age 92. Article needs a bit of work. Davey2116 (talk) 05:38, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Closed) RD: Frank Cali[edit]

Stale--- Coffeeandcrumbs 06:05, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Frank Cali (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): CNN, NPR

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: Gambino crime family boss shot and killed at age 53. Article needs lots of work. Davey2116 (talk) 15:25, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Many unsourced statements. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:12, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose looks to have been substantially improved, but not quite there yet with the referencing. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:34, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

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

2019 Lagos school collapse[edit]

Article: 2019 Lagos school collapse (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A multistory resident/school building in Lagos, Nigeria collapses, killing at least eight and trapping numerous schoolchildren.
News source(s): NYTimes, Guardian, AFP, AP

Nominator's comments: This is clearly too short right now, but it will take some time for the details of the rescue attempts to come out. Masem (t) 02:09, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment – Not a real article yet. (AFP says search of ruins has ended with death toll at nine.) – Sca (talk) 12:52, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
AP on Friday puts death toll at 20. Sca (talk) 14:03, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Would support if filled out. Currently a very stubby stub. Kingsif (talk) 07:12, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Still a stub. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:14, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

(Updated) Revisiting the existing Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 blurb[edit]

Articles: Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 (talk, history) and 2019 Boeing 737 MAX groundings (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Following the fatal Lion Air Flight 610 and Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 crashes, the FAA, EASA, other governmental aviation regulatory bodies and several airlines order grounding of most of the Boeing 737 MAX 8 fleet.
Alternative blurb: Boeing 737 MAX aircraft are grounded worldwide following the crash of Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 with the loss of all 157 people on board.
Alternative blurb II: ​Following the crash of Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 with the loss of all 157 people on board, Boeing 737 MAX aircraft are grounded worldwide

Not really a new nomination, but as commented in the previous one, there was a suggest about the Boeing MAx 8 being grounded in response to the incident. Now, there was a valid concern that this was a few countries and not Boeing grounding them or some international organization. Just now, Trump says the FAA with agreement with Boeing are ordering all Boeing Max 8 + 9 planes grounded, which, between all the other countries with these still in the air, effectively grounds the entire fleet. [2]. I think that satisfies the concern of the previous nom, in that now it is appropriate to mention this as a response to the crash. --Masem (t) 18:56, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose proseline and flag salad. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:10, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support aircrafts crash sometimes, but such international ban of an aircarft is very rare.--Joseph (talk) 19:42, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support ALT blurb only - Significant development. Mjroots (talk) 19:45, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support ALT blurb per nominator. --BorgQueen (talk) 19:50, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support ALT blurb power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:52, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support ALT my concerns are now by-the-by since the grounding has the formal backing of several large aviation authorities, albeit not Boeing themselves. Much more substantive than a few airlines. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:14, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Altblurb I or II ... since the EU, the U.S. (on Trump's order) and Canada have joined countries grounding the 737-Max 8. It's still only a precaution, but in terms of impact it's significant. – Sca (talk) 20:18, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support ALT blurb only No reason to focus on U.S. and EU alone when the PRC (also home to two of the top 10 airlines by revenue) preceded them. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 20:26, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
That it's a U.S. plane is part of the equation, though. Sca (talk) 20:30, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose on quality of the new target article. Support ALT blurb only, in principle. I do not mind most of the tables and later sections. But the section on "Regulatory response" must be changed to prose before we proceed.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 21:27, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
and the "Airlines" section which could be done with a few choice sentences.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 21:44, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
While I agree the airlines section could be a bit of prose, I do not agree that the regulatory agencies should be converted: these are all basically "X grounded the planes on date" form which would get extremely burdensome in prose (that's close to proseline problems). --Masem (t) 21:59, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
I disagree. Context and nuance is lost in a bulleted list. It is not as difficult as you say: "China was the first to ground MAX 8 on ... X, Y, Z quickly followed suit on the same day. A few hours later, A, B, C, annouced similar decisions. The following day.... E, F, E also announced similar measures. US, UK, and Vietnam? were the only remaining. On March 12, the United States....". Otherwise, the US being a hold-out is crucial information included in the lead that is not treated in the body. I like rALT2--- Coffeeandcrumbs 22:33, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Not sure about that. Can't easily see how that section would make good prose. Might even be an argument for making that a table as well. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:37, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Exactly. I'd compare that to the whole "begat" section of Genesis 5 in the Bible. Might be prose, but it would be extremely boring prose. It can be worth mentioning in a sentence lead the first few , but that's one sentence, not the entire list. --Masem (t) 23:16, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I would prefer ALT2 to phrase it the other way round: Following the crash of Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 with the loss of all 157 people on board, Boeing 737 MAX aircraft are grounded worldwide. The plane crash is still the main story, but the grounding is now a corollary to it. Obviously wait until other article up to snuff as well, per Coffeeandcrumbs.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:30, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support version suggested by Amakuru. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:32, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
    I am listing this as a second alternative blurb.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:54, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Updated Stephen 22:28, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Research paper on quantum computing[edit]

Near-unanimous consensus against on lack of signficance. (non-admin closure)Sca (talk) 13:21, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Arrow of time (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Scientists report the reversal of the quantum arrow of time.
Alternative blurb: ​Scientists report the experimental reversal of time in the state of a quantum computer.
News source(s): Nature, Phys.org, Newsweek, Independent

Article updated
Nominator's comments: While the estimated probability for an electron and the actual time for it are small, the experiment was published in Nature and received significant coverage. Brandmeistertalk 17:45, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose only on article quality grounds. The target article requires an update to answer the question: "why are posting today?" The article also requires an upgrade in referencing. I will try to help this evening when I have time. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 19:35, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
The target article is irredeemable in any timely manner. Large portions were plagiarized directly from a few select books and it doesn't even give them the minimum level of respect by citing them.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 05:38, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose this is fake news as written. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:31, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support very interesting (although this technique is not going to raise the dead, mend broken coffee cups, or send us back to yesterday so we can make a killing on today's stock markets), plus it's making the news. Banedon (talk) 22:35, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose not the top story in any of the major media outlets, will likely be forgotten within the next few days. 2600:1015:B058:9A84:907C:F100:31A5:93DE (talk) 23:14, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose but I feel this is a case where DYK should accept interesting scientific discoveries that are in the news but not significant enough for posting. --Masem (t) 23:17, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I've adjusted the heading here to be more descriptive. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:30, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose, lay media falls for a sciency gimmick again. Abductive (reasoning) 06:49, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Abductive's "don't believe the hype!!". Let's not get sucked into becoming The Daily Mail... The Rambling Man (talk) 07:29, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

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

(Posted) Suzano Massacre[edit]

Article: Suzano Massacre (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Two gunmen invade a school in Suzano, São Paulo, Brazil, killing at least 8 people.
News source(s): BBC, AP, Guardian

Nominator's comments: The article has just been created and therefore is a stub with several issues. The event just happened a few hours ago, so many information are still unknown. It's a very rare event in Brazil and very significative too. SirEdimon (talk) 17:24, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Needs a neutral title, typically would be '(school name) shooting'. --Masem (t) 17:35, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Cleaned article up, still short but at least has important details. Kingsif (talk) 19:45, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support ... pending expansion. Guardian says eight victims and two gunmen dead. (Two sources added.) – Sca (talk) 20:07, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
PS: 2019 Brazil school shooting would be a better, more generalized title, IMO. Sca (talk) 20:11, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
(quick search) yes, that is widely used. My one issue is a nitpicky thing - Brazil is a BIG country, and Suzano is a city of something like 300,000 already: it would be a little Western-centric (non-specific) to refer to it by the country, especially since most major English news sources at least narrow it down to Sao Paulo. Kingsif (talk) 21:09, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Suzano may be a sizeable city, but (in my journalism experience) it's not a headline word outside Brazil. – Sca (talk) 13:00, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Taking title debate to the talk page if you want to join. Kingsif (talk) 21:10, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Noteworthy when this happens outside the U.S. (regerettably) Daniel Case (talk) 22:40, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Sturm (talk) 00:19, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Stub. Notable when it happens IN the USA too, like it or not. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:55, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose on quality grounds. Almost all the article is a breathless narrative of the event, not an encyclopaedia article detailing the background, circumstances, significance, etc. Thryduulf (talk) 11:03, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Thryduulf - it is not in an encyclopedic tone and needs a complete re-write.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:26, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support but only after we improve the article. It does have a lot of issues. A school shooting is always notable no matter where it happens, especially one with 10+ deaths. - Alumnum (talk) 16:43, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - The article was greatly updated. Article is not longer a stub. About the background, it's hard to write about it as many details about the perpetrators are still unknown.--SirEdimon (talk) 22:52, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Marked as ready - It's been expanded quite a bit in the last day, and I've just spent some time copyediting it to standards. -- King of ♠ 06:49, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted. SpencerT•C 23:59, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Remove: Battle of Baghuz Fawqani[edit]

Article: Battle of Baghuz Fawqani (talk, history)
Ongoing item removal

Nominator's comments: Battle of Baghuz Fawqani isn't sufficiently important to leave in ongoing. With Brexit, the Algeria situation, and the Venezuela situation, we don't have room on the front page for this. power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:14, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose I don't see why there is no room. That said, if we must choose... the battle is likely to be far more consequential than the protests in Algeria. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:33, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Remove not headline news anymore (never really was) and it's getting one update a day with the daily body count. This battle is going to rage on forever. Blurb it when ISIL gives up. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:40, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Remove Should have never been up in the first place. Blurb when their done, not ongoing because it's getting close. GreatCaesarsGhost 17:51, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose it's still seeing coverage. All the things that are on ongoing are going to continue for a while, so that's not a reason to remove. Keep it there and blurb it when it's done. Banedon (talk) 20:01, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose, article still being updated. That is the metric these things are decided on. Abductive (reasoning) 06:50, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Well it also has to be "In the news" --LaserLegs (talk) 00:17, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
"Gabriel said the camp was approximately 0.25 square kilometers in size — much the same area it was five weeks ago, when the SDF said it was finally going to conclude the battle." GreatCaesarsGhost 11:29, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

(Appended) 2019 Venezuelan blackout[edit]

Article: 2019 Venezuelan blackout (talk, history)
Ongoing item nomination
News source(s): The New York Times, BBC

Nominator's comments: Nationwide blackout that so far is six days long. 26 deaths attributed to the blackout according to last estimate. Jamez42 (talk) 15:00, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Support Biggest blackout in Venezuelan history - close to nobody has any water or power - and almost definitely not directly part of the crisis already in ongoing before anyone mentions that. Kingsif (talk) 15:06, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose this is not an article, it's a news story. It should be a section on 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis. That article is already on the main page - don't post duplicates. power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:07, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
    Amendment I will support a blurb if someone else writes it. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:33, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
    • Because a blackout is caused by political disputes, definitely not a country that hasn't funded its electrical infrastructure for 5 years. Did you not read my comment? Kingsif (talk) 15:29, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
    Comment This isn't a news story, this is the longest and largest blackout in Latin America, not only in Venezuela, and it is ongoing, as well as having international coverage. I was thinking about suggesting, if possible and if other editors agree, with replacing the presidential crisis article with this. It can be discussed if the former article should be restored afterwards. --Jamez42 (talk) 15:27, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
    Why remove the presidential crisis, though? More than one thing can be ongoing in the same country at once. Surprising, I know. Kingsif (talk) 15:31, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
    Only if other editors consider it convenient. I would love that both articles are included, but others may not see it practical, which is why I see the replacement as a hypothetical solution. --Jamez42 (talk) 15:40, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose article is not comprehensive. What is the affected region (article says "most") and what is the cause ("sabotage" of what? crumbling what?). If this does get posted it should be as a one-off blurb not another Venezuela themed ongoing entry --LaserLegs (talk) 17:34, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
    • Either 22 or 18 states, out of 23, depending on who you listen to; and there was an entire section on Cause at the time you posted that comment. Perhaps it would be better as a blurb, but when? When it's over? Kingsif (talk) 18:54, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
      • Well it's 22 or 18? Feels like we need to know the extent to be minimally comprehensive. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:05, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
        • Would you like to ask people from every state of a country without electricity or phone service? Or get the politicians to agree how bad it is? Getting accurate news out of official Venezuelan sources is hard at the best of times, putting up all the information we know is at least close and accurate. Kingsif (talk) 19:47, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
          • All I know is that articles posted to ITN have to be "minimally comprehensive" and an article about a blackout that has more factoids about individual insignificant impacts of the blackout than it does details about the extent and cause is not "minimally comprehensive". Do the lights come back on in Caracas if we speedily post this crappy article to the main page? --LaserLegs (talk) 00:58, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
            • I'm not saying speedily post it, I was challenging your reason for opposing since it's something we may never know. Most reliable info is going to be certain newspaper spoke to some people. But collect it, you have a not-insignificant country without power and at least 40 dead because of it. The cause is explained, but I think the diagram is copyright so we can't get much more comprehensive there. Kingsif (talk) 03:41, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose "In general, articles are NOT posted to ongoing merely because they are related to events that are still happening. In order to be posted to ongoing, tarticle needs to be regularly updated with new, pertinent information." Other than bumping the death toll, what pertinent info could be added Thursday, Friday...? GreatCaesarsGhost 18:15, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per power~enwiki. This is clearly seeing ongoing coverage so it's a viable item, but we already have another entry on the same topic. One or the other - if we post this, we should remove the other entry about the presidential crisis. Banedon (talk) 19:58, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
    • If there was a sudden nationwide electrical blackout in the UK, would you remove Brexit to add it to ongoing? No, no you wouldn't. Kingsif (talk) 20:02, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
      • If there was a sudden nationwide electrical blackout in the UK with no connections to anything else, would I support it for ongoing? No, I wouldn't. This is only a potential item because it's tied to the presidential crisis. Banedon (talk) 20:17, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
        • I would have suggested it for a blurb, realistically. But there is the energy crisis in Venezuela (there's a lot of crises) and it could go on for a long time. If the UK had a week-long complete blackout, imagine. It would already be up there. Kingsif (talk) 21:32, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
          • Regardless, as long as the blackout is tied to the presidential crisis, I think there should only be one item. In the same way if the UK had a week-long blackout and the government blames "anti-Brexit activists" + news articles refer to it as such, that should not be posted as a separate item from the main Brexit article. Banedon (talk) 21:46, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
            • @Banedon: I would say that the presidential crisis is tied to the blackout, if you catch my meaning. The dispute has been ongoing for two months and most of its important events have happened: Maduro's inauguration, Guaido's oath, recognition by other countries, US sanctions and the shipping of humanitarian aid. Meanwhile, in a week a lot has happened with the blackout: Pinging @GreatCaesarsGhost:, deaths, lootings, shortages of food as well as water and fuel supplies, etc. If you ask me, I think the presidential crisis is on a second level now.--Jamez42 (talk) 22:47, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
              • I'm OK if we remove the presidential crisis article from ongoing and add this one on the blackout. Banedon (talk) 22:51, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
              • I'm not opposed to a blurb, I just think we're starting to lose sight of what is meant by the ongoing designation. This article was created today. If it rolls off and substantial events are still occurring, do the ongoing then. GreatCaesarsGhost 00:00, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: I see there's a lot of disagreements here. Today I started a lootings section in the Spanish Wikipedia. If I recall correctly, one estimate of the economic losses was over $700 million. I invite anyone who wants to, for the time being, to translate while I include other sections, and if it seen better, I could nominate a blurb. In that case, I would be willing to withdraw the nomination of the option that wasn't agreed on. --Jamez42 (talk) 22:50, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
    • $875 million, according to the Ecoanalítica firm. --Jamez42 (talk) 23:24, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
      • These dollar estimates are always speculation in the end. Oppose any estimate of economic damages of the blackout in the blurb. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:28, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
    • I don't know how much disagreement I see. I see 12 edits of blind support from two not-exactly-objective editors, and 4 other editors who say we should probably post something but not TWO Venezuelan-specific ongoing stories that are probably not all that disconnected. GreatCaesarsGhost 00:08, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
      • I wouldn't say "blind", I'm just (admittedly forcefully) trying to get across that if this happened even in a city in the US it would be speedily posted, no question. To beat the horse a little more:
      • No power or water to Chicago? Would've been a blurb 5 days ago and put in Ongoing as soon as it fell off. The only connection between this and the presidential crisis is that they are both symptoms of the current Venezuelan government. Like Brexit and Trump can't cause a blackout, neither can Guaido challenging Maduro. It's a large scale event with a large impact, that's in the news, it's got to be against something at ITN to disagree on the basis of there's already something from that country, especially with a country that's got as much going on as Venezuela does. Like if nation X were hosting the World Cup and then one of their famous retired footballers died, you wouldn't not post it because it's from the same country and they're both related to football. The article may need some more (hard to get) info, but I feel scale has definitely been established. Kingsif (talk) 03:38, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment – We could add it as a parenthetical. I think it's been done before. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 07:48, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
    • I like this proposal. --Jamez42 (talk) 10:35, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. Maybe just rename the ongoing item to "Venezuelan crisis". Abductive (reasoning) 07:49, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
    • That would defeat the purpose of ITN, which is to link readers to the article. We can't link to both that way. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 07:56, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
      • So your "parenthetical" would link to both? That would be fine, then. Abductive (reasoning) 08:01, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
        • Yep: Venezuelan presidential crisis (electrical blackout). --- Coffeeandcrumbs 08:33, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
        • The article doesn't draw a connection between the blackout and the presidential crisis so no, you can't just bolt it on after the presidential crisis in ongoing. Did Guaidó set fire to that brush just to discredit Maduro? Come on. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:44, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
          • @LaserLegs: Will you amend your reasoning for opposing. It appears the article has undergone a major copyedit and referencing. Your oppose seems strange now that the article is up to snuff. I am considering supporting a blurb since this is a not a directly related incident as you pointed out.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 19:11, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
            • Sure, the article is pretty good now, has several good paragraphs around the cause -- which is fuck all to do with the totally unrelated protests -- and should be a blurb just like the Indian, Italian and North American blackouts. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:29, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Appended to the existing ongoing item Stephen 22:36, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

March 12[edit]

Disasters and accidents
International relations

Law and crime
Politics and elections

Ongoing: 2019 Algerian protests[edit]

Article: 2019 Algerian protests (talk, history)
Ongoing item nomination
News source(s): The Guardian

Nominator's comments: Protests "without parallel" since the Algerian Civil War. Incumbent president Abdelaziz Bouteflika said he would not run for a fifth term. EternalNomad (talk) 03:21, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Question The timeline updates run through March 8. So, doesn't that mean it's over, and not ongoing? – Muboshgu (talk) 03:24, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
updated with the student strikes on the 12th. Who knows what Friday will bring? I've finally finished the rework of the translation. SashiRolls t · c 00:10, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
So the "ongoing" nature of this is subject to WP:CRYSTAL then. Oppose per Stephen. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:27, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Isn't it always? Today, it looks like it was the teachers and the opposition urging continued action during the general strike. But yes, by all means check out the clouds in Stephen's crystal ball :) SashiRolls t · c 01:57, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support It's clear that those protests are going to change the Algerian politicis after the resignation of Bouteflika to continue in office. He can be considerated the last "authoritarian" leaders of Magreb countries after the falling of Mubarak, Gaddaffi and Ben Ali. It's seems that Algeria is going to open a new era...maybe. (talk) 01:36, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
    Oppose ongoing, support blurb Um...not exactly the "last." GreatCaesarsGhost 00:16, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support it's WP:CRYSTAL to speculate this might cause a second Arab Spring - but this is a high-profile ongoing crisis for the government of Algeria. power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:08, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per Alsoriano97. Banedon (talk) 19:56, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose seems to have petered out with students only protesting every Tuesday Stephen 01:22, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support -- it obviously did not "peter out". (General strike since Sunday, Monday: Bouteflika (just back from the hospital in Geneva) drops out of the election and cancels the election, and dissolves the government; Tuesday: student protest, Wednesday: teachers demonstrate, Thursday: doctors, lawyers demonstrate, Friday: hundreds of thousands in the streets of the major cities (larger than the largest Yellow vests protests, which were on the front page for nearly a month). Is there some bias against Africa by any chance? SashiRolls t · c 19:28, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
The article has no material updates on activity past a student protest on the 12th.Stephen 21:27, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Updated. §§
  • and reupdated (to 17 March). I apologize for upsetting you by moving this up to 15 March because of the rather large demonstrations. In the nomination you deleted, I did express the hope that "knowledgeable readers" would come and add some info. I'd thought this might happen were it on the front page. A "smile revolution" might be a nice counterpoint to the blazes on the Champz E-lézée, don't you think? SashiRolls t · c 23:54, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Sheesh, I'd just finished a long week of work. Maybe if it had been on the front page when it was front page news everywhere else (12 March), it would have been updated more rapidly. In point of fact, though, the entry has been updated with 14-15 March, and has grown from 41.1K to 52.4K (about 25%) since 12 March. SashiRolls t · c 23:54, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) 2019 college admissions bribery scandal[edit]

No consensus to post, especially without convictions. Stephen 01:03, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: 2019 college admissions bribery scandal (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In the United States, 50 people are indicted in a college admissions bribery scandal.
News source(s): CNN
Nominator's comments: This is an interesting story - rich people bribing to get their kids into college. 50 people indicted, including Felicity Huffman, Lori Loughlin, and Mossimo Giannulli. Some college coaches have been fired. Students might get charged. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:10, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Interesting but no significant long term impact; furthermore, indictments generally aren't posted at ITN, and sentencing for all of those indicted (if they indeed end up being sentenced) would likely occur at a variety of different times. Seems like something better suited for DYK. SpencerT•C 04:34, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Spencer. They said it all. – Ammarpad (talk) 05:35, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose better suited to another place. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:23, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Like that suggested for the Brexiteers. – Sca (talk) 12:36, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose There are zillions of similar bribery scandals in many countries of the world. I'd have even questioned its notability had it happened in one of the least corrupted countries such like New Zealand or Finland.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:56, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support doomed I know but it's in the news, the article is ok, and the fact that it's a coordinated scheme involving numerous top ranking universities in a country not known for this kind of corruption is what makes it interesting. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:20, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Reporting on this has been so lurid, we have the opportunity to provide real value by organizing the facts in an encyclopedic manner. The broader topic of college admissions (and its seedy underbelly) has global interest. GreatCaesarsGhost 11:40, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - Per above two supports. Sherenk1 (talk) 12:19, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Lives of the rich and (in)famous. – Sca (talk) 12:35, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose "Rich people flex their wealth for their own ends". ——SerialNumber54129 12:41, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
"Bankers’ nieces seek perfection / expecting all the gifts that wise men bring."Sca (talk) 13:24, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose It's not really notable outside USA. In Spain we also had that kind of scandals involving high-class politicians, it is happening everywhere. Alsoriano97 (talk) 11:41, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - What goes around comes around. The only thing notable about this is that these people got caught doing it.--WaltCip (talk) 13:07, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support An interesting story which I think our readers will be looking for, and the article is fine.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:16, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support 50 high profile people are going to jail over this... how is this not news?! I don’t care if this is the plot of The Perfect Score or a hypothetical Shameless episode. How much more significant coverage does a story need? NY Times. LA Times. Washington Post. NBC. CNN. USA Today. Fox News. Vanity Fair. Even ESPN.... Trillfendi (talk) 14:33, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
    • Indictment ≠ going to jail. SpencerT•C 14:40, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Eh, I jumped the gun there; I saw some article that people were facing 3 years in jail if convicted in a trial. The justice system should play out. Trillfendi (talk) 15:20, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose They've been charged, but not convicted. Unless we were talking extremely high level political figures involved with this, this can wait until the conviction of the ringleader. --Masem (t) 14:37, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I think it's still a scandal whether they get convicted or not. Since there's nobody named, I don't think the legal position has too much to do with it. Scandals are big whatever the weight behind it. Kingsif (talk) 15:02, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
  • What I meant about the political side is that we'd likely post if this was a figure like the president, vice-president, speaker of the house, or a Supreme Court justice, as that's affecting the way the country is ruled. As we are talking mostly celebrities and business people in this, that doesn't affect the larger scale, so we should not post the arrests, but wait for conviction. --Masem (t) 15:15, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I see that. But I think even if there were no arrests let alone convictions, it would still be making news right now, no? There's a chance that by the time any actual convictions happen, the scandal will be over, and I wouldn't support posting based on old news. Kingsif (talk) 15:57, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Masem, two of the ringleaders have pled guilty. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:22, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
    Still not a conviction, and pleading guilty greases settlement details. --Masem (t) 17:36, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per above Kingsif (talk) 15:02, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose for multiple reasons. We shouldn't be posting indictments of BLPs here before a conviction occurs. power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:15, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
    Power~enwiki, two of the accused are convicted. They have pled guilty. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:22, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
    Why is it a BLP vio to post the WP:Verifiable fact that they've been charged? If it's a BLP vio, it needs to come off the project ASAP not just shunned from the main page. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:35, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
I think power-enwiki means we shouldn't be putting an item about criminal charges against a notable person on the Main Page (unless, I would except, the person is a head of state or government or some large NGO, per Masem above). Articles are a different thing; major criminal charges against a notable person are notable. Daniel Case (talk) 18:14, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
@Muboshgu: Why did you pick on me for this when quite a few other people posted this exact rationale for their opposes without drawing your comments? What makes me so special? Hmm ... Daniel Case (talk) 22:38, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Daniel Case, because I didn't notice the others. And you are special to me. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:35, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Alsoriano97. Banedon (talk) 19:56, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Notable story and the article is extraordinarily good. Most of the !opposes are invalid because they claim this "relates only to one country". Davey2116 (talk) 01:13, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Spencer. Even if this is notable (and I'm unconvinced) we would post at the time of conviction per BLP. Thryduulf (talk) 11:07, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

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

(Posted to ongoing) Brexit negotiations[edit]

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

Article updated

Nominator's comments: This was removed in January, but it's once again in the news, especially after the latest vote. One can practically guarantee that there'll be more news about this in the upcoming days, so nominating for ongoing. Banedon (talk) 22:56, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Wait there are two more votes this week and we can blurb the outcome which is more fitting I think. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:26, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
I don't think waiting for 2 more votes and a blurb is a good idea, because people are already interested in the matter now, and the 2 votes will likely leave things as unclear as ever (short or long delay, for what purpose, etc), and our blurb is liable to mislead our readers: for instance we are quite likely to give them the impression that Brexit has been postponed, only to embarrassingly discover 2 weeks later that it hasn't, either because one of the EU 27 vetoes the postponement, or because British law (which currently mandates Brexit on March 29) isn't amended on time, via devices such as filibusters and clever time-wasting amendments in the Commons and/or the Lords, etc ... Tlhslobus (talk) 01:41, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
We'd blurb that parliament voted to ask for an extension. Nothing official happens until the EU votes to grant it or not, so ongoing seems a bit embarrassing for a process that will have stalled again after Thursday. I'll put my blurb proposal up for a meaningful vote, frankly it's the best deal possible. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:10, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - There'll be plenty of news regarding this theme during the coming days. I think we can post it as "ongoing" and, in the future, eventually post the outcome as a blurb.--SirEdimon (talk) 23:35, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Ongoing - Support Ongoing on notability, at least in principle. I'll leave others to decide on quality. But it's not entirely clear whether this is the right target article, as most of the new info seems to be going into Meaningful vote (which is currently the subject of a name change discussion), and incidentally that was why Brexit (NOT Brexit negotiations) got removed from ongoing in January (perhaps wrongly, at least in my view, as I unsuccessfully argued at the time, tho in the end I decided not to bother to open a new nomination of Meaningful vote for Ongoing at the time). I've now wikilinked Brexit negotiations to Meaningful vote (which was previously only wikilinked from Brexit), and maybe that will help a bit. Meanwhile I've also explained above why I don't think waiting for 2 more votes and a blurb is a good idea. Tlhslobus (talk) 01:42, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Ongoing in general, but keeping in mind that the 29th(?) is the deadline, we may want to wait for week or two week point. Not that the vote today is not a significant point, but yes, now we seem to be in rush mode on this. --Masem (t) 02:47, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
    • Honestly, I don't think this "thing" will gonna end on March 29.--SirEdimon (talk) 03:13, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support ongoing because it is heating up as March marches on. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:07, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support ongoing this is going to run and run, at least for the next few days. It's obviously of high importance to hundreds of millions of people. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:25, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted to ongoing Stephen 08:06, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Post posting support This is a crisis. A large crisis. In fact, if you got a moment, it's a twelve-storey crisis with a magnificent entrance hall, carpeting throughout, 24-hour portage, and an enormous sign on the roof, saying "This Is a Large Crisis". Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:54, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
LOL, Ritchie, but I supported it, and now you're making me have my doubts - if it needs an enormous sign on the roof to tell us it's a large crisis, surely that's prima facie evidence that's it's really only a tiny crisis desperately using expensive advertising to try to convince us that it's much bigger than it looks Face-smile.svg Tlhslobus (talk) 20:36, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support as an American. I considered nominating this last night, but preferred to let the British editors endorse it first. The votes this week (and up through the scheduled exit date later this month) will be news. This is now an active issue that should be on Ongoing. power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:10, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support - This is the biggest news story of the year so far, bar none.--WaltCip (talk) 17:01, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment it's posted already, with nearly universal support, I'm not sure what "post-posting support" is adding at this point. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:54, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
    • Comment I'm not sure what your comment is adding at this point, either. Banedon (talk) 19:54, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

References[edit]

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: