Jump to content

Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 14: Line 14:
<!-- Insert new nominations below this line -->
<!-- Insert new nominations below this line -->


==== Hurricane Eta ====
==== (Closed) Hurricane Eta ====
{{atop|Already nom'd at ITNC --[[User:Masem|M<span style="font-variant: small-caps">asem</span>]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 15:34, 6 November 2020 (UTC)}}
{{atop|Already nom'd at ITNC --[[User:Masem|M<span style="font-variant: small-caps">asem</span>]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 15:34, 6 November 2020 (UTC)}}
{{ITN candidate
{{ITN candidate

Revision as of 15:39, 6 November 2020

Click here to nominate an item for In the news. In the news toolbox
Shortcut

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
Kasia Niewiadoma

view — page history — related changes — edit

Glossary

  • Blurbs are one-sentence summaries of the news story.
    • Altblurbs, labelled alt1, alt2, etc., are alternative suggestions to cover the same story.
    • A target article, bolded in text, is the focus of the story. Each blurb must have at least one such article, but you may also link non-target articles.
  • Articles in the Ongoing line describe events getting continuous coverage.
  • The Recent deaths (RD) line includes any living thing whose death was recently announced. Consensus may decide to create a blurb for a recent death.

All articles linked in the ITN template must pass our standards of review. They should be up-to-date, demonstrate relevance via good sourcing and have at least an acceptable quality.

Nomination steps

  • Make sure the item you want to nominate has an article that meets our minimum requirements and contains reliable coverage of a current event you want to create a blurb about. We will not post about events described in an article that fails our quality standards.
  • Find the correct section below for the date of the event (not the date nominated). Do not add sections for new dates manually – a bot does that for us each day at midnight (UTC).
  • Create a level 4 header with the article name (==== Your article here ====). Add (RD) or (Ongoing) if appropriate.
Then paste the {{ITN candidate}} template with its parameters and fill them in. The news source should be reliable, support your nomination and be in the article. Write your blurb in simple present tense. Below the template, briefly explain why we should post that event. After that, save your edit. Your nomination is ready!
  • You may add {{ITN note}} to the target article's talk page to let editors know about your nomination.

The better your article's quality, the better it covers the event and the wider its perceived significance (see WP:ITNSIGNIF for details), the better your chances of getting the blurb posted.

Purge this page to update the cache

Headers

  • When the article is ready, updated and there is consensus to post, you can mark the item as (Ready). Remove that wording if you feel the article fails any of these necessary criteria.
  • Admins should always separately verify whether these criteria are met before posting blurbs marked (Ready). For more guidance, check WP:ITN/A.
    • If satisfied, change the header to (Posted).
    • Where there is no consensus, or the article's quality remains poor, change the header to (Closed) or (Not posted).
    • Sometimes, editors ask to retract an already-posted nomination because of a fundamental error or because consensus changed. If you feel the community supports this, remove the item and mark the item as (Pulled).

Voicing an opinion on an item

Format your comment to contain "support" or "oppose", and include a rationale for your choice. In particular, address the notability of the event, the quality of the article, and whether it has been updated.

Please do...

Shortcut
  1. Pick an older item to review near the bottom of this page, before the eligibility runs out and the item scrolls off the page and gets abandoned in the archive, unused and forgotten.
  2. Review an item even if it has already been reviewed by another user. You may be the first to spot a problem, or the first to confirm that an identified problem was fixed. Piling on the list of "support!" votes will help administrators see what is ready to be posted on the Main Page.
  3. Tell about problems in articles if you see them. Be bold and fix them yourself if you know how, or tell others if it's not possible.

Please do not...

Shortcut
  1. Add simple "support!" or "oppose!" votes without including your reasons. Similarly, curt replies such as "who?", "meh", or "duh!" are not helpful. A vote without reasoning means little for us, please elaborate yourself.
  2. Oppose an item just because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. We post a lot of such content, so these comments are generally unproductive.
  3. Accuse other editors of supporting, opposing or nominating due to a personal bias (such as ethnocentrism). We at ITN do not handle conflicts of interest.
  4. Comment on a story without first reading the relevant article(s).
  5. Oppose a recurring item here because you disagree with the recurring items criteria. Discuss them here.
  6. Use ITN as a forum for your own political or personal beliefs. Such comments are irrelevant to the outcome and are potentially disruptive.

Suggesting updates

There are two places where you can request corrections to posted items:

  • Anything that does not change the intent of the blurb (spelling, grammar, markup issues, updating death tolls etc.) should be discussed at WP:Errors.
  • Discuss major changes in the blurb's intent or very complex updates as part of the current ITNC nomination.
Skip to top
Skip to bottom

Archives

November 6

November 6, 2020 (2020-11-06) (Friday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Politics and elections

(Closed) Hurricane Eta

Already nom'd at ITNC --Masem (t) 15:34, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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: Hurricane Eta (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Hurricane Eta makes landfall in Nicaragua as a Category 4 hurricane and leaves more than 50 dead in Guatemala. (Post)
News source(s): (BBC)
Credits:
Nominator's comments: I only listed a BBC source that referenced the 50 deaths. Just about every notable news station has articles on the hurricane. Elijahandskip (talk) 14:56, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Already nominated, though I do Support.
My Bad. We can close this. Elijahandskip (talk) 15:08, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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.

RD: Jim Marurai

Article: Jim Marurai (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): RNZ
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Former Prime Minister of the Cook Islands. Short article but not a stub in fairly good shape. JW 1961 Talk 14:36, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Geoffrey Palmer

Article: Geoffrey Palmer (actor) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): (Metro)
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Well-known British actor. Mjroots (talk) 13:52, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

November 5

November 5, 2020 (2020-11-05) (Thursday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

November 4

November 4, 2020 (2020-11-04) (Wednesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

(Closed) US officially withdraws from Paris Agreement

Consensus will not develop to post. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:37, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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: Paris Agreement (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The United States formally withdraws from the Paris Agreement related to climate change mitigation. (Post)
News source(s): [1]
Credits:
Nominator's comments: We did post in 2017 when Trump announced his intentions to have the US pull out of the agreement; today was the today that the action was formally taken, after the paperwork to do so was filed last year (the first day it could be done under the agreement) and waiting the year for that to happen; best as I can tell, we didn't post that point. So this being the finality of the action (recognizing that this could change after the election), this would be a point to post. Masem (t) 21:41, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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) Ongoing: United States elections

Article: United States presidential election, 2020 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Joseph Biden (or Donald Trump) is elected President of the United States, the Republican Party retains control of the Senate and the Democratic Party retains control of the House. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Vote counting continues in the United States presidential election as President Donald Trump falsely claims victory.
Alternative blurb II: ​ Joe Biden is elected President of the United States, and the Democratic Party retains control of the House of Representatives.
Credits:

Nominator's comments: I'm going to place this here because the winner is expected to be announced within a few hours. We should discuss if any qualification is needed due to Trump's disputing the results, and whether this should immediately be added to ongoing due to intense news coverage. The phrases about control of the Senate and the House are optional and should only be added when confirmed. I've copied this blurb format from the 2016 election. Jehochman Talk 20:35, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Maybe I'm stupid, but is this supposed to be for ongoing? If so, we don't need a blurb, and if not can you change the title? Thanks. Gex4pls (talk) 20:39, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a non-standard nomination because the idea would be to place it in ongoing while the vote counting continues, and then remove it in favor of a blurb once the winner is declared. I did a bit of research and Nevada will not provide any further updates until Thursday at 9 am Pacific time when they will give their final totals. This makes it unlikely that a result will be known before tomorrow. I suggest we post to ongoing until then. Jehochman Talk 20:46, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh alright, thanks for the clarification.
  • Comment How about posting it with a blurb as usual, and if (let's hope it's if) a whole drama evolves, the drama can be submitted to In the News when it becomes relevant, and judged by its importance. 2020 Guyanese general election was ITN on 4 August 2020 according to the talk page after that drama was finally resolved. I don't know what happened in March, because I wasn't here at the time, but that election could have been submitted twice as well. KittenKlub (talk) 20:50, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a good alternative. Blurb when ready, then ongoing for the aftermath which might continue for a month, as did Bush v. Gore in 2000. Jehochman Talk 20:53, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • My view remains the same as the one I expressed in the nomination below—this is already "in the news" by any reasonable definition of the phrase, and the sooner we get something on the front page, the less behind the curve we'll be. The "this is U.S.-centric" objections from the nomination below fail to acknowledge the extraordinary level of international interest in the U.S. election. (For the record, I'd similarly support an ongoing blurb for other massive elections like India, but that's for another time.) {{u|Sdkb}} talk 20:59, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Senate and House election articles are not updated. Would suggest congressional results as a blurb once these are done as per WP:ITNR. Howard the Duck (talk) 21:05, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm listing an altblurb that we could post now. The extremely unusual and newsworthy thing is that president Donald Trump has falsely claimed victory. [3][4][5] Jehochman Talk 21:13, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • That would be an extremely inappropriate blurb to use for WP. While it is true (falsely claiming victory), it is highly judgmental and non-neutral, and something WP cannot speak to in Wikivoice at all. I know the bulk of most editors here want a Biden win and a Trump loss (me included) but we can't let that cloud judgment here, particularly for something that would be on the front page. --Masem (t) 21:18, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I didn't invent this. I found it in every major news source I checked. They are all saying the same thing. Jehochman Talk 21:21, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not saying you created it, but it is an unnecessary focus on one detail of the election that is judging Trump. It absolutely should be covered in the election article (as it triggered more of Twitter's labeling and other facts), but in a Main Page blurb about the election, it stands out as a non-neutral facet of the current state of the election. Further, it is not like Trump has been tauting that all day. He said it this morning, then has been on the lawsuit-challenge since. We can't be too eager to post something and cloud our judgement here on neutrality of blurbs. --Masem (t) 21:28, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alternative blurb makes sense. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:16, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No no and no dear systemic bias. ITNR is for the results of the general election and the result of the presidential election. Aboslutely no flipping way to ongoing. Result of votes takes time to count in many elections, there is no reason why the US get a post when we would absolutely never post such for other votes. -- KTC (talk) 21:39, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wdym, we post it for other countries as well. SoloGaming (talk) 22:20, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Blurb Post after candidate is announced. I also stated how ongoing should go for this below. (Changed This BTW) SoloGaming (talk) 22:27, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support altblurb If there's a more delicate way to state the fact that Trump has falsely claimed victory, I'm all ears. But it'd be strange if we didn't post something soon, and altblurb is about the most we can say. A Biden victory is likely, but it won't be official without Nevada (which won't be called until at least Thursday), or perhaps Pennsylvania (at least Friday, barring court challenges). The Senate is likely to stay Republican, but right now it's possible that Senate control is decided by runoffs in Georgia on January 5. We can do additional blurbs when those two results become official. Davey2116 (talk) 21:46, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also support ongoing, but it'd have to be clear that the election itself is not ongoing, the counting is ongoing. Davey2116 (talk) 21:47, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
True, but if this becomes crazy then this should be posted in ongoing. SoloGaming (talk) 21:49, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Probably in that case an article called "Aftermath of the 2020 United States presidential election" would be merited. Davey2116 (talk) 21:52, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that would be fine, if the results are not in by... idk tomorrow morning 8AM Eastern, then yes you should. SoloGaming (talk) 21:59, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe prematurely or mistakenly instead of falsely? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:56, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Right now, most major networks/papers have now called both WI and MI for Biden (including Fox!) leaving him a couple states that he was already leading in and unlikely to lose with additional mail in vote counts that are ongoing (AZ+NV) that gets him to 270, and both are likely to have more results in the next 4-6 hrs. So I suggest we just wait until around 04:00ish and if there are no major results coming in, toss something up, but we'll likely have a "press-called" result here really soon, and we just need a blurb that makes this clear this is a press call with legal challenges in the wings. --Masem (t) 22:03, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hold until reputable outlets call the election, oppose including House and Senate results in blurb. Morgan695 (talk) 22:05, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, we should only wait until AP (Associated Press) says who won. AP is the most credible source. SoloGaming (talk) 22:16, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We should actually wait for both. Count is now 264-214. Anything could happen within the next few hours. SoloGaming (talk) 23:22, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ummmm, no, the point here is that even if Biden gets to 270, Trump will instigate recounts, legal action etc etc. No one blurb will suffice. So ONGOING is the only way to cover this. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 23:40, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@The Rambling Man True, Trump is taking legal action... I see your point, especially since nothing is happening right now.SoloGaming (talk) 03:00, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wait Nothing is called yet, blurb is mostly crystal on the Senate in particular.  Nixinova   T   C   02:02, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It does make an interesting statement that a U.S. political election could even be considered for the ongoing section. I must admit, for my part, I never thought to see opposing U.S. protests over "Stop the vote" and "Count every vote". That being said, what with U.S. election laws (by state) being all over the board, maybe it is past time for WP to clarify what, *exactly*, would be acceptable parameters for a U.S. election win -- and keep them for all future elections. In the past, it was usually glossed over with network projections and concession speech, but clearly that is not going to work anymore. Is it when the networks declare it (usually when enough electoral college votes have been network-declared to reach 270 for one candidate)? Is it when all the counts have been stated officially? Is it when the electoral college votes (see Faithless electors in the 2016 United States presidential election)? Is it when all the court challenges expire? Is it when the president for the new term is actually sworn in? - Tenebris 66.11.165.101 (talk) 02:08, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It also happened in 2000. See Bush v. Gore. Jehochman Talk 02:25, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I remember how Bush vs Gore was treated on WP. I also remember that Gore, quoting Senator Stephen Douglas' (1860) "Partisan feeling must yield to patriotism", finally abandoned the nightmare of the butterfly ballot and the hanging chad and did specifically choose to concede (Dec 13, 2000) in order "to heal the divisions of the campaign". Thus in *that* election year, the U.S. did have a presidential election concession speech, as indeed in every other U.S. presidential vote since WP was created. Incidentally, for those who are curious, a full Florida recount was eventually done the following year, the results of which were mostly drowned out by a September story later that year. (Those results btw constitute one of the memories behind "Count every vote".) This year, however, pushes us to recognise the ways in which U.S. presidential elections are significantly different from other presidential elections. For just one example, there were 10 faithless electors in 2016 (seven after state law, *where it exists*, kicked in). It is looking likely that Biden will end up, at least temporarily, with *exactly* 270 electoral college votes (based on current called and leading states). However, the president is not technically elected until all those votes are cast. If WP goes (as usual) with this reliable news agency or that, what of WP's reliability if even one of those voters (from one of the majority of states with no legislation to prevent it) proves faithless? There do exist constitutional fallbacks for this possibility, but it gets very messy, very quickly. Again taking the current called/leading house breakdown, simply put, Biden would almost certainly not be elected president in that case. It would be Trump instead. - Tenebris 66.11.165.101 (talk) 03:17, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
One of the first edits to Wikipedia 18:08, 27 March 2001 diff hist +1,820‎ N Shotgun ‎ Help me! :-) I'm a country boy from Alabama, but I've been in the city for a looong time.) happened after Bush took office. Count Iblis (talk) 05:50, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP - launched January 15, 2001. The Bush-Gore issue, resolved only a month before, was still very, very raw. (Remember I mentioned above that a non-binding Florida recount was being pursued and did end up happening?) Although the articles did not come into existence in anything like their current form until near the end of that year, vandalism was happening almost immediately upon creation. ITN did not exist yet, of course. That came about shortly after 9/11, and was originally called "Current events and breaking news". (Yeah, I have been paying attention to this piece of pop culture for some years now.) - Tenebris 66.11.165.101 (talk) 01:02, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support ongoing News coverage around the world, probably the most visited article at the moment. Jklamo (talk) 02:09, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb (first alternative); oppose altblurb as US-centric and misleading (why highlight Trump when it's apparent that Biden won?). We routinely report the apparent result of elections according to reliable sources. By now reliable sources are starting to describe Biden as the apparent winner of the election; hence it would be entirely standard practice for Wikipedia to report the result of the election. We don't usually wait for formalities when posting the results of elections in other countries when there is an apparent winner according to reliable sources. --Tataral (talk) 02:46, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not assured that Biden won. If Trump holds on in Pennsylvania and Georgia, where he's currently ahead, and then wins Nevada or Arizona, which are leaning Biden on thin margins, then Biden will not win. Arizona was called for Biden, but it looks like that was a mistake; the state is still in play according to Nate Silver. Jehochman Talk 03:17, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait - Nothing has been called yet so wait until we have a defined winner. HawkAussie (talk) 03:10, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted to ongoing - Fuzheado | Talk 05:07, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • PP comment – Since results in several states are being dragged into the courts by the apparent sore loser, Ongoing seems logical for now. – Sca (talk) 13:08, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Later today major media outlets will probably announce a winner. When that happens, because the significance has already been decided, the final step will be to make sure the article has been updated, and then it can be posted. Let's keep this discussion open, and I'll make a separate section. I believe the item should remain in ongoing after the blurb is removed so long as the result remains disputed. Jehochman Talk 13:27, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pull Ongoing: the event is bound to be posted once the result is announced thus this American-centric bias is not needed when no other countries' election are ever going to get posted on Ongoing. Depressed Desi (talk) 13:36, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:OTHERSTUFF is recognized as a bad argument. If you take a look at a newspaper today, any newspaper anywhere in the world, you will find this story on the cover. What matters is whether a story is receiving widespread, ongoing coverage. If that happens with some other country's election, we will also put it in "Ongoing". Jehochman Talk 14:00, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    ITN is not a news ticker, we do not reflect what happens in the newspapers. Yes, the elections are likely the top story in the globe, but we are immune to that artificial elevation. --Masem (t) 14:40, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pull ongoing. Fuzheado, there is no consensus here for posting and for ongoing. When the election is called then Wikipedia should post the results, just like dozens of other countries in this world. If the Associated Press made a mistake and retracts Arizona, then we might have reason for ongoing. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:36, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pull ongoing. I don't care how important the U.S. thinks it is. We don't do this for elections.--WaltCip-(talk) 14:50, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Whole world seems to think it's pretty damn important. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:26, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Remarkably I agree with Muboshgu here. There's no doubt at all this feeds the systemic bias, for sure (if this happened in Burkina Faso for example, it'd be laughed out of court, irrespective of what others here have hilariously claimed), but for me (the STAUNCH RACIST ANTI-YANK (TM)) it's an IAR scenario. The absurdity of it all. The complete laughing stock it's making of the American democratic system. The fact that literally a hundred million people voted for Trump second time round!!! It's headline news everywhere and because we can't do a blurb yet, ongoing is the only fit. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 20:01, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    No other country has the long dragged-out electoral system of the U.S. I cannot think of another western country which does not habitually know its presidential / prime ministerial election results, or close enough for victory/concession purposes, within a day -- with occasional exceptions of course, but they are exceptions, not the increasing norm. In most modern elections, the U.S. two-party system reduces the choice to a simple dichotomy, which in turn minimises the overall delay. (The occasional experiments with a third party arising from an in-party split did not survive much beyond Theodore Roosevelt, and they did not give all that good results even then. Lincoln may have been their last real success story, and I think those were circumstances we do not particularly wish to see again.) Here and now, however, support in many key locations seems very closely balanced between the two parties, with little likelihood that either side will budge much. This makes final outcomes much closer to 50:50 in many key areas, so much so that tendencies for one party to vote in a particular way will suddenly start to make a great deal of difference in battleground states. Significant delay in final results is thus increasingly inevitable, and also somewhat unique to the U.S. system. It is important to keep in mind that this is specifically designed into the U.S. system, first with its ongoing emphasis on remote/mail voting, second with its state-based approach rather than a single centralised election authority, third with its attitude toward litigation, fourth with the electoral college. (I leave discussion of per capita state representation and law-based voting suppression to -- somewhere not here -- and less volatile times.) The system originally evolved from frontier requirements and assumed a heavily rural vote away from the east coast cities, and in its essence it never substantially changed to take into account faster transportation and communication, in part because of its ongoing internal resistance to *anything* centralised ... so we cannot expect the results to ever be other than "ongoing" so long as the country remains so close to equally split. - Tenebris 66.11.165.101 (talk) 01:48, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose pulling – Like it or not, this remains the No. 1 story (or No. 2, behind the virus), in terms of significance, worldwide. As news it's still going on. It wouldn't serve our readers to banish the topic from the Main Page just because the outcome hasn't been conclusively resolved. When the accursed Electoral College formally reports, it'll be an instant blurb. Thereafter, if court cases still drag on, it eventually will go back to Ongoing. – Sca (talk) 15:01, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
PS: – DT suits in two of three states dismissed. – Sca (talk) 22:39, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. In evaluating this, I see a consensus for ongoing, including from non-US users to boot. In any event, we may have a winner called later today if Pennsylvania and Georgia finishes counting ballots and this will be moved to a blurb. 331dot (talk) 15:05, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leave it up – while I certainly appreciate the ongoing efforts of those who make sure the main page isn't too US-centric, the whole world is watching this, and our articles on the election are informative, well-written, and worth reading. – bradv🍁 15:15, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article I see has a state results section with no results for any state, for any candidate, three days later. That seems uninformative. And cruel to pretend the Green Party (or lower) is still in this. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:46, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support keeping as ongoing I'm struggling to find ANY non-US english language news outlets that haven't had this as a top story for multiple days now. Is it unique to have a national election as an ongoing news story? Yes. But it's tough to argue it doesn't clearly meet our criteria for it, and given the clear global interest would be just silly to say it is too focused around one country's news.--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:16, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. Examples: [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] — Sca (talk) 16:56, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Ongoing Um, almost all media in the world right now are giving this ITN coverage. To say this is US-centric is intellectually dishonest. There is absolutely nothing in the ITN page right now that could be remotely construed as being US centric. Albertaont (talk) 18:45, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose pulling Yes this is US centric but with how popular US politics and because of the impact is this is like the #1 story worldwide at the moment. And there should be some final calls 'today', Biden just needs one state, so this (shouldn't) become an eternal Bush v. Gore situation.  Nixinova   T   C   19:53, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose pulling it is certainly ongoing and probably will be for a while, getting worldwide attention (top story here in Ireland) JW 1961 Talk 20:20, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sheer cussedness. – Sca (talk) 01:30, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Muboshgu, tonight there were some good answers on the PBS Newshour. Yamiche Alcindor said that Mr. Trump's legal strategy is one he has used for years, "flooding the zone" with information, disinformation, lawsuits, and accusations. I think it was John Yang who said that strategy is doomed to failure. Alcindor or Yang said that Trump's misinformation machine has Rudy Giuliani on RT saying that Joe Biden has mental problems. Then Jeffrey Brown interviewed Richard L. Hasen of UC Irvine, who said everything he's seem so far is "small bore", i.e. nonsignificant, litigation, and that it potentially could drag out for weeks or even longer. I do not feel Wikipedia needs to give Mr. Trump another venue for ongoing complaint. William Brangham said the whole thing has personal and emotional tolls on people. When the AP calls this we should have a blurb and then the story should go away like any other country. -SusanLesch (talk) 04:27, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
US Election - arbitrary break
  • Pull, not for cussedness, but lack of information on who's won which state's electors (except only Florida). That's important and verifiable, in context. It's purposely absent from the article, but still not there. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:53, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb as proposed, when called by AP ☆ Bri (talk) 03:20, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support ongoing until a president-elect is decided. It's beyond "in the news" and any statements to the contrary are utterly ignorant of the purpose of WP:ITN. Crafting a non-partisan blurb is a bit risky so going with a simple link in ongoing is the safest route for the time being imo. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 04:32, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Pennsylvania is going to Biden, so the race can be called for Biden. The real news is not that Biden won, but that the Trump is getting support for his bogus arguments from senior GOP members. If local legislatures support Trump, they may throw out votes and appoint Trump electors, see here: "So on Fox Gingrich advises President Trump to have Bill Barr arrest election workers in Pennsylvania and then have the state legislature throw out the results of the election.". Count Iblis (talk) 06:52, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is a unique case where the provisionary winner of the election may not become president. If this ends up in the Supreme Court, it's likely that Trump will be handed the presidency. We still don't know what will happen but should posting two blurbs with opposite conclusions be allowed?--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:23, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is not yet an issue to bring to the Supreme Court, despite what Trump says. Even the disputed ballots in Pennsylvania(3000ish I think) may not matter if the margin is big enough. 331dot (talk) 11:41, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also Congress has certain powers here that the SCOTUS cannot overrule. E.g. if it were to come down to a vote held by Congress where each State gets one vote which would bring victory for Trump. Pelosi could then intervene and refuse to allow such a vote. There is nothing the SCOTUS can do to force Pelosi to go ahead with such a vote. Count Iblis (talk) 12:34, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect there are enough centrist Democrats to join with Republicans and force a vote, but I digress because it doesn't appear the EC will be deadlocked, one way or the other. 331dot (talk) 12:38, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We don't need to speculate. Soon the counting will be largely complete and a winner is likely to be apparent. Meanwhile, could we please get eyes on the target article? It needs updating. A "consensus" of two editors is blocking me from posting the electoral vote totals and map as they currently exist. We need more editors to weigh in to generate a clear consensus. Jehochman Talk 13:06, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Associated Press needs to call it, and as of yet, they have not done so.--WaltCip-(talk) 14:12, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We do not rely on a single source, though I agree it would be better to have multiple sources. That will happen very soon. Jehochman Talk 14:14, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait at least until AP calls it for Biden (this will not stop anybody working on the target article), but preferably also until either CNN or Fox does so too (RT, which gets its data for this from AP, has been showing Biden as having won Arizona for at least 24 hours after Fox withdrew this, so I assume, perhaps mistakenly, that AP has also not withdrawn it, while CNN never called it for Biden, despite CNN being clearly pro-Biden - it might not be good for Wikipedia if we jumped the gun and thus made supposedly neutral/unbiased Wikipedia appear more pro-Biden than CNN). Tlhslobus (talk) 14:55, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Belated Post-Posting Support for Ongoing pet TRM above (pointing out it ticks all the boxes, and perhaps also because nobody who knows ITN can accuse TRM of pro-US bias). Tlhslobus (talk) 14:55, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thumbs up icon The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 15:01, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait – NYT hasn't called it yet, either. We should have that in addition to AP. – Sca (talk) 15:35, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support ongoing as this has become an unusual situation and may continue to be something readers are likely to be looking for, and likely will be for some time to come. As TRM pointed out, this is a good compromise. —valereee (talk) 15:36, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

November 3

November 3, 2020 (2020-11-03) (Tuesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Health and environment

International relations
  • Australia–China relations
    • China is threatening to impose bans on up to $6 billion of key Australian exports such as wine, copper, barley, coal, sugar, timber and lobster beginning Friday, straining trade relations between the two countries. (Australian Financial Review)
  • The United States, Japan, India and Australia begin the Malabar naval exercise, in what is seen as a push to counter China's military and economic power in the region. Meanwhile, China has accused the United States of having a "cold war mentality" and "ideological prejudice". (Reuters)

Law and crime

Politics and elections

(Posted) RD: Faustas Latėnas

Article: Faustas Latėnas (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): lrytas.lt
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Composer of incidental music, film and tv scores, chamber music, also theatre director, vice-minister of culture in Lithuania, advisor to the Prime Minister, cultural attaché - amazing - and had no article. Sorry, I can't read the obits (lt, ru), help welcome. Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:51, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Don Talbot

Article: Don Talbot (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): ABC News
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Aussie swimming coach responsible for many Olympic successes, legend. CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 11:51, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Looks good now, it does not feel good to oppose/not support for a few errors when most of the article is fine but that is how it goes. @Graham87: thanks for fixing the issues. Gotitbro (talk) 19:01, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Hurricane Eta

Proposed image
Article: Hurricane Eta (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Hurricane Eta (satellite image pictured) makes landfall in Nicaragua as a Category 4 hurricane, killing at least 70 people. (Post)
News source(s): BBC, CNN, NPR
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Might be a touch early but this is going to be a major disaster for Central America and potentially the western Caribbean as a whole. "Catastrophic" damage is expected in Nicaragua and Honduras as flash floods and mudslides increase in frequency over the next several days. Early reports show extensive damage to coastal communities in Nicaragua even before landfall. I know this is the fourth tropical cyclone put to ITN/C in one week, but unfortunately that's what nature is throwing at the world. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 21:31, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: H. G. Somashekar Rao

Article: H. G. Somashekar Rao (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Deccan Herald The Hindu
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Kannada language actor and theatre artist. Article has shaped up to be a clean start class biography. Meets hygiene expectations of homepage /RD Ktin (talk) 20:21, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not what I meant. WP:LISTCRIT reads Selection criteria [...] should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources and Wikipedia [...] should not contain indiscriminate lists. This means, that the the template {{List criteria}} should be filled out, with an explicit reason why these particular works are listed and the other 320+ are not, else the article should be tagged with {{List missing criteria}}. "I could only find references for these works" is probably not a good inclusion criteria, so perhaps list only the works that have been nominated/awarded something. Currently, the article states that it lists the films in which Rao was an actor. Is this an exhaustive list? If so, that would be a suitable criteria.130.233.213.199 (talk) 07:50, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. I have tagged it now. Hopefully this should be good. If this proves to be an issue, I would rather remove that entire section while we send it to homepage / RD. Article meets requirements even without that section. Ktin (talk) 15:05, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Wait) 2020 United States elections

Strong consensus to wait. Reopen when there will be some idea about the results. --Tone 13:50, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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: 2020 United States elections (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Elections are held in the United States for president and numerous other national, state, and local offices. (Post)
News source(s): The New York Times
Credits:
Nominator's comments: I realize that our traditional approach is to wait for results before updating ITN, so I hope I'm not jumping the gun by posting this, but I think the U.S. election is a significant enough event to warrant a main page appearance even before the results are known, and in the spirit of WP:The deadline is now, I think we'd be justified in posting an item as soon as the earliest day-of polls open (I believe in Vermont at 5am Eastern time, in about three hours). Once the results are known, we will of course replace the item with one describing the results. This is clearly an event of global significance that is already "in the news" by any reasonable definition of the phrase, and that very many readers will be looking to learn about. They will be better served if we add the blurb at 5am than if we cling to past precedent and wait until results are announced. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 06:47, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Can we please stop calling this good faith proposal names like "absurd"? I wouldn't want to participate here if my ideas were called that. American here and I would actually agree only the results (or any dispute that may come up) should be posted, but this is a good faith proposal with no reason not to discuss it and no reason to suppress or delete it just because it's related to the United States. 331dot (talk) 09:56, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Yes, this is giving the US Election prominence over normal procedures for elections. But there is vast global interest in the US general election that exceeds that in all other elections. I expect a lot of readers worldwide will come to the main page hoping to navigate to information about this election, and currently there is no link for these readers. I think using "Ongoing" would be a better strategy though. --LukeSurl t c 11:13, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I accept that American elections have a different status but I do not think this is helpful. The real question here is not whether the election is important but whether the actual voting itself is. Even in the US, the actual date of the election has become less significant this year. —Brigade Piron (talk) 11:20, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong wait for results, like every other election. Furthermore, the article needs to have referenced prose describing the result. We don't post elections while they're ongoing, or when the polls close - what matters is when reliable sources call the result, and updating the article. It's fine to post the House and/or Senate results if those are available before the President, then update the blurb later. But simply saying that there is an election going on isn't blurb-worthy. Modest Genius talk 12:06, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait Until we find out which of the two old guys (or Kanye) wins. Gex4pls (talk) 12:13, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait until we either have results or have (god forbid) some sort of highly unusual development. If Trump declares victory based on election night data and starts making accusations of massive mail-in voter fraud or something, we should post. If the final count is delayed so long the Proud Boys and Antifa start shooting one another, we should post. But simply that it's election day, no. I don't think this is an absurd proposal. I just think we need to treat this like any other election until (god forbid) it's not. —valereee (talk) 12:21, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This should be closed for now. Wait until we have (at least some) results.-- P-K3 (talk) 12:59, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose until there is a clear result, as we do in other countries. Sheila1988 (talk) 13:02, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait per 331Dot's assessment in the Courtesy Link provided above JW 1961 Talk 13:22, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait – Until gloomsday or bloomsday dawns. There's the usual avalanche of pointless prehash stories out there that are mostly space-fillers. Yawn. – Sca (talk) 13:37, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose premature nomination. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 13:39, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - It's important for U.S. to be aware of the impact of systemic bias and how it can color perceptions. This is probably the biggest national story in the country, yes. But how do international audiences feel? This does not warrant an early posting. Publish it when the final results are out.--WaltCip-(talk) 13:48, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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.
I agree. This was the discussion for posting the article now, while voting is still underway. We should reconvene in a new nomination after the polls have closed. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:38, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
At 15:00 Wednesday, outcome remained unclear, [15] [16] [17] [18] with nine states totalling 59 electoral votes undecided. Alas, looks like this situation could continue for quite some time. — Sca (talk) 15:28, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Pennsylvania will need an addition 2-3 days to count mail in ballots, there will probably be recounts in some states, and everything is going to be a mess. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 15:40, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
AKA 'electile dysfunction.' – Sca (talk) 17:40, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Should've been a clear SNOW close. Anyway, a new discussion is better which is going to focus on the actual results and condition of the article than whether to post it or not. Gotitbro (talk) 16:34, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question on Congressional elections Is that going to be posted independently of the presidential election? None of the articles for those are acceptable. Howard the Duck (talk) 16:44, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Howard the Duck: We aren’t going to post the Congressional elections, since they happen every two years and putting them next to the presidential election will make most of the ItN box US politics.~ Destroyeraa🌀 17:44, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nope. We have historically posted midterm elections, and included Congressional results in presidential election years. There are just as many UK general elections as US ones since 2015. What I'm asking if we'd be posting Congressional elections independently of the presidential election as the latter may take some time to be decided. Howard the Duck (talk) 17:52, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • So should the blurb be something like In the 2020 United States elections, Joe Biden/Donald Trump wins the presidency while the Democrats hold the House and the Democrats/Republicans gain/hold the Senate? (Of course if the Democrats get both chambers, that sentence can be condensed.)  Nixinova   T   C   19:53, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

November 2

November 2, 2020 (2020-11-02) (Monday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

RD: Enuga Sreenivasulu Reddy

Article: Enuga Sreenivasulu Reddy (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NYTimes
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Diplomat who led the anti-apartheid efforts at the United Nations. Did a good amount of rewrite. Article has shaped up to a clean C-class biography. Meets hygiene requirements for homepage / RD. RIP. Ktin (talk) 08:59, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dumelow you are absolutely right. In fact, I edited the talk page on 2 November, and my first impression was that the article looks a lot better now. KittenKlub (talk) 15:08, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RD: John Sessions

Article: John Sessions (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC Guardian
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Sessions was known for comedy improvisation in television shows, panel shows, as a character actor in numerous films Drchriswilliams (talk) 20:03, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: T. N. Krishnan

Article: T. N. Krishnan (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Hindu First Post
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Carnatic music violinist. Padma Shri and Padma Bhushan awardee. Article can do with some edits. Edits done. Article meets hygiene standards for homepage / RD. Ktin (talk) 06:51, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That was nice. Thank you.130.233.213.199 (talk) 06:37, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) 2020 Kabul University attack

Article: 2020 Kabul University attack (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Three gunmen kill at least 22 people and wound 22 others at Kabul University's campus, Afghanistan. (Post)
News source(s): (BBC) (Al Jazeera)
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Someone cancel the year 2020. ArionEstar (talk) 23:59, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) 2020 Vienna attacks

There is no consensus to post this. Jehochman Talk 19:19, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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: 2020 Vienna attacks (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Armed attacks in Vienna, Austria, leave at least four people dead. (Post)
News source(s): Times of Israel, Haaretz, Daily Express, Reuters
Credits:
 --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 20:39, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Too late, routine violence in Europe posted in 90 minutes. I'm sure no one will be frothing at the mouth shrieking about "bias" or demeaning a "minimum wait" either - that honor is reserved for other countries. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:14, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong, I vehemently disagree with the premature posting by an American admin. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 23:27, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(and I guess you mean "demanding" rather than "demeaning", right? The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 23:29, 2 November 2020 (UTC))[reply]
What the does my nationality have to do with it. Your comment is repulsive. Jehochman Talk 04:34, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I was on my phone. Nice catch and thanks. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:57, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, what was repulsive was the supervote and abuse of the main page, posting erroneous material with no consensus to do so. Get a grip. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 07:44, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am pulling this for the time being, the sources are too conflicting to have an accurate blurb. Wait an hour or so until things get clear. --Tone 22:22, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Biggest terror attack in europe since 2015. Gex4pls (talk) 22:48, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – Has fatalities. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 22:49, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – Terror-related and fatalities. BabbaQ (talk) 22:52, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose BBC is currently reporting one confirmed death as is the article. WAIT. That this was posted nearly an hour ago is absolutely appalling. Thank goodness someone saw sense and pulled it until we have the facts. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 23:00, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support but wait. Tone was correct to pull since the information from various sources at the moment is too confusing and contradictory, and it's not even entirely clear if the event itself has concluded or is still in progress. Hopefully in a few hours a more definitive picture will emerge. However, this was a major coordinated pre-planned terrorist attack involving multiple perpetrators, multiple locations and multiple fatalities. Even from what's known already, definitely blurb worthy. Nsk92 (talk) 23:06, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional support major attack under large news coverage. Vienna isn't exactly known for its terrorist attacks so this is probably more covered. However if confirmed reports come in that only 1 was killed then it's best to not post. Juxlos (talk) 23:34, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, so you mean wait then? I.e. don't post this until we have the facts established? Jehochman, there you go. That's what we do at ITN. Wait until the facts are established before super-voting and posting fake news. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 23:37, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's not confirmed as a terrorist attak as of the time of this post, look at the sources on the article!
  • Support Article is short, but sufficiently detailed and well referenced. Story is being covered by news sources. Checks all of the boxes. --Jayron32 00:23, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now. Two people dead in something that may be a terrorist attack? There's no there in the confirmed information. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:27, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per LaserLegs, TRM and PowerEnWiki. It got a few headlines, and people are quick to cry "terrorism" when an attack fits a particular profile, but overall it's unclear if this is of any lasting impact right now.  — Amakuru (talk) 00:47, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose another mostly peaceful terrorist attack. Water is wet. It's like the 5th one in 2 weeks in Europe, better suited for ongoing. 205.175.106.156 (talk) 03:18, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Infobox casualties are unacceptably vague (4+/15+). There's either RS support for these numbers, in which case they can be reported precisely, or they're the result of WP:OR, in which case they shouldn't be mentioned at all. Article is about the same quality as the one above. I am immediately suspicious of the initial !votes describing this as "the biggest attack since 2015" (it's not) and the immediate Anti-semitic/Islamist bickering (apparently kicked off by a Tweet). Europe's now had 4 (own recollection) terrorist attacks in the last few weeks, with casualties ranging from 0-3. This is, sadly, part and parcel of that part of the world right now. I'm completely unmoved by arguments that this should be posted for the strict rationale that they are "anti-semitic". I notice that no one describes the beheading of Paty as "anti-education" or the killing of an Orthodox priest as "Hellenophobic".130.233.213.199 (talk) 06:36, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support article is well referenced to reliable sources. More accurate information has come out and the incident is being covered in a major way internationally. (t · c) buidhe 07:14, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Buidhe above. Yakikaki (talk) 07:31, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment a common theme in Europe at this time, with a "terror attack" taking place roughly every other day or so. Please don't use the main page as a personal scratchpad: it's not a tabloid newspaper, it's an encyclopedia. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 07:46, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Whatever the exact nature of the event and the fatalities, this is clearly a hugely significant event and should merit immediate posting. It is not a question, as TRM states, of terrorism being "a common theme in Europe". This is an Austrian matter, and clearly exceptional. —Brigade Piron (talk) 11:25, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly is one of the two most over-used words in the English language. – Sca (talk) 14:46, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sca, if terrorism is such a big problem in Austria perhaps you would care to populate Category:Terrorist incidents in Austria. At the moment, it includes only one other incident after 1985 and that was more than a decade ago. I think "clearly" is quite reasonably used in this context, no? —Brigade Piron (talk) 15:55, 3 November 2020 (UTC) [reply]
No. – Sca (talk) 17:04, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What's your definition of major? – Sca (talk) 14:55, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per above. Article is fully referenced and isn't a stub. Major attack that is tragically happening more and more in Europe. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 13:42, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – Per TRM. Another apparent 'Islamo-fascist' crime – indiscriminately savage but random and lacking broader significance. – Sca (talk) 13:54, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, the article looks to be in good shape. -- Tavix (talk) 14:44, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support terrorist attacks are not common in Austria as some of the dishearteningly apathetic opposers are implying - this is not just "another occurrence". — Ruyter (talk • edits) 16:06, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    They are now extremely common in Europe generally, and as much as there haven't been so many in Austria, the lasting significance and impact of this is limited. Also, posting this when we decline to post shootings with vastly more deaths in other parts of the world reeks of double standards. This was a big story yesterday, but it is already relegated to a minor story on the front pages of UK news sites and we are not a news ticker.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:30, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current reports indicate that this was a lone gunman. Summarizing the above, it seems like there is not consensus (based on what is known now) to post this. We have a main page item about a shooting with 22 fatalities and 22 injuries. Does it make sense to close this? Jehochman Talk 16:51, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Hyped. Suggest close. Marked Needs attn. – Sca (talk) 17:08, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
At 1,900 words of futile blather, it does need attn. – Sca (talk) 17:59, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Jehochman: obviously I'm biased, because I ¡voted to Oppose this item, but if you feel there's no consensus then going ahead and closing seems sensible. As Sca says, the discussion is going around in circles at this point. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 18:27, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article does not need attention, as the article is sourced and not a stub, though this discussion is getting boring and futile. Close if you want. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 19:03, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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.

November 1

November 1, 2020 (2020-11-01) (Sunday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

(Posted) RD: Dan Kohn

Article: Dan Kohn (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): TheNewStack
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Former Chief Operating Officer of the Linux Foundation. He was a co-founder and CEO of the company that did the first e-commerce transaction (a credit card payment over the web) in 1994. Joofjoof (talk) 22:33, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) RD: Nikki McKibbin

No Consensus to post, article has not been updated. No sources either. (non-admin closure) SoloGaming (talk) 01:46, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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: Nikki McKibbin (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Fox News, CNN
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: American Idol singer, tragic passing. Thechased (talk) 03:51, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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: Robert Fisk

Article: Robert Fisk (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Irish Times
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: English journalist known for his war correspondence in the Middle East for The Independent. KittenKlub (talk) 20:53, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment : not ready. The Irish Times subhead describes Fisk as "highly regarded and controversial". If our article is doing its job, a reader ought to be able to understand why the IT led its subhead with those words. At the moment, they don't get that from the article. Why was Fisk "controversial"? If we're going to link the article from the front page, it needs to present a full picture of its subject, and it needs to examine this, with balance and NPOV, even though that may be distasteful. If an article has a deliberate blind spot, or we run away from grasping the nettle, then it is not good enough to be linked from the front page. To be sure, part of what made Fisk "controversial" was that his reporting was often relentlessly critical of U.S., British, and Israeli policies and actions. But people who have expressed reservations about his journalism go beyond just the conservatives and pro-Israel columnists who coined the term "fisking" (former article) -- eg fellow Independent journalist Hugh Pope [19], as well as others critical of his more recent reporting of Syria. It's difficult to know how to weigh the criticisms, some of which certainly are politically motivated. (Though it may get easier as obituaries start to appear in the following days). But the article needs to do a better job of contextualising why Fisk became so "marmite". IMO therefore, in its current form, the article is not ready. Our reputation is not served if we promote an article that sidesteps why its subject has been presented (at least by some) as "controversial", or could be accused of whitewashing. Jheald (talk) 22:40, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
LaserLegs, it's not a question of "haters" but of basic WP:NPOV standards. I challenge you to find a single obituary which does not use the word "controversial" at least once. Your comment seems yet another example of WP:POINT. —Brigade Piron (talk) 11:34, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just following the guidelines you can do whatever you want, I suppose. It's strange to me that this still isn't posted. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:24, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's how you keep an RD article off the main page it seems. No one can point to an actual guideline requiring a "controversy" section but we sure are keeping the article off the MP. Sad. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:48, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is simply wrong. If anything, Controversies are to be avoided in BLPs, and the "controversies" that this person was involved in happened to resolve in his favor after time. What is to be written? "Fisk was shamed and ridiculed for things that eventually turned out to be true?" WTF?130.233.213.199 (talk) 06:25, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I removed that silly tag. A "controversies" section in a BLP is the opposite of WP:BLPBALANCE. Each relevant section covers what made Fisk controversial. If it's not stale, this needs to go up. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:40, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@LaserLegs: if you bothered to read the talk page comments and participating in the discussion before unilaterally removing a cleanup template, then you would know that nobody is asking for a "controversies" section. Just some coverage in the existing sections of an important aspect of Fisk's life and career, with *every* obituary about him has mentioned prominently. The article is incomplete without that information, and the tag should not be removed until the issue is resolved.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:42, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted Stephen 04:17, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Stephen: the article is orange tagged, and the issues raised both here and on the talk page have not yet been addressed. Please remove, as it is ineligible for ITN until this is resolved.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:36, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    A little disingenuous to omit that you added the orange tag after posting. Controversies are referred to in the article, such as the Syria section. But please pull it if you believe it’s the best course of action. Stephen 09:48, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I added the orange tag yesterday, and it was removed unilaterally this morning with no response to the talk page comments or attempt to address the issues raised so I have reinstated it. Jheald has given a detailed description of the details that are missing, and it's not about the Syria thing, it's his views on the government policies of the US and Israel, and how these coloured his journalism. The article omits any mention of this at all, other than a vague "he was controversial" note towards the top. To be absolutely clear, I'm not saying we should imply that he was wrong in his views, far from it - on a personal level I think what he said made a lot of sense. But my personal opinion and those of other editors aren't what counts. For NPOV we have to represent the sources, which highlight this aspect prominently, and the fact that his views are disputed. Otherwise the article is simply incomplete.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:01, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh well, I've now added some detail on the controversy myself, in the "Views" section so I've now removed the tag again. I guess from my point of view this now makes it OK, but will also see what others say.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:50, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

October 31

October 31, 2020 (2020-10-31) (Saturday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

Law and crime

Politics and elections

(Posted) RD: Betty Dodson

Article: Betty Dodson (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NYT
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

 AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 23:33, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Rudolf Zahradník

Article: Rudolf Zahradník (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): iRozhlas
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Czech chemist. I've added a little to the article but it seems in reasonably good condition - Dumelow (talk) 08:43, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Spencer, I've tried to expand a little on this but my chemistry knowledge isn't up to much more - Dumelow (talk) 06:56, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WO struck. Not a support, but there is consensus for this to be posted. SpencerT•C 18:40, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Spencer, The lede requires to be trimmed down. Good amount of content from here should go into the body. Ktin (talk) 21:52, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Spencer -- have taken a pass at streamlining the lede. Please have a look and reintroduce content if needed. Cheers.Ktin (talk) 22:07, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Iba Der Thiam

Article: Iba Der Thiam (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Senegalese historian and politician. I've updated it with his death and the rest of the article looks reasonable - Dumelow (talk) 08:31, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Spencer:. Editing from my phone so can’t do too much at the moment but I’ve tried to add a bit more on his history work - Dumelow (talk) 22:48, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Arturo Lona Reyes

Article: Arturo Lona Reyes (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): La Jornada
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: I've expanded it a little and think it meets the standard - Dumelow (talk) 08:18, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I do not think this is far from being ITN-ready, but it certainly does need a cleanup first. The prose currently reads in a slightly unencyclopedic tone and does not fit well around the current section structure. There are a couple of areas where more citations might be helpful too. —Brigade Piron (talk) 17:02, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Brigade Piron, I've hacked it around a bit so hopefully it makes more sense now. Let me know - Dumelow (talk) 19:19, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's much better. Many thanks for this, Dumelow! —Brigade Piron (talk) 11:17, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Spencer:. The quote was already there, I presumed it came from the book. I’ve found a source online and added it. Cheers - Dumelow (talk) 22:26, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Six Nations Championship

No improvement, and somewhat stale. Stephen 01:02, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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: 2020 Six Nations Championship (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In rugby union, England wins the Six Nations Championship. (Post)
News source(s): ESPN
Credits:

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.
 PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 19:34, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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: Marius Žaliūkas

Article: Marius Žaliūkas (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Lithuanian footballer. I've added some missing refs, still a bit to do but it's headed the right way - Dumelow (talk) 07:55, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Super Typhoon Goni

Proposed image
Article: Typhoon Goni (2020) (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Typhoon Goni makes landfall in The Philippines as a super typhoon with winds of 195 miles per hour (314 km/h), killing at least 11 people. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Typhoon Goni makes landfall in The Philippines as a super typhoon, killing at least 11 people.
News source(s): Washington Post
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Seems like very notable for ITN. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 20:26, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it made the record for fastest one minute sustained winds at landfall, so that could be the reasoning Gex4pls (talk) 12:39, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support now that the impact has been added to the blurb and article. Gotitbro (talk) 17:13, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Sean Connery

Posted as a blurb and will remain so. Stephen 04:28, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Proposed image
Article: Sean Connery (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb:  Oscar winning Scottish actor Sir Sean Connery dies aged 90 (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Scottish actor Sir Sean Connery dies aged 90
Alternative blurb II: ​ Scottish actor Sean Connery dies aged 90
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
 Sherenk1 (talk) 12:38, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support The article is good shape already. I think that Sean Connery deserves a blurb as well ... KittenKlub (talk) 12:41, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
At the time I posted, the section had an empty filmography tag which would need to be resolved before the article could be posted to front page. Everything else appeared to have no issues. rawmustard (talk) 13:49, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but what would go in such a filmography section? It can't include all of his films, because that would bloat the article and it's all covered in the sub-article. His most important films are already discussed in the Career section prose, so I don't think any separate Filmography is needed in the main article.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:25, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Most of those should have been blurbed, especially Boseman, and we shouldn't be bound by past mistakes. Davey2116 (talk) 21:14, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it was ridiculous Douglas and Little Richard not being blurbed, and probably DeHavilland as well. I had (until 30 seconds ago) no clue who Regis Philbin was, though. Black Kite (talk) 23:38, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am fully in agreement... I would have supported a blurb for many of these if I had known they were nominated. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:46, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, absolutely not. You can make a case for Douglas, but Little Richard and DeHavilland are not even remotely of the calibre required. Blurbing is rare, and Connery is one of very few people in entertainment whose career and fame is so huge that they merit inclusion. In general you should assume only a handful of names in any given industry or profession would make the grade.  — Amakuru (talk) 01:50, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But why? -- Calidum 03:37, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for saying what I didn't want to say. -- Calidum 03:37, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

October 30

October 30, 2020 (2020-10-30) (Friday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

(Posted) RD: Nobby Stiles

Article: Nobby Stiles (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): (Metro)
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: One of the 1966 England World Cup winning squad. Please indicat whether you support a blurb, or RD only. Mjroots (talk) 16:27, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) 2020 Aegean Sea earthquake

Article: 2020 Aegean Sea earthquake (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ An Earthquake in the Aegean Sea kills at least 8 people and injures 130 more (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ An Earthquake in the Aegean Sea results in at least 8 people getting killed and 130 more injured
News source(s): The Guardian, CNN, CNBC, Al Jazeera, Bloomberg, AP, BBC, Reuters
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Seems like very notable for ITN. 8 deaths and 130 injuries (likely to increase), plus major destruction Sincerely: SolaVirum 16:10, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Removed) Ongoing removal: End SARS

Article: End SARS (talk · history · tag)
Ongoing item removal (Post)

Nominator's comments: The article's latest timeline entry is at End SARS § 22 October. There have been so substantive additions since 25 Oct, just copyedits. Per WP:ITN: Articles whose most recent update is older than the oldest blurb currently on ITN are usually not being updated frequently enough for ongoing status. Oldest blurb is from 25 Oct (2020 Seychellois general election). —Bagumba (talk) 04:45, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Ongoing: October 2020 Polish protests

Article: October 2020 Polish protests (talk · history · tag)
Ongoing item nomination (Post)
News source(s): AP, Reuters
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Blurb was posted on 28 Oct and cycled off on the 29th. Still ongoing though per above sources. —Bagumba (talk) 03:09, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Amfilohije Radović

Article: Amfilohije Radović (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Associated Press, The Washington Post, RFE/RL
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Cleric of the Serbian Orthodox Church. The Metropolitan Bishop of Montenegro and the Littoral from 1990 until his death. DragonFederal (talk) 08:45, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) RD: Mesut Yılmaz

Very Stale. Posted on Oct 31st, its now Nov 4th. Also No Consensus to post. (non-admin closure) SoloGaming (talk) 22:07, 4 November 2020 (UTC))[reply]

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: Mesut Yılmaz (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): AP
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Three time Prime Minister of Turkey. Demoxica (talk) 13:38, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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.

References

Nominators often include links to external websites and other references in discussions on this page. It is usually best to provide such links using the inline URL syntax [http://example.com] rather than using <ref></ref> tags, because that keeps all the relevant information in the same place as the nomination without having to jump to this section, and facilitates the archiving process.

For the times when <ref></ref> tags are being used, here are their contents:

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates&oldid=987366532"