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.

Damage from the Port of Beirut explosions
Damage from the Port of Beirut explosions

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).
    • Do not add sections for new dates. These are automatically generated (at midnight UTC) by a bot; creating them manually breaks this process.
  • 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.


  • 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]

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. accuse other editors of supporting, opposing or nominating due to a personal bias (such as ethnocentrism). Conflicts of interest are not handled at ITN.
  4. comment on a story without first reading the relevant article(s).
  5. oppose a WP:ITN/R item here because you disagree with current WP:ITN/R criteria (these can be discussed at the relevant Talk Page)
Skip to top
Skip to bottom


August 5[edit]

Disasters and accidents

Business and economy

Health and environment

Law and crime

Politics and elections

August 4[edit]

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

Law and crime

Politics and elections

(Posted) 2020 Beirut port explosions[edit]

Article: 2020 Beirut port explosions (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A pair of large explosions cause extensive damage in Beirut (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​A series of explosions in Beirut, Lebanon kills over ten people, and causes extensive damage over the city
News source(s): BBC Reuters, AP, Al Jazeera, dpa (Eng.)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Breaking news Andrew🐉(talk) 16:43, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

  • Wait till the cause is known. Also needs a map, background and reactions sections. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:53, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. Massive explosion heard 250 km away in Cyprus. Count Iblis (talk) 16:57, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Wait for more details to emerge. From the videos being reported, this is a very big explosion and certainly seems significant enough to merit an ITN blurb. However there is very little reliable information available yet and the article is very short. Give it a few hours. Modest Genius talk 17:09, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - Very clearly the most notable event of the day. --Posted by Pikamander2 (Talk) at 17:11, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - Notable, widely covered in reliable sources. Article is being rapidly expanded, but that's to be expected, and it's semi-protected, so vandalism will be mitigated. Ganesha811 (talk) 17:15, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Wait a few hours. Article is still a stub and there are few details available yet.-- P-K3 (talk) 17:17, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - Exteremly Important situation, being covered across multiple online sources, along multiple videos of the explosion(s) and continued coverage. –NicoARicoA (talk) 17:30, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - Sky News showing several buildings have collapsed. Death toll likely to be much higher than 10. Significant event and ITN worthy. Article is fully referenced and will be expanded as info comes to hand. Mjroots (talk) 17:36, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Comment - Sky ITN said that the explosion may have been on board a ship. We may need to consider a blurb with the explosion and ship if that is the case. Mjroots (talk) 17:38, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Top headline in major news sources, helped by existence of several incendiary videos. Article is a stub only due to lack of available information and will likely see significant expansion throughout the day. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 17:41, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. Might have to word the blurb appropriately or be ready to update the blurb a couple of times as more news comes available. Not sure what the guidelines about that are, in this group. Ktin (talk) 17:48, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support It will be a long time before cause is established, it doesn't make sense to wait for that. Mvolz (talk) 17:49, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong Support Big boom in Beirut is definitely gonna be in the headlines for days. Eternal Shadow Talk
  • Support - The blurb will need update(s), but, considering how big the media coverage and how notable the event is, I don't support waiting for more details before sending it to the main page. Ahmadtalk 17:54, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - The images coming out of Beirut seem to be showing a much bigger magnitude then what offical reports are showing. This is going to dominate headlines for at least two days in the world. Albertkaloo (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:59, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support – in principle, but wait until extent of casualties becomes clearer. (Al Jazeera says 100s wounded.) – Sca (talk) 18:01, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per above. Davey2116 (talk) 18:02, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Article is detailed enough, well referenced, and the topic is being covered by news sources appropriately. Checks all of the boxes. --Jayron32 18:17, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Posted – Muboshgu (talk) 18:22, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Premature. ITN isn't a breaking news site. – Sca (talk) 18:25, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Sca, I count 13 "supports" and a "strong support". The three "waits" came when the article was a stub, but it has been expanded since then. We have a quality (enough) article with references and the subject is quite literally "in the news" all over the world. What more do you need? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:35, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Extent of casualties, and if available fairly soon something on the cause or perp. (Again, ITN is a fixture of an online encyclopedia, not a news site per se. NYT at 18:30 said "the extent of casualties was unknown.") – Sca (talk) 18:39, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Aye, where and when are not enough (even that's approximated). InedibleHulk (talk) 18:41, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Did someone suggest that we shouldn't add that information when it is known? I don't see anyone arguing we shouldn't? --Jayron32 18:45, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Here we go again. That's not the point, and Jay knows it. – Sca (talk) 18:50, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
No, the point is that other people who are not you thought differently than you, and they had the consensus. That happens sometimes. Wikipedia does not do things solely on your say. --Jayron32 19:51, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
My point on Tuesday was that at the time of posting, insufficient information was available to answer the most salient of the "five W" questions. Thus, posting then was premature. My point had nothing to do with those who expressed support for posting at that time. Honest people may differ. – Sca (talk) 13:05, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
Post-posting support - In service to our readers, how could we not point to today's most important story? "ITN isn't a breaking news site" as a rationale for holding back is not rooted in policy. -- Fuzheado | Talk 21:22, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment no issues with posting this, but the blurb must mention the deaths. That's the headline, not "extensive damage". Mentioning property and buildings but not casualties is a terrible optic IMHO.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:52, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support. It is the headline around the world, with countries pledging international aid and EU assembling its emergency workers. The magnitude of this explosion is not your "run of the mill" explosion. OhanaUnitedTalk page 16:10, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

August 3[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

RD: Shirley Ann Grau[edit]

Article: Shirley Ann Grau (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Washington Post; The Times-Picayune/The New Orleans Advocate

Article updated

 Bloom6132 (talk) 04:24, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

  • Support Only 2 kb of prose, but references all check out and are diverse, 'ography is complete, and notability is well established. (talk) 09:35, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Punjab alcohol poisoning[edit]

Stale. Stephen 23:24, 4 August 2020 (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: 2020 Punjab alcohol poisoning (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Over a hundred people die due to alcohol poisoning in Punjab, India. (Post)
News source(s): Reuters

Article updated
Nominator's comments: A decent article about a tragic incident with a significant no. of deaths. Invisible Lad (talk) 17:41, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose (for now) per stubby article.--AlphaBeta135 (talk) 18:06, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
    • There's barely any expansion for this article within the past 2–3 hours.--AlphaBeta135 (talk) 20:55, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Already getting stale. – Sca (talk) 18:31, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment: A search through the archives show that 2 similar items nominated were not of sufficient quality for posting; the one that was posted: 2016 Irkutsk mass methanol poisoning. SpencerT•C 19:39, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Article is too short and does not provide enough information, and is rightly tagged as a stub. Also, it appears the main part of the story, the inquiry and raids that took place, occurred on July 30 and August 1, and even going with the later date, would make this the second oldest blurb and would like roll off too fast to make it worth it. Given that the article is not good enough, and that the story is stale at this time, I don't think this is worth posting. If this had been a more extensive article, and had been nominated back on July 30 or August 1 when the most recent events occurred, I would have supported it. --Jayron32 19:45, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose but as noted per Jayron32, on its stubiness and staleness. This otherwise would have been an appropriate story (why I'm adding here just in case) for an ITN. --Masem (t) 19:49, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose We missed the boat on this one. Should have been picked up in the late July news cycle but didn't, so now stale. Albertaont (talk) 20:17, 4 August 2020 (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: Reni Santoni[edit]

Article: Reni Santoni (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Hollywood Reporter; Variety

Article updated

 Bloom6132 (talk) 09:30, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

  • Support satis. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 13:18, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support all looks ok to go JW 1961 Talk 19:34, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose Resume in prose format; minimal depth of coverage at present about the subject's acting career besides a list of roles and films. SpencerT•C 19:36, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
  • WO struck. Still a little too "bare bones" for me to support, but I have no reason to oppose either. SpencerT•C 04:56, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
  • @Stephen and Amakuru: I think this is ready to go. —Bloom6132 (talk) 09:34, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Thin but fine. I am surprised to find that Rotten Tomatoes is explicitly NOT WP:USERG, when checking the uncredited appearances. Aren't users able to add/remove credits over there? (talk) 09:49, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now if what the IP says is true. Are Rotten Tomatoes filmographies user generated? If so we need to find a better source for his "uncredited" role in The Pawnbroker, it doesn't matter whether WP:USERG explicitly mentions it or not. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 10:40, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
  • @Amakuru: No, they are not user-generated. Here is what WP:USERG says: "Although review aggregators (such as Rotten Tomatoes) may be reliable, their audience ratings based on the reviews of their users are not." This article does not use Rotten Tomatoes to verify audience ratings. —Bloom6132 (talk) 10:46, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
    Is there anywhere that confirms that the filmography sections on the site are generated by the site's editors and not by users? Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 10:47, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
  • @Amakuru: Yes, their Help Desk says under "Edit requests": "Tell us about missing or incorrect movie or TV information by submitting a request via our Email Form." And even if that wasn't the case, ref 6 (from TV Guide) provides a back up. I've also added an extra source from Variety for good measure. —Bloom6132 (talk) 10:54, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Posted. Good stuff, thanks for the quick turnaround and responses, Bloom6132. All good now.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:17, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ralph Barbieri[edit]

Article: Ralph Barbieri (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): San Francisco Chronicle; The Mercury News

Article updated

 Bloom6132 (talk) 01:06, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

  • @Spencer, Stephen, and Amakuru: I think this is ready to go. —Bloom6132 (talk) 12:59, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support satis. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 13:16, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment: I would say this is almost there, but could use a couple sentences about the The Razor and Mr. T program itself (outside of being about sports, there's no description of the program, which is what the subject is notable for). SpencerT•C 14:58, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) Juan Carlos I of Spain[edit]

Proposed image
Article: Juan Carlos I of Spain (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Spanish Royal Household communicates that Emeritus King Juan Carlos I (pictured) is leaving the country due to his involving in financial scandals. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Spain's Emeritus King Juan Carlos I (pictured) leaves the country to reside abroad due to his involvement in financial scandals.
News source(s): (The Guardian), AP, BBC, Reuters

Article updated

Nominator's comments: The latest scandals of possible corruption by the King Emeritus have been featured on the news in Spain almost every day. This decision has shaken the country as he's the king who was key in the transition to democracy and the modernization of the country. Equally interesting is the simile of his grandfather's exile in 1931 when the Second Republic was proclaimed. But I'm interested to know what international impact / interest this can have and if it have place in ITN. Alsoriano97 (talk) 17:35, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

  • Support Big news, making international headlines. Update to the article is sufficient DUE coverage. Kingsif (talk) 21:46, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Wait This seems like the ongoing saga of the British Royals such as Prince Andrew, Prince Harry, Prince Philip, &c. who have all had to step down in some way recently. There is lots of press coverage of anything connected with royalty so ITN has to be fairly choosy to avoid seeming like Hello magazine. Rather than the Daily Mail, we need to see what serious papers like The Economist are saying about this. Here's their account of the matter. According to them, Juan Carlos fell from grace in 2012 and so the issue now seems to be an ongoing one of the status of the monarchy in Spain. It's what happens to the current King Felipe which seems to matter most so we should perhaps wait for some development at that level. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:46, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment Interesting reading in the Guardian report and I would say it would by worthy of ITN, but I would suggest it would be best to wait until King Juan Carlos actually does leave Spain. JW 1961 Talk 21:53, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
  • per Bzweebl comment, changing to Support JW 1961 Talk 22:09, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Former sovereign of a major European country leaving in disgraced exile is definitely worthy of ITN. Is highly unusual and of general encyclopedic interest. Albertaont (talk) 21:55, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support- Unusual to see the exile of a transformative former world leader in a very highly developed country. Re Joseywales1961, a spokesperson said he has already left the country. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 22:05, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment – Eighty-two-year-old Spanish ex-monarch chooses exile due to allegations of financial chicanery a decade ago. Fairly widely in the news, but not readily apparent that it's widely significant. – Sca (talk) 22:17, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak support 39 years or so as monarch of Spain, notable. Article needs a bit more work as a BLP, but otherwise it's alright. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 22:20, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support I agree with the others. An exile of a former monarch is not something frequently seen. Additionally, it appears to be a headline news in the media.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 23:33, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support A former and once very popular King, who was forced to abdicate and is now going into de-facto exile, is significant news. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:38, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment. I have added a possible more specific altblurb. The word "leaves", taken by itself, it too generic and may indicate a temporary trip, which apparently is not the case here. Nsk92 (talk) 00:58, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support altblurb for brevity and accessibility. BLP is fine, and the one CN is confusing; if it is contesting that Carlos praised Franco then it is absurd on it's face, if it is contesting "positive changes" then it is merely an expression of the editor's opinion of "positive", and not the content or intent of the praise. (talk) 07:08, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - per Kiril Simeonovski. Mjroots (talk) 07:14, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Article looks fine. – Ammarpad (talk) 08:11, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. He has not been head of state for more than half a decade, and has chosen to leave Spain rather than being exiled. —Brigade Piron (talk) 08:55, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Posted per the consensus above. 331dot (talk) 09:20, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak Post-Posting Comment The voluntary exile of a nominal king seems more like a vacation, or at most, a permanent relocation in retirement (if he wants). InedibleHulk (talk) 12:33, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
    • A powerless figure head king when the president of the government exercises actual authority over the country --LaserLegs (talk) 12:46, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
    Even the president only goes so far, off-paper, it takes thousands of people to actually run a country of millions. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:55, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
    And in Spain, none of those people are called "King" --LaserLegs (talk) 13:11, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
    A few are called "Reyes", though. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:43, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
    Yep, but the real king is his nipper. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:47, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
    Felipe Reyes says hi. Howard the Duck (talk) 17:37, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
    Haha. And he's the Real Madrid Captain. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:39, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: John Hume[edit]

Article: John Hume (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Nobel Prize winner. Article needs work... The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 08:48, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Iran COVID-19 cover-up[edit]

Lots of jurisdictions have been accused of either undercounting or overcounting COVID fatalities, some with more credibility than others. Combined with the presence of the banner, it does not appear that consensus will develop to post. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 09:51, 3 August 2020 (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: COVID-19 pandemic in Iran (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In data leaked to the BBC, it is revealed that the Iranian government covered up tens of thousands of COVID-19 deaths in its public reports. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​Distributing information from a data leak, the BBC reveals a government cover-up of COVID-19 deaths in Iran, with the country's first death occurring almost a month before it even reported a case of infection.
News source(s): BBC

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Minor update, working on it. I know it's COVID-19 and there's a box for that... but this is a major scandal either way. Kingsif (talk) 03:07, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose COVID-19 banner is that-a-way. --Masem (t) 04:09, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Also far too early in the coverage of this to call it a "scandal". Just like the reported Chinese geocide, we need authoritative groups to verify and decide what actions are appropriate here, not the press making the call. --Masem (t) 04:11, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
      • I think the fact it's been reported in such detail means there's a scandal whatever happens. Kingsif (talk) 04:41, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Most countries have failed to record or report COVID deaths accurately. Sometimes it's deliberate spin, sometimes it's just down to expedience, sometimes they just don't know. Picking on Iran for this does not seem fair and we're unlikely to have reliable data about the truth, whatever that is. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:33, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose basically per the same reason as Andrew. – Ammarpad (talk) 09:46, 3 August 2020 (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.

August 2[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

(Posted) RD: Leon Fleisher[edit]

Article: Leon Fleisher (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s):

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Discography section needs refs, but I own all of his recordings and can say the information in that section is 100% accurate. Zingarese talk · contribs 12:45, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

  • Support Discography completely referenced and rest of article is well-referenced. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 13:14, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
    Thank you. I didn't reference the recordings, so added Grimes2 to updaters, and noticed more helpers. That's great, because when I saw the article today, quotes were unreferenced, and the lead not even saying a word about his teaching. This was an iconic pianist, with the most unusual career, 50 years practically playing only one hand! Why do pop stars get featured articles at age twentysome, and such a great person such a poor thing when he dies?? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:22, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
They don't like to be called "pop stars" anymore, they insist we address them as our "influencers". And yeah, who can argue with the Wikipedian results? They're selling something right, even if it takes them six to eight hands to produce a single melody. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:16, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Kamal Rani Varun[edit]

Article: Kamal Rani Varun (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Hindu, Hindustan Times
Article updated

 DTM (talk) 12:40, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) 2020 Guyanese general election[edit]

Article: 2020 Guyanese general election (talk, history)
Blurb: ​After five months of court challenges by the ruling alliance, the opposition PPP/C party is declared the winner of the 2020 Guyanese general election. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​After five months of court challenges to the Guyanese general election, the People's Progressive Party led by Irfaan Ali is declared the winner.
News source(s): NY Times

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: Notable for the extreme delay between the election date (March 2) and the official result (August 2). At least the result has been accepted for now. Joofjoof (talk) 10:06, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

  • Support in principle the story seems "extraordinary" enough. I haven't looked at the article so cannot vouch for its quality. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 13:31, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support This is ITNR, even if delayed. The article could use clean up but the prose is there and the sourcing is there. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 13:39, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support altblurb and I agree this qualifies under ITNR anyway (final results). The article is well referenced and seems to explain the very messy situation well enough. Modest Genius talk 16:28, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support' This is a rather close election with controversial results. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 17:13, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support- several of my major news sources of choice had been covering this in the run-up and aftermath as a particularly consequential election, and the article update is sufficient. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 17:30, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support ITN/R but also an interesting case, with good updates. One cn tag in the whole article that I could see, but not at a key point. Kingsif (talk) 21:47, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support There was a special story to this one, and also good form to cover results of general elections. Albertaont (talk) 21:57, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. A few cites to fix up, then after that it's good to go.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:26, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Looks OK now. – Ammarpad (talk) 04:22, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 05:42, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) British Grand Prix[edit]

Vroom vroom.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:27, 3 August 2020 (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.

Proposed image
Article: 2020 British Grand Prix (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Despite tyre failure at the finish, Lewis Hamilton (pictured) wins the British Grand Prix for a record seventh time. (Post)
News source(s): The Times; BBC; Hindustan Times; Standard
Nominator's comments: Lewis Hamilton winning is not news so he's now doing it on just three wheels!
  • None of the current blurbs are ITN/R. R does not stand for rigid requirement. We can and do list other stories too. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:23, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
    Andrew Davidson, now you are doing it for the sake of it. Other stuff exists is not a reason; it is an excuse. Unnamelessness (talk) 10:31, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per TRM. – Ammarpad (talk) 09:53, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose not on ITN/R; nice record, but better suited for DYK (especially with the flat tire). – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 09:54, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm working on something else for that but DYK is over-subscribed currently and so has to rotate every 12 hours to keep up with the volume. That's over a hundred articles every week, whereas ITN has had the same three blurbs for all of the last week. And the oldest of the three has been there for two weeks now. ITN is now quite dead. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:06, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. We'll post the champion team & driver at the end of the season. Winning a race with a punctured tyre is unusual but hardly important enough for an ITN blurb. Modest Genius talk 13:05, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment suggest this is closed post-haste to stop any more time being wasted. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 22:20, 3 August 2020 (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.

August 1[edit]

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

RD: Amar Singh (politician)[edit]

Article: Amar Singh (politician) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Times of India, NDTV

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Could do with a little updating and cleanup DTM (talk) 05:43, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

  • Comment It has an NPOV tag (from 2004) that should be taken out in the cleanup, will support later when updated to RD standards JW 1961 Talk 09:42, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose A significant number of contentious statements (and possibly BLP violations) are unsourced or poorly sourced. Black Kite (talk) 19:08, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Article's a mess. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 09:55, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose - not ready.BabbaQ (talk) 12:38, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Wilford Brimley[edit]

Article: Wilford Brimley (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): CNN

Article updated

Nominator's comments: The usual -ography problems as well as general sourcing throughout. Masem (t) 05:29, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

  • Conditionally Support once filmography is referenced. The rest of the article looks ready. Joofjoof (talk) 09:47, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
  • @Joofjoof: It's already referenced with refs 38 (TV Guide) and 39 (Rotten Tomatoes) at the very top of the section. —Bloom6132 (talk) 10:04, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
  • That works, comment updated.Joofjoof (talk) 10:11, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Now that article has been improved JW 1961 Talk 10:22, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Posted  — Amakuru (talk) 15:12, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Return of the SpaceX Crew Dragon Capsule from the International Space Station[edit]

No consensus to post. Stephen 05:33, 4 August 2020 (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.

Proposed image
Article: Crew Dragon Demo-2 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Astronauts Douglas Hurley and Robert Behnken return to earth in NASA and SpaceX Crew Dragon Capsule after a two month stay at the International Space Station. This marks the first private sector capsule to be transporting astronauts back to the earth from the International Space Station (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​American astronauts Douglas Hurley and Robert Behnken return to earth in the NASA and SpaceX Endeavour from the ISS, successfully completing Crew Dragon Demo-2.
Alternative blurb II: SpaceX Endeavour returns from the ISS after successfully completing Crew Dragon Demo-2.
Alternative blurb III: Endeavour makes the first splashdown in 45 years after successfully completing Crew Dragon Demo-2.
News source(s):, Fox News, BBC, AP, Reuters, NYT
Nominator's comments: This is the first return trip from the ISS in an US vehicle after the Columbia space shuttle in the early 2000s. This is also the first human return from the ISS in a private sector vehicle. This will also be the first planned water splashdown for returning astronauts since 1975. Astronauts Bob and Doug will be leaving the ISS on Saturday, 2020-08-01 and reaching earth on Sunday, 2020-08-02, so this has to be timely.

Also, this is my first time trying this nomination process, so, I request your kindness in case I have missed a step or two in the nomination process.Kaisertalk (talk) 22:35, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Update 1: Parachutes have been deployed, and we are very close to splashdown. Kaisertalk (talk) 18:48, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Update 2: Splashdown successful! The astronauts, Bob and Doug, are safe on planet Earth!!! They have landed on the Gulf of Mexico. Kaisertalk (talk) 18:49, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Update 3: Recovery vessels are now approaching the capsule, and deploy the rigging equipment to help hoist the astronauts outside of the capsule. This marks the first water splashdown for US Astronauts since 1975. As others have noted below, this is the first US vessel to bring down astronauts from the ISS since the early 2000s. Weather has been extremely cooperative throughout the landing. Approx twenty to thirty minutes for the astronauts to be hoisted out. Kaisertalk (talk) 19:02, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Update 4: Approximately T+52 minutes post splashdown. The recovery team is currently evaluating levels of NTO before hoisting the astronauts out of the capsule. Kaisertalk (talk) 19:43, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Update 5 (last): Successful recovery completed. Astronauts make the first successful water landing since 1975! Kaisertalk (talk) 21:07, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Update 6: Elon Musk has sent a self congratulatory tweet --LaserLegs (talk) 23:27, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

  • Wait until the successful splashdown tomorrow. There's still stuff that can go wrong between now and then, obviously. --Masem (t) 22:48, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Support as the end of the first successful manned operation of a commercial space vehicle to-and-from extended travel in orbit/the ISS. --Masem (t) 22:22, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
@Masem: Agree with the approach. Is there merit in writing the news as "...leaves the ISS on their journey back to the earth" today, and then tomorrow, post the splashdown, we change that to "land in earth post over two months at the ISS". Thoughts? Kaisertalk (talk) 22:55, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose we posted the launch, and the craft proved it's re-entry during Crew Dragon Demo-1. I'm fine with ITN/R for ISS turnaround flights since they're many months apart. Also the article is orange tagged for quality and is missing refs in the timeline. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:03, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment how is this ITNR? The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 23:05, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Wait Wait until the splashdown. They're still doing this amid Hurricane Isaias, which is pretty daring and a bit dangerous due to strong waves. I hope everything goes well. Anyway, wait until their landing is confirmed tomorrow. ~ Destroyeraa (talk|Contribs) 23:19, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose while I'm waiting on someone telling me how this is ITNR, I must oppose on quality grounds. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 23:21, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I think we are getting into semantics here now, but, I would state that this covered by the first clause. How, you ask? Crewed mission - Yes. Orbital - Yes, in fact reverse orbital. Spaceflight - Yes. Launch - Yes. You launch off the ISS using microboosters to get away from the ISS and launch towards the earth. Kaisertalk (talk) 23:55, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
  • No, I think that's reeeally stretching what the ITNR wording means. Perhaps we need a clarification note to reinforce that this was about launches from Earth not not "microboosted" launches from space back to Earth. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 20:56, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Not ITNR, and not especially significant. We posted the launch, as indeed we should, but we don't post every detail that happens after that including the landing.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:29, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
Amakuru Appreciate your inputs, thanks. However, I just want to place on record a call against your note stating this is "not especially significant" and that "we don't post every detail". Launch and Return are the two most significant moments of a manned space mission. Cheers and Good Day. Kaisertalk (talk) 23:44, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
No, come on, is this ITNR or not? No-one has suggested how it is. And we don't post every ISS rotation. Next. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 23:48, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
Hello The Rambling Man. Yes, Wikipedia:In_the_news/Recurring_items#Space_exploration. Also, in a dispassionate manner, I will maintain that this is not another ISS rotation. Kaisertalk (talk) 23:51, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
Which clause? I've asked above. I don't see where the return of astronauts is covered by ITNR. Please be explicit. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 23:52, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
I think we are getting into semantics here now, but, I would state that this covered by the first clause. How, you ask? Crewed mission - Yes. Orbital - Yes, in fact reverse orbital. Spaceflight - Yes. Launch - Yes. You launch off the ISS using microboosters to get away from the ISS and launch towards the earth. Kaisertalk (talk) 23:55, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
Ok, it's not ITNR as was agreed. I'm out of here, this is corrupted. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 00:03, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
"You launch off the ISS using microboosters". Blimey, that's a stretch... Not what most people would regard as a launch. Do we usually post Soyuz returns to earth? If not, then I don't see a reason to mention this one. Sure, it's the first commercial one, but we already mentioned that in the launch blurb. There's no valid reason to post this, and the fact that items currently in the template are quite old doesn't change that.  — Amakuru (talk) 06:25, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Not ITNR, as they are not launching from the ISS. ITNR flag removed. Stephen 00:29, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Wait There's still quite a lot of flex in this trip as the de-orbit burn hasn't happened yet and the landing site can change. The article still needs work in several places to update from what was planned to happen to what actually happened and so it's best to wait for splashdown when the events will all be over and done. Andrew🐉(talk) 00:47, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Wait per all. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 01:34, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Wait per above. Will Support when splashdown occurs per Kaisertalk. This is notable in itself and as notable as the launch (which got posted apparently). I oppose the blurb tho and added blurb 2, which is shorter. Dantheanimator (talk) 01:57, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
    The landing may well be "as notable as the launch", but the convention at ITN is only to post stories related to a single event once. For example we don't post an election result and then also post the inauguration of the new president, if the latter is significantly later. There's just nothing remarkable about this - once a launch happens with astronauts, it's guaranteed they'll come back to earth at some point (unless there's a tragic mishap, which of course would be a much much stronger story worthy of posting)  — Amakuru (talk) 06:33, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Splashdown We should emphasize the splashdown because news coverage points out that this will be the first one in 45 years. I have suggested another suitable blurb. We should also get a good picture too, as NASA will make these public domain. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:43, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment – Re (debatable) significance, BBC notes that a successful splashdown would mean the U.S. "once again has a fully serviceable ... means of getting its own people into orbit and back" – a capability "lost when the country retired its shuttles in 2011." – Sca (talk) 13:15, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
    True, and that's very nice, but we emphasised that point when we blurbed the launch. If this were the first time we were mentioning this mission I'd agree wholeheartedly, but we already posted it and there's nothing surprising about this further development.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:06, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
Well, a launch is one thing, but as we've discussed regarding the Mars probes completion is another. A successful splashdown would mean an accomplished fact. Just tossing this out as food for thought.... – Sca (talk) 15:50, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
Support Reentry is notable per above.  Nixinova T  C   19:36, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
Sorry for labouring this point, but it really isn't notable. We never post Soyuz landings, so why would we post this one? Seems like all missions should be treated the same way.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:08, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Wait for Crew-1 launch for next posting. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 20:21, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
  • SupportDown and safe. – Sca (talk) 21:11, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose again as there appears to have been some re-factoring of the blurbs to splashdown rather than a bizarre attempt to claim the "launch" from ISS to be INTR. Would have supported if it hadn't made it back, but as noted, space travel is now humdrum and this test flight is just that, run-of-the-mill. What goes up must come down, and we posted what went up, no need for the other. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:36, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
    I'm genuinely baffled by this one. Often I disagree with something but I can also see why others support it, that's fine. But nobody has offered any explanation as to why we would break our convention and post this same story twice, when we don't for any other space mission. Just lots of WP:ILIKEIT votes and other miscellaneous peculiarities such as the "microlaunch" from the ISS.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:54, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
    For a moment let's keep the ITNR flag aside. Let's look at why this article might be notable in and of itself. Here are some of my reasons:
    1. First return back for human / astronauts from the ISS back on the Dragon Capsule, a capsule that is being built out and evaluated (explains why there is a demo in its name)
    2. First private sector vehicle being used for the human mission to the International Space Station
    3. First US vehicle to bring back astronauts from the ISS since the early 2000s when the space shuttle program ended
    4. First water splashdown return from a space program since 1975.
    Kaisertalk (talk) 22:34, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
    We posted the launch. The return was absolutely inevitable unless it went wrong. This isn't "buy one get one free" time. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 22:36, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment – What do those who said wait have to say now that it's done? – Sca (talk) 21:40, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Not a real first. WaltCip-(BLM!Resist The Orange One) 22:03, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose The fact that this has been posted previously on launch and then subject to 5 updates in the nomination alone makes this seem more like a NASA ticker. Same goes with the twice repeated attempt to post ITN for Perseverance. Albertaont (talk) 22:25, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Greetings @Albertaont:. I am the one who kept posting those updates (1 through 5). I seek pardon if that is frowned upon. The reason I posted was to bring attention to the timeliness of the event, i.e. splashdown was in the process of being completed and then eventually completed. Also re: the ITNR, I was the one who marked the flag as yes, based on my (subjective) read of the ITNR guidelines, and specifically the section that spoke about space launches. Stephen unmarked the flag based on a call that this is not ITNR, which is perfectly fine. I totally respect your views to oppose, or strongly oppose. My only request of you is to consider the notability of the event independent of any procedural actions from my side. As mentioned, this is my first nomination, and I am sure, I will learn the procedures soon enough. Good Day. Kaisertalk (talk) 22:44, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
      • Greetings @Kaisertalk: Not a problem, don't take it personally from my end. Its just when 5 updates are posted in a row, it makes it more like an unusual attempt to promote an article which naturally invites greater skepticism. I understand your enthusiasm for the event. Albertaont (talk) 01:05, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose as we already covered the launch so we'd effectively be running the same story again. P-K3 (talk) 01:49, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above. We've already posted this story. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:25, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose We have already posted this. No need for chronicling – Ammarpad (talk) 09:51, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose posting the same story twice, just two months apart. Definitely not a launch; trying to argue this is covered by ITNR is completely bizarre. Modest Genius talk 16:32, 3 August 2020 (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) Unsolicited seeds[edit]

Consensus to post this will not develop. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:10, 1 August 2020 (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.

Proposed image
Article: Brushing (e-commerce) (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Shipments of unsolicited seeds (sample pictured) are suspected to be a scam (Post)
News source(s): Guardian; CNN; Fortune

Article updated
Nominator's comments: No-one seems to be quite sure about this yet so I have another theory: "From the seeds came pods which had the power to ...Andrew🐉(talk) 09:41, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Super Strong Support They come in peace and promise a better world! InedibleHulk (talk) 10:06, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose a jolly little trivial story which would be much better suited to another section of the main page. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 10:40, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
  • The bottom blurb in ITN currently is about another scam – what's the difference? And notice that that older story is over two weeks old now. ITN is so slow and stale now because such negativity and nitpicking is stifling the process. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:46, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
  • As noted about four times in the past few days, if you think the process is failing, raise an RFC to amend it. In the meantime, continually browbeating and condemning it is becoming somewhat boring. Also, what John said below. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 11:10, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose trivial. (Also, that the news cycle is slow is not an argument to make a non-notable story a notable one.) – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 10:51, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment Will support if Trump uses this as another reason to delay the election. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:09, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
Don't you get it? They're in control now! Whatever sprouts from Trump's sunlit spout next is just nature's way of saying "you're welcome, America." InedibleHulk (talk) 11:38, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
  • We're doomed Count Iblis (talk) 12:23, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment – I planted one in my back yard ystdy and it's already grown into a 90-ft.-tall beanstalk. – Sca (talk) 13:03, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose is this a joke? Alsoriano97 (talk) 14:03, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
What makes you think that?Sca (talk) 14:46, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose suggest close Probably one of the least notable news stories of a month that just started today, congratulations. People think businesses might be shipping seed packets at random to make it look like they have more business? I'm not sure trading standards will even care that much. Kingsif (talk) 17:30, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
But a-ha! This happened in July. Lasting impact, these pods. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:07, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Wait until the biological/astronomical origin of the seeds is confirmed. Once confirmed will change to support. Thanks Andrew Davidson for the reference, a big fan of the film though I don't think were having a Capgras pandemic. Dantheanimator (talk) 17:59, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
Good idea, they may have been fired by one of the Mars probes. – Sca (talk) 18:04, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
  • ...the article shows they tested the seeds, the story is the maybe-a-scam, not the alien origins. Kingsif (talk) 18:02, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
Kingsif according to the article, the DEFRA and USDA, both government agencies, tested the seeds. Maybe the aliens are scamming us but the government doesn't want us to know? Dantheanimator (talk) 18:52, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose not important enough for ITN. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:02, 1 August 2020 (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) Hurricane Isaias[edit]

Thankfully not as bad as expected. Stephen 05:32, 4 August 2020 (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: Hurricane Isaias (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Hurricane Isaias brings significant flooding and wind damage to much of the Caribbean, killing three people with more missing. It is currently lashing the South Carolina with hurricane-force winds and threatening much of the United States East Coast. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​Hurricane Isaias threatens North Carolina and much of the eastern United States.
News source(s): [1]

Article updated
 ~ Destroyeraa (talk)
  • Oppose Storm causes wind, rain, little damage, two deaths. Not a major hurricane by the looks of it, mostly at sea. The article is also a mess of tagged sections, uncited sensationalist language, with a long lead and gaps in coverage in the body. Kingsif (talk) 01:48, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment Though consensus will be against this at first, impact reports will likely be flooding in later on August 1 or August 2 as the storm makes landfall in Florida. That way, the article will have much more information, not just some poorly formatted info with maintenance tags. ~ Destroyeraa (talk|Contribs) 02:05, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Then nominate it when it hits Florida if it has an impact. Kingsif (talk) 02:12, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
  • @Kingsif: It will have an impact because it is a high-end Category 1 hurricane. Probably will hit the Carolinas, Delmarva and New Jersey/NYC too. ~ Destroyeraa (talk|Contribs) 02:18, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Wait until it reaches the East Coast of the US and we'll see how significant it is.-- P-K3 (talk) 02:08, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Wait per all. Right now it's just a storm doing storm things. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 02:23, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Wait – Until "Isaias" (EE'-sah-EE'-us) blows over and bows out. – Sca (talk) 13:06, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose -> "storm brings wind and rain". Just because it happened in Amurica, it doesn't mean it's special. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 22:56, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
If it happened somewhere in the far-flung British Empire, it'd be nooz. – Sca (talk) 22:21, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
It hasn't actually made landfall in the US yet. WaltCip-(BLM!Resist The Orange One) 20:19, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
No, noted. This whole nomination is a bit ... pre-emptive perhaps? The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 22:26, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. No indication that this is a big deal or likely to become one. I'm open to reconsidering if that changes, but we can't post every tropical storm. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:58, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Looks like Isaias turned out weaker than expected. Still expected to make landfall in SC as a Cat 1. If it doesn't cause much damage, then close this discussion. ~ Destroyeraa (talk|Contribs) 01:00, 4 August 2020 (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.

July 31[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks
  • 2020 Chaman border clash
    • Twenty-two people are killed in clashes between Afghan civilians and Pakistani military forces. Fifteen people died and 80 others injured in Kandahar after Pakistani soldiers attacked civilian areas, while seven people were killed and 31 others injured in Pakistan when a crowd trying to enter Afghanistan became unruly and attacked military installations. The Afghan government warns of action if Pakistan "continues its rocket attacks", while the Pakistani military says it opened fire in self-defense, returning fire to the Afghan side. (Reuters)

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology


(Posted) RD: Bill English (computer engineer)[edit]

Article: Bill English (computer engineer) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NYTimes

Article updated

Nominator's comments: One of the key contributors to the modern computer mouse. Died on the 26th but this appears to be the day it was first reported (double checking to make sure). Article is in decent shape. Masem (t) 02:34, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Stephen Tataw[edit]

Article: Stephen Tataw (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Confederation of African Football; BBC Sport

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Cameroon footballer who was captain of the side which famously beat Argentina and reached the quarter final of the World Cup in 1990. A couple of refs to add and maybe a bit more detail, but generally OK. I will get to that shortly.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:18, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

  • Comment Just the honours section needs referencing, will support when fixed JW 1961 Talk 13:03, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
    @Joseywales1961: that's already been done!  — Amakuru (talk) 13:59, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Good work improving, looks ready to go now JW 1961 Talk 16:00, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support – I added a few sentences to the lead, but aside from that, it looks like it meets the criteria. —Bloom6132 (talk) 02:56, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment is there anything outstanding that I need to resolve on this one? It has been marked ready for ages but not added yet. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 15:14, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support you know what they, if you a job doing properly..... this has been good to go for half a day now, I'd IAR and post the entry yourself. Who's going to sue you for that? The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 15:36, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Posted Good enough. I'm guessing he didn't get the coaching job in 2018? – Muboshgu (talk) 15:42, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Eusebio Leal[edit]

Article: Eusebio Leal (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Associated Press; Reuters

Article updated

 Bloom6132 (talk) 01:27, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

  • Support Looks fine for RD JW 1961 Talk 09:36, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment - there is a sentence in the lead, saying he wrote books and presented TV programmes about Havana, but it is not mentioned elsewhere as far as I can see and is uncited. After that's fixed, good to go.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:03, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
  • @Amakuru: Added cited info re presenting in "Other positions". Removed the part about books since I couldn't find any sources on that. —Bloom6132 (talk) 14:37, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD. Great, thanks for the update, Bloom6132. I've actually added back mentions of a couple of his books just with links to the Google Books page, which seems sufficient to verify their existence! Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 16:14, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

RD: Gary Knopp[edit]

Article: Gary Knopp (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [2]

 Palmtree5551 (talk) 04:50, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

  • Support Its prose is quite short but fairly well referenced, one cn there on a committee membership should be easy fixed by someone in the know JW 1961 Talk 10:18, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per above. Dantheanimator (talk) 18:01, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose Resume in prose format; insufficient depth of coverage. Lists committees he was on in his role as a politician, but doesn't say what he did as part of those committees. SpencerT•C 00:37, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Looks fine for RD. – Ammarpad (talk) 04:59, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Spencer. Needs a bit more detail on what he did, it's pretty much just a list of positions at present.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:04, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose and stale Too little personal information to comfortably call a BLP, and too few professional details prevent establishing notability. A mere 5 edits before his death prevents this from being a BLP1E. (talk) 10:04, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

(Removed) Ongoing Removal: 2020 China floods[edit]

Article: 2020 China floods (talk, history)
Ongoing item removal (Post)

Nominator's comments: The last update of consequence was on July 27th with a 1 liner about some shops flooding. Other "recent" updates are backdates to June and early July. Everything else is content tweaks and ref fixes. The article was never that great, and being featured on the main page didn't help it get better. LaserLegs (talk) 22:04, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Support This was getting coverage in the world middle of July and was rightly ITN, but not so much so anymore. TBH, it is one of many heavier than usual floods happening across Asia like Japan and India which seem to have either comparable damage or casualties. Doesn't seem so special anymore unless someone wants to do a grand article on 2020 floods across Asia. Then again, even the death toll/damages we are bad but definitely not catastrophic for what Asia usually sees.2604:3D09:682:B00:1987:35DF:CE31:2228 (talk) 22:22, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Floods are very much still happening [3] its just that its a time issue as the consider is on the stability of the Three Gorges Dam, and that's literally just a waiting game as all the flooded areas drain out into the reservior behind it. They are still on alert, but they nothing they can tell people to take action about because they've done as much as they can. --Masem (t) 22:26, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
    • Could you point me to the article edit with new pertinent information because I can't seem to find it --LaserLegs (talk) 22:45, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
      • As I pointed out, its a waiting game of watching waters dangerous rising behind a decades old dam that is showing signs of failure but hasnt' failed yet. It's like reporting on paint drying to a point, there's nothing really to report until either 1) the waters receed or 2) the dam breaks. Its clearly in the news but there's not much that can be immediately updated appropraitely. Common sense is needed in cases like this. -Masem (t) 02:10, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support While floods may still be happening, it's no longer in the news, nor is the article being updated. Kingsif (talk) 22:57, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. It's not really suitable for ongoing at this point. -- Rockstone[Send me a message!] 00:01, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Doesn't seem to be making front page news anywhere. If only I had a nickel every time someone said (or "wished") 3G dam would burst... if that happens, it wouldn't be "Ongoing" but ITN anyways. Albertaont (talk) 00:32, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support no use hanging around waiting to see if it will become in the news again. It certainly isn't right now. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 07:31, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Removed. There seems to be a solid consensus that this should be withdrawn at this point. If anything further develops in the future, it can be renominated.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:24, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

British Academy TV awards[edit]

Article: 2020 British Academy Television Awards (talk, history)
Blurb: ​At the 2020 British Academy Television Awards, The End of the F***ing World wins Best Drama and Stath Lets Flats wins Best Comedy in the first major entertainment award ceremony since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​At the 2020 British Academy Television Awards, The End of the F***ing World wins Best Drama and Stath Lets Flats wins Best Comedy.
Alternative blurb II: ​At the 2020 British Academy Television Awards, The End of the F***ing World, Stath Lets Flats, and Chernobyl each win two awards.
Alternative blurb III: ​At the 2020 British Academy Television and Craft Awards, Chernobyl wins a record nine awards, including Best Mini-Series.
News source(s): Deadline

Nominator's comments: Includes prose updates. Surprisingly not ITN/R, but easily should be. Kingsif (talk) 20:58, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Oppose- many countries have television awards and I'm not convinced (though, as always, open to changing my mind) that the British ones are indeed the second most important. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 21:10, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
  • It's the Emmys but held in London, of equal importance, not even 'second'. I'd be interested to hear your take on the British Academy Film Awards (the only not-Oscar film awards in ITN/R)... As you can see, the main source is Deadline Hollywood, based in LA, which got their coverage out before the BBC did. Kingsif (talk) 21:14, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
  • For better or worse, the Emmys are of greater importance due to American pop cultural dominance. I think film has more lasting cultural importance than television, so I have less problem with theoretically posting multiple film awards each year. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 21:20, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Wouldn't you like to counter that dominance? If ITN just bowed to it the way you're advocating here, the box would be filled with American stuff and nothing else. (And like I noted, a Los Angeles industry news outlet covered this before the BBC, so it's certainly in the American cultural interest) Kingsif (talk) 21:31, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Clever argument, but US popular media dominance is not the kind of bias I'm concerned with since it isn't really a bias at all, just a reality. It's quite different from Western media bias on terror attacks for example, since I don't think people in say Southeast Asia are also disproportionately concerned about the lives of Western terror victims, whereas US popular media is genuinely of disproportionate international interest. That being said, I also wouldn't object to removal of the Emmys from ITN/R, since television generally has less long-term cachet than film. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 21:55, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Reading that (and the addition) a few times, it seems your argument to oppose is not just that you think no TV is as important as American TV, but that no TV is important except American TV. To which I can only inform you that the British invented TV, and step back. Kingsif (talk) 22:06, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I agree with the former statement but not the latter. Not sure how you interpreted my reply to mean that, sorry if it wasn't clear. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 22:14, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
  • No, no worries - and I'm glad I understand your argument now. A debatable viewpoint, at least. Kingsif (talk) 22:56, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support This is a major awards show (surprised it's not ITN/R as well) and there's a decent amount of prose on the ceremony. P-K3 (talk) 21:46, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support article is the minimum for an awards show and entertainment is sadly under represented at ITN. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:50, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak support in principle, but for a couple of things: (1) why are the awards in the blurb those singled out ("Stath Rents Flats" is fucking briliant but no Chernobyl) and (b) there's not much prose in there.... The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 22:28, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
  • To (1), following the Emmy ITN/R instructions to post best drama and (scripted) comedy. Chernobyl won as best miniseries, which is also an Emmy category excluded from the blurb. It could be changed to say the three each won 2 awards? For (b), feel free to expand, I'm still working on it! Kingsif (talk) 22:42, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't know how those categories were cherry-picked, is there a relevant discussion somewhere? And no thanks, I've got plenty of other things on my backlog right now, but all the best with your expansion. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 07:32, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
  • @The Rambling Man: the earliest discussion is this one that you started after it was added without discussion. Interestingly, there is broad support in there to add the BAFTAs, too. Kingsif (talk) 17:53, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support ITN is not always about "disasters and stuff" and nice to show arts and entertainment kicking off again. Albertaont (talk) 05:51, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose This seems to be little more than a clip show – self-congratulatory, self-promotion. Lots of shows and stars got prizes and the selection for top billing seems to be quite arbitrary – from the buzz I've seen, Glenda Jackson and Fleabag are the standouts. I looked at the article to see who had made the selections but it doesn't say. It also has a long list of recent deaths. The entries are unsourced and include someone who doesn't have an article. The closest thing to a source in that section seems to be a Youtube video. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:54, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't know what you're looking at but I added a source for everything. Edit: The In memoriam is a section that is standard for award show articles; as a montage shown in the ceremony it comes under PLOT, but I also added the clip of the montage for sourcing. This is a major award show, so you can get off that horse, too. Who made the selections? The British Academy of Film and Television Arts: it's literally in the name. Sorry, Andrew, but this is a very uninformed comment. Kingsif (talk) 17:17, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
  • So I guess the Oscars are considered the same then Andrew? You know who made the selections, the clue's in the name: BAFTA. If you want to find out the names of the individuals, go find them. A long list of RDs is typical of all such ceremonies: the Oscars have been doing them for decades. This is borderline Cloud Cuckoo Land-stuff. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 22:44, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Frankly, how bizarre. This article is attracting as much attention as the other currently-listed ITN articles, which is normally an argument propounded by Andrew, yet now he opposes this approach to a notable awards ceremony which our readers might well be looking to learn more about. So much for WP:TOP25 and the Daily Mail.... The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 22:41, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support in principle, no remarks on quality since I haven't looked at the article. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 11:25, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

*Weak Oppose Shouldn't this be a ITNR nom, since it is recurring? I don't think ITN should be a place for every single Movie awards ceremony, be it the Academy or Oscars, unless it is historical which in this case it is not. Will change my position considering other, more convincing, arguements. Dantheanimator (talk) 18:11, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Support per Kingsif. Dantheanimator (talk) 18:28, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Hi, Dan, some corrections for your comments, which I write with the best of intentions: WP:ITN/R noms are for things listed at that page (arguably, the BAFTA TV Awards should be on the list, but there hasn't been a community discussion about it) not just any recurring event. ITN isn't trying to list all the film (and TV, this is TV) awards, don't worry (e.g. the GLAAD Media Awards happened on the same day, no nom), typically just the 'majors', which this is one of. The Academy Awards and the Oscars are the same thing. And well, this ceremony is historic if you count 'first during pandemic' and 'reopening of TV industry'. Kingsif (talk) 18:25, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Andrew D. I don't think this is a significant enough event to warrant posting. And if people really think it is, then have the proper discussion about getting it added to ITN/R. (And I'm obviously aware that ITN/R is a sufficient but not a necessary condition for posting, but just commenting that I don't personally think this one is quite there among the elite awards ceremonies, unlike the BAFTAs, Oscars and Emmy awards etc, and if it were then we probably would have added it by now.)  — Amakuru (talk) 16:18, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
Amakuru Most ITNR discussions ask that the nominated topic first succeed with a regular ITNC nomination first. We used to write at the top of this page "Please do not oppose an item because it is not on WP:ITN/R." [4] 331dot (talk) 16:35, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
Just to add Amakuru, that your argument is you think it isn't the BAFTAs, Oscars and Emmy awards - which is valid, except, it is literally the BAFTA-Emmys. Kingsif (talk) 17:52, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Just because a recurring event is not listed on ITNR doesn't mean it doesn't qualify for ITN via an ITNC. This was in the news and the article is up to date. British television has worldwide distribution and importance, and the BAFTAs broadly have worldwide recognition. I would generally support blurb2 as most sources focused on Chernobyl's wins despite it not in the normal cats we recognize. --Masem (t) 16:32, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose If the problem with the Emmys was the bias of American voters, the BAFTAs could counter that with British voters. But they go a step further and exclude all foreign productions from consideration. This is a tacit admission that even with British voters, American programs would still win. Thus the BAFTAs establish themselves as an award for second tier programs by rule. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:42, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
  • @GreatCaesarsGhost: Except the BAFTAs changed the rules last year, so that the American co-production Killing Eve could be nominated; now most of the nominees (e.g. Chernobyl) are international co-productions (I think all American). So they fixed that. And anyway, the Emmys also exclude foreign shows except in their international category: you could argue that the Emmys tacitly admit they're second tier because foreign shows could win. Kingsif (talk) 17:14, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
So is the plan here to harass every single editor who opposes your nom to discourage others? First, the Emmy's do not exclude foreign shows - that's an easily disprovable lie as there are several foreign productions in the top categories this year. Let us be more plain - we don't post the junior varsity champions. We don't post Greek Basket League or MLS. The BAFTAs are what you win if you want to get a job on a show that's eligible for an Emmy. GreatCaesarsGhost 22:12, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Harass? Am I not allowed to respond to people blatantly being ignorant? Sorry, GCG, I thought you were reasonable. The fact of the matter is, like the BAFTA Film awards and Oscars, the BAFTA TV awards and Emmys have a massive overlap in nominees - e.g. the international Chernobyl - and we can still post both. You can't assert the BAFTAs are JV when they're just the Emmys, in London. It's ridiculous. Your argument was that the BAFTAs admit they are second string by not nominating foreign shows - something utterly false, and then you attack me for pointing that out. Thanks. Kingsif (talk) 04:30, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
A) you've replied to every oppose. B) you refer to a difference in opinion on a subjective matter as "being ignorant." Yes, this is harassment. GreatCaesarsGhost 14:51, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Because most of the opposes are "it's not American so it doesn't matter", don't mischaracterize my responses and ignore context for your own ad hominem attacks. Kingsif (talk) 20:12, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oh my god, is this "my tv show is better than your television programme, so nah nah nah"?? Claptrap of the highest order. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Rambling Man (talkcontribs)
Not at all, anonymous British person. It is that what is of local interest to you is not automatically important to a global audience. The BAFTAs are for all good TV produced in the UK. The Emmys are for that plus the TV produced everywhere else, including out in Hollywood where (shock) most TV is produced. GreatCaesarsGhost 22:12, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
That comment was left by TRM, by the way. Kingsif (talk) 04:30, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Indeed, unsigned, oopsie. GreatCaesarsGhost would do well to read what Kingsif has just written at the WP:ITNR nomination for BAFTAs to be included annually, just like Emmys. There seems to be a lot of ignorance and nationalism going on, and at the very least we can address the former using facts as laid out by Kingsif. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:46, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. As notable as the Emmys on the global stage, given the worldwide distribution of many of the nominated programmes, and the dual-country productions that regularly appear nowadays. Should be run, despite some of the nationalistic nonsense which sees this as some zero sum game about “winning” something that isn’t being competed. - SchroCat (talk) 18:45, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support altblurb. The article is fine and I'm convinced that this meets the notability criteria. However, there's no reason to mention COVID in the blurb when it's already permanently featured in ITN. Also, the incorporation of the Craft Awards in the last blurb affords a good superlative, but makes it too verbose and confuses the bold link with a different awards ceremony. If Drama & Comedy are the prestigious categories, then the succinct "X wins a, Y wins b" is sufficient. (talk) 06:57, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not of global interest. Not notable to warrant a homepage news post. Also, more than half a week since the event - does not hold newsworthiness. Ktin (talk) 15:01, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
    Items don't need to be "of global interest" and you may not have noticed but three or four days is just fine for ITN inclusion: as long as it's not older than the oldest item up there, that position is baseless. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:48, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Alan Parker[edit]

Article: Alan Parker (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: British film director Alan Parker dies, noted for his wide range of genres, directed films winning nineteen BAFTA awards and six Oscars. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​British film director Alan Parker dies at the age of 76.
News source(s): BBC, Variety, Deadline, The Guardian, NY Times, selections

Nominator's comments: Fairly close to being OK, but a few gaps in citations knocking around that need filling SchroCat (talk) 16:18, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Support A few filmography refs needed, so best to wait for that, but otherwise well-reffed and seems detailed enough. Kingsif (talk) 17:25, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
  • There aren't any gaps on the filmography: there is a link to the BFI at the top of the table that covers all his work. - SchroCat (talk) 17:31, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support with blurb. One of Europe's best directors in history. Would balance the current blurbs about scandals, civil wars, and scams. --Light show (talk) 17:35, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support RD that's good to go, feel free to continue chatting about blurb. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 17:39, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per the above. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 17:45, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD. Consensus that there are no issues with quality. Oppose blurb though, for obvious reasons. He made a few good films, but he's no Mandela or Thatcher.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:48, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb Using the John Lewis standard, impact across the pond was not as great without any notable Academy Awards.—Bagumba (talk) 17:57, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
Not everyone feels that only political figures (ie. Lewis, Mandala, Thatcher) or political topics as in the current blurbs, should be more notable than great artists. Parker won many more awards than even Stanley Kubrick. --Light show (talk) 18:14, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
Light show, I was alluding to the "standard" by which Lewis' blurb was ultimately pulled.—Bagumba (talk) 19:01, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
Exactly. This isn't about tit for tat, I will oppose British or American RDs equally if I think they don't meet the bar. Most people agree that the level of "fame" for old age deaths should be very high, but then start campaigning for a blurb when someone seemingly a household name comes up. The default is no blurb, and if we start from that point we'll keep it at the right level,as we have been doing quite well lately. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 19:15, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
That seems to imply that people like Marilyn Monroe, James Dean, or John Lennon, who because they did not live to a ripe old age, would have been more likely to get a blurb. Then giving a 24-word blurb and portrait photo, for some little known politico like Najib Razak, simply because he was found guilty of a crime, might be hard to explain. --Light show (talk) 19:47, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
Light show can you please explain to me how is significant outside of the UK? Even as a New Yorker who has watched tons of films and many UK films, his name only faintly seems familiar (maybe I'm confusing him with Peter Parker?). The reason Najib Razak has a blurb is because he stole RM 2.67 billion (approximately US$700 million) from the government. This sounds insignificant to you as a Westerner but for many in Malaysia and abroad, this is very big. I'm sure you would support a blurb for a conviction of embezzlement if it dealt with PM May of even Raab. Dantheanimator (talk) 20:38, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
The Guardian obit above and the bio explains why Parker was a transformative influence to the cinema. He resuscitated movie musicals and broke down the barriers between the American and British film industries, among a few reasons. IMO he was among the greatest artists that Britain has produced in the second half of the 20th century, even above the modern canvas artists promoted to greatness by the auction houses. He was a director, not an actor, and like Frank Capra, created from his own ideas to present his own messages, not the studio's, and not just to entertain. But why I noted Najib Razak was because ITN blurbs seem heavily focused on politics, and rarely on the arts, which I feel is a mistake, and itself reduces the value of ITN. Countless RDs are posted of unknown people whose articles had received from 0 to 5 visits per day. --Light show (talk) 21:25, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
@Dantheanimator: As many users at ITN keep saying, if a user claims that their ignorance of a person is a reason for the person to not be notable, it just shows that the user is unfit to judge the person's notability. "But I haven't heard of him" is not a good argument. Kingsif (talk) 21:28, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
Kingsif sorry about that. Yes, you are 100% correct, I remember GreatCeasersGhost brought up this point before in a previous discussion. As such I will change my stance to Neutral since I am unfit to judge this director. However, you should consider also changing your oppose to neutral since you opposition is just as flawed as mine, by saying that "if Kirk Douglas and Olivia de Havilland did not get a blurb, then Alan Parker shouldn't too." Dantheanimator (talk) 18:16, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
I already did change to neutral in my response, you can read why below. Kingsif (talk) 18:20, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
You have a comment after your oppose saying "I may change to neutral for a blurb". You should strike out the oppose because it looks and sounds like you still oppose. Dantheanimator (talk) 18:25, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb per Kirk Douglas and Little Richard, among others. Calidum 20:04, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb (I'm not sure what the equity posturing above is, but Parker is not comparable to John Lewis.) Even with Parker's amazing and international filmography, entertainment blurbs have been given a high bar recently and it would be strange to post Parker and not Kirk Douglas, Olivia de Havilland, etc. ETA: I may change to neutral for a blurb because, re-reading my comment, I feel we may fall into a cycle of "X didn't get a blurb so Y shouldn't", which seems like an unhelpful standard to set. Kingsif (talk) 20:09, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

*Support RD per above consensus. Strongest possible Oppose for blurb I looked at his filmography... for a director he doesn't have many films and of his films, I know almost 0 (and I watched a lot of films). If this were to make it as blurb, ITN would have no value. Dantheanimator (talk) 20:26, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Not even Bugsy Malone? Evita? While I agree with the oppose, I must say if you haven't even heard of these you are not a film buff in the slightest. It would probably be a little far to ask if you've heard of Jaws, but that's the level they're at. And they're both American films, too. Kingsif (talk) 21:25, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
The only film of his I haven't seen yet is Bugsy Malone, LOL. But I'd hesitate to compare his movies to Jaws or any of Spielberg's films, as big as they are. Parker's films were extremely personal, as he always dived deeply into the psyche of his characters. Even movies as different as Midnight Express and his next one, Fame, took the viewer into a highly personal world of the characters. Parker had tremendous respect for the average person, which comes out in most of his films. --Light show (talk) 21:56, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
I meant as cultural landmarks, rather than style, but yes. Kingsif (talk) 22:01, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
I watched Jaws at least 20 times if not more. I've heard of Midnight Express and that's about it of his films. I don't watch comedies that much so it would have been very odd for me to have watched Bugsy Malone. Dantheanimator (talk) 18:30, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

July 2020 Mars launch window[edit]

Article: No article specified
Blurb: ​During a Mars launch window, UAESA launches Hope, CNSA launches Tianwen-1, and NASA launches Perserverance. (Post)

Nominator's comments: There have been three Mars launches this month, and in the NASA launch below there was some support for a joint blurb for all three of these launches.  Nixinova T  C   22:07, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Support per my rationale below. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 23:27, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Consensus below seemed to be on waiting until they land, or reporting of a mission failure. I honestly don't believe we would have had a joint nomination for ITN had only Hope and Tianwen launched, so it still seems not NPOV and just another attempt to include Perserverance. Albertaont (talk) 06:38, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. We agreed we'd post these as and when they land. The launches aren't particularly significant.  — Amakuru (talk) 07:08, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose again, thrice. Launches are humdrum, landings on Mars are highly significant. February please. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 07:33, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support target articles are all pretty thorough, the launch window section of the exploration article does a decent job of explaining the subject. The reason three went up in short order makes sense, but it's still uncommon. It's a 7 month trip, so we can post again when they either blow up or show up. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:36, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per LaserLegs. Dantheanimator (talk) 18:39, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per all three previous discussions. The spacecraft are of no use at all until they land/orbit Mars as planned. We can (and should) post these when they arrive. Launches are only a step in the process. Modest Genius talk 13:09, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) NASA Mars mission[edit]

Consensus will not develop. Can re-evaluate as and when it arrives.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:46, 31 July 2020 (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.

Proposed image
Articles: Perseverance (rover) (talk, history) and Mars Helicopter Ingenuity (talk, history)
Blurb: ​NASA's plutonium-powered Perseverance rover (pictured) and Ingenuity helicopter are launched on a mission to Mars. (Post)
News source(s): Physics Today

Article updated
Nominator's comments: All three articles are in pretty good shape. Wanted to get the helicopter in Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:05, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose recent discussions of Mars launches end up saying 'wait until they blow up or land'. Kingsif (talk) 01:09, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment I've heard that this the first flying, portable drone sent to Mars but otherwise, is this any different than the last Mars missions? Seems to me that the hype is unwarranted. Dantheanimator (talk) 01:22, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Outside of a toy helicopter, this is the same mission and rover as Curiosity. We have litigated this to death with other Mars missions last week; wait until this lands, or "dies trying". Albertaont (talk) 01:30, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
    The helicopter will be the first time a powered craft has flown on another planet. I was surprised that it was possible with Mars's thin atmosphere and all. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:12, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment I would like to see these on ITN -- what about a joint blurb with the other Mars mission(s?) launching at this time.  Nixinova T  C   05:21, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support This is the first Mars mission that is capable to find evidence of past life on Mars if it existed in an abundance similar to here on Earth about 3.8 billion years ago. Count Iblis (talk) 08:11, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
    • We likely won't get any substantial results on ancient Mars life until the samples are returned to Earth, which will be 2029 at the earliest. Modest Genius talk 13:42, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support A combined entry covering the launches of all three missions to Mars would be sensible. We should emphasise the current launch window for the Hohmann transfer orbit which is causing these to all happen at this time. Focussing only on the US mission would not be NPOV. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:19, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose If ITN had decided not to post the other 2 on launch, then we're shouldn't be posting the 3rd one now. We can wait until they arrives now. -- KTC (talk) 08:59, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose wait til it lands like the other similar recent noms JW 1961 Talk 10:08, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment I would support a combined entry for the different Mars mission launches as suggested above (assuming acceptable quality – I haven't checked), but I oppose an entry for just one of the launches – wait until arrival (which is WP:ITN/R). TompaDompa (talk) 10:56, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose rocket launches are very mundane these days, if it had exploded on takeoff or subsequently then it'd be noteworthy. What is noteworthy is when it arrives, so let's see the re-nomination in February! The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 11:02, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Wait for arrival on Mars, just like the other recent launches. Modest Genius talk 11:56, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose unless we did a combined blurb w/ China's mission (There was a third, that was to happen but its slipping my mind). But as it stands it sounds like there's no support for any launch here, only the arrivals. --Masem (t) 13:09, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose – On grounds of encyclopedic equity. Since we didn't post the Mars lander launches of the UAE (July 19) or China (July 23), we certainly can't post this U.S. launch – at least, not without being justifiably accused of POV favoritism. All three probes are due to arrive at Mars in February 2021. Let's wait 'til then. – Sca (talk) 13:30, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support posting combined blurb for all three missions, we can also post landings but it’s unusually notable to have so many Mars missions in a span of weeks. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 18:14, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Renominate after arrival if still relevant. – Ammarpad (talk) 20:09, 31 July 2020 (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.

July 30[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology


(Posted) RD: Bob Dearing[edit]

Article: Bob Dearing (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [5]

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Former member of the Mississippi Senate from 1980 to 2012 and 2016 to 2020. Jon698 (talk) 11:51, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

  • Weak Support The article itself seems pretty decent.--AlphaBeta135 (talk) 01:32, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Posted – Muboshgu (talk) 01:43, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Withdrawal of US troops from Germany[edit]

Consensus will not develop to post. Stephen 00:33, 31 July 2020 (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: United States European Command (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The United States Department of Defense announces the withdrawal of nearly twelve thousand troops from Germany and the relocation of the U.S. European Command from Stuttgart to Mons, Belgium. (Post)
News source(s): NYT, BBC

Article needs updating
Nominator's comments: I think that the ITN community regularly underrates the significance of these great power machinations that don't immediately result in casualties. This is major NATO drama and a blow to US-German relations. The plan was announced earlier and I considered nominating it then, but this is the official confirmation and it increases the scope of the plan. Article is very poorly referenced and not yet updated, but I might work on that later and hopefully other interested individuals will as well. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 21:23, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose I'm no expert but given that the Orange Lie Basket may well not be the POTUS in six months time, this may literally never happen, right? Happy to look at it when it's actioned. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:34, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It's not a total pullout. 331dot (talk) 21:36, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Foreign policy posturing with no certainty that this will actually happen. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:40, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment article is atrocious. It's in the news though, would have supported. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:31, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose I think we need stronger evidence this has larger ramifications (without the media's CRYSTALBALLing here, we need evidence that it will). That's part of the problem with most stories around Trump that get nom is the claim "This is a big deal!" and yet we can't really back that up. --Masem (t) 23:26, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose The US has troops stationed in over 100 countries around the world, including mine. Unless they are all being withdrawn, or at least those from a decent proportion of countries, it's not an appropriate item for ITN. Unless, of course, we want to see over 100 items in turn as they all get withdrawn. HiLo48 (talk) 23:30, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above. Comment If this actually follows through and some other EU countries (most likely Hungary considering Orban's support) join in, I'll consider changing my opinion. This might be the first step towards a EU army, which is huge deal if it materializes. Dantheanimator (talk) 00:38, 31 July 2020 (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.

Hong Kong opposition disqualification[edit]

Article: 2020 Hong Kong legislative election (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Government of Hong Kong disqualifies twelve pro-democracy candidates, who emerged from the first ever pro-democracy primaries, from running in upcoming legislative elections. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​The Government of Hong Kong disqualifies twelve pro-democracy candidates from running in upcoming legislative election.
News source(s): NYT, Reuters, BBC

Article updated

Nominator's comments: More major news out of Hong Kong- if you can't beat them, ban them. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 21:05, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

  • It seems that in the previous election six candidates were disqualified for being pro-independence, but none for being pro-democracy. Someone who follows Hong Kong more closely can weigh in on whether this is truly unprecedented. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 21:42, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose China is a Communist police state. This is how they operate. In other news the sun is expected to rise in the east tomorrow morning. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:37, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Maybe would have been more newsworthy ITN today had Donald not TRUMPED it by suggesting that US elections be delayed in their entirety. Albertaont (talk) 00:34, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
    • Don't worry, that nom was snow closed in 23 minutes. We can keep this one open, maybe even stick it back into ongoing for two more months. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:04, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support: I don't think we should have it on ITN now because more people are going to be disqualified today, and even more is going to get disqualified tomorrow. The final number is likely to be way higher than 12. It is likely for most, if not all winners from the winners of the primaries to get disqualified. I am not sure how big it is for the world, but in Hong Kong context, the disqualification of several conservative democrats (those from Civic Party and Kenneth Leung), is shocking. The disqualification of incumbent lawmakers is unprecedent as well. OceanHok (talk) 04:15, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support They now announced that they will be postponing the elections for a year and so an entry covering these controversial developments would be appropriate. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:39, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
    • Comment Stretch to relate the delaying of elections to this. If they have already disqualified the candidates most threatening to the current administration, wouldn't make sense to delay elections for this reason. Elections in other countries have also been delayed to COVID, and there is a 2nd wave in HK right now bigger than their 1st one. Delay of elections needs to be discussed separately for ITN. Albertaont (talk) 15:53, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per Andrew. A wider blurb about developments in Hong Kong would be notable. —Brigade Piron (talk) 14:49, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Nothing to see here, this is a logical enforcement action of the NatSec law. Those disqualified included pro-democracy activist Joshua Wong (from Reuters) – All one needs to know about the calibre of the 'disqualified' candidates, who are all too comfortable with violence if it suits their cause. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 14:57, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support, it might be unsurprising given what we've seen from China, but it's not normal at least for Hong Kong. And this isn't just some local election in a city like NYC; HK has a quasi-international status. -- King of ♥ 15:00, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Notes: There is a separate article for the disqualification incident: 2020 Hong Kong LegCo candidates' disqualification controversy. OceanHok (talk) 15:40, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Current wording does not consider the fact that "traditional democrat" group have not been disqualified from running, nor even all the candidates in "localist/independence" camp. It looks like 12 of the total 31 democracy group candidates have been disqualified. If more are disqualified, then there is more support for ITN. (talk) 16:13, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
  • We had HK protest on ITN ongoing for ages. The larger story here is that HK no longer has a special status, China will do as it pleases. I don't really care if we post it one more time or not, but posting each step towards authoritarianism is the exact same as the Trump-ticker. GreatCaesarsGhost 18:42, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Lee Teng-hui[edit]

Article: Lee Teng-hui (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NYT, CNA, Reuters

Nominator's comments: First democratically elected President of Taiwan. Significant coverage. Article has a tag though. ƬheStrikeΣagle 15:14, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Support – Article text looks more than adequate, although some sections need documentation (or condensation). – Sca (talk) 16:27, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose article far from adequate, ten whole paragraphs without a single reference. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 16:42, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose till references have been updated. There are specific locations which require citations. However, I am suspecting that there may be a mix of referencing from further reading sections. Otherwise, article seems ok and has been largely stable and improved (after comparing the 2010 more citation tag revision to current revision). – robertsky (talk) 16:47, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Former presidents of countries go on this list Geographyinitiative (talk) 17:34, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
    Not if their articles contain multiple BLP violations. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 20:32, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
    So if it was a stub without those problems, it would be allowed? Tell me what to delete and I will delete it. Tell me what sentnce to add a source to, and I can add it. What other Presidents who died in the recent past have been held up on this pretext? Geographyinitiative (talk) 20:55, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
    No, the article can be brief, but must be relatively comprehensive. Just deleting loads of it is not appropriate. Add sources to all sentences which aren't currently sourced. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:01, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
    No, deleting unsourced material from Wikipedia is the only responsible course of action. If someone finds a source for something later, they can add that content whenever they find that source. The page should be ready now. First Democratically elected President of Taiwan (Republic of China) died, let's inform the people who look at the main page. Geographyinitiative (talk) 04:29, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong Support Should be a no-brainer given he was an influence figure and former head of state. Having an (subjectively) incomplete article shouldn't deter us from listing him on the front page. Also, article history suggests that people are actively trying to clean up the article (yes, I'm aware of editorialising, but this does not seem to be the case), so it should be sufficient in a few hours. In any case, this is a notable death. --AsianHippie (talk) 21:48, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Just as a note for the two !voters above, there is no need for us to argue about whether he's notable enough for recent deaths - all subjects with their own articles are eligible. The quality criterion is a bright line rule though, it can't be sidestepped just because we deem the person more important than others. Deleting prose isn't really acceptable either, unless you're sure it's wrong. As TRM says, go and find sourcing for what's there currently and then we can re-evaluate.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:54, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong Support Clearly notable figure. Article doesn't look worse than some other past RDs. Would be of genuine interest to wiki users even if not perfect. Albertaont (talk) 02:19, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. I just added 7 sources to fill in the gaps. —  AjaxSmack  02:30, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose 10 paragraphs that do not end with a reference, some lacking a single reference. Stephen 03:41, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
@Robertsky and Stephen: Has the situation been corrected with the additional sourcing? On what grounds do you oppose telling the readers he died now? Geographyinitiative (talk) 04:00, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
On the grounds of it being a biography with unreferenced claims. Stephen 04:06, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
@Robertsky and Stephen: Such as? Geographyinitiative (talk) 04:22, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
@Geographyinitiative: 10 paragraphs that do not end with a reference, some lacking a single reference. Do you not understand what that means? Stephen 05:21, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
@Amakuru: @The Rambling Man: Changes have been made to the page. Are there any further obstacles to telling the readers that the former President of Taiwan died? Geographyinitiative (talk) 04:25, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Are there any remaining objections? Geographyinitiative (talk) 06:07, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
    @Geographyinitiative: I have reverted your deletion of material from the article. Much of that material looks to be correct, and is important for the article - e.g. details on how he stepped down and who his successor was. We have established before at ITN that simply removing chunks of an article, even though they lack citations, is not a solution to objections raised here. Please go and find citations for the sections which are missing them, and than we can look again. As such, I still have to oppose for now. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 07:03, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
    I remain in objection while uncited claims are made. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 07:19, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
    @Geographyinitiative: As I have mentioned, the text is possibly supported by the book in the further reading section, judging from the preview in Google Books. I would like to do the citations myself today, but then the public libraries at where I am are closed for a holiday, barring myself from reading the book for the day. In the meantime, as many of us here have done so, we have been sourcing for alternative references to help support the claims here. Nonetheless, the parts of the article remains unsourced. – robertsky (talk) 08:48, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
    @Robertsky: I believe it is morally unconscionable to add or restore material to a Wikipedia page for which you are not personally aware of the sources. Geographyinitiative (talk) 00:30, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
    @Geographyinitiative: uh huh. I have to clarify that I wasn't the one who added or restore material. Did you even take a look at the edit history and find out who did it? However, I support the reversion and here's my 2 cents' worth on the matter, the text had been largely stable for at least decade or so. I would have assume that if there were any disputes about the veracity of the claims in the text, these would have been trashed out somehow somewhen, but had not cited either properly or explicitly the sources of the claims, which lead to the appearance of the text being underreferenced. By default, we should try to fix the problem here, failing which, we then remove the unverifiable text. Earlier in this entry, I did mention that the text may be supported by the book in the Further reading section, and this was based on the limited preview I read through Google Books, thus reinforcing my view that the content referencing could be fixed. It is demonstrably fixable since the reversion of your content removal with the subsequent edits done by various editors to include references from various sources. – robertsky (talk) 04:24, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support All we're doing with an RD entry is saying that the person is dead and so that's the only fact that matters. More general issues of article quality are not the business of ITN. If subjects are in the news then they will be getting lots of readers regardless – over 25K in this case yesterday. In such cases, Wikipedia therefore has to rely on its general policy of imperfection and the corresponding disclaimers which appear on the main page, just like every other page. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:45, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
    No, BLP means we don't publicise articles about individuals completely steeped in unreferenced claims. It's very simple, and nothing to do with "imperfection". The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 10:52, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
    The article in question is vital and is grade B class, which is quite good by Wikipedia standards. Attempting to impose separate and idiosyncratic standards is absurd because readers can and do read the article in large numbers regardless. The quality of the ITN section is reduced by such errors of omission. If the casual reader should happen to notice that RD is snubbing this prominent figure they are likely to suppose that this is bias – kowtowing to the PRC by failing to recognise Taiwan or just failing to notice someone because they are not UK/US. My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:13, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
    We discussed the "B grade" yesterday, remember? Anyway, WP:BLP trumps your concerns to rush horrendously under-sourced material to the main page of encyclopedia. I'm not sure how many times we have to tell you the same thing. If you disagree with how ITN functions, start an RFC to use it as a shop window for unsourced and sub-standard articles. Until then, repeating the same argument time and again but doing nothing about it is a waste of everyone's time. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 12:11, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
    WP:BLP is quite irrelevant because the subject is dead and the article is being read in large numbers regardless. All that's happening here is putting a brief link into RD so all this huffing and puffing is hyperbole. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:42, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
    Perhaps you need to read the policy before making such erroneous claims. In fact, if ITN was to follow your two main paradigms (1 – post popular stories irrespective of their encyclopedic value, 2 – post articles regardless of their quality and verifiability) I think we'd end up with the Daily Mail on the front page. Nein danke. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 12:44, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
    The sources supplied for this above are the New York Times; CNA; and Reuters. Simply providing a link to a death reported by these reliable sources is not a big deal. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:03, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
    You still haven't read the policy. Don't just cherry-pick. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 13:13, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Changing to support - I have found citations for almost everything now, and others have amended bits of text, also with cites, so I think this is finally ready to go now. I'll not post immediately, just in case anyone spots any lingering problems but marking as ready.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:49, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
    Yeah, I'd say it's satis now, good work. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 15:19, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD - no objections after I marked it ready, and it seems that all reasons for opposing are cleared now.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:06, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Herman Cain[edit]

Article: Herman Cain (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [6]

 – Muboshgu (talk) 14:44, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Oppose a couple of citation needed tags, otherwise seems satis. I wondered what happened to him, RIP. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 14:49, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
    John M Wolfson, no cn tags left. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:41, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Multiple news outlets have now confirmed his death. [7], [8], [9] - Jgeorge20 —Preceding undated comment added 15:00, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Seems to be a direct result of the Tulsa rally. Sad! Davey2116 (talk) 15:46, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support x 9-9-9 pbp 15:50, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Posted by Valereee. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 16:45, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Blurb? Not for his death alone, but for the fact that he is, I believe, now the biggest celebrity to die of COVID-19 who wasn't an octogenarian or otherwise already sick. BD2412 T 01:53, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
    • Absolutley not, particularly given there wasn't consensus to post John Lewis, who, in the same "field", was significantly much more influential. --Masem (t) 01:57, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
    John Lewis was not a pizza lobby chairman. Herman Cain was not a civil rights congressman. But as old black cable news subjects, yeah, Lewis was bigger. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:49, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) July 2020 Afghanistan attacks[edit]

No consensus to post. Stephen 23:54, 3 August 2020 (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: July 2020 Afghanistan attacks (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Nine Taliban militants, including two leaders, are killed by security forces during clashes in Ghazni Province, Afghanistan. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Following clashes in Ghazni Province, Afghanistan, 9 Taliban militants are left dead.
News source(s): [10];

Article updated
Nominator's comments: A bit short but with some work I think it'll make it. This is my first image nom so if I made a mistake, please correct me. Dantheanimator (talk) 17:04, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose - thanks for the nom, but the article isn't really in a suitable state for posting now. It has no lead and sections so is not really structured correctly, and also no proper prose - it's just a bulleted list of timeline entries. Also, I'd have to question the significance of it... regrettable though it is, unless I'm mistaken incidents of this nature are commonplace in Afghanistan. What is particularly notable about this one, compared with all the others at Category:2020 murders in Afghanistan and related pages? Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 17:12, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose as the article is really a list of discrete sentences. Out of curiosity, what's the relevance of the mountain image? ——Serial 17:14, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
Serial Number 54129 The mountain image is an image taken from Ghazni Province, which where the incident occurred. I personally though put the image with the nom because I think it's just breathtaking and cool. It is one of those natural wonders you don't see often in my opinion. Dantheanimator (talk) 17:27, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping back. I've scratched my oppose as the issue I raised has been dealt with. I agree it's a great picture, but it's too tangential to the reader to be of any particular use to the reader, I'm afraid. (That's only my opinion though.) ——Serial 19:06, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Two stub tags are present at the bottom of this article. Also, there isn't any prose in it.--AlphaBeta135 (talk) 17:13, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
    • Weak Support This article now have proses and is sufficiently sized. However, the image doesn't really correlate to the attacks in Afghanistan.--AlphaBeta135 (talk) 18:36, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
      • Comment Updated my post after the image is gone.--AlphaBeta135 (talk) 21:02, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment Working on adding prose in the background section and modifying the format. Will try my best to make this a suitable article. Would appreciate assistance from any veteran editors. Dantheanimator (talk) 17:27, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Wait lets give the OP time to turn this into our run-of-the-mill disaster stub like the bus plunge or South Sudan attacks before shutting it down with a wall of opposes. Killing two Taliban leaders might generate a few paragraphs of prose. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:34, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
LaserLegs "like the bus plunge or South Sudan attacks" You meant to say Sudan attacks, not South Sudan attacks. It a very easy mistake that I also made it lots of time before. I think it helps if you remember that Darfur is in Sudan and that Sudan has arguably more violence than South Sudan. Otherwise, I guess just think of the desert when you think of Darfur (when I think of desert, Sudan comes more naturally to me than South Sudan, which is sub-Saharan). Dantheanimator (talk) 18:45, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
My apologies. I also confuse the Carolinas. Sorry about that. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:48, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
Don't worry about it. :) I do the same mistakes all the time. Once last year in my history class I confused Siberia with Serbia lol. We all make mistakes, just human. Dantheanimator (talk) 19:28, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Serial Number 54129, LaserLegs, Amakuru, AlphaBeta135, I fixed the lead and changed the timeline to prose. I think it should be now or near ready. Dantheanimator (talk) 18:23, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
    • Pretty close. Try expanding the infobox with a map. There is an example here. If you have a quote from Ghani you can put it in a reactions section and it'll be good to go. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:44, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
Thank you LaserLegs for all the help and support! I added a map using your sample and a statement by Ghani. It looks ready. Dantheanimator (talk) 19:28, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment Finished fixing and expanding the article. I'll remove the image since there is opposition toward it. It's a pity though, was hoping this great image can be displayed on the homepage. Dantheanimator (talk) 19:35, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak Support A string of attacks in short succession is probably notable article is as good as the Darfur attack. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:04, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose- Source does not demonstrate notability of the event. Not even the deadliest attack in Afghanistan this week, and just because it's the bad guys getting killed doesn't make it more newsworthy. Practically no information is available about the importance of these "leaders." Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 21:33, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
Bzweebl would it help if you compared it to the Darfur attacks (which are posted) or even the Anshun bus plunge? Regarding the info on the "leaders", I doubt the Taliban or really most if any "terrorist" organization would divulge that sort of sensitive info. If I made an alt-blurb that combined the Puli Alam explosion and this would you reconsider? Dantheanimator (talk) 03:02, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
This particular attack was not covered in most major international news sources. That should be enough to disqualify it. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 20:53, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Close support for this will not develop anytime soon. Dantheanimator (talk) 18:46, 1 August 2020 (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) Donald Trump calls for the US election to be delayed indefinitely[edit]

Perhaps the SNOW will also be delayed from November? :P – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 13:33, 30 July 2020 (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: 2020 United States presidential election (talk, history)
Blurb: Donald Trump calls for the 2020 United States presidential election to be delayed indefinitely (Post)
News source(s): BBC

Article needs updating
 Count Iblis (talk) 13:10, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose a mere statement (on Twitter!) from Trump. Iff the election is actually postponed, that could be worth posting on ITN. Political posturing is not. Let's wait to see what happens. Modest Genius talk 13:13, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose more nonsense from the orange wonder. Once it's postponed, we can re-visit. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 13:15, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose ITN is not a Trump ticker.-- P-K3 (talk) 13:27, 30 July 2020 (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) Huawei[edit]

Consensus will not develop to post. Stephen 00:38, 31 July 2020 (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.

Articles: Huawei (talk, history) and Samsung (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Chinese mobile brand Huawei becomes the leading mobile smartphone brand in the world surpassing Samsung in the overseas sales during second quarter of 2020 amid the COVID-19 pandemic. (Post)
News source(s): CNN; CNBC;

Article updated
Nominator's comments: A prominent news in technology Abishe (talk) 08:49, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose we don't post "routine" business news. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 09:33, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment another one I'd be willing to consider with a better target article (maybe Smartphone#Sales) and a more subdue blurb. With respect to John we post routine sports, routine weather, routine politics, we can post routine business too if it's in the news and has an article worthy of putting on the main page. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:07, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
    • With the exception of politics, we don't post "routine" (as opposed to recurrent) examples of any of those, just important stuff such as storms and championships. Likewise with business, this is material for Forbes and not the ITN section. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 15:34, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose trivia. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 11:51, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Far too limited of a market segement. If we were talking of all businesses regardless of market, maybe. --Masem (t) 15:19, 30 July 2020 (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) Apple, Amazon, Google and Facebook face anti-trust charges[edit]

SNOW close. SpencerT•C 14:06, 30 July 2020 (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.

Articles: Google (talk, history) and Amazon (company) (talk, history)
Blurb: ​American tech giant companies Google, Amazon, Apple Inc. and Facebook are questioned before Congress for alleged harmful power and anti-competitive strategies to quash potential competitors in the market. (Post)
News source(s): BBC; CNN;

Article updated
Nominator's comments: A prominent news in technology Abishe (talk) 08:49, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose we don't post Congressional testimonies; even if this were a court of law we'd wait until the conviction or plea deal. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 09:34, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment it's in the news, I'd be willing to consider it but the articles are huge. "Criticism of Google" has a dedicated article for goodness sake. If you want to start an article Endless whining about big tech by Donald Trump or similar and detail the years long saga, and write a less flamboyant blurb, it might stand a chance of posting. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:03, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppsoe realy? Alsoriano97 (talk) 10:35, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Legislatures around the world hear testimony every day. Nothing special about this one. Modest Genius talk 11:32, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per John M Wolfson. Em-mustapha talk 11:46, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose if they are convicted of something, let's post that. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 11:52, 30 July 2020 (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) Stonehenge[edit]

No consensus to post poor article. Stephen 23:53, 3 August 2020 (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.

Proposed image
Article: Stonehenge (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The source of the sarsens of Stonehenge (pictured) is discovered (Post)
News source(s): BBC; Guardian; South China Morning Post

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Science in the summer sunshine – the story has good assonance Andrew🐉(talk) 08:02, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
Lots of projects have an interest in the topic and they mostly grade it as B-class which one would have thought was good enough for ITN. As the topic is level 4 vital, this is a good opportunity to push it up a level. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:26, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
Sadly no, the B class/"vital" level 4 is irrelevant here. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 09:37, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
Compare with the current blurbs. 1Malaysia Development Berhad scandal and 2020 Twitter bitcoin scam are C class. 2020 Darfur attacks is just start class. Anyway, I found a few {{citation needed}} and I've taken care of them. The article now has over a hundred citations and a huge bibliography. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:34, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
I think Stonehenge would be a very worthy front page article link. But I guess the news story might be bigger if you live in Marlborough. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:41, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
Yes, you've proved your own point to be incorrect, we don't pay heed to the "class" or whether some individual has deemed it "vital", we look at the quality of the article standalone from those arcane practices. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 10:43, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
Well done Andrew for proving your own point to be incorrect. I often seem to manage that. But then I'm all too fond of those arcane practices. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:53, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose not particularly significant, although a good story. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 09:35, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment Always great to see assonance on the front page. How about "The secret source of the stunning sarsens of Stonehenge suddenly shown"? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:56, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Question: has this research been published in a peer-reviewed journal? The Guardian story says 'published on Wednesday' but doesn't say where, and the BBC doesn't mention it. It's an interesting story, but peer review should be a minimum requirement before we even think about article quality. Modest Genius talk 11:37, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
    Science Advances here. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:40, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
    Thanks to Martin for those links. It's good that the paper was published under a CC licence so that we are free to read it for ourselves. The authors were charged $4,500 for this publication so we should count our blessings that the WMF doesn't charge us thousands of dollars to publish articles in Wikipedia too. We just have our own bureaucratic barriers to deal with ... Andrew🐉(talk) 12:26, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
    Support. Thanks, that's a very nice paper and the results are convincing. Article quality seems fine to me - it would be nice if there were more explicit footnotes, but all controversial statements seem to be suitably sourced. Modest Genius talk 12:39, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose as trivia, except for Chevy Chase. ——Serial 12:29, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Note that the story does have a quirky US angle to it: "Employee Robert Phillips kept it in pride of place in his office, which he later took with him when he emigrated to the US, and its existence remained unknown for six decades." Martinevans123 (talk) 13:58, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose as a minor mystery solved but changes little of our understanding of Stonehenge. (I'd love a main page section that's not quite DYK, not quite ITN for these nice quirky tidbits, but this qualifies for neither). --Masem (t) 15:22, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support This is fine ITN material of high encyclopedic value revolving around a resolved mystery summarised in a nice scientific paper. I wish we had more similar stories nominated for the main page.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:23, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support as per above. Comment If anybody is planning to ever go to stonehenge, I strongly advise you against going. The Avebury Stone Circles are older, larger, and cheaper than Stonehenge and are also located in the UK. Dantheanimator (talk) 20:19, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
  • No, I went to Stonehenge, got there early, was the only person walking around. It was beautiful and inspiring. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 20:33, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
    It is actually possible to see Stonehenge for free using a public footpath which runs nearby, if you're prepared to walk a little away from the nearest parking spots! I wouldn't agree that it's not worth visiting anyway. Avebury's nice too (I've been to both in the past) but it doesn't have the cross beams that make Stonehenge so recognisable...  — Amakuru (talk) 20:37, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
This is completely off topic, but I agree that Avebury is more impressive than Stonehenge. Nevertheless it's still worth visiting both - they're only a few miles apart and easy to visit on the same afternoon. Modest Genius talk 20:39, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
"Stonehenge B&B" at Slades Farm: reasonable rates. Hippies welcome. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:47, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
Very interesting, thanks everyone for the insight. I personally have never been to the UK or Western Europe so I had no clue of their close proximity. Going to be honest though I still think Avebury's got more going for it. Dantheanimator (talk) 01:02, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
Bah! Just a cheap imitation. Some of Avebury's stones are made of concrete! Martinevans123 (talk) 06:39, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment there are numerous unreferenced paragraphs, several unreferenced sections and multiple unreferenced claims. If we want to start using ITN as a shop-front for articles which need improvement then I'll support. I don't think that's part of the current ITN criteria, so until then this can't be featured. I realise there's a gut instinct to want to feature something as notable as Stonehenge, almost by default, but as we all know, the sheer number of refs is somewhat irrelevant when large portions of teh article have no references. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 20:42, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support- science stories are underrepresented and, unusually for such stories, this is of popular interest. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 20:45, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Not front-page worthy compared to the scientific discoveries or revelations we feature - it confirmed a "suspicion" according to archaeologist Susan Greaney. -- Fuzheado | Talk 11:01, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Outside of anglo-centricism, no relevance whatsoever for ITN. Does not advance our understanding of science or culture. To compare, Mars probes were 10x more interesting, and that was nearly SNOW closed.Albertaont (talk) 00:37, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Stonehenge is a World Heritage Site and so of interest to the entire world. And the estimate of 10 times is quite mistaken. Consider the readership for the last week. Stonehenge got more peak readership than any of the three Mars missions and more than any of the three ITN blurbs too. ITN's selection of blurbs is of appalling quality, failing to reflect what's actually in the news. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:15, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Andrew Davidson I agree with you that this should be accepted but can you please stop using page views as evidence? Also, there are many UNESCO sites around the world, no different with this one. There also much worser/larger stuff happening with other UNESCO sites, like Virunga National Park, a UNESCO cite in the DRC, which was attacked yesterday! I feel like your looking at the news through your own lens, maybe try looking it through some individual in the Eastern world and see whats in the news for them. It's certainly not Stonehenge or other Western cultural items. Dantheanimator (talk) 02:15, 2 August 2020 (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.

July 29[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

(Posted) RD: Bob McCurdy[edit]

Article: Bob McCurdy (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Richmond Times-Dispatch, Radio and Television Business Report

Article updated

Nominator's comments: American college basketball player who led the nation in scoring in 1975. —Bagumba (talk) 10:34, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Joe Kernan (politician)[edit]

Stale, unimproved. Stephen 23:50, 3 August 2020 (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: Joe Kernan (politician) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [12]

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Governor of Indiana, Lieutenant Governor of Indiana, and Mayor of South Bend Jon698 (talk) 03:28, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment I have some concerns about the tone of the article which strikes me as bordering on a puff piece. I also note that while at first glance the article appears well referenced, many of the citations are to nakedly promotional sources. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:26, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per AO. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 10:48, 31 July 2020 (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: Mike Gillespie (baseball)[edit]

Article: Mike Gillespie (baseball) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Associated Press; Los Angeles Times

Article updated

 Bloom6132 (talk) 03:06, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Support Decent article and adequately sourced. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:10, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
  • There's a lot in the second half of the infobox that's not mentioned or referenced in the body, including awards. Stephen 05:33, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
  • @Stephen: added two sources to the infobox (end of the awards section). —Bloom6132 (talk) 06:09, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 06:25, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Malik B.[edit]

Stale, unimproved. Stephen 23:49, 3 August 2020 (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: Malik B. (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): CNN; Rolling Stone
Nominator's comments: Founding member of The Roots CoatCheck (talk) 01:03, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose too short, no update on death, refs are bare urls/citations missing. When the article is improved, obvious support. Kingsif (talk) 01:28, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now per Kingsif. Needs work. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:08, 30 July 2020 (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: Perence Shiri[edit]

Article: Perence Shiri (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Associated Press; Reuters

Article updated

 Bloom6132 (talk) 05:33, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Support pretty well referenced article JW 1961 Talk 12:54, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support, although some work on the prose would certainly be beneficial. Nice to have a Covid-19 good news story for a change! —Brigade Piron (talk) 16:37, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
😃 ——Serial 12:33, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Gisèle Halimi[edit]

Stale, unimproved. Stephen 23:48, 3 August 2020 (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: Gisèle Halimi (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): France24
 Manish2542 (talk) Manish2542 (talk) 11:35, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment – Orange-tagged. – Sca (talk) 12:40, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment Also needs some ISBN's JW 1961 Talk 12:50, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
  • ISBN's done, turned works into easier-to-read table w/ translated titles. PotentPotables (talk) 17:41, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Insufficient depth of coverage regarding her career/work as a writer. SpencerT•C 14:10, 30 July 2020 (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: Andy Haden[edit]

Stale, unimproved. Stephen 23:47, 3 August 2020 (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: Andy Haden (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Associated Press; The New Zealand Herald

Article updated
 Bloom6132 (talk) 05:33, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Short article but all seems to be referenced well JW 1961 Talk 12:48, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Article can do with expansion but what's there is solid. Very influential player. Schwede66 19:38, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
  • @Spencer, Stephen, and Amakuru: I think this is ready to go. —Bloom6132 (talk) 01:11, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
  • The reference for cheating and unsporting conduct does not assign those terms to him. There's undue weight about a single event in a match against Wales, but next to nothing about his 40 other appearances for one of the most revered teams in Rugby. Stephen 05:25, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
    I have to agree. I had this tab open on my browser ready to look to support but it just didn't feel right, that an All Black with 40 appearances had such a one-sided article. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 06:47, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
  • @Stephen and The Rambling Man: just added 4 sources that assign the terms "cheating" and "unsporting". And most of them describe more than just that one incident against Wales. —Bloom6132 (talk) 08:44, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
  • That doesn’t solve the problem that not a single other match or tour is worthy of mention? Or his club career? Just a single match controversy making the majority of the content. Stephen 10:01, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
  • @Stephen: just added 5 more sentences about his other activities. —Bloom6132 (talk) 10:41, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above. Needs a major rewrite, as it's completely unbalanced right now and seriously fails WP:NPOV and the WP:BLP policy.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:26, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
  • @Amakuru: please have a look again at the additional material just added. —Bloom6132 (talk) 10:41, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
    Regretfully, no, it's still an oppose from me. As I said above, it needs a major rewrite. A few tweaks aren't going to make this conform to BLP policy. Even the later years section seems to focus more than half of its prose on yet another "controversy" regarding his book. I've no idea of its history but the article's tone doesn't seem to square at all with the largely positive stories I'm seeing in the headlines.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:40, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Insufficient depth of coverage regarding his rugby playing career. SpencerT•C 14:12, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

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

(Removed) George Floyd protests[edit]

Article: George Floyd protests (talk, history)
Ongoing item removal (Post)
Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: No update has been made to the article about any recent development for a week now. This is no longer ongoing and stale. Invisible Lad (talk) 03:42, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Tentative oppose the Portland stuff is still very much ongoing from what I can tell on Twitter, but that is admittedly not the best source. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 03:46, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose With large events like the Floyd protests or previously the Hong Kong protests, where the event has gone on so long that there is a summary-style structure with subpages covering different facets/timeframes of the event, we have to look the updates at those pages, as the smaller details may not be appropriate to be adding to the main event page. As as pointed out, the Portland protests are still very much happening and ITN (as legal action is being taken). --Masem (t) 03:58, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
    • we have to look the updates at those pages -- is this an explicit Ongoing criterion?  Nixinova T  C   07:12, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
      • The ITN wording for ongoing says "In order to be posted to ongoing, the article needs to be regularly updated with new, pertinent information.". Common sense should be obvious that when the target article is so large (likely due to the longevity of the ongoing event) to have summary style breakdowns that the target article may no longer be the one regularly updated. This is, for all purposes, how the Olympic and World Cup articles are normally structured too. --Masem (t) 15:11, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
        • The main article needs to be updated, which is exactly what happens with the Olympic and World Cup articles that we list in ongoing. Stephen 02:48, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support The article linked on the Main page does not have any events dated later than 20 July. Stephen 04:19, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support and replace with an article on the ongoing situation in Portland. Banedon (talk) 04:38, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now Portland situation is still ongoing and still notable in ITN. (talk) 04:57, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support If Portland protest lives, let's watch that. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:33, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support if "Portland protests" is so significant, let someone propose a blurb for it. This ongoing has expired. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 07:24, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
  • So where are the updates in George Floyd protests in Portland, Oregon? Again, no significant updates for anything in the last week? Stephen 08:04, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support, per above. The continuing protests, by virtue of their size and extent, are no longer globally notable. —Brigade Piron (talk) 09:29, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Clearly no longer "ongoing". – Ammarpad (talk) 10:09, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support long overdue --LaserLegs (talk) 11:22, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support It's not so newsworthy anymore JW 1961 Talk 12:42, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak support - It's fair to say at this point the protests have become less about George Floyd and more about, rather paradoxically, the federal government's response to the protests.--WaltCip-(BLM!Resist The Orange One) 12:49, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per above.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:53, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. Probably could've been taken down sooner. Awsomaw (talk) 14:24, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong support no longer ongoing despite still happening. (talk) 15:02, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
  • @Spencer, Stephen, and Amakuru: It seems we have an overwhelming support for removal. Invisible Lad (talk) 15:17, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Removed -- KTC (talk) 16:02, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per nom, let's focus on other things. Em-mustapha talk 18:12, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
  • PR Support It's time. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:16, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose -- Obviously given that it's been removed, my opposition is moot now, but protests are continuing beyond just in Portland. Last Saturday someone was shot and killed in Austin, while Seattle and other cities are still seeing action. -- Rockstone[Send me a message!] 05:52, 31 July 2020 (UTC)


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 [] 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: