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.

Alexander Lukashenko
Alexander Lukashenko

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.

Headers[edit]

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pulled from the main page are generally marked with (Posted) or (Pulled) in the item's subject so it is clear they are no longer active.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

Voicing an opinion on an item[edit]

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

Please do not...[edit]

  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

Archives[edit]

August 14[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

August 13[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

(Posted) Israel–United Arab Emirates peace agreement[edit]

Article: Israel–United Arab Emirates peace agreement (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Israel and the United Arab Emirates agree to normalize relations. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​Israel and the United Arab Emirates sign a peace treaty, agreeing to normalize relations and suspend the proposed annexation of the Jordan Valley.
Alternative blurb II: ​The United Arab Emirates becomes the first Gulf Arab country to sign a peace treaty with Israel.
Alternative blurb III: ​Israel and the United Arab Emirates agree to a peace deal to normalize relations.
News source(s): BBC, NYTimes, WAPost
Credits:

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Developing. Breaking news. Sherenk1 (talk) 15:27, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

  • Wait Support until more information comes out. Currently only 1 sentence in the entire article about this. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 15:46, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Will change to Support if there is more information on the article than a few sentences. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 15:59, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
Destroyeraa I changed the target article. It is a decently long article. Dan the Animator (Commons Room) 17:50, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
Changed to ‘’’Support’’’ per others. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 20:15, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment - Note as per BBC: The agreement marks only the third Israel-Arab peace deal since Israel's declaration of independence in 1948. Egypt signed a deal in 1979, and Jordan in 1994.Sherenk1 (talk) 15:51, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
Sherenk1 and also the 3rd Arab country to establish diplomatic relations/official recognition or Israel. Dan the Animator (Commons Room) 16:52, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
They haven't signed a treaty yet, even if they intend to. 331dot (talk) 16:13, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support very historic, I'd even say another 2009 Nobel Peace Prize for breathing might be in the works for people although this one might be deserved for a peace deal between two nations. Sir Joseph (talk) 16:20, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Wait until its signed, which should be RSN. This should give time to get the details and articles up to speed. But this seems to have clear merit if this is true, since it has Israel agreeing not to touch the West Bank. --Masem (t) 16:22, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
Masem no, Israel is agreeing to delay/pause/freeze any territorial acquisitions/annexation of the West bank (namely the Jordan Valley). The accord does not mean Israel won't annex Jordan Valley, it just means it will be delayed until further notice. Dan the Animator (Commons Room) 17:59, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Wait. This could be worth posting if/when it happens, but an announcement by Trump is not a reliable indication that anything will actually happen. Modest Genius talk 16:24, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Wait Needs more information, not enough text at ANY Wikipedia article about it to assess for quality, needs more details at Wikipedia. --Jayron32 16:35, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support in principle but Wait per Masem JW 1961 Talk 16:37, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support and proposing alt blurb. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ) 16:41, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Very Strong Support Thank you Sherenk1 for posting this, I was considering to post it until I saw that you already did. This has got to be one of the biggest improvements for peace in months not only in the Middle East, but for the world. If this holds, the UAE is the 3rd Arab country to officially have diplomatic relations with Israeli. שלום בבית שלום בעולם. Dan the Animator (Commons Room) 16:48, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Wait per Masem above; support once signed. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 17:04, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Wait These "peace treaties" have a history of falling apart at the last minute. Lets wait till the formal signing. We need more than just an annoucement from US administration. Albertaont (talk) 17:26, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
    Albertaont, do you mean the joint statement from Israel and the UAE? Sir Joseph (talk) 17:39, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak Support as the agreement is just one step away from signing this peace treaty.--AlphaBeta135 (talk) 17:50, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support it's only the 3rd Arab League country to sign a peace treaty with Israel, previous ones being in 1979 and 1994. 2601:602:9200:1310:C32:F8B2:ACB9:6FF9 (talk) 18:36, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support since the agreement and formal anouncement was made, a retaraction of the deal is highly unlikely and therefore I believe this news should be displayed now. Additionaly, it is verified to be true as it was mentioned by the Israeli prime minister and the UAE ruler, both crediting President Trump. As mentioned by others, this is historic. Chessedit (talk) 19:08, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong Support As they user who firstly updated the article I can say that it is an historic deal than is obviously worth inclusion in the news. Idan (talk) 20:55, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support mostly because there's a newly created article in decent shape. Per WP:ITN, "an editor may write an in-depth update on a topic normally considered marginal, thus convincing commenters that it is deserving of inclusion." Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 21:43, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support as historic event, information now supported by several credible sources, and with a good article on this event shaping up. --Chefallen (talk) 22:11, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment I see 5 Waits and 13 Supports. There is 0 Opposition. I think this has the consensus to be posted. This is ready. Dan the Animator (Commons Room) 22:12, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak Support Interesting and certainly more relevant than the Indian plane crash. I say put it up but only if it replaces that, the rest of the things in the box are more important This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 23:18, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
Orbitalbuzzsaw I think it may be possible to put all of them up at the same time; no removing necessary. Dan the Animator (Commons Room) 23:24, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
Dantheanimator} If that's possible it would be good; you could also get rid of the golf line. I've only ever seen 4 articles at a time on ITN though so IDK. This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 01:15, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
Orbitalbuzzsaw I would imagine that the reason the admins don't post more than 4 usually is for lack of space but considering that 1 of the events, the PGA win, is only 1 line long, I think that may make just enough extra space for 1 extra 1-line event. You're probably right though, they're probably going to remove 1 of the events (preferably the PGA win, in my opinion). Dan the Animator (Commons Room) 01:49, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support altblurb2 Very significant development in IR. Gotitbro (talk) 01:32, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
Shouldn't it be "The United Arab Emirates" not "United Arab Emirates"? This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 02:04, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
Yes, good catch Orbitalbuzzsaw. Fixed it just now. Dan the Animator 02:09, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
Now that I think about it, altblurb2 was indeed sensationalist as noted below. Significant nonetheless. Gotitbro (talk) 06:26, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose – All the current suggested blurbs. No treaty has been signed yet. Alt2 is also a little too similar to how a newspaper would sensationalize this story. We are an encyclopedia. Just state the facts similar to Alt1, but without saying it has been signed: "... agree to a peace accord to normalize ..." --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 02:57, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Posted. -- King of ♥ 03:04, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
    King of Hearts, the article does not say the agreement has been signed. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 03:13, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
    Post-posting Edit to Blurb Required. Hey folks. They have not signed a treaty as of yet. Can we edit the blurb, please. Ktin (talk) 03:16, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
    Fixed. -- King of ♥ 03:15, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
    Thanks King of Hearts. Minor Edit - "Israel and the United Arab Emirates strike a peace agreement to normalize relations." can we change this to "Israel and the United Arab Emirates agree to a peace deal to normalize relations. Alternately, substitute 'deal' with 'accord' as Coffeeandcrumbs suggests. I have updated AltBlurb3 as well. Cheers. Ktin (talk) 03:26, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
    Blurb edit request: The current blurb has a grammar mistake in it. It currently reads "Israel and the United Arab Emirates agree a peace deal to normalize relations." but it should be "Israel and the United Arab Emirates agree to a peace deal to normalize relations." (emphasis added) --Gimmethegepgun (talk) 05:52, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
    Tagging Stephen to assist. Ktin (talk) 06:09, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
Note: A corresponding error report has also been posted at WP:ERRORS. TribunalMan (talk) 05:59, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 Done. As I noted at ERRORS, "agree a peace deal" seems like valid grammar to me - perhaps it's an ENGVAR thing. Anyway, "agree to" works just as well, so I've amended it to that. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 06:43, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

August 12[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

Sports

(Ready) RD: Mac Jack[edit]

Article: Mac Jack (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Independent Online, News24
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: COVID-19 death. LefcentrerightDiscuss 21:46, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

  • Support Short but basically adequate and decently referenced. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:11, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support short article but sourcing seems good. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 05:15, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Comment Not a name a lot of households could put a face to, but one all English-speaking people might reasonably enjoy reading and find intriguing. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:37, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose lots of facts in the infobox not referenced. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 06:45, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
Ah, lay back with the flack attack and cut Mac Jack some slack, brother! If you say they're a lot of facts, isn't that proof enough? I believe you, anyway. Any you're doubtful about to some problematic degree? I'll try to sniff out the truth, no promises though. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:13, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
Many of the dates of office and preceding/followed by are not mentioned in the prose at all and are hence unverifiable. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 07:24, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
I hadn't realized things had gotten that bad, I'm out! InedibleHulk (talk) 07:42, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - decent enough for RD.BabbaQ (talk) 08:17, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment - @InedibleHulk and The Rambling Man: Go take a look now. You could've just looked in the sources. LefcentrerightDiscuss 14:22, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose Similar to many politicians nominated at RD, a lot of positions listed, with limited if any description of what was done or accomplished in those positions ("resume in prose format"). Otherwise decently referenced. SpencerT•C 16:09, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per above. Should be satisfactory for RD. Dan the Animator (Commons Room) 17:06, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. Article looks good. RIP. Ktin (talk) 17:12, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - I've fixed up refs for most of the dates and predecessors/successors in the infobox. I think the others are in the prose. Marking as ready, unless anyone can spot any other errors.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:14, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support and while I "could've just looked in the sources", that's not really the point. Good to go. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 22:24, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
  • This is ready I'm counting 7 Supports and 1 Oppose. This should be ready for posting then. Dan the Animator 02:06, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Stonehaven derailment[edit]

No consensus to post. --Tone 07:44, 13 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: Stonehaven derailment (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Three people are killed when an HST (similar trainset pictured) is derailed near Stonehaven, Aberdeenshire, United Kingdom. (Post)
News source(s): BBC, [CNN],
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Deadliest derailment in UK since the Grayrigg derailment in 2007. Mjroots (talk) 15:33, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support dead people, trains, Europe: it ticks all the notability boxes. Infobox, background, aftermath/reactions section: ticks all the quality boxes. Don't delay, post today! --LaserLegs (talk) 16:12, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
  • As much as I appreciate supports for articles I nominate, that smacks heavily of sarcasm and is not constructive. We can manage without that sort of thing. Mjroots (talk) 16:19, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Many people comment here without having their remarks stricken, and I would appreciate the same consideration. 100% support posting this item for the reasons given. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:26, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support First fatal UK derailment for 13 years, deadliest for 16 years, so certainly notable enough, appears to be internationally covered. Article is fine. Black Kite (talk) 16:23, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose death toll is too low. My Afghan nom even had a higher death toll (when including Taliban) and it was flat-out rejected. Personally wouldn't be surprised if all the British Wikipedians vote this in in the next few hours. Dan the Animator (Commons Room) 17:22, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
  • So you're opposing this because your nomination was rejected? People's nominations get rejected all the time; "mine didn't get posted so this one shouldn't" isn't a particularly good look. Black Kite (talk) 19:04, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak support: A fatal rail accident in the UK is incredibly rare since Ladbroke Grove (1999), you can count the fatal incidents on your fingers, and the ones involving infrastructure failure on one hand. International coverage seems to bear that out; it's on the top few lines of cnn.com, for example. OTOH, three deaths is a bit too low. We put Croydon in ITN, but that had double the death toll. Sceptre (talk) 17:38, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
  • This is pretty notable in context. Three fatalities doesn't sound like many and this would have been normally a busy train. But there were only 6 passengers in total? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:43, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Martinevans123 give me a good explanation of how this is notable. So far, it seems the main reason people support this is because: British people died in a train accident (first since 1999 for the UK). Dan the Animator (Commons Room) 18:04, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
I was suggesting it might be more notable as half the passengers were killed. I'm not sure the article tells us their nationalities. But I'm sorry, your suggestion might give offence to some editors Martinevans123 (talk) 18:07, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
But just for complete clarity: "The train was carrying six three crew and six passengers. Three people died including the driver and a conductor."
Sorry if I sounded like that. I am not trying to offend anyone at all and was trying to prove my point. Maybe it might be notable for that reason but the accident itself relies more on more casualties or larger reach of impact of which, it fulfills neither. Dan the Animator (Commons Room) 18:12, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure how a rail crash is going to have "larger reach of impact". In the context of UK rail safety, this one seems to be quite notable. But I guess headlines across the work rely more on death-count. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:16, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
You have to go below the surface for that one. – Sca (talk) 22:21, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
  • p.s. very surprised no-one has nominated MV Wakashio oil spill. An ecological catastrophe. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:56, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
    Agreed. We definitely let that one slip by. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 01:06, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
    Bzweebl I'm really sorry for not nominating this one; I was planning, along with some the Koure shooting and others, to nominate it but didn't have the will to do it. Dan the Animator (Commons Room) 01:14, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The death toll was low, and ultimately this was a weather event more than a railway one, as I understand it arose because of flooding in the area. If we don't post deaths and destruction from hurricanes, then we also shouldn't for floods.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:50, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
  • @Amakuru: Actually, we don't know this yet. The fact the rear locomotive stayed on the rails suggests it might not have been weather-related. Black Kite (talk) 19:07, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - This is now more deadly than Grayrigg (linked above) and is the deadliest rail accident in the UK since the Ladbrook Grove Rail Crash in 1999. It is major-UK news, and should be recognized by Wikipedia. Unfortunately, it seems some users are opposing it as a matter of sour-grapes because their nominations have previously been declined. AimeeSunflower (talk) 18:04, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
AimeeSunflower this has nothing to do with my previous nom (I just brought that up as a comparison). Looking at this alone, this is a domestic accident that will be forgotten by nearly everyone by the next day and has no significance/notability outside the UK. Please take a look at some non-UK news sources, please. Dan the Animator (Commons Room) 18:14, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Dantheanimator It's on the CNN Frontpage[1], ABC News Frontpage[2], VoiceOfAmerica Front Page[3], Bloomberg[4], AlJazeera[5], ABC News Australia[6], France24[7]. It is Major Global News, it is newsworthy. AimeeSunflower (talk) 18:23, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
AimeeSunflower for the CNN one, it is in small text and has no image. For ABC news, also small text, no image. For VOA, it is NOT on the front page (at least of their website). For Bloomberg, also not on front page. For Al Jazeera, you have to scroll down a bit and it's relatively smaller than the others. For ABC News (Australia), you are correct, it is the 2nd featured article. For France24, it is also relatively featured. However, for all these news websites, Harris' nomination got the most featured spot, and that won't even be posted probably. Dan the Animator (Commons Room) 18:32, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Dantheanimator it's on the VoA Front Page at https://www.voanews.com/ as part of the Headline section, with the listing as "Passenger Train Derails in Scotland; 'Serious Injuries' Reported". You've also above mentioned that you probably wouldn't see it in Indian or Chinese news, so have a Times of India[8] and South China Morning Press[9] article, to top it off. AimeeSunflower (talk) 18:38, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
AimeeSunflower, I don't know where you're seeing that. I went to the homepage and in the "Headlines" section, it says Australia COVID-19 record, UN support to Beirut, Mali protests, Ethiopia tensions, and 3 dead in India. Maybe your geo-location is being used to create recommended headlines? I honestly don't know. For the India and Chinese (Hong Kong actually) sources, it is not featured/shown on Times of India and is very minor on the South China Morning Press. They obviously have articles, but their not receiving much attention. Dan the Animator (Commons Room) 18:52, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Dantheanimator on VOA's website, it's certainly there for me, you may be right as to geolocation. But with respect, you told me to look at non-UK News Sources, so I did, and provided multiple links. CNN actually covered it on TV with a Live link from a reporter of theirs in Glasgow, it is showing (for me) on the front page of multiple global news sites, it is a fatal rail crash, of significance to the Rail Industry, the UK public, and clearly global news media. The Grayrigg derailment made ITN on the day of the incident. There is precedence for this, it has made Global news, it involves fatalities, again, I emphasize, it is newsworthy and In The News. AimeeSunflower (talk) 19:02, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
AimeeSunflower Yeah you did, and I appreciate it. Definitely other media sources are covering this (maybe with not as much focus though I would argue). I agree with you, it is important for the Rail Industry and the UK public. For the global news media, I still don't think it's getting the attention it should if it was that important. About Grayrigg, "X made it so Y should too" cannot be used to support this, regardless of the similarities. I have other things to do so I'll just leave it at that and we'll see how the nom plays out. Cheers, Dan the Animator (Commons Room) 19:26, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose doesn't seem to be quite newsworthy enough outside of the UK. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 18:29, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak support it's been and still is headline news all day today in the UK, and as above, features prominently around the world. As noted above, fatal rail accidents in the UK are rare as rocking horse poop. And while the death toll is low here, thankfully, it's worth bearing in mind that it killed a quarter of the people on the train. Just about the only thing we can be thankful for Covid, that the train was mostly empty. This is a serious newsworthy incident which could have been dozens of times worse. Will be interesting to see what comes of the investigation as there seemed to be an awareness of flooded tracks and the potential for land slippages earlier in the morning.... The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 18:31, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Lets discuss the Harris nom in the Harris nom
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The Rambling Man Harris' vice presidential nomination is getting significantly more coverage than this, and will likely not be posted because of alleged US bias. Dan the Animator (Commons Room) 18:34, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Dantheanimator - long-standing consensus is that VP noms and Presidential noms do not get posted. As is explained at the current nomination in plain English. Mjroots (talk) 18:38, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Likely to yet again prove that rail safety in Britain, as opposed to other well developed nations, is achieved more by luck than judgement. A very noteworthy event in the land that invented the railways, a country which is in the process of building a very expensive high speed line that uses a whole bunch of safety critical things that are entirely new to the British rail industry. Jenga Fet (talk) 18:46, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
And if we ever see HS2 North of the border, I'll eat my hat. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:59, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Jenga Fet everything you said supports this because it's important in Britain. How is it important/notable OUTSIDE of Britain/UK? Dan the Animator (Commons Room) 18:56, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
It doesn't need to be. Read the boilerplate text about nominations. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 18:58, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
"Please do not... [...] 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." AimeeSunflower (talk) 19:03, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not sure this would even make the top 100 worst transportation accidents of the year. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 19:07, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose (At the moment). Article has quality/factual issues - e.g 'Location' discussion in Talk Page. At least wait for reliable sources for the facts? --2A02:C7F:48DA:6F00:8DBC:197E:20A7:348C (talk) 19:09, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - Per good sourcing, per extensive coverage from world media. Per being unusual accident and deaths.BabbaQ (talk) 19:51, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Major accident which would have had a lot more casualties in pre-COVID times.-- P-K3 (talk) 20:22, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
  • That seems to be effectively the same as “would have been more newsworthy pre-COVID.” Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 20:35, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Do you honestly believe that our difference of opinion is because I didn't read his/her comment carefully enough? Please try to avoid snark, especially because it usually causes the recipient to double down rather than reconsider. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 23:27, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
  • @Bzweebl: Whether you read the comment carefully or otherwise, you do appear to have misunderstood it. It means that the number of passengers on the train, and thus the number of deaths, is artificially low because of Covid-19. If significance was judged solely on the number of deaths then the comment could be construed as meaning it would have been more newsworthy had it happened 9 months ago. Of course significance is not judged by bodycount alone so the logic fails. The comment is saying that because Covid-19 and the associated movement restrictions and societal changes, etc. are a thing three deaths is more significant now than three deaths would have been this time last year. Thryduulf (talk) 23:44, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
    I actually did understand that. My point was that train accidents are less significant when not many people are riding trains. I guess I should have been more explicit. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 00:02, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
Actually TRM you're right. This is over here (the link only shows for NYC, so excluding most of LIRR and other rail services in the state). Dan the Animator (Commons Room) 21:15, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak support Article looks good. I've read through a lot of the comments above and it seems to me that it is being covered internationally, that the notability stems from fatal train crashes being uncommon not just in the UK but in parts of the world with normally good infrastructure, and that on top of this a very high percentage of those onboard died (due to low ridership, COVID), so it's likely a more fatal incident by death rate (25%!) than most (even in countries-with-many-crashes). Weak support because I'd like to hear more opinions, though preferably not petty ones, to see if there are arguments/angles I haven't considered this from. Usually with this many comments a lot of the metrics for 'train crash' have been weighted, but so far the comments seem to be mostly different debates on UK-centrism; I'm not a train expert, if there's context/mechanics I'm missing, I'd like to hear it. Kingsif (talk) 20:35, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - We posted a bus plunging into a river in China only months ago. HSR derailments are exceedingly rare everywhere, and means something went VERY WRONG. At a minimum, service on the line is cut, and this will likely end up resulting in engineering changes to some portion of the line or train in the future.Albertaont (talk) 20:40, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Not to argue but I remember when a LIRR train derailed last year over here. Nearly no-one in my school mentioned it the next day, it was barely in the (major not local) news, and we all just forgot about it. Dan the Animator (Commons Room) 21:10, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
"No one injured", you think that have something to do with lack of interest? And LIRR and HST aren't really comparable either. And fatal train derailments in the UK are extremely rare in the last 20+ years. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 21:15, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Oops, just realized I linked the wrong one. Sorry about that. This should be the correct one. 3 people died in it. If this is the right one, the day this happened trains got delayed for hours. Dan the Animator (Commons Room) 21:22, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Uh, that's nothing like this. This is a derailment of a high speed train. That was a slow motion road traffic accident which killed the people in the vehicle which was stupid enough to try to run the lights at a crossing. You're not comparing apples with apples. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 21:27, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Also, just awaiting a link to another source that says "Nearly no-one in your school mentioned it the next day". Cheers. :) Martinevans123 (talk) 21:28, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose – 1-2-3 fatalities? Below the radar unless they were terribly important people. – Sca (talk) 21:48, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
    • @Sca: Missing the point. 3 deaths out of 9 on board. Pre-covid the train would have been packed and there would have been many more deaths and injuries. There has not been a fatal rail accident in the UK for 13 years, and this is making headlines in other countries as well as being major news in the UK. SK2242 (talk) 22:15, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Yes, completely missing the point. (a) fatal rail accidents in the UK are rare-as. (b) as noted several times, it was a significant proportion of those travelling onboard who died. (c) Global news. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 22:18, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Oh yes, global indeed – in fact, interplanetary; it's already been in the news on Ceres, I hear. – Sca (talk) 22:30, 12 August 2020 (UTC))
👏👏👏
The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 22:47, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support:--UkrainianCossack (talk) 22:07, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support for reasons given above. SK2242 (talk) 22:15, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment I've marked this for admin attention because it's clear the discussion is simply devolving into circular repetition. The basic facts are that a high-speed train derailed in the UK with fatalities for the first time in a long time, that it killed a significant proportion of those onboard a Covid-impacted train, and that it has ramifications to UK rail safety. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 22:24, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
    Oh, Stephen removed the mark, suggesting that there was active discussion. There's discussion, but it's not productive. Never mind, what's yet another timesink in the big scheme of things? The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 23:00, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose – We don't post everything that makes major news. When considering disasters, we should consider lasting effect and large impact. IMO, this does not appear to have that. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 22:32, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. Major news in the UK - the most significant rail accident in the UK in over 10 years, the most deadly in over 20. As a proportion of people on the train killed/injured this is likely to be the most significant in far, far longer. As for lasting effect, this will be at least as significant as Grayrigg 13 years ago where the lessons learned are still being applied. It's too early to say precisely what those lessons will be, but it doesn't take a crystal ball to say that there most definitely will be some. In terms of major impact, how much more major do you want? [I consider myself to involved with this article to post it myself]. Thryduulf (talk) 22:35, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. A train with only 9 people on board, 3 killed, too small of an accident despite various tortured explanatious to the contrary above. Nsk92 (talk) 00:05, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose — pushing this reeks of UK-bias. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 00:07, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Agreed; we are getting into bizarre levels of UK bias here. Never before have I seen it suggested that the PROPORTION of passengers killed makes an event noteworthy. We post things because they are significant, not because they might be significant under different circumstances. GreatCaesarsGhost 01:03, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment I counted 13 Supports and 10 Opposes. I think if 1 or 2 more people vote on this, we could either post/close. Dan the Animator (Commons Room) 01:09, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Does not seem a homepage news article. Also, agree with some of the folks here that Proportion seems the wrong metric. In the recent aircraft incident, this metric was at less than 10pc. One would wish it was 0pc though. Anyways, not the right metric.Ktin (talk) 01:14, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
Update - While it need not be the definitive reason, I just went to bbc.com, and this news doesn't even figure in the homepage. Ktin (talk) 02:05, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose Conceding it's the first fatal rail accident in the UK in a while, we are still only talking about three deaths. That's just not enough for me. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:01, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose if this event's only claim to notability is its three deaths, it's so very, very minor in a world where thousands of people die every day from Covid. Banedon (talk) 03:17, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
    • By that logic we would never be able to post anything ever.  Nixinova T  C   03:50, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose: the rarity of the event gives it some notability but this seems minor overall.  Nixinova T  C   03:50, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
  • COMMENT - I've marked this as "admin attention required". IMvHO, it should be posted. Many of the opposes are based on the event happening in the UK, which is against the guidance as quoted by AimeeSunflower at 19:03 yesterday. It is really time this one was decided on one way or another. If it is decided that it won't get posted, then I'm big enough to accept that. It's nice to get an ITN, but these are bonuses. We have a decent article which will improve further as time goes on. My thanks to all editors who have worked to improve the article. Mjroots (talk) 05:04, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Why was the train running with so few people on board? Yes, it was an accident, but the impact is not that significant. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 05:14, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Suppose there was no train, just mass hypnosis again, see? InedibleHulk (talk) 05:44, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Are people really opposing/supporting this for the sake of it? Anyway, this isn't significant enough even for a derailment (we have already rejected quire a few disasters with significantly higher destruction and deaths not sure why this would be any special). Gotitbro (talk) 07:29, 13 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) Vectaerovenator inopinatus[edit]

Consensus against posting, especially in view of the absence of a separate article. --Tone 14:19, 13 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: List of informally named dinosaurs (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A new species of theropod Ornithischian dinosaur called Vectaerovenator inopinatus is discovered on the Isle of Wight, England. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​Palaeontologists at the University of Southampton report the discovery of a new species of theropod dinosaur called Vectaerovenator inopinatus on the Isle of Wight, England. The species belongs to the same group as the Tyrannosaurus, and modern-day birds. It lived roughly 115 million years ago during the Cretaceous period.
News source(s): [1]
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: First new Dino species I've personally heard about in a while. The ITN section would also benefit from some non-political related coverage. Dan the Animator (Commons Room) 17:10, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment. Oppose. I am always positively inclined toward science (and related) news items. However, here we seem to be linking to an article titled List of informally named dinosaurs. I am wondering if the question is going to be - is this newsworthy enough, if the discovery does not warrant (or at least has not warranted) a new article page by itself? Ktin (talk) 18:06, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose This article contains just one short section about this dino species.--AlphaBeta135 (talk) 18:38, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now this taxon is going to be formally named (and therefore get its own article) within this week according to the lead author, the press releases were simply sent out too early by accident. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 20:34, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Close no consensus and way too early. Dan the Animator (Commons Room) 00:57, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment Classifying old fossils is not discovering new species. Paleontologists might have us believe it's as exciting. But it isn't. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:53, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
    IANA paleontologist, but I'm pretty sure that is precisely how we discover new species. 75.188.224.208 (talk) 12:22, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Furthermore The Isle of Wight was still a living piece of the mainland when this species actually did stuff, and framing it like this may give some members of the public another misconception about thunder lizards. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:40, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Zero impact on anyone and everyone. – Sca (talk) 13:07, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose and close. Linking to a list, not over the global news, not that notable. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 13:10, 13 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 11[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Health and environment

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

Sports

(Posted) RD: Russell A. Kirsch[edit]

Article: Russell A. Kirsch (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Oregonian
Credits:

Article updated

 Bloom6132 (talk) 05:02, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

  • Support short but decently sourced. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 05:12, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Passes RD requirements. Gotitbro (talk) 07:32, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Notable for his work. Though short, but decently sourced and other RD nominees that passed had even shorter articles. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 13:42, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD. SpencerT•C 16:14, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

(Ready) RD: Sixto Brillantes[edit]

Article: Sixto Brillantes (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Manila Times
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Filipino election lawyer. COVID-related death TJMSmith (talk) 04:25, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

  • Support short but well sourced. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 05:09, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment: Quote in Tagalog should be translated to English for the article, but otherwise, looks good to go. Marking ready. SpencerT•C 16:12, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Still ready 15 hours later... The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 07:07, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) 2020 Democratic vice presidential candidate[edit]

WP:SNOW close. This is a routine event in the course of US elections, nothing worth putting on the front page. The US elections will return to ITN/C in November barring either of the two old men dropping dead before that. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 00:11, 13 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.

 2601:647:CB03:5930:1CB9:EEA9:3F27:738F (talk) 18:08, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose this seems a tad too US-centric; posting the result of the election in November is ITN/R but this, while hyped in the media in the U.S., doesn't seem appropriate to ITN to me. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 18:19, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Additional comment Tim Kaine wasn't posted in July 2016, and the discussion there mentions that Mike Pence wasn't posted either. Bencherlite, who closed that discussion, gave the following rationale: ITN doesn't give the results of the US presidential nominations race for the two major parties, so the name of a running mate isn't the stuff of ITN either. I think that rationale still holds. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 18:28, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

*Oppose for now per above but will Support if Carmont derailment is posted per same reason. Dan the Animator (Commons Room) 18:22, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

  • Oppose per above.
  • Oppose. Thanks for the nomination, but the choosing of a candidate for office will almost never merit posting to ITN. If they win, that will be posted. I would gently remind the nominator that this is a global project and not everyone may be familiar with the subject matter. 331dot (talk) 18:34, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose and snow close per precedence mentioned above and general guideline of only posting the results of U.S. elections at the federal level. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 18:42, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support decent article, in the news, certainly worth posting. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:39, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak support applying some decent common sense here, and noting that ITN is supposed to be highlighting articles that people are looking for, this is an IAR moment for me. Even in the UK we're quite keen on the Biden/Harris ticket and it's been subject of some discussion here, even though it's US politics. Of course, the new POTUS will be posted, but that isn't the actual point of this nomination really, is it? The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 18:46, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per same reasoning as CaradhrasAiguo. Furthermore, this is not the election, nor is it even the presidential candidate we have chosen.Albertaont (talk) 19:02, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose- I could see an argument for posting a primary victory, but selecting a running-mate is obviously much less important and is getting what I'd say is an unusually large amount of coverage in the States largely because electoral politics is a nice diversion from coronavirus. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 19:05, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
    But did we post Joe Biden's victory in the primaries? --212.74.201.229 (talk) 19:16, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
    Negative. The only U.S. presidential primary-related nomination was a blurb discussion about the Iowa caucuses in February that was not posted. Nothing more, which makes even less of a reason for this to be posted. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 19:27, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
    But you agree it's in the news right? Being widely covered in the US and around the world (not required, see above, but a bonus). I mean, should we reach out to major global media outlets and advise them to stop covering the announcement because you don't think it should be in the news? --LaserLegs (talk) 19:48, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
    @LaserLegs: I made no mention of whether I personally thought the pick should be reported by newsmedia, but rather just referenced the fact that (a) ITN did not post anything about Biden (or anyone else, for that matter) winning any individual primary or caucus, nor about him securing enough delegates to become the Democratic nominee, and (b) that a vice-presidential pick for one of the parties in a U.S. presidential election seems lesser than that, and in my mind wouldn't merit an ITN blurb either. I doubt we'll add a blurb about Biden officially accepting the nomination next week, so I don't think a vice presidential pick would merit a blurb. Let's keep doing what we've done in the past and stick to the result of the November election, as several other users have said. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 20:41, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not significant, we limit to actual election results. Gotitbro (talk) 19:43, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak support Wouldn't normally support a VP nom (Tim Kaine? Yawn) but the historic nature of Harris as the first woman of colour to be on the ticket just tips the balance.-- P-K3 (talk) 20:27, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Mr. Van't Kruijs, Clinton's formal nomination at the Democratic National Convention Jul 2016 (and as the first woman atop a U.S. major party POTUS ticket) was declined here, nor was there even a peep when she had "clinched" enough delegates in the primaries on 7 Jun 2016. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 20:36, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak support. Domestic politics, but making major international news beyond one day. Sandstein 20:34, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose – She's only a veep candidate. – Sca (talk) 21:54, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose – We should wait for the final results as we do with any national election. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 22:34, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose domestic politics that only involves one party. Quite frankly I'm gobsmacked that this was proposed and hasn't yet been snow-closed. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 23:30, 12 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.

2020 Bangalore riots[edit]

Article: 2020 Bangalore riots (talk, history)
Blurb: ​At least 3 people are killed in a riot in Bangalore, Karnataka, India. (Post)
News source(s): Newsweek, SCMP, Deutsche Welle
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: I hope this doesn't fall victim to the usual GEOBIAS. Invisible Lad (talk) 16:51, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

  • Oppose Invisible Lad at "least 3 people are killed". How is this at all notable enough for ITN? Also, currently we have an India ITN event (and previously had 2 plus 1 Sri Lankan) and there's also 1 other Asian one so if we're going to talk about Geobias, this being nom'd would be the exact opposite of fair coverage (more people died in terrorist attacks everyday in Africa and those are almost always rejected). Dan the Animator (Commons Room) 17:16, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per Dan above, for both death terms and recent geobias (ironically enough Somalia just had a terrorist attack with a higher death toll). Gotitbro (talk) 19:48, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Wait Apparently if you go back to one of my earlier opposes, the consensus was GEOBIAS is not a valid criteria for consideration even with other ITN in the same area (I don't agree, but it was community consensus). Having said that, this article is written well and if riots go on for another 1-2 days, maybe better rationale to post. For now, pre-mature.Albertaont (talk) 20:09, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose – 1-2-3 fatalities? Below the radar unless they were terribly important people. – Sca (talk) 21:57, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose on quality – The death toll is not the important aspect. Civil unrest often have long-lasting effects on national politics. For that, I would support. However, the language and word choice employed in this articles stinks of POV. It needs work. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 22:38, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
This feels like an extension of the anti-CAA protests which festered in ongoing for 7 or 8 months, and the Ram Temple which we've posted twice. There is obviously religious conflict being fomented in India. Not sure this little outburst fits the bill. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:01, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
I tend to agree. Perhaps, we should wait and see. I do not think, however, this nom should have a quick close. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 23:22, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
LaserLegs No this is not any such extension of Anti-CAA and no one is opposing Ram Temple (as it is order from Supreme Court & Archaeologists have proved that there was Ram temple before Babur destroyed it to build mosque ) hence it is no such protest but a riot planned by sub-groups of banned Popular Front of India alongwith Social Democratic Party of India maybe for political reasons in Karnataka. Branstarx3 (talk) 00:45, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

RD: Sumner Redstone[edit]

Article: Sumner Redstone (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): CNBC, NY Times
Credits:
Article updated

Nominator's comments: American businessman and media magnate PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 15:37, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Support looks to be in decent shape. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 17:18, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Has been in decent shape even before the recent demise. Gotitbro (talk) 19:49, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose "Career" section has quite a few unsourced and sparsely sourced paragraphs.—Bagumba (talk) 11:40, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Several paragraphs in the Career section with no references. P-K3 (talk) 12:29, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
  • @Bagumba and Pawnkingthree: Sourcing has been updated, please take a look. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 15:53, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Nice work, still some chunks of the article that could use some referencing. Not sure how much of some of the specific company details belong in Redstone's article versus an article about the company. SpencerT•C 16:21, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
  • @Spencer: I'd be happy to add more references if you'd let me know where they're needed. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 17:28, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
  • @PCN02WPS: CN tags added. Some of the things like how a takover made "Viacom one of the top players in modern media" could potentially be removed if there's not a ref for it and it doesn't contribute specifically to the article. SpencerT•C 19:12, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Trini Lopez[edit]

Article: Trini Lopez (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Associated Press; The New York Times
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: If I Had a Hammer singer (or at least one of them) and Dirty Dozen actor. COVID-19 CoatCheck (talk) 01:46, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) August 2020 Midwest derecho[edit]

No consensus to post. Stephen 23:00, 13 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: August 2020 Midwest derecho (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A rare derecho storm causes widespread damage and affects millions in the Midwestern United States. (Post)
News source(s): The Weather Channel (1)(2); Associated Press (1)(2);The Washington Post
Credits:
Nominator's comments: Large-scale, newsworthy natural disaster caused by rare type of wind storm (derecho). Sources compare damage to hurricane winds, of which the storm's peak matched in wind speed. Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 22:04, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose A large tree fell down and crushed half a Subaru across the street from me (in Chicago) due to this. However, this does seem parochial overall. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 22:06, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
    John M Wolfson, I'm confused how a massive multi-state weather event which left millions with utility outages, spawned five tornadoes, and destroyed roughly 1/3 of the crops on Iowa's agricultural land is "parochial" Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 23:35, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
    It's parochial in that it does not appear to have much significance outside of the United States; while that's not fatal to the nomination per the "please do not..." section, there appear to be thankfully zero deaths so far and little long-term impact, so I don't think this suitable for the Main Page. (We also didn't post Hurricane Isaias, another storm doing storm things that was otherwise transitory.) – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 23:41, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
    John M Wolfson, indeed, the deaths are minimal (only two confirmed so far, mass injuries, however). Regardless I think it could be useful additionally considering these storm types are relatively rare, especially ones that last this long and get this big. However it doesn't really fit a WP:DYK type. Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 23:44, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
    The Midwest is 3 times the size of France or Ukraine. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:30, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support in the news, decent article. Highly developed countries with strictly enforced building codes have lower death tolls but that doesn't lessen the notability of the event. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:47, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
    How do we measure the impact of the event if not by its death and destruction? GreatCaesarsGhost 12:40, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
    Geographic area, intensity (and frequency of occurrence at that intensity), economic impact, people impacted but not killed, coverage in the news of course and article quality are the most important and that's just what I came up with on short notice. [removed smug racist fuckwittery--Floquenbeam (talk) 20:05, 12 August 2020 (UTC)] Developing countries always have higher death tolls because of weakly enforced or lax building codes along with under developed emergency services so that even a routine weather event results in causalities and we lose our minds and post these stubby, inevitably orphaned articles to the main page.--LaserLegs (talk) 12:58, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support The equivalent of a Category 3 hurricane. Highly unusual event. -- King of ♥ 23:56, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  • @King of Hearts: Actually, it only caused 100 mph winds. Category 2-equivilant. Also, you say it was a highly unusual event. Derechos literally happen three times every month between March and September in the US. See List of derecho events if you don't believe me. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 15:53, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Doesn’t seem to be getting front-page coverage on US news websites. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 00:02, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose I got smacked by a freak derecho once. It was weird and crappy, I survived in an average house and to this day, I still find myself telling people who weren't there how weird and crappy it was. In other words, local story; maybe a legend in time, but never a blurb. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:18, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
That said, this one is weirder and crappier than mine, on account of the dead or missing cornfields. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:25, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose lots of things are going on which "affect" lots of people. This is just American weather. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 07:30, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose in worldwide terms, this does not appear to be a particularly devastating weather event. Power cuts and property damage occur in every big storm. Natural disasters need to be much more significant to justify posting in ITN. The article seems suitable for WP:DYK though. Modest Genius talk 11:02, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Lacks general significance. Parochial. (If it were British weather, it would be nooz, tho.)Sca (talk) 15:15, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above. Dan the Animator (Commons Room) 17:19, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose per InedibleHulk. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 18:39, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for supporting my argument, it was this close to utterly collapsing! Don't jump on my bandwagon, though, it hasn't rolled right since "the storm". House still stands! InedibleHulk (talk) 04:43, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Would have been ITN worthy were there any significant deaths or destruction. Gotitbro (talk) 19:52, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Now, I might be biased because I lived through the event and just got electric service back nearly 60 hours later, but it had a fairly large swathe of destruction (Sioux Falls to Chicago via Des Moines). This was not a typical American weather event. The fact that it affected mostly corn and not people shouldn't diminish the storm's notability. –Fredddie 03:38, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
EDITOR'S NOTE: Iowa is basically a 58,000-square-mile (145,000 square kilometers) cornfield, roughly the size of Bangladesh. – Sca (talk) 13:21, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
That is absolutely a reason to diminish its notability. Similarly large storms occur frequently in Antarctica or the Southern Ocean, but are considered non-notable because only penguins and seabirds are affected. Modest Genius talk 14:34, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
PS: I thought a derecho was a lizard. – Sca (talk) 15:00, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose and close Only killed two people, spawned 5 tornadoes, and affected some corn farmers. If you didn't post Hurricane Isaias, which killed 18 people, spawned 37 tornadoes, and caused $4.2 billion in damage, then it will be a joke posting this! ~ Destroyeraa🌀 15:49, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose The usual power cuts and property damage but thankfully only two deaths, this doesn't meet the significance bar for me.-- P-K3 (talk) 19:46, 13 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) Ceres[edit]

Consensus will not develop to post. Stephen 23:16, 11 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: Ceres (dwarf planet) (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Analysis of the Dawn fly-by of the dwarf planet Ceres (pictured) establishes that it is an ocean world. (Post)
News source(s): Guardian; Nature Astronomy; Reuters
Credits:

Article needs updating
Nominator's comments: The story should be taken with a pinch of salt as there's the usual hype about the prospects of finding life but Nature are making a big splash by publishing seven papers. If we don't list such missions when they launch, we should give them some attention when the results are analysed and reported. The Ceres article seems to need updating but it's a former featured article and vital so I'm not rushing at it. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:43, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Conditional support If as big as it seems. News still seems fuzzy here. Kingsif (talk) 10:33, 11 August 2020 (UTC) Oppose per MG Kingsif (talk) 14:53, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Conditional support - I have to agree with Kingsif here.BabbaQ (talk) 11:50, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Conditional support per all. A cursory glance of the article (via Ctrl-Fing "ocean") doesn't mention it AFAICT, much less explain its significance. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 11:59, 11 August 2020 (UTC) Oppose per MG. I knew it didn't look like an ocean world. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 12:28, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I'm close to having a CoI here, but will comment anyway. Ceres has long been known to have active geology and subsurface brines, which are responsible for the surface salt deposits and cryovolcanism, both known since 2016. These latest results fill in some of the details, but Ceres having ocean-level amounts of water is not a new discovery. It's also not really an ocean, but a layer of rock which is saturated with brine, so the blurb is misleading (it wasn't a Flyby either). None of the papers were important enough to publish in Nature itself, just three subsidiary journals owned by the same publisher. The source linked to above is from Nature Astronomy, not Nature, and is over-selling the importance because it's advertising work published in the same journal. Finally, the results are so confirmatory that the article itself has received no update whatsoever. Modest Genius talk 12:06, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
It's really a good thing we have actual scientists here who can let us know when we're falling prey to pop science journalism.--WaltCip-(BLM!Resist The Orange One) 12:18, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Modest. "Vital" or not, it's not newsworthy. Next. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 12:50, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Ditto. Decidedly underwhelming. – Sca (talk) 13:20, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Doesn't appear to be significant per the above comments, including the nominator. Gotitbro (talk) 14:48, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  • History As the timescales for this mission were even longer than Brexit, I was curious to know what ITN said about it over the years:
ITN nominations about Ceres/Dawn
Year Status Blurb
2007 Posted The NASA spacecraft Dawn is launched on a mission to explore mainbelt asteroid Vesta and dwarf planet Ceres.
2012 Posted Dawn leaves Vesta
2014 Posted The dwarf planet Ceres is observed to be releasing water vapor.
2015 Posted NASA's Dawn spacecraft enters the orbit of the dwarf planet Ceres.
2017 No consensus Scientists report the detection of aliphatic organic compounds on dwarf planet Ceres.
So, no results since Dawn arrived at Ceres. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:03, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment since this is probably toast anyway, we should wait until the inners have stripped all the ice from Ceres and the belters riot after Mars destroys the Canterbury --LaserLegs (talk) 15:17, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
Let's wait until Elon arrives on Ceres. – Sca (talk) 15:34, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
I'm waiting for The Boat Race on Ceres. Howard the Duck (talk) 15:38, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
Zero gravity rowing klaxon!!!!!!! --LaserLegs (talk) 15:40, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
Based on how difficult it is to complete 18 to 20 minutes of rowing on the Thames, perhaps "zero gravity" (which of course it wouldn't be zero) is the way ahead. O';;l suggest it. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 22:43, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Doubtful significance. – Ammarpad (talk) 19:14, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support According to The Guardian link, this is the first time hydrohalite has been observed outside of Earth. If that's pop science, then colour me a monkey's uncle. Jenga Fet (talk) 19:56, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
Coincidentally, I had a dream about hydrohalite last night. It was terrifying. – Sca (talk) 21:34, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment suggest this is closed as not newsworthy and with a very strong consensus against a very poorly updated article. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 22:44, 11 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) Gam-COVID-Vac[edit]

(non-admin closure) For all the obvious reasons.--- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 20:26, 11 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: Gam-COVID-Vac (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Russian Gam-COVID-Vac becomes the first registered vaccine against COVID-19. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​Russia registers first COVID-19 vaccine — which will be called ‘Sputnik V’ in foreign markets.
News source(s): [2] (USA Today); [3] (The Boston Globe); [4] (Süddeutsche Zeitung); [5] (The Globe and Mail); [6] (Ouest-France); [7] (Il Gazzettino); [8] (Firstpost); [9] (Anadolu Agency); [10] (Rbc.ru); [11] (Interfax); [12] (Vedomosti); [13] (TASS)
Credits:
Nominator's comments: The first vaccine against COVID-19. Александр Мотин (talk) 10:31, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is definitely covered by the COVID box. (It would also be remiss to post this without mentioning that they allegedly stole it.) Kingsif (talk) 10:34, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
WP:NOTFORUM.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
...yes, because clearly any country outside the US or UK is incapable of creating vaccines.Albertaont (talk) 14:05, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
@Albertaont: The country which chose the President for the US people is much more capable of creating vaccines.--Александр Мотин (talk) 16:13, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
Holy shit, he actually believes this article! Look at him! Look at him and laugh! --212.74.201.229 (talk) 18:25, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Posting about any vaccine for this should not even be considered until such a vaccine sees widespread deployment. TompaDompa (talk) 10:49, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
    "Widespread" is how much? You will tell us later? Face-smile.svg I'm not proposing to write "widespread", I propose to write "first registered" --Александр Мотин (talk) 10:53, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose we have the COVID box for this. ZettaComposer (talk) 11:16, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose any news outside of the banner (even a widespread vaccine) except for a definitive "end" to the pandemic, preferably by WHO proclamation. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 11:55, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose - at this time. No.BabbaQ (talk) 11:56, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Comment Please do not...
    • 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.--212.74.201.229 (talk) 18:29, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose flatly.--WaltCip-(BLM!Resist The Orange One) 12:18, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Comment Please do not...
    • 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.--212.74.201.229 (talk) 18:29, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose – There's many a slip. – Sca (talk) 13:24, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Comment Please do not...
    • 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.--212.74.201.229 (talk) 18:29, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Propose - Propose to update the info-box for links to COVID treatments and COVID vaccines - we are now half a year in, and real progress has been made on both fronts and they are becoming popular articles, make sense to link them straight from the front page. -Albertaont (talk) 14:05, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
    It may be a good idea since there are many other vaccine candidates from other powerful research institutions and after today's event the readers' interest may increase many times.--Александр Мотин (talk) 17:55, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Nice try mate, but we all know that if there's a vaccine ITN will post, it's the British one. Howard the Duck (talk) 18:02, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment I like the idea of updating the box on the top with a link to COVID-19 vaccine.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:40, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Sensational and redundant to Covid box. – Ammarpad (talk) 19:10, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose This has been described as a "political stunt"[14] and it widely controversial in the scientific community. Natureium (talk) 19:14, 11 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 10[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime
Politics and elections

Sports

(Posted) RD: P. J. Sheehan[edit]

Article: P. J. Sheehan (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Irish Times; Irish Independent
Credits:

Article updated

 Bloom6132 (talk) 08:44, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

  • Weak Oppose Short article but we're getting there.--AlphaBeta135 (talk) 12:25, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Yes it is a short article but it is pretty well referenced and up to RD standard JW 1961 Talk 20:26, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  • @Spencer, Stephen, and Amakuru: I think this may be ready to go. —Bloom6132 (talk) 23:07, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 23:20, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

(Bumped) Lebanese government resigns[edit]

Articles: 2020 Beirut explosions (talk, history) and Hassan Diab (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Lebanese government, including Prime Minister Hassan Diab, resign after the explosion in Beirut that killed over 200 people. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​The Lebanese government led by Prime Minister Hassan Diab resigns after protests, hyperinflation, and the explosion in Beirut
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

Both articles updated

Nominator's comments: Pretty self explanatory, but Diab's speech was an amazing acknowledgement of corruption and giving over to the will of protesters. Kingsif (talk) 18:04, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

  • Weak oppose for now. The Hassan Diab article contains only a single sentence that says he resigned, and says nothing about his cabinet. I'm fine bumping the blurb and adding more information, but as yet the various Wikipedia articles you are highlighting are very light on relevant information and will need some expanding before we tell people they should read them. --Jayron32 18:08, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Bump This is a continuation of the existing blurb about the explosion. So, just update that blurb and bump it. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:29, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Question Didn't the hyperinflation also impact the decision? – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 20:47, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Yeah, it looks like some of the reason was pre-pandemic protests being renewed. Feel free to suggest alts, but I couldn't find a protests article for a blurb. Kingsif (talk) 20:49, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
  • another question. Is the government really the government? I read somewhere that the political leaders just report to some more powerful people behind the scenes, which was the same people before and after the "revolution" last year. Is that true? If so, we should probably nuance the hook accordingly. Apologies, by knowledge of the full situation is incomplete. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 20:51, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Every short-term government overlaps with longer-lasting lobbyists, priests, tribal leaders, bankers, generals, corporate officers and organized crime bosses. But "really" rarely matters here. The titleholders "rule". InedibleHulk (talk) 23:13, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Conditionally support It needs to update the previous blurb to include the aftermath of the explosion in the government such as resignation, at least bump the previous update and update with this. 36.77.94.89 (talk) 21:11, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 00:06, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Bump Definitely still biggest story in most western news after a week, and the resignation of the government is significant new development.Albertaont (talk) 04:22, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Major development, the blurb should make the bit about the explosion a bit more clear though. Gotitbro (talk) 05:52, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - time for posting.BabbaQ (talk) 06:25, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong support Bump the previous blurb which posted before with newly update blurbs that includes aftermath of resignation. it is definitely biggest international news on the day. 182.1.26.10 (talk) 07:28, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support bumping blurb The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 08:00, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Bumping the blurb. --Tone 08:34, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Post-bumping comment the "protests" word needs to wikilinked, because they are already have a article about 2019–2020 Lebanese protests. 114.125.235.207 (talk) 08:53, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the article - I hadn't included 2019 when I looked! Kingsif (talk) 10:25, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) 2020 PGA Championship[edit]

Article: 2020 PGA Championship (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In golf, Collin Morikawa wins the PGA Championship for his first career major championship. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​In golf, Collin Morikawa wins the PGA Championship for his first career major.
News source(s): Golf Digest ESPN
Credits:

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: Major championship in golf, fits with ITN:Recurring items criteria. Compy90🐉(talk) 10:04, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

  • Support Updated with sufficient prose summaries.-- P-K3 (talk) 14:28, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment Support. Minor update on blurb --> Altblurb. Looks good. Ktin (talk) 17:14, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Article is sufficient. --Jayron32 18:12, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support original blurb. Good prose summaries for each round. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 00:04, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose It's awful – like reading the sports pages in a tabloid newspaper rather than an encyclopedia article. It's clearly written for fans rather than the general reader as it's full of crufty line-scores and other stats. It assumes that the reader knows all about the rules of the game and the tournament format and it's riddled with jargon like "birdie" and "eagle" which are not explained. And it seems easy to find factual errors. For example, the lead says that it "had no spectators in attendance" but it's easy to find coverage which contradicts this: Steph Curry among spectators at PGA Championship in San Francisco. Andrew🐉(talk) 00:25, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  • This is more suitable as a complaint about golf tournament pages on Wikipedia in general than against this particular article. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 00:30, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  • That is not an error. The event was closed to paying spectators. It's clear from reading the link that Stephen Curry was there as a guest of Jordan Spieth. P-K3 (talk) 00:47, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now on quality. I don't particularly agree with the general objection Andrew makes about the tone of the article - a golfing article would be expected to use golfing terminology. Birdie and Eagle are not jargon because many people such as myself, who don't play golf, nonetheless know what they mean. And the relevant articles are linked, for those who don't know the terminology. Our guidelines suggest targeting articles to those familiar with, but not necessarily expert in, a given subject. But a couple of Andrew's objections are valid. (1) The "Field" section is far too long and detailed, interrupting the flow of the article. It probably belongs in a subpage, with just a brief summary of how the field was chosen, and a few principal players, given here. And (2) the point about spectators clearly is an error, because Curry was a spectator. He wasn't there in any capacity other than to watch the golf. It sounds like that point needs to be nuanced. ITN articles don't have to be GA standard certainly, but they must still conform to basic structural norms. With a bit of tidying up this would be ready to go though.  — Amakuru (talk) 04:46, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
    • That is how all golf tournament articles are written. The place to challenge that practice is probably at WP:GOLF, not here. It shouldn't be valid to oppose this because of an objection to the way golf tournament articles, which have been posted at ITN many times before without objection, are written on Wikipedia. Regarding your second point, reliable sources reported that there were no spectators. Curry was apparently there as a "guest reporter".[15] Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 06:07, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
      • Wikiprojects form a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. The wider community here judges whether it's suitable to go on the main page.—Bagumba (talk) 06:34, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
        • In that case, if I don't want to see golf major championships barred from being posted at ITN again, I have to garner consensus for changing how the field sections of tournament articles are written? Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 06:43, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
    (edit conflict) I have no intention of challenging anything at WP:GOLF. WikiProjects don't define the basic rules for article structure, that's the job of the MOS, and it applies everywhere. As an aside, I've checked the stats for golf articles and it lists only two articles as FAs (one of which is Wii Sports, only loosely connected to golf) and nine GAs. There are no tournament pages included in those so we have no point of reference. The figures seem astonishly low for such a prominent subject, and suggest the project may not be very active...  — Amakuru (talk) 06:39, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I wasn't sure what "birdie" and "eagle" mean and so just had to look them up. And I bet if you asked the general public what "bogey" means in golf, you'd get a variety of amusing answers with "don't know" being a strong contender. A "hole-in-one" might be ok because it is self-explanatory but note that the phrase isn't used in the article even though there was at least one. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:09, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
    • The lead should be accessible, but those terms are in the body. A sports event article should not be expected to teach a newbie about the sport. Linking to common technical terms is generally sufficient.—Bagumba (talk) 11:31, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
Switching to support - Following a productive discussion, and new edits by Wjemather, the Field section has now been rewritten to contain just prose, with the other info in a linked child info. My concerns are therefore now addressed, and I am switching to support on this candidate. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 12:37, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

*Oppose On article quality and prose. Gotitbro (talk) 05:56, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Support Appears fine or ITN now. Gotitbro (talk) 22:03, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
@Gotitbro: Yep, the updated version at the time you wrote this would have been fine, but unfortunately that improvement was reverted so it's now back at the unwieldy poor quality version.  — Amakuru (talk) 05:48, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose The "Field" section is unwieldy, and the bolding with linking is an eyesore. This isn't GA, but it's a large-scale failing of MOS:PSEUDOHEAD: Do not make pseudo-headings by abusing semicolon markup (reserved for description lists) and try to avoid using bold markup. It's screaming to be a table with minutiae moved to footnotes.—Bagumba (talk) 06:30, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Bagumba. And the summaries for the first three rounds don't really pass muster. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 07:59, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. Seems like some here are trying to push the bar too high. The tone and style may be wanting, and the layout may not be ideal, however this meets the basic quality criteria for ITN – "Articles are held to a minimum standard of quality. Articles should be a minimally comprehensive overview of the subject, not omitting any major items." wjematherplease leave a message... 11:59, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
    Entirely agree. Not sure why this article has attracted so many pile-on opposes when it's no worse than many other ITN/R sports items we've routinely posted. I thought the standard was sufficiently referenced with prose summaries.-- P-K3 (talk) 13:44, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
    Nope. Basic compliance with the MOS is also up there. We're showcasing this on the main page of our project, let's at the very least showcase the way articles are actually structured, rather than some bizarre format developed within one project and seemingly copied every year because nobody can think of anything better to do. As ever on this page, if people just made some basic changes, like those proposed by Bagumba above, this could just go straight up.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:45, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
    We posted both the Masters and the US Open last year which used an identical format. To suddenly declare that what was acceptable before is now unacceptable smacks of moving the goalposts for me. (Sorry, can't think of an equivalent golfing metaphor.) P-K3 (talk) 21:30, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
    Seems raising the bar without prior discussion or consensus to do so. I'm struggling to find the passage in the ITN criteria which mentions MOS compliance and to what degree it is necessary. For information, it actually quite closely replicates the format used by the major championships themselves for many years, and is to a degree still used by the USGA & R&A, so attacks on the project in this regard are somewhat unwarranted. wjematherplease leave a message... 22:29, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment I have edited the field section in accordance with the criticisms and suggestions of Amakuru, Bagumba, Gotitbro, and The Rambling Man above. Let me know if you have any further objections and I would be happy to work on fixing them. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 22:01, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
    Reverted due to making the information much less accessible and also losing several details. Changes in this regard would be better discussed centrally (suggest WT:GOLF), as there are many tournament articles with the same mos/formatting issues (as noted above). wjematherplease leave a message... 22:16, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
    I've gotten myself involved in enough inane discussions here lately, I'm not interested in starting a new one over formatting at WT:GOLF. I guess this is the end of golf at ITN unless someone else wants to start working on changing this. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 22:24, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
    We shouldn't sacrifice content on the alter of MOS. It does no service to the encyclopedia. There are many ways of removing the bolding without losing content and accessibility/readability – your solution (moving most content – some would say the most important details – into footnotes) was not one of them. wjematherplease leave a message... 22:56, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
    I reasoned that was what everyone objecting here wanted since Bagumba suggested it and most other opposes were on similar grounds. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 23:09, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
    I think calling a section on the field "most content" and even "most important" is really a far stretch, I would say most people which would access this article from the front page would be interested in how the tournament actually played out, which is behind 3 full pages of rather trivial information for a non golf enthusiast. This big section actually hurts the readability. Chaosquo (talk) 07:12, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
    It shouldn't need spelling out, but I was obviously referring only to the content of that section. Misuse of footnotes is worse than perceived MOS transgressions. People are welcome to discuss ways of presenting the information better, in collaboration with the editors who do the bulk of the work in this area, but sadly it seems none here are willing (discussion started here). wjematherplease leave a message... 09:17, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
    The topic under consideration is the 2020 PGA Tournament, and it should be clear by now from the number of objecters here, that the format of that article simply doesn't conform to Wikipedia guidelines on how to structure an article. I am happy to have a conversation about the details of this page, with a view to getting it listed at ITN, since that's the goal here. We can have that by WP:BOLDly trying different layouts on the page (which both Bzweebl and myself have now done), discussing it at the talk page, and coming up with a sensible compromise. But the starting point has to be that the previous format was not of sufficient quality, since multiple experienced editors have now made that same point here on this page. If we come up with a sensible way to present the info, then no doubt WikiProject Golf can incorporate that into their guidelines going forward, but non-members of that project are not bound by any edicts coming from "those who do the bulk of the work in this area", nor are those editors exempt from following the basic MOS guidelines. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 09:44, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
    The suggestion was only to engage with the golf project; that way when a format is agreed upon, past and future articles will likely follow the same standards (as it is those active project editors who will likely do the bulk of any remedial work). Otherwise we end up with this article and maybe a handful others being "fixed" and the rest not. wjematherplease leave a message... 10:07, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
    Yes, sure, engaging with the golf regulars, including yourself, is vital and no doubt they will also have good ideas about how to go forward. The more voices the better. I just think that in the immediate term, we should concentrate on the 2020 PGA as a concrete example that we can work on, hopefully with a view to getting it posted on ITN. If we try to fix everything at once, we won't have time for this one to be featured.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:17, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. There have been numerous heavy changes to the article, but the current version seems fine to me. The information is there, the rounds have brief-but-adequate prose summaries, and referencing appears sufficient. Modest Genius talk 11:08, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose I don't feel comfortable thrusting to the main page an article wherein an edit war is taking place.--WaltCip-(BLM!Resist The Orange One) 11:48, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Switch to support Tbe problem I had with the "Field" section is resolved with the spinout of 2020 PGA Championship field. With 100+ field, this is deserved and not a mere fork just to game ITN. Thanks to Bzweebl, Amakuru and Wjemather for carrying out the changes.—Bagumba (talk) 14:55, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Posted Looks like issues have been addressed on the article talk page and consensus is in favor of posting. SpencerT•C 15:24, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Indian coal mine auction[edit]

Consensus will not form to post this. Black Kite (talk) 21:55, 10 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.

Articles: Coal in India (talk, history) and Hasdeo Arand (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Development of 40 new coal mines in India threatens the virgin forest of Hasdeo Arand. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​The indigenous virgin forest people of Hasdeo Arand feel threatened by the development of forty new coal mines in India.
News source(s): The Guardian
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: As we're focussing on India, it is interesting to see what else is happening there. Modi isn't just building a triumphal new temple; he's planning to make India into "the world’s largest exporter of coal". Elsewhere, we have record summer temperatures but global warming isn't really news now, is it? Coalgate has been a scandal in India for a while and the focus of the current story now seems to be the threat to this virgin forest and its indigeneous people. The article about it is new and so perhaps needs expansion. We should move quickly because, if we wait, the forest won't be there any more. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:42, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose grossly repetitive stub which, having been created just days ago, gives some indication as to the relative notability of this "virgin" forest. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 08:59, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Notability? The other Indian stories which we are featuring are a hotel fire, a religious photo op and a plane skidding into a ditch. Which story is really significant? Andrew🐉(talk) 10:16, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Who needs hotel fires when you've got all that cheap Indian coal? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:39, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
  • It was reading the nomination of the 2020 Vijayawada fire below which got me wondering what was really happening in India. That article is better developed than our article about the forest coalfield. If it bleeds, it leads. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:40, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support, if article can be expanded. An interesting and very worrying story that seems to be largely hidden from media view. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:15, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Oppose ...and if my grandmother had wheels, she’d be a bicycle. GreatCaesarsGhost 14:44, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Article is far too sparse and short and stubby for main page highlighting. --Jayron32 12:56, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment we have lot of stories from India alone in past few days and let's not forget the 2020 Idukki landslide and 2020 Kerala floods are also mainly covered in google search much higher when compared to the coal mine auction. 2020 Vijayawada fire has now started to lose focus of main headlines. Abishe (talk) 13:27, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose on article quality. Article is in poor shape and falls well short of our customary standards for being linked on the main page. Neutral on the merits of the nomination. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:48, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Per TRM, Wolfson. "Stick it inside someplace." – Sca (talk) 14:49, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose We generally only post stories that are points of action and/or when it is a point of no return (large # of deaths/loss). That there is some initial call to action is not the type of thing we post to start with regardless of anything else that is behind this nom or the coverage. --Masem (t) 15:10, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose What is the event here? Were new egregious mining permits issued over the last few days? Seems to be more "Did you know"... vs current event.Albertaont (talk) 16:21, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
  • The auctions for 41 blocks of land are currently running and the bid deadline was August 18. That's why it's in the news now. But by all means wait until the land is strip-mined and the coal is burnt. In the meantime, let's play more golf, shall we? Andrew🐉(talk) 20:11, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Article is a stub, and this story doesn't seem to have reached the "significant development" stage that would justify a blurb. "Feel threatened by" is not enough.-- P-K3 (talk) 18:14, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment suggest this is now closed. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 21:34, 10 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.

(Protests posted) Belarusian election[edit]

Proposed image
Articles: 2020 Belarusian presidential election (talk, history) and 2020 Belarusian protests (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Incumbent President of Belarus Alexander Lukashenko (pictured) claims victory in a presidential election considered not free or fair by election observers amid pro-democracy protests. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​Belarus cracks down on pro-democracy protests as incumbent President of Belarus Alexander Lukashenko (pictured) claims victory in a presidential election considered not free or fair by election observers.
Alternative blurb II: ​Belarus cracks down on pro-democracy protests as President of Belarus Alexander Lukashenko claims victory in a presidential election amid claims of electoral fraud.
Alternative blurb III: ​In Belarus, President Alexander Lukashenko claims victory in a presidential election amid pro-democracy protests and claims of electoral fraud.
Alternative blurb IV: ​In Belarus, Protests follow the contested re-election of President Alexander Lukashenko.
News source(s): Guardian, BBC, AP, Reuters
Credits:

Both articles updated

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

Nominator's comments: Assuming this is ITN/R, as a national election, but the election is so widely considered a sham that the protests surrounding it are the bigger story. Smurrayinchester 08:56, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

  • Smurrayinchester This has been nominated already below; initially the protests were the focus, but the election results have been added. 331dot (talk) 08:58, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Ah OK, when I looked I only saw the protests. Smurrayinchester 09:23, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
  • First blurb's good InedibleHulk (talk) 09:26, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't think that we should shed light on the protests as the main story. There are multiple protests of larger scale with much higher casualties every year that we normally don't post, so there's no strong reason why to consider these as an exception unless they result in a presidential change. Considering how things develop for now, this is probably going to be an ultimate failure.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:04, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose, while I support in principle, the election article is a bit of a mess; there are many uncited claims about living people. All the blurbs so far also need to be toned down for NPOV. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 14:59, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
    • I have added Alternative blurb III to address my concern about the blurbs but the article on the election needs a lot of work before posting. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 15:06, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
How about Alt4, offered above? Short & to the pt. – Sca (talk) 15:13, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment- My preference is for Altblurb3. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 18:13, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong support Alternative blurb III or my blurb V: (Officially) Re-elected Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko orders to disperse (peaceful) protesters who (claims victory of other candidate / accuses him of electoral fraud) or my blurb VI: Protesters against electoral fraud contest re-election of Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko (and claim victory of other candidate). TarzanASG (talk) 20:23, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose the election article is missing vast amounts of citations (amongst other problems) and is in no condition to be posted on the main page. Black Kite (talk) 22:00, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment – Too bad, as Svetlana Tikhanovskaya's flight to Lithuania, and her demonstrative video there, have been widely covered. [16] [17] [18]Sca (talk) 13:42, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support in principle, with either article bolded and a preference for alt3 blurb, but oppose on quality. This is a major story but both articles are lacking in references. Some of that could be addressed by simply deleting the associated material e.g. most of the infobox on the protest article. We only need to fix one article to post the blurb, just bold that one for now. Modest Genius talk 13:48, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Posted per consensus below, with only the protests bolded. The election article can be bolded whenever it is ready. -- King of ♥ 23:40, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

August 9[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

Law and crime

Politics and elections

(Posted) RD: Martin Birch[edit]

Article: Martin Birch (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC News; The Guardian; The Independent
Credits:

Article updated

 Bloom6132 (talk) 17:13, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

  • Comment. Generally all fine, but the discography section contains a cite to discogs which, looking at the RS noticeboard archives, is not considered suitable for citations, only external links. Please could you make sure every entry in the list is verifiable by one or more of the non discogs sources?  — Amakuru (talk) 21:06, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Practically the whole discography was sourced to AllMusic - I've sourced some that weren't, and removed the remaining few that I couldn't source. Black Kite (talk) 22:25, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
  • @Spencer, Stephen, and Amakuru: All refs from Discogs have now been replaced. I think this may be ready to go. —Bloom6132 (talk) 05:15, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  • posted  — Amakuru (talk) 06:12, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Kamala[edit]

Article: Kamala (wrestler) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [19][20]
Credits:

Article updated

 GreatCaesarsGhost 01:10, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

  • Comment - Is there a policy / convention on using stage names vs real names in the RD section? Seems like this post should be referenced as James Harris. But, is there a precedent in this group to use stage names? Regards. Ktin (talk) 02:12, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I think COMMONNAME applies: use Kamala. Kingsif (talk) 03:24, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support I've been expecting this day for 28 years, and preparing the bio for eight. It could still use a few small wordiness tweaks, but I think it's ready. I'll spare you rubes my suggested blurb, you're welcome! InedibleHulk (talk) 05:19, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This is not ready. There are couple of citations needed tags, unsourced awards and even a whole unsourced section. – Ammarpad (talk) 05:22, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Where he worked and with whom those four years is in his Cagematch profile (External links), if anyone's feeling citey. Click the Career or Matches buttons. I can't paste links, or I might. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:37, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
This is not about being "citey" (whatever that means). It's about following one of our most important policies.These cite tags need to be resolved before posting this. I have amended my comment to make it more clear. – Ammarpad (talk) 06:15, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Feeling citey just means "wanting to cite". Cagematch is considered reliable for results. Resolution's pretty easy. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:34, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
You literally just made that up. Spman (talk) 12:57, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Only the first part. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:16, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
I see you added those tags about a minute after I called "ready", so I stand by it; it was ready at the time. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:07, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support I have fixed a few cn tags so I would say this is ready. And a response to the original comment, yes we do use wrestling names in RD. Likewise stage names as we have done for Barry Chuckle in the past. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 06:19, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
The artist known as "Prince" got a blurb in 2016, no formal address, around the time Chyna got RDed. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:39, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
You've got the wrong guy, I tell ya! InedibleHulk (talk) 10:31, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Still many unsourced statements.-- P-K3 (talk) 14:24, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
I see one, about why his WrestleMania match was scrapped. Nobody should care. ITN is rigged against wrestlers. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:16, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Sheesh... and they don't even carry guns. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:19, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
I'll put in some cite tags. Does placing a reference at the end of the paragraph mean it's verifying every sentence within the paragraph? It's not clear.-- P-K3 (talk) 20:18, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
I usually never use that trick when trying to get an article rapidly posted at WP:ITN/RD. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:27, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
It's not a trick, they cover everything, have for years. Staleness is coming. Hulk is dead! InedibleHulk (talk) 20:30, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
They may well cover everything, but in my experience putting multiple links at the end of a paragraph with nothing on the individual lines, makes it very difficult to actually verify the facts. It's somewhat better than just listing all sources at the end of the article, like the old days of Wikipedia, but it's a step in that direction, and I definitely think it's best to be more specific on individual lines. If all the cites cover all the facts, then scatter them around a bit. If some cover some facts and others others, then that's easy. Just put them against the correct ones.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:16, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
(I'm very surprised there is not clear MoS policy on this. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:23, 10 August 2020 (UTC))
Easy if you can highlight, click, drag and all that luxury. Typing for me is like entering a Nintendo password. Nobody who read his article in life complained about clumps. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:19, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Because nobody read his article until he died. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 23:25, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Bobby Eaton, Featured Article See how similarly wide enough the citations are? See the same blending of kayfabe and "reality"? Why's it OK for that Southern gentleman? InedibleHulk (talk) 22:40, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
    I think a FA from 12 and a half years ago is probably not a good yardstick for what we look for in terms of quality and BLP adherence today. Just sayin'. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 23:24, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
    Aloha. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:40, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - Fully referenced. Ready to go. GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:44, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD Referencing issues resolved. SpencerT•C 16:59, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
Two Kamalas in one day – merkwürdig. – Sca (talk) 22:08, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Kurt Luedtke[edit]

Article: Kurt Luedtke (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Detroit Free Press; The Detroit News
Credits:

Article updated

 Bloom6132 (talk) 23:17, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) 2020 Vijayawada fire[edit]

No consensus to post. Stephen 05:26, 11 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 Vijayawada fire (talk, history)
Blurb: ​At least eleven people are dead and 22 are injured in a fire at a COVID-19 facility centre in India's Andhra Pradesh. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​At least eleven people are dead in Vijayawada due to a fire in Hotel Swarna Palace.
News source(s): Al Jazeera, BBC, AP, Reuters
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Sorry guys, this fire is incident has a wide coverage than the 2020 Czech Republic apartment fire. Abishe (talk) 16:31, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment – Also covered by AP, Reuters. Possibly ITN-level due to Covid19 aspect? – Sca (talk) 17:18, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak Support has a death toll, is in India, even has background and reaction sections, so it ticks all the necessary boxes. Maybe add a map? Few unreferenced claims. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:56, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
    I added the map of where this happened.--AlphaBeta135 (talk) 18:17, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
    Yep, looks like the template now. Background section needs a ref. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:20, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Completely un-notable other than the fact that it happened to a COVID-19 facility. Besides, if we add this one to ITN, we kick out Beirut explosions and 3 of 4 articles end up being "bad things in India" which seems unbalanced... and all 4 ITN articles end up being about the Indian subcontinent. If the death rate were higher, I would be okay with kicking out Beirut to replace but not this instant.Albertaont (talk) 18:27, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
    • As a note, we do not control where the news happens. We've had cases where all the items were in the US, and where they were all in the UK. News happens where it happens, we have no control on that. --Masem (t) 01:11, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
      • Even though I don't think this merits posting, it's important to point out that this oppose does not make sense. Wikipedia is not here to balance bad and good stories between conutries/continents, please read WP:RGW. – Ammarpad (talk) 05:11, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Very much the same as the below nom. Kingsif (talk) 21:30, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment a little context: [21] [22] --LaserLegs (talk) 00:45, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment - Did a quick scan of Indian news sources. Seems like news has not made it, prominently, to the front page on most of them. The news cycles still seem to be on the aircraft incident rescue actions, and the 2020 Idukki landslide which seems to have degenerated from an impact standpoint, unfortunately. Ktin (talk) 02:20, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per similar fire Czech republic fire below. – Ammarpad (talk) 05:17, 10 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) 2020 Bohumín apartment fire[edit]

No consensus to post. Stephen 05:25, 11 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 Bohumín apartment fire (talk, history)
Blurb: ​At least eleven people are dead and ten are injured in a fire at an apartment in Bohumín, Czech Republic. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​At least eleven people are dead and ten are injured in a burning apartment in Bohumín, Czech Republic.
Alternative blurb II: ​At least eleven people are dead and ten are injured in an apparent arson attack in Bohumín, Czech Republic.
News source(s): BBC, Euronews
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: The fire incident is regarded as the worst ever fire accident in the history of Czech Republic according to the sources. I know there was another article related to 2020 Punjab alcohol poisoning which killed over 100 people didn't get an inclusion in the ITN section. Abishe (talk) 05:04, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Has already dropped off most news cycles, not notable enough and no international significance. Things nominated to ITN tend to stay up for a week, I can't see this as being newsworthy for a week.Albertaont (talk) 05:33, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose on notability per above and also on quality, it's only three small paragraphs.  Nixinova T  C   06:10, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak Support local authorities are calling it arson, death toll comparable to an airplane skidding off a runway. @Abishe: add a map, background and reactions section to fluff it out and you might get more support. --LaserLegs (talk) 09:50, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose (for now) per stubby article.--AlphaBeta135 (talk) 12:11, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
    Weak oppose (for now) still stubby but at least there are more info.--AlphaBeta135 (talk) 13:34, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Tragic, but lacks general significance. Parochial. – Sca (talk) 13:47, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Note that I've moved the article (The title was bugging me as it suggested the entire nation was on fire which... no. --Masem (t) 13:51, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. Article looks to be in good shape. One thing that stood out to me was: The incident has been widely regarded as the worst ever fire incident in the history of Czech Republic. -- Tavix (talk) 18:06, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
    • I actually went to check the source on that claim (which was pointing to this article [23]) and it does not at all support that, nor any of the other sources. I can't find where that came from, so I have had to remove that claim. --Masem (t) 18:18, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
      • Here's the BBC making the claim. -- Tavix (talk) 18:24, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
        • Not to split hairs on this one -- but, the link above says "...has been described as the...", without any attribution (e.g. described by whom), so, this claim should not be attributed to BBC, at least not based on the above link. Regards. Ktin (talk) 19:09, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment It is an arsony and a mass murder blurb should reflect this. --Jenda H. (talk) 19:06, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment a little context: [24] [25] --LaserLegs (talk) 00:45, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment Adding altblurb2 given this is now looking like an arson attack. --Masem (t) 01:05, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Also I've moved it again to the more specific location name per BBC and updated the above. --Masem (t) 01:08, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Unfortunately. It's tragic but no general significance. Much larger disasters are reported everyday around the word. – Ammarpad (talk) 05:13, 10 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 8[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sports

(Posted to RD) RD: Erich Gruenberg[edit]

Article: Erich Gruenberg (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Strad
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Iconic violinist, born in Vienna, studied in Israel, then for life in London, played the Moscow premiere of Britten's concerto, and with The Beatles. The article was practically in place, but - so far - undersourced. - I need to go now. There's more in sources if you want to add. Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:11, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

  • Comment reference 5 says it is a page on The Strad, but the link points to a BBC page with a mirror of our own article on it, which isn't acceptable as a source... Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 06:16, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
    Sorry, BBC fixed, and it's a reference to five Proms concerts, not the bio. I meant to name the others also but had no time yet. Click to each one has the details. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:08, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. —Brigade Piron (talk) 08:57, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support As the concerns of Amakuru has been addressed, seems fine now JW 1961 Talk 20:30, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - per improvements.BabbaQ (talk) 20:43, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD. A little on the short side but consensus to post and meets minimum standards. SpencerT•C 21:25, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Pere Casaldàliga[edit]

Article: Pere Casaldàliga (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): La Vanguardia (Rede Globo)
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Spanish-Brazilian prelate. Missionary to Brazil, where he developed an important and award-winning social work and defense of human rights, especially of indigenous people. Nicknamed "The Bishop of the Poors". Exponent of the liberation theology. Working on updating his article. Alsoriano97 (talk) 16:03, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) 2020 Belarusian protests[edit]

Article: 2020 Belarusian protests (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The largest protests since 1995 erupt in Belarus in the run-up to the 2020 presidential elections, which are met with an increasing crackdown by the Lukashenko regime. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​In Belarus, large-scale opposition protests, which erupted in the run-up to the 2020 presidential elections, continue after state-controlled media outlets report a landslide victory for incumbent Alexander Lukashenko.
Alternative blurb II: ​Incumbent President of Belarus Alexander Lukashenko (pictured) claims victory in a presidential election considered not free or fair by election observers amid pro-democracy protests.
Alternative blurb III: ​Belarus cracks down on pro-democracy protests as incumbent President of Belarus Alexander Lukashenko (pictured) claims victory in a presidential election considered not free or fair by election observers.
News source(s): BBC, Euronews, BBC (post-election)
Credits:

Large scale significant protests in Belarus, ongoing for some time, gaining significant momentum and coverage in recent days.Abcmaxx (talk) 13:18, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

  • Support - article seems ready. Perhaps add it together with voting results tomorrow.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:21, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment The main article is 2020 Belarusian protests, I've added it to the blurb. Brandmeistertalk 14:48, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support The outcome of the election will be significant for this country, as well as Russia and the rest of Europe. Maybe the result of the election could also have its own blurb once those are announced? LSGH (talk) (contributions) 15:23, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment should this be ongoing, rather than a blurb? Today is a large event but these have been occurring for two months and are expect to occur until the election? --Masem (t) 15:42, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment I support adding this in the blurb on the election results but, for now, the protests solely don't merit one. And while it's clear what happens in the country, POV-pushing words like "regime" are not welcome.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:56, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Wait – I hate to say the W-word again, but it seems only logical to wait until tomorrow's election results are available. (Besides, Saturday is traditionally an off-day news-wise.)Sca (talk) 17:04, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support now as a blurb (no sign that it's being continuously updated for ongoing) and when the election is done, if the election article is suitable, merge. Lots of election articles fail to go up due to inadequate updates or referencing issues. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:06, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Oppose Ongoing to be clear, despite the hysteria the article does not meet the basic requirement of being "continually updated with new, pertinent information" --LaserLegs (talk) 20:53, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support ongoing per notability of the events and the article is ready. (talk) 18:46, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose & Wait The election outcome and the "hook" of this news will depend on results in 24 hours. We can wait till then, no need to post this today and re-litigate it again tomorrow. Albertaont (talk) 18:50, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Nominator comment For those who say wait; I would point out that the elections are really merely academic at this point and so the protests will be ongoing regardless of the already known outcome. Besides, as some have pointed out, the blurb can always be changed accordingly Abcmaxx (talk) 19:18, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I would definitely support adding this to ITN today.BabbaQ (talk) 19:36, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
Good to know your opinion. – Sca (talk) 13:58, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Just drew 60,000, without incident. Big by Belarus standards, maybe. The election will be bigger. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:42, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
    • @InedibleHulk Not without incident; given hundreds have been arrested, more threatened, and most of the opposition leaders and activists have been detained in some form or another, that is hardly an accurate statement. Belarus is a secretive police state, so 60000 open protesters is huge by any comparable standard. Abcmaxx (talk) 20:39, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
Arrests are normal in police states. Lacks newsworthy incidents. Violence, property crime, clashes like elsewhere; this is a sidebar to an election story. But yeah, good to see a whole 3% of Minsk in the streets. Maybe after tomorrow, a full twentieth will get angry. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:47, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Wait until the election or post to Ongoing. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 21:30, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support and possibly post to Ongoing. 3% is very close the the 3.25% for a revolution so this story looks like it might have legs. This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 20:43, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Very Strong Support This is some of the biggest change or attempt at change in Belarus since its inception. Dan the Animator (Commons Room) 21:00, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support combined election blurb. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 23:52, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. Widely reported and now the "election" has concluded as well. I proposed an alt-blurb above which combines both events. Regards SoWhy 07:24, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - merged my altblurbs from nominating the election. Smurrayinchester 09:24, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Alt II's nice InedibleHulk (talk) 11:21, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment the election article is not in posting condition. Shouldn't have rushed to merge the two. Oh well. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:40, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support altblurb2 Since its both about the election and the subsequent protests. Gotitbro (talk) 13:53, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose – See explanation above. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 15:08, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose solely on article quality. The election article is nowhere near ready for linking on the main page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:13, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support posting without delay. Both articles in decent condition and items certainly all over the news where I am. Mkwia (talk) 08:14, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support, per above. —Brigade Piron (talk) 08:57, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support, per above. Election results are themselves newsworthy, so this seems like a clear candidate. EryZ (talk) 23:30, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Posted. Currently the protest article is good enough so I've posted it without haste. -- King of ♥ 23:39, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Pull bold or not, you can't link the election article in that state on the main page. Update the blurb to exclude the link please. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:46, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
    We link horrible articles on the Main Page all the time. Wikipedia is a work in progress. We just shouldn't highlight them as something we are proud of. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 00:57, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
    Sorry but no, the election article has unreferenced claims about individuals being arrested -- a WP:BLP vio. It's gotta come down --LaserLegs (talk) 10:32, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

August 7[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
  • Reddit reports it was hit by a major hack, in which hackers took control of at least 70 of the most-popular subreddits and their respective moderator accounts to spam pro-Trump messages. A site spokesperson said an investigation is underway. (Wired) (CNet)

(Posted) RD: Adin Steinsaltz[edit]

Article: Adin Steinsaltz (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [26]
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Prolific scholar and groundbreaking translator of the Talmud. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:09, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

  • Oppose tagged. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 18:19, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
    I removed the tag, the page did not need the full tag on the whole page. I see a few spare "when" but nothing that seems too major for such a large article. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:28, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose too much uncited material. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 22:51, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
    Coffeeandcrumbs, I have filled in more than enough to get it at RD. ("Of sufficient quality.") Sir Joseph (talk) 00:13, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
    I don't see his death mentioned and cited in the article and, if we don't have a source for his exact date of birth, it should be removed from the lead. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 02:42, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
    OK Folks. Added mentions of his death in the article. Added a few other references. Done. I think the top-of-the-fold section looks reasonably clean. Ktin (talk) 03:30, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
    Support – I added two missing refs I noticed. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:07, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support – Sourced and ready.BabbaQ (talk) 17:28, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support satis. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 21:58, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Looks fine. – Ammarpad (talk) 22:55, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD. SpencerT•C 05:44, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) Air India Express Flight 1344[edit]

Proposed image
Article: Air India Express Flight 1344 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​An Air India Express Boeing 737 aircraft (pictured) with 191 people on board crashes at an airport in the southern state of Kerala, India, killing at least seventeen people. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​An Air India Express plane with 191 people on board overruns a runway at an airport in the southern state of Kerala, India, killing at least seventeen people.
News source(s): BBC, AP, Reuters
Credits:

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Developing. Sherenk1 (talk) 16:15, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

  • Support: 15 dead, 135 injuries ❯❯❯   S A H A 17:29, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
    the alt blurb is more accurate ❯❯❯   S A H A 18:02, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose Disasterous but the article currently has insufficient content.--AlphaBeta135 (talk) 16:44, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
    Support Now that article has a sufficient amount of info.--AlphaBeta135 (talk) 17:29, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
  • WaitReportedly two casualties, 30-40 injured. – Sca (talk) 16:49, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - 15+ dead, article coming together nicely. Mjroots (talk) 17:05, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support hull loss, many dead. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 17:34, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong Support Dozens dead, possibly up to 200 potential deaths and injuries. Eternal Shadow Talk 17:35, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. Per above notes. Someone knowledgeable about this topic, please feel free to update the blurb if there is a difference between 'crash' and overrunning runway / runway excursion. Also now that we know the number onboard, we perhaps update the nearly 200 onboard to the actual number onboard. Added Altblurb above.Ktin (talk) 17:53, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
    Ktin, overrun is appropriate. ❯❯❯   S A H A 17:55, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Causalities will likely climb looking at the wreakage alone. Support characterization as crash instead of runway excursion, since this will be complete hull loss and its well pass the runway in a valley. Albertaont (talk) 18:04, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support It just happened a couple of minutes ago. Plane fell into the valley and 15+ dead. 70.106.212.233 (talk) 18:27, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - seems ready for posting.BabbaQ (talk) 18:31, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Marked ready. – Ammarpad (talk) 18:36, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Posted alt blurb. -- King of ♥ 21:07, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) 2020 Sri Lankan parliamentary election[edit]

Article: 2020 Sri Lankan parliamentary election (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Incumbent party Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna led by Gotabaya Rajapaksa claims a landslide victory in the parliamentary election. (Post)
News source(s): BBC, CNN, Al Jazeera
Credits:

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: Sri Lanka was the only country in the world without a functioning parliament for months amid COVID-19 pandemic and this is an importamt election to determine the stability of the ruling government. It is also important as Sri Lanka is the only South Asian country to have held election in the middle of a pandemic. Abishe (talk) 02:07, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

  • Comment This is ITN/R, so I have edited the nom to reflect that. The results section needs a prose update and the results should also be included in the infobox and lede, which incidentally is overly long and some of its material should be moved to the body. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 02:26, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Just to clarify, the above was intended as an oppose on quality with the hope that the editors currently working on the article will fix the deficiencies I described, but I didn't think it would be necessary to make that explicit because I assumed succeeding !voters would agree that the article needs improvement. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 03:44, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Some recent elections have gone stale on ITN, this is not one of them. Thanks again for the work so far, agree with @Bzweebl: article needs minor touch-up, but the substance is there.Albertaont (talk) 02:36, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per nomination, and above points. Blurb looks good too! Ktin (talk) 03:00, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - Looks good. Prose is there as well. Sherenk1 (talk) 03:37, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment a few uncited sentences at the end of paragraphs and in the timeline; consider this a support once those are addressed. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 04:57, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Article looks good, with a few fixes needed. Major election in Sri Lanka. ~ Destroyeraa (talk|Contribs) 12:57, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment I hope I fixed those concerns mentioned above but hope the overall shape of the article is okayish. Cheers. Abishe (talk) 13:22, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Article looks better now. Thanks to Abishe and others for their efforts. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 17:40, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support on the face of it, this looks ready. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 18:25, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Looks OK – Ammarpad (talk) 18:42, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Posted. SpencerT•C 02:29, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

References[edit]

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

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

  1. ^ "Three killed in passenger train derailment after storms in northeast Scotland". CNN.
  2. ^ News, A. B. C. "3 dead after train derails in Scotland". ABC News.
  3. ^ "Passenger Train Derails in Scotland; 'Serious Injuries' Reported | Voice of America - English". www.voanews.com.
  4. ^ "Bloomberg - Are you a robot?". www.bloomberg.com.
  5. ^ "Three people die in Scotland passenger train derailment". www.aljazeera.com.
  6. ^ "Three dead after passenger train derails in Scotland". www.abc.net.au. 12 August 2020.
  7. ^ "Several believed killed as train derails in Scotland". France 24. 12 August 2020.
  8. ^ Aug 12. "'Serious injuries' reported after Scottish train derails - Times of India". The Times of India.
  9. ^ "Three killed as train derails in Scotland, leaving carriages piled up". South China Morning Post. 12 August 2020.