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.

Bong Joon-ho in 2017
Bong Joon-ho

How to nominate an item[edit]

In order to suggest a candidate:

  • Update an article to be linked to from the blurb to include the recent developments, or find an article that has already been updated.
  • Find the correct section below for the date of the event (not the date nominated) in UTC.
    • Do not add sections for new dates. These are automatically generated (at midnight UTC) by a bot; creating them manually breaks this process. Remember, we use UTC dates.
  • Nominate the blurb for ITN inclusion under the "Suggestions" subheading for the date, emboldening the link in the blurb to the updated article. Use a level 4 header (====) when doing so.
    • Preferably use the template {{ITN candidate}} to nominate the article related to the event in the news. Make sure that you include a reference from a verifiable, reliable secondary source. Press releases are not acceptable. The suggested blurb should be written in simple present tense.
    • Adding an explanation why the event should be posted greatly increases the odds of posting.
  • Please consider alerting editors to the nomination by adding the template {{ITN note}} to the corresponding article's talk page.

Purge this page to update the cache

There are criteria which guide the decision on whether or not to put a particular item on In the news, based largely on the extensiveness of the updated content and the perceived significance of the recent developments. These are listed at WP:ITN.

Submissions that do not follow the guidelines at Wikipedia:In the news will not be placed onto the live template.

Headers[edit]

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pulled from the main page are generally marked with (Posted) or (Pulled) in the item's subject so it is clear they are no longer active.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

Voicing an opinion on an item[edit]

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

Please do not...[edit]

  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]

February 18[edit]

Business and economy

RD: Ashraf Sinclair[edit]

Article: Ashraf Sinclair (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): NST "Actor Ashraf Sinclair dies of heart attack aged 40". New Straits Times. 18 February 2020.
Credits:

Nominator's comments: He is a Malaysian actor, who well known in Indonesia and was played in many dramas and films in Indonesia and Malaysia. 36.69.53.66 (talk) 07:03, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

February 17[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents
  • Storm Dennis
    • Severe flooding from the storm continues across Wales and southern England, with dozens of flood warnings still in effect. (BBC)
    • The lower reaches of many rivers, including the Severn at Shrewsbury, continue to rise as a result of excess runoff from upstream. The River Wye in Hereford has now reached its highest level in recorded history. (BBC)
    • In Worcestershire, police divers have recovered the body of a woman who died after her car was swept away from a flooded road. (BBC)
  • At least 20 people, many among them women and children, are killed in a human stampede following a rush to collect aid supplies upon the opening of the gates to an aid facility in south-eastern Niger. (BBC)

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sports
  • 2020 Daytona 500
    • Denny Hamlin wins his second consecutive Daytona 500, and his third overall, becoming the first driver to win the race consecutively since Sterling Marlin did so between 1994 and 1995. Ryan Newman is hospitalized with serious but non-life threatening injuries after an airborne crash coming to the finish. (WESH)

RD: Owen Bieber[edit]

Article: Owen Bieber (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): NYT Hall, Kalea; Noble, Breana (February 17, 2020). "Former UAW President Owen Bieber dies at 90". The Detroit News.
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Article was a DYK and doesn't look like it's changed much since then. Should be ready, though the lead could be meatier. Nohomersryan (talk) 19:39, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

RD: Andrew Weatherall[edit]

Article: Andrew Weatherall (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): [1]
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: British DJ and producer. Article needs some more citations, which I'll work on this afternoon, and the usual unsourced -ography section, but otherwise in good enough shape.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:49, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Haha, you edit-conflicted with me nominating it. I've added a death section, but I've got to be AFK for a while now. Black Kite (talk) 14:52, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
    @Black Kite: he he yes, thanks for that. I was going to nominate Harry Gregg as well, but missed out on that one because I had to go to a meeting...  — Amakuru (talk) 15:45, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose too much unreferenced. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 14:53, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

February 16[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

Politics and elections

(Posted) RD: Harry Gregg[edit]

Article: Harry Gregg (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The Guardian, BBC Sport
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Manchester United and Northern Ireland goalkeeper of the late 1950s / early 1960s, best known for saving lives in the 1958 Munich air disasterJmorrison230582 (talk) 14:27, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

I have replaced the Mail with cites from the Guardian and FourFourTwo, and added some references for the TV/film depictions. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 15:16, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Support Good to go. --Jayron32 15:24, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose - a few claims that need to be cited, but after that should be OK to go. Decent article.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:49, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Posted - all cites now good, and consensus to post to RD.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:40, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

February 15[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Politics and elections

(Posted) RD: Tony Fernández[edit]

Article: Tony Fernández (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): MLB.com
Credits:

 – Muboshgu (talk) 17:48, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

RD: Shehnaz Ansari[edit]

Article: Shehnaz Ansari (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): TheNews
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: A sitting MPA shot dead. Guy in the Mall (talk) 16:31, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

RD: A. E. Hotchner[edit]

Article: A. E. Hotchner (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Guardian obituary
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Centenarian writer and editor, friend and biographer of Ernest Hemingway and of Paul Newman. Few sentences in the middle of the article need sources. Blythwood (talk) 14:43, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Caroline Flack[edit]

Article: Caroline Flack (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Telegraph, Deadline
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: English radio and television presenter. The article has some issues, but it's being heavly edited since she was "very famous". --SirEdimon (talk) 18:05, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Support Confirmation of death and article is citated correctly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.8.148.126 (talk) 19:46, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - article looks good enough Spiderone 20:33, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - Article now good enough for inclusion. BabbaQ (talk) 20:41, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment - sorry to "do a TRM", but Filmography is wholly unsourced. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:52, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose, per above (and no need to apologise for maintaining standards, particular for a BLP) but also the "Strictly Come Dancing performances" table is completely unreferenced as well. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 22:07, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
    Is that table even necessary? Do people really care about each "performance"? – Muboshgu (talk) 22:36, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
    It feels like something that should be saved for an article on the show, if at all. A few lines of prose about appearing is really all a biography would merit. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ˣ 22:39, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
    It's become standard practice to copy out the results table extract to the contestant's own article, but usually in collapsable form. As a series winner the table deserves to be included for Flack more than for most. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:52, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
    It feels a little undue, especially if there's already cited prose describing the course of the show (and we do have a paragraph-length summary of its run so it's not like it isn't covered); ultimately if it's uncited material in a biography we should be looking for a good reason to include it, and other articles doing it isn't enough. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ˣ 23:21, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
    There is no reason, as far as I know, for it to remain uncited. But, as Kingsif says below, WP:PLOT. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:24, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
    Yeeeeah, I disagree that's standard practice. Summarize how far she got, etc. but you have the link to the series article right there. Unless there is some specific facet of her appearance on one of those shows that had more impact on her life/career, the summary is just fine. --Masem (t) 00:25, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support barring filmography refs, most if not all should be easily available on the BBC and ITV websites. Strictly Come Dancing might not warrant refs because of WP:PLOT Kingsif (talk) 22:34, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose ography section has to be sourced, and I don't understand why guest appearances are broken out separate, they're all still television appearances. --Masem (t) 00:21, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
    • Also, there is zero reason to have the dancing show table there. Linking to the season article where those results are present already are fine. Her article should summary her appearance on the show, but not the details. --Masem (t) 00:23, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
      Agreed. Axe the dancing show table,it's undue in this article and per WP:NOTSTATS, doesn't add to understanding the BLP when the biog already covers the important detail in prose.  — Amakuru (talk) 00:29, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment Filmography table is now 95% referenced, "guest appearances" section is halfway there. PotentPotables (talk) 02:33, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment: I have added references to the remaining parts of the Filmography table. I have also added a reference to the Radio table and some to the Guest Appearances list. I could not find sources for the three that are left uncited for now. Aoba47 (talk) 03:39, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support referencing seems to have been greatly improved. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:34, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support well sourced. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:38, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD  — Amakuru (talk) 10:33, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Storm Dennis[edit]

Good faith nom but consensus is against posting and is unlikely to change. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:34, 16 February 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: Storm Dennis (talk, history)
Ongoing item nomination
Alternative blurb: ​The British Army is deployed for rescue efforts as a Bomb Cyclone hits England.
Alternative blurb II: ​Storm Dennis, a bomb cyclone, becomes strongest winter storm ever in North Atlantic.
News source(s): (UPI) (USA Today)
Credits:
Nominator's comments: Current Weather event that is bad enough the British Military is doing rescue efforts. Elijahandskip (talk) 20:40, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Ongoing because OG items need to be "continuously updated". I'd consider a blurb pending update, the article has no impact section as yet to justify one. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:52, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment The article now has an impact section. I added a second alt blurb as the storm is possibly the strongest north Atlantic winter storm ever. Elijahandskip (talk) 20:59, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose it's windy and wet, and inconvenient. And it'll be all over in a matter of hours, so ongoing seems overkill. At most, if dozens are killed, we could look at a blurb. Otherwise, it's modern weather business as usual. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 22:09, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
    • Comment (Question) How is a storm setting records in the North Atlantic "weather business as usual"? Elijahandskip (talk) 22:23, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
      • As I noted, I'll await its impact, if any, before suggesting it should be posted. Much like Ciara, it'll most likely be a storm in a large teacup. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 22:27, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
    It's kind of windy outside at the moment, but doesn't feel as bad as last week yet. If my wheelie bin has blown over by tomorrow morning then I might consider supporting.  — Amakuru (talk) 00:36, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment Given that a blurb on Ciara was rejected and the article's lead forecasts: "Despite its intensity, the effects from the Storm are not expected to be as notable as Storm Ciara," I would only support this if the article itself was well developed, which at the moment, that seems half-way. Sleath56 (talk) 03:23, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose – powerful storm, yes, but not especially impactful which is the most important element for ITN. If it were a world-record intensity I believe that would warrant mention solely on meteorological merits but that is not the case here. National militaries routinely respond to disasters to assist affected persons. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 03:37, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Per Amakuru – and of course we must accede to the expert advice of the preceding user's post. – Sca (talk) 14:52, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Even if the article could be expanded, three deaths is not significant for a weather disaster post. --Masem (t) 16:16, 16 February 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.

February 14[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy

Health and environment
International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sports

(Posted) RD: Bonnie MacLean[edit]

Article: Bonnie MacLean (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): San Francisco Chronicle, Paste Magazine
Credits:

 7&6=thirteen () 14:46, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Comment She appears to have died on February 4, but it has only been reported on the 12th.-- P-K3 (talk) 14:57, 14 February 2020 (UTC)}}
  • Weak oppose Article is currently extremely light on what she actually did and could use a small expansion before posting. Kees08 (Talk) 17:00, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Comment P-K3 Added content. 7&6=thirteen () 12:56, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Looks good to go. P-K3 (talk) 13:37, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Posted Kees08 (Talk) 16:41, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Ex-Tropical Cyclone Usei[edit]

No consensus to post. Stephen 22:17, 16 February 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: 2019–20 South Pacific cyclone season (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Ex-Tropical Cyclone Usei makes landfall on Lord Howe Island and heads toward New Zealand.
News source(s): (NASA) (ABC News)
Credits:
Nominator's comments: It is a current Weather event that is out of season. Normally Tropical Storms/hurricans/cyclones are mentioned in this section. It has officially made a landfall also on Lord Howe Island. Elijahandskip (talk) 00:36, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment Not out of season at all. It's peak cyclone season in those waters. HiLo48 (talk) 00:56, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Uesi has very little impact at all, plus no article of the cyclone exist. INeedSupport ❄️ 02:28, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Severe Tropical Cyclone Uesi does not have its own article, and I don't think the season article should be approved in its place. Also, despite making landfall on Lord Howe Island, no significant damage was reported. If there had been significant damage on New Caledonia or Lord Howe Island, then I would probably support the nomination. As a point of technicality which was also mentioned by HiLo48, Severe Tropical Cyclone Uesi was not an out-of-season event. February–March is peak tropical cyclone season in the Southern Hemisphere. ChocolateTrain (talk) 07:23, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose as Uesi is no shere near the level required for in the news with barely any impact reported.Jason Rees (talk) 09:05, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose not seeing any real newsworthiness to level of encyclopedic main page inclusion. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 16:50, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is the first I'm hearing about any cyclones, considering I live in New Zealand, so this could hardly be news anywhere else if it's not here. There has also been hardly any damage, so the notability is not there.  Nixinova  T  C   22:54, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  • oppose Not a notable TC by any means. NoahTalk 23:39, 15 February 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.

February 13[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Coastal GasLink Pipeline protests[edit]

Article: Coastal GasLink Pipeline#Protests (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Following several days of protests blockading rail lines across Canada, Via Rail announces the shutdown of most of its passenger rail service until further notice.
Alternative blurb: Via Rail, Canada's only nationwide passenger train service, announces a suspension of all services with the exception of two northern routes after several days of protests opposing a gas pipeline project in British Columbia that crosses the territory of Wetʼsuwetʼen First Nation.
Alternative blurb II: ​The Coastal GasLink Pipeline protests shut down the Canadian passenger train service Via Rail.
Alternative blurb III: ​The Coastal GasLink Pipeline protests shut down Canadian passenger train service and much of the Canadian freight rail network.
News source(s): CBC, Global News, CTV, BBC, Al Jazeera
Credits:
Article updated

 2607:FEA8:1DDF:FEE1:7504:B465:858D:639A (talk) 04:27, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

  • technical note: I use a shifting IP with Rogers telecom. If I make a future comment as original nom and my IP has changed, I will use the tag (~AH1) in my comments prior to my IP signature, to indicate my former editor's account. 2607:FEA8:1DDF:FEE1:7504:B465:858D:639A (talk) 04:27, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong support - Lengthy and high-quality article, major news event and first entire rail stoppage in the country in decades. Obvious yes from me. 122.60.66.191 (talk) 07:35, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose only related to a single country, namely Canada. This event needs to involve other countries, like US or UK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.137.191.96 (talk) 09:30, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Pardon? WaltCip (talk) 12:30, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
This is the same IP block that nominated the Trump impeachment for removal hours after the CAA protests were removed. I think it can be safely ignored. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:44, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose unlike past protests we have posted, this is more a sit in, nonviolent protest of interminable size. Not in the same class as others, --Masem (t) 12:19, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
    • I'm changing to a Support on improvements based on the explanations better in BBC than our article of the extent of the impact. Both freight and passenger trains schedules are disrupted so to me, this is like the Yellow vests movement from France that we did support. But the article needs improvement to address that scale of impact. --Masem (t) 16:31, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Unsee coverage on major RS sites. – Sca (talk) 13:53, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support article is good enough. Front page at cbc.ca. Via shut down all passenger rail nation wide due to protests in the BC interior this is actually a pretty big deal. Why the hell are anti-pipeline protesters interrupting rail service? --LaserLegs (talk) 15:30, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak Support on quality, article appears to be fine. On significance, while these protests may be behaving differently from how protests would occur in other parts of the world, there's a long tradition in Canada that this is how First Nations protest. While it's been done before, I don't believe they've ever shut down our national rail service before, however, and that is where this rises to the level of significance required for ITN. NorthernFalcon (talk) 16:16, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
I remember them closing the 401 out near cornwall years ago --LaserLegs (talk) 16:36, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Alt blurb 1's a good try, but it's not quite long enough. Just another 21 words and it'll match the length of all the current blurbs combined. —Cryptic 16:47, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Article is good quality, updated, and the story is a major news story on several outlets. Added another Alt2 --Jayron32 16:58, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Although it's a good article, it lacks sufficient notability to be shown as ITN, but yes in Current Events. Important for Canada, but little else. I think that the way to protest of "First Nations", as someone says above, has no relevance to consider whether it is important or not. (Alsoriano97) (talk) 17:57, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Unsee even on main CBC page today. Getting a bit stale, eh? – Sca (talk) 15:00, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Um, it is on the front page of CBC, and is likely to remain so until resolution. There is also a pretty good CNN article which explains the situation reasonably well. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 21:51, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
On my (PC) screen, the CBC site displays 30 articles, including one with the hammer-head "Trains vs. pipelines," but nothing on protests. – Sca (talk) 00:00, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Something you already knew, but which I should post publicly in case others didn't realize the irrelevance of your comment: News websites generally post a personalized view of their main page based on a number of factors, and whether or not a particular story appears prominently for you has little bearing on whether or not the story is being covered by in-depth articles. If one wants to know what sort of prominence a story is getting, one needs to look at the number, length, and depth of stories covering a topic from a wide variety of sources, not just what one's personal view of the world is. --Jayron32 12:13, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Good point-out, Jayron. Dodging those algorithms (Google too!) is one of the major reasons I clear cookies and caches multiple times a session and never use a news feed. Otherwise I find that I am just getting "echo-chamber" articles. (Disclaimer - I actually learned about this in the first place because I coincidentally happened to be in Toronto, in Union Station, waiting for a train, on the day when it started. I asked various staff what was going on, and they told me. I managed to get home on what turned out to be one of the last trains before the system-wide shutdown. Job-related travel has been ... interesting ... ever since. (Plus, February is always particularly busy for VIA Rail because the corridor includes more than a million university and college students, all of whom have a Reading Week equivalent during February (or early March on the Québec side of the provincial border), and at times it seems like most of them hold student rail passes.) In passing, Toronto Union Station is proximate to one of Toronto's Chinatowns, and Toronto has reason to remember SARS vividly. Here and now, the combination made for large crowds, with lots of masks.) - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 13:10, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment Based on all my experience in ITN, my dropping in here will be the kiss of death. Nonetheless, for context, I will mention that CNR is the third largest railway in North America (not just Canada) by operating revenue and the fourth largest by mileage. During the past week, approximately half of its rail was blocked, and a third of its rail remains shut down. Additionally, during the past week, half of all the container ports in Canada were blockaded (two still are on an on-again off-again basis), and the CPR rail line was also briefly blocked. CNR has stated that it expects to lay off 6,000 people as a direct result. Those layoffs have already started. For reference, the total employment of CNR is 24,000.
(As an amusing note, US domestic policy considers Canadian oil "domestic". Twenty percent of that oil is carried at least partly on CNR rails -- so yes, much of that is at a standstill as well. Not quite so amusing is that much of Canada depends on heating supplies delivered by rail. There have been extreme cold warnings in Canada this week and last.)
As noted in one of the blurbs, VIA Rail is the only cross-Canada intercity passenger service: the VIA Rail domestic services which remain running serve fewer than 5% of all Canadians. Several of the commuter train lines for all three of Canada's largest cities have been intermittently shut down as well. (At one point last week, Amtrak had to cancel its Cascade service to Vancouver because of this.) There is no Canadian Greyhound (intercity bus) service in most of Canada by geography (shut down by Greyhound last October, including the cross-country routes). Contrasting with the 401 shutdown, where alternate roads were not blocked, there simply are no alternate rail lines for most of this region.
As to violence -- well, the last major Canadian protest which had (2) deaths was the Winnipeg general strike of 1919, more than a century ago. It involved 30,000 people (roughly 0.5% of the total population of Canada at the time) and had about 80 or so arrests. The current protests have already exceeded that number of arrests, with roughly 0.5% of the population of Canada protesting. The numbers involved are not really obvious because Canada is so large geographically compared to its population, because the protests are scattered throughout Canada (some of the larger protests were in Vancouver, Victoria, Toronto, and London), and because the rail blockades and many of the arrests are happening in remote areas. Quite simply, Canada has 1/30 the population of India, but 3x the geographic size. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 21:51, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
The only thing keeping this off the main page is the one sentence update. Expand it, we can rightly ignore the "it's only Canada" opposes per Please do not "oppose an item because the event is only relating to a single country". You have the power to do it, just add some details and up it goes. Easy! --LaserLegs (talk) 13:22, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
?? I looked at it, and all the information was already there. I did clean up the structure of the article -- lede, sections, removed duplication of information, and so forth. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 14:09, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Update - article should be ready for posting. I also added an alternate blurb (3) to include the impact on freight rail traffic. For other impacts, readers can access the article. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 15:58, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Support for Alt2 blurb which provides the best context for the incident. The Wetʼsuwetʼen First Nation page could use a bit more article expansion, but it's satisfactory that I'd support linking it. Sleath56 (talk) 07:30, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

RD: Rajendra K. Pachauri[edit]

Article: Rajendra K. Pachauri (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): News18
Credits:

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Needs copyediting and neutrality issue with one section should be fixed. Nizil (talk) 18:14, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Antarctica temperature record[edit]

No consensus to post.-- P-K3 (talk) 15:38, 14 February 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: Climate of Antarctica (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The warmest temperature in Antarctica is recorded at Seymour Island
Alternative blurb: ​At Seymour Island a temperature of over 20 °C (68 °F) is recorded in Antarctica for the first time
Alternative blurb II: ​A temperature of 20.75 °C (69.35 °F) is recorded at Seymour Island, the highest recorded in Antarctica.
News source(s): Guardian
Credits:
Article updated
Nominator's comments: Record held since 1982 2A00:23C5:508F:3E01:31E6:12F4:842B:25C (talk) 17:19, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong support - Any major climate news like this needs to be posted.--WaltCip (talk) 17:25, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Very strong support - This is MAJOR. This needs to be in ITN IMMEDIATELY! Minecrafter0271 (talk) 18:01, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose on quality (several tags, and no mention of this new record). Neutral on significance - isn't it just going to keep getting incrementally warmer? Prior record was set...ONE WEEK AGO?! GreatCaesarsGhost 18:33, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
    • Misread that. Prior record for Seymour Island was 1982. A new record was set on the mainland a week ago. GreatCaesarsGhost 18:37, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
  • support - newsworthy. BabbaQ (talk) 20:19, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support when problems are addressed climate change is an existential threat to us all. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:22, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose on article quality. Multiple tags and unsourced claims. Weak Support on merits once the various quality issues are resolved. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:30, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose unless we're going to make this ITN each time it happens, then it may as well be in ITNR... -- Rockstonetalk to me! 21:10, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Arbitrary record? Obviously its getting warmer, global warming and all that, but just reading the Guardian, there's about four or five asterisks to add to this (its not mainland Antarctica, for example). I'm all for major irreversible events like if/when a major ice shelf breaks off, but this is just a trend here. --Masem (t) 21:13, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose missing refs, weak update. Then ongoing. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:12, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
    Ongoing? Antarctica is probably going to get steadily warmer for the next several decades at least...  — Amakuru (talk) 23:39, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Largely per Masem's arbitrary record about a trend argument. PackMecEng (talk) 00:00, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose Not significant news. Only related to single area, namely Antartica. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.76.229.147 (talk) 00:28, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose - this is horribly misleading (the latitude of the site is such that it's meaningless in terms of "climate change") and should not be given the benefit of being on the main page. While "climate change" is a verifiable phenomenon, this sort of irresponsibly sensationalized junk should not be given any sort of visibility on Wikipedia. What other news organizations choose to do or ignore to further their own POV doesn't matter here. 66.76.14.38 (talk) 01:10, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
How the heck do you sensationalize a temperature reading? What sort of news are you looking for, water coming up to the doorstep of houses in Miami? WaltCip (talk) 02:06, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Article not ready, significance doubtful. – Ammarpad (talk) 04:27, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose I was leaning support, given that it's a record and the quality of the article, until the I read the comments here. 64S is not even in the Antarctic Circle! I guess WGR goes right out the window for certain subjects.130.233.2.197 (talk) 06:33, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Per above. Just DYK. MSN12102001 (talk) 12:04, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose – At most a statistical footnote in the history of global warming/climate change. – Sca (talk) 13:57, 14 February 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.

RD: Anne Windfohr Marion[edit]

Article: Anne Windfohr Marion (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): American Quarter Horse Association
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Texas rancher and philanthropist. Refs look ok. Died on 12 February. Jip Orlando (talk) 16:53, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Support Looks good to go. --Jayron32 18:40, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment. I've done some edits for tense & tone, but still seems to need some sourcing. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:36, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment @Jip Orlando and Jayron32: Looks like EA added one cn tag; would either of you be able to take care of it? Kees08 (Talk) 16:43, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
    • I spent some time searching online and was unable to find citations for either cn tag. SpencerT•C 03:02, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
    • I could not verify them either. In the interest of timing for posting, I have removed the uncited information. Removing them doesn't detract from the article much. Jip Orlando (talk) 13:35, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose two citation needed tags. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 17:04, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

February 12[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy

Health and environment

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

(Closed) Trial of Maesiah Thabane[edit]

WP:SNOW. We could post a conviction or an acquittal, but ITN almost never posts investigations or charges. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:09, 13 February 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: Maesiah Thabane (talk, history)
Blurb: ​First Lady of Lesotho, Maesiah Thabane, is being investigated for the murder of former First Lady of Lesotho, Lipolelo Thabane.
News source(s): [2] [3]
Credits:
Nominator's comments: Major event in Lesotho. This can effect world politics (Possibly if the Prime Minister steps down from pressure) Elijahandskip (talk) 19:50, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. By long-standing convention, ITN doesn't post criminal investigations unless/until they result in a conviction. Nominate again if she's convicted (which may be years away). Also the article is barely a stub. Modest Genius talk 20:05, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose, not only because that we need a more longer article to start, but also this type of story we'd post at the point of either acquittal or conviction. --Masem (t) 20:04, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose stub. I disagree with the notion that we must wait for a conviction. Expand it and I'll support. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:31, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Per Modest & Masem. Suggest snow. – Sca (talk) 14:01, 13 February 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.

February 11[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

(Posted) RD: Joseph Vilsmaier[edit]

Article: Joseph Vilsmaier (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BR
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Film director of what was liked by Bill Clinton: Comedian Harmonists (film), - his article was writen in colloquial style, and practically without sources. There's more in German, but I'm tired. Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:06, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Support Short but everything appears sourced.-- P-K3 (talk) 16:14, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment Any citation for the birth date or the one sentence in prose missing a citation? Kees08 (Talk) 17:03, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
    Citetion added. More could be added from that bio if someone had the time. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:02, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
    Agreed. Believe it meets the bare minimum to post, perhaps someone will expand once it is on the MP. Kees08 (Talk) 16:46, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Posted Kees08 (Talk) 16:46, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Katsuya Nomura[edit]

Article: Katsuya Nomura (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The Japan Times
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: A titan of Japanese baseball. Holds numerous awards and titles. Elected to Japanese baseball Hall of Fame --TorsodogTalk 19:16, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Comment - I see just few sentences needing references which can be easily fixed.--SirEdimon (talk) 19:31, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
    • I expanded some and added references. Hopefully it's better now. --TorsodogTalk 23:02, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
      • Support - Seems fine to me now. I can't see and unreferenced statement. I think it's ready to go.--SirEdimon (talk) 15:09, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD  — Amakuru (talk) 15:36, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) New Delhi Assembly Elections[edit]

Thanks to the nominator for suggesting this, and for their interest in the ITN process. It is gratefully received. But consensus will not form to post this item, so closing it now per WP:SNOW.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:58, 11 February 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 Delhi Legislative Assembly election (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Aam Aadmi Party sweeps the sate assembly elections of Delhi, the capital of India
News source(s): New York Times BBC
  • Oppose with a few exceptions because of the level of press coverage, we don't normally post local elections, only usually national ones. Unless you can explain why this local election should be an exception to that, I see no reason to post this. --Jayron32 13:56, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Thanks for the nomination, but no sources are offered to indicate that this local election is in the news, let alone in the news sufficiently to merit posting. Merely having the national capital is not sufficient; we don't post elections for the Washington, D.C. city council or mayor. 331dot (talk) 14:00, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Parochial. – Sca (talk) 15:06, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

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

(Posted) Irish General Election[edit]

Article: 2020 Irish general election (talk, history)
Blurb: Fianna Fáil (leader Micheál Martin pictured) wins a plurality of seats in the Irish general election.
Alternative blurb: ​The Irish general election concludes with no party holding a majority of seats in Dáil Éireann.
Alternative blurb II: ​The Irish general election concludes with Fianna Fáil, Sinn Féin, and Fine Gael as the three largest parties, but no party winning a majority.
News source(s): The Irish Times[4]
Credits:

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: It seems the results are now final. Sinn Fein won the popular vote for the first time in history, though I don't believe we can/should mention this in the blurb. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:57, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Two notes 1) According to the article, the blurb is incorrect as both Sinn Fein and Fianna Fail won 37 seats. That would not mean that Fianna Fail won the most, but that both Sinn Fein and Fianna Fail won the most, with a tie of 37. 2) There is no significant prose update of the results, just tables and charts and numbers in the infobox and stuff like that. I would expect a several-paragraph summary of the results in the "Results" section as well as a synopsis in the lead, and neither of those things has been done yet. Until that is done, I oppose posting this. Fix that, and get the blurb right, and I would support this. --Jayron32 13:13, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
If you want something done right, I guess you have to do it yourself. Article has been updated with sufficient prose now. Changing to support. --Jayron32 17:00, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Fianna Fail have an extra seat as one sitting member is "automatically" re-elected by virtue of their post; they have 38 sitting TDs as of this election but only 37 were returned by popular vote. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ˣ 13:20, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Well, then the article is wrong because it doesn't say ANY of that, and is reporting, both in the two numbers in the infobox AND in the graph in the summary section (Which, as I note, is insufficient, and there should be an extensive prose summary of the results), that the two parties have the same number of seats. So, there's a new reason to oppose the article as completely factually wrong. You should probably fix that if you want it posted. If you're OK with it not being posted, then don't worry about it and leave it wrong. --Jayron32 13:54, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
There is a note in the article explaining it, note [a]. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ˣ 13:59, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Two things 1) The note entirely insufficient for posting this article to the main page, as it is not a multi-paragraph explanation of the results in the "Results" section as well as a synopsis of that section in the lead. Unless and until you fix that problem, the existence or not of a footnote is still insufficient to post on the main page. 2) The note is ambiguous as it only says that the one seat was returned automatically and not contested. It does NOT say whether the seat was counted among the 37 or not. It could be read as 36 contested seats won, and 1 uncontested seat which adds up to 37. That's how I read it. Now, as I said, you have the ability to fix any of these problems if you want to see this article posted to the main page. That is a conditional statement, you don't have to fix the article, but if you don't, it will not be posted. Trying to argue with me is not fixing the article. Get on that. We're all waiting to see what wonderful prose you are prepared to write. --Jayron32 15:08, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
I don't really see how you read this as an argument, I just pointed out something that it appeared that you overlooked. I'm not the nominator nor a contributor to the article, nor have I even supported its posting. The fact that the Ceann Comhairle's seat is not contested is in prose in the article's lead but I'll reduplicate it elsewhere if it'll calm you down. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ˣ 15:18, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes, but where in the prose does it explain how many seats each party won? It says that his seat is not counted among the 160 contested, and that there were only 159 contested. I knew ALL of that ALREADY, but you did not address the main concern: 1) Where, in the multi-paragraph section of prose in the results section, does it explain how many seats each part won? Where does it explain, in unambiguous detail in an obvious way, how that extra seat works in to the total number of seats won by Fianna Fail? None of that is yet there. --Jayron32 15:27, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Wait. Generally would prefer to post a blurb on the formation of a government rather than just the election results. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ˣ 13:20, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
    But the election result is what is ITN/R, not the negotiations to form a government which may take some time.-- P-K3 (talk) 13:31, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
    Comment: the wait might be weeks or months. The election result on its own represents a huge shift for Irish domestic politics. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:33, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
    If we're posting it due to that shift then the Sinn Fein result should be mentioned in the blurb; Fianna Fail winning a plurality is not a shift from the norm on its own. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ˣ 13:36, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
    Agreed. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:55, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment I agree with Jayron32 that this not ready to post yet, there needs to be more prose in the results section. I don't see how Sinn Fein can fail to be mentioned in the blurb as they made the breakthrough and seem to be the focus of the news coverage.-- P-K3 (talk) 13:37, 11 February 2020 (UTC).
  • Comment. As I understand it we try to avoid the term "plurality" in blurbs. 331dot (talk) 13:44, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
We're used it in the past, but only when linked, because most readers are not familiar with it. Modest Genius talk 13:50, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment: the three biggest parties won 37, 37, and 35 seats (22-23% of the total), so it seems unreasonable to pick out any of them specifically. The blurb should simply say 'a hung parliament' or 'no party gaining a majority of seats' (altblurb added). I agree the article is not ready yet - needs a referenced paragraph of prose on the results. Modest Genius talk 13:50, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
  • But it's huge increase in vote share for Sinn Fein. Even they underestimated and did not field enough candidates. That's why the seat gain is more modest. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:54, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
I guess one seat was not up for election, though I'm not entirely clear on that point. 331dot (talk) 13:53, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Correct, the speaker (from FF) automatically retained their seat. Modest Genius talk 13:54, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support alt blurb. Since any one of three parties could at least theoretically be the lead party, it seems reasonable to not pick out one in the blurb. 331dot (talk) 13:58, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment. I am not supportive of including Sinn Fein into the blurb, but am open to allowing a blurb that says "a hung parliament". I don't have any objections to saying that Finna Fael (?) is the leading party by virtue of being the incumbent. SomethingNastyHere (talk) 15:27, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose, at present: I think the lead para should at least mention something about the outcome in seats: 3 approx equal parties is noteworthy. And I think both currently proposed blurbs are poor: do many (any?) Irish general elections end with a simple majority for one party; and Fianna Fáil hardly seem to have won. My impression is that Sinn Fein are the big story: doing so well that they surprised themselves (didn't put enough candidates.) It's not all about them, but they seem to be the story at the moment. PaulBetteridge (talk) 18:15, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Sinn Fein doing well does not mean they will lead or even be in the government, if the other two parties decide to form a coalition. Calling them out right now would be a very pro-Sinn Fein position to take. 331dot (talk) 18:20, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Support alt blurb 2: 3 party result is what needs saying (wish article lead said it too); worth saying now, rather than waiting. No wish to take or push a pro-Sinn Fein position; but I don't think talking, in the blurb, about another party, or mentioning no party at all is the right thing; blurb 2 balances things well, for me PaulBetteridge (talk) 11:38, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Lead now says what it needs to - no quality concerns remain for me --PaulBetteridge (talk) 18:16, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment I concur with 331dot. Mentioning Sinn Fein in the blurb would be UNDUE. No position otherwise for the moment. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:29, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Wait until government is formed, even if that takes weeks to months. I don't recall whether we've posted "hung parliament" blurbs in themselves (though absolute majority-less parliaments appear to be the norm in Ireland), but even if Sinn Fein did have quite a night, its performance is secondary and not blurb-worthy unless it's part of government. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 19:43, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose When votes result in the absence of clear majorities (of parties or declared coalitions), then I think it best to post when the government is formed. Especially when there are "special" seats which are not determined by plebiscite (as in this case). Moreso when those same special seats are the crux of majority-or-not numbers. I've read multiple, totally contradictory articles about this election, and if we can't do better in a single-line blurb, then it's best to put it off.130.233.2.197 (talk) 12:42, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
    The place to make that case is at WP:ITN/R, not here.-- P-K3 (talk) 15:28, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment A substantial number of comments here are out of order. The only matter up for discussion is the quality of the article. The result of the election is known; the absence of a clear winner does not change that this is an ITNR event. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:49, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
    Agree entirely.-- P-K3 (talk) 15:28, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support alt blurb 2 Now that the article has a section covering the aftermath of the election I don't see any reason to hold up posting this.-- P-K3 (talk) 15:28, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
    • I want to support this, but there are only two sentences (in the 'government formation' section) concerned with the results, the rest is all stuff that people said during the election campaigns about who they might work with. Two sentences are not a sufficient update in my view. Modest Genius talk 16:03, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. As the outcome and future government isn't known yet.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:32, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
    That isn't a valid oppose, the election is ITN/R, not the formation of the government.-- P-K3 (talk) 15:37, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support alt blurb II - I think that blurb accurately summarizes what happened. Minecrafter0271 (talk) 15:43, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Note: A prose summary of the election results has been added to both the lead and the body. That should ameliorate some of the quality concerns noted above. P-K3 — Modest Genius: --Jayron32 17:05, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
    Thanks - I've supported above.-- P-K3 (talk) 18:08, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
    Unreferenced, but as it's literally picking out the important numbers from the (referenced) tables and describing them in prose, I suppose that's OK. Weak support either alt1 or alt2 blurbs. Modest Genius talk 19:54, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
  • plus Posted altblurb1 — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:43, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Post-posting comment – Shouldn't it be "in the Dáil Éireann" – ?? – Sca (talk) 17:32, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
A little surprisingly, no: see Dáil Éireann#Title para 3 - PaulBetteridge (talk) 17:40, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Good spot, whoever caught that. Modest Genius talk 21:01, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Storm Ciara[edit]

No consensus to post. Stephen 22:12, 16 February 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: Storm Ciara (talk, history)
Blurb: ​At least seven people have died across Europe from Storm Ciara, leaving hundreds of thousands without power.
News source(s): BBC
Credits:
 Sherenk1 (talk) 10:40, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Article seems to be of reasonable quality. It probably lacks the significance we are looking for — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:33, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose It is rare for EU to get storms like this, and for people to die, but I feel this is rather minor in the scale of thing. I am not outright opposed to this being posted, I just this its not as major an event as typhoons and hurricanes. (also updated death toll to 7 per BBC). --Masem (t) 15:39, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. It's certainly been windy here, and there has been plenty of travel disruption, but the destruction has been fairly minor in world terms albeit tragic for those directly affected. I don't think we would post a tropical cyclone or hurricane that had this level of impact. Modest Genius talk 16:07, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose it was blustery and trains were cancelled and a handful sadly died. Not significant in the big weather scheme of things. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 11:24, 13 February 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) CIA code-breaking revelations[edit]

No consensus to post. SpencerT•C 03:03, 16 February 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: C-52 (cipher machine) (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Investigations revealed how the C-52 cipher machine had an intentional backdoor, allowing CIA and BND to read intercepted communication for much of the 20th century.
News source(s): Washington Post, Deutsche Welle
Credits:
 --bender235 (talk) 18:40, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Clearly of encyclopedic interest in my opinion, although while writing the blurb I came to think it could just as well appear as a WP:DYK. --bender235 (talk) 18:39, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose - This is kind of the CIA's job. It would be more newsworthy if they failed to do things like this.--WaltCip (talk) 19:02, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose but this feels like the type of thing that could be DYK if more expansion on the current article could be made. --Masem (t) 19:14, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment: according to Crypto_AG#Compromised_machines, it's been definitely known since 2015 that these machines were compromised by Western intelligence agencies, and strongly suspected since the 1990s. The actual news here is the revelation that the company was secretly owned by the intelligence agencies as well. That's much less interesting than the blurb suggests. Modest Genius talk 20:02, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak Support C-52 (cipher machine) is a no-go for me but Crypto AG is decent and the news that western intelligence agencies intentionally operated a public company for the sole purpose of distributing compromised cryptographic services is very interesting and would seem to be way outside their actual job. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:36, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Per Masem. Rather too arcane for ITN. – Sca (talk) 15:46, 15 February 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.

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: