Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Click here to nominate an item for In the news. In the news toolbox
Shortcut

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.

Evo Morales in 2017
Evo Morales

view - page history - related changes - edit

How to nominate an item[edit]

In order to suggest a candidate:

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

Purge this page to update the cache

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

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

Headers[edit]

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pulled from the main page are generally marked with (Posted) or (Pulled) in the item's subject so it is clear they are no longer active.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

Voicing an opinion on an item[edit]

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

Please do not...[edit]

  • ... add simple "support!" or "oppose!" votes without including your reasons. Similarly, curt replies such as "who?", "meh", or "duh!" are usually not helpful. Instead, explain the reasons why you think the item meets or does not meet the ITN inclusion criteria so a consensus can be reached.
  • ... oppose an item because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive.
  • ... accuse other editors of supporting, opposing or nominating due to a personal bias (such as ethnocentrism). Conflicts of interest are not handled at ITN.
  • ... comment on a story without first reading the relevant article(s).
  • ... oppose a WP:ITN/R item here because you disagree with current WP:ITN/R criteria (these can be discussed at the relevant Talk Page)
Skip to top
Skip to bottom

Suggestions[edit]

November 11[edit]

Current events of November 11, 2019 (2019-11-11) (Monday)
edithistorywatch
Armed conflicts and attacks

Politics and elections

RD: James Le Mesurier[edit]

Article: James Le Mesurier (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/james-le-mesurier-death-white-helmets-istanbul-fall-syria-spy-russia-a9198071.html

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

Nominator's comments: Founder of the White Helmets volunteer organization. Responses section needs a neutrality fix and there's one unsourced sentence in the "Work with the White Helmets" section, but other than that it looks good. ミラP 22:25, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Transit of Mercury[edit]

Article: Transit of Mercury (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Mercury transits the Sun.
News source(s): The Independent, timeanddate.com

Nominator's comments: Currently ongoing. Quite rare astronomical event. Arseny1992 (talk) 13:29, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Support It is not a super rare event (last was 3 yrs ago, next is about 20) but this is along the lines of total eclipses and the like, so fair enough to post. --Masem (t) 14:46, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
According to that article, the next transit of Mercury is projected for 2032 Nov 13, which is 13 years from now. Banedon (talk) 22:25, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - the article is not up to standard, several unsourced data in tables, sentences or even paragraphs. starship.paint (talk) 14:47, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
    @Arseny1992: - I suggest you improve the article by citing sources for all information in text or tables. starship.paint (talk) 15:02, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose, there seems to be no prose about this specific transit, and the pattern of the article suggests there never will be any. --LukeSurl t c 15:41, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. Whilst this is indeed a rare event (next one is in 2032), and I've been watching a live stream of it, at this point it's little more than trivia. All the science that can be obtained from such events was extracted centuries ago. ITN did post 2012 transit of Venus, but that event got a lot more public attention and a stand-alone article. That's even more true of total eclipses, which still have difficulty filling an article with useful information. Other than 'rare event happened exactly as predicted', it's not clear what could be said about this transit. There's certainly no substantial new content in transit of Mercury (currently just a tense change). Creating a new article and getting it into DYK would be better than putting the generic article in ITN. Modest Genius talk 15:46, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - Well as this transit is about to end soon, so no point to post on ITN now. As astronomical events can be predicted to eternity into the future, this probably needs to be posted on ITN/R instead and be notified in due time without short notice before one occur (be it a transit or any type of eclipse). --Arseny1992 (talk) 15:55, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose, call for close Didn't seem particularly important, and is (almost) over now. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:50, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm not sure why something described by a reliable source as an ""incredibly rare celestial event" should be snow-closed. It won't happen for another 20-odd years. ITN does cover events that have completed, so no reason to just shut this down. Probably as notable (and indeed rarer) as many other predictable celestial events, such a total eclipse. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 18:25, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak support as notable as eclipses etc, and rare, as noted above, but the article could use some work. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 18:26, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Article doesn't have much info on this more than one line in a table. If it's not notable enough to have more than a brief mention on the general article about the topic then surely it's not notable enough for ITN.  Nixinova  T / C   21:48, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Masem - it's not a rare event. Banedon (talk) 22:15, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
    CLARIFICATION: Masem said it wasn't a "super rare" event, and it won't happen again for 20 years. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 22:18, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

November 10[edit]

Current events of November 10, 2019 (2019-11-10) (Sunday)
edithistorywatch
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Politics and elections

Sports

Spanish general election[edit]

Article: November 2019 Spanish general election (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Spanish Socialist Workers' Party wins the most seats in the November general election but fails to obtain majority as the People's Party and the far-right Vox gain many seats.
Alternative blurb: ​The Spanish Socialist Workers' Party wins the most seats in the second general election in Spain, but does not gain a majority.
News source(s): BBC, The Guardian, El País

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: PSOE wins most seats but the "hung parliament" situation remains as right-wing parties Vox and PP gains lots of seats --SirEdimon (talk) 01:53, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose needs a prose update of the results, more citations in the timeline and ideally some more prose here. Also, the opinion polls graph seems to go on into the future - it should be cut down to end in Nov 2019 so we can see the lines. Kingsif (talk) 05:18, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
  • We don't typically mention lesser parties in blurbs like this. Suggest altblurb. 331dot (talk) 16:52, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Resignation of Bolivian gov't; Jeanine Áñez becomes president-designate[edit]

Proposed image
Articles: Evo Morales government resignation (talk, history) and Evo Morales (talk, history)
Blurb: ​After pressure from the Armed Forces, President of Bolivia Evo Morales resigns
Alternative blurb: ​After weeks of protests, Bolivian president Evo Morales (pictured) and other high-ranking politicians are forced to resign amid accusations of electoral fraud; senator Jeanine Áñez becomes president.
Alternative blurb II: ​After weeks of protests, Bolivian president Evo Morales (pictured) and other high-ranking politicians are forced to resign amid accusations of electoral fraud and military pressure.
News source(s): (BBC News) (CBS News) (Financial Times) ---- more sources coming soon, still on Live TV

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Sources coming soon. --CoryGlee (talk) 21:01, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Support in principle, but Morales's resignation is barely mentioned in the article right now. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:19, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
    • That's totally true, I am working on it along other users users, but it's as hot as a hot dog. Not much info apart from the military pressure. --CoryGlee (talk) 21:25, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - This is major news. Articles seems ready to be posted. BabbaQ (talk) 22:04, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support on the merits, should the blurb mention that the VP resigned too(as we don't know who is in charge yet). 331dot (talk) 22:19, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Generally a change of head of state is regarded as ITNR as well(though, again, we don't know who it is changing to yet). 331dot (talk) 22:23, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
331dot Hi my friend, as I said, it's so hot the news that it's overwhelming TV, I've just heard that military authorities have ordered the arrest of Morales. Too many changes at any moment. --CoryGlee (talk) 22:25, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait until we know who has taken over. Also I'm not wild about the blurb which seems to imply this was a military coup. It should reference the ongoing protests what the hell is going on -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:30, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support and added alt. Kingsif (talk) 22:44, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Kingsif Hi my friend, Jorge Faurie, Foreign Minister of Argentina made it clear on TN (Todo Noticias) TV channel, that Argentina would not grant asylum to Morales. That should be dismissed. :) ----- --CoryGlee (talk) 22:47, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Whoa! Coup d'état is a very loaded term. We would need very widespread, near unanimous, use of that term in reliable secondary sources to use it in wiki voice. The title of the new article is highly problematic. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:50, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
I never suggested it was a coup. I didn't add that. --CoryGlee (talk) 22:53, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
I only edited the article; it does really depend on who takes over as to whether it's a coup, but since it was the military turning on Morales, it's at least in the ballpark. edit: update to say that sources are citing or openly using the term because of the police action at least; sources added to article. Kingsif (talk) 22:59, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support I think the blurb should include the fact that Morales resigned under pressure from the military. (Morales says he was not given a choice.) So I prefer the original blurb. Davey2116 (talk) 23:25, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose "Coup d'état"? Really? Morales disrespected his people will expressed in the 2016 Bolivian constitutional referendum and then he, mostly likely, frauded the 2019 Bolivian general election according to OEA. Then his own people protested for several days asking for a new election and for resignation and it's called a "coup d'état". The article doesn't show any of these complexities. Also, who called this a "coup d'état"? I don't see any reliable sources calling it a coup. The word "coup" is used in the news articles only when they refer to Morales accusations against the opposition.--SirEdimon (talk) 00:26, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
SirEdimon, my original nomination article target was 2019 Bolivian protests. I don't know who changed it and I don't understand it. It's been confirmed that Gen. Williams Kaliman suggested him to resign but not confirmed he launched a coup. --CoryGlee (talk) 00:32, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Oh, I see. My opinion was about the article 2019 Bolivian coup d'état. If the target article is another one, I don't know exactly what to say. This nomination is quite confusing now. We should clarify things before going ahead.--SirEdimon (talk) 00:37, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm going to be BOLD and put this on hold pending more information and article discussions re. coup. The protest page should be fine as a target, but when I saw the coup page had been made, I ran with it. Kingsif (talk) 00:57, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure what "on hold" means - does it mean that no discussion can be allowed? that an item cannot be posted? - and because there is not clear consensus to "hold", I have reverted at this time. If there is consensus to post and an updated article, then an item should be posted. If a new article becomes a better target, then that can be discussed here or in a new nom; I don't see any reason to put a nom on indefinite hold. Best, SpencerT•C 01:05, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
      • An 'on hold' has been used before, it just means 'don't post even if there appears to be consensus, there's another issue being discussed'. Kingsif (talk) 01:09, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Blurb needs "why?" Is it because of voter fraud? Because he's native? Bad for business? Corrupt? Sadistic? Progressive? I typically forget which South American country Bolivia is, and I'm not the only one. Can we get a hint of the compelling political forces at play here, experts? Keep it vague, if need be, just some agreed motive. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:30, November 11, 2019 (UTC)
  • Added Alt3 feat. Jeanine Áñez. Working on her article. Kingsif (talk) 03:02, 11 November 2019 (UTC) Also, coup title issue sorted.
  • Support, with simple blurb Keep it simple, especially since this is a fast moving, current event. I prefer "After weeks of protests, Bolivian president Evo Morales (pictured) and other high-ranking politicians are forced to resign amid accusations of electoral fraud".----ZiaLater (talk) 03:45, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose alternative blurbs. His call for reelection comes from the OAS while his resignation comes from the coup. --107.77.223.113 (talk) 03:52, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support blurb - Agree that shorter is better, but I’d go with the alt blurbs too. Article appears to be in good shape. Suggest timely post. Jusdafax (talk) 04:26, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support on notability. Hrodvarsson (talk) 04:27, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted the first alt-blurb as I think the successor is important. I'm about to put Morales' picture in the queue for protection. Thryduulf (talk) 10:53, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: T. N. Seshan[edit]

Article: T. N. Seshan (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The Times of India

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

Nominator's comments: Former Chief Election Commissioner of India who brought significant changes and electoral reforms. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:38, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose based on lack of citations. Kees08 (Talk) 03:01, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
@Kees08: Please reconsider your vote. Article is updated. -Nizil (talk) 07:43, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support as updater. Article needs some copyediting and some more info in Career section. -Nizil (talk) 07:43, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted. Thryduulf (talk) 11:01, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Cyclone Bulbul[edit]

Article: Cyclone Bulbul (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Eighteen people have been killed as Cyclone Bulbul hits the Bay of Bengal.
News source(s): BBC

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Very Severe Cyclonic Storm. Sherenk1 (talk) 02:16, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose for now – A bit too early to tell if this is worth posting. Bangladesh is notorious for catastrophic cyclones, but we don't have enough info at present. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 03:24, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait per Cyclonebiscuit. This might turn out to be a massively significant storm, but it isn't one currently. Thryduulf (talk) 11:14, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - 18 have died as of now, updated blurb. Sherenk1 (talk) 02:09, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - the storm is now sufficiently significant and the article is in fairly good shape. NorthernFalcon (talk) 08:05, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - might help people to get information around it at this juncture much . Devopam (talk) 08:08, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

November 9[edit]

Current events of November 9, 2019 (2019-11-09) (Saturday)
edithistorywatch
Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Neutro Shorty concert stampede[edit]

Article: Neutro Shorty concert stampede (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Three teenagers are killed, and over 50 injured, in a stampede at a park concert in Caracas, Venezuela.
News source(s): El País

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Not much more to say - lots of teenagers trying to get in early, crushing each other. All deceased age 14. Kingsif (talk) 22:40, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

  • While I don't challenge the oppose, I guess it's "only" three deaths, I do want to ask why you think it's trivia. A human stampede on Saturday is certainly news, no? And I can't imagine it serves better at DYK... Kingsif (talk) 22:46, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) 2019 United Kingdom floods[edit]

No consensus to post. Stephen 23:05, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article: 2019 United Kingdom floods (talk, history)
Blurb: ​An ongoing flood that is happening in Sheffield and Derbyshire in the United Kingdom
News source(s): BBC

Article updated
 LC1829 (talk) 16:49, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose unless this flood gets much worse. 331dot (talk) 17:00, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment – RS coverage seems scant outside UK or maybe EU. – Sca (talk) 17:37, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose, at least at present. It's causing localised disruption but they're not the worst floods in the UK in the recent past and (so far at least) have only resulted in 1 death. We can revisit this if they go on for a prolonged time and/or get significantly worse. Thryduulf (talk) 21:53, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose The flooding has now largely subsided [1] and while the one death is tragic I don’t think the flood is ITN level of significance. The article is still a stub as well. P-K3 (talk) 22:19, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Didn't reach the level of notoriety for the front page I feel. I wasn't directly affected by the floods but it was more the "shock" value of it that made it newsworthy.--Trans-Neptunian object (talk) 23:22, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Posted) Kartarpur corridor[edit]

Proposed image
Article: Kartarpur Corridor (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In a historic first, Prime Minister of Pakistan Imran Khan inaugrates Kartarpur Corridor to facilitate Sikh pilgrims from India to visit Gurdwara Darbar Sahib.
Alternative blurb: ​A historic corridor to one of Sikhism's holiest shrines is now open, allowing Indian pilgrims rare visa-free access to the site in Pakistan.
Alternative blurb II: ​The Kartarpur Corridor, connecting two Sikh holy sites between India and Pakistan, is inaugurated.
Alternative blurb III: ​A corridor between Pakistan and India is opened, allowing Indian Sikh pilgrims visa-free access to Gurdwara Darbar Sahib (pictured) for the first time since the partition.
News source(s): Dawn

Article updated

Nominator's comments: This was also nominated in November last year. Guy in the Mall (talk) 10:04, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Support in principle – A welcome change to our usual postings and a marked change to the state of India–Pakistan relations. I am not sure about the wording of the blurb though. Seems one-sided. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 10:58, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment needs copyedit "Pakistan constructed 4.7 KM of dedicated expressways, including 800 meter bridge over the River Ravi". Nolo on notability. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:26, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - Added alt blurb. Article looks good. Sherenk1 (talk) 11:29, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment – Of doubtful general interest. – Sca (talk) 13:14, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. Even NYT & BBC are carrying the news of this significant development but oppose using Alt2 as the flow of pilgrims is only one-sided. So giving equal weight to both countries would be a total eyewash. Bigfoot Yeti (talk) 14:57, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
    I doubt the word "historic" will ever appear on the Main Page. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 15:50, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
    What do you think of the other alt blurb I wrote above? It's a bit wordy but I think it addresses this issue. Mount Patagonia (talk) 17:28, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
    Nice. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 19:00, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support alt 3. Banedon (talk) 22:18, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support alt 3. Important to the international conflict in that region as a positive sign of change. --Masem (t) 03:55, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - Such a goodwill from Imran Khan while the tensions remain high in the region. STSC (talk) 08:38, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - Border corridor between two nuclear nations and undergoing rough diplomatic relations at the same time. Mods please post it now.Regards, theTigerKing  11:50, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support it is a major news, no problems in the article that can prevent this from mainpage. Added the names of Kautilya3 and DiplomatTesterMan as updaters. Good work guys. --DBigXrayᗙ 12:14, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Not ready until the article gets a copy edit for grammar. Can't have stuff like "In 2019, Pakistan army placed a bomb on display," or "Pakistan constructed 4.7 km of dedicated expressways, including 800 meter bridge over the River Ravi" linked from the main page. Close, but not ready. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:42, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
    Fixed those sentences, I think. Kinda hard to see an issue if you don't explain the issue. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 16:51, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support alt 3-- BoothSift 02:23, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 02:53, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Ayodhya dispute[edit]

Article: Ayodhya dispute (talk, history)
Blurb: ​India's Supreme Court makes a long-awaited ruling on a disputed religious site in the northern holy city of Ayodhya.
Alternative blurb: ​The disputed holy site of Ayodhya in northern India should be given to Hindus who want a temple built there, the country's Supreme Court has ruled.
Alternative blurb II: ​In an unanimous decision, the Indian Supreme Court rules the disputed holy site in the northern city of Ayodhya should be given to the Hindus.
Alternative blurb III: ​The Supreme Court of India delivers a unanimous verdict in favor of the construction of a Hindu temple at the disputed holy site in Ayodhya.
News source(s): BBC, AP, Reuters, Guardian

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Long awaited ruling. Sherenk1 (talk) 05:51, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Wait but leaning oppose There is major concern about violence erupting from the decision (pitting Hindu vs Muslim) and that might be worth posting about. But if the court rules (either way) and the net result is most heating gathers but no significant violence, it won't have much importance to the rest of the world. --Masem (t) 06:21, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
    • A comment : those that are saying this is an important part of the Hindu/Muslim issue in India, this article does not reflect that importance. Yes, it's a long-disputed site, but nothing expresses how major this affects the larger issue between these two faiths. --Masem (t) 17:34, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong Support One of the most important judgement delivered by the Supreme Court of India (which cannot be appealed) since independence and pending since 19th century. The judgment does not change the world politics but brings to an end the history of the dispute. The events surrounding the subject have shaped India's history to this date. Is widely covered by the international media (as it is a significant event). [2] [3] [4][5]. Regards, theTigerKing  06:52, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - The case has been going on for decades, and is a major judgement for the SC. But I would oppose it as it won’t influence world politics at all. That is the only thing that can stop this from becoming a blurb, however, so this probably will become a blurb... RedBulbBlueBlood9911 (talk) 06:57, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support pending cleanup grammar is actually not horrible, but there are some sentence structure issues that need fixing like "While we have had a mosque bearing an inscription". CN tags need fixing of course and the timeline section isn't backed completely by the massive BBC reference used to source it. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:23, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak suppport - While this might not have any bearing on the international scene, it is still a major landmark case for one of the largest nations on Earth, and my understanding is that this case has cast a huge shadow on Hindu-Muslim relations in India for the past two decades. It's also considered a major victory for the current government, whose party has campaigned for decades to build a temple there. There is still a matter of cleaning up the article as mentioned above. Mount Patagonia (talk) 11:37, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong support from somebody not coming or related to India. I see some people from the Europe looking for more information today and it should be here on the front page. The importance of this goes way beyond India.  « Saper // @talk »  12:30, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
  • support - Seems ready for posting as well.BabbaQ (talk) 12:38, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment – Although the ruling has received RS coverage, its general significance seems questionable. – Sca (talk) 14:32, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - There is a new article being worked on. Should that be the target? Sherenk1 (talk) 15:01, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
    • There is no reason that the verdict should be a separate article. The original article is short enough to include that, and you lose all the context by separating it. --Masem (t) 17:36, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong Support - It's one of the more central issues in Hindu–Islamic relations. Connected to this issue are several very important incidents in religious history, such as the Ram Rath Yatra, the Babri Masjid Demolition and the riots that killed over 2000 people in Ayodhya alone. This judgement brings closure to a bunch of pretty key things. Given how Hindu-Islamic relations in general and the relations especially in India in particular are hot topics pretty much worldwide, I think this would be an issue of significant interest to a lot of people worldwide and thus should be in the section. Karan (Theintuitus) (talk) 15:59, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support, a major political and social development in a country of over a billion people. As NYT has put it, "a historic verdict on a dispute that has roiled the country for decades"[6]. Nsk92 (talk) 19:48, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support alt 3. Banedon (talk) 22:18, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - It's just a domestic affair without any global significance. STSC (talk) 08:30, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
    • Please do not 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. 2409:4071:2015:9D21:87FA:4220:4248:60D (talk)
I don't mind it's relating to one country, my main point is the event has no global significance, nor even regional significance. STSC (talk) 09:20, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - A very notable dispute has been solved. Good to go as well.BabbaQ (talk) 10:19, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support The article is in decent shape and this is international news.Added Kautilya3 and Vanamonde93 as updaters, good work. --DBigXrayᗙ 12:18, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Not ready until the unreferenced parts of the timeline which are not from the large BBC article have references. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:39, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support I think 2019 Supreme Court verdict on Ayodhya dispute would be a better target, but this seems good to go. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:22, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Ready-- BoothSift 02:24, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

RD: Thich Tri Quang[edit]

Article: Thich Tri Quang (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Thanh Nien, BBC

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

Nominator's comments: Vietnamese monk who led protests in South Vietnam from 1963-66 during which there were many changes in government. Died in the evening of 8 November but this was kept secret until 9 November after the funeral. Bumbubookworm (talk) 22:23, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

November 8[edit]

Current events of November 8, 2019 (2019-11-08) (Friday)
edithistorywatch
Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

Politics and elections

2019 Mauritian general election[edit]

Proposed image
Article: 2019 Mauritian general election (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The ruling Mouvement Socialiste Mauricien party wins a majority in the 2019 Mauritian general election, the first one in more than 40 years without pre-electoral alliances, securing a second mandate for incumbent Prime Minister Pravind Jugnauth
News source(s): Reuters
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.

 Manish2542 (talk) 00:50, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose for now. Article needs expansion before it can be posted to the main page. At present it's a borderline stub. Will reconsider on improvements. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:07, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose at present. Not more than a stub and results table is empty.  Nixinova  T / C   03:21, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose at this time. Barely a stub. I mean the results table is still empty. The infobox hasn't even been updated. There is no info regarding the campaign & all the political parties that contested the election. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 10:12, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

RD: Robert Freeman[edit]

Article: Robert Freeman (photographer) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Deadline Hollywood

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

Nominator's comments: Photographer of several of the Beatles albums and other artists. Article is not too far off in quality, but does need a good amount of sourcing. Masem (t) 23:12, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva[edit]

(non-admin closure) Consensus to post will not develop.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 10:28, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Proposed image
Article: Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Former Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (pictured), arrested for 580 days, has been released.
News source(s): Aljazeera, CNN, The Guardian
 MSN12102001 (talk) 22:58, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose We really don't post the releases of people from prison, even former world leaders. --Masem (t) 23:12, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose good faith nom, per Masem. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:22, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose ibid. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 23:32, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per all, I don't think a prison release is itself usually notable enough for here. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:48, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This release is on a technicality as he has not exhausted his appeals yet. If he was exonerated of charges and released, that might be different. 331dot (talk) 02:26, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Lula (and several other people) was released due to a new constitutional understanding by Brazilian Supreme Court. Lula was not acquitted of any of the crimes he's accused of.--SirEdimon (talk) 02:57, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Politicians around the world get arrested and released frequently. We don't actually post them. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 10:03, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Closed) Ongoing: Joker (2019 film)[edit]

Strong consensus against posting. – Ammarpad (talk) 15:15, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article: Joker (2019 film) (talk, history)
Blurb: No blurb specified
News source(s): IndieWire, Forbes, MarketWatch, EuroNews, CNN, France24, Al Jazera
Article updated
Nominator's comments: Surprisingly, this has become the highest R-rated movie in history a month after its release. The R-rating category is quite distinct from other ones, so a record for it (as opposed to biggest movie ever is IMHO) worthwhile. Even the threats of shooters was notable. But the biggest feat of this movie is how it has ingrained itself into the culture that protests around the world use the Joker's mask. It's rare that a Hollywood movie has such a distinct cultural impact, and I think as long as it keeps popping up at protests around the world, this should be featured in ongoing. 205.175.106.108 (talk) 20:46, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Entertainment trivia w/o a blurb. It's sunny and 85 here, but I see SNOW in the forecast. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:50, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
Joker_(2019_film)#Social_commentary trivia indeed /s. 205.175.106.108 (talk) 20:52, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Snow close Hideously shallow trivia doktorb wordsdeeds 21:02, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not really what the Ongoing section is for.-- P-K3 (talk) 21:05, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
  • This is absolutely ridiculous. 30 minutes after nomination is not a suitable timeframe to determine if something should be snow closed.--WaltCip (talk) 00:06, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
    I would agree that the closure is premature. So I'm re-opening, without prejudice. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 00:12, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose I can't see how we can support a piece of contemporary media as an ongoing topic. If there were numerous protests specifically surrounding the film going on worldwide that endured for several days, maybe. But that's not the case here. --Masem (t) 00:25, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support some kind of a blurb, Oppose ongoing. We can post sports records right? We can post the record sale price of some painting right? So we can post this too. Article is excellent. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:36, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
    • There are certain sports records that are long-standing points of perfection (eg the four minute mile, or the more recent 2-hr marathon). Random records we don't post unless its part of another story. Same here, especially since we have to add the cavaet of "highest grossing R rated films", in contrast to when Avengers Endgame surpassed all films previously and did not need any clarifying caveats. --Masem (t) 01:40, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
      • We've posted numerous times record auction prices for paintings (maybe other crap). The article is excellent, our WP:READERS will surely be interested. WP:ITN#Purpose seems satisfied to me. I mean ... is it terrible if we push out the blurb for a week old baseball game or a staggeringly irrelevant train accident? Come on.... --LaserLegs (talk) 01:49, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. There is nothing to justify ongoing. A blurb could have been considered when it became the highest-grossing R-rated film but that was 24 October (reported 25 October [7]) so that's old news. The record was also broken in 2016 by Deadpool (film) and 2018 by Deadpool 2 so it wasn't a long-standing record. Joker will probably become the first R-rated film to gross a billion US dollars but a round number in one currency is less relevant in an international encyclopedia (R-rated is also an American rating for American theaters). PrimeHunter (talk) 02:25, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose for ongoing as this is completely unsuitable for that spot. Oppose blurb per PrimeHunter, it's more significant in the UK as it was reported yesterday [8] that it is now the highest-grossing 15-rated film beating The Full Monty (1997) by £0.2m. However that does indicate how arbitrary the record is when you have to qualify by country and rating. Thryduulf (talk) 10:01, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per PrimeHunter. Let's wait till some film beats Gone with the Wind or Avengers: Endgame. The modifier "R-rated" makes me think this achievement is commonplace and to be expected as the world becomes less prudish. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 11:09, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Inappropriate destination. Of doubtful significance. – Sca (talk) 13:20, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Even if The GlittFather had got "a six-figure sum" in royalties for being the co-writer of "Rock and Roll Part 2". Martinevans123 (talk) 13:43, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

November 7[edit]

Current events of November 7, 2019 (2019-11-07) (Thursday)
edithistorywatch
Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

Politics and elections

(Posted) RD: Nabaneeta Dev Sen[edit]

Article: Nabaneeta Dev Sen (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): India Today

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

Nominator's comments: C Class article with excellent sourcing DBigXrayᗙ 16:22, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment: Could use some mild copyediting and some parts of her Career/Literary Career sections are unreferenced. SpencerT•C 16:43, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose terrifying bullet-point article with many uncited claims. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 21:19, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak support. Referencing & formatting concerns have been addressed, though there are still some paragraphs uncited. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 10:07, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment There is quite a lot of unsourced information - I am searching for and adding sources. RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:12, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support – She seems quite a significant literary figure. Article has been ausgemistet. ;-) – Sca (talk) 13:41, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support – Marked ready. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 07:27, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Article now represents her achievements and has adequate sourcing. RebeccaGreen (talk) 08:15, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted Kees08 (Talk) 16:38, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Margarita Salas[edit]

Article: Margarita Salas (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): El País

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

Nominator's comments: Salas has been one of the greatest and very awarded Spanish scientists, as she had a key role in DNA investigations. Alsoriano97 (talk) 10:44, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose - citations needed for her awards ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 12:44, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose not even close. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:24, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Citations are needed. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 12:19, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. Article looks good. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 07:56, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - ping me when improved.BabbaQ (talk) 14:28, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I am adding citations; there is also other information which could be added (honorary doctorates, editor of scientific journals, etc). I will ping others when I think it's ready. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:38, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support @The Rambling Man, Lefcentreright, and BabbaQ: All content is now sourced, and her professional career is more fully covered. The article could be improved and expanded, but I think it is adequate now for RD. Please ping me if you still have concerns. RebeccaGreen (talk) 04:40, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support – Let's post. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 08:11, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted. Thryduulf (talk) 10:04, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

November 6[edit]

Current events of November 6, 2019 (2019-11-06) (Wednesday)
edithistorywatch
Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

(Posted) Danuvius guggenmosi[edit]

Article: Danuvius guggenmosi (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Scientists describe a new species of ancient great ape, Danuvius guggenmosi.
Alternative blurb: ​A 11.6 million year old fossil found in Germany is a described as a new great ape species, Danuvius guggenmosi, which was walking upright at least 6 million years earlier than human ancestors did.
Alternative blurb II: ​Scientists describe a new species of ancient great ape, Danuvius guggenmosi, capable of upright walking.
News source(s): Nature, Newsweek, Der Speigel, NY Times, CBC, The Guardian

Nominator's comments: Described as capable of upright bipedal walking, challenging "the accepted idea that bipedal walking evolved much later in the ancestors of modern humans". The paper in Nature appeared yesterday. Currently tagged for further development, however. Brandmeistertalk 21:08, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment: blurb does not give any hints of notability; should include "leading scientists to believe apes started walking upright X years before previously thought" or something like that.  Nixinova  T / C   23:02, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Obviously encyclopedic topic, and very exciting find! The article is short, but well referenced and gets the information across in an accessible way. Very nice to see something other than political drama and violence for once. I have added an altblurb to address the above comment.130.233.2.47 (talk) 08:35, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
  • The blurb(s) need work. Altblurb 1 is ready. This lineage may have evolved bipedalism earlier than our lineage, but split from us long before we evolved it. Danuvius guggenmosi made no genetic contribution to us. This discovery does not challenge any aspect of the out of Africa hypothesis, nor the timing of our evolution of any character traits. Abductive (reasoning) 09:19, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose apart from the unreferenced category, there's nothing in the article indicating that the description took place around this time. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:31, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support despite the typical pro-hominid bias at ITNC. Would we be considering this if it were a ceboidea or (god forbid) a tarsier? GreatCaesarsGhost 13:41, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
    • It depends. Other sizeable mammals got their chance, olinguito was posted in 2013. Brandmeistertalk 16:42, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support I think new major primate species should be covered in ITN, and the first bipedal great ape should be covered also, since for human ancestors, this meant some 30% increase in brain capacity. 205.175.106.108 (talk) 20:51, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support – I wish Madelaine Böhme et al was mentioned by name in prose. I hate how our species articles do not document who first described the species. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 10:37, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 23:01, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

November 5[edit]

Current events of November 5, 2019 (2019-11-05) (Tuesday)
edithistorywatch
Armed conflicts and attacks

Law and crime

Politics and elections

(Closed) Ongoing Removal: Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump[edit]

No consensus for removal --LaserLegs (talk) 19:50, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article: Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump (talk, history)
Ongoing item removal
Nominator's comments: No mayor events here since last week. I suggest removal at this moment and a potential renomination later. --Tone 12:01, 5 November 2019 (UTC) --Tone 12:01, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support removal so long as we're willing to revisit this when the public testimony starts (subject to quality article updates) --LaserLegs (talk) 12:15, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - I'm a little confused. Did the impeachment inquiry end and I just missed it? WaltCip (talk) 12:20, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support removal as per above - Sherenk1 (talk) 12:22, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
    • Oppose removal updated now --LaserLegs (talk) 16:29, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose this remains in the news, although major events seem slow. Banedon (talk) 12:32, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Remove and add blurb when impeachment happens. Nothing in the interim will be all that important. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:39, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support removal And I suggest that we simply blurb major events if/when they happen. After the Nth "Trump is finished" moment since November 2016, I think we should treat future such moments a little more critically and even-handedly. See: Ukrainian corruption conspiracy theory vs. Trump–Ukraine scandal130.233.3.131 (talk) 12:44, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Removal per others ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 12:47, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support removal nothing to see here at the moment. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 13:42, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Again weekends! Just yesterday there was a major development with the release of deposition transcripts. I was just considering how to incorporate that into the article. I object to this repeated attempts to remove this item while U.S. is asleep. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 14:14, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
    • @Coffeeandcrumbs:, @Banedon: if you want this to stay in the box, just update the article. I agree the release of transcripts (and the looming start of public hearings) are noteworthy events -- just update the article and it'll stay in. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:24, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
      • Will do.  Working. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 14:29, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
      •  Done. Two more transcripts are expected to drop today; two of the "three amigos". --- Coffeeandcrumbs 16:22, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal There is extensive text in the article covering events of last Wednesday and Thursday, as well as Monday of this week (yesterday). The requirement for keeping something on ongoing is regular updates, which needn't be every single day; given that the news cycle often slows down on weekends (non-working days in the US), it is understandable that there will be a lull on those days. We have extensive, multiple paragraph updates about events of three of the last four weekdays. That's certainly often enough. --Jayron32 17:06, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Jayron32 and Coffeeandcrumbs. We need to take a breath and stop with these regular attempts to remove this from ongoing when it's pretty clear this is a major event that will continue to generate news. Short lulls over weekends are to be expected. Seriously, this is the sort of thing that "ongoing" was intended for. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:19, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. While it may ebb and flow a bit, it is clearly a major recurring news topic, and I don't see any likelihood that this is really going away soon. Seems silly to remove it now only to put it back in a week when open hearings make another burst of news. Dragons flight (talk) 17:25, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal per above.--WaltCip (talk) 18:15, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal per above. I do not understand the obsession with trying to remove events that are clearly still ongoing, and getting regular updates. Davey2116 (talk) 18:16, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal - per Jayron32, Coffeeandcrumbs and Ad Orientem. Since a consensus to remove is unlikely, I suggest closing this. Jusdafax (talk) 18:27, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per everyone else. The impeachment will likely reach a head around Thanksgiving, and by the end of December, it'll be time to remove it barring something extraordinary. No reason to remove it now. I don't really understand the rush to remove this. -- Rockstonetalk to me! 18:37, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Removed) Ongoing Removal: 2019 Turkish offensive into north-eastern Syria[edit]

Article: 2019 Turkish offensive into north-eastern Syria (talk, history)
Ongoing item removal

Nominator's comments: Only small changes to the article in the last 5 days. I suggest removal at this moment and a potential renomination later. --Tone 12:01, 5 November 2019 (UTC) --Tone 12:01, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Support removal per nom --LaserLegs (talk) 12:18, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support removal as per above - Sherenk1 (talk) 12:22, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. Banedon (talk) 12:31, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Remove Always felt more like a blurb to me. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:39, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support removal Although the article has been updated somewhat, the details are very mundane for such an event, and if nominated as stand-alone blurbs, they would surely SNOW.130.233.3.131 (talk) 12:45, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support removal again per others... lots of clean up today! ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 12:48, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  •  Done. Bye Bye Bye. --Jayron32 14:39, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Ongoing Removal: 2019 Hong Kong protests[edit]

Article was a suitable candidate for removal when nominated, and has since been updated. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:49, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article: 2019 Hong Kong protests (talk, history)
Ongoing item removal
Nominator's comments: Oldest blurb is from 30 October. Since 31 October (5 days), two pieces of trivial information have been added: a man's ear was bitten off (who is the nihilist here?) and a statement that HK in now in recession. Updates to daughter article indicate that someone has fallen down some stairs fleeing tear gas, 6 (six!) journalists had a sit-in, in addition to other routine protest antics. No one is nominating this for AfD, but can we agree that this event can leave Ongoing? 130.233.3.131 (talk) 07:07, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - in the first weekend of November we already have [9] fights between police and protesters in malls leading to over 70 injuries, and [10] 325 arrests (just added to article). Sources describe [11] a chaotic weekend of protests, and that the protests [12] show no sign of abating. starship.paint (talk) 07:56, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
    Content for November in main article expanded to around 200 words. [13] Jayron32 - you requested an expansion. starship.paint (talk) 14:09, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support removal Per WP:ITN "In general, articles are NOT posted to ongoing merely because they are related to events that are still happening". A few lines of prose about a "chaotic weekend" added at the last minute to stave off removal without details about what actually made the weekend chaotic does not make an update. The protests may be "ongoing" but the only time the article gets an update is when someone nominates it for removal. Get it out of the box already. --LaserLegs (talk) 09:37, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
    Let’s be reasonable, LaserLegs. This time, List of November 2019 Hong Kong protests has been continually updated, and it has around 1000 words of content. Editors could easily have put that in the parent article, but possibly refrained from doing so to prevent undue weight on the most recent events. starship.paint (talk) 10:15, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
    Oppose that article too then "Six reporters staged a silent protest at a routine press conference held by the police force." yeah that's not ongoing. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:50, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support removal unless a more detailed update is made to the above article. The current article has only a sentence or two update about recent events. If and when the article is updated to a more substantial description of recent events, I will change my vote. --Jayron32 11:55, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
    Keep. Article expansions are sufficient, article is up to date with regular events related to just about every day of the past several weeks. Checks off all of the ongoing boxes. --Jayron32 14:14, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support removal as per above - Sherenk1 (talk) 12:22, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal this remains very much in the news. Banedon (talk) 12:30, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Remove All of life is "ongoing." The continuation of repetitive and predictable events are not even blurbable. Protesters will protest, the "police" will police them. When and if things escalate, we can bring it back. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:39, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak support removal as it is being updated a bit, but as we move on this ongoing event seems to be becoming the norm for how people spend their weekends in HK ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 12:51, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose – (keep) – This persistent political phenomenon remains the No. 1 problem for the world's most populous country, a single-party state – with no end in sight. – Sca (talk) 13:31, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support removal Yes, the event continues to happen, but it is no longer a major story drawing headlines every day, which is what Ongoing is meant for. Long-winded, simmering stories are not good for Ongoing. Should the situation change, we can re-add it, but right now, its like Brexit and Trump Impeachment - we know these are still happening, but not at the top of the news coverage anymore. --Masem (t) 14:13, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support (removal) - The anti-government movement maybe ongoing but the current event is not. Just incidents of thuggery and vandalism at weekends would not make the current event as "ongoing", as far as ITN is concerned. STSC (talk) 14:52, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - (keep) There is indeed much to add as there are planned future protests, and just a few days ago one protester fell off a buidling and got critically injured. The daughter artice of the page is getting constantly edited as well, with more and more content being added to it. It can be seen that the protest might escalate again. There is always something new to add. For yout information, Hong Kong protests still manage to stay in the news. Therefore, I strongly believe that this article can stay in ITN. Asd34567 (talk) 15:35, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep: Constantly being updated, still being one of the biggest crisis ever to have happened in Hong Kong and China. Development of the protests have been extremely volatile and will likely escalate once again if the student falling "some stairs fleeing tear gas" didn't get better from his severe brain injuries. OceanHok (talk) 15:54, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment this is the third time that this story has been a candidate for removal and only saved when someone updated it after being nominated here -- "The purpose of the ongoing section is to maintain a link to a continuously updated" this feels like "punctuated updates" I'm not sure it really qualifies for continued inclusion --LaserLegs (talk) 16:30, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
    Dude, again with the "gotcha" comment: Who cares that someone made the article better after it was brought up for removal. We aren't trying to "catch" people doing anything nefarious here. We're trying to make articles better. No one loses because the article was improved when someone brought up the issue here. Maybe you should back off on these objections, and instead congratulate all of the editors who worked diligently to get the article up to standard. What's it to you if the article got better? Isn't that the entire point of this discussion? --Jayron32 17:11, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal again, per above. The article is still being adequately updated. Davey2116 (talk) 18:14, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal -- it's still an ongoing event. -- Rockstonetalk to me! 18:39, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal this is very much still in the news, with new events occurring regularly. This continues to make headlines around the world, so I don't see why we should remove it when people are likely going to be coming here looking for answers about it. --PlasmaTwa2 19:01, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Removed) Ongoing Removal: 2019 Chilean protests[edit]

Article: 2019 Chilean protests (talk, history)
Ongoing item removal
Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Oldest blurb is from 30 October. Since 31 October (5 days), no new information has been added to this article. Some amount of NPOV tag warring. 130.233.3.131 (talk) 06:52, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Support removal article is stale and not very detailed to begin with --LaserLegs (talk) 09:38, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support removale Even the stuff from last week is miniscule, the most recent substantive information is almost 2 weeks old. It's stale. --Jayron32 11:56, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support removal as per above - Sherenk1 (talk) 12:22, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Remove per nom. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:39, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support removal as few meaningful updates have been made lately ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 12:51, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  • minus Removed — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:47, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

November 4[edit]

Current events of November 4, 2019 (2019-11-04) (Monday)
edithistorywatch
Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents
  • The Niagara Parks Commission says the wreckage of the Niagara Scow, stuck in the rapids above Niagara Falls since 1918 before being moved downstream about 164 feet due to a strong storm, is being monitored as it moves closer to the edge of the falls, but that the scow could be stuck in its new position for "days or years." (Sky News) (CTV News)

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

Sports

(Closed) Al Ahed FC[edit]

Consensus will not develop. Stephen 05:42, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article: Al Ahed FC (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In football, Al-Ahed win the AFC Cup
Alternative blurb: ​In football, Al-Ahed defeat April 25 to win the AFC Cup
Alternative blurb II: ​In football, Al-Ahed become the first Lebanese side to win an international competition
Alternative blurb III: ​In football, by winning the AFC Cup, Al-Ahed become the first Lebanese side to win an international competition
News source(s): The AFC.com, Fox Sports Asia, FaLebanon

Article updated
Nominator's comments: a current event Nehme1499 (talk) 23:16, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose secondary to the top-tier AFC Champions League Stephen 00:06, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose We don't typically post this. – Ammarpad (talk) 04:56, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This is a second-tier competition in one of the weakest confederations. Football already gets plenty of coverage in ITN (see WP:ITNR); the Copa Libertadores and UEFA Champions League are the only continental club competitions that are worth posting. Modest Genius talk 12:07, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
Ok I won't argue with this, I wasn't aware of WP:ITNR when posting the nomination. Nehme1499 (talk) 12:32, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
Note, that not being on the ITNR list does not preclude this from being posted - it just means that the nomination should illustrate the impact/importance of the event explicitly. Notable firsts, broken records, etc. can all be used to get a non-ITNR event posted. I don't see any for this particular nomination, but don't let that discourage you from making non-ITNR nominations in the future.130.233.3.131 (talk) 12:51, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
I have added a couple of alternative phrases. Nehme1499 (talk) 16:26, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose I dont see the article supporting either blurb II and III, or should it read "the international competition" instead of "an international competition". That aside, I need evidence of coverage from non-sports publications to justify a blurb.—Bagumba (talk) 04:26, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RD: Gay Byrne[edit]

Article: Gay Byrne (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-50289744

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

Nominator's comments: Enormously important broadcaster in Ireland Kevin McE (talk) 17:11, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose too much unreferenced material for a BLP on the main page. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 18:33, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Would be better if a few more refs were added to some sentences, but there seems to be at least one ref per paragraph and 64 overall. Good enough. ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 20:57, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
    I think you've misread WP:BLP or WP:V. It's not about how many refs there are per para or how many refs there are in total. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 20:59, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
    I think that if you are trying to apply BLP to RD then you have missed the point of at least one of those abbreviations.
    What is the material challenged or likely to be challenged that lacks a reliable, published source? Kevin McE (talk) 22:12, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
    Please read WP:BLP again before trying to be so clever. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 22:45, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
    I think if you fix the [citation needed] issues then you'll stand a chance of the article being posted. Otherwise, you'll see this fail. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 22:37, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support come on guys, it's Gaybo. --Lottolads (talk) 03:58, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
    @Lottolads: - if you want the article passed - know that the article won't fix itself. starship.paint (talk) 08:25, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment FWIW, the CN tags are justified. The very first one I tried to tackle exposed wrong information in the article.130.233.3.131 (talk) 08:15, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose far too much of the article is uncited. It's already heavily tagged; someone needs to do some research and start placing citations where the cn tags are in order to see this posted. --Jayron32 11:58, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Still some citation needed tags that need to be sorted before Gay can appear on the front page. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:57, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

LeBarón family massacre[edit]

Article: LeBarón family massacre (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Nine American Mexicans were killed and six were injured after gunmen opened fire on a three cars convoy near the US border.
News source(s): The New York Times The Washington Post CNN

Nominator's comments: Also known a the Sonora massacre, significant coverage. While murders in the Mexican Drug War are common, deaths of American citizens aren't. Victims were members of the LeBarón family and some were burned alive. Impact in the US-Mexico diplomatic relations. Jamez42 (talk) 23:17, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose – It is usually very clear when a shooting or killing event rises to ITN-level. It receives wall-to-wall coverage. I am not seeing that here. Clearly notable enough for an article but not for ITN. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 12:55, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

References[edit]

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

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates&oldid=925723718"