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.

Corey Seager in 2017
Corey Seager

How to nominate an item[edit]

In order to suggest a candidate:

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

Purge this page to update the cache

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

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

Headers[edit]

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pulled from the main page are generally marked with (Posted) or (Pulled) in the item's subject so it is clear they are no longer active.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

Voicing an opinion on an item[edit]

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

Please do not...[edit]

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

Archives[edit]

October 29[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Health and environment

Politics and elections

RD: JJ Wiliams[edit]

Article: J. J. Williams (rugby union) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Wales and British Lions rugby player, surprisingly weak article. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 11:56, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

RD: Keshubhai Patel[edit]

Article: Keshubhai Patel (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Indian politician. I've had a bit of a tidy of the article - Dumelow (talk) 08:48, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

  • Support Seems well sourced enough, a very important figure. Gex4pls (talk) 12:01, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

October 28[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections
Science and technology

RD: Bobby Ball[edit]

Article: Bobby Ball (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [1]
Credits:

Nominator's comments: British comedian and actor Comrade TruthTeller (talk) 09:42, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

  • Oppose Many uncited paragraphs, numerous citation-needed tags. Filmography is completely unreferenced. Yoninah (talk) 12:39, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

(Ready) RD: Cecilia Chiang[edit]

Article: Cecilia Chiang (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NYT
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Chinese-American restaurateur and chef; Well cited article. Did not require too many edits. Meets hygiene standards for homepage / RD. Ktin (talk) 03:46, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

  • Support: looks OK to me - Dumelow (talk) 06:40, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support: Well-referenced & updated article and a notable person. — MarkH21talk 07:17, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Well-referenced and ready for the main page. Yoninah (talk) 12:41, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) 2020 Polish protests[edit]

Proposed image
Article: 2020 Polish protests (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Constitutional court ends almost all legal abortion in Poland which causes protests across the country (Post)
Alternative blurb: Thousands of Poles protest against changes of abortion law in the country
Alternative blurb II: ​The outlawing of almost all abortions in Poland engenders widespread protests, including a nationwide women's strike.
Alternative blurb III: ​In Poland, protests break out following changes to abortion laws.
News source(s): Notes from Poland, NYT, CNN, AP, BBC, Der Spiegel (in German)
Credits:

 Andrei (talk) 09:30, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

  • Oppose as of this moment. The protests are related in the article have been going on for only 3 days, are sporadic and thus far have only significantly disrupted a few roads and churches. The article is updated, in relatively good condition and the event has some level of RS coverage, but I would like to see a significant increase in both coverage and impact before Ongoing.130.233.213.199 (talk) 11:59, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
    Its been a week already, since the 22nd. It is nationwide, with a general strike announced on Wednesday - https://www.bbc.com/news/topics/cywd23g0q1mt/poland --Andrei (talk) 12:06, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment I would like to see this as a blurb first. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 12:32, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
    • Support alt3 ~ Destroyeraa🌀 15:59, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment – A nationwide women's strike, with the right-wing Kaczyński-led govt. calling up the military police, shows the significant divisions in politically polarized Poland. (A blurb would be possible as the strike is current and developments seem likely.) – Sca (talk) 12:39, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment I believe this article should be place a blurb first to have evidence the significance of the protests. If the blurb rolls down, it can be posted as ongoing. 36.76.229.22 (talk) 12:48, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

*Comment Instead of ongoing this should be placed in ITN. SoloGaming (talk) 13:41, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

  • Corrected --Andrei (talk) 13:56, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
    Change to Support Ok this is much better, thank you. If these protests continue to happen at a large scale then sure we can put it in Ongoing, but as for now this is good. SoloGaming (talk) 14:09, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Important enough for ITN, major political decision and protests in Poland that could have ramifications on the rest of the world. Gex4pls (talk) 14:06, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support – Article shaping up. Prefer Alt2, offered above. – Sca (talk) 14:31, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Article looks good. Offer up alt3 as an option. Short, concise, and neutral. --Jayron32 15:07, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - article looks good, important event. Alt2 sums it up best. --Ouro (blah blah) 15:27, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  • plus Posted Alt3. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 16:43, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  • PP comment – Rather shy on information. – Sca (talk) 18:14, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  • PP comment - @John M Wolfson: I think the blurb should go on top of the other blurbs on the ITN box. It's currently at the bottom. Thanks. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 18:36, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
    • We don't order based on the nomination date. Protests began on 22nd and has been in the news for days.[2]Bagumba (talk) 18:46, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
We should change our ways. – Sca (talk) 21:50, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

October 27[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Science and technology

Sports

RD: Don Mazankowski[edit]

Article: Don Mazankowski (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): CBC News; Toronto Star / Canadian Press; National Post
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Deputy prime minister of Canada from 1986 to 1993. Bloom6132 (talk) 10:17, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

  • Support Solid article, everything cited, no close paraphrasing seen. Yoninah (talk) 12:34, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) HS Kalisto collision[edit]

‹See TfM›

Consensus will not develop to post. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 18:58, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Articles: HMS Berkeley (M40) (talk, history) and HS Kallisto (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Minesweeper HS Kallisto is cut in two in a collision with a container ship (Post)
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Article is small but it is fully referenced Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:25, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose – This is nothing more than a traffic collision on thin ice. No lasting significance shown. Greece–United Kingdom relations remain steadfast.--- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 06:54, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment Any major casualties from the crash? Don't see the significance otherwise. Gotitbro (talk) 07:01, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose thankfully, no one died. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 12:33, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Dramatic maritime accident but only two injuries reported. – Sca (talk) 12:45, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose But would make a good did you know Gex4pls (talk) 13:07, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose The HMS Berkeley article is basically a stub. SoloGaming (talk) 13:43, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Certainly unusual, but a sinking of a small ship with two injuries will not have major impacts. The article is a stub, and the few news reports say little more about the event. Modest Genius talk 15:52, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment @John M Wolfson, Masem, Bagumba, Spencer, and Stephen: Sorry for the repetitiveness, suggest closure for this one based on WP:SNOW. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 18:56, 28 October 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) 2020 World Series[edit]

Proposed image
Article: 2020 World Series (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In baseball, the Los Angeles Dodgers defeat the Tampa Bay Rays to win the World Series (MVP Corey Seager pictured). (Post)
News source(s): CBS, ESPN, CNN
Credits:

Article updated

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

 PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 03:38, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

  • Support: article quality looks good to me. Kevin Cash should be ashamed for pulling Snell.  Bait30  Talk 2 me pls? 03:41, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support: Article in good shape. Best day for Los Angeles after 32 years.CoatCheck (talk) 04:13, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support: But add that it's their first title in 32 years. That's quite a long time. TomCat4680 (talk) 05:02, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Not really. There are 30 MLB teams, so ~30 years between championships is to be expected. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 06:36, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) Typhoon Molave[edit]

Article: Typhoon Molave (2020) (talk, history)
Blurb: ​12 people are killed and 39 are missing after Typhoon Molave hits The Philippines and Vietnam. (Post)
News source(s): Insurance Journal
Credits:
Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Storm still active. Updates coming. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 21:26, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

  • Support. Large death toll already and the storm seems set to get worse. The Image Editor (talk) 22:26, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Wait Support until landfall in Vietnam, which is sure to cause more catastrophic damage. just made 2nd landfall in Vietnam, 2 deaths already confirmed, seems perfect for ITN Gex4pls (talk) 14:40, 28 October 2020 (UTC) Gex4pls (talk) 23:46, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Articles looks fine, major natural disaster in the area. Gotitbro (talk) 07:03, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Storm has likely killed dozens. NoahTalk 14:24, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Posted. I added an "At least to the blurb to avoid starting a sentence with a numeral, and per standard practice in reporting these things.--Jayron32 15:12, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

2020 Peshawar school attack[edit]

Article: 2020 Peshawar school bombing (talk, history)
Blurb: ​At least eight people have died after an explosion during a class at a religious school in Pakistan (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Developing. Sherenk1 (talk) 05:42, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

  • Comment I believe the death toll has been upped to 7 or 8 Gex4pls (talk) 11:13, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support In principle. Oppose right now on size and sources. When expanded consider this a support. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BabbaQ (talkcontribs) 11:59, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose While it has only 50 words of prose - Stub JW 1961 Talk 12:10, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose stub. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 12:31, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose It is a stub, if there is more context, could re-consider. Albertaont (talk) 12:43, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Only a stub. SoloGaming (talk) 18:33, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Very stubby stub. I add my vote because it's not a stub where another paragraph and a few more sources will make it post-able, it's so bare it probably shouldn't be an article. It's also been, what, 24 hours? And there doesn't appear to be any information on the bombing except that it happened? Nowhere near a state to post. Kingsif (talk) 01:51, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment @John M Wolfson, Spencer, Stephen, Bagumba, and Masem: suggest closure. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 18:52, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
    • I don't feel that a close is appropriate at this time, as the opposes are on quality, which can in theory be fixed within the time for consideration, and there is currently not much discussion one way or the other about significance. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 18:54, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

October 26[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment
International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

Sports

RD: Peter Cardew[edit]

Article: Peter Cardew (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Canadian architect. Language is a bit flowery in the career section. I'll see if I get time today to tone it down a bit - Dumelow (talk) 06:49, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Stan Kesler[edit]

Article: Stan Kesler (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Commercial Appeal
Credits:

Nominator's comments: American musician, songwriter and producer. Article needs a little TLC but probably OK - Dumelow (talk) 07:59, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

  • Oppose ref 1 is dead, and I cannot easily find a replacement. Dealbreaker, due to the breadth of material it is supposed to support.130.233.213.199 (talk) 10:22, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, I found an archived version and replaced the ref - Dumelow (talk) 10:42, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Support Looks good now.130.233.213.199 (talk) 11:51, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Slight support some unsourced statements, but looks good enough. Gex4pls (talk) 14:37, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Posted --Jayron32 15:14, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Pedro Cervantes[edit]

Article: Pedro Cervantes (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): La Jornada
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Mexican artist, article looks decent enough - Dumelow (talk) 07:55, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

  • Support All but 1 source is in Spanish, so I cannot check most things. Fixed some link rot. Assuming that the references are properly deployed, looks good. Established notability and gives a basic personal biography.130.233.213.199 (talk) 10:15, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Reuses 6 sources constantly and the entire opening statement is unsourced. Add some more references and this is RD worthy Gex4pls (talk) 14:34, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi Gex4pls, which statement is uncited? I think six main sources is a fairly good mix for a non-major celebrity - Dumelow (talk) 17:06, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Mostly it was just the opener that was unsourced, but the sources 1 2 3 5 6 and 7 are used way to many times, and should be replaced with others. Gex4pls (talk) 18:05, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
The WP:LEAD does not need to be sourced provided everything is mentioned in the main text and sourced later on. There is no limit on the number of times a source can be used; the article has nine sources and not one parapgraph is drawn solely from one source - Dumelow (talk) 18:28, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Yes, but reusing the same six sources many times makes an article look bad, and over reliance on certain sources could hinder the article. Gex4pls (talk) 23:03, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Looks fine; article is adequately sourced.-- P-K3 (talk) 19:37, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 02:25, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

RD: Lindy Hamilton-Temple-Blackwood, Marchioness of Dufferin and Ava[edit]

Article: Lindy Hamilton-Temple-Blackwood, Marchioness of Dufferin and Ava (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Telegraph
Credits:

Nominator's comments: British patron of the arts. Article looks pretty good to me. Dumelow (talk) 07:51, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

  • Oppose for now. There seems to be WP:OR wrt her husband: article unequivocally states that he was gay with two references, one of which says nothing on the subject; and the other calls him "basically homosexual". By virtue of his living his entire adult life in a heterosexual marriage, I would like a definitive statement to this. His relationship with the subject is definitely fourth cousin, per the article, but sources simply call him "distant cousin". I see no reason these two contentious statements could be omitted. They have only tangential relevance to the subject, but I'll leave it to someone else to do it.130.233.213.199 (talk) 10:06, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for commenting. I've quoted the Independent's "basically homosexual" in the article. Personally, I think both this and the distant cousin relationship are relevant to the article but happy to hear more opinions on this - Dumelow (talk) 10:14, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Joey Moss[edit]

Article: Joey Moss (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): CBC News; NHL; Toronto Star / Canadian Press; The Globe and Mail
Credits:

Article updated

 Bloom6132 (talk) 04:20, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

  • Support Well-written and -referenced article, including awards and such.130.233.213.199 (talk) 09:42, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support plenty of references, interesting story, perfect for ITN Gex4pls (talk) 14:26, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Decently referenced article, suitable for RD JW 1961 Talk 18:40, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 02:22, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

RD: Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri[edit]

Article: Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Guardian
Credits:
Article updated

Nominator's comments: Number 2 to Saddam Hussein. Article appears in good shape with no citation tags. 2A00:23C5:5082:6101:67EF:803A:64B6:7102 (talk) 20:57, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

  • Oppose Douri is subject of no less than 5 false-death announcements, and the current declaration lacks any specificity or corroboration. Guardian is simply relaying press releases from WP:INVOLVED and partisan sources. At the very least, we should make certain that RD is for subjects who are certainly dead on a certain date.130.233.213.199 (talk) 09:37, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Wait for more major and reputable media outlets to publish on this, per above. Gex4pls (talk) 14:24, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment is he really dead? ~ Destroyeraa🌀 00:13, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

RD: Juan R. Torruella[edit]

Article: Juan R. Torruella (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): (Bloomberg Law)
Credits:

 Dumelow (talk) 06:09, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

  • Support decent article, well referenced JW 1961 Talk 12:05, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Slight Support Pretty good, but still has some pretty bad problems. Mainly, the career as a lawyer section mainly relies on a single source. Gex4pls (talk) 18:48, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Amy Coney Barrett[edit]

‹See TfM›

Consensus will not develop to post. Stephen 04:36, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposed image
Articles: Amy Coney Barrett (talk, history) and Amy Coney Barrett Supreme Court nomination (talk, history)
Blurb: Amy Coney Barrett is confirmed to the Supreme Court of the United States. (Post)
News source(s): NPR, CNN
Credits:

Both articles updated
Nominator's comments: We posted and then pulled Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation in October 2018. However, this confirmation changes the composition of the court, possibly for decades, which makes this more significant. Davey2116 (talk) 00:16, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak support we didn't post the rest of the confirmations Trump made, but this one seems extraordinary, being so close to the election. However, I'm sure this will get at least a handfull of opposes saying it's Americanism local politics.~ Destroyeraa🌀 00:23, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support having said A (i.e. posting Brett Kavanaugh), we ought to say B. Banedon (talk) 00:25, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Given we pulled Kavanaugh, I'm switching to Oppose. Banedon (talk) 02:45, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose High level court nominations are not regularly posted at ITN, even if taking account of the implications here (creating a 6-3 balance just before the election). Let's not let partisan politics cloud judgement of potential US bias here. --Masem (t) 00:27, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. Outrageously US-centric. We don't post the appointments of supreme court justices (not even heads of the supreme courts) of any other countries. Not Russia, not China (a much larger country than the U.S.), not France, not Germany and not the U.K. We should treat the U.S. in the way we treat all other countries. Appointments in the U.S. should be limited to their head of state or government like it is for all other countries on the planet. The only time a Chinese appointment gets posted is when China gets a new president. While it is true that the politicization of the US supreme court is seen as troubling, the same could be said for many other countries, but we still don't post the individual appointments to the Polish supreme court either, despite the controversy over partisan attempts to politicize it. --Tataral (talk) 00:29, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
    we still don't post the individual appointments to the Polish supreme court either Perhaps we should. But that has no real bearing on this entry. PackMecEng (talk) 00:39, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
    If there were a major development relating to the Polish supreme court as an institution it could potentially be ITN-worthy. For example, if the EU said it was illegitimate or something like that. Similarly, a major development relating to the US supreme court as an institution, for example if Congress declared it illegitimate due to Trump's politicization of it, it could potentially be ITN-worthy. But not the routine appointment of a judge. No judge appointments are regarded as ITN-worthy, the bar is usually election or appointment as head of state or government. We have, as far as I can tell, never ever posted the appointment of a judge from any other country on the entire planet. --Tataral (talk) 00:44, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment This nom is going to be highly controversial. Please be civil and on-topic, and not accuse each other of being partisan or supporting one party/side. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 00:42, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose – We did not post Kagan or Gorsuch, and we pulled Kavanaugh. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 00:46, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
    Kagan was posted for a short time then pulled.[3] PackMecEng (talk) 03:29, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment This article was prevented from running (discussion) on DYK ostensibly because we cannot run US election related material on the main page with a US election approaching. What makes ITN different? I mean, won't it just get pulled? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:46, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
    There's no such rule at ITN as far as I know, although I can see the logic in it. P-K3 (talk) 00:58, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is actually less significant than the Kavanagh nom, as it just makes a 5-4 conservative/liberal split into a 6-3 one. And I'm not comfortable promoting something as partisan as this so close to the election. P-K3 (talk) 01:01, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support and frankly, I'd be in favor of putting up other high court confirmations. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 01:12, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose No exceptional reason to overturn established precedent against posting SCOTUS confirmations to ITN. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 01:13, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak support I would say that given the extraordinary circumstances that surround her nomination, namely the first Supreme Court justice being elected with no cross-party support, and the extremely late nature of her nomination (a week prior to the national election) in national history I would vouch for its inclusion on the page. If I am incorrect in my statements please feel free to correct me and if they are irrelevant in the discussion that is acceptable as well, but I would find it important given the circumstances surrounding her nomination. --Ornithoptera (talk) 01:21, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per C&C This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 01:40, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose – very U.S.-centric and partisan, especially just over a week before a major election. Goes against precedent that I see no reason to overturn. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 01:47, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose: not exactly a 'routine' confirmation, but this doesn't have any irregularities other than 'Trump may try some shady stuff next week', and crystal-ing shouldn't be used to establish notability for a nom.  Nixinova T  C   02:08, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Too U.S.-centric. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 02:14, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above. If individual laws are enacted or struck down by legislatures or judiciaries, they can be considered on a case by case basis Bumbubookworm (talk) 03:42, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Routine court appointment that would not be posted if it related to any other country in the world. Chrisclear (talk) 04:12, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

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

(Posted) RD: David Braley[edit]

Article: David Braley (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): CBC News / Canadian Press; Toronto Star; The Province
Credits:

Article updated

 Bloom6132 (talk) 23:41, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

  • Support Neat little article, well referenced JW 1961 Talk 12:00, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Above average in quality, plenty of sources and fit for RD standards. Gex4pls (talk) 16:37, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD. SpencerT•C 20:06, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Lunar water[edit]

‹See TfM›

Consensus will not develop to post. Stephen 01:23, 28 October 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: Lunar water (talk, history)
Blurb: NASA confirms liquid water has been spotted on the sunlit surface of the Moon. (Post)
News source(s): (Fox News) (CNN) (NASA)
Credits:
 Elijahandskip (talk) 17:48, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support was about to nominate this myself. Interesting and potentially helpful to humans. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 17:58, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Important discovery. Davey2116 (talk) 18:12, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose on quality. Article has orange tags for "updates needed" (because the results of several old missions are not reported) and also lots of cites missing. I'd also like to see an update and blurb which concisely describe what today's breakthrough is, because it's not the first ever water seen as far as I can gather?  — Amakuru (talk) 18:34, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
The orange update tag was removed. A section just about the new discovery was added and is about equal in length to the other sections. Also to the point you made, it was the first water molecules (aka direct liquid water) discovered on the moon. Before today, scientists thought liquid water couldn't exist on the moon. Ice if different story...this was just about the liquid water found. Elijahandskip (talk) 21:47, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Meh I tried to actually add a meaningful update, and the discovery is more like "there is 10-20% more surface where water can get trapped, and this new stuff is not at the poles, and sometimes it melts to be a liquid". As much as I like scientific news, this is a bit on the incremental side for ITN. 2601:602:9200:1310:B1A9:7B41:8037:7B2F (talk) 20:20, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support New discovery, very mentionable. Also, @2601:602:9200:1310:B1A9:7B41:8037:7B2F, please put oppose or support, Wikipedia discourages using meh. SoloGaming (talk) 18:36, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose per above This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 20:25, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose it was pretty well established that lunar water exists prior to the announcement. Banedon (talk) 00:40, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment What's the "sunlit surface"? Isn't the whole place sunlit? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:49, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
    No. The moon has two sides, one is permanently facing the sun and is as such sunlit, the other is permanently dark. CoronaOneLove (talk) 02:09, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
That's why, seen from Earth, the moon has phases. Today's is a waxing gibbous moon. The full moon will appear on Oct. 31 – if the world lasts that long.
Sca (talk) 13:21, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Umm no, there is one side which is permanently facing the Earth, but that side is sometimes in sunlight (at full moon) and sometimes not (new moon). For an observer on the Moon, there would be day and night over a 28 day period as the Moon spins on its axis (plus or minus some correction due to the Earth going around the Sun). So every location is part of the "sunlit surface" at one time or another.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:00, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
See [4]. Banedon (talk) 22:34, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment: Similar items previously nominated: Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates/August_2018#(Closed)_Discovery_of_water_ice_on_Moon, Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates/September_2009#Water_found_on_moon, Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates/November_2009#Water_found_on_the_Moon. SpencerT•C 02:05, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Incremental step. We'd known for years, ever since the first soviet moon lander sent the data back to Earth, that there is water on the moon. This changes nothing. CoronaOneLove (talk) 02:09, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not a new or major announcement, @Elijahandskip: also please link the article you nominated in the blurb and bold it. Gotitbro (talk) 04:59, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment. Btw, while this nomination might not go too far, the blurb should also include SOFIA that detected water molecules on the sunlit lunar surface. Too bad that the article was not recently created, else, there could have been a real interesting DYK. DYK ... that the SOFIA telescope that detected water molecules on the sunlit lunar surface is housed in a modified Boeing 747? Video: [5] Ktin (talk) 05:48, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose I like scientific nominations but this is not really a discovery. As noted above, the presence of water on the Moon has been known for more than 40 years.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:24, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support, as pointed out in this Nature publication this is a new result (and obviously a very significant scientific breakthrough, or else it would not merit publication in Nature) as it distinguishes molecular H2O from OH ions. In this accompanying Nature article, it is pointed out that the water resides in micro cold traps and is then present in a far wider region than large cold traps where it was already known that ice resides in. Count Iblis (talk) 12:38, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose It is an important discovery for establishing a colony on the moon but needs more fleshing out before it can be realized, but itself is not really that new of a discovery (water on the dark side was known, this is water on the lit side). --Masem (t) 13:27, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose this literally isn't news. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 22:56, 27 October 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.

Chilean constitutional referendum[edit]

Article: 2020 Chilean national plebiscite (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In a nationwide referendum, Chileans vote to convene an assembly to write a new constitution (Post)
News source(s): https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20201025-from-protest-to-ballot-box-chile-votes-in-referendum-for-change
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Chile votes to write a new constitution. Big news and related to the protests from last year. This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 02:49, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

  • Oppose Would be news when the constitution is actually implemented, simply voting for a new constituent assembly does not seem significant enough at this point for ITN to me. Gotitbro (talk) 03:36, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support We do routinely post referendums per accepted practice and the mere fact that people approved the need for a new constitution is quite historical. The completion of a new constituion should take some time and can be posted separately. Brandmeistertalk 08:59, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support A follow up on the protests (it's pretty unusual seeing uprisings being effective) in a major power, definitely ITN worthy. Gex4pls (talk) 11:45, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support This can be seen as the culmination of a year of protests and chaos in Chile; the referrendum itself is frontpage news across major international news groups like the BBC. --Droodkin (talk) 11:52, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support First referendum in Chile during democracy and since 1989, when it saw Pinochet step down from power. Definitely newsworthy. --NoonIcarus (talk) 14:16, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Per NoonIcarus. SoloGaming (talk) 14:44, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Needs prose on the "Results" section. Howard the Duck (talk) 14:46, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support headline news, very historic. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 15:03, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support as a historic event with generational implications. Would be nice to get a bit more context in the article though; any other articles we can CC-BY-SA from in a pinch? AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 16:10, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support, although more context should be included in the blurb (2019–20 Chilean protests?). Ironically, this is probably more significant news that the future constitution's actual adoption. —Brigade Piron (talk) 17:28, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Both this and the adoption of a new constitution would be worthy of ITN. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 17:43, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per above. Davey2116 (talk) 18:12, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  • This was tagged as "Ready" but is obviously isn't, so I removed the tag. Prose still needed on "Results" section, to explain what the results of the vote mean. Howard the Duck (talk) 19:39, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose on quality. This is basically a stub - there's barely any prose. There needs to be more than one line saying it's in response to the protests - a background section is a must.-- P-K3 (talk) 19:47, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support on notability, oppose for now on quality - I don't question the notability at all, this is a historic event and the culmination of the protests. My only criticism is that the article has little text at the moment. As soon as this is addressed and the article is no longer a stub, consider this a support !vote.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 20:22, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment I still have no idea what a "mixed constitutional convention" is as opposed to a constitutional convention. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 22:01, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

October 25[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy

Health and environment

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sports

RD: Diane di Prima[edit]

Article: Diane di Prima (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NYT
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Needs some citation work but would be great to get this on the main page. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 00:51, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

NRL Grand Final[edit]

Article: 2020 NRL Grand Final (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In rugby league, the Melbourne Storm defeat the Penrith Panthers to win the NRL Grand Final. (Post)
News source(s): BBC, NRL
Credits:

Article updated

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

 PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 17:01, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

  • Support Maybe change the source to an Australian one, like nrl.com. WDM10 (talk) 18:47, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) 2020 Seychellois general election[edit]

Proposed image
Article: 2020 Seychellois general election (talk, history)
Blurb: Wavel Ramkalawan (pictured) is elected President of Seychelles in the first peaceful transfer of power since independence in 1976. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Wavel Ramkalawan (pictured) becomes the first opposition candidate to be elected President of Seychelles since independence in 1976.
News source(s): BBC, AP
Credits:

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: The election results were announced on October 25 - it was his seventh sixth presidential run. I found a higher res version of the image here, but I am not sure about the licensing. Joofjoof (talk) 08:21, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

  • Comment The biography of Wavel Ramkalawan is in a pretty bad shape, so that has to be fixed first. KittenKlub (talk) 12:56, 27 October 2020 (UTC) Support. The articles are short, but sufficiently sourced. Also it's a neglected and forgotten country which has finally elected a new President after all these years. KittenKlub (talk) 19:14, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support alt blurb because I think the first blurb is somewhat misleading. There have been peaceful transfers of power within the same political party before, just not to a different political party. Mlb96 (talk) 00:01, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
    • It's not really a "transfer" of power if the same guys (for the most part) are in charge. Howard the Duck (talk) 17:16, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Tagged as ready. Howard the Duck (talk) 17:16, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Posted Alt. Short but meets minimum standards. SpencerT•C 19:54, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Rosanna Carteri[edit]

Article: Rosanna Carteri (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): connessiallopera.it
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: An international soprano during her short career, world premieres at La Scala, recordings, admirers, - listen. It was not hard to find sources for a so far mostly unreferenced article. There may be more tomorrow, but that could be too late ... Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:02, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

  • Support Short career. Well referenced. Grimes2 (talk) 16:28, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Taut but well referenced. Gotitbro (talk) 17:32, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 22:48, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Thomas Oppermann[edit]

Article: Thomas Oppermann (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Die Welt
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Vice president of the German Bundestag, member of the Social Democratic Party (SPD) Grimes2 (talk) 11:44, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Robert E. Murray[edit]

Article: Robert E. Murray (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): (The Intelligencer)
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Needs some additional references which I am working on Dumelow (talk) 07:12, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

I've reffed everything that was obviously missing- Dumelow (talk) 13:56, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

RD: Frank Bough[edit]

Article: Frank Bough (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC Guardian
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Legendary British news and sports presenter. Article isn't bad but has some unsourced parts and needs a tidy up. Died on October 21, news released tonight. Black Kite (talk) 22:59, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

  • Support Some minor referencing required otherwise generally OK. Gotitbro (talk) 03:38, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support As per above needs some improvement - Legendary presenter throughout the 70s and 80s until his rather eventful fall from grace which is also very notable.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 08:16, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose If referencing is needed, don't vote support. That means it's good now. GreatCaesarsGhost 11:31, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Seems sourced well enough, good enough for RD standards. Gex4pls (talk) 14:21, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose It's not quite there, I see a few unsourced statements.-- P-K3 (talk) 14:55, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) Lewis Hamilton[edit]

Proposed image
Article: Lewis Hamilton (talk, history)
Blurb: Lewis Hamilton breaks the record for the most race wins in Formula 1 history. (Post)
News source(s): CBC
Credits:

 Kobalt22 (talk) 18:15, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

  • Support prominent record and article of sufficient quality. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 20:08, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - new record. And article looks ready.BabbaQ (talk) 20:19, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Nice article, suitable for ITN JW 1961 Talk 20:58, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per above. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 21:58, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment Despacito. I'm sure I can find some sports records upon scorn was heaped as well (but not soccer or cricket those are "important") but not before this is expressed to the main page. We should re-nominate this every time Hamilton wins a race going forward... --LaserLegs (talk) 22:34, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Surely it's just breaking someone else's long-standing record, and if each race win is nommed here the comments will SNOW say that. Kingsif (talk) 22:47, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Winning some kind of YouTube contest for clicks is a little different from being the "winningest" F1 driver in history. I'll take the chance here and suggest that this story is more notable that the clickbait and go on to add we don't need to re-nominate it as the story is him becoming the best ever driver. But (appropriately) YMMV LaserLegs!! The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 23:14, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment Shouldn't the list article for the achievement - the news item - be the bold link? Kingsif (talk) 22:47, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Major achievement breaking the great Michael Schumacher's record. P-K3 (talk) 22:51, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support long-standing record in a top-tier global sport broken and unlikely to be broken again for quite some time. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 23:14, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 23:57, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
    • Do we at least have a different picture of him? He's becoming the Lula of sports blurbs.... --LaserLegs (talk) 00:05, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
      • I don't know, do we? Can you propose a better one? Stephen 00:07, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
        Here are a few to choose from -- commons. PS: Shared this only because asked above. I have no preference on a picture. Cheers. Ktin (talk) 00:09, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support New world record and unlikely to be beaten again - though we said that about Schumachers!Davidstewartharvey (talk) 08:18, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Unilkely to be unlikely, Hamilton himself can probably do it. Gotitbro (talk) 17:36, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Lee Kun-hee[edit]

Article: Lee Kun-hee (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): New York Times
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Former Samsung chairperson; South Korean business executive. Article requires some work including copy-edits and references. Edits done. Ktin (talk) 01:38, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

  • Conditional oppose on quality issues alone, specifically copyvio. Earwig identifies a few substantial chunks that could be reverse copyvios but they're from reputable publications so I imagine it's just regular copyvio. My suspicions were aroused when I went searching for a source for the {{cn}}–tagged statement Foreign employees were brought in and local employees were shipped out as Lee tried to foster a more international attitude to doing business and found [6], which is exactly the same. Will remove that bit for now, but quite a lot of other potential copyvio remains. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 04:46, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
    • Have cut a fair amount of it, but I think this deserves a good looking-over by others and potentially some revdels. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 04:53, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
      AleatoryPonderings, Thanks for the edits. Gave it a quick look here. Seems like the first one is a Wiki mirror of some form. The other ones seem reasonably alright. Ktin (talk) 08:10, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
      Support now. May still be worth deleting some old revisions but the live version looks good from a copyvio and citation perspective now. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 16:36, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment. Made a few additional edits. Seems to meet hygiene requirements for homepage / RD. If there are any additional edits that need to be done including notes from above, and someone can tag them - I can have that checked. Ktin (talk) 08:48, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Ran Earwig's Copyvio again, the largest highlights left in the article are from the BBC and are two direct quotes in quotation marks (15%) so that should be ok JW 1961 Talk 10:45, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - per JW 1961s rationale.BabbaQ (talk) 22:01, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment. Tagging our newest Admin @John M Wolfson: to check on this one and promote this to homepage / RD, and in the process be the first article that they promote to WP:ITNRD in their new role. :) PS: Only if they are convinced that this is good to go. Ktin (talk) 22:51, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
John M Wolfson, wonderful. Thanks much and congrats again. Looking forward to your work here in your new role :) PS: When convenient, please feel free to click on 'give credit' to both AleatoryPonderings and me, I believe that will send that ITN box-thingie to users' talk page. :D Ktin (talk) 00:12, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support should be all sourced. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 23:37, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • PostedJohn M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 23:48, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support Well sourced article about someone who surprisingly isn't well known. Gotitbro (talk) 04:08, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

October 24[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sports

(Posted) RD: Prince Azim of Brunei[edit]

Article: Prince Azim of Brunei (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): (The Star)
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Prince of Brunei Dumelow (talk) 08:31, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

  • Support. Although the article isn't brilliant, it is probably adequate. It would be nice to have a citation for his education. I also think "the prince's meddling with the Hollywood crowd" should be rephrased to something less colloquial. —Brigade Piron (talk) 09:55, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Brigade Piron, think I have sorted both parts you mention - Dumelow (talk) 10:06, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Looks good for RD, well sourced article JW 1961 Talk 13:12, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment. Article meets hygiene requirements for RD. However, reads like WP:PROSELINE. E.g. In 19xx, the subject did this. In 19xy, the subject did this. In 200x, the subject did this. Please can we make an attempt to fix this? One clean pass with pen to paper will get this article good, and ready for homepage / RD, imo. Ktin (talk) 22:57, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 22:52, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Rafique Ul Huq[edit]

Article: Rafique Ul Huq (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): (Daily Star)
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Bangladeshi barrister Dumelow (talk) 08:24, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

  • Support. A fairly stubby article, but probably adequate for RD. More about his professional career would be good. —Brigade Piron (talk) 09:56, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Comment. Agree with the above comment. Should expand the article (professional career section) before we move this to homepage / RD. Ktin (talk) 22:45, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi Ktin, I've now added more detail - Dumelow (talk) 06:04, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Dumelow, Thanks. Can be expanded further (including social work) [7] [8], but, meets homepage / RD requirements in its current state. I am aware that the ITNRD carousel is moving quite rapidly and we might miss the window of opportunity. So, I would say, lets go with this and send this article to homepage. Ktin (talk) 06:37, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 23:24, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Joel Molina Ramírez[edit]

Article: Joel Molina Ramírez (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): (Spring Tribune)
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Mexican senator, died from Covid-19 Dumelow (talk) 08:21, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

  • Support. Article could use a cleanup to improve the prose and structure but is otherwise fine. —Brigade Piron (talk) 09:58, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment. Well referenced article. Falls short of the 'Spencer test' -- Article lists all his positions, but, not much depth into what he did in each of those positions. Please can we expand on that bit? Seems like we should be able to do that before getting the article to homepage / RD. Ktin (talk) 22:54, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Stale Stephen 22:29, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Israel–Sudan normalization agreement[edit]

‹See TfM›

No consensus to post. 331dot (talk) 08:11, 25 October 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: Israel–Sudan normalization agreement (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Israel and Sudan normalize their relations for the first time. (Post)
News source(s): NYT WaPo BBC Fox AP Reuters NBC WH Guardian NPR Bloomberg CNN
Nominator's comments: Since it was established, and after it hosted notorious anti-Israel jihadist Osama, Sudan agreed to officially normalize their relationship. I expect nothing else than biased wikipedians to shut down this story from ITN, even when there's been no news items in days 2601:602:9200:1310:E988:4346:3E73:1A14 (talk) 01:30, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment The source given is behind a paywall. Not much use. Surely there's a non-paywalled one available. In addition, the little bit of it I am allowed begins with the words "Trump announces..." Sorry, but at this stage of the Presidential election campaign, that's of no value at all. So, a better, more independent source please. HiLo48 (talk) 01:38, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Further comment Since I posted the above comment, the nominator has added seven more sources. So thank you. However, every single one of them place massive emphasis on the fact that this announcement came from Trump. The worst is the headline from the WaPo, saying "Trump asked Israel’s leader if ‘Sleepy Joe’ could have made Israel-Sudan deal." This is very problematic. It makes the announcement more about Trump and the US election than about the Middle East. HiLo48 (talk) 01:50, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
The same rationale was presented when Bahrein came in after UAE, and when the Abraham Accords were fully signed in front of cameras, it was rejected on ITN as "old news" and as part of political moves, even though this stuff is the basics of geopolitics, rarely allowed through by regular ITN activists outside of progressivist causes. 2601:602:9200:1310:E988:4346:3E73:1A14 (talk) 02:25, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
"The same rationale was presented when Bahrein came in after UAE..." Really? Was that announcement made by a poorly polling US Presidential candidate a week and a half out from the election? You will have to work very hard to convince me this ISN'T "part of (US) political moves". And please have a read of Wikipedia:Assume good faith before you write more negative comments about other editors. HiLo48 (talk) 02:35, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Your rationale implies that had he been polling better, these accords would have been signed at a later point. But since he is running out of time, ITN should take a political stance and remove political developments and pretend these developments don't happen. Last current item on ITN is 7+ days old. 2601:602:9200:1310:E988:4346:3E73:1A14 (talk) 02:51, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
"Your rationale implies..." You have no idea what my rationale implies apart from the words I have written. I choose them carefully. You are NOT assuming good faith on my part. You began this nomination with a pre-emptive attack on other editors. Not a good look for a new editor. I submit that the one person displaying a bias in this matter is yourself. HiLo48 (talk) 03:03, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
The last item to be added to ITN is from October 21. It is 3 or 4 days old. But in any case, ITN works only on how important any given event is. And in any case, we do not aim to remove events from the table in just one week. 45.251.33.147 (talk) 03:08, 24 October 2020 (UTC) Last edited at 03:17, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong support Impressive, given that just a little over a year ago Sudan (under Omar Bashir) was one of the most rabidly anti-Semitic states in the world CoronaOneLove (talk) 02:19, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose We posted the UAE one, but the subsequent one with Bahrain was not posted. The precedent ought to hold This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 02:45, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Boiling frog with everything we dislike in our progressive ITN corner. 2601:602:9200:1310:E988:4346:3E73:1A14 (talk) 02:54, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
I don't see how this is an example of a boiling frog. This just isn't that significant, as these countries haven't had any direct conflict with Israel (It's kind of like if Myanmar suddenly announced support for Taiwan. Would it be significant? Yes. Would it be important enough for ITN? No. Gex4pls (talk) 03:51, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
About as significant as the eye of newt or the toe of a frog, IMO – Sca (talk) 17:43, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose on only one reason - this is the third Arab country to normalize relations with Israel in the past 4 months. We can't have blurbs for each country that normalises relations at this pace. But if the KSA or Iraq does so then it will probably be blurb-worthy. 45.251.33.147 (talk) 02:59, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Slight oppose important, but we've had quite a few countries open relations with Israel as of late, If a more vocal country (Egypt, Iraq, Saudi Arabia etc.) were to do so, would definitely get my support. Gex4pls (talk) 03:45, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Leaning support, given the novelty of this particular pairing. For the record, however, as I have noted before, Saudi Arabia and Israel have already tacitly been allied since at least as early as 2014; a publicity event for this longstanding arrangement would not be newsworthy. A peace accord between Israel and Iran would certainly be. BD2412 T 03:58, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak Support while Sudan is third Arabian country that normalize relations with Israel, this is major events, as Israel seeks to have normalizing relations with Arab country that has been enemy since 1948. 36.65.38.17 (talk) 05:12, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose We cannot post one of these for every single Muslim country. Oman is almost certainly going to normalize relations with Israel very soon, and I wouldn't be surprised if Kuwait does as well. Unless it's Iran, I oppose posting any more of these. Also, you very blatantly have a political agenda here. Yes, I am assuming bad faith, but your rhetoric makes your bad faith readily apparent. Mlb96 (talk) 06:26, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support The agreement is no less important than the UAE agreement two months ago, because the two countries have fought military conflicts, and Israel bombed it several times because of its alliance with Iran and Hamas.--Sakiv (talk) 06:36, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support There were actually in war. So its a big step toward peace in region --Shrike (talk) 07:17, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Important news, but the possibility was already announced during the Abraham Accords. It is actually part of a broader trend and this should not be seen as a single independent event.--WEBDuB (talk) 09:12, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Per Mlb96. Smacks of the political bandwagon syndrome. – Sca (talk) 12:49, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose There is no agreement to establish embassies, which is what "normalization" is usually being taken to mean and it is in the future, whatever it is; https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/head-of-sudans-largest-party-slams-recognizing-israel/2020/10/24/ec7735e6-15f5-11eb-a258-614acf2b906d_story.html does not bode well. We should wait for concrete developments.Selfstudier (talk) 14:22, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is neither a Trump nor Israel ticker. There is no actual conflict. Albertaont (talk) 15:14, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Suspiciously timed October surprise that is essentially meaningless. WaltCip-(talk) 16:03, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
That is not unmeaningless. – Sca (talk) 17:14, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment: IMO, the removal of Sudan from the US's State Sponsors of Terrorism list (Sudan–United_States_relations#Post-al-Bashir) is arguably the bigger story here. SpencerT•C 16:46, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose we didn’t post the last two, this is no difference. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 16:47, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Sudan is barely a state, shares no border with Israel and is no threat to them. This is a typically cynical attempt by Trumpists to make a meal out of a nothingburger. Let me know when Syria gets the Golan Heights back or Israel returns to the pre-1967 borders. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:10, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose It's less remarkable when it's part of a streak of members of the Arab world recognizing Israel. Quite a lot of countries have done so recently, and as others have pointed out, this trend isn't ending any time soon as Oman is reportedly about to join the list.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 19:39, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose We can't post every country that normalizes relations. P-K3 (talk) 22:29, 24 October 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) Kabul suicide bombing[edit]

‹See TfM›

No consensus to post. Also a stub SoloGaming (talk) 13:51, 28 October 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: October 2020 Kabul suicide bombing (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A suicide bombing outside an educational center outside Kabul, Afghanistan, kills at least 30 and injures 70. (Post)
News source(s): Reuters
Credits:
Nominator's comments: Significant death toll. NoonIcarus (talk) 14:26, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose sorry, but it's a stub. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 13:32, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose It is a stub... SoloGaming (talk) 13:46, 28 October 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.

October 23[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Sports

(Posted) RD: Jerry Jeff Walker[edit]

Article: Jerry Jeff Walker (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): AP
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Singer/songwriter. Article needs significant sourcing before posting. Masem (t) 20:00, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

  • Oppose Entire biography section mostly relies on only 2 sources, and other sections need more and better sources. Gex4pls (talk) 20:27, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

October 22[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

(Posted) RD: J. Michael Lane[edit]

Article: J. Michael Lane (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NYTimes
Credits:

Nominator's comments: We have a peculiar situation where the article page doesn't exist. But, surely, one would have thought he would have had a page. Let's see if we can get something going. Article page created. Article has shaped up as a nice start-class biography. Meets hygiene standards for RD. Ktin (talk) 07:12, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

  • Support Small, well referenced article built like grease lightning. Also important in this day and age. KittenKlub (talk) 08:02, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - Looks ready for posting.BabbaQ (talk) 09:10, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Well sourced, all the ISBN's there, looks good for RD JW 1961 Talk 11:10, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD. SpencerT•C 16:43, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support Nice and interesting nom. Gotitbro (talk) 03:48, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Joel Daly[edit]

Article: Joel Daly (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Chicago Tribune; Chicago Sun-Times; WLS-TV (ABC)
Credits:

Article updated

 Bloom6132 (talk) 01:06, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

  • Support - Article is well sourced. The career section is in-depth. TJMSmith (talk) 02:55, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Suitable for RD, well sourced JW 1961 Talk 14:34, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD. SpencerT•C 18:40, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Lebanon PM[edit]

‹See TfM›

No consensus to post. Stephen 23:21, 27 October 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: Saad Hariri (talk, history)
Blurb: Saad Hariri becomes Prime Minister of Lebanon. (Post)
News source(s): Al Jazeera
Credits:
Nominator's comments: Sorry I don't know template/protocol, Hariri might not be head of state, but this shuffling is pretty big in the instability there. He's not got a cabinet set up, but he will. 195.250.80.226 (talk) 18:55, 22 October 2020 (UTC) 195.250.80.226 (talk) 18:55, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Wait It seems that he is not officially PM again yet, as he has only been appointed by parliament to try and form a new coalition. It remains to be seen whether he will succeed, and I'm not enough of an expert in Lebanese politics to know how likely that is. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 20:15, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Fair enough. Thanks for your consideration. It will happen, I just don't know when.195.250.80.226 (talk) 01:22, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not confirmed as of now though probably likely. Gotitbro (talk) 03:46, 26 October 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) Ongoing: Thai protests[edit]

Article: 2020 Thai protests (talk, history)
Ongoing item nomination (Post)
Credits:

Nominator's comments: So the Thai protests were pushed off. Still ongoing very much, as this just happened. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 13:09, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

  • Comment – See also: AP, BBC, Reuters. – Sca (talk) 13:20, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Article is in good shape, and I can see significant updates regarding events that occurred on 20, 21, and 22 October. Meets all of the criteria for ongoing. --Jayron32 14:22, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support I was going to do this, so apperciate the work by 🌀 to keep on top of this! Albertaont (talk) 14:48, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
    • @Albertaont: Thank you! ~ Destroyeraa🌀 15:50, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support protesters have given the prime minister until 24 Oct to step down, so figures to be in the news for at least a bit more.—Bagumba (talk) 14:51, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Protests aren't over, so i don't see why they shouldn't go to ongoing. Gex4pls (talk) 15:01, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - oingoing is correct.BabbaQ (talk) 15:20, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose the number of participants has been steadily declining and according to the article "The following day, Prayuth revoked the severe emergency declaration on Bangkok that was declared a week earlier, citing that the violent situation had ended". ... "situation had ended". Seems the exact opposite of ongoing to me? Unless we just want to use the box as a coatrack to complain about the Thai royal family in which case post away. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:16, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
    • Comment do make a good point, depending on direction, we could do a vote on removal soon. It is clear that its more "analysis" than event at this point. Albertaont (talk) 15:19, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  • plus Posted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:59, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support While not in the news as much now, the protests and their updates are still ongoing. Gotitbro (talk) 03:45, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Lekki massacre[edit]

‹See TfM›

Topic is already in ongoing. Stephen 00:49, 23 October 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: Lekki Massacre (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Nigerian army shoots at peaceful protesters, killing 12 according to Amnesty International. (Post)
News source(s): https://apnews.com/article/police-violence-police-brutality-lagos-nigeria-98ee3550fb576d561d84b372a65cc95f
Credits:
Nominator's comments: Massacre of peaceful protesters in Nigeria, top item in international news. File:Lekki-toll-gate-lagos.jpg is the location of the shooting[9] Eostrix  (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 03:53, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment This and the recently added Ongoing entry need to be dovetailed somehow. I would prefer this blurb and the removal of the Ongoing entry, because I believe our article on this subject colors the situation. But it has to be either blurb or Ongoing.130.233.213.55 (talk) 07:06, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is already covered by (and is just part of) the protests article, which is already in `ongoing` section. The article itself should have been a section in the main protests article as it's not distinct from that root cause. I am also leery of titling such fork article "...massacre", of course no credible international media call it a such. Not even the local ones, except in scare quotes or in opinion pieces. – Ammarpad (talk) 08:27, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
    When created, it was at Lekki shooting, which is supported by sources like Nigeria Sars protests: Horror over shootings in Lagos, BBC. It was moved to massacre. Amnesty Intentional did give a double-digit death toll, so it's not without reason. It could be moved back to shooting or shootings, or we could wait to see where the media stabilizes.--Eostrix  (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 10:31, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose new blurb. We just posted this to Ongoing, and these sorts of situations where multiple important events tied to a single topic (end SARS) is the reason we have "ongoing". There are likely to be events daily similar to this one, and instead of posting each one, we have the Ongoing link for a reason. --Jayron32 11:55, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose – No need for Wiki to jump on the bandwagon again. – Sca (talk) 12:19, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose - already on ongoing. Nothing more than the missile strike, which wasn't posted. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 12:31, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose: We just put SARS in ongoing, which means that the ongoing includes everything that is related to SARS, so there is no need to add this at all. SoloGaming (talk) 12:39, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose SARS tickingThis post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 16:29, 22 October 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: