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.

Lewis Hamilton in 2016
Lewis Hamilton

How to nominate an item[edit]

In order to suggest a candidate:

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

Purge this page to update the cache

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

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


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pulled from the main page are generally marked with (Posted) or (Pulled) in the item's subject so it is clear they are no longer active.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

Voicing an opinion on an item[edit]

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

Please do not...[edit]

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


October 26[edit]

Health and environment

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):

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)

October 25[edit]

Health and environment

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

RD: Frank Bough[edit]

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

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)

(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

 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)

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

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

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 [1], 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)

October 24[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

Law and crime

Politics and elections


(Closed) Israel–Sudan normalization agreement[edit]

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. (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. (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. (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; 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.

October 23[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime


RD: Jerry Jeff Walker[edit]

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

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

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)

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)

Lebanon PM[edit]

Article: Saad Hariri (talk, history)
Blurb: Saad Hariri becomes Prime Minister of Lebanon. (Post)
News source(s): Al Jazeera

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. (talk) 18:55, 22 October 2020 (UTC) (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. (talk) 01:22, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not confirmed as of now though probably likely. Gotitbro (talk) 03:46, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) Ongoing: Thai protests[edit]

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

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]

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):
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[2] 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. (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.

October 21[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

Law and crime

Pope endorses same-sex civil unions[edit]

Article: Pope Francis and homosexuality (talk, history)
Blurb: Pope Francis is the first Pope to publicly endorse same-sex civil unions. (Post)
News source(s): The Associated Press, The Guardian

Nominator's comments: Interview was publicly released October 21. TJMSmith (talk) 17:23, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

  • Comment. This seems to be his personal view and not official Church policy, unless I am missing something. 331dot (talk) 17:25, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose In addition to this being a personal view , this was before he was Pope, the news coming from found footage cut from a previous work and not a Papal declaration. --Masem (t) 17:30, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Wait Until we get an idea of what the Catholic church as a whole thinks about homosexuality. While certainly a win for LGBT, we can't be certain if the rest of the church will back this opinion Gex4pls (talk) 01:23, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Leaning oppose. This is actually not new, and was his position when he was a Cardinal, basically in order to preserve marriage as a heterosexual institution. The wording may seem out of step with doctrine, but the intent is the same. BD2412 T 01:30, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Video footage of his personal comments for a documentary. SpencerT•C 02:49, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose – a documentary interview ≠ papal teaching. —Bloom6132 (talk) 10:57, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Misleading nom, clearly not an official position. Gotitbro (talk) 03:41, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Frank Horvat[edit]

Article: Frank Horvat (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Guardian; Swissinfo

Article updated

 Bloom6132 (talk) 00:42, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

  • Comment: This is close but needs a little bit of work: still very much like WP:PROSELINE; lede mentions information that does not appear later in the article or duplicates finer details that should just appear in the body; would like to see body a little more fleshed out. SpencerT•C 16:32, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
    Spencer, streamlined the lede. Will give the rest of the article a scrub and this should be ready soon. Ktin (talk) 21:34, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
    Spencer, these edits are done. Meets hygiene requirements for homepage / RD. Ktin (talk) 22:12, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. per above edits and comment. A short clip if someone wants to see [3] Ktin (talk) 22:12, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD. SpencerT•C 02:48, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Viola Smith[edit]

Article: Viola Smith (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Washington Post

Article updated

 Bloom6132 (talk) 22:03, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

  • Support Well referenced and a small, but comprehensive article. KittenKlub (talk) 06:52, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD. SpencerT•C 16:36, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Marge Champion[edit]

Article: Marge Champion (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The New York Times; The Guardian; The Hollywood Reporter

Article updated

 Bloom6132 (talk) 02:42, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

  • Support. Looks good. Well referenced and good structure too. I am not a fan of bullet list being used in the 'legacy and honors' section, but, then prose being written there rather than a list. Should be an easy fix. Good to go post that. PS: Nice job on the filmography! Ktin (talk) 03:16, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Looks ready for RD JW 1961 Talk 14:36, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD. SpencerT•C 18:36, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

New pair of salivary glands[edit]

Article: Salivary gland (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Scientists discover a new pair of salivary glands in humans. (Post)
News source(s): Radiotherapy & Oncology CNN, The Scientist, The Hindu

Nominator's comments: While the article in Radiotherapy & Oncology was published on 22 September, for some reason mainstream media broke the news on 21 October (while I learned about it today), so I'm giving this a try. If anything, the current update is small. Brandmeistertalk 16:40, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

  • Unsure I had read about this a few days ago. The reason I didn't think of this for ITN, the sources were giving the sense that it was just a claim from one group of researchers, and is yet to be confirmed independently, for one, and for another, there was uncertainty as to how it should be categorised (a new organ, a new part of a previously known organ, ..., ...). I would like clarification on what exactly the finding is that we would be hailing as a significant leap and what the confidence is with which we can claim it. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:50, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment is this verified? ~ Destroyeraa🌀 19:33, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
    • After scans the researchers reportedly dissected two cadavers, one male and one female. They all had a set. But, per CNN, "the study concentrated on a small number of patients who were mostly male and used specific rather than standard tests [...] examination of more women and healthier patients would allow for better data". Still, I don't think it would be disproven. Brandmeistertalk 20:18, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't how notable Radiotherapy & Oncology is within it's field, but I find it an odd venue for reporting new findings in anatomy. Target article has been orange tagged for expansion since 2018, which is unsuitable for a non-event article. This seems a little too close to primary sources for the Front Page. (talk) 05:59, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
    Apparently knowing about a new organ(?) that should be missed during radiotherapy is likely to increase the patient's quality of life significantly. Usedtobecool ☎️ 01:32, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Wait Until more accurate results come out; and see how the medical community responds. Gex4pls (talk) 14:25, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Vijayalakshmi Ramanan[edit]

Article: Vijayalakshmi Ramanan (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Deccan Herald Indian Express

Article updated

Nominator's comments: First woman Indian Air Force officer. Article is shaping up as a start-class biography. Should be ready soon. Edits done. Article looks good and ready for homepage / RD. RIP. And if someone has some time for a clip. RIP Dr. Ramanan. Ktin (talk) 05:08, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

  • Support Well sourced and a interesting story. KittenKlub (talk) 08:16, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Well sourced article, suitable for RD JW 1961 Talk 11:47, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Per above. Gex4pls (talk) 14:04, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Posted with a 21 October date, as that appears to be when the death was publicised. Black Kite (talk) 22:00, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) ORISIS-Rex makes touchdown with asteroid[edit]

Proposed image
Article: OSIRIS-REx (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The OSIRIS-REx probe successfully makes brief touchdown and collects a sample from the asteroid Bennu. (Post)
News source(s): NYTimes

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: First: yes, OSIRIS has been ITN twice before: at launch, and when it achieved near orbit of the asteroid. Yesterday, NASA has it manuerver to briefly land and collect a sample from the asteroid, which they confirmed actually happened today via video and on-board sensors. Technically, that's arrival at the destination per ITNR, but even if that's not the case, it is the first for mankind to collect a sample known to be from an asteroid well outside of Earth's atmosphere. Masem (t) 23:21, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

  • Support Interesting, notable and on TV This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 00:17, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment Should we not wait until it returns as that would be clearly more significant/relevant than just its touchdown. Its return is going to be posted and I don't see the point of posting this twice. Gotitbro (talk) 00:27, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
A lot of the article is in the future tense as well, clearly marking it out that the return is the important part. Gotitbro (talk) 00:30, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
As I pointed out, we have posted its launch and when it achieved orbit around the asteroid before. Yes, bringing back the sample will be important too, but that's probably the less unknown part at this point. --Masem (t) 02:47, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Interesting and quite significant. I'd suggest the wikilink be changed to "Bennu" instead of "the asteroid Bennu". Ovinus (talk) 00:31, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Fixed. --Masem (t) 02:48, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support very interesting and in the news. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 00:54, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Notable even without ITN/R and very interesting; article is well-sourced.  Nixinova T  C   01:39, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. New that goes beyond any one country or culture. BD2412 T 02:54, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support in principle. Article is pretty impressive. I added a few missing citations, but there are a few sections that need more intext citations. TJMSmith (talk) 04:13, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - As above. Sherenk1 (talk) 11:21, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Posted. I don't have time at the moment to work on adding the image, and I felt the current image could use a little more time, but I have no objection to its being changed. 331dot (talk) 11:31, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  • I missed this one and am happy that was posted. However Masem's nomination comment is incorrect: both Hayabusa and Hayabusa2 have collected samples from asteroids before. Modest Genius talk 16:09, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
    • My bad, glad I didn't push that into the blurb. --Masem (t) 16:25, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Issues- I don't know what happened but there are currently 11 cn tags on the article. The sample acquisition procedure (isn't that having happened the news that's been posted?) is in the future tense, some other things too (like #Instruments). And I don't understand what the "Mission duration" parameter of the infobox is saying. I have seen articles on more high profile news held up from the main page for a lot less. Pull? Usedtobecool ☎️ 01:49, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: James Randi[edit]

Article: James Randi (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Randi Foundation NYT

Nominator's comments: Perhaps the most notable debunker (although that wasn't the term he liked) of claims of the paranormal (talk) 21:50, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

  • Comment – No article linked. – Sca (talk) 22:03, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
    •  Done Article linked. Yoninah (talk) 22:07, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
      • Meta-comment: The template says "do not wikilink" the article. I didn't understand why, but I complied. (A moment later.) Oh, I see, it means to only state the title and not put double square brackets around it. I didn't think of that. -- (talk) 22:16, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. A very thorough article. BD2412 T 22:13, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment Support: I support this in principle, but I would like to wait a little bit for some reliable, secondary news sources to report on this. KConWiki (talk) 22:14, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
    The Randi Foundation isn't reliable enough? P-K3 (talk) 22:34, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
That's his official website, most news sources will probably get their info from here, unless his family gives a separate statement to the media. Gotitbro (talk) 22:35, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Right, but I wanted to wait for news articles to start coming in so that we wouldn't have people worrying about the Randi Foundation not being secondary. The Washington Post has this now, so I say let's post this as a recent death. KConWiki (talk) 00:15, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Article looks good, well known in the skeptical community along with his organization CSICOP. Gotitbro (talk) 22:32, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Looks well referenced, I don't see any significant gaps. P-K3 (talk) 22:34, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Article looks great. No errors that I can see. SoloGaming (talk) 00:18, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Notable person and good article. -Abhishikt (talk) 00:48, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:50, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose some places still need citations. There is a cn tag in Personal life. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 00:55, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment. Unfortunately, the number of [citation needed] tags on the article has increased. Currently at 8. If someone can fix those, this article is all set to go to homepage. Ktin (talk) 06:27, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. Decent article, and a very significant death - father of the modern scientific skeptical movement. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:10, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support A father of modern scientific skepticism and highly important figure in the skeptical movement. JanderVK (talk) 15:41, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Looks Ready. There were two cn tags. I commented out both. Doc James has referenced and uncommented one already (good tidings!). I don't see any reason why this should be kept out of the main page any longer. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:03, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  • plus Posted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:10, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

October 20[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Science and technology

RD: Lea Vergine[edit]

Article: Lea Vergine (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Il Fatto Quotidiano

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Italian art historian. COVID-19 related. Died one day after her husband, Enzo Mari. Short but well-sourced article. TJMSmith (talk) 04:45, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

  • Weak oppose At 160 words, it is technically still a stub. It needs at least one more paragraph and *cough* publications are unsourced (as usual). KittenKlub (talk) 07:34, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment – All the sources on Lea Vergine herself (as opposed to her husband Enzo Mari) are in Italian. – Sca (talk) 12:32, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
    Which is allowed, per WP:NONENG. P-K3 (talk) 01:28, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Derryl Cousins[edit]

Article: Derryl Cousins (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Associated Press

Article updated

 Bloom6132 (talk) 07:32, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

  • Support well sourced, looks fine for RD JW 1961 Talk 13:25, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Interesting and well sourced throughout. Ready for RD. Yoninah (talk) 22:06, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 00:18, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) Ongoing: End SARS[edit]

Article: End SARS (talk, history)
Ongoing item nomination (Post)
News source(s): Guardian, BBC, AP

Nominator's comments: We blurbed the protests, but looks like it rolled off. Today government forces opened fire on unarmed protesters (apparently after removing cameras in the area), killing at least 7. GreatCaesarsGhost 22:14, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

  • Support In the news, definitely an ongoing situation. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:09, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support so it got pushed off. We’ll definitely still ongoing and as Muboshgu said, in the news. People were just shot at today ~ Destroyeraa🌀 00:38, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Been in the news a lot lately. I also agree with Muboshgu. SoloGaming (talk) 00:42, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support following the standard pattern for protests, still ITN to one degree or another. Gex4pls (talk) 00:52, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support if orange tags are resolved. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 01:59, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Article is not currently of sufficient quality for the main page. Stephen 04:08, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
It was before This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 04:50, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
It's not anymore. Stephen 04:53, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Neutral Most of the article is reasonably neutral reporting the occurrences of protests. The voluntary donations section needs to be scrapped though, that definitely has poor standing to be in the article. Juxlos (talk) 06:35, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  • 'Question' - the article is tagged for external links, but there is no external links section. Is this appropriate? Mjroots (talk) 10:28, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  • It uses direct links rather than embedding the URLs in references. Stephen 10:41, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Four out of 162 references affected. I think that tag can go. Mjroots (talk) 14:27, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support A few minor issues with small sections and proseline writing, but those are easily overcome and I don't see any major issues that should keep it off the main page. --Jayron32 13:23, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Sad that it was there for such a short time, deserved longer attention (anyway it can be re-blurbed?). Gotitbro (talk) 16:09, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment. I personally think it would be better to have a blurb on the shooting rather than go to ongoing. At the moment, the shooting itself is arguably more important than the protesters' actual cause. —Brigade Piron (talk) 17:11, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
    I agree, but given the premeditation and reaction (the governor has indicated no one was killed), I'd expect more to follow. Also, the government had previously sent in thugs to attack the crowd, then complained that the protests were getting violent. One wonders where they found the inspiration for this strategy. GreatCaesarsGhost 17:59, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Posted. 331dot (talk) 23:32, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

October 19[edit]

Arts and culture

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

RD: Enzo Mari[edit]

Article: Enzo Mari (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Architect's Newspaper

Nominator's comments: Italian furniture designer. COVID-19 related. Wife, Lea Vergine, died one day later (also COVID-19). Article is close but needs few more citations. TJMSmith (talk) 04:35, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

  • Weak oppose Aside from sourcing concerns, the article at present has limited depth of coverage of the subject. SpencerT•C 18:33, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment Consider this a neutral, well sourced, but needs a tonal shift (I don't believe a quotes section is standard wikipedia fare) Gex4pls (talk) 18:45, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Spencer Davis[edit]

Article: Spencer Davis (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Guardian, Variety

Nominator's comments: From The Spencer Davis Group. Article is pitifully sourced, unfortunately. -- a lad insane (channel two) 18:24, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Support - I have cleaned the article up; it is a bit sparse but at least in suitable shape for the main page. For those who aren't aware, the Spencer Davis Group is more famous for launching Steve Winwood's career. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:42, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

  • Support: I was just about to nominate this until I saw this. Well-referenced, notable, and updated. — MarkH21talk 22:04, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Nicley cleaned up by Ritchie333, now suitable for RD JW 1961 Talk 22:06, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Ready for the main page. Yoninah (talk) 00:08, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment. Looks good. Marking ready. Given the namesake, I am tagging Spencer for next steps. Ktin (talk) 00:15, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Posted Spencer to RD. SpencerT•C 03:06, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Tony Lewis (musician)[edit]

Article: Tony Lewis (musician) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): SPIN, USA Today

Nominator's comments: English singer-songwriter/musician of The OutfieldCoatCheck (talk) 18:02, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

*Comment a couple of cn's added, it should be fine if those are fixed and I will then add support JW 1961 Talk 19:00, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

  • Support as concerns have been fixed JW 1961 Talk 13:24, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Conditional support There are some open points left. Overall the article appears to be in good order. (And luckily there are no large discographies and chart tables...) KittenKlub (talk) 19:13, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support some tonal issues, but overall seems fine. Gex4pls (talk) 14:26, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support article now looks referenced. TJMSmith (talk) 04:37, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Posted Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:56, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Hiroh Kikai[edit]

Article: Hiroh Kikai (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Tokyo Shimbun, Chunichi Shimbun

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Saw this nomination on the Deaths in 2020 page. I have not been able to find any news sources talking about Mr Kikai's death, and that might just be me not searching the right places. However if someone is familiar about this topic, and can give the article a read (and invest in any edits as required), it might be worth working on and getting to homepage. Ktin (talk) 05:16, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

  • Support, Well-developed article, GA status implicates ITN pass. Added sources from the Tokyo Shimbun and Chunichi Shimbun to nomination. Morgan695 (talk) 06:06, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment Here's an English-language source. Personally, I hate modern black-and-white photography (it was fine when it was more economical than color, but now it's a purely aesthetic decision), but with the English source I'll weak support. 1779Days (talk) 08:25, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Plenty of paragraphs that haven’t a single reference. GA is no fast track to posting, a lot can degrade an article since it’s assessment. Stephen 08:40, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose some place still need sourced. I'm honestly surprised this is a GA. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 13:20, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
    Destroyeraa, Agree. Seems like it was last assessed in 2009, and might have deteriorated in the time since then. That said, seems like the references can be fixed if someone can go in with a few [citation needed] tags. Unfortunately, I am a tad buried today. But, can take a look later in the night. Ktin (talk) 19:11, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
    Destroyeraa, went in and added a few references, seems like all references have been handled. Do you mind giving it a look? Cheers. Ktin (talk) 00:44, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak Support most of the article seems fine. A few more english language sources couldn't hurt though. but the publications and exhibitions sections could do with quite a few more sources. Gex4pls (talk) 13:56, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Numerous uncited paragraphs. Someone should send this back for a GA reassessment. Yoninah (talk) 15:10, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak Support Some of the article is fine, but there is not really a lot of description. You could improve on it and renominate again. OptXSolo (talk) 16:36, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment. Went in and gave the references a shot. Seems like the article is fully referenced now. If I have missed out any, let me know and I will try filling.
  • Posted to RD. SpencerT•C 03:05, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) 2020 Belarus Protests[edit]

Though a good faith nom, consensus remains that this should not be on the main page. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 12:23, 20 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: 2020 Belarusian protests (talk, history)
Ongoing item nomination (Post)
Nominator's comments: It has been a bit of time since the removal, and the protests appear to be ramping up again. Around 50,000 people[1] marched just yesterday, despite threats from police to use lethal force, and the page is still regularly updated, though waiting a bit more to see what happens couldn't hurt either. Gex4pls (talk) 17:27, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support The situation has recently re-escalated and the article is up to date.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 17:45, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose terrible article is still terrible. "Symbols" section is still orange tagged and still the subject of a low grade edit war. Protests are still a weekend outing with dwindling participation and insignificant mid-week events (like some driller complaining) elevated to undue status to fluff out the article. It had it's time in the box. Move on. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:20, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  • It's true that the Symbols section is orange tagged, but I can't say that I understand why. I don't see the edit war you talk about anywhere in the revision history. This section was last edited on October 1 (which appears to be a minor expansion of existing content), before that last edited on September 24 (which seemed to just be the removal of a typo), and before that just a minor grammar fix on September 22. If there's an edit war going on in the article, it must be in a different section. I think it would be perfectly fine to remove that orange tag because it's very unclear why it's there.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 18:30, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Coment – Is this supposed to be a blurb nom.? If so, where's the blurb? Not to mention sources.... Here's two [4] [5] from Sunday, but it appears not much is happening today. – Sca (talk) 18:35, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
No, this was supposed to be ongoing, and i do have the associated press source in my comment, but thanks for the extra sources. Sorry if I messed something up, as this is my first time nominating something. Gex4pls (talk) 18:42, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Sensationalistic. We also don't re-nominate George Floyd protests every time an African-American is shot. More NPOV would have helped nom. Albertaont (talk) 18:39, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  • This is a very strange !vote. It was renominated for ongoing because the protests are ongoing and the article is up to date. This is the criteria for an item to be in ongoing. 50,000+ protesters and several hundred arrests isn't nothing.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 18:43, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose There are many marches of similar size every year that we don't post. I don't see any notability beyond the fact that 50,000 people went out.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:09, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose The ongoing for this was just removed, this is getting tiring now, people asking for removal/addition again and again. There should be something in place to stop these noms. Gotitbro (talk) 19:30, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  • IMHO that would be avoided if we didn't remove items from ongoing so hastily, necessitating renominations shortly after. Please comment on whether or not this nomination meets the guidelines. An item should go in ongoing if it is being continuously updated with new news. I feel like I'm replying to every comment here, which I don't intend to do, but I think it's important to remind editors that these sorts of !votes that don't mention whether or not an item meets the criteria should be avoided.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 19:45, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  • @Vanilla Wizard: We made a lot of concessions and kept these protests on the main page for two months — more time than for any other developing story in the last couple of years — but we had to stop somewhere as it has become clear that they won't lead to any major changes. And frankly, the story will hardly be re-posted because of a march with no immediate effect like this one.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:46, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  • I was under the impression that we simply follow the guidelines rather than make crystal ball predictions about what the protests will lead to. It's a currently up-to-date article about a currently in-the-news ongoing event. That's a pretty open-and-shut explanation of how it checks all the boxes that it's supposed to. Not every update needs to be notable enough for a blurb, it simply needs to be a substantial update; the criteria makes that clear. ITN/C isn't the place to discuss proposed changes to the guidelines, but if you and the rest of the oppose voters think this shouldn't be posted over non-guideline-based reasons, then Wikipedia talk:In the news would be the place to go.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 21:12, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  • @Vanilla Wizard: I get your point but that's not how ITN works. Notability is the principal criterion for inclusion no matter how good the updates and the key articles are. People are usually biased by quality only in cases of borderline notability and that's when we typically err on the side of inclusion. However, notice that people here also complain about article's quality, so I think you should easily get where the opposition comes from. And when the majority doesn't agree with you, so be it and move on from the discussion. Your replies to every single opposer and argumentation with rules-lawyering won't make your opinion more valuable and may only invite a new wave of opposers who initially didn't intend to vote on this nomination. That's something from my personal experience.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:46, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
The merits of inclusion/exclusion have already been discussed in a discussion that was just a few days ago, so we needn't debate that again and again. My point was that this is a WP:SNOW close considering the just concluded discussion on its removal. Gotitbro (talk) 07:48, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Seems fine by me, it appears that the general consensus is that this should not return to ongoing. Gex4pls (talk) 12:11, 20 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 Bolivian general election[edit]

Proposed image
Article: 2020 Bolivian general election (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Movement for Socialism under Luis Arce (pictured) wins a majority of the vote in the Bolivian general election. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Luis Arce (pictured) is elected President of Bolivia in a snap general election.
Alternative blurb II: Luis Arce (pictured) of the Movement for Socialism is elected President of Bolivia in the general election.
News source(s): AFP

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: Jeanine Añez has also conceded. Morgan695 (talk) 05:14, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

  • Oppose for nowI guess the Bolivian people still want socialism of the 21st century. Hmm... For ITN, we need a results section with at least some prose description of preliminary results. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 05:37, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
    Not at all, he's looking to lose in the second tour of voting --CoronaOneLove (talk) 11:52, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
What are you talking about? (talk) 00:55, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
I'd ignore those two previous posts. Both pretty silly. HiLo48 (talk) 01:32, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Only concludes the first round of voting, and this guy will almost certainly lose in the second round. --CoronaOneLove (talk) 11:52, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
    It was a landslide. The second round is cancelled in such cases. Either of the possible conditions for victory has been met: a candidate is declared the winner if they receive more than 50% of the vote, or over 40% of the vote and are 10 percentage points ahead of their closest rival. Exit polls show 52% to 31%. Even if they slide below 50% on the final count that is still a more than 10% lead from the next opposition party. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 12:00, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
    Let's wait for official results then. If they officially call it with more than 50% of votes in favour of that guy then I 'support' posting this, otherwise I believe we should wait for the results of the second round. --CoronaOneLove (talk) 16:01, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Wait It seems all done but I don't truly trust the Bolivian exit polls. ETA: the Áñez "concession" means nothing since she dropped out ages ago, it's just her properly stepping down since there was no cessation of government from what I've seen. Kingsif (talk) 12:28, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Wait – for clarity, RS confirmation. – Sca (talk) 13:06, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support and/or Wait I'm fine with waiting a little while longer for more reporting on this, but available sources (including the incumbent interim president) already confirmed that Luis Arce won it outright with a simple majority of the vote, meaning that he will be the president and there is not going to be a second round.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 17:55, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support and okay with Wait This is a clearcut victory, baseless to suggest otherwise. Although considering who won not surprising there are those who would rather "hold off" the news. Albertaont (talk) 18:53, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Like most countries that aren't the United States, votes aren't declared before they're counted and counting doesn't take weeks/months. Exit polls are treated as unofficial, not like accurate predictions. And since a 5 point shift - well within margin of error for some pollsters - would have taken it to a run-off, it would have been jumping the gun far too much to have posted earlier. That's why people wanted to wait while none of the candidates were conceding, and the only reason, it's disingenuous for you to insinuate otherwise. Kingsif (talk) 19:15, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Wait for official results. Candido (talk) 19:27, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support when the official results come out This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 20:32, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support posting now Not sure about Bolivia, but in my country official results can come out several weeks after clear results are known and already being acted on by newly elected governments. We should not wait that long. It will no longer be news then. 22:59, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  • In the Bolivian election last year, the results took less than 2 days. Sure, that didn't end well, but it's not a ballache of a system like in the US. Kingsif (talk) 01:30, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Wait Despite the fact that Mesa conceded defeat we should wait until the official results come out. Also, this blurb is not appropriate. Bolivia is a presidential regime and not a parlamentarism one.--SirEdimon Dimmi!!! 23:30, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
SirEdimon - Do you have any idea how long it will take for official results to come out? I don't. Without knowing, there is really no point in waiting. HiLo48 (talk) 03:08, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
HiLo48 The results are expected for the end of this week. Alsoriano97 (talk) 11:24, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Alsoriano97 - So you say. Even if they are available then, this item will be stale by then. Delaying posting is insanity. Would this happen with a US election? HiLo48 (talk) 22:11, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Article looks good, in the news and all but confirmed. Gotitbro (talk) 13:01, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Agree with Gotitbro. OptXSolo (talk) 16:40, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Results still not returned completely, but with only real opposition conceding, Arce has it. Added alt blurb that is more accurate to the situation. Kingsif (talk) 19:15, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Ready We appear to be waiting for something whose timing we cannot predict with any certainty. This is in the news globally right now. The chances of any posting being incorrect are minuscule. Let's not wait until it's NOT in the news. HiLo48 (talk) 22:14, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per above. Results are out. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 23:35, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per above. Davey2116 (talk) 06:10, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Official results isn't out yet, but it seems that reasonably reliable counts have called a single round landslide and the loser have conceded. No reason to hold. Juxlos (talk) 06:32, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment as of now, with 54.41% for MAS (Arce), 29.34% for CC (Mesa) and 87.96% of votes counted (according to the official website), the mathematical possibility for a second round no longer exists because even if CC gets all the remaining votes, the difference will be more than 10% and MAS will have more than 40% of votes. (talk) 15:11, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment Now around 20 hours this has been marked ready for... PotentPotables (talk) 18:15, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per Juxlos and many others. Consensus is clear. No good reason not to post this now. Jusdafax (talk) 18:38, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Posting alt blurb – Muboshgu (talk) 20:06, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment It seems inconsistent that we have two election-related news items where one specifies the candidate's party while the other does not. Added a potential alt blurb. Morgan695 (talk) 22:05, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Hold - Don't use alt blurb. This election will mark an end to the political crisis, so I assumed the crisis should be one of the main topic. Also, one major candidate still threatened not accepting the result, so I assume it should be posted after peace is back and one whole year of turmoil ends in Bolivia.[2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:54, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
    • @Morgan695: Would you revise the blurb to reflect the current reconciliation process in Bolivia? Thanks! -- (talk) 08:57, 22 October 2020 (UTC)


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

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

  1. ^ "Over 50,000 march in Belarus against authoritarian leader". Associated Press.
  2. ^ Camacho responde a cívicos que piden frenar cómputo y envía actas