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.

Luis Arce in 2015
Luis Arce

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pulled from the main page are generally marked with (Posted) or (Pulled) in the item's subject so it is clear they are no longer active.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 24[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Health and environment

Israel–Sudan normalization agreement[edit]

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)
  • 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)

October 23[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Health and environment

International relations

October 22[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

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) 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 the new 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)

(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)
  • plus Posted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:59, 22 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[1] 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

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)

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) 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 [2] [3] 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)

October 18[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

(Posted) RD: Alan Stephenson Boyd[edit]

Article: Alan Stephenson Boyd (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The New York Times

Article updated

Nominator's comments: I think this should be moved to Alan S. Boyd per WP:COMMONNAMEBloom6132 (talk) 21:40, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

  • Comment. Article looks clean and meets hygiene requirements for homepage / RD. Ktin (talk) 05:35, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per above though the awards section seems redundant, and im tempted to combine it with the above section. Gex4pls (talk) 13:47, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Article looks fine, all paragraphs cited and image is pd. Yoninah (talk) 15:08, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  • @Spencer, Stephen, and Amakuru: I think this may be ready to go. —Bloom6132 (talk) 21:43, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Posted. SpencerT•C 03:03, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Northern Cyprus presidential election[edit]

Proposed image
Article: 2020 Northern Cypriot presidential election (talk, history)
Blurb: Ersin Tatar (pictured) is elected President of Northern Cyprus. (Post)
News source(s): The Guardian, Al Jazeera

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: Northern Cyprus elections are not ITNR, but we have posted the most recent presidential and parliamentary ones, in 2015 and 2018 respectively. This is basically as high profile as these elections get, the President is the only internationally recognised representative of Turkish Cypriots, the election campaign was marked by developments that drew international reactions (including from the UN security council) and the election of the Ankara-backed right-wing candidate (in lieu of the pro-reunification incumbent opposed by Ankara) comes at a time of raised tensions in the Eastern Mediterranean, with significant short- and long-term ramifications. GGT (talk) 21:00, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

P.S. I had started this as a non-ITNR, regular nomination, but the template above was changed to ITNR by GreatCaesarsGhost later. --GGT (talk) 00:32, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment – Reluctant to open the door to reporting the politics of entities that are not recognized, de jure, states. That would be a dubious precedent, as there are countless regionalisms around the world. Yes, I know we posted items on Catalonia a couple years ago, but that situation was dynamic and posed broader ramifications for Europe. – Sca (talk) 21:36, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
    • This would not be opening the door, Sca, as we have precedents, having previously posted 2015 Northern Cypriot presidential election and 2018 Northern Cypriot parliamentary election (not to mention elections in Taiwan or Kosovo), and we are yet to witness a deluge of regionalist politics on ITN. It is not true that there are countless regionalisms around the world comparable to this. Per the list of states with limited recognition, there are nine other states in a similar situation. Out of these partially recognised states, Northern Cyprus is the only one, besides Taiwan, to have been classified as "free" by Freedom House. And we still judge each election based on the circumstances, this one clearly has international ramifications - I don't know of many election campaigns recently that have sparked UN Security Council statements! --GGT (talk) 21:53, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
    Just because it was posted earlier does not mean it 'should' be now. Taiwan is not really comparable and is not dependent on another major country (Kosovo also has wider recognition and is not substantially dependent on other states, though I would've opposed that nom). This is more akin to posting about elections in Artsakh/Nagorno Karabakh (which we haven't ever done AFAIK). I just don't see this being notable enough, there isn't a major leadership change and if anything the election only highlights Turkey's dominance over Northern Cyprus. Gotitbro (talk) 22:19, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
    Of course it doesn't, but the fact that it was posted earlier means that the precedent is already there and that we aren't setting it now. The initial argument that I was countering was that we'd be setting a precedent by posting this. This is a major change of leadership re. the longest-running diplomatic dispute in the west as well as the recent Eastern Mediterranean dispute. That Turkey has been able to reassert its dominance with the failure of the pro-reunification leader to be re-elected is newsworthy IMO. At this point, however, I will redirect users to the the Guardian article. That basically puts this into good perspective, and one can of course make differing conclusions about the significance based on that. --GGT (talk) 22:31, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not ITNR nor am I convinced by the nom of its "ramifications" per Sca's arguments out above. Gotitbro (talk) 22:19, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
"Not ITNR" is not a reason to oppose a nomination. 331dot (talk) 22:22, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
What I meant was this is not usual election stuff (being an unrecognized state et all and hence different from the generally accepted election results on ITN), perhaps should've worded better. Gotitbro (talk) 04:17, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak support Turns out it was a sovereign state after all. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 22:21, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support in principle. Actually this is ITN/R, because the criteria for elections covers "all states on the List of sovereign states". That list is divided into UN member states and other states, but the Northern Cyprus is certainly on the list in the latter section, so the above Opposes are not permissible. Also, as noted we posted it before and that precedent should be followed in any case, for a story which is featured in the mainstream western press too. There are a couple of cites needed, but after that it's good to go.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:27, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Northern Cyprus is not a sovereign state and is only recognized as such by the country with troops there. 331dot (talk) 22:33, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Well it's on the list mentioned in the criteria, so either fight to get it removed from that, or change the rule here at ITN/R. But as of now, this is unambiguously covered, an opposes based on notability are not permitted.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:37, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
At one point disputed states were given their own section of the page IIRC. The list states that only a single country recognizes them as a state and the TRNC is not recognized by any international body. It's not me that needs to fight, it's you, providing sources that refer to this entity as a sovereign state. 331dot (talk) 22:40, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
ITNR states "Disputed states and dependent territories should be discussed at WP:ITN/C and judged on their own merits." That's what we are doing here. 331dot (talk) 22:41, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
I have provided a link to the rules of ITN/R. It says in black and white that any state on the list is covered. Not only UN states, or states in the top half of the list. We defer to that list and the careful consideration that goes into it for validity,so we don't have to have pointless arguments like this one.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:51, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
You seem to be disregarding the sentence from what you cite above. 331dot (talk) 22:56, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
The "disputed states" link also includes Israel and China. Should we start discussing those "on their merits" too? Presumably the purpose of that clause is to cover cases like Crimea or the Donbass, which aren't on the sovereign States list. The fact is that Northern Cyprus functions as a sovereign state in all practical ways, and satisfies the "declarative theory of statehood", which is why it's included on our list of sovereign states. Sure, it lacks recognition but its election is just as impactful for people living there as those elsewhere. So even if you're right about it not being ITN/R, it's a notable story in its own right. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 23:09, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

By that sense, Sealand and Conch Republic (if they even do have elections) elections are also ITN-worthy and ITN/R because they declare themselves a sovereign state. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 23:19, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

No, the determining factor would be whether they are on the said list, which they are not, but Northern Cyprus is. —GGT (talk) 23:22, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Israel and China are UN members and each recognized by more than one state. The TRNC is only recognized by the country that has troops there to protect it(or occupy it depending on your point of view). The disputed states listing does not say it only covers entities not on the sovereign states list. The fact remains that no one except Turkey recognizes the TRNC as a state, unless you can produce reliable sources saying otherwise. 331dot (talk) 23:52, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
(re: Destroyeraa) The list of entities with limited recognition (currently 10, including entities such as Northern Cyprus, Kosovo, Taiwan, Artsakh, Palestine, etc) excludes micronations and is decided through rigorous discussion, much like the List of sovereign states that Amakuru has linked to. I can assure you that you won't have to worry about us posting about the Principality of Sealand if we change the ITN/R rules to explicitly include entities at the list of states with limited recognition, or set a precedent that such entities can be included.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 00:50, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - I believe we can discuss it on its own merits and ignore the conversation about whether or not Northern Cyprus is truly sovereign enough to be ITN/R; what we know is that it is a state that de facto does exist and has limited international recognition. Whether or not this nom is ITN/R seems to be debatable, so I won't focus on that, but - as 331dot said - just because the nom may not be ITN/R doesn't automatically mean it's not notable, either. Going off of precedent, this election seems to be no less notable than the last couple of Northern Cypriot elections we posted. The article's quality appears to be fine, as it's lengthy enough and well-sourced.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 23:06, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose A state that is recognized by only one other sets the bar far too low. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 00:59, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per Amakuru. The TRNC is listed on the list of sovereign states and qualifies under ITN/R. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ) 03:03, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose The line between a self-governing region and a separate country is blurred at best, but I think it needs to be recognized by more than just a single other country to count. And given that I don't think Northern Cyprus qualifies as a country, I also don't think its elections are notable enough for ITN. Mlb96 (talk) 03:53, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Reliable sources have considered it a sovereign state for decades now, but you set your own standard as to what does and doesn't qualify as a country? There's a reason why there's a harsh criteria for inclusion over at List of sovereign states, and Northern Cyprus passes it. Nice4What (talk ·contribs) – (Thanks ) 05:37, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Nice4What Please offer the reliable sources that you state consider an entity recognized by one state(with troops there) and not a member of any international body as a sovereign state. 331dot (talk) 07:55, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
@331dot: Stop canvassing, realize that the TRNC does participate in international organizations, and there are plenty of results but I figure this will spiral into a conversation about every source's legitimacy rather than how obvious it is that this currently qualifies under ITN/R. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ) 14:20, 19 October 2020 (UTC); Edited 05:37, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Nice4What I have not canvassed anyone to this discussion for any purpose, either on or off Wiki. 331dot (talk) 16:01, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Many of the comments here are general statements about the suitability of Northern Cyprus election for ITN. I don’t think that’s a valid reason for an oppose !vote, since the ITN rules clearly state that even for disputed states, each election should be considered on its own merits, which by implication allows posting elections in disputed states. It is certainly not the case that no political developments in unrecognised entities can be posted, and generalised statements miss the nuance here. We have clearly posted Northern Cyprus elections before, so any oppose !votes should be explaining why this election lacks significance on its own merits (an example is Gotitbro’s comment), and not just stating the obvious that the election took place in a disputed state. —GGT (talk) 05:53, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per Amakuru. This is technically an ITN/R item or the description for disputed states is ambiguous at the very least, although mentioning Israel and China as examples makes a very strong argument in support. But even if it's not, this is sufficiently newsworthy (not to mention the precedent of posting).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 06:30, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
There is nothing ambiguous about an entity recognized only by a country with troops there and not a member of any international body not being considered a sovereign state while Israel and the PRC, both recognized by a majority of states and members of international bodies, as sovereign states. 331dot (talk) 07:57, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
FFS 331dot, you have been shown to be incorrect and yet you're still arguing about troops and international bodies and other irrelevances like that. This is verging on WP:IDHT territory now. The criteria for inclusion are crystal clear, they do not mention anything about troops, they simply say to follow the List of sovereign states. Which our list considers TRNC to be. If you want to change that, then you know what to do.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:30, 19 October 2020 (UTC) - Withdrawn, this looks a bit too harsh on further reading, although it is still frustrating that so many people are still ignoring the rules of ITN/R based on their own opinions, that's all I'll say for now.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:41, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
That's interesting because I feel the same frustration as "Disputed states and dependent territories should be discussed at WP:ITN/C and judged on their own merits" being disregarded, as clearly an entity recognized only by the country with troops there is a disputed state, which does not apply to entities recognized by a majority of sovereign states(Israel and the PRC). 331dot (talk) 08:45, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
@331dot: I said technically, not absolutely, and it's clear that those two bullets that you're re-iterating in the discussion above are not completely disjoint (the first should be re-worded to "All universally recognised states on the List of sovereign states" to make them disjoint but that's off-topic here). Vastly more important is that the black-and-white discussion on the ITN/R status has impact on other people's votes so that they come and oppose simply on the grounds that it's not an ITN/R item or it's a state recognised by only one other without paying attention that this state is de jure part of the European Union but de facto out of it and the election loss of the incumbent president supporting unionism to a person who supports a two-state solution is a major backstep in the process of solving the problem. The latter is not only an internal political matter but of the European Union as a whole because the division practically tailors the borders of the Schengen area.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:23, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose With all respect for Turkey. Our own article cites Council of Europe "that despite the fact that it has not been recognised de iure by any other State than Turkey, the TRNC exist de facto as an independent State exercising all branches of State power on its territory". The same can be said about many unrecognized breakaway states, like Republic of Artsakh (which is also on the List of sovereign states) or Republic of Donetsk that also exist as de facto independent states exercising all branches of state power. With that in mind, this is ultimately a WP:NPOV issue and I don't recall posting Northern Cyprus before. Brandmeistertalk 08:36, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Brandmeister We did post their last presidential election and parlimentary election. 331dot (talk) 08:49, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
I think it was a mistake. Perhaps some amendment should be made to ITNR for cases like this or the Republic of Artsakh (the latter, I'm sure, will never be posted despite being currently on the List of sovereign states). Brandmeistertalk 08:56, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose If we are setting the bar as low as a country that is recognised by only one other, that is such a low bar that you are going to end up with all sorts of edge cases such as those mentioned above. Personal opinion, regardless of ITNR or previous postings. Black Kite (talk) 08:52, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  • This really is quite frustrating. ITNR clearly states, even with disputed states: “The results of general elections in [...] Disputed states and dependent territories should be discussed at WP:ITN/C and judged on their own merits.” Note how the discussion should be about the merits of the results of the elections, NOT the state itself. That means that elections in partially recognised states like Northern Cyprus can be featured IF the community agrees on the election’s significance, so it’s the election’s significance that we should be debating, not some fuzzy sense of whether we’re “setting the bar too low” (whatever that slippery slope argument is meant to mean). The bar is already set. That is the playbook we have had up until now, and we have already posted two of these. That is what the guideline for this says and that is what I had in mind when I was working towards the nomination and arguing for the significance in my nominating statement. If the result of this discussion is no consensus due to arguments opposing it by the virtue of the election being in Northern Cyprus, rather than arguments relating to the election’s significance per se, then I suggest we edit ITNR per this precedent so that people in the future won’t actually be misled into bothering. I for one certainly won’t bother. —GGT (talk) 11:06, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  • I raised a suggestion recently on the talk page that if ITNR qualification was in doubt, we should treat the item as not qualifying. This was rejected, with the basic logic of ITNR: we're trying to avoid those discussions. This item is unquestionably ITNR, but clearly some wish that it would not be. It is on the list of sovereign states and not on the list of disputed states. I personally hate ITNR because it mandates that we cannot discuss the (plainly questionable) merits of something because of a prior (often VERY specious) consensus. But we can't toss it out whenever it doesn't suit our purposes. GreatCaesarsGhost 11:19, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  • It's not a disputed state? I don't think you could get one more disputed than a state which the entire international community, bar one, considers to be part of another country but currently under illegal occupation ... Black Kite (talk) 14:58, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  • I made no such assertion. My point is only that 1) this state is explicitly as on that qualifies under ITNR, and 2) consensus is we do not re-arbitrate ITNR consensus here. GreatCaesarsGhost 18:10, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
    Fully agree with GreatCaesarsGhost. The whole point of ITNR is to avoid these arguments. The "disputed states" clause at WP:ITN/R does actually cause confusion, because it links to List of states with limited recognition, which as well as Northern Cyprus also includes states which are almost universally recognised, such as China, South Korea and Israel. I think it would be useful to just remove the "disputed states" qualification altogether, because it doesn't add anything new. We are always free to discuss things on their merits anyway. And the third bullet point does not say that it supersedes the first bullet point, which says "The results of general elections in All states on the List of sovereign states". This is unambiguous, it doesn't qualify it as only the UN states, or only those with more than X% of countries recognising. Anyway, I've said my piece on this. It probably needs to be clarified with a discussion and clearer wording, once the dust settles on this one.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:12, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Beyond the fact that Northern Cyprus is not a widely recognized sovereign state, and is in effect occupied by the only country that does recognize it, I don't see where the election result portends a particularly significant change. – Sca (talk) 13:14, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
@Sca: The president-elect is supportive of a two-state solution and he won the election in a race with the incumbent president who has unionist ideology. So, the result is a major backstep in the peace process to resolve the dispute.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:36, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Despite the fact that Northern Cyprus isn't well recognized, a new president could affect the status of the area. Gex4pls (talk) 14:48, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Northern Cyprus isn't really a recognized country, so why even put it in there? OptXSolo (talk) 16:25, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't envy whoever ends up sifting through the comments here to determine the consensus, but I would like to respectfully ask that the oppose !voters above mention more than just the fact that Northern Cyprus has limited recognition. That alone does not mean that it's not notable.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 18:37, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Vanilla Wizard At least some (like me) are responding to the assertion this should be an ITNR nomination, and not a regular nomination, only. I take the latter view that ITNR makes it clear that the TRNC is not a sovereign state and should be discussed on its own merits. 331dot (talk) 19:15, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
I appreciate that you are one of only a handful of editors to mention that not being ITN/R does not automatically mean it's not notable, though I also believe that this thread has been derailed by the debate over if it's sovereign or not, and determining the consensus would likely require the closer to manually discount several !votes based on their own judgment of whether or not they are congruent with ITN's notability guidelines.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 19:30, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Personally I think it's a bit of a stretch to give this an automatic ITN/R pass, but it seems a newsworthy enough story and the article quality is fine.-- P-K3 (talk) 19:54, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
    Yes, this is the main point that should be considered here really. Leaving aside the ITN/R dispute, the story has enough legs on its own merits anyway. It's in the news, the elected individual is the de facto leader of the territory in question, whatever the international legality of the situation, and it also has potential knock-on geopolitical effects in the region. It's worthy of posting on those grounds.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:01, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Why has this been changed to ITNR? That is contentious at best and I don't see any consensus here of this being an ITNR nom, most people are considering it on its own merits and not its article quality. Gotitbro (talk) 07:39, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose with all respect to the Turkish Cypriots, but Northern Cyprus is a partially recognized non-UN country. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 09:57, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Marked as ready - It's ITNR, article quality is good to go.--WaltCip-(talk) 13:18, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
FALSEHOOD, n. A truth to which the facts are loosely adjusted to an imperfect conformity. – Ambrose BierceSca (talk) 22:22, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
That this is ITNR is in dispute. ITNR states that "Disputed states and dependent territories should be discussed at WP:ITN/C and judged on their own merits". An entity recognized only by one country and supported militarily by that same country is clearly a "Disputed state and dependent territory". 331dot (talk) 13:24, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
It's a sovereign state, so it qualifies. This is not the place to litigate the wording of ITN/R. That should be done on the talk page.--WaltCip-(talk) 13:36, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
It is not a sovereign state, it is clearly disputed. I am not litigating the wording of ITNR, it is very clear about this and it concerns me that this is being disregarded. 331dot (talk) 13:39, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
You are exactly litigating the wording of ITN/R. The criteria give a list of states to follow, and we're following it. There seems to be consensus that the article has sufficient quality, so agree that this is ready and hopefully this can be posted soon. Then we can consider and discuss whether the ITN/R rules are fit for purpose, or need some amendment, at our leisure.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:43, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
It's almost as if whoever wrote the wording didn't realize that disputed states are included on List of sovereign states. This has to be cleared up, although the ITN talk page would be the proper place.-- P-K3 (talk) 13:49, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Certainly agree it needs sorting out. We should lay out the various alternatives and !vote on them, then amend the wording so it's watertight either way. In the mean time, this one is stuck in limbo though. Many people think it's ITN/R, while many others don't. I also think the Oppose !votes are rather weak, even disregarding the ITN/R question, as they mostly just say "NC is not a state", without offering a rationale as to why its election is therefore unimportant. But then I'm biased, of course as I support the story's promotion. How do you resolve all that? Smiley.png  — Amakuru (talk) 15:25, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per Pawnkingthree. Given the above discussion, I don't think this should be a quick "ITN/R + post", but at the same time, it shouldn't be a quick "not a sovreign state + oppose" either IMO. The article is better fleshed out than many that appear here at ITN/C; we have posted elections for this state previously; there are worthwhile geopolitical implications and these are described in the article. SpencerT•C 18:09, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. I do think this merits posting(just not as ITNR), as this man's election would seem to forestall the possibility of a settlement of the Cyprus issue. 331dot (talk) 09:18, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  • This has been marked as ready for two days now. It would be nice to have a final decision before it goes stale. —GGT (talk) 11:32, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
I'm involved and cannot post. 331dot (talk) 11:40, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per reasons that explained by other editors. It's definitely significant.Ahmetlii (talk) 11:47, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose The ITN/R criteria are clearly spelled out, and elections in North Cyprus cannot meet them. Explicitly, "Disputed states [...] should be discussed at WP:ITN/C and judged on their own merits.." North Cyprus is on that list, and "discussed on their own merits" means exactly NOT ITN/R. There is precious little arguments in these votes on the notability or impact of this new election as such; rather we are supposed to believe that simply-worded guidelines are somehow mistaken, or to engage in whataboutism wrt other disputed states. (talk) 12:36, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment Pinging @Stephen, Muboshgu, Ritchie333, Masem, and MSGJ: - apologies for disturbing you, but as admins who have posted ITNs recently but haven't commented here, please could one of you assess this discussion and either post the story or close this thread? With recent supports I think it may have enough consensus to post on its own merits, ignoring the ITN/R issue, but obviously needs an uninvolved admin to assess. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 15:15, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
I did look earlier at posting this, but I honestly can't see a firm consensus at this point. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:16, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
I don't see one either. And this is not ITN/R: Disputed states and dependent territories should be discussed at WP:ITN/C and judged on their own merits. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:34, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
That bullet-point seemingly contradicts an earlier one that gives an explicit list of states to use, on which TRNC is included. Anyway, water under the bridge now. I'll probably initiate a request to clarify the wording in the next couple of days, but thanks Ritchie and Muboshgu for the assessment here, even though it's not the outcome I wanted to see! Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 16:44, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the final statements. Obviously I do think that !votes that opposed this purely because the election took place in an unrecognised state should have been discounted as explained above. This comes just in time for me to be able to get this one on DYK, so I've just started a nom there. For future reference, ITNR definitely needs to be modified - I thought the election would have been assessed on its own merits and thus I argued for its significance, so people just going "oh we can't set the bar so low" has definitely been frustrating, so we might as well set the bar more definitively, or else advise against such !votes in the future. --GGT (talk) 23:49, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: James A. Johnson (businessman)[edit]

Article: James A. Johnson (businessman) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Washington Post; The Associated Press

Article updated

 Bloom6132 (talk) 20:57, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

  • Support Also a well referenced and complete article, and he is major power broker. (better put it on watchlist now) KittenKlub (talk) 21:06, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 02:43, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Sid Hartman[edit]

Article: Sid Hartman (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Star Tribune; WCCO-TV (CBS)

Article updated

 Bloom6132 (talk) 20:41, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

  • Support The article is well referenced and comprehensive enough. KittenKlub (talk) 20:44, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 02:46, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Royal pardon for London Bridge civilian[edit]

Consensus is against posting. Sandstein 20:42, 18 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: 2019 London Bridge stabbing (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A royal pardon is granted to murderer Steven Gallant for his efforts in apprehending the perpetrator of the 2019 London Bridge stabbing, the first such pardon since 1996. (Post)
News source(s): The Guardian

Article updated
Nominator's comments: It is very unusual that the Queen actually uses her powers, here in judiciary. Kingsif (talk) 07:12, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Pardons are WP:MILL, The Ministry of Justice said the Queen was advised to grant this pardon (per the Guardian source above) means that this is the standard situation where the Queen acts on the advice of the government. power~enwiki (π, ν) 07:17, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Pardons may be common as air for Trump's friends, but even if the government told the Queen to do it, she still did, the first invocation of such (controversial) authority since 1996. Not run of the mill by any stretch of the imagination. Kingsif (talk) 07:21, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
    • Royal prerogative of mercy links to [4], giving an example of a pardon from 2001 (well, not for MURDER), and claiming that about six on average are granted special remission in a year. power~enwiki (π, ν) 07:27, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes. Oh, do you think that helps an oppose vote? Not in my eyes... Kingsif (talk) 07:36, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. This isn't run of the mill, the first one since 1996(even if the Queen is only doing what she's told). It's also unusual for a murderer anywhere to be pardoned(in the US we would say the sentence was commuted) for actions in apprehending or stopping another murderer, or where the family of the victim does not object. 331dot (talk) 07:20, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
  • And were they a figurehead who is not supposed to intervene or actually elected to that theoretical mandate? Can you see the difference? This needs to be looked at within British judiciary context; if every nom relating to legal precedents were considered globally it is likely none would ever get posted as "not unique enough when compared to this thing that happened in some place with a completely different system and history". Kingsif (talk) 07:26, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
  • It's not a figurehead issue, it's the queen acting on the advice of the government like she does all the f***ing time!!! power~enwiki (π, ν) 07:28, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Glad you can keep a level head about this... Kingsif (talk) 07:30, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Are you going to disagree with my claim this is on the advice of government, or not? power~enwiki (π, ν) 07:31, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Were the examples you cite of murderers who help stop other murders or terrorists? The Queen does not pardon people all the time. A US president typically pardons a few dozen or maybe more in a term.(and can only pardon federal crimes, not state crimes) 331dot (talk) 07:33, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
  • I guess I meant "give a reason that's not you apparently disliking the Queen to the point of expletives after three comments and we might be able to talk". It is on the advice of the Lord Chancellor, who ranks above the government, and is an advisor to the Queen. And, as said, she still actually did it. The Queen doesn't intervene, especially to pardon murder, unless she chooses to. It's actually exercising her powers rather than just nodding at every elected PM to go ahead. Kingsif (talk) 07:36, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
  • You didn't answer my question. I gave two examples (from other countries) of murderers being pardoned this year. I don't know or care if the details match up with this case; I suppose none of them were juggling while they did it either, but that detail wouldn't make a case ITN worthy. And as I linked above, there were royal pardons in 2001, and that article claims they occur regularly for some cases (also presumably not murder). And if you fucking think that my use or non-use of fucking makes a fucking difference I will fucking say the word fucking as fucking much as I fucking want. power~enwiki (π, ν) 07:38, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
  • I will block you from editing this page if you cannot be more civil. 331dot (talk) 07:41, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
  • You mean you'll let an uninvolved admin make that decision.--WaltCip-(talk) 13:09, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
  • The Lord Chancellor is appointed by the Sovereign on the advice of the Prime Minister. and The Lord Chancellor is a member of the Cabinet, hence, part of the government. This isn't Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II going rogue to grant mercy. This is standard behavior of the UK government. Any claims otherwise are foolish, and any claims of notability based on a claim of the royal prerogative being unusually invoked are factually incorrect. This is my final reply on the topic; certain editors seem to have a strong opinion on this matter that isn't backed up by the reliable sources they cite, I will let other editors discuss this. power~enwiki (π, ν) 07:43, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
  • It is, in fact, your claims that are foolish. In your quotations from the Lord Chancellor article you seem to have artfully skipped that he is the highest-ranking among the Great Officers of State who are appointed regularly in the United Kingdom, nominally outranking the Prime Minister. The Lord Chancellor is outranked only by the Lord High Steward, another Great Officer of State, who is appointed only for the day of coronations. He is not an elected member of the Cabinet, nor does he sit in either of the Houses of Parliament, hence, not part of the government. Not that it really matters because even if it was Boris who made the suggestion, and for the last time, the Queen does not regularly pardon murder - even the one in 1996 was for murder as part of foreign militia group actions during a time of pseudo-war by a man who acted as an informant then handed himself in after living free in the UK for years, someone you might say seems much more "pardonable". Kingsif (talk) 07:52, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment: No stake in this argument, but I do want to point out that the current Lord Chancellor, Robert Buckland, is in fact a member of the House of Commons, and is the Secretary of State for Justice in the cabinet. He is decidedly part of the government, and the role of Lord Chancellor is appointed on the advice of the Prime Minister. (talk) 09:07, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
  • I think it's clear I was pointing out that Power was misguided in claiming the position confers a role in government, and that it's moot anyway because why would that matter. Kingsif (talk) 09:37, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Certainly not significant and notable enough for the ITN. --WEBDuB (talk) 09:17, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
I think it's not an event that has attracted the enough attention of international media and Wikipedia editors.--WEBDuB (talk) 09:57, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
It just happened (3 hours), wait for other users and countries to notice before saying nobody's interested. Which isn't the only metric, by the way. Kingsif (talk) 10:02, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose, limited significance even in the UK. Most European countries have some form of process of pardoning by the head of state. —Brigade Piron (talk) 10:32, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose, limited press coverage. Even the Guardian did not put the story on their youtube channel, A normal pardon which as said above was on the advice of the government and not a unilateral decision. KittenKlub (talk) 11:00, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose While of interest for law enforcement in the UK, don't see its wider significance even domestically. Gotitbro (talk) 12:15, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose I just don't feel that it's that newsworthy for ITN. WaltCip-(talk) 12:25, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Parochial, lacking broad significance. – Sca (talk) 13:40, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose good faith nom, but this is just a sidenote in an article which did not even make it into ITN. Juxlos (talk) 15:03, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Am I reading this correctly: he's getting 10 months off a 17 year sentence? If so, this seems quite symbolic. GreatCaesarsGhost 15:40, 18 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) Hyderabad floods[edit]

Proposed image
Article: 2020 Hyderabad floods (talk, history)
Blurb: Floods in Hyderabad, India, kill more than 81 people and cause $680 million in damage. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Floods (pictured) in Hyderabad, India, kill at least 81 people.
News source(s): The Hindu

Nominator's comments: Floods article that is updated and not too stubby. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 00:22, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

  • Support - Article looks good. Copy edit would be required Sherenk1 (talk) 06:24, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment The blurb looks a bit weird, maybe remove the local currency or the damage costs altogether. Gotitbro (talk) 12:17, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment anyone else supporting/opposing. C'mon people, look down here or else things'll get stale! ~ Destroyeraa🌀 14:39, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support A major loss of life in one of the largest cities in the world, what more needs to be said? Gex4pls (talk) 14:57, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
    • @Spencer: Ready? Don't want this to get stale. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 00:19, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Leaning towards Opposing on article length - would like some more information about the disaster (the article is definitely shorter than usual). The floods also don't seem to be covered by foreign press as much as the 2020 Visakhapatnam gas leak. The article also has a few grammar issues. Will Support if foreign coverage can be shown and if grammar issues are solved. (talk) 05:00, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Al jazeera[3] has reported on it, but thats about it. It seems that many media outlets dont really care about a disaster far from home. However, that is no reason for not including it. The article should definetly be cleaned up though. Gex4pls (talk) 15:42, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  • A reference for a key paragraph did not support the detail. Stephen 05:18, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
    • @Stephen:  Done. I also expanded and added international sources, such as one from BBC. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 17:05, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Posted. SpencerT•C 17:50, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
    Spencer, please can we add the picture as well? Ktin (talk) 23:04, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
    Spencer, was this missed out? Too late now. Ktin (talk) 06:30, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
    Yes, sorry. I had to add the pic to the protection page, but wasn't able to check back before subsequent items were posted. My apologies, SpencerT•C 03:31, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
    Spencer, no worries. cheers. Ktin (talk) 04:11, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Post Comment Whoops sorry I thought you posted it already SoloGaming (talk) 20:26, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

October 17[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Disasters and accidents
Health and environment

Law and crime

Politics and elections

(Posted) RD: Johnny Bush[edit]

Article: Johnny Bush (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Houston Chronicle; Rolling Stone; KTRK-TV (ABC)

Article updated

 Bloom6132 (talk) 20:36, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Bloom6132, I was holding off on this nomination since the discography seemed difficult to source / cite. Does that Allmusic link cover all of the entries in discography? Ktin (talk) 20:43, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
@Ktin: Yup, all the albums are cited by AllMusic. Two are under the "Compilations" filter (i.e. Undo the Right and The Absolute Johnny Bush). —Bloom6132 (talk) 20:51, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
@Ktin: And the singles that weren't covered by AllMusic have now all been sourced. —Bloom6132 (talk) 21:26, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Bloom6132, Perfect thanks. Can you give the article one end-to-end read for copy-edits, including perhaps removing the last line of the current lede and replacing it with some of his works or honors? I think this looks very close to being ready for homepage / RD. PS: I would selfishly hope that John Reid stays on the carousel for some more time before falling off. :) But, if this article is ready, I support it going onto homepage / RD. Cheers. Ktin (talk) 21:31, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support I was coming over here to nominate this, the article looks good and well sourced, ready for RD JW 1961 Talk 20:56, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
  • @Spencer, Stephen, and Amakuru: ready to go. —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:50, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD. SpencerT•C 16:52, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

European Rugby Champions Cup[edit]

Articles: 2019–20 European Rugby Champions Cup (talk, history) and 2020 European Rugby Champions Cup Final (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In rugby union, Exeter Chiefs defeat Racing 92 in the final to win the European Rugby Champions Cup. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​In rugby union, Exeter Chiefs defeat Racing 92 in the European Rugby Champions Cup Final.
News source(s): The Guardian, San Diego Union-Trubune

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

 PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 17:48, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) 2020 Ganja bombings[edit]

No consensus to post whilst conflict is in ongoing. Stephen 01:10, 19 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: 2020 Ganja bombings (talk, history) and Ganja, Azerbaijan (talk, history)
Blurb: Missile strike at a densely populated district of Ganja, Azerbaijan's second-largest city, leaves 13 civilians killed, and 52 more injured. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Ganja, the second-largest city of Azerbaijan, was struck by a ballistic missile, resulting in 13 people getting killed, and 52 more injured.
Alternative blurb II: Azerbaijan's second-largest city, Ganja, was struck by a ballistic missile, resulting in 13 people getting killed, and 52 more injured.
News source(s): Reuters, The Guardian, Al Jazeera, Voice of America
Nominator's comments: Mass-casualty incident in a major city with an alleged used of several Scud missiles, killing 13 (including minors and women), injuring 52, and levelling an entire neighborhood. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 13:43, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak support the article isn't stubby and is updated. Not ITN/R. Though the war itself if already posted in the ongoing section, attacks in the past week have killed 23 civilians. It is sad how many civilians get killed in these wars. Due to the high casualty count, I'm supporting. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 14:37, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment You think Armenia'll legalize weed now? CoronaOneLove (talk) 15:40, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
  • complete nonsense. Why was the Shusha church attack or civilian hospital not posted? This is partisan nonsense (talk) 16:13, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose updates in an ongoing conflict is why this conflict is in ongoing. No need for a blurb unless you're gonna pull the OG item --LaserLegs (talk) 16:36, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose - We already have the NK conflict in 'Ongoing'. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ) 17:59, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose – We have the conflict in ongoing. We should not bump up into a blurb unless some other major escalation, such as open war being declared. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:12, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
    • The two sides are technically at open war, though no side wants to declare it. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 21:07, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose The start of hostilities was already posted on ITN and the conflict is already there on ongoing. ITN is not news ticker, unless something major happens (as suggested by C&C above), this is not going to be posted. Gotitbro (talk) 22:22, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose – There is no reason to list every single incident, the conflict is already in the ongoing events. --WEBDuB (talk) 09:14, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Another of many brutal episodes in this ongoing conflict, which indeed belongs in Ongoing. – Sca (talk) 13:45, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose for the reasons cited above. The "ongoing" listing already creates a high bar to inclusion and this appears to have had little strategic or political significance. Tragic, naturally. —Brigade Piron (talk) 14:46, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose considering the conflict is some 20 days old with casualties in what appears to be the low to mid thousands, this is unfortunately just another day. Juxlos (talk) 15:04, 18 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) New Zealand general election[edit]

Proposed image
Articles: 2020 New Zealand general election (talk, history) and Jacinda Ardern (talk, history)
Blurb: Jacinda Ardern is re-elected as Prime Minister of New Zealand after the Labour Party wins a majority of seats in the general election. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​The New Zealand Labour Party, led by incumbent prime minister Jacinda Ardern, wins a majority of seats in the general election.
Alternative blurb II: ​The New Zealand Labour Party, led by incumbent prime minister Jacinda Ardern, wins the most seats in the general election.
News source(s): Reuters, NYT, AP, BBC

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: Preliminary results show a landslide for Jacinda Ardern. Davey2116 (talk) 08:35, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

  • Wait Support ALT blurb 2 until the result is confirmed.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:53, 17 October 2020 (UTC).
    Update: Per discussion below, I'm happy to post now if it's unlikely we'll get much more news soon, as the "result" is fairly clear, but we should avoid saying she definitively has a majority if that's not actually certain yet. ALT blurb 2 looks good and is uncontroversial.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:58, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
    Amakuru, 64 to 56 is a pretty clear majority of seats. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:57, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
    Sources say that's just a "projection" though. I'm not entirely sure of the system there, because in UK elections, once all votes are tallied there's no doubt remaining about majorities. We could qualify it with "a likely majority" or similar, if people want to run with that line.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:09, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support if the result is confirmed. The current count is 81% and still counted. (talk) 09:39, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Judith Collins has [conceded defeat]. I agree with Jayron that the altblurb is better. Chrisclear (talk) 10:17, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Altblurb is better as it reflects the electoral system in New Zealand better. --Jayron32 10:15, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Altblurb. New Zealanders do not elect their PM. HiLo48 (talk) 10:21, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment - as of 11:32 UTC, it is still not certain whether Labour will have a majority or not. So in principle, ALTblurb is fine, but we should still wait until it is confirmed exactly what has happened. "Conceding defeat" does not constitute that. CHeers  — Amakuru (talk) 11:33, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
  • 'Comment Genuine question - what do you mean by "confirmed"? The votes will take several weeks to count, as they do for elections in many countries around the world. Precedent and common sense would suggest that the appropriate time to post this item would be now, when the item is in the news, and not when 100% of the votes have been counted. Chrisclear (talk) 11:40, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
    Well, the main point is that the question of whether or not they'd secured a majority seemed to be unanswered. Even now, the news is saying "Labour was expected to win 64 of the 120 seats in parliament, and National, 35". Is that question really not going to be answered for several weeks? If so, then I'd be happy to post now, but we need to nuance the blurb with words to the effect that it's not certain if a majority has been obtained or not.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:35, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
    Special votes only change the seat counts by, maybe, one seat, so this majority will definitely remain intact.  Nixinova T  C   20:02, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Yes, it's entirely possible it could take weeks to count the votes. In which case something like altblurb2 might be a safer choice. Chrisclear (talk) 14:47, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - Significant results for political trends. The difference in votes is clear enough, even if the results have not been officially confirmed.--WEBDuB (talk) 13:39, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support – All major Eng.-lang. RS sites report Labour (Adern) as "landslide" [7] [8] winner. – Sca (talk) 13:47, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
    "Landslide" is a journalese term, which doesn't really mean that much. We are an encyclopedia, and we must be precise. As noted above, I'm not in principle averse to posting this now, but we need to get the wording right.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:39, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Amakuru: It's a commonly used metaphorical term in the English language. But I wasn't trying to get it inserted into a blurb, just noting that all the sites use it as a descriptive term. – Sca (talk) 15:50, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
@Sca: fair enough.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:58, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
If you're "not in principle adverse to posting this now", then would you be able to change your earlier "wait" comment to "support"? Chrisclear (talk) 14:47, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
@Chrisclear: OK, done. Although as I said, let's not say she has a majority if that's not certain yet. Cheers.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:58, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support And it was a substantial win. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:30, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per above. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 14:49, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support it is pretty much confirmed they have won at this point. However, as said above I'd go with the Altblurb as New-Zealanders were voting for the Labour Party not her directly. CreativeNorth (talk) 14:55, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
To veer off-topic, I do wonder just how many of the votes cast for Labour were really just to keep Ardern as PM, given NZ's relative lack of divisional party politics. Kingsif (talk) 16:04, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support It should probably be mentioned it's the biggest landslide in NZ, and the first time under their current system a party will lead without a coalition. Kingsif (talk) 16:00, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now – The #Results section prose is written in future tense and does not indicate anything being basically a done deal. It does not indicate that Ardern is the accepted winner and that the opposition has given a concession speech. It can be updated later with final results, but should indicate some highlights from the preliminary results. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 16:01, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
  • I added a paragraph and updated the tense. The separate results article needs work, but the election article is the one to be blurbed. Kingsif (talk) 16:27, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
    Support. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:43, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support alt blurb 1. At least this time we don't need discussions about whether 'plurality' is a word in NZ English (spoiler: it is).  Nixinova T  C   19:37, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Posted Alt 1. Unbolded Ardern's article, as there is just a 1-sentence update under the 2020 elections section. SpencerT•C 20:25, 17 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
  3. ^ "Many dead as record rains lash India's Hyderabad and nearby areas". Al Jazeera.