Open main menu

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.

Eliud Kipchoge in 2015
Eliud Kipchoge

How to nominate an itemEdit

In order to suggest a candidate:

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

Purge this page to update the cache

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

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

HeadersEdit

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pulled from the main page are generally marked with (Posted) or (Pulled) in the item's subject so it is clear they are no longer active.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

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

Please do not...Edit

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

SuggestionsEdit

October 14Edit


Remove Brexit from OngoingEdit

Article: Brexit (talk, history)
Ongoing item removal

Nominator's comments: Yes, I know this is still "in the news" and the article is still being updated. And I am by no means arguing that it is less significant than other items in Ongoing. At the same time, we have 5 items in the section that in my browser are being pushed onto 3 lines. Based on updates in the Brexit article (at Brexit#2019), it seems like the next major event in the process will be on 31 October, which is when the deal deadline is. I am proposing to pull Brexit from Ongoing until that point, when a new blurb item can be nominated for a significant update in the process. Fundamentally, the recent bloatedness of Ongoing isn't sustainable long-term for ITN so I'm just trying to think about how we can re-frame individual items and events to better serve readers at ITN. SpencerT•C 00:30, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Au contraire. I think October 19 will be of some importance; certainly Parliament sitting on a Saturday for the first time in—how long?—is worthy of some note? Daniel Case (talk) 01:30, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Remove if there is a deal on the 19th great blurb it. If BoJo asks for an extension blurb that too. If the UK crashes out certainly blurb that, and if they revoke article 50 release the doves. Right now the only "updates" are both sides insisting "there is a path to a deal but lots to be done" which is the same bullshit we've been hearing for years. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:50, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Retain in Ongoing This continues to be major news, frequently on the front page on both sides of the Atlantic. That's what ongoing is for. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:57, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal per above. This is an ongoing event, with significant updates regularly; I do not see a problem with the current ongoing section, there are lots of events there because there are lots of events going on right now. Davey2116 (talk) 03:54, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Remove per LaserLegs. If a major development happens it should get a blurb, but at this point it's just ongoing churn with nothing of note to report. Morgan695 (talk) 04:25, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support (removal) - What is the point to put Brexit in the 'ongoing' section? We all know that the negotiation is ongoing until it happens. STSC (talk) 04:35, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose/Keep Yes, I know this is still "in the news" and the article is still being updated. Thank you for making the argument for me. There's no "space" requirement for Ongoing that I'm aware of. But if there were, I suggest we remove the Trump Impeachment link. A drama started by the man himself to prove how foolish and gullible the media are and we obliged him. Additionally, the article is shite. Take a look at the diffs and the talk page.130.233.3.131 (talk) 06:17, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support (removal) I agree with User:Spencer who has put up a very fine argument. This can be posted back later on easily when it comes in international headlines. --DBigXray 06:52, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

October 13Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Politics and elections

RD: Stephen Moore (actor)Edit

Article: Stephen Moore (actor) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: Start Class article. sourcing needs work, volunteers needed. DBigXray 07:15, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

New Women’s Marathon RecordEdit

Article: Brigid Kosgei (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In athletics, Brigid Kosgei breaks the women’s world record for the marathon.
Alternative blurb: ​In athletics, Kenyans Brigid Kosgei breaks the women’s world record for the marathon and Eliud Kipchoge becomes the first person to run a marathon in less than two hours, in a non-IAAF event.
Alternative blurb II: Brigid Kosgei breaks the women’s marathon world record at the Chicago Marathon.
News source(s): Guardian

Nominator's comments: Combining with Eliud Kipchoge’s record yesterday makes most sense, but blurb would need some finessing. 2A00:23C5:508F:3E01:94CC:A77F:65A3:41D7 (talk) 17:32, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment While in the same area, I think the two different stories require two different blurbs, there's far too much that could mis-construed between these (one is an official WR, the other is not, for example). --Masem (t) 17:41, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support first blurb or alt2, i.e. individual. (Kosgei's article seems decent enough that both could be bolded.) Maybe just refer to the Chicago marathon as the Chicago marathon, rather than 'an event'... Kingsif (talk) 21:03, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support alt2 – This record has been in place for 16 years. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 21:14, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose arbitrary record in a non-IAAF event. Shouldn't have posted the other one either. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:23, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
    • Chicago marathon is very much a IAAF event, hence why *this* is called a World's Record, whereas the other wasn't. --Masem (t) 23:26, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
    • It is in fact one of the World Marathon Majors.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 23:59, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
      • My bad, I misunderstood the alt-blurb combination. Sorry about that. Still opposed to sports trivia in the box. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:48, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support alt blurb 2 per above. Davey2116 (talk) 03:55, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support ALT2 per above. Morgan695 (talk) 04:26, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment What is the history of posting WRs in athletics? Dalilah Muhammad broke a 16-year-old record in the 400 m hurdles in July, and improved on it at the World Championships earlier this month, for example. The July WR does not seem to have been nominated. The October WR was mentioned in the World Athletics Championships discussion, but nothing came of it. Hrodvarsson (talk) 04:34, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  •   Posted ALT2. No one commented on the quality of the article but it looks pretty reasonable to me. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:23, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Ongoing: Operation Peace SpringEdit

Article: 2019 Turkish offensive into north-eastern Syria (talk, history)
Ongoing item nomination
News source(s): BBC

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Per Cyclonebiskit, this fell off the main page. 2607:FEA8:1DE0:7B4:9921:813:D6EE:EF80 (talk) 04:36, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Support - Still in the news, article is getting updated as well Sherenk1 (talk) 06:08, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - per Sherenk1 --TILRs (talk) 10:32, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment it's orange tagged for neutrality, usually a no-go for MP --LaserLegs (talk) 11:12, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
    The page is under 1RR, but people are giving live updates on the battle, resulting in problems that can't be solved quickly... starship.paint (talk) 11:15, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support (conditionally) ... if the orange tag is resolved. STSC (talk) 13:45, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  •   Posted. El_C 17:50, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

October 12Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Sports

Burkina Faso mosque attackEdit

Article: Burkina Faso mosque attack (talk, history)
Blurb: ​16 people dead and two injured in Burkina Faso mosque attack
News source(s): AFP, BBC DW

Article updated

Nominator's comments: start class, well sourced DBigXray 06:17, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose The article is pretty much a WP:COATRACK, having very little information about the attack itself. In the body, I count 6 sentences about the attack, with 27 sentences that are not about the attack. TompaDompa (talk) 16:59, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
TompaDompa, I disagree. The article contains whatever information has been reported so far. Feel free to remove anything if you find it is not relevant to the article. --DBigXray 17:53, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
I have to agree with TompaDompa. The Attack section is just a copy-paste of the lede, which is itself not very informative, while the Background section is unnecessarily long. COATRACK is deserved here. If this is a summary of all information reported so far, then we will have to wait for more reporting to get the article posted.130.233.3.131 (talk) 06:28, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Ongoing: 2019 Ecuadorian protestsEdit

Article: 2019 Ecuadorian protests (talk, history)
Ongoing item nomination
News source(s): BBC, Al Jazeera

Article updated

Nominator's comments: In the news. Article looks in good shape. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:32, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment the article was posted on ITN a few days ago, I can't see any significant changes or major turns in the protests since then? PotentPotables (talk) 15:38, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
May be worth considering for Ongoing? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:40, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Maybe for ongoing, the activities seem to a slow burn, but the indigenous rights group now seems to have de facto control of the capital Quito, if that was worth putting in a blurb with an RS? Kingsif (talk) 16:21, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I'd recommend ongoing. We posted this to ITN not two days ago; it was removed quickly, because of the large number of recent stories. Posting again would be overkill, in my opinion, unless some other headline-making incident occurs; but ongoing is appropriate. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:33, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Ongoing per Vanamonde93. Banedon (talk) 20:37, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Ongoing. Per above. MSN12102001 (talk) 23:08, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose once you seize an oil pipeline and start using weapons don't you become a terrorist? Strange how bad the POV situation has gotten at Wikipedia. Anyway, the updates are sparse one-line updates of what would be major events -- not much of a main page article. #twocents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LaserLegs (talkcontribs)
    Just for info, posted last time at 06:25 on 10 October 2019. These are the edits since then. 11,114 bytes → 41,411 bytes? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:32, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
    • As the cliche goes, "One [person]'s terrorist is another [person]'s freedom fighter." --- Coffeeandcrumbs 23:59, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support ongoing per Vanamonde93. The situation is comparable to the Hong Kong protests, which is in ongoing right now. -Zanhe (talk) 23:15, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
    • The situation, maybe, but the article quality isn't even close. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:21, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
    • Agree the situation is similar to the Hong Kong protests. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:35, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support ongoing as per Vanamonde93, significant events happening on the ground which can reasonably and logistically be placed on the ongoing list. Droodkin (talk) 10:56, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - The article has been frequently updated. STSC (talk) 13:36, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 15:25, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Typhoon Hagibis (2019)Edit

Article: Typhoon Hagibis (2019) (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Torrential rain and tornado-like winds are lashing large parts of Japan, as the country endures what could be its worst storm for 60 years.
Alternative blurb: Japan suffers torrential rain and high winds as Typhoon Hagibis, its worst storm for 60 years, makes landfall
Alternative blurb II: ​More than 1 million people in Japan are ordered to leave their homes as Typhoon Hagibis causes power outages, flooding and widespread travel disruption
Alternative blurb III: ​At least 23 people are reported dead as Japan recovers from its biggest storm in decades.
News source(s): BBC, Al Jazeera, The Guardian, Yahoo News, Reuters, AP

Article updated

Nominator's comments: "Worst storm in 60 years", has impacted Rugby World Cup and Formula One. Has referencing issues. Sherenk1 (talk) 14:53, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose "could be" tells me this is not yet ITN appropriate. Wait for landfall/damage/deaths. --Masem (t) 14:55, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above and for the fact the article is not of sufficient quality. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 14:57, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - Added blurb. Nine deaths so far. Sherenk1 (talk) 04:32, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - Death toll now up to 24. I would support in principle once the article is good enough. NorthernFalcon (talk) 09:28, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support – in principle – Reuters puts death toll at 23. – Sca (talk) 11:54, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Please avoid using superlative language in the blurbs. Altblurb 3 is the best one, but no reason to try to make the storm seem more significant than it needs to be. --Masem (t) 17:38, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
AP now saying "as high as" 33, which never would have been permitted in the Olden Days.Meanwhile, Reuters now strikes a more staid stance with "at least 30." – Sca (talk) 17:54, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Meant in terms of saying "its biggest storm"; obviously the death toll is quantified as we normally to. --Masem (t) 17:58, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support in principle but all of the given hooks are too superlative. Something like "Typhoon Hagibis kills at least 35 people in Japan." should suffice. (death toll per WaPo) Morgan695 (talk) 00:26, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Noteworthy storm, alt blurb 3 is fine but I will also support a simple "Typhoon Hagibis kills at least 35 people in Japan." per above if the consensus is in favor of it. Davey2116 (talk) 03:59, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

RD: Reg WatsonEdit

Article: Reg Watson (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: Australian TV producer. Reference issues. Sherenk1 (talk) 14:47, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Sara DaniusEdit

Article: Sara Danius (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): [1]

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

Nominator's comments: Was a key player in the 2018 Nobel literature prize scandal. BabbaQ (talk) 09:30, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Support At 1606 characters, it's on the short side, but just long enough not to be considered a stub. Thanks to BabbaQ for sorting out a few referencing issues. Looks good to go otherwise.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:46, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Article expanded now. --cart-Talk 12:33, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support She became internationally known through her work in the Swedish Academy and as its first female permanent secretary. (You might remember the clip where she announced the Nobel prize for Bob Dylan). No blurb though. --cart-Talk 10:38, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per W.carter --TILRs (talk) 13:25, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted. I did !vote above, but this doesn't seem controversial and three others say it's ready so I've posted it. Anyone may revert or challenge me if they disagree.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:43, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Kipchoge marathon recordEdit

Article: Eliud Kipchoge (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Kenya's Eliud Kipchoge becomes the first person to run a marathon in less than two hours, at a non-IAAF event in Vienna, Austria
Alternative blurb: ​Kenya's Eliud Kipchoge becomes the first person to run a marathon in less than two hours, at the INEOS 1:59 Challenge, a non-IAAF event in Vienna, Austria
News source(s): NY TimesBBC News

Nominator's comments: Doesn't count as an official world record because he used cars for pacing and pacemakers entered the race midway through, (hence the comment about it being non-IAAF and if anyone can think of a better wording then great). But this is still making headlines around the world.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:08, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Support in principle. Breaking the two-hour mark in a marathon is a huge sport achievement.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:13, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support, two hours was always the "unobtainable" barrier. Worthy of a blurb. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:02, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose it was not "a marathon", but "a run over a marathon distance". Not an official race, or record. When this gets done in an official race, then it is a dead cert for posting. Until then, no. Mjroots (talk) 10:22, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
    Who cares whether it's "official" or not? The purpose of ITN is to "help readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news". This is clearly in the news, across the world, and is trending on Twitter and so on, we have a reasonable quality article on Kipchoge, so clearly people will want to find it. Even Seb Coe, the IAAF head, has commented that this is a significant achievement.[2]  — Amakuru (talk) 10:28, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
    "Marathon" didn't orignally mean a race (although it is usually used that context), it is running or walking an exact distance. Covering that distance in a record time is what's making news, not that somebody won a race. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:36, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - historic record of sorts. Article seems ready.BabbaQ (talk) 10:33, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Too much unsourced information in Competition record sections. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 10:35, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
    @Coffeeandcrumbs: almost all of the results there are in the IAAF source [3], although it takes a bit of navigating around to find them all. And there doesn't seem to be a way to create a URL link to specific years or sections of the results pages. I'm not sure how to do this better? Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 11:05, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
    • Thanks, consider me neutral. I spot checked several stats. In most case, they were verifiable in the source you cited. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 11:09, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment The event itself, INEOS 1:59 Challenge, could be linked in the blurb. TompaDompa (talk) 10:39, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
    The sponsor is not important really. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:55, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
    Proposed altblurb. starship.paint (talk) 14:25, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support An amazing achievement many years in the making. Getting lots of news. Kipchoge does hold the world record. That it was not in an official race is sort of meh, it is the distance... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:48, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - an astounding achievement that is in the news. starship.paint (talk) 11:25, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose' pacemakers matter. There's a reason the World Record for the Women's marathon must be set in all-women competitions. It's a nice achievement, but save the blurb for if/when it becomes a real world record. Banedon (talk) 13:09, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support all over the news, notable and something our readers will be looking to learn more about. Indeed, Wikipedia's opportunity to demonstrate the differences between a competition record and a standalone record, and assist our audience. Post it!! The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 13:52, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support pbp 14:09, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per above. Davey2116 (talk) 14:39, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted did not yet change picture but that's ready to go. --Masem (t) 14:49, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
    • Comment I edit conflicted with Masem updating the template, but I would have used the original blub as I agree with Doc James that the sponsor doesn't really need mentioning. Thryduulf (talk) 14:52, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

October 11Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

Politics and elections

RD: Robert ForsterEdit

Article: Robert Forster (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Variety

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: Usual problems with B-tier actors, in terms of sourcing roles. Masem (t) 02:55, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Alexei LeonovEdit

Article: Alexei Leonov (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Former Cosmonaut Alexei Leonov, the first person to conduct a spacewalk, dies at the age of 85.
News source(s): TASS

Nominator's comments: Leonov was the first person to walk in space. BBC Jmorrison230582 (talk) 11:51, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Support and probably should be added quickly due to prominence. The article is in good shape and is being improved after this news broke. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:54, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  • p.s. support blurb per below comments, and add that the high importance of Leonov in the history of flight seems apparent. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:46, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose because of quality of the article but should be a blurb when ready. The first person to ever to perform an EVA was a major accomplishment in human history. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 12:56, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
    • Support blurb – --- Coffeeandcrumbs 21:41, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose on quality, as well as Oppose blurb - first man to walk is space is not the same as a world-transformative leaders, and I'm not seeing the type of coverage to make a blurb necessary here. --Masem (t) 13:45, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support blurb Great man. His achievement, both in terms of the risk and the impact is second only to those of Armstrong and Gagarin, at least in my opinion.--5.44.170.9 (talk) 14:37, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose on quality but support blurb once ready. There aren't many actions a human could have conducted that are so unearthly in their uniqueness. The first spacewalk is certainly one of them and per the IP, this places Leonov squarely up there with Neil and Yuri. I hope someone with the knowledge can fix the article. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 16:11, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support blurb based on importance, oppose based on quality at the moment. The impact of the first space walk was huge. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:27, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support blurb once the quality improves. This achievement is, quite literally, out of this world. ZettaComposer (talk) 16:58, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose even if every statement is referenced, the article is still not postable. One gigantic biography section? No thanks. How about early life, military career, as a cosmonaut, post space program. Before we wax on about his contributions too much, the Soviets would have found someone to go out that door. If this is gonna get a blurb, the article needs to be good. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:22, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
    Before we wax on about his contributions too much, the Soviets would have found someone to go out that door. wtf?! Absurd. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 17:24, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
    And instead of Armstrong NASA could have retrained Ham to become, for his second spaceflight, the first primate to walk on the Moon and we would all have known his name in school and mourned his death in 1983. But Armstrong made his one small step well after Leonov made his to set that portion of the human achievements of the 1960s into motion. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:48, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support blurb when ready Very significant accomplishment and certainly something readers would be interested in. Also a good opportunity to break from the Western pop culture bias. EternalNomad (talk) 17:47, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb - It's true Leonov's spacewalk was a massive achievement for the Space Race, but he was not himself a transformative world leader. Sadly, does not meet that particular standard for a blurb.--WaltCip (talk) 18:03, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Hi WaltCip. My opposite view is that this not being either a blurb or a death listing as soon as possible is sort of embarrassing, given the prominence of the subject, for Wikipedia. At least in my point of view, which I've tried to explain below. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:43, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Transformative world leader status. The human races' reach and growth took a transforming new step when Leonov opened that capsule door and floated out into space. When the technology on his body enabled him to become a form of cosmonaut-piloted outerwear spacecraft, he carried the human race further off-planet. The astronauts who walked on the Moon did another kind of spacewalk, but a spacewalk nonetheless. Leonov was the first in the history of life on Earth to open a door and walk out into orbit. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:38, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
    Indeed. Space-walking astronauts are one of the most enduring images of modern history. And Leonov was the first of them. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:01, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support blurb. Article looks much better now. Still a lot of unreferenced awards, but I'm ok with hacking them off if we can't find sources. There will still be plenty left ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 19:54, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support blurb, oppose on quality. The article is littered with "citation needed" templates. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 20:12, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support blurb – Done, no more CN templates. We should post a blurb for the first of the Skywalkers. We posted Neil Armstrong's death quickly with comments to the tune of "We shouldn't even have to discuss this". Wakari07 (talk) 21:30, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support blurb and kudos to Coffeeandcrumbs for a great job improving citations for the article. -Zanhe (talk) 22:26, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support blurb per Randy Kryn and Vanamonde93. I would also like to mention Leonov's second space mission, which ushered in the era of US-Russian cooperation in space. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:39, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Support blurb quality is vastly improved, and certainly notable enough. -A lainsane (Channel 2) 22:44, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Support blurb, article looks a fine now, thanks to all who helped. A bit more lead would be a service to readers, - there was more to his life than the first wal in space, no? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:49, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted. Black Kite (talk) 23:08, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support blurb per above. Davey2116 (talk) 05:44, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment please replace the image with one of Leonov now, this is the top story. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 10:56, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
    The plan is to cycle the pic through the Nobel laureates one by one, giving each around six hours, before they all drop off the bottom. Thus Leonov should be the main pic by about tomorrow.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:08, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Nobel Peace PrizeEdit

Articles: Abiy Ahmed (talk, history) and 2019 Nobel Peace Prize (talk, history)
Blurb: Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed of Ethiopia is awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.
Alternative blurb: Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed of Ethiopia is awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts in easing the long-standing tensions between Ethiopia and Eritrea.
News source(s): CNN

Both articles need updating

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: Abiy Ahmed is awarded the 2019 Nobel Peace Prize for his work in easing the long-standing tensions between Ethiopia and Eritrea. Ahmed's article is generally in good shape, but the prize article should be expanded. Davey2116 (talk) 09:10, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Support, I would support him (because his peace have made that) TILRs. It will be more better article. I should support adding Every Nobel Peace Prize-related articles to 'In the news' TILRs (talk) 13:06, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose About a dozen marked CNs, but that's all I'm seeing stopping Ahmed's article. Should not be hard to get that resolved. --Masem (t) 13:22, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Image above is seeded for image protection. --Masem (t) 16:32, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I've managed to get it down to 7 marked CNs, added citations for quite a few things and removed some false info. Should be very near to a postable state! PotentPotables (talk) 17:53, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
It's down to five CNs now, but I'm off for dinner. If anyone wants to give them a fix while I'm gone, I'd be grateful PotentPotables (talk) 18:11, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Looking much better now. Many citations added. ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 19:52, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Article is down to one CN, which is a much better state than it was in. Thanks to all who helped find sources and clean it up! PotentPotables (talk) 20:09, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. Article is in good shape. Only one "citation needed" template left. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 20:14, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment ALL "citation needed" templates have been replaced with sources! PotentPotables (talk) 20:20, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
    • Marking Ready --Masem (t) 20:29, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support – Per above. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 20:29, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Posting. Excellent job! --Tone 20:32, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
    Credits posted to editors — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:39, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

October 10Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture
  • The Swedish Academy awards the 2018 Nobel Prize in Literature to Olga Tokarczuk, "for a narrative imagination that with encyclopedic passion represents the crossing of boundaries as a form of life", and the 2019 prize to Peter Handke, "for an influential work that with linguistic ingenuity has explored the periphery and the specificity of human experience". The 2018 prize is awarded only now because last year it was postponed due to a scandal. (The Guardian)
Disasters and accidents
Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime
  • Michael Drejka, a 47-year-old white Florida man who shot and killed Markeis McGlockton, an unarmed 28-year-old African American man, in a parking space dispute, is sentenced to 20 years in prison. Drejka had cited Florida's stand-your-ground law in his defense and was not initially charged until the case was handed over to State Attorney Bernie McCabe, who charged Drejka with one count of manslaughter. (ABC News)
  • Crime in Alaska
    • A murder case from Anchorage, Alaska makes national news, after it is revealed that the killer recorded the killing in both video and still photographs on an SD card, which was later found by a local woman on a street and turned over to police. Local police arrested Brian Steven Smith and charged him with the murder, after identifying him from the content of the memory card. (The New York Times) (Yahoo News) (KTUU-TV)

Politics and elections

Science and technology

Sports

(Posted) Nobel Prize for LiteratureEdit

Articles: Olga Tokarczuk (talk, history) and Peter Handke (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Following the 2018 cancellation, the 2018 Nobel Prize in Literature is given to Olga Tokarczuk and the 2019 prize is given to Peter Handke
News source(s): BBC

 PotentPotables (talk) 11:08, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Support, articles are okay. Störm (talk) 11:35, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak Support - Articles are okay I guess, but Olga's is a bit undereferenced. They're better than other prize winners this week though. ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 11:49, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose both target articles inadequate. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 12:12, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Neither authors' article is in good shape. (and unlike the other Laureates, I don't know how much I can do to help those. --Masem (t) 13:31, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Both articles require extensive editing. ―Susmuffin Talk 14:30, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'll try to do something about Handke tomorrow, need sleep first. I don't know a thing about Olga Tokarczuk, though, and if someone beats me to Handke, I'd be pleased. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:03, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
    Beginning now. Condition as I start is this. My first step was to take away the tags because they discredit the article and our work in the eyes of a public. I also don't want to add a tag "under sonstruction" but avoiding edit conflicts will be appreciated. I promise to keep edits short. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:45, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose I can never support a controversy section on a BLP. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 08:29, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: I believe that it's now formally done, although far away from what he'd deserve. Coffeeandcrumbs, I boiled down the controversies to a summary, and don't understand your "never". He caused severe controversy, - we can not hide that. Or do you just mean put it in line with the biography? - So all: please look again, and consider a 2019 news about him alone, because 2018 Olga Tokarczuk is a different story, actually. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:25, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the work Gerda! An IP address (173.13.67.91) has re-inserted the controversy section, completely unsourced, so that will now probably need monitoring and removing/sourcing PotentPotables (talk) 13:38, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for removing. A lot od detailed sourced controversy stuff is already commented out in the article, - at present undue weight. New controversy now about the Nobel Prize itself. Yes, monitoring will be needed. I still think it's now in decent enough shape to be mentioned. The Rambling Man, Masem, Susmuffin? - Blurb simply: The 2019 Nobel Prize in Literature is given to Peter Handke (pictured). - I had no time for the 2018 recipient. Anybody? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:49, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
I really think it would be poor to only have Handke in the blurb. Olga's is not so far away but does require someone more familiar in literature to tackle it. --Masem (t) 14:13, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Why can't we have Olga in a separate blurb? Why should we clutter the news with any "Following the 2018 cancellation"? Readers will find that, I am sure. How I miss Poeticbent. He could have done justice to Olga. If we split the two recipients we could have both pictured, otherwise I am sure who will win a beauty contest ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:27, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
It's not about timeliness or applying logic here Gerda, I'm afraid, it's about wikilawyering. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 15:42, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
We have just shown it possible to get 9 Laureate articles up to main page posting within 48-72hrs (at worst) with a bit of work. It should not be that hard. This should be where we can show the open wiki nature of WP should shine. Olga's is not that far off but just needs someone more aware of how the literature world works to do some source searching. Could we just feature Handke, sure but that's really disrespecting Olga here. --15:58, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
And as I write this, there is one paragraph left which just needs sources to confirm works were published. It is 98% there. --Masem (t) 16:01, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
As before, it's about getting more EYES on the pages. People who may have the expertise may wish to help if they see it on the main page in need of help. Right now we're keeping this present news story a closed shop from 99.9% of our readers who don't know about the arcane process of ITNC. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 16:03, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Right, and we want to make sure these pages are in good enough shape (meeting core policies particularly BLP) before they hit the main page. eg: Goodenough's could have a LOT more written about him from what I did the other day, I did enough to get it to front page. This is no different from any other RD, RD blurb, sporting event, awards show, major disaster, etc. Nobels do not get a special pass, but should also be some of the easiest to update once they are announced and articles on their bios come flooding in. --Masem (t) 16:12, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

October 9Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

(Posted) RD: Andrés GimenoEdit

Article: Andrés Gimeno (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): [4]

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

Nominator's comments: Tennis player, won the French Open (grand slam tournament) in 1972. Article is not ready for publication yet, but seems to be one that with relatively minimal effort would be a good addition to our RD section. Fram (talk) 09:08, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Support Article looks good enough. Referencing is there. ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 19:56, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  •   Posted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:09, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) 2019 Halle attackEdit

While very sad, consensus is against posting this. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:51, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: 2019 Halle attack (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Two people are killed and two others are injured in attacks by a man wearing military camouflage near a synagogue and at a kebab shop in Halle, Saxony-Anhalt, Germany.
Alternative blurb: ​Two people are killed and two others are injured after attacks in Halle, Sasony-Anhalt, Germany
News source(s): CNN, Reuters, BBC, Guardian, AFP, dpa
 – Illegitimate Barrister (talkcontribs), 21:46, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose sad but relatively trivial. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 07:01, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose on procedure. Neither of the blurbs incorporates the updated article. The first blurb is far too verbose. The second might be suitable. This is a case where the word "terrorism" can use used, as that was the official finding by the authorities.130.233.2.235 (talk) 08:38, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, I had this confused with the recent truck attack, also in Germany130.233.2.235 (talk) 08:41, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose on notability. Sadly plenty of worse crimes occur daily. Also oppose on procedure. ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 11:53, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose The only major thing that seems to be sticking from this is the fact it was live-streamed to only some-thousand of people on Twitch, otherwise a small event. --Masem (t) 13:32, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Coverage is very widespread, though – due to Germany's history in the first half of the 20th century and to xenophobic fringers in today's eastern Germany. (Here's an interesting sidebar about the Halle shooter.) – Sca (talk) 13:55, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Oh its clearly widespread, no question it meets that part of ITN. But it was only two deaths, which we (at ITNC) would not normally blink at, and the live-streaming part is only highlighted since that brings comparisons to Christchurch. --Masem (t) 13:58, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Yup, only two random victims, but the underlying issues are current and very serious. And as various observers (including Merkel) have noted, the death toll could have been much higher. – Sca (talk) 14:09, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
PS: One of Spiegel's stories is headlined, "The lone perpetrator, who wasn't alone" ("Der Einzeltäter, der nicht allein war"). – Sca (talk) 14:21, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

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

(Posted) Operation Peace SpringEdit

Article: Operation Peace Spring (talk, history)
Blurb: Turkey begins a military offensive into Rojava, Syria after U.S. troops withdraw from the region
Alternative blurb: Turkey launches Operation Peace Spring into Rojava, Syria after U.S. troops withdraw from the region
News source(s): CNN, AP, BBC, AFP, Reuters

Nominator's comments: Notable development in Syrian Civil War. Would also suggest adding to ongoing if not blurb. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ) 14:13, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Support - Article is well-sourced and laid out. It’s beyond a stub and I have rated it accordingly as a Start. The topic is clearly in the news and a timely ITN addition. Jusdafax (talk) 14:38, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment outside the background and flag salad sections, the article is pretty thin. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:50, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment – Get rid of the flag salad and flesh out the article. Four sources added above that may help with that. – Sca (talk) 16:35, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support this was in the news before it actually started. Banedon (talk) 19:06, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support on notability with preference for blurb 1. The quality is fine in my opinion; even if the reactions section was purged (which I wouldn't personally suggest), there are at least a few lengthy, fully-sourced paragraphs.  Vanilla  Wizard  💙 20:02, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Good article, and most definitely newsworthy. Lets call it what it is and go with blurb 1 ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 20:16, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:21, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Suggest getting rid of the flags and simply working a few reaction-comments considered trenchant or significant into a prose section. The flags themselves look like padding – or, uh, flag-waving. – Sca (talk) 20:43, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Why was Rojava removed from the blurb? Adds context to the specific area and target of the operation. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ) 22:39, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
I concur with Nice4What that it should be more specific than just "into Syria." At the very least, it should be something like "[[Rojava|northern Syria]]", but the best option (in my opinion) is to mention Rojava by name. Rojava is Turkey's target, not the Syrian state or government itself.  Vanilla  Wizard  💙 23:04, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
This has been done. Please report further updates at WP:ERRORS so discussion can occur in one place. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 00:42, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
[5] Count Iblis (talk) 16:21, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

@Cyclonebiskit: - could you post this to ongoing? This fell off the front page but the offensive is still continuing. starship.paint (talk) 00:07, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Nobel Prize for ChemistryEdit

Articles: John B. Goodenough (talk, history) and M. Stanley Whittingham (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Nobel Prize in Chemistry is given to John B. Goodenough (pictured), M. Stanley Whittingham and Akira Yoshino for the development of lithium-ion batteries.
Alternative blurb: ​The Nobel Prize in Chemistry is given to John B. Goodenough, M. Stanley Whittingham and Akira Yoshino for the development of lithium-ion batteries.
News source(s): BBC

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: note 3 target articles, 2 crap, 1 "goodenough". The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 11:23, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose - I see what you did there regarding Mr. Goodenough ;) But seriously, half of Stan's article is quoted excerpts lifted directly from a book! Goodenough's article is indeed good enough, but Akira's is just OK. I agree that these Nobel prizes really should be featured but their recipients unfortunately are just not in a state that's acceptable. What if, at the end of the week after all the prizes are awarded, we do a single blurb? Something like: "The 2019 Nobel Prizes are awarded for contributions to chemistry, literature, peace, physics, and physiology/medicine." However, it might be "cheating" since we'd use lists... ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 12:14, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I was typing this nomination up earlier, but realised that 2 of the 3 articles wouldn't pass on sourcing and quality, so decided against it. Possibly could get it through having Lithium-ion battery as the main article, but might be a very dodgy move... PotentPotables (talk) 12:27, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
    • Dodgy is apparently not a problem when it comes to posting the Nobels. 159.53.46.143 (talk) 16:37, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose All three articles need to be "goodenough". Black Kite (talk) 19:47, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
  • After burning through fixing the last 6 Laureates, this one is going to be challenging at least for Whittingham due to the present state. The other two are "close" but still need good deal of work. I will see what I can do tomorrow. --Masem (t) 23:24, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - posting the ready one. But opposing the not ready ones. And that is a do-able solution.BabbaQ (talk) 05:15, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - Yoshino is now completely cited. Please review again. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 15:20, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Whittingham & Yoshino are acceptable. Goodenough is <pun deleted> GreatCaesarsGhost 17:15, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
    • I was in the midst of trying to fix one last section on Goodenough (the magnetism stuff). --Masem (t) 17:22, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
    • And now Ready --Masem (t) 17:31, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
      • Posting. Masem, amazing work. On all three awards. --Tone 17:39, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Ecuadorian protestsEdit

Article: 2019 Ecuadorian protests (talk, history)
Blurb: ​During a week of protests in Ecuador calling for the resignation of President Lenín Moreno the government is relocated to Guayaquil from Quito, where a state of emergency is declared.
Alternative blurb: Protests in Ecuador calling for the resignation of President Lenín Moreno cause the government to relocate from Quito to Guayaquil.
News source(s): Al Jazeera Deutsche Welle Voice of America CNN Bloomberg

Nominator's comments: Extensive coverage. At least six days of protests in Ecuador. The unrest has been so intense that a state of emergency was declared, the government palace was taken by protesters and the government was relocated from the capital Quito to the city of Guayaquil. If suitable, a blurb could be considered. Jamez42 (talk) 14:38, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose stub --LaserLegs (talk) 14:50, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
    • Blurb first per Coffeeandcrumbs. Article is much improved. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:40, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
      • Alt-blurb concise. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:18, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Blurb first – No longer a stub. There is no good reason not to put a blurb up first. Nominator's comment includes several blurb-able events including a state of emergency, take over of govenment buildings and temporary relocation of the capital.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 19:36, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Blurb, per Coffeeandcrumbs ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 20:14, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Nomination changed to blurb. @Jamez42: please propose a blurb — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:21, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Added blurb Kingsif (talk) 20:24, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
    Thanks. Did some copyediting in the altblurb - how does this look? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:28, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
    Looks good to me. The effective date is October 8 when the government announced the capital being relocated. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 21:45, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
    Alt looks good. Kingsif (talk) 23:52, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support seems pretty obvious. Banedon (talk) 23:44, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
  •   Posted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 05:26, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

October 8Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime
  • Thirteen men are arrested in the United Kingdom for drug smuggling. The authorities believe that over several years, the suspects imported approximately 50 tonnes of illegal drugs from the Netherlands, valued at several tens of millions of pounds. The National Crime Agency called it “the biggest ever [drug] conspiracy that we've seen in the UK”. (BBC)

Politics and elections

Science and technology

(Posted) RD Francis S. CurreyEdit

Article: Francis S. Currey (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): [6]

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

Nominator's comments: WWII Medal of Honor recipient. Not in horrible shape but needs a couple cites. Ad Orientem (talk) 20:00, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Serafim Fernandes de AraújoEdit

Article: Serafim Fernandes de Araújo (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): G1 Globo, Vatican News

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: Brazilian cardinal of the Catholic Church. Article fairly short, but well-referenced. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 16:35, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Support What's there is sourced and there may not be a lot more to add. Hrodvarsson (talk) 03:43, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  •   Posted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 05:33, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Nobel Prize for PhysicsEdit

Articles: Jim Peebles (talk, history) and Michel Mayor (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Nobel Prize in Physics is given to Jim Peebles, Michel Mayor, and Didier Queloz. (Queloz and Mayor pictured)
Alternative blurb: ​The Nobel Prize in Physics is given to Jim Peebles, Michel Mayor, and Didier Queloz.
News source(s): BBC

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: note 3 target articles, 2 crap, 1 stub The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 11:30, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment Not unlike good ol' days when you had only one recipient to improve.... Brandmeistertalk 11:49, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Articles are not up to standards, especially Mayor's, which is riddled with [citation needed]s. Perhaps we could try and predict who will win the Nobel prize tomorrow and try to get a head start on updating their article... ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 12:07, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment indeed, the proposed targets are junk. The article on the prize itself is a GA and the list of winners is an FL. But apparently that's "cheating". Perhaps we won't be featuring the most important awards of the year at all this year. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 16:49, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Change the target to the prize article I understand that that's the "easy way out", but none of the prize-winners' articles are Main Page-worthy, and it'd be a disservice not to include this when it's specifically a routine item; I'm sure IAR will allow it. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 20:43, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
    • No, this is not good. I am going to use the fact that we got an article on Shuping Wang from nothing to RD posting in around 24hr. It should not be hard for existing articles on these three researchers, particularly with the Nobel coverage, to get tidied up to post. They are close BLP violations as they stand, and this is burying the problem by moving the target to the list. I know the Nobels are important, and those that feel that they are should be working to improve the article. --Masem (t) 20:46, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
      • No, what is "not good" is not posting the Nobel Prize winners. See below, your claim has fallen on deaf ears, those articles have just been destroyed and still not good enough, 36 hours later. My point, then, as now, remains. Do we want to just not post these events at all because of some absurd non-rule? The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 21:15, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
        • I am of the opinion that not posting is preferable to linking (not bold) to three/six seriously BLP-compromised articles. Hopefully, that will light a fire under the right user with the skills and ability to fix the articles. If not there is always next year. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 00:59, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
    • Comment what about featuring 51 Pegasi b, discovered by two of the laureates? --Mjoppien (talk) 21:26, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm constantly impressed by the creativity of people trying to bypass the quality criterion. Next we'll feature Enrico Fermi because 1) it's a featured article (!!!) 2) he won the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1938, so it's related to this event 3) it's preferable to say something other than nothing for the most important awards of the year. Sorry, but no. I oppose featuring any article aside from the three winners. If the articles aren't "good enough", either lower standards or improve them. If neither of those can be done, then just don't post. Banedon (talk) 01:20, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Impromptu RFC Articles for the researchers are a must for Nobels, et al. These are prizes awarded to people. Contrary to popular belief, the Nobel Prize is not actually awarded for specific work, but rather for an overall body of work that may not neatly fit in a Wikipedia article; so, linking to articles about the work is not suitable either. Biographies for these people should be easy, because they all have a long and accomplished history already before winning the Nobel.130.233.2.235 (talk) 09:20, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
    • Moot Your RFC should be inverted, as ITN/R already says we post the winner, not the list. GreatCaesarsGhost 14:52, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Strongly Support. By not publishing the news we have doomed the articles that could have been viewed and improved by millions of users. This shouldn't be about notoriety. A singer's article is usually well referenced when compared to scientists who are barely known outside their field prior to winning the Nobel Prize. This has become a popularity contest that scientists are bent to lose. A former Nobel Laureate in Literature, Toni Morrison's death was a blurb while three Nobel Laureates in Science get overlooked. This is depressing Manish2542 (talk) 09:55, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
    I agree that not publishing the blurb with a different target is tantamount to dooming the articles to remain less than mediocre. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 10:13, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I would also support the alt blurb. The extra prominence given to these articles may lead to further improvement. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:45, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support altblurb. TRM's arguments make the most sense to me in all three of these debates (it'll be 4 by tomorrow). Kenmelken (talk) 12:29, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose I respect TRM's point, but oppose the workaround in all cases. His voice is usually the loudest against the "damn the quality, we must post!" crowd. GreatCaesarsGhost 14:52, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
    I'm not saying "damn" the quality, I'm saying target either the Good Article about the prize, or the Featured List about the prize winners. Their quality is more than sufficient for this purpose. So hopefully I've clarified your misunderstanding of my position here. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 14:54, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support alt blurb. Consensus here is sufficient now. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 14:54, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment [7] "Unless otherwise noted, the winner of the prize is normally the target article.". Is this no longer the case? --LaserLegs (talk) 15:03, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
And bold or not, we can't post orange tagged BLP articles to the main page. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:07, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Did you see the word "normally"? The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 15:16, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
What makes this case an exception? --LaserLegs (talk) 16:20, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Consensus? The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 17:03, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Articles are currently bad. Do not link to either the list of winners or the prize itself. Rockphed (talk) 17:31, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Let’s not waste time arguing here. Please just g fix the four articles. Once they are okay, they can be posted. Jehochman Talk 17:55, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
    • Peebles has a {{dubious}} tag in the last sentence that needs to be fixed. Jehochman Talk 19:19, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose The personal articles need to be good enough. Black Kite (talk) 19:45, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Peebles has been fixed up. Tackling the other two now. --Masem (t) 21:39, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
    • Mayor done. One more. --Masem (t) 22:53, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
    • Queloz done. Ready. --Masem (t) 23:18, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 23:26, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

October 7Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

(Posted) New Saturn moonsEdit

Article: Moons of Saturn (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Scientists discover twenty new moons of Saturn.
Alternative blurb: ​Scientists discover twenty new moons of Saturn, making it the planet with most moons in the Solar System.
Alternative blurb II: ​Scientists announce the discovery of twenty additional moons of Saturn.
News source(s): BBC

Nominator's comments: Article is featured and looks updated, with each moon having its own article. Brandmeistertalk 21:48, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

  • SupportScott S. Sheppard strikes again. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 05:36, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support article is up to quality standards (featured), article has been updated (see Moons of Saturn#Outer moons), discovery is notable and in the news. Prefer alt1 over main blurb, since it gives a bit more context; Saturn is now the planet with the most moons, overtaking Jupiter. --DannyS712 (talk) 08:05, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  •   Posted. I am a little uneasy with the construction "making it the planet with most moons". It always was the planet with the most moons in the solar system; the discovery didn't make it so. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:00, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
    I added the word "known" which I think is better — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:11, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Just adding Support in that this was confirmed by the IAU [8] - next best thing to a peer-reviewed paper for something like this. (I feared it was just a press release in searching for the academic basis) --Masem (t) 19:06, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Post-posting oppose the moons are so small they stretch the line between what's a moon and what isn't one. At some point we just have to draw the line, or one could've said Saturn has the most moons in the Solar System since the time Christiaan Huygens discovered the rings of Saturn. Banedon (talk) 22:31, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support - quality standard met. BabbaQ (talk) 22:33, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Post-posting blurb comment Shouldn't they be called natural satellites instead of "moons"? Or is this some anti-scientific populist convention?--Adûnâi (talk) 04:12, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD Warren William EgintonEdit

Article: Warren William Eginton (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Hartford Courant

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

Nominator's comments: Short but acceptable article. Adequately sourced. Ad Orientem (talk) 20:06, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Support RIP. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 20:52, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose stub. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 10:14, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
    At 225 words of text, it is a bit thin for Main Page promotion, but.... – Sca (talk) 13:48, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
    @The Rambling Man: I've expanded it a bit. Care to take a look? --DannyS712 (talk) 08:34, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support short, but enough - has enough context to qualify as not being a stub. --DannyS712 (talk) 08:11, 10 October 2019 (UTC) Changed from weak support to support --DannyS712 (talk) 08:34, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak support - long enough to not be a stub. BabbaQ (talk) 08:15, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I've marked this as ready, given that there are only 3 recent deaths currently on the main page, and that it has improved since the one oppose !vote. --DannyS712 (talk) 16:50, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Adequate.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:12, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  •   Posted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:13, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Nobel Prize for MedicineEdit

Articles: William Kaelin Jr. (talk, history) and Peter J. Ratcliffe (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Nobel Prize for Medicine is given to William Kaelin Jr., Peter J. Ratcliffe, and Gregg L. Semenza for cell research
Alternative blurb: ​The Nobel Prize for Medicine is given to William Kaelin Jr., Peter J. Ratcliffe, and Gregg L. Semenza for research on cell adaptability to changing oxygen levels
News source(s): NYTimes

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: note 3 target articles Masem (t) 13:27, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose not one of the three target articles is suitable for main page inclusion, let alone all of them. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 13:34, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
    • I agree, but I do want to stress, we should not "fall back" to making the prize list the target as we have done in the past when the winners are not at quality. That's lazy. It should not be hard with this news to get those three up a bit in the next 12-24hrs. --Masem (t) 13:40, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
      • Well that's a matter of taste, I suppose it depends if you want to either not post it at all, or post it with a different target. Worst case would be someone just deleting all the unreferenced material to leave a couple of crap stubs. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 13:49, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
        • While it is a matter of taste, the primary purpose is to redirect readers to quality content (and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER). If we don't have that, failing to post is nothing to cry about. We routinely post borderline notability cases to the RDs while omitting household names because of quality. GreatCaesarsGhost 14:11, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
          • And with these, none of them are so far off the mark as to not likely be fixed in a short amount of time given the added coverage that should come as papers assemble some additional biographical stuff. (The hardest will likely be the awards list on each to source each one). But that has to be done, there's no excuse for not doing it on Nobel prize winners, or cheating that by using the list as the target. We expect it for other academic ITNRs, no reason to weaken that here. --Masem (t) 14:19, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
            • I think it's somewhat disingenuous and misleading to insinuate that the associated featured list is not of quality content. Nor is it "cheating". ITNR just makes a recommendation. And as I said, if those three articles aren't rescued then is it better to not feature the prize at all or to feature it using the FL? I wonder. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 14:44, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
              • I know the Nobels are easily much more significant than the Grammys or Emmys, but quality is still a top priority for ITN over significance. And while there's nothing wrong with the list necessarily, it does not given the actual winners respect to simply call their articles a wash and not worth posting. (I would understand using the if these were non-existent articles to start and making a new article would be difficult, but we proved last year (or the year before?) that it was possible to make a quality article of a Nobel winner in <48hr.) --Masem (t) 14:56, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
                • I didn't actually say that. I said would we rather post the prize at all, focused on the featured list, or just let it pass away just because the scientist articles are garbage? I look forward to someone with the knowledge fixing up the three articles without removing all the information! The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 15:02, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
                • Nearly 24 hours have passed now, and no sign of any tangible improvements. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 11:01, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
                • As suspected, the information missing references has now just been removed.... Way to go everyone. We could have been featuring this and getting 16 to 20 million people looking at and potentially improving those articles, but instead we just have a couple of people, mainly just removing things. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 16:48, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
                • Masem: you seem to be saying that if we didn't have articles on the three scientists, you would be fine with running the blurb "The Nobel Prize for Medicine is given to William Kaelin Jr., Peter J. Ratcliffe, and Gregg L. Semenza for cell research)". I don't understand why you would consider a non-existent article preferable to a lower quality article? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:50, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Putting aside my opinion on whether or not this event should be even considered for ITN (as well as my thoughts on the principle of ITN/R), the articles for the three winners are indeed lacking in both sourcing and content - specifically content related to their work that won them the Nobel Prize. Ratcliffe would be the best article of the three, but still I think it would be questionable for even a RD nom ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 18:07, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. Notable enough to ITN. Very interesting news. Articles well referenced. Good to go. MSN12102001 (talk) 08:46, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
As long as the articles are not good, we cannot post. I have now removed the awards without sources and renamed the sections as "Selected awards", which is a quick fix. But all three bios still need some more references to be ok. --Tone 10:30, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Except for one section on Ratcliffe's, these are nearly there. --Masem (t) 21:35, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
    • What's there is mostly covered/implied in the refs, but the language strays into WP:SYNTH territory. Someone who understands the subject may be able to rework the wording a bit. GreatCaesarsGhost 11:51, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Strongly Support. By not publishing the news we have doomed the articles that could have been viewed and improved by millions of users. This shouldn't be about notoriety. A singer's article is usually well referenced when compared to scientists who are barely known outside their field prior to winning the Nobel Prize. This has become a popularity contest that scientists are bent to lose. A former Nobel Laureate in Literature, Toni Morrison's death was a blurb while three Nobel Laureates in Science get overlooked. This is depressing Manish2542 (talk) 09:55, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
To be fair, blurbing Morrison's death was absurd and violated even the stated RD criteria for blurbs.130.233.2.235 (talk) 11:10, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
We improve articles and then post them, not the other way around... RD criteria allows for the blurbing of "major transformative world leaders" as determined "on a sui generis basis through a discussion at WP:ITNC," which is precisely what happened with Morrison. GreatCaesarsGhost 11:41, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
The point is that the alt blurb provides a perfect vehicle to be the best of both worlds, getting the news that people are looking for (and expecting from an encyclopedia) onto the main page, and enabling a vast audience to help improve the articles. But it seems that lawyering around the wording of ITNR is the theme of the moment. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 11:46, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
But at the same time, for any other topic that is a blurb, we expect more than a simple update. Adding three rows to a table (even if it is featured) is not a significant update. We criticize sport events for lacking blurbs, awards shows for lacking prose, etc. Additionally, with the amount of coverage of the Nobels, it should not be that hard to at least get any of the Laureates articles to reasonably quality to post. They don't have to be perfect, but should identify minimally their career, their research (particularly that they got the Nobel for) and notable recognition. People fix these things, so we should not be expecting any less now. Otherwise, we're playing favorites with certain topics which we should not be. --Masem (t) 13:52, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Shall we make a case study? If we post the award article bolded and the laureates' articles get updated, this is good. Otherwise, we stick to posting only if the articles are in a good shape? A one-off case study. I was considering to feature Nobels as ongoing, but there is no 2019 all-inclusive article, just the template. --Tone 14:08, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
It's amazing how hard some people are working here to prevent these being posted in any shape. After all, who would expect the biggest encyclopedia in the world to feature the Nobel prizes on their main page? We're stopping them through our own lawyering and bureaucracy. Damaging. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 14:11, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
I would love to have something posted, just trying to find the best way. I'd fix the articles myself but I simply have too many other things going on. --Tone 14:16, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Oh, Tone, I get it. I know you're trying, I most definitely wasn't including in that group of people working hard to prevent it being posted. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 14:18, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Question - RamblingMan/Tone, can you evaluate what more Semenza and Kaelin's articles need now? If you say what the BLP violations are I will know what to work on - thank you very much. Also, someone added a birthdate for Semenza and did not reply to my request for a source for it. Should the birthdate be removed? I have not found a source mentioning his birthdate. Thank you for your help. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 14:48, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Never mind, moot now thanks to Masem's great work, and Masem thank you also for answering the birthdate question (birthdate has been removed pending a source).70.67.193.176 (talk) 16:36, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support I have done the last bit of work to get Ratcliffe's up to speed. There's more I will add to the other two (same sources support information on research), but these are ready to post. --Masem (t) 15:04, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
    • And done with the other two (basically a short section on their research that led to the Nobel (as well as the prior Lasker Award). --Masem (t) 16:00, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
  • @The Rambling Man: can you clarify your position because you are opposing above, but it seems that your view has changed now? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:51, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm going to post these because it looks like the oppose concerns were addressed. The articles appear to be updated and have no warning templates or serious defects. Jehochman Talk 16:04, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
    • I think they are in a good shape now. Ha, some teamwork can get us far. Now, physics and chemistry ;) --Tone 16:41, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

ReferencesEdit

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

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