Wikipedia : In the news/Candidates/August 2020

Comment Superficially good, but sourcing problems in the 'ography. Neither of the section sources support the Faery Tale Theatre role, however the book reference in the previous section might. Her role is named in Longshot but not supported in the references. There's no reference that I could find for the German film. Her role in Wanderers is uncredited in the article, but credited in the sources as "PeeWee". The film sources credit her for a role in the not-exactly-recent Buddy Boy, but it's unmentioned in the article or 'ography.130.233.2.40 (talk) 11:37, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All done – reused the book ref for Faery Tale Theatre. Added ref for Longshot. Added BFI source for German film. Wanderers is already credited in the article (line 3 in "Cinema" subsection). Mentioned role in Buddy Boy. —Bloom6132 (talk) 11:51, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Re I think this may be ready to go. —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:00, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - looks good. Marking as ready. — Amakuru (talk) 15:54, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Posted to RD. Spencer^T•C 16:23, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Chilla Porter[edit]

Template:Archive top Template:ITN candidate

Support Article is a bit short. Unlike DYK, size doesn't matter. But is fully referenced. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:45, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak oppose~~ While referenced, too brief to have sufficient depth of coverage of the subject. Spencer^T•C 15:25, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Striking weak oppose, but still feel like the article is just too brief. Working on adding information myself to add to the article from Google Books. Spencer^T•C 16:03, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Weak support. With some searching, I found more info about the Olympics appearance as well as his post-athletic career (i.e. what he was doing in the 70s, 80s and 90s-- turns out he was director of a fundraising firm). Will give a couple hours for another admin to assess, otherwise will post. Spencer^T•C 16:45, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. At 1278 bytes, it's still at stub length. — Amakuru (talk) 15:55, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please show me the rule that demands an article be of a certain length to qualify. HiLo48 (talk) 23:43, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:ITN under article quality criterion: "Stub articles are never appropriate for the main page."--WaltCip-(BLM!Resist The Orange One) 00:22, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, looking at Talk:Chilla_Porter, this article seems to be tagged as "start-class", and not as a stub. Ktin (talk) 00:25, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That may need to change.--WaltCip-(BLM!Resist The Orange One) 00:31, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Article passes basic hygiene checks. RIP. Ktin (talk) 23:49, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose borderline but there isn't really any narrative - just a few factoids stitched together. If he got a silver medal in the '56 Olympics was there nothing else of note in his entire athletic career? No details about his performance like how high he jumped, etc? No little medals table? Did he do literally nothing between 1962 and 1995? He passes WP:NSPORT but the article is just really thin. --LaserLegs (talk) 02:08, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Alright folks, I updated the article to a good extent. I don't know if I am counting right, but, the article is at 7,753 bytes. There is still a gap between 1962 and 1995, but, I think this is good for RD. Ktin (talk) 06:46, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Definitely significantly improved; no longer a stub.--WaltCip-(BLM!Resist The Orange One) 12:06, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think this is ready. Template:Ping, would you mind giving this a look?--WaltCip-(BLM!Resist The Orange One) 15:19, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support now article has been expanded. Template:U and Template:U, there is a rule that stubs are not posted to ITN, which this was prior to expansion.-- P-K3 (talk) 16:15, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pawnkingthree - When I nominated the article, it wasn't marked as a stub. I have seen smaller articles quickly posted over the years when it obviously suited those doing the posting to do so, usually accompanied by comments like "Posting this will bring more attention and get more material added". HiLo48 (talk) 21:28, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When I came to the article after hearing of his death on the radio, it had already been expanded somewhat, and re-assessed as Start class, so I removed the Stub tags from the article. Since then, the article has been expanded further, and Porter now easily clears the DYK bar of 1,500 bytes of prose. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:46, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Posted to RD. More info added about athletic career and post-athletics life. Spencer^T•C 20:07, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Thanks Mr Porter. I didn't know of you until this thread. But, just editing and writing up sections of your article last night, made me feel good. I for sure will be looking for videos of that 1956 olympics final that everyone is talking about, and relive that portion of your life. RIP. Ktin (talk) 20:13, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) MV Wakashio Breaks Apart[edit]

Support. Might have to get some additional details before posting. But, we should post. I have added an Alternate Blurb (Altblurb). Please feel free to tone it down. Ktin (talk) 22:29, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- added minor link to Mauritius and bulk carrier for people that are interested -> don't want to confuse people with a tanker which would be even worse. Albertaont (talk) 23:01, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. altblurb preferred because have massive cost for years. 180.245.101.217 (talk) 22:42, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wait The big impact was the initial grounding. Most of the oil has been pumped out, what is left is the fuel and their rushing to pump that out, so how much of an effect that will have is unknown, so the stories are all speculative of the impact here. --Masem (t) 22:50, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Template:U, I tell you that the impact of the spill takes months and years to assess, not only how much effect in environment, but also in society, economy, and many more, that is relevant given Mauritius was badly impacted by COVID-19 as the economy heavily relies on tourism. 180.245.101.217 (talk) 23:17, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In contrast to when this ran aground, when there was an affirmed estimate of how many gallons of oil that spilled into the waters, here, the oil has been removed, all that's left is fuel, and they aren't sure if thats' leaking, and compared to the oil, there's a far less finite supply of that. Yes, if it all spilled, it would be a problem. They will be able to estimate how much of that fuel spilled within a day or so, which would be sufficient if it was significant quantities. But right now, the story is the fear that this fuel could spill, and thus could cause problems. That's speculation, which we don't post. --Masem (t) 04:38, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support background, reactions, infobox, map, not America -- checks the boxes. The accident section is light on details about the accident, instead it's all environmental damage (which has it's own section). Would be nice to know the events which led to the grounding. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:57, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Initial revelations are shocking: birthday party and quest for wifi. (Spash 247) Albertaont (talk) 23:20, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as stale: the incident happened weeks ago and starting spilling oil straight away. It was still July when it was named the worst environmental disaster in Mauritius. Kingsif (talk) 23:00, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Washington Post reports thats oil didn't start leaking until 6 August. Albertaont (talk) 23:20, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Which was still over a week ago... Kingsif (talk) 07:06, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes it would have been better to post this earlier when it first happened or first started leaking oil, but breaking in half is definitely a new development in this major ongoing story. Let’s rectify our oversight by posting this now. Would also be open to supporting an ongoing link. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 01:05, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support The ship broke up within the last 24hrs. As that is what is being reported, this is not stale. And the scope of the disaster is more than ITN worthy. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:22, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support This is the worst environmental disaster in Mauritius history and a ship that breaks apart is unprecedented for the country. Altblurb I or II preferred. 182.1.235.99 (talk) 01:51, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment If this gets posted, I strongly prefer Altburb I or II, you guys definitely improved it. Albertaont (talk) 02:32, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Support. Interesting and important but we should keep the Lebanese government resigning and the Belarussian protests. If we replace something other than those, by all means go ahead. This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 03:29, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blurbs are added and removed based entirely on the date of the event. We don't give preference to certain blurbs over others in terms of how long they stay up. Sometimes blurbs can linger for weeks when ITN is slow. And sometimes they come and go in days. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:06, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and remove the most important thing happening in Europe right now. This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 04:42, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The most important thing happening in Europe right now is happening in Minsk. [51] [52] [53] [54] – Sca (talk) 13:20, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The proposed image is of unclear permission (aka appears unlikely...) The Wicked Twisted Road (talk) 03:45, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Took it straight from the wiki article, and didn't have a speedy deletion attached or anything attached, but we can drop it. Albertaont (talk) 03:57, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Can't have fair use images on the MP, needs to be free. --LaserLegs (talk) 09:59, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as stale per Kingsif. Sorry, we can't just post a minor update to the story just because nobody nominated it at the time the news broke. The ship breaking in two is only covered by a small paragraph, which says that 166 tonnes of oil were on board at that time, a small percentage of the overall spill total. I don't see the break up as very important in the overall story. — Amakuru (talk) 06:58, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The wreck breaking up is not a minor update, it will significantly complicate cleanup and wreck removal efforts --LaserLegs (talk) 09:59, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Per Masem, Kingsif, Amakuru. Breaking up of the wreck was inevitable. The real story was when Wakashio ran aground and started leaking oil. – Sca (talk) 13:13, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. P-K3 (talk) 14:28, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support per above. Historic and of monumental effects to the region. Dan the Animator 16:51, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Potential effects. They haven't happened yet, and we don't post speculative effects. --Masem (t) 17:36, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - According to the page "by 10 August, about 1,000 metric tons of fuel had spilled" and "Mauritius requested compensation for the spill from Wakashio owner Nagashiki Shipping." I think each of these constitute physical and economic effects respectively and both have already occurred as per the article so there's no speculation. Dan the Animator 18:08, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Those 1000 tons were waaaay back in July per Reuters, not from this new event. We're looking at the est. 166 tonnes still left and its fate which is not yet reported if this is to be ITN. --Masem (t) 18:21, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - And to put into perspective, keep in mind that major oil spills like the Exxon Valdez were on the scale of 37,000 tonnes. Yes, this was a problem for the area in July, but it is not the same scope that major oil spills hav. --Masem (t) 18:24, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        Template:U check the Current events portal. The 2nd event listed for today is about Mauritius announcing that they will seek damages. Here's the source they used too. Cheers, Dan the Animator 20:55, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as stale per above. "Rectifying" such a mistake is RGW. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:50, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As the person who used that word, I don’t see anything in the linked guideline that relates to my argument. My point was simply now that we have another opportunity to post this significant story let’s do so instead of letting it slip by again. No attempt to right great wrongs involved. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 18:06, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wait as per Masem. But it does look like an impending ecological catastrophe has now become an actual ecological catastrophe. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:26, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Template:S Oppose - stale Template:S It had been leaking oil for several weeks, it breaking apart isn't the part that's notable, it's the spill that's notable. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 18:58, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tend to agree with you. But there's not going be an agreed "percentage of wildlife killed threshold" before this can be deemed notable, is there? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:53, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ping I would have said support, because this spill seems to have really affected Mauritius. However, the discussion is stale and late, as the spill happened in late July. The boat breaking apart isn't that notable - old and damaged boats do often tend to break apart. Full damage surveys come out in a few weeks. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 01:49, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User I think we should close this one, discussion getting stale. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 15:42, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support the break-up of the vessel specifically was front page news on BBC and also reported on CNN and CBC. We shouldn't need to wait for the actual ecological impact assessment, otherwise we wouldn't post any oil spills. I would be a challenge at this point to honestly say there will NOT be an significant ecological impact.2604:3D09:682:B00:E92A:F623:8D2A:51BA (talk) 20:23, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, per Destroyeraa. —Brigade Piron (talk) 20:44, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support whilst it is stale or not for the incident, this ship that breaks it half is unprecendented in the country, as well as historic that would never take place in Mauritius before. 36.77.135.116 (talk) 21:48, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On a scale of 1-10, just how strong is your support? – Sca (talk) 14:17, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's very important to know just how strong it is. This story seems to have piqued the interest of first-edit IP posters - this is the third one in the candidacy, and the second to express strong support on the grounds that it's "unprecedented in the country"... — Amakuru (talk) 16:00, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that new IPs first get used to editing on Wikipedia (such as editing actual articles) before taking part in discussions. If you don't have much experience in ITN discussions and Wikipedia discussions as a whole, saying Strong Support isn't saying much. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 16:15, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My point was, "strong support" doesn't count more or carry any more weight than just "support," no matter who's voting. – Sca (talk) 21:50, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support while Mauritius is a small country, as far as I can tell this is the second-largest oil tanker spill of the past ten years, second only to the Sanchi sinking. And while the Sanchi incident was significantly more notable than this as there was also a high death toll, Sanchi was also the sixth-largest oil tanker spill of all time and the worst in over 25 years, so I don't think an oil tanker spill has to live up to Sanchi in order to be notable. NorthernFalcon (talk) 22:04, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Added altblurb3 as news is pivoting towards fact that Mauritius is seeking compensation. Current size of spill is 27km according to satellite imagery. Albertaont (talk) 23:29, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note to patrolling admin All three of the Supports from IPs are not only from the same country, but also from the same ISP. You may wish to consider this when divining consensus. Black Kite (talk) 18:39, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with timing concerns noted, with a caveat. I would allow investiture of the significance of the larger event to a lesser step along the way, but this particular step is too minor to note. GreatCaesarsGhost 19:34, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't know you were interested in investiture. – Sca (talk) 21:57, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the right word at all, is it? I have no idea what I was even going for there. GreatCaesarsGhost 01:27, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I read it aloud when you posted, and thought it made sense! A bit convoluted, but made sense. :) Ktin (talk) 03:03, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The staleness of this makes the proposed blurbs very awkward. Wording like "portends", "last month", "Grounded (past tense)" make the blurb sound like an incremental update to something larger. I'm not sure the original grounding would have been suitable, either. The article appears to be in good shape, however. As a way forward, I suggest we wait for a declaration from some RS group giving some superlative, "largest spill since X", or similar.130.233.2.170 (talk) 07:33, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Murtaja Baseer[edit]

Support. Article looks clean for RD as well. RIP. Ktin (talk) 18:40, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Insufficient depth of coverage about his career as a painter. Article at present has more info about things that he wrote rather than painted. Spencer^T•C 04:07, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Article is adequate for an under-covered subject. —Brigade Piron (talk) 21:22, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Can a few others chime in here and help decide the next steps? I think Spencer's point is important. But, the article is what it is - unless someone is on standby to edit the article and make those changes. An alternate view is perhaps there is a paucity of available content re: his paintings, while the information is more about the awards that he received as a painter. I have not seen the sources, so, I don't know. Either ways, will be good to get some additional views, before recommending next steps here. Cheers. Ktin (talk) 23:33, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ready (if I may say so). Thanks to Spencer. I read some secondary sources, and wow - there is a lot of good content about his paintings. I have created a new section on paintings and the article now seems to be rightly representative of his work! With this, I think we should be good to publish! Tagging Template:Ping to see if this rewrite works well. Happy to make any additional updates. Ktin (talk) 05:15, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Posted Step hen 05:24, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting comment. Go well, Mr Murtaja. I didn't know of you before this thread. But, just editing your article and writing up a section on your paintings, last night, made me feel good. I learnt about 'abstract realism' as a theme thanks to your article. Thanks to Template:U for forcing us to do that. RIP. Ktin (talk) 20:17, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the improvements; article does a much better job of highlighting the subject's life and work. Spencer^T•C 20:21, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) MS Dhoni[edit]

Snow close we have routinely rejected retirements from ITN. --Masem (t) 15:22, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

With the notable exception of Sachin Tendulkar. I don't know if Dhoni's status in India is comparable. P-K3 (talk) 15:36, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And Alex Ferguson IIRC. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 15:44, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agree w. Snow close But, will add that he was a good captain of the Indian Cricket Team and will be missed. Ktin (talk) 15:26, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and suggest SNOW close Template:Emdash doesn't belong at ITN. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:09, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for multiple reasons, including, but not limited to: lots of orange tags in the article, multiple unsourced statements, the second half of the article is really terrible, and he's still going to play cricket. But apart from that... Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:41, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2020 August 14 Template:Cob

August 14[edit]

(Posted) New 5000 metres world record[edit]

Support ~~in principle, but article needs work~~ ~~with pre-IAAF citations and some increase in prose size. the first "Career" paragraph not having a terminal citation and an uncited table.~~ – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:54, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment source the competitions table in the Cheptegei and bold it in the blurb and I'll support. Why not? --LaserLegs (talk) 22:55, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Done Makes sense as the athlete's article seems to be the only place where a sensible prose update can be made.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 23:14, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support I’m surprised that the main track world records aren’t ITN/R. Breaking one of those records is the biggest event in athletics after the Olympics. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 23:25, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Support WP:BLUELINKs for the International competitions section is good enough for me. Decent bio. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:26, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above; Cheptegei smashed the record. Kingsif (talk) 23:30, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support amazing feat. Agree with LaserLegs' suggestion on format and glad it was implemented. StarM 23:41, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose incremental change in extant world record is trivially fascinating, but not encyclopedically newsworthy. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 23:55, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I am not too knowledgeable about this topic, but, is this a significant barrier that has been broken, e.g. the four minute mile, when it was broken? I understand that this particular record was not broken for the last 16 years, but, is there something very specific about this one? PS: I am not implying that I am supportive of only the four-minute-mile kind of records. Just trying to understand this one better. Cheers. Ktin (talk) 00:24, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- If you look at Template:Tl there are the standard lengths for sprint/race events, so basically each of those in the "track" section all have time records for mens and womens that have been improved over and over through the years. Why those lengths, I'm sure there's a history to that, they're not arbitrary but those are the lengths that we deal with in these records. It's not like tomorrow, someone's going to submit the record for a 7500m sprint, as that's simply not a "standard" track event length. --Masem (t) 00:32, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  Template:U, Thanks. My question was not if there would be 7500m next, but, if this was a significant barrier being breached. However, I do get the drift, now, of what is being spoken here. Cheers. Ktin (talk) 02:12, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Template:S Weak support Though the guy smashed the record with an amazing feat, it still isn't the most notable or newsworthy entry. However, changing to support because of the longevity of previous record. Make sure to include this in the blurb.~ Destroyeraa🌀 00:36, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- This is just the opposite bad argument of "nothing's happening in the news right now, so let's post this non-notable story" IMO. Not to get OTHERSTUFFy, we posted Kipchoge's sub-2 hour marathon, as well as other Marathon records being broken so I believe running records being broken are ITN material notwithstanding what else may be in the box. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:48, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are far too many athletic events to post every time a record is past in any of them. If there was some consensus around some of these being the "premiere" events, I could support that. GreatCaesarsGhost 01:04, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep, just wait until the Olympics in 2021. We'll post every record for every athletic events in the Olympics, and WP:ITN/C will be WP:ITN/Athlete-ticker. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 01:11, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Barely Support A full two seconds would be "smashing", but one-ninety-nine counts as dashing. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:44, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hulk, isn't one-ninety-nine equal to two-thirty-nine in this world? :) Ktin (talk) 04:33, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Humour I sense, but from whence forty cents? InedibleHulk (talk) 05:31, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, oh, oh! Almost two minutes and five thousand metres. That's much longer! InedibleHulk (talk) 22:08, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Template:U, lol, I see we are breaching the space-time continuum here :) Ktin (talk) 22:12, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Article has no quality issues and the story is covered by reliable sources. Checks all the boxes.--Jayron 32 02:52, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support no quality issues regarding the article whilst grammar also improved. 114.125.231.93 (talk) 04:16, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The record had stood for 16 years, so this wasn't a regular occurrence. ITN can't be all doom and gloom. -- Calidum 04:40, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Broken records don't have to be ITNR, we can still discuss them individually, but given the longevity of the previous record this seems notable enough to me. — Amakuru (talk) 06:16, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting news for ITN. Gotitbro (talk) 06:26, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support, looks ready JW 1961 Talk 14:36, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Definitely for ITN.BabbaQ (talk) 14:47, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per all above. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:10, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Another awesome Lugnuts creation. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:09, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Posting. --Tone 17:57, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting minor blurb edit request -- Please can we consider changing the blurb from "Ugandan athlete Joshua Cheptegei sets a new world record in the 5000 metres." to "Ugandan athlete Joshua Cheptegei sets a new world record in the 5000 metres track event." or maybe even say "...track event in Monaco.". Alternately, please consider a concise form "Ugandan athlete Joshua Cheptegei (pictured) sets a new 5000 metres world record." Currently, the sentence seems to end abruptly "...in the 5000 metres". I have updated the Altblurb and the more concise Altblurb2 as well.

PS: Apologies for this after-fact request.Ktin (talk) 18:55, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Post-posting Question What happened with the image? Most if not all of the supports mention nothing about the image so shouldn't the image be posted? I'll notify Template:U just in case this is a mistake. Dan the Animator 19:21, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Image would be good to include Template:U, along with the minor tweak to the ending of the blurb. thanks! Ktin (talk) 19:28, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image added. Protection at Commons doesn't happen automatically, so there can sometimes be a delay in posting the image after adding it to Wikipedia:Main Page/Commons media protection. Spencer^T•C 19:40, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Template:U, Thanks. Please can you also see the blurb. Currently, it is hanging abruptly, "...in the 5000 metres". Ktin (talk) 19:48, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- Fixed blurb. Thanks for the pic update. --Tone 19:53, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Julian Bream[edit]

Support This article seems great.--AlphaBeta135 (talk) 16:38, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but it actually needs a few sources adding. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:44, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sourcing needs improvement.—Bagumba (talk) 16:46, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Template:Done Please review. Grimes2 (talk) 15:47, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Template:Emdash sourcing is very spotty, as there are many paragraphs that are unsourced. I've added citation needed tags to said paragraphs. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:16, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose it's almost there, just a few more in-text refs needed. Dan the Animator 19:37, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Martinevans123 Dan the Animator 20:17, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. No citation needed tags seem to remain, thanks to the laudable efforts of Grimes2. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:06, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Posting, nice work with fixing the refs! --Tone 20:35, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Luchita Hurtado[edit]

Template:S Support If the article is expanded and improved, then I will change my vote to support. Changing to support. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 22:32, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ping Comment It appears that further details and sources have been included. --NoonIcarus (talk) 12:26, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Template:Emdash looks fine to me. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:18, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ Lead needs to summarize her life beyond one sentence.—Bagumba (talk) 17:06, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Re Fixed now. —Bloom6132 (talk) 01:56, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support as the problem Bagumba noted has been fixed, look ok for RD now JW 1961 Talk 10:29, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Added—Bagumba (talk) 11:17, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Borisov pledges to resign[edit]

Wait the change over will be ITN/R --LaserLegs (talk) 18:58, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Conditionally support wait until he was actually resigned. per Template:U, I will be in ITN/R. 114.125.230.158 (talk) 20:32, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A change in PM is not ITNR unless as part of general election results. 331dot (talk) 22:13, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wait This is a definitely wait. If all conditions come to pass, its ITNR, but a pledge based on an expectation isn't newsworthy at this point. --Masem (t) 22:32, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wait until he actually resigned. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 00:38, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but not right now. Absolutely worth posting especially since we seem to be into Prime Ministers resigning lately, but I'd wait till he actually leaves office. This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 03:25, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wait Per above, till it actually happens. Gotitbro (talk) 06:28, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wait until he resigns. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:19, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Lithuania rejects Lukashenko[edit]

Oppose the protests are in the box, this is incremental and inconsequential. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:59, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Agree with LL. We can't post every step in this process. 331dot (talk) 19:03, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Per 331dot and LL. Will be Belarus-ticking if we post every step of the process.~ Destroyeraa🌀 19:38, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment maybe the posted Belarusian event should be edited to reflect this change? I'm not sure how editing posted noms works so I'm not sure if this is possible. Dan the Animator 19:40, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be undue to elevate the rejection from a single nation to ITN. Perhaps if a few more nations follow suit. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 20:03, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Template:U. Only one country rejected the government isn't that noteworthy. Wait until more information comes out. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 20:12, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It might be notable if Russia announced they no longer recognized the incumbent president, though that seems unlikely. 331dot (talk) 20:36, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this is only a minor detail in the overall story. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:37, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Rejects Hezbollah as well today, so Beirut's also "by the way". InedibleHulk (talk) 21:56, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2020 August 13 Template:Cob

August 13[edit]

(Posted) Israel–United Arab Emirates peace agreement[edit]

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2020 August 12 Template:Cob

Template:S Support until more information comes out. Currently only 1 sentence in the entire article about this. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 15:46, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Will change to Support if there is more information on the article than a few sentences. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 15:59, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:U I changed the target article. It is a decently long article. Dan the Animator (Commons Room) 17:50, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to Support per others. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 20:15, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Note as per BBC: The agreement marks only the third Israel-Arab peace deal since Israel's declaration of independence in 1948. Egypt signed a deal in 1979, and Jordan in 1994.Sherenk1 (talk) 15:51, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:U and also the 3rd Arab country to establish diplomatic relations/official recognition or Israel. Dan the Animator (Commons Room) 16:52, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Unlike any other Trump-related announcement, this seems very significant. I think the article needs further development. The 2020 Agreement section needs a bit more expansion and there is one uncited paragraph. There is also a new article Israel–United Arab Emirates peace treaty to consider. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 15:51, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is a historic deal. The third peace agreement between Israel and an Arab state. CMD (talk) 15:55, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support on principle per all. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:56, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Historic. Israel–United Arab Emirates peace treaty should be the target. 212.74.201.229 (talk) 16:10, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They haven't signed a treaty yet, even if they intend to. 331dot (talk) 16:13, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support very historic, I'd even say another 2009 Nobel Peace Prize for breathing might be in the works for people although this one might be deserved for a peace deal between two nations. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:20, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wait until its signed, which should be RSN. This should give time to get the details and articles up to speed. But this seems to have clear merit if this is true, since it has Israel agreeing not to touch the West Bank. --Masem (t) 16:22, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:U no, Israel is agreeing to delay/pause/freeze any territorial acquisitions/annexation of the West bank (namely the Jordan Valley). The accord does not mean Israel won't annex Jordan Valley, it just means it will be delayed until further notice. Dan the Animator (Commons Room) 17:59, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wait. This could be worth posting if/when it happens, but an announcement by Trump is not a reliable indication that anything will actually happen. Modest Genius ^talk 16:24, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wait Needs more information, not enough text at ANY Wikipedia article about it to assess for quality, needs more details at Wikipedia. --Jayron 32 16:35, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support in principle but Wait per Masem JW 1961 Talk 16:37, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support and proposing alt blurb. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 16:41, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Very Strong Support Thank you Sherenk1 for posting this, I was considering to post it until I saw that you already did. This has got to be one of the biggest improvements for peace in months not only in the Middle East, but for the world. If this holds, the UAE is the 3rd Arab country to officially have diplomatic relations with Israeli. שלום בבית שלום בעולם. Dan the Animator (Commons Room) 16:48, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wait per Masem above; support once signed. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 17:04, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wait These "peace treaties" have a history of falling apart at the last minute. Lets wait till the formal signing. We need more than just an annoucement from US administration. Albertaont (talk) 17:26, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Template:U, do you mean the joint statement from Israel and the UAE? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:39, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support as the agreement is just one step away from signing this peace treaty.--AlphaBeta135 (talk) 17:50, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support it's only the 3rd Arab League country to sign a peace treaty with Israel, previous ones being in 1979 and 1994. 2601:602:9200:1310:C32:F8B2:ACB9:6FF9 (talk) 18:36, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support since the agreement and formal anouncement was made, a retaraction of the deal is highly unlikely and therefore I believe this news should be displayed now. Additionaly, it is verified to be true as it was mentioned by the Israeli prime minister and the UAE ruler, both crediting President Trump. As mentioned by others, this is historic. Chessedit (talk) 19:08, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support As they user who firstly updated the article I can say that it is an historic deal than is obviously worth inclusion in the news. Idan (talk) 20:55, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support mostly because there's a newly created article in decent shape. Per WP:ITN, "an editor may write an in-depth update on a topic normally considered marginal, thus convincing commenters that it is deserving of inclusion." Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 21:43, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support as historic event, information now supported by several credible sources, and with a good article on this event shaping up. --Chefallen (talk) 22:11, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see 5 Waits and 13 Supports. There is 0 Opposition. I think this has the consensus to be posted. This is ready. Dan the Animator (Commons Room) 22:12, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Interesting and certainly more relevant than the Indian plane crash. I say put it up but only if it replaces that, the rest of the things in the box are more important This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 23:18, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:U I think it may be possible to put all of them up at the same time; no removing necessary. Dan the Animator (Commons Room) 23:24, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:U} If that's possible it would be good; you could also get rid of the golf line. I've only ever seen 4 articles at a time on ITN though so IDK. This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 01:15, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:U I would imagine that the reason the admins don't post more than 4 usually is for lack of space but considering that 1 of the events, the PGA win, is only 1 line long, I think that may make just enough extra space for 1 extra 1-line event. You're probably right though, they're probably going to remove 1 of the events (preferably the PGA win, in my opinion). Dan the Animator (Commons Room) 01:49, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support altblurb2 Very significant development in IR. Gotitbro (talk) 01:32, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't it be "The United Arab Emirates" not "United Arab Emirates"? This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 02:04, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, good catch Template:U. Fixed it just now. Dan the Animator 02:09, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I think about it, altblurb2 was indeed sensationalist as noted below. Significant nonetheless. Gotitbro (talk) 06:26, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – All the current suggested blurbs. No treaty has been signed yet. Alt2 is also a little too similar to how a newspaper would sensationalize this story. We are an encyclopedia. Just state the facts similar to Alt1, but without saying it has been signed: "... agree to a peace accord to normalize ..." --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 02:57, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:04, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Template:U, the article does not say the agreement has been signed. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 03:13, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Post-posting Edit to Blurb Required. Hey folks. They have not signed a treaty as of yet. Can we edit the blurb, please. Ktin (talk) 03:16, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:15, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Template:U. Minor Edit - "Israel and the United Arab Emirates strike a peace agreement to normalize relations." can we change this to "Israel and the United Arab Emirates agree to a peace deal to normalize relations. Alternately, substitute 'deal' with 'accord' as Template:U suggests. I have updated AltBlurb3 as well. Cheers. Ktin (talk) 03:26, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blurb edit request: The current blurb has a grammar mistake in it. It currently reads "Israel and the United Arab Emirates agree a peace deal to normalize relations." but it should be "Israel and the United Arab Emirates agree to a peace deal to normalize relations." (emphasis added) --Gimmethegepgun (talk) 05:52, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tagging Template:U to assist. Ktin (talk) 06:09, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:A note A corresponding error report has also been posted at WP:ERRORS. TribunalMan (talk) 05:59, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Done. As I noted at ERRORS, "agree a peace deal" seems like valid grammar to me - perhaps it's an ENGVAR thing. Anyway, "agree to" works just as well, so I've amended it to that. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 06:43, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's an ENGVAR issue all right. "Agree" without the "to" is British English. – Sca (talk) 13:38, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:U per the discussion at WP:ERRORS and the RM at the article talk page, please could we remove the word "peace" from the current blurb? Onceinawhile (talk) 19:49, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

August 12[edit]

(Posted) RD: Mac Jack[edit]

Support Short but basically adequate and decently referenced. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:11, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support short article but sourcing seems good. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 05:15, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Template:S Comment Not a name a lot of households could put a face to, but one all English-speaking people might reasonably enjoy reading and find intriguing. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:37, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ lots of facts in the infobox not referenced. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 06:45, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, lay back with the flack attack and cut Mac Jack some slack, brother! If you say they're a lot of facts, isn't that proof enough? I believe you, anyway. Any you're doubtful about to some problematic degree? I'll try to sniff out the truth, no promises though. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:13, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the dates of office and preceding/followed by are not mentioned in the prose at all and are hence unverifiable. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 07:24, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't realized things had gotten that bad, I'm out! InedibleHulk (talk) 07:42, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support - decent enough for RD.BabbaQ (talk) 08:17, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Template:Ping Go take a look now. You could've just looked in the sources. LefcentrerightDiscuss 14:22, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Similar to many politicians nominated at RD, a lot of positions listed, with limited if any description of what was done or accomplished in those positions ("resume in prose format"). Otherwise decently referenced. Spencer^T•C 16:09, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above. Should be satisfactory for RD. Dan the Animator (Commons Room) 17:06, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Article looks good. RIP. Ktin (talk) 17:12, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I've fixed up refs for most of the dates and predecessors/successors in the infobox. I think the others are in the prose. Marking as ready, unless anyone can spot any other errors. — Amakuru (talk) 22:14, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support and while I "could've just looked in the sources", that's not really the point. Good to go. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 22:24, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is ready I'm counting 7 Supports and 1 Oppose. This should be ready for posting then. Dan the Animator 02:06, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Posted to RD — Amakuru (talk) 12:13, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Stonehaven derailment[edit]

Template:Applause The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 22:47, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support dead people, trains, Europe: it ticks all the notability boxes. Infobox, background, aftermath/reactions section: ticks all the quality boxes. Don't delay, post today! --LaserLegs (talk) 16:12, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and we snow closed in just 4 hours a story from the United States ... I mean, if that doesn't elevate this to speedy post I can't think of what will. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:14, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As much as I appreciate supports for articles I nominate, that smacks heavily of sarcasm and is not constructive. We can manage without that sort of thing. Mjroots (talk) 16:19, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many people comment here without having their remarks stricken, and I would appreciate the same consideration. 100% support posting this item for the reasons given. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:26, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have made your point; I suggest that you drop the stick. 331dot (talk) 16:54, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support First fatal UK derailment for 13 years, deadliest for 16 years, so certainly notable enough, appears to be internationally covered. Article is fine. Black Kite (talk) 16:23, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose death toll is too low. My Afghan nom even had a higher death toll (when including Taliban) and it was flat-out rejected. Personally wouldn't be surprised if all the British Wikipedians vote this in in the next few hours. Dan the Animator (Commons Room) 17:22, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe just the Jocks? But that's not how ITN/RD works, is it. (?) Martinevans123 (talk) 17:28, 12 August 2020 (UTC) [reply]

There is no WP:MINIMUMDEATHS, for a very good reason. Mjroots (talk) 17:37, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So you're opposing this because your nomination was rejected? People's nominations get rejected all the time; "mine didn't get posted so this one shouldn't" isn't a particularly good look. Black Kite (talk) 19:04, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support: A fatal rail accident in the UK is incredibly rare since Ladbroke Grove (1999), you can count the fatal incidents on your fingers, and the ones involving infrastructure failure on one hand. International coverage seems to bear that out; it's on the top few lines of cnn.com, for example. OTOH, three deaths is a bit too low. We put Croydon in ITN, but that had double the death toll. Sceptre (talk) 17:38, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is pretty notable in context. Three fatalities doesn't sound like many and this would have been normally a busy train. But there were only 6 passengers in total? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:43, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:U give me a good explanation of how this is notable. So far, it seems the main reason people support this is because: British people died in a train accident (first since 1999 for the UK). Dan the Animator (Commons Room) 18:04, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was suggesting it might be more notable as half the passengers were killed. I'm not sure the article tells us their nationalities. But I'm sorry, your suggestion might give offence to some editors Martinevans123 (talk) 18:07, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But just for complete clarity: "The train was carrying ~~six~~ three crew and six passengers. Three people died including the driver and a conductor."

Sorry if I sounded like that. I am not trying to offend anyone at all and was trying to prove my point. Maybe it might be notable for that reason but the accident itself relies more on more casualties or larger reach of impact of which, it fulfills neither. Dan the Animator (Commons Room) 18:12, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how a rail crash is going to have "larger reach of impact". In the context of UK rail safety, this one seems to be quite notable. But I guess headlines across the work rely more on death-count. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:16, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support - This sort of accident simply doesn't happen very often, and contextually for that reason, it is notable and in the news.--WaltCip-(BLM!Resist The Orange One) 17:46, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Template:U maybe in the UK, no, but in other places in the world, yes. I'm looking at my (American) news and don't see it. Maybe I should try looking at Chinese news (probably won't see it either) or Indian news (highly unlikely). Dan the Animator (Commons Room) 17:56, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also an oil spill happening in Mauritius (the worst in the country's history).

It's all Greek to me? Or Russian? ... Blackburn anyone? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:04, 12 August 2020 (UTC) [reply]
When beggars die, there are no comets seen, and no ITN nominations either. Dan the Animator (Commons Room) 18:08, 12 August 2020 (UTC) [reply]
Still trying to fathom that comment. Do hope it's not about cheese-eating surrender monkeys, etc. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:28, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have to go below the surface for that one. – Sca (talk) 22:21, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. very surprised no-one has nominated MV Wakashio oil spill. An ecological catastrophe. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:56, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. We definitely let that one slip by. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 01:06, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Template:U I'm really sorry for not nominating this one; I was planning, along with some the Koure shooting and others, to nominate it but didn't have the will to do it. Dan the Animator (Commons Room) 01:14, 13 August 2020 (UTC) [reply]
Oppose. The death toll was low, and ultimately this was a weather event more than a railway one, as I understand it arose because of flooding in the area. If we don't post deaths and destruction from hurricanes, then we also shouldn't for floods. — Amakuru (talk) 17:50, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Reply to Actually, we don't know this yet. The fact the rear locomotive stayed on the rails suggests it might not have been weather-related. Black Kite (talk) 19:07, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support - This is now more deadly than Grayrigg (linked above) and is the deadliest rail accident in the UK since the Ladbrook Grove Rail Crash in 1999. It is major-UK news, and should be recognized by Wikipedia. Unfortunately, it seems some users are opposing it as a matter of sour-grapes because their nominations have previously been declined. AimeeSunflower (talk) 18:04, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:U this has nothing to do with my previous nom (I just brought that up as a comparison). Looking at this alone, this is a domestic accident that will be forgotten by nearly everyone by the next day and has no significance/notability outside the UK. Please take a look at some non-UK news sources, please. Dan the Animator (Commons Room) 18:14, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:U It's on the CNN Frontpage^[1], ABC News Frontpage^[2], VoiceOfAmerica Front Page^[3], Bloomberg^[4], AlJazeera^[5], ABC News Australia^[6], France24^[7]. It is Major Global News, it is newsworthy. AimeeSunflower (talk) 18:23, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:U for the CNN one, it is in small text and has no image. For ABC news, also small text, no image. For VOA, it is NOT on the front page (at least of their website). For Bloomberg, also not on front page. For Al Jazeera, you have to scroll down a bit and it's relatively smaller than the others. For ABC News (Australia), you are correct, it is the 2nd featured article. For France24, it is also relatively featured. However, for all these news websites, Harris' nomination got the most featured spot, and that won't even be posted probably. Dan the Animator (Commons Room) 18:32, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:U it's on the VoA Front Page at https://www.voanews.com/ as part of the Headline section, with the listing as "Passenger Train Derails in Scotland; 'Serious Injuries' Reported". You've also above mentioned that you probably wouldn't see it in Indian or Chinese news, so have a Times of India^[8] and South China Morning Press^[9] article, to top it off. AimeeSunflower (talk) 18:38, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:U, I don't know where you're seeing that. I went to the homepage and in the "Headlines" section, it says Australia COVID-19 record, UN support to Beirut, Mali protests, Ethiopia tensions, and 3 dead in India. Maybe your geo-location is being used to create recommended headlines? I honestly don't know. For the India and Chinese (Hong Kong actually) sources, it is not featured/shown on Times of India and is very minor on the South China Morning Press. They obviously have articles, but their not receiving much attention. Dan the Animator (Commons Room) 18:52, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:U on VOA's website, it's certainly there for me, you may be right as to geolocation. But with respect, you told me to look at non-UK News Sources, so I did, and provided multiple links. CNN actually covered it on TV with a Live link from a reporter of theirs in Glasgow, it is showing (for me) on the front page of multiple global news sites, it is a fatal rail crash, of significance to the Rail Industry, the UK public, and clearly global news media. The Grayrigg derailment made ITN on the day of the incident. There is precedence for this, it has made Global news, it involves fatalities, again, I emphasize, it is newsworthy and In The News. AimeeSunflower (talk) 19:02, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:U Yeah you did, and I appreciate it. Definitely other media sources are covering this (maybe with not as much focus though I would argue). I agree with you, it is important for the Rail Industry and the UK public. For the global news media, I still don't think it's getting the attention it should if it was that important. About Grayrigg, "X made it so Y should too" cannot be used to support this, regardless of the similarities. I have other things to do so I'll just leave it at that and we'll see how the nom plays out. Cheers, Dan the Animator (Commons Room) 19:26, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose doesn't seem to be quite newsworthy enough outside of the UK. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 18:29, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support it's been and still is headline news all day today in the UK, and as above, features prominently around the world. As noted above, fatal rail accidents in the UK are rare as rocking horse poop. And while the death toll is low here, thankfully, it's worth bearing in mind that it killed a quarter of the people on the train. Just about the only thing we can be thankful for Covid, that the train was mostly empty. This is a serious newsworthy incident which could have been dozens of times worse. Will be interesting to see what comes of the investigation as there seemed to be an awareness of flooded tracks and the potential for land slippages earlier in the morning.... The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 18:31, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Hat

Template:U Harris' vice presidential nomination is getting significantly more coverage than this, and will likely not be posted because of alleged US bias. Dan the Animator (Commons Room) 18:34, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:U - long-standing consensus is that VP noms and Presidential noms do not get posted. As is explained at the current nomination in plain English. Mjroots (talk) 18:38, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Hab

Support Likely to yet again prove that rail safety in Britain, as opposed to other well developed nations, is achieved more by luck than judgement. A very noteworthy event in the land that invented the railways, a country which is in the process of building a very expensive high speed line that uses a whole bunch of safety critical things that are entirely new to the British rail industry. Jenga Fet (talk) 18:46, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And if we ever see HS2 North of the border, I'll eat my hat. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:59, 12 August 2020 (UTC) [reply]

~~Template:U everything you said supports this because it's important in Britain. How is it important/notable OUTSIDE of Britain/UK? Dan the Animator (Commons Room) 18:56, 12 August 2020 (UTC)~~[reply]

It doesn't need to be. Read the boilerplate text about nominations. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 18:58, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Please do not... [...] 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." AimeeSunflower (talk) 19:03, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Not sure this would even make the top 100 worst transportation accidents of the year. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 19:07, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose (At the moment). Article has quality/factual issues - e.g 'Location' discussion in Talk Page. At least wait for reliable sources for the facts? --2A02:C7F:48DA:6F00:8DBC:197E:20A7:348C (talk) 19:09, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Per good sourcing, per extensive coverage from world media. Per being unusual accident and deaths.BabbaQ (talk) 19:51, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Major accident which would have had a lot more casualties in pre-COVID times.-- P-K3 (talk) 20:22, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to be effectively the same as “would have been more newsworthy pre-COVID.” Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 20:35, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, what it means it would have had a lot more casualties pre-COVID. Read it again. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 21:17, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do you honestly believe that our difference of opinion is because I didn't read his/her comment carefully enough? Please try to avoid snark, especially because it usually causes the recipient to double down rather than reconsider. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 23:27, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Replyto Whether you read the comment carefully or otherwise, you do appear to have misunderstood it. It means that the number of passengers on the train, and thus the number of deaths, is artificially low because of Covid-19. If significance was judged solely on the number of deaths then the comment could be construed as meaning it would have been more newsworthy had it happened 9 months ago. Of course significance is not judged by bodycount alone so the logic fails. The comment is saying that because Covid-19 and the associated movement restrictions and societal changes, etc. are a thing three deaths is more significant now than three deaths would have been this time last year. Thryduulf (talk) 23:44, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I actually did understand that. My point was that train accidents are less significant when not many people are riding trains. I guess I should have been more explicit. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 00:02, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Relatively routine accident, trails derail all the time, local news. Sandstein 20:33, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe where you live! The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 20:50, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually TRM you're right. This is over here (the link only shows for NYC, so excluding most of LIRR and other rail services in the state). Dan the Animator (Commons Room) 21:15, 12 August 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Weak support Article looks good. I've read through a lot of the comments above and it seems to me that it is being covered internationally, that the notability stems from fatal train crashes being uncommon not just in the UK but in parts of the world with normally good infrastructure, and that on top of this a very high percentage of those onboard died (due to low ridership, COVID), so it's likely a more fatal incident by death rate (25%!) than most (even in countries-with-many-crashes). Weak support because I'd like to hear more opinions, though preferably not petty ones, to see if there are arguments/angles I haven't considered this from. Usually with this many comments a lot of the metrics for 'train crash' have been weighted, but so far the comments seem to be mostly different debates on UK-centrism; I'm not a train expert, if there's context/mechanics I'm missing, I'd like to hear it. Kingsif (talk) 20:35, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - We posted a bus plunging into a river in China only months ago. HSR derailments are exceedingly rare everywhere, and means something went VERY WRONG. At a minimum, service on the line is cut, and this will likely end up resulting in engineering changes to some portion of the line or train in the future.Albertaont (talk) 20:40, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not to argue but I remember when a LIRR train derailed last year over here. Nearly no-one in my school mentioned it the next day, it was barely in the (major not local) news, and we all just forgot about it. Dan the Animator (Commons Room) 21:10, 12 August 2020 (UTC) [reply]

"No one injured", you think that have something to do with lack of interest? And LIRR and HST aren't really comparable either. And fatal train derailments in the UK are extremely rare in the last 20+ years. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 21:15, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, just realized I linked the wrong one. Sorry about that. This should be the correct one. 3 people died in it. If this is the right one, the day this happened trains got delayed for hours. Dan the Animator (Commons Room) 21:22, 12 August 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Uh, that's nothing like this. This is a derailment of a high speed train. That was a slow motion road traffic accident which killed the people in the vehicle which was stupid enough to try to run the lights at a crossing. You're not comparing apples with apples. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 21:27, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, just awaiting a link to another source that says "Nearly no-one in your school mentioned it the next day". Cheers. :) Martinevans123 (talk) 21:28, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – 1-2-3 fatalities? Below the radar unless they were terribly important people. – Sca (talk) 21:48, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Template:Ping Missing the point. 3 deaths out of 9 on board. Pre-covid the train would have been packed and there would have been many more deaths and injuries. There has not been a fatal rail accident in the UK for 13 years, and this is making headlines in other countries as well as being major news in the UK. SK2242 (talk) 22:15, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, completely missing the point. (a) fatal rail accidents in the UK are rare-as. (b) as noted several times, it was a significant proportion of those travelling onboard who died. (c) Global news. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 22:18, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, global indeed – in fact, interplanetary; it's already been in the news on Ceres, I hear. – Sca (talk) 22:30, 12 August 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Support:--UkrainianCossack (talk) 22:07, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support for reasons given above. SK2242 (talk) 22:15, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've marked this for admin attention because it's clear the discussion is simply devolving into circular repetition. The basic facts are that a high-speed train derailed in the UK with fatalities for the first time in a long time, that it killed a significant proportion of those onboard a Covid-impacted train, and that it has ramifications to UK rail safety. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 22:24, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, Template:U removed the mark, suggesting that there was active discussion. There's discussion, but it's not productive. Never mind, what's yet another timesink in the big scheme of things? The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 23:00, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – We don't post everything that makes major news. When considering disasters, we should consider lasting effect and large impact. IMO, this does not appear to have that. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 22:32, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Major news in the UK - the most significant rail accident in the UK in over 10 years, the most deadly in over 20. As a proportion of people on the train killed/injured this is likely to be the most significant in far, far longer. As for lasting effect, this will be at least as significant as Grayrigg 13 years ago where the lessons learned are still being applied. It's too early to say precisely what those lessons will be, but it doesn't take a crystal ball to say that there most definitely will be some. In terms of major impact, how much more major do you want? [I consider myself to involved with this article to post it myself]. Thryduulf (talk) 22:35, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. A train with only 9 people on board, 3 killed, too small of an accident despite various tortured explanatious to the contrary above. Nsk92 (talk) 00:05, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose — pushing this reeks of UK-bias. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 00:07, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agreed; we are getting into bizarre levels of UK bias here. Never before have I seen it suggested that the PROPORTION of passengers killed makes an event noteworthy. We post things because they are significant, not because they might be significant under different circumstances. GreatCaesarsGhost 01:03, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I counted 13 Supports and 10 Opposes. I think if 1 or 2 more people vote on this, we could either post/close. Dan the Animator (Commons Room) 01:09, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Does not seem a homepage news article. Also, agree with some of the folks here that Proportion seems the wrong metric. In the recent aircraft incident, this metric was at less than 10pc. One would wish it was 0pc though. Anyways, not the right metric.Ktin (talk) 01:14, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update - While it need not be the definitive reason, I just went to bbc.com, and this news doesn't even figure in the homepage. Ktin (talk) 02:05, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Oppose Conceding it's the first fatal rail accident in the UK in a while, we are still only talking about three deaths. That's just not enough for me. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:01, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose if this event's only claim to notability is its three deaths, it's so very, very minor in a world where thousands of people die every day from Covid. Banedon (talk) 03:17, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- By that logic we would never be able to post anything ever. Nixinova T C 03:50, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose: the rarity of the event gives it some notability but this seems minor overall. Nixinova T C 03:50, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT - I've marked this as "admin attention required". IMvHO, it should be posted. Many of the opposes are based on the event happening in the UK, which is against the guidance as quoted by AimeeSunflower at 19:03 yesterday. It is really time this one was decided on one way or another. If it is decided that it won't get posted, then I'm big enough to accept that. It's nice to get an ITN, but these are bonuses. We have a decent article which will improve further as time goes on. My thanks to all editors who have worked to improve the article. Mjroots (talk) 05:04, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Why was the train running with so few people on board? Yes, it was an accident, but the impact is not that significant. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 05:14, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Suppose there was no train, just mass hypnosis again, see? InedibleHulk (talk) 05:44, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Are people really opposing/supporting this for the sake of it? Anyway, this isn't significant enough even for a derailment (we have already rejected quire a few disasters with significantly higher destruction and deaths not sure why this would be any special). Gotitbro (talk) 07:29, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Vectaerovenator inopinatus[edit]

~~Comment~~. Oppose. I am always positively inclined toward science (and related) news items. However, here we seem to be linking to an article titled List of informally named dinosaurs. I am wondering if the question is going to be - is this newsworthy enough, if the discovery does not warrant (or at least has not warranted) a new article page by itself? Ktin (talk) 18:06, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This article contains just one short section about this dino species.--AlphaBeta135 (talk) 18:38, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now this taxon is going to be formally named (and therefore get its own article) within this week according to the lead author, the press releases were simply sent out too early by accident. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 20:34, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Close no consensus and way too early. Dan the Animator (Commons Room) 00:57, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Classifying old fossils is not discovering new species. Paleontologists might have us believe it's as exciting. But it isn't. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:53, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
IANA paleontologist, but I'm pretty sure that is precisely how we discover new species. 75.188.224.208 (talk) 12:22, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore The Isle of Wight was still a living piece of the mainland when this species actually did stuff, and framing it like this may give some members of the public another misconception about thunder lizards. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:40, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Zero impact on anyone and everyone. – Sca (talk) 13:07, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and close. Linking to a list, not over the global news, not that notable. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 13:10, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2020 August 11 Template:Cob

August 11[edit]

(Posted) RD: Russell A. Kirsch[edit]

Support short but decently sourced. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 05:12, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Passes RD requirements. Gotitbro (talk) 07:32, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Notable for his work. Though short, but decently sourced and other RD nominees that passed had even shorter articles. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 13:42, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Posted to RD. Spencer^T•C 16:14, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Sixto Brillantes[edit]

Support short but well sourced. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 05:09, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Quote in Tagalog should be translated to English for the article, but otherwise, looks good to go. Marking ready. Spencer^T•C 16:12, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Still ready 15 hours later... The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 07:07, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Posted to RD — Amakuru (talk) 12:13, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) 2020 Democratic vice presidential candidate[edit]

Oppose this seems a tad too US-centric; posting the result of the election in November is ITN/R but this, while hyped in the media in the U.S., doesn't seem appropriate to ITN to me. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 18:19, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional comment Tim Kaine wasn't posted in July 2016, and the discussion there mentions that Mike Pence wasn't posted either. Template:U, who closed that discussion, gave the following rationale: Template:Tq. I think that rationale still holds. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 18:28, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Oppose for now per above but will Support if Carmont derailment is posted per same reason. Dan the Animator (Commons Room) 18:22, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per above.
- ~~Template:Ping was this vote meant to go in the section below? That seems a little more related to the Carmont derailment. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 18:31, 12 August 2020 (UTC)~~[reply]
- I now see you've already voted there. Sorry! PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 18:33, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I dont understand Dan the Animator position, shouldn't all news be evaluated on its own merit?Albertaont (talk) 19:02, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Thanks for the nomination, but the choosing of a candidate for office will almost never merit posting to ITN. If they win, that will be posted. I would gently remind the nominator that this is a global project and not everyone may be familiar with the subject matter. 331dot (talk) 18:34, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and snow close per precedence mentioned above and general guideline of only posting the results of U.S. elections at the federal level. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 18:42, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support decent article, in the news, certainly worth posting. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:39, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support applying some decent common sense here, and noting that ITN is supposed to be highlighting articles that people are looking for, this is an IAR moment for me. Even in the UK we're quite keen on the Biden/Harris ticket and it's been subject of some discussion here, even though it's US politics. Of course, the new POTUS will be posted, but that isn't the actual point of this nomination really, is it? The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 18:46, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per same reasoning as Template:U. Furthermore, this is not the election, nor is it even the presidential candidate we have chosen.Albertaont (talk) 19:02, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose- I could see an argument for posting a primary victory, but selecting a running-mate is obviously much less important and is getting what I'd say is an unusually large amount of coverage in the States largely because electoral politics is a nice diversion from coronavirus. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 19:05, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But did we post Joe Biden's victory in the primaries? --212.74.201.229 (talk) 19:16, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Negative. The only U.S. presidential primary-related nomination was a blurb discussion about the Iowa caucuses in February that was not posted. Nothing more, which makes even less of a reason for this to be posted. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 19:27, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But you agree it's in the news right? Being widely covered in the US and around the world (not required, see above, but a bonus). I mean, should we reach out to major global media outlets and advise them to stop covering the announcement because you don't think it should be in the news? --LaserLegs (talk) 19:48, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Re I made no mention of whether I personally thought the pick should be reported by newsmedia, but rather just referenced the fact that (a) ITN did not post anything about Biden (or anyone else, for that matter) winning any individual primary or caucus, nor about him securing enough delegates to become the Democratic nominee, and (b) that a vice-presidential pick for one of the parties in a U.S. presidential election seems lesser than that, and in my mind wouldn't merit an ITN blurb either. I doubt we'll add a blurb about Biden officially accepting the nomination next week, so I don't think a vice presidential pick would merit a blurb. Let's keep doing what we've done in the past and stick to the result of the November election, as several other users have said. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 20:41, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not significant, we limit to actual election results. Gotitbro (talk) 19:43, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Wouldn't normally support a VP nom (Tim Kaine? Yawn) but the historic nature of Harris as the first woman of colour to be on the ticket just tips the balance.-- P-K3 (talk) 20:27, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Van't Kruijs, Clinton's formal nomination at the Democratic National Convention Jul 2016 (and as the first woman atop a U.S. major party POTUS ticket) was declined here, nor was there even a peep when she had "clinched" enough delegates in the primaries on 7 Jun 2016. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 20:36, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support. Domestic politics, but making major international news beyond one day. Sandstein 20:34, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – She's only a veep candidate. – Sca (talk) 21:54, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – We should wait for the final results as we do with any national election. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 22:34, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose domestic politics that only involves one party. Quite frankly I'm gobsmacked that this was proposed and hasn't yet been snow-closed. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:30, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) 2020 Bangalore riots[edit]

Oppose Template:U at "least 3 people are killed". How is this at all notable enough for ITN? Also, currently we have an India ITN event (and previously had 2 plus 1 Sri Lankan) and there's also 1 other Asian one so if we're going to talk about Geobias, this being nom'd would be the exact opposite of fair coverage (more people died in terrorist attacks everyday in Africa and those are almost always rejected). Dan the Animator (Commons Room) 17:16, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Dan above, for both death terms and recent geobias (ironically enough Somalia just had a terrorist attack with a higher death toll). Gotitbro (talk) 19:48, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wait Apparently if you go back to one of my earlier opposes, the consensus was GEOBIAS is not a valid criteria for consideration even with other ITN in the same area (I don't agree, but it was community consensus). Having said that, this article is written well and if riots go on for another 1-2 days, maybe better rationale to post. For now, pre-mature.Albertaont (talk) 20:09, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – 1-2-3 fatalities? Below the radar unless they were terribly important people. – Sca (talk) 21:57, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on quality – The death toll is not the important aspect. Civil unrest often have long-lasting effects on national politics. For that, I would support. However, the language and word choice employed in this articles stinks of POV. It needs work. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 22:38, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This feels like an extension of the anti-CAA protests which festered in ongoing for 7 or 8 months, and the Ram Temple which we've posted twice. There is obviously religious conflict being fomented in India. Not sure this little outburst fits the bill. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:01, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree. Perhaps, we should wait and see. I do not think, however, this nom should have a quick close. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 23:22, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:U No this is not any such extension of Anti-CAA and no one is opposing Ram Temple (as it is order from Supreme Court & Archaeologists have proved that there was Ram temple before Babur destroyed it to build mosque ) hence it is no such protest but a riot planned by sub-groups of banned Popular Front of India alongwith Social Democratic Party of India maybe for political reasons in Karnataka. Branstarx3 (talk) 00:45, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Sumner Redstone[edit]

Support looks to be in decent shape. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 17:18, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Has been in decent shape even before the recent demise. Gotitbro (talk) 19:49, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose "Career" section has quite a few unsourced and sparsely sourced paragraphs.—Bagumba (talk) 11:40, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Several paragraphs in the Career section with no references. P-K3 (talk) 12:29, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Ping Sourcing has been updated, please take a look. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 15:53, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work, still some chunks of the article that could use some referencing. Not sure how much of some of the specific company details belong in Redstone's article versus an article about the company. Spencer^T•C 16:21, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Re I'd be happy to add more references if you'd let me know where they're needed. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 17:28, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ping CN tags added. Some of the things like how a takover made "Viacom one of the top players in modern media" could potentially be removed if there's not a ref for it and it doesn't contribute specifically to the article. Spencer^T•C 19:12, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ping cn tags have been taken care of. Again Template:U and Template:U please re-evaluate as well. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:07, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Template:U, good progress! I've tagged 3 more that I found.—Bagumba (talk) 16:22, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Re just took care of those. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:30, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Posted to RD. Spencer^T•C 16:44, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Trini Lopez[edit]

Support - As far as I can see sourced and ready.BabbaQ (talk) 06:57, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Re I think this may be ready to go. —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:23, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Posted to RD. Spencer^T•C

(Closed) August 2020 Midwest derecho[edit]

Oppose A large tree fell down and crushed half a Subaru across the street from me (in Chicago) due to this. However, this does seem parochial overall. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:06, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Template:U, I'm confused how a massive multi-state weather event which left millions with utility outages, spawned five tornadoes, and destroyed roughly 1/3 of the crops on Iowa's agricultural land is "parochial" Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 23:35, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's parochial in that it does not appear to have much significance outside of the United States; while that's not fatal to the nomination per the "please do not..." section, there appear to be thankfully zero deaths so far and little long-term impact, so I don't think this suitable for the Main Page. (We also didn't post Hurricane Isaias, another storm doing storm things that was otherwise transitory.) – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:41, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Template:U, indeed, the deaths are minimal (only two confirmed so far, mass injuries, however). Regardless I think it could be useful additionally considering these storm types are relatively rare, especially ones that last this long and get this big. However it doesn't really fit a WP:DYK type. Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 23:44, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Midwest is 3 times the size of France or Ukraine. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:30, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support in the news, decent article. Highly developed countries with strictly enforced building codes have lower death tolls but that doesn't lessen the notability of the event. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:47, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How do we measure the impact of the event if not by its death and destruction? GreatCaesarsGhost 12:40, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Geographic area, intensity (and frequency of occurrence at that intensity), economic impact, people impacted but not killed, coverage in the news of course and article quality are the most important and that's just what I came up with on short notice. [removed smug racist fuckwittery--Floquenbeam (talk) 20:05, 12 August 2020 (UTC)] Developing countries always have higher death tolls because of weakly enforced or lax building codes along with under developed emergency services so that even a routine weather event results in causalities and we lose our minds and post these stubby, inevitably orphaned articles to the main page.--LaserLegs (talk) 12:58, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support The equivalent of a Category 3 hurricane. Highly unusual event. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:56, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ping Actually, it only caused 100 mph winds. Category 2-equivilant. Also, you say it was a highly unusual event. Derechos literally happen three times every month between March and September in the US. See List of derecho events if you don't believe me. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 15:53, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Doesn’t seem to be getting front-page coverage on US news websites. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 00:02, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I got smacked by a freak derecho once. It was weird and crappy, I survived in an average house and to this day, I still find myself telling people who weren't there how weird and crappy it was. In other words, local story; maybe a legend in time, but never a blurb. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:18, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That said, this one is weirder and crappier than mine, on account of the dead or missing cornfields. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:25, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose lots of things are going on which "affect" lots of people. This is just American weather. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 07:30, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose in worldwide terms, this does not appear to be a particularly devastating weather event. Power cuts and property damage occur in every big storm. Natural disasters need to be much more significant to justify posting in ITN. The article seems suitable for WP:DYK though. Modest Genius ^talk 11:02, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Lacks general significance. Parochial. (If it were British weather, it would be nooz, tho.) – Sca (talk) 15:15, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. Dan the Animator (Commons Room) 17:19, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per InedibleHulk. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 18:39, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for supporting my argument, it was this close to utterly collapsing! Don't jump on my bandwagon, though, it hasn't rolled right since "the storm". House still stands! InedibleHulk (talk) 04:43, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Would have been ITN worthy were there any significant deaths or destruction. Gotitbro (talk) 19:52, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Now, I might be biased because I lived through the event and just got electric service back nearly 60 hours later, but it had a fairly large swathe of destruction (Sioux Falls to Chicago via Des Moines). This was not a typical American weather event. The fact that it affected mostly corn and not people shouldn't diminish the storm's notability. –Fredddie ™ 03:38, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

EDITOR'S NOTE: Iowa is basically a 58,000-square-mile (145,000 square kilometers) cornfield, roughly the size of Bangladesh. – Sca (talk) 13:21, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is absolutely a reason to diminish its notability. Similarly large storms occur frequently in Antarctica or the Southern Ocean, but are considered non-notable because only penguins and seabirds are affected. Modest Genius ^talk 14:34, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I thought a derecho was a lizard. – Sca (talk) 15:00, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose and close Only killed two people, spawned 5 tornadoes, and affected some corn farmers. If you didn't post Hurricane Isaias, which killed 18 people, spawned 37 tornadoes, and caused $4.2 billion in damage, then it will be a joke posting this! ~ Destroyeraa🌀 15:49, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The usual power cuts and property damage but thankfully only two deaths, this doesn't meet the significance bar for me.-- P-K3 (talk) 19:46, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Ceres[edit]

~~Conditional support~~ If as big as it seems. News still seems fuzzy here. Kingsif (talk) 10:33, 11 August 2020 (UTC) Oppose per MG Kingsif (talk) 14:53, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support - I have to agree with Kingsif here.BabbaQ (talk) 11:50, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support per all. A cursory glance of the article (via Ctrl-Fing "ocean") doesn't mention it AFAICT, much less explain its significance. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 11:59, 11 August 2020 (UTC) Oppose per MG. I knew it didn't look like an ocean world. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 12:28, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I'm close to having a CoI here, but will comment anyway. Ceres has long been known to have active geology and subsurface brines, which are responsible for the surface salt deposits and cryovolcanism, both known since 2016. These latest results fill in some of the details, but Ceres having ocean-level amounts of water is not a new discovery. It's also not really an ocean, but a layer of rock which is saturated with brine, so the blurb is misleading (it wasn't a Flyby either). None of the papers were important enough to publish in Nature itself, just three subsidiary journals owned by the same publisher. The source linked to above is from Nature Astronomy, not Nature, and is over-selling the importance because it's advertising work published in the same journal. Finally, the results are so confirmatory that the article itself has received no update whatsoever. Modest Genius ^talk 12:06, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's really a good thing we have actual scientists here who can let us know when we're falling prey to pop science journalism.--WaltCip-(BLM!Resist The Orange One) 12:18, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Modest. "Vital" or not, it's not newsworthy. Next. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 12:50, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Ditto. Decidedly underwhelming. – Sca (talk) 13:20, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Doesn't appear to be significant per the above comments, including the nominator. Gotitbro (talk) 14:48, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
History As the timescales for this mission were even longer than Brexit, I was curious to know what ITN said about it over the years:

ITN nominations about Ceres/Dawn
Year	Status	Blurb
2007	Posted	The NASA spacecraft Dawn is launched on a mission to explore mainbelt asteroid Vesta and dwarf planet Ceres.
2012	Posted	Dawn leaves Vesta
2014	Posted	The dwarf planet Ceres is observed to be releasing water vapor.
2015	Posted	NASA's Dawn spacecraft enters the orbit of the dwarf planet Ceres.
2017	No consensus	Scientists report the detection of aliphatic organic compounds on dwarf planet Ceres.

So, no results since Dawn arrived at Ceres. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:03, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment since this is probably toast anyway, we should wait until the inners have stripped all the ice from Ceres and the belters riot after Mars destroys the Canterbury --LaserLegs (talk) 15:17, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let's wait until Elon arrives on Ceres. – Sca (talk) 15:34, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm waiting for The Boat Race on Ceres. Howard the Duck (talk) 15:38, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zero gravity rowing klaxon!!!!!!! --LaserLegs (talk) 15:40, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Based on how difficult it is to complete 18 to 20 minutes of rowing on the Thames, perhaps "zero gravity" (which of course it wouldn't be zero) is the way ahead. O';;l suggest it. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 22:43, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Doubtful significance. – Ammarpad (talk) 19:14, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support According to The Guardian link, this is the first time hydrohalite has been observed outside of Earth. If that's pop science, then colour me a monkey's uncle. Jenga Fet (talk) 19:56, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coincidentally, I had a dream about hydrohalite last night. It was terrifying. – Sca (talk) 21:34, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment suggest this is closed as not newsworthy and with a very strong consensus against a very poorly updated article. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 22:44, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Gam-COVID-Vac[edit]

Oppose This is definitely covered by the COVID box. (It would also be remiss to post this without mentioning that they allegedly stole it.) Kingsif (talk) 10:34, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Hat

Template:Re Stole it? It's seems to be a propaganda ploy of the countries with reduced scientific potential. --Александр Мотин (talk) 10:40, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

...yes, because clearly any country outside the US or UK is incapable of creating vaccines.Albertaont (talk) 14:05, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Re The country which chose the President for the US people is much more capable of creating vaccines.--Александр Мотин (talk) 16:13, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Holy shit, he actually believes this article! Look at him! Look at him and laugh! --212.74.201.229 (talk) 18:25, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Hab

Oppose Posting about any vaccine for this should not even be considered until such a vaccine sees widespread deployment. TompaDompa (talk) 10:49, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Widespread" is how much? You will tell us later? Template:Smiley I'm not proposing to write "widespread", I propose to write "first registered" --Александр Мотин (talk) 10:53, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose we have the COVID box for this. ZettaComposer (talk) 11:16, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose any news outside of the banner (even a widespread vaccine) except for a definitive "end" to the pandemic, preferably by WHO proclamation. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 11:55, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - at this time. No.BabbaQ (talk) 11:56, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Please do not...
- 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.--212.74.201.229 (talk) 18:29, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose flatly.--WaltCip-(BLM!Resist The Orange One) 12:18, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Please do not...
- 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.--212.74.201.229 (talk) 18:29, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – There's many a slip. – Sca (talk) 13:24, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Please do not...
- 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.--212.74.201.229 (talk) 18:29, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sca gave a reason. You just need to brush up on your proverbs.-- P-K3 (talk) 18:59, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Propose - Propose to update the info-box for links to COVID treatments and COVID vaccines - we are now half a year in, and real progress has been made on both fronts and they are becoming popular articles, make sense to link them straight from the front page. -Albertaont (talk) 14:05, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It may be a good idea since there are many other vaccine candidates from other powerful research institutions and after today's event the readers' interest may increase many times.--Александр Мотин (talk) 17:55, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Nice try mate, but we all know that if there's a vaccine ITN will post, it's the British one. Howard the Duck (talk) 18:02, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I like the idea of updating the box on the top with a link to COVID-19 vaccine.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:40, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sensational and redundant to Covid box. – Ammarpad (talk) 19:10, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This has been described as a "political stunt"[55] and it widely controversial in the scientific community. Natureium (talk) 19:14, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2020 August 10 Template:Cob

August 10[edit]

(Closed) RD: Konrad Steffen[edit]

Support Article seems okay.--AlphaBeta135 (talk) 21:54, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Stale Step hen 05:53, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: P. J. Sheehan[edit]

Weak Oppose Short article but we're getting there.--AlphaBeta135 (talk) 12:25, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes it is a short article but it is pretty well referenced and up to RD standard JW 1961 Talk 20:26, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Re I think this may be ready to go. —Bloom6132 (talk) 23:07, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Posted Step hen 23:20, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Bumped) Lebanese government resigns[edit]

Weak oppose for now. The Hassan Diab article contains only a single sentence that says he resigned, and says nothing about his cabinet. I'm fine bumping the blurb and adding more information, but as yet the various Wikipedia articles you are highlighting are very light on relevant information and will need some expanding before we tell people they should read them. --Jayron 32 18:08, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bump This is a continuation of the existing blurb about the explosion. So, just update that blurb and bump it. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:29, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question Didn't the hyperinflation also impact the decision? – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:47, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it looks like some of the reason was pre-pandemic protests being renewed. Feel free to suggest alts, but I couldn't find a protests article for a blurb. Kingsif (talk) 20:49, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

another question. Is the government really the government? I read somewhere that the political leaders just report to some more powerful people behind the scenes, which was the same people before and after the "revolution" last year. Is that true? If so, we should probably nuance the hook accordingly. Apologies, by knowledge of the full situation is incomplete. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 20:51, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Every short-term government overlaps with longer-lasting lobbyists, priests, tribal leaders, bankers, generals, corporate officers and organized crime bosses. But "really" rarely matters here. The titleholders "rule". InedibleHulk (talk) 23:13, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Conditionally support It needs to update the previous blurb to include the aftermath of the explosion in the government such as resignation, at least bump the previous update and update with this. 36.77.94.89 (talk) 21:11, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 00:06, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Bump Definitely still biggest story in most western news after a week, and the resignation of the government is significant new development.Albertaont (talk) 04:22, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Major development, the blurb should make the bit about the explosion a bit more clear though. Gotitbro (talk) 05:52, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - time for posting.BabbaQ (talk) 06:25, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Bump the previous blurb which posted before with newly update blurbs that includes aftermath of resignation. it is definitely biggest international news on the day. 182.1.26.10 (talk) 07:28, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support bumping blurb The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 08:00, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bumping the blurb. --Tone 08:34, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Post-bumping comment the "protests" word needs to wikilinked, because they are already have a article about 2019–2020 Lebanese protests. 114.125.235.207 (talk) 08:53, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the article - I hadn't included 2019 when I looked! Kingsif (talk) 10:25, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Template:Replyto I've now created 2020 Lebanese protests as a redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 12:26, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) 2020 PGA Championship[edit]

Template:Archive top Template:ITN candidate

Support Updated with sufficient prose summaries.-- P-K3 (talk) 14:28, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~ Support. Minor update on blurb --> Altblurb. Looks good. Ktin (talk) 17:14, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Article is sufficient. --Jayron 32 18:12, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support original blurb. Good prose summaries for each round. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 00:04, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's awful – like reading the sports pages in a tabloid newspaper rather than an encyclopedia article. It's clearly written for fans rather than the general reader as it's full of crufty line-scores and other stats. It assumes that the reader knows all about the rules of the game and the tournament format and it's riddled with jargon like "birdie" and "eagle" which are not explained. And it seems easy to find factual errors. For example, the lead says that it "had no spectators in attendance" but it's easy to find coverage which contradicts this: Steph Curry among spectators at PGA Championship in San Francisco. Andrew🐉(talk) 00:25, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is more suitable as a complaint about golf tournament pages on Wikipedia in general than against this particular article. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 00:30, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That is not an error. The event was closed to paying spectators. It's clear from reading the link that Stephen Curry was there as a guest of Jordan Spieth. P-K3 (talk) 00:47, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose for now~~ on quality. I don't particularly agree with the general objection Andrew makes about the tone of the article - a golfing article would be expected to use golfing terminology. Birdie and Eagle are not jargon because many people such as myself, who don't play golf, nonetheless know what they mean. And the relevant articles are linked, for those who don't know the terminology. Our guidelines suggest targeting articles to those familiar with, but not necessarily expert in, a given subject. But a couple of Andrew's objections are valid. (1) The "Field" section is far too long and detailed, interrupting the flow of the article. It probably belongs in a subpage, with just a brief summary of how the field was chosen, and a few principal players, given here. And (2) the point about spectators clearly is an error, because Curry was a spectator. He wasn't there in any capacity other than to watch the golf. It sounds like that point needs to be nuanced. ITN articles don't have to be GA standard certainly, but they must still conform to basic structural norms. With a bit of tidying up this would be ready to go though. — Amakuru (talk) 04:46, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- That is how all golf tournament articles are written. The place to challenge that practice is probably at WP:GOLF, not here. It shouldn't be valid to oppose this because of an objection to the way golf tournament articles, which have been posted at ITN many times before without objection, are written on Wikipedia. Regarding your second point, reliable sources reported that there were no spectators. Curry was apparently there as a "guest reporter".[56] Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 06:07, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wikiprojects form a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. The wider community here judges whether it's suitable to go on the main page.—Bagumba (talk) 06:34, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - In that case, if I don't want to see golf major championships barred from being posted at ITN again, I have to garner consensus for changing how the field sections of tournament articles are written? Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 06:43, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Ec I have no intention of challenging anything at WP:GOLF. WikiProjects don't define the basic rules for article structure, that's the job of the MOS, and it applies everywhere. As an aside, I've checked the stats for golf articles and it lists only two articles as FAs (one of which is Wii Sports, only loosely connected to golf) and nine GAs. There are no tournament pages included in those so we have no point of reference. The figures seem astonishly low for such a prominent subject, and suggest the project may not be very active... — Amakuru (talk) 06:39, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't sure what "birdie" and "eagle" mean and so just had to look them up. And I bet if you asked the general public what "bogey" means in golf, you'd get a variety of amusing answers with "don't know" being a strong contender. A "hole-in-one" might be ok because it is self-explanatory but note that the phrase isn't used in the article even though there was at least one. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:09, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The lead should be accessible, but those terms are in the body. A sports event article should not be expected to teach a newbie about the sport. Linking to common technical terms is generally sufficient.—Bagumba (talk) 11:31, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Switching to support - Following a productive discussion, and new edits by Template:U, the Field section has now been rewritten to contain just prose, with the other info in a linked child info. My concerns are therefore now addressed, and I am switching to support on this candidate. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 12:37, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Oppose On article quality and prose. Gotitbro (talk) 05:56, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Appears fine or ITN now. Gotitbro (talk) 22:03, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ping Yep, the updated version at the time you wrote this would have been fine, but unfortunately that improvement was reverted so it's now back at the unwieldy poor quality version. — Amakuru (talk) 05:48, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~ The "Field" section is unwieldy, and the bolding with linking is an eyesore. This isn't GA, but it's a large-scale failing of MOS:PSEUDOHEAD: Template:Tq It's screaming to be a table with minutiae moved to footnotes.—Bagumba (talk) 06:30, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Bagumba. And the summaries for the first three rounds don't really pass muster. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 07:59, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Seems like some here are trying to push the bar too high. The tone and style may be wanting, and the layout may not be ideal, however this meets the basic quality criteria for ITN – Template:Tq _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:59, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Entirely agree. Not sure why this article has attracted so many pile-on opposes when it's no worse than many other ITN/R sports items we've routinely posted. I thought the standard was sufficiently referenced with prose summaries.-- P-K3 (talk) 13:44, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. Basic compliance with the MOS is also up there. We're showcasing this on the main page of our project, let's at the very least showcase the way articles are actually structured, rather than some bizarre format developed within one project and seemingly copied every year because nobody can think of anything better to do. As ever on this page, if people just made some basic changes, like those proposed by Bagumba above, this could just go straight up. — Amakuru (talk) 19:45, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We posted both the Masters and the US Open last year which used an identical format. To suddenly declare that what was acceptable before is now unacceptable smacks of moving the goalposts for me. (Sorry, can't think of an equivalent golfing metaphor.) P-K3 (talk) 21:30, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seems raising the bar without prior discussion or consensus to do so. I'm struggling to find the passage in the ITN criteria which mentions MOS compliance and to what degree it is necessary. For information, it actually quite closely replicates the format used by the major championships themselves for many years, and is to a degree still used by the USGA & R&A, so attacks on the project in this regard are somewhat unwarranted. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 22:29, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have edited the field section in accordance with the criticisms and suggestions of Template:U, Template:U, Template:U, and Template:U above. Let me know if you have any further objections and I would be happy to work on fixing them. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 22:01, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Reverted due to making the information much less accessible and also losing several details. Changes in this regard would be better discussed centrally (suggest WT:GOLF), as there are many tournament articles with the same mos/formatting issues (as noted above). _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 22:16, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've gotten myself involved in enough inane discussions here lately, I'm not interested in starting a new one over formatting at WT:GOLF. I guess this is the end of golf at ITN unless someone else wants to start working on changing this. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 22:24, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We shouldn't sacrifice content on the alter of MOS. It does no service to the encyclopedia. There are many ways of removing the bolding without losing content and accessibility/readability – your solution (moving most content – some would say the most important details – into footnotes) was not one of them. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 22:56, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I reasoned that was what everyone objecting here wanted since Bagumba suggested it and most other opposes were on similar grounds. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 23:09, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think calling a section on the field "most content" and even "most important" is really a far stretch, I would say most people which would access this article from the front page would be interested in how the tournament actually played out, which is behind 3 full pages of rather trivial information for a non golf enthusiast. This big section actually hurts the readability. Chaosquo (talk) 07:12, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It shouldn't need spelling out, but I was obviously referring only to the content of that section. Misuse of footnotes is worse than perceived MOS transgressions. People are welcome to discuss ways of presenting the information better, in collaboration with the editors who do the bulk of the work in this area, but sadly it seems none here are willing (discussion started here). _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 09:17, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The topic under consideration is the 2020 PGA Tournament, and it should be clear by now from the number of objecters here, that the format of that article simply doesn't conform to Wikipedia guidelines on how to structure an article. I am happy to have a conversation about the details of this page, with a view to getting it listed at ITN, since that's the goal here. We can have that by WP:BOLDly trying different layouts on the page (which both Template:U and myself have now done), discussing it at the talk page, and coming up with a sensible compromise. But the starting point has to be that the previous format was not of sufficient quality, since multiple experienced editors have now made that same point here on this page. If we come up with a sensible way to present the info, then no doubt WikiProject Golf can incorporate that into their guidelines going forward, but non-members of that project are not bound by any edicts coming from "those who do the bulk of the work in this area", nor are those editors exempt from following the basic MOS guidelines. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 09:44, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The suggestion was only to engage with the golf project; that way when a format is agreed upon, past and future articles will likely follow the same standards (as it is those active project editors who will likely do the bulk of any remedial work). Otherwise we end up with this article and maybe a handful others being "fixed" and the rest not. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:07, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, sure, engaging with the golf regulars, including yourself, is vital and no doubt they will also have good ideas about how to go forward. The more voices the better. I just think that in the immediate term, we should concentrate on the 2020 PGA as a concrete example that we can work on, hopefully with a view to getting it posted on ITN. If we try to fix everything at once, we won't have time for this one to be featured. — Amakuru (talk) 10:17, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. There have been numerous heavy changes to the article, but the current version seems fine to me. The information is there, the rounds have brief-but-adequate prose summaries, and referencing appears sufficient. Modest Genius ^talk 11:08, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't feel comfortable thrusting to the main page an article wherein an edit war is taking place.--WaltCip-(BLM!Resist The Orange One) 11:48, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Switch to support Tbe problem I had with the "Field" section is resolved with the spinout of 2020 PGA Championship field. With 100+ field, this is deserved and not a mere fork just to game ITN. Thanks to Template:U, Template:U and Template:U for carrying out the changes.—Bagumba (talk) 14:55, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Posted Looks like issues have been addressed on the article talk page and consensus is in favor of posting. Spencer^T•C 15:24, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Indian coal mine auction[edit]

Oppose grossly repetitive stub which, having been created just days ago, gives some indication as to the relative notability of this "virgin" forest. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 08:59, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notability? The other Indian stories which we are featuring are a hotel fire, a religious photo op and a plane skidding into a ditch. Which story is really significant? Andrew🐉(talk) 10:16, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All red herrings. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 10:25, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and I must have missed the featuring of a hotel fire. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 11:24, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Who needs hotel fires when you've got all that cheap Indian coal? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:39, 10 August 2020 (UTC) [reply]

It was reading the nomination of the 2020 Vijayawada fire below which got me wondering what was really happening in India. That article is better developed than our article about the forest coalfield. If it bleeds, it leads. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:40, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support, if article can be expanded. An interesting and very worrying story that seems to be largely hidden from media view. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:15, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose ...and if my grandmother had wheels, she’d be a bicycle. GreatCaesarsGhost 14:44, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose meh per TRM, the Amazon's more important. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 10:32, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean Jeff Bezos investing 10 billion in fighting climate change or the fact that fires in the rainforest are up 28% on last year? Both these items are in the news but we are ignoring them too. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:48, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nominate away. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 21:34, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Article is far too sparse and short and stubby for main page highlighting. --Jayron 32 12:56, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment we have lot of stories from India alone in past few days and let's not forget the 2020 Idukki landslide and 2020 Kerala floods are also mainly covered in google search much higher when compared to the coal mine auction. 2020 Vijayawada fire has now started to lose focus of main headlines. Abishe (talk) 13:27, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on article quality. Article is in poor shape and falls well short of our customary standards for being linked on the main page. Neutral on the merits of the nomination. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:48, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Per TRM, Wolfson. "Stick it inside someplace." – Sca (talk) 14:49, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose We generally only post stories that are points of action and/or when it is a point of no return (large # of deaths/loss). That there is some initial call to action is not the type of thing we post to start with regardless of anything else that is behind this nom or the coverage. --Masem (t) 15:10, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose What is the event here? Were new egregious mining permits issued over the last few days? Seems to be more "Did you know"... vs current event.Albertaont (talk) 16:21, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The auctions for 41 blocks of land are currently running and the bid deadline was August 18. That's why it's in the news now. But by all means wait until the land is strip-mined and the coal is burnt. In the meantime, let's play more golf, shall we? Andrew🐉(talk) 20:11, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Article is a stub, and this story doesn't seem to have reached the "significant development" stage that would justify a blurb. "Feel threatened by" is not enough.-- P-K3 (talk) 18:14, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment suggest this is now closed. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 21:34, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ab

(Protests posted) Belarusian election[edit]

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2020 August 9 Template:Cob

Template:U This has been nominated already below; initially the protests were the focus, but the election results have been added. 331dot (talk) 08:58, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah OK, when I looked I only saw the protests. Smurrayinchester 09:23, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
First blurb's good InedibleHulk (talk) 09:26, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think that we should shed light on the protests as the main story. There are multiple protests of larger scale with much higher casualties every year that we normally don't post, so there's no strong reason why to consider these as an exception unless they result in a presidential change. Considering how things develop for now, this is probably going to be an ultimate failure.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:04, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, while I support in principle, the election article is a bit of a mess; there are many uncited claims about living people. All the blurbs so far also need to be toned down for NPOV. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 14:59, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I have added Alternative blurb III to address my concern about the blurbs but the article on the election needs a lot of work before posting. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 15:06, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How about Alt4, offered above? Short & to the pt. – Sca (talk) 15:13, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- My preference is for Altblurb3. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 18:13, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support Alternative blurb III or my blurb V: (Officially) Re-elected Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko orders to disperse (peaceful) protesters who (claims victory of other candidate / accuses him of electoral fraud) or my blurb VI: Protesters against electoral fraud contest re-election of Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko (and claim victory of other candidate). TarzanASG (talk) 20:23, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the election article is missing vast amounts of citations (amongst other problems) and is in no condition to be posted on the main page. Black Kite (talk) 22:00, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Too bad, as Svetlana Tikhanovskaya's flight to Lithuania, and her demonstrative video there, have been widely covered. [57] [58] [59] – Sca (talk) 13:42, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support in principle, with either article bolded and a preference for alt3 blurb, but oppose on quality. This is a major story but both articles are lacking in references. Some of that could be addressed by simply deleting the associated material e.g. most of the infobox on the protest article. We only need to fix one article to post the blurb, just bold that one for now. Modest Genius ^talk 13:48, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Posted per consensus below, with only the protests bolded. The election article can be bolded whenever it is ready. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:40, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

August 9[edit]

(Posted) RD: Martin Birch[edit]

Comment. Generally all fine, but the discography section contains a cite to discogs which, looking at the RS noticeboard archives, is not considered suitable for citations, only external links. Please could you make sure every entry in the list is verifiable by one or more of the non discogs sources? — Amakuru (talk) 21:06, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Reply to Fixed now, I think. Black Kite (talk) 22:27, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Practically the whole discography was sourced to AllMusic - I've sourced some that weren't, and removed the remaining few that I couldn't source. Black Kite (talk) 22:25, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Re All refs from Discogs have now been replaced. I think this may be ready to go. —Bloom6132 (talk) 05:15, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
posted — Amakuru (talk) 06:12, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Kamala[edit]

Comment - Is there a policy / convention on using stage names vs real names in the RD section? Seems like this post should be referenced as James Harris. But, is there a precedent in this group to use stage names? Regards. Ktin (talk) 02:12, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think COMMONNAME applies: use Kamala. Kingsif (talk) 03:24, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support I've been expecting this day for 28 years, and preparing the bio for eight. It could still use a few small wordiness tweaks, but I think it's ready. I'll spare you rubes my suggested blurb, you're welcome! InedibleHulk (talk) 05:19, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This is not ready. There are couple of citations needed tags, unsourced awards and even a whole unsourced section. – Ammarpad (talk) 05:22, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Where he worked and with whom those four years is in his Cagematch profile (External links), if anyone's feeling citey. Click the Career or Matches buttons. I can't paste links, or I might. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:37, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is not about being "citey" (whatever that means). It's about following one of our most important policies.These cite tags need to be resolved before posting this. I have amended my comment to make it more clear. – Ammarpad (talk) 06:15, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Feeling citey just means "wanting to cite". Cagematch is considered reliable for results. Resolution's pretty easy. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:34, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You literally just made that up. Spman (talk) 12:57, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Only the first part. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:16, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see you added those tags about a minute after I called "ready", so I stand by it; it was ready at the time. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:07, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support I have fixed a few cn tags so I would say this is ready. And a response to the original comment, yes we do use wrestling names in RD. Likewise stage names as we have done for Barry Chuckle in the past. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 06:19, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The artist known as "Prince" got a blurb in 2016, no formal address, around the time Chyna got RDed. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:39, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose dreadful line-by-line article with plenty unreferenced. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 07:54, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Update 1988 to 1992 is now verifiable enough, as is his sale by The Wizard to the devious Master Fuji. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:30, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If only Kendo Nagasaki were still alive.... he'd be spinning in his grave. Oh no sorry, he IS still alive. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:05, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You've got the wrong guy, I tell ya! InedibleHulk (talk) 10:31, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Still many unsourced statements.-- P-K3 (talk) 14:24, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see one, about why his WrestleMania match was scrapped. Nobody should care. ITN is rigged against wrestlers. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:16, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sheesh... and they don't even carry guns. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:19, 10 August 2020 (UTC) [reply]

I'll put in some cite tags. Does placing a reference at the end of the paragraph mean it's verifying every sentence within the paragraph? It's not clear.-- P-K3 (talk) 20:18, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I ~~usually~~ never use that trick when trying to get an article rapidly posted at WP:ITN/RD. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:27, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a trick, they cover everything, have for years. Staleness is coming. Hulk is dead! InedibleHulk (talk) 20:30, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They may well cover everything, but in my experience putting multiple links at the end of a paragraph with nothing on the individual lines, makes it very difficult to actually verify the facts. It's somewhat better than just listing all sources at the end of the article, like the old days of Wikipedia, but it's a step in that direction, and I definitely think it's best to be more specific on individual lines. If all the cites cover all the facts, then scatter them around a bit. If some cover some facts and others others, then that's easy. Just put them against the correct ones. — Amakuru (talk) 21:16, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(I'm very surprised there is not clear MoS policy on this. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:23, 10 August 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Easy if you can highlight, click, drag and all that luxury. Typing for me is like entering a Nintendo password. Nobody who read his article in life complained about clumps. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:19, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because nobody read his article until he died. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 23:25, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Eaton, Featured Article See how similarly wide enough the citations are? See the same blending of kayfabe and "reality"? Why's it OK for that Southern gentleman? InedibleHulk (talk) 22:40, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think a FA from 12 and a half years ago is probably not a good yardstick for what we look for in terms of quality and BLP adherence today. Just sayin'. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 23:24, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Aloha. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:40, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Fully referenced. Ready to go. GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:44, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Posted to RD Referencing issues resolved. Spencer^T•C 16:59, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Two Kamalas in one day – merkwürdig. – Sca (talk) 22:08, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Kurt Luedtke[edit]

Support Great update. Kingsif (talk) 23:46, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks good. – Ammarpad (talk) 05:03, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support satis. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 07:56, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Added—Bagumba (talk) 10:27, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) 2020 Vijayawada fire[edit]

Comment – Also covered by AP, Reuters. Possibly ITN-level due to Covid19 aspect? – Sca (talk) 17:18, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support has a death toll, is in India, even has background and reaction sections, so it ticks all the necessary boxes. Maybe add a map? Few unreferenced claims. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:56, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I added the map of where this happened.--AlphaBeta135 (talk) 18:17, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, looks like the template now. Background section needs a ref. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:20, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Completely un-notable other than the fact that it happened to a COVID-19 facility. Besides, if we add this one to ITN, we kick out Beirut explosions and 3 of 4 articles end up being "bad things in India" which seems unbalanced... and all 4 ITN articles end up being about the Indian subcontinent. If the death rate were higher, I would be okay with kicking out Beirut to replace but not this instant.Albertaont (talk) 18:27, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- As a note, we do not control where the news happens. We've had cases where all the items were in the US, and where they were all in the UK. News happens where it happens, we have no control on that. --Masem (t) 01:11, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Even though I don't think this merits posting, it's important to point out that this oppose does not make sense. Wikipedia is not here to balance bad and good stories between conutries/continents, please read WP:RGW. – Ammarpad (talk) 05:11, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very much the same as the below nom. Kingsif (talk) 21:30, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment a little context: [60] [61] --LaserLegs (talk) 00:45, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Did a quick scan of Indian news sources. Seems like news has not made it, prominently, to the front page on most of them. The news cycles still seem to be on the aircraft incident rescue actions, and the 2020 Idukki landslide which seems to have degenerated from an impact standpoint, unfortunately. Ktin (talk) 02:20, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per similar fire Czech republic fire below. – Ammarpad (talk) 05:17, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) 2020 Bohumín apartment fire[edit]

Oppose Has already dropped off most news cycles, not notable enough and no international significance. Things nominated to ITN tend to stay up for a week, I can't see this as being newsworthy for a week.Albertaont (talk) 05:33, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on notability per above and also on quality, it's only three small paragraphs. Nixinova T C 06:10, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support local authorities are calling it arson, death toll comparable to an airplane skidding off a runway. Template:Ping add a map, background and reactions section to fluff it out and you might get more support. --LaserLegs (talk) 09:50, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose (for now)~~ per stubby article.--AlphaBeta135 (talk) 12:11, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose (for now) still stubby but at least there are more info.--AlphaBeta135 (talk) 13:34, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Tragic, but lacks general significance. Parochial. – Sca (talk) 13:47, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note that I've moved the article (The title was bugging me as it suggested the entire nation was on fire which... no. --Masem (t) 13:51, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Article looks to be in good shape. One thing that stood out to me was: Template:Tq -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:06, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I actually went to check the source on that claim (which was pointing to this article [62]) and it does not at all support that, nor any of the other sources. I can't find where that came from, so I have had to remove that claim. --Masem (t) 18:18, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Here's the BBC making the claim. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:24, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Not to split hairs on this one -- but, the link above says "...has been described as the...", without any attribution (e.g. described by whom), so, this claim should not be attributed to BBC, at least not based on the above link. Regards. Ktin (talk) 19:09, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is an arsony and a mass murder blurb should reflect this. --Jenda H. (talk) 19:06, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment a little context: [63] [64] --LaserLegs (talk) 00:45, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Adding altblurb2 given this is now looking like an arson attack. --Masem (t) 01:05, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Also I've moved it again to the more specific location name per BBC and updated the above. --Masem (t) 01:08, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unfortunately. It's tragic but no general significance. Much larger disasters are reported everyday around the word. – Ammarpad (talk) 05:13, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2020 August 8 Template:Cob

August 8[edit]

(Posted to RD) RD: Erich Gruenberg[edit]

Comment reference 5 says it is a page on The Strad, but the link points to a BBC page with a mirror of our own article on it, which isn't acceptable as a source... Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 06:16, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, BBC fixed, and it's a reference to five Proms concerts, not the bio. I meant to name the others also but had no time yet. Click to each one has the details. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:08, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. —Brigade Piron (talk) 08:57, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support As the concerns of Amakuru has been addressed, seems fine now JW 1961 Talk 20:30, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - per improvements.BabbaQ (talk) 20:43, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Posted to RD. A little on the short side but consensus to post and meets minimum standards. Spencer^T•C 21:25, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Pere Casaldàliga[edit]

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2020 August 7 Template:Cob

Support This article seems to be great.--AlphaBeta135 (talk) 12:36, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - looks ready.BabbaQ (talk) 13:52, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per above. Albertaont (talk) 19:18, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this appears to have been ready for 12 hours. Also worth noting the page appears to have been moved to Pedro Casaldáliga. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 07:57, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Added—Bagumba (talk) 10:28, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) 2020 Belarusian protests[edit]

Template:ITN candidate Large scale significant protests in Belarus, ongoing for some time, gaining significant momentum and coverage in recent days.Abcmaxx (talk) 13:18, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support - article seems ready. Perhaps add it together with voting results tomorrow.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:21, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The main article is 2020 Belarusian protests, I've added it to the blurb. Brandmeister^talk 14:48, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support The outcome of the election will be significant for this country, as well as Russia and the rest of Europe. Maybe the result of the election could also have its own blurb once those are announced? LSGH (talk) (contributions) 15:23, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment should this be ongoing, rather than a blurb? Today is a large event but these have been occurring for two months and are expect to occur until the election? --Masem (t) 15:42, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I support adding this in the blurb on the election results but, for now, the protests solely don't merit one. And while it's clear what happens in the country, POV-pushing words like "regime" are not welcome.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:56, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wait – I hate to say the W-word again, but it seems only logical to wait until tomorrow's election results are available. (Besides, Saturday is traditionally an off-day news-wise.) – Sca (talk) 17:04, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support now as a blurb (no sign that it's being continuously updated for ongoing) and when the election is done, if the election article is suitable, merge. Lots of election articles fail to go up due to inadequate updates or referencing issues. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:06, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Ongoing to be clear, despite the hysteria the article does not meet the basic requirement of being "continually updated with new, pertinent information" --LaserLegs (talk) 20:53, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support ongoing per notability of the events and the article is ready. (talk) 18:46, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose & Wait The election outcome and the "hook" of this news will depend on results in 24 hours. We can wait till then, no need to post this today and re-litigate it again tomorrow. Albertaont (talk) 18:50, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator comment For those who say wait; I would point out that the elections are really merely academic at this point and so the protests will be ongoing regardless of the already known outcome. Besides, as some have pointed out, the blurb can always be changed accordingly Abcmaxx (talk) 19:18, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would definitely support adding this to ITN today.BabbaQ (talk) 19:36, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good to know your opinion. – Sca (talk) 13:58, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Just drew 60,000, without incident. Big by Belarus standards, maybe. The election will be bigger. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:42, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @InedibleHulk Not without incident; given hundreds have been arrested, more threatened, and most of the opposition leaders and activists have been detained in some form or another, that is hardly an accurate statement. Belarus is a secretive police state, so 60000 open protesters is huge by any comparable standard. Abcmaxx (talk) 20:39, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arrests are normal in police states. Lacks newsworthy incidents. Violence, property crime, clashes like elsewhere; this is a sidebar to an election story. But yeah, good to see a whole 3% of Minsk in the streets. Maybe after tomorrow, a full twentieth will get angry. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:47, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wait until the election or post to Ongoing. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:30, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support and possibly post to Ongoing. 3% is very close the the 3.25% for a revolution so this story looks like it might have legs. This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 20:43, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Very Strong Support This is some of the biggest change or attempt at change in Belarus since its inception. Dan the Animator (Commons Room) 21:00, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support combined election blurb. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 23:52, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Widely reported and now the "election" has concluded as well. I proposed an alt-blurb above which combines both events. Regards So Why 07:24, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - merged my altblurbs from nominating the election. Smurrayinchester 09:24, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Alt II's nice InedibleHulk (talk) 11:21, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the election article is not in posting condition. Shouldn't have rushed to merge the two. Oh well. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:40, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support altblurb2 Since its both about the election and the subsequent protests. Gotitbro (talk) 13:53, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – See explanation above. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 15:08, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose solely on article quality. The election article is nowhere near ready for linking on the main page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:13, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support posting without delay. Both articles in decent condition and items certainly all over the news where I am. Mkwia (talk) 08:14, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support, per above. —Brigade Piron (talk) 08:57, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support, per above. Election results are themselves newsworthy, so this seems like a clear candidate. EryZ (talk) 23:30, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. Currently the protest article is good enough so I've posted it without haste. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:39, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Pull bold or not, you can't link the election article in that state on the main page. Update the blurb to exclude the link please. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:46, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We link horrible articles on the Main Page all the time. Wikipedia is a work in progress. We just shouldn't highlight them as something we are proud of. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 00:57, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but no, the election article has unreferenced claims about individuals being arrested -- a WP:BLP vio. It's gotta come down --LaserLegs (talk) 10:32, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

August 7[edit]

(Posted) RD: Adin Steinsaltz[edit]

~~Oppose~~ tagged. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 18:19, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the tag, the page did not need the full tag on the whole page. I see a few spare "when" but nothing that seems too major for such a large article. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:28, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too much uncited material. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 22:51, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Template:U, I have filled in more than enough to get it at RD. ("Of sufficient quality.") Sir Joseph ^(talk) 00:13, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see his death mentioned and cited in the article and, if we don't have a source for his exact date of birth, it should be removed from the lead. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 02:42, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK Folks. Added mentions of his death in the article. Added a few other references. Done. I think the top-of-the-fold section looks reasonably clean. Ktin (talk) 03:30, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support – I added two missing refs I noticed. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:07, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Sourced and ready.BabbaQ (talk) 17:28, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support satis. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 21:58, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks fine. – Ammarpad (talk) 22:55, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Posted to RD. Spencer^T•C 05:44, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Air India Express Flight 1344[edit]

Weak Oppose Disasterous but the article currently has insufficient content.--AlphaBeta135 (talk) 16:44, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Now that article has a sufficient amount of info.--AlphaBeta135 (talk) 17:29, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wait – Reportedly two casualties, 30-40 injured. – Sca (talk) 16:49, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support - 15+ dead, article coming together nicely. Mjroots (talk) 17:05, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support hull loss, many dead. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 17:34, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support Dozens dead, possibly up to 200 potential deaths and injuries. Eternal Shadow Talk 17:35, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Per above notes. Someone knowledgeable about this topic, please feel free to update the blurb if there is a difference between 'crash' and overrunning runway / runway excursion. Also now that we know the number onboard, we perhaps update the nearly 200 onboard to the actual number onboard. Added Altblurb above.Ktin (talk) 17:53, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Template:U, overrun is appropriate. ❯❯❯ S A H A 17:55, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Causalities will likely climb looking at the wreakage alone. Support characterization as crash instead of runway excursion, since this will be complete hull loss and its well pass the runway in a valley. Albertaont (talk) 18:04, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support It just happened a couple of minutes ago. Plane fell into the valley and 15+ dead. 70.106.212.233 (talk) 18:27, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - seems ready for posting.BabbaQ (talk) 18:31, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Marked ready. – Ammarpad (talk) 18:36, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Posted alt blurb. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:07, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) 2020 Sri Lankan parliamentary election[edit]

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2020 August 6 Template:Cob

Comment This is ITN/R, so I have edited the nom to reflect that. The results section needs a prose update and the results should also be included in the infobox and lede, which incidentally is overly long and some of its material should be moved to the body. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 02:26, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, the above was intended as an ~~oppose~~ on quality with the hope that the editors currently working on the article will fix the deficiencies I described, but I didn't think it would be necessary to make that explicit because I assumed succeeding !voters would agree that the article needs improvement. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 03:44, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Some recent elections have gone stale on ITN, this is not one of them. Thanks again for the work so far, agree with Template:Reply to article needs minor touch-up, but the substance is there.Albertaont (talk) 02:36, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nomination, and above points. Blurb looks good too! Ktin (talk) 03:00, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Looks good. Prose is there as well. Sherenk1 (talk) 03:37, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment a few uncited sentences at the end of paragraphs and in the timeline; consider this a support once those are addressed. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 04:57, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Article looks good, with a few fixes needed. Major election in Sri Lanka. ~ Destroyer aa (talk|Contribs) 12:57, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I hope I fixed those concerns mentioned above but hope the overall shape of the article is okayish. Cheers. Abishe (talk) 13:22, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Article looks better now. Thanks to Template:U and others for their efforts. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 17:40, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support on the face of it, this looks ready. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 18:25, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks OK – Ammarpad (talk) 18:42, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. Spencer^T•C 02:29, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

August 6[edit]

(Posted) RD: Frances E. Allen[edit]

~~Comment~~ Looks fairly good, will Support ~~when~~ the CNs are attended to JW 1961 Talk 19:52, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- CNs have been fixed and I've added a couple small things that were implied by the Turing but more explicit in a few weeks. --Masem (t) 20:29, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks good to me. – Ammarpad (talk) 22:56, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Looks good to me too. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:01, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support satis. G2G. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 23:36, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Posted to RD. Spencer^T•C 05:46, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Wayne Fontana[edit]

Support Reasonably good coverage in article, everything seems to be sourced. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:09, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose'~~ there are several singles which aren't showing any chart positions at all which means they are currently unverifiable, unless there's a general source somewhere in there for such flops. And where do I verify all those catalogue numbers? The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 09:52, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Template:U I've fixed the cite tags, and found a source for the catalogue numbers, that also lists the non-charting singles. P-K3 (talk) 11:55, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Support good work. G2G. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 12:32, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Um, Um, Um, Um, Um, Um.... will someone post?? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:35, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Frequently deathly slow around here at the weekend. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 18:43, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - "chortle, chortle". Martinevans123 (talk) 18:47, 8 August 2020 (UTC) [reply]
Comment still ready nine hours later. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 21:59, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- "There's no justice!" Martinevans123 (talk) 22:06, 8 August 2020 (UTC) [reply]
Template:Added—Bagumba (talk) 01:30, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Brent Scowcroft[edit]

Support Looks like referencing issues have been addressed. Spencer^T•C 02:26, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks good enough. cn tags have been removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:58, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support decent article, the first three honours appear to be unreferenced, the rest seems satis. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 09:55, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support, if anyone has any concerns please specify them and we can see if we can get them addressed. KConWiki (talk) 14:49, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support looks good to me. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 21:51, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Re I think this may be ready to go. —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:11, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Added—Bagumba (talk) 01:14, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Ram Mandir, Ayodhya[edit]

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2020 August 5 Template:Cob

Comment This is not an area I know much about, would the nominator (Template:Ping) be able to give some context about why starting construction of a building is significant in this case? Kingsif (talk) 04:03, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, I have added comments above. Regards. --Titodutta (talk) 04:20, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Kingsif (talk) 05:59, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support in principle. From the links provided above, this is receiving international attention as a prominent and controversial religious matter that has spanned at least the last 30 years just about this temple, let alone the site it's on. Modi's attendance adds to the story. I haven't judged the article, yet, so this !vote could change if it's in poor condition. Kingsif (talk) 05:59, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
leaning Oppose - we did already post this story, when the supreme Court made the decision to allow the temple last November. [65] [66] So in effect this is just another development in the same story, much like the spacecraft returning to earth after earlier launching. Unless I'm missing something? — Amakuru (talk) 07:09, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
leaning Support with a better blurb. Has shown up on ITN within the last year, but the Ayodhya dispute is an 80+ year saga that's had enormous ramifications on Indian society and politics. Its generally credited with kick-starting the now-dominant Bharatiya Janata Party for one thing. Given the length of time between events it doesn't seem unreasonable to mention again. --RaiderAspect (talk) 08:36, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Major event in one of the greatest controversies in Indian history and society. I recommend linking to Ayodhya dispute in the blurb to provide context for unfamiliar readers. This is at least equally significant to the court decision we posted last year. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 09:25, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support, per Bzweebl. A better blurb is needed, however.—Brigade Piron (talk) 10:02, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support and added another blurb. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 10:47, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alt III. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 10:47, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This seems similar to the Hagia Sophia story which wasn't posted. If this has already been posted once then giving it more exposure again so soon seems premature. The ceremony in this case seems mainly to have been a photo-op for Modi and doesn't seem to be getting much attention outside India. Better to wait until the temple is completed and officially opened when there will be an actual building to report. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:47, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:U "Because x didn't get it, y shouldn't too" has been established to be an INVALID arguement. If you are going to oppose this, you're going to have to look at it on its own. Dantheanimator (talk) 15:22, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Amakuru this was posted last fall. The "ground breaking" is ceremonial. Nominate again when it's complete. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:12, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - As per above supports. Sherenk1 (talk) 12:20, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The article states that construction has been underway for four months, so this ceremony does seem like a photo op rather than a substantial step. That doesn't seem major enough to post the same story twice. Furthermore, if the dispute over this temple has had widespread impacts, it really isn't obvious from the article. Modest Genius ^talk 12:25, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Article looks ok. I'm not a Hindu but this seems to have some importance in the faith so in that way it is significant. (Hinduism is 1 of the 5 major religions of the world). Dantheanimator (talk) 15:19, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on quality. Neither the article nor any of the blurbs succeed in explaining the event's significance. Alt0 and Alt2 don't even pretend to. —Cryptic 15:23, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - with Altblurb 4 that explains the events broader context. It is getting global coverage outside of India. The date chosen seem to have been the anniversary of the revocation of autonomy of Jammu and Kashmir, but that could be a coincidence.Albertaont (talk) 15:37, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is ready to be posted. Dantheanimator (talk) 18:15, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Posted Went with Alt 3, which IMHO explain significance best. --Jayron 32 18:42, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting comment For those questioning the significance of this, my understanding from past reading on the dispute is that this is THE most important symbolic flashpoint of Hindu-Muslim tensions in India. The section in the bolded article on the ground-breaking ceremony should give a sense on how big a deal it was in the context of the overall controversy. The ceremony was broadcast and celebrated by Hindus all over the world. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 19:09, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting feedback on blurb: Is it right to say "disputed", once the Supreme court gave its final verdict on this matter in November of 2019? My thinking is that prior to this time, it would be alright to say "disputed", but, post the supreme court verdict, we should not be using the phrase "disputed". Also, in perhaps a minor point, we might want to reconsider starting with "In India". This brings up the systemic geographic bias that was being discussed yesterday, and gives the impression that the center of our universe is somewhere in the western world. E.g. we didn't start the post about the Spanish king by saying, "In Spain, ...". I know getting consensus on a blurb is a challenging one, but, AltBlurb2 remains the most neutral. Cheers. Ktin (talk) 19:23, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- As the person who (mainly) wrote the blurb on the page, a) the Supreme Court case did not change that this is still the flashpoint of strained Hindu-Muslim relations, and b) we said that Juan Carlos was the "King of Spain" in the blurb, thereby providing geographical context, and given that most people in the Western world (this is the English Wikipedia, after all) are not privy to this dispute, adding "In India" is a brief yet effective way to provide needed geographic context. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:28, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Regarding a), I have added my notes below to Template:U's comment. Regarding b), sure, please do what is best. I agree with you that whatever conveys the message in a succinct manner and with brevity, should be done. But, on a minor point, we should just be aware of our biases when we say "in the Western World (this is the English Wikipedia, after all)" -- ~87% of the Wikipedia traffic from India is to the English Wikipedia (source). So, the western world can not be the only preserve of the English Wikipedia, or vice versa. But, to give you the benefit of doubt, only ~10% of all Wikipedia traffic comes from India. So, maybe that is driving your thinking. Cool either ways. Cheers. Ktin (talk) 20:04, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Per John M Wolfson, the dispute exists whether or not any legal conclusion was reached. The end of the dispute happens when there is no longer a significant dispute from opposition groups. The groups who were opposed to the temple construction still do, and the dispute is itself what makes this a major news event. Places of worship are under construction all over the world all the time, what makes this one newsworthy is that this one has been the source of tension in one of the world's largest nations. --Jayron32 19:31, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Will let you guys decide the appropriate wording. You might know this better than me. But, "disputed" seems wrong, particularly when the it took the courts 28 years to end the dispute by providing a resolution. Now, will some parties to the dispute be aggrieved at the end of a verdict, perhaps yes, but, the whole reason a verdict was announced was to close a dispute, so to speak. Re: the second point, sure, please do what is best. Cheers.Ktin (talk) 19:37, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm not particularly tied to one word in particular, if you have a word that better encapsulates the controversy without using "dispute", I'm open to changing it. I'm just not smart enough to think of one myself. --Jayron 32 19:51, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Also, I read this once more - the blurb clearly says building "on disputed land", I don't think the law would allow you to build on disputed land. If somoene were to do that, they would be breaking the law, and we don't want to be implying that the folks who are building are breaking the law. Cheers.Ktin (talk) 19:52, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - Template:U, I must admit, I am in the same boat as well. Hence my thinking was that using Altblurb2 was the most neutral way to go about this one. Maybe pop in 'Indian' in between to give the geographical context. Thanks. Ktin (talk) 20:25, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - Template:U, in the context of the sentence, it can be reasonably inferred that by "dispute" it means "controversial". Also, consider the fact that "disputed land" is linked to the article, so any reader such as you can just click/hover over the link to learn more about the "dispute". You're interpreting "dispute" to politically, this is more of a socio-cultural thing from what I know (similar to the situation of East Jerusalem). If you want more clarification, just send me a ping and I'll be glad to make this clear for you. Dantheanimator (talk) 20:21, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - Template:Ec Ktin, you just openly accused people of being racists here. You probably don't want to do that if you really are trying to convince people to help you out. Furthermore, I asked you for some help in crafting better wording. Your response was 1) to delete my request for help and 2) to go back to an earlier post of yours and edit it to accuse anyone who doesn't do exactly what you want to be a racist. Good luck with that. I'm done trying to be helpful to you. You can find someone else to do your bidding. --Jayron 32 20:24, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        Template:Re Please let me admit that I am not accusing anyone of anything. There was a genuine edit conflict. Let me be the first one to apologize, if I gave anyone the impression that I was casting aspersions on them. Specifically, Template:U, please accept my apologies, if that was what came out. I will stand down. Thanks everyone. Have a nice day. Ktin (talk) 20:30, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

August 5[edit]

(Posted) RD: Horace Clarke[edit]

Support Looks to be in good shape. --Jayron 32 16:42, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Re I think this may be ready to go. —Bloom6132 (talk) 23:42, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Posted to RD. Spencer^T•C 02:21, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Hawa Abdi[edit]

Comment The DHAF site used as a reference for a couple statements is under construction. Hrodvarsson (talk) 21:04, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Re just added an archive URL of the site from March 2017. —Bloom6132 (talk) 23:00, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support looks good, should be ready. Dantheanimator (talk) 01:19, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Re I think this is ready to go. —Bloom6132 (talk) 01:38, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Posted Step hen 02:57, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Pete Hamill[edit]

Support pretty decently referenced article JW 1961 Talk 12:29, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Commment ~~Fails MOS:ROLEBIO, listing everything but the kitchen sink in the lead sentence.~~—Bagumba (talk) 13:24, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I got rid of "educator".[67] The rest might arguably be notable enough to stay.—Bagumba (talk) 13:31, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well-referenced, looks ready.-- P-K3 (talk) 13:30, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Re I think this is ready to go. —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:13, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Posted --Jayron 32 18:34, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Hurricane Isaias[edit]

Support in the news, thorough article, and storm during storm season does storm things is an established pattern here. Also deaths. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:56, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:POINT. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 22:34, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support For me a hurricane that causes significant impact to millions and leads to 10+ deaths is enough to post. Article is already in good shape. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:04, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~~in principle~~ -- Question for folks who might know -- the article is worded "Hurricane Isaias was a category 1 hurricane" -- is that because the worst of the hurricane is behind us now? Also, is there a thumb-rule in this group about a category threshold above which a hurricane is relevant to be posted on ITN? E.g. Category 3 and beyond. I am assuming not. Ktin (talk) 20:08, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ping Damage repairs and estimates are still ongoing. For second question: ni, only if it is notable and causes significant damage/kills people.~ Destroyer aa (talk|Contribs) 20:17, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The hurricane itself is done. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:23, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Thanks folks Template:Re and Template:Re. Hope everyone in the NE is safe. Ktin (talk) 20:39, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose not even the deadliest storm of this season. Standard weather with a standard outcome. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 20:28, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Which one is the deadliest storm of this season? We should definitely post that one :) Ktin (talk) 20:31, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cristobal. Not even sure it got nominated. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 20:32, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Seems like we missed it. We should not miss this one. Ktin (talk) 20:39, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It was missed because it was non-notable, just like this. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 20:45, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Very Interesting. Is there a numerical threshold to being 'notable'? Ktin (talk) 20:51, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well history tells us that around 30 to 40 deaths is the usual threshold for such storms to be considered worthwhile posting (I've only gone back as far as 2015 mind you). Setting the bar this low on a hurricane season would literally open the door to monthly postings of regular weather patterns in the US which fade away almost immediately. Perhaps we could add a new line to ITN during hurricane season in the US alone to publish all the various storms there for our audience. In the meantime, floods in India and China with far more impact on much less-developed countries are routinely dismissed as "standard weather for this time of year". Double standards anyone? The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 20:56, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Pacific typhoon season has caused 6 fatalities all year. China hasn't been hard hit by typhoons recently, there only having 1 fatality from that country in 2020.

2020 China floods were posted to ongoing last month for 11 days with no opposition.

2020 Assam floods weren't posted because the article wasn't updated enough. (It still is!) Only IndelibleInk opposed based on importance grounds. Howard the Duck (talk) 21:07, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, and that's just this year. How many over the last five years ridiculed and objected to through systemic bias? Yet people support this trivial storm, the like of which happens several times per year in one isolated part of the world? Amazing. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:09, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Howard. This is good to know. So, seems like with all of this, we should go ahead with posting this one. Let's move forward. Also, at the risk of stating the obvious, I do not think we should trivialize the less developed countries and their suffering as "standard time of the year". I am onboard that we should be posting those in a timely manner. Ktin (talk) 21:37, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Typhoon Jebi (2018) killed 17 surely non-Caucasians and was posted. Good work, Wikipedia! Howard the Duck (talk) 21:16, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is outstanding research. Meantime in 2019 there were something like eight notable floods in India alone with death tolls in excess of 50, none of which were posted, most of which weren't nominated. Let's just run a US weather ticker under the Covid banner, that's much easier than all this silly debate. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:19, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Unindent Without wishing to get into the debate above about deaths, as not every significant tropical cyclone causes a significant amount of deaths. We are currently trying to examine the way forward with meteorology articles at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Meteorology and User talk:Jason Rees/Flood articles. Comments are welcome while suggestions are vital.Jason Rees (talk) 21:33, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Ktin. Cristobal didnt get posted bc we didnt know it caused 15 deaths till laye July! Always thought it caused only 5. ~ Destroyer aa (talk|Contribs) 20:54, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support. 13 deaths and affected 6 countries of Florida, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, Maryland and New York. We post ITNR entries that affect far less than 6 countries. Howard the Duck (talk) 20:39, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly a relatively trivial number of people killed and infrastructure affected in almost all of those "countries". More people have been killed in the US by mass shootings in the same amount of time Isaias has been trundling along. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 20:45, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Those are states, not countries. Affected more than 6 countries - Dominica, Trinidad+Tobago, Dominican Republic, Bahamas, US, Grenada, Britain (territories). ~ Destroyer aa (talk|Contribs) 20:49, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. Those were Easter eggs linking to actual countries affected by this natural disaster. Even the queen's realms (plural!) were affected. Howard the Duck (talk) 20:52, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, the United States are 51 sovereign states, hence the name. And only seven people have died in mass shootings this month, from just six counties (encapsulating Mulholland Drive). There was one in a federal district, most recently, everyone lived. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:29, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly! 7 is 6 less than 13. Template:U, you can keep Rambling about how it's not notable and that 13 deaths are nothing. This is notable. ~ Destroyer aa (talk|Contribs) 22:25, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't follow you at all, but please stop trying to canvass votes. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 22:26, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And sure, mass shootings in August in the US amount to seven dead, but it's only 4 August. More than 60 in July. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 22:29, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(I clarified here, but it was destroyed, now TRM's pissed, so forget it. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:39, 5 August 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Um, if you mean "upset" then no, I'm just saying people killed in mass shootings in August (it's the 4th) nearly equates to the death toll here. And if you meant "drunk" then also no. I don't think your comment is very helpful at all and I'd urge you to strike it/explain it/apologise for a borderline NPA. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 23:44, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose If death and destruction are what's hot, and the hotter one wasn't, this one's not. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:43, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This was already nominated on Aug 1. Posting it then might have been sensible but it has dissipated now. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:07, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Ping If it needs to be backdated, so be it. It's still more recent than the two 7/26 blurbs. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:26, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It would make sense if it was a truly notable storm. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:27, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support After all, it did damage a lot of structures (and injure people) in the East Coast.--AlphaBeta135 (talk) 21:15, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If it weren't going on after a whole lot of buildings (and people) were blown right away in Beirut, it'd be impressive; timing matters in the news. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:24, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. While 13 deaths and loss of property etc is certainly tragic, it seems like that is not at the level which it would make sense to post, bearing in mind the frequency of expected events at that level. As an aside, re Template:Xt, I'm curious where this door is, which will be literally opened if we're not careful? Might be worth putting anotbet padlock on it. — Amakuru (talk) 22:05, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't mind my asking. What is that 'level' where it would make sense to post? Re: your latter question, I am tagging Template:U to give you the location of that door. Ktin (talk) 22:15, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Standard door, it's got "systemic bias" just above the knocker. Cheers Ktin! The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 22:18, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

oh, that door. I know it well, and I've seen many people going through it in the past. It has a big red warning sign on it but is still left wide open for all to pass through. — Amakuru (talk) 22:33, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think on this one, I am on the same page as you Template:U. However, the way to fix it is not to oppose everything else, but, instead when we see systemic bias denying an action for a under-represented region, we should speak up. Cheers. Ktin (talk) 22:43, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and now the canvassing begins. Honestly. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 22:21, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as thankfully it was not a devastating hurricane as can be seen by the relatively low number of deaths and people losing power rather than losing everything. P-K3 (talk) 22:27, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – How much damage is 'signficant,' and how does this hurricane rate on a scale of 1-10 compared to other hurricanes in this regard? (Personally, I find most weather news inherently boring.) – Sca (talk) 22:28, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's a "3 out of 10" based on my reading of the last six years of this hurricane season thing. This is relatively trivial even in the context of hurricanes, let alone the context of global encyclopedic events (such as Beirut). Posting this would be a sublime kowtow to systemic bias. But Donald the Orange would be happy to see the US winning again, while pointing to some graphs he knows literally nothing about! The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 22:33, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, the article is in good shape, but in the grand scheme of things this is just a low-grade hurricane, which makes notability and systemic bias concerns certainly valid. Titoxd^(?!?) 22:31, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Just look at what else is in the news. Half of the capital city of Lebanon has been destroyed by an explosion. A (former) king goes into exile! That would be huge news two centuries ago. Guyana now has a clear winner, five months after its election. (I really hope that doesn't happen to US's election ._.) And then an $11 billion scandal that took down a prime minister of Malaysia. All of these are major historic events. Isaias was a deadly storm, it spawned several tornadoes, and brought the strongest winds to large parts of the northeastern United States. Perhaps the power outage, as millions of people are without power. In June, Cyclone Nisarga left about 2.5 million people without power (more than Isaias), but it wasn't on ITN (as far as I know). Isaias doesn't seem like the kind of historic storm that the world has gotten used to in the past few decades. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:31, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good analysis. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 22:35, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forgot the literal, actual bus plunge we posted just last month. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:52, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the one where 21 people died in a flash in a under-developed country as opposed to where 13 people died in "the greatest country on earth" from typical weather. Bravo. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 22:56, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well you bot the greatest country on earth bit right anyway --LaserLegs (talk) 22:59, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly the greatest at killing its citizens with an orange leader advocating the use drugs which actively exacerbates Covid-19 deaths? You're welcome to it!!!! The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 23:00, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And "you bot"... you couldn't make it up! Like the CIA are trying to convert Wikipedia into their vessel! Brilliant. I go to bed a happy man, thanks LaseLegs, always up for it! The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 23:04, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ha, your country thinks seven o' clock is bedtime! InedibleHulk (talk) 23:08, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What the actual fuck are you talking about?! Come back when you have something meaningful (and/or accurate) to say!! The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 23:10, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Given that it's currently 00:27 in the UK, that seems quite reasonable. What time do you sleep over there in the good 'ol USA? Black Kite (talk) 23:27, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It was supposed to be a lighthearted time zone joke. I'm Canadian. But fine, I'll kill myself, sheesh (no, not really). InedibleHulk (talk) 23:33, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is quite a burden having the most powerful, most important country in the world where the inept flailing of our leader demands international attention. There was a time when the inept leader of Great Britain would have demanded international attention but alas, the sun has set on that era. Too bad. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:10, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, Trump is literally in a league of his own. And then you have Brazil's Bolsonaro. Our bonkers PM is way down on the list. Meanwhile the US is "winningest" at dead people from Covid and it's getting much much worse. "Mask debate" sounds like "masturbate" when y'all say it too. Brilliant. My life is nearly complete! The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 23:15, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just close this discussion bc the consensus is clearly against me. ~ Destroyer aa (talk|Contribs) 22:52, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was running against the wind. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:01, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Seems like we are trending toward yet another "Unable to reach consensus" closure. This is not bad in and of itself. Speaks to the vibrancy of our debates. But, sometimes we should remind ourselves that this is "In the news" and not "In the olds" and show some bias to action. After all this section is not a "This day in history!". Cheers folks. Ktin (talk) 22:55, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nice thought, but given this has been nominated twice, it's been tortuous and unnecessary. Probably worth knowing when a dead duck is a dead duck. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 22:57, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't see this in any news outside of the US. Doesn't seem like a very deadly or notable storm. Albertaont (talk) 23:14, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not even close to the biggest story in the US. 160,000 dead from COVID now, is it? Black Kite (talk) 23:23, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This actually ended up being less of a story than I was expecting, which I suppose is probably for the better. Pie3141527182 (talk) 00:37, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The impact of the storm in the Caribbean was mild enough to not post then, and in the US and Canada... a few COVID-19 testing centers closed (something which couldn't happen at any other time). Basically, it rained heavily for half a day in a few states. Suggest close based on the strong opposes above and the fact it's not a story, it's a minor weather pattern. Storms just exist, only their effects really give notability over other wind, and this had none. Kingsif (talk) 00:52, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2020 August 4 Template:Cob

August 4[edit]

(Closed) RD: FBG Duck[edit]

Oppose for now. Someone mentioned a dead duck in the section above this one, and now, tragically, here's an actual dead duck. Anyway, the article text is 1118 bytes so it's pretty much a stub right now, it'll need to get above 1500 at least. A couple of unreferwnced claims in there too. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 06:56, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose For now also as plenty of unreferenced sentences and the whole discography section JW 1961 Talk 12:33, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Not only is this a stub, it was only moved to article space after they were killed [68]. They only released one EP and most of the references in the article are about the shooting. I don't think this person passes WP:BLP1E or WP:BAND. Modest Genius ^talk 12:41, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. Dan the Animator (Commons Room) 01:31, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Daisy Coleman[edit]

Comment I don't know enough about this tragedy really to pass comment on this nomination other than to question if this individual really surpasses WP:BLP1E. I note her article used to redirect to the documentary about her and that was changed an hour ago. An AFD for her article in 2017 suggested her article redirect to Audrie & Daisy and I'm not sure I'm seeing any compelling evidence about Coleman in the intervening time to suggest she warrants a standalone article. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:33, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point. Coleman is the subject of her assault, and the aforementioned documentary, plus her untimely death is generating additional significant coverage. I think she meets WP:BASIC. TJMSmith (talk) 23:08, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support per TJMSmith, there is significant ongoing coverage that predates the documentary. The AFD is uninformative as there was no actual "article" at the time. GreatCaesarsGhost 11:29, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above; saw it in the news before coming to this, article as stands is fine and covers her previous activism and the documentary, so meets notability for an article. Kingsif (talk) 22:35, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above. Dan the Animator (Commons Room) 03:47, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Posted Step hen 04:20, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) 2020 Beirut port explosions[edit]

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2020 August 3 Template:Cob

Wait till the cause is known. Also needs a map, background and reactions sections. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:53, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Massive explosion heard 250 km away in Cyprus. Count Iblis (talk) 16:57, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wait for more details to emerge. From the videos being reported, this is a very big explosion and certainly seems significant enough to merit an ITN blurb. However there is very little reliable information available yet and the article is very short. Give it a few hours. Modest Genius ^talk 17:09, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very clearly the most notable event of the day. --Posted by Pikamander2 (Talk) at 17:11, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Notable, widely covered in reliable sources. Article is being rapidly expanded, but that's to be expected, and it's semi-protected, so vandalism will be mitigated. Ganesha811 (talk) 17:15, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wait a few hours. Article is still a stub and there are few details available yet.-- P-K3 (talk) 17:17, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Exteremly Important situation, being covered across multiple online sources, along multiple videos of the explosion(s) and continued coverage. –NicoARicoA (talk) 17:30, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Sky News showing several buildings have collapsed. Death toll likely to be much higher than 10. Significant event and ITN worthy. Article is fully referenced and will be expanded as info comes to hand. Mjroots (talk) 17:36, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - ~~Sky~~ ITN said that the explosion may have been on board a ship. We may need to consider a blurb with the explosion and ship if that is the case. Mjroots (talk) 17:38, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Top headline in major news sources, helped by existence of several incendiary videos. Article is a stub only due to lack of available information and will likely see significant expansion throughout the day. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 17:41, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Might have to word the blurb appropriately or be ready to update the blurb a couple of times as more news comes available. Not sure what the guidelines about that are, in this group. Ktin (talk) 17:48, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support It will be a long time before cause is established, it doesn't make sense to wait for that. Mvolz (talk) 17:49, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support Big boom in Beirut is definitely gonna be in the headlines for days. Eternal Shadow Talk
Support - The blurb will need update(s), but, considering how big the media coverage and how notable the event is, I don't support waiting for more details before sending it to the main page. Ahmad^talk 17:54, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The images coming out of Beirut seem to be showing a much bigger magnitude then what offical reports are showing. This is going to dominate headlines for at least two days in the world. Albertkaloo (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:59, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support – in principle, but wait until extent of casualties becomes clearer. (Al Jazeera says 100s wounded.) – Sca (talk) 18:01, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above. Davey2116 (talk) 18:02, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Article is detailed enough, well referenced, and the topic is being covered by news sources appropriately. Checks all of the boxes. --Jayron 32 18:17, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Posted – Muboshgu (talk) 18:22, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Premature. ITN isn't a breaking news site. – Sca (talk) 18:25, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:U, I count 13 "supports" and a "strong support". The three "waits" came when the article was a stub, but it has been expanded since then. We have a quality (enough) article with references and the subject is quite literally "in the news" all over the world. What more do you need? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:35, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Extent of casualties, and if available fairly soon something on the cause or perp. (Again, ITN is a fixture of an online encyclopedia, not a news site per se. NYT at 18:30 said "the extent of casualties was unknown.") – Sca (talk) 18:39, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aye, where and when are not enough (even that's approximated). InedibleHulk (talk) 18:41, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Did someone suggest that we shouldn't add that information when it is known? I don't see anyone arguing we shouldn't? --Jayron 32 18:45, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go again. That's not the point, and Jay knows it. – Sca (talk) 18:50, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, the point is that other people who are not you thought differently than you, and they had the consensus. That happens sometimes. Wikipedia does not do things solely on your say. --Jayron 32 19:51, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My point on Tuesday was that at the time of posting, insufficient information was available to answer the most salient of the "five W" questions. Thus, posting then was premature. My point had nothing to do with those who expressed support for posting at that time. Honest people may differ. – Sca (talk) 13:05, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Post-posting support - In service to our readers, how could we not point to today's most important story? "ITN isn't a breaking news site" as a rationale for holding back is not rooted in policy. -- Fuzheado | Talk 21:22, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment no issues with posting this, but the blurb must mention the deaths. That's the headline, not "extensive damage". Mentioning property and buildings but not casualties is a terrible optic IMHO. — Amakuru (talk) 18:52, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting support. It is the headline around the world, with countries pledging international aid and EU assembling its emergency workers. The magnitude of this explosion is not your "run of the mill" explosion. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 16:10, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

August 3[edit]

(Posted) RD: Shirley Ann Grau[edit]

Support Only 2 kb of prose, but references all check out and are diverse, 'ography is complete, and notability is well established.130.233.3.21 (talk) 09:35, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - looks good to go.BabbaQ (talk) 17:03, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - looks good JW 1961 Talk 19:00, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Posted Short but satisfactory. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:04, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Punjab alcohol poisoning[edit]

Oppose ~~(for now)~~ per stubby article.--AlphaBeta135 (talk) 18:06, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- There's barely any expansion for this article within the past 2–3 hours.--AlphaBeta135 (talk) 20:55, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Already getting stale. – Sca (talk) 18:31, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A search through the archives show that 2 similar items nominated were not of sufficient quality for posting; the one that was posted: 2016 Irkutsk mass methanol poisoning. Spencer^T•C 19:39, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Article is too short and does not provide enough information, and is rightly tagged as a stub. Also, it appears the main part of the story, the inquiry and raids that took place, occurred on July 30 and August 1, and even going with the later date, would make this the second oldest blurb and would like roll off too fast to make it worth it. Given that the article is not good enough, and that the story is stale at this time, I don't think this is worth posting. If this had been a more extensive article, and had been nominated back on July 30 or August 1 when the most recent events occurred, I would have supported it. --Jayron 32 19:45, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose but as noted per Jayron32, on its stubiness and staleness. This otherwise would have been an appropriate story (why I'm adding here just in case) for an ITN. --Masem (t) 19:49, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose We missed the boat on this one. Should have been picked up in the late July news cycle but didn't, so now stale. Albertaont (talk) 20:17, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Reni Santoni[edit]

Support satis. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 13:18, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support all looks ok to go JW 1961 Talk 19:34, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak oppose~~ Resume in prose format; minimal depth of coverage at present about the subject's acting career besides a list of roles and films. Spencer^T•C 19:36, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Re Done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 03:51, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WO struck. Still a little too "bare bones" for me to support, but I have no reason to oppose either. Spencer^T•C 04:56, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Re I think this is ready to go. —Bloom6132 (talk) 09:34, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thin but fine. I am surprised to find that Rotten Tomatoes is explicitly NOT WP:USERG, when checking the uncredited appearances. Aren't users able to add/remove credits over there?130.233.3.21 (talk) 09:49, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose for now~~ if what the IP says is true. Are Rotten Tomatoes filmographies user generated? If so we need to find a better source for his "uncredited" role in The Pawnbroker, it doesn't matter whether WP:USERG explicitly mentions it or not. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 10:40, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Re No, they are not user-generated. Here is what WP:USERG says: Template:Tq This article does not use Rotten Tomatoes to verify audience ratings. —Bloom6132 (talk) 10:46, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is there anywhere that confirms that the filmography sections on the site are generated by the site's editors and not by users? Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 10:47, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Re Yes, their Help Desk says under "Edit requests": Template:Tq And even if that wasn't the case, ref 6 (from TV Guide) provides a back up. I've also added an extra source from Variety for good measure. —Bloom6132 (talk) 10:54, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Posted. Good stuff, thanks for the quick turnaround and responses, Template:U. All good now. — Amakuru (talk) 11:17, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Ralph Barbieri[edit]

Template:Re I think this is ready to go. —Bloom6132 (talk) 12:59, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support satis. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 13:16, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I would say this is almost there, but could use a couple sentences about the The Razor and Mr. T program itself (outside of being about sports, there's no description of the program, which is what the subject is notable for). Spencer^T•C 14:58, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Re Done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 18:50, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Posted to RD. Spencer^T•C 19:35, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Juan Carlos I of Spain[edit]

Support Big news, making international headlines. Update to the article is sufficient DUE coverage. Kingsif (talk) 21:46, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wait This seems like the ongoing saga of the British Royals such as Prince Andrew, Prince Harry, Prince Philip, &c. who have all had to step down in some way recently. There is lots of press coverage of anything connected with royalty so ITN has to be fairly choosy to avoid seeming like Hello magazine. Rather than the Daily Mail, we need to see what serious papers like The Economist are saying about this. Here's their account of the matter. According to them, Juan Carlos fell from grace in 2012 and so the issue now seems to be an ongoing one of the status of the monarchy in Spain. It's what happens to the current King Felipe which seems to matter most so we should perhaps wait for some development at that level. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:46, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Interesting reading in the Guardian report and I would say it would by worthy of ITN, but I would suggest it would be best to wait until King Juan Carlos actually does leave Spain. JW 1961 Talk 21:53, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

per Bzweebl comment, changing to Support JW 1961 Talk 22:09, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Former sovereign of a major European country leaving in disgraced exile is definitely worthy of ITN. Is highly unusual and of general encyclopedic interest. Albertaont (talk) 21:55, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support- Unusual to see the exile of a transformative former world leader in a very highly developed country. Re Template:U, a spokesperson said he has already left the country. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 22:05, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Eighty-two-year-old Spanish ex-monarch chooses exile due to allegations of financial chicanery a decade ago. Fairly widely in the news, but not readily apparent that it's widely significant. – Sca (talk) 22:17, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support 39 years or so as monarch of Spain, notable. Article needs a bit more work as a BLP, but otherwise it's alright. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 22:20, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree with the others. An exile of a former monarch is not something frequently seen. Additionally, it appears to be a headline news in the media.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 23:33, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support A former and once very popular King, who was forced to abdicate and is now going into de-facto exile, is significant news. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:38, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have added a possible more specific altblurb. The word "leaves", taken by itself, it too generic and may indicate a temporary trip, which apparently is not the case here. Nsk92 (talk) 00:58, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support altblurb for brevity and accessibility. BLP is fine, and the one CN is confusing; if it is contesting that Carlos praised Franco then it is absurd on it's face, if it is contesting "positive changes" then it is merely an expression of the editor's opinion of "positive", and not the content or intent of the praise.130.233.3.21 (talk) 07:08, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - per Kiril Simeonovski. Mjroots (talk) 07:14, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Article looks fine. – Ammarpad (talk) 08:11, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. He has not been head of state for more than half a decade, and has chosen to leave Spain rather than being exiled. —Brigade Piron (talk) 08:55, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Posted per the consensus above. 331dot (talk) 09:20, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Post-Posting Comment The voluntary exile of a nominal king seems more like a vacation, or at most, a permanent relocation in retirement (if he wants). InedibleHulk (talk) 12:33, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- A powerless figure head king when the president of the government exercises actual authority over the country --LaserLegs (talk) 12:46, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Even the president only goes so far, off-paper, it takes thousands of people to actually run a country of millions. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:55, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And in Spain, none of those people are called "King" --LaserLegs (talk) 13:11, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A few are called "Reyes", though. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:43, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, but the real king is his nipper. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:47, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Felipe Reyes says hi. Howard the Duck (talk) 17:37, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Haha. And he's the Real Madrid Captain. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:39, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this seems rather trivial at first glance, but the universal support makes me thinking I'm missing some nuance. A sitting head of government fleeing prosecution is one thing, but a former royal figurehead moving to avoid mere criticism is another. GreatCaesarsGhost 17:38, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: John Hume[edit]

Support satis. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 10:03, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I added the missing ISBN's, looks satisfactory JW 1961 Talk 10:16, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - SchroCat (talk) 13:03, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Looks good to go. Modest Genius ^talk 13:03, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Posted —valereee (talk) 13:13, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Iran COVID-19 cover-up[edit]

Oppose COVID-19 banner is that-a-way. --Masem (t) 04:09, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Also far too early in the coverage of this to call it a "scandal". Just like the reported Chinese geocide, we need authoritative groups to verify and decide what actions are appropriate here, not the press making the call. --Masem (t) 04:11, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think the fact it's been reported in such detail means there's a scandal whatever happens. Kingsif (talk) 04:41, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Most countries have failed to record or report COVID deaths accurately. Sometimes it's deliberate spin, sometimes it's just down to expedience, sometimes they just don't know. Picking on Iran for this does not seem fair and we're unlikely to have reliable data about the truth, whatever that is. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:33, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose basically per the same reason as Andrew. – Ammarpad (talk) 09:46, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2020 August 2 Template:Cob

August 2[edit]

(Posted) RD: Leon Fleisher[edit]

Support Discography completely referenced and rest of article is well-referenced. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 13:14, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I didn't reference the recordings, so added Grimes2 to updaters, and noticed more helpers. That's great, because when I saw the article today, quotes were unreferenced, and the lead not even saying a word about his teaching. This was an iconic pianist, with the most unusual career, 50 years practically playing only one hand! Why do pop stars get featured articles at age twentysome, and such a great person such a poor thing when he dies?? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:22, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They don't like to be called "pop stars" anymore, they insist we address them as our "influencers". And yeah, who can argue with the Wikipedian results? They're selling something right, even if it takes them six to eight hands to produce a single melody. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:16, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences" needs ref. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 13:24, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just done. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 13:32, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Posted — Amakuru (talk) 21:29, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Kamal Rani Varun[edit]

Support Looks fine to me. - Poydoo can talk and edit 17:17, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Posted — Amakuru (talk) 21:29, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) 2020 Guyanese general election[edit]

Template:Archive top Template:ITN candidate

Support in principle the story seems "extraordinary" enough. I haven't looked at the article so cannot vouch for its quality. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 13:31, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is ITNR, even if delayed. The article could use clean up but the prose is there and the sourcing is there. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 13:39, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support altblurb and I agree this qualifies under ITNR anyway (final results). The article is well referenced and seems to explain the very messy situation well enough. Modest Genius ^talk 16:28, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is a rather close election with controversial results. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 17:13, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support- several of my major news sources of choice had been covering this in the run-up and aftermath as a particularly consequential election, and the article update is sufficient. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 17:30, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support ITN/R but also an interesting case, with good updates. One cn tag in the whole article that I could see, but not at a key point. Kingsif (talk) 21:47, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support There was a special story to this one, and also good form to cover results of general elections. Albertaont (talk) 21:57, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. A few cites to fix up, then after that it's good to go. — Amakuru (talk) 23:26, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 00:33, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Looks OK now. – Ammarpad (talk) 04:22, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Posted Step hen 05:42, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) British Grand Prix[edit]

Oppose utterly trivial. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 08:44, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest speedy closure What on earth are you thinking about? Unnamelessness (talk) 09:25, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that Unnamelessness is a Ferrari fan. Sebastian Vettel came in 10th place, "Something doesn't stack up." Andrew🐉(talk) 09:47, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Template:U, Sure, I am a Ferrari fan, so I have no right to comment here? Because Floyd is black, he has no right to breathe? Wikipedia is not a fandom; neither WP:ITN/R item. Unnamelessness (talk) 10:10, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lewis Hamilton is black and has been making quite a big deal about BLM and that's part of the coverage now too. For example, Lewis Hamilton says Formula One is not taking racism seriously. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:15, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Template:U, I know, but that doesn't change the fact that this is NOT an ITN/R item. Unnamelessness (talk) 10:19, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

None of the current blurbs are ITN/R. R does not stand for rigid requirement. We can and do list other stories too. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:23, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Template:U, now you are doing it for the sake of it. Other stuff exists is not a reason; it is an excuse. Unnamelessness (talk) 10:31, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per TRM. – Ammarpad (talk) 09:53, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not on ITN/R; nice record, but better suited for DYK (especially with the flat tire). – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 09:54, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on something else for that but DYK is over-subscribed currently and so has to rotate every 12 hours to keep up with the volume. That's over a hundred articles every week, whereas ITN has had the same three blurbs for all of the last week. And the oldest of the three has been there for two weeks now. ITN is now quite dead. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:06, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree with you on those counts, but that is neither an argument against this being appropriate for DYK nor for this being appropriate for ITN. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 10:26, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For the fifth time, try making a proposal for change instead of flogging the horse. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 10:27, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. We'll post the champion team & driver at the end of the season. Winning a race with a punctured tyre is unusual but hardly important enough for an ITN blurb. Modest Genius ^talk 13:05, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment suggest this is closed post-haste to stop any more time being wasted. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 22:20, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2020 August 1 Template:Cob

August 1[edit]

(Stale) RD: Amar Singh (politician)[edit]

Comment It has an NPOV tag (from 2004) that should be taken out in the cleanup, will support later when updated to RD standards JW 1961 Talk 09:42, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A significant number of contentious statements (and possibly BLP violations) are unsourced or poorly sourced. Black Kite (talk) 19:08, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Article's a mess. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 09:55, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - not ready.BabbaQ (talk) 12:38, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Stale—Bagumba (talk) 00:44, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Wilford Brimley[edit]

~~Oppose~~ per nom. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:28, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Re All sourced now (I think). —Bloom6132 (talk) 02:35, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support good to go. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 10:32, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Conditionally~~ Support once filmography is referenced. The rest of the article looks ready. Joofjoof (talk) 09:47, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Re It's already referenced with refs 38 (TV Guide) and 39 (Rotten Tomatoes) at the very top of the section. —Bloom6132 (talk) 10:04, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That works, comment updated.Joofjoof (talk) 10:11, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Now that article has been improved JW 1961 Talk 10:22, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Posted — Amakuru (talk) 15:12, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Return of the SpaceX Crew Dragon Capsule from the ISS[edit]

Update 1: Parachutes have been deployed, and we are very close to splashdown. Kaisertalk (talk) 18:48, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update 2: Splashdown successful! The astronauts, Bob and Doug, are safe on planet Earth!!! They have landed on the Gulf of Mexico. Kaisertalk (talk) 18:49, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update 3: Recovery vessels are now approaching the capsule, and deploy the rigging equipment to help hoist the astronauts outside of the capsule. This marks the first water splashdown for US Astronauts since 1975. As others have noted below, this is the first US vessel to bring down astronauts from the ISS since the early 2000s. Weather has been extremely cooperative throughout the landing. Approx twenty to thirty minutes for the astronauts to be hoisted out. Kaisertalk (talk) 19:02, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update 4: Approximately T+52 minutes post splashdown. The recovery team is currently evaluating levels of NTO before hoisting the astronauts out of the capsule. Kaisertalk (talk) 19:43, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update 5 (last): Successful recovery completed. Astronauts make the first successful water landing since 1975! Kaisertalk (talk) 21:07, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update 6: Elon Musk has sent a self congratulatory tweet --LaserLegs (talk) 23:27, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wait until the successful splashdown tomorrow. There's still stuff that can go wrong between now and then, obviously. --Masem (t) 22:48, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Support as the end of the first successful manned operation of a commercial space vehicle to-and-from extended travel in orbit/the ISS. --Masem (t) 22:22, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Re Agree with the approach. Is there merit in writing the news as "...leaves the ISS on their journey back to the earth" today, and then tomorrow, post the splashdown, we change that to "land in earth post over two months at the ISS". Thoughts? Kaisertalk (talk) 22:55, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Oppose we posted the launch, and the craft proved it's re-entry during Crew Dragon Demo-1. I'm fine with ITN/R for ISS turnaround flights since they're many months apart. Also the article is orange tagged for quality and is missing refs in the timeline. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:03, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment how is this ITNR? The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 23:05, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wait Wait until the splashdown. They're still doing this amid Hurricane Isaias, which is pretty daring and a bit dangerous due to strong waves. I hope everything goes well. Anyway, wait until their landing is confirmed tomorrow. ~ Destroyer aa (talk|Contribs) 23:19, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose while I'm waiting on someone telling me how this is ITNR, I must oppose on quality grounds. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 23:21, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Re See WP:ITN/R#Space exploration. ~ Destroyer aa (talk|Contribs) 23:26, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes? Which clause applies? The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 23:27, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think we are getting into semantics here now, but, I would state that this covered by the first clause. How, you ask? Crewed mission - Yes. Orbital - Yes, in fact reverse orbital. Spaceflight - Yes. Launch - Yes. You launch off the ISS using microboosters to get away from the ISS and launch towards the earth. Kaisertalk (talk) 23:55, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

No, I think that's reeeally stretching what the ITNR wording means. Perhaps we need a clarification note to reinforce that this was about launches from Earth not not "microboosted" launches from space back to Earth. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 20:56, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Not ITNR, and not especially significant. We posted the launch, as indeed we should, but we don't post every detail that happens after that including the landing. — Amakuru (talk) 23:29, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:U Appreciate your inputs, thanks. However, I just want to place on record a call against your note stating this is "not especially significant" and that "we don't post every detail". Launch and Return are the two most significant moments of a manned space mission. Cheers and Good Day. Kaisertalk (talk) 23:44, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, come on, is this ITNR or not? No-one has suggested how it is. And we don't post every ISS rotation. Next. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 23:48, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Template:U. Yes, Wikipedia:In_the_news/Recurring_items#Space_exploration. Also, in a dispassionate manner, I will maintain that this is not another ISS rotation. Kaisertalk (talk) 23:51, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Which clause? I've asked above. I don't see where the return of astronauts is covered by ITNR. Please be explicit. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 23:52, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think we are getting into semantics here now, but, I would state that this covered by the first clause. How, you ask? Crewed mission - Yes. Orbital - Yes, in fact reverse orbital. Spaceflight - Yes. Launch - Yes. You launch off the ISS using microboosters to get away from the ISS and launch towards the earth. Kaisertalk (talk) 23:55, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, it's not ITNR as was agreed. I'm out of here, this is corrupted. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 00:03, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Xt. Blimey, that's a stretch... Not what most people would regard as a launch. Do we usually post Soyuz returns to earth? If not, then I don't see a reason to mention this one. Sure, it's the first commercial one, but we already mentioned that in the launch blurb. There's no valid reason to post this, and the fact that items currently in the template are quite old doesn't change that. — Amakuru (talk) 06:25, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not ITNR, as they are not launching from the ISS. ITNR flag removed. Step hen 00:29, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wait There's still quite a lot of flex in this trip as the de-orbit burn hasn't happened yet and the landing site can change. The article still needs work in several places to update from what was planned to happen to what actually happened and so it's best to wait for splashdown when the events will all be over and done. Andrew🐉(talk) 00:47, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wait per all. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:34, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wait per above. Will Support when splashdown occurs per Kaisertalk. This is notable in itself and as notable as the launch (which got posted apparently). I oppose the blurb tho and added blurb 2, which is shorter. Dantheanimator (talk) 01:57, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The landing may well be "as notable as the launch", but the convention at ITN is only to post stories related to a single event once. For example we don't post an election result and then also post the inauguration of the new president, if the latter is significantly later. There's just nothing remarkable about this - once a launch happens with astronauts, it's guaranteed they'll come back to earth at some point (unless there's a tragic mishap, which of course would be a much much stronger story worthy of posting) — Amakuru (talk) 06:33, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Splashdown We should emphasize the splashdown because news coverage points out that this will be the first one in 45 years. I have suggested another suitable blurb. We should also get a good picture too, as NASA will make these public domain. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:43, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Re (debatable) significance, BBC notes that a successful splashdown would mean the U.S. "once again has a fully serviceable ... means of getting its own people into orbit and back" – a capability "lost when the country retired its shuttles in 2011." – Sca (talk) 13:15, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
True, and that's very nice, but we emphasised that point when we blurbed the launch. If this were the first time we were mentioning this mission I'd agree wholeheartedly, but we already posted it and there's nothing surprising about this further development. — Amakuru (talk) 14:06, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, a launch is one thing, but as we've discussed regarding the Mars probes completion is another. A successful splashdown would mean an accomplished fact. Just tossing this out as food for thought.... – Sca (talk) 15:50, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Reentry is notable per above. Nixinova T C 19:36, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for labouring this point, but it really isn't notable. We never post Soyuz landings, so why would we post this one? Seems like all missions should be treated the same way. — Amakuru (talk) 21:08, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – Wait for Crew-1 launch for next posting. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 20:21, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Down and safe. – Sca (talk) 21:11, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose again as there appears to have been some re-factoring of the blurbs to splashdown rather than a bizarre attempt to claim the "launch" from ISS to be INTR. Would have supported if it hadn't made it back, but as noted, space travel is now humdrum and this test flight is just that, run-of-the-mill. What goes up must come down, and we posted what went up, no need for the other. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:36, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm genuinely baffled by this one. Often I disagree with something but I can also see why others support it, that's fine. But nobody has offered any explanation as to why we would break our convention and post this same story twice, when we don't for any other space mission. Just lots of WP:ILIKEIT votes and other miscellaneous peculiarities such as the "microlaunch" from the ISS. — Amakuru (talk) 21:54, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For a moment let's keep the ITNR flag aside. Let's look at why this article might be notable in and of itself. Here are some of my reasons:

1. First return back for human / astronauts from the ISS back on the Dragon Capsule, a capsule that is being built out and evaluated (explains why there is a demo in its name)

2. First private sector vehicle being used for the human mission to the International Space Station

3. First US vehicle to bring back astronauts from the ISS since the early 2000s when the space shuttle program ended

4. First water splashdown return from a space program since 1975.

Kaisertalk (talk) 22:34, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We posted the launch. The return was absolutely inevitable unless it went wrong. This isn't "buy one get one free" time. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 22:36, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – What do those who said wait have to say now that it's done? – Sca (talk) 21:40, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Not a real first. WaltCip-(BLM!Resist The Orange One) 22:03, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose The fact that this has been posted previously on launch and then subject to 5 updates in the nomination alone makes this seem more like a NASA ticker. Same goes with the twice repeated attempt to post ITN for Perseverance. Albertaont (talk) 22:25, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Greetings Template:Re. I am the one who kept posting those updates (1 through 5). I seek pardon if that is frowned upon. The reason I posted was to bring attention to the timeliness of the event, i.e. splashdown was in the process of being completed and then eventually completed. Also re: the ITNR, I was the one who marked the flag as yes, based on my (subjective) read of the ITNR guidelines, and specifically the section that spoke about space launches. Template:U unmarked the flag based on a call that this is not ITNR, which is perfectly fine. I totally respect your views to oppose, or strongly oppose. My only request of you is to consider the notability of the event independent of any procedural actions from my side. As mentioned, this is my first nomination, and I am sure, I will learn the procedures soon enough. Good Day. Kaisertalk (talk) 22:44, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Greetings Template:Re Not a problem, don't take it personally from my end. Its just when 5 updates are posted in a row, it makes it more like an unusual attempt to promote an article which naturally invites greater skepticism. I understand your enthusiasm for the event. Albertaont (talk) 01:05, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as we already covered the launch so we'd effectively be running the same story again. P-K3 (talk) 01:49, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. We've already posted this story. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:25, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose We have already posted this. No need for chronicling – Ammarpad (talk) 09:51, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose posting the same story twice, just two months apart. Definitely not a launch; trying to argue this is covered by ITNR is completely bizarre. Modest Genius ^talk 16:32, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Unsolicited seeds[edit]

Super Strong Support They come in peace and promise a better world! InedibleHulk (talk) 10:06, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose a jolly little trivial story which would be much better suited to another section of the main page. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 10:40, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The bottom blurb in ITN currently is about another scam – what's the difference? And notice that that older story is over two weeks old now. ITN is so slow and stale now because such negativity and nitpicking is stifling the process. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:46, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As noted about four times in the past few days, if you think the process is failing, raise an RFC to amend it. In the meantime, continually browbeating and condemning it is becoming somewhat boring. Also, what John said below. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 11:10, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose trivial. (Also, that the news cycle is slow is not an argument to make a non-notable story a notable one.) – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 10:51, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Will support if Trump uses this as another reason to delay the election. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:09, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you get it? They're in control now! Whatever sprouts from Trump's sunlit spout next is just nature's way of saying "you're welcome, America." InedibleHulk (talk) 11:38, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We're doomed Count Iblis (talk) 12:23, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I planted one in my back yard ystdy and it's already grown into a 90-ft.-tall beanstalk. – Sca (talk) 13:03, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose is this a joke? Alsoriano97 (talk) 14:03, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you think that? – Sca (talk) 14:46, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose suggest close Probably one of the least notable news stories of a month that just started today, congratulations. People think businesses might be shipping seed packets at random to make it look like they have more business? I'm not sure trading standards will even care that much. Kingsif (talk) 17:30, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But a-ha! This happened in July. Lasting impact, these pods. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:07, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wait until the biological/astronomical origin of the seeds is confirmed. Once confirmed will change to support. Thanks Template:U for the reference, a big fan of the film though I don't think were having a Capgras pandemic. Dantheanimator (talk) 17:59, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, they may have been fired by one of the Mars probes. – Sca (talk) 18:04, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

...the article shows they tested the seeds, the story is the maybe-a-scam, not the alien origins. Kingsif (talk) 18:02, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:U according to the article, the DEFRA and USDA, both government agencies, tested the seeds. Maybe the aliens are scamming us but the government doesn't want us to know? Dantheanimator (talk) 18:52, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose not important enough for ITN. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:02, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Hurricane Isaias[edit]

Oppose Storm causes wind, rain, little damage, two deaths. Not a major hurricane by the looks of it, mostly at sea. The article is also a mess of tagged sections, uncited sensationalist language, with a long lead and gaps in coverage in the body. Kingsif (talk) 01:48, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Though consensus will be against this at first, impact reports will likely be flooding in later on August 1 or August 2 as the storm makes landfall in Florida. That way, the article will have much more information, not just some poorly formatted info with maintenance tags. ~ Destroyer aa (talk|Contribs) 02:05, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Then nominate it when it hits Florida if it has an impact. Kingsif (talk) 02:12, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Re It will have an impact because it is a high-end Category 1 hurricane. Probably will hit the Carolinas, Delmarva and New Jersey/NYC too. ~ Destroyer aa (talk|Contribs) 02:18, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wait until it reaches the East Coast of the US and we'll see how significant it is.-- P-K3 (talk) 02:08, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wait per all. Right now it's just a storm doing storm things. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 02:23, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wait – Until "Isaias" (EE'-sah-EE'-us) blows over and bows out. – Sca (talk) 13:06, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -> "storm brings wind and rain". Just because it happened in Amurica, it doesn't mean it's special. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 22:56, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If it happened somewhere in the far-flung British Empire, it'd be nooz. – Sca (talk) 22:21, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It hasn't actually made landfall in the US yet. WaltCip-(BLM!Resist The Orange One) 20:19, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, noted. This whole nomination is a bit ... pre-emptive perhaps? The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 22:26, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now. No indication that this is a big deal or likely to become one. I'm open to reconsidering if that changes, but we can't post every tropical storm. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:58, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like Isaias turned out weaker than expected. Still expected to make landfall in SC as a Cat 1. If it doesn't cause much damage, then close this discussion. ~ Destroyer aa (talk|Contribs) 01:00, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]