Wikipedia : In the news/Candidates/September 2020

Comment. I realise that it is not mandatory, but it would be nice if nominators at least tried to address obvious issues before nominating articles for RD... —Brigade Piron (talk) 08:37, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is a volunteer community and does not require the Wikipedians to give any more time and effort than they wish. Focus on improving the encyclopedia itself, rather than demanding more from other Wikipedians. GreatCaesarsGhost 11:29, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominating it here is a way of getting more eyes on the article and getting it improved.-- P-K3 (talk) 14:14, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I've cleaned it up, and it has basic, sourced information now.—Bagumba (talk) 13:21, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I learned a lot from this article. -SusanLesch (talk) 13:43, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Article is in far better and postable shape from when I nominated. --Masem (t) 14:15, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Still a bit short, but much in much better shape than last night. Well-sourced. Ready to post.~ Destroyeraa🌀 14:35, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Posted — Amakuru (talk) 20:13, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Ongoing removal: 2020 Belarusian protests[edit]

Oppose - Mass protests are still ongoing, the article is updated daily. --c (talk) 20:37, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes I see that it is updated daily would you kindly point out the updates today or yesterday that were about mass protests? --LaserLegs (talk) 20:42, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Template:U yes, but that's only one of the standards. The other is that many international news agencies are still reporting on it daily, which in this case, they're not. Please take a look at this before saying it should stay only because "the article is updated daily". Dan the Animator 22:47, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose clearly per WEBDuB. Alsoriano97 (talk) 21:29, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh cool, so you can point out the updates today, or on the 8th, or the 5th, or 4th or 3rd or 2nd that were about mass protests? Because I can't seem to find them. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:39, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:U can you take a look at this and particularly the opposes. Thanks. Dan the Animator 22:53, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Referenced paragraphs with new information added daily. Updates from this week do discuss protests. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 21:55, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ping As it was agreed earlier, many updates on the article DO NOT mean the article is ITN worthy. Dan the Animator 22:44, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 22:53, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Then why do you oppose? Most news agencies stopped reporting on this daily to my knowledge. Dan the Animator 22:56, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've been seeing articles at least once a week from both of my main news sources. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 00:56, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, but I look at the Wikipedia article currently featured on the main page so if you can look at the edit history and let me know which updates about mass demonstrations I missed please do. I looked through every content edit for the last 10 days and except for protests this past weekend saw no "mass demonstrations" --LaserLegs (talk) 02:16, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sorry I missed that, could you just link to the edit with the paragraph of new information about protests today? Or yesterday? or on the 5th? Just help me out because I couldn't find it. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:23, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Go to 2020_Belarusian_protests#Fifth_week_(6_September_onward) and CTRL-F "protest." There is discussion of many of this week's protests. The article does not have to explicitly describe the protests every single day. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 05:21, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article is about protests. You previously said Referenced paragraphs with new information added daily. I'm just trying to find the edits in the last three days or so where a paragraph was added about protests, since Wikipedia:In_the_news#Ongoing_section explicitly says " In order to be posted to ongoing, the article needs to be regularly updated with new, pertinent information." --LaserLegs (talk) 10:21, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Three of the last four days is more than enough. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 15:51, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cool so just help me find the edits made in 3 of the last 4 days (and ideally in the last 10 - 14 days) which are new pertinent information about protests and I'll concede that this nom was ill-conceived. I'm just applying the guidelines as currently written. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:37, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – Belarus is a revolution waiting to happen. – Sca (talk) 22:04, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ping and the 2020 Bulgarian protests, 2019–20 Iraqi protests, 2019–20 Lebanese protests, and the 2020 Thai protests are not? PLEASE take a look at the other protests going on. Dan the Animator 22:42, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh could you point me to the WP:ITN#Ongoing_section criteria where we leave items in OG until something happens? I must have misread it. Thanks. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:24, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Support this isn't really in the news anymore (or at least as it used to be). Per the people above saying "article is updated daily," so is the 2020 Bulgarian protests page (which is longer and much better quality (no POV mess) then this one). Just because it gets updated frequently doesn't mean it's ITN anymore. Dan the Animator 22:39, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Exceedingly Strong Oppose as above This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 23:37, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could you exceedingly strong point out the new pertinent information added to the article in the last 10 days? ---LaserLegs (talk) 23:40, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop with the exceedingly strong oppose. Just an oppose and at most a strong oppose is enough. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 00:26, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Drilling down on the "Europe" section of a half dozen news sites, I can find no mention of this (other that opinion/analysis day-two stories). Ongoing is to prevent continual posting of similar small events from the same larger event. If nothing happens that would even warrant a nomination, than it needs to come down. GreatCaesarsGhost 00:35, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, come on. "Belarus protests show no sign of fading as 100,000 turn out in Minsk" three days ago for example? Or "Protesters Flood Streets in Belarus but Lukashenko Refuses to Bend" a day earlier? These are just some particularly obvious ones. There are plenty in major English-language newspapers since then too. —Brigade Piron (talk) 10:01, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please reread my comment. I never said "no articles have not been written about this in the last week." GreatCaesarsGhost 11:02, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Super Duper Strong Support per above, in the hopes this cancels out the Exceedingly Strong Oppose above. WaltCip-(talk) 01:09, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:POINT. —Brigade Piron (talk) 10:02, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose removal since it's very much in the news. That other protests articles aren't in Ongoing isn't a reason to remove this one, since it's equally plausible those articles should be added to Ongoing. Banedon (talk) 04:13, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks for clearing that up Banedon. Could you help me find the new, pertinent information about protests added to the target article? --LaserLegs (talk) 10:17, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support I don't see anything important happening on a daily basis so that this should warrant inclusion as ongoing. If this gets removed from the ITN section, it doesn't mean that we no longer keep an eye on the protests but that there's not an update that should be permanently posted for a long period, which is exactly the current status of these events. Should anything significant happens in the period to come, we can always re-post this either with a blurb or a sticky.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:30, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, protests seem to be coming to a head at the moment. The foreign ambassadorial protests at the house of Svetlana Alexievich was widely reported across Europe this morning (see 1 or 2) and there has been prominent coverage of the arrest of other leaders around the world (examples 1 and 2). —Brigade Piron (talk) 09:54, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Great, instead of providing links to BBC articles could you show the edits to the article actually linked in the main page where that content was added? The article is about protests, not the arrest of malcontents who have spoken out against the government. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:16, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Feel free to WP:BEBOLD, Template:U, and add it yourself. Article quality aside, you appear to have a distinct agenda on this topic. I can see no reason whatsoever that the repression of a protest movement should not form part of an article on the protests. —Brigade Piron (talk) 15:15, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Respectfully Template:U I'm WP:NOTREQUIRED to read WP:RS on the subject and port it into an article that 1) I do not care about and 2) I consider to be a WP:COATRACK dumpster fire. I look at an article currently linked in "Ongoing", determined it to no longer meet the WP:ITN#Ongoing_section requirements and nominated it for removal. That's where my interest in this thing ends. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:22, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm afraid your repeated commentary here on the merits of the protesters' cause rather belies this supposed nonchalance. —Brigade Piron (talk) 16:29, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The last event update to the article was on 9 September (yesterday) which is too early for removal and the protests themselves are still ongoing. Brandmeister^talk 10:24, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for at least looking at the article. That update was a video message of solidarity not a protest. As these things wind down the organizers will continue doing outreach and someone here will hyper-report it to the target article. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:33, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not only that (and still, video messages are also part of the protests). Further per article, "The remaining two members of Belarusian opposition's Coordination Council, Maxim Znak and Ilya Saley, were detained the same day... As of 9 September Maria Kolesnikova remains in police custody on Volodarsky St, awaiting trial". Brandmeister^talk 11:42, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Still a significant ongoing topic. [62] [63] [64] – Sca (talk) 13:19, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Still ongoing and very much in the news. Another opposition leader just got arrested. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 13:26, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Is it ongoing, yes. Is it ongoing and one of the top 3-4 items in the news today? No. Its exactly like the 2020 American racial unrests now, still going on but not the world's attention. Albertaont (talk) 18:25, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Only a few days a prominent protest leader was reported to be attacked/kidnapped. Still ongoing and clearly in the news. Gotitbro (talk) 20:53, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted; pulled;Closed) Ongoing: 2020 California wildfires[edit]

2020 California wildfires, August 2020 California lightning wildfires, September 2020 Western United States wildfires, SCU Lightning Complex fires, August Complex fires, CZU Lightning Complex fires, LNU Lightning Complex fires, North Complex (2020), Creek Fire, 2020 Oregon wildfires, 2020 Washington wildfires, 2020 Washington state Labor Day fires Chrisclear (talk) 00:13, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Major disaster in the news. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:09, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unless this is made an ITN/R, seeing as how this happens every year.--WaltCip-(talk) 18:04, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The sky is dark orange/yellow. Street lights are still on because it's so dark. Wildfires happen every year, but this hasn't ever happened before. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:12, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2 million acres have burnt, which is apparently a record. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:13, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not denying the wildfires are apparently the largest in CA, but compared to fires from previously years where the fires were threatening densely populated areas of CA, these are mostly in rural areas (though have potential to be worse). It's sorta akin to "if a tree falls in a forest", though obviously these needs to be dealt with as they are still a threat to the state in general. But there are also first along the West Coast (OR + WA too), and given these are a yearly thing, and causes are standard - dry conditions + lightning strikes - I'm not seeing this as news to be ongoing. --Masem (t) 18:20, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Have you seen what the sky looks like in my urban center?[65] The air moves from rural to urban areas. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:37, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What does the color of the sky have to do with how newsworthy this wildfire is?--WaltCip-(talk) 19:01, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will stress my Oppose here on quality matters. An article that is mostly a table of what fires are ongoing is not helpful, and the possible target that covers the number of West Coast fires at September 2020 Western United States wildfires isn't close at all to cutting it. --Masem (t) 21:35, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ping The west coast is burning up! ~ Destroyeraa🌀 18:25, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support no different than floods in flood season or cyclones in cyclone season there are fires in fire season be it in the United States or Australia. The target article is a list with links to updated sub-articles (long accepted as legitimate updates for OG) so why not post it. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:26, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- We don't normally post every flood or cyclone season unless significant deaths or damage is incurred, or there is something else to note. --Masem (t) 18:39, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose orange sky or not, it's abjectly crass that this regular event is considered significant while the death of more than 100 in Sudan floods is just "meh". Sudanese Lives Matter. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 21:12, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ping The Sudan Floods article got posted. Now these fires have burned over 3 million acres, caused over $800,000 in damage, and killed 12 people. Not significant enough for you??~ Destroyeraa🌀 21:59, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Been one of the top stories in the US all week long now. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 22:13, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Wildfires in the extreme western U.S. have reached an intensity heretofore unknown. The new disaster is Oregon, where "unprecedented" fires have destroyed hundreds of homes. A month later, Calif. is still burning. The situation is quite serious and shouldn't be dismissed as run-of-the-mill summer troubles. – Sca (talk) 22:15, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing cracks me up like arguments such as "Americans burn all the time." Black lives matter, but black Americans' lives don't. Howard the Duck (talk) 22:39, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Strong Oppose typical for the West Coast and nothing seems special about these one's in particular (in contrast to the Sudan floods, which are actually historic). Will change to support if either a +100 people die or some large record is beaten. Dan the Animator 22:49, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ping Wildfires May be typical for California, but certainly not for Oregon or parts of Washington. It has been on US and some international news for more than a week. Over 2 million acres have burned, even more than the 2018 California wildfires, where 1.something acres burned. 10 people dying from fires is considered a lot for developed countries. The Sudan floods are historic, but the article needs to be expanded. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 23:39, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Destroyeraa, Muboshgu, and others. Many thanks Destroyeraa🌀 for messaging me on this. Dan the Animator 20:20, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on quality – Target article is largely a table without sufficient prose giving readers context of what's going on, especially for recent events. Sub-articles are an absolute mess as well: August 2020 California lightning wildfires, SCU Lightning Complex fires, August Complex fires, CZU Lightning Complex fires, LNU Lightning Complex fires, North Complex (2020), and Creek Fire. This needs a more cohesive article covering the primary events of August–September across the West as a whole as the 2020 Oregon wildfires and 2020 Washington wildfires (2020 Washington state Labor Day fires) should also be included. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 01:20, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Of these fires, five are in the top 20 all-time for California... Regarding notability, this is by far the most burned acreage in California history (already 1 million acres more than the previous yearly record) and some of the most expansive in Washington and Oregon. As for impacts, thousands of structures destroyed, 16 people killed, and 100,000+ evacuated across affected areas. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 02:00, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Template:Ping Are you suggesting we merge some of the fires into one article? I suggest that we merge the August+September California wildfires, the Oregon wildfires, and Washington wildfires into something called the 2020 United States West Coast wildfires or something like that. That way, there won't be so many forks. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 13:15, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Template:Re yes, merge the bulk of the articles into August – September 2020 Western United States wildfires. Some of the well-developed sub-articles like North Complex (2020) can stay, but all the lightning complexes are woefully underdeveloped and should be merged. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 13:49, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - Absolutely. There is no reason for us to have 18 spin-off articles (my count) from a topic like this in California alone at this stage. —Brigade Piron (talk) 13:01, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support (on significance at least, I don't know about quality) - A major disaster with heavy news coverage. Those saying this is typical for the West Coast are simply wrong. While fires occur in the region every year, this year's fires are much worse than normal. It is true that there were also historically large fires in 2018, but that doesn't make this year's less significant. People seem to be opposing because less significant fires have been nominated in other years, leading to the impression that this happens every year. However, if you actually read the articles, it should be clear that this year's fires are of a historic scale. Calathan (talk) 01:31, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now From what I've seen the fire has been away from major urban centers. "The Sky is Orange" isn't really something huge, and as another mentioned above the article needs work on consolidation. Juxlos (talk) 01:51, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't see why not - it's in the news and will likely be in the news for a while longer. Banedon (talk) 05:02, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Obviously meets our notability standard for ITN. However, the quality is lacking. In either the 2020 article or the August 2020 article, we need actual content beyond a list. There is no coverage of preliminary damage reports, evacuations, or containment efforts. A lead section is a summary, but where is the content the lead is summarizing? --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 05:17, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support On front of NYTimes.com and BBC.com currently. Template:Tq [66], Template:Tq [67]—Bagumba (talk) 08:14, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on article quality. The best way to address a subject like this would clearly be a prose article. Having a mere list with a dozen spin-off article stubs smacks of WP:RECENTISM and WP:CFORK. —Brigade Piron (talk) 08:32, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ping I just updated the article by adding some notable fires in a new section. Should be better now.~ Destroyeraa🌀 21:57, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Tens of thousands of people in three states uprooted as fires increase, threatening thousands of homes. [68] [69] – Sca (talk) 13:29, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PS: — FWIW, German Wiki's ITN leads with the Calif. fires, noting that they are "the most extensive since record-keeping began"
(die größten seit Beginn der Aufzeichnungen). – Sca (talk) 13:45, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would support in principle, as contrary to claims above that this is "regular" or "nothing special" these are unprecedented events; however I have to oppose on quality as the proposed target article is not much more than a list. Either more prose needs to be added or several different articles need to be merged.-- P-K3 (talk) 13:46, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-Template:Ping Created page August – September 2020 Western United States wildfires. It's currently less than a stub, I really need your help expanding it. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 14:08, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support There are multiple wild fires in California simultaneously. The sky is brown with smoke and air quality index is as high as 181 in Monrovia, California from Bobcat Fire on Sept 10, 2020. Multiple cities have AQI of 150 or higher from the wildfires. Example: See Monrovia at airnow and click on Recent Trends button. This link only shows daily data. Not sure how to view previous day data. SWP13 (talk) 21:13, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The target article has one paragraph of text, and then a table that lists fires. The whole series of articles on similar topics is one huge mess that needs to be sorted and consolidated.

Template:Ping See Talk:2020 California wildfires#Notable fires section? for a discussion regarding the concerns for the stubbiness of the article.~ Destroyeraa🌀 00:16, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support: This news item is at the top of the BBC website, where they call the fire season "unprecedented"[70]. The Wikipedia article is in fine shape for an ongoing event, containing several paragraphs of description and a completed and informative list. A balanced selection of references are included. OtterAM (talk) 03:49, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support as the fires are record-breaking in state history, and neighboring states have been heavily impacted. Also the lead story in many outlets. Davey2116 (talk) 05:26, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support: Record-breaking fires, massive media coverage, will only cause more destruction. Perhaps the news entry could also mention the 2020 Oregon wildfires and the 2020 Washington wildfires. Sandvich18 (talk) 10:19, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Should we post?~ Destroyeraa🌀 12:57, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - There have been numerous comments that the article quality is lacking, and the supports have (largely) not attempted to counter this. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:03, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Template:Ping I have tried to talk with people on the 2020 California fires page. They DO NOT want to improve the page. See Talk:2020 California wildfires#Notable fires section? and Talk:SCU Lightning Complex fires#Merge. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 13:23, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Half a million flee fires in southern Oregon. [71] [72] – Sca (talk) 13:35, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Can we just replace WikiNews with Sca?--WaltCip-(talk) 14:10, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, Walt, that would mean a big boost in my WikiPay. – Sca (talk) 15:22, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support a blurb which includes Oregon's wildfires. NorthernFalcon (talk) 14:54, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The impact of the fires makes them worthy of posting. The article isn't ready to be posted yet. -- Calidum 18:39, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seems to be a clear consensus on notability. Quality of the article looks fine & I like the list. Most of the prose will be added once the impact and damages are further assessed. I don't think it's necessary to wait until then to post 68.58.65.7 (talk) 20:02, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please draft a blurb. I am willing to +post. El_C 21:36, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- This is would be for ongoing so there's no blurb to post, but at the moment, the problem is quality issues. --Masem (t) 21:38, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Template:Posted. Right, sorry. But I am also open to posting a blurb at this time. El_C 21:42, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Except that several quality issues have been pointed out and as was just said. this needs to be pulled. --Masem (t) 22:02, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes, on closer look, you're right. Pulled, pending a more focused engagement on quality concerns. El_C 22:32, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Post-pulling Comment – The unprecedented magnitude of these multiple fires, which have killed 23 and left hundreds of thousands homeless, is so great that it's very odd indeed not to list the topic, at least in Ongoing. The reading public will not understand its total absence from the Main Page. Pulling it was an editorial mistake, IMO. – Sca (talk) 12:32, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Target articles that are posted to the Main Page from ITN (or any other main page section) must be representative of WP's best work. We do not feature sub-standard news articles regardless how pressing the news is, as we are not a newspaper. --Masem (t) 12:36, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, but ITN is not an encyclopedia, either. – Sca (talk) 12:43, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ITN absolutely is an encyclopedia, it is encyclopdic articles on current events that are of high quality and in the news. If you want just "in the news", Wikinews is that a way. --Masem (t) 12:54, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, ITN functions as a window on – or portal to – the news, whether we like it or not. – Sca (talk) 13:09, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ping I’ve been working on the season article, but some editors don’t want to improve it. See the article’s talk page. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 16:14, 12 September 2020 (UTC)Template:Abot[reply]

(Posted) RD: Jakob Oetama[edit]

Support. Article is quite good, although in-line citations in the section on "Early life and education" would be best.—Brigade Piron (talk) 15:09, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support, in principle i think you need to update the citations about him. Apart from that, the article is in good shape. 36.69.63.48 (talk) 15:56, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support no issues. Dan the Animator 22:50, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Posted Step hen 04:43, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Kenosha protests[edit]

Oppose. Part of a continuum of continuous police shootings, protests and unrest. If at all, this should be covered under "ongoing", but it seems the Floyd protests were removed from ongoing. Perhaps an appropriate supertopic should be re-added to ongoing? Sandstein 07:06, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose standard rioting now. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 07:27, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Protests. Not rioting.--WaltCip-(talk) 12:19, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose nothing in the article indicates significant unrest into September. Step hen 09:59, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too stale for a blurb. "George Floyd protests" has become a blanket name for notable civil unrest directed at the Tramp administration but it's not really about George Floyd anymore. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:12, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Absent from major RS sites. Old news. – Sca (talk) 13:14, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

September 8[edit]

(Posted) RD: Gene Budig[edit]

Support Good article, no issues. This should be ready. Dan the Animator 00:04, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Solid article and well referenced. Marking as ready. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:54, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Posted Step hen 06:35, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Navalny supporters attacked with chemical weapons[edit]

Wait far far too early to even assert if this was a chemical weapon. If it was something like a regulated chemical used against civilians like this, that's probably news, but no one has identified it yet, and it could simply be something like tear gas or the like (something more common) which would not be as far significant. --Masem (t) 17:42, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wait per Masem. Maybe it's news, maybe not. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 18:14, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose where in the target article is this covered and reliably referenced?? The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 18:25, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Are we going to post anything remotely connected to Navalny? "unknown liquid" in the blurb says all that you need to know about this. Gotitbro (talk) 18:29, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose no update. Trump has been using secret police to attack unarmed women with chemical weapons in Portland so the notability bar is pretty high --LaserLegs (talk) 18:58, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. Dan the Animator 20:06, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Wait~~. Unfind any confirmation on major Eng.-lang RS sites. – Sca (talk) 22:14, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PS: However, Der Spiegel is carrying an article saying (in German) that unidentified assailants in Novosibirsk attacked the office of Navalny supporters with a bottle containing a "a chemical substance," and two people were hospitalized. Sounds comparatively minor, so far. – Sca (talk) 22:28, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Minor development of a past headline (Navalny poisoning). If there is an actual popular uprising against Putin that would be worth posting. Sandstein 07:08, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Not in the news as of 13:00 Wednesday. – Sca (talk) 13:17, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - We already posted Navanly getting poisoned. Posting just a minor event in a big picture isn't how its done on ITN. Suggest close.~ Destroyeraa🌀 18:28, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

September 7[edit]

(Posted) RD: Vaughan Jones[edit]

Support. Looks good. Well cited, clean article. It would be great to build on some of his work as a mathematician. There is a brief mention of knot polynomials / knot theory in the career section, but, it would be good to build on that rather than just a passing mention, if someone has the time. That said, with or without it -- the article meets RD expectations. Ktin (talk) 04:10, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support short, but sufficiently sourced. Another dead Fields Medalist. :( power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:13, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above. Article is adequately detailed and well referenced. Marking as ready. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:34, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Posted Step hen 04:50, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) 2020 Jamaican general election[edit]

Oppose on quality lots of uncited tables and statements. Consider this a support when those are taken care of. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 02:43, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Table sources are provided either in the tables themselves, or (for the candidate list) in the section introduction. If you could mark unsourced statements in the text itself, that would be very helpful. Joofjoof (talk) 02:57, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support but only when citation issues are worked out. Elections are ITNR. This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 04:29, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Elections are ITN/R but also an interesting case, with good updates.--Namnguyenvn (talk) 06:13, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks fine for election ITNR. The early call to elections is interesting, perhaps can be highlighted in the blurb. Gotitbro (talk) 07:36, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose orange tags --LaserLegs (talk) 11:07, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Resolved.Joofjoof (talk) 22:56, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Oppose per John M Wolfson and LaserLegs. Dan the Animator 17:54, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support looks ready now. Thanks Joofjoof for adding all the refs. Dan the Animator 00:02, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- Marked issues have been resolved.Joofjoof (talk) 22:56, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Posted Stephen 06:57, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- It's "wins" in some variants of English grammar if I remember correctly, not "win". Maybe you should rewrite the blurb if both win and wins are correct. 45.251.33.78 (talk) 07:37, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how an election held on the 3rd keeps coming up under the 7th but whatever --LaserLegs (talk) 10:10, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Holness was sworn in on 07/09. But given that the elections happened on 03/09, I think the nomination should have been put in the section for the day when the election results came out. 45.251.33.78 (talk) 10:28, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - The election is the event, not the swearing in. Template:U keeps moving the nom back to the 7th. Not stale, don't care that much but adhering to process would be nice. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:53, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Gary Peacock[edit]

Template:ITN candidate *Weak Oppose missing 2 in text-refs. Once that's fixed this is good to go. Dan the Animator 23:16, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support this is good to go. Thanks again Bloom for all your great work. :) Dan the Animator 00:25, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Re done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:06, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Article looks far better than Start. -SusanLesch (talk) 03:18, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Re I think this may be ready to go. —Bloom6132 (talk) 03:46, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Added—Bagumba (talk) 06:06, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) 2020 Sudan floods[edit]

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

Oppose disaster stub and WP:PUFF --LaserLegs (talk) 21:36, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article also needs a copyedit for grammar --LaserLegs (talk) 10:14, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment needs expansion, not a stub, not really seeing the puff aspect of LL's elegant opposition. If a flood killed 101 people in Europe or America, it'd be main-paged in minutes. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 21:42, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Mostly sourced, but missing a ref or two. Information is also a bit scarce; the main section lists "dozens" of deaths while the "100" figure is near the under of the "response" section, which is not very intuitive. Nixinova T C 05:23, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. I'm skeptical about the "disasterporn" aspect of ITN (natural disasters, mass casualty accidents, shootings, etc): while significant to the people involved, they are sadly a routine aspect of human existence and should only be posted if they are so exceptional as to make broad international headlines, which I don't see here. Sandstein 07:13, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to say "because X made it, so should Y" but at least look at previously posted disaster articles posted to ITN for context. Here's some: Anshun bus crash, 2020 Darfur attacks, and 2020 Kyushu floods. Please consider these and question your definition of "so exceptional as to make broad international headlines" and whether that is aligned with typical ITN standards. Dan the Animator 22:32, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now Tragic, but 99+ deaths in flooding/landslides happen often in underdeveloped countries. Article is rather stubby, needs expanison. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 15:10, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ping that's not the only reason why these floods are notable. These floods are more significant than other ones because: the longest (or one of the longest depending on your stance) rivers in the world (the Nile) reached the highest water level in over a century; for the first time in history the Pyramids of Meroë were threatened; and the rates of floods and rain exceeded the records set in 1946 and 1988. I think the first point in itself should be notable. Read the article in its entirety to fully understand the severity of the situation. Dan the Animator 22:28, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support on notability and weak support on quality, no worse than the example article provided at WP:ITN to demonstrate minimum quality standards. Complaints about ITN being overrun with disasters is a problem with many other significant stories lately not being nominated, not with too many disasters being posted. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 22:09, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support and added a less flowery altblurb ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 01:36, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Posted Step hen 05:11, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

September 6[edit]

(Posted) RD: Mike Sexton[edit]

Template:ITN candidate *Comment: Is it possible to please cite Early years section? -SusanLesch (talk) 03:20, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Reply to Template:Done. All paragraphs are cited. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 14:29, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Good job. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:25, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Oppose multiple missing in-text citations. Dan the Animator 17:55, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support article is good to go. Thanks PCN02WPS for adding all the refs and sorry for the late reply. Dan the Animator 20:04, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Reply to All cn tags have been taken care of. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 18:12, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. All paragraphs cited, no close paraphrasing seen. Yoninah (talk) 21:13, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Posted Step hen 23:42, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Lou Brock[edit]

Support. Article looks fine. Maybe a couple more things could be cited but this is a B class bio. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:07, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Template:S Support - Overall a great article. Iadded a few cn tags to the article, as some places still need citations. However, other users have added sources and greatly improved the article. Article is ready.~ Destroyeraa🌀 00:30, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No outstanding Cn tags at this point.—Bagumba (talk) 01:21, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Hall of Famer with a thoroughly cited article. Dralwi k|^{Have a Chat} 01:40, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Citations needed at the end of a couple of paras, and a broken ref needs fixing. Step hen 02:40, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Two CN tags one of which is for a claim that doesn't strike me as a controversial. All in all, it's passable. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:42, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Added Latest reference tags resolved.[73] General consensus anyways that quality is sufficient—Bagumba (talk) 04:24, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Kesavananda Bharati[edit]

Oppose no DOB, no early life, "basic structure" statement has 13 inline refs, the paragraph doesn't make clear if Kerala was imposing restrictions on him or an institution he represented, doesn't really indicate what he argued to persuade the court (given he "is acknowledged as one of the key actors" it should say more) and the article overall suffers from WP:PUFF and could use a copyedit for grammar. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:31, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Template:U, Done. Cleaned up the statement that had 13 inline refs. Now more manageable. Also added some more details of the arguments. Did a round of overall content cleanup to do away with WP:PUFF. Also see some streamlining by Template:U (Thanks!) I think, in the current state, the article should be good for RD. Ktin (talk) 15:49, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article says " attempts to acquire the Mutt's property" and the Matha article says "math, matha or mutt, is a Sanskrit word that means "institute or college", and it also refers to a monastery in Hinduism.". So which is it? Did Kerala attempt to get the land of an institution or an individual? This always happens with these articles where someone points out specific grievances and those grievances are addressed but no one takes the time to actually make the article worth a damn. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:22, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Template:U, Mutt is the anglicized spelling of Matta or Math, and all three are perfectly right spellings as noted here Matha. Regarding, monastery vs institute / college -- I believe they would be both. Typically in these Mutts, as I understand, the monasteries also house centers of learning. Regarding the actual sequence of events, I learnt that the state intended to acquire the land that belonged to the Mutt (as stated in the article). As the chief / head pontiff of the Mutt, the subject of the article filed the petition in the Supreme court. [74] [75]. Ktin (talk) 22:37, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, so which "Mutt" because that's what I have been trying to figure out. Not that it matters now I guess it's posted --LaserLegs (talk) 00:05, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Template:U, all three of the Mutts (Mutt, Matha, Math) are the same as indicated here Matha. Remember that these are transliterations of words from some of the Indic languages and hence the variations in spelling which do not mean much of a difference. Ktin (talk) 00:13, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Re LaserLegs was asking about the specific type of institution the word means and which was represented in the court, in this case that would be a monastery of sorts. The meaning of the word should be explained in the article itself as well. Gotitbro (talk) 01:58, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Template:U, Not really. The distinction between monastery and institution of learning is usually fluid in Indic Mutts. I don't think you would be able to speak about one without the other in this case. Ktin (talk) 02:35, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak Oppose there is still a "needs additional citations" template. Otherwise, it's good. Dan the Animator 19:44, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support thanks Ktin. Looks good now and sorry for the late response. Dan the Animator 17:09, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:U, Thanks Dan. That was a new tag. Added additional citations for that statement. Should be good now. Please have a look. Cheers. Ktin (talk) 19:53, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support A lot of improvements were carried out and it looks ready now JW 1961 Talk 21:33, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Article looks good. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:03, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Posted Step hen 23:04, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Deadline for a post-Brexit trade agreement[edit]

Support it's in the news, article is decent, consequences are real. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:35, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as typical Johnson hot air, just reframing the status quo as media management. Michel Barnier (EU chief negotiator) had already said (on 26 August) that agreement would have to be reached by 31 October for it to be ratified in time by the Council and both Parliaments.^[7] So Johnson says "no, I say the deadline is a whole fourteen days earlier" (paraphrasing). If he had a track record for consistency and truth, it might be notable: he doesn't, so it isn't.--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:11, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose more parochial nonsense from a government who lied and cheated their way to a majority. Nothing unusual there. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 23:15, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose if they hit the deadline and something real happens, we can consider posting then. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:16, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Detail of an ongoing political process. Post when there's an agreement or no-deal Brexit happens. Sandstein 07:03, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

September 5[edit]

(Closed) RD: Ethan Peters[edit]

~~Oppose~~. Every paragraph is cited, but the article is rather short and cursory. Yoninah (talk) 21:16, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing !vote to Support. Article has been expanded and looks ready now. Yoninah (talk) 12:01, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Oppose per Yoninah. It is very stubbish. Dan the Animator 23:55, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support article is good. Thanks TJMSmith for taking all the time to expand it. Dan the Animator 22:13, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Yo I tried expanding the article to include more about his style and origins. TJMSmith (talk) 03:11, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose Though expanded, still stubbish. Only has 8 sources, though still adequately sourced. More information will be needed for this to be posted. Once that is done, I will reconsider my opinion. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 18:07, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Stale Step hen 04:50, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) RD: Jiri Menzel[edit]

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

Comment. Article has only the lede plus filmography (including TV series). Might require restructuring to break the lede into the body of the article. Furthermore, the filmography section, and the TV series section does not have sources / citations. But, I think this can be remedied with some attention by the group here. Also, the talk page says that this is still in a "stub-class", this will need to be changed to atleast a "start class" prior to WP:ITNRD publish. Cheers.Ktin (talk) 19:24, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken a pass at organizing the article into sections, cleaned up the front end, and added a section for his roles as an actor. There is a stylization mismatch between filmography as a director, and as an actor -- If someone thinks this should be changed, please do so. If someone can take a pass at sourcing his filmography as a director, I think this article is close to being ready to go to the homepage. Ktin (talk) 01:43, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IMDb (used for the acting part of the Filmography) is not a reliable source. —Bloom6132 (talk) 01:53, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:U, I have heard conflicting inputs on this one. I have heard that it is acceptable for filmography. Can someone confirm? Happy to revert the changes asap. Ktin (talk) 01:55, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Re No need to revert – I'm in the process of formatting three other refs that can source this section. —Bloom6132 (talk) 01:56, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Added 3 sources (from Rotten Tomatoes, the British Film Institute, and TV Guide). Disclaimer – I haven't looked over in detail whether every entry in the Filmography section is covered in one of those three refs. —Bloom6132 (talk) 02:02, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Template:U, Thanks. Most of the entries match (at least for the directorial section) . But, seems like there are a few that do not exist in any of the three sources. Would be great if someone can match and ensure that the this section is fully sourced. Once that is done, only the issue of formatting needs to be considered. Ktin (talk) 03:39, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have added more sources, only few missing in actor section. Jklamo (talk) 08:16, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

* Weak Oppose filmography section and TV series section are still completely un-cited. Dan the Animator 23:20, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Template:U I'm still a bit hesitant. It's definitely better but there's a few films in "As an Actor" subsection that appear to be unsourced. There also seems to be more films shown in the list then the sources have (in As a Director sub-section). See my edits to the page. Will change once at least those are added. Dan the Animator 22:20, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:U, Oh that is an easy explanation. The sources added in the rows were only for those not already covered by the three sources above the table. If they were already covered by those (i.e. BFI, RT, and TVG). Last night we had added a citation needed against rows that were not covered by those three sources (that were added by Bloom). Subsquently Template:U filled those entries. Ktin (talk) 23:03, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support all ref issues are fixed. Thanks Ktin for notifying me and really sorry for not replying earlier. It's a pity that he won't get posted. Dan the Animator 20:14, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Any volunteers to help cleanup the filmography section (formatting + references reconciliation)? Once that is done, this article is ready to go to the home page. The window of opportunity is today.Ktin (talk) 21:48, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Done. Someone has gone in and updated the sources for the Filmography section. Seems ready to me. Template:U, Template:U - Give it a look if you have a bit. Ktin (talk) 14:51, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ready – marking as ready, assuming that csfd.cz is a reliable source. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:16, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See cs:Česko-Slovenská filmová databáze. The website has some "social" features (rankings, reviews etc.), but the database itself is not user-generated (except the trivia section), registered users are not able to submit new material or edit to existing entries. Jklamo (talk) 22:54, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stale Step hen 04:49, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Well, we tried. Go well Mr. Menzel. RIP. For those who haven't seen his Oscar acceptance speech, here goes link. Thanks for the effort Template:U, Template:U, and Template:U. Ktin (talk) 06:03, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

September 4[edit]

(Closed) RD: Lloyd Cadena[edit]

Comment: The article appears to have paragraphs of copyvio from Rappler.com. The article was just created on 4 September, so it would appear this text was lifted from the website. Yoninah (talk) 21:08, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch, I removed the copied material. TJMSmith (talk) 03:14, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Oppose article looks fine but if what Yoninah is saying is correct, than this needs major reworking. Dan the Animator 23:57, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support... but as one of the users who edit this article, further improvement and reworking like what Template:U and Template:U said is needed. Jhenny38 ^{(Starters talk, My contributions)} 00:01, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I've removed what appears to be the possible copyvio. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:37, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Close paraphrasing issues resolved. Yoninah (talk) 12:24, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Stale Step hen 04:49, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Joe Williams[edit]

Support fairly decently referenced article JW 1961 Talk 22:41, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per JW 1961. Comment: as a minor suggestion, it's missing 1 in-text ref (I added the citation needed tag). Dan the Animator 02:22, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I've addressed that tag. Nixinova T C 06:46, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support fully sourced. MurielMary (talk) 11:50, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. Black Kite (talk) 23:58, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Kosovo–Serbia agreement[edit]

Oppose on shortness of the article. The agreement is clearly significant but the article needs obvious expansion to establish that. --Masem (t) 18:57, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Masem. Also *Oppose blurb because it doesn't mention their recognition (both Serbia and Kosovo) of Jerusalem as Israel's capital. Dan the Animator 19:28, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now per stub article.--AlphaBeta135 (talk) 19:40, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose On article quality. The article and blurb should also stress that the normalization of relations b/w Kosovo and Serbia is limited to economic ties. Gotitbro (talk) 00:25, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Serbia and Kosovo have finally come to an agreement... to open embassies in Jerusalem!" This smells like more like Trump propaganda than actual progress. GreatCaesarsGhost 00:44, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Well the angle is that Kosovo a Muslim "state" (not really a country) has chosen to recognize Israel but I don't see how that clicks with Kosovo normalizing relations with Serbia which is kind of a medium sized deal. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:01, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and SNOW close On 2 issues: 1) normalizing on economic issues means little, when neither state acknowledges the formal existence of the other. 2) Kosovo recognizing Israel is a non-news item as it is a secular state in europe, not a muslim state. Albertaont (talk) 05:54, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a majority Muslim region not an Islamic state, and it's not a country at all with limited world wide recognition. Still. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:05, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unclear details and significance of the agreement, and the article itself is not informative enough.--WEBDuB (talk) 09:32, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article's been substantially improved now.--Sakiv (talk) 14:53, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Reopened following premature non-admin closure; most of the opposes above concern article quality rather than clear notability issues. Spencer^T•C 00:10, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose It is a notable event, but notability itself is not enough. We have an obligation to readers to present them with topics that have undergone fact-checking. I have raised a very serious issue on the talkpage: there never was a Kosovo-Serbia agreement. The Trump administration put forward that narrative likely for its own election-related reasons, but Kosovo and Serbia never signed an agreement with each other. Each signed a non-binding document with the Trump administration and delegations from both countries have stated that they never signed an agreement with each other. The title, the narrative and many other details must be fact-checked.--Maleschreiber (talk) 01:12, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose A glorified photo op doesn't deserve front page coverage. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 19:34, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: David Graeber[edit]

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

Support. Article looks good. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:26, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Oppose Missing int-text refs. Dan the Animator 19:29, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support refs have been added. Thanks Bloom. Dan the Animator 02:15, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now per Dan above - 6 CN's remaining Support fixed JW 1961 Talk 22:38, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Re all "citation needed" tags have now been addressed. —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:48, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Looks ready. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 01:23, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above. Davey2116 (talk) 04:32, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Prominent intellectual and activist. czar 21:03, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. Black Kite (talk) 00:00, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

September 3[edit]

(Closed) MT New Diamond[edit]

Wait At this point, its not a "disaster" as such. No oil has spilled as they rush to contain the fire, and only one person on board is missing. It could get worse, but if all that this ends up one death but no ecological impact, that's not really a ITN event. --Masem (t) 17:22, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wait One death. Wait until fire is under control-more info will come. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 17:24, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose death toll is a meaningless metric but the article is disjointed and stubbish. Write a paragraph or two on the vessel itself (builder, owner, laid down, etc). The problem with all of these articles is that they don't say much because not much is known and it'll either stay that way forever or it'll get expanded but by then it'll be opposed as "stale". Personally I don't like featuring these disaster stubs on the main page but it does seem to be the thing to do. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:35, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I've expanded and somewhat streamlined the article's prose, but I agree that as the effects are now, it's not really ITN-worthy. The Wicked Twisted Road (talk) 01:57, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Wait~~ Oppose ~~Let see if there is a spill or more deaths.~~ Good nom on a developing story, but now apparent not ITN-worthy. Albertaont (talk) 19:46, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the sentiment, but that's a rather unfortunate way of expressing it? —Brigade Piron (talk) 21:25, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What's unfortunate is the event, not what we say here. – Sca (talk) 22:26, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They're not mutually exclusive! —Brigade Piron (talk) 09:05, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose a decent amount of time has passed and it seems that this won't become the "environmental catastrophe" it was thought it could be. Still only 1 death as well and there was another accident in the Sea of Japan recently. Dan the Animator 02:33, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not relevant enough for ITN.--WEBDuB (talk) 09:30, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Still on fire, says Reuters. Story bears watching. – Sca (talk) 12:43, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's out. – Sca (talk) 14:31, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No major deaths and the fire was put out. Though oil spill is still a worry. Looks like a close but should wait for some time to see if there are any updates. Gotitbro (talk) 00:26, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) GW190521[edit]

Template:- Template:Reflist-talk

Technically the gravitational wave has been observed rather than the merger. Stephen 08:20, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think that is a distinction without a difference. I am not writing this; I am typing it. You are not seeing this; the light is entering your eyes which sends a signal to your brain, which interprets the signals as sight. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 08:51, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps I can defuse this by suggesting an alternate title: Largest observed black hole collision is detected by LIGO and VIRGO Nick Levine (talk) 11:10, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Most of what's significant about this event is not yet captured in the page describing it. I aim to put some effort into that now; let's see how far I get. Nick Levine (talk) 08:51, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm a little happier about this now; I've captured what I thought was most important. I think it might be worth going ahead with announcing this, while it's fresh, even though the article could do with some more work (can't they all). Nick Levine (talk) 10:05, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is an interesting event, but one which has been overplayed in the media. The current blurb is misleading, as they were not IMBHs prior to the merger. The actual novelty here is finding a black hole in the mass gap, yet that's never mentioned in the article. Instead the article focuses on the idea that the product of the merger is an intermediate mass black hole, which depends on the definition you pick and the latter article shows there has been plenty of evidence of those before, even if it was more indirect. The EM counterpart stuff should be taken with a massive grain of salt; the association is far from proven. As an astronomer I find this very interesting, but I'm not convinced that a more accurate (i.e. toned down) article and blurb would appeal to ITN readers. Modest Genius ^talk 10:35, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These black holes are not just in the mass gap, they're also in the range where they can conceivably constitute 100% of dark matter (see Fig 6 of [76]). I don't know what field of astronomy you're in but I'm finding this pretty damn exciting. Banedon (talk) 12:02, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That appears to be WP:OR, as I've not seen any reliable sources that explicitly link GW190521 with dark matter. Modest Genius ^talk 12:49, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[77] see section 6.3 of the paper. It's not the only possible explanation, but it's a possible one, and it's pretty damn exciting. Banedon (talk) 13:05, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One paragraph in the section on scenarios which are "disfavored either by the data, or by low prior probability of the alternative hypothesis, or by both". Modest Genius ^talk 15:37, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They can't have written much more, given the unknown prior probability. Besides, anything they write except very general statements (which is what they've written) is likely to be wrong. They say as much, "we do not attempt to quantify such scenarios". You can be sure though cosmologists are going to be looking at the result, I already know some who are. Banedon (talk) 23:01, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Oppose Pretty darn exciting. Nothing recent stated in blurb-needs to be updated. Article also needs to be expanded and updated with new info from new papers.~ Destroyeraa🌀 13:33, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Often scientific discoveries or conclusions from research are announced long after the actual findings, in order to allow for peer review and other rechecking. 331dot (talk) 13:36, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The results were published yesterday. It takes time for scientific results to be verified, analysed, written up, peer-reviewed etc. That it took a year to publish this event should not have any bearing on whether to feature it in ITN - the news is now. Modest Genius ^talk 15:34, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – Lacks general impact. – Sca (talk) 14:11, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What is new about the peer-reviewed articles published yesterday (In the article, the two that are led by "Abbott R.") compared to the number that were published in late June 2020? I think there is a valid question on staleness here, that yes, while the event was first obversed in May 2019 and it took time to understand and process the data, that was first understood in June and only this newer paper narrows down details, which is not really a "new" result. --Masem (t) 15:42, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - seems sufficiently notable - for supportive reasons presented above, esp by Bandon and Nick Levine - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 15:45, 3 September 2020 (UTC) - Update: added altblurb2 above for consideration => "First-time confirmed detection of two small black holes merging near a third larger one, and associated with a coincident and uncharacteristic flash of light."^[8]^[9]^[10]^[11]^[12] - Drbogdan (talk) 17:09, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You might be looking at a wrong source - the NYT article is from June; it's currently September. Banedon (talk) 03:14, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Support. Reading a few articles, this definitely seems huge (no pun intended) in the world of Astronomy. However, the blurb should be rewritten to draw the significance out to the larger audience. Have attempted a rewrite as Altblurb. Can do with some further polishing. [78], [79], [80] Ktin (talk) 16:47, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support altblurb2 Captures the significance. Nice to have some science news on ITN. Gotitbro (talk) 17:22, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Template:U, There is no Altblurb3 (at this point). Did you mean Altblurb? :) Ktin (talk) 17:37, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I meant altblurb2, updated my initial comment. Gotitbro (talk) 18:24, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support As science news goes this is fairly big, and when it’s “in the news“ is now. Article will only become significantly more informative by becoming much more technical, which (a) takes time to write and means the news is no longer current, and (b) will leave the average reader behind. I know about this stuff, but still found the LIGO press release a complex read. Nick Levine (talk) 18:20, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No denying this isn't interesting or cool. Fascinating. However blurb needs to reflect something about the new scientific papers - all the blurbs say right now is that LIGO and VIRGO detected the merger, which happened more than a year ago. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 21:56, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Reply and others - AFAIK - the recent studies^[10]^[11]^[12] now confirm, what only *may* have been detected over a year ago,^[8]^[9] which is all reflected in AltBlurb2 above - Drbogdan (talk) 22:17, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support per above. Dan the Animator 21:39, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the blurbs proposed are awkward and practically inaccessible to non-experts. I appreciate it's a complex topic, but it really needs some work on getting something the majority of our readers would assimilate as usable and interesting. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 21:55, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. It's called serving the reader. – Sca (talk) 22:28, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:U TRM -- do you believe that this is an article worth posting on ITN, but, the blurbs are not doing justice and hence the oppose? If so, it will require some collective effort, but, we can polish the blurb. However, if folks believe that the article is fundamentally not for the homepage, then, no amount of polishing the blurb will help. Ktin (talk) 23:24, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Added Alt 3. I oppose alts 1 & 2 as probably incorrect: alt 1 because we don't know if this event is rare (we haven't exactly had gravitational wave detectors for a long time), and alt 2 because 1) there are only two black holes merging and 2) there have been other black hole mergers detected by LIGO, e.g. GW170104. Banedon (talk) 03:09, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Template:U: Refined Altblurb1. Removed 'rare'. It was a word I had picked from one of the news articles [81]. But, that said, removing it seems alright. Done. Ktin (talk) 04:07, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above. I think the best Blurb is the first one proposed. Alexcalamaro (talk) 07:22, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good news of encyclopedic significance. Most of the proposed blurbs are a bit clumsy but Altblurb III seems to touch the point well enough.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:52, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ok, this seems to have the support to be posted, we just need to decide which blurb. Please comment below. I believe we are choosing between original and alt3? --Tone 09:13, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Not a lot to tell between original blurb and alt3, imho. Both sound “correct”; alt3 more enticing. Nick Levine (talk) 10:03, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Alt3 is the only one that doesn't contain a factual error. I would go with that, but replace the names of the detectors with 'using gravitational-wave astronomy'. Modest Genius ^talk 10:17, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I like that idea. Posting. --Tone 12:58, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW - seems consistent with the following => According to astrophysicist Vicky Kalogera of Northwestern University, “This is the first and only firm/secure mass measurement of an intermediate mass black hole at the time of its birth ... Now we know reliably at least one way [such objects can form], through the merger of other black holes.”^[13] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drbogdan (talk • contribs) 13:08, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Post-posting comment – Re "a black hole in the mass gap" – is this similar in its effects to the chrono-synclastic infundibulum? America wants to know. – Sca (talk) 13:58, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe "An intermediate-mass black hole is observed…" would be less jargony? The "mass gap" is just "the range between 'small' and 'large' black hole masses", which, until now, no observed black hole has been in. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 00:32, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

September 2[edit]

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

(Posted) RD: Wick Allison[edit]

Support Template:Emdash short but seems adequately sourced. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 18:47, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Re I think this may be ready to go. —Bloom6132 (talk) 20:00, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. Seems OK. — Amakuru (talk) 21:48, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Tom Seaver[edit]

Support. First ballot member of the National Baseball Hall of Fame, and his article is thorough and well-cited. Dralwi k|^{Have a Chat} 01:08, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Article is well written and sufficiently referenced. --Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 01:16, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above. Article ready and good to go. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 01:17, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as OP. Sorry, but I have to disagree with the supports. As much as I want to see this posted, there are significant gaps in referencing and this article is not currently ready for the Main Page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:26, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Ec Comment: Rm ready; there are 11 citation needed tags in the article. Please carefully review RD items before rushing to nominate them as ready. Spencer^T•C 01:28, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support looks alright, the concerns above appear to have been addressed. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 10:45, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ The "Career statistics" section is almost entirely unsourced. Those are not supported by a general stats database citation, as they refer to stats limited to niche cross sections like pitchers during a certain era, Hall of Fame pitchers, etc.—Bagumba (talk) 12:23, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It was basically WP:TRIVIA, odd and hyperspecific superlatives like "Third most hit batsmen on a Thursday" and stuff like that. I just deleted it, the article is not worse off for it, it was all unreferenced anyways, and if something really feels the article needs it, they can find sources. --Jayron 32 14:18, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Adequately sourced and ready to go with above deletions. CoatCheck (talk) 17:03, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support He's a baseball hall of famer and led his team "The Miracle Mets" to the biggest upset World Series win of all time. ^[1] Ahseaton (talk) 23:33, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The legacy section still needs some citations. P-K3 (talk) 23:50, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I've removed WP:OR material from the "Legacy" section. Template:Re Have another look.—Bagumba (talk) 11:20, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like you've addressed my concerns. Support.-- P-K3 (talk) 13:36, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:41, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ref-talk

(Posted) RD: David Capel[edit]

Support I checked the article when I saw his death announced on Cricinfo, and it looked like this. Excellent work with the expansion since then. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:16, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Short article but everything there is pretty well cited JW 1961 Talk 20:24, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Posted Step hen 00:25, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) RD: Kang Kek Iew[edit]

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

Weak oppose- Pretty long article, though several places need sourcing. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 21:28, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm confused. How does length count against the nomination? I (and others) have addressed all the citation tags.--Varavour (talk) 02:17, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - It does not; it counts towards the nomination. That's why his oppo was "weak." As noted, the sourcing has a lot of issues. Thanks to Coffeeandcrumbs for the tagging. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:41, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are several paragraphs that end without a single sentence. Step hen 04:36, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Stale Step hen 04:53, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

September 1[edit]

(Posted) RD: Moose Lallo[edit]

NOTE: I will be working on the article later today to add more citations and other copyediting. Flibirigit (talk) 19:48, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Completed update of article. Please comment here if there are concerns. Cheers! Flibirigit (talk) 21:58, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Thorough and referenced. Marking ready. Spencer^T•C 02:08, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Template:@ITNA, please post. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 22:10, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Re it's already been posted. —Bloom6132 (talk) 23:48, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Lance Finch[edit]

Support short article but pretty well referenced JW 1961 Talk 20:28, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak oppose~~ There's one sentence in the article about his time as a judge; any more info on notable cases he presided over? Spencer^T•C 21:03, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Re Done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:22, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ready. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 22:38, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:S support - Very well-referenced, Template:S. Good job Template:Ping for updating / expanding it. Article ready. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 21:30, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Posted to RD. Spencer^T•C 23:51, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Stale) RD: Erick Morillo[edit]

Support I was just coming here to nominate him as well. Johndavies837 (talk) 21:07, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Awards (seemingly redundant with Awards and accolades) still needs sources. The current ones don't support the awards, just the flavor text about the awards themselves. 1 CN present which may be supported by the print source.130.233.2.170 (talk) 10:56, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per IP. Dan the Animator 14:03, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Barbara Judge[edit]

Support Long and detailed BLP, and as such the best I could do now is a quick reference spot check, which turned out just fine.130.233.2.170 (talk) 10:40, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - well-referenced, article good to go. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 21:33, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Posted to RD. Spencer^T•C 23:50, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) China-India border skirmishes[edit]

Oppose for the same reason as last time. The last skirmish was on June 15, everything since then is diplomatic bickering. Updates are hyper reporting now commentary about the Thai Canal helping China to "surround India". No thanks, not for OG --LaserLegs (talk) 00:03, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose has something changed in the last few months? Seems to get re-nomed every 3-4 weeks. Outside of India, doesn't seem to be ITN at all. Albertaont (talk) 07:34, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above and procedural note: The Template:Code field of the template is there so that editors can quickly get a feel if the current development is worthy of posting, and is especially helpful for long articles such as this one. It is a little off-putting to have to rummage through the article to find the current event which prompted this posting, only to find that it's an opinion piece.130.233.2.170 (talk) 10:45, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The article is good, but the most important parts of the event are not happening these days.--WEBDuB (talk) 17:00, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]